Did Jesus have Scribes, ie are the Gospels actual witness accounts?

[paarsurrey]

The Deist said:↑
None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses
paarsurrey said:↑
I agree with you. The inner evidence of the NT Bible confirms this.
Regards

What is "inner evidence"?

Gospel According to Saint Luke
Chapter 1
[1]Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us;[2]According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word:[3]It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,[4]That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.​

Luke was not an eyewitness, he says so and admits it in so many words.

Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

The Deist said:↑
None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses
paarsurrey said:↑
I agree with you. The inner evidence of the NT Bible confirms this.
Regards

Gospel According to Saint Luke
Chapter 1
[1]Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us;[2]According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word:[3]It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,[4]That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.​

Luke was not an eyewitness, he says so and admits it in so many words.

Regards

'Who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.' Well, there goes the no eyewitness argument. As to Scribes, this doesn't mention whether the testimony was written at the time, or after, the events.
What you presented, proves nothing.
Not all the disciples would have been Scribes, only ones who were either, even possibly employed as such, in general, or those taking it upon themselves to notation.

 

[Bunyip]

'Who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.' Well, there goes the no eyewitness argument. As to Scribes, this doesn't mention whether the testimony was written at the time, or after, the events.
What you presented, proves nothing.
Not all the disciples would have been Scribes, only ones who were either, even possibly employed as such, in general, or those taking it upon themselves to notation.

The authors of the gospels were not the disciples buddy, they were just named after them. Most bibles even tell you that.

 

[Neo Deist]

Funny, but God has never sided with the majority.

Are you sure about that? How can you possibly make an absolute statement about something when there is no evidence that can validate the statement? While I understand what you meant and where you are coming from, be careful about making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Nothing about God can be proven, like it or not. You may have faith and I see His presence through natural law, but neither of us can produce evidence that we can test in order to confirm or deny His existence.

 

[Neo Deist]

The authors of the gospels were not the disciples buddy, they were just named after them. Most bibles even tell you that.

People tend to overlook the finer details...especially when it counters their argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

The authors of the gospels were not the disciples buddy, they were just named after them. Most bibles even tell you that.

Would it matter anyway, to you?
Theres a reason I put this in same faith debates. Though, since it's the gospels, could be any adherence to the bible

 

[Desert Snake]

For people who don't believe the Gospels, its almost a given, that they won't/can't hold the position that they are actual witness testimony.

 

[Bunyip]

Would it matter anyway, to you?
Theres a reason I put this in same faith debates. Though, since it's the gospels, could be any adherence to the bible

Well the truth matters and ancient history is one of my favourite fields. As I said the bible actually tells us that the gospels were not written by the disciples.

 

[Bunyip]

For people who don't believe the Gospels, its almost a given, that they won't/can't hold the position that they are actual witness testimony.

It is actually stated in the bible. This is long accepted Christian knowledge.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is actually stated in the bible. This is long accepted Christian knowledge.

Verses?

Your making a claim here, so where are the verses stating this.

 

[Desert Snake]

The authors of the gospels were not the disciples buddy, they were just named after them. Most bibles even tell you that.

..........^

It is actually stated in the bible. This is long accepted Christian knowledge.

Lol.

 

[Bunyip]

Verses?

Your making a claim here, so where are the verses stating this.

Well actually you are making the claim - what makes you think that any of the gospels were written by a disciple?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm going to help you out. You are mixing apples and oranges. First off, the OP is not making the claim, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were the authors of their respective books; although, I do believe that. It is referring to the possibility of Scribes, taking notations, at the time of Jesu's teaching. That being said, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, ARE DISCIPLES.

The authors of the gospels were not the disciples buddy, they were just named after them. Most bibles even tell you that.

And here, you are saying that the Gospels were named after the Disciples. Are you now saying that they weren't named after the Disciples??

This isn't even making sense.
Again, there is a reason that I put this in Same faith Debates.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm going to help you out. You are mixing apples and oranges. First off, the OP is not making the claim, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were the authors of their respective books; although, I do believe that. It is referring to the possibility of Scribes, taking notations, at the time of Jesu's teaching. That being said, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, ARE DISCIPLES.


And here, you are saying that the Gospels were named after the Disciples. Are you now saying that they weren't named after the Disciples??

This isn't even making sense.
Again, there is a reason that I put this in Same faith Debates.

I did say that they were named after the disciples.
Mark for example was originally written in Greek, most likely in Rome some time around 60-90 ad.
The earliest copy of John is roughly 200ad.

 

[Desert Snake]

I did say that they were named after the disciples.
Mark for example was originally written in Greek, most likely in Rome some time around 60-90 ad.

Anyways, I'm not going to argue this, in this DIR.

 

[Bunyip]

Anyways, I'm not going to argue this, in this DIR.

Well I am only trying to discuss the OP, it is not anything controversial to most Christian theologians. Most Christian theologians believe that the gospels were not written by disciples and that we have no evidence of Jesus having scribes.
I am not denigrating Christian faith, I was a Christian for many years and studied the bible very deeply.

I am only referencing Christian theology and interpretation here, some of the greatest minds in history have built that great edifice of knowledge.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well I am only trying to discuss the OP, it is not anything controversial to most Christian theologians. Most Christian theologians believe that the gospels were not written by disciples and that we have no evidence of Jesus having scribes.
I am not denigrating Christian faith, I was a Christian for many years and studied the bible very deeply.

The argument, if I remember correctly, is that the names were just tacked onto the texts. I'm not aware of any convincing, or even logical, evidence of this. I'm sure there are ''arguments'', but there are all sorts of arguments, so, that is not convincing at all.

 

[Bunyip]

The argument, if I remember correctly, is that the names were just tacked onto the texts. I'm not aware of any convincing, or even logical, evidence of this. I'm sure there are ''arguments'', but there are all sorts of arguments, so, that is not convincing at all.

Well as I said, in the case of Mark the original seems to be Roman and written in Greek. Why would a Palestinian Jew write in Greek in 1st century Roman idiom?
The earliest fragments of Luke are 4th/5th century by the way.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well as I said, in the case of Mark the original seems to be Roman and written in Greek. Why would a Palestinian Jew write in Greek in 1st century Roman idiom?
The earliest fragments of Luke are 4th/5th century by the way.

Cool. Whatever.

 

[Bunyip]

Cool. Whatever.

Sorry, I just thought this was what you wanted to discuss. No offence meant.