The Gospel according to who?
- Thread starter Rock022
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
Mark was the interpreter for Peter, and Luke was the interpreter for Paul. They were part of the 70 Jesus sent out after He sent out the 12. An "interpreter" is a rabbincal office, sort of like a rabbi in training. The rabbi has the interpreter give the easier parts of the regular sermons, while the rabbi prays. Part of this is according to a historian named Pseudo-Hippolytus, who wrote an early history of the apostles. Here is the text: CHURCH FATHERS: On the Apostles and Disciples (Pseudo-Hippolytus)
Several of the other apostles have gospels named for them, but they are not inspired, so are not included in the Bible.
Several of the other apostles have gospels named for them, but they are not inspired, so are not included in the Bible.
G
Mark is the surname of John
Acts 12:12 (KJV)
12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
Acts 12:25 (KJV)
25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Acts 15:37 (KJV)
37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Acts 15:39 (KJV)
39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
Luke was another of the many disciples.
Colossians 4:14 (KJV)
14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
2 Timothy 4:11 (KJV)
11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
So your next question would be, if Mark is John, why a book of Mark and a book of John?
The book of Mark is John who was inspired by God to write what is written in the book of Mark.
The book of John may have been penned by John but he was not the one inspired by God to write those things in what we know as the book of John. The man inspired to write those things is know as Joseph, Joseph of Arimathaea.
Matthew 27:57 (KJV)
57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
Acts 12:12 (KJV)
12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
Acts 12:25 (KJV)
25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Acts 15:37 (KJV)
37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Acts 15:39 (KJV)
39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
Luke was another of the many disciples.
Colossians 4:14 (KJV)
14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
2 Timothy 4:11 (KJV)
11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
So your next question would be, if Mark is John, why a book of Mark and a book of John?
The book of Mark is John who was inspired by God to write what is written in the book of Mark.
The book of John may have been penned by John but he was not the one inspired by God to write those things in what we know as the book of John. The man inspired to write those things is know as Joseph, Joseph of Arimathaea.
Matthew 27:57 (KJV)
57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
G
The hieromartyr Hippolytus of Rome was a priest and an ecclesiastical writer of the third century. He is considered to have been antipope of the Church of Rome from about 217 to 235.
This man was part of the Roman Catholic Church. Can we really believe the writings of this man? The Catholic church has been teaching lies since the very day of there existance. They even teach that Peter was the first Pope. What a farse that is.
This man was part of the Roman Catholic Church. Can we really believe the writings of this man? The Catholic church has been teaching lies since the very day of there existance. They even teach that Peter was the first Pope. What a farse that is.
K
There is much you do not understand about history.
The Church of Rome was just another church until the mid-300's. It was NOT the Catholic Church at this time. He was a Christian who lived in Rome, and was a member of the big church there.
There was nothing else to be a member of in 220 AD. If you were Christian in the west part of the empire, your books were either burned, or history today will call you a Catholic.
And an antipope is a type of heretic in some ways. He was opposed what is today considered the "authentic Catholic church"
Besides, even if you teach false teachings, that does not mean you are a bad historian.
The Cath Ch teaches Mary was assumed into heaven bodily. But it also teaches Jesus died for our sins, and rose again. Should be reject the second teaching because we reject the first?
Finally, Pseudo-Hippolytus is not the same as Hippolytus of Rome. He is just using that as a pen name. that's what "peudo" means
The Church of Rome was just another church until the mid-300's. It was NOT the Catholic Church at this time. He was a Christian who lived in Rome, and was a member of the big church there.
There was nothing else to be a member of in 220 AD. If you were Christian in the west part of the empire, your books were either burned, or history today will call you a Catholic.
And an antipope is a type of heretic in some ways. He was opposed what is today considered the "authentic Catholic church"
Besides, even if you teach false teachings, that does not mean you are a bad historian.
The Cath Ch teaches Mary was assumed into heaven bodily. But it also teaches Jesus died for our sins, and rose again. Should be reject the second teaching because we reject the first?
Finally, Pseudo-Hippolytus is not the same as Hippolytus of Rome. He is just using that as a pen name. that's what "peudo" means
Last edited by a moderator:
Anybody could write so-called Gospels and attribute them to anyone they pleased, and there were more of these written than the four in the Bible. Most of us believe the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are genuine and accurate. I don't know if that addresses the point you wanted to make, but I thought I'd say it.