Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Roylion]

Does an eyewitness account have to be written by the eye witness ?

Writing down what someone else claims to have seen is not an eyewitness account.

Eyewitness testimony can be affected by many psychological factors including

• Anxiety / Stress
• Reconstructive Memory
• Weapon Focus
• Leading Questions

 

[Boston tiger]

Writing down what someone else claims to have seen is not an eyewitness account.

Eyewitness testimony can be affected by many psychological factors including

Dear Lord. You went to the courts.

 

[Boston tiger]

I've explained all this before. Here it is again.

The traditional assignations of authorship of the Gospels are debatable. In other words the Gospels assigned to 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke' and 'John' were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

While "The Gospel according to Luke” is traditionally ascribed to Luke the Evangelist by Church fathers such as Jerome and Eusebius who also say he wrote the "Acts of the Apostles", the earliest manuscript of the Gospel, dated circa AD 200, ascribes the work to Luke; as did Irenaeus, writing circa AD 180; and the Muratorian fragment from AD 170. Many modern scholars, such as Joseph Fizmyer believe that the author of Luke was also the author of Acts, but "Luke the Evangelist" was probably not the author. The usual dating of Luke is about AD 80-90, Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its [the Gospel's] usage" prior to c. AD 150. The earliest writings that quote or reference Luke are the mid to late 2nd century writings which could fit Koester's opinion.

In turn that the writers of the Gospels were eyewitnesses to Jesus' actions and deeds is not supported by modern Biblical scholarship. The dates they were written/assembled is important.

For example, the "Gospel according to Mark" is dated to have been written somewhere between AD 70 - 135. The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Mark" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340).

And why possibly as as late AD 135? The majority of recent scholars believe Chapter 16 Verse 8 to be the original ending of the Gospel and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome. But that means Mark's Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. That's it. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20, (a later ending of Mark) with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.

Who "Mark" might have been is essentially unknown, but the two main candidates in the Early Christian tradition were:
- John Mark: the companion of Peter
- Mark the cousin of Barnabas

According to Eusebius the Church historian (AD 260–340), Papias claimed that John “the Elder” (believed to be the apostle John) told him (Papias) that John Mark had written it. So....

• Eusebius (fourth century) tells us that
• Papias (first–second century) said that
• John the Elder told Papias that
• Mark wrote this gospel based on
• The Apostle Peter’s reminiscences

Unfortunately none of Papias's writings have survived and indeed what is known of his writings are recorded in the later "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus in about AD 180 and much later by Eusebius in "Ecclesiastical History" finished about AD 324. It was in fact Eusebius who wrote that Papias wrote the following "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered." However the consensus is that this is not historically accurate.

The early Church fathers weren't beyond altering or bending the evidence to suit their own doctrine.

One of them even says that it was his duty to do so, to convince the unbelievers or enemies of the truth of their message.

Certainly by the time the Gospels came to be written, the writers of the Gospels took pains to interpret Jesus through the Jewish scriptures: indeed they presented Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish scriptures. In the opening verse, Mark wrote: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it in written in the prophets."

The Gospel according to Matthew was probably written anywhere from AD 80 – 145 and originated in in Antioch. Matthew includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses with further additions. The Gospel of Matthew was largely written to present Jesus's ministry as largely the fulfilment of messianic prophecies from Isaiah and to a lesser extent other Biblical prophets and is part of the process to transform Jesus from executed criminal to divine Messiah and to base it in a solid foundation in existing Jewish and Greek doctrine. This Gospel adds to Mark’s. There was a vast earthquake, and instead of a mere boy standing around beside an already-opened tomb, an angel - blazing like lightning - descended from the sky and paralysed two guards that happened to be there, rolled away the stone single-handedly before several witnesses - and then announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Not to mention the rising of the saints who rose from their graves and walked around the city at the time of the crucifixion. All new.

Nowhere does the author of Matthew claim to have been an eyewitness to events, which seems strange if the author was the apostle Matthew.

The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Matthew" is again by Papias (see above) who is reported by the Church historian Eusebius (AD 260–340), to have said "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could."

The problem scholars have with Papias’ statement is that the work we call The Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original, not a translation or interpretation of a text that was originally written in another language - Hebrew.

Papias does not identify his Matthew but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Levi Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts. This identification of 'Matthew' is almost universally not supported by scholars. In fact there may have been three authors of "The Gospel according to Matthew" each representing a distinct community. These include: material shared with The Gospel according to Luke (called "Q", a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to "The Gospel according to Matthew" (called "M").

Then “the Gospel according to Luke” appears. Most experts date the composition of Luke (and Acts of the Apostles which is generally believed to be written by the same author as Luke) to around AD 80-90, although some suggest AD 90-110 . There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century and the supernatural aspects are greatly enhanced from Mark and Matthe.. Suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance, complete with a dramatic re-enactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and seeing the empty death shroud for himself. As happened from Mark to Matthew, other details have grown. The one young man of Mark, who became a flying angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become two men, this time not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment. And to make the new story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of his way to say he is not a vision, and proves it by asking the Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though both Mark and Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the story, and places this particular experience in the more populous and prestigious Jerusalem.

While “The Gospel according to Luke” is traditionally ascribed to Luke the Evangelist by Church fathers such as Jerome and Eusebius who also say he wrote the "Acts of the Apostles", the earliest manuscript of the Gospel, dated circa AD 200, ascribes the work to Luke; as did Irenaeus, writing circa AD 180; and the Muratorian fragment from AD 170. Many modern scholars, such as Joseph Fizmyer believe that the author of Luke was also the author of Acts, but "Luke the Evangelist" was probably not the author. The usual dating of Luke is about AD 80-90, Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its [the Gospel's] usage" prior to c. AD 150. The earliest writings that quote or reference Luke are the mid to late 2nd century writings which could fit Koester's opinion.

Finally along comes the Gospel of John. John is usually dated to AD 90–110, so most likely after Luke, IF Luke was written in AD 80-90. By now the legend has grown considerably, and instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, now we have two angels at the empty tomb. John now has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the Doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark originally claimed. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrate of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof that the resurrection was the physical raising of a corpse, and at the end of a steady growth of fable, he takes considerable license to make up quite a few details.

While “the Gospel according to John” identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", the text does not actually name this disciple. By the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle. Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it.

Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship are that the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are united in identifying John as a fisherman and refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered". So whoever wrote the “the Gospel according to John” lived sixty years after Jesus, in a different part of the world, in a different cultural context, speaking a different language - Greek rather than Aramaic - and with a completely different level of education and cannot have been the apostle John.

The 'Gospel according to John' also appears to have been composed in two or three stages. The earliest surviving New Testament manuscript with parts of what appear to be from the Gospel according to John is a Greek papyrus fragment discovered in Egypt in 1920. Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland list the probable date for this manuscript as c. AD. 125, indicating that at least one stage of John was in existence at this time.

Whatever the case, it's pretty clear that the consensus is that none of the authors of the Gospels, whoever they were, were eyewitnesses of the events they described and they were writing at the very least forty odd years after said events.

Authors such as Raymond Brown point out that the Gospels contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details. W.D. Davies and E.P. 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

It was quite common for books to be written anonymously in antiquity than it is today. Just within the pages of the New Testament alone, nine of the books – fully one third of the writings – were produced by authors who did not reveal their names. When the early church fathers were deciding what books to include in “Scripture” however it was necessary to "know" who wrote the books since only writings with clear apostolic connections could be considered authoritative Scripture.

Just to give a simple example, in the third and fourth centuries there was a book in circulation called "Against All Heresies", which we still have today and which gives a description of thirty-two individuals or groups which held beliefs that the anonymous author considered false. One of the great "heresy hunters" of the early Christian centuries was Tertullian from the early third century. Some readers of Against All Heresies” came to think that even though the book was anonymous, it must have been written by him. So scribes who copied the book identified Tertullian as the author and the book was added to the collection of Tertullian’s works, even though it never claims to be written by him. Modern scholars are convinced on stylistic grounds that Tertullian did not write the book. Some have argued that "Against All Heresies", was written by an unknown author some seventy years earlier in Greek rather than Tertullian’s Latin so the book we now have is a translation into Latin of an originally anonymous work.

Why be anonymous? In some instances an ancient author did not need to name himself because his readers knew perfectly well who he was and did not need to be told. This is almost certainly the case with 2 and 3 John. These were private letters sent from someone who called himself "the elder" to a church in another location.

Some scholars, such as Bart Ehrman for example, have argued the Gospels were like that – written by leading persons in congregations who did not need to identify themselves because everyone knew who they were. But then as books and writings were copied and circulated, names were still not attached to them. As a result the identities of the original author (or authors) were soon lost. And importantly in support of this the Church fathers writing in the second century AD allude to or quote from the Gospels but do not name them. Justin Martyr, writing about AD 150-160, quotes verses from the Gospels but does not indicate what the Gospels were called. For him the books are collectively known as the “Memoirs of the Gospels”.

As I said earlier, the first reference gospel being assigned to “Mark” and “Matthew" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340). Irenaeus, another church father, also assigned names to them in his work "Against Heresies" written sometime between AD 174 and 189, approximately one hundred years after the gospels had gone into circulation. At one point in his writing he insists that “heretics” (false teachers) have gone astray because they use Gospels that are not real Gospels or because they use one or the other of the four that are legitimately Gospels. Some heretical groups used only Matthew, some only Mark and so on. For Irenaeus, just as the Gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be only four gospels and they are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Eusebius:

It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

The point is that there were many "gospels" in circulation at the time. Christians who wanted to appeal to the authority of the Gospels had to know which ones were "legitimate". For orthodox Christians, legitimate Gospels could only be those that has apostolic authority behind them – either an apostle himself or a close companion of an apostle who spoke with his authority. So the Church fathers ascribed the chosen manuscripts they regarded as canonical to apostles or close companions of Church figures.

The actual writers of the Gospel are unknown....i.e. 'anonymous'.

Yep

 

[Roylion]

Dear Lord. You went to the courts.

Yep. Courts deal in evidence and its reliability / non reliability to establish the truth of a matter.

Writing down what someone else claims to have seen is not an eyewitness account.

 

[Roylion]

Yep

I can repeat it as often as you like.

 

[Boston tiger]

I can repeat it as often as you like.

So Mark 55 AD ?

 

[Evolved1]

This thread is getting silly now.

We can't prove that your magic man didn't fly into the sky, so it must be true. Vdubs must have been raptured with magic man.

 

[Boston tiger]

This thread is getting silly now.

We can't prove that your magic man didn't fly into the sky, so it must be true. Vdubs must have been raptured with magic man.

I apologise but as you know Roy will chop any replies to small phrases and hence distorts meaning. It’s the only way

 

[Evolved1]

I apologise but as you know Roy will chop any replies to small phrases and hence distorts meaning. It’s the only way

The little foxes destroy the vineyard.

 

[Boston tiger]

I've explained all this before. Here it is again.

The traditional assignations of authorship of the Gospels are debatable. In other words the Gospels assigned to 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke' and 'John' were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

While "The Gospel according to Luke” is traditionally ascribed to Luke the Evangelist by Church fathers such as Jerome and Eusebius who also say he wrote the "Acts of the Apostles", the earliest manuscript of the Gospel, dated circa AD 200, ascribes the work to Luke; as did Irenaeus, writing circa AD 180; and the Muratorian fragment from AD 170. Many modern scholars, such as Joseph Fizmyer believe that the author of Luke was also the author of Acts, but "Luke the Evangelist" was probably not the author. The usual dating of Luke is about AD 80-90, Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its [the Gospel's] usage" prior to c. AD 150. The earliest writings that quote or reference Luke are the mid to late 2nd century writings which could fit Koester's opinion.

In turn that the writers of the Gospels were eyewitnesses to Jesus' actions and deeds is not supported by modern Biblical scholarship. The dates they were written/assembled is important.

For example, the "Gospel according to Mark" is dated to have been written somewhere between AD 70 - 135. The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Mark" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340).

And why possibly as as late AD 135? The majority of recent scholars believe Chapter 16 Verse 8 to be the original ending of the Gospel and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome. But that means Mark's Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. That's it. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20, (a later ending of Mark) with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.

Who "Mark" might have been is essentially unknown, but the two main candidates in the Early Christian tradition were:
- John Mark: the companion of Peter
- Mark the cousin of Barnabas

According to Eusebius the Church historian (AD 260–340), Papias claimed that John “the Elder” (believed to be the apostle John) told him (Papias) that John Mark had written it. So....

• Eusebius (fourth century) tells us that
• Papias (first–second century) said that
• John the Elder told Papias that
• Mark wrote this gospel based on
• The Apostle Peter’s reminiscences

Unfortunately none of Papias's writings have survived and indeed what is known of his writings are recorded in the later "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus in about AD 180 and much later by Eusebius in "Ecclesiastical History" finished about AD 324. It was in fact Eusebius who wrote that Papias wrote the following "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered." However the consensus is that this is not historically accurate.

The early Church fathers weren't beyond altering or bending the evidence to suit their own doctrine.

One of them even says that it was his duty to do so, to convince the unbelievers or enemies of the truth of their message.

Certainly by the time the Gospels came to be written, the writers of the Gospels took pains to interpret Jesus through the Jewish scriptures: indeed they presented Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish scriptures. In the opening verse, Mark wrote: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it in written in the prophets."

The Gospel according to Matthew was probably written anywhere from AD 80 – 145 and originated in in Antioch. Matthew includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses with further additions. The Gospel of Matthew was largely written to present Jesus's ministry as largely the fulfilment of messianic prophecies from Isaiah and to a lesser extent other Biblical prophets and is part of the process to transform Jesus from executed criminal to divine Messiah and to base it in a solid foundation in existing Jewish and Greek doctrine. This Gospel adds to Mark’s. There was a vast earthquake, and instead of a mere boy standing around beside an already-opened tomb, an angel - blazing like lightning - descended from the sky and paralysed two guards that happened to be there, rolled away the stone single-handedly before several witnesses - and then announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Not to mention the rising of the saints who rose from their graves and walked around the city at the time of the crucifixion. All new.

Nowhere does the author of Matthew claim to have been an eyewitness to events, which seems strange if the author was the apostle Matthew.

The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Matthew" is again by Papias (see above) who is reported by the Church historian Eusebius (AD 260–340), to have said "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could."

The problem scholars have with Papias’ statement is that the work we call The Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original, not a translation or interpretation of a text that was originally written in another language - Hebrew.

Papias does not identify his Matthew but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Levi Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts. This identification of 'Matthew' is almost universally not supported by scholars. In fact there may have been three authors of "The Gospel according to Matthew" each representing a distinct community. These include: material shared with The Gospel according to Luke (called "Q", a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to "The Gospel according to Matthew" (called "M").

Then “the Gospel according to Luke” appears. Most experts date the composition of Luke (and Acts of the Apostles which is generally believed to be written by the same author as Luke) to around AD 80-90, although some suggest AD 90-110 . There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century and the supernatural aspects are greatly enhanced from Mark and Matthe.. Suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance, complete with a dramatic re-enactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and seeing the empty death shroud for himself. As happened from Mark to Matthew, other details have grown. The one young man of Mark, who became a flying angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become two men, this time not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment. And to make the new story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of his way to say he is not a vision, and proves it by asking the Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though both Mark and Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the story, and places this particular experience in the more populous and prestigious Jerusalem.

While “The Gospel according to Luke” is traditionally ascribed to Luke the Evangelist by Church fathers such as Jerome and Eusebius who also say he wrote the "Acts of the Apostles", the earliest manuscript of the Gospel, dated circa AD 200, ascribes the work to Luke; as did Irenaeus, writing circa AD 180; and the Muratorian fragment from AD 170. Many modern scholars, such as Joseph Fizmyer believe that the author of Luke was also the author of Acts, but "Luke the Evangelist" was probably not the author. The usual dating of Luke is about AD 80-90, Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its [the Gospel's] usage" prior to c. AD 150. The earliest writings that quote or reference Luke are the mid to late 2nd century writings which could fit Koester's opinion.

Finally along comes the Gospel of John. John is usually dated to AD 90–110, so most likely after Luke, IF Luke was written in AD 80-90. By now the legend has grown considerably, and instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, now we have two angels at the empty tomb. John now has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the Doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark originally claimed. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrate of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof that the resurrection was the physical raising of a corpse, and at the end of a steady growth of fable, he takes considerable license to make up quite a few details.

While “the Gospel according to John” identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", the text does not actually name this disciple. By the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle. Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it.

Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship are that the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are united in identifying John as a fisherman and refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered". So whoever wrote the “the Gospel according to John” lived sixty years after Jesus, in a different part of the world, in a different cultural context, speaking a different language - Greek rather than Aramaic - and with a completely different level of education and cannot have been the apostle John.

The 'Gospel according to John' also appears to have been composed in two or three stages. The earliest surviving New Testament manuscript with parts of what appear to be from the Gospel according to John is a Greek papyrus fragment discovered in Egypt in 1920. Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland list the probable date for this manuscript as c. AD. 125, indicating that at least one stage of John was in existence at this time.

Whatever the case, it's pretty clear that the consensus is that none of the authors of the Gospels, whoever they were, were eyewitnesses of the events they described and they were writing at the very least forty odd years after said events.

Authors such as Raymond Brown point out that the Gospels contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details. W.D. Davies and E.P. 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

It was quite common for books to be written anonymously in antiquity than it is today. Just within the pages of the New Testament alone, nine of the books – fully one third of the writings – were produced by authors who did not reveal their names. When the early church fathers were deciding what books to include in “Scripture” however it was necessary to "know" who wrote the books since only writings with clear apostolic connections could be considered authoritative Scripture.

Just to give a simple example, in the third and fourth centuries there was a book in circulation called "Against All Heresies", which we still have today and which gives a description of thirty-two individuals or groups which held beliefs that the anonymous author considered false. One of the great "heresy hunters" of the early Christian centuries was Tertullian from the early third century. Some readers of Against All Heresies” came to think that even though the book was anonymous, it must have been written by him. So scribes who copied the book identified Tertullian as the author and the book was added to the collection of Tertullian’s works, even though it never claims to be written by him. Modern scholars are convinced on stylistic grounds that Tertullian did not write the book. Some have argued that "Against All Heresies", was written by an unknown author some seventy years earlier in Greek rather than Tertullian’s Latin so the book we now have is a translation into Latin of an originally anonymous work.

Why be anonymous? In some instances an ancient author did not need to name himself because his readers knew perfectly well who he was and did not need to be told. This is almost certainly the case with 2 and 3 John. These were private letters sent from someone who called himself "the elder" to a church in another location.

Some scholars, such as Bart Ehrman for example, have argued the Gospels were like that – written by leading persons in congregations who did not need to identify themselves because everyone knew who they were. But then as books and writings were copied and circulated, names were still not attached to them. As a result the identities of the original author (or authors) were soon lost. And importantly in support of this the Church fathers writing in the second century AD allude to or quote from the Gospels but do not name them. Justin Martyr, writing about AD 150-160, quotes verses from the Gospels but does not indicate what the Gospels were called. For him the books are collectively known as the “Memoirs of the Gospels”.

As I said earlier, the first reference gospel being assigned to “Mark” and “Matthew" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340). Irenaeus, another church father, also assigned names to them in his work "Against Heresies" written sometime between AD 174 and 189, approximately one hundred years after the gospels had gone into circulation. At one point in his writing he insists that “heretics” (false teachers) have gone astray because they use Gospels that are not real Gospels or because they use one or the other of the four that are legitimately Gospels. Some heretical groups used only Matthew, some only Mark and so on. For Irenaeus, just as the Gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be only four gospels and they are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Eusebius:

It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

The point is that there were many "gospels" in circulation at the time. Christians who wanted to appeal to the authority of the Gospels had to know which ones were "legitimate". For orthodox Christians, legitimate Gospels could only be those that has apostolic authority behind them – either an apostle himself or a close companion of an apostle who spoke with his authority. So the Church fathers ascribed the chosen manuscripts they regarded as canonical to apostles or close companions of Church figures.

The actual writers of the Gospel are unknown....i.e. 'anonymous'.

When is the earliest date that you think the Christian sect starting sprouting fairy tails etc .

 

[Boston tiger]

The little foxes destroy the vineyard.

“ Little foxes” you mean pups.
Baby foxes were called pups in 1830 by the English blah blah .
You get the picture

 

[Roylion]

So Mark 55 AD ?

Do you read anything?

For example, the "Gospel according to Mark" is dated to have been written somewhere between AD 70 - 135. 30-40 years after the events it purports to writr about.

The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Mark" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340).

And why possibly as as late AD 135? The majority of recent scholars believe Chapter 16 Verse 8 to be the original ending of the Gospel and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome. But that means Mark's Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. That's it. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20, (a later ending of Mark) with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.

 

[samoodan]

This thread is getting silly now.

We can't prove that your magic man didn't fly into the sky, so it must be true. Vdubs must have been raptured with magic man.

Getting silly? Been there for ages.

 

[Gameova_]

Getting silly? Been there for ages.

Been silly for months. There is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. There never will be. It's based on faith that the disciples claim they saw him post crucifixion. How can anyone prove that a resurrection of a dead man actually took place unless they were living at the time it supposedly happened? Can't.

I'd just focus on the gospels and anything but the resurrection if I was a Christian and thankfully I'm not. Christianity is based on something that has no evidence (resurrection). If the disciples of Jesus (Thomas) couldn't even believe and they were present when all things happened, it's pretty unresonable that humans throughout the centuries have to believe on no evidence otherwise we'll be getting tortured for eternity. That's what religion teaches.

No wonder so many call it a myth. Time to go sleep soon I'm tired.

 

[Boston tiger]

Do you read anything?

For example, the "Gospel according to Mark" is dated to have been written somewhere between AD 70 - 135. 30-40 years after the events it purports to writr about.

The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Mark" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340).

And why possibly as as late AD 135? The majority of recent scholars believe Chapter 16 Verse 8 to be the original ending of the Gospel and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome. But that means Mark's Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. That's it. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20, (a later ending of Mark) with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.

Do you think Mark started the fantasy or were Christians already living the fantasy pre 30 40 after JC

 

[Boston tiger]

This thread is getting silly now.

We can't prove that your magic man didn't fly into the sky, so it must be true. Vdubs must have been raptured with magic man.

It hasn’t been about proof.. it’s been about evidence. Plenty of evidence ..but if you are an anti supernaturalist then no amount or type of evidence is enough.

 

[Boston tiger]

This thread is getting silly now.

We can't prove that your magic man didn't fly into the sky, so it must be true. Vdubs must have been raptured with magic man.

Poor Evolved . A Christian has had enough of the bullying and gone and know he can’t take cheap shots anymore and he’s not enjoying himself.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I know it’s important you

But the point is, Christians say all this stuff is literally a matter of life and death, but the moment they get quizzed on the absurdity and contradiction of a lot of it, they go all “ah that bit doesn’t matter”.

Which in and of itself is not a problem. The problem is that Christians themselves don’t agree on which bits matter and which bits don’t, resulting in much misery and death. Witness “though shalt not kill” or the horrific persecution of homosexuality.

And yet they have the gall to tell us their book offers everyone a clear moral code, and have been known to viciously persecute people who don’t agree.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It hasn’t been about proof.. it’s been about evidence. Plenty of evidence ..but if you are an anti supernaturalist then no amount or type of evidence is enough.

“Anti supernaturalist” lol.

Think about what you’re saying there. Equal rights for horseshitte.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This thread is getting silly now.

We can't prove that your magic man didn't fly into the sky, so it must be true. Vdubs must have been raptured with magic man.

I’m still waiting for a Christian to tell us what happened to Christ’s foreskin when he got whooshed up, but still no reply.

 

[Total Power]

“Anti supernaturalist” lol.

Think about what you’re saying there. Equal rights for horseshitte.

He means the stuff that confirms 'christianity'. He doesn't mean the supernatural stuff that confirms Hinduism or Islam!

 

[Total Power]

I’m still waiting for a Christian to tell us what happened to Christ’s foreskin when he got whooshed up, but still no reply.

Moses' wife used to collect them...as an offering to God. What a weird ***** cult lol

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Hey christians: The world is only 6000 years old

Literal or Non Literal?

 

[Boston tiger]

“Anti supernaturalist” lol.

Think about what you’re saying there. Equal rights for horseshitte.

You think about. If you believe in God. What’s the problem .

 

[Boston tiger]

I’m still waiting for a Christian to tell us what happened to Christ’s foreskin when he got whooshed up, but still no reply.

What a funny thing to be waiting for .