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
See more
See less

Which Would You Personally Prefer...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    And how does that prove those gospels did not have those gospel writers names associated with them in the beginning?
    There is no good reason to think they did. E.g. “Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. For Justin, these books are simply known, collectively, as the 'Memoirs of the Apostles.' It was about a century after the Gospels had been originally put in circulation that they were definitively named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This comes, for the first time, in the writings of the church father and heresiologist Irenaeus, around 180-85 CE.”

    "Forged" by Bart Ehrman
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        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.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            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.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              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.
              I never claimed we had any full copies before 150 AD. I don't know if we do or not. It doesn't matter. YOU are the one claiming that the names were not on the originals. Prove it.

              It is just like in my example. Even if we don't have the original constitution we can still tell exactly what was on it, from the thousands of copies, from the thousands of quotes from it, references to it in books, in court cases, etc. We can easily construct what the original said even without having the original or any copies before 100 hundred years later. If all of our historical documents before 1880 were destroyed right now, people 1000 years from now could still reconstruct the original documents with near perfect accuracy. If someone doubted that, it would be up to THEM to prove it.

              So if you doubt what the original gospels said, or who wrote them, it is up to your to provide the evidence. You made the claim, you provide the evidence. Otherwise 2000 years of history stand as is.

              As far as early mentions or quotes of the gospels, Paul references Luke's gospels in one of his letters, and here is a list of other people who quoted the gospels before 150AD

              Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18

              Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians ch.2 p.33 (110-155 A.D.) quotes all of Matthew 7:1 "but be mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged;"

              Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9

              Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes Luke 6:36 Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.2 p.33

              Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f (5 words out of 26 words) 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.5

              Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of Acts 2:24a (7 out of 15 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.1 p.33


              https://www.biblequery.org/Bible/Bib...eferences.html
              Last edited by Sparko; 06-21-2018, 03:08 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                I never claimed we had any full copies before 150 AD. I don't know if we do or not. It doesn't matter. YOU are the one claiming that the names were not on the originals. Prove it.

                It is just like in my example. Even if we don't have the original constitution we can still tell exactly what was on it, from the thousands of copies, from the thousands of quotes from it, references to it in books, in court cases, etc. We can easily construct what the original said even without having the original or any copies before 100 hundred years later. If all of our historical documents before 1880 were destroyed right now, people 1000 years from now could still reconstruct the original documents with near perfect accuracy. If someone doubted that, it would be up to THEM to prove it.

                So if you doubt what the original gospels said, or who wrote them, it is up to your to provide the evidence. You made the claim, you provide the evidence. Otherwise 2000 years of history stand as is.

                As far as early mentions or quotes of the gospels, Paul references Luke's gospels in one of his letters, and here is a list of other people who quoted the gospels before 150AD

                Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18

                Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians ch.2 p.33 (110-155 A.D.) quotes all of Matthew 7:1 "but be mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged;"

                Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9

                Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes Luke 6:36 Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.2 p.33

                Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f (5 words out of 26 words) 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.5

                Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of Acts 2:24a (7 out of 15 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.1 p.33


                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
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    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.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      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.
                      . . . 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 37818 View Post
                        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.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          There is absolutely no evidence to disprove it.
                          There is however evidence that they were not originally known by the designations assigned from the second century onward. E.g. Apologist “Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. These books were simply known, as the 'Memoirs of the Apostles.' Ehrman.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                There is however evidence that they were not originally known by the designations assigned from the second century onward. E.g. Apologist “Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. These books were simply known, as the 'Memoirs of the Apostles.' Ehrman.
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X