Who wrote the Gospels from scripture alone?

many of these answers are from early Church fathers, many of whom WERE disciples of the Apostles and/or earliest "jesus Disciples". So early Church "traditions"

A Catholic should have NO trouble with that answer, as they hold church traditions equal as scriptures...

Mark and Luke were seen by early Church as being under the inspiration "cloak" of peter and paul, mark wrote down teaching/sermons/messages of Peter, and Luke seen as being with paul and as under his Apostleship...

ALL 27 books in canon were recogized as such by the Church, and most of them were already listed by Church father as such, considered inspired as was OT books in end of first century, and in sec century...

Gospels were ALWAYS seen as just those 4 by early Church fathers, and authored by those linked to them..

Hebrew canon ONLY had what we consider to be OT, no Deautaconical/apocrapa books listed by them as scriptures inspired by God...
There was some heated debate in say 2 peter was in Canon/ Hebrews But there were NO other Books other tha what we have has canon considered to be inspired by Church...

 

A couple of things. First, don't allow the Catholics to dictate what sola scriptura means. Sola scriptura doesn't mean that we don't listen to any extra-Biblical sources or acknowledge any extra-Biblical authority, but that the Bible is the highest authority to which all over lesser authorities must defer.

Second, don't get put off by the idea of the Catholic Church having authority. The Catholic Church of antiquity is not the Catholic Church with know today. There was a time when the Catholic Church was the Church and did have the authority to make such declarations. It was only later, beginning around the tenth or eleventh century, that the Catholic Church started to become increasingly heretical and corrupt until they abandoned any claim to be a part of Christ's church.

Don't let Catholics define our beliefs and don't let Catholics steal your history.

 

To me, the Catholic "Religion" is a mirror image of the Scribes and Pharisees.

I also believe, 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction ..."

Also, Rev 22:19 warns man, "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

 

First off, it was NOT the Catholic Church that that told us which Books were canon of scripture, the Councils MERELY affirmed/ recognized what were already seen as being inspired by the Lord, as most if not all of the Books that were to be in NT canon were already seen as being inspired/authorataive by Church Father in 1-2 Centuries, before officially being said as such.. ALL of the NT Books were qoted in 1 fashion or another in writings of early Church fathers, way before "officially" recognized as in the canon

Church did not produce the Books, just recogized what was already seen in an "official" way..

Bible produced the Church, not the Church produced the Bible...

 

Actually if you track the Cannonicity of the bible and the KJV being created you would find that more than just the Catholic Church recognized the books in the bible.

King James gathered men from all walks of life to bring an English language bible into existence. Priest, Phylosophers, linguist and others. christian and non Christian. These men set certain standards that they would base the books of scripture on. Authorship was one but other standards could be met that overrode the proof of authorship standard. Hebrews was nearly disallowed but upon studying it they felt it had spiritual value enough so as to averride not knowing the author. The book of James was another that was scrutinized closely, they felt it was a contradiction to some ohter writings but as they studied the book they found scriptural value to it.

Keep in mind many of these men that pulled together the current bible with all it's books were not even Christians but they were guided to put it into the form we have. By 1611 the law was relaxed in England and the King ordered an English translation.

The KJV is a very close translation to that of Tyndale. Tyndale had Greek manuscripts to use in his translation effort. Wycliffe on the other hand had to translate from the Latin Vulgate. Both these men were found to be heritics for their efforts by English Kings and the Catholic Church. Why ?because both had laws against bibles in the english language. The church felt the English language was too vulgar of language for God's word to be written in.

 

You've got to be kidding. Are you really suggesting that the men who wrote the N.T. were outside of the Church? And what exactly do you mean by "the Bible produced the Church"?

 

Your Catholic friend has pushed you into a corner you shouldn't be in.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that we have to prove everything via Scripture. Given that he's Catholic he likely is taking the wording far too literally and doesn't understand the concept. Or he does and know you likely don't realize what he's doing rhetorically.

Sola Scriptura means that for matters of salvation and holiness (sanctification) we consult the Bible.

To understand who wrote what we begin with the Bible but can/should use other authors. Also when it comes to non-spiritual matters we go outside the Bible. That's perfectly okay and the way most people do it.

 

Just was saying that the Bible /canon Books were all sacred texts at time of their origination as God had inspired them through the authors that wrote them...

When I said "Church" meant Roman catholic Church did NOT create the Bible, nor decided what was inspired, they recoginized what was already inspired and "Bible"

 

I would ask them why they will only accept scripture, especially considering their religion's emphasis on tradition.

It's not our only authority. It is the highest authority to which all lesser authorities must defer. Big difference.

Why does inspiration require being an apostle?

Actually, both Peter and Paul refer to their writings as being inspired scripture.

 

Scripture doesn't confirm these letters Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Now John can be with these verses and the entire book identifies him in several places.

John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Luke and Acts have the same author based on Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Luke 1: 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.


Here is Mark:

Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying

24But the word of God grew and multiplied.

25And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.


Here is Luke:

Colosians 4: 13For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.

14Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

15Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Here are Mark and Luke:

2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.


Hebrews is filled with scriptural teachings and sound doctrine. Chapter 1: begins
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds
With Spiritual truth, it references Old Tesatament events and New Testament teachings. Based on way it is written most of the text is similar to Pauls although some fit Apollos writting. The bottom line it contains history and instruction on thing God.

Even if Matthew Mark and Luke didn't write these books trust what scripture says because it is the fianl authority and since we know John wrote his Gospel and many parts of John match up to things contained in Matthew, Mark and Luke we can trust them to be accurate. Since the same writer wrote Luke and Acts then Acts can be trusted.

 

So why is it so important that we know who wrote a particular book of the Bible? That has nothing to do with establishing doctrine by the Bible alone.

The biographies of Jesus, as well as the rest of Scripture, are inspired and inerrant no matter who wrote them.

 

Just a couple of things that might be helpful.
In 1Tim 1:18, Paul cites Luke's Gospel as Scripture.
In 2Peter 3:15-16, Peter describes Paul's letters as Scripture.
John's Gospel was written by a disciple whom Jesus loved who was one of the Apostles and an eye witness of all that he wrote about (John 21:20-24. cf. also 1John 1:1-4).
Paul declares that his own writings are the word of God (1Cor 14:37).

Ultimately though, as the 1689 Confession tells us, it is the Holy Spirit that has convinced Christians all down the ages that the NT is the word of God.

Steve

 

No.

The church was created at Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out on the early believers. The New Testament was created out of the experience of the Twelve and the activities of the early church. Outside of the Gospels and possibly Acts, the rest of the New Testament is the church communicating with itself.

The Gospel and possibly Acts were written for people who were both inside and outside the faith. The rest of the New Testament was written for believers.

God has always used the people of faith to produce the scriptures. In the case of the New Testament, it was the church.

 

I think plenty of people have answered the question in the OP. Again I think you've been misled to believe that you have to "prove" these things through this manner.

As others have pointed out there is enough internal reference to begin your journey. That said while Sola Scriptura properly teaches that the Bible is the sole authority for all matters concerning salvation and spiritual growth to make it be something it is not, i.e. a science or history book, is to corrupt the meaning of its text.

Don't speak of "outside authority" as being only one or two. Rather there are a host, dozens, of resources that help us understand what is written about within the text and how the text was formed. To use them is not a bad thing. Because of their unanimity in voice concerning the construction they speak well for what actually happened.

I'll sound like a broken record, but this is putting Scripture to a test that is both unnecessary and surpasses the limits of what Scripture's task actually is.

No theologian worth their salt is going to, in the history of the Church, accept your test for faithfulness here. And they shouldn't because it is applying a test for Scripture that Scripture isn't going to meet because of the nature of its composition and extent of its inspiration.

As far as our salvation and spiritual growth are concerned, none of your questions are of a significance that could undermine the faith.

For instance...let's say we can't "prove" (whatever that means) Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark...so what? What is different about your salvation?

I'd refer you to revmwc's post.

Also in the early church Papias wrote about Mark being a student of Peter who composed the Gospel of Mark. Papias' work is dated to about AD 70 by Eusebius of Cesearea. Recently Richard Bauckham has written an excellent text called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which spends considerable time on Papias and his work. It is one of the earliest, and best, authenticators for the nature of the Gospel from an extra-biblical context.

Why are you leaving the Old Testament out?

It doesn't matter who wrote it.

This is an unreasonable demand on Scripture. The canonization process was a dynamic one that took about two (or three) centuries to formalize in a pre-modern historical context.

Check out Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament for a great discussion of this topic.

I think you're questions are excellent ones, but the litmus test you are using to answer them is theologically and spiritual myopic. Your friend has you (it seems) convinced you have to answer these things through his method which has wrongly understood Christian doctrine.

There are immensely helpful resources in the first 200/300 years of the early church which actually answer all of your questions. They begin by pointing out internal mechanisms within Scripture then expand the picture to other teachings/writings which cohere with and develop these internal mechanisms. Check them out. Seriously, there are great things here.

You can be fully Christian, fully orthodox, fully evangelical and answer all your questions by pointing out that they attempt to make Scripture do something that Scripture isn't willing to do or created to do. Trust me on this one, I've spent quite a bit of time on the topic.

 

Then ask your RCC friend what this verse means. Does it mean that the RCC church is the source of all christianity? Does it mean that the ekklesia is the source of truth? He might want it to say that. I bet your RCC friend has watched too much "The Journey Home".

The church is NOT the source of truth, rather it is the pillar and foundation. Christ Jesus is The Truth and His church lifts Him up high....like a pillar lifts something up. The pillar's job is to hold something up. Not only is the church to lift Him up in worship, the church is to hold Him up and present Him to a lost and dying world.

EDIT: Your RCC friend is asking you some loaded questions. It is like me asking you "have you stopped beating your mother yet?" I mean, you could turn the tables and ask him where in the Bible it says that Mary was sinless, where in the Bible it says the pope is infallible, and where in the Bible it says that Peter and his successors are the universal rulers of christiandom. Then what he has to admit is that there is not biblical evidence for these notions and that they came about much later.

 

God isn't the author of confusion, is He?

No, I didn't think so.