Why are the 4 gospels so very different? Is the Jesus story false?

All of the gospel stories vary greatly in their accounts. This would lead us to believe the story is somewhat falsified. Minor differences can be explained by the passage of time, but there are significant differences in the Jesus story.


Why do the Dead Sea Scrolls give no account of Christ or the Christian movements?Why are the 4 gospels so very different? Is the Jesus story false?
The basic answer is that the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) all tell us the same story, but from four different viewpoints and to four different audiences.





Let me illustrate this idea. Suppose a young family is standing on a street corner and witnesses an automobile accident. The father might tell you the make and model of the two cars involved. The mother might be able to tell you the color of the cars involved and the number of occupants. Their little boy witnessing the same accident might not know about the make or model of the cars, but he might be able to tell you about the puppy dog who was almost hit, while his little sister would only tell you about the baby doll that got thrown out of the first car at the time of impact. Now, who told the truth? They all told the truth, but from different viewpoints.





The gospel writers all tell us the same basic story about the life of Christ. However, while one writer might choose to emphasize the parables of Jesus, another writer might skip over the parables and dwell on the nature and character of our Lord. Putting all four gospel accounts together gives us a fuller and richer portrait of the life and work of Jesus the Messiah.





Matthew was a Galilean Jew. he wrote to prove that in Jesus of Nazareth is to be found the fulfillment of all Messianic prophecy. Some have commented that the gospel of Matthew was written by a Jew, about a Jew, to other Jews -- and this is certainly the case.





The gospel of Mark was written to a Roman audience. If one verse could reflect the message of the book, it would be this: ';For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many'; Since Mark was not writing to a Jewish audience, he had to explain Jewish customs and settings to his readers. Matthew tells us of the question the scribes and Pharisees had over the fact the disciples of Jesus did ';not wash their hands when they eat bread'; (Matt. 15:1-11). When Mark tells the same story he has to explain the washing of hands was a ceremonial cleansing, not the washing of dirt off the body. ';For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.'; (Mark 7:3-4).





When Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple, Mark tells us that Jesus ';sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple'; (Mark 13:3). Every Jew knew the Mount of Olives was ';opposite the temple,'; but Roman readers would have had no idea as to its location.





Mark also has to explain the day of Unleavened Bread was ';when they killed the Passover lamb,'; something every Jew would have known since birth, but about which a Roman would have been unfamiliar.





Luke has the distinction of being the only Gentile writer in the Bible. Luke sets forth the humanity of the Son of Man and presents in chronological order the life of Christ. As a physician, he is more exacting in his use of language.





Unlike the other gospel writers, John clearly states the purpose of his book. After describing the appearance of Christ to Thomas and the rest of the apostles, John writes: ';And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.';





The whole purpose of the gospel of John was to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ. Instead of giving the genealogy of Christ, John goes back into eternity to tell us that, ';In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.';





Each of the Gospels has its own emphasis on the ministry of Christ.





Here is a chart that lines them up, if you want to look at it.





http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Four鈥?/a>Why are the 4 gospels so very different? Is the Jesus story false?
The four Gospels are very different because they were written from different points of view by men with different personalities.





Just think - if a teacher, a soldier, a priest, and a college student witnessed an event and all wrote down what they saw, the important parts would be there, but each would include many different details that really stood out to them.





For example, one of the writers of one of the Gospels was a doctor. He will probably include things that someone who wasn't a doctor would not include.





Also, when an event happens, you don't always notice what is happening to everyone around you - you notice what is happening to YOU. That's why Mark, the disciple who fled from the Garden of Eden, writes about a ';disciple running away naked.'; It was probably him, and the others probably didn't notice that the soldiers had grabbed his cloak while he ran away.
Each of the gospels was written for a different purpose and a different audience. One, you may note, makes a lot of references to prophecies and Jesus fulfilling them.





As far as the dead sea scrolls go, there is the complete Isaiah scroll, which contains a copy of the masoretic text, including the Messianic prophecies (like Chapter 53 in our current Bibles). The scrolls, for the most part were very much treasured, which is why they were preserved as carefully as they were. There are fragments that contain material which appear to be the source for Luke's Gospel.





There are works on the market that will match known Dead Sea works with book, chapter, and verse in the Bible. In the case of the Old Testament, these comparisons usually are verbal, meaning they are copies of early texts used to translate the Old Testament. In the case of the New Testament, these are both ideas/concepts as well as verbal.
There are many reasons, but it mostly has to do with perspective and the audience it was intended for.











The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (A.K.A. the Synoptic Gospels...Syn: together... optic: seen) are so different from John because John is more focused on the Godliness of Jesus while the Synoptics are focused on the humanness of Jesus.





They were also not written at the same time. The Gospel of Mark was written first, around 65-70 C.E. Matthew was written between 80-100 C.E. Luke was written in around 85 C.E. John was written at the end of the first century.





The Gospel of Mark was written for Gentile Christians. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jewish Christians. The Gospel of Luke was written for Gentile Christians. The Gospel of John was written to help people see Jesus as God-made-Flesh.





We can also attribute the differences due to perspective. If you and 200 other people witnessed the Crucifixion, you and the 200 other people would have noticed 200 different things.


Or, you could look at it like this:


If you saw a bank being robbed and were asked to describe the person, you might say he had blue eyes. Another person might have noticed a wide nose. You noticed two completely different things, but you are not wrong.
if four different people were to describe an object from four different angles you'll be surprised to discover the same object having varying differences. So also with 4 Gospels. They were written in 4 different time lines and to different audiences. The fact remains is that Salvation is to be found only in Jesus. That is the focal point. Whether one wants to accept it or not it is left to each one.
Why are the 4 gospels so very different? Is the Jesus story false?





Is this so hard to understand 4 viewpoints on the same man. Think like this a man gets murdered and 4 people see the act the police will get statements and every account will tell a slightly differently story, this is a fact. As in the Gospels the core issues will be the same but the viewpoint will be from their own perspective .
no the four gospels are just diffrent ways of telling of jesus life


pretend their are 4 people in each corner and a huge rock falls in the middle of the room their would be 4 people telling the same story but from a diffrent point of view the 4 gospels tell the same story so people could get what jesus did and preached in his life 4 same stories but a liitle difrent
The book of Matthew was addressed to the Jews depicting Jesus as the King of the Jews, tracing His genealogy from Abraham.


The book of Mark depicts Jesus as Christ the Servant King.


The book of Luke depicts Jesus as the Son of Man tracing His genealogy from Adam.


The book of John depicts Jesus in His deity as the Son of God.


The books look at Jesus from different perspectives and written in such a way by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


God bless you.
Have you read the bible? What are the differences youspeak of???? The dead sea scrolls question was a joke right?





Lol @ Julius above me. Obviously he doesn't do any research himself. He tells him to search in Lee Strobels works, but if Julius knew what he was talking about he would know that he pointed him towards a man that has proven Jesus and God over and over and is an avid Christian himself lol.
It is the witnessing of four different people, may be years after the death of Jesus. So, naturally differences due to that are possible. Secondly, it is the view of four different individuals.





For those who wants to take it as a false story, it gives ample reasons. But for others, it gives enough reasons to believe Jesus.





The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D.





visit: www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html





There can be more scrolls that are not found. Don't think that those days were advanced in IT and the information about Jesus was available to those who wrote the scrolls or they believed Jesus as the Son of God. Christian movements reached other parts of the world much later.
ok, if you and your friends go see --- lets say a meteor shower and you all go home and tell different people what you saw and someone wrote it down and then got you all together and read each one out loud --- do you think the story would be the same???


same for the gospels, there is 4 different people telling the same story, does it make it wrong?
The gospels are from different perspectives. If you would act in front of a roomful of people, every one of them would see something different.
These books were written through each ones own eyes.


You already know Luke was a Physician...





Colossians 4:14


http://www.drbo.org/chapter/58004.htm





Note how Luke describes the swaddling clothes. This is because he is inclined to notice things of his profession.





Luke 2:7


http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?i鈥?/a>


This is not mentioned in any other gospel.





Thanks for a very interesting observation.





Peace be with You.








No Father of the Church holds the Magi to have been kings. Tertullian (';Adv. Marcion.';, III, xiii) says that they were wellnigh kings (fere reges), and so agrees with what we have concluded from non-Biblical evidence. The Church, indeed, in her liturgy, applies to the Magi the words: ';The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents; the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring him gifts: and all the kings of the earth shall adore him'; (Psalm 71:10). But this use of the text in reference to them no more proves that they were kings than it traces their journey from Tharsis, Arabia, and Saba. As sometimes happens, a liturgical accommodation of a text has in time come to be looked upon by some as an authentic interpretation.





Dead Sea Scrolls:


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l鈥?/a>
No just told by 4 different people.I haven't read them as yet to conclude that.
no, they all just had different accounts of him
Your question is not worth answering as you've already made it obvious you want some one to only answer what you want to believe which shows in your angry ranting. You've already have decided whats right or wrong and Johns Gospel was not written 200 yrs after Christ death. you claim there are so many vast huge differences in the Gospels and just do not allow for individual descriptive styles but seem to deny the fact they all proclaim one message.Your just nit picking over little differences.The Gospel writers outside of John were secretaries to the Apostles or companions and recorded what they relayed to them. Thus what your reading is no different than a police man getting 4 witnesses to a accident views,There all telling the truth but from there mind and eyes and all agree there was a accident and the driver was who ever it was.You want truth then study the writings of the early Church Fathers and the Catholic Church.I'll finish this by saying you either want truth or you want to just rant....By your response which sounds irritated to me but what your lacking is Faith and your very much like doubting Thomas.
They may be different, but they are the same story from 4 different viewpoints.





Imagine there are 4 people at 4 different corners of an intersection. A wreck occurs. The policeman gets the story from 4 different witnesses. One says he say the truck slam into the car. Another says he saw the car slam on brakes. Another says he saw a cat run in front of the car. Another says he saw a dog chasing a cat into the street.


From getting information from all 4 witnesses, the policeman can piece together what actually happened.





Just because one witness left out a detail that another witness mentioned, doesn't mean that one of them is wrong. It would be impossible for one of the witnesses to see everything from his particular vantage point.





edit: you've mentioned ';vast %26amp; significant'; differences twice now. Could you please give an example, so we can understand what you are concerned about?
quite teh contray. there differences are a proof of their authenticity. Think about it four different eye wintess accounts of the same events. wouldn't you expect them to be different even if the even happened yesterday. the synoptics which excludes the gosple of St. John are very much the same, but with enough differenece to support thire having been witneesed from differen points of view. even The gosple of St. ohn describes some of the same events but has different emphasies and is more persoanl thus expressing St. Johns special closeness to our lord.


So, no quite the contrary.


the gosples were recited at our early masses before they were written down. this is the advatage of knowing hteh history of and beloinging to the church that jesus persoanlly founded and having that direct link apostolic succesion. By the way the gosple according to St. John was written in Symrna at about 70 ad. This according to both sts. irenaus and polycarp. St. Polycarp having been ordained as bishop of symrna by St. John himself thus usehring in the second generation of our catholic bishops.


You need to get your facts striaght before you take on a catholic, you may be able to tget trhese things by fundies but not me.
The gospels vary slightly where they recount the same things.





Captain John LeVrier of the Houston Police Department applied the rules of investigation to the four accounts, and found that they actually compliment one another. He pointed out that when you question witnesses, they all have slightly different versions, and that is how you know they are telling the truth.





If they are all exactly the same, you know they are in collusion, and are false witnesses.





Of course, none of this generally makes any difference to the detractors of the Bible.





Where it is different, they cry ';CONTRADICTION!';





Where it is the same they cry, ';COLLUSION!';





They don't WANT the Bible to be true.





And get with the times, there IS a Gnostic story of Christ in the Dead Sea Scrolls, translated just a couple of years ago.











Well, at this point you should bring up several of these unsurmountable differences you speak of, and we can discuss them. In all the work I have done in this area, I have only two I do not have a full answer for that do not completely explain it for me.
Maybe because he never existed.......