It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why does The Gospel of Mark and John both leave out The Sermon and The Lord's Prayer?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:10 AM
a reply to: Akragon

I guess it was a sect thing, ok thanks. I just know that Christ is the form of Love, Love as a person. Hopefully no one falls into confusion.

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 01:07 AM
a reply to: lightofgratitude
The answer to your question is to be found in the branch of scholarship called "source criticism"- specifically in the "two document" hypothesis.
If you look closely, you will see that a huge bulk of the things Jesus said, as distinct from what he did, are found in Matthew and Luke and not in Mark. The theory is that somebody originally collected the"sayings" of Jesus in a hypothetical document which German scholars have nicknamed "Q". Matthew and Luke are supposed to have compiled their gospels by combining the narrative of Mark (which is the core of the first three gospels) with material from "Q".
That is why the first three gospels are commonly associated as the "synoptic gospels". It refers to the fact that they are using material which can be compared in parallel.
The Sermon would have been part of the spoken material collected in "Q". That is why it is found in Matthew and Luke, and not in Mark. Nor in John, who wasn't using "Q" either.
No conspiracy. Just a by-product of the way the New Testament was written.

edit on 20-7-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 01:24 AM
a reply to: lightofgratitude

The above would probably be the best explanation...

also keep in mind there are no original texts... mostly fragments from the earliest copies we've found

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 02:21 AM
a reply to: lightofgratitude

You also have to ask yourself of the two gospels that contain the Lord's Prayer, why are they different? The author of Matthew heightened aspects of the prayer that would appeal to his more Jewish audience, whereas the author of Luke omitted the more Jewish elements, leaving a more edited blunt version for his less Jewish, more cosmopolitan readers.

As for the other two gospels, it could be that the tradition of the Lord's Prayer hadn't been developed yet in Mark's time, and by the time John was written, what with its high Christology of Jesus blowing the Holy Spirit directly into his disciples (John 20:19b), there was no more need for a story of the disciples needing to learn any such prayer.

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 02:30 AM
It seems to me that the gospels are like witnesses giving their account about what happened in a given scenario. Luke is kind of like a detective that gathered as much information as he could. That would account for the differences and the similarities of the situation.

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:54 AM
Bah! Humbug!

The right words, the right message made it. That is the important thing. We can take it to pieces and analyze it all we want, but the very universe itself will make sure Christ's Word is kept on the scene.

Yes, He is My God. He and The The Real Godfather of the whole shebang are one, just like Vito and Michael Corleone, lol. Same Syndicate. Still would never kiss a Pope's ring. I'm about as angry at those guys as little Regan and Pazuzu, lol:

edit on 20-7-2017 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 05:37 AM

originally posted by: madmac5150
The Gnostic texts ie. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary etc. probably have the most accurate accounts of Yeshua, his life, and his teachings. The books were banned by the early church as heretical... they undermined the church's control of the masses, and portrayed women as equals in the eye of the Creator.

That was a problem. Judaism preached man's dominion over women... and converting the Jews was far easier if the early church incorporated Judaism.
That is why the Old Testament was included in the original canon.

Many Gnostic texts were lost for centuries (...or buried in Vatican archives), but they deserve serious study. They shine an entirely new light on Christian faith.

I am a cradle Catholic; I believed church dogma for a very long time. One day... I decided to dig deeper. I believe the true Christian message was lost a long time ago; rewritten by men for man's benefit.

Christ taught humility, charity and compassion. Modern "churches" are for profit enterprises hiding behind tax-exempt status. The Vatican is the wealthiest entity on the planet... we could feed the poor, globally, for decades if we liquidated Vatican assets. Think on that... humility? charity? compassion?

Organized religion is not true Christianity... it is thought control, and it has worked for centuries...

As far as I know, with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas, the gnostic works were written hundreds of years after the crucifixion and therefore were not eyewitness, or near eyewitness, accounts.

They were a reaction against an established and fairly unified Christian church.

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:39 AM
To me they read as though they are written from different aspects of history.

For some, they favor the idea of "they went here; they did this" as how you learn history. For others, they favor an approach that studies the words and letters of those times to learning history.

Luke tends to read more as a dry chronicling while Matthew reads more like it was concerned with Jesus's words and teachings than with a strict chronicle of his actions.

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:33 PM
a reply to: IAMTAT

Discern is necessary of all scriptures, eye of beholder and understand also Satan has power to act on earth even altering scriptures.
edit on 20-7-2017 by spiritoftruth111 because: (no reason given)

(post by BretePete removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in