Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Craig B]

Evangelists?? What Evangelists are you talking about? For the "millionth" time the Gospels are FORGERIES and NOT eyewitness accounts.

No-one knows who wrote them.

No-one has any evidence that Evangelists wrote them.

Eh? Evangelists wrote them! Of course we don't know what individual persons wrote them; that's why I wrote "evangelist", and not any particular names. The word means "writer of Gospel". Whoever wrote them was by definition an "evangelist". Just as whoever wrote "Gone With The Wind" was by definition a "novelist".

Gospel is a calque (word-for-word translation) of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion (eu- "good", -angelion "message") ... The Greek word euangelion is also the source (via Latinised evangelium) of the terms "evangelist" and "evangelism" in English. The authors of the four canonical Christian gospels are known as the Four Evangelists.

So even if they were written by other people than the named ones, those other people are "evangelists".

 

[Brainache]

Eh? Evangelists wrote them! Of course we don't know what individual persons wrote them; that's why I wrote "evangelist", and not any particular names. The word means "writer of Gospel". Whoever wrote them was by definition an "evangelist". Just as whoever wrote "Gone With The Wind" was by definition a "novelist". So even if they were written by other people than the named ones, those other people are "evangelists".

I don't think its possible to state it more clearly than that, but I'm sure a way will be found to misunderstand it.

 

[David Mo]

I don't recall anything mentioned about anything called "Pharaonic steles", but what you tried to argue about Thermopylae was clearly wrong. Thermopylae is NOT believed true on evidence no better than the biblical evidence of Jesus.
(…)
IOW - if the proven fictitious untrue writing in the gospels (and Paul’s letters) is all that you can offer as “evidence” showing that Jesus was real person, then you actually have no valid reliable or credible evidence of his existence at all. Because all of that religious writing is totally discredited as reliable fact, by all the numerous features already listed (I’ll list them again below, more deja vu for you!) and for which you have absolutely ZERO external independent support or confirmation of even one single word that any of those bible writers ever said about a human messianic preacher named “Yehoshua”.

1. Entirely anonymous, from hearsay writers who never knew Jesus at all, and who therefore could not themselves have any evidence of their own to provide about Jesus
2. Where those gospel writers were recounting stories from yet earlier anonymous hearsay people who also did not know Jesus, and who therefore also could not possibly be giving their own evidence of knowing anything about Jesus.
3. Where the earlier anonymous people were said to have believed that even earlier people had been disciples of Jesus and knew what he had once said and done.
4. But where none of those people ever confirmed a single thing that was said in any gospel
5. Where not one person ever wrote anything about Jesus during his lifetime
6. Where even for a century or more after Jesus was thought to have died (i.e. c.30AD) almost no historians even mentioned his existence at all
7. Where the few such as Tacitus and Josephus who did mention anything about Jesus, only mentioned him in passing in a couple of very brief sentences.
8. Where those authors such as Tacitus and Josephus were not even born at the time and could not possibly have ever known what Jesus did, except through even more hearsay from unnamed unknown sources.
9. Where even that quite hopeless anonymous hearsay supposedly mentioned by Tacitus and Josephus etc., is only known from copies written 1000 years later by Christian religious copyists themselves.
10. Where the only primary source ever known, i.e. the biblical writing, is so hopelessly unreliable and non-credible that it claimed completely untrue fiction about Jesus on virtually every page.
11. Where all of the biblical writers, inc. Paul, repeatedly stressed that they had obtained their Jesus beliefs by interpreting what they believed to have been prophecy written centuries before in the OT.
12. Where authors like Randel Helms have written in detail with entire books showing exactly where, how and why those gospel authors took their Jesus stories from specific passages in the books of the OT.
13. Where even that anonymous gospel hearsay, and the letters attributed to Paul, all reporting impossible supernatural fiction, and all very clearly obtaining their messiah beliefs from what they thought was the divine certainty of their OT, even that is not known from any of the original writers, but again only known from the very obvious religious devotional bias of Christian copyists writing from about the 4th-6th century onwards (i.e. for relatively complete forms with substantially readable detail).
14. Where all of that Christian copying, whether it’s copies of Josephus and Tacitus etc., or copies of earlier gospels etc., is known even to the most devout bible-scholars and theologians, to have suffered from frequent “interpolations”, i.e. alterations, additions and deletions of what was originally written, wherever the later religious copyists and their masters wished to change things according to their changing religious beliefs.

Well, this confirms you are going in a vicious circle. You have stated the same or similar objections a dozen times…at least.

The most of them would serve to throw to a wastepaper basket many philosophers, rulers and religious individuals in Antiquity usually reckoned as existent. For example items 1 to 6. We have already discussed this.

Other items are irrelevant, as the cases of Tacitus or Josephus. If you invalidate Josephus' testimony (I agree) we arrive to conclusion that there is not a primary source that confirms the existence of Jesus. I agree. We have profusely discussed this.

You incur in some mistakes. It is not true that all “biblical writers” (evangelists I suppose) said their sources were in the Old Testament. Paul says he went to Jerusalem and some data he gives do not correspond to the Old Testament but probably they were given by supposed witness or heard tales. Luke said his writing is based on writings that report direct testimonies. You needn’t believe them (neither I) but it is not true that all they say their gospels were thrown from the Old Testament. But it is irrelevant whether they connect or not their stories with Old Testament. See comment by Craig B #2776 , and my #2779 . And we had discussed this before.

In my comment #2382 I introduced the Pharaonic steles issue. You can see a lot of Egyptian inscriptions in this page. You will find a lot of unreliable stories full of mythical features. I recommend you the incredible victory of Ramses II supported by Ammon in the Kadesh battle. Even though mythical or unreliable these inscriptions are studied by historians and have provided some interesting factual data. But we have yet discussed this.

Interpolations make dubious the literal value of the Gospels or some chronological ascriptions. But the core of evangelic accounts was well established in the second century. No historian (biblical or not) I know maintains that the Gospels would be radically redacted in the late second or third centuries. Interpolations can be contradictory to the exegetical aspirations about authenticity of some/many/all the [delete where not applicable] passages, but they are irrelevant for our discussion because my argument to support the existence of Jesus is independent of the nature and origin of the source. It is to say, no Christian neither in the first nor in the second centuries would have invented a humiliating and degrading death for his god or messiah. It will be as we chose for a contemporary prophet to be executed as a paedophilic killer. Not very fit for catechesis.

 

[dejudge]

You incur in some mistakes. It is not true that all “biblical writers” (evangelists I suppose) said their sources were in the Old Testament. Paul says he went to Jerusalem and some data he gives do not correspond to the Old Testament but probably they were given by supposed witness or heard tales.

You incur a big mistake. It is the complete opposite. Paul claimed he did not go to Jerusalem when he was called by God to preach the Gospel story.

Paul also claimed he did not confer with flesh and blood when he was called by God to preach his story of the Son of God.

The Pauline Son of God story was by Revelation

Galatians 1

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me..

You incur another big mistake.

The Pauline writer certified his gospel was by Revelation from the Son of God [not flesh and blood]

Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The Pauline writer Bragged about his visions and revelations from the Son of God.

2 Corinthians 12

1 It is necessary to brag, not that it does any good. I'll move on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who was caught up into the third heaven fourteen years ago. I don't know whether it was in the body or out of the body. God knows. 3 - 4 I know that this man was caught up into paradise and that he heard unspeakable words that were things no one is allowed to repeat. I don't know whether it was in the body or apart from the body. God knows.

But "Paul" made a massive mistake. The Pauline writers never had any revelations even if Jesus was really dead.

The Pauline writers forgot that they used the Septuagint and gLuke--they had NO revelations.

The Pauline writers forgot they used passages from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Kings, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel and Habakuk.

 

[dejudge]

Eh? Evangelists wrote them! Of course we don't know what individual persons wrote them; that's why I wrote "evangelist", and not any particular names. The word means "writer of Gospel". Whoever wrote them was by definition an "evangelist". Just as whoever wrote "Gone With The Wind" was by definition a "novelist". So even if they were written by other people than the named ones, those other people are "evangelists".

Evangelist does not really mean writer of the Gospel. It means preacher.

By Chinese Whispers and rumors it was assumed that the authors of the Gospel were early preachers when they were really forgeries.

The authors themselves may have not even been Christians and may have never preached anywhere.

The authors of the Gospels should be called "Novelists" too. They wrote "Holy Ghost stories"

 

[Brainache]

The authors of the Gospels should be called "Novelists" too. They wrote "Holy Ghost stories"

Yes, but those "Holy Ghost Stories" are told around a core of religious teachings which came from somewhere.

Where did the core "Jesus" teachings come from dejudge?

 

[dejudge]

Yes, but those "Holy Ghost Stories" are told around a core of religious teachings which came from somewhere.

Where did the core "Jesus" teachings come from dejudge?

Where did obscure HJ stories come from?

What is the core teaching of obscure HJ?

You can't even answer your own questions.

You have nothing but baseless rhetoric and logical fallacies.

I know where to find the stories Myth Jesus. I know where to find the evidence for the Jesus of Faith.

I know what Christian writers claimed about Myth Jesus.

What is the latest on the Quest for HJ?

Have you stopped looking for HJ?

Evidence for HJ is coming soon!!

 

[David Mo]

Which English teacher are you thinking of?

12. Where authors like Randel Helms have written in detail with entire books showing exactly where, how and why those gospel authors took their Jesus stories from specific passages in the books of the OT.

Helms studied at University of California, Riverside, B.A. 1964, University of Washington, Ph.D. 1968, then taught from 1968 at the University of California as assistant professor of English, before becoming professor at the Department of English, Arizona State University. (Wikipedia)
​

And by the way, I think everyone in this subject would be on far safer ground if they were not relying on constant appeal to bible-scholars and theologians as objective independent experts on Jesus. I think we would probably be getting a far more objective and critical analysis if we did not appeal to people like Ehrman, Crossan and the thousands of others who Ehrman describes as "almost every properly trained scholar on the planet" who Ehrman says agrees with his view when he says Jesus was a "certainty".

If people in these threads truly wanted to know what the problems are with the views of “expert historians” like Bart Ehrman (he actually called himself a “historian”), then they would do far better to read why sceptical “English professors” and other non-bible academics say the claimed evidence of these bible-scholars is seriously flawed.

You continue to be obsessed with biblical experts.

Only a note: You consider valid as biblical expert an English teacher. You don’t consider valid as biblical expert a biblical teacher. I see your criterion for valid historical acceptance is not the academic qualification (neither practice academic History). You disqualify biblical experts because they are Christians. Is this not the case?

I think it is a very different thing the Christian consensus about Christ and the particular validity of the studies of Ehrman (NOTA BENE: by the way, he is not Christian), Crossan or Meier. I agree the biblical consensus is an ideological biased consensus. But I consider everybody that applies historical methods to an historical subject as a historian, although he can be a biased historian. I do so by practical reasons. If we disqualify the historians for ideological reasons we should disqualify everybody, because all of us have an ideological tendency and historians too. There are pro and anti capitalist historians, liberal and Marxists, Christian and Arabs, atheists and Buddhists, etc. To look with suspicion at the noticeable ideology of some historians is not to deny their historical category.

A biased consensus is discredited by the ideological nature of his components. A biased historian is discredited by concrete subjectivity of his arguments. You analyze the ideology of components in the first case and you analyze the objective value of arguments in the second case.

 

[David Mo]

You incur a big mistake. It is the complete opposite. Paul claimed he did not go to Jerusalem when he was called by God to preach the Gospel story.

Galatians 2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.(…)
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me(…)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

1 Corinthians 15:6-8
World English Bible (WEB)
6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.
​

POST SCRIPTUM: The list of appearances of this version is not complete, but can equally serve for my argument.

 

[IanS]

Well, this confirms you are going in a vicious circle. You have stated the same or similar objections a dozen times…at least.

The most of them would serve to throw to a wastepaper basket many philosophers, rulers and religious individuals in Antiquity usually reckoned as existent. For example items 1 to 6. We have already discussed this.

Other items are irrelevant, as the cases of Tacitus or Josephus. If you invalidate Josephus' testimony (I agree) we arrive to conclusion that there is not a primary source that confirms the existence of Jesus. I agree. We have profusely discussed this.

You incur in some mistakes. It is not true that all “biblical writers” (evangelists I suppose) said their sources were in the Old Testament. Paul says he went to Jerusalem and some data he gives do not correspond to the Old Testament but probably they were given by supposed witness or heard tales. Luke said his writing is based on writings that report direct testimonies. You needn’t believe them (neither I) but it is not true that all they say their gospels were thrown from the Old Testament. But it is irrelevant whether they connect or not their stories with Old Testament. See comment by Craig B #2776 , and my #2779 . And we had discussed this before.

In my comment #2382 I introduced the Pharaonic steles issue. You can see a lot of Egyptian inscriptions in this page. You will find a lot of unreliable stories full of mythical features. I recommend you the incredible victory of Ramses II supported by Ammon in the Kadesh battle. Even though mythical or unreliable these inscriptions are studied by historians and have provided some interesting factual data. But we have yet discussed this.

Interpolations make dubious the literal value of the Gospels or some chronological ascriptions. But the core of evangelic accounts was well established in the second century. No historian (biblical or not) I know maintains that the Gospels would be radically redacted in the late second or third centuries. Interpolations can be contradictory to the exegetical aspirations about authenticity of some/many/all the [delete where not applicable] passages, but they are irrelevant for our discussion because my argument to support the existence of Jesus is independent of the nature and origin of the source. It is to say, no Christian neither in the first nor in the second centuries would have invented a humiliating and degrading death for his god or messiah. It will be as we chose for a contemporary prophet to be executed as a paedophilic killer. Not very fit for catechesis.

Well dejudge has already commented on some of what is wrong with what you say above. And I think we have reached the point where it's becoming absurd to carry on with this sort of discussion. So just very briefly (for tenth time) -


1. It is not true, as you have claimed, that much of history would have to be discarded if "historians" were told to stop relying on unsupported hearsay claims of the impossible as their only source for claiming things as historical fact. Genuine historians do no do that. Though bible scholars clearly do.

2. Paul specifically makes a point of stressing that he deliberately and intentionally consulted no man about Jesus, and instead repeatedly says that all his understanding of Jesus came to him quote from that which "is written", "by revelation" from Yahweh in heaven who "was pleased to revel his son in me" and all "according to scripture". And you ought to know that very well. And further, afaik Mathew and Mark do also say that their Jesus beliefs are according to scripture and prophecy etc. As to what the far less relevant gospels of Luke & John say, I really can't be bothered to waste even more time bothering to look that up (they are both supposed to post-date Paul, Mark, an Mathew anyway). And as I said here many times already, authors like Helms have clearly shown how, when, where and why all of those four gospel authors had obtained Jesus stories from what they believed was the correct understanding of the OT. So there really can be no dispute about the OT as the source that all these authors were using for their Jesus beliefs.

In summary - so if you say (1) that much of ancient history would have to be discarded, then that is demonstrably untrue and you are simply wrong (as I have unambiguously shown at least half a dozen times now). And (2) if you say that Paul and the gospel authors do not admit that they were using OT scripture as the source of their Jesus stories, then you are again wrong and you should read something like the book by Helms to see exactly where those biblical writers used the OT for their Jesus beliefs.

 

[IanS]

Helms studied at University of California, Riverside, B.A. 1964, University of Washington, Ph.D. 1968, then taught from 1968 at the University of California as assistant professor of English, before becoming professor at the Department of English, Arizona State University. (Wikipedia)
​

You continue to be obsessed with biblical experts.

Only a note: You consider valid as biblical expert an English teacher. You don’t consider valid as biblical expert a biblical teacher. I see your criterion for valid historical acceptance is not the academic qualification (neither practice academic History). You disqualify biblical experts because they are Christians. Is this not the case?

I think it is a very different thing the Christian consensus about Christ that the particular validity of the studies of Ehrman (NOTA BENE: by the way, he is not Christian), Crossan or Meier. I agree the biblical consensus is an ideological biased consensus. But I consider everybody that applies historical methods to an historical subject as a historian, although he can be a biased historian. I do so by practical reasons. If we disqualify the historians for ideological reasons we should disqualify everybody, because all of us have an ideological tendency and historians too. There are pro and anti capitalist historians, liberal and Marxists, Christian and Arabs, atheists and Buddhists, etc. To look with suspicion at the noticeable ideology of some historians is not to deny their historical category.

A biased consensus is discredited by the ideological nature of his components. A biased historian is discredited by concrete subjectivity of his arguments. You analyze the ideology of components in the first case and you analyze the objective value of arguments in the second case.

OK, very simply (since far too much time wasted on this already) -

1. Whether Helms is an English professor, a bible scholar, or the Man in the Moon - is he correct in what he writes about showing the OT as the source of various passages about Jesus in the biblical writing, or not. Is what Helms wrote correct or not? Yes or No?

2. Ehrman and Crossan are known as two of the most prominent, most frequently cited, and highly qualified "expert bible historians" of recent times, are they not? You are appealing to "experts" like that as "authorities" are you not? And what do Ehrman and Crossan both say about the bible as their evidence of Jesus? They say the evidence from the bible makes Jesus a virtual "certainty" do they not? And you think that makes people like Ehrman and Crossan more credible in what they say than Helms when he shows how the OT was used by the gospel writers as a source of their Jesus messiah beliefs?

 

[David Mo]

And I think we have reached the point where it's becoming absurd to carry on with this sort of discussion.

I agree.

In summary - so if you say (1) that much of ancient history would have to be discarded, then that is demonstrably untrue and you are simply wrong (as I have unambiguously shown at least half a dozen times now).

I agree with the last sentence (underlined is mine). I disagree with the rest.

And (2) if you say that Paul and the gospel authors do not admit that they were using OT scripture as the source of their Jesus stories…

I never said this. I said some passages in the Gospels don’t come from de Old Testament. The crucifixion is my main point.

1. Whether Helms is an English professor, a bible scholar, or the Man in the Moon - is he correct in what he writes about showing the OT as the source of various passages about Jesus in the biblical writing, or not. Is what Helms wrote correct or not? Yes or No?

Yes. I’m glad you have forgotten the non historical formation of Helms. It will be discriminatory if we don’t apply the same criterion to Ehrman or Crossan.

2. Ehrman and Crossan are known as two of the most prominent, most frequently cited, and highly qualified "expert bible historians" of recent times, are they not?

Not Ehrman. For example, in Christianity in the Making, Dunn quotes Ehrman four times and Crossan about a hundred times. Even though, for our discussion I would accept if we say that Ehrman and Crossan are two well known or popular “expert bible historians”.

You are appealing to "experts" like that as "authorities" are you not?

Hmmm… I would say this if we accept no authority criterion for many issues.

And what do Ehrman and Crossan both say about the bible as their evidence of Jesus? They say the evidence from the bible makes Jesus a virtual "certainty" do they not?

If we are strictly speaking about Jesus’ existence, yes. But generally speaking in both cases they don’t accept the concept of reliance without reserves. More Ehrman than Crosssan.

And you think that makes people like Ehrman and Crossan more credible in what they say than Helms when he shows how the OT was used by the gospel writers as a source of their Jesus messiah beliefs?

Oops! You go too fast! The last part of the sentence is ambiguous because the beliefs of Ehrman (agnostic) and Crossan (heterodox Christian) are different in many points.

You do an unfounded supposition in the first part of the paragraph. I don’t think Ehrman and Crossan are reliable or credible on the existence of Jesus issue. I analyze their reasons and I find they have less importance than they believe, but are more convincing than the mythicist alternative.

These are some nuances that you seem neglect.

 

[Craig B]

Evangelist does not really mean writer of the Gospel. It means preacher.

The Free Dictionary.

e·van·gel·ist (ĭ-văn′jə-lĭst)1. often Evangelist Any one of the authors of the four New Testament gospel books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
2. One who practices evangelism, especially a Protestant preacher or missionary.

Oxford Dictionary.

1 A person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith, especially by public preaching:
2 The writer of one of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John)

Dictionary.com

1. a Protestant minister or layperson who serves as an itinerant or special preacher, especially a revivalist.
2. a preacher of the gospel.
3. (initial capital letter) any of the writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) of the four Gospels.
4. (in the primitive church) a person who first brought the gospel to a city or region.
5. (initial capital letter) Mormon Church. A patriarch.

So I should have put a capital letter. They were "Evangelists", not mere "evangelists". OK?

 

[Belz...]

Dejudge, you should really think and check your facts before posting.

 

[Brainache]

Dejudge, you should really think and check your facts before posting.

I see what you did there.

 

[dejudge]

The Free Dictionary. Oxford Dictionary.Dictionary.com So I should have put a capital letter. They were "Evangelists", not mere "evangelists". OK?

I have already explained to you that the authors of the Gospels are unknown and that we really have no evidence that they were preachers.

Don't you understand English?

Tell me the names of the actual evangelists and where they preached or evangelized.

The named Gospels are forgeries--we cannot assume they were evangelists.

Up to c 180 CE there was no Gospel named according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

What Evangelists are you talking about?

People of antiquity may have thought they were written by evangelists but today we know better.

The authors are all unknown and without real historical identification.

Please, read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?" page 47 .

Please Read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" page 181 line 16.

Please, Read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" page 182 line 4-5.

 

[Brainache]

I have already explained to you that the authors of the Gospels are unknown and that we really have no evidence that they were preachers.

Don't you understand English?

Tell me the names of the actual evangelists and where they preached or evangelized.

The named Gospels are forgeries--we cannot assume they were evangelists.

Up to c 180 CE there was no Gospel named according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

What Evangelists are you talking about?

People of antiquity may have thought they were written by evangelists but today we know better.

The authors are all unknown and without real historical identification.

Please, read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?" page 47 .

Please Read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" page 181 line 16.

Please, Read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" page 182 line 4-5.

If they weren't Preachers, can you explain why they were preaching religious texts?

My brain hurts.

 

[dejudge]

If they weren't Preachers, can you explain why they were preaching religious texts?

My brain hurts.

Who was preaching what and when?

The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts--they are not history.

Nobody was preaching the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the 1st century.

Marcion was an early evangelist in the 2nd century and he did not preach about the conception and birth of the Son of God.

 

[Brainache]

Who was preaching what and when?

The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts--they are not history.

Nobody was preaching the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the 1st century.

Marcion was an early evangelist in the 2nd century and he did not preach about the conception and birth of the Son of God.

Well somebody was preaching about a "Christ/Chrest who suffered the ultimate punishment under Pilate" in Rome at the time of the fire, because they were the people that Nero blamed for it.

So, whoever it was who told those people the story of "Christ", they were Evangelists.

Is any of this getting through?

It should. It is very simple and straightforward.

 

[dejudge]

Well somebody was preaching about a "Christ/Chrest who suffered the ultimate punishment under Pilate" in Rome at the time of the fire, because they were the people that Nero blamed for it.

So, whoever it was who told those people the story of "Christ", they were Evangelists.

Is any of this getting through?

It should. It is very simple and straightforward.

I told you already that Marcion was an evangelist in the 2nd century and he did not preach what is found in the NT.

Irenaeus preached that Jesus was crucified when he was an old man at 50 years of age in the time of Claudius and that it was also found in the Gospel and preached by the apostles.

Who were the real evangelists?

[Against Heresies 2.22

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.

Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?

If you get the actual names of the authors of the Gospels in the NT may be you will find out when they wrote them and if they were preachers and evangelist.

I have never heard that the authors of forgeries are classified as Evangelists!!

Forgeries are the products of Evangelists?

You are not getting through to me!!