Mystery Solved

[Subduction Zone]

It's not your opinion? That means you can prove it then. I'm not asking you to. I'm not going through that drama again. So... Okay.

I can, but you will probably ignore the proof. In this case the proof would come from Ehrman's lectures and writings. Would you listen to them? Meanwhile the burden of proof is upon you to find a source that does not make a special pleading fallcy. From my observations when approached from a neutral ground Christianity fails its burden of proof.

 

[nPeace]

I can, but you will probably ignore the proof. In this case the proof would come from Ehrman's lectures and writings. Would you listen to them? Meanwhile the burden of proof is upon you to find a source that does not make a special pleading fallcy. From my observations when approached from a neutral ground Christianity fails its burden of proof.

We are posting proof all the time, but you are ignoring it.
Why you accept this man's 'proof' is obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are posting proof all the time, but you are ignoring it.
Why you accept this man's 'proof' is obvious.

No, you haven't. You do not seem to understand the concept. Your utter failure in science based discussions tells us that. And yes, I accept Ehrman's work because he can approach the topic honestly. I see that you have not found anyone that you would put up against him. Is the demand of no special pleading fallacies too difficult?

 

[nPeace]

No, you haven't. You do not seem to understand the concept. Your utter failure in science based discussions tells us that. And yes, I accept Ehrman's work because he can approach the topic honestly. I see that you have not found anyone that you would put up against him. Is the demand of no special pleading fallacies too difficult?

Yes we have. You do not seem to understand the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes we have. You do not seem to understand the concept.

Please, when you have failed so badly trolling posts like that one only look like lies.

 

[nPeace]

Please, when you have failed so badly trolling posts like that one only look like lies.

You mean it's only Subduction Zone that doesn't fail nor troll.
No wonder you run me down everywhere on these forums.
I don't see you doing that with other persons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean it's only Subduction Zone that doesn't fail nor troll.
No wonder you run me down everywhere on these forums.
I don't see you doing that with other persons.

I have supported my claims with specific examples of your failures. All you have been able to do is to run away or troll. Or have you forgotten your inability to support your claim that you could refute the theory of evolution? I don't fail because unlike you I do not makes claims that I cannot support.

 

[nPeace]

I have supported my claims with specific examples of your failures. All you have been able to do is to run away or troll. Or have you forgotten your inability to support your claim that you could refute the theory of evolution? I don't fail because unlike you I do not makes claims that I cannot support.

No. You are the one doing the trolling, and bullying too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You are the one doing the trolling, and bullying too.

Tsk, tsk. How is trying to keep you honest either?

I think that when you know that you have been shown to be wrong you will do anything to change the subject . Let's get back on topic here.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you have a link please.

"Titles of the gospels
The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. "
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel and Gospels
Regards

 

[nPeace]

"Titles of the gospels
The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. "
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel and Gospels
Regards

This proves nothing, other than the fact that there will always be critics against anything - including art.

Note the words from the same encyclopedia...
The question of the origin of the New Testament includes yet another literary problem, concerning the Gospels especially. Are these writings independent of one another? If one of the Evangelists did utilize the work of his predecessors how are we to suppose it happened? Was it Matthew who used Mark or vice versa? After thirty years of constant study, the question has been answered only by conjectures. Amongst these must be included the documentary theory itself, even in the form in which it is now commonly admitted, that of the "two sources". The starting-point of this theory, namely the priority of Mark and the use made of him by Matthew and Luke, although it has become a dogma in criticism for many, cannot be said to be more than a hypothesis. However disconcerting this may be, it is none the less true. None of the proposed solutions has been approved of by all scholars who are really competent in the matter, because all these solutions, while answering some of the difficulties, leave almost as many unanswered. If then we must be content with hypothesis, we ought at least to prefer the most satisfactory. The analysis of the text seems to agree fairly well with the hypothesis of two sources--Mark and Q. (i.e. Quelle, the non-Marcan document); but a conservative critic will adopt it only in so far as it is not incompatible with such data of tradition concerning the origin of the Gospels as are certain or worthy of respect.
.............................................

Whatever these men conclude, it does not prove anything - unless they be gods, and even then, they won't be able to prove that.

To get the truth most anything. It usually has to speak for itself. The Bible does that. The evidence speaks for itself.
The harmony, practical value, honesty, and accuracy within gives evidence that it is authentic, and divinely inspired,

There will alway be critics.
The Bible outlives them. It has won all vicious attacks against it. It stands strong in the face of insurmountable odd - and still stands on top.
...and the people who live by it - equally undefeated.
The proof is in the pudding, and guess who's doing the eating?

 

[nPeace]

Tsk, tsk. How is trying to keep you honest either?

I think that when you know that you have been shown to be wrong you will do anything to change the subject . Let's get back on topic here.

Let's start the count fresh. Troll #1

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's start the count fresh. Troll #1

That was not trolling, that was an observation and an offer of peace, your reaction is trolling.

EDIT: Or was that an admission on your part?

 

[nPeace]

That was not trolling, that was an observation and an offer of peace, your reaction is trolling.

EDIT: Or was that an admission on your part?

Next time wave a white flag. That still works, you know. Or you could try this.
Or would that embarrass you? That would be pride.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Next time wave a white flag. That still works, you know. Or you could try this.
Or would that embarrass you? That would be pride.

Why would I wave a white flag? Keep the trolling to a minimum and we should be fine.

 

[nPeace]

Why would I wave a white flag? Keep the trolling to a minimum and we should be fine.

Here I actually thought you meant what you said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here I actually thought you meant what you said.

I am not the one with a problem being honest here. I was not the one that said he could refute something and then ran away.

The problem with a literal approach to the Bible is that one refutes it by doing so. It would be wiser to go by the spirit of the Bible. Many of the stories in it never happened at all. At least not as portrayed in that book.

 

[paarsurrey]

This proves nothing, other than the fact that there will always be critics against anything - including art.

Note the words from the same encyclopedia...
The question of the origin of the New Testament includes yet another literary problem, concerning the Gospels especially. Are these writings independent of one another? If one of the Evangelists did utilize the work of his predecessors how are we to suppose it happened? Was it Matthew who used Mark or vice versa? After thirty years of constant study, the question has been answered only by conjectures. Amongst these must be included the documentary theory itself, even in the form in which it is now commonly admitted, that of the "two sources". The starting-point of this theory, namely the priority of Mark and the use made of him by Matthew and Luke, although it has become a dogma in criticism for many, cannot be said to be more than a hypothesis. However disconcerting this may be, it is none the less true. None of the proposed solutions has been approved of by all scholars who are really competent in the matter, because all these solutions, while answering some of the difficulties, leave almost as many unanswered. If then we must be content with hypothesis, we ought at least to prefer the most satisfactory. The analysis of the text seems to agree fairly well with the hypothesis of two sources--Mark and Q. (i.e. Quelle, the non-Marcan document); but a conservative critic will adopt it only in so far as it is not incompatible with such data of tradition concerning the origin of the Gospels as are certain or worthy of respect.
.............................................

Whatever these men conclude, it does not prove anything - unless they be gods, and even then, they won't be able to prove that.

To get the truth most anything. It usually has to speak for itself. The Bible does that. The evidence speaks for itself.
The harmony, practical value, honesty, and accuracy within gives evidence that it is authentic, and divinely inspired,

There will alway be critics.
The Bible outlives them. It has won all vicious attacks against it. It stands strong in the face of insurmountable odd - and still stands on top.
...and the people who live by it - equally undefeated.
The proof is in the pudding, and guess who's doing the eating?

Sorry.
I don't agree with one.
First hint from the passage quoted by me from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."

It clearly hints that the names Matthew, Mark etc were allocated only for credence to the anonymous Narratives after doctoring them by the followers of the Pauline Christianity.And these has nothing to do with Jesus. Mary and the twelve with consensus did not support them and Jesus had gone out of Judea by then.

Regards

 

[nPeace]

Sorry.
I don't agree with one.
First hint from the passage quoted by me from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."

It clearly hints that the names Matthew, Mark etc were allocated only for credence to the anonymous Narratives after doctoring them by the followers of the Pauline Christianity.And these has nothing to do with Jesus. Mary and the twelve with consensus did not support them and Jesus had gone out of Judea by then.

Regards

You seem to have lost me.
what were we discussing?
What is the point you are making?
How does one verify the facts of these matters?

 

[paarsurrey]

You seem to have lost me.
what were we discussing?
What is the point you are making?
How does one verify the facts of these matters?

One asked me to provide a link. I provided and one commented on it. I disagreed and I am establishing my point from the passage of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
That is it.
Regards