Which of the four Gospel writers were Apostles?
346554
Matthew and John the beloved one.
1080776
#1.  It was written too late to have been written by an apostle or a companion of an apostle.\n\n#2. The content contradicts the rest of the New Testament.\n\n#3.  It was never accepted by the early church.\n\nThe New Testament was in its complete form before the end of the first century, long before Constantine or the Roman Catholic Church.  There never was any reason to accept "The Gospel of Judas."
444972
Many scholars believe that they were not written by the attributed authors. If disciples had intentions of writing accounts they would have written them immediately rather than waiting several decades. It would be like someone today finally getting around to write about WWII. Would that make sense? I think the gospels are a mixture of truth and mythology.
687231
Again -- the Acts of Andrew was not written by an immediate disciple of Jesus Christ, or authenticated by an immediate disciple of Jesus Christ.\n\nAnd the Acts of Andrew was written much later than the NT gospels.\n\nThat is why it was not included in the New Testament canon.\n\nCordially,\nJohn
505861
He chose several women as apostles, most likely Mary Magdeline was one, and there are others not specifically mentioned.\n\nThe one thing he didn't do was choose a female desciple - there were only 12 of them, 13 if you count Judas, and all were men.
599348
If Nesmas Kol CHa is the book I think you're reffereing to it was not written by Saint Peter but is a book written by Agnostic writes, who would often use the name of various Chrsitian saints to try and create a set of canon for thier relgion is place of the Christian Gospels. the gospel of St. Judas and St. Thomas are similar cases.
517378
Let me provide you two answers.  First, the question is unanswerable if you mean the apostles.  The apostles could have been great frauds, that possibility must always be admitted by a Christian.\n\nOn the other hand, lets look at some weak evidences.\n\nFirst, the faith of the apostles created the largest demographic group on Earth.  There are more people claiming memebership in a Christian Church than any single group on Earth.  For a fraud, it is very successful.  It could be profound mind control, but that is simply ignoring two millenia of writings and an extraordinary historical diversity.\n\nSecond, when the early Fathers were choosing Gospels one of the reasons they left out many of the competing books was that they provided "proof" of Jesus' resurrection.  The orthodox books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all have empty tombs, mixed accounts and to some extent unclear messages. (I can hear the screams now that it is clear, but you can find 46 impossible contradictions between them that if one element is true, then another Gospel must be false)  Still, that was part of the decision making.  You had faith in the Church and its proclaimation or you did not.\n\nThird, while the Church has spent two millenia finding new ways to tarnish Christ's name, it is really still proclaiming the same message as it was left.  The Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental and Coptic Churches all have maintained the apostolic succession that began in Acts 1:46.  The group of apostolic successors still lead the old Churches.  While all apostolic successors are sinners like the rest of us, it is clear from both the Gospels, Acts and the letters as well as the early letters from Christians who were ordained by the apostles, that the leadership is supposed to be in the hands of these apostolic successors.  The amazing thing about their leadership however is that it does not put them in charge, it puts us all in charge.  Their role is to make sure the message is not distorted, our role is to proclaim it and to accept correction when we are wrong.  The entirety of the apostolic message was handed on in the scriptures, in hymns, in the ancient services (which are still in use by the way), in writings and in stories.  It is available to any who wish to read, hear or sing them.  You cannot control what you widely proclaim.  Only the most naive can be controlled or the most powerless.  \n\nNow I do think there is a lot of Christians following a message that would have infuriated the early Christians and you can see that in the TV preachers especially.\n\nHas Christianity been used to influence or push the populace, absolutely, but every widely held concept has been used for that purpose.  That is the entire reason for politics.  It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy, that has to do with power.\n\nWhether it is the Tsar claiming divine right or the President of the United States claiming to act in the name of Freedom, the divine gift, it is always used by politicians.
234573
I think Jesus might arrive in a Triumph.  But I know the apostles used a Honda; in Acts it says they were all in one Accord!!
1143385
As opposed to truth wise?  LOL!\nIt's generally accepted that it was Paul.
649675
Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians \n2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Phillipians Colasians \n1 Thesalonians 2 Thesalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelations.\n\nBut yeah, Matthew is first, lol
928375
The 12 Apostles were the first bishops. They began ordaining more to become bishops, priests, and deacons. John was the only apostle of the 12 that was not martyred. Paul was not of the original 12, but he became an apostle and was martyred, he was beheaded. \n\nHere is what someone provided me with when I asked a similar question:\nhttp://www.icnc.org/scratchpad/a133.htm
289537
The best way to find out about the Man is to read what those who knew him or what those who knew him wrote.  It is found in the first 4 books of the New Testament--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
569645
Mind you not all historians date them the same way... some believe the book of John was written at the very time Christ was living. John wrote that Gospel, the 3 letters of John and Revelation. The writing style changes from the Gospel to Revelation (70 yrs after Christ) and John seems to be writing in a much younger style. So many believe John was a young man when he wrote the Gospel and an old man when he wrote Revelation.
282461
There were lots of writings around, and none of them were called "gospels" at the time--they were just writings from different people.  The word "gospel" just meant "good news."  For example, if you look in your New Testament, you'll see that the Apostle Paul's writings are called "epistles" (another word for a letter or written message).\n\nThe first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written in the early days after the death of Jesus.  (The book of Luke and the book of Acts were originally one book.)  These three are called the "Synoptic Gospels" ("Seeing Together Gospels") because they have a lot in common, including some of the same source material--scholars  believe that the writers of all three of these gospels had read a document called the "Q Source" or"Sayings Source", which was a collection of things Jesus had said.\n\nThe fourth gospel, that of John, was written much later than the first three--no earlier than 90 C.E.--and is very different from them.  It contains a lot of visionary poetic imagery, and seems to reflect Gnostic teachings.\n\nA lot of other people wrote accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus.  If the Bible had included them all, it would fill a bookcase.  Many of these other accounts have been lost, though some (such as the Gospel of Thomas) have been rediscovered.\n\nIn the beginnings of Christianity, there was no unified organization;  there were just a lot of different individuals and congregations who had heard about Jesus from different people.  So there was no real agreement about what books were sacred and/or authoritative. \n\nOn several different occasions, Christian leaders organized councils to discuss these questions.  A key council was the Council of Nicea.  There were a lot of arguments and politics there, and some doctrines were adopted and other conflicting ideas were declared heresies.  The Nicene Creed originated there.\n\nThis is how both the official doctrines and the official canons (declarations of what books and writings were holy) were formed.  Some Christian groups never affiliated with the Catholic Church (for example some of the Ethiopian and Coptic groups, etc.)  Some of these groups had other ideas about which writings were important.\n\nMuch later, when Martin Luther established Protestantism, the Protestants threw out some of the Bible materials they did not believe was authentic.\n\nI suggest you do a web search on the phrases "Council of Nicea", "Nicene Creed", "Bishop Arrius", "Bishop Athanasius", "Emperor Constantine", and "Early Christian heresies" and do some reading.  The links suggested by some of the people who have already answered this question are good, too.\n\nI'm not listing any links because I am writing from memory;  I studied religion in college, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth.  ;-)
370960
#1.  Pope Peter.\n#2.  Pope John Paul II\n#3.  Pope Paul VI\n#4.  Pope Leo I\n#5.  Pope Sylvester II
1103215
For the Bible, the answer is "about forty." Of the sixty-six books, several are attributed to the same author (as in the traditional view that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament; in the New Testament, the Gospel of John, I John, II John, III John and the book of Revelation are all attributed to Jesus' disciple. The book of Acts was certainly written by Luke, the writer of the third Gospel. The apostle Paul wrote about 1/3 of the New Testament (the espistles to the early Christian churches).\n\nThere are some books for which an author cannot be readily identified, such as the New Testament book of Hebrews, and a couple in the Old Testament for which authorship is debated, which makes the number forty a very close, if maybe not precise, number. Execpt for the voices of a few very liberal/radical scholars, the academic community is quite settled on this question.\n\nAs for the Qu'ran, I believe tradition holds that the entire thing was revealed to Mohammed; but the text has gone through much redaction, re-arranging and editing, and displays some stylistic changes which suggests more than one author. It's impossible to tell what Mohammed dictated originally, and what was added later, but it seems unlikely that the Prophet wrote the whole thing.
462578
The primary question, as written, demands an answer of "nothing." There is a considerable amount of written text attributed to Jesus' followers, though perhaps to no one who actually knew him. But I've yet to run across anything that claims Jesus' own authorship.