So also it is with the epistles. It is accepted that Paul wrote the majority of the epistles attributed to him, but scholars say that the epistles attributed to John, Jude and Peter were all written pseudepigraphically dring the second century. The epistle attributed to James is uncertain, but could have been early enough to have been written by the apostle James or James the brother of Jesus.
Another Answer:
The Gospel of Mark who was a disciple of the Apostle Peter, and the Gospel of Luke who was a companion of the Apostle Paul.
The Bible tells us that all Scripture is inspired by God who uses individuals and their personal traits to convey His message - at times directly stating what is to be written into words. It is important to note that no writing in the New Testament speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem as Jesus prophecized would occur and did in 70 A.D., nor does any writing note the death of James the brother of Jesus and Head of the Church of God @ Jerusalem in 62 A.D., the death of Paul about 64 A.D. or of Peter about a year later in 65 A.D. This leads many biblical scholars to date the New Testament writings between 50 A.D. to 95 A.D. and gives credence to the eye-witness accounts and the lack of myths creeping into these sacred writings.
What is 'special' of noting here is the same people who argue against the writings of the Gospels and Epistles to be mid to late 1st Century, are now beginning to agree that their logia 'Q' personality who is said to be the basis for both Matthew and Mark's work in their understanding may have existed during an earlier timeframe than once believed. So if Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. You simply cannot have it both ways.
No. The Book of Acts is in the New Testament.
The successors to the apostles are the current Bishops and Pope.
Mark and Luke were not one of the Twelve Disciples.
apostles
No, Matthew is not an Old Testament prophet. He is one of the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus in the New Testament. He is also the author of the Gospel of Matthew, which is the first book of the New Testament.
No. The Book of Acts is in the New Testament.
The works of the apostles are listed in The Acts of the Apostles book in the New Testament. It is the fifth book in the New Testament.
There is no reference to the Apostles in the OLD Testament. The Old Testmant is full of prophets, priests, and kings. The New Testament had the twelve apostles, the followers of Jesus Christ.
Yes, the Old testament was quite avaliable to the New Testament writers.
There were 13 apostles in the New Testament. There were 14 apostles in the New Testament. Paul was called an apostle, as were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus. Acts of the Apostles says that Matthias was appointed as a further apostle to replace Judas Iscariot.
The Act of Apostles is in the New Testament. It is actually the fifth book in the New Testament of the bible. It was first written in Greek, but it was later translated into other languages, including English.
The new testament.Further thought:The New Testament contains the account of Jesus' life, his fulfillment of prophecy, and his effect on the world. The 'Apostles' were chosen disciples of Christ after he was born on earth(so they were not in the Old Testament). The book of 'Acts' describes the 'deeds or actions' of some of these Apostles in the early days of Christianity
It is in the New Testament.
Apostles and Elders
Acts of the Apostles.
The fifth book of the New Testament is Acts, also known as the Acts of the Apostles.
The book of Acts is the fifth book in the New Testament after John.