0
What else can I help you with?
What did Mark write in the Act for the Bible?
First off, Act was written by Luke, not Mark. Second, Luke wrote Act to document what happened to disciples after Jesus left. It follows the accounts of the disciples and the apostles like Paul.
Could Jesus read and write, according to historical accounts"?
Yes, according to historical accounts, Jesus was likely able to read and write.
Why did the other disciples of Jesus not write their gospel accounts of what Jesus did in their presence?
A:Over time, many of the disciples of Jesus were attributed gospels describing events associated with Jesus, either written anonymously or pseudepigraphically. The gospels that we know about included: Gospel of JamesThe Gospel of JohnGospel of JudasThe Gospel of LukeThe Gospel of MarkThe Gospel of MatthewThe Gospel of PeterThe Gospel of PhilipThe Gospel of ThomasIt is well established that none of the disciples actually wrote an eyewitness account, but many of the disciples were honoured with gospels in their names, including Matthew and John and several others.
What is the different reasons about the synoptic accounts of the ressurrection of Jesus Christ?
One must remember that many of the bible accounts of the resurrection of Christ were written well after the event, causing the writers of the gospels to write what they saw or were told of the event. The book of Luke contains one of the most accurate accounts of the resurrection. One must remember that not all of the gospels can give an accurate account of Christ resurrection. Let it suffice that the authors did the best they could about the event. All of the gospels cumulate in this actual event.
What the job of Mark as the disciples of Jesus?
Mark was never a disciple of jesus christ .He wrote the gospel of Mark. he did not write the book of act.
How many disciples were used to write the Gospel stories of Jesus' life?
The two disciples Matthew and John wrote Gospels about Jesus' life. Many also believe that Peter was an important source for the Gospel of Mark.
Did eye witnesses write the four Gospels?
Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses, Luke and Mark were written secondhand from disciples of Jesus.
What was Paul's central understanding of Jesus in 1 Corinthians?
A:A detailed examination of Paul's Christology in the First Epistle to the Corinthians would occupy a small book, and then others would write books from a slightly different perspective. It is only possible to provide a brief answer. Paul seems entirely unaware of the gospel accounts that would be written some decades after he wrote this epistle. Some of the sayings that Paul wrote as his own would later be attributed to Jesus in the gospels. 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 tells us what Paul knew about the resurrection of Jesus: "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:" Note that Paul only talks of Jesus as "preached" as rising from the dead and never declares his certain knowledge that Jesus really did, as one would expect from the account in Acts of the Apostles. He teaches that the belief in the general resurrection of the dead is all the evidence we need to believe that Jesus was resurrected.His descriptions of the resurrection of Jesus and his discussions on the resurrection of the faithful have been described as suggesting that Paul saw the resurrection of Jesus as a purely spiritual one, or that the resurrection and ascension to heaven were exactly the same event. Some have gone even further and point out that Paul could have believed that Jesus did not live on earth and that the crucifixion and resurrection took place in heaven. This could be dismissed as fantasy, except that we find Hebrews, by a different author but from about the same time as Paul's epistles, talks of Jesus as the High Priest in heaven.At 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul said that Jesus died and was buried, rose again according to the scriptures, then was seen by Cephas (Peter), then the twelve, then by more than 500, most of whom were still alive, then by James and all the apostles, and finally by himself. This account differ in several important ways from the accounts that would later form part of the gospels, but Paul implied that the appearances were all of the same nature. Either Paul saw Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection, for which there is no evidence, or he experienced the risen Jesus spiritually and therefore believed that the appearances to the disciples and other were also only spiritual.
Why did only a certain amount of disciples write books in the Bible?
A disciple is someone who spreads the gospel. Or is a follower of Jesus. So the answer is yes only a few wrote the new testament. But we as christians are all suppoed to be disciples.
How would you write a reference for Jesus' final message?
Jesus' final message to his disciples are recorded in the New Testament. The most common reference for the Great Commission is Matthew 28:18-20.
Did Paul write about when Jesus began his ministry?
No. Scholars have pointed out that Paul does not seem to have realised that Jesus was a person who had lived and died in Palestine in the very recent past. Some of what Paul did write is difficult to reconcile with the gospel accounts.
Were there mistakes in the four gospel accounts of the resurrection?
There are dramatic differences between the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, whether by mistake or other wise.The earliest known manuscripts of Mark do not even have a resurrection narrative, beyond the young man telling the women that Jesus had risen. The "long ending" (Mark 16:9-20) resurrection appearances were added much later to bring this gospel more or less into line with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.Matthew's Gospel reports an earthquake that rolled away the stone. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the angel who caused the earthquake sitting on the stone. The women saw Jesus later while on the way to tell the disciples of their experience. Finally, the eleven disciples went to a mountain in Galilee and saw Jesus.In Luke's Gospel, the stone had already been moved when a group of women arrived, but there is no mention of an earthquake. This time, two men appeared to the women in shining garments, apparently angels. Later, Jesus appeared to two men, Cleopas and (presumably) Peter, but they did not recognise him, even after conversing with him, inviting him home, and eating dinner with him. They only assumed that he was Jesus based on his words and behaviour, but then he vanished out of their sight. At his next appearance, Jesus went to some lengths to assure them that he really was Jesus, showing the disciples his wounds, and finally being drawn up into heaven. All this happened in and near Jerusalem, not in Galilee.In John's Gospel, only Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre and saw the stone moved. Then came 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' and Peter, who went in and saw only the linen clothes and the napkin. Next 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' went in, saw and believed. Only after they left did Mary see two angels in the sepulchre. Mary afterwards saw Jesus standing and knew not that it was Jesus, supposing that he was the gardener. The next two appearances are quite similar to a single appearance in Luke's Gospel. Finally, Jesus appeared to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberius.The differences, although fundamental, do not have to be fatal to the Christian story. We now know that the gospel authors were not really eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke relied entirely on Mark's Gospel for their information about the life and mission of Jesus. They also relied on the hypothetical 'Q' document for a large number of sayings attributed to Jesus, but which are not in Mark. And the resurrection is not even hinted at in Q. If the authors of Matthew and Luke knew nothing about the life and mission of Jesus, other than what they learnt from Mark, then they also knew nothing about the resurrection of Jesus. What they wrote was an elaboration of the story, to satisfy their readers. Ian Wilson (Jesus: The Evidence)says of Matthew's account, "It is probably safest to regard these [events] as pious embroideries by an author demonstrably over-fond of the miraculous." Then the author of John relied on Luke, at the same time changing much of the chronology of events and expanding some passages. So, Luke's single visit of the risen Jesus to the disciples in the upper room was expanded to two separate visits, allowing Thomas to miss out on receiving the Holy Ghost from Jesus (John's author was not aware of Acts) and to demonstrate once again his doubts.Burton L. Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament: The Making of the Christian Myth) says that Mark took the basic ideas for the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection from the Christ myth but dared to imagine how the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ might look if played out as a historical event in Jerusalem.Some scholars say that the author of Mark's Gospel already knew Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians and possibly his Epistle to the Galatians, which could have provided him with some key names and events around which to develop a story. John Shelby Spong (Why Christianity Must Change or Die) says that Paul seemed to believe that the appearance to him of the risen Jesus (which clearly was not physical) was exactly the same as the appearances to the other apostles - in other words there was not yet a tradition of a physical resurrection. In the view of Bishop Spong, Jesus was not physically resurrected, but rather "exalted" by God. Perhaps Mark (in its original form) avoided any claim of a physical resurrection because this would have been too big a step from Paul's gospel.Thus, it seems that Paul knew nothing about a physical resurrection of Jesus; Mark followed him by merely having that young man say, "He is risen"; Matthew and Lukecreated elaborations to satisfy their readers; John expanded on Luke for theological reasons. These are dramatic differences, but not mistakes. Each of the evangelists knew what to write to move Christianity forward.
