1. 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!

Featured Who wrote the Gospels

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Dawnofhope, Sep 9, 2017.

  1. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,345
    Ratings:
    +4,878
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Got it!

    LOL... I don't think the issue will ever be settled. However, it does amaze me that people will hold to "experts" of today over those who definitely lived the closest to the actual events (Papias). Thus my question as to how we can come to the conclusion that Papias was wrong. I have only seen those who don't believe the Gospels as the ones that would hold to the position that Papias was wrong which then begs the question if the reason they have that position is just because they don't believe the narrative and try to come up with reasons to support their position whether or not there is evidence to the contrary.

    Perhaps I worded it wrong... sorry. Let me rephrase it, Matthew lived in the Galilean area and would be well acquainted with that specific period. So, it supports the possibility that he wrote it.

    Then, wouldn't one have to ask the question as to why Papias say it was in Hebrew? Or should another question be, "Why do you have to come up with a narrative to explain why Matthew isn't the author?"

    However, you do bring up a good question... did they generally write it in both languages? Perhaps a better way to say it would be "It was written in Hebrew but because it went viral they translated it into the Greek"? Sounds a little more plausible than "Matthew didn't write it" IMO


    Let me point out those things that irk me (although I am always open to learn). It is phrases like these that make me wonder if the author has an agenda.

    What it the world is ambiguous about the statement "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language" - It seems quite black and white to me. Then the author continues with:



    Here is a 21st century person saying that when Papias said "Hebrew" he meant "Aramaic" as if no one spoke the Hebrew language in that time. Aramaic may have been the "common language" as was Greek, as was Latin, as was Hebrew (for the area that they lived in". Even today in Europe knowing 3 to 4 languages is not only normal but a necessity.

    Just venting. Really puts a downer on my trusting the person's statements.


    I'm bi-lingual and translate often. You would never know that mine wasn't the original even though I am translating. there last statement would be correct.



    For me, Hebrew style is quite a rubber-band stretch.



    OK, I hear his opinion.


    Somehow, someone living during the time of the Apostle John carries more weight to me than someone who apparently doesn't believe what was said and lived 2000 years later.

    \
     
  2. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,345
    Ratings:
    +4,878
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Actually he did quote some things such as what is known as "the Lord's supper".
     
  3. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,150
    Ratings:
    +5,704
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Yes, I should have added that Paul said Peter was an apostle and that there were other apostles. Thanks.
    Of course. But at least I'm showing you the basis for my conclusions. I don't pluck them out of the air.
    But not from an historical Jesus ─ a visionary Jesus who has no existence outside of Paul's mind. (Here no doubt we differ, but my view is good history practice, and yours is, I dare say, good religious practice.)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's Matthew and Acts, neither written by Paul, or indeed in his apparent lifetime.
    Several possibilities as to why Paul said 'Rulers' instead of 'Romans'. One is that he was pro-Roman (which has some support). Another is that he was keeping his head down. (Not strong.) Another is, as I said, that he used a gnostic expression. And another is, as you say, that he meant the Jewish authorities, though they don't fit 'rulers of the age' with any great precision.
    I was adding my opinion to that of others, not relying on it. As for copyists incorporating marginalia and glosses into the main text of their copies, see eg Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I think Paul's apparent misogyny in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is likely another example.
    To me, Paul's Jesus isn't relevantly historical. He never met him, he says he has no interest in researching him (Galatians 1:12 again, "For I did not receive it [my information about Jesus] from man, nor was I taught it"). Yet it still seems odd that (given he met Peter as he says, and assuming James was indeed blood kin of Jesus) he came away from a fortnight of discussions with them with zero more biographical information about Jesus than he went in with.
    I agree Paul thought that.
    On the contrary, it's exactly what Paul says: Galatians 1:[11] ... the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel [12] for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." That can only mean that everything he tells you about Jesus has no other source but his own head.
    As I said, it makes considerable sense to me that the destruction of the Temple was the impetus to write Mark at all, in which case 70 CE would be the earliest date, and 75 CE or so, a live possibility.
    You could hypothesize a lost document that was the common source, I suppose, but I don't know of any evidence to suggest that. So much of Mark is modeled on the Tanakh that modeling from someone else seems right in the zone.
    I don't want to wish any viewpoint on you that you haven't expressed, but it's very usual for believers to think the bible must add up to a consistent whole and that reinterpretation for that very purpose is not merely desirable but sanctioned.

    But that's not how history reads ancient documents. No sirree.
     
  4. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,150
    Ratings:
    +5,704
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    In Acts 22:10 he quotes a vision-Jesus as saying "Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do."

    But Paul was long gone when Acts was written,

    And Ken is right about the Last Supper: 1 Corinthians 24: "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." and 25 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

    But Paul wasn't there, of course, so that appears to be traditional

    Nothing else occurs to me.
     
    #64 blü 2, Sep 13, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  5. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    Hi Ken...
    OK.... But Paul's Christianity needed confession and the remission of sins, and the last supper provided for that tenet ..... yes? Hence Paul had interest in what Jesus said and did at that last meal.

    I just wish he might have bothered to give more details of the menu, me being an HJ student :p

    But I'm glad that it was 'The Lord's Supper' and nothing to do with the passover which would have been irritating. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    Hi...
    I just wish Paul had explained that he had this blinding brain-wave idea of how to control a whole mass of folks.

    Surely, and thankyou.
    Yes, I can see that without these sentences there wouldn't be Christianity as many Denominations and Creeds know it. So Paul repeated what every Christian knew at that time. :)
    [/QUOTE]
     
  7. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    OK, and thankyou, I'm going to read Kirby's Early Christian Writings because they are free. I'm not buying the other.

    However, I feel sure that there will be some great scholars and academics who are themselves impervious to the above works?

    Anyway, you could do me one really big favour. I expect that you have intimate knowledge of all the above works and I feel sure that the most outstanding paragraphs from all are right there at forefront of your mind?

    Please, please, would you care to post just one paragraph from any of it that can blast through the fogs of time and increase our knowledge further about 'Who wrote the gospels'?

    Just one?
     
  8. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,150
    Ratings:
    +5,704
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    It sure looks that way.

    There's evidence from at least 400 BCE that the Greeks had a ceremony in which wine, representing Dionusos, and cakes, representing Demeter ('Earth Mother') were consumed as consuming those gods themselves.
     
  9. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    That's interesting..... could there possibly have been a parting or 'goodbye' ceremony where Jews broke Bread and shared Wine together, this event descended from old customs from long before?

    If so then that's fine, and does everything to anchor the accounts of the last supper whilst distancing from further reiligious tenets?

    Thanks for that.
     
  10. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    Alright....... Alright.......
    So I clicked upon Early Christian Writings. Then clicked upon Gospel of Mark. Then clicked upon
    Gospel of Mark: Daniel Wallace's Introduction

    ...and it is quite the best intro I ever read.

    ...smarty pants.... :p
     
  11. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    There seems to be strong scholastic proposal for a Pre 62/64AD G-Mark.

    The argument proposes that Jesus's 'Abomination and Desolation' descriptions as he leaves the Temple is not accurate enough to have been written after either the fall of Jerusalem or the Great Fire of Rome, but extremely accurate as a prediction.

    Further to that, Roman Christians were being persecuted before the great fire because of their refusals to take part in Roman religious festivals etc..... they were being separated out before 64AD.

    And so the above incidents above cannot be timeline barriers to an early G-Mark, nor to G-Martthew and G-Luke which would have followed soon after.

    PS to @Jayhawker Soule ..... see? I do listen sometimes! :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,751
    Ratings:
    +15,014
    Religion:
    Judaism
    So there!

    By the way, I'm told that there is an old oral tradition of a missing verse between Genesis 2:1 and 2:2 which read:

    And God created knowledge by which His creation could be perceived and cherished, and libraries in which this knowledge could be freely obtained, and God called upon His people to learn and grow.
    Presumably, the verse was redacted because it was seen to place too much pressure on this nascent pinnacle of creation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,751
    Ratings:
    +15,014
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Sometimes.

    But mostly you seem to revel in selection bias. :D
     
  14. Magus

    Magus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    620
    Ratings:
    +146
    Religion:
    Medusian
    The entire persecution of Christians in the 1st century CE is entirely fictitious, not a single book in the New Testament was written in the 1st century CE either, they are all late
    pseudepigrapha, they couldn't of written any of the New Testament without Josephus and the Septuagint either.
     
  15. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    Fair enough.............
    So I'm a window shopper!

    Well.... true.
    I do trawl the other gospels, you know, but for a quick review I would always focus on G-Mark.

    Yes..... there is one huge mass of material on that web site.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. pearl

    pearl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,198
    Ratings:
    +3,156
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The Gospel authors are anonymous and are attributed by the Church with apostolic names.
     
  17. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,345
    Ratings:
    +4,878
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    :) Yes, we all wish that Paul said what we want him to say no matter why he said what he said.

    But... wasn't the Lord's Supper (as the story goes) the celebration of the passover?
     
  18. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,345
    Ratings:
    +4,878
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    It is possible. Letter writing with dates is a more modern thing. :D

    Why... thank you!!
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  19. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    :p

    Interesting......
    I am told that The Great Temple had many refectories surrounding the courts where the passover meal was eaten immediately after the sacrificial ceremony.
    I am told that the Passover meal could not be held over to another day after sacrifice.

    The above two tenets would make the last supper just that, and not a passover meal.

    EDIT: And Jesus did not take part in a passover sacrifice. :shrug:

    Did you note what Blu2 wrote about the bread and wine ceremony, thus....
    @blü 2 said
    There's evidence from at least 400 BCE that the Greeks had a ceremony in which wine, representing Dionusos, and cakes, representing Demeter ('Earth Mother') were consumed as consuming those gods themselves.

    Now, although that's a Greek ceremony, the Jewish upper class was so hellenised and into Greek fashion, culture, Gods etc that I do wonder whether this could have permeated its way down into the peasant classes? Let's face it, even the Temple coinage was hellenised!
     
  20. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    20,693
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Religion:
    deist
    Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
    To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
    Would not we shatter it to bits - and then
    Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!
    Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

    :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...