Eusebius - "Father of Church history."

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

No. They weren't.

If they were written more than 35 years after, that would have placed them after about 70 AD. Not a one of them mentions the temple being destroyed by the Romans.

And John does NOT even make mention of the predictions of said temple which is quite interesting.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

corroborating testimonies, for one.

Or plagiarism?

historical traditions showing the rapid growth of a religious movement based on the person of Jesus, for another.

What would this have to do with whether or not eyewitnesses wrote any books?

The huge numbers of manuscripts show the route that the written accounts took throughout the area. One branch went north, another south to Africa. When you get into the analysis of such manuscripts you find that there really is a huge amount of evidence.

Evidence of what?

I'm not asking about whether Jesus existed or not, K-Rich. I'm asking what proof do you have that the Gospels were written by actual eyewitnesses?

[Currency Pair Crocodile]

Why am I compelled to post in this thread?

I'm a history buff. Too tempting, but I'll go to the history forum.

[mzjamiedawn]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Luke himself clearly states that he was no follower of Jesus. Nor could Matthew have been a follower of Jesus, for he depends almost entirely on Mark for the skeleton of his story. And Mark could not have been a follower of Jesus because the narrative portions of his story are made up almost entirely out of the Old Testament.

In other words, Mark’s work is fiction, and Matt and Luke are based on fiction. If Mark had any eyewitness accounts, he chose either to overwrite them, or ignore them in constructing his story.

Perhaps you should learn a bit about the history of book you so revere.
The New Testament Gateway | NTGateway.com | Dr Mark Goodacre

I actually agree with you that Luke did not know Jesus personally, however he studied for himself and knew eyewitnesses. However, I do believe Matthew followed Jesus. As for Mark, I don't know if he knew Him personally or not, but to say he couldn't have for the reason you gave seems ridiculous to me.

So does saying their work is fiction just because they may not have known Jesus personally. Plus, how do we know Matthew used Mark's account? It could be the other way around...

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Not sure how many people (believers) actually see beyond the preconceived notion of eyewitness accounts to notice that the book of Matthew (suposedly written by the Disciple Matthew himself), is NOT written in the first person? Take a look at Matthew 9 where Jesus calls Matthew. The writer says in Matthew 9:9:

As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him.

I do realize there is such a writing style, but it just seems a little suspect. Sounds like someone else writing about the alleged eyewitness as opposed the eyewitness writing about the accounts himself.

[Boxcar Overkill]

And why didn't Jesus write any of his own book? I suspect he was illiterate, since he lived the first 30 years of his life as a carpenter, so he probably didn't have much need to read. Still, strange to worship an illiterate God.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

There is reason to believe that Eusebius, through his own indirect admission, included and/or left out information concerning the rise of Christianity that in the end supported a carefully planned crafting of that faith. In addition, he was emperor Constantine's propaganda minister and is also the one responsible for presenting to the world the very suspect passage from Josephus that supposedly confirms the type of [romantic] Jesus found in the Gospels as well as the one many Christians have in mind today.

During his time there was no such thing as the Gospels as we know them today.

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

No. They weren't.

If they were written more than 35 years after, that would have placed them after about 70 AD. Not a one of them mentions the temple being destroyed by the Romans.

I suppose if I were trying to pretend I was a writer from the 1930's, I wouldn't be mentioning World War Two.