Quizzes & Puzzles51 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by red7. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Of course Paul (nee Saul of Tarsus) met Yeshua... on the road to Damascus. Secondly, the first Gospel, according to many scholars was Mark's writing. Scholarly evidence suggests that Mark was the naked young man that ran from the garden the night Yeshua was arrested. Matthew was one of the Apostles, as was John (The Apostle Yeshua loved). So, that only leaves Luke, but he is well attested as a close acquaintence of both Paul and Peter, as well as James, the brother of Yeshua. Many sources state that all the Gospel accounts, as well as most other books of the New Covenant were written before AD55, with the possible exception of Revelations. Current scholarship strongly supports the writings of Mark as possibly as early as AD40 (referenced in another thread). Obviously, there are alternate views...
Yeshua was both "The Son of God" in His earthly incarnation as well as the Second Person of the Godhead. He and the Holy Spirit were the ones Adonai Elohim spoke to in Bər��th (Genesis) when He said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness..."
Additionally, Yeshua Ha' Massiach appears many other places in the Old Covenant...
Yeshua was both "The Son of God" in His earthly incarnation as well as the Second Person of the Godhead. He and the Holy Spirit were the ones Adonai Elohim spoke to in Bər��th (Genesis) when He said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness..."
Additionally, Yeshua Ha' Massiach appears many other places in the Old Covenant...
In Luke's account of Jesus' upbringing he describes an incident when, at the age of 12, Jesus went missing and was found by his parents, "sitting in the midst of the doctors [teachers], both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers." Lk 2;48. This suggests a level of education over and above the norm. Certainly a knowlege of the Old Testament would have been necessary when talking with these scholars.
Also, we know that Christ could read. In Luke 4;17, "And there was delivered him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written ...."
I'd always thought if you can read, then you can write. But I think there is some significance that there is no record of Christ putting anything in writing. That job was given to his disciples. Maybe it was some time after the event, but the explanation? John's gospel 14;26. Said by Christ to his disciples, "....the Holy Spirit ... he shall teach you all things and bring all things to remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Which is why some people believe in the infallibility of the word; because it was given by inspiration, rather than just the random recollection of a few individuals experiences.
Also, we know that Christ could read. In Luke 4;17, "And there was delivered him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written ...."
I'd always thought if you can read, then you can write. But I think there is some significance that there is no record of Christ putting anything in writing. That job was given to his disciples. Maybe it was some time after the event, but the explanation? John's gospel 14;26. Said by Christ to his disciples, "....the Holy Spirit ... he shall teach you all things and bring all things to remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Which is why some people believe in the infallibility of the word; because it was given by inspiration, rather than just the random recollection of a few individuals experiences.
Alas, Clanad, none of the claims you make about the gospel writers has any basis in fact. But let�s deal with Paul first:
My assertion that he never knew Jesus is not challenged by the story that he suffered a blinding flash of light and heard Jesus� voice. That brief �encounter� hardly qualifies him to say all of those things about Jesus in his epistles (AD55-60) �our first introduction to Jesus, by the way, since nothing had previously been written on the subject. So where Paul is supposed to have got his information from is a mystery: the supposed period of Jesus�life and the following 20-25 years are a complete blank.
When considering the gospels we must bear in mind that they were written anonymously, that the expectation of life in those days was in the 40-50 years range and that the scholarly consensus for their authorship dates are �Mark� AD70, �Luke� AD80-85, �Matthew� AD85-90 and �John� AD90-120. This means that many people in the Jesus story would have been dead by the time of Paul�s writings, most dead by the time of �Mark� and all dead (plus a generation or two following) by the time of �Luke�, �Matthew� and �John�.
The idea that �Mark� was the son of the house at the Last Supper (and the naked boy) was invented out of the blue by Bishop Eusebius in the 4th Century AD! Needless to say there is not a scrap of evidence for it.
The author of �Luke� is generally reckoned to have been a Greek doctor, which tells us nothing about how he would have known all those extra things about Jesus which he had not copied from �Mark�. Since we don�t know who �Luke � was we cannot know who his friends were. (Continued�)
My assertion that he never knew Jesus is not challenged by the story that he suffered a blinding flash of light and heard Jesus� voice. That brief �encounter� hardly qualifies him to say all of those things about Jesus in his epistles (AD55-60) �our first introduction to Jesus, by the way, since nothing had previously been written on the subject. So where Paul is supposed to have got his information from is a mystery: the supposed period of Jesus�life and the following 20-25 years are a complete blank.
When considering the gospels we must bear in mind that they were written anonymously, that the expectation of life in those days was in the 40-50 years range and that the scholarly consensus for their authorship dates are �Mark� AD70, �Luke� AD80-85, �Matthew� AD85-90 and �John� AD90-120. This means that many people in the Jesus story would have been dead by the time of Paul�s writings, most dead by the time of �Mark� and all dead (plus a generation or two following) by the time of �Luke�, �Matthew� and �John�.
The idea that �Mark� was the son of the house at the Last Supper (and the naked boy) was invented out of the blue by Bishop Eusebius in the 4th Century AD! Needless to say there is not a scrap of evidence for it.
The author of �Luke� is generally reckoned to have been a Greek doctor, which tells us nothing about how he would have known all those extra things about Jesus which he had not copied from �Mark�. Since we don�t know who �Luke � was we cannot know who his friends were. (Continued�)
That �Matthew� was written by the apostle Matthew is out of the question. Quite apart from the chronological impossibility, why would an eye-witness not declare his bona-fides and write in the first person? Why would he wait until two other non-eyewitnesses (�Luke� and �Mark�) had given their versions? And (the clincher) why would he have had to copy so much from �Mark�, some sections of �Matthew� having been lifted word-for-word from that earlier gospel?
All of which applies in spades when trying to credit the apostle John with �John�. To which we have to add that John was a Galilean fisherman who would almost certainly have been illiterate, as 97% of Jewish artisans of those times were. How come he ends up writing in the most elegant Greek a gospel full of deep mysticism and Hellenism?
Not only were the gospels written anonymously but they remained anonymous until near the end of the 2nd Century � about AD 180 � when they were given their present names quite arbitrarily. To try to connect those names with characters in the story is therefore foolish.
johnlambert, if you can name one disciple who wrote anything about Jesus, and can point me towards those writings, I�d be eternally grateful.
All of which applies in spades when trying to credit the apostle John with �John�. To which we have to add that John was a Galilean fisherman who would almost certainly have been illiterate, as 97% of Jewish artisans of those times were. How come he ends up writing in the most elegant Greek a gospel full of deep mysticism and Hellenism?
Not only were the gospels written anonymously but they remained anonymous until near the end of the 2nd Century � about AD 180 � when they were given their present names quite arbitrarily. To try to connect those names with characters in the story is therefore foolish.
johnlambert, if you can name one disciple who wrote anything about Jesus, and can point me towards those writings, I�d be eternally grateful.
�Alack, one may certainly believe whatever they choose, chakka35 However, current, well attested study simply disagrees with your hypothesis.
Archaeologist Nelson Gleuck wrote: �We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after A.D. 80.� William F. Albright the famous paleographer said that every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40�s and 80�s of the first century and very probably between 50 and 75. Interesting that two conservatives (e.g., F. F. Bruce, John Wenham) and liberal (Bishop John A. T. Robinson) have penned defenses of early dating for the New Testament is a witness to the strength of the data for an early date. For example, in redating Matthew Mark and Luke, noted conservative British scholar John Wenham presents a convincing argument that the synoptic Gospels are to be dated before 55 A.D. He dates Matthew at 40 A.D. (some tradition says the early 30s); Mark at 45 A.D.; and Luke no later than 51-55 A.D.34 Liberal bishop John A. T. Robinson argued in his Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament was written and in circulation between 40 and 65 A.D. Especially important is the complete lack of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This seminal event, prophesied by Yeshua, would certainly have been referenced in any writing later than that date.
There are many other sources that are in general agreement with these scholars. I�ll be happy to provide a list of references if requested.
Contd.
Archaeologist Nelson Gleuck wrote: �We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after A.D. 80.� William F. Albright the famous paleographer said that every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40�s and 80�s of the first century and very probably between 50 and 75. Interesting that two conservatives (e.g., F. F. Bruce, John Wenham) and liberal (Bishop John A. T. Robinson) have penned defenses of early dating for the New Testament is a witness to the strength of the data for an early date. For example, in redating Matthew Mark and Luke, noted conservative British scholar John Wenham presents a convincing argument that the synoptic Gospels are to be dated before 55 A.D. He dates Matthew at 40 A.D. (some tradition says the early 30s); Mark at 45 A.D.; and Luke no later than 51-55 A.D.34 Liberal bishop John A. T. Robinson argued in his Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament was written and in circulation between 40 and 65 A.D. Especially important is the complete lack of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This seminal event, prophesied by Yeshua, would certainly have been referenced in any writing later than that date.
There are many other sources that are in general agreement with these scholars. I�ll be happy to provide a list of references if requested.
Contd.
Contd.
On the subject of Paul not meeting Yeshua� all the other Apostles had no disagreement with his claim to being on equal status with them. One of the requirements to be considered an Apostle was a face to face with Ha' Massiach. Additionally, Paul states, that following his being cured of blindness by Annais, Paul went into seclusion in Arabia, and then returned to Damascus for somewhere near three years. He relates, in Galatians, that he was instructed things of which he could not speak, as directed by the Holy Spirit.
Finally, it�s important to this discussion to understand that it was Paul that �went up to Jerusalem� to confront the �pillars of the church� who were preaching that new believers must be circumcised. After the meeting they came away agreeing that conversion was by belief in Yeshua as Massiach alone, with no other requirement. This could have only happened with their full concurrence that Paul was, indeed, an Apostle on equal footing with them.
On the subject of Paul not meeting Yeshua� all the other Apostles had no disagreement with his claim to being on equal status with them. One of the requirements to be considered an Apostle was a face to face with Ha' Massiach. Additionally, Paul states, that following his being cured of blindness by Annais, Paul went into seclusion in Arabia, and then returned to Damascus for somewhere near three years. He relates, in Galatians, that he was instructed things of which he could not speak, as directed by the Holy Spirit.
Finally, it�s important to this discussion to understand that it was Paul that �went up to Jerusalem� to confront the �pillars of the church� who were preaching that new believers must be circumcised. After the meeting they came away agreeing that conversion was by belief in Yeshua as Massiach alone, with no other requirement. This could have only happened with their full concurrence that Paul was, indeed, an Apostle on equal footing with them.
Quite right, Octavius; I stand corrected. I�ll give a straight answer in a moment but please allow me a bit of a preamble to explain it.
We cannot be sure when Jesus is supposed to have lived. The first clue comes late in the 1st Century when �Luke� tries to tell us, but he gets in such a muddle that he gives Mary a pregnancy lasting at least ten years. �Matthew� then says merely that Jesus was born during Herod�s reign, which gives us quite a leeway. Whenever it was, we have nothing at all from that period. None of Jesus� family, friends or disciples wrote a word about him, possibly because of illiteracy. Not a word either from the scribes and Pharisees, the rich men he counselled, the sick he healed and the thousands he preached to. Roman and Jewish records fail to mention him and no historian writing about Palestine at the time mentions him either. As far as his own times were concerned he might never have lived.
This blank silence lasted for another 20-25 years after his death until, with Jesus safely and long dead, people who weren�t there and who never knew him (starting with Paul in AD55) started writing about him, quoting no sources and with the help of no eye-witnesses. Which means that they could write what they liked. (And I�ll tell you where they got the story from if you like).
So to the straight answer: Jesus wrote nothing because, in my view, he never existed.
As I said before, believing the Jesus story is a matter of religious faith, not history.
We cannot be sure when Jesus is supposed to have lived. The first clue comes late in the 1st Century when �Luke� tries to tell us, but he gets in such a muddle that he gives Mary a pregnancy lasting at least ten years. �Matthew� then says merely that Jesus was born during Herod�s reign, which gives us quite a leeway. Whenever it was, we have nothing at all from that period. None of Jesus� family, friends or disciples wrote a word about him, possibly because of illiteracy. Not a word either from the scribes and Pharisees, the rich men he counselled, the sick he healed and the thousands he preached to. Roman and Jewish records fail to mention him and no historian writing about Palestine at the time mentions him either. As far as his own times were concerned he might never have lived.
This blank silence lasted for another 20-25 years after his death until, with Jesus safely and long dead, people who weren�t there and who never knew him (starting with Paul in AD55) started writing about him, quoting no sources and with the help of no eye-witnesses. Which means that they could write what they liked. (And I�ll tell you where they got the story from if you like).
So to the straight answer: Jesus wrote nothing because, in my view, he never existed.
As I said before, believing the Jesus story is a matter of religious faith, not history.
I'm afarid you're approaching the delusional, chakka35. As already provided, good scholarship strongly indicates writings within 5 to 7 years following the death and resurrection. The Books bearing James'(Yacov, in Hebrew/Aramaic) name are authored by the brother of Yeshua, who was not a believer during the lifetime of the Messiah ( "Is not this the carpenter�s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55). . extra-Bibllical records abound, including Josephus (A.D. 37 - c. A.D. 100), Tacitus (c. A.D. 55 - c. A.D. 117), Seutonius(c. A.D. 69 - c. A.D. 140), Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c. 113) as well as a plethora of others. I suppose one could deny all these exist and are well attested, but for what purpose?
If, as is seemingly being suggested, they were largely invented in a Roman and Hellenistic cultural setting, it becomes much harder than one supposes to account for the numerous details, many of which are purely incidental to the purposes of the evangelists, which do fit into our knowledge of first-century Palestine. If the historical existence of Jesus was invented much later why was it necessary to create so much detailed, superfolous information? Additionally, the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Yeshua. Granted, some of these are later than 100 A.D. but are, obviously taken from an earlier oral source...
Perhaps you could illuminate, just alittle, your statement that Luke has Mary being pregnant for 10 years?
If, as is seemingly being suggested, they were largely invented in a Roman and Hellenistic cultural setting, it becomes much harder than one supposes to account for the numerous details, many of which are purely incidental to the purposes of the evangelists, which do fit into our knowledge of first-century Palestine. If the historical existence of Jesus was invented much later why was it necessary to create so much detailed, superfolous information? Additionally, the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Yeshua. Granted, some of these are later than 100 A.D. but are, obviously taken from an earlier oral source...
Perhaps you could illuminate, just alittle, your statement that Luke has Mary being pregnant for 10 years?
Phew, Octavius, I got through at last. Yesterday I was beginning to think that Mr A.N.Swerbank had appointed Christian censors to block my stuff.
Yes, Clanad, the dates of the gospels have always been disputed. It is natural for Christians and their sympathisers to choose earlier dates than the consensus so as to put the gospels nearer the supposed time of Jesus. On the other hand, other writers and scholars put them much later. For example, a book I have here by Alvar Ellegard makes a very convincing, well-reasoned case for putting all four gospels well into the 2nd Century AD.
In any case, juggling with dates does not help to establish authorship, except to moot that eye-witnesses, ruled out by the consensus dates, might have been responsible. But there is no evidence that any of them were.
I suggest we put the boot on the other foot: back your claim that �Matthew� and �John� were written by the apostles of that name with proof, or, at least, solid evidence. All you have at the moment is that the people who gave names to the otherwise anonymous gospels in AD180 chose two very common names that happened to coincide with the names of two apostles, one of whom, John, was utterly incapable intellectually of writing anything so abstruse as �John�. So what have you got other than tradition? Your call�
(Ah, just noticed your latest. I�ll reply to that next. Meanwhile you might like to read for yourself the way Luke gives Mary a long pregnancy.)
Yes, Clanad, the dates of the gospels have always been disputed. It is natural for Christians and their sympathisers to choose earlier dates than the consensus so as to put the gospels nearer the supposed time of Jesus. On the other hand, other writers and scholars put them much later. For example, a book I have here by Alvar Ellegard makes a very convincing, well-reasoned case for putting all four gospels well into the 2nd Century AD.
In any case, juggling with dates does not help to establish authorship, except to moot that eye-witnesses, ruled out by the consensus dates, might have been responsible. But there is no evidence that any of them were.
I suggest we put the boot on the other foot: back your claim that �Matthew� and �John� were written by the apostles of that name with proof, or, at least, solid evidence. All you have at the moment is that the people who gave names to the otherwise anonymous gospels in AD180 chose two very common names that happened to coincide with the names of two apostles, one of whom, John, was utterly incapable intellectually of writing anything so abstruse as �John�. So what have you got other than tradition? Your call�
(Ah, just noticed your latest. I�ll reply to that next. Meanwhile you might like to read for yourself the way Luke gives Mary a long pregnancy.)
To your latest, Clanad, starting with Mary�s pregnancy. �Luke� tells us (1.5 et seq.) that Jesus was conceived during the days of Herod who died (historical fact) in 4BC. Luke then tells us (2.2.) that Jesus was born at the time of the census when Cyrenius (Publius Sulpicius Quirinus) was governor. This census took place (historical fact) in AD6. So Mary�s pregnancy lasted at least 10 years and possibly longer depending on when during Herod�s reign she conceived. Another miracle to add to the canon, and one which, strangely, Christians are loth to mention.
There are five James�s in the New Testament and we have no way of knowing which of them, if any, wrote the letter called James. There is no evidence that it was Jesus� brother; on the contrary it is very unlikely to have been considering Jesus is scarcely mentioned! In any case it is only a letter and gives us no history.
I don�t know why Christians persistently trot out Suetonius (born AD69), Tacitus (b.AD55), Pliny (b.AD61) and Josephus (b.AD37) who can give no first-hand evidence and who were writing late 1st/early 2nd Century when some at least of the gospels were available for them to glean the very meagre mentions they make of Jesus. (Josephus was not mentioned by the early Christians. That textual mischief-maker Bishop Eusebius first presents that famous Josephus passage in the 4th Century, having added liberally to it. It is quite fun to compare the original innocuous Josephus with the Eusebius version with its crude additions, such as �He was the Messiah". (Cont'd..)
There are five James�s in the New Testament and we have no way of knowing which of them, if any, wrote the letter called James. There is no evidence that it was Jesus� brother; on the contrary it is very unlikely to have been considering Jesus is scarcely mentioned! In any case it is only a letter and gives us no history.
I don�t know why Christians persistently trot out Suetonius (born AD69), Tacitus (b.AD55), Pliny (b.AD61) and Josephus (b.AD37) who can give no first-hand evidence and who were writing late 1st/early 2nd Century when some at least of the gospels were available for them to glean the very meagre mentions they make of Jesus. (Josephus was not mentioned by the early Christians. That textual mischief-maker Bishop Eusebius first presents that famous Josephus passage in the 4th Century, having added liberally to it. It is quite fun to compare the original innocuous Josephus with the Eusebius version with its crude additions, such as �He was the Messiah". (Cont'd..)
Needless to say, Christians are silent about those historians who were writing during Jesus� supposed time and who never mention him. Philo, an eminent author, 50 of whose works still survive, and a contemporary of Jesus, wrote about history, philosophy, religion and Pontius Pilate but never mentions Jesus. Another contemporary, Justus of Tiberius wrote a history that starts with Moses and ends in his own (and therefore Jesus�) time but is silent on Jesus despite living in Capernaum, a supposed favourite haunt of Jesus. History is not on your side, Clanad. All you have is latterly-written myth.
I await your information on �Matthew� and �John�.
I await your information on �Matthew� and �John�.
Ah, yes... Ellegard... he of the "shutting our eyes to the possibilities which are simply excluded by our preconceived ideas." He, of course, and neither do you explain why Tacitus in his Annals clearly places The Christ under Pilate. I'm sure it's all in error, because Tacitus is such an irresponsible historian... tsk, tsk...
Contd.
Contd.
Latest Posts
Technology58 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles97 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles138 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles147 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles152 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.