Has anyone read the bible

[MAMALOCHA!]

Where's grahame to enlighten us.

[HeadingNorth]

Also another question I have.

 

All books generally have an author, however why can we not trace who Matthew was? What was his surname? Same with the other three? x

 

The Book of Matthew is attributed to the apostle of that name, one of the twelve original disciples of Jesus. The Book of John is also attributed to the apostle John. It's impossible at 2,000 years' distance to prove, or disprove, the accuracy of the attribution.

 

Luke was a physician who travelled with Paul on some of his great missionary journeys. We know for sure that those journeys happened and that Luke was on them, and we're fairly sure that it was he who wrote the gospel, and the book of Acts.

 

Mark, I'm not sure about.

[absynthfairy]

It is thought Matthew and Mark's Gospels were both written by disciples. Mark wasn't the brightest bless him and his use of Greek is poor - Matthew's and Luke's is far superior. It is thought there is also a 4th document that Matthew and Luke were familiar with and used (along with Mark's Gospel) in the writing of their own Gospels. This document is refered to as "Q" by Biblical scholars, and helps explain the areas where these 3 books are in agreement with eachother - this document as never been found and it's actual existence is still debated. All 3 of these Gospels can be roughly dated to around about 66-69ad - Mark's being the earliest (but perhaps most "modern" with it's "alternative ending" lol).

 

John's Gospel is a bit different - it is most commonly attributed to another "John" rather than John the disciple and dated at around 100ad. It is thought this John was an Essene - a small tribe that lived out at Qumran (out where the dead sea scrolls were found in 1947). The entire style of John's Gospel is entirely different - it is not so much a record of what Jesus did and when as the other Gospels are - but rather a Gospel written for a new "audience" who were losing interest in Jesus and very embryonic Christianity when it was becoming clear Jesus was not returning in their lifetimes as they had believed and expected. Teaching on the resurrection emphasises that the Holy Spirit was left with humanity when Jesus ascended and how the Parousia or Rapture (which it is looking like not happening today) would in fact be happening far in the future. It encourages believers to believe what had happened, keep faith in the belief Jesus was the Son of God as faith in him would ensure entry into the Kingdom of God. The way the miracles are told in this Gospel are particular evidence of this theory. This is the Gospel that sets out to prove that Jesus was the Son of God, describing him and his actions as God incarnate, God made flesh via the Holy Spirit - a belief that would form the very heart of Christian belief in the Trinity when the Nicene Creed would be written in Nicea in 325ad.

 

A Gospel for the rest of time, rather than at the time.

[retrogo]

Has anyone read the Bible? When I ask this I mean from page to page, beginning to end.

 

There a few things that make me question the book.

 

Story of Noah.

In the bible it says he was a alcoholic.

My questions are: How did an alcoholic come to build an ark? Is that possible?

Noah claimed God was talking to him - him being a alcoholic invaildates his claim that god was talking to him. If you meet an alcoholic, and he claimed god was talking to him, you would not believe him.

A prophet would not be an alcoholic.

 

Story of Lot.

It states that his daughters got him drunk and seduced him!

Again would a prophet really have had this done to him?

Incest story in the bible?

 

Story of David.

It states that David fell in love with a lady called Bethsheba. Bethsheba was married to Uriya - a commander of David's army.

He seduced Bethsheba and told his army to abandon Uriya in battle. So he committed adultery, murder and became a plotter.

 

Something has clearly gone wrong.

 

Please discuss. x

 

The old testiment is a rivetting read for sex and violence. plus most of the hebrew interpretation was lost. Not fogetting the early catholic church adding their own bits such as revelations & rising from the dead, and James the First interpretting it into English to fit his version of christiality. James did think he was gods envoy on earth.

[carosio]

The Book of Matthew is attributed to the apostle of that name, one of the twelve original disciples of Jesus. The Book of John is also attributed to the apostle John. It's impossible at 2,000 years' distance to prove, or disprove, the accuracy of the attribution.

 

Luke was a physician who travelled with Paul on some of his great missionary journeys. We know for sure that those journeys happened and that Luke was on them, and we're fairly sure that it was he who wrote the gospel, and the book of Acts.

 

Mark, I'm not sure about.

 

Mark's Gospel is usually attributed to John Mark, companion of Paul and friend of Peter.

 

As for the Gospel of John, scholars say that its style and content is late 1st century (too late for John the disciple of Jesus), and from the text it is unclear as to whether he was familiar with the writings of the other three gospels.