@ Huria.. In continuation of your many questions... :)

Quote
Then we have the New Testament that raises loads of other questions

• The early Church Fathers. (they didn't consider New Testament as inspired scripture!)
• who are the gospels writers? We have first names but nobody is sure who are they?
• Who is John in particular? chapter 21 assumed by another author by that particular chapter at least
• Do you have any original manuscripts left??? None, apart from one fragment small with couple line in it !!! Just one out of thousands!
• “Of the approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament that are known today, no two agree So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

exactly in all particulars. Confronted by a mass of conflicting readings, editors and translators had to decide which variants deserve to be included in the text and which should be relegated to textual notes”
With regards to the topic of manuscript evidence, I feel there is enough said already on this and other recent threads. So I don't feel there is anything to be gained by travelling old ground on that one. Case in point, the Bible still holds greater manuscript evidence than any other work of its kind and antiquity ... Including the Quran. So maybe it would be more productive to look at what we do have rather than what you assume to be missing.

With regards to the Early Church Fathers, I confess it is not a topic I know a great deal about... So on this occasion I beg your leave to resort to a copy and paste job and attach an article which I feel explains the role of the Early Church Fathers in a fairly clear and concise way.

Question: "Who were the early church fathers?"


Answer: The early church fathers fall into three basic categories: apostolic fathers, ante-Nicene church fathers, and post-Nicene church fathers. The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred, and Clement took over from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers. However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived, while many of the writings of Clement of Rome survived. The apostolic fathers would have largely passed from the scene by the beginning of the second century, except for those few who might have been disciples of John, such as Polycarp. The tradition is that the apostle John died in Ephesus around A.D. 98.


The ante-Nicene fathers were those who came after the apostolic fathers and before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Such individuals as Iraenus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr are ante-Nicene fathers.


The post-Nicene church fathers are those who came after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. These are such noted men as Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine; Chrysostom, called the “golden-mouthed” for his excellent oratorical skills; and Eusebius, who wrote a history of the church from the birth of Jesus to A.D. 324, one year before the Council of Nicea. He is included in the post-Nicene era since he did not write his history until after the Council of Nicea was held. Other post-Nicene fathers were Jerome, who translated the Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and Ambrose, who was largely responsible for Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.


So, what did the early church fathers believe? The apostolic fathers were very concerned about the proclamation of the gospel being just as the apostles themselves proclaimed it. They were not interested in formulating theological doctrine, for the gospel they had learned from the apostles was quite sufficient for them. The apostolic fathers were as zealous as the apostles themselves in rooting out and exposing any false doctrine that cropped up in the early church. The orthodoxy of the message was preserved by the apostolic fathers' desire to stay true to the gospel taught to them by the apostles.


The ante-Nicene fathers also tried to stay true to the gospel, but they had an additional worry. Now there were several spurious writings claiming to have the same weight as the established writings of Paul, Peter, and Luke. The reason for these spurious documents was evident. If the body of Christ could be persuaded to receive a false document, then error would creep into the church. So the ante-Nicene fathers spent a lot of their time defending the Christian faith from false doctrine, and this led to the beginnings of the formation of accepted church doctrine.


The post-Nicene fathers carried out the mission of defending the gospel against all kinds of heresies, so more and more the post-Nicene fathers grew interested in methods of defending the gospel and less interested in transmitting the gospel in a true and pure form. Thus, they began to fall away from the orthodoxy which was the hallmark of the apostolic fathers. This was the age of the theologian and endless discussion on arcane topics such as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”


The early church fathers are an example to us of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth. None of the early church fathers were perfect, just as none of us are perfect. Some of the early church fathers held beliefs that most Christians today consider to be incorrect. What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers. While we can gain knowledge and insight by studying the early church fathers, ultimately our faith must be in the Word of God, not in the writings of early Christian leaders. Only God’s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/early-ch...#ixzz32NxGCrix

There is a wealth of agreement that the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century. Could you maybe pinpoint what you are aiming at? Do you mean because this Gospel claims to be an eye witness account.. Believed to be .. The Disciple whom Jesus loved... Well, the Bible does claim the Jesus was probably closest to John. We may never know for certain but many theologians throughout the ages maintain that John should be attributed to John the Disciple of Jesus.




If we're going to dispute the position that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John we need to provide credible evidence to the contrary. Simply accusing our existing evidence in support of their authorship of being insufficient is hardly conclusive. If they weren't the authors then where is the historical evidence to the contrary? Where is there a credible statement from that time period that disputes the genuineness of their authorship? Sometimes one just has to have faith that if something seems right.. Then chances are it is probably right.. In the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary.

To to be continued.....