0
-----------------------
The four New Testament gospels were written anonymously and only attributed to the apostles whose names they now bear later in the second century. If we rely on those attributions, only Matthew and John actually knew Jesus, since Mark and Luke were not among the twelve disciples. The second-century Church Fathers also formed the view that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" in John's Gospel was John himself, basing this on the assumption that John was being modest. On the basis of these multiple assumptions, John was the gospel author who knew Jesus best.
However, modern scholars say that the gospels could not have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they protray. On this view, the Church Fathers were mistaken in attributing the two gospels to Matthew and John. None of the gospel writers even knew Jesus personally.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which gospel writer did not include accounts of Jesus birth?
AnswerThe earliest of the New Testament gospels, now known as Mark's Gospel, did not include an account of the birth of Jesus. THese accounts were added by the authors of Matthew and Luke.The author of John knew Luke's account of the birth of Jesus, but did not include it in his gospel. In fact, he suggests that he did not even believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Who was the first person to be killed for the sake of the Gospel?
Jesus was the first person to be killed for the sake of the Gospel.before Jesus came i don't think they even knew what the word "GOSPEL" was or means.i hope this helped.
What is the most important book in the New Testament?
OpinionMark's Gospel is the most important book in the New Testament. The Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John all relied, directly or indirectly, on Mark for everything the authors knew about the life and mission of Jesus. Without Mark's Gospel we would not have Christianity as we know it today.
Which if any of the authors of the New Testament Gospels was an eyewitness to the resurrection or resurrected life of Jesus and his ascension?
In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, Paul said that Jesus was seen by Cephas, then the twelve, then by more than 500, most of whom were still alive, then by James and all the apostles, and finally by Paul himself. However, it is clear that Paul only saw Jesus in a vision, perhaps a dream. He seems to have seen no difference between his own vision of Jesus and those of Peter, James and the others. So, Paul was not an eyewitness to these events and did not think anyone else was either. Mark's Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8, with no mention of a physical resurrection or of anyone seeing the risen Jesus. The "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-20) was not originally part of the Gospel. The author would no doubt have said so if he knew that anyone had witnessed the resurrection or had seen Jesus, so we can say that the author did not witness these events and had no knowledge of them. It has been shown that the authors of Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel relied on Mark's Gospel for their knowledge of the life of Jesus. Moreover, these Gospels differ so widely in their descriptions of the resurrection of Jesus and his appearances to the disciples, that they are unlikely to be literally true. The authors of these Gospels were not eyewitnesses to the events they described, and really only elaborated on and added to Mark's Gospel. The stories about the resurrection and the resurrection appearances of Jesus, that appear in John's Gospel are elaborations of material that can be found in Luke's Gospel, and no one suggests that Luke was an eyewitness. The author of John's Gospel was not an eyewitness to the events he described. In summary, none of the gospel authors actually witnessed any of the resurrection events.
What kind of person was Jesus in the Gospel of John?
The Gospel of John portrayed Jesus as fully divine and pre-existing, in contrast to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), wherein he was the Son of God. however, the question asks the portrayal of Jesus as a person and thus as a human.In John's Gospel, many of Jesus' friends were the rich and powerful, and Jesus reserved his best miracles for his rich and powerful friends.Mark has Jesus wish to remain anonymous as far as possible, with Jesus even commanding those he helped to tell no one about him, and Matthew and Luke followed this theme to a lesser extent. However, John's Gospel says that Jesus was quite open about who he was. John moved the episode of the Cleansing of the Temple from the very end of the gospel, where it was the event that forced the priests to decide to get rid of Jesus, to the beginning of the gospel, where it served to ensure that everyone knew of Jesus from the beginning of his mission.Perhaps even more than in the other gospels, the Jesus of John's Gospel was a charismatic preacher.
Why did Mark not include post-resurrection appearances?
Mark's Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8, when the young man explained that Jesus had risen, and the women fled in fear, telling no-one. The "Long Ending" (there was also, at one stage, a "Short Ending") was added much later.Mark's Gospel was the source gospel used by the authors of Matthew and Luke, for their information about the life and mission of Jesus, in addition to which they relied on the hypothetical 'Q' document for sayings attributed to Jesus. The 'Q' document says nothing about the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus. Although the authors of Matthew and Luke knew nothing about the life and mission of Jesus, they each added information about the resurrection and the appearances of the risen Jesus to his apostles. And each gospel gave a different account than the other.Mark had not added post-resurrection accounts because he knew none. His gospel ended intriguingly at a point where the reader could imagine the consequences of the crucifixion and, perhaps, imagine what would happen next. Matthew had Jesus meet the two women on the road, while Luke had the risen Jesus meet two men on the road, so the "Long Ending" simply had Jesus appear to two of them, thus elegantly harmonising the two accounts of Matthewand Luke.
Who invented Jesus Christ?
AnswerWe can not be certain that anyone invented Jesus Christ.If anyone invented Jesus of Nazareth, it would have been the author of Mark's Gospel, which appears to have been written in 70 CE. At least we know that the other New Testament gospels were based, directly or indirectly, on Mark, and that those authors knew nothing of the life and mission of Jesus apart from what they read in Mark.Even if Mark invented Jesus of Nazareth, Hebrews seems to predate the Gospel of Mark and yet it refers to Jesus. But Hebrews refers to Jesus as a High Priest in heaven, not as a human who lived on earth in the recent past. Arguably, the Jesus of Hebrews was not the Jesus of Nazareth whom Mark describes.Wa also know that Paul taught of Jesus Christ at least two decades before the Gospel of Mark. Once again, it seems that Paul may have been speaking of a more spiritual Jesus than the gospel Jesus. And he knew nothing of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as Mark describes after the death of Paul.So, if anyone invented Jesus of Nazareth it was the evangelist now known as Mark. But he did not invent the Jesus of Paul's epistles, nor the Jesus of Hebrews. The origin of this Jesus remains a mystery.
Which two books in the New Testament tell us about the birth of Jesus and why are they different?
A:The two books that contain stories of the birth of Jesus are the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says the two accounts are "massively different" and virtually irreconcilable.Scholars have established that the authors of of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark's Gospel for everything they knew about the life and mission of Jesus, but Mark does not mention the birth of Jesus. Faced with a need to tell their respective communities more about the life of Jesus, these two anonymous authors had to write something, but when each wrote, he was unaware of what the other had written. The two authors knew from Mark that Jesus' mother was called Mary and that Jesus would live in Nazareth, and they knew that the Jewish Messiah ought to be born in Bethlehem, but apart from this we get two very different nativity accounts.In the view of John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus), neither of the nativity stories contains any historical truth.
What made Jesus so powerful?
A:The proper Christian answer, based on biblical interpretation, is that Jesus is so powerful because he is the son of God. Being divine, everything is within his power.A closer look at the Bible offers alternative explanations. First of all, it seems that perhaps Jesus was not always powerful. In Mark 6:2-6, the people misunderstand Jesus and he can do no mighty work, suggesting that without faith, Jesus is not at all powerful. Moreover, it appears he is not all-good. In Mark 10:18, Jesus clarifies this, saying that because he is not God, he is not 'good' : "Why call me good? There is none good but God."Mark's Gospel also portrays Jesus as fully human, adopted by God at the time of his baptism. True, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke portray him as the son of God from the time of his conception, but the authors of these gospels were substantially reliant on Mark's Gospel for everything they knew about the mission of Jesus, so it is hard to imagine how they would have known these intimate details, occurring almost a hundred years before these gospels were written. John's Gospel does say that Jesus was both divine and pre-existing, but again this gospel was in the main derivative and it takes great faith to believe that its author was right but the three other gospel authors were wrong.I believe Jesus was powerful because of the message he taught and the faith he inspired. His message was no doubt elaborated and added to by the gospel authors and their predecessors, thus making the message even more powerful than what Jesus might have taught. But it is the power of his message, as transmitted through the gospels that made Jesus powerful.
Where is the Gospel of Jesus we have many gospels but no gospel of Jesus Why?
Jesus was Himself the Gospel and 'the' preacher of the Gospel. He wrote no work or literature but lived what He taught. Others wrote about it later, particularly as they knew the Apostles would eventually die, and also to provide an authoritative record of truth against various heresies which were springing up. The works of the Gospel writers, two of whom were themselves Apostles and two not, were themselves 'Gospels of Jesus' in that they faithfully taught what Jesus said and did. There also were others present who could verify the truth of what was said and eager opponents who could disprove it if wrong.
What were the 12 disciples famous for?
The 12 Apostles were known for their closeness to Jesus, as He chose them to be makers of disciples across the nations. They were the 12 that knew Jesus the best and were with Him for most of His ministry. They went out across the world and spread the Gospel, encouraging everyone to repent, and baptizing those who wanted to be saved.
Were the Gospels written by the Disciples?
No. The New Testament gospels were written anonymously, and only later in the second century were they attributed to the disciples by Church Fathers.In fact, the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are now known to have relied on Mark's Gospel for everything they knew about the life and mission of Jesus. John's Gospel, in turn, was inspired by Luke's Gospel, with a small amount of material taken direct from Mark. It is most improbable that disciples such as Matthew and John, said to be eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, would need to rely so completely on the testimony of Mark, who even conservative Christians concede was not an eyewitness. Moreover, scholars say that the author of Mark's Gospel was not the Mark mentioned by the apostle Paul.We do not know who the anonymous authors of the gospels really were, but scholars say with confidence that they were not the disciples.
