Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[rogue06]

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.

Exactly. If the identity of an author was widely known it would in a sense be unnecessarily redundant to repeat it

[shunyadragon]

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.

Ehrman's view is based on what evidence is available. Ehrman is most definitely not alone on drawing the same conclusions based on the evidence. Claiming something existed before there is any evidence that it did exist is the problem. Naming the apostles does not indicate that they were the authors. He did not describe them as authors.

[Sparko]

Ehrman's view is based on what evidence is available.

Great! then you should not have any problem finding it and presenting it here.

scoot.

[shunyadragon]

Great! then you should not have any problem finding it and presenting it here.

scoot.

Ehrman does that better than anyone, and the numerous other Biblical scholars like referred to by Tassman. The books are very detailed and comprehensive by the different Biblical scholars.

I do not spoon feed. It is time you do your own homework. I may refer you to some very good references, but still it is your responsibility to read them.

[rogue06]

Ehrman does that better than anyone, and the numerous other Biblical scholars like referred to by Tassman. The books are very detailed and comprehensive by the different Biblical scholars.

I do not spoon feed. It is time you do your own homework. I may refer you to some very good references, but still it is your responsibility to read them.

You're starting to sound like Jorge what with insisting that your view is well supported but its up to everyone else to find the evidence.

[Tassman]

Great! then you should not have any problem finding it and presenting it here.

https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-the-...t-their-names/

[shunyadragon]

You're starting to sound like Jorge what with insisting that your view is well supported but its up to everyone else to find the evidence.

Finding is not the issue. It is simply being willing to read the references yourself, or worse yet not being able to read. This is a very sad conflated excuse not to do your own homework. Tassman also cited the scholars, which anyone can refer to if they are willing to do so.

You know full well the many books referred to by the scholars that cite the evidence are far more comprehensive than can be cited in posts on this site. Accusations by some that they are atheists or non-believers is even a worse appeal to a fallacy.

There is objective evidence that even the known texts that exist from ~200 to ~500 AD clearly show an evolved, edited, variable, and changed text. This clearly parallel to the history of virtually all ancient text including the Pentateuch.

This is compounded by those that are unable to cite positive objective evidence for dating 'original' gospels in any form, nor with authors, and absurdly appealing to the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance' demanding that skeptics 'prove' that the gospels are not written by the apostles and first witness authors before ~50 AD.

[Sparko]

Ehrman does that better than anyone, and the numerous other Biblical scholars like referred to by Tassman. The books are very detailed and comprehensive by the different Biblical scholars.

I do not spoon feed. It is time you do your own homework. I may refer you to some very good references, but still it is your responsibility to read them.

If there is evidence and Ehrman found it, and you read it, then you should have no problem presenting it. As far as I can tell Ehrman, a bitter ex-Christian is just whining and arguing from silence like you are. He is stating an opinion, not giving evidence. I don't think you have even read any of his books. You and Tassy just find quotes on the internet using google. Then when you are called on it, you punt. You have no idea what evidence Ehrman has or lacks.

Nice try.

So if YOU are here making the argument that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then it is up to YOU to present the evidence. Ehrman is not here to defend his views and you merely referring to him and saying "do your own homework" is nothing but arguing by weblink.

If you cannot support your own argument, then guess what? You lose.

[Sparko]

https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-the-...t-their-names/

Again, this is just his opinion. What exactly ARE "the reasons" he refers to? And saying, "we have no way of knowing" pretty much tanks his own argument. He is arguing from silence. Might as well say "We have many reasons to think Jesus was an alien, but of we have no way of knowing"

Right.

We have absolutely no reason to doubt that the 4 gospels were written by the 4 traditional authors. Anyone wanting to claim otherwise needs to provide actual physical proof. Not conjecture.

[shunyadragon]

If there is evidence and Ehrman found it, and you read it, then you should have no problem presenting it. As far as I can tell Ehrman, a bitter ex-Christian is just whining and arguing from silence like you are. He is stating an opinion, not giving evidence. I don't think you have even read any of his books. You and Tassy just find quotes on the internet using google. Then when you are called on it, you punt. You have no idea what evidence Ehrman has or lacks.

Nice try.

So if YOU are here making the argument that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then it is up to YOU to present the evidence. Ehrman is not here to defend his views and you merely referring to him and saying "do your own homework" is nothing but arguing by weblink.

If you cannot support your own argument, then guess what? You lose.

It is not only Ehrman, but the majority scholars that have studied the origin and literary history of the New Testament. Using Ehrman as a scapegoat for the broader depth of New Testament gets you nowhere.

You are just cursing one of the many messengers, and making no effort to address the whole body of knowledge of the many scholars.

[JimL]

Again, this is just his opinion. What exactly ARE "the reasons" he refers to? And saying, "we have no way of knowing" pretty much tanks his own argument. He is arguing from silence. Might as well say "We have many reasons to think Jesus was an alien, but of we have no way of knowing"

Right.

We have absolutely no reason to doubt that the 4 gospels were written by the 4 traditional authors. Anyone wanting to claim otherwise needs to provide actual physical proof. Not conjecture.

The problem with you and yours Sparko, is that we could give you 100 reasons to doubt who the authors were and it wouldn't budge your faith in the authors one iota anyway. That's how the minds of cult members function.

[Doug Shaver]

We have absolutely no reason to doubt that the 4 gospels were written by the 4 traditional authors.

I don't need a reason to doubt. I need a reason to believe.

[37818]

I don't need a reason to doubt. I need a reason to believe.

How can you believe what is not making good sense to you?

[Sparko]

It is not only Ehrman, but the majority scholars that have studied the origin and literary history of the New Testament. Using Ehrman as a scapegoat for the broader depth of New Testament gets you nowhere.

You are just cursing one of the many messengers, and making no effort to address the whole body of knowledge of the many scholars.

Fine. You were the one using Ehrman. So if there are so many others out there saying the same thing, then you should have an even EASIER time showing me some actual physical evidence that the gospels were not written by the 4 traditional authors.

Merely arguing via someone else opinion is not actually providing evidence. It is just referring to someone else's opinion. And arguing that a lot of other people's opinion agree is just argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy, sometimes known as the bandwagon fallacy.

Please provide actual evidence. Show me some complete manuscripts of the gospels that don't have the correct author's names on them, or any name at all.

[Sparko]

The problem with you and yours Sparko, is that we could give you 100 reasons to doubt who the authors were and it wouldn't budge your faith in the authors one iota anyway. That's how the minds of cult members function.

We are not talking about faith here, but actual history. You can prove me wrong by doing what I asked Shunya right above.