Why are there four Gospel accounts in the New Testament?

[Bibleinvestigations]

There are four Gospel accounts, but only three is required. We have in effect abundance of witnesses so to speak. Mark translated from Matthew, repeating mainly the actions of Christ.

There are four accounts because together they prove the story of Jesus as the truth and tell us who the authors were. Luke and Mark were not eyewitnesses and what Matthew saw was limited because he was not one of the inner circle disciples who witnessed everything Jesus did and said. These three cannot be considered eyewitnesses therefore as an investigator and scientist, if they are the authors, the books cannot be considered evidence of Jesus.

Therefore the two read so similarly. But they are not identical. Mark added some incidents to his narrative. Luke used Mark’s account, especially the latter part to speak of the Passion of Christ. Therefore there is overlap between the three. These overlaps help to cement the testimony of what

The authors are eyewitnesses who wrote the story of Jesus. The author of Mark (James) was an eyewitness and the authors of Matthew (Nicodemus) and Luke (Silas who wrote the words of Peter) copied from Mark for different reasons. Nicodemus copied from Mark to complete his account of Jesus that needed to include events that he didn't witness - then he added his eyewitness testimony. Silas copied from Mark as a starting point for the summary he was writing from the words of Peter.

The New Testament contains eye witness accounts and reports from those who spoke to the eye witnesses, like Luke who must have spoken to someone who knew Mary to have had the detailed miraculous accounts of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus' birth accounts.

When you state that "Luke must have spoken to someone who knew Mary" you are making an unproven statement. There is NO evidence for Matthew, Mark, and Luke as authors of the Gospels other than what is obtained from tradition. Tradition is not proven evidence - it is the words of people and not eyewitnesses testimony.

 

[Brakelite]

It struck me this evening that this entire thread, as far as I can tell, has focused on the authors and the various processes and even politics that contributed to 4 gospels.
Correct me if I'm speaking out of turn, but what if the holy Spirit definitely inspired 4 different perspectives to bring to us 4 different aspects to the nature and character of Jesus? After all, Jesus is the centerpiece and focal point of all scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, why are we focusing on anyone else, particularly in the Gospels?

 

[Berserk]

It struck me this evening that this entire thread, as far as I can tell, has focused on the authors and the various processes and even politics that contributed to 4 gospels.
Correct me if I'm speaking out of turn, but what if the holy Spirit definitely inspired 4 different perspectives to bring to us 4 different aspects to the nature and character of Jesus? After all, Jesus is the centerpiece and focal point of all scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, why are we focusing on anyone else, particularly in the Gospels?

I'm not arguing for more or less than our 4 Gospels. But the intellectual issue is complicated by these 2 questions:
(1) None of the 4 Gospels even claim to be divinely inspired. That decision was made by Catholic church councils centuries later.
How do you know that none of the other first and early 2nd-century Gospels are not just as inspired--the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel of the Poor (Latin: "Ebionites")?

(2) The scholarly consensus is that Matthew's Gospel was not written by the apostle Matthew and the Fourth Gospel was not written by John the son of Zebedee. Matthew (80-90 AD) copies 90% of Mark (70 AD). Why would an eyewitness of Jesus need to copy a Gospel written by a non-eyewitness like Mark? Neither Mark nor Luke knew Jesus.
John is composed by an editor, John "The Elder," using traditions passed on by "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The identity of this anonymous disciple is unknown and vigorously debated. But whoever he is, he is a source, not the author. Consider this obvious question: wouldn't it be highly arrogant for John to refer to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," as if Jesus didn't love His other disciples?
The circumlocution is obviously created by an admirer.

 

[quietthinker]

It struck me this evening that this entire thread, as far as I can tell, has focused on the authors and the various processes and even politics that contributed to 4 gospels.
Correct me if I'm speaking out of turn, but what if the holy Spirit definitely inspired 4 different perspectives to bring to us 4 different aspects to the nature and character of Jesus? After all, Jesus is the centerpiece and focal point of all scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, why are we focusing on anyone else, particularly in the Gospels?

haha....distractions have greater appeal because The Man is largely misunderstood

 

[Rockerduck]

Hello,
Polycarp, Irenaeus, and many more, testified the Apostle John wrote his Gospel while at Ephesus. John the elder was much later and Gnostic and has been debunked of any writing.

Without the Holy Spirit you are just reading. Whoever wrote Matthew was Holy Spirit inspired, as well as, the other two Gospels. The Gospel of John is in another class all by itself. It has so many deep layers of understanding that without the Holy Spirit you cannot possible fathom the depth.
Matthew gives a genealogy of a King, Mark show Jesus as a servant, Luke depicts Jesus as a man. John shows Jesus as deity.

King, servant, Man, and deity.
Ezekiel Lion, ox, man, eagle
Rev Lion, calf, man, eagle

Ezekiel 1:10 - As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side, each of the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and each of the four had the face of an eagle.

Revelation 4:6 - The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle.

How can individuals write a gospel hundreds of years apart without being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Berserk]

Hello,
Polycarp, Irenaeus, and many more, testified the Apostle John wrote his Gospel while at Ephesus.

They confuse "John the Seer" (author of Revelation) with John the son of Zebedee. But modern Bible scholars recognize that the literary style of Revelation is so dramatically different from that of the Fourth Gospel that it is certain that different authors are at play.

John the elder was much later and Gnostic and has been debunked of any writing.

You are obviously ignorant of the decisive testimony of first-century bishop Papias on this matter. He reports what "John the Elder" is currently saying about Jesus adding that John the Elder was actually one of Jesus "disciples."

Without the Holy Spirit you are just reading. Whoever wrote Matthew was Holy Spirit inspired, as well as, the other two Gospels.

Any modern believer can try to compensate for their lack of academic training in Scripture by claiming guidance from the Holy Spirit.
Such a claim is unverifiable and in any case is no substitute for study of the original languages and historical context of Scripture. That's why ministers need to go to seminary. As famed text critic, B. F. Westcot once said, "The simple Gospel is not so simple as the simple would have you suppose."

How can individuals write a gospel hundreds of years apart without being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Duh, our Gospels were all written in 2nd half of the first century.

 

[Rockerduck]

Duh, our Gospels were all written in 2nd half of the first century.

If you can read again, I combined the years between Ezekiel and Revelation. Duh!

Have a blessed day.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

No, Mark was inspired by God and wrote what was inspired to be written.

Yes, Mark was written first before Matthew.

 

[Berserk]

If you can read again, I combined the years between Ezekiel and Revelation. Duh!

Have a blessed day.

But

If you can read again, I combined the years between Ezekiel and Revelation. Duh!

Have a blessed day.

Reread your question, to which I responded:
"How can individuals write a gospel hundreds of years apart without being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
Your phrase "write a gospel" wrongly implies that Ezekiel is a Gospel! Scholers categorize written Gospels as examples of the contemporary literary genre "biographies of revered figures."