The 'Missing' Apostles

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveF:
Can anyone explain why only select members of the Twelve Apostles have Gospels?

​

I'm curious as to why the Council of Carthage choose to exclude the Gospels of Thomas, Philip etc when compiling the NT - yet do include the Gospels of Luke and Mark, who were only companions of Saint Paul.

​

As Paul (afaik) never met Christ, Luke and Mark would seem to have far less validity then any member of the Twelve.

​

[This message has been edited by DaveF, 01-17-2003]

---

The gospels are all anonymous works, they were not written by eyewitnesses, the reason that there are four is because there are four compass points!Look at the internal evidence, Mark wrote the first gospel and he didnt claim to be an eyewitness, matthew copied 90% of Mark, and corrected some errors in Mark such as when Mark said Moses gave the law to the jews, matthew corrects Mark by saying God gave the law.Why then would an eyewitness rely on a non eyewitness account? Also, Papias said that Matthew wrote the word (logoi) in Hebrew, and the gospel of matthew we have today shows no signs of trnaslation from Hebrew into Greek.Luke also makes it clear that he didnt know jesus and John is far too late to be the disciple, I was very surprised when I went to Uni and learned that no one knows who wrote any of the gospels, they sort of kept that from us at my church!Regarding Paul meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, this is fraught with historical impossibilities, for a start the Bible claims that Paul was going to Damascus at the behest of the Sandhedrin to persecute christians, but the Sanhedrin had NO power in Syria, how could they? The leaders of a small Palestinian cult sending a hit squad into a country controlled by the Romans, simply didnt happen. Like most of the Bible you have to take Paul's conversion with a pinch of salt.
I mean its a fact that throughout the ages that Christians have been more than economic with the truth, just look at the writings of Eusebius or Martin Luther, they both explicitly declare that it is fine to lie for God, anything to further the cause.Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
meh

---

One of your better researched posts

Hi TruthloverCan you maybe clarify a few things for me ?You say 'The early churches didn't care about this.'What churches didnt care about whether Paul met Christ or not?You also said 'He met the twelve and was approved by them'Which twelve did Paul meet?
Did they all approve of him or did some of them, such as James, have any issues with him?You say 'he started MOST of the major churches of the Roman Empire'In your opinion, what were the major churches in the Roman Empire and which ones did Paul start?Did he start them or did he modify them ?Also you say 'You may not agree with their opinion, but they were the ones who established the canon'Who established the canon ?Which particular canon, there were diferent ones.Who wrote the gospels ?You wont find a reputable scholar to agree that any of the apostles wrote any of the gospels.'anything that Paul wrote was Gospel'How many books or letters originally attributed to Paul are still attributed to him?Are any of the Pastorals attributed to him, or is Hebrews still attributed to Paul?The you say 'but Paul wrote more than Peter, so we have more from him. 'What an amazing piece of logic, you should be in the FBI.Best Wishes
Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing![This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 02-15-2003]