Originally posted by 37818
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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo historical evidence provided prior to 100 AD.
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 Postso 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 shunyadragon View PostThis 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 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.
In good sound logic it is up to the one making the claim to demonstrate or prove the positive.
Glad you agree.
Get to it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwe 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo 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.Last edited by Sparko; 06-21-2018, 03:08 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo 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
What exactly do you think we are arguing here?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou have been arguing that there were no names on the orignals. Tassman too.
What exactly do you think we are arguing here?
There is absolutely no evidence to support this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou 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.. . . 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 shunyadragon View PostYou 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 PostThis 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.
Comment
-
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, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
403 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
291 responses
1,316 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 09:26 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
214 responses
1,059 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 08:07 AM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment