Were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation really written by any of the apostles? Because the Early Church questions the authenticity of all of these books as "antilegomena". Eusebius explicitly rejects Revelation as scripture.
Also, scholars today don't believe Hebrews was written by Paul and also 2 Peter is thought to not have been written by Peter and also Revelation is thought to have been written by a different John from John the Apostle.
Yes
To answer your question yes they were. They are attested by tradition even if a reduced number of fathers have doubts about it.
Eusebius was an Arian so it makes sense to deny the book that says Jesus is the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, just like God was called.
Forgot to add. About Hebrews almost everyone had the opinion that it was very hard to know its author. Easterners still believed it was written by Paul, others by Luke or Apollo.
In fact like Origen said only God knows who wrote it.
The theology is similar to the one of Paul but the writing style is quite different.
So Revelation was written by the Apostle John?
wew
scholars today also believe Isaiah was written by 3 different people in 3 different times because they dont like the fact that he was a real prophet and did really prophecy lot of stuff which happened
today we can know it was only one author since we have the complete isaiah scroll from the dead sea
2 Peter is from Apostle Simon Peter
2 John, 3 John, Apocalypse are from Aposte John
Jude is from Jude, the brother of the Lord
the Author of Hebrews is not named but it is assumed that it is written by one of Pauls fellows
without a doubt
it was written by John the Apostle
Eusebius recanted and became homoousian.
No scholars believe Proto-Isaiah (Isaiah 1-39) was actually written by Isaiah or a close companion of his. Deutero-Isaiah (40-55) is thought to have been added in as a supplement to the prophet's original work after the exile. The abrupt change in style, the fact that the prophet Isaiah is never mentioned in Deutero-Isaiah, and that it is implied in the text that Judah has been destroyed and the Babylonian exile all point to it having been written during the exile. Trito-Isaiah (56-66) is thought to be a second supplement or appendix to the work as a whole added after the exile as it is implied that the Temple is being built. So scholars do believe a good 60% of the Book of Isaiah was actually written by Isaiah.
You insult Christ with this post. God is the Spirit of Truth. Pushing inauthentic data out of blind credulity is a sin. Repent.
Just compare it with other joanine writings. The similarity is striking. If they question that they might as well swallow the redpill and say Acts weren't written by Luke or some other nonsense.
Only atheists disregard John and even say his Gospel is just his religious experience and not real life.
winnie the pooh modernists they should be hanged in a public square.
user don't you meant this user ?
The other you quoted is defending orthodoxy saying it was really Isaiah who wrote his own book.
Probably fake, would be for the better that way people would stop obsessing over this doomsday fascination.
I smell heresy friend.
Very true. John has a “sin lives in the blood” kind of view. He records Jesus calling the fake jews sons of Satan and calls the fake jews in Revelation the synagogue of Satan. This is as if he believes anyone from the same lineage of Jesus cannot possibly be so evil. He also records Jesus calling Judas a devil in John 6 as if Judas’ fate was already sealed by his nature. He’s quite a deterministic and racist (not sure if that’s the right word genist? familist?) kind of fellow, more redpilled than Zig Forums to the point of being one of the most scripturally quoted people on 4/pol/.
It takes more than some name calling to prove a concept.
Hahahahahahahaha How The Winnie The Pooh Is Revelation Real Hahahaha Tigga Just Don't Read The Bible Like tigga Close Your Eyes Haha.
Unlike antilegomena, apocrypha is actually profitable.
...
You learn something new everyday.
Meant OT. Some of the Church Father writings, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and Apostolic Constitutions look pretty dope.
...
Doesn't matter, he's no saint. He was a courtesan of the Emperor
He kinda was forced to.
Secular scholars are worthless. They wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. They deny the authority of early Christian testimony and make shit up wholesale in order to compete over who has the theory that makes Christianity look worst. Some of them still think Mark was written after 70AD despite it making zero sense for it to be after 60AD because there had to be enough time for Luke to use Mark as a basis for his gospel and write Acts before Paul was executed in 68AD (If was written after Pauls martyrdom it would've been included in Acts).
They're just retarded. They ignore history and common sense in an attempt to making Christianity appear retarded and show that the scripture has no power since they believe it wasnt written by the apostles.
The sad thing is that many "Catholic" scholars are following their footsteps.
My bible repeats that unproved shit in the introduction to every book and even defends it instead of comparing them and defending the Catholic point. I just go to the Catholic encyclopedia and look for a description of the book before reading it.
So get to proving your authority over scripture