He wrote "History of the Church" covering the period of the first Apostles down to his own days.
"Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language,
while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.
After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached;
and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel
which Paul had declared.
Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his
bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia."
---- In "Against Heresies" 3.1.1, and also quoted in Church History, Book V, Chapter 8 (See: click here )
Again, in the same books [the Hypotyposeis], Clement gives the tradition of
the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the
"The Gospels containing the genealogies
[i.e. Matt and Luke], he says, were written first.
The Gospel according to MARK had this occasion.
(My comment: MARK was written before Luke)
As Peter had preached the Word
publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were
present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and
remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel
he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this,
he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But,
last of all, JOHN, perceiving that the external facts
had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends,
and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."
This is the account of Clement.
(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7 - See: click here )).
They say this based on the observation that some material in Matthew and Luke may be copied from Mark....
Clement however, said that the order is:
all 4 gospels were written by people who either witnessed the events first hand (Matthew and John) or by people that are intimately acquainted to people that witnessed the events first hand (Mark was a good friend of Peter and Luke is the "beloved physician" of Paul).
We can be assured that the information recorded in very accurate (or else they deliberately lied)
The following extra information further confirm the authorship of the 4 Gospels:
The reason that they are mostly be the genuine author is the following:
These gospels are rejected by the Church leaders at that time (who were naturally the people with the right skill and knowledge to judge on this matter) as apocryphal (false teachings)
(See the Canon of the New Testament later for more details)
Gospel of Thomas, 13:
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like"
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just (righteous) messenger".
Gospel of Thomas, 114:
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life"
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male.... For every female who makes herself malewill enter the kingdom of Heaven"
Compare what you read in the gospel of Thomas to the 4 Gospels and you conclude that if the 4 Gospels report true facts, then the gospel of Thomas is either lying, or is an "interesting work by a novelist - writing from his/her imagination.
This gospel starts off very convincingly.... but when you reach about the end, when it tells the event of the resurrection, you start to suspect the author:
... (3) and they (the soldiers who were guarding the tomb) saw the heaven opened and two men descending shining with a great light, and they drew near the tomb. (4) The stone which had been set on the door rolled away by itself and moved to one side, and the tomb was opened and both of the young men went in.
My comment: There were NO eyewitnesses to the resurrection. This must be fantasy... The fantasy gets even better:
...they saw three men (the two men that went inside the tomb and the third is probably Jesus) come out of the tomb, tow of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them
My comment: Wait, it gets even better:
The head of the two they saw (the two angels) had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them went beyong heaven
--- In other words: the reseurrected Jesus was HUGE....
First, no one was present when the stone was rolled away - certainly not Peter. The description of the stone rolling away must be from someone's imagination.
Second, the authentic Gospels never reported a cross following Jesus...
Third, the authentic Gospels tell us that the resurrected Jesus was as normal as He was before He was crucified. He was not HUGE with a head reaching beyond the heaven....
The early Church fathers were very careful on what to accept as "Gospel": one of the criteria was that the document must be written by someone who knew Jesus or someone who was a long time company with someone who knew Jesus
The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by
Alexander died in 323 B.C. - so Plutarch wrote about Alexander about 400 years after the death of Alexander
Historians consider these work generally trustworthy
Furthermore, because the Gospels were written within ONE generation, the hostile witnesses that witnessed the same events that the disciples were preaching were also alive and they can testify against the New Testament IF THE GOSPEL WAS FALSE.
Instead, we DO find HISTORICAL RECORD where these hostile witnesses were trying to CREATE ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE (SAME) EVENTS REPORTED BY THE GOSPELS
This strongly support that the events reported in the Gospels are in fact the true and are NOT legends !!!
Examples of hostile testimony can be found in the Gospel and other writings
|....they gave enough silver to the soldiers. saying: "Say that His disciples came by night and stole His body away while we slept.".... And taking the silver, they did as they were taught. And this saying was spread amongthe Jews until today.|
What can we learn from this ?
|That Jesus did die, was buried and his body is really gone.|
What can we conclude what is happening back then:
Think ! Who do YOU believe ?
Let me tell you that we have historical evidence that many of Jesus' disciples die a horrible death because they refuse to preach a "different gospel" - there are written records that Paul and James (Jesus' brother) were persecuted.
I know of human nature: a human does not willingly (by one's own choice) give up one's life for a belief that he/she knows that it is a lie
Yes, there are people who gave up his/her life for a lie that he/she thought was true. These are person who have been fooled. But nobody, and I repeat: nobody will sacrifice his/her own life for a belief that he/she knows it is a lie.
So you may be thinking that Paul and James were fooled... Well, the problem is: they started the Christian relegion - see, nobody told them what to believe - they went out and told the people about Jesus having resurrected from the dead. Now, if the resurrection was a lie, then Paul and James would have invented this lie... Now do you think that a person would die for a lie that was invented by himself ???
What can we learn from this ?
|That Jesus did perform miracles....|
Here is another example where the hostile witnesses DID NOT DENY the fact that Jesus performed many UNEXPLANABLE DEEDS
They can't explain the miraculous things that Jesus did, and instead of DENYING it the Jewish leaders "explained" it away (by saying that Jesus was a soccerrer rather than admitting that He was the Messiah (or even a prophet)).
The gospel writers would certainly include this historially important fact but did not - the reason they omitted it may be because the gospels were written before 70 A.D.
At the end of Acts, Luke describes Paul being in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. - and ends without telling us the fate of Paul
Paul was executed by Nero and Nero died in June 68 A.D.... so Paul was executed before that 68 A.D. - if Luke knew about his death, he would certainly wrote about it.
So Acts was probably written between 62 A.D. and 68 A.D, most likely in 62 A.D. when Paul was under house arrest (Luke was with him and he had time writing).
Since Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke before Acts, this gospel would be written before 60 A.D. - which is only about 30 years (a very short time !!!) after Christ's resurrection !
All fundamental creeds of Christianity are confirmed in Paul's letters
|For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. Afterwards He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until the present day, but also some fell asleep. Afterwards, He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all He was seen by me also.|
That is WAY TOO SHORT a time to form any legends !!!
Suppose, just suppose that the Gospels were legends; suppose that the disciples were inventing a new religion....
What do you think they would do ?????
If you are gonna invent a new religion to ATTRACT a lot of people, you want the leaders of the new religion to be as immaculate/perfect as possible... (Who would want to follow a criminal or scumbag as a religious leader ???)
Take Peter for example - the leader of the disciples. Would Peter - being one of the main man of this newly invented religion - invent a gospel where he denies Jesus not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES ???? Would Peter portraited himself as a COWARD in his own invented religion ???
|Peter - the leader of the apostles and the most important pillar of the early Christian church - denied Jesus not once, but three times. The Gospels could have easily omitted this fact, but did not !|
Most of the original Disciples of Jesus were persecuted to death. If they have invented this "gospel" themselves, they would know it is a lie. Human nature is such that: