THEOLOGY: Putting the Christmas story together

Posted by Jim Price in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

THEOLOGY: Putting the Christmas story together. Mark is said to be the first gospel to be distributed ( about 40 AD ) and his record starts with Jesus entering His ministry as a full grown man. The gospel of John came at about 90 AD and also never mentions the early childhood of Jesus. Thus the Christmas story as we know it today comes from Luke ( 45 AD ) and Matthew, historically the modern church has blended these two accounts together as we see and hear the Christmas story each year. Yet there is quite a difference between the two. Over the years I have never heard a pastor or teacher try to reconcile the two. This year I will be listening to sermons on the web to see if anyone takes on the job. Also if you have any free time during the holidays I would love to get your thoughts on how to explain the differences in Matt. and Luke.

Glynn Brown [12/20/2015 6:24 PM]
I would disagree on the dates given, they are too early.

Jim Price [12/20/2015 6:27 PM]
Glynn, where would you set the dates?

Glynn Brown [12/20/2015 6:27 PM]
60’s -90’s

Brian Roden [12/20/2015 7:47 PM]
I believe it was Marc Goodacre (Duke University) who said on one of his NT Pod podcasts that perhaps Luke omits the wise men (Greek magoi) because of a Disdain for magicians/sorcerers and anyone that might be associated with them (like Babylonian astrologers). His accounts in Acts of Simon in Samaria and Elymas the sorcerer are both very negative.

John Kissinger [12/20/2015 8:32 PM]
Jim is about right on the money. In the mid-60s, James, Peter, and Paul are all killed. In the year 70, Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, The proto-Markian material and the Q source are no later than 50 AD. John Mark traveled with the apostle Paul first and then recorded Apostle Peter’s sermons. Early Markian pericopes were completed and in circulation long before there was any synoptics around. The synoptic parallels later corrected some Markian material and of course the ending of ch. 16 was added much later. But if 40 AD is too early dating for Mark, 50 AD is way too late as the synoptic parallels seem to be already well established at that time.

Glynn Brown [12/20/2015 8:42 PM]

Glynn Brown [12/20/2015 8:43 PM]

Glynn Brown [12/20/2015 8:44 PM]
Mark 66-70
Luke 80-90

John Kissinger [12/20/2015 9:02 PM]
What very few people realize is that this comparatively late date for Mark’s gospel is suggested almost entirely by the foundational assumption that Jesus could not have prophesied the future. It works like this: in the gospel Jesus foretells the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The temple was indeed destroyed in 70 AD. The scholars read the prediction of the temple being destroyed and assume that it indicates knowledge of the destruction of the temple which took place in 70 AD therefore the document in question could not have been written before 70 AD. The problem with this is that it assumes that Jesus could not have predicted the future

Glynn Brown [12/21/2015 5:07 AM]
Very few scholars believe that the gospels were written by Matthew, mark,Luke and John, and the late dates are almost universally accepted. Church tradition on the subject is just tradition.

Glynn Brown [12/21/2015 5:08 AM]
The titles of the gospels were added in the second century

John Kissinger [12/21/2015 7:13 AM]
many/most scholars? 🙂 Peter A come on Rick Timothy

Glynn Brown [12/21/2015 9:00 AM]
We could ask Tommy Wassermann. I respect his opinion

John Kissinger [12/21/2015 9:02 AM]
The testimony of most Church Fathers from the period (as quoted in the article) is overwhelming and cannot be simply disregarded

Brian Fulthorp [12/21/2015 9:17 AM]
My opinion is three of the gospels were written prior to the temple destruction and one was written after. 🙂

Brian Fulthorp [12/21/2015 9:27 AM]
and I agree that Mark is Petrine…

John Kissinger [12/21/2015 9:31 AM]
and that was written by John-Mark

Timothy Carter [12/21/2015 6:52 PM]
This idea that Mark was the first published Gospel is based on the idea that the others took from his work (copy and past).

We should recognize that “whole Word of God is God inspired.” 2 Tim 3:16

We should believe that God told each writer what to say. God Knows how to tell His OWN story with consistency without contradiction.

The Gospels having consistency with one another is simply evident that they belong in the Bible. The Bible is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. We have various writers throughout history not one of them is a plagiarist all of them are writing under the inspiration of Holy Spirit.

Be first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.