Claim from MSNBC

[Quietfire]

Artimisjade,

Still dont see your point.
Or rather, that post doesnt prove your point.

[Crusader_4]

Actually interesitng thing althought it has no real proof behind it there is an interesting theory about the Gospel of Luke. That since the first part of the Gospel of Luke is in Koine Greek (street greek) and that is the part that deals with the nativity some question that perhaps St. Luke interviewed St. Mary. (again neat story how much fact i dont think we will never know)...On another note St. John was a young teenager when he was with Jesus (as he is often portrayed traditionally in a feminine manner to show his younger age) So it would not be ridicoulous to say that St. JOhn did in fact live to write his gospel. Also one must remember the audience for which the gospels were written too and it does match the historical time period of which the Apostles live. It is also most important that it is the Tradition According to MAtthew, Luke, and John and correct me if its orthodox to say this but it does not nesscairly ensure it was them writting but rather it was the Gospel as they saw it and under their Apostolic Tradition. However if yo ucompare the Christian Gospels to the Apochrypha Gospels one can easily see how much the Christian Gospels predate the others. Further to that it is also noticeable that if one reads the Epistles, and particuluarly the Didache (circa 60AD-70AD) one can see a mirror reflection of the Gospels that again points to the VERY early Church.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 7 2004, 03:39 PM'] Raymond E. Brown is a heretic, whose teachings go against those of the Church. I had to do a report on his works back in college, and all of his statements can be proven false.

Just because someone is a Catholic priest doesn't mean he is true to the faith. [/quote]
Raymond Brown WAS a heretic. Thankfully he has moved along to his eternal reward and can no longer actively corrupt, though his works carry on his mission with most unfortunate success.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='artemisjade' date='Dec 7 2004, 04:28 PM']

Raymond E Brown was a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. [/quote]
Martin Luther was too. And your point is?

Trying reading the St Ignatius Bible Study series, start with the 4 Gospels.
The 3 synoptic gospels were written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

You think people would forget the words spoken by the Son of GOD?

Edited December 7, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Raymond Brown was cited as a Catholic source in this week's Newsweek article on the natavity account. He we insinuating that Jesus was the spawn of fornication... That position is not even circus-wrothy.

[artemisjade]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 7 2004, 03:45 PM'] Martin Luther was too. And your point is?

Trying reading the St Ignatius Bible Study series, start with the 4 Gospels.
The 3 synoptic gospels were written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

You think people would forget the words spoken by the Son of GOD? [/quote]
So if we assume that M, M and L were written in 70 CE that puts us at 37 years after the death of Jesus. Since eye-witness testimony is the least credible testimony allowed in court and this was, at best, 37 year old eye-witness testimony, I'm going to go with a yes. It's entirely likely that people who might have seen Jesus were dead, or were too young to actually remember him, or were too old to remember their memories of him.

[Crusader_4]

Actually compared to ancient times the Gospels were likea news flash. Tales tended not to be written till 500 years after the fact (no like look at Troy which was written how many thousdands of years later). Also one most remember this was Jewish society where oral tradition had been passed on for millenia. This is done today in many countries for example Tibet where they pass on their holy books orally. They can repeat their books forwards, backwards, and even every secound sylablal without looking at a text. So it is not absurd to assume based especially on Jewish thought in regards to the written and oral law the need to remember it appropriatly. Further to that again as i mentioned when one looks at thew copies of the new testament in comparison to other ancient texts they are the best preserved and most conssistently accurate. Further to that the Roman Hisotries were all written 500 years after the fact of the fall of Rome. These histories are considered relativly accurate by archaleoglical terms. So for 37 years @ 33 AD that is considered the equilviant to todays breaking news. Also one must remember there was NO NEED to write it down earlier. The Apostles were alive and well and were travelling the meditterenaan. They carried the story with them it was later as the Christians started to die and the persecutions became heavier these things got wrote down.

Edited December 7, 2004 by Crusader_4

[peach_cube]

My Grandfather used to tell me stories about when his father was a boy in Croatia. I'm pretty sure that if I wrote them down they would be very accurate. Besides, when you are told about the Virgin Birth it is something that you would tend to remember...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='artemisjade' date='Dec 7 2004, 06:52 PM'] So if we assume that M, M and L were written in 70 CE that puts us at 37 years after the death of Jesus. Since eye-witness testimony is the least credible testimony allowed in court and this was, at best, 37 year old eye-witness testimony, I'm going to go with a yes. It's entirely likely that people who might have seen Jesus were dead, or were too young to actually remember him, or were too old to remember their memories of him. [/quote]
Jews could recite the entire Torah from memory, so memorizing the words of Jesus would not be a great stretch. You also assume nobody took notes besides the gospel accounts.

Please don't engage in chronological snobbery.

[God Conquers]

[quote]Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.[/quote]

This is very silly. Average life spans in ancient times are at or below 30 years NOT because people died in their middle ages, but because the infant and child death rates were huge.

If you lived past 10, you were likely to live into your 50s and 60s, just like today.

The reason our average life expectency is so high is because and children infants do not die at such exhorbitantly high rates.

[Guest therevrussell]

Actually the life span was closer to 40. True the high infant mortality rate brought the overall age rate down but other factors such as poor nutrition, lack of adequate medical care, poor hygiene and grinding poverty toll their toll.

[cmotherofpirl]

You are assuming everyone lived in grinding poverty?

[Don John of Austria]

God Conquers is right, if you lived past 10 you where likely to live into your late 50's or early 60's you must remember the infant mortalitiy rate was very high.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='therevrussell' date='Dec 7 2004, 09:01 PM'] Actually the life span was closer to 40. True the high infant mortality rate brought the overall age rate down but other factors such as poor nutrition, lack of adequate medical care, poor hygiene and grinding poverty toll their toll. [/quote]
This is not correct.

If you have 10% or more of your population dies at age ZERO, it brings the mortality rate down way more than 10 years. Plus there are the children dying etc.

The third world today is much worse off in terms of medical care and food .

[Guest Aluigi]

John Mark was never considered to be an APOSTLE. The only authors claimed to be APOSTLES were Matthew (they assumed he was the tax collector who turned apostle named Matthew, but it never actually said that. John is the one people believe on faith that it was St. John the Apostle, scholarship says it to be unlikely but if it wasn't it is most likely one of St. John's disciples.

John Mark was a disciple of St. Peter.

Luke was a contemporary of the Apostle St. Paul, perhaps young compared to St. Paul so that he would have lived to write the gospel.

Very likely: St. John Mark (whom St. Peter calls his 'beloved son') and St. Luke wrote the gospels. St. John Mark knew Peter, Peter knew Mary, St. John Mark had stories. St. John Mark's mother's house (according to very ancient tradition) housed the Last Supper, St. John Mark's mother thus likely knew Jesus and Mary.
St. Luke was probably fairly young at the time of St. Paul. He was surely in contact with all of the Apostles. He was surely in contact with St. Paul, likely to have met St. John and even Mary.

About the authorship of St. John and St. Matthew less is known, it is thought that St. Matthew was just expanded from St. Mark; whatever, there's still a very direct line to the Apostles and to Mary. St. John was either written by the Apostle himself or by a community he founded.