SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ilaine who wrote (30641)2/21/2004 12:08:21 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 793822
 
I should have added - church tradition does credit Matthew and John to disciples of Jesus, who would have been eyewitness. Although neither of these Gospels (or Mark either) actually identifies their author.

With Matthew there is the problem that Matthew includes a lot of material from Mark. Why would an eyewitness need to use Mark as a source?

And then one can ask how about those situations where the Gospels describe something happening which the disciples couldn't have witnessed? Like the temptation of Jesus by Satan in the wilderness, like Jesus continuing to pray after the Scripture says his disciples had fallen asleep, or things that occurred after Jesus was arrested and the disciples had fled.

OTOH because one can reasonably question some things or because we can't know the Gospels were written by who tradition attributes them to, doesn't mean it's correct to state they are simply fictional fabrications. They may be based on oral tradition handed down from eyewitnesses. Which seems reasonable to me.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News