How Long Was Jesus on Earth After His Resurrection?

[Rhema]

it may very well be that ... that was when the four gospels were written as Matthew was written from Joseph's lineage.

What ?!?

(Never mind.)

 

[GodB4Us]

Where in 2nd Cor. 12 does Paul say ANYTHING about an epistle or a writing?

He does not.

It's just more of your wild assertions and conjectures that Paul was talking about anything written down.

I would encourage you to learn more about the history of your canon. The canon of the Church of the East (and here is where you think you know what I'm talking about, but will at some point prove that you don't) ... the canon of the Church of the East was established and protected by the Apostle Thomas (the only canon having such apostolic authority) and he rejected the book of Revelation as did HALF THE CHURCH even at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Rhema

2 Corinthians 12:1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Think about it. If those were unspeakable words which is not lawful for a man to utter, then Paul did not hear it from anyone but had read it. As important as that Book of Revelation is, then Paul was referring to the apostle John.

 

[GodB4Us]

What ?!?

(Never mind.)

As the former tax collector, Matthew's gospel traced the lineage of Joseph's side of the family whereas Luke, the physician, his gospel traced the lineage on Mary's side of the family.

There is ample cause to believe that the gospels was written before or after Pentecost when all those witnesses along with Mary and the other women were available to confer with.

Why would they all go off on missionary outreach after Pentecost when you can never know when or if they will ever be altogether again to confer and write the gospels?

Since I believe the Book of Revelation was written before Paul's second epistles to the Corinthians is why you should doubt the assumptions and educated guesses of Biblical scholars as to when and who had written the four gospels.

 

[Rhema]

Think about it. If those were unspeakable words which is not lawful for a man to utter, then Paul did not hear it from anyone but had read it.

Think about it. If the words were "not lawful" to speak, then the words were not lawful to write down, because somebody is going to read them out loud (i.e. utter them) at some point.

How did you ever come to the conclusion that it was not lawful to utter the words of the book of Revelation?

As the former tax collector, Matthew's gospel traced the lineage of Joseph's side of the family whereas Luke, the physician, his gospel traced the lineage on Mary's side of the family.

That's just not true.

(Luke 3:23 KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

Or to be more accurate....

υιος (SON OF) ιωσηφ (JOSEPH) του (OF) ηλι (ELI) του (OF) ματθατ (MATTHAT) του (OF) λευι (LEVI) του (OF) μελχι (MELCHI) του (OF) ιαννα (JANNA) του (OF) ιωσηφ (JOSEPH) του (OF) ματταθιου (MATTATHIAS) του (OF) αμως (AMOS) του (OF) ναουμ (NAUM) του (OF) εσλι (ESLI) του (OF) ναγγαι (NAGGE) του (OF) μααθ (MAATH) του (OF) ματταθιου ... ETCETERA

Eli was the father of Joseph, the "supposed" father of Jesus. The text directly says, "ιωσηφ του ηλι" - "Joseph of Eli," not "Mary of Eli."

If you claim that Joseph was not of Eli, then Eli was not of Matthat.

There's a lot of plain nonsense preached around churches. I would suggest you not participate.

Rhema

Why would they all go off on missionary outreach after Pentecost when you can never know when or if they will ever be altogether again to confer and write the gospels?

There was no command to write. There was no reason to write. And was not Luke converted by Paul, who was not yet part of this?

You think they went out to preach like modern day evangelists, this "missionary outreach?"

No.

They went to bring the wine.

It's your conjecture (again, more conjuncture) that there was a collaboration in writing the gospels. There was not. Mark was not of the twelve, and yet large swaths of his gospel is copied word for word in Matthew and Luke. What is more troubling is that a goodly portion of Matthew and Luke are the same, to suggest another common source. But then Luke may have just copied from both. This would give the timeline of Mark, Matthew, Luke, then "John."

But make no mistake. Matthew and Luke disagreed on the lineage of Joseph. And that annoyed Paul.

(1 Timothy 1:4 KJV) Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.​

(Titus 3:9 KJV) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.​

 

[GodB4Us]

Think about it. If the words were "not lawful" to speak, then the words were not lawful to write down, because somebody is going to read them out loud (i.e. utter them) at some point.

That would be adding to His words when it is only not lawful for any one to speak as these be unspeakable words; not unwritten words. The only way Paul can know about those unspeakable words is by reading them.

How did you ever come to the conclusion that it was not lawful to utter the words of the book of Revelation?

The fear seems to be is, by not citing exactly what was written.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Rhema]

The only way Paul can know about those unspeakable words is by reading them.

I can tell you ABOUT a conversation without telling you any of the words from that conversation.

But you've convinced yourself that your conjectures are truth.

I'm getting off this "crazy train" right now.

Rhema

 

[MedicBravo]

IMO, it's not about the length but the fact He did come back as He said He would.