Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (39352)	6/9/2006 2:10:09 PM
From: Stan	Respond to of 39621

Well, RMF, you seemed to have summarized the way you see the case. Let me do the same: As to Matthew, it is the consensus of the early church fathers that Matthew is its author. Their proximity to the knowledge of things is better than ours by as much as 1900 years because they certainly had at their disposal a great deal more evidence, both oral and written, that established their conclusion than has survived to this day. One of the things that Matthew provides is a genealogy for Jesus of Nazareth that links him directly to the Patriarchs and kings to whom the promises were made concerning the future and final kingdom. Same testimony of the fathers for John. The internal evidences also lead us to conclude that the gospel and letters that bear his name are his. John provides a divine genealogy for Him. Mark's account is held by critics to be the headwaters of all subsequent accounts. But, Peter's undisputed relationship with him makes a powerful case that Mark's account is taken from an eyewitness. That Mark compiled his account throughout the years from Peter's sermons and conversations is a natural conclusion. Finally Luke: In his own account, he tells us that his is created from careful examination and orderly outlay of eyewitness testimonies. He too provides a genealogy as well as references to official public records of His birth at Bethlehem. This links Jesus directly to Micah's prophecy of the promised Ruler of Israel, whose "goings forth are from of old, even from everlasting" -- a statement of His divinity. The genealogies help to pinpoint one person bearing this name of Jesus (Yeshua). Therefore, the harmony of their accounts is not necessarily because one became the template that the others copied. The other conclusion, the commonly held one, that they each wrote out of what they experienced or discovered from those who did, is the best one. That Jesus is the Son of God has to do with whether He was raised physically to immortality or not. This is what Paul, who came to faith in Him about ten years after the events, says is proof of His divinity in Romans. Not only does he, but Peter in his second letter; John in the beginning of his gospel, in the middle and in the end: for example: "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." Thomas states it at the end of the same gospel; John in each chapter of his first letter; in Revelation states it in the first chapter and quotes Jesus using this title of Himself in the second. These are not exhaustive, but indicate that what they held about the Jesus they knew both before and after his death, was commonly agreed to by them. Therefore, the true Christianity was not created by nor dependent on Paul alone.