If you're not interested in such questions, that is fine, they are just interesting things to ponder. But why comment if you aren't interested? Why not keep your non-interest to yourself? And no, God didn't "write" Hebrews. That is the dictation theory of inspiration which virtually no-one (other than Muslims concerning the Qu'ran) believe.
While the author is unknown it would have had to have been written by an Apostle or someone very close to them, Barnabas certainly qualifies. He was a Levite as was John Mark who wrote the Gospel according to Mark. It matters because the church preserved this book very carefully which means whoever wrote it was held in high regard, associated with the Apostolic witness.
No, Barnabas doesn't. It was written by someone close to a witness, not a witness (Heb. 2:3). The Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark was not associated with John Mark before Jerome and is still distinguished from him by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and other churches.
No, the Apostle John didn't write the Gospel of John and was long dead from martyrdom when the fourth gospel was written.
Yes actually he does, so how easy it is to be emphatic. John Mark being the author has long unbroken tradition. He was Barnabas cousin, and wrote it under the guidance of Peter. He was, like Baranabas a Levite and apparently had some training as a scribe. How do you think the early church learned to preserve their sacred writing like Levites had for centuries. Barnabas was one of the original 70 and accompanied Paul on his first missionary journey. Barnabas was imminently qualified to write this book and the fact that he didn't sign his work is consistant with Levitical traditions.
I think the church knows it's own sacred writings far better then modern skeptics. The traditional teaching that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John still stands up to close scrutiny.
No you offered very general sources that prove nothing. I been through this a dozen times and you guys have in common is a feverish need to deny John wrote the Gospel according to John. You are unanimously immune to source material and one anecdotal evidence and you think it refutes 2000 years of Christian scholarship. These pedantic posts just seeth with indignation, which is little more then melodrama. My favorite was the guy who wanted to argue John the Baptist wrote Revelations. These arguments are ill founded, hypernodernist, chew toys. I've never seen one stand up to close scrutiny.
Well, I'm not surprised you've never seen it stand up to close scrutiny--your posts are so full of misconceptions and mistaken innuendos for a start. Would you spend time trying to discuss with someone like you? You're one hundred percent wrong, but you've already made this about motivations instead of evidence.
A lot of my source material has never appeared in English. But there you go making assumptions again.
Not really assuming much I'm just convinced that the traditional authorship according to John is legitamate, reliable and accurate. I have tracked down the source material from time to time and concluded the modernist view is fundamentally flawed.
What source material have you tracked down? What sources have you read?
Enough, and I am more then willing to revisit them again when I'm sure your aware of them. You've given me no indication of that and I'm not interested in fielding arguments that don't recognize or are otherwise oblivious to those vital sources. I've been down that rabbit hole before and it goes in circles.
So be it, maybe we can revisit the topic when we both have a more open attitude.
