God Sends God

Originally posted by @sonship
Did this occur to me?
Yes, for years now.

That is a reasonable way for one to consider it.

I also have a Harmony of the Gospels, by which each line can be compared to its parallels across different gospels.

I don't let these exercises distract me overly from obtaining the spiritual nourishment from every word though.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Nor should you allow them to distract you and I'm not surprised to hear you have previously considered my explanation and find it reasonable. A Christian, weaker in their faith, would immediately shout 'they must be describing different events,' completely unable to compute discrepancies in the account by different writers and not view this as an at ...[text shortened]... based on the witness reports of others may not be 'word perfect' and may have missed some stuff.

Originally posted by @romans1009
It seems that of the three explanations proffered for the differing language, the possibility Matthew and Luke were describing different sermons is favored by Biblical scholars.

And because Christians believe the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the idea that one of the Gospel writers “may have missed some stuff” is laughable (and quite carnal to boot.)

Originally posted by @sonship

I also have a Harmony of the Gospels, by which each line can be compared to its parallels across different gospels.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I am reminded of the 'elephant in a dark room'analogy' where 4 people reach in and experience a different part of the elephant. The first touches the trunk, the second the wrinkled skin, the third one of its flapping ears and the fourth a powerful leg. - On their own, none of the people have experienced the elephant in its entirety. Only when they c ...[text shortened]... o understand the elephant as one animal.

I believe the Gospels operate in a similar fashion.

Originally posted by @romans1009
The analogy actually involves blind men, not an elephant in a dark room.

And certainly each Gospel differs from the others based on what the Gospel writers wanted to emphasize or impart.

But to claim the difference is due to sloppy note taking, as you did previously, is quite a different kettle of fish.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I am reminded of the 'elephant in a dark room'analogy' where 4 people reach in and experience a different part of the elephant. The first touches the trunk, the second the wrinkled skin, the third one of its flapping ears and the fourth a powerful leg. - On their own, none of the people have experienced the elephant in its entirety. Only when they c ...[text shortened]... o understand the elephant as one animal.

I believe the Gospels operate in a similar fashion.

Interesting look at what each Gospel emphasizes...

“Q: Why Are There Four Gospels?

A: Each of the four Gospels presents Jesus Christ from a different point of emphasis.

Matthew

Matthew, being a Levite, emphasizes Jesus as the Messiah, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Each of the subtleties of his design supports this primary theme. His genealogy begins with the "first Jew," Abraham, and continues through David and the royal line to the legal father of Jesus, Joseph.

Matthew's emphasis is on the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Tenach, the Old Testament.

As a customs official, Matthew was skilled in shorthand, an essential asset in a culture that did not have the advantages of printing, copiers, and the like. Matthew focuses on what Jesus said, and includes the extensive discourses, which he probably was able to take down verbatim.

Matthew's first miracle is the cleansing of a leper, a Jewish metaphor for sin itself. Matthew concludes with the resurrection, also a distinctive Jewish preoccupation.

Luke

Luke was a Gentile and a doctor, and his Gospel reflects a very distinctive point of view, emphasizing Jesus as the Son of Man. His genealogy begins with Adam, the first man. From Abraham to David, his list is identical to that of Matthew. However, when he gets to David, he doesn't track through Solomon (the first surviving son of Bathsheba) but through a different son, Nathan (the second surviving son of Bathsheba). He continues through to Heli, the father of Mary. (Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli). 1 As a Gentile, Luke's emphasis is different. His emphasis is Christ's humanity; he focuses on what Jesus felt. His first miracle is the expulsion of a demon, a very human concern. Luke concludes with the promise of the giving of the Holy Spirit, which is a natural bridge to his subsequent volume, The Book of Acts .

Mark

Mark is the amanuensis (secretary) for Peter, and he emphasizes Jesus as the obedient Servant of YHWH. His is the only Gospel with no concern for pedigree or genealogy. He focuses on what Jesus did ; it deals in graphic images, almost like a movie or video shooting script. Mark concludes with the final visual appearance, the Ascension.

John

John had a very distinctive view, emphasizing Jesus as the Son of God. He focuses on who Jesus was . His "genealogy" is that of the Preexistent One, constituting his opening verses. His Gospel is organized around seven miracles, seven discourses, and seven "I AM" statements.

John's first miracle involves the use of the water of purification being changed to wine at Cana, a private demonstration to the disciples that Jesus was preeminent even over the Levitical priesthood. John concludes with the promise of Jesus' return, and becomes the appropriate prequel to John's final tome, The Revelation.”

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2001/378/

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I am reminded of the 'elephant in a dark room'analogy' where 4 people reach in and experience a different part of the elephant. The first touches the trunk, the second the wrinkled skin, the third one of its flapping ears and the fourth a powerful leg. - On their own, none of the people have experienced the elephant in its entirety. Only when they c ...[text shortened]... o understand the elephant as one animal.

I believe the Gospels operate in a similar fashion.

Originally posted by @sonship
Since I was raised in the home of the liberal branch of Protestantism I heard this analogy many times.

I would say that instead of a dumb elephant which examiners are feeling their way around, God is intelligent and intelligently attempting to communicate to them.

In other words the process of discovery is not totally passive on God's part as would be ...[text shortened]... and to come to the full knowledge of the truth.

Otherwise the analogy might have some uses.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I have also heard the same analogy used to refer to world religions in general, each glimpsing part of the same divinity. I don't expect you to agree with that.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Are you saying there is an elephant in the room?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I have also heard the same analogy used to refer to world religions in general, each glimpsing part of the same divinity. I don't expect you to agree with that.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Well, speaking atheistically, the elephant in the room is that while the elephant exists, God does not.

Originally posted by @divegeester
The existence of room dwelling elephants and heaven dwelling Gods are incompatible and mutually exclusive?