E verdade que o imperador Constantino era analfabeto ?

@@kauanamaral1654 No

​@@maklelanAny video done or information about 1 Corinthians 15:19 the proof text that LDS uses for their practice of baptism for the dead and if there is a better understanding for that scripture?

Lol. Emperors (even in my culture) were given the best education available through grace/respect for them. You can discard any notion of the contrary. They had an image to upkeep and society itself cared for them, it wasn't a one way street.

@@JoshuaGreyJensen I haven't seen anything from Dan but I do recall Bart Ehrman bringing that one up on his podcast (unfortunately don't remember which episode, sometime in late 2022). If I remember right, he discussed how the point of the whole verse is about resurrection and life after death, essentially asking "what is the point of being baptized if there is no afterlife or resurrection?" We don't know for certain if it's referring to people being baptized in behalf of deceased people or if it means people being baptized to ensure the salvation/resurrection of their own future deceased selves. And if it is talking about actual baptism for the dead, we don't know if the author was bringing it up because he supported the practice or just to prove a point. However, from what I understand in my own research, yes there were groups in early Christianity that did baptisms for the dead. It was controversial and eventually deemed heretical in the 4th century. But some groups, not just the LDS, do it anyway. For example the New Apostolic Church also performs baptisms for the dead in special intercessory services a few times a year in which one of their apostles is baptized and receives communion in behalf of any deceased who may need it (rather than specifically naming one person as the LDS do.)

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 also important: Papias not only described the gospels of Matthew and Mark he knew in a way that it can't be our today's both gospels, moreover he refutes Acts with the death of Judas. Then he does not know the gospel of John or Luke and mentions two John's. And all church fathers are dependent on Papias and claim he was a follower of John the Apostle, when he himself only says to have asked elders about what the Apostles (including John the Apostle) and a guy named Ariston and John the elder were saying. That being said: there were two John's, one is John the elder, one is John the Apostle. Later Xtians just ignored the difference between these two Johns and claimed Papias knew John the Apostle. And this is our only from a church father to the apostles. The other link is allegedly clement and Peter/Paul. But the letter attributed to Clement doesn't even claim to be written by him, moreover the whole history of Peter allegedly starting the church in Rome with Paul is unreliable, since the church already existed in Paul's time when he never even visited Rome (epistle to the Romans).

One day you're going to realize that 'Xtians' aren't much of an improvement over those dealt with in the gas chambers. Nothing but sky-daddy lies and bigotry from the ground up.

@@germanboy14 fascinating! The more I learn about the first couple centuries of Christianity the more I know I don't know. (PS sind sie wirklich Deutsch? Mein Großvater kommt aus Deutschland.)

​@@MsFitz134 yes, I am German/ ich bin Deutsch, Hallo :) and exactly, its more interesting to learn about the history of Christianity than to be christian

@@germanboy14 Who was it that called Papias an overly credulous and kind of stupid guy? Was it Eusebius or Irenaeus? Anyway it was another Christian saying that, so this is not the most flattering source.

NONE of that was "verifiable facts". It's all minimalist bias. The works of Josephus, Philo, Tacticus, the Clementines say the complete OPPOSITE. The Gospels were definitely written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

It's crazy how the earliest works from Tacitus dates 300 years after his lifetime to St Jerome, yet no one questions his works. If these retards actually learned how writing functioned in those times along with the evidence, they'd know that the gospel authors were Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John@@abc_12333

@@MrMortal_Ra I have PLENTY of evidence. How interested are you in my answers? I can give you my email and from there I can tell you the Bible history group I'm in. For starters: Much of the evidence is internal (in the Biblical texts). The Book of Acts explain in detail the premise and authorship of the Gospels. Mainly it is the fact that this is a SECT. Anonymity within a sect makes no sense. My 40+ years of Biblical research shows a set lexicon and set geography in the New Testament texts. This is a sect of CONSENT. As mentioned Josephus, Philo,etc confirm what is in the Gospels. What disproves anonymous authors is the outdated predictions in the Gospels. There is a 16 year gap in the timelines of the Gospels that ALL authors have done as well.

@@MrMortal_Ra I have a Theology cert. I have also done careful Biblical exegesis for decades. Yes: it can all be verified.

@@MrMortal_Ra Are you only open to people with scholarly degrees???? I would personally listen to anyone because the INFORMATION matters more than the person. A homeless person can be correct. I've heard MANY people with degrees saying completely wrong things. If that's how you feel then have a nice life. I was going to post my contact info on a video for you. But first let me know if you're still interested in my information

I'm not convinced that giving a bunch of middle eastern schizophrenics a game like Mortal Kombat would be all that wise honestly. If they were able to make up so much laughable rubbish back then, dread to think what people would believe in another few thousand years. The Church of Lin Kuei? Cyborg upgrades for those claiming to have studied the gospel of Cyrax? I think we're better off leaving Christianity where it belongs. In the prisons and mental asylums.

Why is it then that Mark has Jesus performing the most miracles and John has him performing the least?

@@bman5257 eh that depends on how you count the miracles. and the magnitude of the miracles is more important than the mere number anyway.

@@scambammer6102 Bruh He controls the weather and the ocean and can read anyone’s mind in Mark, I think the magnitude is pretty high.

@@bman5257 he is literally god in john. he doesn't even suffer on the cross, but that doesn't count as a miracle lol

@@scambammer6102 He is literally God in all the Gospels and in the epistles that predate the Gospels. The opening of Mark applies the prophecy of a voice crying out in the wilderness to prepare the way for YHWH to St. John the Baptist. Where the messenger is St John and YHWH is Jesus. In Paul’s letters all the fullness of deity dwells bodily in Jesus, in Jesus everything was created, and in Jesus the entire universe holds together.

the authors expected the world to end soon

Lol. No they didn't. They were expecting their carefully constructed con-job to work. And it did.

@@ErraticFaith they didn’t what?

Expect the world to end. It’s been obvious from the way they framed it that they expected the sham to run for a good long time.

@@ErraticFaith what a retrded argument. IF it was a scam they wouldn’t care if it lasted beyond their own lifetime. Grow brain cells.

That’s not a bad analogy as far as individual pericopes go. The other thing to keep in mind is that that chain assumes there was an initial witness. Some, probably many of the stories doubtlessly came up later or were even authorial invention. I’ve come to see the gospels as kind of impressionistic portraits of Jesus, as far as the historical guy there. Sort of like, did he cast demons into a herd of swine who then ran into the sea? No. But was he an exorcist who interacted with people we’d now consider mentally ill? Probably.

@@Jd-808 probably? what evidence is that conclusion based on?

@@scambammer6102 that there are so many stories about his being an exorcist because he was one??

@@Jd-808 I like the idea of the gospels being impressionistic portraits of a historical person who might have initially inspired some of the stories. Then those stories get aggrandized with the retelling, until they're only a shadow of their former selves. I doubt that a guy named Jesus worked 'miracles' but it seems to me he did know some 'magic' tricks that he used to convince people he had 'the gift'. Remember Simon Magus? I believe Josephus even mentions him, so he had to learn magic somewhere, and if Jesus really did spend time in Egypt, he likely learned some there.

That's NOT what happened for the writing of the Gospels. Late dating is IMPOSSIBLE because they each contain PREDICTIONS. The supposed dates proposed for the writings of the Gospels are PAST the dates of the predictions made in the Gospels. While other matters like Simon Magus' split would've been irrelevant by those late dates.

Yeah, his pronunciation? Ça me brûle les oreilles. It seems more like how someone who is a curator at the British museum would say it.

@@VulcanLogic Makes sense, his French is probably influenced by or even from his time studying in England.

I think it is more to do with the association of Christians and lions....🤣🤣🤣

Nope: in English, the city is now usually pronounced "Lee-own" with the n clearly pronounced. Quand on parle en anglais, on utilise la prononciation anglaise pour les endroits, et non la prononciation locale -- on fait la meme en français ('Londres' et non 'London'). There are several towns in the US called "Lyons", and are usually pronounced 'Lions', which is the traditional pronunciation in English for Lyons, that you will still hear, especially when it is someone's last name (I know lots of people named Lyons, and they all say "Lions".)

Kevin Nontradicath and hatsoffhistory have direct responses to Pitre's work, they're here on KZfaq

Yeah and the most funny thing is, that Jesus according to the Nt testified the authenticity of every single letter of the Torah of Moses. Matthew 5:18, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, *not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,* will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Luke 16:17But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than *for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law* And Jesus often referred to the law including the writings of the prophets.

It's obviously appeal to authority. Jesus was engineered as an approval figure. 'Oh that guy? Yeah I can vouch for him. I was there'. Thats the principle of the entire thing. The apostles or whatever figures they actually were - were most likely a bunch of cult nobodies, who were well aware of the local stories and authority figures. So they twisted a story that incorporated elements of them all into a exaggerated fairy tale. Any legitimacy comes from including real people in the story who likely didn't even know them or what they were doing - and edits centuries after the fact, progressively trying to account for inaccuracies. Such is the wont of Empires and those trying to control a crowd.

@@germanboy14 The finished product has not changed but during the writing process there were many alterations. In fact in Jeremiah 36 we are even given an account of the writing of God's word and the king of Israel destroys it so God has it rewritten again with even more judgements added to it.

​​@@WellFedSheep the problem is that word "torah" is used sometimes for only the commandments of Moses, all 5 books and the whole Ot. And I think that these words were put into the mouth of Jesus, since in the first century already Jews existed who didn't believe that the whole torah (5 books) go back to Moses. Moreover: this would refute Jesus easily, since today we have different versions of the Torah, e.g. the DSS, MT Lxx or the Samaritan Torah. Then we have within the DSS different versions and even an enochian torah. The Masoteric Text is also available with differences just like the Lxx has many different versions

@@germanboy14 Having multiple versions does not contradict what Jesus said as even the new testament had false epistles being written before it was even finished as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 KJV and 2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV. Despite these corrupt versions of the scriptures the true scriptures remained available back then just as they are today. If you go into a bookstore to get a bible you have hundreds of versions that have been written in English but only one is accurate. This fulfills what Jesus spoke about the word being preserved which is also promised by him in Psalm 12:6-7 KJV. It is also rather easy to tell which are false and which one is accurate just from the history of biblical translation. After the KJV came out every other version that has come out in English has either gone out of print or been routinely updated compared to the KJV which remains the most sold book in history.

I wish we'd had it at university theology 50 years ago!

Glad you said this, I also can’t help but wonder if there is something to Papias’s claim about Mark. It’s just specific and the way he’s wringing his hands about it is very interesting.

Papias described the Matthew text as logia (“sayings”) written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Papias also refers to Mark as a collection of logia (“sayings”) and as a non-organized compilation of ‘chreia‘ (short, pithy anecdote) without regard to proper sequence. Biographies are not described that way. Papias does not suggest at all that Mark or Matthew are parallel narrative accounts that follow a structured chronology and common plot. Sry, Papias is our witness Nr. 1, he did not mean our gospels today. This goes in line with Luke who says that MANY wrote something down and Papias who said that Matthew was "interpreted" by people as they were able to. Moreover Papias contradicts Acts on Judas death and most if not all church fathers are dependent on Papias or people who are dependent on him, so its very important what he said or did not say.

I'm grateful for these comments, because I thought the treatment of Mark in the video could have been better. I wouldn't be surprised if the attribution was spurious but I think it is the best of the four. Two things: 1) What Papias is saying appears to be apologetic in nature. He says Mark wrote only what he heard and neither omitted things or created fiction. Which, to me, probably means there were Christian listeners who were confused that it left things out or thought it contained exaggerations/inventions. 2) Papias's characterization of Mark is entirely consistent with it being a notebook of stories, not a biography. As a side note, Papias's "Matthew" sounds a lot more like our "Q."

Paul didn't actually do a name change - you can see him being called Saul later in the Acts of the Apostles too. Saul is the Hebrew, Paul is the Greek. Richard Bauckham does great research on the names in the Gospels if you want to look into it more :)

Matthew was the Matthew Annas in Josephus' Antiquities books.

​@@bromponie7330Oh no, don't ever recommend Richard Bauckham

Quelle is German for ‘Source’. A posited original source gospel from which Matt, Luke, and John took material that wasn’t in Mark and added onto that early gospel.

Just read the introductions.

Both is dedicated to the same man Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1), Acts refers to "the first book", Acts starts off where Luke's Gospel ends off, they both are very similar in style & structure, and several external sources (Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian) attribute them both to the same physician Luke.

The translation is dated long after our Greek version. It maybe can go back to the to first century/ to the original but we simply don't know, it would be only an assumption and I don't know what scholars say about the theory.

The hebrew bible was written in greek before it was written in hebrew, so why does that matter?

@@NeuroticBliss Which scholar claims the Tanakh was written in Greek first before Hebrew? I've never heard this claim before.

@@AurorXZ i've heard several rabbis talk about it. The torah was translated and written down in greek before it was recorded on to paper in hebrew.

@@NeuroticBliss Might want to check their sources on that, then (and note, the Torah/Pentateuch is distinct from the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible). Perhaps they were actually talking about how the Pentateuch was the first to be written in Greek, starting in the 3rd c. BCE Alexandria? My expertise is Pentateuchal Source Criticism and I've not once heard a Greek-first hypothesis in the entire field of Pentateuchal Studies. Both the received Pentateuch (Persian era) and its ancient sources clearly predate the Greek texts. Emanuel Tov's "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" (4th ed.) is the go-to academic reference, if this interests you. EDIT: Okay, this user appears to be a troll just making stuff up. Don't waste your time, folks.

That's what I also think!

Or maybe the gospel of thomas

I think he was probably talking about the Q source, if it existed

@soarel325 That is the obvious assumption, but, I was wondering if there was any textural data that could point to Thomas.

You can arrive at John through a process of elimination. In the synoptic gospels you have 3 close disciples (the disciples that get to tag along up on the mountain where he's transfigured, and the ones that go with him to the garden of gethsemane): Peter, and the sons of Zebedee (James and John). James died rather early according to tradition, so he's out. Peter is mentioned in the Gospel of John as a disciple separate to the beloved disciple, so that leaves John. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm NOT saying John is the author, just that this is a plausible logic for arriving at that conclusion for early Christians

​@@Agryphos yeah but the gospel of "John" writes about the sons of Zebedee (which includes John the Apostle) in a verse and about the disciple whom Jesus loved separately. For me it's either Lazarus, James the brother of Jesus or its just a made up character.

@@Agryphos John of Zebedee is NOT the Beloved disciple. John Mark is the Beloved disciple.

@@germanboy14 It's John Mark (also known as Bartholomew - follower of Ptolemy (Egyptian literature)). That's why we see "I AM' so often in the Book of John.

No, they didn't and you're going against the bulk of new testament scholarship. *"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.* Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. *The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure-Jesus Christ-to confirm the faith of their communities."* *As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels).* *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* Also, look up: *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* *"When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

there was a gospel of peter. several of them. they were nutzoid and thus excluded

@@scambammer6102 the gospel of Peter was an attribution and was rightly excluded. What I meant was, Mark, Mathew and Luke were not people you attribute gospels to. They were low on the hierarchy. An attribution to them doesn't make sense, unless they actually wrote the books and these books were accepted widely. The argument that they didn't write is weak, thus.

@@koppite9600 they are ALL “attributions” and they make total sense for the reasons stated in the video that you apparently failed to comprehend. Typical lame az theist excuses for the bullshit in your holy book.

Dan explains this in the video

He is NOT

Why would it matter? He's not making theological arguments. One's belief, or lack thereof, is immaterial in matters of biblical analysis.

He's Mormon.

I feel the same about Schopenhauer.

So you have no objections with anything said in the video?

@@hairiestwizard I don’t watch these videos anymore. I’ve seen them use opinions as facts and believe what anyone say’s negative about Christianity and the Bible. They even say that if God revealed Himself they still wouldn’t worship Him, they still don’t want to go to heaven.

So you're just here to scream into the void? Understandable, have a lovely day!

What is the most miraculous miracle that you have performed?

I responded to his first claim in a comment on his video. He's not engaging in good faith and I have no interest in trying to reason with him any further.

Mark and Luke were no apostles and he even cites the "memoirs of peter" as scripture. The Didache, Ignatius and Polycarp treated them anonymously too and Papias doesn't mention Luke, Acts or John. And moreover the quotes of them above are very few in numbers and could also come from an oral tradition or simply other books attributed to the apostles. Some of them don't even cite every gospel. Luke says that "many" wrote stuff down. Mark was written prior to him and possibly Matthew. These are not "many" writings. There must have existed many writings attributed to the apostles which are now lost

​@@germanboy14Yes, I'm so glad that an all powerful, and all future knowing deity, who wanted _all abilities and levels of mankind_ to receive salvation, had failed to make his message to mankind for receiving that salvation, so perfectly clear and understandable, and without anyone in the future discoverering it's scientific falsehood, especially when Genesis 1 claims that plants that require the Sun's warmth, were created on day 3 before the Sun was created on day 4. Any educated, and future potential convert to Christianity from another culture, would question whether the bible author's viewpoint was truthfully of " divine inspiration ,"

How can someone who didn't exist, appear to anyone. I don't think there is much to 'think through' to begin with.

_"and thus admits this is not in person accounts."_ No, Justin Martyr literally says the Gospels were "drawn up by his apostles and those who followed them" (Dial. 103).

​@@germanboy14Mark & Luke were called "apostolic men", situated where the lines blur. Justin's reference to Peter's memoirs is certainly referring to Mark's Gospel ("Boanerges, which means sons of thunder"). It's unreasonable to expect the Didache to do otherwise given its purpose/setting and given it (and other apostolic fathers) also treats Paul and OT passages the same way. Papias likely knew John's Gospel (cf. his arrangment of disciples), and he used 1 John. Ignatius wrote his epistles in transit to Rome for his martyrdom, he could hardly have access to his full library, but you're right that oral tradition was likely employed too. Luke's preface speaks to the apostolic authority of his sources in Mark & Q/Matthew. As you say, there were probably others in addition to these.

This is not a topic he has or will address. There is no compelling academic evidence for or against most of the miracles.

*Miracles and Apotheosis in the Ancient Mediterranean World* *"It should first be noted that miracle stories are not uncommon in the literature of this period.* Ancient people believed in a world permeated by the supernatural and readily accepted stories of miracles and believed in stories of visions and visitors from the world of the divine all the time. *Even very sober and sometimes sceptical historians like Tacitus will pass on accounts of miracles that he clearly accepts and expects his audience to believe as historical.* So when we read stories of how the emperor Augustus was miraculously conceived by the god Apollo, or how his birth was presaged by a new star in the heavens, or how Julius Caesar was seen ascending into the heaven after his death or how Vespasian healed lame and blind people who asked him for a miracle, we accept that these stories represent the kinds of things ancient people genuinely believed about great men. Or we accept that they are at least told to indicate that the man in question was great. *What we don't do is accept that simply because people believed these stories they must mean that they really happened.* And this is even when the stories are presented to us by a very careful historian and given to us as verified fact. Take Tacitus' account of the miracles of the emperor Vespasian: "In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. .... And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. *The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood."* (Histories, IV, 81) Tacitus was closely connected to the court of Vespasian's sons and successors, Titus and Domitian, and so in a position to know the "persons actually present" and to consult them long after Vespasian's death "when nothing is to be gained by falsehood". He was also a very careful historian who scorned those who took rumour and stories as fact without checking them against sources and eye witnesses and who condemned those who "catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history" (Annals, IV,11). *Despite this, I don't know anyone who would read the account above and conclude that the emperor really had magical healing powers and genuinely used his supernatural abilities to heal people.* The fact that even a judicious and often sceptical analyst like Tacitus accepted this story shows us just how readily people in the ancient world accepted claims of the miraculous. *One form of miracle that was widely believed in was the idea of apotheosis, where a great man is physically taken up in to the heavens and raised to divine status.* It was claimed that Romulus, the founder of Rome, underwent this process and later appeared to his friend Julius Proculus to declare his new celestial status. The same claim was made about Julius Caesar and Augustus, with supposed witnesses observing their ascent into the heavenly realm. Lucian's satire The Passing of Peregrinus includes his scorn for the claim that the philosopher was taken up into the celestial realm and was later seen walking around on earth after his death. The Chariton novel Callirhoe has its hero Chaereas visiting the tomb of his recently dead wife, saying he *"arrived at the tomb at daybreak"* where he *"found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright."* Others are afraid to enter the tomb, but Chaereas goes in and finds his wife's *body missing* and concludes she has been taken up by the gods." If you want to read how the resurrection legend grew over time, read the below article by Tim O'Neill who is a former Christian and has been studying the scholarship for over 25 years. *Answer* What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora You can also read the below article by a former Christian apologist on how he agrees with the mainstream scholarship that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress

@@TheFranchiseCA there is compelling academic evidence against all miracles. that's why they are called miracles.

You can guarantee none of them happened, due to the utter pointlessness of them.

So you have verifiable evidence to the biblical claims of suspension of the laws of the universe by the criminal jesus?

Christianity is a lie. 😂😂

Your reasons are not backed by evidence. Show us tangible proof not this ridiculous assertions

@@animegtrailer5208 You’re ignorant. And that’s okay. But the pride in your ignorance; that’s not okay. So, I won’t cast my pearls before swine.

1. Peter doesn't mention anyone to write something down. This information comes from Papias. His description of Mark shows that he knew another version of Mark. Clement of Alexandria also mentions different versions of Mark 2. Scholars claim that John 1 was added by the same author who wrote 1 John and who added John 21. Also: there are two John's according to Papias, one is John the elder, one is John the Apostle. John the elder is a much later John. 3. The author of Acts in Luke is anonymous and no follower of Paul. He even contradicts Paul. The "we" passages are either an interpolation or just a common rhetorical style of writing in that time, which authors often inserted without being an eyewitness. The author of Luke also openly admits using written sources 4. Papias says Matthew was written in Hebrew and contained of Logia (sayings) and that many "interpreted" it as they were able to. This shows that it is not our today's Matthew. Our Matthew even writes about the apostle Matthew in Mat 9 9

5. We know that our today's Matthew and Luke copied Mark, sometimes even word for word. Papias also says that Judas died in another way, which refutes the authenticity of "Luke".

He has already factually proven otherwise. Run back to william lane craig. There's a good little sky daddy bigot. The adults are discussing FACTS not fairy tales for manchildren.

Except it's chronically and physically impossible for them to write anything, especially in Koine Greek. How are illiterate men, as they are described in the bible, going to learn to write fluently in a language that wasn't their native tongue? And no, they didn't write in the plural because they were writing in the "Royal we". That wasn't how biographers wrote in those days. They wrote in the 3rd person as they were not writing their own eye witness accounts. This is is evident especially in the synoptic gospels that copy massive swathes of passages verbatim. Eye witnesses don't do that unless they are colluding.

@@jaclo3112 Luke was a doctor, and he took dictation from Peter, for the Godpel According to Luke. Where does the Bible say they were _all_ illiterate? What makes you think a people with a historic language, being occupied by a country with a different language, and as you say, writing in yet a third language, were incapable of anything, linguistically?

@joshuakarr-BibleMan doctors weren't educated back then. You didn't need qualifications to be a doctor. Hell, even in the US less than 200 yrs ago anyone could be a doctor as no education or qualifications were required. And again, how could, what THE BIBLE refers to as illiterate, write in fluent Koine Greek? I have a feeling you don't understand what Koine Greek is and the social curcumstances required to be able to write fluently in that language.

*Reeks of cognitive dissonance. Luke 1:3-4 reads: “it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent *Theophilus*; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”* The issue with this is that there are more lines of evidence that Luke-Acts was anonymous than just the title. Simply put, the Synoptic problem has played a significant role in our understanding here. Why, if Luke was indeed the author of this Gospel, does Luke plagiarize off of Mark? If this is an eye-witness testimony in the same vein of Eusebius, Josephus and Julius Caesar, then why does it lift Mark this way. The answer is simple. It isn't. The Gospels were much less likely something that was to be viewed as historical as much as it was a biographic catechism. It was a set of distinct theologies and teachings of Jesus Christ that were not meant to be absolutely historical as we know history today. *When Justin, whom you cite, says “Memoirs of the Apostles,” were supposed to believe that he had no idea of the tradition as to who wrote these? (Hint: maybe “Apostles”?).* The fact of the matter is, Justin quotes Gospel passages and doesn't give the names of the supposed authors to the works. Sounds like anonymity to me.... *No one, at the time of writing of John, knew who the “beloved disciple” was? No one thought to ask: “hey Jim, they keep talking about this ‘beloved’ dude but who is it?” Jim: “dunno. I’m just listening. We have no idea who wrote any of this, but it’s the true Word!” 😂* The Gospel of John was most definitely not authored by John. Yet all the same, it came out from the Jonine Community. The Gospel probably gets its oral tradition to John himself, just as Matthew, Luke-Acts, and Mark. These authors did not come the aforementioned works, and yet, as McClellan has said, does come as a representation of these communal traditions. The issue is that what Papias says about these Gospels is utterly incompatible with the Gospels we have today. According to Papias, Matthew was a sayings Gospel, and it isn't. Additional details we get from 1st Century John is equally perplexing. According to another Church Father, there was a scene in the Gospels where Jesus is quoting the Psalms that doesn't exist in the Gospel of John today. There wasn't just 1 Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. There were likely MULTIPLE Gospels from all of these communities. And multiple versions and differing stories from each of these communities. And eventually, one Gospel from each of these communities gained prominence, and then was necessary to tie them to those Apostolic authorities, hance the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. *Papias couldn’t have been referring to Mark and Matthew’s Gospels? It’s just coincidence that he references these oracles (by the way much earlier than 130AD), and the tradition of their writing, and they happen to align with the later Irenaeus and others? Absolutely none of the ~200K Christians at the time had a different story of 4 “authoritative” books they’d all been preaching? And Irenaeus chose randomly to assign two of these to non-eyewitnesses rather than the Apostles themselves? And no one challenged it? 😂😂* None doubted that the canonical Gospels of Mtthew, Mark, Luke and John came out from those communities. But by the time Irenaeus came on the scene, The Church had conflated the apostolic authority of these communities with the authorship of these volumes. *Were the Gospels “anonymous?” Yes. In the sense that the writer didn’t name themselves in the text.* No, the Gospels are anonymous in the sense that the communities of Peter, Paul, Matthew and John were producing multiple gospels long after the oral founders of these communities died.