-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Any of the Authors of the Gospels Know Jesus?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
No, as a matter of fact, you do not "get it."Sure, sure, but your opinions are unquestionable? We get it, jay..
Alceste
Vagabond
Yes, I've since looked it up and corrected myself. The oldest surviving physical fragments of gospel copies are a couple centuries after the fact, but textual analysis places Mark closer to 70 to 100 years after the fact. Would you say that's accurate?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
O.k............did we get a for sure answer yet??
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Interesting question...... my answer below.....
I promise....
The experts could discuss, debate and argue this one, all month long. But here is my Lay opinion, for what it's worth.
G-John:- Possibly an Ephesian convert of Paul's, who possibly had access to G-Mark, but whose late gospel (up to 70 years after Jesus's death) cranky-chronology and theological colouring is so strange (compared with the other Gospels) that he could not possibly have known Jesus.
G-Luke:- A friend of Paul's, writer of Acts, whose Gospel contains significant amounts of G-Mark and G-Quelle, together with a separate source called G-L which covers half of the whole gospel. But neither Luke nor his friend Paul knew Jesus in life.
G-Matthew:- I was saddened when scholars and historians crushed my hopes that Matthew was the publican and disciple. It is true that much of his Gospel includes G-Mark and G-Quelle, but G-Matthew has a mass of other reports all believed to come from a separate source called G-M, and this fact could be used to argue that in fact Matthew was (partly) written or (partly) orally communicated direct from the tax-gatherer, publican and disciple, Matthew.
G-Mark:- Despite the scholars and historians wanting to dismiss the boy Mark as having written this report, the fact that it is so clear, that it was (probably) written in Alexandria, that it includes personalised reports likely to have been experienced by himself, I will cling to the belief that Cephas's student and follower, Mark, wrote most of this book, from his own recollections and Cephas's notes.
So ..... Mark knew Jesus and co-wrote G-Mark, and Jesus's disciple Levi might have had input into G-Matthew.
Now I am going off to hide somewhere...... :run:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Yes, apart from Luke, i believe they did and i also believe the gospels were written a lot earlier then the so-called experts claim.
Matthew was one of the twelve apostles. John was one of the 12 apostles. Mark and his mother were among Jesus early disciples and Mark was with the apostles on the night of Jesus trial.
Luke wrote his gospel from the eyewitness testimony of others.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Schnelle's text is really quite good. He says simply that the "Gospel of Mark was written either shortly before or shortly after 70 CE. From the viewpoint of the evangelist, Mark 13.2, 14 are vaticinia ex eventu, and the Gospel of Mark was probably written after the destruction of the tempe early in the 70s (cf. also Mark 12.9; 15.38)." [pp 201-202]
By the way, even with the advent of Wikipedia, Kirby's Early Christian Writings remains a great resource. Kirby summarizes: "Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE."
Yes. We're sure that you pollute threads by making ridiculous and thoughtless claims and then scurrying away when challenged.O.k............did we get a for sure answer yet??
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You didn't answer the OP...
You made a semantical quasi-estimation. Good job!:clap
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Thanks Pegg, I either wouldn't be able to find all that out with my ref books, or it would take a while.
"semantical quasi-estimation"?You didn't answer the OP...Not to the best of my knowledge. Nor does one get that impression from sources such as
You made a semantical quasi-estimation. Good job!:clap
- In the absence of certainty, I gave an informed opinion supported by scholarship.
- In the absence of knowledge, you manufactured nonsense which you refuse to defend.
fantôme profane;3760150 said:
Where did I say "bow"? You are being ridiculous. I said I have no problem with people who don't believe in a historical Jesus, I said I am a big fan of skepticism. And you interpret this as meaning that you should bow down? But I think it is unreasonable to show disrespect to an entire field of scholars. I have never said bow to consensus. I have said respectfully consider the views of scholars who have dedicated their lives to studying a subject.
If you are unable to show respect to people who have studied the topic then you have a problem. You who are unwilling to even read a book on the subject, think that you can dismiss the entire field. You think that because you have watched a handful of youtube videos and looked at a few websites think that you are qualified to judge the merit of the work of thousands of professional scholars. I think you have a problem. You have a right to your opinion, and yes you should decide for yourself and not bow to anyone else. But your extreme arrogance is nothing more than an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
And yes of course I would consider the viewpoint of academic scholars who study Muhammad.
When you come out of hiding
perhaps you can explain something to me.I don't agree that the author of G-Mark was actually Mark, but I will put that aside. What evidence do you have that Mark actually knew Jesus personally?
Alceste
Vagabond
fantôme profane;3760746 said:When you come out of hiding
I don't agree that the author of G-Mark was actually Mark, but I will put that aside. What evidence do you have that Mark actually knew Jesus personally?
Seems kind of unlikely, given that the writer of Mark didn't even share a language in common with Jesus.
SkylarHunter
Active Member
What makes you think they didn't?
Alceste
Vagabond
I can't speak for Sunstone, but my own answer is "all the available physical evidence and the professional consensus of historians".
What makes you think they did?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;3760706 said:
Wow, what anger. You know, I think that when we find ourselves angered by having our beliefs questioned, we probably need to take a look inside.
What sacred jewel I must have touched. Goodness.
Anyway, you declined to engage me last time I asked you to discuss the historical Jesus with me. How about now? One-on-One forum? You and me? Historical Jesus?
Heck, I'll even debate you on the nature of 'biblical scholasticism.' Just let me know.
<yawn>
apparently someone's silly mythical jesus mantra feels neglected
</yawn>AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Hey, he's your Jesus. Defend him.