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
Who wrote the Gospels?
Moderator: Moderators
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #3
From the OP:
Present your math!
Or problemly?
You assert claims as to probablitude, but present nothing in support of such probablitudes.
PRESENT YOUR MATH!
PRESENT YOUR MATH!
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!
I lack me the sufficient mental capacity to understand how your statement here presents it the math on your probables and hope to bes.
Nor does it mean in three weeks, you'll present you the math on your challenged claims.
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.
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!
.
"Probably" is as confirmatory as "I sure hope so".Who wrote the Gospels?
Probably Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John... Peter probably wrote one too...
Please present your math on these likely's and probably's, and let's see if they hold up to scientific / mathematical scrutiny.Peter probably wrote one too... He certainly wrote other Epistles. Likely? That he wrote about his experiences with Jesus in a Gospel? Very likely.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't!There very may be many more authentic Gospels in existence.
Probably.We probably dont even know the half of the amount of documents that are written about Jesus..
Present your math!
Probably.But there are hundreds... And probably hundreds more...
Or problemly?
You assert claims as to probablitude, but present nothing in support of such probablitudes.
PRESENT YOUR MATH!
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.How likely is it for Mark, Matthew, Luke, actually existing? Like real people? Its very likely....
PRESENT YOUR MATH!
PRESENT YOUR MATH!How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony? Very likely
Far as I'm concerned, you've not presented you one bit of data to support your claims of "probably", or "likely".Far as im concerned, the best history we can research is the history of the Church and the Temple.
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!
All the way down, and all the way up, and them Jews, and Jesus, and how 'bout all that.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
I lack me the sufficient mental capacity to understand how your statement here presents it the math on your probables and hope to bes.
Going somewhere don't mean ya speak truth.In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks
Nor does it mean in three weeks, you'll present you the math on your challenged claims.
Argumentum ad oldiumdid you know the Church goes back to the First Century?
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.
These are guys who wear fancy dresses and shoes and hats and such, who cover 'em up the abuses of their pedophiles.It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave... It exists
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!
.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #4
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.
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.
Except we don't HAVE any eyewitness testimony...or at least anything that can be confirmed to be from an eyewitness.How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #5
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.
So who wrote the Gospels?
Roman bureaucrats.
Prove otherwise.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8540
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2166 times
- Been thanked: 2311 times
Re: Who wrote the Gospels?
Post #6This Peter's grave?Tart wrote:
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
"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.
Post #7
[Replying to post 5 by Willum]
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.
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
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #8
Why is it tart doesn't respond to my challenges?JoeyKnothead wrote: From the OP:
"Probably" is as confirmatory as "I sure hope so".Who wrote the Gospels?
Probably Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John... Peter probably wrote one too...
Please present your math on these likely's and probably's, and let's see if they hold up to scientific / mathematical scrutiny.Peter probably wrote one too... He certainly wrote other Epistles. Likely? That he wrote about his experiences with Jesus in a Gospel? Very likely.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't!There very may be many more authentic Gospels in existence.
Probably.We probably dont even know the half of the amount of documents that are written about Jesus..
Present your math!
Probably.But there are hundreds... And probably hundreds more...
Or problemly?
You assert claims as to probablitude, but present nothing in support of such probablitudes.
PRESENT YOUR MATH!
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.How likely is it for Mark, Matthew, Luke, actually existing? Like real people? Its very likely....
PRESENT YOUR MATH!
PRESENT YOUR MATH!How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony? Very likely
Far as I'm concerned, you've not presented you one bit of data to support your claims of "probably", or "likely".Far as im concerned, the best history we can research is the history of the Church and the Temple.
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!
All the way down, and all the way up, and them Jews, and Jesus, and how 'bout all that.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
I lack me the sufficient mental capacity to understand how your statement here presents it the math on your probables and hope to bes.
Going somewhere don't mean ya speak truth.In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks
Nor does it mean in three weeks, you'll present you the math on your challenged claims.
Argumentum ad oldiumdid you know the Church goes back to the First Century?
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.
These are guys who wear fancy dresses and shoes and hats and such, who cover 'em up the abuses of their pedophiles.It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave... It exists
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!
.
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!
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #9
[Replying to post 7 by Tart]
Non-sequitur.
Try again!
Non-sequitur.
Try again!
Willum wrote: 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
- Savant
- Posts: 8540
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2166 times
- Been thanked: 2311 times
Post #10
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.