How could the authors of Luke, Matthew & Mark so accurately have quoted Jesus?

[golgotha61]

Using logic, this would make no sense. Why would a group of people lie about the miracles and teachings of a man named Jesus and then surrender their lives to the point of death, which is the case for a number of the original apostles and Paul, just to propagate made up doctrines and theology?

 

[bling]

Everything I've read says that the Q hypothesis is still the majority position among scholars. There are some who reject it, but even among conservatives there are not very many.

Q is not referenced by any of them and there is no reason for them not to reference it if it existed. There is no need for Q, if you believe the writers were inspired.

 

[Cieza]

Using logic, this would make no sense. Why would a group of people lie about the miracles and teachings of a man named Jesus and then surrender their lives to the point of death, which is the case for a number of the original apostles and Paul, just to propagate made up doctrines and theology?

Why would a group of people fly airplanes into buildings only to die?

 

[Cieza]

Cieza-

Your OP assumes, as do some christians, that the gospels were written after the lifetime of the witnesses to the actual events. But the evidence tells us that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as Acts, were all completed by 62 A.D.

Here are 2 websites, one which has a translation of The Muratorian Fragment, dated at circa 170 A.D. (this document tells us when the gospels were written). The other gives the arguments from christian scholars for an early dating of the gospels.

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
The question of how did they so accurately quote Jesus is still valid even if the gospels were written when Jesus was living.

Did Jesus have a transcriber accompany him everywhere he went?

Where are all the original transcriptions in which Jesus words were noted?

 

[AlexBP]

Did Jesus have a transcriber accompany him everywhere he went?

Where are all the original transcriptions in which Jesus words were noted?

Cieza, if you read the thread you will see several posts that address these questions precisely.

 

[golgotha61]

Why would a group of people fly airplanes into buildings only to die?

The martyrdom of those who flew planes into the Twin Towers involved the followers of their religion and not the leaders. The leaders, if you will notice, never are the ones who surrender their lives through death for their religious beliefs; it is only those who are sent by the leaders. Also, martyrdom in this religion culminates and is targeted toward the death of innocent people and not their salvation.

Christianity’s martyrdom in the apostolic age involved the leaders and the very first organizers of the religion, these leaders did not send their followers to their death; they went to their deaths as an example of the reality of the gospel they preached. The martyrdom of the Christian is targeted toward saving the eternal life and enhancing the present life of the people, in contrast to the martyrdom of those who “fly airplanes into buildings”.

 

[Cieza]

The martyrdom of those who flew planes into the Twin Towers involved the followers of their religion and not the leaders. The leaders, if you will notice, never are the ones who surrender their lives through death for their religious beliefs; it is only those who are sent by the leaders. Also, martyrdom in this religion culminates and is targeted toward the death of innocent people and not their salvation.

Christianity’s martyrdom in the apostolic age involved the leaders and the very first organizers of the religion, these leaders did not send their followers to their death; they went to their deaths as an example of the reality of the gospel they preached. The martyrdom of the Christian is targeted toward saving the eternal life and enhancing the present life of the people, in contrast to the martyrdom of those who “fly airplanes into buildings”.

If the gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke had never been written, would that have made the accomplishments of Jesus any less significant?

Did the authors of Matthew, Mark & Luke go to their deaths as an example of the reality of the gospels they wrote?

 

[Lemmiwinks]

Joseph Smith founded Mormonism and he was martyred, just like Jesus and the apostles. Why would he have founded a religion that would only get him killed? He must have believed in it.

 

[Cieza]

Joseph Smith founded Mormonism and he was martyred, just like Jesus and the apostles. Why would he have founded a religion that would only get him killed? He must have believed in it.

Precisely. Perhaps the authors of Luke, Matthew & Mark thought they were going to get killed for writing their gospels.

 

[Cieza]

The problems with the gospels are that they were written more than 40 years after the events they supposedly report. None of the gospels are written from the perspective of an eye witness. They show evidence of having been edited by later redactors.

During the 40 years between the events and the writing of the gospels the best we can say is that the Jesus story was told and retold by many people and we can expect that people embellished the story as they retold the story.

This makes a lot of sense - especially since there doesn't seem to be any secular documented history of Jesus, his miracles & his rising from the dead.

The fact that the most well known accounts of Jesus' miracles & his rising from the dead are in a book which was written from a biased perspective, along with the fact that there is little or no secular documentation of these occurrences is very suspicious. It strongly suggests that much of what Jesus is said to have done in the Bible never really occurred. Thus the question of why the authors of Luke, Matthew & Mark didn't cover their tracks or divert attention and plant a secular historical account of Jesus.

 

[golgotha61]

If the gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke had never been written, would that have made the accomplishments of Jesus any less significant?

Did the authors of Matthew, Mark & Luke go to their deaths as an example of the reality of the gospels they wrote?

Romans 10:13-14 (ASV)
13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
17 So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Christ came to save the lost and to reveal the Father. The verses in Romans 10:13-14,17 show us that it was necessary for the gospels to be written in order to satisfy the questions in verses 13-14 with the answer in verse 17. Revelation of the Father could not take place without the revealing scriptures since they were not the revelation but the medium for revelation.
Tradition and sources outside the Bible say that Matthew and Mark were martyred; Luke and John were not, also the apostle Paul was martyred. Mark was under the tutelage of the apostle Peter and was the founder of the church in Alexandria who was dragged through the streets until he was dead by those who worshiped the pagan gods. Although Mark did not see the resurrected Christ, he was taught by Peter who was a witness to the resurrection and he believed the accounts related to him by Peter. According to Fox’ Book of Martyrs, Matthew was killed with a spear in the city of Nadabah. Paul was martyred in Rome. Since there are no Biblical accounts of these particular events, the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts chapters six and seven may shed some light on why some Christians were martyred during these times.
I don’t believe these martyrs consciously went to their deaths to be an example as much as when they did allow themselves to die for the gospel, it was an example of their faith in and truth of the teachings and resurrection of Christ.

 

[AlexBP]

This makes a lot of sense - especially since there doesn't seem to be any secular documented history of Jesus, his miracles & his rising from the dead.

The fact that the most well known accounts of Jesus' miracles & his rising from the dead are in a book which was written from a biased perspective, along with the fact that there is little or no secular documentation of these occurrences is very suspicious.

Actually the fact that there was no "secular documented history" of the life of Jesis is not suspicious at all, because no such thing as secular documented history existed at the time. Secularism did not exist in the Roman world. In the early middle ages, the Catholic Church clergy were split into religious and secular clergy and that was when secularism first came into existence. Complaining that sources are "biased" is meaningless. All sources are biased to some degree.

 

[golgotha61]

Joseph Smith founded Mormonism and he was martyred, just like Jesus and the apostles. Why would he have founded a religion that would only get him killed? He must have believed in it.

I doubt Joseph Smith founded Mormonism with the knowledge he would be martyred because of it. I'm sure he did believe in his religion but he accepted another gospel and put the book of Mormon in a position of greater importance than the Bible. His belief then was in a lie and not the truth and it does make a difference what you believe in. The truth concerning God and Christ is only found in the Bible.

Galatians 1:6-9 (ASV)
6 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel;
7 which is not another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.
9 As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.

Verse 8 is a pretty convicting verse that Joseph Smith should have paid attention to instead of accepting the gospel he received from the angel he called Moroni.

I also find it interesting that a group called the Elkesaites(a Jewish sect from the early second century) claimed an angel had given a book to to Elkesai that taught that Christ was an angel born of human parents. This is almost parallel with the account given by Joseph Smith. Same devil with a different target.

 

[golgotha61]

The problems with the gospels are that they were written more than 40 years after the events they supposedly report. None of the gospels are written from the perspective of an eye witness. They show evidence of having been edited by later redactors.

During the 40 years between the events and the writing of the gospels the best we can say is that the Jesus story was told and retold by many people and we can expect that people embellished the story as they retold the story.

You are in error since the gospels of Matthew and John are themselves eyewitness accounts. Your redaction criticism is conjecture with no substantiation and John 14:26( But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.) reminds us that the gospels involved a divine element. This element of God means the New Testament is inspired and without error (truthful).

Matthew was written about A.D. 50.
Mark 66/67 A.D.
Luke A.D. 58/60
John A.D. 80/95

 

[Cieza]

Romans 10:13-14 (ASV)
13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
17 So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Christ came to save the lost and to reveal the Father. The verses in Romans 10:13-14,17 show us that it was necessary for the gospels to be written in order to satisfy the questions in verses 13-14 with the answer in verse 17. Revelation of the Father could not take place without the revealing scriptures since they were not the revelation but the medium for revelation.
Tradition and sources outside the Bible say that Matthew and Mark were martyred; Luke and John were not, also the apostle Paul was martyred. Mark was under the tutelage of the apostle Peter and was the founder of the church in Alexandria who was dragged through the streets until he was dead by those who worshiped the pagan gods. Although Mark did not see the resurrected Christ, he was taught by Peter who was a witness to the resurrection and he believed the accounts related to him by Peter. According to Fox’ Book of Martyrs, Matthew was killed with a spear in the city of Nadabah. Paul was martyred in Rome. Since there are no Biblical accounts of these particular events, the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts chapters six and seven may shed some light on why some Christians were martyred during these times.
I don’t believe these martyrs consciously went to their deaths to be an example as much as when they did allow themselves to die for the gospel, it was an example of their faith in and truth of the teachings and resurrection of Christ.

Since Mark wrote his gospel based on what Peter told him, then we have not just one, but two people who we have to question the credibility of. Perhaps Mark was a gullible & innocent man and Peter was embellishing stories about Jesus. Or perhaps Peter was completely honest in his recounting of events to Mark and when Mark put it down in ink, he embellished the accounts.

 

[s_s]

Or, perhaps they were both telling the complete truth.

Haters gonna hate.

Surely it must put a strain on you, never being able to come up with a question that can't be answered? Aren't you running out, or have you a stash of every typical question that's been asked a hundred times before to work through?

 

[golgotha61]

Since Mark wrote his gospel based on what Peter told him, then we have not just one, but two people who we have to question the credibility of. Perhaps Mark was a gullible & innocent man and Peter was embellishing stories about Jesus. Or perhaps Peter was completely honest in his recounting of events to Mark and when Mark put it down in ink, he embellished the accounts.

You always seem to ignore the fact that the entire Bible is God's inspired word and that He superintended the writers of every book. 2 Peter 1:21 (ASV)
21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[golgotha61]

None of the gospels were wrtten by the men whose names have been attached to them by the Roman Catholic Church. They were all written anonymously.

The following quotations are from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
""The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.""

""It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.""

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel and Gospels

Support for Matthew the tax collector: A.D. 150, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis; Origen (c. 185-254); and Irenaeus. All these early church fathers attest to the authorship of Matthew belonging to Matthew the tax collector.

If you can not get past the identity of the authors, you still have to deal with the canonicity of the books and the fact once again the gospels are the inspired, error free, truthful word of God.

 

[golgotha61]

The Bible itself demonstrates the problem of oral transmission of information. When information is told and retold orally people get it wrong.

Genesis 2:16-17
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Notice that God ONLY says concerning the tree...."you shall not eat."

But look what Eve says about the tree.......
Genesis 3:3
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

Eve got it wrong. She added that you shall not touch the tree.

See how people get it wrong when stories are passed on orally?

The gospels were written many years after the events that they report. During those years the stories were passed along orally by being told and retold.

What you have just described in Eve’s words of addition to God’s command is part of her sin which is adding to or taking away from the word of God and has nothing to do with oral transmission. The giver of that law was right there with her in the garden, there was no passing of God’s law orally except from Him to her.

The tradition of passing information orally was common in the Patriarchal age but by the time of Christ, papyrus was used to write down accounts and the oral tradition was not as much a factor. As a matter of fact there is a piece of papyrus from the gospel of John that was written no more than 30 years after the original writing. You also seem to be ignoring 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21.

 

[BondiHarry]

How could the authors of Luke, Matthew & Mark so accurately have quoted Jesus? Did Jesus have a transcriber who followed him around every he went with the intent that everything he said would be later written into a book? Or did the authors of Luke, Matthew & Mark make up everything Jesus said merely to suit their personal agendas?

Don't forget that God is working in them. When you consider in the White Throne judgment the lost will account for every idle word and evil deed they have done, considering how forgetful people are, it is likely God fully restores their memories so they do remember ALL the evil they have done. So it is with those who wrote the four gospels, God remembers everything with perfect accuracy and so those who were writing the gospels of Jesus were able to accurately quote Jesus.