04-12-2004, 05:39 PM
Quote:If that were the case, we would have to come to terms with the fact that the account we have in our hands is only a record, at best once removed, from the original teaching.
In many respects Paul, what we have is a record/account. I tend to think that Matthew and Mark compliment themselves. Mark seemed to cover areas that Matthew didn't or just glossed over and vice versa, they go together it seems. Luke, from what I can tell, was not an eyewitness to The Lords works so he collected what he could from the Apostles and the people who still were living at the time, and collated it together. At least what I gather from his words. John is the most removed in relation to the other gospels and is not considered one of the synoptics by some. I asked The Almighty if this was a true eyewitness one time, for Him to show me somehow that it was. Wouldn't you know it, I caught myself utilizing certain sentences and having certain events that related to the very things John had put in writing. I was like "Ok Lord, I get the hint."
Didn't mean to get off track there. Was just an interesting quote that conjured up ideas.

