mariacostel wrote on Dec 4
th, 2015 at 7:43am:
I have no reason to doubt John's authorship or that he was an eye-witness. You on the other hand have provided no evident that he is not.
You are just not paying attention or being willfully ignorant. The titles were not given to the gospels when they were written, they were added later. So we have an anonymous authorship (or rather, a title given). The Disciple Jesus Loved could have been anybody, and this is a far from settled debate among scholars. To say it is John is as good a guess as any, but there is no real proof that this is the case. Don't act like early Christian writings couldn't give authorship either, Paul did a superb job of that.
So again, you have an anonymous source, written ~60 years after the events took place, in a language different to your alleged author.
You also didn't answer why you thought Peter was an eyewitness.
I'll also direct you to the first time in recorded history that the Gospels are referred to by their current titles: 180AD by church father by Irenaeus. By the way, did you know that he's largely responsible for the four gospels being today's canon?
Quote:It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.
Fascinating stuff.