The Life Of Jesus. The Life Of Jesus Christ As Told From

In the Gospel of Matthew, the focus on the Jewish genealogy of Jesus played a significant role in the birth story. To fully understand Jesus, it was imperative to first acknowledge who Jesus was within Jewish ancestry and his subsequent position as King of the Jews.

Throughout the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is apparent that there are similarities as well as differences when it comes to portraying the life and times of Jesus the Christ, the general descriptions of who Jesus was, and the sayings and deeds of Jesus during his short stay on this earth. Scripture scholars highlight that each Gospel writer viewed Jesus from a different perspective.

It is possible to write on the life of Jesus from the information gathered from the bible. I will be dividing my essay into three parts. In the first part of the paper, I will talk about the nature of the gospels, John’s views vs. the Synoptic, discuss if the authors of the gospels are eyewitnesses and how they used written sources. Also I will talk about the Q source. Then I will elaborate on the topic of how Matthew and Luke were similar. Then I will continue on by discussing how the Old Testament uses Moses, Samuel and Elijah to interpret Jesus, and finally whether or not the Sermon on the Mount happened. In the second part of my paper, I will talk about Jesus’s birth and childhood, his miracles, his resurrection, and what Jesus did to cure people, spirits and how they are interpreted to the prophet, magician and the mad man compared to Saul and Elijah. The final part of the paper I will talk about what Jesus talked about as regards to the Kingdom of God vs. the Kingdom of the Romans and what he intended by speaking of the end of the world. I will also speak of the reasons behind the Romans executing him. My sources for this paper will be the New Jerusalem Bible Readers edition as my primary source and lecture notes from Professor Trumbach.

Some scholars argue that evidence of Jesus of Nazareth 's existence can only be found within the writings of the New Testament. They believe that the New Testament is a biased and unreliable source for the existence of Jesus. They therefore claim that Jesus did not exist. The historical existence of Jesus is necessary to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. While Christian scholars do not discount the reliability of the New Testament as a historical document, they are also able to point to other historical documents and consider non-Christian writings which support the existence of Jesus. In this paper I will argue that Jesus the Nazarene was an actual, historical person and that this can be demonstrated through extra-Biblical resources.

I have decided to compare and contrast the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In the book of Matthew, we begin with the angel coming to Joseph and telling him of the son that Mary will bare him. The angel says to name him Jesus and tells him that he will save the people from their sins. This clearly marks Christ as the savior from the start. It can be seen that Jesus is the healer of many when he is presented with sick people, because he heals them. He heals those who are sick, mental, and possessed. He is seen as a teacher when he goes to the top of the mountain and speaks to everyone that is listening, he teaches them what is right from then on. He is seen giving healing powers to his disciples and sending them forth to heal and teach the people of his ways. He is seen as a miracle worker, when he walks on the waters of the sea and calms them and then allows Peter to walk on the water toward him. He is seen as a leader as well, in the many times that he leads his people to where they need to be. He is seen as forgiving, in the many times he forgives and tells others to forgive. He is seen as the Messiah, which was clear from the

The two Gospels that I 've decided to compare are Luke and John. Luke is considered a Synoptic Gospel and presents the human side of Jesus. Luke takes us through the longer version of his birth and his childhood and focuses on the humanity of Jesus. There was a debate in this story whether or not Jesus was human and raised many question to potential followers. Many said that Jesus was just a spirit but by reading Luke, there was great detail of his humanity. Luke directed this book directly to Gentiles and focused more on the teachings and miracles that Jesus created rather than the law. Stated in the text, Luke’s Gospel also depicts more clearly the way in which the proclamation of the kingdom of God and the accompanying mighty works of Jesus brought the benefits of salvation to marginalized people. Luke also highlights the concern of Jesus for the materially poor, and the duty of his followers to be free from love of possession and to give generously to those in need. John was considered a different story in the Bible and in the Gospel. It was the last story of the Gospels and does not repeat any of the other stories from Matthew, Mark, or Luke. John had the opportunity to see the gospel and its affect it had and based that off the

Two thousand years ago, the birth of Jesus, arguably the most influential man the world has ever seen, altered history forever. Christians know him as the Messiah, the son of God who came to save all of mankind, and for others, he may just be a great teacher and person of history. It is the latter that Reza Aslan attempts to shed an unbiased light on by comparing the Jesus that modern Christians believe in to the Jesus that Aslan believes would have fit into first-century Palestine: a violet revolutionary, dedicated to the eradication of the Roman government in Israel and the deposition of the rich priestly class. Aslan paints a portrayal of Jesus using knowledge of the time period, Scripture that has been taken out of context and misinterpreted, and most of all, the author’s imagination and powerful rhetoric to cover up his faulty argumentation. In his book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan recreates an interesting but purely speculative image of the historical Jesus through exploring the political and social history of first-century Palestine, the life and teachings of Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.

The first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke is called “synoptic”, because they have a mutual interpretation (the word synoptic means “together in sight”). Matthew, Mark, and Luke cover several of the equivalent happenings of Jesus’ life. A greater part of them from Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. Approximately 90 percent of Mark’s evens of Christ are found in Matthew, and about 50 percent of Mark is noted in Luke’s gospel. All of the parables of Christ are established in the Synoptics.

The new testament contains four (4) accounts of the story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as presented by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The 3 accounts are similar, while Johns bible presents Jesus in a unique way. These differences exist because Matthew and Luke got their information from Mark and John got his information from another source, maybe John did not have access to the other gospels or he chose not to use them. No one really knows the source of John’s gospel and we don’t know for sure who wrote the gospels. Scholars refer to the authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, this may not even be their real names. The Gospel were not first hand accounts except for Mark. John did not seem to have known the existence of the other

In the bible we have recently been looking at the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. In these gospels there are a lot of similarities and also some differences. For example in each one of those gospels it tells the story of John’s Preaching About the Coming One. (Matthew 3:11-12, Mark 1:7-8, Luke 3:15-18) All three of these gospels have a share a lot of similarities. This is not the only story. Another story is The Walking on the Water. (Matthew 14:22-33, Mark 6:45-52) Although not this story is not in Luke, the other two gospels have similarities. Looking at all of the things that are the same in these stories helps supports that the bible is true. It would be hard for the authors of these gospels to make up exactly the same thing for all three or two stories. There are many other examples of similar stories in the

Most Christians are well acquainted with the identity of Jesus as presented in the biblical canonical Gospels. However, most are not well versed in the Jesus presented in Islam. Contemporary Christian understanding of Jesus, his miracles, and his identity as a prophet has been most often mutually exclusive from that of the contemporary Islamic community. It is well established that there are many points of dissimilarity between the character representations of Jesus. Yet, there are also notable similarities. Jesus’s miracles are discussed in both texts with varied stressed importance and purposes. With both traditions established in their respective religions, it is interesting to engage the concept that these pictures of Jesus could not be mutually exclusive. Examination of the Christology and miracles of Jesus in the Quran and Hadith allows contemporary Christian readers to view Jesus through a broader, historical lens.

The Gospel According to Matthew is the first book of the New Testament in the Bible, and is a Gospel narrative. The narratives provided by the Gospels in the New Testament are here to provide us with descriptions of the life, death, and resurrection of our savior Jesus Christ, as well as to share His teachings. Like any other narrative, it is important to understand the historical and literary contexts surrounding the Gospel of Matthew, as well as the importance and significance of Matthew itself. As a Gospel, Matthew is here to present us with the narrative of Jesus Christ as our Messiah, as promised in the Old Testament Prophesy. While it is important to evaluate the extensive context surrounding the narrative of Matthew, the meaning behind the narrative can be found through relating it to the various events that are described in the other Gospels. By comparing the Gospels, it is easy to evaluate the underlying meaning and significance, within the context of the Gospels. Because the Gospels were written as narratives to provide us with information on the life and death of Jesus Christ, and all that happened in between, it is important to compare the different accounts described in the Gospels whenever possible. In doing so, it is possible to examine the Gospels within the appropriate context. With 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), it is important to compare them with one another in order to further evaluate the importance of Jesus Christ, as he is the

Johannine literature truly portrays Jesus as God, with the theme of His deity interwoven throughout numerous passages. In this respect, John’s style differs from the other four gospels, as Bickel & Jantz (1998) point out that the other three had been written prior to John’s gospel, therefore, “he wasn’t interested in just retelling the events” (p. 222). Since Jesus is the focal point of Scripture, a scholar of the New Testament with uncertainty concerning Jesus’ oneness with God will fail to perceive the crux of Christianity. Therefore, in spite of its importance, John does not focus on Jesus’ entrance into the

The Gospel of John differs in many key areas to the Synoptics,and I will address some differing lines of thought.

Luke and Acts tells the story of what Jesus did and taught during his ministry, first in his earthly life and then as the exalted Christ and Lord through his disciples. This essay will outline the various titles Luke used to portray or described Jesus in his two-volume narrative, in doing this we hope to get a better understanding and a complete picture of who Jesus was. Luke in his two volume work described Jesus in numerous ways and I am only going to be discussing four which referred to him as Christ, Lord, Prophet and Savior. The main Christological themes that appear in Luke-Acts highlighted and emphasised on the concept of the “Lord 's Christ”, meaning the coming ruler of God 's people, who will serve as their Savior and performing prophetic work [2 pg. 123-143]. Moreover, Jesus’s role was not assumed on his own initiative, but rather it was the work of God. Thus we can say that God’s work and plans were at the center of the Book of Acts and Luke’s gospel [1 pg 22].