Which Gospel is Correct?

[oldbadger]

Some folks believe that the bible is perfect and infallible.

Which gospel could possibly be the correct account?
One records that Jesus was baptised, went out into the wilderness for 40 days, and then did not return to Galilee until after John's Arrest. The other records that Jesus was baptised, the next day met with Andrew and Simon, and then the next day went off to Galilee with them.

How can I know which to believe?

G-Mark:{1:9}
And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
{1:10} And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw
the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending
upon him: {1:11} And there came a voice from heaven,
[saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased. {1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into
the wilderness. {1:13} And he was there in the wilderness
forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts;
and the angels ministered unto him. {1:14} Now after that
John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching
the gospel of the kingdom of God,

G-John: (OB:- this seems like the day after John Baptised Jesus.....) {1:40} One of the two which heard
John [speak,] and followed him, was Andrew, Simon
Peter’s brother. {1:41} He first findeth his own brother
Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias,
which is, being interpreted, the Christ. {1:42} And he
brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called
Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
{1:43} The day following Jesus would go forth into
Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

[tam]

Peace to you OB.

I am not one who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God. My faith does not rest upon the bible at all, but upon Christ Himself. I tell you this so you understand that I have no need to defend the doctrine that the bible is inerrant.


Well, I asked the Spirit to help me see if there was a conflict or not. I did not think that there was a conflict in this particular case, but I could have been wrong.


Keep in mind that chapters and verses are arbitrary lines that man has drawn up after the fact. Just like the little headings that men have added to the text to summarize what the next few paragraphs are about. These arbitrary divisions can be misleading.


So:


Matt, Mark, Luke are all reporting the event (baptism of my Lord by John, then my Lord going off into the wilderness) in "real time", so to speak.

This plays out like a script. It has been written as if it is happening. Showing, not telling.


John (or rather the author of the book attributed to John) is not reporting it as a real time event. John 1:32-34 is a description of the event after the fact (telling, not showing). How long after the fact (like say 40 days and nights) is not revealed.


Then John gave this testimony - "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with holy spirit."



Note that the above is not a description of a real time event. It is a testimony of something that had already happened. Past tense. The actual baptism is not occurring at this time. Only John's testimony ABOUT what he witnessed AT the baptism is being given. Again, after the fact. The baptism (and any events that occurred with, or directly after, the baptism) are/would be things that had already taken place.


This is not a conflict. This is an omission.

**


One quick point on your other contention. You said:

One records that Jesus was baptised, went out into the wilderness for 40 days, and then did not return to Galilee until after John's Arrest.

Just because someone comes to Galilee once, does not mean that they never came to Galilee before or never would come to Galilee again.


So does the text actually say that [Jesus] never returned to Galilee until after John's arrest? Or does the text simply state that He returned to Galilee after John's arrest?




We get a small picture of events from what is written. When we start to think that nothing else ever happened except these few events that are written, then it might be easy to confuse one event with another, when really they are two (or more) different events.


Case in point: a person can return to a place more than once.




My you be given ears to hear and eyes to see if you wish them, so that you can get a sense of these things.


"Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"


Peace to you and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[oldbadger]

Peace to you OB.

I am not one who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God. My faith does not rest upon the bible at all, but upon Christ Himself. I tell you this so you understand that I have no need to defend the doctrine that the bible is inerrant.

Fair enough.

Well, I asked the Spirit to help me see if there was a conflict or not. I did not think that there was a conflict in this particular case, but I could have been wrong.

OK

Keep in mind that chapters and verses are arbitrary lines that man has drawn up after the fact. Just like the little headings that men have added to the text to summarize what the next few paragraphs are about. These arbitrary divisions can be misleading.

Yes, they can.....

So:


Matt, Mark, Luke are all reporting the event (baptism of my Lord by John, then my Lord going off into the wilderness) in "real time", so to speak.

This plays out like a script. It has been written as if it is happening. Showing, not telling.

Yes.... I like Mark, although many 'pericopes' in Matthew and Luke (even G-John!) have been very helpful for me.

John (or rather the author of the book attributed to John) is not reporting it as a real time event. John 1:32-34 is a description of the event after the fact (telling, not showing). How long after the fact (like say 40 days and nights) is not revealed.

OK.... I see G-John as a collection of accurate individual incidents, but not in real time, and jumbled in time, but the spiritual messages and CHRISTIAN messages shown and spoken through Jesus I can't connect with because I'm trying to study the history and mission of the Jewish handworker Yeshua........ but I haven't got any contentions to offer over what you have written so far.

Then John gave this testimony - "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with holy spirit."



Note that the above is not a description of a real time event. It is a testimony of something that had already happened. Past tense. The actual baptism is not occurring at this time. Only John's testimony ABOUT what he witnessed AT the baptism is being given. Again, after the fact. The baptism (and any events that occurred with, or directly after, the baptism) are/would be things that had already taken place.

OK... I decided (on reading that passage) that G-John was describing what JohntheBaptist saw and heard after the baptism of Jesus. G-Mark describes something similar and I have no challenge to any of it, although my perception of events is secular.

This is not a conflict. This is an omission.

**

But I find that such an omission (the actual baptism) shows a loaded agenda on G-John's part. JtB is reduced, as are the less 'worthy' cures and demon castings that Jesus carried out. G-John has raised Jesus above things that happened. I mistrust most of G-John for that and other reasons.

One quick point on your other contention. You said:

One records that Jesus was baptised, went out into the wilderness for 40 days, and then did not return to Galilee until after John's Arrest.
]

Just because someone comes to Galilee once, does not mean that they never came to Galilee before or never would come to Galilee again.

So does the text actually say that [Jesus] never returned to Galilee until after John's arrest? Or does the text simply state that He returned to Galilee after John's arrest?

Mark {1:14} Now after that
John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching
the gospel of the kingdom of God,

Well, Jesus certainly didn't reach Galilee before 40 days, and

Matthew:- {4:12} Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into
prison, he departed into Galilee;

Matthew helps me here. Now, when did Jesus go into Galilee? After the arrest...? You could possibly start your answer with 'When.......

To suggest that Jesus came and went into and from Galilee twixt Baptism, Trials and the arrest begins to look like a distortion, or in the case of G-John an error.

We get a small picture of events from what is written. When we start to think that nothing else ever happened except these few events that are written, then it might be easy to confuse one event with another, when really they are two (or more) different events.

Oh, events happened unreported alright, but when reports contend and conflict with each other then caution is wise. G-John is to far removed to be trusted imo. A 4 day timeline for a 40+ day timeline seems like a form of perjury.

But......... most students of history agree that G-John was correct about the day of Jesus's execution... the synoptics got that wrong by one day. Amazing.... but true.

Case in point: a person can return to a place more than once.

My you be given ears to hear and eyes to see if you wish them, so that you can get a sense of these things.

"Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"

But I have the ears, eyes, experience, caution and mindset of an old commercial detective, and so I must continue to explore, investigate and determine as best as I can, my only instruments being vague historical reference, the gospels, early supporters/critics' writings and 'the balance of probability'....... which leaves me reaching through historical mists for a Jewish handworker walking along the Capernaum shoreline.

Not easy........ but you'll find that this pagan can debate most strongly against agenda driven skeptics who deny that Jesus ever was. A strange position, this time debate against, and on other times for..... Yeshua's existence!

Peace to you and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[/quote]

And to you and yours.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 10 by oldbadger]

Well that's nice to know. I like to stay in the positive, so its good to see you see truth in Marks Gospel. It's good to find some common ground.

Yes.... I like Mark, although many 'pericopes' in Matthew and Luke (even G-John!) have been very helpful for me.

I see what you are writing here. It's good you find parts of the other books helpful, in the end that is what is important.

Respect,

JW