Eyewitness Testimony
- Thread starter Jaz
- Start date
I humbly tell you that there is no evidence in what you posted. A consensus opinion and the fact that everyone believes this opinion is not evidence, it is an acceptance of an opinion. As a starting point, consider that the author on the link you attached refers in #1 to "unanimous tradition." Tradition by definition is a belief that has not been proven to be true; someone can believe it is the truth, but that doesn't make it the truth. I have done a thorough search and found zero evidence that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote the gospels.
The Lord gave us four gospels so that they could be compared to each other. When compared to each other, an analysis reveals that each account of the same event has a bit of wording that proves it is eyewitness testimony. The evidence is in the details and it is not through tradition or speculation. I do the analysis and walk readers through the evidence in my books. The first book identified the evidence for Matthew being written by Nicodemus, Mark being written by James, and John being written by John. I thought I was done, then the Lord said I had more work. The second book presents the evidence for Silas writing Luke and Acts. We have four eyewitness accounts and that is evidence.
That's a million dollar question? Why me? I have often asked myself that same question because I am humbled at what the Lord has been revealing to me. The only reason I can come up with is that I could have rejected the call and we wouldn't be having this exchange, but I didn't. I promised the Lord that I would do my best to follow where led if he spared me from hell that day in the hospital after experiencing a major stroke during back surgery. Even out of the hospital with my brain pretty much blown out from a major stroke that the doctors said should have killed me, I started out rejecting the Lord. Then after a few days I changed my mind and the work started with the results being generated. The first book was started and written by someone with his personality taken away, left arm flailing away with a mind of it's own, and typing with only one hand that still worked. After a year, the doctor cried when she saw my recovery that could only have come from the Lord.
Most of the church doesn't like my results because they contradict tradition. I am laughed at and ridiculed by preachers who accept tradition as the truth and reject what I have been asked to write because of the title of the first book alone. But the Lord has a plan, and the rejection actually helped me understand why Daniel's assembled his book the way he did. But that's another story told in a book that will be released very soon. The Lord has blessed me with direction and guidance that I am amazed and humble by. The Lord continues to prove his power, grace, and control over my life so I step out in faith and continue to be amazed and thank the Lord.
I owe you an apology. I denied having been willing to bet because I was so embarrassed at being caught in a lie. It's just not something I do very often. I don't like to be lied to so I don't like doing it to others. I'm sorry.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
There are three pieces of evidence at the link provided.
If the article I linked to ONLY gave the argument "it's tradition," then you would be justified in calling my evidence an appeal to tradition (a logical fallacy).
But it's not the only argument presented. And you seem to be loathe to address the other lines of evidence.
Allow me to share the article here:
| The only firsthand testimony that we have about the life and teachings of Jesus comes from the four Gospels. Who were the people that wrote these books? The authorship is credited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are three basic reasons why we believe the men bearing their names wrote the four gospels. 1. There Is Unanimous Tradition As To The Authorship Of The Gospels The four gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - there are no other candidates. With works as important as the gospels it is unlikely that the original authors would have been forgotten. To quickly command acceptance from the people it had to have an author that was known. 2. Three Of The Four Authors Are Unlikely The authors of our four gospels would not have been the obvious choices to write the accounts of the life of Christ. Only one of these four men (John) was a prominent character in the New Testament. Why attribute a book to the others if they were not the authors? The unanimous attestation of these unlikely authors is another strong reason for accepting the traditional view that they penned their respective gospels. 3. The Documents Were Identified By Tags The early preservation of the name of the author is another consideration. It was a common literary practice during the time of Christ to preserve the name of the author of a written work. Scrolls with written text on both sides had tags glued to them (called a sittybos in Greek) that insured the preservation of the author's name. They were attached in such a way that a person could see who authored the scroll without unrolling it. This is similar to the function of the spine on our modern books - one does not have to open the book to find out who wrote it. With four different written gospels circulating, there needed to be a way to distinguish them from each other. The term "gospel" would not be enough, seeing that there was more than one circulating. Therefore the church had to preserve the name of each gospel writer at an early date. The tag on the outside of the scroll would accomplish that purpose. It would read in Greek, "Gospel of Matthew" or "Gospel of Mark." There Are No Variations In The Titles The fact that this happened is clear in that there are no variations in the titles of the gospels. Every source is unanimous that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke penned his gospel, and John wrote his. These three reasons - the unanimous testimony of the church, the unlikely authorship of these men, and the early identification of the document, all present a strong case for the traditional authorship of the gospels. Summary Four separate works known as gospels have recorded the life of Christ for us. The traditional authorship is credited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are three basic reasons why we believe the men bearing their names wrote the four gospels. The early church was unanimous in their testimony as to the individual authorship of each gospel. Apart from John, the writers of the various gospels were obscure figures. Why attribute these sacred writings to them if they did not compose them? There was also a tag that was glued on the outside of the scroll that would identify the individual author of the gospel. This made certain the name of the author was retained. The evidence is clear and convincing. The traditional belief that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the four gospels is the only view that fits the known facts. |
Who Wrote the Four Gospels?
The only firsthand testimony that we have about the life and teachings of Jesus comes from the four Gospels. Who were the people that wrote these books? The
Repeating yourself won't make your position magically come true, and you have now been presented with three pieces of evidence that, aside from the first, you refuse to address.
Yet you won't say what it is. How suspicious.
What evidence?
This is not a site to advertise your books. Go peddle your wares elsewhere.
This is a discussion forum. If you stay here, you need to discuss your beliefs here.
What evidence?
Or it wasn't God and you were deceived.
What evidence? So far, you've presented none.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Evidence for what?
I think you need to reconsider who it is that's giving you these ideas, Because it isn't God.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You're in no debt to me.
Honestly, I'm kinda lost as to what's going on, here; but just realize that I have no perception that you have in any way wronged me.
What? Gambling? Lying?
No harm done. Don't beat yourself up.
Gambling. I would have bet on you having never read Ellen White's writings. The vast majority of people who have a prejudice against her have never read a word she wrote. She taught the love of God like no one else I've ever read except the Bible. Her understanding of the love of God was very deep. I'm a Christian today because of her book The Desire of Ages. It changed my life forever as the power of love draws us to those who love us.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Among others, she wrote the word "the", so, on the contrary, the vast majority of the English-literate world has, in fact, read at least one word she wrote.
Yeah. what reasoning. Just because she used English words does not mean most people read what she wrote.
I have never read Cujo, but I'm positive I've read all the words in that book.
You went through a lot of effort to discount everything thing I wrote, but your most outrageous comment is that I've rejected the evidence you presented. What evidence? Claiming something is evidence doesn't make it evidence. Evidence is from eyewitnesses. Just as Jesus claimed in the Gospels, two or three witnesses are necessary, and for the testimony to be valid it must be from eyewitnesses otherwise it is heresy.Saying it doesn't make it so.
There are three pieces of evidence at the link provided.
If the article I linked to ONLY gave the argument "it's tradition," then you would be justified in calling my evidence an appeal to tradition (a logical fallacy).
But it's not the only argument presented. And you seem to be loathe to address the other lines of evidence.
Allow me to share the article here:
The only firsthand testimony that we have about the life and teachings of Jesus comes from the four Gospels. Who were the people that wrote these books?
The authorship is credited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are three basic reasons why we believe the men bearing their names wrote the four gospels.
1. There Is Unanimous Tradition As To The Authorship Of The Gospels
The four gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - there are no other candidates. With works as important as the gospels it is unlikely that the original authors would have been forgotten. To quickly command acceptance from the people it had to have an author that was known.
2. Three Of The Four Authors Are Unlikely
The authors of our four gospels would not have been the obvious choices to write the accounts of the life of Christ. Only one of these four men (John) was a prominent character in the New Testament. Why attribute a book to the others if they were not the authors? The unanimous attestation of these unlikely authors is another strong reason for accepting the traditional view that they penned their respective gospels.
3. The Documents Were Identified By Tags
The early preservation of the name of the author is another consideration. It was a common literary practice during the time of Christ to preserve the name of the author of a written work. Scrolls with written text on both sides had tags glued to them (called a sittybos in Greek) that insured the preservation of the author's name. They were attached in such a way that a person could see who authored the scroll without unrolling it. This is similar to the function of the spine on our modern books - one does not have to open the book to find out who wrote it.
With four different written gospels circulating, there needed to be a way to distinguish them from each other. The term "gospel" would not be enough, seeing that there was more than one circulating. Therefore the church had to preserve the name of each gospel writer at an early date. The tag on the outside of the scroll would accomplish that purpose. It would read in Greek, "Gospel of Matthew" or "Gospel of Mark."
There Are No Variations In The Titles
The fact that this happened is clear in that there are no variations in the titles of the gospels. Every source is unanimous that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke penned his gospel, and John wrote his.
These three reasons - the unanimous testimony of the church, the unlikely authorship of these men, and the early identification of the document, all present a strong case for the traditional authorship of the gospels.
Summary
Four separate works known as gospels have recorded the life of Christ for us. The traditional authorship is credited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are three basic reasons why we believe the men bearing their names wrote the four gospels. The early church was unanimous in their testimony as to the individual authorship of each gospel. Apart from John, the writers of the various gospels were obscure figures. Why attribute these sacred writings to them if they did not compose them? There was also a tag that was glued on the outside of the scroll that would identify the individual author of the gospel. This made certain the name of the author was retained.
The evidence is clear and convincing. The traditional belief that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the four gospels is the only view that fits the known facts.
Who Wrote the Four Gospels?
The only firsthand testimony that we have about the life and teachings of Jesus comes from the four Gospels. Who were the people that wrote these books? Thewww.blueletterbible.org
Repeating yourself won't make your position magically come true, and you have now been presented with three pieces of evidence that, aside from the first, you refuse to address.
Yet you won't say what it is. How suspicious.
What evidence?
This is not a site to advertise your books. Go peddle your wares elsewhere.
This is a discussion forum. If you stay here, you need to discuss your beliefs here.
What evidence?
Or it wasn't God and you were deceived.
What evidence? So far, you've presented none.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Evidence for what?
I think you need to reconsider who it is that's giving you these ideas, Because it isn't God.
Your article claims: "The authorship is credited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are three basic reasons why we believe the men bearing their names wrote the four gospels."
The words "credited" and "reasons why we believe" are conclusions--they do not claim evidence. The gospels are anonymous. Anonymous means that the authors are not claimed in the document which then requires that we must learn of who the authors are from others. To learn who the authors are from others with certainty there must be a chain of custody--just as a chain of custody is used for any evidence (testimony, sampling, legal process, etc.). There is no chain of custody for the claims of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as the authors, therefore there is no evidence. You can claim that others have ATTRIBUTED the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but you can't claim that there is evidence for it. The gospel authorship is not a proven fact it is a conclusion that is widely accepted throughout the church. That doesn't make it right, and the Lord showed me that it isn't.
These are the facts and I'm likely to be kicked off now because you don't like them. However, before you kick me off, write down the names of the next two books that visions from the Holy Spirit had me write; [MODERATOR EDIT: self-promotion removed]. These two books provide a complete and thorough summary of prophecy that explain the 1260, 1290, 1335, 2300, meaning of Nebuchadnezzar's statue, identity of the beast and woman in Revelation, and all other details of prophecy by connecting the two books together like never before. Of course you don't believe that the Holy Spirit provides others visions, and that's unfortunate, because although the visions are a blessing, they can also be somewhat of a curse. A vision I had two months ago told me that my wife will have cancer and out of the blue, she had biopsy a week ago and a few days ago on her birthday we were told she has cancer. The visions do lead me to answers and they have provided me direction in both scripture and my personal life, but you don't believe that the Holy Spirit interacts with people - although you claim to be a follower of Jesus.
In closing, keep your eye out for those books that will put an end to the theological mysterious seven year tribulation and antichrist period with a rapture, because although it never made sense to me, like the Holy Spirit told me for the Gospel authors, it's nonsense so I was guided to provide the truth. Blessings
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You claimed:
I just gave you the word, "the", as an example of a word she wrote which proves that what you claimed is false. What's the matter?
I gave you an example of my reasoning. You don't like it? I don't know what to tell you.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What you're calling "reasoning".
Sure.
Tell me what (if anything) you meant when you said that certain people
...if you did not mean they never read the word "the".
No, He's not. If He were, it would be UNDENIABLY His handiwork, and what your saying would line up perfectly with the evidence.
But it doesn't. In fact, your arguments aren't even consistent with each other, let alone the evidence! That's a sure sign that what you're teaching is false doctrine.
Attributing things to God that He has not done is a form of blasphemy, Jaz. Stop it.
Because most of it wasn't even worth the bandwidth you used to send it in the first place.
See post #11 and #87, specifically, the cited article from blueletterbible.com
What I posted is, by definition, evidence.
The definition of evidence is: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
Fact #1: Tradition holds Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as the four authors of the Gospels.
Fact #2: Three of those four authors are unlikely, in that they would not have been the obvious choices to write the accounts of the life of Christ.
Fact #3: The documents from which we derived today's Bible versions were tagged to preserve the authors of the written works. These tags were visible without needing to open the scrolls they were attached to. In addition, there are NO variations in the titles of each document.
That's three witnesses, two of which are very strong witnesses.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Let's say a woman was raped out in the middle of the wilderness. In the struggle, she managed to scratch the man's face, though she was never able to actually see it, and also managed to pull a button off of his clothing. Afterwards, she brings her accusation to the authorities, and provides her evidence that she was attacked. She presents the button, and gives a rough description of the man, including that she scratched his face. A man matching the description she provided is arrested, and both are brought before a judge. She also tells the authorities the location in which it happened.
How would you, Jaz, if you were the judge, determine that the man who was arrested (who, for the purposes of this example, is indeed the man who assaulted her) was guilty of the crime the woman is accusing him of committing against her?
You would look at the evidence, right?
Jesus said one witness is not enough, but that two or three shall establish a matter.
Jesus also said this:
"If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." (John 5:31)
Applying that to the woman, her testimony is not valid just because she makes the accusation.
So how would you go about establishing, based on the standard of "two or three witnesses," that the man is guilty?
You can't, not according to your position.
"Evidence is from eyewitnesses" doesn't work if there are no eyewitnesses to a crime.
The woman was raped in the wilderness. There was no one around but her and her attacker.
The only true "eyewitnesses" are the rapist (who obviously isn't going to testify against himself), and the victim, whose testimony is not valid on its own.
However, according to the standard set by the Bible, and NOT YOUR position, but which is MY position, "witnesses" are objects, locations, and circumstances, as well as people, for even objects and locations and circumstances can be used as evidence to establish guilt, based on their testimony.
The correct answer to the above hypothetical is thus as follows:
Witness 1: The woman's body would be examined, and shows signs of being assaulted and manhandled.
Witness 2: The judge would obviously look at the man's face, which indeed has scratches on it.
Witness 3: The woman claims the man's physique closely matches that of the one who assaulted her.
Witness 4: The Judge would examine the clothing of the man, both that he was wearing and that which he was not, as well as any places he might have hid clothing like a trash heap or buried in his yard, or tried to destroy it, such as a fireplace. Clothing with buttons matching the one the woman had is found, and indeed, one of the buttons is missing.
Witness 5: The judge orders that the location the woman provided be searched, and it is found, and shows signs of a struggle, along with some blood.
Those five witnesses are enough evidence to justly punishing the man, despite his denial of having raped her.
Correct.
Wrong.
There is no necessity for it to be "eyewitnesses."
That is a standard you have imposed upon scripture yourself.
You must have stopped reading at that point.
Try reading past that point, where the evidence is actually presented.
If you can't do that, then we're done here, because you refuse to discuss the evidence.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Fact #3 above is strong evidence that the authors ARE known to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Supra.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and in fact, #3 above disproves your claim.
False.
If that were the case, then there would be variation for some of the names. But there are none. They are all either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. There are no other candidates for their authorship. Every source is unanimous on who wrote what.
Again: "It was a common literary practice during the time of Christ to preserve the name of the author of a written work."
The names were attributed to the works at the time the works were written, Jaz. Not "sometime later." There were "tags glued to the scrolls (called a sittybos in Greek) that insured the preservation of the author's name."
Yes, I can, because there is, and I have presented it to you now at least three times.
Yes, it is.
Based on the evidence.
Because of the evidence.
The conclusion is based on the evidence. The evidence is what the evidence is.
No, He didn't. God is not the author of confusion. Your position leads to confusion.
No, they're not.
No, you're not, not unless you violate the forum's rules.
People are allowed to dislike other people's beliefs.
I'm not going to kick you off yet.
Again, TOL is not a place for you to advertise your books, Jaz. This is your final warning without consequences.
Next time you do, you'll get a warning (which will result in a temporary ban), and once it expires, you'll be allowed to post again.
Or hallucinations...
He didn't have you write anything.
Far more likely that you've been led astray by some demon.
Irrelevant and off-topic.
Incorrect.
I don't believe that the Holy Spirit gives visions CURRENTLY. But that's a topic for another discussion, and is completely irrelevant to this thread.
You can stop the acting. No one here believes you when you say that you've received visions from God, or what have you.
I don't believe you.
You see, there's this thing called confirmation bias...
Bearing false witness is a sin, Jaz. Stop bearing false witness.
I am a Christian, yes.
Not interested.
There's nothing mysterious about it.
If you think otherwise, start a thread and we can discuss it.
Otherwise, this is off topic.
It makes sense if you rightly divide the word of God. Something which you haven't done yet so far.
What if you're wrong, and it wasn't the Holy Spirit?
God is not the author of confusion.
Unless you're talking about what you've claimed so far, in which case I fully agree, "it's nonsense" indeed.
Or you led astray. Far more likely, in my opinion.
You have not posted any evidence, you have posted the words of others.
Tradition by definition is a story that cannot be proven true. It may or may not be factual and in my unnamed books, I prove that the tradition for Matthew, Mark, and Luke is not factual. There is no chain of custody proving that they are the authors.
I'm laughing out loud at this so-called "fact." So your belief is that Jesus selected a certain group of people to follow him and see everything he did, but that they are unlikely to be authors? Why? If I'm reading this fact correctly, I could conclude that you don't believe God can do anything he wants.
So you have the original documents that are tagged and sealed with the authors names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? However, if they are not the original documents that were written, it is again not evidence. If they are the originals, please provide me more data because I missed this in my analysis
If this were me in charge, I would have the woman document specifically what happened to her word-for-word so that every detail she wrote could be analyzed and verified as the truth or a falsehood. If the story is without details, there is indications that she made up her story as an eyewitness will provide specific details that are unimportant to the event. This is how we can tell that the gospel authors were eyewitnesses and their stories were not repeated over time. Once someone hears a story and repeats it, the eyewitness details are lost or conflict. The gospels are eyewitness accounts that were not retold over the years. The authors, with the Holy Spirit's guidance and direction, wrote their eyewitness testimony (John tells us that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the disciples to help them remember everything Jesus said and did). The Lord ensured that we had more than one version of the gospel stories so that the versions could be compared to each other. If you do this, you will find that they have unique and independent facts.
In your example, the judge has just convicted the wrong guy. You have one witness---the woman who was assaulted and stated the man had the same characteristics of the man who attacked her, but she didn't positively identify the attacker. Some evildoers didn't like a certain man so they scratched the suspect's face to make it look like he was the perpetrator, then planted the jacket with the specific button with his belongings. It looked as though this man was guilty and everyone believed it to be the truth, but it was all a story made up on behalf of someone who had something to gain from the deception.
Your story is interesting in some ways but disgusts me in another. You mention rape and I spent most of my adult life trying to help women have the skills to prevent this detestable crime, so I wish you had chosen a different crime. However, on the other hand, you mentioned the wilderness and this brings up a good point. If you analyzed scripture word for word you would know how special your reference to the "wilderness" is. Revelation refers to the wilderness and with some thorough analysis of every word of Daniel and Revelation, one can determine the true meaning of the wilderness and how it connects to Daniel's vision to unlock the message of prophecy. The wilderness is a very beautiful concept in prophecy that you have tainted with your example. This is thoroughly discussed in my unnamed books that you have no interested in.
You called me a blasphemer, yet I have not stated at all that I speak for God. Yes I have visions from the Holy Spirit and I write down what I am directed to write, but I am not claiming to write the word of God. The word of God is complete in scripture. What I write builds SUPPORTS the story of Jesus and does not tear it down. What I write objects to tradition and the religious leaders don't want to lose their grip on tradition, because that is how they control the message provided by theologians. The story of Jesus does not need tradition because the gift of Jesus is free and clearly understood from what is written. This is not my message it is from Daniel and Revelation prophecy. The difference between us is that you believe tradition and I have found that Jesus assigned four eyewitnesses to document his words and they followed God's commands and accomplished this goal. So please tell me how this is blasphemous?
I merely read scripture very carefully -- in fact, every word -- by following the directions and guidance I receive from the Holy Spirit in accordance with Acts 2:17, then I write what it means. I really wish you were right about my visions being untrue, because my wife is a beautiful wonderful Christian woman who helped bring me to the Lord, and I worry because the vision about her was not a good one. To top it off, several months ago the Holy Spirit told me that I have two tumors. Is it the truth? I wish not, but thus far every vision that I have had has led me to the truth including other personal visions that I don't care to mention here. When the two tumors appear, and I am currently going through tests that may reveal it is now and not later, I won't worry because my heart is with the Lord and I know that the Lord's promise will be kept and I will be in heaven soon.
Blessings, Jaz
Denying reality isn't healthy, Jaz.
Yes, because they list the evidence.
Wrong.
Tradition is the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation.
It's not "a story that cannot be proven true."
Tradition is usually based on some amount of evidence.
OF COURSE!
But that doesn't mean you can simply dismiss tradition as evidence for my position just because it might be false!
You have to demonstrate that the tradition is incorrect!
You haven't even attempted to in this thread. All you've done is say that you have in some book you wrote that nobody wants to read.
All I'm asking you to do is to present the evidence in your book here on TOL. Not the book itself, but the evidence within your book.
Present your so-called "proof" here on TOL. No one wants to hear about your books. This is a forum for discussion, not for promoting your books.
Yes, there is.
The testimony of the church IS the chain of custody, and there are multiple corroborating testimonies of people from the second century AD, from just about all four corners of the Roman Empire, that state in no uncertain terms that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the authors of the gospels.
| Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160–225; Against Marcion 4.2.1–2): “I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. . . . In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.” Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215; Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13): “Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter, just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews.” Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–200; Against Heresies 3.1.1–2; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History5.8.1–4): “So Matthew brought out a written gospel among the Jews in their own style, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. But after their demise Mark himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was proclaimed by him. Later John, the disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned against his chest, also put out a Gospel while residing in Ephesus of Asia.” Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 125 AD, Recorded in Eusebius 3.39) “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” Muratorian Fragment. (ca. 175 AD) “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples.” |
Skeptics say “we don’t know who wrote the gospels, but it wasn’t Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John”.
Double standards are the worst.
eriknmanning.medium.com
The evidence is unanimous in its support for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being the four authors of the Gospels!
It wasn't until 400 AD that the first critic brought forth the claim that "no one knows who really wrote the gospels."
There were plenty of critics of Christianity in the first three centuries of the church, but no one challenged the authorship of the gospels until 400 AD?
Doesn't that at all tell you something?
You've misunderstood what was said.
The article I cited stated that the three men aside from John were unlikely to have been the authors and that two of them were NOT eyewitnesses of Christ, but were directly associated with the Twelve.
What does that have anything to do with it?
Let me redirect it right back at you!
Why can't God use two of His Apostles and two people who were not His Apostles to write testimonies about Him?
No.
Why do we need the original documents? We have multiple copies of the originals, their authors identified by the tags attached to them, and they are UNANIMOUS in who the authors were, and we have multiple corroborating testimonies from shortly after they were written testifying that those men did indeed write the gospels.
How much evidence must you dismiss out of hand in order to make your position tenable?
The original documents are lost to time. They cannot be evidence for either side, yours OR mine.
But we don't NEED the original documents to know who the authors were, because of the testimonies of other witnesses (not "eyewitnesses") to the authorship of the gospels.
You keeps saying "there's not enough evidence!" And yet, here I am, presenting witness after witness after witness that says that the gospels were written by the men whom they're named after!
Supra.
Ok.
For the purpose of this discussion, the man they caught did in fact rape the woman. I said as much in my post.
The point of the example was to see if you could rightly determine the evidence.
And yet, the copies that were made all have tags stating who the original author was. The tags are part of the evidence, Jaz!
Because you say so? Based upon what evidence?
But they were reshared across the Roman Empire, no?
You keep begging the question that they are eyewitness testimonies. Please demonstrate how you came to that conclusion.
Yes, to His disciples, who later became the Twelve Apostles. What does that have to do with this?
I don't disagree, but why does that mean that they weren't by the men they are traditionally attributed to?
Uh, what?
I specifically stated that the man they caught was indeed the correct person, but that the people in the story don't know it, and are trying to establish guilt. How can you say "It's the wrong guy" when in fact he is the criminal?
Yes, the woman's testimony is one witness. But one witness is not enough to establish a matter.
Now you're just making stuff up.
I literally told you what actually happened in the scenario. I was trying to get you to describe how the judge would go about discovering if they had the right man or not.
I said nothing about a jacket, let alone any specific kind of clothing, only that a button was pulled off by the woman.
Again, you're making stuff up.
The scenario I presented is what actually happened in the hypothetical scenario. Why are you bearing false witness, and trying to get the criminal off scot-free?
Irrelevant.
Red herring. Stay focused, please.
I said that attributing things to God which He has not done is a form of blasphemy.
No, you don't.
Putting yourself on par with the authors of the New Testament is wrong.
By saying you are being directed by the Holy Spirit, you are.
Indeed.
No, it does not.
It doesn't need your support.
And what you write is wrong, based on the evidence.
Because the tradition is correct, based on the evidence.
Why would they abandon what is, in all likelihood, correct?
Whatever that's supposed to mean...
You seem to think tradition is a bad thing. Why?
Daniel and Revelation have nothing to do with this.
I believe tradition because of the evidence which supports it, and there has been no evidence presented to me that would cause me to question my beliefs, your claims notwithstanding.
No, you haven't, because that's not what happened.
You don't seem to be paying attention to what I said.
Read it again.
So what?
Did you ever bother to read the titles of what you read?
The Holy Spirit didn't give you any directions or guidance.
Acts 2:17 wasn't for you. It was describing the events that were going on in Acts 2, specifically, the day of Pentecost shortly after Jesus' ascension.
You write what you think it means, but it has nothing to do with reality.
It's some fantasy you've made up.
There's no doubt about it.
Your visions are made up. They have no basis in reality. They're hallucinations, or at best, a simple case of deja vu.
That's nice, but irrelevant to this discussion.
You need to ground yourself in reality, and not let yourself be controlled by fear.
Quit lying.
You need to stop assuming A) that your visions are somehow a prediction of the future or somehow connected to reality, and B) that they're from God.
They are neither.
What happens if it's less than two? What happens if it's just one, or there is no tumor at all? What happens if there's more than two?
Will you acknowledge that your "vision" was wrong? Or will you somehow convince yourself that your interpretation of it was somehow wrong? Or will you recognize that your vision has nothing to do with what the future holds, that it has no bearing on reality, that it's just your mind making things up?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Your words just confirmed that tradition may or may not be the truth.
There is no proof that the Gospel names through tradition are true. The fact that I completed an analysis that proves others who are much more likely to be the authors, wrote the Gospels should be welcomed by the church.
You expect me to summarize a 400 page book with 200 pages of analysis here? The first step of understanding the analysis is to accept that there is no evidence for the current gospel authors. You claim there is and have provided information, and claim there is evidence, but every time I disprove it as evidence, you return to your claim. How can anyone expect me to summary a complex analysis when we can't get past the starting point?
You keep trying to make this about selling books. It's almost as though the books frighten you because they challenge tradition and you stand by it whether you can verify it as factual or not. I could care less about promoting my books, but the Holy Spirit has made it clear that I am to discuss what I have been led to investigate and find. The Lord will do with the books what he wants.
I have seen and not only read the reviews and summaries, I've examined the documents and the claims. The earliest recorded statements are supposedly written from fragments of the writings from others that cannot be located. Even if the earliest were validated --which they cannot be because the documentation doesn't exist--they would be so far removed from history that they are meaningless. None of these claims can be used as evidence of the authors because they are well down the whisper table. If you are unaware of the whisper table, I refer you to one of my unnamed books, or ask me to explain and I will address it here.Yes, there is.
The testimony of the church IS the chain of custody, and there are multiple corroborating testimonies of people from the second century AD, from just about all four corners of the Roman Empire, that state in no uncertain terms that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the authors of the gospels.
Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160–225; Against Marcion 4.2.1–2):
“I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. . . . In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.”
Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215; Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13):
“Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter, just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews.”
Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–200; Against Heresies 3.1.1–2; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History5.8.1–4):
“So Matthew brought out a written gospel among the Jews in their own style, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. But after their demise Mark himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was proclaimed by him. Later John, the disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned against his chest, also put out a Gospel while residing in Ephesus of Asia.”
Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 125 AD, Recorded in Eusebius 3.39)
“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”
“Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”
Muratorian Fragment. (ca. 175 AD)
“The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples.”
Skeptics say “we don’t know who wrote the gospels, but it wasn’t Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John”.
Double standards are the worst.
It is written that nobody contested the Gospel authors until 400 AD, but that again is not evidence. People in the early church knew who and when the Gospels were written and to assume otherwise is very naive. So how did the names get lost when the early church knew who they were? It wasn't by accident and I cover that in the second unnamed book.
As I was wrapping up the second unnamed book, the Holy Spirit directed me to Daniel and Revelation and I rejected the prompt because of its confusing theology and seemingly nonsensical writing. The funny thing is, I the Holy Spirit provided me a vision before the request that would confirm my rejection!!! I relented and investigated prophecy and lo and behold, the Holly Spirit had a message for me. Prophecy predicted everything I revealed in unnamed books one and two. Unnamed books three and four provide the complete analysis and full meaning of Daniel and Revelation. Prophecy can only be understood by analyzing Daniel and Revelation together. It was the most difficult puzzle I've ever solved, but when I read the books as I complete the final edits, prophecy now makes sense to me. Will it make sense to others? Some, but many will also reject this message and stick to their tradition.
God can do whatever he wants. However, the reasonable question is why would God do that when he picked twelve and chose four special ones to witness everything he did and said? Not only that, he told the disciples that they had a job to do and it was to document his words. If you can promise to let go of tradition, this is not nearly as complex as the author and prophecy analysis and I will try to explain it here.
If the documents were originals sealed and witnessed when they were opened they would be evidence. However, the original documents were never sealed - they were used to start the church just as Jesus commanded. How do I know this? Because scripture tells us this.
Statements can be analyzed to determine if they are from eyewitnesses by the level of detail presented. The Lord ensured that there would be four accounts of his life and with four accounts we have multiple descriptions of many events. These multiple events can be analyzed to look for these eyewitness details and i did this. What I found was that the statement were from separate people and they were eyewitnesses. Why do you think Jesus only took four disciples with him to watch certain events? Because with four there would be four different eyewitness statements.
What I'm saying is that people are corrupt and will do evil things. When analyzing your story, I have to look at all the data, and there is no reason to believe that what I suggested could not happen. Did it happen like what I suggested, or was the man guilty? I'd have to look at the case file and investigate. I'm just saying it's not cut and dry as you made it out to be. Evil people will do things and try to cover their tracks.
You claimed that my visions are not from the Lord. What am I supposed to do with that statement when I have visions that are sometimes daily and they provide me direction and guidance in both scripture and my personal life. I had an NDE and I pledged to follow the Holy Spirit wherever I was led. I pray, receive direction, write, and pray more. This is not blasphemy as written in that Acts citation I provided.
I am not on par with anyone in scripture and don't claim to be. I don't want any recognition - I simply want to deliver the message the Holy Spirit has asked me to deliver in the hope that some will read or hear it and come to faith like I have.
So who was that verse in Acts referring to if it wasn't me, you, or others who the Holy Spirit wishes to move? So I am to ignore my visions because somebody doesn't like that I am receiving them?
You've been told my reality and what you do with it is up to you.
Right Divider
Body part
Any time someone uses the term "my reality", you can tell that they don't actually know what the word "reality" means