Contrary to popular opinion ( or even popular fiction ) the New Testament was mostly written by people other than their current authorship.

Some quick facts ;

- None of the Gospels were written by the Disciples of Jesus
- Writers of Luke and Matthew copied heavily from the oldest gospel of Mark
- The Book of Revelation was not written by John the apostle and it has been said to be a collection of excerpts , titbits and stories from the books of Enoch, Daniel and even Jeremiah etc.
- Not all Letters attributed to Paul were written by Paul , example ; First Timothy , Second Timothy , Titus and Hebrews
- Peter did not write 1 Peter or 2 Peter
- Jude the brother of Jesus did not write Jude
- Writers of Jude and Peter quoted heavily from the Book of Enoch which is strangely not considered to be authentic by orthodoxy.

Source - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament


I am still researching but I will like to know if you have explored this topic and come to the same or a different opinion.

Thanks.

Who?

You may also wish to consider the below in your research.

Addendum: A Quick Reference Guide to the Chronology of the New Testament

The following is a list of the Books of the New Testament in chronological order. The New Testament should be read in this order and subject studies should take this order into consideration.

1. James; 2. I Thessalonians; 3. II Thessalonians; 4. I Corinthians; 5. II Corinthians; 6. Galatians; 7. Romans; 8. Matthew's Gospel; 9. Luke's Gospel; 10. Philemon; 11. Colossians; 12. Ephesians; 13. Mark's Gospel; 14. Philippians; 15. The Acts of the Apostles; 16. I Timothy; 17. Titus; 18. I Peter; 19. Hebrews; 20. II Peter; 21. Jude; 22. II Timothy; 23. John's Gospel; 24. I John; 25. II John; 26. III John; and 27. Revelation.

http://www.voiceofonecrying.com/chronology_of_the_new_testament.htm

more...

The four Gospels were not written by eye witnesses. The first written, Mark, was written 45 years after the supposed death of Jesus. John being the last written, 95 - 120AD.

One then wonders how the record in John 3 could be written by a non-eye witness. (raised eyebrow)


The Letters of Paul were written before the Gospels, yet do not mention the activities of Jesus in His lifetime.

There are actually more than four Gospels.

The mistake several "researchers" make concerning who wrote the gospel is to assume some people just got up decades after the death of Christ to write them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact remains several writings were done on the life of Jesus and his teachings, infact 35 of such books have been identified today(there could have been a lot more). The only issue is that only four of them into the bible. Now common sense dictates that even if the cannonised gospel were written decades later they must have been compiled from earlier writings written by the eye witnesses themselves.

frosbel:
Contrary to popular opinion ( or even popular fiction ) the New Testament was mostly written by people other than their current authorship.

Some quick facts ;

- None of the Gospels were written by the Disciples of Jesus
- Writers of Luke and Matthew copied heavily from the oldest gospel of Mark
- The Book of Revelation was not written by John the apostle and it has been said to be a collection of excerpts , titbits and stories from the books of Enoch, Daniel and even Jeremiah etc.
- Not all Letters attributed to Paul were written by Paul , example ; First Timothy , Second Timothy , Titus and Hebrews
- Peter did not write 1 Peter or 2 Peter
- Jude the brother of Jesus did not write Jude
- Writers of Jude and Peter quoted heavily from the Book of Enoch which is strangely not considered to be authentic by orthodoxy.

Source - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament


I am still researching but I will like to know if you have explored this topic and come to the same or a different opinion.

Thanks.

I am very sure you have not read the New testament from starting till ending, so your claims are not well researched to say the least.

So you mean to tell me that you will write a beautiful Project piece and you will put another person name as the Author eh.

If you think the writer of the books of the Bible were not Honest about who wrote what- you are very wrong.

On what basis are this accusations made? People who are making this claims lived when ? At least 1000 years later ? How can you trust their claim ?

Some of these Christians act like the bible fell from heaven. Reality check,the bible has an origin and history.

Pr0ton:
more...

The four Gospels were not written by eye witnesses. The first written, Mark, was written 45 years after the supposed death of Jesus. John being the last written, 95 - 120AD.

One then wonders how the record in John 3 could be written by a non-eye witness. (raised eyebrow)

Now, the above is a lie. Who told you mark was not an eye witness of Jesus christ. Matthew and John are Jesus' disciples so how are they not eye witness?

Pr0ton:

The Letters of Paul were written before the Gospels, yet do not mention the activities of Jesus in His lifetime.

There are actually more than four Gospels.

Paul's letters did not pre-date ALL THE GOSPELS!

If you claim is true, why did Paul believe in Jesus, preached about him serious to eye witness.

More Gospels? You mean the Apochrypha gospels written at a later time period by imposters.

More.

Who wrote the first five books of the old testament?

Who wrote the book of joshua?

Who wrote the book of samuel?

more still coming.

Obadiah77:
More.

Who wrote the first five books of the old testament?

Who wrote the book of joshua?

Who wrote the book of samuel?

more still coming.

Hehehehehehehe Holy Spirit!!!
or
Question for the jews jaree!!!

Would have replied you in a tough way, but seeing how ignorant you are I just decided to handle you softly

RikoduoSennin:


Now, the above is a lie. Who told you mark was not an eye witness of Jesus christ. Matthew and John are Jesus' disciples so how are they not eye witness?

Little Bro, those people are not the writers of the Gospels. It was the early Christians that ascribed the Gospels to those names. The manuscripts do not have the names of their author. You'd observe St. this St. that... the work of Catholics.

Paul's letters did not pre-date ALL THE GOSPELS!

If you claim is true, why did Paul believe in Jesus, preached about him serious to eye witness.

You should have made some research instead of coming here to make a fool of yourself.

It's a universal fact that Paul letters pre-date the Gospels.

More Gospels? You mean the Apochrypha gospels written at a later time period by imposters.

Initially, they were 4 out of 400.

My people perish for lack of knowledge, when will believers start worshipping the creator and not the creature ?

Rational wiki is your source? That's pathetic.

lepasharon:
Some of these Christians act like the bible fell from heaven. Reality check,the bible has an origin and history.

have you checked out the origin and history? You'd be very amazed if you really checked it out. I mean archaeological facts about the various manuscripts and others, not pathetic tales people write online for criticism and hatred.

Joshthefirst:
have you checked out the origin and history? You'd be very amazed if you really checked it out. I mean archaeological facts about the various manuscripts and others, not pathetic tales people write online for criticism and hatred.

lmao speaking of archeological facts u will be bewildered when u find out 80% of the bible stories are untrue and jewish myths...hehehehehe

Joshthefirst:
have you checked out the origin and history? You'd be very amazed if you really checked it out. I mean archaeological facts about the various manuscripts and others, not pathetic tales people write online for criticism and hatred.

Yes I have checked out the origin and the history. Each book in the bible even has its own history and compilation history. What pathetic tales are you talking about? Are you a christian?

-

frosbel:
Contrary to popular opinion ( or even popular fiction ) the New Testament was mostly written by people other than their current authorship.

Some quick facts ;

- None of the Gospels were written by the Disciples of Jesus
- Writers of Luke and Matthew copied heavily from the oldest gospel of Mark
- The Book of Revelation was not written by John the apostle and it has been said to be a collection of excerpts , titbits and stories from the books of Enoch, Daniel and even Jeremiah etc.
- Not all Letters attributed to Paul were written by Paul , example ; First Timothy , Second Timothy , Titus and Hebrews
- Peter did not write 1 Peter or 2 Peter
- Jude the brother of Jesus did not write Jude
- Writers of Jude and Peter quoted heavily from the Book of Enoch which is strangely not considered to be authentic by orthodoxy.

Source - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament


I am still researching but I will like to know if you have explored this topic and come to the same or a different opinion.

Thanks.

I cant just see any good purpose for this thread other than to confuse poeple, what has the authors got to do with the truths embedded in the books?

Pr0ton:
Would have replied you in a tough way, but seeing how ignorant you are I just decided to handle you softly

I appreciate your "soft" handle on things- the hard one who have been pure annoying.

If you assume I am "ignorant" then all your comments will be attune with that NOTION. You have already created an invisible wall between our arguments, one that is not easily brought down.

Pr0ton:

Little Bro, those people are not the writers of the Gospels. It was the early Christians that ascribed the Gospels to those names. The manuscripts do not have the names of their author. You'd observe St. this St. that... the work of Catholics.

You said the above with so much certainty, I am yet to see the proof for that claim. The above is not good enough. Why?

1 peter 1:1 - "Peter, an apostle of Jesus, to the Strangers scattered througout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia "

So the Catholics wrote that, based on what?

2 Peter 1:16 -- "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus christ, BUT WERE EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY"

So the allege writer was claiming to be an eyewitness when he is not?

2 Peter 3:15 " EVEN AS OUR BELOVED BROTHER PAUL also according to the wisdom given unto him HAS WRITTEN unto you"

So Paul wrote but Peter did not write any scriptures, is that it?

Pr0ton:

You should have made some research instead of coming here to make a fool of yourself.

It's a universal fact that Paul letters pre-date the Gospels.

It is not a UNIVERSAL FACT but a WIDELY ACCEPTED NOTION by persons who has not done enough Research.

Search this: What year was the Gospel of Mark written ?

Pr0ton:

Initially, they were 4 out of 400.

4 legit/Canon Gospels, Every other Gospel is False. Any Book written after 95 C.E is non- canon.

RikoduoSennin:


I appreciate your "soft" handle on things- the hard one who have been pure annoying.

If you assume I am "ignorant" then all your comments will be attune with that NOTION. You have already created an invisible wall between our arguments, one that is not easily brought down.




You said the above with so much certainty, I am yet to see the proof for that claim. The above is not good enough. Why?

1 peter 1:1 - "Peter, an apostle of Jesus, to the Strangers scattered througout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia "

So the Catholics wrote that, based on what?

2 Peter 1:16 -- "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus christ, BUT WERE EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY"

So the allege writer was claiming to be an eyewitness when he is not?

2 Peter 3:15 " EVEN AS OUR BELOVED BROTHER PAUL also according to the wisdom given unto him HAS WRITTEN unto you"

So Paul wrote but Peter did not write any scriptures, is that it?





It is not a UNIVERSAL FACT but a WIDELY ACCEPTED NOTION by persons who has not done enough Research.

Search this: What year was the Gospel of Mark written ?



4 legit/Canon Gospels, Every other Gospel is False. Any Book written after 95 C.E is non- canon.

You know your "legit canon" was decided by votes of clergymen of the Catholic (Universal) Church, don't you?

johnydon22:

lmao speaking of archeological facts u will be bewildered when u find out 80% of the bible stories are untrue and jewish myths...hehehehehe

Nonsense. They have archaeological and historical evidences. Especially those of the new testament.

You are ill-informed.

lepasharon:


Yes I have checked out the origin and the history. Each book in the bible even has its own history and compilation history. What pathetic tales are you talking about? Are you a christian?

I'm talking about pathetic tales like the one our friend frosbel pasted here from rational wiki. Lies meant to deceive people and instill doubt.

RikoduoSennin:


I appreciate your "soft" handle on things- the hard one who have been pure annoying.

If you assume I am "ignorant" then all your comments will be attune with that NOTION. You have already created an invisible wall between our arguments, one that is not easily brought down.

That's a lesson for you that explains the saying, "fools run into where angels dread to enter"

So next time don't jump into arguments you have weak or no point for.

You said the above with so much certainty, I am yet to see the proof for that claim. The above is not good enough. Why?

1 peter 1:1 - "Peter, an apostle of Jesus, to the Strangers scattered througout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia "

So the Catholics wrote that, based on what?

2 Peter 1:16 -- "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus christ, BUT WERE EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY"

So the allege writer was claiming to be an eyewitness when he is not?

2 Peter 3:15 " EVEN AS OUR BELOVED BROTHER PAUL also according to the wisdom given unto him HAS WRITTEN unto you"

So Paul wrote but Peter did not write any scriptures, is that it?

I can see how naive you are. You just believe everything written in the Bible to be true. As a sister said, the Bible didn't fall from heaven; it has history and origin. The early Christians cherry picked some books and letters and compiled them into the Bible. The Bible is a collection of stories and letters. There were more letters having the name of Paul as the author but were not incorporated into the Bible, why? They were found to be forgeries, as it was not uncommon for Christians then to forge letters in the name of any notable apostle so as to make their doctrine authoritative, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Clements are examples. They have the name of Paul has author but were not choosen because they were forged. Paul never wrote them. Same thing goes with most of the books in the Bible. Using those verses as proof that Peter wrote those books and claimed to be an eyewitness is like an ignorant loon fooling himself around here.

It is not a UNIVERSAL FACT but a WIDELY ACCEPTED NOTION by persons who has not done enough Research.

How laughable? Bro, go online and ask any Bible scholar whether the letters of Paul pre-date the Gospels or not. Be sure to give me a feedback.

Search this: What year was the Gospel of Mark written ?

70 - 75 AD

4 legit/Canon Gospels, Every other Gospel is False. Any Book written after 95 C.E is non- canon.

So we conclude that the book of John is false.

Here is from Gotquestions.org, a notable Christian website:

"There are some that believe there is good evidence to support the view that the whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D [that's, at least, 40 years, after the death of Jesus!] It is our contention that the evidence supports the earlier dating more than it does the later dating.
There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ."

Tho those scholars Gotquestions referred to got that last sentence wrong, because the Gospel of Matthew was written more than 40 years after Jesus's death, they all agree that the Gospels were written after Christ's death. That is, they are not eyewitnesses.

So bro, go back and learn a bit history. Stop staining your personality with ignorance here. It only makes you look like a brain-washed fool.

Joshthefirst:
Nonsense. They have archaeological and historical evidences. Especially those of the new testament.

You are ill-informed.

hahahahahaha i smell sentimental attachments...

Joshthefirst:
have you checked out the origin and history? You'd be very amazed if you really checked it out. I mean archaeological facts about the various manuscripts and others, not pathetic tales people write online for criticism and hatred.

Mate, calm down , stop this emotionalism.

Don't rush to attack anything out there that you think is an insult to your faith. We are not dealing with faith here but historical facts, anyone who argues with the opening points is either not aware of these facts or living in a state of denial.

You accused me of quoting Wiki, okay here is another one to digest ;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu0BIKwcKBo

This elevation of the bible to the point that it is almost the God that some people worship is a dangerous blow against the spiritual development of many people.

It took me quite a while to realise that this was the problem and the scale of it.

PastorAIO:
This elevation of the bible to the point that it is almost the God that some people worship is a dangerous blow against the spiritual development of many people.

It took me quite a while to realise that this was the problem and the scale of it.

Good Start!!!

frosbel:


Mate, calm down , stop this emotionalism.

Don't rush to attack anything out there that you think is an insult to your faith. We are not dealing with faith here but historical facts, anyone who argues with the opening points is either not aware of these facts or living in a state of denial.

You accused me of quoting Wiki, okay here is another one to digest ;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu0BIKwcKBo

and you post an audio of a man denying the bibles historicity as proof that the bible has no historical basis? Hilarious.

This isn't about sentiment mind you.

Frosbel just pondering on the jabs Lagosshia gave him so many years ago. Following though

Joshthefirst:
and you post an audio of a man denying the bibles historicity as proof that the bible has no historical basis? Hilarious.

This isn't about sentiment mind you.

So why should I believe another man called Joshthefirst. ?

Anyway , Bart is a professor of religious studies and New Testament scholar . He is a former evangelical and Pastor.

It appears you did not watch the video where he provided references from other bible scholars at some of the best universities in Europe and USA.

I can't help you do your research Pal, but blind faith is not my thing anymore .

@OP,
God of course, who else.

Joshthefirst:
and you post an audio of a man denying the bibles historicity as proof that the bible has no historical basis? Hilarious.

This isn't about sentiment mind you.

The Audio is not just of any mere man, but of Bart Ehrmann, who is one of the world's leading scholar on NT textual criticism and what he does in the audio if you listen carefully is claim that his statement that the gospels are not historically accurate is not a quirk of his but a widely held opinion amongst biblical scholars in all the top leading academic institutions in the US. Many of the scholars are themselves christians.

Now if you want to dismiss the claim of the world's leading scholars without even considering why they conclude that the gospels are not historical then that is totally up to you. But I believe that the reasonable thing to do is to at least consider their arguments and do some research yourself.