Verified answer

You can demolish the gospels on any one of a thousand perfectly legitimate tacks. I've never seen a "Christian" discouraged in the least by any of them. They have the advantage of NOT basing their "belief" on any rational grounds, so they simply cannot be dissuaded by rational argument.

The "Jesus Bones" story a few months back was patent nonsense; but even if it were certain without error that archaeologists had actually found the bones of the historical "Jesus," it's not as if "Christians" would stop going to Church. They'd likely handle it the same way they handle the fact of dinosaur fossils when they want to cling to the childish belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. There is no limit to human disingenuity.

Greek was the widely used language of that time and place. And there does seem to be evidence that Matthew had been originally written in Hebrew, since it was directed towards the early Jewish-backgrounded believers. But, since the church quickly spread beyond the immediate areas of language and culture, of course it went into the more common language...Greek!

You are correct that God is not the author of confusion...I can see you ARE confused about a few things.

First, the crucifixion really happened. You seem to doubt because of some supposed differences in the Gospel narrations. Leaving things out? I suppose the One that inspired the writers chose not to repeat Himself.

And you know you can only go on what has been written, not on what has NOT been written.

I'm short on time, so I will close with this- the council in 325 A.D. did NOT decide what to believe, did NOT "make" the doctrines up... the purpose was to determine the doctrines that ALREADY were, the doctrines that were clearly taught by scripture, and held in common by all the non-heretical believers. There were heretics then, and there are now.

Don't you think an ALMIGHTY GOD can preserve His Word and its Meaning for a mere 2000+ years? I do not believe He is the one that is confused.

Nobody knows. It isn't likely that John was written by a direct disciple of Jesus, because the language and cultural reference date the work to the early 2nd century, and the earliest manuscripts are anonymous. Matthew is a little different, because we have early 2nd century sources who ascribe the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew the disciple, and the conventional dating fits within the right time frame. But the work itself is still anonymous (even though all extent manuscripts ascribe the work to Matthew). The traditional opinion is that the primary sources for the Gospels may have been penned by the disciples of Jesus. Q, Signs, Proto-Matthew, Proto-Mark, etc. But the early church named the Gospels based on the churches with which they were originally associated. Matthew was associated with Antioch, so the Gospel tradition in Antioch was known as the "Gospel of Matthew."

The Gospels were written in Greek (or translated into Greek shortly after they were written) because Greek was a widely used language in the Roman Empire.

There are 4 Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and they have differences because although God inspired them, they were still written by men who had limitations. Not everyone has the same viewpoint. Not everyone notices the same details. That is why when things like car accidents happen, the police get the statements of as many witnesses as possible. They all will not have the exact same story despite witnessing the exact same event. However, the police can use all their stories to come up with an accurate account of the accident. Likewise, we can use the 4 Gospels to see a better view of Jesus' life and teachings.

After the conquests of Alexander the Great, most people in world learned to speak Greek. It was similar to the way English is today: if you didn't speak Greek as your first language, you would almost certainly learn it as your second. Latin would not replace Greek as the dominant language for another few hundred years. Because the authors wanted the story of Jesus to be taken to the ends of the earth, they wrote in a language that could be read anywhere in the known world. If they had just written it in Aramaic, only Jews would have been able to read it, and Christianity would not have spread all through the world as it has done.

By the way, even the Jewish Torah (Old Testament) was mainly read in Greek in that time, in a version called the Septuagint. It was translated from the Hebrew by scholarly types in Alexandria around the second century BCE. So it is even quite possible that Jesus did some or most of his preaching ministry in Greek.

By the time the gospels were written, the majority of the church had changed from Jews to Greeks (Gentiles). So the Greek language would have been more commonly spoken and read in churches then would Hebrew or Aramaic. So it only made sense to write the scriptures in the language that the majority of the people would understand.

As to the authorship of the gospels: (the real issue).

If you compare Matthew, Mark and Luke, you will find that out of the 1151 verses in Luke 430 are common with Mark. That is 84% of the book of Mark. Of the 1,071 verses in Matthew, 573 are common with Mark. That is about 92%of Mark. So it apparent that Mark was familiar to both writers, and that they borrowed heavily from it. Another 176 verses are shared between Matthew and Luke (but not found in Mark). Luke adds an additional 544 verses unique to his work. This would seem to indicate that Luke was familiar with the writings of Matthew also.

The gospel of Luke shares many phrases with the writings of Paul (know to have been written between 48AD and his death in 67AD). Examples are Luke 4:22 with Colossians 4:6, Luke 4:32 with 1 Corinthians 2:4, Luke 6:36 with 2 Corinthinas 1:3, Luke 6:39 with Romans 2:19, Luke 9:56 with 2 Corinthians 10:8, Luke 10:8 with 1 Corinthians 10:27, Luke 11:41 with Titus 1:15, Luke 18:1 with 2 Thessalonians 1:11, Luke 21:36 with Ephesians 6:18, Luke 22:19-20 with 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Luke 24:34 with 1 Corinthians 15:5...to name a few.

For Paul to be able to quote from Luke (as he does in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 from Luke 22:19-20) Luke had to have existed before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. It is generally held that 1 Corinthians was written in 56AD. So Luke had to have existed at that time.

As Luke borrows heavily from both Mark and Matthew, they would have had to have pre-dated his gospel. So the textual evidence within the gospels themselves shows that they were written during the lifetimes of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

John was written much later (around 90-100AD). It contains some of the finest Greek of any New Testament writing, and the same quality of Koine Greek is found in the three smaller letters accredited to John. So it appears that John was very literate in Greek. It was not uncommon for people to be fluent in multiple languages at that time. As there still exist today a fragment of John's gospel, which current scientific study place as having been created around the year 117AD, it is possible to establish that John's gospel was in existence by that time - still within the lifetime of the apostle John.

So there is no textual or historical evidence that would prevent Matthew and John (or Mark or Luke) from being the author of the gospels which bear their names.

If I wanted to write a book aimed at Russians, would I write it in English? NO.

Greek was the more universal language of the time. Just like Latin was later.

And yes, I do think it is God's responsibility to make sure the Bible is perfect. My faith's view of this is that he established the Catholic church as a safeguard. The church/pope can issue Dogmatic statements declaring certain beliefs as correct. This is usually done only after an incorrect view is being circulated - a correction, if you will.

And no, the creation of the trinity didn't come in 325 AD, it was merely stated in that time. That would be like saying gravity didn't exist because that word wasn't used before <whenever> or that it was created whenever Newton's apple fell on him. That's poor logic. The concept existed before. It is discussed in concept in the bible, even if the WORD isn't used.

Edit: <rolls eyes at jonjon418's ranting>

Maybe they learned Greek also? And Greek was the most advanced written language at the time.

And maybe the first written Gospels were Aramaic. Also, there were some dead sea scrolls fragment that may have been from the book of Matthew, because it had written same as from a portion in Matthew. But that portion was also in an OT prophetic word of the Messiah. So that would probably been in old Hebrew or Aramaic. But I read that a long time ago & don't remember.

Also, you deny the resurrection and you can only be born of God if you believe in your heart He raised from the dead victorious over death. That he shed His own blood for the remission of your sins.

Any way, I have asked God about the book of John and God answered my question with a visit from the Prophet John in a vision, and he read with me the book of John & 1-3 John & Revelation and confirmed to me he is the one who penned them out of obedience to Jesus. Also, answered questions I had.

These manuscripts were specifically written to the Greeks. Greek was commonly spoken in that part of the world at that time. Aramaic was the language of the common people, most of whom could not read or write.

Have you ever tried to write in Aramaic? That **** is tough. Written Greek is much more fluid and was more widely used in those times.

Just think of the Chinese. The written language and the spoken language are entirely different but it doesn't make early Chinese medicine a myth.

You're reaching for straws. I mean, if your argument against the validity of the Bible is "it's greek to me," then you aren't convincing anyone.

There are much more convincing arguments against the Bible out there.