Who is behind these fake names? I wish bible believers un-veil the truth.
Mark and Luke are not found in the biblical list of 12 disciples.
The earliest Gospel is that of Mark’s which was written about 60-75 AD. Mark was the son of Barnabas’s sister. Matthew was a tax collector, a minor official who did not travel around with Jesus. Luke’s Gospel was written much later, and in fact, drawn from the same sources as Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke was Paul’s physician, and like Paul, never met Jesus. By the way, did you know that the names Marks and Luke were not included in the 12 appointed disciples of Jesus as mentioned in Matthew 10:2-4? Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed hi
2007-05-23
23:00:02
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Punter
2
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Mark and Luke were not part of the 12 apostles
2007-05-23 23:08:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Strotte 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are correct that Mark and Luke were not among the 12 original disciples, and that Luke never meet Jesus personally. That is the whole reason they were chosen to write their gospels.
In Matthew, you have the records of someone who was part of the inner circle of the group - one of the 12.
In Mark, you have the records of someone who was an outside observer. Who can speak for how the group and the public viewed Jesus. Yet he was close enough to have been present at the Last Supper and the arrest of Jesus (he is the young man who is send running naked into the night).
In Luke, you have the records of a scholar, looking back at the events through records and eyewitnesses, as any biographer would do. That is why there are often details "missing" in Luke that are found in the orders. If he could not find an eyewitness to confirm the detail, he left it out.
In John you have the records of a man looking back over decades of service to Jesus and words, able to give us a historical perspective not seen in the other, earlier gospels. Which is why his gospel includes a lot of commentary on the events, not just the events.
If you wanted a complete record historically of an individual, those are the four different sources you would want: the insider, the public, the scholar and the historical perspective.
As for the date of Luke, it could not have been written too late in history, as Paul, in his letter written between 48 and 60 AD quotes directly from Luke on 1 Corinthians 11 (written 56 AD) and shares teaching phrases found in Luke on at least 16 other occasions. The book had to have exist by then for Paul to be familiar with it, and to quote it.
Nothing in scripture requires the authors to be among the 12 disciples. In fact, more of the New Testament is written by people who were NOT among the 12 then were.
2007-05-24 06:26:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by dewcoons 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. Acts 22:6-11
Luke was not one of the first disciples. He like thousands others became disciples much later on.
Mark was not one of the twelve, and there is no reason to believe that he was an eye and ear witness of the events which he has recorded; but an almost unanimous testimony of the early fathers indicates Peter as the source of his information. The most important of these testimonies is that of Papias, who says, "He, the presbyter (John) said: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered; but he did not write in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ. For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as I said, afterward followed Peter, who made his discourses to suit what was required, without the view of giving a connected digest of the discourses of our Lord. Mark, therefore, made no mistakes when he wrote down circumstances as he recollected them; for he was very careful of one thing, to omit nothing of what he heard, and to say nothing false in what he related." Thus Papias writes of Mark. This testimony is confirmed by other witnesses.
2007-05-24 06:11:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Moose 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mark and Luke were disciples of Paul and Peter. They hung out with the disciples.
Paul met Jesus on the road to Demascus.
An empty tomb by itself is no evidence of a resurrection, which is what Christian's believe in. Many people saw Jesus after His death and resurrection. He was seen around for about 30 days and then showed Himself to Paul afterward. Do you think that the average man would go out and preach the Gospel of Christ to the point of death if he knew it wasn't true? Do you think that these disciples just let their family members and friends die over a lie?
think about it.
2007-05-24 06:04:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by ScottyJae 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
And your point is? No, they weren't part of the 12. They were most likely children during Jesus' lifetime. All of the gospel accounts were written by 90, so 'much later' is misleading.
2007-05-24 06:05:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by capitalctu 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
As a Muslim and read Bible for references, I suspect that you maybe not a Christian or don't really understand your own belief. It is common here.
However, you are true. They are not among the 12 disciples. If I am not mistaken, they are the disciple of apostles Paul. They are consider among the best in Bible's knowledge. That is why they have their own version of Bible. Please correct me if I am wrong.
2007-05-24 08:34:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by z_jepoh 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Peace be with you, And Jesus called the seventy and sent them out two by two to preach the gospel.
where there are two agreeing.
where there are two or three gather together in my name,
Lazarus come forth, the maiden is sleeping.
Believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, only.
2007-05-24 12:36:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They were not apostles. You wish Bible believers to unveil the truth? No one is hiding this fact.
You're quoting various speculations concerning the apostles as if they were facts.
2007-05-24 06:03:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Matthew T 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Dear punter, you are at it again perhaps you aught to read the Bible direct from the Koin Greek text - it might make more sense to you. Such head aches. Give it up.
Peace
2007-05-24 06:28:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by ziffa 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
mark and luke are not apostles. just matthew and john are apostles but they are all disciples.
2007-05-24 06:03:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by SaRaH 2
·
2⤊
0⤋