Why do some assume that the gospel authors knew Jesus ?

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,803
On what basis do some make the statement that gospel writers (or some of them at least) knew Jesus

Do the author themselves either state or imply anywhere that they either knew Jesus or knew someone who did ? Would not the gospels have been more powerful if the author(s) stated right away that they personnally witnessed the events they write about ? Or got first hand account of them from Jesus himself ?

Then there is the strange case of the devil in the desert.... Jesus was alone, there were no witnesses to this... In other words Matthew recounts events that he clearly could not have witnessed in this particular case.... Therefore the rest of his account can be likewise about events that he did not witness... from there it is not a stretch to think that he invented the whole story....


Matthew 4:1-11 New International Version (NIV)

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a]by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
 
Jun 2018
526
New Hampshire
which then begs the question why Mark does not clearly state that he knew Jesus and what Jesus told him and what he witnessed himself......
The Gospels were the eyewitness accounts and records of Apostles. Christ gave this ministry to them. Mark as a disciple of Peter, faithfully recorded what the Apostle Peter related to him.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
40. And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41. Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
43. And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
44. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
(Matthew 26:40-44)

Here Jesus couldn't tell no one what he did while others slept.
 
Mar 2019
1,801
Kansas
which then begs the question why Mark does not clearly state that he knew Jesus and what Jesus told him and what he witnessed himself......
Even if he never met Jesus, you do know they had writing back then

By your logic no one can write a biography of someone they had never met...................................
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,803
The Gospels were the eyewitness accounts and records of Apostles. Christ gave this ministry to them. Mark as a disciple of Peter, faithfully recorded what the Apostle Peter related to him.
But what is the evidence for this and where is it stated ?

And then you have the Matthew 27:53 problem

The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holycity and appeared to many people

This rather puts a dent in Peter and/or Matthew's credibility
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,803
Even if he never met Jesus, you do know they had writing back then

By your logic no one can write a biography of someone they had never met...................................
And this writing was, what exactly ? What is the source ?

And now I assume you are saying that Matthew did not actually know Jesus....
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,463
Dispargum
On what basis do some make the statement that gospel writers (or some of them at least) knew Jesus
They are written like eyewitness accounts, the passages cited above, where it was impossible for anyone to have eyewitnessed the events told, are the exceptions, not the rule. Most passages are credible as eyewitness accounts.

I think there is a tendency in recent years to interpret literature more literally and not figuratively. Much of the Bible may have been originally written figuratively. This is why the Catholic Church discourages lay people from interpreting the Bible for themselves.
 
Mar 2019
1,801
Kansas