Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John

Christians believe that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written by those whose names appear in the title of the books. Most also believe that they were written in the same order as they appear in the Bible.

The Truth is …

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings  to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple  which occurred in 70 CE.

The Gospel of Mark is the most important of the synoptic gospels because it is the primary source for Matthew and Luke. Seventy six percent of Mark is reproduced almost word-for-word in both Matthew and Luke. An additional 18% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew but not in Luke, and an further 3% of Mark is in Luke but not in Matthew. This means that 97% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke.

Matthew contains 606 of Mark’s 661 verses. Luke contains 320 of Mark’s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces 31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke.

An excellent presentation of  who wrote the Gospels presented by a died-in-the-wool-true-believer is presented here:  “Who Wrote The Synoptic Gospels“. The diagram below is lifted from his writings.

Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels

So, Who Wrote Mark and What Were His Sources?

Not even the Bible claims that Mark was an eye witness to Jesus’ ministry. Modern, non Christian biblical  scholars believe that the gospel of Mark was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written). These stories were in circulation year after year, told in different languages and in different countries from that of Jesus.

That’s it. The source for the gospel of Mark is other peoples’ stories and writings. In other words, all of Mark’s sources were at best, second hand, more likely fifth or sixth hand. What happens to stories that circulate orally for years? Obviously, they come to be changed in the retelling. Thus, the source for much of the synoptic gospels is no more than hearsay.

Apologists dismiss the charge of “hearsay” by pointing to the strength of the “oral tradition”. The simple childhood game of “Telephone” is sufficient to illustrate the point that stories told mouth to mouth for 35 years or more can’t possibly retain their original content.

The Gospel of Mark is the first of the Gospels to proffer quotes allegedly from Jesus. We question how authentic these quotes could possibly be, given the convoluted path from Jesus’ lips to “Marks” wax tablets and the years that passed since the words were allegedly spoken. We have written a treatise on the impossibilities of Jesus’ actual words being accurately recorded 40+ years after they were spoken.

Click HERE  to read more about who wrote the gospel of Mark.

Who Wrote Matthew and What Were The  Sources?

By the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line “The Gospel According to Matthew” began to be added to manuscripts. For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—fifty five percent of the gospel is copied from Mark, and it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry would need to rely on others for information about it.  They believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values.

A widespread theory holds that the author drew on three primary sources, each representing a distinct community: a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings (called “Q“, and shared with Luke); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to Matthew (called “M”, some of which may have originated with Matthew himself).

He wrote for a Jewish audience: like “Q” and “M”, he stresses the continuing relevance of the Jewish law; unlike Mark he never bothers to explain Jewish customs; and unlike Luke, who traces Jesus’s ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews. The fact that his linage differs significantly from that of Luke is a real problem for those who claim that the Holy Spirit’s hand guided the writers of the gospels.

The content of “M” suggests that the community for which this gospel was written, was stricter than the others in its attitude to keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in “righteousness” (adherence to Jewish law); and of the three only “M” refers to a “church” (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order. Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.

Click HERE  to read about who wrote Matthew.

Who Wrote Luke and What Were the Sources?

Most modern critical scholarship concludes that Luke used the Gospel of Mark for his chronology and a hypothetical sayings source Q document for many of Jesus’ teachings. Luke may also have drawn from independent written records. Traditional Christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s, while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century. While the traditional view that Paul’s companion Luke authored the gospel is still often put forward, a number of possible contradictions between Acts and Paul’s letters lead many scholars to dispute this account.

Click  HERE to read about who wrote Luke.

Who Wrote John and What Were the Sources?

John differs significantly from the synoptic gospels in theme, content, time duration, order of events, and style. Only ca. 8% of it is parallel to these other gospels, and even then, no such word-for-word parallelism occurs as we find among the synoptic gospels. The Gospel of John reflects a Christian tradition that is different from that of the other gospels. It was rejected as heretical by many individuals and groups within the early Christian movement. It was used extensively by the Gnostic Christians. But it was ultimately accepted into the official canon, over many objections. It is now the favorite gospel of many conservative Christians, and the gospel least referred to by many liberal Christians.

They have a totally different agenda in mind for their audience than did the authors of the synoptic gospels. The authors of the synoptic gospels were writing to their fellow Jews and trying to convince them that they could accept Jesus as the Messiah and still remain Jewish.  Matthew even indicates that the men should still be circumcised .

John’s teachings , as summed up in John 3:16 are just the opposite of those of the writers of Mark, Matthew and Luke. Whereas John welcomes anyone into the fold, Mark, Matthew and Luke write for and to  Jews only.   They see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who has come to return Israel to its former glory.

The gospel identifies its author as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus’s innermost circle). Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it and trace it instead to a “Johannine community” which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three “layers”, reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.

Click HERE to read about who wrote John

Bottom Line

The canonical gospels upon which the Christian faith is built, the ones which present the words of Jesus are writings by unknown authors writing to buttress the particular points they wished to make. The quotations allegedly from Jesus were most likely, made up by the authors to support their positions.

  • The titles in our English Bibles are later additions; they are not original to the Gospels themselves.
  • The Gospel narratives are always written in the third person.
  • The tradition that they were written by two disciples (Matthew and John) and by two companions of the apostles (Mark and Luke) is first attested in the 2nd century!
  • What we can say for certain about the authors is that they were all highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Christians of (at least) the second generation, contrast this with the apostles of Jesus, who were uneducated, lower class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants.

Even IF the gospels had been written by the “eye-witness” apostles, Matthew and John, it is unlikely that they reported everything accurately. Remember that their “testimony” comes thirty years (Matthew) and sixty years (John) after the fact. This would-be “eyewitness” testimony is, at a minimum, 30 years after the events it purports to describe and the authors were in or nearing their dotage. In any event,  recent research has found that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. Read an excerpt from an article entitled “34 Years Later, Supreme Court Will Revisit Eyewitness IDs” By Adam Liptak Published: August 22, 2011, NY Times.

Discrepancies And The Holy Spirit

Irrespective of the above, Christians argue that the authors of the Gospels and in fact the authors of all the books of the Bible, were guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be in error regardless of who wrote the words. We would like to throw out just a few of the discrepancies that one finds between the same story told by the different authors.

  • For example, the accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke are strikingly different from each other.
  • In addition to major discrepancies in Luke’s and Matthew’s versions of the birth of Jesus, and his family’s relocation from Bethlehem to Nazareth, there are historical problems.
    • These include the nature of the miraculous star in Matthew that leads the wise men to the exact location of Jesus’ birth, and the census in Luke that required knowing where one’s ancestors were from. Moreover, this census involved the entire Roman Empire, and there is no account of such a huge census anywhere except in Luke.
  • The genealogy  of Jesus given to us by Matthew is much different that the genealogy given by Luke.
  • John has Jesus teaching for three years; Mark, Matthew and Luke present a one year ministry.
  • Mark and Luke follow this with an account of teaching and healing in Galilee, then a trip to Jerusalem where there is an incident in the Temple climaxing with the crucifixion on the day of the Passover holiday.
  • John, by contrast, puts the Temple incident very early in Jesus’ ministry, has several trips to Jerusalem, and puts the crucifixion immediately before the Passover holiday, on the day when the lambs for the Passover meal were being sacrificed in Temple.
  • And the accounts of Jesus’ death in Mark and Luke are strikingly different.

Additional Proof Can be Found Here

A 606 page treatise entitled The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager completely presents the evidence for the fact that the Books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not written by who Christians think they were. The book presents massive evidence from real biblical scholars (those who did not attend Moody Bible College or Dallas Theological Seminary, et. al.) that the authorship of the Gospels is unknown.

 

43 comments on “Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John

  1. Young Christian says:

    Well, although I do believe in the fact that time might cause many discrepancies, I also believe that the author of this article has contradicted himself/herself several times. If the books of Luke, Mark and Matthew (as written at the beginning of this article) are almost 98% similar, then how would they describe the most important phases of Jesus Christ’s life, His Birth and His Crucifixion, in a “strikingly dfferent” way? Isn’t this a bit too contradicting?
    Moreover, I have known the accounts of Jesus’s death since forever, and I never saw any huge, shocking differences between that of Mark and that of Luke. Furthermore, I do agree that John’s account is rather different than the others’, yet it not contradictory, and its difference is justifiable: he was the closest to Jesus Christ; he understood him the most and was the only disciple present during Jesus’s

    • Young Christian says:

      Death.
      In a nutshell, it doesn’t matter whether the disciples spoke Aramaic or Greek, where Jesus’s genealogy starts and whom it includes, whether Jesus taught for 3 years or merely one year, where Jesus traveled and taught, if He had biological siblings or not, ect… All of these matters are trivial, they digress from the main topic of Christianity: God’s Love for us. All other historical ideas never changed that Love, and they never will.

      • So where did this idea of “God’s Love for us” come from if not from the Bible which, as you seemingly admit, contains errors and contradictions. The conceit of “God’s Love For Us” is just one more example of errors and contradictions in the Bible. Have you read the Old Testament?
        Have you read the New Testament?

        “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” – Matthew 10.35,36.

        Where’s the love Young Christian?

        Just how does God show his “Love For Us”?
        If God Loves Us, why did he permit Catholic priests to molest their flock?
        Why does he permit young girls all over the planet to be bought and sold for sex?
        Why does this loving God like to give people birth defects.
        If He doesn’t intercede in these situations, what does it take for him to do something.
        In a nutshell, where is the evidence of His love?

    • First, John, the alleged disciple of Jesus did not write “The Book of John” Do some homework.
      Second, IF that John did write “The Book of John”, he would have been a ninety year old man, 60 years removed from the events he relates, most likely suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or at least the loss of memory that afflicts 99% of people who are his age.

      His message is contrary to that of Jesus. John 3:16. Jesus says the way to the promised land is to believe in the Father who sent Him and then a variety of other requirements, none of which are “Believe that I will be crucified to redeem you from your sins”.

      “Moreover, I have known the accounts of Jesus’s death since forever, and I never saw any huge, shocking differences between that of Mark and that of Luke.” Then you haven’t “known” them, you just believed what you were told. Shepherds/Kings vs following a star that was traveling in the wrong direction, etc.

  2. […] correcting each other, replacing each other, upending each other, and eventually winnowed down to Four, plus some letters, and some new material added by the new rulers in Rome, to flesh it out and make […]

  3. Richard S. says:

    Isn’t the reign of Nero in Rome evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed? Nero ruled from 54-68 AD and Jesus Christ was crucified between 30-40 AD. People in Rome were converting to Christianity because those who witnessed the crucification of Jesus was spreading the word of what happened. Nero was killing these Christians by the thousands to suppress the word from further spreading because it threatened his rule. I don’t understand how you get that the earliest gospel was written 68 AD when the events that happened to Jesus were being known by the population before 68 AD.

    • No. Just how is the reign of Nero, proof that a man named Jesus existed. Witnessing a crucifixion means nothing. Thousands were crucified by the Romans, many may have been named Jesus. It was a common name in those days.

      Nero wasn’t killing Christians to suppress the word; he was killing them to cover his ass, pinning Rome’s problems on these troublemakers. Read something besides your Christian dogma pap. Read history.

      How do I get that the earliest gospel was written after 70AD? I read what hundreds of non Christian biblical scholars have to say about the dates of the gospels.

      • Richard S. says:

        I don’t know what it takes to be a Biblical scholar, but I would assume there would be some bias in presenting work if you are a Christian or non-Christian Bible scholar. Anyways, if the earliest gospel was written 68 AD, I wonder why they didn’t mention Nero killing Christians. Roman history says that Nero, in fact, killed thousands of Christians. Since there was no mention of this in the Gospels, one can assume they were written before or during the early years of Nero’s rule.

  4. How in the heck did comments about evolution and young earth end up on this page?
    CM, I don’t have to research both sides equally. I don’t have the knowledge to research radiometric dating techniques for example… but others do and they have proven that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. I choose to believe the research of millions of persons of science rather than the incredulous “research” of 5-10 creationists few of whom have relevant backgrounds in the fields they pretend expertise.

  5. Cm says:

    What is wrong with genome science? That seems to be extremely irrelevant to the topic of a young earth. Great, we share similar genes. Science is amazing isn’t it? All I’m saying is you find what you search for, and I could almost bet money on the fact you have never really giving opposing viewpoints a chance, which makes for an uninformed stance. Just research both sides equally and take into consideration more than one idea.

    • Mickey says:

      What is wrong with genome science? Nothing… It has proven that we and the great apes have a very recent common ancestor through the fused second chromosome. It proves evolution, so there’s nothing wrong with genome science. :D

  6. Cm says:

    Have you considered the context of what you are “searching” for when you research? Have you honestly taken a good look at both sides? Huston Smith said in one of his famous books, “It is as if the scientist were inside a large plastic balloon, he can shine his torch anywhere on the balloon’s interior but cannot climb outside the balloon to view it as a whole”. It should be equally of interest for you to also consider the stance (very supported, not even closely as funded) of a Young Earth. I appreciate the views and ideas you have explained and I would ask, as you have to us, for you to do the same. Here is a good resource to start at, leading to many other research possibilities: http://creation.mobi/age-of-the-earth. If evolution was the solid truth, it would have been long accepted by now.

    • Rob says:

      Evolution has already been long accepted.

    • Yeah, why isn’t the 6,000 year age of creation accepted? Oh, that’s right there isn’t any evidence for it, is there? I guess those evil scientists just made up that genome story about us sharing 98.5% of the chimpanzee’s genes. If your gasoline was 98.5% water, would you still put it in your tank?

    • Mickey says:

      Here’s an even better resource for you – http://www.talkorigins.org/

      I’ve looked at as many creationist websites as have been given me and not a one has a new argument or even tries to actually understand science. Now if you don’t have confirmation bias or a bad case of cognitive dissonance or even belief perseverance talk origins should help you out a bit.

  7. martin says:

    Who real wrote the gospel of matthew

  8. Courtney says:

    I am curious, for such bold statements to make, where and who are YOUR sources and these “scholars” you speak of?

    • jbecker13 says:

      There is actually an enormous amount of Biblical scholarship these days. Books on the authorship of the gospels can be found in libraries.

      I did feel, however, that the author should have cited his sources and provided evidence for his claims. Additionally, accumulating a healthy knowledge of the culture, writing styles, and expectations that accompany each gospel would be a valuable thing to do.

      There is a lot more complexity to this topic than many realize. The author also resigns to a number of blanket statements that do not apply to all ‘Christians.’ Many of the claims made about what Christians believe are flawed and require additional specificity.

      Christian scholars do know these things – there are always two sides.

      • Too much trouble to cite resources. I have about 50 books, 4 courses from The Great Courses, and my observational powers. Most of my source is the bible and careful reading. But to be specific, here are a couple
        The Rejection of Pacal’s Wager by Paul Tobin
        Who Wrote the New Testament by …. WAIT..
        I will create a “References” page. Come back in a week.

        By the way no statement ever applies to “all whatevers”; so what?

      • I have created a bibliography accessible from the menu bar. It has over 130 references in it. You can click HERE to see it directly.

  9. Chris Robinson says:

    I was thinking that despite the discrepancies in the detail, all the gospels tell of Jesus as a living person, a person who performed miracles, a person who was crucified and a person who was resurrected. They speak from four different perspectives and probably four different agendas but the basic story is the same. Just like different accounts of a road crash do not alter the fact that the crash happened. I don’t have all the answers (who does) but I know God is real.

    • … despite the discrepancies…” But you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god and the authors were directed by the holy spirit. Thus there should be NO discrepancies. Why would god give two different versions of the same event?

      These are not “four different perspectives”. What each gospel spews is presented as “fact” and it is contradictory and historically inaccurate as indicated above. How can you dismiss these contradictory statements with just a “despite the discrepancies”?

      • Joseph D. Sloop says:

        No. We believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, not the word of god and the authors were directed by the Holy Spirit, not holy spirit. Thus there is no errors, but their will always be discrepancies because there will always be people (such as yourself) that can’t take anything the Bible says on faith.

        Now, I will be more than happy to address each of YOUR discrepancies that you have with the Bible. We can discuss them ONE at a time. Do not give me a list of a thousand or so. It will take time to debate each point in sufficient detail to cover the matter

        Do I expect you to agree with my point of view? Of course not. This is for the benefit of your audience. Think of it as a way to sharpen your arguments against “ignorant Christians” to give them the real truth. And your audience can see two upstanding people, knowledgeable about their doctrines, debate one another and derive the truth for themselves.

        By the way your church of truth website has an awful lot of doctrine in it. I’d be careful about trying to combat church doctrine with non-church doctrine. Doctrine should be combatted with pure truth when they do not agree with one other. And your site is anything but pure truth.

        It’s a half-truth.

        Just like a certain serpent we know.

      • Wait! You are more than willing to address each of the discrepancies that I have with the bible? OK!… You are on.
        Let’s take the third Truth; the one that deals with the formation of the universe and the earth.
        The bible says God created the heavens and the earth on the first day.

        The truth is, the still expanding universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years The uncertainty of 37 million years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by the Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

        The Earth was formed about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years ago. This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

        I, of course, am basing my truth on the research findings of experts. I have about 7 books on the topic and Wikipedia does a nice job of summarizing the knowledge. If you want to challenge the experts’ research findings, you need to learn a lot about astrophysics before you are qualified to discredit what they have discovered. How much do you know about background microwave radiation for starters? Now let’s hear your refutation of radiometric dating. To do so, you have to refute the entire table of periodic elements that gives the half-life of all elements. It is the half-life of Uranium 238 that allows knowledgeable people to determine how old the universe and the earth is/are.

        I eagerly await your refutation of the research of hundreds of thousands of physicists, astronomers, chemists, cosmologists, etc over the last 120 years that have led to what we KNOW about how the heavens and the earth were formed.

      • I take issue with your assertion that my site is anything but pure truth. There is nothing very little in it that is not fact, supported by the findings of many others. I myself did no original research. I read the research results of experts in their respective (scientific, biblical, historical) fields. See my list of references HERE.

      • Joseph D. Sloop says:

        Yeah, just read your last post. First off, you didn’t address your original discrepancy, which was The Bible says that God created the heaven and the earth, and in your tirade of scientific referencing, you addressed a completely different issue, the age of the universe. You never refuted the idea that God created the universe. Your argument I assume is that you disagree with exactly how the Bible illustrates the universe’s formation and the implied age with it.

        First off, let’s talk about science. My father’s a scientist, he has his doctorate’s in organic chemistry, taught at West Point twice in his 26 year military career, and he dismantled nuclear weapons for the U.S. military. In addition, he is the associate head of the chemistry department at a university in Georgia. Likewise, I too have a scientific background, dealing with meteorology in the military for four years, and now with economics in the private sector for four years (which is a social science), so I know about science’s strengths and limitations.

        One such limitation is that science deals primarily with observations of present states and processes; it can only DISCUSS the prehistoric past, much less conclude anything from it.
        Your argument about radiometric dating and background microwave radiation is a valid point, when discussing the universe’s age from a human perspective, but again, science can only discuss the past, never prove it.

        Another limitation is the need to create models based off theories. This is precisely what you have done, whether you realize it or not. Models are extremely flawed and only good for academic arguments or controlled experiments where a variable can be isolated whilst others be held to ceteris parabus. That’s great for a classroom science project, but models suck for dealing with real world scientific processes.

        The last problem is built off the model issue. I found out that human biasness tends to pervade in models. Scientists usually have the conclusion built in their mind already, and construct a model to validate their conclusion. You did this as well. A true scientist is one that is skeptical about such theoretical and hypothetical approaches as they tend to be misleading since the predisposed opinion is already revealed in the supporting evidence used to validate the thesis.

        Let me give you an example. There are several creationist scientific models that explain a young (less than 10,000 year old) universe/earth. And that’s great. But these were constructed based off the already assumed belief that the universe/earth is relatively young. Likewise, there are several secular scientific models that explain an old universe/earth. But again, these were created off the assumed belief that the universe is billions of years old.

        You have knowledge, but you lack wisdom.

        -Joe

      • Sorry, I should’ve stated this earlier, but I’d like to lay down a ground rule for this. Let’s each post twice about a subject, than let the subject change. Otherwise, we’ll be “discussing” the same subject for a thousand posts.

      • I have no clue what you are talking about. How is your father’s background relevant?

        “Likewise, there are several secular scientific models that explain an old universe/earth. But again, these were created off the assumed belief that the universe is billions of years old.”

        It is not an assumed belief that the universe is billions of years old. It is as much a fact as anything can be. I have a Ph. D. in Operations Research; don’t lecture me about models and my wisdom is far deeper than yours. I don’t believe in fairy tales for starters. If you believe in your fairy tale, pray that your God would cease to impose birth defects on all those who will ever be born and heal all those who are now afflicted with birth defects. When I see that happen, I will believe … till then it’s all nonsense.

        Re: my using the age of the universe instead of addressing the assertion that god created the universe… are you going to be so literal that I have to spell out everything? I used the age of the universe as proof that god did not create the universe as the bible says he did. Anyone wishing to discuss this should be able to make that extrapolation. You assumed correctly. Why didn’t you go on with that instead of your second “First off….”

        If you want to reject the age of the universe and the earth based on the logic that “but again, science can only discuss the past, never prove it. ” we are done. That implies you will not accept anything based on science in spite of your background.

        Ah the hell with it. this is futile. Good bye. Don’t write again with the expectation of a response.

      • Che says:

        You are preaching. I have done my own research and when you keep coming across historians who agree that none of these books were actually written by the supposed author you begin to wonder what more has been taught to us in fallacy. The bible is a nice place to start for spiritual knowledge as are other religious texts but isn’t the finality of wisdom and knowledge. When one goes further back in history and understands where most of the bible comes from you get the same answer over and over again ancient africa. It would be wise study the source of where knowledge and wisdom has come from and not the version of the conquerors of those areas.

  10. HIzbullah says:

    ALLAH WILL KICK YOUR BUTT INTO HELL, BITCH

    • Very enlightening. Thank you for the information.

      • Gina Alexander says:

        In my humble opinion you have done a lot of work on your articles & given thought to your statements. I found your points interesting & great food for thought.
        The big shame is that your readers comments failed miserably in opening up any form of debate. There’s not a lot you can say to those who ask questions, but refuse to hear the answers.

  11. rocks and salt says:

    You guys are talking about UFO’s and expect me to believe you know anything about the Bible, bunch of satanic followers, praise Jesus and come to know him then walk with the Father then tell me the apostle Paul is a false prophet..Where do you get this, your information is corrupted man giving to you by false information..

    • Where do I get it? I get it from the bible. Paul says Jesus would return in the lifetime of his (Paul’s) audience. Jesus did not return during the lifetime of Paul’s audiences. That makes Paul a false prophet. Simple.

      • just a guy says:

        Aren’t we the audience of the bible? isn’t the bible still printed and aren’t there still bilions of people reading it?

      • No – we are not the audience of the bible. Each of the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were writing to illiterate, uneducated, ignorant Jews and each author had a different agenda.

        Between them, they contain so many inconsistencies “which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

        In spite of this, the bible is still being printed and presented as the word of a perfect god. It has had a good marketing team ever since Constantine permitted it in the Roman Empire (313 CE) up to and including the Catholic Priests, who in the name of God, molested boys. Sunday school for five year olds? In any other venue it would be called brain washing. The Crusades “convinced” a lot of people to become Christians.

        If you are using the fact that “billions” of people still read the bible as evidence for ????, then you lose because five billion do not read the bible.

        Put your thinking cap on, you can do better than this.

    • RichJ says:

      Right on Rock n Salt!

  12. Latino says:

    I hear you, but…I’ll be defending “Yehoshua’s” name, thank you very much.
    I wrestled one of the non-human demon entities, while back, and now I’m on the road to salvation. I have been given a lot of knowledge, but man I feel unworthy. My You Tube site is NOSHEOL TARSUS. I don’t sell dvds, nor do I claim to be special, or seek to be a leader. Shalom

  13. Gwen – You just used this website to rant your own agenda. I think your family should hurry up the process of the Baker Act.

New Evidence? Comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s