Networkingprof:
You are a wise man, full of anger and drowning at your own sea of wisdom. Keep burning.

it would be a lot easier if you just attempted an answer to his question rather than rain abuses on him. It would definitely make this thread a lot more pleasant to read.

ROSSIKE:
Tell us who wrote your 'holy book' or get lost. You are angry I refuse to be a dunce like you?

I am pleased to be a dunce, but the book I believe in makes you a fool: you claim you know all about its authorship and here you are, still confused about what you claim you know. It makes me wonder, what do you know? You are confounded in your wit, if not why seek an answer when you claim you already have it? Its either you dont have answer or you are blind, or both. Sorry for your delution.

Networkingprof:
I am pleased to be a dunce, but the book I believe in makes you a fool.

Who wrote the book you believe in?

ROSSIKE:


Who wrote the book you believe in?

Every chapter of the book bear the name of its writer, if believing in the writers is below your wit, chose what to believe.

Networkingprof:
Every chapter of the book bear the name of its writer, if believing in the writers is below your wit, chose what to believe.

Have you read what's been posted on this thread or are you wilfully blind and dumb?

ROSSIKE:


Have you read what's been posted on this thread or are you wilfully blind and dumb?

The common use of your wit at work.

[quote author=ROSSIKE post=27500767]

You mean I'm 'stupi.d' for demanding to know the author of a book I'm supposed to obey or risk eternal damnation?

Now I've heard it all. The thing about religion is that it actually increase your IQ ..follow me..i will follow back so that i can tell,light and teach u the right religion

[size=15pt]So.... a big fat SILENCE to this all-important question then?[/size]

Bro we can never get the answer here. All the people here are ignorant about it

OP,very good question. We know the authors of the gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by Catholic Church sacred tradition. Obviously CC tradition is another discussion but please check this encyclopedia link for a breakdown of the NT authorship and acceptance when you get a few minutes. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Pdizzle:
Personally i think it was written in third person to make it more relatable, since it was written under the influence of the spirit.

Father & Son can never be equal Nor Father become his own son (self contradictory) another reason for it is you Really the TRUTH because your books have been tampered , ''A mixed cocktail'' because No body wrote direct from blessed Lips of Jesus
1) God's words
3) authors words who are more than 40
2) scribes words
4) latest change by collective denominations

Proof is from 30 year experienced bible scholar who was once a hardcore evangelist , he is unbiased


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSGd8uzFxxY

Same story but they different in different Gospels


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMePkqjdVx8

believe me new testament wasn't written

btoks:
OP,very good question. We know the authors of the gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by Catholic Church sacred tradition. Obviously CC tradition is another discussion but please check this encyclopedia link for a breakdown of the NT authorship and acceptance when you get a few minutes. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thanks. The question was ''Who wrote the New testament?'', not ''what we know the authors as''. Too much long story in your link, which does not address the question.

Sunymoore:
Bro we can never get the answer here. All the people here are ignorant about it

So it seems.

ROSSIKE:
Could any of you 'born-again christians' ask your private jet riding pastors WHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT?

I just can't understand how supposedly intelligent people can follow/worship a book whose authorship is unknown to them.

I mean...damnnn

Who told you we dont know the writers of the "NT"?

Now be specific:

which of the books of the "NT" do you doubt its writer. All of them?

So answer that, lets see how far we can go.

Since your argument is not against the "OT", may I conclude that you do not view it as fictional. As such, it is worthy to note that Moses at times wrote in the third person. He didnt identify himself as the writer of the TORAH.

JMAN05:


Who told you we dont know the writers of the "NT"?

Now be specific:

which of the books of the "NT" do you doubt its writer. All of them?

So answer that, lets see how far we can go.

Since your argument is not against the "OT", may I conclude that you do not view it as fictional. As such, it is worthy to note that Moses at times wrote in the third person. He didnt identify himself as the writer of the TORAH.

Very soon, you guys will see the BIG picture. Reality and books of myths are two different things.

JMAN05:


Who told you we dont know the writers of the "NT"?

Now be specific:

which of the books of the "NT" do you doubt its writer. All of them?

So answer that, lets see how far we can go.

Since your argument is not against the "OT", may I conclude that you do not view it as fictional. As such, it is worthy to note that Moses at times wrote in the third person. He didnt identify himself as the writer of the TORAH.

It seems you are wilfull blind or do not know how to read. Did you even read the opening posts on the topic?

"A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels (“the Gospel according to Matthew”), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it “The Gospel according to Matthew.” The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books “according to.”

~Bart D. Ehrman (Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)


Moreover, Matthew’s Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what “they” — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what “we” — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about “him,” not about “me.” Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There’s not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.” ~Bart D. Ehrman (Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)

“[S]ome books, such as the Gospels, … had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles).” ~Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted (2011), pp. 101-02.

"The authors of these books never speak in the first person (the First Gospel never says, “One day, Jesus and I want to Jerusalem …”). They never claim to be personally connected with any of the events they narrate or the persons about whom they tell their stories. The books are thoroughly, ineluctably, and invariably anonymous.” ~Bart D. Ehrman


Forged - Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are - by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Ehrman.htm

"The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.”

~Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

"All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.”

~Steve Mason, professor of classics,history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000,p. 36)

Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their followers’ followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus’ life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion.

~David Van Biema,”The Gospel Truth?” (Time,April 8,1996)

..............



As for the OT, it is most definitely filled with fiction, exaggerations and misinterpretations.

Rossikk:


Thanks. The question was ''Who wrote the New testament?'', not ''what we know the authors as''. Too much long story in your link, which does not address the question.

To be clear,according to CC tradition Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels.Paul wrote a number of books as did Jude.Luke and John wrote a couple of other NT books as well.
The link provided is detailed but gives a breakdown of how books were attributed to authors and how they got accepted as scripture. I'll urge you to read through thoroughly.

btoks:
To be clear,according to CC tradition Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels.

I don't give a damn about ''CC tradition''.

Paul wrote a number of books as did Jude. Luke and John wrote a couple of other NT books as well.

Where is your evidence that ''Paul'' and ''Luke'' existed? This link shows clearly that ''Paul'' is an invented character:

http://www.gospelsandhistory.eu/approfondimento.asp?ID=26

The link provided is detailed but gives a breakdown of how books were attributed to authors and how they got accepted as scripture. I'll urge you to read through thoroughly.

The gospels were written ANONYMOUSLY, yes or no? Someone coming along later on to ''attribute'' them and get them ''accepted as scripture'' does not change the fact that we do not know who wrote them.

Rossikk:


It seems you are wilfull blind or do not know how to read. Did you even read the opening posts on the topic?

The opening says: "Who wrote the New Testament?"

So who is being blind here?

"A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels (“the Gospel according to Matthew”), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it “The Gospel according to Matthew.” The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books “according to.”

~Bart D. Ehrman (Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)

That they were written anonymously is never a problem. In the "OT" like I told you, writers wrote without affixing there names therein. But that never meant that they weren't the ones that wrote them.

It was not just an opinion of second century writers. Papias for example does not write anyhow. He explains his method:

In his preface or introduction Papias explained his method. He carefully gathered information from those who had personally known such apostles as Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John and Matthew. He also noted that he did not take pleasure in those who spoke much but in those who taught the truth and that he preferred getting his information firsthand from living witnesses rather than from written sources.

This man testified to the writers of the gospels. He is not the only one, but many of the "Apostolic Fathers" identified the writers of the gospel to the extent that it is poorly in doubt as to its writers.

Some of the gospels were not an eyewitness accounts, but John was. And we know that John wrote it. Though many second century writers testifies to his writing it, the writer could be gleaned from the account itself. And the content of the account shows it is an eyewitness account.

JOHN

the writer is spoken of as “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.” (Joh 21:20, 24) He was evidently one of the three most intimate apostles that Jesus kept nearest to him on several occasions, such as the transfiguration (Mr 9:2) and the time of his anguish in the garden of Gethsemane. (Mt 26:36, 37) Of these three apostles, James is eliminated as the writer because of his being put to death about 44 C.E. by Herod Agrippa I. There is no evidence whatsoever for such an early date for the writing of this Gospel. Peter is ruled out by having his name mentioned alongside “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.”—Joh 21:20, 21.

Moreover, Matthew’s Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what “they” — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what “we” — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about “him,” not about “me.” Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There’s not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.” ~Bart D. Ehrman (Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)

“[S]ome books, such as the Gospels, … had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles).” ~Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted (2011), pp. 101-02.

"The authors of these books never speak in the first person (the First Gospel never says, “One day, Jesus and I want to Jerusalem …”). They never claim to be personally connected with any of the events they narrate or the persons about whom they tell their stories. The books are thoroughly, ineluctably, and invariably anonymous.” ~Bart D. Ehrman


Forged - Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are - by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Ehrman.htm

"The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.”

~Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

"All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.”

~Steve Mason, professor of classics,history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000,p. 36)

Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their followers’ followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus’ life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion.

~David Van Biema,”The Gospel Truth?” (Time,April 8,1996)

Read Exod 3:1-4

Moses became a shepherd of the flock of his father-in-law Jeth′ro, the priest of Mid′i·an. While he was leading the flock to the west side of the wilderness, he eventually came to the mountain of the true God, to Ho′reb. 2 Then Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush. As he kept looking, he saw that the thornbush was on fire, and yet the thornbush was not consumed. 3 So Moses said: “I will go over to inspect this unusual sight to see why the thornbush does not burn up.” 4 When Jehovah saw that he went over to look, God called to him out of the thornbush and said: “Moses! Moses!” to which he said: “Here I am.”

From that ^^, is there any prove that the one who wrote that account was Moses? But didn't Jesus and even Jews agree that it was Moses who wrote the account? Did Moses write his name therein?

I can go on and on to mention other examples. The bible is the word of God, not word of men. That some writers refuse to identify themselves isn't a good point if we were to judge those writings according to what is often obtainable from inspired writings.

Luke was not an eyewitness. He refuse to write his name too, but evidence suggests he wrote that account bearing his name.

Lets compare it with Acts. We know Luke wrote Acts of the apostles.

Luke 1:3

"I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·oph′i·lus"

Acts 1:1-2

"The first account, O The·oph′i·lus, I composed about all the things Jesus started to do and to teach 2 until the day that he was taken up, after he had given instructions through holy spirit to the apostles he had chosen."

Luke was a traveling companion of Paul Col 4:14; 2Tim 4:11. And he was identified as a physician. No other companion of Paul had that profession. His accounts in Luke really shows that it was the writing of a physician. The use of medical terms the way it occured in the epistle of Luke, shows that the account was written by a physician. Thus, there is no doubt that he wrote the account bearing his name. That also means he wrote Acts of Apostles.

Was the gospels forged?

The well-known historian Will Durant, after analyzing those Gospel accounts, wrote: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.”

Author and critic C. S. Lewis found it difficult to view the Gospels as mere legends. “As a literary historian I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends,” he wrote. “They are not artistic enough to be legends. . . . Most of the life of Jesus is unknown to us, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so.”

It is also interesting that although noted historian H. G. Wells did not claim to be a Christian, he acknowledged: “All four [Gospel writers] agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality; they carry the . . . conviction of reality.”

Durant continous:

"In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial . . . No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.”

This man is saying that the tests the "NT" has been subjected into, if such were done for secular figures like Socrates, he would fade into legend. Yet, the "NT" came up victorious.

No erudite scholar/historian would say that the gospels were forged, because the time cannot allow someone to forge a story of that kind. In short secular historians of the second century testify that Jesus existed and that he had followers too.

But, no matter what ever evidence we present, you will always follow what your heart desires. Many will rather stay blind. Even though the known atheist Richard Dawkins do not dismiss Jesus' existence, many will still choose to be blind.

As for the OT, it is most definitely filled with fiction, exaggerations and misinterpretations.

Examples of the bold face.