I'm referring to all persons.Define "it". By "it" I assume you are no longer referring to a person, which I agree with.
No, it still has nothing to do with "proof," and wtf is an "unreasonable situation"?It does if you're referencing an unreasonable person vs an unreasonable situation.
Proof is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. The former is totally irrelevant and the latter is only becoming relevant the longer I have to deal with the sycophants this forum.If you can't prove them wrong, then how can you prove them unreasonable?
Which one do you want to discuss?
Imagine you had died during the Vietnam War and you had a few friends during the war each of whom wanted to write a book about their experiences with you. Over the years your friends dictated their stories to a personal secretary who eventually published the books 50 years later. Wouldn't you feel that their books would be fairly reliable sources of information?How would that make it a reliable source of information? If someone wrote a book about my life based only on 2nd and 3rd hand accounts 50-60 years after I died would you trust it as gospel? In today's information age where knowledge is a mouse click away, we still have people that think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, for example. How can we trust people from 2,000 years ago to accurately pass down such fantastic stories?
If the books at least claimed to be 1st hand accounts and mentioned events we could accurately date that would show a high degree of likelihood they were written during or shortly after the life of Jesus, that would be one thing. Instead, the authorship isn't self proclaimed, only assumed through old rumors, and we can be very certain that whoever wrote them not only did not witness anything they were writing about, but their source also was not present when these events took place.
The Gospels are like writing down the message from a game of "Telephone" 50+ years after the game was played.
Imagine you had died during the Vietnam War and you had a few friends during the war each of whom wanted to write a book about their experiences with you and they dictated their stories to a secretary 50 years later. Wouldn't you feel that their books would be fairly reliable sources of information?
That isn't synonymous with the gospels' authorship.
If you changed it so my friends' friends relayed my story to their secretary then we'd have an accurate analogy. Obviously the original apostles were not alive 50+ years after the crucifixion (unless we invoke the "god can do anything" loophole).
LukeYou didn't answer my question. Did you read those pages? Perhaps you could cite the language from each of them that you believe supports your assertions.
The Church Fathers, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c. 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke.[50]
According to Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by "Mark, (who) having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ."[20] Other early writers such as Irenaeus agree with this.[21] "No early church tradition and no church father ascribes the Gospel to anyone other than Mark."[22]
Luke
Mark
Majority opinion of scholars on authorship is pretty damn clear in my opinion. Yes, there are other scholars who don't necessarily agree with majority opinion. But I also think the Church Fathers were pretty damn clear on authorship as well and some likely knew them personally or knew someone who did. Do you actually think the Church Fathers were all colluding and trying to deceive us? If so, what do you think their motive was?In way way do you think that the beliefs of other people are evidence of the veracity of those beliefs?
I didn't see that evident in anything you cited.Majority opinion of scholars on authorship is pretty damn clear in my opinion.
It seems to me that the majority opinion is that we do not know who authored the Gospels.Yes, there are other scholars who don't necessarily agree with majority opinion.
You theists and your tiny, simple minds.But I also think the Church Fathers were pretty damn clear on authorship as well and some likely knew them personally or knew someone who did. Do you actually think the Church Fathers were all colluding and trying to deceive us? If so, what do you think their motive was?
You theists and your tiny, simple minds.
The idea that the "Church Fathers" were actively deceptive with regard to their reported beliefs is not the only alternative to the idea that their beliefs were true. It is most likely that they were simply mistaken, but believed in earnest.
What in the world are you blathering about now? What does "quantifying this likelihood" even mean? Moreover, what is so difficult for you to understand about it? Of all the mistaken beliefs that humans have ever held in the course of history, what percentage of those beliefs were held by people who actually knew the truth but reported the mistaken belief dishonestly? And how do you think that percentage would compare to the number of people who believed falsehoods in earnest?Do you have any evidence quantifying this "likelihood"?
I think your posts quite clearly bolster my characterization with every subsequent word you write.I assume you do, since we're the ones with the "tiny, simple minds". :|
Majority opinion of scholars on authorship is pretty damn clear in my opinion.
(emphasis added)Modern scholarship generally rejects the view that Luke was the original author,[7] with the most that could be said being that Lukan authorship is "not impossible".
(emphasis added)
(emphasis added)The Gospel of Matthew was composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90.[2] The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle as the source of much of the tradition.
(emphasis added)According to tradition and some early church writers, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.[6] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[7] Some of the stories in the gospel may have been transmitted orally before being written down.[8] Various elements within the gospel suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community.
You're quite the arrogant dick...aren't you? I'm done with your juvenile crap.I didn't see that evident in anything you cited.
It seems to me that the majority opinion is that we do not know who authored the Gospels.
You theists and your tiny, simple minds.
The idea that the "Church Fathers" were actively deceptive with regard to their reported beliefs is not the only alternative to the idea that their beliefs were true. It is most likely that they were simply mistaken, but believed in earnest.
What does "quantifying this likelihood" even mean?
You speak from a position of authority...often (meaning, you speak as a person who knows without a shred of doubt that his views are the correct ones), and I am wondering why you do this.Moreover, what is so difficult for you to understand about it? Of all the mistaken beliefs that humans have ever held in the course of history, what percentage of those beliefs were held by people who actually knew the truth but reported the mistaken belief dishonestly? And how do you think that percentage would compare to the number of people who believed falsehoods in earnest?
Now that I'm not on my phone...
Modern scholarship generally rejects the view that Luke was the original author,[7] with the most that could be said being that Lukan authorship is "not impossible".
(emphasis added)
The traditional view on Lukan authorship, however, is held by many scholars,[65] and according to some scholars it is "not impossible" that they are right.[8] Since Luke was not prominent, there is no obvious reason that this gospel and Acts would have been attributed to him if he did not write them
So what bullshit were you trying to sell us, now?
This isn't an uncommon response from those who run out of arguments.You're quite the arrogant dick...aren't you? I'm done with your juvenile crap.
And how does one "quantify" that?This shouldn't be difficult for you...what can you show that demonstrates the likelihood of them being mistaken?
You first, Chochise.Try answering the question, please.
Because the facts are on my side, of course.You speak from a position of authority...often (meaning, you speak as a person who knows without a shred of doubt that his views are the correct ones), and I am wondering why you do this.
No, the question isn't whether or not they believed falsehoods in earnest as a matter of fact, but simply whether or not it is more likely they did so as opposed to perpetrating a deception.The fact that people "believed falsehoods in earnest" fails to accurately address whether or not the Church Fathers believed falsehoods in earnest...which is what I'm addressing.
You can't even remember your own arguments, so your suggestion here falls quite flat.PAY ATTENTION.
I think you have some dust in your eye, or cherry-pick your sources.
From YOUR article:
snip
You theists and your tiny, simple minds.
The idea that the "Church Fathers" were actively deceptive with regard to their reported beliefs is not the only alternative to the idea that their beliefs were true. It is most likely that they were simply mistaken, but believed in earnest.
I'm referring to all persons.
No, it still has nothing to do with "proof," and wtf is an "unreasonable situation"?
Proof is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. The former is totally irrelevant and the latter is only becoming relevant the longer I have to deal with the sycophants this forum.
The guy has some mental issues it appears. Best to leave him be.Funny, you who knows all things should know you don't HAVE to deal with any of us.
"Many" people also think that President Obama is a Muslim. "Many" is just more than a couple. The fact remains that the general consensus is that Luke did not author the Gospel, contrary to the earlier claim.
And how does one "quantify" that?
You don't have "facts", just "general consensus", Einstein.Because the facts are on my side, of course
I say it isn't likely, because some of them were less than a century removed from the gospel writer's lifetimes...as opposed to you and modern scholars who are 20 centuries removed from them.No, the question isn't whether or not they believed falsehoods in earnest as a matter of fact, but simply whether or not it is more likely they did so as opposed to perpetrating a deception.