Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Tassman]

And how does that prove those gospels did not have those gospel writers names associated with them in the beginning?

[Sparko]

No historical evidence provided prior to 100 AD.

so what?

That is like 2000 years from now if we don't have the original constitution but only 1000s of copies and mentions in writings by the founding fathers, you arguing that the Constitution of the United states did not have the word "Constitution" attached to it.

It would be up to YOU to prove it did NOT have the world "constitution" in the title. All the evidence we have would show that it did. You saying "but we have no evidence from the 18th century" would be nothing but a red herring.

[shunyadragon]

so what?

That is like 2000 years from now if we don't have the original constitution but only 1000s of copies and mentions in writings by the founding fathers, you arguing that the Constitution of the United states did not have the word "Constitution" attached to it.

This is a terrible hypothetical example, considering the modern history of documentation and records there is no reason to think that we would not have an original Constitution that we have no, and the extensive records of the time the Constitution was written, drafted and completed.

It would be up to YOU to prove it did NOT have the world "constitution" in the title. All the evidence we have would show that it did. You saying "but we have no evidence from the 18th century" would be nothing but a red herring.

It is a fallacy to challenge someone to prove the negative. In good sound logic it is up to the one making the claim to demonstrate or prove the positive.

[Sparko]

This is a terrible hypothetical example, considering the modern history of documentation and records there is no reason to think that we would not have an original Constitution that we have no, and the extensive records of the time the Constitution was written, drafted and completed.

we were taken over by Mexicans who raided the archives and burned the constitution and contemporary documents. Or maybe the mice ate them. 2000 years is a long time.

We have extensive manuscript copies of the gospels too. And ALL of the evidence with names shows the correct names. We have no copies without names.

It is a fallacy to challenge someone to prove the negative.

then why are you doling it?

In good sound logic it is up to the one making the claim to demonstrate or prove the positive.

Fine, then prove that there were no names on the original documents. You made the claim, you prove it. Otherwise all of the evidence shows that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the 4 gospels.

Glad you agree.

Get to it.

[shunyadragon]

we were taken over by Mexicans who raided the archives and burned the constitution and contemporary documents. Or maybe the mice ate them. 2000 years is a long time.

We have extensive manuscript copies of the gospels too. And ALL of the evidence with names shows the correct names. We have no copies without names.



then why are you doling it?


Fine, then prove that there were no names on the original documents. You made the claim, you prove it. Otherwise all of the evidence shows that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the 4 gospels.

Glad you agree.



Get to it.

No I do not agree. You need to get to it if you are going to come with anything with authors assigned to gospels prior to ~150 AD.

As Tassman cited the known history of the gospels there is no evidence for the gospels prior to ~150 AD. This not me nor Tassman. It is simply the known history of the gospels.

[Sparko]

No I do not agree. You need to get to it if you are going to come with anything with authors assigned to gospels prior to ~150 AD.

As Tassman cited the known history of the gospels there is no evidence for the gospels prior to ~150 AD. This not me nor Tassman. It is simply the known history of the gospels.

https://www.biblequery.org/Bible/Bib...eferences.html

[shunyadragon]

https://www.biblequery.org/Bible/Bib...eferences.html

No I never claimed, nor did Tassman claim, there were no names on the originals. It is a fact there is record, nor known original manuscripts with nor without names known before ~150 AD

[Sparko]

No I never claimed, nor did Tassman claim, there were no names on the originals. It is a fact there is record, nor known original manuscripts with nor without names known before ~150 AD

You have been arguing that there were no names on the orignals. Tassman too.

What exactly do you think we are arguing here?

[shunyadragon]

You have been arguing that there were no names on the orignals. Tassman too.

What exactly do you think we are arguing here?

You are apparently arguing that the gospels were written by the authors (witnesses to the life of Jesus) presently assigned to the gospels, which would mean that they were written prior to 50 AD.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

[37818]

You are apparently arguing that the gospels were written by the authors (witnesses to the life of Jesus) presently assigned to the gospels, which would mean that they were written prior to 50 AD.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

There is absolutely no evidence to disprove it.

[shunyadragon]

There is absolutely no evidence to disprove it.

This the classic fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to the opposition requiring them to prove the negative when one is unable to demonstrate nor have evidence to support the positive argument.

[Tassman]

There is absolutely no evidence to disprove it.

[Sparko]

You are apparently arguing that the gospels were written by the authors (witnesses to the life of Jesus) presently assigned to the gospels, which would mean that they were written prior to 50 AD.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

All evidence supports that (well not the date of 50AD. That you just made up. We know that John was written around 90AD for instance)

All evidence supports that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote the 4 gospels. You cannot provide any evidence to the contrary other than some opinions.

[Sparko]

This the classic fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to the opposition requiring them to prove the negative when one is unable to demonstrate nor have evidence to support the positive argument.

You made the claim, idjut. The burden is yours to disprove 2000 years of accepted history.

[Sparko]

Ehrman's opinion is not evidence. NOT mentioning the names is not evidence that Justin Martyr did not know the names or that the names were not known by the church. To claim otherwise is an argument from silence.

I have already provided cites from even earlier church fathers who did quote from the gospels and named apostles.