Who wrote the Gospels?

[Tart]

Probably Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John... Peter probably wrote one too... He certainly wrote other Epistles. Likely? That he wrote about his experiences with Jesus in a Gospel? Very likely.

There very may be many more authentic Gospels in existence. We probably dont even know the half of the amount of documents that are written about Jesus.. But there are hundreds... And probably hundreds more...

How likely is it for Mark, Matthew, Luke, actually existing? Like real people? Its very likely....

How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony? Very likely

Far as im concerned, the best history we can research is the history of the Church and the Temple. The Jewish Temple all the way down to Jesus, and Jesus all the way up to our church today. Beginning right from its base... Jesus, and the Disciples, all the way up the line. Maybe some of the best history you can research

In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks, did you know the Church goes back to the First Century? It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave... It exists

[Tart]

In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks, did you know the Church goes back to the First Century? It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave...

It exists

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Who wrote the Gospels?

Probably Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John... Peter probably wrote one too...

"Probably" is as confirmatory as "I sure hope so".

Peter probably wrote one too... He certainly wrote other Epistles. Likely? That he wrote about his experiences with Jesus in a Gospel? Very likely.

Please present your math on these likely's and probably's, and let's see if they hold up to scientific / mathematical scrutiny.

There very may be many more authentic Gospels in existence.

I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't!

We probably dont even know the half of the amount of documents that are written about Jesus..

Probably.

Present your math!

But there are hundreds... And probably hundreds more...

Probably.

Or problemly?

You assert claims as to probablitude, but present nothing in support of such probablitudes.

PRESENT YOUR MATH!

How likely is it for Mark, Matthew, Luke, actually existing? Like real people? Its very likely....

I propose it's "very likely" you ain't gonna be able to show any greater probability that either you, or these folks speak truth, than you can present the probability they wasn't 'em a bunch of liars. And that you ain't one you one of 'em.

PRESENT YOUR MATH!

How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony? Very likely

PRESENT YOUR MATH!

Far as im concerned, the best history we can research is the history of the Church and the Temple.

Far as I'm concerned, you've not presented you one bit of data to support your claims of "probably", or "likely".

I propose, it's most probably, most likely you'll declare yourself immune to site rules regarding supporting your claims, and that most probably, most likely, you'll expect your preachin' to be some compelling argument, without it is, you ever show you how compelling it is your argument is. Please, challenge my statement.


You're a PREACHER! You do NOT suppport your claims with anything other'n your own declarations*! (*evidence available upon request)

Present your math!

Or be forever known as the preacher we already know you to be!

The Jewish Temple all the way down to Jesus, and Jesus all the way up to our church today. Beginning right from its base... Jesus, and the Disciples, all the way up the line. Maybe some of the best history you can research

All the way down, and all the way up, and them Jews, and Jesus, and how 'bout all that.

I lack me the sufficient mental capacity to understand how your statement here presents it the math on your probables and hope to bes.

In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks

Going somewhere don't mean ya speak truth.

Nor does it mean in three weeks, you'll present you the math on your challenged claims.

did you know the Church goes back to the First Century?

Argumentum ad oldium

You're a preacher of unsupportable, unevidenced claims. You hope to sneak your claims into debate, under the guise of "It's probably, only it is, I ain't got me no math to support me such a contention".

I'm struck by how much it is, "probable" sounds it so much like "liar" - in my language.

It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave... It exists

These are guys who wear fancy dresses and shoes and hats and such, who cover 'em up the abuses of their pedophiles.

PRESENT YOUR MATH!

OR BE EXPOSED AS A FRAUD!


Who wrote the Gospels?

Folks that can't show they speak truth! And think if they mention probablities and likelies, without presentin' 'em the math behind 'em, well that'll get ya to believe 'em!

.

[rikuoamero]

The fact that the authors of the gospels are unknown is the least of their problems.

There is no definitive list of the names of Jesus's disciples. The twelve apostles's names are not consistent between Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

John's Last Supper scene is hilarious, since the apostles are only one short step up mentally from staring vacantly into space and drooling into their cups. Go on Tart, read it. Tell us what the reactions are from the apostles upon hearing and seeing Jesus point out who will betray him.

Matthew and Luke copied much of their text from each other, and also from Mark.

Mark's original ending has no post-death appearance from Jesus.

None of the Gospels present their sources. Things are told with literally no regard as to who or where they came from.

How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony?

Except we don't HAVE any eyewitness testimony...or at least anything that can be confirmed to be from an eyewitness.

[Willum]

The gospels, if they ever really existed, were collected copied and destroyed by the Counsel of Nicea. There is no proof that the original Gospels even existed, and no way to confirm anything they said.
So who wrote the Gospels?
Roman bureaucrats.

Prove otherwise.

[Tcg]

In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks, did you know the Church goes back to the First Century? It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave... It exists

This Peter's grave?

"The grave claimed by the Church to be that of Saint Peter lies at the foot of the aedicula beneath the floor. The remains of four individuals and several farm animals were found in this grave."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb

It certainly does exist, along with the four human Peters and the several farm animal Peters.

This of course shouldn't be a surprise. At one time there were an estimated 18 foreskins of Jesus, 30 genuine nails that held him to the cross, and enough genuine chunks of wood from the genuine cross to build a mansion.

The kicker of course are the tombs of Jesus. I've found reference to five. Three are in the area of Jerusalem, one in India, and one in Japan. They all exist as well which of course proves they all are the real one.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 5 by Willum]

There is no proof that the original Gospels even existed,

Lol... No proof the original Gospels existed...

In order for the Gospels to exist now, there needs to be some kind of causation for its existence... It "original Gospels" is a requirement for its existence... They didnt just pop out of no where... Thats Crazy

It is almost certain that at least some of the stories in the Gospels spawned from eyewitnesses... Even if it was pieces of the gospels...

Given the existence of Peter, John, James, Paul, Stephan... Its highly likely Gospel testimony, at least some of it, came from eyewitness testimony.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Who wrote the Gospels?

Probably Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John... Peter probably wrote one too...

"Probably" is as confirmatory as "I sure hope so".

Peter probably wrote one too... He certainly wrote other Epistles. Likely? That he wrote about his experiences with Jesus in a Gospel? Very likely.

Please present your math on these likely's and probably's, and let's see if they hold up to scientific / mathematical scrutiny.

There very may be many more authentic Gospels in existence.

I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't!

We probably dont even know the half of the amount of documents that are written about Jesus..

Probably.

Present your math!

But there are hundreds... And probably hundreds more...

Probably.

Or problemly?

You assert claims as to probablitude, but present nothing in support of such probablitudes.

PRESENT YOUR MATH!

How likely is it for Mark, Matthew, Luke, actually existing? Like real people? Its very likely....

I propose it's "very likely" you ain't gonna be able to show any greater probability that either you, or these folks speak truth, than you can present the probability they wasn't 'em a bunch of liars. And that you ain't one you one of 'em.

PRESENT YOUR MATH!

How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony? Very likely

PRESENT YOUR MATH!

Far as im concerned, the best history we can research is the history of the Church and the Temple.

Far as I'm concerned, you've not presented you one bit of data to support your claims of "probably", or "likely".

I propose, it's most probably, most likely you'll declare yourself immune to site rules regarding supporting your claims, and that most probably, most likely, you'll expect your preachin' to be some compelling argument, without it is, you ever show you how compelling it is your argument is. Please, challenge my statement.


You're a PREACHER! You do NOT suppport your claims with anything other'n your own declarations*! (*evidence available upon request)

Present your math!

Or be forever known as the preacher we already know you to be!

The Jewish Temple all the way down to Jesus, and Jesus all the way up to our church today. Beginning right from its base... Jesus, and the Disciples, all the way up the line. Maybe some of the best history you can research

All the way down, and all the way up, and them Jews, and Jesus, and how 'bout all that.

I lack me the sufficient mental capacity to understand how your statement here presents it the math on your probables and hope to bes.

In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks

Going somewhere don't mean ya speak truth.

Nor does it mean in three weeks, you'll present you the math on your challenged claims.

did you know the Church goes back to the First Century?

Argumentum ad oldium

You're a preacher of unsupportable, unevidenced claims. You hope to sneak your claims into debate, under the guise of "It's probably, only it is, I ain't got me no math to support me such a contention".

I'm struck by how much it is, "probable" sounds it so much like "liar" - in my language.

It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave... It exists

These are guys who wear fancy dresses and shoes and hats and such, who cover 'em up the abuses of their pedophiles.

PRESENT YOUR MATH!

OR BE EXPOSED AS A FRAUD!


Who wrote the Gospels?

Folks that can't show they speak truth! And think if they mention probablities and likelies, without presentin' 'em the math behind 'em, well that'll get ya to believe 'em!

.

Why is it tart doesn't respond to my challenges?

For it is, he's a preacher, not a debater!

He can't show he speaks truth, and so he hides from my challenges!

Preachers preach, and liars lie!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 7 by Tart]
Non-sequitur.
Try again!

The gospels, if they ever really existed, were collected copied and destroyed by the Counsel of Nicea. There is no proof that the original Gospels even existed, and no way to confirm anything they said.
So who wrote the Gospels?
Roman bureaucrats.

Prove otherwise.

[Tcg]

Why is it tart doesn't respond to my challenges?

We can only guess about the why. We know for a fact that he has not provided any support for his claims.

Is that because he doesn't have any evidence to support his claims and therefore he simply throws out names hoping we won't notice his total lack of evidence? This very well could be the reason he doesn't respond to your challenge, but all we can say for sure is that he hasn't responded.

We must stick to the facts and not surmise why that is so. The facts are that his posts have not contained any facts. They rely on total supposition. Until he explains why that is so, we must be satisfied with the fact that this is so.