Pastor Eman Laerton featuring Mr. Gospel Potato Head Writer

p 236 Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew / Bart Ehrman
Were any of the books that made it into the New Testament actually written by apostles of Jesus? As we have seen, critical scholars are fairly unified today in thinking that Matthew did not write the First Gospel or John the Fourth, that Peter did not write 2 Peter and possibly not 1 Peter. No other book of the New Testament claims to be written by one of Jesus' earthly disciples. There are books by the apostle Paul, of course. Thirteen go by his name in the New Testament, at least seven of which are accepted by nearly all scholars as authentic. If, then, by "apostolic" book we mean "book actually written by an apostle," most of the books that came to be included in the New Testament are not apostolic. But if the term is taken in a broader sense to mean "book that contains apostolic teaching as defined by the emerging proto-orthodox church," then all twenty-seven pass the muster.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Christianity
• Church
• Across
• America
• You
• Have
• Bad
• Taste
• in
• Music
• Bart
• Ehrman
• Jesus
• Christ
• New
• Testament
• Gospel
• John

[Hzqi]

Eman, genius, you ought to be on Television. If it weren't beneath you.

[thekingmaker10]

I happen to think the evidence for Q is compelling as well.

As for Mark though, what is the primary evidence that John Mark was not the writer? It was written prior to 70 AD, when he was in all likelihood still alive, and he was a learned scholar who would certainly have had the means to write it. Where am I wrong?

[EmanLaerton]

b.

Q is fascinating. I enjoyed Burton Mack's book "The Lost Gospel." Although for this project I tried to steer clear of anything that wasn't widely accepted mainstream scholarship. And even though I believe Q to be by far the best explanation for the synoptic problem, I did not include Q in the discussion of Markan Priority.

[MrGPW]

The above excerpt is from Bart Ehrman's The New Testament -- an Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.

His three main points, I don't believe are in dispute with non-theologian scholars. And I don't believe theologians can conduct scholarship, in that it's not following the scientific method to start with the answers and work backwards to find evidence to support your conclusion.

[MrGPW]

Sometime in the second century, proto-orthodox Christians claimed that the Gospels had been written by two disciples—Matthew and John—and by two companions of apostles—Mark and Luke. Scholars doubt the historicity of these traditions because 1) none of the Gospel writers claims to have been an eyewitness; 2) the disciples were likely uneducated peasants without writing skills; 3) the disciples and Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the native language of the Gospel writers seems to have been Greek.

[thekingmaker10]

Just curious, as it pertains to the Gospel of Mark, are you asserting that:

a. John Mark (the companion of Paul, and later Peter) was not an eyewitness

or

b. it was written by someone other than John Mark.

By the way, I like your analysis of Markan Priority, and I am curious as to your take on the potentiality for the existence of the Q gospel.

[thekingmaker10]

With respect to you and your research, there is no conclusive evidence that the the four canonical gospels were written by people other than those they have been ascribed to. The best evidence skeptics can offer is dating, and even this is charge is only effective with regards to John, whose author would have had to have been at least 80 years old when it was written, in order to have been an eyewitness, and even that is not impossible.

[EmanLaerton]

Greetings, friend. It is not disputed scholarship. Not one of the gospels was written by an eyewitness. You can check the text excerpt accompanying this video or for further info:

churchacrossamerica (dot) com/lesson2_studyguide.php#bla­ckboard

(remove space in blackboard)

[thekingmaker10]

It seems to me he is implying that NONE of the canonical gospels was written by the individuals they are ascribed to. I don't know that this is the case for the Gospel of Mark. It was written prior to 70 AD, when John Mark was likely still alive, and John Mark was a learned scholar, presumably of at least adequate means. Also, if he was indeed the author, unless he wrote it before he was at least 35 years old, he was alive when Jesus was, and accordingly may have been an eyewitness to the events

[Jackk516]

I wrote most of this on the chalk board and explained the falacies of the Christian doctrines' origins in my Physics class.... didn't go over well. But absolutely hilarious none the less.

[BrokeMojo]

Some people take the Book of Revelations and the "Left Behind" series as being synonymous. 1st, prophecy doesn't mean fortune telling, or telling of things to come in 2 or 3,000 years, it's witnessing of things that will pass within one's lifetime. The Book of Revelation is a book about Christian Persecution just like Schindlers List is a book about the Holocaust. I'm confounded how few people, CHRISTIAN PEOPLE bother to do the research. Never expect people to behave rationally Eman. Amen.