How do we know when the Gospels were written?

I believe there are plenty of recorded Hitler speeches where he says that the Aryan nation is threatened by the Jews. So this is a true statement.Are there any recorded Nero speeches where he says that the Roman Empire is threatened by the Christians ? Perhaps. We can speculate on possibilities or we can look at history. As far as I know, there are no historical accounts that portray Christianity as a threat to the Roman Empire at that timeDo you know of any ?Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

St. Irenaeus wrote:"It is not possible that the gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principle winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world and the pillar and ground of the Church is the gospel, it is fitting that we should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side" (Catholic Encyclopedia vol. VI, pg. 659).As for the writings of Paul, the Encyclopedia Biblica states categorically:"With respect to the Canonical Pauline Epistles, none of them are by Paul. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false writings). The group (ten epistles) bears obvious marks of a certain unity, of having originated in one circle, at one time, in one environment, but not of unity of authorship" (Encyclopedia Biblica III pg. 3625-26).The Father of Christianity appears to be Paul and the Father of the history of the Christian Church appears to be Eusebius. Both never knew or walked with Jesus. Yet, Christians today believe everything these two men want them to believe. Christians believe every word they read and hear to be the words from God.Most of my references come from scholars and historians. I long ago realized that that a seeker of the truth cannot rely on doctrines or dogmas. Those who rely on doctrines will readily quote from scriptures to prove a point. What we are trying to do is penetrate the mysteries behind the scriptures. There lies the real truth. and yet many betting their souls on man-made words. How sad!I recommend you start by reading Origen, philo of Alexandria; then follow the pathway of the Gnostics, Essenes and maybe the "poor ones" The Ebionites. In your studies remember--very little is pure truth, but what we have is evidence and you will need knowledge to sort through the mountains of trash to reveal a few golden nuggets of truth

Here is some more material that might help you. Again, wll we have is evidence and not proof.Forgeries were so prevalent two thousand years ago that one does not know what to believe. I have been trying to answer the question Paul" Apostate or Apostle" and most evidence seem to indicate apostate. Jesus died for your sins.A missionary preaches in India that the New Testament is the revealed scripture, or word of God. The educated Hindus, however ,knows that of the fourteen epistles attributed to Paul, four only are held to be authentic; they are these: Epistle to the Romans, First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Galatians.
Scholars point to the “Acts of the Apostles” as definitive proof of forgeries deletions and Biblical insertions by the Roman Empires to combat what they considered heresies of the Gnostics.
”Another scholar wrote the following about the acts:” Acts of the Apostles was written (150-177 CE) to account for his disciples. It reads like a fantasy novel, misquotes the Old Testament, and contradicts Paul's letters. It is now acknowledged to be largely if not entirely a fabricated picture of Christian origins designed to serve the purposes of the Roman Church. Finally, the Letters of the Apostles were written (177-220 CE). Modern scholars have shown that the letters ascribed to Peter, James and John are forgeries written much later to combat heretical (Gnostic) ideas within the early church; they attack 'many deceivers' who 'will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh' (2 John 7). Paul's early (and mostly genuine) letters are full of Gnostic phrases and teachings, whereas his later letters (the Pastorals) are anti-Gnostic, If Paul’s teachings were Gnostic and the fakes were anti Gnostic maybe the condemnation should be solely on the Roman Universal Church and not all Paul because these letters are regarded as fakes by all but the most conservative of theologians. Forgery during the first few centuries of the church's existence was so rampant that the phrase 'pious fraud' was coined to describe it. “
One story in the acts involves Paul and an Essene called Simon Magus. Paul thought he could buy spiritual powers from Peter and was rebuked; later this story was revised to show the seeker of spiritual power was Simon Magus. All these falsities to combat the teachings of Christ which was Gnostic and Essenes build on spiritual ideas and not pure faith. This information was from Ebionite scripture that pre-dates the acts so once again it is a matter of whom do you believe, the Romans or the Ebionites. We have historical evidence but no conclusive proof; again the original tale was part of the Ebionite scriptures and the revision was anti Gnostic and a probable fabrication of the Catholic Church.
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus!"
-- Thomas Jefferson
Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."
Mark Twain once stated that Paul was the one who created all the problems. We know the Essenes also referred to him as the first corrupter of the teachings of Christ
Unfortunately some our greatest leaders and minds have had to look elsewhere for spiritual growth .Just to name a few from a very long list Emerson, Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Mark twain and even Benjamin Franklyn are just a few that didn’t care for Paul and the Constantine scriptures I have always respected the opinion of Thomas Jefferson. Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau is some that also share the opinion of Jefferson.
There are many, many more that had a negative opinion of Paul and all were scholars. MY favorites were Thomas Jefferson and Gandhi
Thomas Jefferson's Opinion of the four gospels - 1814
"The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them, form that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. The matter of the first was such as would be preserved in the memory of the hearers, and handed on by tradition for a long time: the latter such stuff as might be gathered up, for imbedding it, anywhere, and at any time"(Thomas Jefferson - 1814)
The brilliant theologian Ernest Renan, in his book Saint Paul, wrote: "True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock. The causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."
Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, has been called "one of the greatest Christians of his time." He was a philosopher, physician, musician, clergyman, missionary, and theologian. In his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul he writes: "Paul....did not desire to know Christ....Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded....What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?....The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority....The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."

Anyone coming to Philo of Alexandria for the first time can prepare for a sense of deja vu. His Logos philosophy profoundly influenced the author of the Gospel of John. The thesis of John's Gospel, really, is that Philo was right about the divine Logos and that Jesus should regarded as a personification of it.John contains many stretches of mystical philosophy. He often sets a scene and then has a figure such as Jesus or John the Baptist go into an extended monologue that really could exist anywhere. Translators can't always feel sure where to place quotation marks in this Gospel because the voices of Jesus and John the Baptist are indistinguishable from that of the narrator. All are given to monologues.John's Gospel owes at least as much to Philo's ideas as to the events of Jesus' life described in the Synoptics.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You've been warned about simply posting cut & paste jobs without attribution. We do not debate websites here. You are expected to make your best argument in your own words.I am going to give you a short suspension to think about following directions.

---

Well, chapalot has been suspended, but I have to address this. St. Irenaeus wrote that there are 4 Gospels (which is what chapalot quoted). Irenaeus sat under Polycarp's teaching in Smyrna in the first half of the 2nd century, thus showing that the 4 Gospels were known at the time of the earliest writings of the fathers. Since this contradicts what chapalot said earlier, I'm really confused why he bothered posting it. I considered posting that quote. That's nice. W.R. Smith, the skeptic, doesn't believe Paul wrote any of the ten epistles most scholars attribute to him. Richard Dawkins states "categorically" that God doesn't exist. You won't win any arguments quoting him, though, without citing some reasons he holds to a minority opinion, even if you call his statement "categorical." Paul spread Christianity through the western world. That's true. If he made everything up or changed what others were teaching, then he's the father of modern Christianity. If he didn't, and he really got his teaching from Yeshua, then Yeshua is the father of Christianity. There's been threads in EVC debating that, but it's really not pertinent here. That's simply not true. He did write the first history. He used earlier writings to write it. No one believes the nonsense you wrote earlier that he forged those writings. I have read Origen, though I've only dabbled in Philo. They have nothing to do with... It is likely that there's similarities between the Essenes and the Ebionites. There is nothing similar about the pathway of the gnostics and the Ebionites, so you'll have to choose one or the other. I'm noticing. Could you try noticing that what you're reading is very little of pure or impure truth, it's mostly just inaccurate? I've given you plenty of references. Could you try paying attention to those references and not "rely on doctrines or dogmas," which is what you are clearly doing despite your denials?

Lol. Those good ol' educated Hindus. Good thing you were able to attain their authority to back up what you're saying. The part about contradicting Paul's story in Galatians some is true. The rest is nonsense. Acts is quoted long before AD 150. Who cares if someone thinks it reads like a fantasy novel, and it quotes the Old Testament well enough. Most folks had to quote from memory back then. Misquotes are common, but I haven't seen any evidence that you or any of your sources would know whether anything was misquoted or would know to check the LXX, which is the version that would have been quoted in Acts.Some of the other stuff you wrote is people's opinions. They're entitled to their opinion. I just wanted to point out that on factual matters, your posts are almost exclusively error.

Well, then, he didn't only influence John, but all of early Christianity. The Logos doctrine is my favorite in early Christianity. I believe it and it touches my whole philosophy of life.I suppose I had better read Philo rather than thumb through pages here and there. Thanks for the info.

err...I think you pressed the wrong 'reply' button

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Yep. I noticed that and edited it to mention that it was actually a reply to Faith and MJ in the last line of the post. Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Oh well, if you're going to discount the Book of Acts and all the other things Christians rely on, and bring up the rumor game we all played in grade school as if it never occurred to us, there's no discussing anything with you. Have a good day.

Greetings,

quote:

---

a quick search found me Mark 9:42 quoted in Rome's letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement), which is almost indisputed as a 1st century writing.
  —trurhlover

---

Wrong.
1 Clement does NOT quote Mark 9:42.He does NOT use the word "Gospel",
he does NOT mention Mark,
he does NOT cite from any written work at all.What he says is :Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, for he said, "Woe to that man, it were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about, and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones."Note carefully:Clement says : "remember the words..."
That is NOT a quote of a written Gospel, it is merely repeating a SAYING attributed to Jesus.Furthermore, the passage does NOT match the Gospel, it is merely similar, here are the Gospel versions, all different :Mt 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

​

Mt 26:24 The Son of Man will go as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if he had never been born.

​

Mk 9:42 If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.

​

Lk 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.In other words, all we have is a SAYING attributed to Jesus, which is later found in DIFFERENT forms in the Gospels.That is NOT a clear quote of a Gospel at all.You can see details on 1 Clement here :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
which shows that Clement did NOT quote a written Gospel at all.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

Less than thirty years after Jesus' death, Nero (the supreme ruler of the empire that ruled over the known world at the time) was threatened enough by the Christians to have them brutally persecuted.
  —mjfloresta

---

Only according to ONE dubious reference.Also, there is nothing about Nero being THREATENED by the Christians, the story goes he needed a scapegoat, that's all.

quote:

---

That Christianity had already spread so significantly that the Roman empire was threatened by them, is surely a sign of of Jesus' significant impact on the world around him..
  —mjfloresta

---

Jesus had NO impact on the world around him at all.
NOT ONE single contemporary writer records Jesus existence.All we have is anonymous and conflicting legends about Jesus from long after the alleged events.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

You said Justin Martyr and earlier authors didn't quote the Gospels. I showed, with reference to their writings, that they did.
  —truthlover

---

Did you notice that Justin does NOT mention the NAMES of the Gospels?
Why is that?Did you notice that the quotes from Justin do NOT always match our current Gospels?
Why is that?Iasion

It seems to me that someone is making the big mistake of assuming that a quote of Clement should read like our modern English translations. Clement probably had the original Greek, and whoever translated Clement used different English to render it. Obviously the meaning is identical, although the phrasing differs.Edit: In other words, Clement WAS quoting scripture.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.