Amaleq13

I can't believe you have the audacity to continue to make all three of these assertions after the flaws and your responsibilities have been explained to you so many times.

First, we've seen in another thread (see link above) that, at least for Matthew, your "internal evidence" cannot establish the identity of the author. In fact, your own source admits that the evidence is only "consistent" with the assertion. IOW, the "internal evidence" does not suggest, imply, or indicate the assertion to be true. It is simply consistent with it if we had any good reason to accept it. If we don't, the "consistency" of any other evidence is irrelevant. Rather than refute the rebuttal to your "internal evidence", you ignored it and continue to make this assertion.

Second, you already know that the "early" 2nd century assertions require reliable supporting evidence to be considered reliable but you have consistently refused to attempt to support that claim, either.

Third, it has been explained to you repeatedly that the burden of proof is upon the claimant whether it is a collection of unanimous 2nd century church fathers or you repeating their assertion. Nobody has to "disprove" your assertions. YOU have to support them.

If you aren't willing to defend your assertions, then you are just preaching and that is inappropriate for this discussion forum.

gregor

Orthodox apologist has one more chance until he goes on the ignore list. . .

Orthodox_Freethinker

One can repeat anything but that still does not mean that there is evidence against the authorship of the Gospels. As I've requested of you, please provide whatever hard evidence you have against the authorship of the Gospels. Otherwise, I have no serious reason to doubt the unanimous testimony of the early Church. I am honestly interested in whatever real evidence you have to provide, even if it were to destroy whatever faith I have in the Christian God.

Peace.

Amaleq13

I'm not repeating "anything", I'm repeatedly explaining your burden of proof and that means you have repeatedly failed to produce evidence for the authorship of the Gospels.

Please turn your honest interest to the evidence supporting your claim and present it.

Orthodox_Freethinker

My only claim is that the authorship attributed is reliable unless proven otherwise. Unless you are able to provide evidence against the historicity, authorship, divine inspiration, etc. of the Gospels, I don't have any interest in discussing them with you.

Peace.

Vorkosigan

Unfortunately that's not how scholars work.

There's no way to argue against Divine Inspiration, since that is a religious doctrine imputed to the text, not deduced from it. Further, it is a value held by believers, not a fact constructed by sound methodology backed by appropriate evidence. There is no way to argue against it, any more than there is a way to argue against the proposition that "This pizza is good" or "you have sinned."

If you want to discuss historicity, I have a whole commentary on Mark that discusses the issues in depth and with relevant scholarship, and also posits a fine structure for the text.

http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/GMark/GMark_index.html

Welcome to explore and comment.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Yes and it has already been explained to you that this claim is flawed by its attempt to shift the burden from yourself, where it belongs according to logic and rational thought, to someone else.

You have made it quite clear that you are either unwilling or unable to engage in a rational defense of your assertions.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Scholars should consider the testimony of the early church fathers on the authorship of the Gospels and generally accept their words as true unless it becomes clear that they had a motivation to lie. The authorship of the Gospels, therefore, is more or less innocent until proven guilty.

Peace.

Steven Carr

Or they could just read the Gospels, see that they are anonymnous, and see why people deliberately edited them when writing their own Gospels.

OFreethinker sounds just like Muslims demanding to be proved wrong in his claim that the hadith were transmitted just like it says they were.....

Different religion, same drivel....

Orthodox_Freethinker

The oldest manuscripts of the Gospels bear the names of the attributed authors and therefore, they are not strictly anonymous.

Peace.