Did Matthew, Mark and Luke's communities

[Elijah John]

When the Gospel's were written, they were written for particular communities. These communities did not have access to the whole canon of the New Testament, at least not when their particular Gospels were first circulated.

So it is doubtful, for example, that the Markan community had access to the Gospel of John. Certainly not, at least, in the years between the Gospel of Mark, (roughly 60 AD) and the Gospel of John (around 90 AD).

For debate...were the prayers of Matthew, Mark and Luke's communities answered?

If so, why do you suppose they were? After all, it is unlikely they prayed "in Jesus name". (as that concept was introduced with the Gospel of John, some 30 years later)

If praying "in Jesus name" is essential to answered prayer, why didn't "Matthew", "Mark" or "Luke" teach it? Why didn't their Jesus teach it?

[ttruscott]

If praying "in Jesus name" is essential to answered prayer, why didn't "Matthew", "Mark" or "Luke" teach it? Why didn't their Jesus teach it?

Matthew 7:22-23 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Three uses of the word name...Doing miracles in His name did not save the lawless so it is clear that 'in his name' does not mean to use the words, 'in Jesus name.' Since the use of His name did not confer power or holiness upon the user, it is clear that Christ allowed their miracles to copy the disciples so He had the opportunity to reveal the truth about the difference between the two, Christ's answers to prayer and Satan's miracles copying Christ.

I suggest 'in his name' means more like the use in Jn 3:18 where 'in the name of God's one and only Son' refers to the fullness of His character and nature, and like the other thread, refers to BEING IN His name, in accord with His nature, ie, holy, generally like Elijah et al or specifically like the Centurion. Being in accord with GOD is essential to having GOD answer or the prophets who prayed could not have been answered if the actual name Jesus was not used...

As to why - why did GOD not teach all truth to Adam, Abraham or Moses and finish all truth at that time? Why is HIS revelation of HIMself and HIS kingdom piecemeal and spread out? Do we consider that the law given to Moses was to be ignored because it wasn't given to Abraham? This is no new thing even if we have no new answer for it...

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Often the writings are codify the practises that were occurring.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Often the writings are codify the practises that were occurring.

I think you are right about that, but even so, the earliest writings did not seem to indicate that the earliest Christian communities prayed that way. That is "in Jesus name we pray".

John's community, yes most probably, the others? Doubtful.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

WERE THERE MATTHEW, MARK AND LUKE COMMUNITIES?

There were no such thing as "Matthew" "Mark" or "Luke" communities. In the first century at least there was a single unified "Christian" community. No prominence was given to any single individual (especially the three mentioned above, who were by all accounts played no significant roles in leadership in the Christian community and, with the exception of Matthew, not even Apostles). If you feel you know enough about first century Christian history to assert otherwise feel free to present your "research".

A NEW RELIGION: Organised, united and instructed.

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not choose 12 Apostles for decorative purposes, but to ensure that his message and ministry be faithully and accurately transmitted to the growing community of believers. In short he left "the twelve" in charge and their mission was to ensure that the religion that grew from their preaching would know, understand and apply what he taught. His (Jesus') role in prayer and worship would naturally be fundamental and elementary in this regard.

The first century Christian community existed as a unified body and were very familiar with Christ's teaching intially through the oral instruction of the Apostles (personal eyewitnesses - with the exception of Paul) of Jesus ministery and later through the letters (which we know were in cirulation as early as 49 CE since Luke reports in Acts the circulation of one such letter regarding circumssision). They also would have had the earlier written gospels (there is evidence that Matthew's gospel could have been written as early as 41CE) and travelling representatives that visited the various groups (Acts speaks about Luke, Titus and Peter visiting various groups as far a field as Greece, and Crete and it is believed for Peter (eventually) Babylon respectively.

Traveling reps, authorized letters and eventually early copies of the gospels
ensured unity in the first century community


As the geological locations of the individual groups of believers widened these oral and written accounts were circulated and explained by a detailed system of travelling representatives of the central body seated in Jersualem who oversaw written guidelines as to how congregational matters should be arranged.

In house overseers and their assistants and were kept up to date through said travelling representatives (and visiting Apostles) and any dissent, attempts to disunify or corrupt this system and any attempt to introduce foreign teachings or unauthorized gospel (ie without the express approval of the Apostles or their representatives), things that would undermine the fabric of teachings that held the Christian community together as an international, multracial religion, were handled with the utmost seriousness.

CONCLUSION The first century Christans had a system of checks and balances in place from the 30s- thought to the completion of the last of John's Letters in the 90's that ensured the entire community was fully aware of the teachings of Christ. If the organization and implementation of some of the finer details of doctrine took some time it is most unreasonable to conclude that how to communicate with God and Jesus role therein was one of them.

To read more please go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY and ...CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

QUESTION Did the early disciples know how to pray?

Prayer has always occupied an important place for true worshippers and Jesus disciples, on more than one occassion approached him and asked him specifically to teach them how to pray. During his earthlly ministry Jesus taught his disciples to reject highly repetitious prayers repeating the same words by rote (ie Catholic rosary praying) and to avoid public prayers uttered with the intention of appearing especially pious before other humans. In the famous "Model Prayer" (also known as "The Lord's Prayer) he highlighted which sujects to prioritize.

On the last and most important night of his earthly life, Jesus spoke at length with his eleven faithful Apostles. During this conversation he spoke about his own role in worship and notably gave them authority to ask God for things "in his name". What did this mean? Up until that point, prayers were directed directly to God based on the worshippers acknowledgement of the temple system being the means by which the True God would accept worship. It is for this reason Jews would often physically pray turned in the literal direction of the temple in Jersuaslem. But Jesus announced a change from this temple based worship, which was in fact a "shadow of the things to come" to worship based on the existence of a spiritual templeof which he himeself (Jesus) would be the both the High Priest and the propitary sacrifice. Thus the disciples would understand that his role in prayer and worship was absolutely essentual and central.


Is it reasonable to conclude that the Apostles kept Jesus role in prayer and worship to themselves?

This is a most ludicrous idea and Peters public discourse just over one month after the above event indicate that the Apostles made it quite clear what role Jesus played both in salvation and in all elements of worship (prayer being a Christians most fundamental ). Further Paul's letter to the Corinthians (written about 55CE) shows that the first century Christians were fully aware of the procedure Christ followed regarding the emblems (bread and wine) in 33CE and had been doing the same for some time. How likely is it then that eyewitnesses transmitted what Jesus did but not what he said? To put it in a nutshell, baptism was to be in Jesus' name, prayer was to be in Jesus' name and salvation was to be dependent on recognizion and acceptance of Jesus as the "Chief agent of life". These are elementary Christian teachings. This may not be convenient for "ransom deniers" but it is an indelible part of the Christian faith.

Before Jesus died, Jesus told his Apostles to pray in his (Jesus') name;
did the Apostles keep this information secret from the wider Christian community?

CONCLUSION The Apostles and early disciples would have faithfully transmitted what Jesus had told them regarding his (Jesus) role in prayer. There is no serious reason to suggest that the first century Christians did not pray "in Jesus name" or that they were not fully aware of what Jesus said in the regardon the last night*

* For information as to how the widespread Christian community could remain informed see my earlier post #5 above

Dating the GOSPELS (onewithhim)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 833#823833


RELATED POSTS

John 14:14 : Ask or ask me?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 055#864055

Did ALL the Chirstian writer teach about Jesus blood sacrifice
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 119#827119

[Elijah John]

In the famous "Model Prayer" (also known as "The Lord's Prayer) he highlighted which sujects to prioritize.

Yes, and in that prayer Jesus rightly hallows the Father's name...but makes no mention of the necessity, or even the desirability of praying "in Jesus name". Unless that is implicit by the very act of praying the way Jesus prayed, and the way Jesus taught, ie the Lord's Prayer.

Why would Jesus have omitted such an important ingredient in his "model" for prayer?

On the last and most important night of his earthly life, Jesus spoke at length with his eleven faithful Apostles. During this conversation he spoke about his own role in worship and notably gave them authority to ask God for things "in his name".

Sound pretty important. Not important enough though, for the Synoptic authors to have mentioned it. Is that fair to their communities to have omitted such an important teaching? Or is it something that Jesus didn't actually teach, except in the mind of "John" and his community?

This is a most ludicrous idea and Peters public discourse just over one month after the above event indicate that the Apostles made it quite clear what role Jesus played both in salvation

We're not discussing salvation here, we're discussing prayer the way Jesus taught.

and in all elements of worship (prayer being a Christians most fundamental ).

OK. let's stick to prayer, the way Jesus taught.

How likely is it then that eyewitnesses transmitted what Jesus did but not what he said?

The Gospel Evangelists were not eyewitnesses, but anonymous apologists.

Before Jesus died, Jesus told his Apostles to pray in his (Jesus') name;
did the Apostles keep this information secret from the wider Christian community?

According to John, and by extension, John's community. The Synoptic Evangelists did not make the same report. To the detriment of their respective communities? Was it delinquent of them to have omitted such an important teaching? Or were they purposely leaving that up to "John".

CONCLUSION The Apostles and early disciples would have faithfully transmitted what Jesus had told them regarding his (Jesus) role in prayer. There is no serious reason to suggest that the first century Christians did not pray "in Jesus name"

Some did, as did "John" and likely John's community.

But notice, there is no record of even Paul praying "in Jesus name", is there?

[ttruscott]

If praying "in Jesus name" is essential to answered prayer...

would seem to be contradictory to generations of Israelites prayers as essential.

[JehovahsWitness]

Sound pretty important. Not important enough though, for the Synoptic authors to have mentioned it. Is that fair to their communities to have omitted such an important teaching? Or is it something that Jesus didn't actually teach, except in the mind of "John" ... {snip} ?

QUESTION: Was the writer of the gospel of John lying ?

While the gospel of John is held by many to be one of the most profound and beautiful works in literature, there are those, even supposed "christians", that suggest it is reasonable to dismiss anything he wrote if not specifially corroborated by at least one, if not all three other gospels. Since 92% of what John wrote was unique we can thus,dismiss this book to be a work of fiction. However but is this a reasonable position to take?

While lack of corroboration may well cast doubt on an event, it it reasonable to consider other factors as well such as the reliability of the witness, does the account while unique, harmonize with surrounding circumstances, would the person be in a position to know the information being conveyed, is the information logical and presented in a reasonable manner? etc.

To illustrate An individual claims he overheart someone plotting to rob a bank. The police take the report seriously and find a got gun mask, plan the bank, explosives and other details. Should the witness be allowed to say what he heard in court or should his witness be dimissed because it cannot be specifically verified by another individual?

In a similar way John's gospel, while it carries a substantial amount of unique information, meets all the criteria of being a reliable witness:

• i)Unlike the gnostic gospels with so-called revealed information which was rejected by the early Christians, the earliest catalogs provide evidence that John's gospels was never under any doubt as regards its authority.
  
  ii) Intimacy of the detail support the writers claim to be an eyewitness of events and early church tradition identifies him as the beloved Apostle, John would most definitely have been in a position to have the information he shares.
  
  iii) while John reports details about Christ or his discource not found in any other written accounts this in no way proves they were not not part of the oral traditions that marked the beginning of the christian movement. Christians were taught verbaly before the gospels were set on paper.
  
  iv) While many of the accounts and discourse are uniques to John, those same themes they are all explicitly or implicitly supported by other Christian writers (Paul for example wrote at length on many of the themes) as well as teaching in the Hebrew bible.

At the end of the day none of us were present during the events being reported, we have all then to decide if we find the witness being given convincing or not. Those that approach the bible "liar unless proven innocent" will naturally never be satisfied with logic, historical context or even other supporting texts. The man that sees everything one find objectionable as a lie, has little chance of finding the truth.

JW



RELATED POSTS

Was the first century Christian community united in faith and teaching?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 434#885434

Is there evidence to support the idea that the Apostles passed on information Jesus gave them about praying in his name?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 441#885441

John 14:14 : Ask or ask me?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 055#864055

Was the writer of John a liar?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 529#885529

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

When the Gospel's were written, they were written for particular communities. These communities did not have access to the whole canon of the New Testament, at least not when their particular Gospels were first circulated.

So it is doubtful, for example, that the Markan community had access to the Gospel of John. Certainly not, at least, in the years between the Gospel of Mark, (roughly 60 AD) and the Gospel of John (around 90 AD).

Since this seems to be the premise of your point, please note that the book of Luke was not written for an individual community (and I see no reason to assume that the gospels were written for an individual community to begin with). Indeed, the book of Luke was actually written for an individual person: Theophilus.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4

Obviously that account was handed around to others as well, but it was not written for a community of "Luke".

So it is doubtful, for example, that the Markan community had access to the Gospel of John. Certainly not, at least, in the years between the Gospel of Mark, (roughly 60 AD) and the Gospel of John (around 90 AD).

Did any community need to have access to the 'gospel of John" in order to have heard the things that the author of that gospel (an eyewitness and apostle) later wrote down?

For debate...were the prayers of Matthew, Mark and Luke's communities answered?

If so, why do you suppose they were? After all, it is unlikely they prayed "in Jesus name". (as that concept was introduced with the Gospel of John, some 30 years later)

Why conclude that something was introduced only at the time it was (supposedly) written down? Doesn't Luke specifically state that some people were drawing up accounts of things that had already been handed down to them?


As to whether or not anyone's prayers were answered, that would be up to God. God is not obligated to answer the prayers of someone who bypasses His Son. Just as Pharaoh was not obligated to hear anyone who attempted to bypass Joseph, whom Pharaoh had placed in charge over all his kingdom. Just as no one could enter the Most Holy Place except through the Holy Place (unless they were thieves and robbers).

The one praying might be approaching in love, trying to do right, might be sincere but simply mistaken... and so is not deliberately going against God's directions and will correct himself as soon as he learns better.

But how much more so will we be heard if we are listening to His Son and doing as that Son directed, and approaching God and ask in the name of His Son? (including praying for the things that Son taught us to pray for: the Kingdom to come; God's name to be Holy; God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven; forgiveness for our sins as we forgive others; to receive our daily bread; to be protected from the evil one?)


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy