-
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
Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient world. If, as the Gospels portray him, Matthew was a tax collector and a publican it's likely he would have spoken and written Greek.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Great! Can you tell us what they're all saying??
Can you answer the OP without 'guesses'?/
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Mathew, Mark and John as appear to have based their gospels on the same source materials and none of their gospels date back earlier than a generation after Jesus crucifixion. It seems extremely unlikely that any of them met Jesus, and far more likely that whoever wrote those accounts simply took the name of a disciple - just as monks do to this day.
Mark seems to have come first, some 60 to 80 years ACE with Mathew and Luke copying largely from him.
Mark seems to have come first, some 60 to 80 years ACE with Mathew and Luke copying largely from him.
Last edited:
Most of them won't touch the historical Jesus question with a ten foot pole and when they do they are not considered credible unless they assert that Jesus was historical.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Those guys aren't going to get involved in the historical Jesus debate. They have careers to consider.
Alceste
Vagabond
I never guess. I always look it up. You should try that yourself. You're already on the internet. It only takes a few seconds to make sure you've got your facts straight.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Didn't you already guess earlier?/
You just didn't provide any reasoning as to your guess, oh well.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Alceste
Vagabond
Is it fair to say you're not in the habit of reading the writing of professional secular academics?
What you're saying here sounds eerily similar to what AGW denialists and evolution delialists say in response to academic consensus that contradicts their preferred narrative.
You might want to check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Oh yes I did! :beach:
I love booze.
Alceste
Vagabond
Nope, I cited the claims of a specific book I read fifteen years ago, acknowledged that my memory might be fuzzy and the book was certainly a questionable source. Then I looked it up and corrected myself when challenged, resulting in general agreement between myself and those who know way more about this topic than I do.
This kind of magic happens all the time when you haven't got a horse in the race.
Name one on the subject matter of Jesus.
Alceste
Vagabond
Jesus: an Historian's Review of the Gospels
Michael Grant.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(author)
:beach:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I feel that they didn't know Jesus personally, but they understood what the story of Jesus meant, the spiritual meaning that is.
He's more of a freelance author of popular books.
Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
You see, it's the same old rhetoric time and time again. How do we know if a scholar is credible? Well, if he asserts that Jesus is historical and states that there is an abundance of evidence to support that notion, he's credible. Do you see the problem here? Have you read the so called evidence for yourself? Have you read critiques of the evidence to see how it holds up to scrutiny?
And if he happens to hold all sorts of degrees from prestigious universities? Well, just like everything else if we ignore those they don't count.
Michael Grant (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes. :yes:
Not only did the author of gMark not know Jesus but he did not even write the crucifixion scene by relying on witnesses.
The bulk of the crucifixion scenes come from lines taken from the authors ancient scriptures, what we call the OT.
Psalm 22:
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
7 All who see me mock at me;
they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;
18 they divide my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots.
Amos 8:9 On that day, says the Lord God,
I will make the sun go down at noon,
and darken the earth in broad daylight.
Oral tradition, otherwise known as the Jesus of the gaps, is non existent here. The reliance for this scene and many others is a reworking of ancient scripture. Read it for yourself.
The bulk of the crucifixion scenes come from lines taken from the authors ancient scriptures, what we call the OT.
Psalm 22:
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
7 All who see me mock at me;
they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;
18 they divide my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots.
Amos 8:9 On that day, says the Lord God,
I will make the sun go down at noon,
and darken the earth in broad daylight.
Oral tradition, otherwise known as the Jesus of the gaps, is non existent here. The reliance for this scene and many others is a reworking of ancient scripture. Read it for yourself.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Er, what? You're presenting the conclusions of a reputable historian as your only evidence that he is biased towards a conclusion you, a layman with no relevant credentials, disagree with?
Really?
OK, I'm ready to take a look at your counter-evidence. I mean your PHYSICAL counter-evidence and your well reasoned analysis of the source material upon which you have based your conclusions, not just arguments based upon whatever it is you would prefer to be true.
You could read post 142 for starters. Credible scholars claim that the only thing we can know for sure is that Jesus' crucifixion was historical and yet I show that the author drew from his ancient scriptures rather than from an historical account that would have him rely on witnesses.