a book of God feeling in the same way.

This does not mean that the whole thing written in the Bible has nothing to do with the fact of history. However, this historical fact is related to the center of the faith that the author is trying to communicate, rather than appearing in detail on the sentence. There is a historical fact of Christ resurrection at the center of faith for Christ who is trying to tell the original churches in a series of sentences. Like this revival, the author of the Gospel is trying to convey it all the time, so it comes to arranging a variety of other things. As you wrote this on whatever happens, if you do your best as if the sentences were absolute historical facts, like the number of angels at the time of resurrection, no matter how you think between the four Gospels There are no places. I do not believe that the idea that the writing as it is historical is the idea of people who wrote the Gospel. It is very meaningful that all four Gospels remain, and that any of them is a book of God feeling in the same way. From that point on I got to know a lot of things. Faith in Christ, which the early church, centered on the twelve disciples, has carefully conveyed, this is trying to express the Gospels altogether as they are. And this faith itself appears as a revelation of salvation in this world without any discrepancies between the four Gospels.