How can you take two gospels from writers who never met Jesus, like Mark and Luke?

Question

The Gospel of Luke
Luke 1:3

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you people, most excellent Theophilus,
The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm
http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm
If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century.
Maybe he lived to about 200 years

Answer 1

NONE of the gospel writers knew the alleged jesus.

The gospels were written between 30 and 70 years after his alleged death.

Just look at the full name of the books "The gospel ACCORDING TO....."

Answer 2

First, check out Mark chapter 15. It tells the story of a "certain young man" who followed Jesus after the Last Supper wearing nothing but a loin cloth. He is caught by the mob going to arrest Jesus and is sent running into the night naked. That young man was the Gospel writer Mark. So he did know Jesus personally.

Fast forward to Acts 12:25, and you will find John Mark going with Barnabus and Paul on their first journey. They reason he was taken with them was because he had been an eyewitness to Jesus and his death and ressurection. He was able to confirm that what Barnabus and Paul were preaching actually happened.

So Mark was initimate with the story of Jesus.

His was also the first of the Gospel written, with 87% of Luke and 92% of Matthew being repeat/retelling of Mark. So both those writers appear to have have approved of Mark's writings.

Luke did not know Jesus personally. He was also the only Gentile New Testament writer. If you go back and look at the first five verses of his work, he explains that he took the time to interview the actual participants before including any of the events in his writing.

God was smart. He gave us four records of Jesus from four different perspectives so that the historical accuratcy could not be questioned.
Matthew comes from someone who was an "inside". One of the closest associates of Jesus, and so he can show what it was like from "inside" the group.
Mark was only a casual acquitence. He presents the events as seen by "the crowds".
Luke is the historian and researcher, who takes all the sources - the writings of Mark, the account of witnesses, the words of the other apostles whom he knew personally like Jesus's brother James, and compiles history's view of Jesus.
Finally John as a theologian, writting with the other three gospels before him, gives us details that the others did not. His gospel repeats almost none of the other three. But he also gives us the interpretation and explanation of the events he records. Most of which were recorded to answer various questions and heresies that were appearing in the church at the time John wrote.

Answer 3

First off, Matthew and Luke Copied extensively from Mark, who probably got his information from People around the time of Jesus...so 70AD Matthew was written about 100 years after Jesus and was written primarily for the church. Each Gospel although tell same story (synoptic gospels) work together in telling a story about one man Jesus. It doesn't matter who wrote it or when, but whether or not you accept it as authoritative word of G-D, like the church does!

Answer 4

Two reasons.. firstly All scripture is Holy Spirit inspired, Even the one that says that you cannot understand because the Holy Spirit does not live in you. And then you have the Earthly fact that both of the for-mentioned Gospels were written one by research and accounts from the apostles and the Mother of Jesus and the other who sat at the feet of Peter the Apostle You would know him best as "upon this rock I will build my church" (this is not the meaning but it is a very famous reference to him)... As far as the idiot on here that said that none of the writers knew Christ... WOW THAT IS AMAZING!!!!! John was the best friend of Christ, Matthew was hand picked as Christ walked by. OF course you and I both know that he is trying to say that either there is a late date for writing or he is one of the atheists on here trying to sound intelligent. Which bring to mind the old adage... "it is better to be silent and be thought stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"...

Answer 5

purely with the aid of fact a definite Gospel is termed After An Apostle does no longer propose He unquestionably Wrote It. a brilliant number of Excerpts have been From Tertiary Witnesses. Even The Vatican Admits This actuality. Dummy

Answer 6

I love Luke's Gospel. He had access to the Blessed Mother. So his Gospel is very much from her point of view. Mark, aka John Mark was one of the 12. Luke was the only one not.

Answer 7

Mark, Luke and Matthew are the synoptic gospels. You either accept that tradition or you don't.

Answer 8

Umm...I get your question...

Luke sat down with Mary (Jesus' mother) and asked her questions...probably good information from someone with first-hand experience.

What about the Gnostic gospels...those were written hundreds of years after Jesus...people believe them too?

Who do you think would have better info...Luke who peppered Mary with questions...or someone that heard it from someone that heard it from someone that knew someone that heard it from someone that once ran into someone that knew someone that was there 50 years after Jesus...?

Get my question?

I think Luke had good information after talking with Mary.

I believe the Holy Bible!!!

Answer 9

The bible is from men who wrote their own account of things. That's what the bible is. It's an anthology. Everyone knows that.

Answer 10

they walked with Jesus for three years. and were personaly chosen by Him to record His teaching... whoever is telling you that they never met Jesus is either decieved himself or deliberatly spreading the work of the forces of evil.