What remained and what did not

What remained and what did not; Depending on the church and the needs, new things are added and things that have been so far disappeared. Like much of human memory, what is needed remains forever. Unnecessary things are quickly forgotten and disappear. Even if we read the Gospel and want to know a little more, this seems to be understood somehow,
I really want to get rid of it. Thus, the need for actual liturgical missions made a natural choice of what remained and what did not. In some cases, the original form of the material was changed and used for different meanings and different teachings.

(2) The second is not included in the original document, but has been added from the middle. It was added as needed according to various new and changing circumstances. For example, there are some controversies towards the beginning of Marco (Marco2; 1-3; 6). This is in Chapter 3: 6 “They started to consult to kill Jesus.” This is a text to explain the history of the story and to try to understand the progress of the conflict between Christ and the Pharisees. However, this is not a statement that guarantees to the extent that these three conflicts actually followed. These are separate materials that were originally independent one by one.

It is stitched together properly and without much care. In other words, in order to explain the circumstances so far, why everyone came to think of killing the Lord Jesus, they joined together things that were not originally related. This was necessary in the church at that time. Therefore, it is a valuable place to know the church at that time from now on. Why is this type of controversy explained in the Gospels? This can be understood by considering the state of the church around 40 AD, about 10 years after the death of Lord Jesus. The church finally grew in size at that time, and the content of faith, that is, the doctrine, had not yet been clearly defined. It was a very young and very early church. However, when a question or objection came up in the life of faith or missionary work, the church had to answer it and give a clear explanation.

One of these official explanations seems to have been written in the Gospel in the form of a dispute between Christ and the people. Even the previous chapter of Marco II is trying to give clarification to various things. Which is more important, forgiveness of sins or healing of illness? How should we think of people who cannot be accepted by society at the time, such as sinners and tax collectors, coming to the church? The church people do not fast as fast as the Jewish people, but is that really enough? What about the Sabbath? May I work for the church and charity on the Sabbath? Some form of official view from the church side has been created on these practical issues, and it has been incorporated into these controversial texts.

In this way, it was inevitably a problem later that there was little relation in the life of the Lord Jesus and it was not so much a problem. The circumstances of the church changed with the times. Each time when the four gospels were written, there was an inadequacy that wasn't enough, and I felt it was necessary to explain it in a new way different from the previous ones. For example, the Gospel of John written some time before the 100th century AD has a fairly long controversy about the Eucharist (Chapter 6). This often shows that it was already