Essay services

GET AN ESSAY OR ANY OTHER HOMEWORK WRITING HELP FOR A FAIR PRICE! CHECK IT HERE!


ORDER NOW

List of approved essay services



Did any of the apostles write a gospel

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

i wonder how many churches use pa systems, the internet, tv, telephony and satellite technologies invented by ‘fools’ to spread their gospel message? romanides the greek born american scholar, greek orthodox priest, author and professor of dogmatic theology, who was writing on the controversy on justin martyr and the gospel of john, wrote: an important part of the problem concerning the authorship of the fourth gospel and its use in the primitive church involves the much debated question of whether or not it is known, presupposed, or used by justin martyr. there are clues in the gospel to this, for instance we went through it about 12 verses a week and we found that it is fractal in nature. was supposedly the secretary of peter but gives no mention of this, which would be strange as peter was, according to the gospels, the lead apostle of jesus. the most critical dating theories are still far more supportive for the authenticity of the gospel narratives than can be found for any one single other ancient text. like to think of myself as an enlightened lapsed catholic (nearly forgot to use a capital c there), but it never occured to me that the gospels were written by anyone other than matthew, mark, luke , and john. differs significantly from the synoptic gospels in theme, content, time duration, order of events, and style. this suggests that there were quite a lot of ‘christians’ using maybe the one gospel written in their locality plus a few letters. holds that the gospel of mark was written by mark the evangelist, as st., whilst luke claims there were “many accounts” available, he does not indicate whether these accounts are written sources, oral testimony or a mixture. there is nothing very little in it that is not fact, supported by the findings of many others. proof of the gospel of mark as being written not before the destruction of the jerusalem temple in 70 ce, is the verses as quoted in mark chapter 13, as well as palaeography.[the ” greek orthodox theological review,” vol 4 (1958): pages 115-134] it should be noted that the consensus, including ehrman and most biblical and new testament scholars says that the gospels by name are never mentioned, what ehrman says is that the church-father justin calls them “memoirs of the apostles. truthsayer, we can’t fix in a few paragraphs what asdf’s education failed to instill over many years (including, i suspect, several grades twice). in other words most people in the first century churches heard rather than read the contents of a gospel or epistle. to answer this question, scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them,[24] what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later. quraan is intact book, since was revealed 1400 yr ago, till today has many translations which gives same meaning. and among the apostles who better than matthew to write them down. ‘potential’ stumbling block to any hypotheses suggesting that peter may have learned to write eloquent greek that we typically find in the nt, comes from papias about 130 ad who, according to eusebius’s ecclesiastical history, states the following:“and the elder used to say this, mark became peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the lord. in fact, jerome mentions that in his days there was still copy of the hebrew gospel of mathew in “the library of caesarea”. the hebrew thomasesque sayings gospel that eusebius claims papias mentioned?’ve looked at as many creationist websites as have been given me and not a one has a new argument or even tries to actually understand science. however i doubt the petrine connection as mentioned by papias, for if the gospel of mark was indeed the authoritative words and memoirs of the ultimate apostle peter, then this gospel would have been revered above all other texts and would never have been side-lined by the gospel allegedly written by matthew a lesser apostle. it’s even been said that the author of luke could have written his entire work early in the late first-century with nothing more than the book of matthew and the works of josephus, since the book of luke carries some facts that were unknown to other gospel writers, but were known to josephus. big shame is that your readers comments failed miserably in opening up any form of debate.[85] while papias reported that matthew had written the "logia," this can hardly be a reference to the gospel of matthew. to date, i have yet to read anything that i would consider air-tight or conclusive. thus, the source for much of the synoptic gospels is no more than hearsay. can you name a single church father before the end of the second century ad who named the author whose gospel he was quoting from?, i would have to agree with you that there is absolutely no evidence for a vast literary copying project going on in the early to mid second century ad, with this great co-ordinated effort of industrious copying to propagate the gospels, overseen by a central administration., is considered the first gospel and placed first in the new testament,Although the gospel of mark is probably the first in a completed form. interestingly he appeared to know more about jesus than paul who didn’t appear to know anything about jesus’ earthly ministry and contradicts paul on numerous occasions. even justin martyr writing around 150-160 ad quoted verses from the canonical gospels without naming the actual author or who the gospel was according to. but in hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the new testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the evangelists named” (dissertations upon irenaeus). for example all of the catholic epistles and some of the letters claimed to be written by paul like the pastoral letters to timothy and titus are forgeries, written many decades after the apostle or church authority figure they were impersonating had died, even during the second century.[211] according to eric cline, there is no direct archaeological evidence on the existence of a historical jesus or any of the apostles since the most direct way to address the existence of anyone in the past archaeologically, would be with a body. historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four new testament gospels as historical documents. any that study literature can tell you that point of view has a tremendous impact on the level of detail, presentation and framing of a story. any that study literature can tell you that point of view has a tremendous impact on the level of detail, presentation and framing of a story. among christians, there are catholics, 30,000+ protestant sects, mormons, jehovah’s witnesses, … with wildly conflicting theologies and many claiming all the others are going to hell. i am not trying to speak on behalf of majority of christians, however many christian fellows think the same way. learning a language have been regarded as an unnecessary distraction, when their main calling which was to preach the gospel and make disciples? the start of a great book called “all in” by mark batterson tells of the gruesome end the apostles faced..you can probably infer what i meant there but if you have any trouble let me know and i’ll translate fur you lol…(& that’s “bible thumper not thinker lol). synoptic gospels are the primary sources of historical information about jesus and of the religious movement he founded. scholars have unanimously chosen the synoptic gospels’ version of jesus’ teaching. to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness. this in itself causes considerable confusion, since the version of the gospel of matthew that has survived is not a sayings gospel and is written in greek. this is why i have so much respect for mark, for of all the canonical gospels i find the evidence most convincing that ‘a mark’ wrote the gospel we call mark. of god’s existence is everywhere but many do not want to see it, even it one was to rise from the dead. as for his teaching, i could demonstrate to you his so-called ethical teachings which were either plagiarised by the gospel writers from ancient pagan religious traditions or copied almost verbatim from the ot, eg: the beatitudes. is obvious that anyone will be at variance with his kindred if one is following the world and the other out of the world., to answer this question we must be clear on how the gospels were.“moreover, i have known the accounts of jesus’s death since forever, and i never saw any huge, shocking differences between that of mark and that of luke. as for the other gospels, john is first named around 140-150 ad by heracleon who was regarded as a heretic, whilst luke is first named by irenaeus in 180 ad. think that it is in fact a possibility that the gospels were first preached by the apostles and thus, there would have been no need for them to write “gospel according to. nor can we disprove the existence of the pink bomboozle (another made up minor deity in my made up pokey do religion)who flatulated (farted) the universe into being, unicorns, spaghetti monsters, zeus, asteroth, marduk, vishnu, shamash, and any other deity, fictional or mythical creature you care to name, cannot be proven not to exist either.: the fact is you don’t want to believe that the gospels are anonymous because it interferes with your deluded beliefs. 19 bce, and which jewish temple is the bible referring to, as i am sure that the great temple of jerusalem was out of bounds to jesus or any jews, owing as i aforesaid to the revamping of the temple. take issue with your assertion that my site is anything but pure truth. rather textual transmission was an uncontrolled and spurious affair, undertaken by churches largely operating under their own local or regional autonomy, promoting their own theology and beliefs, which would explain why we have so many variant readings when we compare manuscripts of the same book from different regions. think it is a weak argument to say, in so many words, that an apostle of christ would write an anonymous manuscript, so as not to distract his readers from the life and works of christ. is independently attested my many, many separate branches of science and billions of data points. show me where it is indicated outside of a guess that the titles to the gospels κατα (the author) on the originals. i am not aware of any fossil evidence of kangaroos in asia at around the time of the great deluge. anyways, if the earliest gospel was written 68 ad, i wonder why they didn’t mention nero killing christians. did anyone in the second century say that these claims were rumors? of the most important interpolations are the last verses of the gospel of mark[127][128][129] and the story of the adulterous woman in the gospel of john.” i would argue that the prophets in scripture wrote mainly in the first person, so i do not know why the writers, hundreds of years on down the line, would adopt a writing style that is more dubious and deceitful.

Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels : NPR

during the later parts of the second century ad, many gospels, mostly gnostic, named after leading church figures began to circulate amongst the churches, so it became paramount to assign names to the four canonical gospels to differentiate the false gospels written by forgers pretending to be peter, judas, philip or thomas etc. is the case with all the gospels, it is unknown exactly when the gospel of luke was written. historian papias mentions that the gospel of matthew was originally in aramaic or hebrew and attributes the gospel to matthew the apostle. while the traditional view that paul’s companion luke authored the gospel is still often put forward, a number of possible contradictions between acts and paul’s letters lead many scholars to dispute this account. ” i am actually surprised you said i could not, and then you went ahead and answered your own question mentioning church fathers that did in fact name the author of the gospels they were talking about before the end of the second century. they wrote the gospels in greek from outside of palestine from the quaintly over used term “oral tradition” which is just hearsay. canonical gospels upon which the christian faith is built, the ones which present the words of jesus are writings by unknown authors writing to buttress the particular points they wished to make. what one should remember is that the time we are discussing, every sect calling itself followers of jesus or christ (christians) were flooding the market so to speak with their own ευαγγελίου (euaggelion) or gospel meaning good news). catholic basically means universal and they were a roman chruch that believed in too many different gods. the majority of people were illiterate during the first century ad, so in churches any writings would be undertaken by those ‘most able’, even if their writing skills were limited to stilted phrases or simplistic sentence construction. historians often study the historical reliability of the acts of the apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as acts was seemingly written by the same author as the gospel of luke. gospel attributed to matthew 1:1 opens as follows:“this is the genealogy of jesus the messiah the son of david, the son of abraham. and not only are there many manuscripts from all over written in many languages by different people; but, they all agree with each other.. there are absolutely no direct references to j’shua made by any contemporary roman, jewish or greek historian, that is no one alive at the same time that jesus was alive. can you not imagine how it felt to be counted among the most degraded, unwanted, of outsiders, deseased/sick rejected…and be found loved treated with respect, by this singular man…can you not imagine anyone now, of your own lifetime…behaving in such a way, or how it would affect you? thousands were crucified by the romans, many may have been named jesus. again is there any evidence for the use of a scribe just because it was possible or plausible? please read isaiah 7, 8, and 9, and you will see that it is not speaking of jesus in any way, shape, or form. talbert agrees that the gospels should be grouped with the graeco-roman biographies, but adds that such biographies included an element of mythology, and that the synoptic gospels also included elements of mythology. don’t you think someone might have recorded any of this other than those with an act to grind?“i can acknowledge that there are seeming inconsistencies in the gospels, but would counter that there are inconsistencies in any event in history recorded or told by more than one person. additionally, accumulating a healthy knowledge of the culture, writing styles, and expectations that accompany each gospel would be a valuable thing to do. what i have come to realize is that the purpose of the bible is not control, regulation, inhibition or any other worrisome motive, though it has shamedly been used to do all those things.’m afraid we cannot provide you with any of the earliest manuscripts that do not contain the titles . i trust we can agree that the gospels were in circulation, some more so than others, at the end of the first century ad. had a very different and contradictory opinion to papias about the source mark used for his gospel. just show us the gospels are true by putting hospitals and doctors out of work.” and the language of the gospel almost certainly could be something matthew the apostle and former tax collector was capable of. the ascension of jesus, the apostles went forth preaching the gospel,Handing on to others what our lord had done and taught. the four gospels attributed to matthew, mark luke and john we get very different answers to the simple question “what were the very last words of jesus before he died on the cross? my threescore and ten years, i have met many narrow minded blinkered conservative christians, like will, who wouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination take the time and look up the truth and the historical facts about their religion, in this age of computer technology. to be honest i think that any position has its niggles and problems, nor do i regard any position as absolutely 100% watertight., who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the gospel of john, and irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. it not possible, that within the course of 50 years, that peter and john could, not only have learned how to read and write, but mastered the greek language? yet the version of matthew that we have is predominantly not a sayings gospel, although it does contain some sayings.[164] a basic prophecy appears to be completely made up by an author of the gospel of matthew without any source. am not going to argue or debate this with anyone further on this site.[…] gospels not written by matthew, mark, luke or john « the … – christians believe that the gospels (matthew, mark, luke and john) were written by those whose names appear in the title of the books. our earliest complete manuscript containing all four canonical gospels is p45 chester beatty papyrii dated around 200-250 ad and this text does name the authors in the titles. of the gospel writers get an “f” for: (1) not signing their work; (2) not documenting their sources or methodology; (3) pandering and propagandizing; (4) writing many decades after the purported “facts”; (5) writing tedious drivel pulled from their hiney holes. these include authorship and date of composition,[27] intention and genre,[24] gospel sources and oral tradition,[28][29] textual criticism,[30] and historical authenticity of specific sayings and narrative events. does not fare any better, the nt states: and the jews marvelled, saying, how knoweth this man letters, having never learned? later references regarding the author of the gospel attributed to mark can be traced back to this single reference by papias about mark being “peter’s interpreter”. now if you believe that nonsense you can be made to believe anything, talking animals, anything, dead people coming out of graves, anything to avoid it. by the way, most of those gospels were written by gnostics, and gnostics liked to keep things nice and secret., you said “can you provide the evidence and show us, and indeed the whole academic world (your chance to put us all to shame and expose our ignorance), any early manuscript where the actual author names themselves within their alleged text? the most damning evidence against the existence of any hebrew gospel alegedly authored by matthew is that apart from the reference to papias made by eusebius there is no evidence that this hebrew matthew document ever existed. the earliest complete manuscript copies of the canonical gospels that we possess date from 200 ad onwards, so i’m sure that you are aware that these are going to be 5th or 6th generation copies at best. books of moses, namely genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy; joshua, judges, ruth, four books of kings, two of paralipomenon, esdras, nehemiah, tobit, judith, esther, job, psalms of david, proverbs, ecclesiastes, song of songs, wisdom, ecclesiasticus, isaiah, jeremiah, baruch, ezechiel, daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely hosea, joel, amos, obadiah, jonah, micah, nahum, habakkuk, zephaniah, haggai, zechariah, malachi; two books of the maccabees; the four gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john; fourteen letters of paul, to the romans, two to the corinthians, to the galatians, to the ephesians, to the philippians, two to the thessalonians, to the colossians, two to timothy, to titus, to philemon, to the hebrews; two letters of peter, three of john, one of james, one of jude; acts of the apostles; apocalypse of john." judging from alice whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that josephus really did write something here about jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt. the biggest reason why most scholars doubt the existence of titles naming the author on the originals is because they are certain that the traditional or alleged authors of the canonical and even non-canonical gospels did not write them, based on the evidence. the same cannot be said for anyone today who wants to write about the authorship of matthew during the the early christian religion. the gospel of john and revelation of john were not accepted in some regions, which is rather odd if the books were supposedly written by john the apostle. long as you do not reveal the contents of other gospels written by other people and do not critically get debated , you are really fooling the faithful. the overwhelming majority of scholars believe that all four canonical gospels were first written in greek, and in the case of matthew was then allegedly translated into hebrew later. what each gospel spews is presented as “fact” and it is contradictory and historically inaccurate as indicated above."wrote" the gospels in some kind of vacuum, almost to. now that is what i would call “attacking”, so if anyone is guilty of “attacking” anyone, you would be better off looking closer to home. all of this was also supposed to be done without evidence of any of this happening. this raises an important methodological point that i want to stress before discussing the evidence for the authorship of the gospels. although the gospel of thomas is not the q document suggested in b h streeter’s 4 document hypothesis and the 2 document hypothesis proposed by karl lachmann and reinforced by h j holtzmann, it does demonstrate that a similar “sayings” gospel/document may have existed that served as a source for the gospel writers. according to the gospel attributed to matthew 7:7 jesus promised “seek and you shall find! moreover, this census involved the entire roman empire, and there is no account of such a huge census anywhere except in luke. i did not personally state that the church fathers added titles 100 years after the gospels were written, or even that we had 5 generations of nameless copies. to interpret his gospel in light of what some other author said.. 180) continued papias’s views about matthew and mark and added his belief that luke, the follower of paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that john, the beloved disciple, published his gospel while residing in asia. i find it completely puzzling that many christians, not just roman catholics, misinterpret matthew 16:18, where jesus allegedly says to peter that “your name is peter (πέτρος – petros – stone) and upon this rock (πέτρα petra – rock) i will build my church”, to mean that jesus was making peter the leader of the church. unless the authors of these documents were eye-witnesses to the events they describe, then what they write is hearsay. if you got to choose who your gospel would be written by, would you not try to choose at least an eyewitness to give it more authority?

Response to intervention essay

Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John « The Church

personally, i can read classical/koine (nt) greek, but could never construct any greek sentences that approached anything like the level of deft and complexity we see in some new testament texts.  such an obvious fulfillment of jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded by the gospel writers if they had been written after 70 a. writer of the gospel of john was obviously an eyewitness of the events of christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of israeli geography and customs. the author was the john mark of acts, we would expect a sound knowledge of jewish culture and this generally this is supported by the internal evidence of the gospel of mark. gospels were written after christ left, at least a generation, so if folks have an issue with that in regards to it’s authenticity why are these other gospels discovered in the 19th and 20th century considered valid when the oldest of them is written even further after? and so this view of the divinity of jesus on his own lips is found only in our latest gospel, the gospel of john. i’ll just use the gospel attributed to john for an example of how a text can be mistakenly attributed to the wrong author. on mark, papias quotes the opinion of john the elder:“ the elder used to say: mark, in his capacity as peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the lord. the source for the gospel of mark is other peoples’ stories and writings. the p52 fragment of john’s gospel in coptic is dated around 110-140 ad, so again i think we can also agree that even if we took the latest dating of 140 ad, this is evidence that some communities were already translating texts by the early mid second century ad. whilst catholic web sites might be very open about such things, at pew level in most churches, not just catholic the majority of believers do think that matthew, mark, luke and john wrote the gospels. it contains most of the 4 gospels and acts as well as part of 3 john, and you will no doubt know that codex bezae is one of the 5 main old manuscripts along with codex sinaiticus (aleph), codex alexandrinus (a), codex vaticanus (b), and codex ephraemi (c). books on the authorship of the gospels can be found in libraries. no they were spoken out loud so that any error in transmission was picked up and corrected by those who had also heard and were responsible for the passing of information.~ a great book i would recommend to all is “can we trust the gospels” by mark d roberts. yes, but the question should be why are they different rather than to immediately going from there to say that the gospels are not inspired. do not doubt the possibility that both peter and john could have learned to speak and possibly write some greek over time, however there is a gulf between writing simple pidgeon greek and the eloquent late second century forgeries that are 1 and 2 peter., john, the alleged disciple of jesus did not write “the book of john” do some homework. the romans after killing so many jewish christians ended up adding jesus to their chruch and started making him as if he is a god, or part of a trinity. church historian eusebius quotes verbatim from papias on the origins of the gospels. there were some books, such as the gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). (i have always taken the original/autograph or the oldest source as being the correct or more reliable, the synoptic gospel of mark, can be more than three decades older than the gospel of john, which scholars attest was the last of the canonical gospels to be written. tend to consider luke's works (luke-acts) to be closer in genre to "pure" history,[6][6][35] although they also note that “this is not to say that he [luke] was always reliably informed, or that - any more than modern historians - he always presented a severely factual account of events. are more reasons to think this theory is basically impossible but i think this six would be enough for any logical person to realize this is definitely not the most probable thing that we have here. if a scribe was used then the disciple did not write the text as this verse claims. but when you read john's gospel, that's virtually the only thing jesus talks about is who he is, what his identity is, where he came from," ehrman says. are bang onthe mark that no pharisee would ever call jesus the messiah, because most christians forget one very important fact about our josephus – he was yosef ben matityahu, the commander of galilean zealot revolutionaries who opposed roman occupation and any non-jewish influences.. called the king james version, it is ha smany many discrepancies with scripts and texts much older unearthed recently. the author of the gospel of matthew is evidently adopting a similar approach to announce the birth of jesus the saviour, as it makes the jesus story appear more credible to the illiterate masses who were already familiar with the mythology of their own pantheons of gods. however, many scholars have gone before us ho have made detailed studies. out of all the canonical gospels i would have said that john was more of a sayings or reflective kind of gospel than any of the synoptics. what came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that i had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. oh, that’s right there isn’t any evidence for it, is there? to the majority viewpoint the gospels of matthew, mark, and luke, collectively referred to as the synoptic gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about jesus and of the religious movement he founded. to you i give this question…you are as blind as the rest until you have any light on the subject i would highly suggest not to voice an opinion that has no meat to its existence.  this means that the gospel of luke was written within 30 years of jesus' death. the letter to the hebrews was written in some community somewhere, by someone who was well educated and must have been known at one time, so from that perspective can any writing be truly anonymous? scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis which claims that the gospel of mark was written first. you mean what were the supposed events that stimulated the writers? unfortunately, the church has incorrectly assigned the name ‘ἰωάννου’ – john to the fourth canonical gospel. after all of this study and reflection i am convinced that john is a gospel that was compiled (probably 100ad ish) from eyewitness recollections from john. here is a good resource to start at, leading to many other research possibilities: http://creation. the gospel according to atheos is not going to turn any heads, but a gospel according to a famous apostle (matthew, john) or famous side kick (mark, luke) of a famous apostle (paul) is going to have a lot more authority behind it than my meagre offering of a gospel ever would. both prefaces were addressed to theophilus, and acts of the apostles (1:1-2) says in reference to the gospel of luke, "in my former book, theophilus, i wrote about all that jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the holy spirit to the apostles he had chosen. the authors of the synoptic gospels were writing to their fellow jews and trying to convince them that they could accept jesus as the messiah and still remain jewish. i doubt that the story of the magi was true, but the astronomical events both you and i describe definitely did happen, which is why they were mentioned to add a ‘celestial announcement’ to the gospel account and enhance the credibility. it is as much a fact as anything can be. or in your case, you probably didn’t know the stuff i quote anyway. it comes down to it: the character of the writer is all-important.[42] this is often used to note that the four gospels attest to most of the same events, but that paul's epistles often attest to these events as well, as do the writings of the early church, and to a limited degree non-christian ancient writings. but it was ultimately accepted into the official canon, over many objections. in any of the canonical gospels will you ever find the names of the authors within the actual text itself of any early or late greek manuscripts. if the gospels had been written by the “eye-witness” apostles, matthew and john, it is unlikely that they reported everything accurately.[119][120] many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed jesus, and the gospel of john is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple. that all four gospels were written between 40 and 65, with john's being. a lexicon to find other uses of the word, especially in the gospels, where it meant merely common people or servants. the version of hebrew version of matthew that you mention jerome using was not matthew but the gospel of the nazareans/ebionites/hebrews, as the few quotes we have demonstrate that they are clearly not from our greek matthew. some scholars are convinced that the matthew written in hebrew that papias mentions is not the same document we now possess and know as the gospel according to matthew that was written in greek. how can we be so sure that papias had not made an educated guess as to who wrote this hebrew sayings gospel?% of the new testament variants impact the meaning of the texts in any significant fashion. you are so sure that the titles were added later, show me the evidence, meaning, show me the earliest manuscripts originally written without the titles “gospel according to. though the gospels go under the names of matthew, mark, luke, and john, they were, in fact, written anonymously. in western seminaries where priests and pastors are trained for the clergy, the students are taught exactly the above, that no one knows who wrote the gospels. luke used a significant amount of markan material, about 56% of mark, and yet luke does not even mention this famous source, despite reviewing “many accounts”. as for the other gospels, john is first named around 140-150 ad by heracleon who was regarded as a heretic, whilst luke is first named by irenaeus in 180 ad.^ the gospel of luke by timothy johnson 1992 isbn 0-8146-5805-9 p. or read any of the malleus maleficarum (the witch hammer) written in 1486 that served as the main guide for inquisitors when interrogating women suspected of committing acts of witchcraft? that implies you will not accept anything based on science in spite of your background. 3 to these he also presented himself alive, after his suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of god," (acts 1:1-3).

Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

When were the gospels written and by whom? | carm

they went for the ring leaders, so would it be wrong of me to suggest that those most likely of knowing who actually wrote a gospel written by someone outside their christian community, would most likely have perished, leaving hardly anyone who would know because they couldn’t read or write greek? them, they contain so many inconsistencies “which, if they should be written every one, i suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. eric, i won’t attempt to remedy in a few sentences what our school system failed to instill in you over many years. there are passages relevant to christianity in the works of four major non-christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – josephus, tacitus, suetonius, and pliny the younger. i have also come to understand that there were some 200 “gospels” that the council of nicaea had to sort through and vote upon – inevitably settling on “matthew”, “mark”, “luke” and “john”.[116][117] rather than a plain account of jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply mediated representation of jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely. verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. i read what hundreds of non christian biblical scholars have to say about the dates of the gospels. modern, non christian biblical  scholars believe that the gospel of mark was written in syria by an unknown christian no earlier than ad 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written). what a brilliant opportunity to add more confidence that this is not just any reliable witness account, but to name john the son of zebedee, one of the three members of jesus’s inner circle of disciples? is a lot more complexity to this topic than many realize., i have known the accounts of jesus’s death since forever, and i never saw any huge, shocking differences between that of mark and that of luke. in any other venue it would be called brain washing. at the end of the gospel the author says of the "beloved disciple": "this is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (john 21:24). the bible is clearly wrong on so many scientific and historical issues. you cannot possibly make any judgments or assertions about him without the bible, and what he purportedly said. they are full of the tropes and schemes common to hebrew (and not common to aramaic) and are so literally translated into greek that many times the meaning is obscured by the hebrew idiom until they are read through the lens of that idiom. is because the authors chose to write anonymously, which was commonplace when you consider that the vast majority of people were illiterate and could not read or write greek.? and yet half of the canonical gospels have authors that were not eyewitnesses and thus would not really even give much authority like the forged gospels from the apostles and jesus himself in the first place! make quite an intriguing case for the author of matthew being matthew the tax collector and disciple of jesus, as well as suggesting that there may actually have been two ‘gospels’ written by this author. on the authenticity of any of the books of the new testament (nt), we have no categorical evidence of proof even on the books that have been authenticated. why only four gospels, because this was a christian ‘marketing decision’ by heresy finder general ireneaus … the gospel of jesus was spread by the four winds of heaven throughout the four corners of the earth, so there could only be four gospels and these four were matthew, mark ,luke and john. the bishop of hierapolis provides the earliest external evidence by naming who wrote the gospels of matthew and mark, around 140 ad. the reasons that he gave were that luke's genealogy was inconsistent with old testament genealogies and also that the gospel reads more smoothly with this genealogy removed.[113] some scholars believe that jesus' teaching in this gospel cannot be reconciled with that found in the synoptics,[114] whilst others, including john a. one would think i know it all, well i don’t, as i find new information every day, information that would knock the socks off any conservative christian, if only they (he or she) would take the time to look and listen. during jesus’ time, many of the jews were so awe struck and impressed with the grandeur of the temple that they replaced the worship of god with respect and reverence for the temple complex itself.’s teachings , as summed up in john 3:16 are just the opposite of those of the writers of mark, matthew and luke. but enough of the truth comes through for us to improve our selves and become more perfected than if we had not heard any of god’s word. a similar way, if each member of our family had to write a family history,Each member would tell basically the same story, but each member would also. therefore any title claiming traditional hebraic/aramaic authorship of matthew, as well as the greek gospels by mark, luke and john, must have been attributed at a later date and not when the document originated. his writings in proof of the divinity of christ demanded the use of these gospels had they existed in his time. before you claim that this was all done under the roman catholic church and they weren’t ‘real christians’ i’d hate to point out that they were far more pious and devout than any of our generation could ever aspire to be. gospel of matthew says that jesus was 30 years of age (luke 3:21-23), when he took up his missionary work, which lasted according to the synoptic gospels (matthew, mark, and luke) at just 1 year or 31/2 years according to the gospel of john. of the gospel of matthew; the fragments date the year 40, which would. first, acts 13 is talking about something that happened the same year jesus died and the gospel of john, as you said, is believed to have been written sometime in the 90-100. furthermore, i can rely on the fact that absolutely 100% of all the church fathers agreed that these gospels where written by who the manuscripts themselves claim to have been written. fact that josephus was not convinced by this or any other christian. i think there is no need for such evidence, given the fact that absolutely 100% of all the thousands of copies that we have of the gospels bear the name of their authors in their titles and that there are zero manuscripts with the allegedly gospels originally written without these titles.[90][91][92][93] based upon internal evidence harrington claims parts of the gospel of matthew may have first been written in aramaic.. colley: i have always wondered why it is thought that the works of paul were written before the gospels. i think the probabilities that this idea of the anonymous gospels could have happened are so low that it is basically impossible. gospel attributed to mark 1:1 opens as follows:“the beginning of the good news about jesus the messiah, the son of god. i thought i had made that point clear in the last line of my post on the conjunction between jupiter and regulus,“i doubt that the story of the magi was true, but the astronomical events … definitely did happen, which is why they were mentioned to add a ‘celestial announcement’ to the gospel account and enhance the credibility. we are unlikely to ever know who wrote the gospels, they are anonymous. would anyone need to add some extra text to add further justification or confidence in the testimony if it were the john, the former fisherman, come disciple, apostle and evangelist? but in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be. gospel attributed to luke 1:1-4 opens as follows:[1] many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, [2] just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. others contended that matthew first wrote a sayings gospel in hebrew that contained material similar to the gospel of thomas, but when he came across a copy of mark, he later wrote a second expanded gospel in greek that incorporated much of his earlier hebrew sayings gospel, yet this hebrew sayings gospel has not survived. deliberately used the word ‘potential’, for if papias of hierapolis is correct about peter requiring a greek interpreter, then this confirms that peter was not sufficiently fluent in greek to write his own letters and sermons. paul he is saying “the least of all the apostles. ehrman, the author of jesus, interrupted: revealing the hidden contradictions in the bible (and why we don't know about them), tells terry gross that he discourages readers from "smash[ing] the four gospels into one big gospel and think[ing] that [they] get the true understanding. there are some 2 gospel hypotheses that matthew first wrote a hebrew gospel, but later on seeing the spread of the gospel amongst the gentiles, wrote a greek version aimed at gentiles that we now possess. john rylands papyrus fragment 52 of john's gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of john 18, verses 31-33,37-38. there are many differences between the gospels, in relating the same stories, different stories, geography and history. ehrman, the james a gray distinguished professor of religious studies at the university of north carolina covers this subject at the following link:That said, in terms of historical fact, it doesn’t matter who wrote the gospels because they are deeply flawed, flimsy stories full of inconsistencies, errors and blatant fabrications that were written by non-eyewitnesses from hearsay between 40 and 70 years after jesus’ purported death in different places in different christian* sects. a similar way, textual critics can create a similar phylogenetic-type tree to represent a linear model of all the families of manuscripts and codexes containing the gospels, so we can trace how each gospel has ‘evolved’ over time. ιδιωται does not translate as “idiot” in any of the places where it is found in the new testament. in evaluating the historical reliability of the gospels, scholars consider a number of factors.” in dictionary of jesus and the gospels, edited by joel b. it is evident that paul knew of no gospels or chose to ignore stories of jesus that he might have got from the apostles when he allegedly visited them for two weeks. herod the great ruled judea for the next 36 years, during which time he began many huge building projects including the building of a new temple in jerusalem for the worship of god. the gospel of mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple  which occurred in 70 ce.“it professes that one and the same god is the author of the old and the new testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same spirit. the condensing of the ministry of jesus to events that happened mostly in galilee, as do the synoptic writers, rather than focus on jesus’ ministry in judea, as john does, is another example of a condensing the story. are wrong about the consensus on the date of mark’s gospel. scholars maintain that the gospel of john was written by more than one author. but love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. claims by some believers that matthew and john were apostles of jesus are nonsense.

Resume au bonheur des ogres daniel pennac

Who Wrote the Gospels?

or is it the gospel of the ebionites/hebrews/nazareans that are claimed to be aramaic/hebrew matthew? therefore it is quite easy to see why most scholars conded that the gospels are unreliabel sources of historical and biographical material about jesus. so, though we may learn what papias thought of matthew’s gospel via the hearsay of eusebius (writing almost 200 years after papias), it is possible that papias could be mistaken about the authorship of matthew, and ireneaus’s support for the credibility of papias’s testimony could be misplaced., there is no anthropological evidence that suggests that ancient peoples had any better memories than present day peoples. eric, but the gospels are unreliable and contradcitroy on many key points regarding the life of jesus and his teachings. besides all that, his new gospel is a drastic change in direction from the gospel of christ, and to make matters worse…he claims to receive secret revelations from the risen christ (which cannot be verified), and that he went to the 3rd-heaven, but cannot say what he saw and heard there because he will be killed (how convenient). confronted with these four contradictions between the gospels, i notice that many believers dare not apply the simple logic that three of the contradictions, must inevitably be false, let alone face the possibility that all four contradictions are false. could it be because the writer of genesis was only aware of things within a 2 mile radius of where they were writing from? humility on the part of the author, wanting the gospel story to take centre stage, would be another reason., we know from the very first verses of luke that, even before he had ever set pen to papyrus, there were already “many” accounts of the life of jesus circulating. i wasn’t sure how much more of this naive “the gospels are accurate” nonsense i could take. "this is completely unlike anything that you find in mark or in matthew and luke. but since q is likely the teachings of the apostles (te didache) in acts 2:42 and the “things delivered unto us” by the “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” in luke 1:1,2 they are there in part in at least the synoptic gospels. i would have thought that it logically follows that that any religion based upon incorrect information must be a false religion. comments on “gospels not written by matthew, mark, luke or john”., there is no evidence of any of this happening at all. there are many instances in the gospels where the writer condensed the story by skipping parts that do not forward the purpose of the author. therefore any religion or ideology based upon a text that is incorrect/false/lies is a false belief. authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by. this reason, the gospel of matthew, at least in a very basic form in. the proof is in the pudding: some 2000 years after the alleged events, fewer than a third of humans buy into the christ story in any form. if this were indeed the writing of john and if the title was already present “the gospel according to john” then surely this unknown person who wrote john 21:24 would have played up on the apostolic authority of john and not used the word disciple but instead called the witness “this apostle”? not the fact that justin martyr does not name his source when quoting from the gospels, suggest that the name of the author was unknown to him? that’s why when you have 40 different different authors writing about the same thing from 3 different continents, stretching over thousands of years, in many different languages, unknown to each other; then this becomes alarming evidence. anyway how would witnessing a crucifixion make one want to be a christian? gospel according to mark is the most important of the synoptic gospels because it is the primary source for matthew and luke. i was trying to suggest was that the identities of the authors of the canonical gospels was not important, until a load of forgers and fraudsters during the mid second century began writing and creating ‘gospels’ trying to pass them off as the works of even more famous apostles, even the brother of jesus. do you not think that had john originally added his name and the title that you would have this upstart editor and his committee mates daring to even suggest that they was in any position to validate or repudiate the written testimony of the apostle john? today the majority of scholars do not believe that john or any other eyewitness wrote it and trace it instead to a “johannine community” which traced its traditions to john; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three “layers”, reaching its final form about 90-100 ad. the first century many young jewish people knew the torah (the first 5 books of the bible- genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy) in their entirety – word for word by heart. that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the gospel is st. the end of the 2nd century the tradition of matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line “the gospel according to matthew” began to be added to manuscripts. for many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—fifty five percent of the gospel is copied from mark, and it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of jesus’ ministry would need to rely on others for information about it. some believe that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability; some say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable. widespread theory holds that the author drew on three primary sources, each representing a distinct community: a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings (called “q“, and shared with luke); the gospel of mark; and material unique to matthew (called “m”, some of which may have originated with matthew himself). would have thought that independent chroniclers and writers, contemporaneous with jesus, his miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick would have noticed him and written about him. it is now the favorite gospel of many conservative christians, and the gospel least referred to by many liberal christians.[144] many biblical scholars view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than historical accounts., if your theory was correct in claiming the the church fathers added the authors in the titles later to make the writings more authoritative, don’t you think they would have at least try to choose people that were actually apostles or eyewitnesses? instead, we find that the church had access to this version for centuries and had more than enough time to figure out if this would have been a different gospel. as renan says, “they merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these apostles, and claiming their authority. could speculate and suggest that if the original followers of jesus genuinely believed that he was going to return quickly during their own lifetimes, any day now, then would they have had any desire to learn or become more fluent in greek? starters i never used any term or expression like ‘this is the truth’ or even claimed that this was ‘church truth’, so those comments null and void. gospels are internally contradictory, historically wrong, scientifically wrong, polemical, late, anachronistic, redacted, interpolated, plagiarized, anonymously authored, n-th person, don’t … this is the best that the omniscient, omnipotent god could inspire? blomberg, jesus and the gospels: an introduction and survey (2nd edition). is widely accepted by the majority of scholars that the gospel message of was passed by word of mouth for some decades before written accounts became necessary. if as you say that there is absolutely no evidence, then why do so many scholars accept that the titles were not originally present by studying the internal evidence just as you and i do? fenton thought that it was a gloss that had been added to the original gospel. there is no way in a million years that any special exception would have been made for a jewish charismatic preacher who instigated a potential uprising in the temple, for his body to be taken down and given to a ‘joseph of arimethia’ for a decent jewish burial. early church fathers do not only unanimously believed there was a hebrew gospel of mathew but they actually had access to it. new testament scholar graham stanton states that "the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies.  since luke agrees with matthew, mark, and john and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that luke was inaccurate, and since luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that luke's account is very accurate. whilst something might be possible or even plausible like a man learning to master, read and write with eloquence in a foreign language, is there any evidence that this actually happened with john?^ bart ehrman - the history of the bible: the making of the new testament canon the teaching company, lesson 12. would you not expect justin martyr to name his source to indicate the authority figure responsible for the gospel text he was quoting to emphasise his point more convincingly? three gods emerged as one and they got a picture and statue to pray for…no different than any pegan back then. eusebius appears to quote the works of papias, i and indeed many people, take the view that papias is describing a ‘logia’ ‘sayings’ gospel written in hebrew by matthew, so therefore expect an aramaic/hebrew version of something more along the lines of the gospel of thomas, or even q. is generally agreed that the gospel of luke and the acts of the apostles were both written by the same author. anyone claiming that mark is dated by palaeography is making a claim that is so far over the edge that it brings in question whether the author really knows anything about dating. the gospels were then later associated, either correctly or incorrectly with matthew, mark, luke and john."7  generally, mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between a. perhaps we are focusing too much on written gospels and forgetting that there would still have been strong oral traditions promoting the gospels, even during the second century. that was their whole bag, you had to be in the know to get into the club, so of course they didn’t share with others who actually put the bible together (plus, you know, the whole thing that some of the newly discovered gospels are dated after constantine called the council to form the bible).[105][106][107] donald guthrie argues, however, that acts was written in the early 60s ad (since the book ends before the death of paul, which most probably occurred during the persecution of the christians under nero between ad 64 and ad 68), and therefore the gospel of luke would have to have been written prior to that, around ad 60. why did the tradition eventually arise that these books were written by apostles and companions of the apostles? as you may already know from my previous posts i go more or less along with b h streeter’s 4 document hypothesis as the best explanation of the literary relationship between the authors of the synoptic gospels. can you provide the evidence and show us, and indeed the whole academic world (your chance to put us all to shame and expose our ignorance), any early manuscript where the actual author names themselves within their alleged text?[56] the gospel of john is somewhat of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple jesus loved" and claims to be a member of jesus' inner circle. i cannot disprove the existence of anything so therefore you cannot disprove the existence of the great poke of do, who is the ultimate god of my self made fictional religion called pokey do, whose guiding religious text is ‘the book of do’ that contains all the wisdom and commands of the great poke himself.

Resume et si cetait vrai

New testament - Why did only 4 people write about the Life of Jesus

the one with the affirmations of jesus resurrection and being christ is the forgery, josephus did write about jesus. so, there is no evidence that proves that his love for sharing the gospel and his need to make sure he could explain and provide serious arguments for his faith would make him study to learn how to write and read at that level.[98] luke also includes a large amount of unique material, such as the parable of the good samaritan, and many of these parables seem to be authentic. papias the bishop of hierapolis provides the earliest external evidence by naming who wrote the gospels of matthew and mark, around 130-140 ad. why are there so many differences among the four gospels? preliminary observations: the gospels as eyewitness accounts as we have just seen, the gospels are filled with discrepancies large and small. as for the other gospels, john is first named around 140-150 ad by heracleon who was regarded as a heretic, whilst luke is first named by irenaeus in 180 ad..Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of acts which was written after the gospel of luke by luke himself.  but, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least matthew, mark, and luke) were written before 70 a. is just a tiny portion of the evidence against the truth and reliability of the gospel accounts, for they were written many decades after the death of jesus by non-eye witnesses who were not contemporary (alive at the same time) with jesus. f bruce claims that when jerome translated his famous latin vulgate of the four gospels in 384 ad he only used greek manuscripts. if these conjunctions can be proven,it does not offer evidence for the birth of a god man or anyone else. can you not imagine how it felt to see as a reality… one lone man, without weapons, without an army, without material support of any kind…. some scholars would argue that this is precisely how the gospels were “assigned” authors, based on a mixture of christian folk lore and hearsay. the gospel of john reflects a christian tradition that is different from that of the other gospels. as for the other gospels, mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of peter, and luke was a companion of paul, who also was not a disciple. it is not clear who wrote the gospels and there are discrepancies. do i get that the earliest gospel was written after 70ad?  if q actually existed then that would push the first writings of christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate, rather than authenticate, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations. scholars like george howard claim that the hebrew gospel of matthew contained in the even bohan predates the 14th century and may have even earlier origins.’ many of the claims made about what christians believe are flawed and require additional specificity. certainly the gospel writers were intent upon telling about jesus and not themselves. books of moses, namely genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy; joshua, judges, ruth, four books of kings, two of paralipomenon, esdras, nehemiah, tobit, judith, esther, job, psalms of david, proverbs, ecclesiastes, song of songs, wisdom, ecclesiasticus, isaiah, jeremiah, baruch, ezechiel, daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely hosea, joel, amos, obadiah, jonah, micah, nahum, habakkuk, zephaniah, haggai, zechariah, malachi; two books of the maccabees; the four gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john; fourteen letters of paul, to the romans, two to the corinthians, to the galatians, to the ephesians, to the philippians, two to the thessalonians, to the colossians, two to timothy, to titus, to philemon, to the hebrews; two letters of peter, three of john, one of james, one of jude; acts of the apostles; apocalypse of john. rather suggests that this author and his committee members did not really know who wrote the gospel they dare to add their tuppence comment to at the very end. the fact that tatian wrote a diatessaron harmonisation of the four canonical gospels show that by the end of the second century the early orthodox christians were using these 4 books as their gospel books.[215] however, mark allan powell believes that luke’s knowledge of palestinian geography seems so inadequate that one prominent scholar was led to remark “jesus route cannot be reconstructed on a map, and in any case luke did not possess one”. must disagree with the statement that matthew did nit write the gospel named for him. content of “m” suggests that the community for which this gospel was written, was stricter than the others in its attitude to keeping the jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the pharisees in “righteousness” (adherence to jewish law); and of the three only “m” refers to a “church” (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order. in the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of justin and papias, and the time of theophilus and irenaeus, the four gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled. it would therefore be impossible for any man not to come to the father but by the son. a quick post since i’m on my phone,*most* christians are catholic and *most* (except ones not taught fully) do not believe the gospels were written by who they are recorded as being written by. so most people have numerous sources and archives to refer to as source material if they wanted to write a history book about the great war. we do not see anybody arguing about who the authors were. whereas john welcomes anyone into the fold, mark, matthew and luke write for and to  jews only. better to collect them and write them down than one of the apostles? consider: when our earthly parents have us do something when we are children it may not make any sense at all at the time. is your take on papias regarding his comments that matthew wrote a ‘sayings’ gospel in hebrew?., a harmony of the gospels, new york: harper & row, 1950, p. whilst an author might be commissioned to write or copy documents on behalf of a highly educated wealthy patron, the only way to reach a wider audience was to read you works out aloud in public. his web page, “who wrote the synoptic gospels” is much better and shorter than mine. this is remarkable for someone who was meant to heal the sick, raise people from the dead along with many other miracles. if you can’t find any manuscript that does not posses the titles, you basically have no evidence that the titles were added later. i have to say that i do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more. i hope i’d made it clear that towards the end of the second century the more orthodox christians were already using the four canonical gospels, for why else would tatian try to compose his diatessaron harmony of the four canonical gospels, which was adopted by the syrian churches and enjoyed wide circulation for a few centuries. scholars have developed a number of criteria to evaluate the probability, or historical authenticity, of an attested event or saying represented in the gospels. do you at least have evidence of anyone disagreeing with any of these claims? only you ask yourself is this: is the birth, declaration that jesus is the son of god, crucifixion and resurrection disputed in any of these gospels ?, you said “unfortunately, the church has incorrectly assigned the name ‘ἰωάννου’ – john to the fourth canonical gospel. to matthew, i think we have the logia embedded in the gospel as the sayings and deeds of jesus.[51][52][53][54][55] scholars agree that the gospel of john was written last, by using a different tradition and body of testimony. blomberg, jesus and the gospels: an introduction and survey (2nd edition). so if that is the case, who did write them? while many variations have been discovered between early copies of biblical texts, most of these are variations in spelling, punctuation, or grammar.” for i would certainly know exactly how many and what they were if i saw a person with a 12 foot wingspan stood next to a tomb stone.[1][22] in 1901, william wrede challenged the historical reliability of the gospel, concluding especially that mark portrays jesus as secretive about his messianic identity because the historical jesus had never claimed to be the messiah. (not one of the gospel writers use the first person singular or plural)., and then begins to preach his own gospel, build his own foundation (apart from christ’s) and wants to “father” his own religious order (like joseph smith, jr. and examined them without any appreciation for divine intervention or.[57] during the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle. there are, of course, many other lines of evidence that lead to this same conclusion. this is where i have a problem with the author of matthew, for papias is clearly describing a different gospel by matthew to the one we now have, so how did our version of matthew get to be called matthew if there were titles on it. this not suggest that the greek manuscripts of matthew did not originally have any titles?  the various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the gospel are between a. i, for one, cannot live that way, and will not accept the musings of anonymous writers, who may have an agenda of their own. however, jesus was not impressed with the temple’s physical structure, because he knew that the sovereign god was greater than any building that man could construct, no matter how grand and beautiful it was….. sanders states that “these gospels were written with the intention of glorifying jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature." moreover, matthew's gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — jesus and the rest of us — were doing. modern critical scholarship concludes that luke used the gospel of mark for his chronology and a hypothetical sayings source q document for many of jesus’ teachings.

The Apostles Wrote the Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts | Cold

if the copy of mark did not have titles and was anonymous about the author, then i could more easily understand why both matthew and luke failed to mention or acknowledging their ‘famous’ primary source when composing their own gospels. however, peter occupies an even more prominent position in the gospel attributed to matthew, which would suggest an even stronger petrine connection between peter-matthew than peter-mark. “christians” don’t believe the gospels were written by mathew, marl, luke or john because it is not written in the bible that they did. i wonder how many christians go and see ‘fools’ who have phd’s in medicine when they are seriously ill after their god(s) have not come through with a cure as promised in the gospels. most scholars (except butler and farmer) accept the priority of mark and that there is a literary dependency of the other two synoptic writers upon mark.? the evidence is that this is exactly what happened with the forged gospels. we look at acts 1:1-2 it says, "the first account i composed, theophilus, about all that jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had by the holy spirit given orders to the apostles whom he had chosen.[…] gospels not written by matthew, mark, luke or john … – gospels not written by matthew, mark, luke or john « the … – christians believe that the gospels (matthew, mark, luke and john) were written by those whose names … […]. could take this further and argue that since both matthew and luke are such over-plagiarised works, each containing the majority of mark, that they are regionalised corruptions of mark, in the same way that the gospel of the hebrews/nazareans/ebionites, that jerome initially thought was a hebrew/aramaic copy of matthew, is/are an alleged corruption of matthew. a literary point of view the author of mark was the first writer to use a gospel as a vehicle for communicating the gospel message. would mean that if matthew did write in aramaic originally, that he may have used mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. gospel of mark is the first of the gospels to proffer quotes allegedly from jesus. in matt 27:50-54 he describes an earthquake (not recorded anywhere in roman or any other records) and the dead coming out of their graves and walking the streets when jesus died.[26] the main issues are what are the 'original' gospels, whether the original gospel works were accurate eyewitness accounts, and whether those original versions have been transmitted accurately through the ages to us. to maurice casey, it was the later church fathers who confused the hebrew ‘sayings’ gospel of matthew mentioned by papias, with our greek gospel of matthew, since matthias/matthew was a common jewish name as was y’shua/yeshua/joshua.” i had to step back and think on that one the christian cliche `, “hid ways are nut our ways” was never an acceptable answer in my mind…i usually get a quick read on someone’s stance on the subject through their writings; however, yours hit me stumped…usually one almost has to be a believer to apply the years of studying the bible in its original two languages as you obviously have, but i didn’t exactly get the bible thinker vibe from you lol…best i could tell you’re a believer (probably even a pair/church elder) who completely omitted those beliefs from the posting to soak to the non believers on an even keel when you argue your point so that you’re not immediately dismissed (as is the practice of many non believers when they find out the msn they’re taking to is a believer) or you’re a professor of sorts or maybe a student,/teacher of anthropologists whose studies and expertise includes ancient writings, languages, humanities, etc…i know you don’t know mr from adam but i gotta say you got me interested. he makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the old testament, and nearly one hundred from the apocryphal books of the new testament; but none from the four gospels.[70][71][72][73][74] the gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on peter's preaching. there are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the new testament were written in greek for greek-speaking communities,[60] that were later translated into syriac, latin and coptic. the gospels were written after 70 ad why did they not mention the destruction of the temple, a prophecy given by jesus himself. paul mentions nothing of jesus ministry, miracles or anything of the earthly godman. there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses. all of the four main gospel stories are written in the third person without any use of the first person. we do not have any complete books from the canonical new testament until the 3rd century ad/ce. anyone who did not believe what ‘the church’ told them to believe was considered a heretic and often tortured to extract a false confession under intense agony only to be sentenced to execution by ‘torture’. wonder if ‘apologetics’, that is to offer a defence for something, is an accurate word for any of this, since i see no ‘defence’ apart from claiming that christianity must be true because christian doctrine or the bible says so."the first account i composed, theophilus, about all that jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had by the holy spirit given orders to the apostles whom he had chosen. the verse numbers have been reserved, but without any text, so as to preserve the traditional numbering of the remaining verses. the author of the gospel of matthew even reports on the recruitment of (the apostle) matthew, into jesus’ twelve apostles, using “him” as opposed to “i” or “me”. we look carefully at the pericopae that contain those sayings in the gospels we notice that they are likely rather literal translations from a hebrew original. consider: when our earthly parents have us do something when we are children it may not make any sense at all at the time. the five gospels: the search for the authentic words of jesus: new translation and commentary. me, john 21:24 clearly suggests that the author of this verse did not know who the writer of of the rest of the gospel was.., a harmony of the gospels, new york: harper & row, 1950, p.^ mary healy, the gospel of mark (catholic commentary on sacred scripture), page 146 (baker academic, 2008). from the time when letters began to be forged in his name (2 thess 2:2; 3:17) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries… in the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. to imply that is a disagreement among the gospels is silly. around 180 ad is the first early church father to name the authors of all four canonical gospels in his 5 volume epic called verses heretics, where he establishes that some groups of christians were heretics because he noted that they only used one of the four and not all four according to his own opinion, as well as those who used numerous non-canonical gospels.[170] the antiquity of the creed has been located by many biblical scholars to less than a decade after jesus' death, originating from the jerusalem apostolic community. here  to read more about who wrote the gospel of mark. these are theories, which you have no evidence that prove them wrong and therefore, for you to claim as “church truth” that “the original identity of the authors of the gospels was lost” is simply unfounded.[164][205] further, the gospel of matthew inconsistently claims, the title nazarene for jesus was derived from old testament prophecy "he will be called a nazorean" (matthew 2:22-23), but that prophecy does not exist in the hebrew tanach. such as raymond brown point out that the gospels contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details. certainly share your comment about cultural bias shaping how we interpret the text or what assumptions we make about the sources and the processes adopted to create the gospels. five different versions if you include the gospel of nazareans. have no hope at all, in any attempt to demonstrate that i ought, with that view i hold, refer to its rules as my guide. for as we already know, according to acts 4:13 that peter and john were ἀγράμματοί – ‘agrammatoi’ meaning ‘without letters’, ‘illiterate’, so could not have written such educated greek we find in the fourth canonical gospel. matthew’s gospel so completely dominated the scene that it is a surprising fact that mark has been preserved at all.” the interpretations are so many that there are around 30000 christian denominations. many of these old legends were orally handed-over and date back from much much more ancient times. most of the catholics you know may be aware that the gospels were not written by matt, mark, luke and john, but the vast majority are not. that gives john almost and even more (depending on when exactly the gospel was written) than 60 years for him to become literate. … for matthew is understood to have adopted the incarnation of the lord according to the kingly lineage and his very many deeds and words according to the present life of men. believe that the gospels (matthew, mark, luke and john) were written by those whose names appear in the title of the books. notion that the gospels are the product of the early church community in. 140 thousand),[23] scholars use textual criticism to determine which gospel variants could theoretically be taken as 'original'. no evidence of anybody trying to communicate that this vast and almost impossible project was to be done around the 100 year mark. was thinking that despite the discrepancies in the detail, all the gospels tell of jesus as a living person, a person who performed miracles, a person who was crucified and a person who was resurrected. do not know who wrote the gospels originally, we only have some tantalising clues as the external and internal evidence of authorship supports various possibilities.  also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to christ's life that wrote them., gentle, merciful loving jesus is not so meek, mild and loving:Jesus said: “if any man come to me and hate not his father, his mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. this politically motivated selection in 325, the bible has bene translated in many languages in many times by individuals with their own ideas. modern scholars were convinced that the author of mark wrote the first gospel of our 4 canonical gospels. to illustrate the differences between the gospels, ehrman offers opposing depictions of jesus talking about himself. if every model was as flawed as you suggest then we would never have made any progress, and human civilisation and scientific knowledge would not be anywhere near the position we are in now."2 this means that the gospel of luke was written before acts. take any page on this website and show me how it is not true. so, even if he wouldn’t have had the chance to learn how to read and write, that would have not exclude the second option, which is, that he could have dictated his account (this was very common in those days) to any of his more literate disciples willing to help him write his gospel. these differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective gospels, according to ehrman.

Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and

.  also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as jesus prophesied  -- would surely have been included. many scholars date acts of the apostles after the publication of josephus’ history of the jews in 94 ce – especially as “luke” unashamedly plagiarised large parts of his works. the gospels were written in different communities who did not have the advanced communications and telephony systems that we have to be able to share their literary works, it was all done manually. so a title would have been meaningless, except to those few who could read and write. such limitation is that science deals primarily with observations of present states and processes; it can only discuss the prehistoric past, much less conclude anything from it. also, many of these variants are so particular to the greek language that they would not appear in translations into other languages.! it makes no sense on any level and is immoral end-to-end. difference between the inconsistencies in the records of other historic events and those in the gospels is that the latter is meant to be “inspired by god” so should be perfect. since there was no mention of this in the gospels, one can assume they were written before or during the early years of nero’s rule. as a generalisation it seems to be that the higher educated a person is, the more they know about the true origins of the gospel authors. tradition that they were written by two disciples (matthew and john) and by two companions of the apostles (mark and luke) is first attested in the 2nd century! you repeat the gospel myths like they’re credible history, which they clearly are not. i have read the works of great men past and present, from jewish, christian to pagan, radicals and freethinkers, as well as many scholars from around the world. it is also equally possible that john, or indeed any author new testament or anyone in antiquity, could have used the services of a professional scribe or translator, in which case the author is not the apostle and nowhere does the johannine gospel have any mention that this is being written on behalf of an apostle. gospels really don't tell us much about jesus but seem more "made.  he was a disciple of peter and undoubtedly it was peter who informed mark of the life of christ and guided him in writing the gospel known by his name. of the gospels mention the destruction of the jewish temple in 70 a. very few variants are contested among scholars, and few or none of the contested variants carry any theological significance. along with the fellow who has written discussing the accuracy of the gospels and possibility of the spread of xtianity by word of mouth making comparisons with the childhood game of telephones and whispering…who even doubts that after 35 years, spoken reports, could be accurate. a further reality is that all the gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness.  if it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 a. can acknowledge that there are seeming inconsistencies in the gospels, but would counter that there are inconsistencies in any event in history recorded or told by more than one person.: less than a third of the world’s people believe any version of the story, and those who do believe are fractured into 30,000 sects with mutually contradictory beliefs.: jesus and historycanonical gospelshistoricity of religionhidden categories: pages using isbn magic linksall articles with unsourced statementsarticles with unsourced statements from november 2010pages with numeric bible version references. it is fair to say that logic is usually avoided by the believer, for it serves to highlight that there are errors, either intentional or accidental within the very texts that christians have selected to use and undermines any claims that these texts were divinely inspired and deserving of special status amongst all literature. and it had better be a lot better than matthew, luke and john repeating hearsay from who knows who or how many levels of compound hyperbole.”[1] ingrid maisch and anton vögtle writing for karl rahner in his encyclopedia of theological terms indicate that the gospels were written primarily as theological, not historical items. since mark’s gospel is widely accepted as being the first to be written for 91& of mark is contained in the later gospel of matthew, we can conclude that matthew is merely a plagiarism of mark.[46] in the case of the gospels, the gap of time between authorship and the earliest extant or existing manuscript text is less than other accepted ancient manuscripts, such as the manuscripts attributed to plato. bush may well have radically different views about him (although i doubt anyone would call him divine). mentioned in your essay that, “…the authors chose to write anonymously, which was commonplace when you consider that the vast majority of people were illiterate and could not read or write greek. you said “can you name a single church father before the end of the second century ad who named the author whose gospel he was quoting from? many scholars use modern maps to gauge mark, which often results in errors in judging mark's geography. titles in our english bibles are later additions; they are not original to the gospels themselves..Sorry my comment is so long, as i had to get through many sources. this gospel would surely have been greatly revered, especially after the death of the apostles, as the words of the leader of the apostles would have carried far more authority than a gospel allegedly written by a lesser apostle … matthew a former tax collector for the romans. you are mistaken there are many extra-biblical writings that speak of jesus’ and many are not from christians. “belief” isn’t proof and many if not most hebrew jews (whatever a hebrew jew is) do not belief the nonsense of the ot; they like the social aspects of jewishness. quality of the greek language points to someone other than one of the twelve apostles.[151][152]:770 however the gospel of luke also dates the birth ten years after herod's death, during the census of quirinius in 6 ad described by the historian josephus. while i consider this a stretch, to anyone, especially supreme truthsayer, what’s the explanation for this fact? if mark, the interpreter for peter had indeed written the memoirs of peter, then surely this gospel would have taken centre stage as the go-to gospel from the leader of the church the great peter “the rock” himself. does work against the authenticity of the gospels is that there is not one contemporary, independent report about jesus. 2000 years ago, one man stood in direct conflict with many of the ideas and beliefs of his time. that he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both josephus and tacitus. those sayings evidently were written down since they are repeated in many cases word for word in the several gospels. bauckham has noted that the geography in mark is accurate when looked at from the perspective of fisherman from capernaum, which is consistent with mark relaying the gospel from peter, who indeed was a fisherman.  furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical. geza vermes judges that the ministry of jesus was exclusively for jews and that the order to proclaim the gospel to all nations was an early christian development. actually agree with you that you would naturally prefer apostles and eyewitnesses as the authors."[173] other relevant creeds which predate the texts wherein they are found[174] that have been identified are 1 john 4:2:[175] "this is how you can recognize the spirit of god: every spirit that acknowledges that jesus christ has come in the flesh is from god",[176][177] "remember jesus christ, raised from the dead, this is my gospel",[178] romans|1:3-4:[179] "regarding his son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of david, and who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the son of god by his resurrection from the dead: jesus christ our lord. second point is that some documents in antiquity were written pseudonimously where the author pretends to write as someone else. which is just me, no need for anyone to get offended from what i said. see we are cherry picking verses from romans and taking them out of context to threaten divine retribution upon anyone who dares to so much as ask an awkward question or demonstrate that the text contained in the bible is not the divinely dictated words of an all loving, all powerful, all knowing, perfectly just supreme being or similar deities, but the words of primitive men who have a literalistic superstitious view of the world around them.[207] these early possible references to jesus have little historical information independent from the gospels, but they can be interpreted to reflect a historical picture of jesus as a man who had disciples and was brought to death as a criminal during passover. gospel identifies its author as “the disciple whom jesus loved. paul who was probably not an eyewitness to jesus' ministry, wrote the gospel of luke and acts of the apostles. the gospel attributed to mark is in fact headed “the gospel of jesus christ – the son of god”, but there is no mention of the author’s name. for as we already know, according to acts 4:13 that peter and john were ἀγράμματοί – ‘agrammatoi’ meaning ‘without letters’, ‘illiterate’, so could not have written such educated greek we find in the fourth canonical gospel. he actually explains that he did not know who had translated the gospel to the greek." additionally, many new testament passages misquote texts from the hebrew tanakh. have dated the canonical gospel of mark, to 70 ce, and have deduced that the author of the prophecy had clearly made it up after the event. others suggest that papias was not referring to our modern day greek based copy of the gospel according to matthew at all, but that he only ever wrote a sayings gospel in hebrew and so is not the author of the version of matthew that has survived today. people such as you are addressing along myself are critical thinkers who have studied the history of christianity and find nothing that provides evidence that any of it is based on fact. calling of matthew (levi) is found in all three of the synoptic gospels. any honest scholar specialising in manuscript study will confirm that we currently only have a grand total of about 150 manuscript copies written before 500 ad/ce and most of these are fragments. ehrman notes that many current verses were not part of the original text of the new testament. the final version of the gospels we have is the word-for-word work of. people will continue to believe what they want to believe regardless of any ‘evidence’ to the contrary and often quote romans 1:18-22 to suggest that anyone showing any inkling of intellectual inquiry into the text and origins of the gospels is a ‘fool’.

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction

they will insist that any documentation you would provide to prove the bible is the infallible word of the one and only god and creator is not objective. another possibility is that paul was looking at older works that he considered “scripture”, and was not referring to the gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john as commonly assumed. or that mark wrote his rough prose gospel in inferior greek first, then matthew copied mark and in doing so tidied up the poor greek of mark, better arranged the material in mark and supplemented mark’s account with additional details from other sources? beg your pardon, but if the vast majority of the population was illiterate, such that, a name became unnecessary, why then would one write a document consisting of thousands of words. you, and i am going to write this simple…as not to confuse your intellectual mind. but later, as a student at princeton theological seminary, ehrman started reading the bible with a more historical approach and analyzing contradictions in the gospels.^ interpreting gospel narratives: scenes, people, and theology by timothy wiarda 2010 isbn 0-8054-4843-8 pp. however the book of john, which probably is the work of a highly skilled greek scholar, and is again probably an orthodox christian polemic attack on the gospel of thomas (c. for starters up until the end of the first century ad, most christians were anticipating the imminent return of jesus, so would there be any need to name yourself as the author and add titles if your gospel was only going to be in existence for a few year before jesus returned … any day now people? you’re right, you and i are not on the same page – i don’t think you’re on any page at all. the fact that his linage differs significantly from that of luke is a real problem for those who claim that the holy spirit’s hand guided the writers of the gospels. addition to the internal and textual reliability of the gospels, external sources can also be used to assess historical reliability. this text does not appear in any greek manuscripts prior to 11th century ad. the title “your excellency” identifies luke’s sole recipient as a roman official of at least proconsul rank, so is this really a gospel or a personal letter? gospels of matthew, mark, and luke are referred to as the synoptic gospels because of a similar sequence and wording. the outset, everything that any of us state about the text is going to be hypothetical, for we do not have the original author or any of the copyists, revisionists, scribes or redactors on hand to ask questions of. this is completely plausible considering that an apostle like john, was almost required by his position to be the best spokesman of the gospel he could. until then i will pray that god will open your eyes because what i know is in store for those who reject god is not something i want to happen to anyone. christian apologists like craig blomberg readily acknowledge the anonymity of the gospels, as do most theologians, particularly those working in the field of textual criticism like bart d erhman. i don’t understand how you get that the earliest gospel was written 68 ad when the events that happened to jesus were being known by the population before 68 ad. according to the hypothesis, the authors of the gospel of matthew and the gospel of luke then used the gospel of mark and the hypothetical q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospels. i have studied the synoptic gospels in depth, of the three authors i spent far more time researching the gospel of mark, so i will limit my answer to addressing the author of the gospel attributed to mark. ” many of us who do not believe have read the bible several times, studied theology at a university instead of a bible colleges, asked questions about the text, learned greek which is the language of the new testament and septuagint, actually viewed manuscripts and seen the blatant contradictions between different manuscripts containing the same book, which is why we do not believe that the bible is definitely not the word of god. roberts aims to establish a harmonised account of the birth of jesus, maintaining that any contradictions can be reconciled. regarding the ‘empty tomb’ accounts, ask as imple question … “how many persons were reportedly seen by the woman/women visiting the tomb and were they angels or humans?  some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. guys are talking about ufo’s and expect me to believe you know anything about the bible, bunch of satanic followers, praise jesus and come to know him then walk with the father then tell me the apostle paul is a false prophet. these separate writings then were supposed to have been copied over and over and over and over again by different people, by different communities all over the roman empire (so many countries like italy, greece, egypt, turkey, france, syria, india, etc. whoever wrote matthew did not call it "the gospel according to matthew.“in the first century many young jewish people knew the torah (the first 5 books of the bible- genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy) in their entirety – word for word by heart. i took this to mean that the greek copy of matthew that we now have, is a good example of a new testament text being incorrectly attributed to an author who did not write it. bauckham has argued that the topography found in the gospel of mark, when looked from the view of a fisherman from capernaum, is quite accurate. as i said, i think you are playing on a technicality here, for you know that we do not have the original autographs, nor the first few generations of copies, so you know that we cannot provide any direct manuscript evidence showing that the titles were omitted. [3] with this in mind, since i myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, i too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent theophilus, [4]so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. it is estimated that only 10-15% of the population could read or write and that writing with such eloquence was the preserve of the wealthy elite and professional scribes."in mark's gospel, jesus is not interested in teaching about himself. (you can see my argument elsewhere for the apostle matthew as the author of the gospel and as an educated man capable of writing both the high quality greek that we find in the gospel and hebrew. if the christian hypothesis is true, the story and message of christ is the most important thing any person can possibly know.” i think that will probably be your strongest evidence against any of the four names attributed to the gospels. it was rejected as heretical by many individuals and groups within the early christian movement. so i’m not sure how we can say that all the church fathers were unanimous about the writer of matthew when it looks like we have 2 different versions of a gospel both allegedly written by a matthew. “sayings” gospel immediately suggests a ‘q’ like document, or something along the lines of the gospel of thomas that only contains phrases said by jesus. the criterion of embarrassment holds that the authors of the gospels had no reason to invent embarrassing incidents such as the denial of jesus by peter, or the fleeing of jesus' followers after his arrest, and therefore such details would likely not have been included unless they were true. absolutely no evidence of any of this and yet we are still supposed to believe this?.but no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of passover". 115, mentions christus, without many historical details (see also: tacitus on jesus). 8% of it is parallel to these other gospels, and even then, no such word-for-word parallelism occurs as we find among the synoptic gospels. is awesome, i really enjoyed reading this, it was a great refresher from my catholic theology classes, theology 203, bible as a story and 205, the gospels. bible has been around longer than any other book, period!)these men could read and speak hebrew )and aramaic) and certainly could speak and write greek. according to the text of john, the ‘beloved disciple’ wrote this gospel, so who was this mysterious ‘beloved disciple’? to date, the seti allen telescope array has not detected or received any unambiguous radio signals that could indicate the possible existence of other intelligent species in our universe. i’m not sure if anyone is currently analysing the ink to determine the date the ink was applied to the manuscript. that is mighty strange, considering that this man was meant to have been healing the sick, raising the dead (including himself) along with many other miracles and had audiences of thousands (some of who he fed with a handful of loaves and fishes). from what is said in many writings about herod’s temple, it was indeed a magnificent structure of awesome proportions. i would not go so far as to call any of my opinions ‘theories’ in the scientific sense, for at best they can only be a ‘working hypothesis’, as we do not have the original autographs to compare, not the authors or any early church fathers available to question about what they knew about the authors. thus there is no errors, but their will always be discrepancies because there will always be people (such as yourself) that can’t take anything the bible says on faith. huston smith said in one of his famous books, “it is as if the scientist were inside a large plastic balloon, he can shine his torch anywhere on the balloon’s interior but cannot climb outside the balloon to view it as a whole”. half intelligent atheist isn’t blinded by anything to do with the belief in a god. in addition, most scholars agree that the author of luke wrote the acts of the apostles.^ dennis nineham, the gospel of st mark, pages 40, 203 (new york: seabury, 1968). it is the consensus (although it is conjecture by the scholarship, as no extant manuscript autograph or original is in existence) amongst nt and biblical scholars, on dates for the gospels are very much the same dates as shown on this blog., although i do believe in the fact that time might cause many discrepancies, i also believe that the author of this article has contradicted himself/herself several times.^ a b c the gospel of matthew claims, the title nazarene for jesus was derived from the prophecy "he will be called a nazorean" (matthew 2:22-23), despite the lack of any old testament source. the gospels and epistles show similar massive evidence of polemical redactions and interpolations … in addition to being anonymously or pseudonymously authored.. irenaeus identified the author of the fourth gospel as st. we have since discovered numerous manuscripts containing gospels, acts, church rules and even other non-christian or pagan works of literature. also allowing the generations of christians that came and went until we get into the middle of the second century, how many of them do we think would know that a certain gospel was written by a specific person from another community? are quite right that the astronomical conjunctions both mike and myself describe do not prove that jesus or any saviour was born.

: have you not read any of the posts on here? that the titles are not original to the gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection.[1][21][22] the fourth gospel, the gospel of john, differs greatly from the first three gospels. it is difficult to see how the greek gospel of matthew could have been mistaken for the hebrew ‘sayings’ gospel that papias mentions. distortion of oral tradition as per the “telephone game” is evident throughout the nt and the non-canonical gospels found at nag hammadi.[213] other various details mentioned in the gospels have been verified by archaeological evidence, such as the pool of bethesda,[214] the pool of siloam, the temple mount platform extension by king herod, and a mosaic from a third century church in megiddo mentioning jesus. of what you write precludes the guidance of the holy spirit in the authoring or construction of the current canon of scripture and it certainly does not prevent the holy spirit for using the gospels to help people understand who christ is, his work and purpose and to lead people to make a decision for faith in either direction. have a totally different agenda in mind for their audience than did the authors of the synoptic gospels. those translated quotes are not particularly good greek and indicate the author of the gospel values the original and did not rewrite them into the same quality greek he was using. edwards, the hebrew gospel & the development of the synoptic tradition, 2009 wm.. the gospels do not mention the destruction of the temple as prophesized by jesus. sadly the break away protestant churches adopted many of the erroneous teachings and rules from the roman church, that still persist in evangelical, baptist, presbyterian and pentecostal denominations today, not just the various lutheran, anglican and episcopalian congregations. mentions matthew as the author of a sayings gospel a century or so after the events that the gospel narrates. (also i haven’t read any of these comments and don’t plan to so i won’t respond to them – just a helpful note to the author). we cannot be certain that the hebrew gospel of matthew that papias mentions is the same gospel that either origen or much later jerome mentions. matt and luke have different genealogies of jesus, which use joseph’s lineage, to prove the silly prophecy of the messiah emanating from king david, which is totally irrelevant anyway as joseph was jesus’ stepfather and no relation. if you are aware of any then i’d be grateful if you could point me in their direction. different formats for the titles for hebrews that you identified as evidence for the anonymity of hebrews, also applies equally to our manuscripts of the gospels. you suggesting, as some scholars have, that matthew first wrote a sayings gospel first, in hebrew, then a decade or two later comes across a copy of mark, so writes a new, bigger gospel in greek using about 90% of the material in mark for an outline/framework in which to include material from his hebrew saying gospel? why do you keep saying the gospels were not written by matthew, mark, luke or john. 140, with scholars stating that it could be older than any of the canonical gospels.[…] gospels not written by matthew, mark, luke or john « the … – christians believe that the gospels (matthew, mark, luke and john) were written by those whose names appear in the title of the books.  lately, the priority of matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. 11th-century byzantine manuscript containing the opening of the gospel of luke. the authorship of the gospel of mark, it is very likely that the author may indeed have been called mark, since the name mark is never mentioned as one of the disciples chosen by jesus, and it is most unlikely that the gospel authorship would be accidentally, or falsely, or incorrectly attributed to a comparatively insignificant person in the christian story.“it professes that one and the same god is the author of the old and the new testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same spirit. regarded christians who did not use all four canonical gospels as ‘heretics’.  he obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the gospel account as well as acts.[79] thomas howe examined luke's description of paul's sea journeys, including luke's references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, and stated that he could not find any mistakes.^ '[a]s the earliest gospel, [mark] is the primary source of information about the ministry of jesus. each gospel was written in a different community by a highly educated greek author, the earliest mark about 65 ad/ce some 30 years after the death of jesus, whilst john could have been written as late as the first decade of the 2nd century.[123] in attempting to determine the original text of the new testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. other three gospels i think draw from a much wider range of sources and were written for different reasons as john so i think i agree with some of what you are saying. according to christians, god is omnipotent, that is “all powerful” and can do anything.^ joseph barber lightfoot in his commentary on the epistle to the galatians writes: "at this point gal 6:11 the apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. jesus went to the garden and asked his father is there no other way how did mathew mark and luke mention it in the bible they weren’t any where near jesus they were a sleep he woke them. we would have had evidence of such a calamity if the greek version in fact would have been confused by the hebrew gospel of mathew. church historian eusebius of caesarea (264 – 340) cited a statement of the 2nd-century pagan chronicler phlegon of tralles that during the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad (ad 32/33) "a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of nicaea". unless the account did not have any title naming the author. you believe, then you must not only believe that jesus is god in human form but also that he is the word, and the word was with god and the word was and is god, and the bible is inspired by his spiritual presence upon the thoughts and wording of the writers of each book. our earliest surviving gospel manuscripts use the grammatical construction ‘kata’ “according to” rather than “of” to distance themselves from a specific claim of authorship. anyone who offers opinions like these seems to me to be so desperately misguided. far as dating the gospel goes, luke was written before the book of acts and acts does not mention "nero's persecution of the christians in a. lets add something to the big fraud: there are many more gospels, also unknown authors which also are just just legends or moral-preachings or political statements by known and unknown authors. so now we will consider the external evidence, namely whether the early church fathers actually named the author when they were quoting text from a canonical gospel. also, the primary sources we have of alexander the great come from contemporaneous sources, people who knew and soldiered with him – not one of the nt writers knew jesus or anyone that knew him. i can actually think of some very good reasons why the original authors of the canonical gospels decided to remain anonymous. there is absolutely no certainty in the new testament about anything of importance. the fourth gospel traditionally attributed to john, the author employs many terms and phrases that demonstrate an understanding of stoic and platonic concepts that are alien to judaism, which suggests that the author was familiar with greek philosophy, and possibly a hellenised jew. however, to say that the identity of the authors of these gospels were “lost”, as explained before, could be no more than just an unfounded theory with no evidence and yet you have claimed this as “church truth”. papias the bishop of hierapolis provides the earliest external evidence by naming who wrote the gospels of matthew and mark, around 130-140 ad. surely agree that alot of the gospels have been re-written or over written. final point is that some anonymous documents were attributed to an author, like hebrews being attributed to paul, even though paul did not write it. early church unanimously held that the gospel of matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (matt. some scholars have suggested that when john mark deserted paul, mark then returned to jerusalem where he wrote his gospel and it is this great work that paul is proud of., if that john did write “the book of john”, he would have been a ninety year old man, 60 years removed from the events he relates, most likely suffering from alzheimer’s disease or at least the loss of memory that afflicts 99% of people who are his age. cranfield, the gospel according to st mark, page 250 (cambridge university press, 1959). dodwell says: “we have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as clemens romanus, barnabas, hermas, ignatius, and polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein i have named them, and after all the writers of the new testament. even when this gospel narrates the event of matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me. in fact, 'gospel' constitutes a genre all its own, a surprising novelty in the literature of the ancient world. a god lied, then that god cannot be trusted and then you couldn’t even believe anything that that god would say. anyone wishing to discuss this should be able to make that extrapolation. of the core of the synoptic gospels are quotes from a source placed in the matrix of the larger narratives of the gospels. and the energy with which anyone who presents an opposing view is dispatched is typical of such sites.…it’s a possibility that earth is the only planet to have evolved intelligent civilization…then, you write, “however facts…”. genre of the gospels is essential in understanding the intentions of the authors regarding the historical value of the texts. these books are called matthew, mark, luke, and john because they were traditionally thought to have been written by matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; john, the "beloved disciple" mentioned in the fourth gospel; mark, the secretary of the disciple peter; and luke, the traveling companion of paul. regarding the gospel of matthew however, we only have a few documents to go on regarding who wrote it, and these are scant and hearsay, with eusebius quoting papias about 200 years later. as i’m sure you already know, if you have ever translated from other languages into english, there are many places where the translation is stilted due to the source language containing or supporting concepts or linguistic constructs etc that can not easily be transmitted to, or, be supported by the target language.

but two of the four canonical gospels are claimed to be from people who were not even apostles or eyewitnesses to the events they are writing about! in his argument, he emphatically declared that what is written in the gospels is important…not the men who wrote them., the standards of biography (the gospels are not really biographies, but they are biographical) are different today than they were in the first century. it assumes that not only one, not only two, not only three but four different gospels were originally written anonymously. in any event,  recent research has found that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. the birth of the messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in the gospels of matthew and luke (the anchor yale bible reference library). had luke known who the author was, for he obviously had access to a copy of mark, luke could have said to his proconsul audience that one of these “many” accounts he reviewed is the testimony from the highest authority, peter., all the internal and external evidence does not only point to what has been traditionally believed but all manuscripts and all church fathers unanimously proclaim the same thing about who wrote what gospel.[25] finally, scholars turn to external sources, including the testimony of early church leaders, writers outside the church (mainly jewish and greco-roman historians) who would have been more likely to have criticized the early churches, and to archaeological evidence. claims made citing historical references and literary records that support a point of view while minimizing or proclaiming false any such record or reference that may in fact present a different point of view are expected and obviously present. we can show you many places where the text has been altered or the text makes incorrect claims then the text is clearly false and the the claims are lies. don’t write again with the expectation of a response. summarise then, the external evidence for the author of our second gospel, according to papias, the author was called mark. sanders state that: "on many points, especially about jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could". father jose o'callaghan, studying fragments of the gospel of mark and. that not strike you as odd that neither writer acknowledged, named or even hinted at mark, who according to papias was the alleged interpreter for peter? there are no surviving translated versions that we have discovered that are based upon a hebrew/aramaic text of the gospel of matthew.” this is going to be very likely when a gospel, letter, church memo circulates amongst a different christian community who had not seen or heard the original author.[145][146][147][148] the nativity narratives found in the gospel of matthew (matthew 1:1-17) and the gospel of luke (luke 3:23-38) give a genealogy of jesus, but the names, and even the number of generations, differ between the two. would these people know about the existence and authorship of other gospels up until the mid second century ad? names are attached to the titles of the gospels ("the gospel according to matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions."[183] it is not known when thallus lived, or whether his history made any reference to the crucifixion. in the gospels, acts, and revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater"[136] per aland and aland, the total consistency achieved in the gospel of matthew was 60% (642 verses out of 1071), the total consistency achieved in the gospel of mark was 45% (306 verses out of 678), the total consistency achieved in the gospel of luke was 57% (658 verses out of 1151), and the total consistency achieved in the gospel of john was 52% (450 verses out of 869). i can only assume that the love of jesus is buried so deep in many judgemental christians that it will take another 50 years of hard christian labour for any of it to reach the surface. how many authors would do that when applying authorship to their own works? justin martyr referred to the collection of gospels as the memoirs of the apostles. is a bit of a stretch to claim that we are “attacking” rose or any believer just for pointing out obvious facts about the blatant inaccuracies and corruption of what you now regard as your ‘bible’. there are many more i am sure, but without having the authors present to answer our questions we can never be 100% sure what their motives were for writing in the first place. the birth narratives do not appear in the gospel of mark our earliest canonical gospel or john our latest canonical gospel, which suggests that they were unknown during the first century. earliest manuscript is a business card sized fragment from the gospel of john, rylands library papyrus p52, which dates to the first half of the 2nd century. do not know how people would believe in a “holy trinity” when its not even mentioned in any gospel at all. the version of the gospel we have was probably written. just spent about three years, with three friends, studying and reflecting on the gospel of john. only in the 4th century did various new testament books then get collated as in codex sinaiticus (also contains barnabas and shepherd of hermas), codex vaticanus (missing 1 & 2 timothy, titus, philemon and revelation) and codex bezae cantabrigiensis (contains most of the 4 canonical gospels and acts). with that understanding i also believe much of the content what is written who really penned these gospels is also true. did you know that since the vast majority of people could not read, oral tradition was how they knew scripture and anything else that was necessary to learn. tools are very limited with respect to questions of existence of any specific individuals from the ancient past. no gods have sent any unambiguous radio transmissions indicating their presence to humanity. it was an almost universally accepted tradition for about 1600 years that the gospel attributed to matthew was the first to be written. you can gain sufficient understanding with little exegesis about the person and message of christ as well as an invitation to believe and follow any number of times (my work is on vimio refelections on john from cosmicgorillauk) i’ve moved on to the epistles now and in my study preparation i am struck by the congruity between the three letters and gospel as presented by john. judging the historical reliability of the gospels, scholars ask if the accounts in the gospels are, when judged using normal standards that historians use on other ancient writings, reliable or not. his statements about mark and ultimately resulted in the second gospel being overlooked and falling into neglect. any person crucified by the romans was usually left to hang for days so the birds and would animals could scavenge off the dead carcasus. though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad consensus among scholars that many of the books of the new testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. neither do they know of gospels discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries, very different from those in the canon. the main objection appears to be from external evidence, namely augustine, if our second canonical gospel (mark) really was dependant upon the apostle peter it is difficult to account for its comparatively early abandonment in favour of our first canonical gospel (matthew). verse 24 kind of dates the gospel a bit and suggests that verse 24 was added later when copies were being made, so perhaps 100 to 110 ad for john 21:24 to be added and circulated. these criteria are applied to the gospels in order to help scholars in reconstructions of the historical jesus.^ a b "the synoptic gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical jesus" "jesus christ. No Mention of Gospels Until 2nd Century There are extant writings…When were the gospels written and by whom? of the above, christians argue that the authors of the gospels and in fact the authors of all the books of the bible, were guided by the holy spirit and therefore cannot be in error regardless of who wrote the words. the divided roman empire noticed the growth of christian sects (note: faith was growing without a bible), there were many splinter groups. we can say for certain about the authors is that they were all highly educated, literate, greek-speaking christians of (at least) the second generation, contrast this with the apostles of jesus, who were uneducated, lower class, illiterate, aramaic-speaking peasants. to clarify, i was not getting at anything specific about logia, just that earlier commentators may have translated the word logia as ‘oracles’, but today we understand that as ‘sayings’. the gospel of mark is commonly dated about the year. gospel attributed to john 1:1 opens as follows:“in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god. and i do believe the gospels were written by matthew, mark, luke and john. firstly according to most scholars matthew would be more fluent in aramaic than hebrew or greek, and secondly, according to scholars like john nolland and d a hagner, there are no tell tale signs that the greek gospel of matthew was the result of a translation from hebrew. the first letter of peter presumes that christians were being persecuted by pagans instead of jews, which is highly unlikely before 64 ad when peter was allegedly executed, since you cannot write a letter after your own death. if jesus is god, then please explain why in the gospel attributed to markl [mark 15:34] jesus allegedly says “eloi eloi lama sabachthani? even the chonological sequence of jesus activites differes between the gospels.[32] erasmo leiva-merikakis notes that "we must conclude, then, that the genre of the gospel is not that of pure 'history'; but neither is it that of myth, fairy tale, or legend. the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that john the apostle wrote the gospel of john. three different versions if you include the gospel of the hebrews, four versions if you also include the gospel of the ebionites. for he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.^ michael grant (a classicist) states that "in recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. traditional christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s, while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century. have no hope at all, in any attempt to demonstrate that i ought, with that view i hold, refer to its rules as my guide. many people among the jews and the other nations became his disciples.

Resume property manager australia


How it works

STEP 1 Submit your order

STEP 2 Pay

STEP 3 Approve preview

STEP 4 Download


Why These Services?

Premium

Quality

Satisfaction

Guaranteed

Complete

Confidentiality

Secure

Payments


For security reasons we do not
store any credit card information.