then why didn't they know that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth, he was a Nazorean? How could eyewitnesses make such a bizarre mistake.
How could they mess up the name of Judas, when they would have known he was a Sicarii, instead of the bizarre and meaningless designation Iscariot?
Why did the early church have such difficulty with the name Mary Magdalene, that it took 19 century scholars to find a tiny, possibly nonexistent, first century village to claim as her birth place? They had to rename the village to make the connection with her appellation.
So how could eyewitnesses have been so ignorant of the cities of first century Judea, and the names of groups such as Nazoreans and Sicariii, if they were really there?
2007-05-28 05:08:26 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Quiet, you.
There's still money to be made and sheep to be fleeced.
2007-05-28 05:11:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 7⤋
Matthew, Mark, John and Judas Iscariot were of the original 12 apostles, all Jews, that followed Jesus and were sent out to preach and heal two-by-two. Luke was a Gentile physician who became a convert.
The Bible tells us Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and His parents took him to Egypt to escape King Herod's death decree and then they returned to Nazareth (after Herod's death) where He grew up. (Matthew 2:13) Jesus Christ was not a Nazarene, his cousin John the Baptist was.
There were several Judases, therefore the betrayer is always called Judas Iscariot in the Bible to differentiate him from the others. Magdala's preferred reading is "Magadan". It was a placeon the shore of the Sea of Gailiee. Mark 8:10 calls the town Dalmanutha. According to the Talmud a Magdala stood on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee near Tiberias and Hammath. could it be we don't know it all yet!?
2007-05-28 05:26:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
they are no longer witnesses. maximum pupils have faith that the authors of the Gospels have been nameless writers who weren't eye witnesses. Even the author of the Gospel of Luke admits that he's not an eyewitness interior the very beginning up. Matthew and Luke used Mark notably as a source.
2016-11-05 21:08:49 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is not the important aspect of being the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the importance's of the office they held.
860 In the office of the apostles there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witnesses of the Lord's Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church. But their office also has a permanent aspect. Christ promised to remain with them always. The divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them "will continue to the end of time, since the Gospel they handed on is the lasting source of all life for the Church. Therefore, . . . the apostles took care to appoint successors."
2007-05-28 05:24:57 · answer #4 · answered by C R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Luke was not an eyewitness. He wrote his account from the testimony of OTHER eyewitnesses.
2. Jesus WAS raised mostly in Nazareth. He was not a "Nazorean." He did not take the Nazorean vows, and it's never said that He did. Who came up with the idea of Him being a Nazorean?
As for the other translations of names, they were ONLY so named because of the rendering into English. Mary's name wasn't even Mary, and Joseph's name was not Joseph.
2007-05-28 05:14:31 · answer #5 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think it is us who are ignorant. Can we claim to know more about 1st century Israel than those who lived at that time? I believe Jesus was from Nazareth. Judas was called Iscariot because he was from a place called Scariot. Mary Magdalene was from a place called Magdala. I'm sure geography has changed since that time. Just because we can't identify these places on the map doesn't mean that they didn't exist originally.
2007-05-28 05:16:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The account in the beginning has Mary and Joseph returning to the city of Bethlehem, not Nazareth to be registered by the Romans for Taxes.
(Man, you must have given your parents a lot of headaches)
2007-05-28 05:13:45 · answer #7 · answered by Thomas Paine 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
well first of all not all of them were eye witness' luke never met or saw Jesus but interviewed people that did. Not going to explain it all but think you need to research you cant read the bible alone and expect it all to make sense, there are some wonderfull study books to help yopu understand what you think are errors.
2007-05-28 05:14:20 · answer #8 · answered by Debs 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You're right ....there is some ignorance here, but not on the part of those eyewitnesses.
2007-05-28 05:14:20 · answer #9 · answered by Uncle Thesis 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They were only humans and they may not have been there the whole time with Jesus.
2007-05-28 05:24:28 · answer #10 · answered by cynical 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not all were eyewitnesses. I wasn't there, so I can't say what is exactly right, so I will trust the scripture.
2007-05-28 05:13:27 · answer #11 · answered by RB 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋