Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.
If not that you are dumb, when Jesus was given the parable, who were the audience? Were the Pharisees and high priests there? Did they represent the rich men? Did Lazarus represent Lazarus? 😂
One of the most common objections to the authorship of the gospels is that they don’t include their names. It's quite a common practice in ancient literary world for writers not to sign their works. The popular book, the Republic of Plato was anonymous but correctly attributed to Plato. Julius Caesar also did not sign his works and sometimes writes in 3rd person. Caesar's writings, including his commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars, were presented in the third person and did not include a personal signature.
It was not uncommon for individuals not to sign their literary or political works with their names. The works of prominent figures in ancient Rome and Greece were often attributed to them by later scholars based on style, content, or other considerations rather than being explicitly signed by the authors themselves. To discredit the gospels for being anonymous is to be disingenuous and crafty in thinking.
Besides we don’t have the original scrolls that the gospel authors wrote on, they very well could have signed it off informally and this wasn't copied on further scripts. A letter like Luke, addressed to a certain person, was unlikely to have originally been written anonymously.
The video also argued that since Matthew’s gospel refers to Matthew in the third person he couldn’t have been the author. As shown earlier with Julius Caesar, it was common in writings at that time to refer to yourself in the third person when you weren’t the primary focus. Another example of this is Josephus who depicted himself as 3rd person in some of his works.
He who had the first lot laid his neck bare to him that had the next, as supposing that the general would die among them immediately; for they thought death, if Josephus might but die with them, was sweeter than life; yet was he with another left to the last, whether we must say it happened so by chance, or whether by the providence of God.
Josephus, Jewish Wars 3.8.7
The video made a ridiculous statement that Matthew couldn’t have written Matthew’s gospel because he was an illiterate. Matthew worked as a tax collector for the Roman government not the Jewish officials. He will need to communicate both verbally and written in greek to enable him function in his role otherwise he will be replaced. And as shown in my previous thread. Some of jesus disciples had greek names and spoke greek. It's just obstinacy in display to insist all Jesus disciples are illiterate.
As for John, I don't understand the guy's problem with a secretary. Even learned Paul sometimes use secretaries to write his epistles, and Peter equally confirmed he used secretaries to write his letters in 1st Peter. LordReed unfortunately all what the guy has done is just compile well known anti gospel repetitive scripts and present it as of he has discovered something new. It's the same bori g thrash as usual.
The video talked about papais on Matthew writing in Aramaic, and he wrote Logia (sayings) not a narrative Gospel.
How come you didn't address it which is the main basis of the video?
As for John, I don't understand the guy's problem with a secretary. Even learned Paul sometimes use secretaries to write his epistles, and Peter equally confirmed he used secretaries to write his letters in 1st Peter. LordReed unfortunately all what the guy has done is just compile well known anti gospel repetitive scripts and present it as of he has discovered something new. It's the same bori g thrash as usual.
When they arrested Jesus, all the discples fled, except the disciple whom Jesus loved and peter. The disciple whom Jesus loved is not John.
One of the most common objections to the authorship of the gospels is that they don’t include their names. It's quite a common practice in ancient literary world for writers not to sign their works. The popular book, the Republic of Plato [/i]was anonymous but correctly attributed to Plato. Julius Caesar also did not sign his works and sometimes writes in 3rd person. Caesar's writings, including his commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars, were presented in the third person and did not include a personal signature.
It was not uncommon for individuals to sign their literary or political works with their names. The works of prominent figures in ancient Rome and Greece were often attributed to them by later scholars based on style, content, or other considerations rather than being explicitly signed by the authors themselves. To discredit the gospels for being anonymous is to be disingenuous and crafty in thinking.
Besides we don’t have the original scrolls that the gospel authors wrote on, they very well could have signed it off informally and this wasn't copied on further scripts. A letter like Luke, addressed to a certain person, was unlikely to have originally been written anonymously.
The video also argued that since Matthew’s gospel refers to Matthew in the third person he couldn’t have been the author. As shown earlier with Julius Caesar, it was common in writings at that time to refer to yourself in the third person when you weren’t the primary focus. Another example of this is Josephus who depicted himself as 3rd person in some of his works.
[i] He who had the first lot laid his neck bare to him that had the next, as supposing that the general would die among them immediately; for they thought death, if Josephus might but die with them, was sweeter than life; yet was he with another left to the last, whether we must say it happened so by chance, or whether by the providence of God.
Josephus, Jewish Wars 3.8.7
The video made a ridiculous statement that Matthew couldn’t have written Matthew’s gospel because he was an illiterate. Matthew worked as a tax collector for the Roman government not the Jewish officials. He will need to communicate both verbally and written in greek to enable him function in his role otherwise he will be replaced. And as shown in my previous thread. Some of jesus disciples had greek names and spoke greek. It's just obstinacy in display to insist all Jesus disciples are illiterate.
As for John, I don't understand the guy's problem with a secretary. Even learned Paul sometimes use secretaries to write his epistles, and Peter equally confirmed he used secretaries to write his letters in 1st Peter. LordReed unfortunately all what the guy has done is just compile well known anti gospel repetitive scripts and present it as of he has discovered something new. It's the same bori g thrash as usual.
Plato had many books that were known that he wrote, outside of the gospel which did Matthew, john, mark and Luke write?
We would discuss this later today....I want to sleep now.....you can contact me on whatsapp on 08167469103 for easier communication. Good night.
No need, when you are ready to discuss how you accept big bang of billions of years ago and how you don't accept Evolution. You'll also tell me how Big bang includes Adam and Eve.
I do.....it is a scientific fact. Accepting big bang does not remove the fact that someone supernatural was behind it. Even science today cannot really tell us the exact beginning of the universe or even life on earth. It is still largely a mystery in the scientific field.
Evolution is also a scientific fact.
Science tell us that life started on water and it's fact.
Since you accept big bang then you accept how universe began.
I believe that life and the universe came as a result of a supernatural intervention from God. And that if there was a big bang or an inflationary phase that preceded the universe, it was caused by God. Genesis 1:1 admits that the universe had a beginning but it was caused by an intelligent creator referred to as 'God'.
It depends on what you mean by evolution. I believe In micro evolution (changes in physical properties within a kind e.g different species of dogs) but not in macro evolution(Changing of a kind to another kind e.g fish can change to amphibian).
So where do you think all life comes from after the big bang?
😆 🤣 😂......so all your knowledge is still an ongoing process and you are here telling me that you can fathom forever and existence but i cannot. Oga even the scientists can never fathom forever. What we know today scientifically pertaining to the universe is that it had a beginning. Oga go and rest Mr 'existence' and forever🤣🤣.
Knowledge is always going on, more is Been added, that's why science has achieve in few decades what religion could not for centuries.
Oga if you read the whole article you would understand it. The article is not denying a beginning or a big bang occurrence, but is saying that the big bang was not the starting point....that something preceded and set up the big bang.
Was that something not in existence?
Did the article say the something have a beginning?
Lol.....is the article denying that the universe had a beginning or that a big bang occurred? It is only arguing that something preceded the big bang. And you said you read the article oo.
You have jumped to the word 'existence' as a place of soft landing after proving to you that matter and the universe in scientific terms had a beginning.
A person born blind has never seen darkness nor light before, which means they have never seen a color before. If you can't walk, you can't have the experience, have you noticed that when you walking, you are doing other things and Walking is just going on?
No one gives a Bleep about you 'cause you're a dickhead true See your mate over there in the corner He's a dickhead too like you, dickhead
If not that you are dumb, when Jesus was given the parable, who were the audience? Were the Pharisees and high priests there? Did they represent the rich men? Did Lazarus represent Lazarus? 😂 And here you are at almost 1am 😆
Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.
If not that you are dumb, when Jesus was given the parable, who were the audience? Were the Pharisees and high priests there? Did they represent the rich men? Did Lazarus represent Lazarus? 😂
Can you see that your article too suggests that the universe had a beginning. It says that there are 'uncertainties and unknowns surrounding the beginning of the universe'. the article stressed the point that while the big bang occurred, it was preceeded by and set up by an inflationary state. So what caused the inflationary state that caused the big bang for the universe of space time and matter to appear?
Nowhere does this article deny that the universe had a start or beginning.
If not that you are dumb, when Jesus was given the parable, who were the audience? Were the Pharisees and high priests there? Did they represent the rich men? Did Lazarus represent Lazarus? 😂
Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.
If not that you are dumb, when Jesus was given the parable, who were the audience? Were the Pharisees and high priests there? Did they represent the rich men? Did Lazarus represent Lazarus? 😂
Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.
Only a fool with take a parable literally. Do you know how many examples of kingdom of heaven, Jesus used as example.
If not that you are dumb, when Jesus was given the parable, who were the audience? Were the Pharisees and high priests there? Did they represent the rich men? Did Lazarus represent Lazarus? 😂
Oga we are talking of universe, you are talking existence. Where did they write existence in all of the fact you are giving me. What was the universe that is made up of space time and matter, made up of before the big bang? That is the question.
Universe means everything that exists, Where did they write Yahweh in it too?
Religion / Re: How Did They Do The BIBLE? (BIBLIOGY) by Maynman: 7:27am On Nov 19, 2023