IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Because the tradition didn't appear until the end of the first century or early second century. Like I said, when the gospels were first passed around from church to church, they were anonymous.Well that is the sceptic pov yes.
Tradition without foundation? Why isn't Church tradition just the history that was passed down about the gospels?
Again, this is a lovely tradition, but it has no historical foundation.There is evidence in the Bible for Mark and Peter's association and in church history that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark as a translator of Peter.
If you understand that the authorship of the gospels is the traditions of men, why are you so heavily invested in it emotionally?Protestants scorn the traditions of men which are taught as if they are from God.
This is the second time you have used the word "skeptic." It seems that for some reason inside your head, you think this diminishes their scholarship.Skeptics like to push for the late writing of the gospels (under the presupposition that Jesus could not have prophesied the Temple destruction) and work from there into saying that the gospels were written by people who were not witnesses and who did not know witnesses.
As to your comment on dating the gospels due to mention of the destruction of the temple, let's discuss the difference between what is possible and what is plausible. I think I used this example yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind.
Fact: I woke up this morning to find a few sprinkles of cat litter just outside the litter box.
Possibility One: My cat used the litter box during the night, and tracked some of the litter out.
Possibility Two: Angels visited my home and levitated the litter out of the box and onto the floor.
I think from that example, it should be clear to you that it is implausible to suggest a supernatural explanation for something that has a perfectly good natural explanation. Thus, the supernatural explanation for the allusions to the Temple destruction in the gospels are simply implausible when there is a perfectly likely natural explanation: that the texts were written after the destruction of the Temple.