Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hallq · 06-08-2006, 06:28 PM

Ehrman says in this debate, as he has said a number of times, that the gospels did not originally have the titles that they now have. I'm curious about the history of this issue-when was it first argued? By who?

dongiovanni1976x · 06-09-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallq

Ehrman says in this debate, as he has said a number of times, that the gospels did not originally have the titles that they now have. I'm curious about the history of this issue-when was it first argued? By who?

Irenaeus (late second century CE) suggested that the proper number of gospels was four. He invoked a curious logic: there are four corners to the earth, there are four winds, there are four ...Matthew was used to demonstrate Jesus' humanity (a Man), Mark, Jesus' Imperial power (Lion), Luke, Jesus' humility as a beast of burden (an Ox) and John, Jesus' spirit (a soaring Eagle)

Historian's debate the significance of each and the suggestion I am employing I base upon Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Fredriksen. (cannot cite them from work here though sry.)

hallq · 06-10-2006, 12:38 PM

I knew about Irenaeus, I was wondering about modern scholars who question these assignments. When was it decided that these names probably didn't appear on the original texts? Here's the relevent quote from Ehrman:

Quote:

That's the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The title are later additions.

This is different than the claim that these books are forgeries, that someone wrote them other than the apostles and immdiately claimed an apostle had written them.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-10-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merzbow42

This is where I think Ehrman has boxed himself into a corner, because we're not talking about a deist-type God unconcerned with the real world, but a God that is claimed to measurably interact with us.

I do not believe that there is good evidence that God measurably interacts with us today. I will be happy to consider any evidence to the contrary.

Regarding the supposed miracle healings performed by Jesus, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

Merzbow42 · 06-10-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I do not believe that there is good evidence that God measurably interacts with us today. I will be happy to consider any evidence to the contrary.

Regarding the supposed miracle healings performed by Jesus, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

My point was not that there is evidence of such a God, but that I can conceive of physical events for which the hypothesis that 'God did it' is NOT the least-likely hypothesis. (See my above posts for more detailed explanations). Whereas Ehrman would dismiss the 'God did it' hypothesis pretty much a priori.

God's Will Hunting · 07-09-2006, 10:05 PM

I'm not sure if this has made the rounds yet but I thought it was interesting to see Craig clearly lose a debate. Kudos to Ehrman.

DavidfromTexas · 07-10-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

I'm not sure if this has made the rounds yet but I thought it was interesting to see Craig clearly lose a debate. Kudos to Ehrman.

Would you care to provide some specifics of how you saw Craig "clearly lose a debate" to Ehrman?

Let me guess... Craig lost because Ehrman walked into the room? Or was it because Ehrman was breathing, had a pulse, and a blood pressure? Or was it because Ehrman had his shirt starched heavy that day? Or was it because Ehrman repeated some of the same old tired fodder that you like to hear?

Please provide some specifics.

Thank you.

SwoleMan · 07-10-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Would you care to provide some specifics of how you saw Craig "clearly lose a debate" to Ehrman?

Let me guess... Craig lost because Ehrman walked into the room? Or was it because Ehrman was breathing, had a pulse, and a blood pressure? Or was it because Ehrman had his shirt starched heavy that day? Or was it because Ehrman repeated some of the same old tired fodder that you like to hear?

No, it was because he burst out in a LOL!!! and a Wake up!!!

DavidfromTexas · 07-10-2006, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andreas83

No, it was because he burst out in a LOL!!! and a Wake up!!!

I looked at your profile... it surprises me and is a little unsettling that somebody so far away in Sweden would be that familiar with my quarks...

Julian · 07-10-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

I looked at your profile... it surprises me and is a little unsettling that somebody so far away in Sweden would be that familiar with my quarks...

I am pretty sure that everybody's quarks are identical. Your quirks, however, are an entirely different matter...

Julian

07-09-2006, 10:05 PM	#66
God's Will Hunting Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: usa Posts: 93	Craig gets spanked in resurrection debate MERGED with Craig Ehrman Debate I'm not sure if this has made the rounds yet but I thought it was interesting to see Craig clearly lose a debate. Kudos to Ehrman.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2006, 06:28 PM	#61
hallq Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 204	Ehrman says in this debate, as he has said a number of times, that the gospels did not originally have the titles that they now have. I'm curious about the history of this issue-when was it first argued? By who?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.