Synoptic Gospel problem

[violatedsmurf80]

when i first started my studying the "wonderful word of god" i read about the synoptic gospels ( mark, Matthew Luke and John) and during my studying they were written 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus not to also say that they were so similar that they must have used each other’s gospels, or another common source. if Jesus did live was everybody in such aww that they forgot how to write during the time he was alive and waited this long after to write about him. because i know if i was around i would be taking notes the whole time i was following him around.     

[changeling]

Not only the gospels.
When Jesus was born apparently many people knew he was the son of God.
Even wise men and kings came to give him gifts and praise him.
And yet for thirty years absolutely nobody wanted to see, or write about
what he did growing up.

I mean if God were born next door to me, he wouldn't be able to take a holy sh*t without
me knowing about it.

[pianodwarf]

In contemporary Biblical studies, there are two hypotheses to account for all the overlapping material.  The one that currently holds favor with most is the Two-Source Hypothesis, which holds that Mark and a lost document, commonly referred to as "Q", were both sources for Matthew and Luke.  The minority viewpoint is the Farrer Hypothesis, which holds that Mark was a source for both Matthew and Luke, and that Matthew was also a source for Luke.  Each hypothesis has strengths and weaknesses over the other, which is why there is no consensus (at least, as of yet, anyway).

In any event, modern Biblical scholarship is now almost universally agreed, believers and skeptics alike, that we do not know who the authors actually were.  There are a handful of holdouts who continue to insist that (for example) Matthew was, indeed, written by the apostle Matthew, but they're very much in the minority.   In fact, there are a number of good reasons to think that it was not Matthew.

[violatedsmurf80]

Not only the gospels.
When Jesus was born apparently many people knew he was the son of God.
Even wise men and kings came to give him gifts and praise him.
And yet for thirty years absolutely nobody wanted to see, or write about
what he did growing up.

I mean if God were born next door to me, he wouldn't be able to take a holy sh*t without
me knowing about it.

There is such book of Jesus as a child it is called the Thomas gospel but like many of the other heroes when he turns 18 he disappears for something like 20 years or more only to reappear and start healing every one before he dies.   

[violatedsmurf80]

pianodwarf,

 the scholars, can't even agree on how or what happen and why they are so similar, even today they keep trying to find the truth but cant. it still does not answer the question why did they wait to write about him years later.

[idontknow]

They were written 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus.

According to John 14:26 (Jesus speaking), one thing that the Holy Spirit would do was "bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

[C]

^^^ All that says is that people should listen to Jesus and remember what he says supposedly because he was the Messiah. It is not an explanation for the time lapse between the time of the alleged death/resurrection of Jesus, the Synoptic Gospels and later edits in the finalization of the Bible.

All it points to is that the writers, and obviously the editors, did not even know Jesus personally drastically reducing the credibility the gospels have left.

[idontknow]

^^^ All that says is that people should listen to Jesus and remember what he says supposedly because he was the Messiah. It is not an explanation for the time lapse between the time of the alleged death/resurrection of Jesus, the Synoptic Gospels and later edits in the finalization of the Bible.

All it points to is that the writers, and obviously the editors, did not even know Jesus personally drastically reducing the credibility the gospels have left.

You're right, it's no explanation at all for the time that elapsed. But, if true, it would be the the means by which they were able to record his words verbatim. (And I'm sure you don't think it's true.)

[Truth OT]

I personally found John A.T. Robinson's Redating the New Testament available here:  www.richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf to be of some help in dealing with some issues of the synoptics as well as the issue of the length of time it took to write about Jesus after his life had ended.

"One of the oddest facts about the
New Testament is that what on any
showing would appear to be the
single most datable and climactic
event of the period - the fall of
Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the
collapse of institutional Judaism
based on the temple - is never once
mentioned as a past fact. "

[velkyn]

They were written 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus.

According to John 14:26 (Jesus speaking), one thing that the Holy Spirit would do was "bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

whcih is a bit of a problem since the HS can't get anything straight.  Not even when peoplel claim it helps them "interpret" the bible "Correctly" aka as they see fit according to their own hates and desires

[violatedsmurf80]

They were written 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus.

According to John 14:26 (Jesus speaking), one thing that the Holy Spirit would do was "bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

if i was around when Jesus was i would of took notes, for the simple fact that he did "Amazing things"