Watch inspiring philosophy and faith because of reason videos on gospel authorship

1. history 2. matthew, mark, luke, john we have certainty that it’s these people who wrote it because early church fathers always had these names attributed to them. if there was confusion on who wrote it, it would have a lot of debate like the book of hebrews

Thank you for this. I always eat confused by the many claims that are passed off as biblical (such as claiming we know who wrote the Gospels), but many of them are either later additions (such as The Rapture), or are simply unfounded. It appreciate you pointing this out!

@@jyez Says a person who never read history. Oh wait, you're a person who learns history from the bible, of course you would think that church fathers who learned history from the bible think that history is from the bible Edit: when I say "the bible" for the church fathers, I mean the prevalent beliefs of the time and place

@@nati0598 Meanwhile, you get your history from KZfaq, it would seem.

@@connorhurley9512 Says... a person on youtube. Your words hold immeasureable weight.

*Each other did different research, were informed by different witnesses, and wanted to emphasize different stuff* Except they didn't. Scholars have known for years that Matthew and Luke are copies of the book of Mark. 60% of Mark's verses are in Luke, 90% are in Matthew. Word for word. The author of Mark made mistakes in his book. Luke, copying Mark, copied over the same mistakes. None of them did any "research". None of them claim to be eyewitness accounts. Even the book of Luke starts off by saying it's not an eyewitness account.

Imagine believing what you learned in Sunday school instead of some dude on the internet.

@@UnderCover_300blk Scholars in the field are not "some dude on the Internet". And don't forget, Jesus will burn you in hell forever if you don't suck up to him. He's cool like that.

The primary source of the church? They're written by well-educated Greek men with omniscient POV which definitely doesn't work with fishermen who spoke Aramaic and how all four basically follow the same pattern of events? C'mon. This seems like it's trying to be a gotcha but just a teensy bit of thought makes us realize the traditional narrative doesn't add up: and we've known so for hundreds of years.

@@mathiasmies7341 I'm afraid the Church (and let me be clear, I mean the Catholic Church) does not affirm community-authorship, but very clearly affirms the traditional authorship based on the testimony of the Church Fathers who knew the Apostles personally. I imagine that you and others who "have known so for hundreds of years" would deny that the Apostles as described in the Gospels even existed, or that half of what the Gospels say is even true. But you are denying the authorship based on your opinion that the Gospels are unreliable, and you are proclaiming them unreliable based on your opinion that they could not have been written by ordinary men (of which only John was a fisherman by the way). Have you ever heard of scribes? Do you apply this level of scepticism to all ancient texts?

@connorhurley9512 Weak apologetics that have already been tried and failed: scribes would not account for the omniscient POV or word-for-word similarities. It was also not out of practice for scribes to attribute authorship at that time. So please save your quackery for gullible idiots.

@mathiasmies7341 Did I come at you with ad hominem attacks? And where have my arguments been refuted? You keep appealing to "scholars" and "history" without specifying who they are and what is actually said. How do you know your scholars are reliable and I am the one spouting "quackery for gullible idiots"? I can quote several independent late 1st century and early 2nd century figures that attest to the traditional authorship of the Gospels. I can appeal to archeological evidence that supports the internal historicity of the Gospel accounts themselves. I can identify fragments and copies of the Gospels from as early as the 120s AD that demonstrate universal attribution of Matthew as the author of his Gospel, and no other competing attributions nor anyone saying "we don't know who wrote it." To whom and what are YOU appealing as credible sources? 19th century form criticism? Bart Ehrman, who openly admits all modern biblical scholarship is biased? Who is being gullible here? Defend your claims with evidence or admit that you cannot.

@mathiasmies7341 For my part, I don't quite understand your point about "omniscient POV" in the Gospels. Do you mean how for example Mark describes things that only Christ would have known, like his time in the wilderness? Isn't it possible that Christ told his disciples about it? And regarding word-for-word similarities, I don't deny the likelihood that the authors used previous sources. In fact, that is what Luke says at the start of his Gospel, and what virtually every Church Father claims as well. Very few well-read individuals will claim that all four Gospels were written by the hand of the very person whose name is on them, or that they all worked wholly independently. But admitting the use of personal scribes and multiple sources and intertextual dependence does NOT mean one must say "they cannot be reliable" or "they definitely weren't written by the Evangelists." There is room to consider nuance if we put aside strawman arguments and elitist "modern scholarly consensus" bias.