Elisha Freeman retweetledi
Elisha Freeman
5.6K posts


@this_is_bigred Absolutely
Any guess on the next one? Hopefully won’t tolerate another year like this year from Pope
English

@elishaabcd Long overdo imo… appreciate what he’s done but we need a younger more decisive AD
English

Jack Pilgrim@JackPilgrimKSR
UK confirms Mitch Barnhart will retire as AD in June to take on new role as "the first executive-in-residence of the UK Sport and Workforce Initiative" Eli Capilouto will conduct a “listening tour” to decide the next steps for UK Athletics MORE: on3.com/teams/kentucky…
QME
Elisha Freeman retweetledi

This is... unexpected to say the least
Andrew Isker 🌳🪓@BonifaceOption
The Church of Christ's "demographic dreidel" looks more like a chess piece. Incredible. I never knew the Church of Christ is full of young families.
English
Elisha Freeman retweetledi

@this_is_bigred Oh I’m sorry you had to watch it in person. It’s been a long time since I changed the channel on a UK game. Bottom is falling out
English

@elishaabcd I don’t know bud. It’s bad. Me and my daughter were at the game. I paid money for that.
GIF
English

@BabysitterBari Who is the elite OC and DC that we go after?
English
Elisha Freeman retweetledi
Elisha Freeman retweetledi
Elisha Freeman retweetledi
Elisha Freeman retweetledi
Elisha Freeman retweetledi
Elisha Freeman retweetledi

Are the biblical gospels anonymous? In one sense, yes. But that doesn’t mean we don’t know who wrote them or can’t trust the attributed titles we now find attached to them.
The evidence is 3-fold:
1. We have the fact that whenever a manuscript has an inscription we have unanimity across the board on the text matching the name. For example we never find a manuscript with the text of John’s Gospel but attrited to Mathew, or Matthew’s attributed to Thomas, etc.
The idea that the Gospels were circulating anonymously around the Roman empire with no authorial attribution is highly improbable. It means that we have to suppose that for over 100 years there was no official author mentioned and then suddenly all the scribes, at the exact same time, throughout the world, with no trace of disagreement in any manuscripts, all decided to ascribe the same author. And that this happened not just once, but with each one of the four Gospels.
And we actually have an example of this type of disagreement with authorship with an actual anonymous New Testament document: Hebrews. Hebrews has a series of manuscripts that ascribe authorship and there is disagreement, not so with the Gospels.
2. Of between 90-100 biographical-type writings we have in all of ancient antiquity only 2 identify themselves formally within the writing:Historia Augusta - Life of Aelius and Lucian’s Passing of Peregrinus. All the rest are “formally anonymous.” Formal anonymity was the norm and rarely if ever compromises our ability to attach the namesake to the text.
Not to mention that Caesar, Xenophon, Julius Caesar, Polybius, Josephus, and Lucian, all frequently wrote in the third person, not unlike the Gospel of John.
3. This combined with the patristic evidence: Papias as recorded by Eusebius in Eccelesiastical History, speaks at length about Mark being the author and his connection with the source information to Peter. If we’re going for established credibility why not just link it with Peter directly? Why not just call this Gospel the Gospel of Peter and be done with it? Because even though Peter was the source of the content, Mark was the author, and there is no reason to consistently and without exception ascribe it to Mark unless it was in fact Mark who wrote it.
And the earliest mentions of the Gospels all ascribe them these names. Clement of Alexandria names all four Gospels by their traditional authorial names, the Muratorian Fragment, Irenaus, Theophilus of Antioch, all at the end of the 2nd century and all agree on a four-fold Gospel canon that matches in content and named attribution.
@DanPaterson7
English
Elisha Freeman retweetledi
Elisha Freeman retweetledi
Elisha Freeman retweetledi

















