First hand accounts?

[Murray]

do you think they were first hand accounts?

[PaulSacramento]

RE: Jesus outside the NT, I suggest this book:
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Robert E. Van Voorst (Author)

As for the NT writings, most scholars agree the written creeds were circulating just a few years after Christ's ressurection, Paul himself quotes them in his letters.
In terms of the Gospels, the OLDEST fragment is from the GOJ and it is dated to early 2nd century, less than 100 years after Christ's ressurection and it was a copy and it was circulating OUTSIDE of Jerusalem, so we have evidence that less than 100 years after Christ's death that copies of the GOJ ( viewed by most as the last gospel to be written) were circulating outside of Jerusalem.

For more info I suggest:
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Bruce M. Metzger (Author), Bart D. Ehrman (Author)

[Silvertusk]

Also consider this - Acts is a story about the early church and Pauls mission - written by Luke. Paul died at about 64AD and Acts finished while he was arrested in Rome - no mention of his death - or for that matter the sacking of Jerusalem in any of the Gospels. So Acts was probably written before 64 AD. Acts is a sequel to Luke - so that puts his Gospel even earlier - Maybe early to late 50s. Also Luke and Matthew have a lot of elements of Mark - so that puts Mark even earlier. Maybe early 50s late 40s.So as you can see - well within the generation of Jesus's crucifixion.

[Murray]

My largest question would probably be, "who wrote the words of jesus"?

This is because I hear ATHEIST all the time claim that it was written by paul and that jesus never existed ect...

[PaulSacramento]

That Jesus existed is a historical fact, note I say HISTORICAL fact.
There is as much, if not more evidence for Jesus than for example, Socrates, but no one doubts his existence.
Paul was a prolific writer but many of the works attributed to him were not written by him DIRECTLY.
That said, the oldest works we have are typically dated to within a generation of Christ's death and resurrection, which in Historical terms is Amazing.
The oldest COMPLETE works are the codex sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are dated to early/mid 300's, a mere 300 years after his death.
In contrast, most historical works that have survived are dated 100's of years later- Alexander the Greats oldest records are 800 years after his death ( I may be wrong on the 800 number though so don't hold me to it).
The fact that Paul's writings and those of Acts and the Gospels and the Catholic Epistles are at times, "at odds" goes to show the dynamic of the early faith and how Paul was NOT the creator of anything, but the preacher of The Word of God, as He understood it.

[Murray]

Am I understanding this correctly :

mark wrote what he heard jesus say and teach jesus, luke did the same, and john and matthew and peter ect... Am I getting this correctly? Were they the ones who mainly wrote eyewittness accounts?

But my other question was if this was so, were they writting jesus's teachings as he spoke or did they just like, 1 year later try to recall what hge said and such.

[jlay]

The fact that Paul's writings and those of Acts and the Gospels and the Catholic Epistles are at times, "at odds" goes to show the dynamic of the early faith and how Paul was NOT the creator of anything, but the preacher of The Word of God, as He understood it.

What? Can you elaborate as to what you mean by "at odds."

Paul was a prolific writer but many of the works attributed to him were not written by him DIRECTLY.

Example?

But my other question was if this was so, were they writting jesus's teachings as he spoke or did they just like, 1 year later try to recall what hge said and such

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The Gospels of John, Mark and Matthew were direct Apostle accounts. Mark being the scribe for Peter essentially. At least that is how the early church fathers saw it. I'm reading a commentary from the early church Fathers on Mark now.

Luke also has its importance as it is written from the perspective of interviewing eye witnesses. And it works to confirm the others.


There are likely many writings of Jesus that simply did not survive. I think it is quite remarkable that we have three eye witness accounts, and one historian who interview eyewitnesses, that were contemporaries of the subject. Name me another 1st century historical figure that can claim such.

[narnia4]

Documents just don't always survive, in fact most of them don't. The number of credible sources and writings would be MORE than enough for anybody other than Christ, but skeptics seem to hold any writings with implications that challenge their world view to a much, much higher standard

[PaulSacramento]

The fact that Paul's writings and those of Acts and the Gospels and the Catholic Epistles are at times, "at odds" goes to show the dynamic of the early faith and how Paul was NOT the creator of anything, but the preacher of The Word of God, as He understood it.

What? Can you elaborate as to what you mean by "at odds."

Paul was a prolific writer but many of the works attributed to him were not written by him DIRECTLY.

Example?

But my other question was if this was so, were they writting jesus's teachings as he spoke or did they just like, 1 year later try to recall what hge said and such

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The Gospels of John, Mark and Matthew were direct Apostle accounts. Mark being the scribe for Peter essentially. At least that is how the early church fathers saw it. I'm reading a commentary from the early church Fathers on Mark now.

Luke also has its importance as it is written from the perspective of interviewing eye witnesses. And it works to confirm the others.


There are likely many writings of Jesus that simply did not survive. I think it is quite remarkable that we have three eye witness accounts, and one historian who interview eyewitnesses, that were contemporaries of the subject. Name me another 1st century historical figure that can claim such.

Notice I put at odds in quotation marks, some people seem to find that James and Paul were at odds ( they were not).
Some scholars to NOT attribute Colossians DIRECTLY to Paul or 2 Timothy ( I think), that doesn't mean they don't have Pauline infulence, just not writen directly by Paul ( Probably dictated).

You bring up a vital issue and that is the role of the HS in the teaching and transmission of teachings.
I agree that the writings we have about Christ are as good, if not better, than any other accepted historical figure.

[Amalric]

Murray you ask some interesting questions and I would like to try to give you some answers.

There is very little early non-Christian evidence for Jesus the man and that which does exist is questioned. There is some evidence for early Christianity.

The majority view among New Testament scholars is that no eye witnesses to Jesus the man wrote any New Testament book. The earliest texts we have are the letters of Paul that are normally dated to about the 50’s AD.

It is important to remember that the texts we read in our Bibles have been agreed by the majority of New and Old Testament scholars. Therefore we shouldn’t dismiss the majority view of New and Old Testament scholars and just quote conservative scholars.

The dating of the Gospels is problematic and the majority view is that Mark was written first then Matthew, then Luke and finally John. As far as I know all New Testament scholars believe Luke wrote Acts. However not many would date Acts to before 64 AD. A case can be made out that Luke knew the writing of Josephus written c 75 and c 94 AD. The dating of Mark is generally accepted as post 63 AD.

I believe that Jesus was a real historical figure, and the evidence for this are the letters of Paul who refers the Lord as a real person and it can be deducted that this is Jesus who had a brother called James and the gospel of Mark and Q (a source document or documents used by Luke and Matthew), however the evidence like lots of evidence is not unbiased. However the non-literary evidence for historical figures such as monuments and inscriptions erected during or soon after the lifetime of a person do not exist for Jesus as they do for other people from ancient time.

“An apostle is a (religious) messenger and ambassador” not a disciple. Paul is clear that he is an apostle but he never met Jesus. In fact he boasts that he didn’t learn his theology from the disciples (Gal 1:12).

The majority view among New Testament scholars is that Mark was not the scribe for Peter or the John Mark referred to in Acts and that John’s gospel was not written by the disciple John. The majority view is that Mark was written first and both Matthew and Luke edited Mark into their gospels along with traditions that they both had (some of which were written in Greek – Q) and some only one of them had. There is no consensus regarding John some believe that he used Luke or Luke and another gospel or two while a few “believe that parts of John represent an independent historical tradition from the synoptics (Mark, Matthew and Luke), while other parts represent later traditions.”

I hope this help you to have a fuller knowledge of the range of the answers to your questions.

[PaulSacramento]

RE the GOJ:
While the GOJ is accredited to John ( this from the early patristic writings), that doesn't mean that the beloved disciple was John and if we look at the writing (genre)we can see that it even says that what was written was told to the writer by the beloved disciple (Whom I believe to be Lazarus).
I think that the GOJ was written by John, in conjunction with Lazarus, and the final form we have was edited later ( by edited I mean put together and the final chapter added).
Jesus Appears at the Sea of Galilee

1After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and He manifested Himself in this way. 2Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together. 3Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will also come with you.” They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing.

4But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5So Jesus said to them, “Children, you do not have any fish, do you?” They answered Him, “No.” 6And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch.” So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. 7Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea. 8But the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not far from the land, but about one hundred yards away, dragging the net full of fish.

9So when they got out on the land, they saw a charcoal fire already laid and fish placed on it, and bread. 10Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have now caught.” 11Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.

Jesus Provides

12Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples ventured to question Him, “Who are You?” knowing that it was the Lord. 13Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise. 14This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead.

The Love Motivation

15So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

Our Times Are in His Hand

18“Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” 19Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”

20Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

[narnia4]

I've heard the Lazarus theory, I believe Ben Witherington holds to that view.

The writer of the Gospel of John is a hard one, I'm actually reading through a Sunday School class online about 150 pages that's trying to make the case that the apostle John did write it. It seems that for many they just don't know, John is a possibility but that doesn't mean its proven (I certainly don't think its been disproven). I don't necessarily see a major problem if you think Lazarus wrote it or someone spoke to John and wrote it down or whatever.

I think you can make a very good and solid case that eyewitnesses were at least spoken to by the writers of the Gospels. The evidence is really pretty strong and there's actually quite a bit of it when it comes to stuff like this. I've said it several times lately, but its some of the most remarkable special pleading that atheists try to pull to convince people that Christ didn't exist. There is simply no other historical figure that wouldn't be accepted AS historical and real with the amount of evidence that we have, in most cases much less evidence would suffice to convince them. This is why subtler atheists and agnostics who don't make careers out of bashing Christianity accept Jesus' existence while only the hardcore haters say he never existed.

[Tiffany Dawn]

As for me, I Study Holy Spirit/Inspiration concerning this matter, for it is the truth.