They all only slightly differ but if they were exactly the same, you would say that they’re just copying one another.
The fact they aren’t exactly the same gives it more credibility.
He might have been referring to the neighbour on the other side...Glad to hear it.
I live next door!
They’ve taken eye witness accounts of the same event, you usually get slightly differing views on it and some may remember aspects that others haven’t.not it does not, for instance they don't even agree on the day of crucifixion mark and john don't even agree on the day(matthews and lukes are just embelished from mark)
that is a crucial disagreement for such an important event
they all differ in how jesus was at the time of his death, in pain(mark) special effects kicking off everywhere(matthew) calm(luke) and bullish giving it large(john) no credibility at all
and that's just that supposed event
For Christ to answer the Old Testament prophecy, he’d have to knowingly go to his death.This is an interesting one. Do you consider that a prediction of Jesus, or an inspiration for him? If the book of Isiah was written long before Jesus' birth, then there's presumably a very high chance that it would be taught in the temples we are told he regularly attended. And I know if I was a religiously-educated Jew and I was going to try and claim to be the son of God to the rest of that community, I would probably lean quite heavily on past prophesies and existing traditions.
They’ve taken eye witness accounts of the same event, you usually get slightly differing views on it and some may remember aspects that others haven’t.
The key thing is, many different people have the crucifixion and resurrection.
Why wouldn't he do that? You only have to look at every terrorist incident to see how many people are willing to martyr themselves. But which part of the Old Testament specifically predicts Christ's crucifixion?For Christ to answer the Old Testament prophecy, he’d have to knowingly go to his death.
Why would he do that?
I work in a Church of England school, though not of faith myself.So - “no one comes to the Father but through me”
Sounds a bit cultish. Not quite Scouse but cultish nonetheless. And arrogant too unless you agree other
beliefs are wrong, or other "Fathers" exist.
Neither of those statements is true.who are the eyewitnesses? certainly not the authors who weren't even alive when these events supposedly took place
and no contemporary writers of the time roman or jewish ever mention these dramatic events, rather curious don't you think?
Please could you provide any evidence for the authorship of any of the 4 official gospels.Neither of those statements is true.
They’ve found a copy of the book of Acts (Luke part 2) dated to around 60AD.
If Luke was written before Acts, we can accurately predict it was at least in the 50’s AD, then Matthew and Mark written before then, with Mark considered the earliest, which could have been in the 30’s AD or 40’s. Christ was crucified between 28 AD and 33 AD.
This means the majority of the Gospels were written when St Peter, who was Christ’s closest disciple, was still alive and the authors were almost definitely alive.
St Paul was alive when Christ was crucified and he’s an author within the New Testament.
On your latter point, scholars who are maximalist (which means they believe the story to be accurate in terms of claims of divinity and crucifixion), are now in the majority because they’ve found a Roman letter describing Christians as followers of a man called Jesus, crucified for blasphemy.