Quote:
Originally posted by kang
Can someone confirm what nota said above? That there are no first person accounts of the resurrection? I always thought that those books were written in the first person. Yes, I read the bible, a long, long time ago, but I don’t remember these details.
If so, I find it astounding that people believe a second hand account of an event from a biased person. It’s like one of David Koresh’s followers giving an account of what another one of his followers claimed they saw.
|
luke was a scribe for saul/paul not there or a follower of christ at that time wrote about 35 or more years after the fact
and copied big chunks of mat and mark word for word
''E. P. Sanders says it's fairly clear Paul was unaware of the four Gospels, and the authors of the Gospels didn't know of Paul's letters.''
mark and mat one copied the others work
neathor were apostles and who first is a big debate
''Mark, not an apostle himself, was an associate of the apostle Paul for a short time, but the gospel bearing his name is (to some minds) based on the preaching of Peter. It's generally assumed to have been the first gospel written, coming in right before Matthew at about 65 AD.''
''The author of Matthew is traditionally held to be the tax collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9, sometimes referred to as Levi. However, Matthew borrows heavily from the Gospel of Mark. It's hard to believe someone who was in close contact with Jesus would have had to rely on secondary sources. Since this gospel has the most quotations from the Old Testament, sometimes going to ridiculous lengths to try to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, it's assumed that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. There is suspicion that it might have been originally written in Hebrew, although only Greek texts have ever been found. Scholars differ on the composition date, but most agree on roughly 65 - 70 AD with a few placing at as late as 100 - 134 AD.''
''Matthew, Mark and Luke are termed the Synoptic Gospels, so called because they generally agree on the details and timeline of Jesus' life, sometimes even using the same words to describe the same events. Because of this similarity, quite a few scholars posit that there was a previous collection of Jesus' sayings and works which all three gospel writers relied on when compiling their histories. This collection, as yet just a theoretical construct, has been given the name "Q" (short for Quelle, German for "source").''
''The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.''
''The book [G of john] likely dates from about 100 AD, the last of the books to be written. If this dating is accurate, John would have been very old. Barclay posits that it was probably a group writing remembrances ''
''The Revelation is often called the Revelation of Saint John. Tradition says this is the same as the author of the fourth gospel, but that seems implausible. The style of the Greek is different, and while the gospel author avoids mentioning his own name in order to focus attention on Jesus, the author of Revelation mentions his own name repeatedly. He doesn't call himself an apostle, as would be his right, but merely a prophet. Exactly who the author was is open to conjecture. There is no real consensus, except that he was apparently a Jewish writer, writing in Greek to the Jewish believers after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most critics put the date at about 95 - 100 AD.''
quotes from
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html