Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Belief is inferior to knowledge. Try believing that you can fly when you jump off of a cliff. The lesson will be quick and painful.
-
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!
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter Spartan
- Start date
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Secular, spiritually-challenged Wikipedia? They're in large part Biblically-challenged novices.
Here's who really wrote the Gospels - the traditional authors.
Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for… | Zondervan Academic
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Let's hear your theory - with evidence, please.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Nope. All four report the resurrection. Any differences are related to events AFTER the resurrection.
Skwim
Veteran Member
At least Wikipedia proves you with its sources, those little numbers between brackets with which you can check their information. I've left them in the text so you can verify what Wikipedia says. Feel free to access the SOURCE and click away.
Matthew:
According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[85] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[85] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[89]
Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.[90][91][92][93] Based upon internal evidence Harrington claims parts of the Gospel of Matthew may have first been written in Aramaic.[94] The birth stories and the resurrection experiences on the other hand were composed in koine Greek. The Ebionim seem to have worked from a version of Matthew in Aramaic, that excluded birth and post resurrection stories.[95]
According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[85] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[85] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[89]
Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.[90][91][92][93] Based upon internal evidence Harrington claims parts of the Gospel of Matthew may have first been written in Aramaic.[94] The birth stories and the resurrection experiences on the other hand were composed in koine Greek. The Ebionim seem to have worked from a version of Matthew in Aramaic, that excluded birth and post resurrection stories.[95]
Mark
Mark is the primary source for information about Jesus.[62] It was possibly composed in Rome[63] or Antiochine Southern Syria.[64]
Tradition holds that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist, as St. Peter's interpreter.[67] Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by St. Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel.[70][71][72][73][74] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[75]
Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[76][77][78]
Luke
As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to well into the second century, but the majority of recent critical scholars favour late 1st-century dates after 70 AD.[105][106][107][108]
It is generally agreed that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author, and they are often referred to as a single work called Luke-Acts.[109] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to Theophilus, and Acts of the Apostles (1:1–2) says in reference to the Gospel of Luke, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen." (NIV) Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.[110][111] Both books also contain common interests.[112]
John
John was likely composed at Ephesus, although other possibilities are Antioch, Northern Syria,[97] Palestine and Alexandria.[113] Some scholars believe that Jesus' teaching in this gospel cannot be reconciled with that found in the synoptics,[114] whilst others, including John A.T. Robinson hold the view that the synoptics are best reconciled within the framework of John.[115]
In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[116][117] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply mediated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[118] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[119][120] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."[121]
SOURCE
.
Mark is the primary source for information about Jesus.[62] It was possibly composed in Rome[63] or Antiochine Southern Syria.[64]
Tradition holds that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist, as St. Peter's interpreter.[67] Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by St. Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel.[70][71][72][73][74] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[75]
Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[76][77][78]
Luke
As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to well into the second century, but the majority of recent critical scholars favour late 1st-century dates after 70 AD.[105][106][107][108]
It is generally agreed that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author, and they are often referred to as a single work called Luke-Acts.[109] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to Theophilus, and Acts of the Apostles (1:1–2) says in reference to the Gospel of Luke, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen." (NIV) Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.[110][111] Both books also contain common interests.[112]
John
John was likely composed at Ephesus, although other possibilities are Antioch, Northern Syria,[97] Palestine and Alexandria.[113] Some scholars believe that Jesus' teaching in this gospel cannot be reconciled with that found in the synoptics,[114] whilst others, including John A.T. Robinson hold the view that the synoptics are best reconciled within the framework of John.[115]
In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[116][117] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply mediated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[118] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[119][120] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."[121]
SOURCE
.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Sorry, too many church fathers have confirmed the traditional Gospel authors.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Gee, church fathers you say. Can't find a more unbiased group than church fathers can you.
.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How could they do that? Papias did not. You seem to have misinterpreted his writings. And most of your church fathers are second century. Far too late to be able to make an authoritative claim.
Except for perhaps Mark. But according to Papias the first Gospel, Mark, was not written by an eyewitness. He merely wrote down the teachings of Peter:
"The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[Notes 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything."
And again this is hearsay at best. You could not get this into a court of law.
Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
The oldest copies of Mark leave Jesus in the grave.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Gee, church fathers you say. Can't find a more unbiased group than church fathers can you.
.
Sure, they're all liars deceivers, and charlatans, and you aren't, right? You shouldn't be so biased yourself.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Wrong. The oldest have Jesus risen.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Nice try. Here's the real story on the authorship of the Gospels:
Matthew
1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel
Mark Authorship
2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel
Luke Authorship
3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel
John Authorship
4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
You have no time to "waste" reading the NT? But you quote it and give interpretations of those quotes constantly? You won't even read the post resurrection story? It's just a few pages.
So fine, lots of people don't have time to read the Bible and the NT. But doesn't it make it hard to debate with Christians when you don't know what the whole story is? You swear Jesus is not coming back. But for those who have read the story, they swear he is... and that he rose from the dead. That's not traditions. That's not things they made up. That what the story says. If it's not true, great. Great for a lot of us, because the God in that story was planning on sending Jesus back and killing and destroy all the people that didn't believe in him. And then, after he kills them, send to a fiery pit. I'm glad that isn't true. However, the Baha'i Faith tries to pretend that it is true. So how do you reconcile the teachings of your own religion... that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not even have time to read Baha'i Writings and I rarely have time to pray, and now you want me to go back and relive history.... Okay, okay, tell me where the verses are and I will try to read them because I have a little time now because we just rented one of the houses and I got out from under a lawsuit.
The resurrection story has nothing to do with whether Jesus was coming back. Even if Jesus did rise from the grave, it does not follow that Jesus rose up into the clouds only to return over 2000 years later. I would never believe any of that even if I was never a Baha'i. Inspired Word of God does not mean all the stories are literally true. It means they convey spiritual truths. A story is fiction, not fact.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry but the "early church fathers" were for the most part second century or later. It is more likely that they simply believed the myths than did any serious digging into the history of the Gospels.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You mean evidence to say that he may not have been given a tomb by a person called Joseph?
Well. Frankly, all four gospels talk about this Joseph of Arimathea and the special tomb that he buried or placed Jesus of Nazareth in.
But historically its not probable. Romans generally let the dead person lay on the cross and make sure that it stays there till its eaten, rotten etc or they would bury the bodies in common graves. They will not budge for the asking of a Jew or anyone for that matter in connection to a person crucified for sedition.
sooda
Veteran Member
This is where the bodies of the crucified were "buried".
Gehenna - A Greek term (borrowed from a literal burning dump near Jerusalem) that always refers to hell –
firedragon
Veteran Member
Could be. Although traditionally this place Gehenna was a jewish burial place for the so called "wicked", romans used it as well I think since half a century before Jesus. But in the case of Jesus we dont have a clue what really happened. Maybe they left his body on the cross to be eaten, or maybe they buried him in a mass grave. But allowing his body to be taken down like its normal practice and letting it be buried in some special tomb is highly unlikely.
sooda
Veteran Member
Usually the bodies of criminals were tossed on the dump which apparently was constantly burning.