evaluate the evidence for and against the tradition that Luke, Paul traveling companion, wrote the Gospel?
94503
Paul wrote the most of the letters  in the New Testiment.  I do not believe he had anything to do with any of the Gospels!
410323
The Secret Gospel of Mark (not part of the official Christian canon) implies that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Lazarus. \n\nWhether Jesus was gay, or had children with Mary Magdalene, is all just speculation. We really don't know anything about Jesus beyond what's written in the gospels...and the gospels were written long after Jesus' death.
346698
Most of the "Gospels" that were not included in the Bible have been dated to about the second century. The books of the New Testament were all written either by eyewitnesses to the events or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses. Many of the books refer to other books of the New Testament as scripture. It certainly wasn't one person who "got to pick what would go into the Bible."\n\nAdded:\nThe language and content of the Gospel of Thomas is consistend with the second century, not the first. It was written after all the eyewitnesses were dead. It's pretty easy to write a book about events that happened two hundred years ago, since no eyewitnesses are around to refute it. Also, some of the things in the Gospel of Thomas don't line up with the rest of the Bible. The gospels (and other New Testament books) that are included in the Bible were written at a time when eyewitnesses to the events were still around to refute it. Luke, for instance, was most likely written within 30 years of Jesus' death. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, actually lists names of eyewitnesses and tells the church in Corinth that most of the eyewitnesses were still alive when he was writing.
398012
yes\n\nthe gospel of Judas is false doctrine, written by gnostics in 300 AD... \n\ndont just accept what dan brown says people
463231
Its another fake Gospel written by an early christian sect who obviously had no contact with Jesus, the disciples or the disciples followers. It was common for christian sects with no direct link to church founders to create bogus gospels to support there beliefs.\nIf the gospel is real it would have been mentioned somewhere in the ancient history or copies of it would have surfaced elsewhere. Not to mention a true gospel always matches with what the rest of the bible says.\nPeople have a bad habit of thinking if a text is old then it must be a part of Gods word.  This is not true!
1018115
I heard that it is a search for the holy grail, which is supposed to be the cup from the last supper, but the author of the book suggests that it is a box with some manuscripts in it that proves that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a daughter named Sarah.  It also says that many gospels were written but some council decided to use the four (Matt. Mark, Luke, and John) because it was the only ones that said Jesus was the son of God.  There is much more to it as well, but those are the ones I remember.\n\nIt is considered fiction but I heard that Dan Brown said that the fiction part is the murder and overlying story of the book, but he said that everything about Jesus was true.  I don't believe it.
982221
There is no ( or at the very least, precious little) evidence of a person called Jesus outside of the bible.  Xians will say Josephus mentioned him, but in fact, the only translation we have of Josephus was done by a christian writer in the 4th century...we don't have it in the original Latin.  And what is mentioned is very weak and open to interpretation and very likely was subject to interpolation.\n\nThe Romans were meticulous record keepers.  If Jesus existed, and had fostered the kind of revolution that would get their attention by threatening Roman rule, performing miracles, there would be copious writings about him from the Romans, and other sources.\n\nPaul the Apostle is agreeably the earliest christian writer, and he wrote probably a couple decades after the putative events.  Yet Paul makes no reference to a recently living Christ...and if you read his works separate from the rest of the NT, he seems to be writing of a supernatural creature who fought a battle, died and rose again in a spiritual realm, eons ago.  Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and yet he makes no mention of a pilgramage to Golgotha, or the tomb or any sites that would be shrines to a real person recently living, crucified and risen again ascending into heaven. Paul is bizarrely disinterested in anything relating to a real physical Jesus.\n\nAll other accounts, were written much later.  The earliest Gospel of Mark (by the way, it wasn't written by anybody called Mark, it is anonymous) couldn't have been written any earlier than 40-50 years after the events.  The Gospels all contradict each other as to Jesus life, miracles and death.  I recommend any of Randall Helms books on the New Testament and Gospels for a detailed overview of the problems.\n\nIt really is quite interesting if you are prepared to have an open mind about it.  Jesus, if he existed, was at best a wandering prophet/holyman/philospher.  We have lots of legendary heroes with stories about them, like King Arthur, William Tell...but we know they never actually existed.  I think it more likely he never actually existed, and was created as a "founding father" in the heroic tradition by the early church.
277172
It's not a weird notion.  There is no evidence of a lot of things that transpired during the times of Christ.   Sure the Bible talks about it and is the ONLY accepted history of that time.   I'm inclined to think that the apostles did run with their interpretation of Christ's teachings.   I'm not so sure it was to create an alternate Jewish religion, but an alternate politically correct on of the time.   Jesus didn't come to Earth to have people worship him as God.  That was furthest from his teachings.  His teachings were to show people the way to the Father through his teachings.  Even the perverstion of "The only way to heaven is through Christ."   It simply means that to get to heaven is to be like Christ and follow his teachings.   It does not mean to worship him as God.   Never has, never did, never will.
781100
I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"\nGen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.\n\nMatt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important. \n\nMatt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology. \n\nMark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith. \n\nLuke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received. \n\nJohn 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith. \n\nII. "All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17\n2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.\n\n2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament. \n\n2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive. \n\n2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul. \n\n2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later. \n\n2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful. \n\n2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for ever
988142
No. There has been too much lost in the numerous translations. And I would question your statement about the book being in existence for 'thousands' of years. The new testament and the gospels were not instantly assembled upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The old testament was passed on by word of mouth long before the books were written.  Compound these necessary flaws with the council of cardinals who decided which books were going to be part of the bible and which books were not, and the church's practice of censoring anything that did not agree with doctrine, and you have a less than perfect product.
892737
well, don't see any proof.....\n\nCatholic tradition period – all Rcc beliefs can be found in the bible, some plainly others indirectly indicated. Scripture itself points out an authoritative church & tradition. St Paul points out in his second letter to the Thess – stand firm & hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or letter. Here are some scriptures to check out 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2,  2 Thess 3:6, 2 Tim 1:13-14 & 2:2. When the first Christians had disagreements they didn’t open their  bibles – they didn’t exist – they held councils and held binding decrees – these councils were those who knew more then the others and they came to an agreement/understanding and thus made a binding decree (acts 15:1-29). The very books of the bible were determined by the Church (Rcc) and didn’t even happen until the 4th century – centuries of oral tradition. Without their determination and will to listen to the Holy Spirit, sent by God to inspire them  there would be no bible.  \nIf the traditions and leaders of the Rcc did not hold to the scriptures (while some held violently or savagely) the majority shared and taught. Had the hierarchy of the Rcc not established the foundations where would Christianity be today? Would there even be a bible in print – I really don’t think so. Because people would not have shared their traditions. Most people century’s back never owned a bible like we do, gracious they couldn’t even read.
380572
The background of The Gospel of Judas is in itself an interesting tale no matter what you think of it's contents.\n\nThe manuscripts were touted round the "gray market" for years before being purchased. According to their owner, Dr. Mario Roberty, the manuscripts are papyrus and consist of:\n\n- a Gnostic codex in Sahidic dialect containing:\n\nthe 'Gospel of Judas'\nthe "First Apocalypse of James" \nthe "Epistle of Peter to Philip"\n\n- the 'Book of Exodus' in Greek\n- 'Letters of Paul' in Sahidic dialect and a\n- 'Mathematical Treatise' in Greek.\n\nPublication of a translation is planned by the National Geographic Magazine.\n\nAccording to wikipedia "The National Geographic Channel will be airing a special entitled "The Gospel of Judas" on April 9, 2006 at 8 pm" as well.
693665
Its a lot like anything else. You either have faith in it or you don't.  They did prove its authenticity.  They know it was around at 180Ce.  And they do have a point (those that have answered) that they cannot prove that what the contents say is fact. (meaning this is actually what was said and all that) However if you want to take that route we can say the same for the other Gospels. Those in the bible and those not.  The Gospels in the bible are just as old.  We were not there.  We take what the scriptures say on faith. (for those who believe) So this book is no different.)  I personally feel that this Gospel has a lot to offer in our understanding of Jesus and his Disciples.  Just as the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  They give us more insight. More understanding.  And, I feel, They give us something to weigh against the Gospels and other books in the New Testiment.
462578
The primary question, as written, demands an answer of "nothing." There is a considerable amount of written text attributed to Jesus' followers, though perhaps to no one who actually knew him. But I've yet to run across anything that claims Jesus' own authorship.
501729
As listed above, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is also the order they're in. (reverse alphabetical)\nI don't have a favorite. They're are all handed down accounts of personal witnesses to Jesus. I think in the new testament, I enjoy reading most the writings of Paul(Saul). I think if Peter had written more about witnessing while Jesus was alive, it would have been my favorite. I think his personal accounts would have been more "humbling".
939916
Intersting that the only reference cited outside the bible is Josefus, who never mentioned Jesus. Any reference to Jesus in his writing was added 1000 years later by other 'christians 'trying to strengthen their arguement.\n\nGreenleaf may have decided that the story was real but I don't believe that it would stand up in court. It would be interesting to look at his background.
683362
That's a pretty tenuous interpretation ripped out of context.\n\nAnd it is generally agreed by scholars that Peter did not write that letter.