>>19439763 pb

>>Two source hypothesis

Silly rabbi-t. Always trying to question God's word.

The Greeks did not want to be Jewish, so they never bothered to read the Hebrew scriptures, instead saying that the Septuagint was more reliable than the original Hebrew texts.

Jesus taught the disciples, they forgot, so he sent the Holy Spirit to remind them. When the men on the road to Emaus returned, the now apostles started reading the Bible the way Jesus did.

They did not see Adam, Noah, Abraham and all, but as Jesus did, they now saw Jesus everywhere. It was not instantaneous. They had to study to show themselves approved.

Each book was a snapshot of the doctrine as it progressed in the Hebrew church.

Mark started the story with the preaching of John the Baptist. The book was an outline so that the messenger could preach from the OT through the lens of Christ.

Ten to fifteen years later they took another snapshot of the doctrine in the Hebrew church. They had discovered that Israel was a shadow of Christ, so Matthew began with Abraham.

Another ten to fifteen years pass, and they realized the men before Abraham were also a shadow of Christ. Luke began with Adam.

Later John learned Notarikon. He derived his doctrine of John 1:1-4 from the first three words of Gen 1:1.

Each book was delivered to the Greeks by messengers who preached. The books were merely their notes to show what Jesus had done that they discovered in the prophetic riddle of Paul's "mystery hidden from the beginning".

The standard for preaching was the sermon on the road to Emaus. They tried to reproduce that with their studies. The differences between the texts are not a "Synoptic Problem" but reveal the level of understanding they had in 10-15 year snapshots.

The First Century hermeneutic is reproducible from the differences in the texts.