Pg. 136: The author writes about the similarities between Matt., Mark, and Luke’s narratives, excluding John. A little ways down the page there is a chart-like thing that shows how many works are used in each narrative, but their is only a 9 word difference between Mark and John. What’s up with that … doesn’t seem like It’s that significant of a difference to exclude it in similarness* (*is that a word? )
Totally excited to be the 1st one to post … by the by! Psssssshhhhht!
On pages 128-129, When the text says– “… And in any case the fact that the gospels were not written by Jesus but about him is a part of their genius…”– frankly this confuses me. I can’t quite put it into words, but I would think that a book written by Jesus would seem more genius. On page 128, the authors of HRB say that a book by Jesus would probably look more like an OT prophetic book. This just confuses me. Explain please.
Pg. 141: It says the authors were not the creators of the material in their gospels. (very obvious, they were the teachings of Jesus and a short biography of his early life; unless they made it all up, which we know isn’t true). It also says they were able to select, arrange, and adapt different pieces to suit their purposes. I’m just wondering how much freedom did they have as editors. Were there teachings and events of Jesus’ life and ministry that might not have been deemed important enough or worthy enough for the gospels? If there are, do we know about any of them?
pg 129 “In certain sense, therefore, the four gospes are already functioning as hermeneutical models for us, insisting by their very nautre that we, too, retell the same story in our own twenty – first – century contexts.”
The last part of this quote troubles me, I thought proper hermeneutics insisted on drawing meaning from a passage by understanding the story in the 1st century context. Would you explain what Fee and Stuart mean by retelling the story in the twenty – first – century context?
on pg. 128 it says that the gospels are not written BY Jeus, but rather ABOUT Jeus. They go on to say that if the gospels had been written by Jesus, it would look very different (probably much more like O.T. prophetic books like Amos.)
Since God wrote the Gospels through the disciples, and the entire Bible (including the Gospels) is His Word, and Jesus IS God, then why do they say it would be different. I mean, since Jesus is already the real author behind the Gospels, then why would it be look different if he did the actual writing.
You have said in class that the Bible has exactly what God wants us to know in it. That’s why we don’t have an account of Jesus’ teen life, because we wouldnt benefit any more from it. God used the writers of the Bible to tell us exactly what he wants us to know. Because the Bible is already His words spoken through the disciples, I don’t see why they would be different if Jesus wrote His words down.
On page 148 it says we pray first with, “Your kingdom come”.. and on pages prior to that the chapter talks about hope for the future and things to come. But honestly, my heart’s desire each day isn’t always for Jesus to comeback. Maybe it’s fear in the uncertainty or lack of hope for the future, but is it wrong to not keep your eyes toward heaven?
on page 136, where it implies that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written independently of each other… what exactly does that mean? that the authors sat down together to write or that one author used the other authors work as an outline… ?
Hello. How about that ride in? Guess thats why they call it sin city huh.
So on page 128 it says “1. The fact that the four gospels do not come from Jesus himself is a very important consideration.” i was just wondering…why didnt he write anything down?
i dont get how the writers of the gospels could arrange all the stuff around their purposes…how do we know that it was just their purposes and not God’s…if they were given so much freedom, how do we know for sure they didnt abuse it?
we talked about how the bible doesnt explain much of jesus’s teen life but i was wondering if he knew during those years, even in earlier years than that if he was jesus and if he knew of everything he would do in the future?
on page 135 in the think horizontally section he talks about studying a pericope in any one gospel. What does that mean?
On page 127, it says there are several ” hard sayings” in the Bible. What does that mean and what are some examples of these in the Gosples?
page 144 talks about narratives, miracle stories, etc within the gospels. does that mean that there are sections of the gospels that are strictly narrative? or more like all of it is narrative, but some parts have more a miracle or narraitve theme…?
Pg. 136: The author writes about the similarities between Matt., Mark, and Luke’s narratives, excluding John. A little ways down the page there is a chart-like thing that shows how many works are used in each narrative, but their is only a 9 word difference between Mark and John. What’s up with that … doesn’t seem like It’s that significant of a difference to exclude it in similarness* (*is that a word?
)
Totally excited to be the 1st one to post … by the by! Psssssshhhhht!
On pages 128-129, When the text says– “… And in any case the fact that the gospels were not written by Jesus but about him is a part of their genius…”– frankly this confuses me. I can’t quite put it into words, but I would think that a book written by Jesus would seem more genius. On page 128, the authors of HRB say that a book by Jesus would probably look more like an OT prophetic book. This just confuses me. Explain please.
Pg. 141: It says the authors were not the creators of the material in their gospels. (very obvious, they were the teachings of Jesus and a short biography of his early life; unless they made it all up, which we know isn’t true). It also says they were able to select, arrange, and adapt different pieces to suit their purposes. I’m just wondering how much freedom did they have as editors. Were there teachings and events of Jesus’ life and ministry that might not have been deemed important enough or worthy enough for the gospels? If there are, do we know about any of them?
pg 129 “In certain sense, therefore, the four gospes are already functioning as hermeneutical models for us, insisting by their very nautre that we, too, retell the same story in our own twenty – first – century contexts.”
The last part of this quote troubles me, I thought proper hermeneutics insisted on drawing meaning from a passage by understanding the story in the 1st century context. Would you explain what Fee and Stuart mean by retelling the story in the twenty – first – century context?
on pg. 128 it says that the gospels are not written BY Jeus, but rather ABOUT Jeus. They go on to say that if the gospels had been written by Jesus, it would look very different (probably much more like O.T. prophetic books like Amos.)
Since God wrote the Gospels through the disciples, and the entire Bible (including the Gospels) is His Word, and Jesus IS God, then why do they say it would be different. I mean, since Jesus is already the real author behind the Gospels, then why would it be look different if he did the actual writing.
You have said in class that the Bible has exactly what God wants us to know in it. That’s why we don’t have an account of Jesus’ teen life, because we wouldnt benefit any more from it. God used the writers of the Bible to tell us exactly what he wants us to know. Because the Bible is already His words spoken through the disciples, I don’t see why they would be different if Jesus wrote His words down.
On page 148 it says we pray first with, “Your kingdom come”.. and on pages prior to that the chapter talks about hope for the future and things to come. But honestly, my heart’s desire each day isn’t always for Jesus to comeback. Maybe it’s fear in the uncertainty or lack of hope for the future, but is it wrong to not keep your eyes toward heaven?
on page 136, where it implies that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written independently of each other… what exactly does that mean? that the authors sat down together to write or that one author used the other authors work as an outline… ?
Hello. How about that ride in? Guess thats why they call it sin city huh.
So on page 128 it says “1. The fact that the four gospels do not come from Jesus himself is a very important consideration.” i was just wondering…why didnt he write anything down?
i dont get how the writers of the gospels could arrange all the stuff around their purposes…how do we know that it was just their purposes and not God’s…if they were given so much freedom, how do we know for sure they didnt abuse it?
we talked about how the bible doesnt explain much of jesus’s teen life but i was wondering if he knew during those years, even in earlier years than that if he was jesus and if he knew of everything he would do in the future?
on page 135 in the think horizontally section he talks about studying a pericope in any one gospel. What does that mean?
On page 127, it says there are several ” hard sayings” in the Bible. What does that mean and what are some examples of these in the Gosples?
page 144 talks about narratives, miracle stories, etc within the gospels. does that mean that there are sections of the gospels that are strictly narrative? or more like all of it is narrative, but some parts have more a miracle or narraitve theme…?