Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc authentic people?

Godistruth1 said:

Do we know exactly who they were?

Click to expand...

Luke was a doctor.

‘Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy’ by Robert Hewitt Brown (first published in 1882) suggests that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the Four Seasons.



https://pubastrology.files.wordpres...nic-astronomy-by-robert-hewitt-brown-1882.pdf




The Chequered floor of the Temple is used to determine the Summer and Winter Solstices and the Spring and Autumnal Equinox’s based on the shadows cast by the entrance pillars (Jachin and Boaz).


This explanation fits well with the Angel, Lion (winged), Bull (winged) and Eagle symbology for the signs of the Zodiac. In Christianity, Scorpio is substituted for the Eagle.





I always wondered where the phrase ‘Luke Warm’ came from….

For an interesting explanation of the 'House of the Rising Sun' suggesting a connection between Roman Temples, Freemasons and the modern Christian Church see:

https://pubastrology.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/house-of-the-rising-sun-v0_7.pdf

Is Truth really stranger than Fiction?

ViaCrucis said:

Legend is a strong word. Tradition is a better one.

The question is how reliable that tradition is.

Click to expand...

Indeed.
Let's also keep in mind that our standards of writing didn't exist in the current form back then.
For example, quite a few epistles in the NT weren't written by the people they are attributed to - but they're not "proper" forgeries. They are pseudepigrapha.
I doubt people thought of that as deceit, back in those days.
It's like knowing that Jesus came from Nazareth, but wishing to reconcile that with Messianic ideas that the messiah had to come from Bethlehem: they just made up a story - not with the intention to deceive, but with the conviction that they were setting things straight.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Indeed.
Let's also keep in mind that our standards of writing didn't exist in the current form back then.
For example, quite a few epistles in the NT weren't written by the people they are attributed to - but they're not "proper" forgeries. They are pseudepigrapha.
I doubt people thought of that as deceit, back in those days.
It's like knowing that Jesus came from Nazareth, but wishing to reconcile that with Messianic ideas that the messiah had to come from Bethlehem: they just made up a story - not with the intention to deceive, but with the conviction that they were setting things straight.

Click to expand...

Yes! it was not seen as lying but merely "correcting" or adjusting to be truthful. Today it would be considered deceit or plagiarism, but no such concept existed then.

We know who they are from Church tradition. Also even if you don’t hold to traditional authorship of the Gospels and are a skeptic, why would the Gospels be named after fictional people?

Godistruth1 said:

Yes but we still do not know who they were then how can they be trusted?

Click to expand...

You do not have to "trust" men, but trust the Holy Spirit which protected and preserved God's word (the Holy Spirit's inspired word.
Further: We are not trusting some people, words or Book. We trust God, Christ and the Holy Spirit which can be seen in this messed up world around us and experienced with the indwelling Holy Spirit.