Synoptists Sentence Examples

Loisy recognizes two eye-witness documents, as utilized by all three synoptists, while Matthew and Luke have also incorporated Mark.

The preaching of Jesus shows traces of this, and the Fourth Gospel (as well as the Synoptists) displays a marked interest in connecting the Johannine movement with the beginnings of Christianity.

The following are the most obvious differences between the original book and the Synoptists.

Here Jesus' teaching contains no parables and but three allegories, the Synoptists present it as parabolic through and through.

Here not one exorcism occurs; in the Synoptists the exorcisms are as prominent as the cures and the preaching.

As to the Baptist, in all three Synoptists, he baptizes Jesus, and in Mark i.

The Johannine discourses reveal differences from the Synoptists so profound as to be admitted by all.

There is everywhere the influence of certain central ideas, partly identical with, but largely developments of, those less reflectively operative in the Synoptists.

The raising of Lazarus, in appearance a massive, definitely localized historical fact, requires a similar interpretation, unless we would, in favour of the direct historicity of a story peculiar to a profoundly allegorical treatise, ruin the historical trustworthiness of the largely historical Synoptists in precisely their most complete and verisimilar part.

In the Synoptists, Jesus " grows in favour with God and man," passes through true human experiences and trials, prays alone on the mountain-side, and dies with a cry of desolation; here the Logos' watchword is " I am," He has deliberately to stir up emotion in Himself, never prays for Himself, and in the garden and on the cross shows but power and self-possession.

But could Christians sufficiently numerous to deserve a long discussion by St Epiphanius in 374-377, who upheld the Synoptists, stoutly opposed the Gnostics and Montanists, and had escaped every special designation till the bishop nicknamed them the " Alogoi " (irrational rejectors of the Logos-Gospel), dare, in such a time and country, to hold such views, had the apostolic origin been incontestable ?

On one side indeed there was the record, underlying the Synoptists, of at least two eye-witnesses, and the necessity of its preservation and transmission; but on the other side a profound double change had come over the Christian outlook and requirements.

The attribution of the book to an eye-witness nowhere resolves, it everywhere increases, the real difficulties; and by insisting upon having history in the same degree and way in John as in the Synoptists, we cease to get it sufficiently anywhere at all.

The blessing of the Bread and Cup, as an incident in a feast of Christian brotherhood, is all that the Didache has in common with Paul and the Synoptists.

The Eucharist of the synoptists is rather a covenant or tie of communion between Jesus and the twelve, such as will cause his life to survive in them after he has been parted from them in the flesh.

The story that he died and after four days was raised from the dead is told by John (xi., xii.) only, and is not mentioned by the Synoptists.

The story has been attacked more vigorously than any other portion of the Fourth Gospel, mainly on two grounds, (i.) the fact that, in spite of its striking character, it is omitted by the Synoptists, and (ii.) its unique significance.

The teaching of Jesus centres, according to the Synoptists, in the great idea of the "Kingdom of God," which is already present in the teacher Himself, but also future as regards its completion.

But this method has lost its attraction; the Synoptists, with their rarer and slighter pragmatic rearrangements and their greater closeness to our Lord's actual words, deeds, experiences, environment, now come home to us as indefinitely richer in content and stimulative appeal.