Is the Church really growing?

[_Drifting]

I gave you a site that lists names. You want me to do your homework for you and make it easier for you to be an anti?

You gave me one site and expect me to go through it to find the names that you claim exist?


Top five names please - your particular favourites.
(Top Tip; Don't use Warren Berkley)

[_gdemetz]

ALL the references are listed at the bottom! They give the names and titles of the books, etc.!

[_Drifting]

ALL the references are listed at the bottom! They give the names and titles of the books, etc.!

Which ones are those which you feel are most persuasive?
Do you believe that 'John' is still alive today as per the three Nephites?
What is found in the Gospel of John that isn't found in the Gospel of Mark?

[_Drifting]

Check "External Evidence that the Gospels are Authentic." This site gives references to some, and there are many more.

Which site?
A website entitled...
"External Evidence that the Gospels are Authentic."
...appears to not exist.

[_Themis]

Themis, I have read the Bible from cover to cover and gone over it and studied it for more than 50 years as well as reading many commentaries, etc., etc., etc. You won't find very many Christian theologians who don't believe that the Gospel of John was written mostly by John.

Christians theologians? Of course they would believe this. That is the belief they came into it with. Personally I don't care if you just started studying the Bible yesterday. If you have evidence present it. You have a terrible habit of just asserting things, and asserting someone with education is asserting something. This is not evidence. Present the evidence. Authorship claims are of course not as simple as some might think.

[_gdemetz]

OK, Themis and Drifting, here are a few sites for you anti's:

1) "Physical and Literary Evidence That the Gospels are Authentic"

2) "The Authenticity of the Four Gospels"

3) "Full Text of the Authenticity of the Four Gospels"

4) "Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St. John's..."

5) "The Christ by John E. Remsberg"

[_Drifting]

OK, Themis and Drifting, here are a few sites for you anti's:

1) "Physical and Literary Evidence That the Gospels are Authentic"

Okay, so I checked out this first reference which actually isn't a site it's an essay on a site called themoorings.com solely operated by one individual Ed Rickard (a Baptist Minister).

He states:

The physical evidence that the Gospels are genuine productions of the early church is of two kinds.
The received text of the Gospels is based on a large number of manuscripts in the original language, Greek, together with a large number of ancient versions in other languages.
Some of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the Gospels date from not long after the time when Jesus lived.

Really gdemetz?
The evidence is that the text is based on other texts and that some of them date to not long after the time of when Christ is meant to have lived?

[_Themis]

OK, Themis and Drifting, here are a few sites for you anti's:

1) "Physical and Literary Evidence That the Gospels are Authentic"

2) "The Authenticity of the Four Gospels"

3) "Full Text of the Authenticity of the Four Gospels"

4) "Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St. John's..."

5) "The Christ by John E. Remsberg"

I am not an anti, but you can say it all you want if you think it is going to help you by attacking the person. I am also not going to look things up until you learn how to properly reference things. I talk about this on another thread.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23524&start=147

Now is that to hard, and that is a bare minimum. You really need to learn what evidence is and start providing it. It is not asserting things or showing where someone else has asserted it.

by the way The book of John like other books were written well after the fact, and who authored them is not clear at all. Personally I don't really care, but I know it's important to a literal black and white thinker who wants to treat the Bible as infallible.

[_gdemetz]

He is speaking of the "surviving manuscripts." They had to be hand copied. Also, if your check those sources thoroughly (and there are many more), to me the evidence of authenticity is overwhelming.

[_Drifting]

He is speaking of the "surviving manuscripts." They had to be hand copied. Also, if your check those sources thoroughly (and there are many more), to me the evidence of authenticity is overwhelming.

List the top three specific pieces of evidence of authenticity that you find most convincing.