Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To Justin Martyr, the terms 'Memoirs of the apostles', and 'Gospels' were synonymous terms as shown by his statement in his first Apology;
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST.
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.
Again, without exception, the testimony of the early church is that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And I shown that the Gospels were quoted by Clement of Rome and Polycarp.
The church fathers quoted the apostles without deferring to you as to how they should have framed their quotes.
Look. Scholars recognize that the four Gospels were written in the first century. Your claim that the Gospels weren't written until much later is bogus and not supported by scholarship.
By the way, the titles attached to the Gospels is not ''The Gospel according to _____,'' but simply ''According to _____'' as can be seen on Codex Sinaiticus. κατα μαθθαιον (According to Matthew), κατα μαρκον (According to Mark), κατα λουκαν (According to Luke), κατα ϊωαννην (According to John).
Your attempts to affix a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century date to the writing of the Gospels has no merit.
First of all, there was NO uniform Christian church until the 4th century and the formation of the Catholic church by the order of emperor Constantine. Prior to that Christianity was undergoing heavy persecution and was being practiced in secret. During the period from the late 1st century until the early 4th century, the "church" was nothing more than a loose organization of groups who considered themselves followers of Jesus. There was no uniform doctrine or dogma, no uniformly accepted NT, and no physical churches. Christian beliefs varied wildly. The violent hostility between competing groups of Christians that manifested itself after Constantine legalized Christianity in the 4th century was the cause for Constantine to order the creation of a universal (catholic) doctrine, which served as the founding point of the Catholic church.
"About 187 Irenaeus listed twenty varieties of Christianity; about 384 Epiphanius counted eighty." ("The Story of Civilization Vol. 3 - Caesar And Christ," Pg. 616, by Will Durant.)
Your attempts to affix a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century date to the writing of the Gospels has no merit.
I'm walking out the door so I'll address your other points later but let me clear up a misconception: I am NOT trying to affix a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century date to the writing of the Gospels. I am trying to point out that the gospels that are in the Codex Sinaiticus do not appear in any complete or semi-complete form before 360 CE (the dating of the Codex) except for a very small handful of surviving snippets from all four gospels whose words later turn up in the gospels found in the Codex. So that when you speak of a Gospel of Mark being around in the 1st century we have no written proof of that. We don't even have any specific references to a "Gospel of Mark" or excerpts that are specifically labeled "From the Gospel of Mark" in ANY of the church fathers' writings that I can find until Irenaeus affixes the name Mark to a gospel in the late 2nd Century. And upon a few quotes from Clement and Justin Martyr that were floating around for 100 years after Christ's crucifixion and no doubt wound up in dozens of non-canonical gospels as well as the canonical, you are trying to prove that they derive from the canonical gospels you claim were around in the 1st century that we haven't a single copy or reference to historically, including up to the time of Justin in the mid-2nd Century.
Now you're trying to say the gospels and the Memoirs of the Apostles were synonymous and you have absolutely no historical foundation upon which to build that grand sweeping statement. Where in Justin's writings does he say, "We know I'm quoting from the Gospel of Mark but for expediency's sake I'll just use the Memoirs of the Apostles as a catch-all for all four canonical gospels including Mark." Please show us something from Justin's writings that links the gospel of Mark to the Memoirs and I'll eat my words, gladly.
What I'm saying is that if christians can't even get together and decide these things, why should non-christians be sold on it?
I'm not saying they should be sold on it, faith is a personal decision. I'm saying its inaccurate to call it a shell game based on what different Religions believe. That's like totally panning Socialism because of Venezuela while ignoring Canada or Sweden (I'm not Socialist.)
The historical debate is a different subject, and I think OP is mistaken and trying to poke holes where there generally aren't any. There's enough historical record for evidence of most early Christian history. Whether it was John Mark or another unknown first century Christian is unlikely to be known. Most scholars are content with "Unknown First Century Christian."
...if christians can't even get together and decide these things, why should non-christians be sold on it?
Christians don't have to "get together and decide on", or agree on, anything. There's nothing to sell either. Those are yours and your buddies' fabrications. As long you cling to false assumptions, you'll reach nonsensical conclusions that won't add up. The trail of misinformation leads back to you.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-11-2019 at 12:38 PM..
Christians don't have to "get together and decide on", or agree on, anything. There's nothing to sell either. Those are yours and your buddies' fabrications. As long you cling to false assumptions, you'll reach nonsensical conclusions that won't add up. But the distortions point back to you.
Yet does the New Testament (compiled and chosen by winning Christians) agree with the above? Any reader can find that (even if it might say otherwise in contradiction elsewhere) it says for Christians to stay together and believe the in the proper requirements/preferences. How would not be "getting together and agreeing," then? It includes lines that beseech believers to spread the religion by properly talking about it and/or showing what is attractive of it. How would that not be "selling," then?
Any ancient Jew could have said the same thing you said above but instead about Christianity's nonsensical distortions of Judaism, and they did.
You are merely saying that you don't have to be in unison with others of your religion to be right about the views you yourself hold. And that you don't have to convince others because you are comfortable with your believes as they are.
I'm sure that is what all the worldly and false religions with their heads in the sky say to justify themselves.
Yet does the New Testament (compiled and chosen by winning Christians) agree with the above? Any reader can find that (even if it might say otherwise in contradiction elsewhere) it says for Christians to stay together and believe the in the proper requirements/preferences. How would not be "getting together and agreeing," then? It includes lines that beseech believers to spread the religion by properly talking about it and/or showing what is attractive of it. How would that not be "selling," then?
Any ancient Jew could have said the same thing you said above but instead about Christianity's nonsensical distortions of Judaism, and they did.
You are merely saying that you don't have to be in unison with others of your religion to be right about the views you yourself hold. And that you don't have to convince others because you are comfortable with your believes as they are.
I'm sure that is what all the worldly and false religions with their heads in the sky say to justify themselves.
Christians "got together and decided" that the current 27 books of the NT represent the true and inspired "word of God." And that any other books are therefore bogus.
1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus Gospels
Egerton Gospel
Fayyum Fragment
Dialogue of the Saviour
The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2–7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome.
The Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Secret Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Descent of Mary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha
What exactly are the "worldly and false religions?" The answer to that has always been obvious to most people. The false religious beliefs held by those OTHER fools.
I'm not saying they should be sold on it, faith is a personal decision. I'm saying its inaccurate to call it a shell game based on what different Religions believe. That's like totally panning Socialism because of Venezuela while ignoring Canada or Sweden (I'm not Socialist.)
The historical debate is a different subject, and I think OP is mistaken and trying to poke holes where there generally aren't any. There's enough historical record for evidence of most early Christian history. Whether it was John Mark or another unknown first century Christian is unlikely to be known. Most scholars are content with "Unknown First Century Christian."
Perhaps there's enough for you. Others feel differently.
Christians don't have to "get together and decide on", or agree on, anything. There's nothing to sell either. Those are yours and your buddies' fabrications. As long you cling to false assumptions, you'll reach nonsensical conclusions that won't add up. The trail of misinformation leads back to you.
Fabrications?
The billboards I see advertising christianity?
The television spots advertising christianity?
The knocks on my door from "missionaries"?
The pamphlets stuck inside my door?
The pamphlets I receive in the mail?
The times I've been stopped on the street by bible thumpers.
Apparently there's lots to sell. And big money involved in the sale...hence the megachurches.
And in regard to coming up with a common message, if there were any common message, my hometown of about 3,000 people wouldn't have to have 15 different "christian" churches. It's been said the most racist hour in America is 11-noon on Sundays.
I'm walking out the door so I'll address your other points later but let me clear up a misconception: I am NOT trying to affix a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century date to the writing of the Gospels. I am trying to point out that the gospels that are in the Codex Sinaiticus do not appear in any complete or semi-complete form before 360 CE (the dating of the Codex) except for a very small handful of surviving snippets from all four gospels whose words later turn up in the gospels found in the Codex. So that when you speak of a Gospel of Mark being around in the 1st century we have no written proof of that. We don't even have any specific references to a "Gospel of Mark" or excerpts that are specifically labeled "From the Gospel of Mark" in ANY of the church fathers' writings that I can find until Irenaeus affixes the name Mark to a gospel in the late 2nd Century. And upon a few quotes from Clement and Justin Martyr that were floating around for 100 years after Christ's crucifixion and no doubt wound up in dozens of non-canonical gospels as well as the canonical, you are trying to prove that they derive from the canonical gospels you claim were around in the 1st century that we haven't a single copy or reference to historically, including up to the time of Justin in the mid-2nd Century.
You contradict yourself. You say that you're not trying to affix a 2nd century or later date to the Gospels after making a statement in your opening post which by stating that apologists try to place Mark in the 1st century means that you don't believe that Mark was written in the first century.
Your statement.
Again that convenient maxim, "tradition" is thrown out by the apologists to try to place Mark in the 1st century by claiming Mark the companion of Peter wrote the gospel but we have no historic proof that is true.
Even in this very post you again by stating that I'm am trying to prove that the canonical Gospels were around in the first century means that you don't think that they were.
The early church fathers, such as Clement and Justin Martyr did quote and or allude to the Gospels. This has been shown.
Quote:
Now you're trying to say the gospels and the Memoirs of the Apostles were synonymous and you have absolutely no historical foundation upon which to build that grand sweeping statement. Where in Justin's writings does he say, "We know I'm quoting from the Gospel of Mark but for expediency's sake I'll just use the Memoirs of the Apostles as a catch-all for all four canonical gospels including Mark." Please show us something from Justin's writings that links the gospel of Mark to the Memoirs and I'll eat my words, gladly.
In post #44 I quoted Justin Martyr's statement in which he equated the term 'Memoirs of the Apostles' and the term 'Gospels' I even bolded it so that you couldn't miss it. I'll post it again.
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST.
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.
The billboards I see advertising christianity?
The television spots advertising christianity?
The knocks on my door from "missionaries"?
The pamphlets stuck inside my door?
The pamphlets I receive in the mail?
The times I've been stopped on the street by bible thumpers.
Apparently there's lots to sell. And big money involved in the sale...hence the megachurches.
They aren't Christians. I don't know what to call them, but if they bear no resemblance to Christ (Jesus), then they don't count. I could call myself a Birdman, but if I don't resemble a bird and can't fly, the label is meaningless. You not only naively believe the label without further verification, but you also take it a step further and direct the fraud against the represented system.
A scammer falsely misrepresenting a hospital doesn't make that hospital a criminal organization, but that's your logic.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-11-2019 at 03:40 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
