Never forget when Brant Pitre got Dr. Ehrman to admit that Jesus makes a divine claim in Mark's Gospel during the trial

20:12 So Ermhan claims that Mark misrepresented the trial, because Jesus wouldn't have actually been accused of blasphemy because He wasn't making divine claims. That is, Mark edited it to indicate Jesus claimed divinity. Which means that by Erhman's own logic, Mark thought Jesus was divine. Edit: for those claiming I don't understand or misunderstand Ermhan, here he is saying Jesus never claimed to be divine in the Synoptics. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ebaaYKR1m7G6gGg.htmlsi=d65-1oFttkXfjxRx

I think Bart Ehrman's arguments are interesting but not compelling. "Jesus never claimed to be God" "He does so in X, Y, Z spots, all of Jesus' disciples appear to have understood him to be claiming divinity, and this is basically the consensus position of all the Biblical authors and the Sanhedrin" "X, Y, Z spots can't have happened because they contradict my position."

Please read The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre, a catholic New Testament scholar. He tackles every single one of this issues and more.

Bart Ehrman brought me to Christ. I was spiritually inclined towards Hinduism so I sought bias against Christianity. While reading one of his books where he exposed the discrepancies in the gospels, I was struck with the truth the gospels proclaimed. Nice work, Bart. Wouldn't have happened without you.

I found this video by searching for Bart Ehrman response because I’ve been watching his podcast series and I wanted to hear someone who thought differently. I really like how you quoted him and his book, you clearly put a lot of time and effort into this video. I’m not Catholic (or even Christian), but I appreciate the video and made sure to give it a like

God is an outside force that can act on this universe. If I spin a wheel and then stop it with my hand, I didn't break the laws of physics, I was just the outside force that acted on the wheel to make it stop spinning.

We need a Trent Bart debate to settle this once and for all.

Jimmy Akin v Bart is still one of my favorite debates

Thanks for doing this, Trent. I was very frustrated seeing these arguments get so much (seemingly coordinated) airtime. I was hoping someone else noticed. Appreciate you digging into this!

At this point, the most powerful part of a modern atheist’s argument is how they perform. It’s a performance. Dawkins mastered the smirk. Even as Dr. John Lennox picked him apart.

Which particular law of physics is supposed to make the Resurrection impossible?

I remember when Bart wrote off the numerous testimonies of Christ's resurrection as "group hallucinations".

Thank you Trent! I appreciate this podcast as I’m just now about to take my first rites at Christ the King here in Tulsa ,Oklahoma. You give me a lot of insights . Again , much thanks

The Son of Man is a divine figure in Daniel, "coming on the clouds of heaven" is what God does in the Old Testament. That's why they sentenced Jesus to death, they knew that He claimed to be the divine figure from Daniel.

Hey Kyle, thanks again for reaching me a couple weeks back. I’m still working out a few trials but I’m holding firm to my beliefs. I pray that I have the strength, faith, and intellect to put myself and my home back on the path of Truth.

I think I remember Dr. Bergsma said Ehrman’s breaking point was the Last Supper (Passover) being celebrated at two different times, but that can be explained by different sects of Jews having different liturgical calendars.

Hey bae heat up the waffle iron this one’s going to be 🔥🧇

What is Ehrman's goal? To make money? To convert everyone away from religion? I can understand why one would want to talk about religion because it promises to save people. But why would you want to talk about atheism? What does it promise? Nothing. The person arguing might just feel better about their own choices if someone agrees with them.

Babe wake up, new Counsel of Trent dropped

Your videos are just awesome. Thank you for all your efforts. God bless you.

Clearly that guy does not know the laws of thermodynamics. Just cause a thing has an a very small probability, doesn't mean it's impossible.

In fact mathematicians like myself know that mathematics is not as absolute as people think. Mathematicians change the axioms of math all the time. If human beings can change the axioms of math, God certainly can

There’s a difference between doing something that is logically impossible and physically impossible. We cannot imagine a reality in which a square circle can exist, because the definitions of such words are diametrically opposed to each other. Just because you can string two words together doesn’t mean that you have made a coherent sentence or has said something that can logically exist in reality. God is entirely logical and orderly. Christ is the divine logos - it is essential to his being. Thus, since God is immutable, true logic is immutable and unbreakable. However, since we can imagine a world in which physical laws are suspended, altered, or entirely different, it is not of necessity that they exist in the same way they do currently. Thus, they are not absolutely immutable in the same way logic is. We, since we are bound by physical laws, cannot suspend them. However, for beings that exist outside of physical laws, it is entirely possible that they can interact with this world in a way that defies physical laws since they are not bound by them. God, being the author of this physical universe and it’s laws, is entirely capable of suspending them in a miraculous event that is intended to give credence to his existence. Ehrman’s take is so easily refuted that it is a wonder why he still uses these arguments as if they just hit the ball out of the park. As it turns out, they’re missing the point.

Dr Ehrman has debated many Protestant Biblical scholars like Dr James White (who said after a debate, i paraphrase, 'that Dr Ehrman did not really consider his (Whites) argument, but just rehashed his arguments from his own books). Dr Ehrman claims that he lost his faith when faced with the problem of suffering. Thanks Trent.

Ehrman talks about later interlopations but if the gospels did not give a clear message about Jesus truly saying he is God why didn't they simply place the words in his mouth as he claims they have already done in other sections of the gospels?

The best way, as far as I can tell, to demonstrate the fundamental difference between scientific impossibilities and logical impossibilities is to compare the mathematical physics of a video game to the mathematical physics of our reality. A video game designer could program a video game where the gravitational constant is larger, and thus all the playable characters in the video are also programmed with superhuman strength so that they don't die when they jump off cliffs when on a planet that is governed by a gravitational constant larger than that of Earth. Heck, the designer of this game could even design characters that can travel at speeds greater than that of light. In other words, the designer of this game would be defying the laws of physics, at least the laws in the reality that we know of. However, the designer of this video game could never create a right triangle that violates the Pythagorean Theorem, nor erect hills and valleys that violate the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, nor intererrupt the multiplicative relations between those hills that violate the Product Rule, for these laws are LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and therfore impossible in our own reality, in any possible reality (e.g. a video game), or even abstractly.

I remember, VERY WELL, when I was in grade-five school class that our physics teacher explained to us that for every mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, grammatical, etc...rule there is, AT LEAST, one exception. Further, I learned, later on, that our GOD is capable to BREAK or temporarily SUSPEND these rules whenever, HE wishes to and without jeopardising the ALL or PART of the nature of our EARTH.

Thanks for what you’re doing Trent.

7:48 "This would be like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead because Pope Gregory the Great said that he did 500 years after the fact." The earliest source of Moses is 1000 years after he allegedly lived...

THANK YOU. I watched around half of the interview with Cosmic Skeptic and Dr. Ehrman just left a bad taste in my mouth. I was in the midst of a comment tirade on that video, but I deleted because a) KZfaq comments have never convinced anyone of anything, b) I'm not good at debates, and c) man was it uncharitable.

We all have our favourite James White debate, and mine is his against Bart Ehrman. Say what you will about White, but he won that quite handily.

Time-stamp 11:55, 12:08 - authority to forgive sins 12:08 - While Jesus gave the disciples authority to forgive sins in John 20, a key difference is that eternal life is found in the **name** of Christ (John 20:31). We never see forgiveness of sins found in the name of disciples, but we do see forgiveness in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38). And this is the rule of the First Testament: we don’t find salvation in the name of an agent/representative of God, we only find salvation in the name of the true God (Joel 2:32). Notice in Exodus 23:20-21, that forgiveness of transgressions is connected with the true God’s name, not paired with the name of an agent or representative of God (Exodus 23:20-21). Now in the New Testament, we find forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ. 12:35 - priests and the sacrifice 13:00, 13:30 - an important detail 14:08 - 1 Kings 8:39, 1 Corinthians 2:11… Besides God, only a human being can know his own thoughts.

Mathematics is not a science, it's a language, that's why saying 2+2=5 is gibberish like saying a square circle

Great Video! Thank you.

Bart is ironically great for Christianity because his reasons for atheism are fooling and yet he admits jesus' god claims and also admitted that the bible manuscripts are the best resources of any writing's of the ancient world

Hiya Trent, I had a question i can't find the answer to. I checked catholic answers as well but no luck. Why did Pope Clement 13 ban the French Encyclopedia in 1759? I understand you are busy and this is just one of many comments, but if you see this, please drop a response. Thank you.

Thank you for your eloquent response to Ehrman. I genuinely appreciate the effort and integrity you put into your work. Keep up the good work, Trent.

His claim that reading the trial narratives gives clear indication that he was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews makes no sense. When Pilate asks him, "are you the King of the Jews?" And Jesus says, "you say so." Pilate immediately tries to release him saying that he finds no fault in him. He's either lying or just has terrible reading comprehension.

Jesus doesn't have to directly say he is the son of God, because God himself says so, at his Baptism and Transfiguration.

Comparison between mathematics and physics is just ignorant at best. Mathematics is an axiomatic truth, one plus one always equals two that is fundamental. However, physics is our best approximation at discovering what the baseline mathematics are to set universe. The fact that physics can change over time as our understanding deepen negates the possibility that physics in and of itself is axiomatic. Even our best understanding as of now in physics comes from an incomplete picture when considering something like the Grand unification theory or the fact that we still don't understand how gravity fits into quantum physics. Plus at a fundamental level even our understanding of physics does not negate the possibility of bodily resurrection. Because I believe it was Fineman, and since I'm using voice typing I'm sure that got misspelled, who said there is no fundamental difference between moving forwards and backwards in time so really just locally moving the energies and matter from one state to another would resume or could resume biologic functioning of a body. Plus, I've never understood the inability for people to grab the concept that a being that exists literally outside of our natural world would not be subject to the same limitations as someone who is in our natural world. The term supernatural literally means above and beyond the natural, so by definition would not be subject to the same limitations.

I have to admit that this was a good analysis of Bart's bad arguments, despite the fact that I disagree with much of Roman Catholic doctrine. Excellent work!

Love your content. Thank you, Trent!

Claims about divinity are not only in John's gospel; in fact, Mark 1:1-9, the very first sentences to me are the greatest claim of Christ's divinity in the whole NT.

I greatly appreciate your content, Trent. In an age of lack luster apologists your content stands among the greats. I was raised Baptist, but became an atheist/agnostic for most of my high school/college years. I recently came back to Christianity in a more Reformed Baptist tradition, then I found your videos that strengthened my faith in Christ, but also challenged my beliefs about Catholicism. I'm starting to lean towards possibly converting or atleast attend a few masses (as my only real experience with the Catholic Church was being a groomsmen in a friend's wedding). I would greatly appreciate prayers that God would lead towards what I should do.

Even if god appears in fornt of them they will still not believe.

Im a former Christian, pretty well studied, yet i do think Ehrman’s arguments are pretty bad. I also don’t totally enjoy his attitude about religions in general

I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS

“This biblical account doesn’t fit with my own narrative…. Therefore, the authors are wrong.” - Bart, essentially.

There are serious arguments to contend with as to whether mathematics are necessary truths, its not so closed and shut. This also goes for how contingent they are compared to some physical truths. Yes there is a difference between induction and deduction but you stated a much bolder and more difficult claim (though it is the mainstream one)

Hey man which Icon is in the background I love it.

Thank you for your work for the Kingdom!!!

Jesus does claim to be God in Mark 14: 62-63. Jesus responds to Caiphas: And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. That's a reference to being God because God rides on the clouds of heaven. Caiphas responds with an accusation of Blasphemy - why blasphemy? And all the other members of the Sanhedrin concur.

Wow! I appreciate Trent’s calm serious delivery for his arguments for the Resurrection and his arguments against the position of Ehrman that there is no resurrection! Thanks be to God that I was baptized Catholic and stayed! Ever-Virgin Most Powerful, Mommy, bring our brothers like Ehrman to the One True Faith! Saint Benedict, pray for us especially all atheist and non-believers! Monday, July 10, 2023

Looking forward to Barts response! Keep it up Trent

Variants in texts are only a problem for Protestant Fundamentalists and inerrantists. If your religious epistemology is more sophisticated ,it's not a huge problem, because you aren't drawing on just a few phrases in the Bible to create a doctrine.

I watched the debate in the first clip and was cringing a bit when he made the "resurrection violates the laws of physics" argument. In addition to Trent's objection, I don't think it's necessarily even true in the first place, and he certainly didn't cite a law of physics that would supposedly be violated. Bass didn't really pick up on this issue with his argument either, or at least he didn't point it out clearly. In other places, Ehrman argues that miracles are occurrences that are so unlikely they cannot be confirmed by historical methods, and that is still a strong argument that can actually be supported much better. I don't know why he switched to the physics argument here. Ehrman is definitely not a physicist, so he should probably be a bit more careful.

Good video. But one thing I'd say is why not just argue for the reliability of John? It is a good source. Also I think Ehrman could reply that Elisha knew what Gehazi said to Naaman, that doesn't make him God. I think we are better off bucking up and defending John as an eyewitness.

To add to the physics argument, physics is incomplete. We simply may have not arrived at an understanding of physics that would not contradict the law and still allow for the resurrection.

Thank you, brother. Kind regards Kim

At Mk 14:61 Jesus' purported blasphemy was His declaration that He was the son of the Blessed, for a son is equal to his father. So Ehrman misses the fact that a son is equal to his father (and that the Jews understood this) and therefore that Jesus was claiming to be God. This then accords with John 5:18, and both Mk 14:61 and John 5:18 accord with Paul's declaration at Phil 2:6 that Jesus was equal with God. Ehrman doesn't know how to join the dots (doesn't know how to rightly divide the word) for spiritual things cannot be discerned by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14).

Bart's career reminds me of the gynecologist who loses all interest in sex.

I long for the days when organized religion is no more than a bad memory. Just because you disagree with an atheist does not mean you speak the truth.

How many ways can you spell “counsel”? (Council?)

De Consensu Evangeliorum. Augustine Most of Ehrmans arguments were answered approximately 1700 years ago. Maybe Trent is about to point this out. Good subject matter.

I’ll confess I was a bit surprised at how bad Bart’s arguments were here, and I don’t think that watching any more of the original videos would actually help his case. He seems to be a smart guy (tbf I’ve only seen 3 other major clips from him), but made some of absolutely terrible arguments here. They straight up assured me even more of the Bible’s accuracy lol (also do equip yourselves properly with the word of God). Then i thought - he’s probably a bit of a showman. When you included the WLC clip and I was like “oh yeah, that’s it” 😂

Really appreciate this video.

Wikipedia: Bart Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His degrees in Bible study include: September 2, 2014 - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor · Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1985 M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981 B.A., Wheaton College, 1978 After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn earned a master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics. Two experts disagree over what the Bible says and Proverbs 3:5 says “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” This is why I don't believe any of it.

3:05 Bart doesn't understand physics - if he had an inkling of what he is talking about, he'd know that the "laws" of physics are at best poorly understood. And in any case, they're just summaries of observations humans have made, not prescriptions from on high (not that a law God institutes would be binding on himself in the first place). When you get down to Quantum physics, you find that there are no absolute laws - instead, physics is done with probabilities. And maybe you won't find any examples of two particles occupying the same space with the same quantum numbers (not that you'd be able to tell them apart if they did) - but exactly what is it about the resurrection that Bart thinks we need this for? If he appeals to "muh intropy increases!!" then he'd better be prepared to tell me how life began. That's a "violation of the laws of physics" that we all *know* has happened. Why is it so hard to believe life can come from non-life when you already have a body there, if you believe life arose from non-life without so much as a body to begin with?

Superb video Trent.

I would suspect that Trent would have a different take on the accuracy of books written hundred years after the events described (see discussion regrading Appollonius and Romulus) if we were talking about the Old Testament ... specifically the Pentateuch that was composed in parts during the 8th and 9th centuries BCE and edited into final form in the post-exilic period.

Ben Wirthington III, The Christology of Jesus (1990) builds a strong case for Jesus self-identifying as divine from the Synoptics, critically assessed by the tenets of form and redaction criticism.

28:44 Trent, with regards to Jimmy Akin responding to Bart Ehrman, Jimmy on his website did a good written response with many sections. However, in the section Who was Jesus's Grandfather? is a comment that is worth responding to. Other than that Jimmy's rebuttal to the claims of Bart Ehrman are pretty solid.

As a Protestant who routinely keeps track of apologetics, I want to applaud you for being one of the first to upload a video in response to Ehrman’s errors, even before other prominent evangelical apologists, they’re supposed to have more time on their hands.

Well done video. Excellent points. The point on the massive amounts of quotes from the early church fathers is an important one.

Mathematics is tautological but physics is not. That’s not a difficult argument to grasp. This is three hundred years-old philosophy.

This is a timely episode considering today’s Gospel

Sam Shamoun did a thourough destruction of erhmans arguments as well. Its interesting if you have the hours to spare

Bart’s claim that Jesus claimed that he is God in John is laughable , he uses phrases like , “I and father are one” but Jesus also said disciples are one like they are

If you see yourself finding fault in someone's words without facing that person it becomes a one sided argument

I agree with Ehrman actually! If you throw away the gospel of John and the letters of Paul and you also throw away all the passages in the synoptic where Jesus claims to be God, then yes: Jesus never claimed to be God. Sounds like pretty solid logic to me.

Of course God can break the laws of physics. How silly.

So, no one has ever gone to a funeral and the person just gets out of the coffin? It has happened. It was so bad in the past, people would be buried with a bell in their coffin in case they woke up.

you love to see you debate Bart Ehrman's

As soon as Bart spoke of, "violating the laws of nature" I was like, ah ha! an eighteenth-century argument coined by Hume that has been debunked numerous times! How original!

Ehrman is verifiably wrong on one point. The Jewish priest in the Temple would merely announce that sins has been forgiven. They had visual proof that God was accepting or rejecting the sacrifices. See my references from the Talmud below, thanks to Sam Shamoun. This is also confirmation that after Jesus' public ministry began, God stop accepting sacrifices. This is further proof of Jesus's divinity. Talmud Yoma 39b The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but *during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple,* the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, *the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually.* Talmud Yoma 9b However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, *why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period.* This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.

Perhaps because of his training, Ehrman does not understand the fundamental difference between the "laws" in mathematics and "laws" in physics. In physics, laws are descriptive of regular observed in the natural world. In doing this, physics may USE mathematics to do so, but this does not make the "laws" of nature prescriptive. They do not cause things in nature to occur; they merely describe what occurs. The laws of physics do not in any way prohibit the miraculous, or such miracles as the resurrection. Physics and mathematics are not the same thing.

Hi, I’m a Christian who believes in the resurrection. I will never for the life of me understand why people think Bart is making an argument about the laws of physics-do people just not listen? What he’s critiquing is the methodology of horrible apologetics, and the inconsistency of saying “well this text says a miracle happened so it did” while on the other hand dismissing texts/accounts of miracles that don’t fit into our beliefs. To say you have HISTORICAL evidence for the resurrection, an occurrence that never happened again or before, you need to have better sources than accounts written by Christians. The other thing I’m confused by is the selectivity of historical scholarship. Apologists will gladly accept more “realistic” dating methodologies for texts outside of scripture, but rarely agree with scholarly consensus on scripture dating. The whole thing just feels like arguing backwards.

Thankyou for this content Trent. I could almost believe it was God that brought me upon this video at this very time as i had come across erhman 2 days ago and it shook me a little. I even ordered 2 of his books. Thankyou for the work.

I don’t think Bart understands the difference between logical and nomological necessity. God can easily break the laws of nature because he contingently decided what they’d be. That’s not true of logic nor metaphysics.

Thanks for tackling this Trent. God bless.

Trent, you do have enough clout to get Bart on your show for a discussion. Why not give it a shot? It would be so valuable for all of us.

Was my comment deleted? I'll type it again. 1) Bart Ehrman isn't hiding anything. Misquoting Jesus was basically written in response to the fundamentalist viewpoint of scripture -- think KJV fundies. Ehrman's point is that you can never get back to the originals. In the Introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman literally says that the differences in the manuscript are largely insignificant, but the fact that you cannot get back to the originals was a huge problem for the fundamentalism of his youth and put him on the path to doubt. "Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant. A good portion of them simply show us that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today (and they didn't even have dictionaries, let alone spell check.) -- Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, Introduction, Page 11. 2) Are there two Ehrman's? Trent quotes Ehrman's scholarly work with Metzger. Apparently this is such a common charge, that Ehrman has already answered this question on his blog about that particular passage of the book. Here is his answer (ehrmanblog.org/can-we-reconstruct-the-entire-new-testament-from-quotations-of-the-church-fathers/): "These are Metzger’s words (kept from his first edition, I believe), not mine, but I would agree with them for the most part. The problem is that some readers completely misunderstand what they mean (especially conservative evangelicals who want Metzter to be saying something he’s not). He is / we are NOT saying that we can know ACCURATELY what the NT originally said based on Patristic citaitons; he is saying that most of the verses can be found in quotations of church fathers. MANY (most?) of these quotations are highly inaccurate though. I’m not sure if you know, but this is the topic of my PhD dissertation written under Metzger. He knew as well as anyone that we would not come up with OUR Greek New Testament (i.e., to look the same way as it does) simply by looking at Patristic quotations. Not even close. We wouldn’t even know whwere to start - even those of us who spent many, many years on the problem. (The apologists who say otherwise: do you know if any of them has actually done any research in the field? I don’t believe so. If they had, they wouldn’t be saying these things. Are they imagining that we have church fathers who quote the Gospel of John chapters 11-14 or something???) The one point I would reword of Metzger’s statement (this particular one) if it were up to me (to make this more clear) is that we would be able to reconstruct (inaccurately or not) “practically the entire NT.” That’s not exactly true. There are lots of verses in the NT that are not attested well or at all in Patristic citations. So it depends one means by “practically” the entire NT. Metzger meant that you could find most of the important passages attested. He didn’t mean 99% of the words of the NT!! Moroever, in almost every instance, a church father who quotes a passage doesn’t tells us where it’s from. So we wouldn’t be able to strng together our NT from their quotations even if all the verses WERE quoted, let alone know WHICH of the many quotations of this or that verse is actually the way it was orginally worded. But when I helped him revise his book for the 4th edition, I decided not ask him to change it, since I knew what he meant (having talked with him about such things for over a decade!). To my knowledge I have never contradicted myself between my popular and scholarly work. People who want to attack me say I ahve, but I don’t recall ever seeing an instance of it. In almost every case, it’s simply a matter of them not reading what I say carefully enough - a bit ironic, given the fact that they are stressing the importance of my words!"

Thank you.

Can you please bring Bart Herman’s on your podcast?

Well, as a Catholic i find listening to Ehrman more informative and helps me understand Jesus more. Apologists just want to prove themselves right than explaining for you to truly understand Christianity. That Ehrman-Bass debate was actually won by Ehrman by a mile if you watch it in full. Be informed people.

Ehrman when you tell him he's not himself because his body has orders of magnitude more errors

Why don't you just get Bart on your podcast to discuss his viewpoints ? Now , that would be interesting !

Great video, really clean rebuttals!

This is slightly off topic, but can you or someone provide a book that gives a side by side comparison of each of the gospels? (IE one page would have each account of the feeding of the 5,000, another page has each account of Jesus’ baptism, etc).