PrayerSongs

OfferingBible study

Lord’s Supper

Announcements

Prayer

By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the

same manner as He walked.1 Jo. 2:5b-6

Upcoming

June 23 Getting acquainted with Jesus: the four gospelsJune 30 Matthew

July 7 MarkJuly 14 Guest speakerJuly 21 LukeJuly 28 John

The only way to know how Jesus walked:Become acquainted with these biographies

Was Jesus an actual historical character?Why are there four gospels?

Why should we take the authors seriously?What about their differences?

Was Jesus an actual historical character?

The testimony of Jewish believers: the gospel writers

The testimony of Jewish unbelievers: Josephus

The testimony of Roman unbelievers: Justyn Martyr, Cornelius Tacitus

All written within the lifetime of those living when Christ did so the things they recorded as allegedly occurring could be checked for accuracy.

All four had no motive to manufacture their narratives, no ulterior motive to fabricate such a character, nothing material to gain from their writings.

They were either eye- and/or ear-witnesses or had access to such.

Why should we take Matthew, Mark, Luke, John seriously?

“That a few simple men should . . . have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.” Will Durant, historian, Caesar and Christ

Why should we take Matthew, Mark, Luke, John seriously?

Showed no hesitancy when Christ ordered him to follow Him, 9:9. This was not impulsive gullibility but the reaction of one who quickly recognized value when he saw it (Matt. 13:44-45)

Tax-collectorMost were notoriously corrupt, extorting more than was owedPossibly had a sinful pastGave up lucrative financial future to follow ChristBackground in financial record-keeping; eye for detail, accuracy

Why should we take Matthew, Mark, Luke, John seriously?

Very close to Peter (my son Mark, 1 Pet. 5:13).

Early “church fathers” (Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria) said Mark got his information from Peter who obviously was in a position to speak about what Jesus said and did.

Why should we take Matthew, Mark, Luke, John seriously?

Wrote both Luke and Acts (Acts 1:1).

Trustworthiness as an historian not seriously questioned (Lk. 1:1-4)“Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy…” (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

Why should we take Matthew, Mark, Luke, John seriously?

Along with James and Peter, the closest apostles to Jesus (Matt. 17:1-2)

The disciple that Jesus loved (Jo. 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20)

Why should we take Matthew, Mark, Luke, John seriously?

Why do we have four gospels?

In the event of an automobile accident, do we

want as few competent witness as we can find or as many knowledgeable

witnesses as we can get?

Why do we have four gospels?

The more witnesses the more complete picture we can get of what occurred even though there will be

differences.

Why do we have numerous biographies of Lincoln?

Each author gives his/her different perspective as they focus on

aspects of his life and presidency that other have not. We want as

complete a picture of Lincoln and other major historical figures as

we can get.

Why do we have numerous biographies of Lincoln?

Isn’t it strange that critics of several gospel accounts of Jesus’ life have no problem with the

numerous biographies of other historical characters, but when it comes to Jesus a

multiplicity of life-stories becomes a major problem? I think that’s called “prejudice”!

How do you explain the differences found in the gospels?

Isn’t it also odd that the same historians who welcome different perspectives (differences) in

Lincoln’s biographies use the same differences in the gospels to argue that the events in question

never occurred?

How do you explain the differences found in the gospels?

Each author has their own perspective but there are no contradictions.

Synoptic gospels“Syn” (together) “optic” (to see)

The approach of these three men to the telling of Christ’s life is somewhat similar

Unique approach and emphasis

Not mentionedTemptation

TransfigurationInstitution of the Lord’s supper

Casting out demons

Sermon on the mount

Lord’s prayer

Temptation

Transfigured

Lord’s Supper

Casting out demons

Sermon on mount

Lord’s prayer

Not mentionedTemptation

TransfigurationInstitution of the Lord’s supper

Casting out demons

Sermon on the mount

Lord’s prayer

Temptation

Transfigured

Lord’s Supper

Casting out demons

Temptation

Lord’s Supper

Casting out demons

And when they came to a place called Golgotha, which means Place of a Skull, they gave Him

wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink. 27:33-34

And they crucified Him, and divided up His garments among themselves, casting lots for

them ... It was the third hour when they crucified Him. 15:24-25

And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, "He

saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One." 23:35

Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His

head and gave up His spirit. 19:30