Christian Confessions That Prove The Gospels Are Forgeries!
June 11, 2005

CHRISTIAN CONFESSIONS THAT PROVE THE GOSPELS ARE FORGERIES!


A collection of confessions from Christian scholars, minister, researchers, and authors proving that the New Testament Gospels were not written by the disciples of our Messiah!

Contains very sensitive information that your Christian religious leaders don't what you to know about the gospels and keep away from you at all cost!

complied from the research references of:

Prophet Yahweh
Seer of Yahweh

prophetyahweh@yahoo.com

All emphasis, captitalizations, underlines, etc. done by me to aid in the reading of the quotes

..................................................................

CONFESSIONS ABOUT THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL

Confession 1

Holy Bible-Fireside Bible Publishers, Wichita, Kansas, pg 578h:

"For more than twenty five years after Christ’s ascension to heaven, the facts about his conception, birth, life, and ministry, and the tenets of the Christian faith as taught by Jesus himself were propagated ONLY BY WORD OF MOUTH."

Confession 2

The New Testament - Confratemity of Christian Doctrine - Benziger Brothers, Inc., New York, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, San Francisco, page xvi:

"The titles prefixed to the four Gospels, THOUGH NOT ORIGINAL, are of early date. They are mentioned in the latter part of the second century in the churches of Lyons, Rome and Alexandria. Thus one can reasonably conclude that THEY WERE ADDED TO THE GOSPELS during the first half of the second century. These titles indicate the human or secondary authors and not that the gospels were written merely according to the preaching, mind, or authority of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John."

Confession 3

The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths And Secrets - Barbara G. Walker, page 467:

"Nevertheless, adherents of the true religion violently disagreed as to the circumstances of its foundation. In the first few centuries A.D. there were many mutually hostile Christian sects, and MANY MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY GOSPELS. As late as 450, Bishop Theodore of Cyrrhus said there were at least 200 different Gospels revered by the churches of his own diocese, until he destroyed all but the canonical four. The other Gospels were lost as stronger sects overwhelmed the weaker, wrecked their churches, and burned their books."

Confession 4

The World Book Encyclopedia - Volume 2 (B) 1989, page 282, 284:

"The early church probably accepted the four Gospels as authentic, even though THE AUTHORS WERE UNKNOWN. Gradually, the church associated the Gospels with two of Christ’s apostles, Matthew and John, and two companions of apostles, Mark, and Luke. TRADITIONALLY, they are considered to be the authors of the Gospels."

"The first generation of Christians preserved memories of Jesus’ teachings, deeds, and crucifixion largely BY WORD OF MOUTH. The story of Jesus was not written down in the gospels until the second generation of the church."

.........................................................................

CONFESSIONS CONCERNING THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Confession 1

The Gospel According To Matthew - Leon Morris- The Pillar New Testament Commentary, page 13:

"It is widely agreed by critical orthodoxy that this gospel [Matthew] WAS NOT WRITTEN BY MATTHEW or for that matter by any close personal follower of Jesus."

Confession 2

Companion God - a cross-cultural commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, George T. Montague, S. M., pages 5-6:

"It has been TRADITIONALLY believed that the Matthew credited with authoring this gospel is the same as the apostle Matthew. There are serious problems with this view, however. For one thing, if Matthew the apostle were the author, WHY WOULD HE NOT USE HIS OWN MEMOIRS OF JESUS RATHER THAN DEPENDING ALMOST TOTALLY UPON MARK?"

Confession 3

Matthew - the teachers’s Gospel, Paul S. Minear, the Pilgrim Press, New York, pages 3-4:

"I have chosen the subtitle "The Teacher’s Gospel" for a double reason: The author of this Gospel was a teacher who designed his work to be of maximum help to teachers in Christian congregations/ The author is called Matthew, although ACTUALLY HIS NAME IS UNKNOWN; also unknown are the names of the teachers in his first audience."

"It is not easy to identify this particular author. ORIGINALLY, THE BOOK [MATTHEW] LACKED A NAME."

Confession 4

Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community - Anthony J. Saldarini, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, page 1:

"This study will argue that the Matthean group and ITS SPOKESPERSON, the author of the Gospel of Matthew, are Jews who believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God."

Confession 5

Matthew - by Arthur Robertson, page 8:

"NONE OF THE GOSPEL WRITERS IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES IN THEIR WRITINGS, but from earliest times, Matthew was recognized as the author of this gospel."

Confession 6

The Gospel According To Matthew - commentary by A. W. Argyle, Cambridge at the University Press 1963, pages 1, 15-16:

"The titles of the books of the New Testament WERE NOT WRITTEN BY THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES. This title [Matthew] is derived from Church lectionaries. In the oldest codices (i.e. manuscripts in book form) the four Gospels were bound together and called ‘the Gospel’, and the separate parts were headed ‘according to Matthew’, ‘according to Mark’ and so on."

"Behind the literary sources lies oral tradition. The Gospel was originally proclaimed BY WORD OF MOUTH IN THE preaching and missionary activity of the early church."

Our knowledge that the Gospel according to Mark is one of the sources of this Gospel [Matthew] helps us in considering the problems of the authorship of the Gospel."

"The words ‘according to Matthew’ which we find in the heading of the Gospel WERE NOT WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR, but became its title by the middle of the second century A.D. THE WORK ITSELF IS ANONYMOUS. IT CAN NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, because it is based on the Gospel of Mark. An apostle would not have needed to depend upon the writing of one who was not an apostle."

Confession 7

The Gospel According To Saint Matthew - The Clarendon Bible - Under the general editorship of the Bishop of Oxford and Bishop Wild - With introduction and commentary by F. W. Green, M. A., page 15:

"The first Gospel [Matthew] IS AN ANONYMOUS WORK. When first quoted in the letters of S. Ignatius of Antioch and others, it is cited as The Gospel. In no case is the title of a book in the New Testament part of the original document; not does the title ‘according to’ necessarily imply belief as to authorship. It may mean that the subject had by treated by others."

Confession 8

The Gospel of Matthew - Sacra Pagina, Daniel J. Harrington, S. J., Editor, page 8:

"NOTHING IN THE TEXT NAMES THE AUTHOR; the title "according to Matthew" was not part of the first edition. The author no where claims to have been an eyewitness to the events that he describes. WHY DID HE RELY ON MARK AND Q AS HIS WRITTEN SOURCES RATHER THAN HIS OWN MEMORY? Yet if the traditional ascription is rejected, then we are still hard pressed to explain why the Gospel was assigned to Matthew. Was "Matthew" a missionary to the area in which the Gospel was composed? Was he considered to "patron" of the community? Was he responsible for some early stage of the special Matthean tradition (M)? At any rate, the ANONYMOUS GOSPEL OF MATTHEW seems to have been composed around A. D. 85."

Confession 9

Matthew’s Majestic Gospel - Ivor Powell, page 14:

"AT FIRST, THERE WERE NO WRITTEN RECORDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS.

The message was probably memorized and orally passed on from one Christian to another."

Confession 10

Matthew - Spirituality for the 80's and 90's - a Gospel commentary by Leonard Doohan, pages 10-12:

"Since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and subsequent developments in biblical criticism, New Testament scholars have seriously questioned the traditional view based on Papais. The point of departure for this more recent view is the internal evidence that Matthew’s gospel was not written in Aramaic or Hebrew, as Papias said, but in Greek. The Greek gospel is not translation Greek, but rather the original language of this gospel. Moreover, as we shall see, source critics have shown that Matthew is dependent on Mark. IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT AN EYEWITNESS SUCH AS MATTHEW THE TAX COLLECTOR, DISCIPLE OF JESUS, WOULD BE SO EXTENSIVELY DEPENDENT ON A NON-EYEWITNESS SUCH AS MARK. The Matthew we have was written in Greek, is dependent on Mark and written later. WE MAY NEVER KNOW HOW THE AUTHOR OF THIS FIRST GOSPEL RECEIVED THE NAME OR PSEUDONYM OF MATTHEW: INDEED, WE MAY NEVER KNOW HOW, OR EVEN IF, THIS WORK IS TRACEABLE TO THE EYEWITNESS DISCIPLES OF JESUS. The author known to us as Matthew was not an eyewitness, but a brilliant theologian, highly educated in Judaism and profoundly committed to the Lord."

Confession 11

Matthew - Evangelist and Teacher - R. T. France, page 73:

"The presence of Matthew in the list of the Twelve has been used as an argument against his authorship of the gospel. On the assumption that the gospel was originally anonymous, it may be suggested that its association with Matthew was due merely to the desire to find an apostolic name to attach to it in order to enhance it authority in the church. Among the Twelve, Matthew would have no special claim to be so honored, since he was almost as obscure as any of the others. But the fact that this gospel alone has an account of the call of Matthew under that name might be sufficient reason to posit him as its author. In other words, the association of the gospel with Matthew is due to his presence in the apostolic list rather than to any historical association he may have had with the book. But we have seen above that the assumption of the anonymous circulation of gospels, after which names were attached to them purely by guesswork, is historically improbable. It is more plausible to suggest that it was pseudonymously attributed to Matthew by the original author, and that in the course of the church’s use of the gospel as that of ‘Matthew’, WHAT BEGAN AS A LITERARY FICTION CAME TO BE ACCEPTED AS FACT."

.................................................................................

CONFESSIONS CONCERNING THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Confession 1

Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, by William L. Lane, page 21:

"The Gospel which bears Mark’s name IS ACTUALLY ANONYMOUS..."

Confession 2

The Gospel According To Mark, by James R. Edwards, page 3:

"Like the other canonical Gospels, the Gospel of Mark NO WHERE IDENTIFIES ITS AUTHOR, nor even, as is the case with Luke (1:1-4) and John (20:30-31), the occasion of writing. The titles of each of the four Gospels, which WERE ASSIGNED ON THE BASIS OF CHURCH TRADITION, appear in the first of the second century."

Confession 3

The Gospel of Mark, by B. Harvie Branscomb, M.A. (Oxon), Ph, d. Professor of New Testament, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, page xxxi:

"Here again one must begin with indications which the Gospel itself supplies rather than with traditional views. Although the book itself is completely anonymous...It must be kept in mind that THE TITLE TO THIS BOOK WAS NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT."

Confession 4

The Gospel According To Saint Mark, by A. W. F. Blunt, B. D., page i:

"Many people on first approaching the study of the gospels are, often unconsciously, under the influence of two preconceived ideas: (1) that the Church started with gospels in its hand; (2) that these gospels were written freely by eyewitnesses. BOTH THESE IDEAS ARE ERRONEOUS. The process by which the four gospels came to be written was not so simple as this."

Confession 5

The Formation of the Gospel According To Mark, by Etienne Trocme’, page 248, 257:

"As we have already remarked several times, the thoughts and feelings of ‘the author of Mark’ (that is to say the writer who composed Mark 1-13, who is of markedly greater worth than the narrator and translator of Mark 14-16 and than the timid editor who combined the two documents to form the canonical Mark) were bound up with Palestine It is customary, when one is studying AN ANONYMOUS WORK LIKE MARK - in particular the original Mark - to find an author for it. Let us respect that custom - VAIN THOUGH IT MAY BE to do so, considering our ignorance of the personality and career of any of the few first century Christians who might come to mind."

Confession 6

Sowing The Gospel - Mark’s world in literary-historical perspective, by Mary Ann Tolbert, page 35-36:

"In a broad discussion of current views of genre to be found among literary theorists. Thoms Kent Comments: "Certain of our generic expectations, or what we expect to encounter when we begin to read a text, is determined part by what we know about a text’s history, its author, its genre." Such claims leaves the interpreter of the Gospel of Mark in some despair, for THE HISTORY OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE TEXT, ITS INTENDED AUDIENCE, ITS LOCATION, ITS DATE, AND ITS AUTHOR HAVE ALL BEEN LOST IN THE DUST OF CENTURIES...An anonymous author writing in koine Greek to Greek-speaking, predominantly Gentile audience during the second half of the first century C. E. is about as specific as our knowledge can be concerning the history of the Gospel’s production."

Confession 7

Mark: The Sorrowful Gospel - an Introduction to the Second Gospel, by John F. O’Grady, Paulist Press, New York/Ramsey, page 70-71:

"Most works on a Gospel will begin by responding to some of the curious questions associated with the origin of that Gospel: Who actually wrote the Gospel? Where was it written? When was it written? These questions are of particular interest today, since by now MANY PEOPLE HAVE HEARD THAT THE NAMES WE ASSOCIATE WITH THE GOSPELS MAY NOT BE THE NAMES OF THE ACTUAL AUTHORS...THE GOSPEL ITSELF NEVER STATES ANYTHING ABOUT ITS AUTHOR, ITS ORIGIN OR THE TIME OF COMPOSITION...With regard to the question as to who wrote the Gospel of Mark, first we should recall that NOWHERE DOES THE AUTHOR IDENTIFY HIMSELF. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR ALL THE GOSPELS. Matthew does not identify himself, nor does Luke; in the Gospel of John the author seems to identify himself with the beloved disciple, but this cannot be equated with the apostle John (21:24)."

Confession 8

Mark’s Gospel, by John Painter, page 3:

"Like the other Gospels, MARK IS ANONYMOUS. The title of the Gospel, though quite early, IS AN ADDITION appearing in longer and shorter forms..."

.......................................................................................

CONFESSIONS CONCERNING THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

Confession 1

Saint Luke by C. F. Evans, pages 1, 4, 7, 8:

"THE ORIGINS OF LUKE’S GOSPEL, LIKE THOSE OF THE OTHER GOSPELS, ARE OBSCURE...THE OTHER GOSPELS ARE ANONYMOUS WORKS, each, it is supposed, originally written to and for a particular community (or communities) to give instruction and guidance in the Christian faith and life, perhaps to correct false teaching, in the opinion of some for liturical use. LUKE’S GOSPEL IS ALSO ANONYMOUS, but it is personally addressed to an individual, Theophilus, by means of a preface probably intended to cover the whole work. Later statements on Lukan authorship appear to be either repetitions of those already cited, or LEGENDARY. Thus the statement that Luke wrote as a follower of all the apostles - Irenaeus may have got that by taking pasin = ‘all things’ in Luke 1:3 as masculine - is made in order to ground the Gospel and the first part of Acts on the firmest possible basis; BUT IT IS PLAINLY FALSE. The Gospel [Luke] is based largely on Mark’s and ON OTHER ANONYMOUS TRADITIONS, written or oral, while the first part of Acts would seem to depend on locals traditions about events that are already a long way back. The statement that because he was an inseparable companion of Paul Luke’s Gospel is a written version of the gospel Paul preached IS ALSO PLAINLY FALSE."

.............................................................

CONFESSIONS CONCERNING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Confession 1

Studies On John And Gender - a decade of scholarship, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, pages 17, 23, 35, 37, 42:

Chapter Two - Early Doubts Of The Apostolic Authorship Of The Fourth Gospel In The History Of Modern Biblical Criticism.

"When did doubts regarding the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel first arise in the history of modern biblical criticism? The question of the authorship of the Gospels is a knotty one. As Stephen Neill points out, the Gospels belong to a class of writings that share the following characteristics: "NO ONE OF THEM [THE GOSPEL] GIVES, IT ITS TEXT, THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR; THE TITLES WHICH WE FIND IN THE ANCIENT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS FORM NO PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT. No one of them gives any indication as to the date and place of writing." He asks, "IF AN ANCIENT WRITING IS OF THIS ANONYMOUS AND HOMELESS CHARACTER, BY WHAT MEANS, IF ANY, IS IT POSSIBLE TO FIX IT IN TIME, AND TO ESTABLISH WITH SOME PROBABILITY THE NAME OF THE WRITER?...Collins contended that Jesus or his apostles should have clearly settled the question which writings were canonical rather than leaving it up to later councils to dispute with one another "about the genuineness of all books bearing the names of the Apostles."...However, even as ardent a supporter of the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel as Schleiermacher could insist that in apostolic times very probably anyone conscious of being in essential agreement with what an apostle had taught "was able to regard the publication of his writing under the apostle’s name AS A WHOLLY ACCEPTABLE FICITION" AND THAT GREEK LITERATURE PROVES THAT SUCH PSEUDEPIGRAPHY WAS COMMON...The term "the Gospels according to "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then, refers to the Gospels as they were written on the basis of the REMINISCENCES AND INSTRUCTION of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John BY LATER REDACTORS. In his critique of Eckermann’s position, Staudin drew attention to several issues that occupy New Testament scholarship to this very day: the rootedness of the radical dichotomization between the teaching of Jesus and the theology of the apostles in rationalism; the question regarding valid criteria for the determination of the authenticity of various Gospel traditions; and THE LESSENING OF CONFIDENCE IN THE GOSPELS AS RELIABLE SOURCES FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH."

Confession 2

The Gospel Of John - edited by Barnabas Lindars, S. S. F., the Attic Press, Inc. Greenwood, S. C., page 28, 33-34

"The traditional view is that the evangelist was John son of Zebedee, and that he is the person referred to in the Gospel itself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ This view still has its supporters. Even such critical commentators as Brown and Schnackenburg retain it up to a point. But the objections to it are formidable."

"To begin with, it must be observed that THIS ATTRIBUTION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE JOHN CANNOT BE TRACED BACK TO THE EARLIEST DAYS."

"But, before we look at this, it is necessary to review the evidence of Papias, which has been used to support another theory of authorship - i.e. NOT JOHN THE APOSTLE, BUT AN ELDER OF THE SAME NAME."

"The ANONYMITY of the Beloved Disciple must be taken seriously: John did not wish his identity to be known. THIS LEADS TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE CAN RIGHTLY BE REGARDED AS AN HISTORICALLY IDENTIFIABLE CHARACTER AT ALL."

Our search for the author of the Fourth Gospel has produced only negative results. THE ATTRIBUTION OF IT TO JOHN THE APOSTLE IS NOT WELL FOUNDED. The Beloved Disciple is not the author, nor even a person who could have supplied eyewitness information, in spite of 21:24. WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW WHO THE AUTHOR WAS; in this commentary he will be called ‘John’ for the sake of custom and convenience."

"IT FOLLOWS THAT THE FOURTH GOSPEL CAN LAY NO CLAIM TO SPECIAL HISTORICAL RELIABILITY. In fact, THE FICTIONAL approach to descriptions of character, exemplified in the figure of the Beloved Disciple, WARNS US AGAINST GIVING TOO READY CREDENCE to the numerous circumstantial details of the narrative."

Confession 3

St. John’s Gospel - A Commentary, by R. H. Lightfoot, edited by C. F. Evans, Oxford at the Clarenton Press.

"...the evidence which shows that the gospel may have been in circulation soon after, if not before, the end of the first century makes it possible to hold that it could have been written in old age by a younger contemporary of the Lord. Moreover, it cannot be decisively urged that, since the character of the gospel shows its author to have been an original thinker and theologian, HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN THE JOHN WHO IS DESCRIBED IN ACTS 4:13 AS AN ‘UNEDUCATED LAYMAN’..."

Well, there you have it - some of the references in my collection.

I will be adding the rest of them soon.

This collection contains only about half of the references I've collected.

Sincerely Yours In The Defense Of YAHWEH's Word,

Prophet Yahweh
Seer of Yahweh