Edited
And you don’t remember what it said?
Why?
The Big Bang was not an explosion, and it had nothing to do with chemicals. Will you stop repeating this error, or do you not care about being wrong?
Again, how do you know this?
The writer is an anonymous disciple - where does it say it is “John” ?
Knowing is how I know it; knowing is birthed by knowing, show me anything in life that is conscious, that became alive and conscious on its own , out of thin air, without being birthed or made by another conscious being.
Could this be the new “my post is my cite?” If you want to know about how consciousness is believed to have arisen you could read something about neurology. But I think you should find out what the Big Bang and evolution are first.
No matter how strongly you may believe this, it goes against most modern biblical scholars, even deeply religious ones. Have you read the Staff Report I linked to earlier?
And using the Bible to prove the Bible just doesn’t cut it. Only True Believers accept that kind of twisted logic as proof of anything.
So many here ask for a cite, then you give it, and they only spit on it or excuse it away. Reminds me of the man who cried proof; they gave him proof and he only treated the proof like garbage. Same way with evidence, I give long lists of it, and it only gets ignored or stepped on.
Not the modern scholars that I know of, only those you pick and choose. Heres a list of the modern scholars that agree with everything I have posted about the writers of the gospels;
Frank E. Gaebelein- Headmaster Emeritus - The Stony Brook School
William Culbertson-- President Moody Bible Institute
Charles L. Feinberg---- Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary
Allan A. Mac Rae ---- President Biblical Theological Seminary
Clarence E. Mason Jr. — Dean, Philadelphia College of Bible
Alva J. MC Clain ---- President Emeritus Grace Theological Seminary
Wilbur M. Smith — Editor, Pelouber’s Select Notes
John F. Walvoord – President Dallas Theological Seminary
When have you actually provided a cite really said anything?
Another list.
Why don’t you give us a cite that shows that any of the people on your list believes that the people that wrote the gospels were the same people that walked with Jesus.
Still another request for a cite, you only step on cites,you only degrade proof, but anyway go get the New Scofield Study Bible, New American Standard, Printed by New York Oxford University Press in 1988. Look at their Editorial Revision committee on the third page, an exact list like mine. Then go to each of the introduction pages of each gospel, and read for yourself everything I have written, and more.
Then come back and give me what I already know your evaluation will be.
You made the claim, so you get to provide the cite. I even made it easy for you by just asking you to show that at least one person on the list believed that the people that wrote the gospels were the same people that walked with Jesus.
Every last cite I have given says something, just nothing that YOU want to see. I am learning this Straight Dope cite as I go, people ask for proof and cites, you give it and they spit on it and cry for more.
In yet another example, I have given biblical archaeology, you can go to biblearchaeology.org and get some of it. But what are you going to do, look and glance at the cite, come back and spit on it; so why ask for proof? Why ask for a cite?
I don’t understand that.
Get the bible, they all are listed on page 3 of that bible; they all got together and created the footnotes in that bible, and the proof of what I said is in those foot notes that each of those agree with AND wrote!
Good grief man, how much simpler can I make it?
By providing a cite that backs up your claim.
My local library doesn’t have it, and I’m not paying $40 to have one shipped to me just to check out your claim.
So thats my problem?
But we don’t know what it says because you keep saying “this list of books proves I’m right” or “the proof is in this book somewhere.” That’s not helpful. People are asking you for specific citations, and you’re saying “I think it’s in the library or on a website somewhere.”
Yes, it is. You have failed to provide a cite to back up your claim.
as for Mark -
[QUOTE=Book of Mark - NAS - Bible Study Tools]
Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark (“John, also called Mark,” Ac 12:12,25; 15:37). The most important evidence comes from Papias (c. a.d. 140), who quotes an even earlier source as saying: (1) Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord; (2) this tradition did not come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of our Lord, but as the preaching of Peter – preaching directed to the needs of the early Christian communities; (3) Mark accurately preserved this material. The conclusion drawn from this tradition is that the Gospel of Mark largely consists of the preaching of Peter arranged and shaped by Mark (see note on Ac 10:37).
[/QUOTE]
So -
a) Mark was a disciple of Peter - not a first hand witness -
b) the only evidence for authorship is a quote from a later item that knew niether and tradition.
As for John - yes - the NAS would aggree with you -
[QUOTE=Book of John - NAS - Bible Study Tools]
The author is the apostle John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (13:23 [see note there]; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20,24). He was prominent in the early church** but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel **-- which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. The author knew Jewish life well, as seen from references to popular Messianic speculations (see, e.g., 1:21 and note; 7:40-42), to the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (see 4:9 and note), and to Jewish customs, such as the duty of circumcision on the eighth day taking precedence over the prohibition of working on the Sabbath (see note on 7:22). He knew the geography of the Holy Land, locating Bethany about 15 stadia (about two miles) from Jerusalem (11:18) and mentioning Cana, a village not referred to in any earlier writing known to us (2:1 [see note there]; 21:2). The Gospel of John has many touches that appear to reflect the recollections of an eyewitness – such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (see 12:3 and note). Early writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian say that John wrote this Gospel, and all other evidence agrees (see Introduction to 1 John: Author).
[/QUOTE]
but that goes counter to other scholarship on the matter (as quoted earlier).
For Mathew -
[QUOTE=Book of Matthew - NAS - Bible Study Tools]
Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies – in particular those that stress Matthew’s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel – have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord’s life, depend so heavily on Mark’s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided.
[/QUOTE]
as for Luke -
[QUOTE=Book of Luke - NAS - Bible Study Tools]
The author’s name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. This Gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and the second volume refers to the first (Ac 1:1). Certain sections in Acts use the pronoun “we” (Ac 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1 – 28:16), indicating that the author was with Paul when the events described in these passages took place. By process of elimination, Paul’s “dear friend Luke, the doctor” (Col 4:14) and “fellow worker” (Phm 24), becomes the most likely candidate. His authorship is supported by the uniform testimony of early Christian writings (e.g., the Muratorian Canon, a.d. 170, and the works of Irenaeus, c. 180).
[/QUOTE]
a) Paul was converted post crucifiction - he was not an eye witness to the events
b) luke was not an apostle of Christ (in that he also came along after the crucifiction)
so - I’ll give you 1 point for being accurate as to your ‘cite’ for John (even if that cite does disagree with other scholarship)- the other 3 do not agree with your assertion in any way.
(FYI - this is how you cite your evidence)
Earlier in this thread, you said you rejected the churches ‘tweaking’ of the bible, yet here you seem to acept it.