When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence.

[Loaded dice]

The bible was screwed up by early christians, OP. This is sad but true. Whatever Jesus really said is gone with the wind.

[no one]

jesus is another make believe character.

Hey bozo, did you choose the name loaded dice because you are so full of the craps?

[The Valkyrie]

Since the gospel of Mark has been shown to have at least three different authors, I'll still give the silly book a miss.

[Nishant Xavier]

No one. Let's see: cussing, blasphemy, ad hominem. Ignored.

Fake Messiah, who, Ehrman? That's a double lol. Ehrman is not neutral. I cited A.T. Robinson and Sir William Ramsay. Here is what Sir William said, after life-long research: "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth."

And: "Further study … showed that the book [Luke-Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement" (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85).

Brian, St. Ignatius of Antioch, one of those mentioned as mentioning the Gospel of Matthew, died in A.D. 107, and was a disciple of St. John the Apostle himself, the Apostle of Christ. Here is what he wrote about the Catholic Church, showing the Early Church was the Catholic Church: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Before the 16th Century odd, all Christians, and others interested in Christianity, read the Church Fathers, just as they read the Scriptures. However, because the Church Fathers were too explicitly Catholic, and provided historical evidence that the Early Church was Biblical, Conservative, orthodox, believed in the Divinity of Christ etc, some soon started either rejecting or forgetting the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers provide early historical evidence as to what the earliest Christians believed.

Hi Loaded dice, that's the Islamic opinion; but not the historical Truth. Would you say the Hadiths give no historical information about your prophet Mohammed? If they do, then even much more, by the same criterion and for the same reason, that as the Hadiths were written by the contemporaries of Mohammed, or those who lived after him, the Gospels were written by the contemporaries of Christ, two His own Apostles, Saints Matthew and Saint John, and two disciples of Apostles, namely Saints Mark and Luke, disciples of Saint Peter and Saint Paul respectively. Some early Church Tradition also indicates Saint Mark and Saint Luke were part of 72 disciples Christ sent out, but followed Him only intermittently. The 12 Apostles, however, were always with the Lord Jesus Christ, and Saints Matthew and John the Apostle were among them.

[no one]

You are such a coward!!!

A stupid one at that.

[Angrboda]

Oh great, it's the venerable, "My authority can beat up your authority" argument.

Tell me something, Nishant, why should we care?

[Nishant Xavier]

Since the gospel of Mark has been shown to have at least three different authors, I'll still give the silly book a miss.

Just seeing this. Shown by whom, Valykrie? The Early Church knew very well who Saint Mark was, he was a companion of Saint Peter, whom Saint Peter mentions in First Epistle, as his (spiritual) son: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." (1 Pet 5:13). He is also mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, again closely linked with St. Peter, to whose house the Apostle went after being released from Prison: "When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying." (Acts 12:12)

The Early Church gives the date for the Gospel of Saint Mark as around 45 A.D., so around 12 years after the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate. Saint Peter was giving Sermons to the Early Christians about Christ's Life and Saint Mark wrote them down. That's how the Gospel of Mark came about. The discovery of the 7Q5 Papyrus, which pre-dates 50 A.D. and contains parts of the Gospel of Mark, confirms this early date.

God Bless,
Xavier.

P.S. @ so-called "no one": pathetic on your part. reframe your question without cussing and blasphemy, and I'll address it. We'll skip the ad hominem for now since some of you Militant Atheists can hardly live without it.

[Nishant Xavier]

Oh great, it's the venerable, "My authority can beat up your authority" argument.

Tell me something, Nishant, why should we care?

Why should you care? I would have thought that would be obvious, because the Gospel can give you Eternal Happiness, which nothing else can. Thus, the question of whether it is the Gospel Truth or not is of the greatest importance. Tell me it is false all you wish if you want, yet don't tell me, whether it is true or not, it is not important - for that is manifestly not true. If the Gospel is false, it is a wicked deception; if the Gospel true, it is of the Greatest Importance, and can lead to the Highest Happiness, and that forever and ever.

God Bless,
Xavier.

[The Grand Nudger]

Simple bribery, lol.

[Angrboda]

Oh great, it's the venerable, "My authority can beat up your authority" argument.

Tell me something, Nishant, why should we care?

Why should you care? I would have thought that would be obvious, because the Gospel can give you Eternal Happiness, which nothing else can. Thus, the question of whether it is the Gospel Truth or not is of the greatest importance. Tell me it is false all you wish if you want, yet don't tell me, whether it is true or not, it is not important - for that is manifestly not true. If the Gospel is false, it is a wicked deception; if the Gospel true, it is of the Greatest Importance, and can lead to the Highest Happiness, and that forever and ever.

God Bless,
Xavier.

How will your claims about when they were written guarantee their truth?