My Defense of Christianity.

[FallentoReason]

Let me ask you this...where is your evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the authors? Where are the writings of late first century or early second century witnesses that could refute the authorship of these men? There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Gospel authorship from the period they were written. It was hundreds of years after being accepted that there was any serious questions concerning their penmen.

The amazing thing is that the Bible refutes itself. When we put aside all the 'tradition' we get told when we're young and we actually read the Bible then we come across some weird stuff.

Why are Matthew and John written in 3rd person? More worryingly, why did 'Matthew', a supposed witness, need to rely on Mark for his Gospel? The same goes for Luke. It's based off Mark and even bits of Josephus. Then you get John which, apart from being in 3rd person, is theologically advanced and doesn't fit in with the Synoptics i.e. that's what happens when rumours get spread around, they become more fantastic.

Mark is my favourite Gospel. It doesn't matter what tradition asserts about its origins because the author wanted to make it clear that he used the OT as a basis for his work. I'm not talking about Jesus fulfilling prophecies either. We're talking here trivial events of his 'life' that came straight from other verses e.g. Mark 1:17/Jeremiah 16:16. Another one is the bit about the fig tree and temple robbers which is an allusion to Hosea 9:8-16. The problem that arises from all this is that these parallels leave no room for genuine history, unless all the characters carried OT's with them and they used it as a script.

---

Hello Pocaracas. Born again is what takes place in one's life when they accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. My spirit became alive by the power of Christ.

Scholars have shown that the conversation between Nicodemus and our Lord in St John 3 could not have taken place because the Greek pun which could mean both "born from above" and "born again" had no Aramaic equivalent. Jesus presumably meant the former but Nicodemus misunderstood him and thought of the latter meaning.

The other problem is that they couldn't even have communicated. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic and Nicodemus spoke Greek.