Why are there four gospels?

jaffacake

For believers, if God uses the Bible to communicate factual information, then why four gospels? And why are they not in harmony with each other? Why not send down one record of the life of Jesus as it really happened? Is this in itself a form of revelation by God of the nature of the Bible?

For non-believers, why did early Christians not restrict the canon of scripture to one account, so opposers would have less ammunition? And why would they allow so many inconsistencies to remain in the Bible?

JWs and others want the Bible to contain one accurate and agreed account of what happened, but it does not. It contains errors, contradictions, and mistaken teaching in some parts, that gets corected or resolved in some way elsewhere.

minimus

Leolia will answer that for you in due time.

jaffacake

Thats cheating Min. You're supposed to try and figure out an answer all by yourself. Go on, have a go

minimus

To a believer, they are in harmony. Why not have more than one record? You could say that God has revealed himself as a complex deity...... From the non- believer,Restricting things to just one account is impossible when you belieeve in heretical nonsense. The inconsistencies prove it's all made up.

Qcmbr

The bible was put together by the Roman church. There was no plan to write a 'bible' by those who recorded events in the NT. The OT is actually better planned in terms of showing a progression of time as opposed to multiple views of the same event. God doesn't use the bible to communicate truth - religions do. God uses prophets to communicate truth - if prophets record what they are told it is acceptable as part of the canon but doesn't replace the one to one communication pattern between God and people (ie you can have a relationship with God without the bible.)

minimus

And we can thank the Catholic Church for "Jehovah", too.

NeonMadman

It's a Biblical principle to establish matters on the testimony of more than one witness. Having four gospels simply provides multiple witnesses to the life of Christ. There are no irreconcilable contradictions between the gospels; indeed, if the accounts were identical, collusion between the authors would be evident. Imagine a modern courtroom in which four witnesses give testimony about an exact event. What would be more convincing, all the witnesses giving exactly the same testimony in nearly the same words, or four independent accounts that reflected different viewpoints but could be reconciled with each other?

jaffacake

There are many factual discrepancies, although the main purpose is in harmony.

The gospels seem to reflect the personality and perspective of the four individual authors, as well as what really happened, although there is no disharmony on the important messages. Does all this mean or imply that what is important is the individual human response and relationship to Jesus. If God wanted a set of facts and doctrines to be revealed, Jesus could have written stuff down himself, or we would have one Gospel. For believers, this cannot be an accident.

So does the Bible teach that there is no unbiased interpretation free record of divine revelation. If so, this surely applies to the whole Bible. The fact that there are four Gospels forces us to compare, and recognise diverse perspectives within Christianity, and learn and respond in a personal way to the living Christ?

jaffacake

God uses prophets to communicate truth

But the Bible makes it clear that most people who call themselves prophets are not truly inspired by God. (see dispute between 2 prophets, Jerenmiah and Hananiah - Jer 28). We know the test of true prophets, they are known by their fruits ie their predictions come true.

stillajwexelder

because the early church fathers decided to leave out other gospels such as the gospel of Thomas

Why are there four gospels?

Share this