tavarish your not reading what was written either I said salvation not christian many people who go to church are called christian but that in no way means they have received the gift of salvation from God. Actually tavarish I'm not sure how an atheist can qualifiy to speak on salvation since it requires a belief and understanding of who God is and what He did to secure our salvation.
Now for the gospels, strictly speaking no one penned their name to the gospels. The early church gave credit to these men for writing the gospels.The best we can tell about the dates the first gospel was written around 52 AD only 19 years after Jesus crucifiction and the last around 80 AD some 47 years after the crucifiction. What advantage would it be for the early church to place the name Matthew to one of these books. Matthew was a tax collector and tax collectors were not trusted by people in that time so logically this makes no sense. Mark was a companion of Peter and is believed to have received his information directly from Peter,so it seems that if the early church was interested in popularizing the book named after Mark they would have put Peters name to it. Now Luke like Mark was not a disciple of Jesus and this historically correct document could have been attributed to one of the other disciples so that the book would have carried more weight with the people. Also no one else has ever claimed to have written anyone of the gospels and no one else has ever been named the author of any of the gospels. John was given credit for writing the gospel named after him and this credit came from the early church. So what sense would it make to name the gospels after a tax collector,two mostly unknown companions of disciples and a man known for his fishing skills more than his writing ability.
Leave the "Q" document out of this there is no evidence it ever existed.
Now for the gospels, strictly speaking no one penned their name to the gospels. The early church gave credit to these men for writing the gospels.The best we can tell about the dates the first gospel was written around 52 AD only 19 years after Jesus crucifiction and the last around 80 AD some 47 years after the crucifiction. What advantage would it be for the early church to place the name Matthew to one of these books. Matthew was a tax collector and tax collectors were not trusted by people in that time so logically this makes no sense. Mark was a companion of Peter and is believed to have received his information directly from Peter,so it seems that if the early church was interested in popularizing the book named after Mark they would have put Peters name to it. Now Luke like Mark was not a disciple of Jesus and this historically correct document could have been attributed to one of the other disciples so that the book would have carried more weight with the people. Also no one else has ever claimed to have written anyone of the gospels and no one else has ever been named the author of any of the gospels. John was given credit for writing the gospel named after him and this credit came from the early church. So what sense would it make to name the gospels after a tax collector,two mostly unknown companions of disciples and a man known for his fishing skills more than his writing ability.
Leave the "Q" document out of this there is no evidence it ever existed.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
