Thread:Superdadsuper/@comment-1777104-20150829233213

You made a minor edit, and then wrote of not being certain of 'the writings' (text and content) of my edit.

I was extending a bare statement that "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John... were witnesses" and thus were the authors of the books that hold their names. I used what you try to stay away from (secondary and tertiary sources) to back up the obvious fact that none of the gospels are "signed." To be totally honest, the "Authorship" section would read simply: "The Gospels are all anonymous, but the authors have be deducted from clues withing their pages from the earliest centuries."

All I did was point this out and provide the same deductions that others have made to show agreement with the early church. The provided internal evidence at best provides a good possibility that the early church was correct in including the books in the canon. Personally, I believe the books were of such quality that their validity would have been obvious when they were pinned. But unlike the epistles, no one signed them. 