Is it true that Matthew, Mark Luke and John added the stories about Jesus helping people after he died?

Question

Did the Gospel writers add the stories in of Jesus great power to heal people as proof that he was the Messiah and not some prophet. Is this true?

Answer 1

Yes.

Just like King James added his own version of the Bible....

Answer 2

Oh, my.

The problem with the gospels is that none of them were written by the apostles whose names are attached to them - they all date from too long after the death of Jesus. Mark is the oldest, and the consensus among Biblical scholars is that Matthew and Luke derive partly from Mark, in that they each share a lot of stories with him. John is regarded by most scholars as being pretty much fictional, or at least as deriving from entirely different traditions, and it certainly provides a quite different take on who Jesus was and what he said and what he thought he stood for, than the other three gospels offer up.

Biblical scholarship is an old and noble tradition. It's quite possible that the historical Jesus was a faith healer, able to cure some people of psychosomatic illnesses. (Since Palestine in around 4BC - 34AD was a colonised area, such illnesses would not have been uncommon - cf. Frantz Fanon's book on mental illness in colonial Algeria, 'The Wretched of the Earth'.)

However - did he raise people from the dead? How can be sure that they were dead to begin with? Yeah, it's entirely possible that some stories were added to the gospels. You need to decide for yourself what Jesus said that means something to you, and what was said about him that was just put in as propaganda.

I should point out that although I am an atheist, I think that Jesus had some inspiring things to say, even if he wasn't the son of god when he said them.

Answer 3

The Gospels were written by persons who belonged to certain Christian lineages and probably reflect the most standardized or palatable ideas (to the bishops at the Nicea in the 4th century who chose which of the myriad treatises on Christianity that were out there then) that would represent an official version of Christianity. Elements of Christianity, however, go back to the first century BCE and perhaps earlier. Roman historical data give details about several "messiah" figures but none chronologically correspond with the Biblical Jesus. One in particular was a mage (ie, he magically healed people). Entries in the antique Talmudic writings also rail against a person named Yeshua (Jesus) who was considered a heretic--but they predate the time given for the biblical life of Christ. Christianity may have had Gnostic roots but the early Church dissociated itself from any association with Gnosticism or legends within Gnosticism about a Christ figure.

Whether the Biblical Christ existed or not, Christianity was a vital and growing belief system that probably had its roots before the supposed historical Christ appeared. Mystical aspects of Christianity (such as healing and speaking in tongues) are real human experiences (and are experienced in other ways in other religious faiths, actually). In a way it matters less about whether Jesus did these things than that we, as human beings, conceived of and do these things--and have done them thoughout time and across cultures.

Answer 4

In the first place the names are quite arbitrary when the early Christian leaders decided which gospels they should put in the bible they just gave them the names they wanted to. In the second place the earliest of those gospels appears to the one called Matthew and this was written about 60 years after Jesus died and whoever wrote put in what he wanted to put in. Some of the other 30 or so gospels do not even mention the crucifixion. So yes the writers wrote what the wanted to write for whatever reason.

Answer 5

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are 3 variations of a similar source tale. Luke of course has some reliable components of a 2nd tale. John, Is a seperate source altogether. The contradictions, the two between the thoughts, and between the thoughts and actuality, are easily defined. yet first, they do no longer seem to be a similar activities, advised from distinctive perspectives. that's someone-friendly christian excuse for any contradiction interior the bible. There are some issues which, no remember what the view factor, all the thoughts could desire to agree upon. the main extreme activities interior the tale, the arrest, cruxifiction, and reserection, of Jesus. Christianity hinges on those activities, in the event that they did no longer take place, then christianity is a lie. First, Jesus final words, on the circulate. What have been they? all the apostles have been there, yet can no longer agree on his final words? 2nd, who replace into first on the tomb, and what did they locate? I defy every physique, christian or no longer, to take all the activities, from Jesus arrest, to his assention, and positioned all of them at the same time right into a single, chronologicaly precise, series.

Answer 6

If the gospel writers added those stories and miracles, then they were not the only ones to do it. The Jewish historian Josephius, who lived at the same time as the gospel writers, and was not a Christian, writes in his history of the Jews that Jesus was a person "who went around doing miracles and healing the sick". His words were written BEFORE any of the gospels were written.

The Pharisees, who hated Jesus, compiled a book of their teachings and traditions in 70 AD called the Talmud. In that they state that Jesus "perfomed miracles and did healings by the power of the devil". The Talmud predates the gospel of John and possibley Matthew. If Jesus had NOT already been known for his miracles, which would his enemies have invented them for him?

When you look at the historical records of his life. there is strong evidence that the miracles of Jesus were common knowledge before the gospels were written.

Answer 7

I think all the NT books were written after his death...supposing he existed. The Book of Mark has two other books by the same author. I think it was supposed to be the first that others were copied from. Not all, some. So, assuming the whole thing wasn't written at the time, the stories could be entirely made up.

Answer 8

It's true - the bible was written at least 65+ years after Jesus died. So most of it is hearsay. Have you ever played the "secrets" game where a bunch of people sit in a circle. One person starts it with the telling of a secret to the person next to them. They pass it on, and it goes around the circle. When it comes back to the person who started it, it has usually changed beyond recognition.

Or ask 6 witnesses to an accident to describe it - minutes after it happened. You will get 6 different descriptions.

So how much of the bible is true? Probably very little.

Answer 9

the bible part 2, the new testament wasnt written down until around 70 or 80 years afterwards.

and of course it was edited, the romans had the bible and for 400 years or so it was being a member of the taliban..they were hunted, and killed for their beliefs... not until constantine decreed christianity was ok in around 400ad did anyone actually have a new testament..written in latin, by catholic scribes...

Answer 10

Most of the bible was written 65 to 325 years after his death. Most of it written by people who were not alove at the time. Also, the ones who were there and did write about his life and what he said has been banned by the church since its inception.