(February 6, 2014 at 2:05 pm)Lek Wrote: Matthew and John were both apostles and their gospels were written within their lifetimes. The other writers were close associates of witnesses. Mark was a companion of Peter, who also wrote two books proclaiming the resurected Christ. It doesn't matter what language they were written in. We read them in English or whatever language we speak. Since the new testament writings were not only addressed to the Jews it would have made sense to write in the prevailing language of the day which was Greek.
None of the Gospels claim to have been written by anyone in particular. They are anonymous.
Luke can be dismissed immediately because he states that he wasn't an eyewitness.
Matthew mentions Joseph's dreams. Does this seem plausible for someone that is an apostle of Jesus decades later? This a literary tool, not something that someone relaying an account of the life of someone he meets decades later would do.
How did the Gospel writers know what Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? Jesus was alone, right? The Disciples were asleep, right?
Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source. There are too many instances of verbatim similarity. This kind of congruence (wording, sentence structure, etc.) does not come from independent eyewitness testimony or oral interviews
Mark and John differ so much, that they both can't be right.
Quote:Mark was a companion of Peter, who also wrote two books proclaiming the ressurected Christ.
There is no evidence that Mark and Peter traveled together. This is nothing more than later church tradition.
DeistPaladin is the expert on this stuff. Hopefully he'll chime in on this.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
