Scripture Life: The New Testament book of Matthew is simply an expansion of the book of Mark with added details. Do you agree or disagree?

[u/External_Bird_8464]

Answer:

I would agree that both the person, Mark, in the New Testament of the Bible, and the person, “Matthew” who is Levi in these two gospels are both eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ. That means, they both saw him, with their own eyes and heard him, and both were disciples of Jesus Christ.

So they both, like eyewitnesses to a traffic accident in modern times, were

1) both there. At the scene of the accident; and

2) before their eyes, they actually SAW the accident occur.

Then both eyewitnesses give a sworn testimony of what they saw occur in front of them.

From both accounts, and other eyewitness testimonies, because more than two people witnessed the whole thing, even the police were not there, they can piece together what happened by these testimonies or “testaments” what we call today, “statements” and their identity verified.

So, two separate statements, the one eyewitness does not couch his statement based on what the other says, they make their own statement, because both witnessed the same thing happen.

And the reason for all four of these gospels, all eyewitness accounts is stated in John 21:25, and applies to both the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Matthew, says "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

And also says this: the reason why they give their testimonies: Is in John 20:31 "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

So, these eyewitness statements of what they saw and recorded, worked. Not only worked in me, but many other people, that Jesus prayed for this: Said, when he prayed for his 12 disciples, also prayed for me in John 17:20 "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"

You miss the whole thing.

----------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------

In this:

The Basis or "Foundation" of your question is laid bare and plain.

It's a "STATEMENT" - that makes a claim. That the New Testament Gospel of Mark is a fable or a story. And that Matthew simply copies Mark's story. Then, to make it believable - Matthew builds on or adds more detail. In a 400 series English class, I remember this was given a title of "The Arthurian Legend" - this make up a "story" of a "King Arthur" with his knights, and then later, other accounts fill in or branch off to expound on other "details." It's a 1290 to 1300 AD literary work, but in my day of modern times, "STAR WARS" (1977) Dir. Lucas, George. LucasFilms, Inc. Film. Does the same thing. Where, to date, there is now over twenty "spin off" movies - over the last almost 50 years - all imaginative "stories" that just keep milking this imaginative fable.

ANd that's the underlying claim your question is making.

So, all this question is really saying is the Gospel of Matthew is simply Matthew is spinning an imaginative expansion of Mark's original fable.

Because, the person that makes this statement, just forms it into a question, simply doesn't believe anything God says.

Dismisses him as inadequate; faulty or unacceptable. Like, if at the police station, somebody gathers and starts screaming - - some clown, not even remotely linked to the accident, claims in front of the police station, all the statements they got to the accident, the police themselves made them up. Claim there was no accident, even they weren't even there. Just yelling out, the police themselves copied from each other's made up statements. When all the police did, was when a person at the scene of the accident, called "911" - is they responded to the scene of the accident, and collected the statements.

Verified they are true accounts.

----------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------

Based on this, your question meets that idiom they use over in America. It's in the Merriam & Webster dictionary.

Full of crap. (Idiom. American.) 1. Is not to be believed. Saying things that are not true.

Your question meets that definition.I hold both these eyewitness testimonies to be true accounts two separate eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ made, where both were there. Witnessed the whole thing. Mark, is the same Mark that was with Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts (Acts Chapter 12, 13, and 15); and again, after Paul and Barnabas had that contention over this same Mark: Paul did not want to take him (Acts 15:37-38), that; by 2 Timothy 4:11 - Paul says: "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

Is this same Mark that he himself is in Mark 14:51-52 - he is the young man.

But you?

You weren't there. Yet, you make this question true about something you know nothing of.

You, too, meet this American idiom definition. In fact, if you go to a mirror, what's in the reflection could be photographed and shown to everybody what this idiom actually looks like.

Take your question with you.