The gospel of John..

[Ricky Spanish]

...and why it is poison.

Point a: ALL the 'gospels', including "John" were written by persons unknown who had never witnessed this "christ" and/or "Jesus".

Point b:

John was the last gospel to be constructed as a Greek exercise to coalesce all the other, numerous gospels about a christ that were being touted as the truth.

None of the gospel writers truely knew of the christ they were chatting about.

It is obvious to most of us that they were written to flesh out the Greek "Christ" that Paul was propagating.

Why is this so difficult for Christians to grasp?

[Hope]

...and why it is poison.

Point a: ALL the 'gospels', including "John" were written by persons unknown who had never witnessed this "christ" and/or "Jesus".

Point b:

John was the last gospel to be constructed as a Greek exercise to coalesce all the other, numerous gospels about a christ that were being touted as the truth.

None of the gospel writers truely knew of the christ they were chatting about.

It is obvious to most of us that they were written to flesh out the Greek "Christ" that Paul was propagating.

Why is this so difficult for Christians to grasp?

To answer your closing question.  Do you have any evidence that supports any of what you have written?  (By the way, if you have, you'll be the first person in nigh-on 2000 years to have provided any)

[BeRational]

To answer your closing question.  Do you have any evidence that supports any of what you have written?  (By the way, if you have, you'll be the first person in nigh-on 2000 years to have provided any)

It is not known who wrote the gospels.

You do accept that I assume?

[ad_orientem]

It is not known who wrote the gospels.

It is, which is why in the liturgy we say "the Gospel according to St. Matthew/Mark/Luke/John".

[BeRational]

It is, which is why in the liturgy we say "the Gospel according to St. Matthew/Mark/Luke/John".

So you think it is known who wrote the gospels?

Very odd as people who study this sort of thing do not agree.

What do you know that they don't?

[ad_orientem]

So you think it is known who wrote the gospels?

Very odd as people who study this sort of thing do not agree.

What do you know that they don't?

The Church, that is the people of God, knows.

[BeRational]

The Church, that is the people of God, knows.

But how do they know rather than just believe?

The documents are not signed, the authors are NOT known.

[ad_orientem]

But how do they know rather than just believe?

The documents are not signed, the authors are NOT known.

They were received precisely because the authors were known and their apostolicity verifiable.

[BeRational]

They were received precisely because the authors were known and their apostolicity verifiable.

This is an assertion and not a fact.

If it was fact you could demonstrate how the authors are known, and there would not be people who study this kind of stuff not in the know.

The fact remains that the authors of the gospels are not known.

Try googling for it.

[ad_orientem]

This is an assertion and not a fact.

If it was fact you could demonstrate how the authors are known, and there would not be people who study this kind of stuff not in the know.

The fact remains that the authors of the gospels are not known.

Try googling for it.

The Churches that initially received them knew and that is how we know for it has been passed down. I don't care what Google says or modern "scholars" on the brink of apostasy.

[BeRational]

The Churches that initially received them knew and that is how we know for it has been passed down. I don't care what Google says or modern "scholars" on the brink of apostasy.

So you do not care about truth, you just like the belief you have.

That's up to you and your business, but you must accept that people you speak to, may know that the authors of the gospels are not known, and then know that you are mistaken or telling lies.

[ad_orientem]

So you do not care about truth, you just like the belief you have.

That's up to you and your business, but you must accept that people you speak to, may know that the authors of the gospels are not known, and then know that you are mistaken or telling lies.

Modern scholars know nothing. We know who wrote them because we, the Church, received them from the authors themselves. That is how we know. That is how we can be sure. Obviously modern scholars are too dumb to understand the concept of knowledge being handed down.

[BeRational]

Modern scholars know nothing. We know who wrote them because we, the Church, received them from the authors themselves. That is how we know. That is how we can be sure. Obviously modern scholars are too dumb to understand the concept of knowledge being handed down.

So you just gullibly accept what they say?

Perhaps the people who study this have got it wrong, why not show them where they went wrong.

Just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "say it ain't so" make you look silly.

[Hope]

It is not known who wrote the gospels.

You do accept that I assume?

I realise that we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels, though there is no evidence that it definitely wasn't those named.  However, pseudoepigraphy was a fairly standard practice across the known world at the time, so it doesn't mean that one or more weren't written by people who could or would have known Christ, especially when one remembers the mostly commonly attributed authorship dates, especially Mt, Mk & Lk.  Too many pople assume that, if the Gospels weren't written by the named authors, they must have been written by preople who had never met Jesus - a belief that I hope I have shown to be not necessarily correct.

[Hope]

It is, which is why in the liturgy we say "the Gospel according to St. Matthew/Mark/Luke/John".

Unfortunately, ad_o, the names attributed to the authors are only tradition, not absolute certainty.  As I mentioned in my previous post, in reponse to BR, pseudoepigraphy was a pretty common thing at the im, and e know that there were things written by Romans and Jews who were not the person who appears in the 'title'.  Oddly enough, though, the Gospels are some of the very few documents whose 'pseudoepigraphic' authorship is taken to indicate untrustworthiness, a later authorship date than generally accepted and/or the assumption that the actual writers couldn't have seen/met/known the subject they write about.

[Follower of Jesus]

It is not known who wrote the gospels.

You do accept that I assume?

That is an assertion not a fact

[floo]

That is an assertion not a fact

And you know who wrote them?

[Follower of Jesus]

And you know who wrote them?

Of course not, nobody (except God) does today. The most probable answer is that it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

[floo]

Of course not, nobody (except God) does today. The most probable answer is that it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Why?

[Follower of Jesus]

Why?

Because that's where the available historical evidence points

[Hope]

Of course not, nobody (except God) does today. The most probable answer is that it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Actually, FoJ, the popularity of pseudoepigraphy at the time suggests that 'the most probable answer' isn't necessarily the 'most probable answer'.  Furthermore, not all early Church Fathers regarded the traditional authors as the correct ones.

[Outrider]

Oddly enough, though, the Gospels are some of the very few documents whose 'pseudoepigraphic' authorship is taken to indicate untrustworthiness, a later authorship date than generally accepted and/or the assumption that the actual writers couldn't have seen/met/known the subject they write about.

I think that's unfair. The pseudoepigraphical nature is used to undermine claims of 'eyewitness' testimony. The contents of the New and Old Testament aren't disputed because the authorship isn't clear, but because the contents range from the grotesque to the impossible, with little to no evidence for almost all of it.

O.

[floo]

Because that's where the available historical evidence points

What available historical evidence?

[jeremyp]

To answer your closing question.  Do you have any evidence that supports any of what you have written?  (By the way, if you have, you'll be the first person in nigh-on 2000 years to have provided any)

John shows a lot of evidence of having been edited. What we have now is certainly not the original.

[jeremyp]

It is, which is why in the liturgy we say "the Gospel according to St. Matthew/Mark/Luke/John".

Nope. The form "according to" is not used in ancient documents to refer to the authors. They are "according to" because nobody really knows who wrote them.