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

[Desert Snake]

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

No, it's no offence. The date of the Gospels just isn't something I'm going to argue about, it really isn't something that I would hinge any beliefs on, anyway.

 

[Bunyip]

No, it's no offence. The date of the Gospels just isn't something I'm going to argue about, it really isn't something that I would hinge any beliefs on, anyway.

Neither would I, that's why I am surprised at your taking offence. From the OP I took it that the dates and origins of the Gospels were relevant. I apologise if I misunderstood.

 

[Desert Snake]

Neither would I, that's why I am surprised at your taking offence. From the OP I took it that the dates and origins of the Gospels were relevant. I apologise if I misunderstood.

They are relevant, if we consider the premise of the OP, but, since there were various translations, taking place, and scholars are still debating things, I do not place some high priority on the 'final' texts, here. I have a very 'literal' opinion, about the possibility of other factors, entering the scope of the debate. So, besides the Scribes idea, it's just too large of a subject to tackle, in this context.

 

[Bunyip]

They are relevant, if we consider the premise of the OP, but, since there were various translations, taking place, and scholars are still debating things, I do not place some high priority on the 'final' texts, here. I have a very 'literal' opinion, about the possibility of other factors, entering the scope of the debate. So, besides the Scribes idea, it's just too large of a subject to tackle, in this context.

I was actually talking about the earliest, the original texts - not the final ones. Sorry, but you have misread.

 

[Desert Snake]

I was actually talking about the earliest, the original texts - not the final ones. Sorry, but you have misread.

It's just too broad of an argument, imo

 

[Bunyip]

The same issues would present themselves. It's just too broad of an argument, imo

You started a thread about the gospels, but don't want to include discussion about the origins of the gospels. Ok got it.
Again, my apologies I have clearly misunderstood.

 

[Desert Snake]

You started a thread about the gospels, but don't want to include discussion about the origins of the gospels. Ok got it.
Again, my apologies I have clearly misunderstood.

Actually, that is not entirely true. I started a thread about the possibility, of Jesus having Scribes, taking notations, during His teachings. These are not the same subject.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, that is not entirely true. I started a thread about the possibility, of Jesus having Scribes, taking notations, during His teachings. These are not the same subject.

Aren't they? Wow, ok. No worries.

 

[Selinagirl]

Wasn't there something in the apocryphes?

 

[Desert Snake]

Aren't they? Wow, ok. No worries.

They are related. Yes, but one argument does not necessarily equate to the other. For example, a Gospel,could have been written by the author, but, from collected writings, and their own witness testimony, etc.
or, copied verbatim, later, etc. this is not black and white

 

[Bunyip]

They are related. Yes, but one argument does not necessarily equate to the other. For example, a Gospel,could have been written by the author, but, from collected writings, and their own witness testimony, etc.
or, copied verbatim, later, etc. this is not black and white

Well sure.

 

[JayJayDee]

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.

There is no jumping to conclusions.....if you know the Bible and its author, you know that God's worshippers have never been in the majority. Likewise, his son did not predict that the "many" would be on the road to life. "Few" would find the cramped and narrow way to life. (Matt 7:13, 14) Even "many" claiming to be Christians will suffer rejection. (Matt7:13,:21-23)

Nothing about God can be proven, like it or not.

Nothing about God can't be proven either.

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.

The universe and the earth and creation itself is all the proof I need. God does not need to prove anything to anyone.
We don't need to test him.....he is actually testing us. How do you think we're doing?

We either believe that he exists and that he has a purpose for his creation.....or we don't. Each of those positions has consequences for those who adopt them. We have the freedom to choose our position.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Most or all of these documents are known forgeries, ie, written in someone else's name.

Jesus did not have scribes following him around, all 4 gospels have anonymous authors, the more recent ones building on the older ones. Mark is derived from the Q text and earlier church writings that are lost to us. Both matthew and Luke borrow from Q and Mark. John is out of left field and written much later. The more recent the texts are dated, the more colorful claims about Jesus.

For example, there is no resurrection in Mark; it was added later by editors. By the time you get to John, Jesus is said to have pre-existed with God at the creation of the universe, and his miracles become more and more outlandish.

Not actually forgeries. The compilers of the Bibles attributed them to the wrong authors, to comply with the requirement of an apostolic link.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Very truly. Catholic Encyclopaedia confirms it.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

names were just tacked onto the texts.

Catholic Encyclopaedia states so.
Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

No, it's no offence. The date of the Gospels just isn't something I'm going to argue about, it really isn't something that I would hinge any beliefs on, anyway.

Neither would I, that's why I am surprised at your taking offence. From the OP I took it that the dates and origins of the Gospels were relevant. I apologise if I misunderstood.

yikes.

 

[Johnlove]

The Christian Church did not have any need to assemble the written Words that were inspired by God. That is until Constantine the Great coned some of the leaders of the Church to disobey God’s teachings.


Matthew 5:38-48) “You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well, if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away. You have learnt how it was said: you must love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on bad men as well as good



Up until then the Church was guided and all Christians were taught, and guided by the Holy Spirit.


(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”


(Romans 8: 4) “He did this in order that the law’s just demands might be satisfied in us, who behave not as our unspiritual nature but as the Spirit dictates.”


After most of the leaders stopped following the Holy Spirit, all the Church had to guide it was the written Word, and Constantine is the person who commissioned the bible to be assembled.


God would never have allowed such a poor method of communication to guide his Church


Yet I know from Jesus personally that the Christian Bible is God’s written Word.


There is only one way to come to know God, and that is to allow/have God teach him or her.


(1 Corinthians 2:10-13) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God”

 

[Bunyip]

Catholic Encyclopaedia states so.
Regards

Yeah, I'm certainly not trying to be controversial here. As I understand it the original fragments we have reflect a developed tradition, rather than a documentary account. Luke, Mathew etc are all important and wonderful treasures - they are just not what the experts seem to expect to find if they were the direct accounts of scribes. I do not mean to reduce their importance in any way by discussing this.