If that is false, then show the original Polycarp writing.
Mark, Matthew and Luke were all common names during that time.
As if you would believe even that.
So now we'll add Polycarp to the long, long list of ancient people, scholars, and others who have to ALL be wrong in order for Ramoss - the biased, anti-Christianity pundit - to be right.
On the contrary, it's known as 'you can't show that Polycarp actually said that. Show me Polycarp's actual writing.. then we can make an assessment.
Go fly a kite. There's NO evidence, no matter how profound - that you will ever accept.
Well, none that you have at least. That's because, all of the evidence the Christs have for the last 2000 years is very weak and has been corrupted by liars and forgeries.
Horse manure.
He is a professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at The University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He is an expert of the Gospels (esp. Gospel of Mark), the Apostle Paul, Early Christology, the Jewish Background of the New Testament, New Testament Textual Criticism.
Anonymous Gospels
Although early in their circulation the NT Gospels were ascribed to the familiar four figures (probably sometime early 2nd century), they actually originated as anonymous, which deserves more notice than scholars have typically given to the matter. Noting that many OT books and several NT books are anonymous, David Aune judged this “a striking literary feature” that, nevertheless, “has been almost completely neglected.”
(. . .)
For, in the literary environment of the authors of the Gospels, the overwhelmingly customary practice was for authors of literary works (such as historical or biographical narratives) to identify themselves, and claim credit for their works. This was often done as part of the formal prologues to their works.[ii] So, to release substantial works such as the NT Gospels anonymously was very unusual, amounting to a significant departure from literary practices of that time.[iii]
(. . .)
As we move into the second century, however, the four Gospels were ascribed to the now-traditional authors. But, as others have noted, the “superscriptions” that identify them, for example, “the Gospel according to Matthew (κατα Μαθθαιον) are all unusually phrased.[vi] More typically, the name of an author was placed it in a genitive construction in relationship to the work. The phrasing of these superscriptions identifies “the Gospel” as the subject shared by all four texts, each one of which presents a version of it.
The anonymity of the NT Gospels also contrasts with the more direct authorial claims of subsequent “apocryphal” gospels. For example, the opening lines of the Gospel of Thomas identify the text as “the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke, as Judas Thomas wrote them.”
references:
David E. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 35.
[ii] This practice was typically followed by Jewish authors of the Greco-Roman period too. E.g., the prologue to Josephus’ Jewish War, 1.1-3.
[iii] In John 21:24, an unidentified “we” vouch for the truthfulness of “the disciple who witnesses about these things and wrote these things,” which appears to point to the putative author of the preceding Gospel of John. But this figure is not named. Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1 address these texts to a Theophilos (not otherwise known), but the author does not identify himself.
[vi] Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 2000), 48-53
Well, none that you have at least. That's because, all of the evidence the Christs have for the last 2000 years is very weak and has been corrupted by liars and forgeries.
Don't you just love the typical religious response? "You won't believe me anyhow so I'm not even going to try!" Yes, we don't believe you because you DON'T try! You have nothing but a bunch of handwaving and blind faith and you think it ought to convince us, but it doesn't. It's because their beliefs are not based on a rational evaluation of the existing evidence, it's based on wishful thinking and they think everyone else ought to be the same.
Except we're not stupid. If they want to convince us, then they have to do so with evidence. We're very clear what evidence will convince us. They just don't have any evidence and they're trying to cover up that fact with false bravado. It's kind of pathetic when you think about it.
66 books, written by 40 different writers, over a period of 1500+ years, would be evidence enough to convince anyone...unless it happens to be about God...go figure...:roll:
It's kind of pathetic when you think about it...:2razz:
Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.
Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?
Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.
Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?
ev·i·denceDictionary result for evidence
/ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; support for, backing for, reinforcement for, grounds for
66 books, written by 40 different writers, over a period of 1500+ years, would be evidence enough to convince anyone...unless it happens to be about God...go figure...:roll:
It's kind of pathetic when you think about it...:2razz:
OK, I agree that you have provided a definition for the noun - evidence - now, can you supply the asked-for evidence which supports your earlier statement?
So you admit you don't understand the definition well enough to recognize evidence when it's given...got it...
The thing is the 66 books is the claim. You are mixing up the concept of 'claim' with the concept of 'evidence'.
It is not a claim, it is a fact...there are 66 individual books written by 40 different men over a period of 1500+ years...
It's a fact that there are at least 66 books... and more than 40 people writing is not releavent to the contents of the books being the claim.
Sure it is, as well as the period of time it took to write all 66 books...
Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.
Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?
It is not a claim, it is a fact...there are 66 individual books written by 40 different men over a period of 1500+ years...
The thing is the 66 books is the claim. You are mixing up the concept of 'claim' with the concept of 'evidence'.
It's a fact that there are at least 66 books... and more than 40 people writing is not releavent to the contents of the books being the claim.
From the beginning: Elvira stated that 66 books written by 40 men over 1500+ years are "evidence" for God.
I asked - How are books evidence for the existence of a deity?
BUT, I also meant, and should have been clearer about my intentions, when I asked for 'evidence'. What is the external evidence that "40 men" wrote the books? No women allowed? Why couldn't there have been more than 40 writers - or fewer? What is the evidence for a period of compostion that lasted for 1500 years?
Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.
Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?
Of course, many of the hymns and psalms were actually plagiarized from the Urgartic Bible. A copy of that on clay tablets was found in the ruins of Ur dating around 1400 bce.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?