|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4467 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8upwidit2 Member (Idle past 4467 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
I follow these posts and haven't seen this discussed. To my knowledge, the only people who actually claimed they met Jesus were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Synoptic Gospels. And because they were long dead when the gospels were written, are we to understand that there were no authors of the New Testament who actually met Jesus?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
8upwidit2 writes:
As far as I know, yes, that's exactly the case. I follow these posts and haven't seen this discussed. To my knowledge, the only people who actually claimed they met Jesus were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Synoptic Gospels. And because they were long dead when the gospels were written, are we to understand that there were no authors of the New Testament who actually met Jesus? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
While it is quite likely that none of the NT books were written by anyone who knew Jesus we don't know for sure.
John (which is not one of the synoptic Gospel - perhaps you meant "canonical" ?) may have been at least partly written by the disciple John (although the version we have includes later additions and there's no solid evidence one way or the other). There are good reasons to doubt that the authors of any of the synoptic Gospels knew Jesus, although it is often claimed that Matthew and Mark were disciples, too. (In fact it is often claimed that all four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses until it is pointed out that pretty much everyone agrees that Luke wasn't). As I understand it the Epistles attributed to Peter are generally accepted as pseudonymous by scholars. 1 John may have the same author as the Gospel, 2 & 3 John are less likely to be the same person. The Revelation is sometimes attributed to John the disciple but this is generally rejected by scholars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
8upwidit2 writes: To my knowledge, the only people who actually claimed they met Jesus were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Synoptic Gospels. What about Paul? On the road to Damascus? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8upwidit2 Member (Idle past 4467 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
Wasn't that a vision if it happened at all? I think we're talking about actually meeting/knowing Jesus. If you're talking about visions, there would be trillions of those...with all forms of deities and demons. Funny thing about visions, anybody can claim they have them and nobody can prove them wrong...or right. Did Paul exist? Did he write what he is credited with writing?
Edited by 8upwidit2, : Typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
To my knowledge, the only people who actually claimed they met Jesus were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Synoptic Gospels. All of the Gospels are anonymous works. The Synoptic Gospels are only Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John is NOT a Synoptic. Mark and Luke do not claim to have met Jesus, in fact Luke was a companion of Paul who never met Jesus during his time as a God in human form. Being honest about the ENTIRE Bible, from a historian's point of view, we do not know for sure who wrote ANY of the books in the Old or New testaments. The Gospels, for example, were named long after anyone who knew Jesus had died. gMat was named by Bishop Papias in 169 CE, and there is a possibility that the gospel he named is not the same one that we have now. Edited by Brian, : added the word 'named'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
8upwidit2 writes: Wasn't that a vision if it happened at all? There's no way to demonstrate that any of the claims about meeting Jesus happened. What your left with is claims. Pauls gets included thus. Others witnessed the event - it's just that they didn't perceive Jesus
I think we're talking about actually meeting/knowing Jesus... ..which is what Paul did.
If you're talking about visions, there would be trillions of those...with all forms of deities and demons. Funny thing about visions, anybody can claim they have them and nobody can prove them wrong...or right. Thus the account includes witnesses. Of course you don't have to believe the account.
Did Paul exist? Did he write what he is credited with writing? Some believe one way, others the other way. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Luke was not a disciple of Jesus and had never personally met him prior to becoming a christian
he was in fact a jewish doctor who became a believer some time after jesus death. His account/gospel was based on eye witnessed testimonies. He researched extensively the genealogy of Jesus, using the public records available at the time, for a certain official by the name of Theophilus who may have commissioned him to provide a report on the newly formed religion. we know that the apostle Paul penned many of his own letters, as he says in one that he was writing in large letters because of his bad eyesight. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8upwidit2 Member (Idle past 4467 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
Peg wrote: (of Luke)"he was in fact a jewish doctor who became a believer some time after jesus death. His account/gospel was based on eye witnessed testimonies. He researched extensively the genealogy of Jesus, using the public records available at the time, for a certain official by the name of Theophilus who may have commissioned him to provide a report on the newly formed religion."
There are two entries in the New Testament(Matthew and Luke)showing the genealogy of Jesus beginning with David and continuing through Jesus. The lists are completely different except for 3 entries; David is on each list as is Joseph and Jesus. Why is Joseph on the lists? How did Joseph contribute to Jesus' bloodline connection to David? After all, Joseph is not even related to Jesus. Does this confirm that at the time of the penning of these writings, the virgin birth thing with Mary had not evolved and was not yet a part of the later accepted Christian lore? When these were written, did everybody think Joseph was the real father?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
8upwildit2 writes: Why is Joseph on the lists? How did Joseph contribute to Jesus' bloodline connection to David? After all, Joseph is not even related to Jesus. no he wasnt related by blood, but he was still considered to be the father of Jesus so Josephs lineage was important in being able to trace back to King David. Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus’ genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. He lists Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary’s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law.
8upwildit2 writes: Does this confirm that at the time of the penning of these writings, the virgin birth thing with Mary had not evolved and was not yet a part of the later accepted Christian lore? No, because the prophecies regarding the Messiah said that he would be born of a virgin, and the disciples were aware of the immaculate conception, as was John the Baptist and Zechariah the priest (johns father) So the whole nation expected the messiah to be born of a virgin. there is also the fact that both writers were writing for two different audiencesMatthew was writing to persuade faithful Jews that Jesus was the long-promised Messiah, whereas Luke presents Jesus as the Savior of all mankind. Thus Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy back only to Abraham through David, whereas Luke traces it back to ”Adam the son of God.’ this is why they present a different geneology... and together they gave a strong evidence of Jesus linage as coming from the line of King David, because both Mary's family, and Josephs, could be traced to the kingly line. Edited by Peg, : No reason given. Edited by Peg, : No reason given. Edited by Peg, : broke up the questions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If ancestry is traced through the father as you say then it would be very improper to list the father-in-law instead of the father. Can you give any examples of a genealogy where this has been done ? I would also like to know what this "sound reason"" for assuming that Luke did it happens to be. So far as I know the only real reason for doing so is to deny the obvious contradiction between Luke and Matthew. And believe me, I've seen this argument trotted out many times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8upwidit2 Member (Idle past 4467 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
Peg, sounds as though you have accepted the fact that many things simply do not add up in the Biblical record and in order to continue to "believe" you must come up with theoretical reasons why...which in turn do not add up.
When Jesus said to the disciples they would not taste death before He returns, and they have indeed died, the enthusiasts believe Jesus was talking in some in depth, thought provoking terms. He didn't mean "really" dying. These guys were not rocket scientists..proabably having ZERO schooling at all..and surely not trained in abstract thinking. You can't read the Biblical record and take it literally? PALEASE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4391 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Thank you for the exchange.
Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus’ genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. He lists Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary’s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law
If ancestry is traced through the father as you say then it would be very improper to list the father-in-law instead of the father. Can you give any examples of a genealogy where this has been done ? I would also like to know what this "sound reason"" for assuming that Luke did it happens to be. So far as I know the only real reason for doing so is to deny the obvious contradiction between Luke and Matthew. And believe me, I've seen this argument trotted out many times.
From an outside perspective, each of the available assertions appear equally baseless and unfounded. In all fairness, one seems faith-based in nature, while another seems vague, if even stated. One who takes no stand can continually and valiantly debate another's assertion. Supporting no actual position is the easiest way to defend one; unfortunately, as the position as no basis, it is also the least effective - lol One Love I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas. My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself. Think for yourself. Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8upwidit2 Member (Idle past 4467 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
Are you really Bailey or are you a famous philosopher? Come on..tell us.
You're really Hu Shih aren't you! "And remember, no matter where you go, there you are" Confucius
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024