Who were Mark and Luke?

They were both disciples (not Apostles) thought to be one of the 72 picked by Jesus

John Mark - son of Peter and cousin of Barnabas, wrote the Book of Mark.
(1 Peter 5:13, Colossians 4:10)

Luke - a doctor, wrote the book of Luke and possibly the book of Acts.
(Col 4:14, Luke 1:4; Acts 1:1)

Rosetta wrote:They were both disciples (not Apostles) thought to be one of the 72 picked by Jesus

John Mark - son of Peter and cousin of Barnabas, wrote the Book of Mark.
(1 Peter 5:13, Colossians 4:10)

Luke - a doctor, wrote the book of Luke and possibly the book of Acts.
(Col 4:14, Luke 1:4; Acts 1:1)

Rosetta,
Those are interesting thoughts, and I'm wondering where you came up with or saw this.
I personally do not agree with some of these assessments, though, I could be wrong.

John Mark - Has been thought of to be the cousin of Barnabas yet the distinction of him being Peter's son has been disptuted for many years.
The term "son" used in 1 Peter is the same term used by Paul to denote Timothy as his son, not in the physical DNA, but in the spiritual sense, that Peter has taught Mark and has grown close to Mark. The one thing to take into consideration that shows that they are not actual blood related is Acts 12:12. "When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying." If John Mark was the son of Peter, it would not have said Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, it would have rendered it thusly: Peter went to the house of his wife Mary and their son John, also called Mark.
There is other speculation that John Mark, is the naked boy who ran away from the garden, for there is no mention of this account, except for the book of Mark. (Mark 14:51,52) So it is possible, yet unlikely, that he was one of the 72, for he would have been too young. Nor was sending of the seventy two found in Mark.

Luke - Was a Gentile by birth, well educated in Greek culture, a physician by profession, a companion of Paul at various times from his second missionary journey (the first time the narrative used the word "we" to describe action that he was involved with Acts 16:10) to his first imprisonment in Rome. He was a loyal friend who remained with Paul even after others had deserted him. Being a Gentile, he would not have been one of the 72 sent to witness to the Jews. Jesus specifically said first he was to come for the Jews and then for the Gentiles. The timing of the 72 going out, was only for the Jews not the Gentiles. Luke is the one highly regarded as writing both the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts (of which I agree that he did write both books).

I am not trying to be contentious, I just wanted to add my thoughts onto this. If you saw this somewhere please let me know where, provide a link if online, or the name of the book, or if it is something that you pieced together on your own.
God bless you
Daniel

DanielV wrote:

Rosetta wrote:They were both disciples (not Apostles) thought to be one of the 72 picked by Jesus

John Mark - son of Peter and cousin of Barnabas, wrote the Book of Mark.
(1 Peter 5:13, Colossians 4:10)

Luke - a doctor, wrote the book of Luke and possibly the book of Acts.
(Col 4:14, Luke 1:4; Acts 1:1)

Rosetta,
Those are interesting thoughts, and I'm wondering where you came up with or saw this.
I personally do not agree with some of these assessments, though, I could be wrong.

John Mark - Has been thought of to be the cousin of Barnabas yet the distinction of him being Peter's son has been disptuted for many years.
The term "son" used in 1 Peter is the same term used by Paul to denote Timothy as his son, not in the physical DNA, but in the spiritual sense, that Peter has taught Mark and has grown close to Mark. The one thing to take into consideration that shows that they are not actual blood related is Acts 12:12. "When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying." If John Mark was the son of Peter, it would not have said Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, it would have rendered it thusly: Peter went to the house of his wife Mary and their son John, also called Mark.
There is other speculation that John Mark, is the naked boy who ran away from the garden, for there is no mention of this account, except for the book of Mark. (Mark 14:51,52) So it is possible, yet unlikely, that he was one of the 72, for he would have been too young. Nor was sending of the seventy two found in Mark.

Luke - Was a Gentile by birth, well educated in Greek culture, a physician by profession, a companion of Paul at various times from his second missionary journey (the first time the narrative used the word "we" to describe action that he was involved with Acts 16:10) to his first imprisonment in Rome. He was a loyal friend who remained with Paul even after others had deserted him. Being a Gentile, he would not have been one of the 72 sent to witness to the Jews. Jesus specifically said first he was to come for the Jews and then for the Gentiles. The timing of the 72 going out, was only for the Jews not the Gentiles. Luke is the one highly regarded as writing both the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts (of which I agree that he did write both books).

I am not trying to be contentious, I just wanted to add my thoughts onto this. If you saw this somewhere please let me know where, provide a link if online, or the name of the book, or if it is something that you pieced together on your own.
God bless you
Daniel

This is from IXOYE, he just joined and wanted to post but was not able yet hence he asked me to post this answer for him till he can post himself...thank you

''Yes .. scripture says they are cousins .. but what you post is PURE OPINION .. PLEASE supply a scripture to show ANYWHERE in scripture where an Apostle has called a Disciple "SON" .. thus your opinion unless you can "quote" it is NOT anything more then YOUR opinion .. IXOYE"

With Christs love and understanding...

Rosetta wrote:

DanielV wrote:

Rosetta wrote:They were both disciples (not Apostles) thought to be one of the 72 picked by Jesus

John Mark - son of Peter and cousin of Barnabas, wrote the Book of Mark.
(1 Peter 5:13, Colossians 4:10)

Luke - a doctor, wrote the book of Luke and possibly the book of Acts.
(Col 4:14, Luke 1:4; Acts 1:1)

Rosetta,
Those are interesting thoughts, and I'm wondering where you came up with or saw this.
I personally do not agree with some of these assessments, though, I could be wrong.

John Mark - Has been thought of to be the cousin of Barnabas yet the distinction of him being Peter's son has been disptuted for many years.
The term "son" used in 1 Peter is the same term used by Paul to denote Timothy as his son, not in the physical DNA, but in the spiritual sense, that Peter has taught Mark and has grown close to Mark. The one thing to take into consideration that shows that they are not actual blood related is Acts 12:12. "When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying." If John Mark was the son of Peter, it would not have said Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, it would have rendered it thusly: Peter went to the house of his wife Mary and their son John, also called Mark.
There is other speculation that John Mark, is the naked boy who ran away from the garden, for there is no mention of this account, except for the book of Mark. (Mark 14:51,52) So it is possible, yet unlikely, that he was one of the 72, for he would have been too young. Nor was sending of the seventy two found in Mark.

Luke - Was a Gentile by birth, well educated in Greek culture, a physician by profession, a companion of Paul at various times from his second missionary journey (the first time the narrative used the word "we" to describe action that he was involved with Acts 16:10) to his first imprisonment in Rome. He was a loyal friend who remained with Paul even after others had deserted him. Being a Gentile, he would not have been one of the 72 sent to witness to the Jews. Jesus specifically said first he was to come for the Jews and then for the Gentiles. The timing of the 72 going out, was only for the Jews not the Gentiles. Luke is the one highly regarded as writing both the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts (of which I agree that he did write both books).

I am not trying to be contentious, I just wanted to add my thoughts onto this. If you saw this somewhere please let me know where, provide a link if online, or the name of the book, or if it is something that you pieced together on your own.
God bless you
Daniel

This is from IXOYE, he just joined and wanted to post but was not able yet hence he asked me to post this answer for him till he can post himself...thank you

''Yes .. scripture says they are cousins .. but what you post is PURE OPINION .. PLEASE supply a scripture to show ANYWHERE in scripture where an Apostle has called a Disciple "SON" .. thus your opinion unless you can "quote" it is NOT anything more then YOUR opinion .. IXOYE"

With Christs love and understanding...

1 Timothy 1:2 (King James Version)


King James Version (KJV) Public Domain[img]http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=34[/img]
[img]http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=24[/img]
[img]http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=2[/img]




2Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Ti 1:2

Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Timotheos (unto Timothy) gnesios (my own) teknon (son)





the Greek word "teknon" shows ACTUAL parentage .. thus "his true son was a believer" is all he is saying