Not so. Matthew Mark and John were with Christ on earth, and Luke travelled with Paul, and had spoken to disciples and others who were with Christ.
Then we will agree to disagree Steve.The gospels of Mathew, Mark and John are dated by the church itself as beingwritten in the 2nd century,well over 100 years post Christ and far beyond the 35 year life expectancy of the times. The writers of the Gospels are not nor never purported to be any of the original apostles, nor has thechurch ever claimed they were.None of the apostles survived Nero and none of the gospels were written prior to the commencement of the persecutions. Also, I would suggest to you that the contradictions that exist between the various Gospels isproof enough thatthere was never anysuch collaborationnor communication between the writers themselves.In fact it is quite clear from the writings themselves there is a chronological order to them and distinct seperation between them. It is howeverbelieved that Luke, writer of the earliest of the 4 Gospels was in factthe son of the Apostle Mathew.
If you have any reliable research, other than new age web sites withtheir new theological twists, which refutes any of what I have said then by all means point me in that direction. I am fully aware many of the various sects today are attempting to re write history on the basis ofrandom and obtuse cross references betweenscattered passages of the old testament and revelations.You can reinterpret the writingsthemselves but you can't change the history of it.
The John who wrote Revelations is not the John who wrote one of the Gospels. Again, I disagree. Some people say what you've said, other bible scholars maintain it was indeed the same John, now an old man in exile on the island of Patmos when he wrote the book of Revelation.
Steve, this is simply not possible as Revelation itself clearly indicates. Not only does the writer himself deny any such connection but he addresses his revelations to the 7 Bishopsof the church, a structurewhich did not exist in the time that the "other" John wrote his Gospel.
This is not quite stating it right. The book of Revelation has been in the bible since it was compiled, long before the 1800s.
I never stated otherwise. You quoted me as saying"It (the church)does not accept Revelations as a book of prophecy". This is very accurate andI believe if you re read what I wrote earlier you will see where I said it is in the original bible compiled at the conference of 315 but never was it partof the new testament,itis a book in its own right at the end of the new testament. I stand by this, I alsoclearly outlined why the churchincluded it.My only reference to anything in the1800's was that is when it took on the role of prophecy at the hands of the Millerites re-interpretation.
It's more accurate to say some churches take the things in Revelation as figurative prophecy, some as more literal.
No, that is not more accurate. The Catholic and Anglican Churches vehemently deny it is a prophecy, figurative or otherwise, and totally refute such anapocolyptic ending. In fact they have published many papers pointing out where Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as saying this will not happen. The evangelicasts howeverbelieve it to be both prophetic and literaland steadfastly maintainthe coming of the anti christ and the time of tribulation.
