Comments on: Why Jesus’ Words Matter http://www.pastordanwalker.org/2005/03/why-jesus-words-matter.htm Truth from Life Church St Louis Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:03:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Pastor Dan http://www.pastordanwalker.org/2005/03/why-jesus-words-matter.htm/comment-page-1#comment-137 Pastor Dan Thu, 19 May 2005 13:42:00 +0000 http://192.168.1.105/wordpress/?p=165#comment-137 Not sure where you got your assumptions, but the facts are that Matthew and John were written by the disciples of Jesus by the same name. They were eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses, but personally knew eyewitnesses as their sources. Matthew, Mark and Luke were probably written by 55 AD and John not long thereafter. <br /><br />Since these Gospels began to circulate when contemporaries of Jesus were still alive, they would have been rejected if they contained ideas "foreign to Jesus." Other psuedo gospels were rejected by the early church as being non-authentic. <br /><br />To propose that we scrap documents written by eyewitnesses and accepted by other eyewitnesses and try to reconstruct Jesus' actual sayings 2000 years later with no additional evidence doesn't make much sense. Yet that is what the Jesus Seminar tried to do. They really aren't taken seriously by historians or biblical scholars. We do know what Jesus actually said, we have multiple documents authenticating his words. No need to speculate or to rewrite history based on the theology of 21st century people. Not sure where you got your assumptions, but the facts are that Matthew and John were written by the disciples of Jesus by the same name. They were eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses, but personally knew eyewitnesses as their sources. Matthew, Mark and Luke were probably written by 55 AD and John not long thereafter.

Since these Gospels began to circulate when contemporaries of Jesus were still alive, they would have been rejected if they contained ideas “foreign to Jesus.” Other psuedo gospels were rejected by the early church as being non-authentic.

To propose that we scrap documents written by eyewitnesses and accepted by other eyewitnesses and try to reconstruct Jesus’ actual sayings 2000 years later with no additional evidence doesn’t make much sense. Yet that is what the Jesus Seminar tried to do. They really aren’t taken seriously by historians or biblical scholars. We do know what Jesus actually said, we have multiple documents authenticating his words. No need to speculate or to rewrite history based on the theology of 21st century people.

]]> By: strombe http://www.pastordanwalker.org/2005/03/why-jesus-words-matter.htm/comment-page-1#comment-138 strombe Tue, 17 May 2005 16:17:00 +0000 http://192.168.1.105/wordpress/?p=165#comment-138 Since the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, by people who never met him, they contain ideas that would have been foreign to Jesus. Why should we not strive to identify what Jesus actually said? Since the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, by people who never met him, they contain ideas that would have been foreign to Jesus. Why should we not strive to identify what Jesus actually said?

]]>