Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Which Would You Personally Prefer...
Collapse
X
-
. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post"Contrary to what you may sometimes have heard, there is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on. It is absolutely true to say that in the manuscripts of the Gospels, they have the titles we are accustomed to (The Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). But these manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John."- Bart Ehrman Blog.
An argument from silence is not an argument at all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostHaving read several books about how historians do their thing, I don't think so.
Not everybody who lived 2,000 years ago knew everything there was to know about their time and place. Few would have had that kind of knowledge, and we cannot assume that they were the only ones putting their thoughts in writing.
That argument begs the question of the church's own credibility. You're assuming that the church itself could not have made any mistakes about its own origins.
The reasons don't persuade you. That doesn't mean there aren't any.
I don't claim to know who wrote it. Plato's authorship does seem to be the most parsimonious supposition, but there is another point more relevant to this discussion. Nobody is claiming that what we should learn from the Republic depends on who wrote it. It presents certain ideas about how a society should be governed, and we can argue the merits of those ideas quite independently of any questions we might have about who first wrote them down.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou would think that if there were earlier copies of the gospels with no names on them, or the wrong names on them, that by 200 CE we would have many copies without names or with the wrong names on them. We don't. There is no reason to think that they were not always named as they are named today. Not one shred of evidence. Not ONE copy with the wrong name. Not ONE copy without a name.
An argument from silence is not an argument at all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postum, great refutation.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWe are not talking about "everybody"
Originally posted by Sparko View PostDo you have any evidence that the church was not credible?Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou seem to be fine with historians attributing authorship to other historical documents without having the originals
Originally posted by Sparko View Postand only have a problem with the gospels. That is just special pleading.
Comment
-
The NT manuscript evidence, our copies, with authorship attached. The fact that there are NT documents which in the body of the documents the author does not name himself as the author.
The [NT*] Christian perspective of said documents being Holy Scripture means that they were Holy Scripture when they were written, not when some so called, yes, so called churches canonized them.
[* 2 Peter 1:16-21; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.]. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Posthttps://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...emergence.html
This is the consensus opinion of biblical scholars, not an "argument from silence.".
The point is that there is ZERO evidence that they were written by anyone other than the claimed authors. If there was any such evidence, these scholars would reference it and you would be presenting it instead of merely quoting them saying that we don't know who wrote them.
We do know who wrote them. Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. If you disagree show me some actual evidence of anyone else having written them. You can't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI can find scholars who say that they were written by the claimed authors. So what? Battling scholars?
The point is that there is ZERO evidence that they were written by anyone other than the claimed authors. If there was any such evidence, these scholars would reference it and you would be presenting it instead of merely quoting them saying that we don't know who wrote them.
We do know who wrote them. Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. If you disagree show me some actual evidence of anyone else having written them. You can't.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,108 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,233 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
376 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment