If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2014, 03:24 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 03:28 PM by Wolfbitn.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 03:23 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 03:13 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Post your proof of this Tongue

About Mark? I already did.

Mark (60 to 75 CE) is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

Noticing this problem, a Xtian scribe decided to add verses 9-20.

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Read it and weep

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...cal-is-it/

Quote:noted theologians throughout the ages maintain that it was indeed the disciple John who penned the famous Biblical book.


http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

Quote:According to ancient tradition, the four canonical Gospels were written by the Apostle Levi Matthew, the evangelist John Mark, the physician Luke, and the Apostle John

In their place, modern scholars have substituted a range of wild and conflicting speculations about how and why the Gospels came to be written. In the context of this cacophony of opinion, it may be edifying to become familiar with the earliest known traditions of the authorship of the four Gospels. These traditions were recorded by such early Church Fathers as Papias of Hierapolis (c.80-c.160 A.D.), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.140-c.200 A.D.), and Eusebius Pamphilii (c.260-339 A.D.). Toward the end of the first century, Papias collected many important oral traditions about Jesus, the Twelve Apostles, and the disciples of the Apostles, and published them circa 100 A.D. in a book entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Sadly, this book is now lost, except for a few fascinating and indispensable fragments, most of them preserved in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Among these precious fragments are facts concerning the authorship and composition of the four canonical Gospels. Papias' testimony is of the greatest weight and the highest authority, because he received his information from men and women who had known Jesus personally, or else had known those who knew Jesus. As Papias wrote (quoted by Eusebius),



``. . . But I shall not hesitate to furnish you, along with my explanations, with all that in days gone by I carefully learned from the Presbyters and have carefully recalled, for I can guarantee its truth. Unlike most people, I felt at home not with those who appeal to commandments from other sources, but with those who appeal to commandments given by the Lord unto faith, and coming to us from Truth itself. Whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the Presbyters, I inquired into the words of the Presbyters: what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord; and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.''



Eusebius was the first to insist that Papias was referring to two separate Johns, both Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ, one an Apostle and the other merely a Presbyter. However, except for the name ``Aristion,'' Papias here classifies every one of the names that he lists-and the first seven names are obviously those of Apostles-as Presbyters. Also, the author of the three epistles attributed to John the Apostle (and there can be little doubt that the same individual who wrote the epistles of John also wrote the Gospel of John) identifies himself as ``the Presbyter.'' There is simply no clear and undisputed evidence that Presbyter John, as a distinct individual from the Apostle John, ever existed. The most likely interpretation of Papias' words is that of Irenaeus, who referred to Papias as someone



``. . . who had listened to John and was later a companion of Polycarp, . . . .''



Polycarp of Smyrna was himself said by Irenaeus and other early Christian writers to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, and only with great difficulty can these statements be explained away or reinterpreted. Considering all the available evidence, there can be no reasonable doubt that Papias and Polycarp both spoke face-to-face with the Apostle John. In fact, Papias' language can be interpreted to mean that the Apostle John was still alive at the time that Papias wrote his volume. At any rate John was certainly alive when Papias began to collect his fascinating oral traditions. (And as for Papias' other living witness, Aristion, a rare Armenian manuscript of the Gospels copied in the year 986 A.D. attributes the Longer Ending of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, to ``Presbyter Aristion.'' That could well mean that the information found in those verses of Mark had been collected by Papias, who said that he interviewed Aristion, a man who was taught by Jesus Himself.)

The weight of the evidence indicates that the traditions regarding the authorship and composition of the four Gospels are traceable right back to the very eyewitnesses of Jesus and the Apostles. Consequently, these traditions are the necessary starting point for the development of hypotheses regarding the composition of the four canonical Gospels. Whenever the fields of biblical scholarship and textual criticism slight these traditions, they also forsake sound, balanced historical principles.

With these things in mind, here are the earliest avaliable traditions about the authorship of the four canonical Gospels:



MATTHEW: Probably relying on Papias, Irenaeus writes: ``Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing that ``Matthew compiled the Oracles [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.'' In addition to this quotation from Papias, Eusebius also wrote the following about Matthew (probably depending upon Papias as his main source): ``Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.''



MARK: Again, Irenaeus writes: ``After their passing [presumably the deaths of Peter, Paul, and Matthew], Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.'' 2 Eusebius quotes Papias as writing, ``This, too, the Presbyter [John] says: `Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter would adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.''' Eusebius also writes (admittedly depending in part upon Papias), ``So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go til they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the Spirit what had happened, the Apostle [Peter] was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorised the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quoted this story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon (I Peter 5:13).''



LUKE: Irenaeus, who may well have been relying in part on Papias, writes: ``Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him [i.e., Paul].'' In the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D., we find the following (possibly derived from Papias): ``The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke: the physician Luke after Christ's arising, since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the Way, composed it in his own name according to [Paul's] thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to determine it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.''



JOHN: Irenaeus writes: ``Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned back on His breast, once more set forth the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.'' Eusebius writes: ``When Mark and Luke had published their Gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing for the following reason. The three Gospels already written were in general circulation and copies had come into John's hands. He welcomed them, we are told, and confirmed their accuracy, but remarked that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first of all at the beginning of His mission.'' To that we may compare the story in the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D. (possibly taken from Papias): ``The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, one of the disciples: When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said, `Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night [i.e., after the fast] it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, while all were to go over it, John in his own name should write everything down. . . .'' (cf. John 14:26)





SOURCES:




1. Eusebius-The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine , translated by G.A. Williamson, revised and edited by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1965, 1989.





2. The History of Primitive Christianity, Hans Conzelmann, 1973.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
This dipshit is capable of endless repetition. Too bad he never changes.

At least when his fucking jesus shit was copied by inept scribes they made lots of fuck-ups to make things interesting for scholars!

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Part two since I messed up the reply.

Quote:The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[3]

Perkins, Pheme (2009) [2007]. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-6553-3.

Brown, Raymond E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-24767-2.

Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
I'm gonna let you in on a little secret kid. We are gonna forget you the second you are gone. Seriously. Oh we will point and laugh and remind ourselves of the good times we all had making fun of you and showing everyone how ignorant you are. But you will leave no lasting impact, you will be forgotten. The best you can hope for is a
"Hey you remember that guy Wolfwhateverthehell?"
"Vaguely, why?"
"What a cunt huh?"
"Yup."

And that will be it. Literally and truly it. We will forget you and we will move on to having far more rational debates with far more rational theists. Less then 2 days after you are banned this thread will be off the front page, never to be seen by anyone again, and you will be forgotten.

Then one day you will die and your story will end and the world will be a better place for it. I hope you get time to panic and soil yourself as you realize before the dimming of the lights that there is no heaven waiting for you. That all you have is what you left behind in this world. And that one of those things you left behind, which likely will be as close to an accomplishment as you ever get, is a thread full of your stupid that one will read after you are banned and an existence no one here will remember.

No one.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
06-11-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Have we found 4 skulls of Alexander, 23 limbs, and his clothes in the process of this thread yet?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 03:23 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 03:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It provably was not.

Not that you give a shit.

Prove it NOW dipshit

The wonderful thing is, I don't need to. That work has been done by competent historians. I invite you to read their works for yourself; you might consider beginning with the dozens of volumes referred to by the Wikipedia page, and you might consider from there proceeding to peer-reviewed journals of new testament historiography and classical literature.

There is, however, no point in providing citations to you, as you can neither read nor think for yourself. I have no wish to ride the trollercoaster.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
06-11-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...cal-is-it/

Quote:noted theologians throughout the ages maintain that it was indeed the disciple John who penned the famous Biblical book.


http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

According to ancient tradition, the four canonical Gospels were written by the Apostle Levi Matthew, the evangelist John Mark, the physician Luke, and the Apostle John

In their place, modern scholars have substituted a range of wild and conflicting speculations about how and why the Gospels came to be written. In the context of this cacophony of opinion, it may be edifying to become familiar with the earliest known traditions of the authorship of the four Gospels. These traditions were recorded by such early Church Fathers as Papias of Hierapolis (c.80-c.160 A.D.), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.140-c.200 A.D.), and Eusebius Pamphilii (c.260-339 A.D.). Toward the end of the first century, Papias collected many important oral traditions about Jesus, the Twelve Apostles, and the disciples of the Apostles, and published them circa 100 A.D. in a book entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Sadly, this book is now lost, except for a few fascinating and indispensable fragments, most of them preserved in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Among these precious fragments are facts concerning the authorship and composition of the four canonical Gospels. Papias' testimony is of the greatest weight and the highest authority, because he received his information from men and women who had known Jesus personally, or else had known those who knew Jesus. As Papias wrote (quoted by Eusebius),



``. . . But I shall not hesitate to furnish you, along with my explanations, with all that in days gone by I carefully learned from the Presbyters and have carefully recalled, for I can guarantee its truth. Unlike most people, I felt at home not with those who appeal to commandments from other sources, but with those who appeal to commandments given by the Lord unto faith, and coming to us from Truth itself. Whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the Presbyters, I inquired into the words of the Presbyters: what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord; and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.''



Eusebius was the first to insist that Papias was referring to two separate Johns, both Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ, one an Apostle and the other merely a Presbyter. However, except for the name ``Aristion,'' Papias here classifies every one of the names that he lists-and the first seven names are obviously those of Apostles-as Presbyters. Also, the author of the three epistles attributed to John the Apostle (and there can be little doubt that the same individual who wrote the epistles of John also wrote the Gospel of John) identifies himself as ``the Presbyter.'' There is simply no clear and undisputed evidence that Presbyter John, as a distinct individual from the Apostle John, ever existed. The most likely interpretation of Papias' words is that of Irenaeus, who referred to Papias as someone



``. . . who had listened to John and was later a companion of Polycarp, . . . .''



Polycarp of Smyrna was himself said by Irenaeus and other early Christian writers to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, and only with great difficulty can these statements be explained away or reinterpreted. Considering all the available evidence, there can be no reasonable doubt that Papias and Polycarp both spoke face-to-face with the Apostle John. In fact, Papias' language can be interpreted to mean that the Apostle John was still alive at the time that Papias wrote his volume. At any rate John was certainly alive when Papias began to collect his fascinating oral traditions. (And as for Papias' other living witness, Aristion, a rare Armenian manuscript of the Gospels copied in the year 986 A.D. attributes the Longer Ending of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, to ``Presbyter Aristion.'' That could well mean that the information found in those verses of Mark had been collected by Papias, who said that he interviewed Aristion, a man who was taught by Jesus Himself.)

The weight of the evidence indicates that the traditions regarding the authorship and composition of the four Gospels are traceable right back to the very eyewitnesses of Jesus and the Apostles. Consequently, these traditions are the necessary starting point for the development of hypotheses regarding the composition of the four canonical Gospels. Whenever the fields of biblical scholarship and textual criticism slight these traditions, they also forsake sound, balanced historical principles.

With these things in mind, here are the earliest avaliable traditions about the authorship of the four canonical Gospels:



MATTHEW: Probably relying on Papias, Irenaeus writes: ``Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing that ``Matthew compiled the Oracles [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.'' In addition to this quotation from Papias, Eusebius also wrote the following about Matthew (probably depending upon Papias as his main source): ``Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.''



MARK: Again, Irenaeus writes: ``After their passing [presumably the deaths of Peter, Paul, and Matthew], Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.'' 2 Eusebius quotes Papias as writing, ``This, too, the Presbyter [John] says: `Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter would adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.''' Eusebius also writes (admittedly depending in part upon Papias), ``So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go til they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the Spirit what had happened, the Apostle [Peter] was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorised the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quoted this story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon (I Peter 5:13).''



LUKE: Irenaeus, who may well have been relying in part on Papias, writes: ``Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him [i.e., Paul].'' In the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D., we find the following (possibly derived from Papias): ``The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke: the physician Luke after Christ's arising, since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the Way, composed it in his own name according to [Paul's] thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to determine it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.''



JOHN: Irenaeus writes: ``Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned back on His breast, once more set forth the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.'' Eusebius writes: ``When Mark and Luke had published their Gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing for the following reason. The three Gospels already written were in general circulation and copies had come into John's hands. He welcomed them, we are told, and confirmed their accuracy, but remarked that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first of all at the beginning of His mission.'' To that we may compare the story in the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D. (possibly taken from Papias): ``The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, one of the disciples: When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said, `Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night [i.e., after the fast] it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, while all were to go over it, John in his own name should write everything down. . . .'' (cf. John 14:26)





SOURCES:




1. Eusebius-The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine , translated by G.A. Williamson, revised and edited by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1965, 1989.





2. The History of Primitive Christianity, Hans Conzelmann, 1973.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 03:36 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 03:24 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 03:23 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  About Mark? I already did.

Mark (60 to 75 CE) is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

Noticing this problem, a Xtian scribe decided to add verses 9-20.

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Read it and weep

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...cal-is-it/

Quote:noted theologians throughout the ages maintain that it was indeed the disciple John who penned the famous Biblical book.


http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

Quote:According to ancient tradition, the four canonical Gospels were written by the Apostle Levi Matthew, the evangelist John Mark, the physician Luke, and the Apostle John

In their place, modern scholars have substituted a range of wild and conflicting speculations about how and why the Gospels came to be written. In the context of this cacophony of opinion, it may be edifying to become familiar with the earliest known traditions of the authorship of the four Gospels. These traditions were recorded by such early Church Fathers as Papias of Hierapolis (c.80-c.160 A.D.), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.140-c.200 A.D.), and Eusebius Pamphilii (c.260-339 A.D.). Toward the end of the first century, Papias collected many important oral traditions about Jesus, the Twelve Apostles, and the disciples of the Apostles, and published them circa 100 A.D. in a book entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Sadly, this book is now lost, except for a few fascinating and indispensable fragments, most of them preserved in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Among these precious fragments are facts concerning the authorship and composition of the four canonical Gospels. Papias' testimony is of the greatest weight and the highest authority, because he received his information from men and women who had known Jesus personally, or else had known those who knew Jesus. As Papias wrote (quoted by Eusebius),



``. . . But I shall not hesitate to furnish you, along with my explanations, with all that in days gone by I carefully learned from the Presbyters and have carefully recalled, for I can guarantee its truth. Unlike most people, I felt at home not with those who appeal to commandments from other sources, but with those who appeal to commandments given by the Lord unto faith, and coming to us from Truth itself. Whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the Presbyters, I inquired into the words of the Presbyters: what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord; and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.''



Eusebius was the first to insist that Papias was referring to two separate Johns, both Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ, one an Apostle and the other merely a Presbyter. However, except for the name ``Aristion,'' Papias here classifies every one of the names that he lists-and the first seven names are obviously those of Apostles-as Presbyters. Also, the author of the three epistles attributed to John the Apostle (and there can be little doubt that the same individual who wrote the epistles of John also wrote the Gospel of John) identifies himself as ``the Presbyter.'' There is simply no clear and undisputed evidence that Presbyter John, as a distinct individual from the Apostle John, ever existed. The most likely interpretation of Papias' words is that of Irenaeus, who referred to Papias as someone



``. . . who had listened to John and was later a companion of Polycarp, . . . .''



Polycarp of Smyrna was himself said by Irenaeus and other early Christian writers to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, and only with great difficulty can these statements be explained away or reinterpreted. Considering all the available evidence, there can be no reasonable doubt that Papias and Polycarp both spoke face-to-face with the Apostle John. In fact, Papias' language can be interpreted to mean that the Apostle John was still alive at the time that Papias wrote his volume. At any rate John was certainly alive when Papias began to collect his fascinating oral traditions. (And as for Papias' other living witness, Aristion, a rare Armenian manuscript of the Gospels copied in the year 986 A.D. attributes the Longer Ending of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, to ``Presbyter Aristion.'' That could well mean that the information found in those verses of Mark had been collected by Papias, who said that he interviewed Aristion, a man who was taught by Jesus Himself.)

The weight of the evidence indicates that the traditions regarding the authorship and composition of the four Gospels are traceable right back to the very eyewitnesses of Jesus and the Apostles. Consequently, these traditions are the necessary starting point for the development of hypotheses regarding the composition of the four canonical Gospels. Whenever the fields of biblical scholarship and textual criticism slight these traditions, they also forsake sound, balanced historical principles.

With these things in mind, here are the earliest avaliable traditions about the authorship of the four canonical Gospels:



MATTHEW: Probably relying on Papias, Irenaeus writes: ``Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing that ``Matthew compiled the Oracles [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.'' In addition to this quotation from Papias, Eusebius also wrote the following about Matthew (probably depending upon Papias as his main source): ``Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.''



MARK: Again, Irenaeus writes: ``After their passing [presumably the deaths of Peter, Paul, and Matthew], Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.'' 2 Eusebius quotes Papias as writing, ``This, too, the Presbyter [John] says: `Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter would adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.''' Eusebius also writes (admittedly depending in part upon Papias), ``So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go til they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the Spirit what had happened, the Apostle [Peter] was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorised the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quoted this story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon (I Peter 5:13).''



LUKE: Irenaeus, who may well have been relying in part on Papias, writes: ``Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him [i.e., Paul].'' In the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D., we find the following (possibly derived from Papias): ``The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke: the physician Luke after Christ's arising, since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the Way, composed it in his own name according to [Paul's] thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to determine it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.''



JOHN: Irenaeus writes: ``Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned back on His breast, once more set forth the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.'' Eusebius writes: ``When Mark and Luke had published their Gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing for the following reason. The three Gospels already written were in general circulation and copies had come into John's hands. He welcomed them, we are told, and confirmed their accuracy, but remarked that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first of all at the beginning of His mission.'' To that we may compare the story in the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D. (possibly taken from Papias): ``The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, one of the disciples: When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said, `Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night [i.e., after the fast] it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, while all were to go over it, John in his own name should write everything down. . . .'' (cf. John 14:26)





SOURCES:




1. Eusebius-The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine , translated by G.A. Williamson, revised and edited by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1965, 1989.





2. The History of Primitive Christianity, Hans Conzelmann, 1973.

buahahahahahahahahahaahaha damn you truly are an amateur at this aren't you?

You went to a Xtian propaganda site as your proof? Did you even read what it said?

"We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who write the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke"

That was from your link.

lol Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
06-11-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 03:24 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 03:23 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  About Mark? I already did.

Mark (60 to 75 CE) is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

Noticing this problem, a Xtian scribe decided to add verses 9-20.

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Read it and weep

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...cal-is-it/

Quote:noted theologians throughout the ages maintain that it was indeed the disciple John who penned the famous Biblical book.


http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

Quote:According to ancient tradition, the four canonical Gospels were written by the Apostle Levi Matthew, the evangelist John Mark, the physician Luke, and the Apostle John

In their place, modern scholars have substituted a range of wild and conflicting speculations about how and why the Gospels came to be written. In the context of this cacophony of opinion, it may be edifying to become familiar with the earliest known traditions of the authorship of the four Gospels. These traditions were recorded by such early Church Fathers as Papias of Hierapolis (c.80-c.160 A.D.), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.140-c.200 A.D.), and Eusebius Pamphilii (c.260-339 A.D.). Toward the end of the first century, Papias collected many important oral traditions about Jesus, the Twelve Apostles, and the disciples of the Apostles, and published them circa 100 A.D. in a book entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Sadly, this book is now lost, except for a few fascinating and indispensable fragments, most of them preserved in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Among these precious fragments are facts concerning the authorship and composition of the four canonical Gospels. Papias' testimony is of the greatest weight and the highest authority, because he received his information from men and women who had known Jesus personally, or else had known those who knew Jesus. As Papias wrote (quoted by Eusebius),



``. . . But I shall not hesitate to furnish you, along with my explanations, with all that in days gone by I carefully learned from the Presbyters and have carefully recalled, for I can guarantee its truth. Unlike most people, I felt at home not with those who appeal to commandments from other sources, but with those who appeal to commandments given by the Lord unto faith, and coming to us from Truth itself. Whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the Presbyters, I inquired into the words of the Presbyters: what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord; and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.''



Eusebius was the first to insist that Papias was referring to two separate Johns, both Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ, one an Apostle and the other merely a Presbyter. However, except for the name ``Aristion,'' Papias here classifies every one of the names that he lists-and the first seven names are obviously those of Apostles-as Presbyters. Also, the author of the three epistles attributed to John the Apostle (and there can be little doubt that the same individual who wrote the epistles of John also wrote the Gospel of John) identifies himself as ``the Presbyter.'' There is simply no clear and undisputed evidence that Presbyter John, as a distinct individual from the Apostle John, ever existed. The most likely interpretation of Papias' words is that of Irenaeus, who referred to Papias as someone



``. . . who had listened to John and was later a companion of Polycarp, . . . .''



Polycarp of Smyrna was himself said by Irenaeus and other early Christian writers to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, and only with great difficulty can these statements be explained away or reinterpreted. Considering all the available evidence, there can be no reasonable doubt that Papias and Polycarp both spoke face-to-face with the Apostle John. In fact, Papias' language can be interpreted to mean that the Apostle John was still alive at the time that Papias wrote his volume. At any rate John was certainly alive when Papias began to collect his fascinating oral traditions. (And as for Papias' other living witness, Aristion, a rare Armenian manuscript of the Gospels copied in the year 986 A.D. attributes the Longer Ending of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, to ``Presbyter Aristion.'' That could well mean that the information found in those verses of Mark had been collected by Papias, who said that he interviewed Aristion, a man who was taught by Jesus Himself.)

The weight of the evidence indicates that the traditions regarding the authorship and composition of the four Gospels are traceable right back to the very eyewitnesses of Jesus and the Apostles. Consequently, these traditions are the necessary starting point for the development of hypotheses regarding the composition of the four canonical Gospels. Whenever the fields of biblical scholarship and textual criticism slight these traditions, they also forsake sound, balanced historical principles.

With these things in mind, here are the earliest avaliable traditions about the authorship of the four canonical Gospels:



MATTHEW: Probably relying on Papias, Irenaeus writes: ``Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing that ``Matthew compiled the Oracles [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.'' In addition to this quotation from Papias, Eusebius also wrote the following about Matthew (probably depending upon Papias as his main source): ``Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.''



MARK: Again, Irenaeus writes: ``After their passing [presumably the deaths of Peter, Paul, and Matthew], Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.'' 2 Eusebius quotes Papias as writing, ``This, too, the Presbyter [John] says: `Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter would adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.''' Eusebius also writes (admittedly depending in part upon Papias), ``So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go til they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the Spirit what had happened, the Apostle [Peter] was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorised the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quoted this story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon (I Peter 5:13).''



LUKE: Irenaeus, who may well have been relying in part on Papias, writes: ``Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him [i.e., Paul].'' In the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D., we find the following (possibly derived from Papias): ``The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke: the physician Luke after Christ's arising, since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the Way, composed it in his own name according to [Paul's] thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to determine it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.''



JOHN: Irenaeus writes: ``Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned back on His breast, once more set forth the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.'' Eusebius writes: ``When Mark and Luke had published their Gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing for the following reason. The three Gospels already written were in general circulation and copies had come into John's hands. He welcomed them, we are told, and confirmed their accuracy, but remarked that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first of all at the beginning of His mission.'' To that we may compare the story in the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D. (possibly taken from Papias): ``The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, one of the disciples: When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said, `Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night [i.e., after the fast] it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, while all were to go over it, John in his own name should write everything down. . . .'' (cf. John 14:26)





SOURCES:




1. Eusebius-The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine , translated by G.A. Williamson, revised and edited by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1965, 1989.





2. The History of Primitive Christianity, Hans Conzelmann, 1973.

So that just proves that the naming is by tradition. From your reference. Yes we actually look at the links you post.

Quote:....We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who write the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke.....

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...cal-is-it/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
06-11-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

According to ancient tradition, the four canonical Gospels were written by the Apostle Levi Matthew, the evangelist John Mark, the physician Luke, and the Apostle John

In their place, modern scholars have substituted a range of wild and conflicting speculations about how and why the Gospels came to be written. In the context of this cacophony of opinion, it may be edifying to become familiar with the earliest known traditions of the authorship of the four Gospels. These traditions were recorded by such early Church Fathers as Papias of Hierapolis (c.80-c.160 A.D.), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.140-c.200 A.D.), and Eusebius Pamphilii (c.260-339 A.D.). Toward the end of the first century, Papias collected many important oral traditions about Jesus, the Twelve Apostles, and the disciples of the Apostles, and published them circa 100 A.D. in a book entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Sadly, this book is now lost, except for a few fascinating and indispensable fragments, most of them preserved in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Among these precious fragments are facts concerning the authorship and composition of the four canonical Gospels. Papias' testimony is of the greatest weight and the highest authority, because he received his information from men and women who had known Jesus personally, or else had known those who knew Jesus. As Papias wrote (quoted by Eusebius),



``. . . But I shall not hesitate to furnish you, along with my explanations, with all that in days gone by I carefully learned from the Presbyters and have carefully recalled, for I can guarantee its truth. Unlike most people, I felt at home not with those who appeal to commandments from other sources, but with those who appeal to commandments given by the Lord unto faith, and coming to us from Truth itself. Whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the Presbyters, I inquired into the words of the Presbyters: what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord; and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.''



Eusebius was the first to insist that Papias was referring to two separate Johns, both Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ, one an Apostle and the other merely a Presbyter. However, except for the name ``Aristion,'' Papias here classifies every one of the names that he lists-and the first seven names are obviously those of Apostles-as Presbyters. Also, the author of the three epistles attributed to John the Apostle (and there can be little doubt that the same individual who wrote the epistles of John also wrote the Gospel of John) identifies himself as ``the Presbyter.'' There is simply no clear and undisputed evidence that Presbyter John, as a distinct individual from the Apostle John, ever existed. The most likely interpretation of Papias' words is that of Irenaeus, who referred to Papias as someone



``. . . who had listened to John and was later a companion of Polycarp, . . . .''



Polycarp of Smyrna was himself said by Irenaeus and other early Christian writers to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, and only with great difficulty can these statements be explained away or reinterpreted. Considering all the available evidence, there can be no reasonable doubt that Papias and Polycarp both spoke face-to-face with the Apostle John. In fact, Papias' language can be interpreted to mean that the Apostle John was still alive at the time that Papias wrote his volume. At any rate John was certainly alive when Papias began to collect his fascinating oral traditions. (And as for Papias' other living witness, Aristion, a rare Armenian manuscript of the Gospels copied in the year 986 A.D. attributes the Longer Ending of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, to ``Presbyter Aristion.'' That could well mean that the information found in those verses of Mark had been collected by Papias, who said that he interviewed Aristion, a man who was taught by Jesus Himself.)

The weight of the evidence indicates that the traditions regarding the authorship and composition of the four Gospels are traceable right back to the very eyewitnesses of Jesus and the Apostles. Consequently, these traditions are the necessary starting point for the development of hypotheses regarding the composition of the four canonical Gospels. Whenever the fields of biblical scholarship and textual criticism slight these traditions, they also forsake sound, balanced historical principles.

With these things in mind, here are the earliest avaliable traditions about the authorship of the four canonical Gospels:



MATTHEW: Probably relying on Papias, Irenaeus writes: ``Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing that ``Matthew compiled the Oracles [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.'' In addition to this quotation from Papias, Eusebius also wrote the following about Matthew (probably depending upon Papias as his main source): ``Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.''



MARK: Again, Irenaeus writes: ``After their passing [presumably the deaths of Peter, Paul, and Matthew], Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.'' 2 Eusebius quotes Papias as writing, ``This, too, the Presbyter [John] says: `Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter would adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.''' Eusebius also writes (admittedly depending in part upon Papias), ``So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go til they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the Spirit what had happened, the Apostle [Peter] was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorised the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quoted this story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon (I Peter 5:13).''



LUKE: Irenaeus, who may well have been relying in part on Papias, writes: ``Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him [i.e., Paul].'' In the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D., we find the following (possibly derived from Papias): ``The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke: the physician Luke after Christ's arising, since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the Way, composed it in his own name according to [Paul's] thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to determine it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.''



JOHN: Irenaeus writes: ``Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned back on His breast, once more set forth the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.'' Eusebius writes: ``When Mark and Luke had published their Gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing for the following reason. The three Gospels already written were in general circulation and copies had come into John's hands. He welcomed them, we are told, and confirmed their accuracy, but remarked that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first of all at the beginning of His mission.'' To that we may compare the story in the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D. (possibly taken from Papias): ``The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, one of the disciples: When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said, `Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night [i.e., after the fast] it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, while all were to go over it, John in his own name should write everything down. . . .'' (cf. John 14:26)





SOURCES:




1. Eusebius-The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine , translated by G.A. Williamson, revised and edited by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1965, 1989.





2. The History of Primitive Christianity, Hans Conzelmann, 1973.
[/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: