The bible has some truth, but has been TAMPERED WITH over the centuries, and the high Priests acknowledge this, but you dont? ---thats funny----
BOOK AUTHOR INFO
Matthew Unknown 100 – 140 CE
Mark Unknown 90
Coffee-Enema +
Luke Unknown 100 – 140 CE
John Unknown 100 – 140 CE
Acts Unknown 120 – 160
Coffee-Enema (same author that wrote the final version of Luke)
Romans Paul 60 CE
1 Corinthians Paul 55 CE
2 Corinthians Paul 55 CE
Galatians Paul 51 CE
Ephesians Uncertain 85 CE; Attributed to Paul
Philippians Paul 59 CE
Colossians Paul 78 CE
1 Thessalonians Paul 49 CE
2 Thessalonians Uncertain 90 CE; Attributed to Paul
1 Timothy Unknown 95 – 105 CE; Falsely attributed to Paul
2 Timothy Unknown 95 – 105 CE; Falsely attributed to Paul
Titus Unknown 95 – 105 CE; Falsely attributed to Paul
Philemon Paul 60 CE
Hebrews Unknown 60 - 80 CE; Falsely attributed to Paul
James Uncertain 60 CE; Attributed to “James”, Jesus’ brother
1 Peter Unknown 85 CE; Falsely attributed to Paul
2 Peter Unknown 115 CE
1 John Unknown 95 CE
2 John Unknown 95 CE
3 John Unknown 95 CE
Jude Uncertain 75 CE; Attributed to “Jude”
Revelations Uncertain
Coffee-Enema 97 – John the Apostle would have been too old (almost 130 years old)
From the NIV Bible Commentary
MARK
"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"
LUKE
"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"
So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other "Satanic false books"?
JOHN
"The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel, which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)"
HEBREWS
"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)"
So because the guy was supposedly "well known (which we don't really know that for sure anyway)", then would that give us the right to consider his words as the Words of GOD Almighty?!
1, 2 & 3 JOHN
"....Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers...(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1904)"
"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1905)"
REVELATIONS
"Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:8)... In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John. He suggested that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears elsewhere in ancient writings. Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view". - (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1922)
When studying the origins of the church I found the stories is as divers as there are different denominations. But I will tell you some facts I know, as a fact.
The "Synoptic Problem"
The similarities and differences among the first three gospels have given rise to much speculation:
» There are passages among the three that are identical or almost exact. (Consider Matthew 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-44 and Luke 5:12-14). Theologians have concluded that the gospels are linked in some way; most believe that the author of one gospel copied passages from another.
» Many nearly identical passages are found in Matthew and Luke, but are absent from Mark. These total over 200 verses. Many Bible scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were unaware of each other's writing. Thus, they conclude that both based part of their gospel on another document, usually called the Gospel of Q. "Q" stands for the German word "Quelle" which means "source." An example is Matthew 10:26-33 and Luke 12:2-9
» Matthew and Luke also contain unique material not present in the other gospel. This apparently came from two different traditions, of which each author had access to only one.
» Analysis of passages that are similar but not identical is called "redaction criticism." It can give insight into the order in which the Gospels were probably written, their date of composition, and the development of theological beliefs in the early Christian movements.
Since the books themselves are undated, the order in which they were written is not clear. John McVay lists some theories:
» Oral Theory: The three gospels were written independently and all based on "structured and durable oral traditions"
» Augustinian Theory: The three gospels were written in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; each author had access to the earlier gospels
» Two Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q.
» Four Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q. In addition, Matthew includes some material from a third source, often called "M". Luke similarly includes passages from another source, often called "L". Both L and M were probably oral traditions.
» Two Gospel theory: Matthew was written first. Luke was written later and based on Matthew. Mark was written last, and based on Luke and Matthew.
» Theory of Markan Priority without Q: Mark was written first. Matthew was written later and based on Mark. Luke was written last, and based on Mark and Matthew.
The Augustinian Theory was accepted by the Christian church for most of its history. Most mainline and liberal theologians support the Four Source Theory today. One source estimates that over 90% of contemporary Gospel scholars accept this theory and the existence of the Gospel of Q.4. The Synoptic Problem is not particularly important to most conservative theologians. Since they regard all of the gospels as inerrant (free of error) and inspired by God, it matters little who wrote them, when they were written, and which author had access to which documents.
The Gospel of Q
This is believed by many theologians to have been a very early "sayings" gospel, which included many the statements of Jesus, but little detail about his life. His birth, selection of 12 disciples, crucifixion, resurrection etc. are not mentioned. In a sense, it is a pre-Christian document. It represents those parts of Jesus' life that his followers remembered and recorded about 20 years after his death. He is presented as "a charismatic teacher, a healer, a simple man filled with the spirit of God. Jesus is also a sage, the personification of Wisdom, cast in the tradition of King Solomon." Q4 appears to be divided into three parts:
» Q1 is the first and largest part of the gospel. It describes Jesus as a Philosopher - Teacher. It was written circa. 50 CE.
» Q2 described Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. It was probably written circa 60 CE during the time leading up to the Jewish uprising in Palestine against the occupying Roman army. This revolt eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
» Q3 describes Jesus as a deity, who converses directly with God and Satan. It advocates retreating from the violence and civic unrest of society and patiently waiting for "their moment of glory in some future time at the end of human history." 6 This section was probably added in the mid-60s, about one decade before Mark was written.
The author of the Gospel of Thomas, which is believed to have been written circa 92 CE, perhaps in northern Syria, used material from Q1 and Q2. The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke appear to have copied many passages from Q1, Q2 and Q3. After having been incorporated into at least three actively used gospels, Q appears to have become an obsolete document, and was discarded. No surviving copies exist. Theologians have had to reconstruct it by analyzing Matthew and Luke. More details on this Gospel are available.
http://www.quest.za.net/pages/readonline/ch5/chapter5B.html