[Athos]

1. You have quoted no ancient sources who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. That was the question. Lack of affirmation does not qualify in any way as an answer.

The stories describing the life of Jesus circulated during and after his life. They spread from person to person until, sometime after his death, they began to be written down. As is well-known, there were many written accounts of the life of Jesus. Centuries later, the four gospels as we now know them (Matthew, Mark, etc.) were selected as authentic.

Back in the latter part of the second century was when they first became attributed to the 4 traditional authors. Prior to that attribution the authors were unknown. We know this from several sources that were writing at the time but made no mention of the AUTHORS of the gospels. There were sections of these stories quoted but NONE OF THE EVANGELISTS WERE NAMED. This point has been previously made, but you call it “silence”.

In other words, questioning the authorship of the stories was not an issue in the beginning. It was not until a century or so after Jesus' death that the stories began to be attributed to apostolic times to give them a needed authenticity.

But earlier you said, "In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers.

The AUTHORS were unknown, not the contents of the gospels.

In your view, they did not mention it in the surviving fragments of what they wrote.

It's not "my view", it's the considered view of modern scholars, and hardly from fragments. See the following:

Justin Martyr makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are now agreeing that the four Gospels existed at the beginning of the second century. You are simply arguing that they were not mentioned by name in that century. Is that your contention? If so, then how do you explain this? There is similar evidence for Mark, Luke, and John. I'll let you take the link yourself.

http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

No. Not named until the latter part of the second century. Your link does nothing but repeat what you already wrote. The source is Irenaeus who wrote in the latter part of the second century.

3. I asked, "Give just one reference from a Gospel account that cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of details being handed down from generation to generation." You responded, "Gladly. How can two eyewitnesses report two different oh-so-obvious details such as the number of people at the tomb? One reports two, the other reports 5. It couldn't be more clear that the two traditions, differing as they do, have been passed down over the generations. The theological difference is not affected, only the clear evidence for being passed down." But I have already explained that one saying five and one saying two is not a contradiction. If there were five, then there were certainly two. If it had said, "only two", then you would have a point. It does not, however, so you don't. It certainly is not a satisfactory answer to the question since there is no reason to believe that both accounts could not be based on eyewitness testimony.

This is an astounding piece of miscombobulation (if that isn't a word, it should be). There are five apples on the table. You come along and say there are two. Someone else says but there are five. You say 2 is included in the 5, so 2 does not contradict 5. Your stretch to prove any point you make, no matter how ridiculous, is breathtaking. In any case, it was never about contradiction - that was your word. It was about difference - the difference between two people at the tomb and five at the tomb.

"I laughed out loud when you criticized me for citing an author from 1689. “A little dated, yes?”, you said. And you quoting authors from over a thousand years earlier! A little dated, yes? No points on this one – I enjoyed the comic relief." Surely you can understand the difference between quoting direct sources (me) versus quoting a theologian or historian (you) merely supplying opinions. I hope you can.

You commented on the date but not the content of what I wrote. Revealing, isn't it? In any case, your sources were writing far after the events in question. My modern sources have certain advantages over the ancient sources when both are writing after the events being described.

5. "Jl, Jl, Jl. This is really getting ridiculous. I never said scholars knew very little of the Gospels." I agree. I never said you did. I have no idea where you got that from. Imagination? My comment of, "Not too bad considering that, according to you, they knew very little of the Gospels," was referring, rather clearly I think, to the early church fathers, and certainly not to modern scholars.

What I meant was the early church fathers. Obviously they knew what they were reading. You should have seen the typo of scholars for early church fathers.

6. I am pleased that you did not engage in plagiarism this time. That's progress. Regrettably, you did not see fit to explain your previous misstep.

Another astounding piece of discombob. First you whined that I didn't provide names, then when I did provide names, you call it plagiarism. It's really about deflection, isn't it? Your position is weak and you would rather accuse me of bad faith. Ok, two can play that game.

Please tell us more about your belief in talking reptiles. Do they speak in forked tongues? How about talking elephants? Do you believe in those, too? Or maybe a God who creates billions of people only to watch them burn forever in his private torture chamber for the sin of never having heard of him? If it's possible I have your beliefs wrong, here's your chance to set the record straight. I'll wait.

7. You were correct in pointing out that Polycarp did not mention the Gospels by name. Good catch. Unhappily, it was your only one. Polycarp did indeed quote from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not by name, so fair enough. But do you really think Polycarp would have quoted from a written account set down by some unknown individual? Does that makes sense to you? And if he knew the authors were other than Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then wouldn't that information have been passed on to Irenaeus? Your contention just doesn't make sense.

Polycarp, and the others, read the anonymous accounts and believed in the content and were not concerned about the name of the person or persons who wrote them. The crux of the matter was the LIFE of Jesus, not the writer of the life. When, after several generations, it became necessary to attribute the stories to famiiar names from the apostolic era, the stories were then prefaced with "According to...". Note that this is an attribution, not a claim of authorship. Yes, it makes perfect good sense to me, and others who study these things professionally.

[jlisenbe]

1. You have quoted no ancient sources who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. That was the question. Lack of affirmation does not qualify in any way as an answer.

You provided no answer. A name would be needed for this of someone who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. The supposed silence you reference is not a source.

And this comment was flat out false. "Centuries later, the four gospels as we now know them (Matthew, Mark, etc.) were selected as authentic."

The AUTHORS were unknown, not the contents of the gospels.

As I have already demonstrated, that is not true.

No. Not named until the latter part of the second century. Your link does nothing but repeat what you already wrote. The source is Irenaeus who wrote in the latter part of the second century.

Except that Irenaeus is thought to be quoting Papias who was early first century.

What I meant was the early church fathers. Obviously they knew what they were reading. You should have seen the typo of scholars for early church fathers.

You have no support for that idea. Papias and Polycarp were both about as early as you can get, and they both knew of the Gospel accounts. Evidence supports the idea that Papias knew who wrote them, and as I have said several times, it just seems to be folly to me to suppose that they would have used Gospel accounts of the greatest event in all of history written by...whoever.

Your mistake about "scholars" is yours to own. Don't blame me for it.

Another astounding piece of discombob. First you whined that I didn't provide names, then when I did provide names, you call it plagiarism. It's really about deflection, isn't it? Your position is weak and you would rather accuse me of bad faith. Ok, two can play that game.

Plagiarism is not a game. You quoted from an internet article and did not cite the source. That is plagiarism.

Polycarp, and the others, read the anonymous accounts and believed in the content and were not concerned about the name of the person or persons who wrote them.

Except you have no evidence about what they were concerned about. None at all. Nothing. At some point you need to support your statements. You would need a statement by one of them to that effect, and you absolutely do not have it, so it's just conjecture.

As far as "talking reptiles" go, I don't believe in that, but I do believe that a snake was used by the devil to speak in Genesis 3. As I have said earlier, if God can raise a man from the dead, then a snake speaking is no big deal. You have declined to tell us if you believe in the resurrection. I have answered your question, so now it's your turn.

[Athos]

You provided no answer. A name would be needed for this of someone who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. The supposed silence you reference is not a source.

A name is not needed to question the authorship of the four Gospels. This has now been explained to you umpteen times in the simplest terms possible, yet you still don't understand it. Even DW has contributed his similar explanation, but you refuse to understand. I have no other conclusion to make other than you are blinded by your literal fundamentalism regarding matters of the Bible and Christianity.

The silence you referenced was originally yours until you edited your post.

As to the remainder of your reply (except as noted below), it's just a rehash of the errors you have already made. If you want to learn, go back and read my posts and the posts from DW. I assume you won't do that because it would reveal your fundamentalism to be a house of cards. I get it - believe me, I do.

And this comment was flat out false. "Centuries later, the four gospels as we now know them (Matthew, Mark, etc.) were selected as authentic

Church Councils during the 4th century made the final decision on which books should be included in the Bible. This was to finalize once and for all various disagreements and discrepancies among the various books .

As far as "talking reptiles" go, I don't believe in that, but I do believe that a snake was used by the devil to speak in Genesis 3. As I have said earlier, if God can raise a man from the dead, then a snake speaking is no big deal.

You believe the devil can use a snake to speak but you don't believe in talking reptiles!!?????? So you think a talking snake is not a talking reptile?? Last I heard, a snake is a reptile. You omitted any response to God torturing people for all eternity because they never heard of Jesus. But no matter. The questions were rhetorical intended to show the workings of your mind for all to consider when weighing your comments.

You have declined to tell us if you believe in the resurrection.

No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent.

[jlisenbe]

And again. "You provided no answer. A name would be needed for this of someone who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. The supposed silence you reference is not a source." As everyone knows, a source must be named. "Lots of people" is not a source. "No one said this or that" is not a source. You have no name because you have no source, and that's really the whole point. No one of reputation ever questioned the authorship of the 4 Gospels. It was simply accepted everywhere, even by heretical writers. That, at least, is now a settled issue.

Church Councils during the 4th century made the final decision on which books should be included in the Bible. This was to finalize once and for all various disagreements and discrepancies among the various books .

That's not altogether inaccurate as long as you realize that they simply acknowledged what nearly everyone had already accepted. Gospels other than the four we have now had never been accepted by the vast majority of churches to begin with. The canon of the NT can be traced to far before then, and that is especially true of the four Gospels. It was always the four Gospels, not three or five, but four. There was discussion about some books, Revelation and James, for instance, but not about the Gospel accounts, nor was there discussion about the Pauline letters or Acts.

No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent.

So you haven't declined to answer, you simply have chosen not to answer? Well...OK, if that makes sense to you, then so be it. I think it's kind of like saying, "I didn't break the window; I just threw a rock through it."

As to the remainder of your reply

A non-response is your choice. At least all of that is settled now as well by your unwillingness (inability?) to address it.

[Athos]

No one of reputation ever questioned the authorship of the 4 Gospels. It was simply accepted everywhere, even by heretical writers. That, at least, is now a settled issue.

Almost everyone "of reputation" has questioned the authorship of the 4 Gospels. I have named several of them. You deny the truth only because it doesn't agree with your received Biblical brainwashing. Only to your fundie brethren is it a "settled issue". Try reviewing what has been said about proving a negative. That's the source of your hangup and will help you out of your confusion about a "named source"

It was always the four Gospels, not three or five, but four.

There were several other gospels floating around. Check wikipedia - simple to find out. Did you know 4 were picked to agree with 4 winds and 4 corners of the earth?

So you haven't declined to answer, you simply have chosen not to answer?

Trouble reading again, I see. Here's what I wrote. See if it agrees with your reply on what I said.

No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent.

[jlisenbe]

Almost everyone "of reputation" has questioned the authorship of the 4 Gospels. I have named several of them.

Name one who questioned the authorship, remembering that silence on the issue does not equate to questioning authorship. You have named no one who did so.

There were several other gospels floating around. Check wikipedia - simple to find out. Did you know 4 were picked to agree with 4 winds and 4 corners of the earth?

I don't depend on Wiki. There were other Gospels, as you say, "floating around", but they were not accepted by the church, and that was my statement. ONE person mentioned the 4 winds idea, and that was Irenaeus. Papias, decades prior to Irenaeus, also mentioned four Gospels, though that is admittedly not completely reliable.

Yeah. You said, "No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent." So you have not declined to answer, and yet you have not answered? Well, like I said, if that makes sense to you, then go for it, but it is plainly self-contradictory. It's like saying, "I have not declined to answer; I merely refused to answer." Hmmm.

I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange. But you don't want to answer (declined), so that's fine with me. I'm happy to answer questions, but not everyone feels that way.

[Athos]

Name one who questioned the authorship, remembering that silence on the issue does not equate to questioning authorship. You have named no one who did so.

Are you blind? I named several - go back and look. Do any research and you will find most Biblicists agree that the names attached to the gospels are put there to give them authenticity.

I don't depend on Wiki.

Maybe you should. You might learn something.

You said, "No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent." So you have not declined to answer, and yet you have not answered? Well, like I said, if that makes sense to you, then go for it, but it is plainly self-contradictory. It's like saying, "I have not declined to answer; I merely refused to answer." Hmmm.

Good Lord! You even post what I wrote and you STILL don't understand it! When you find plain English self-contradictory, I really don't know how to help you. Encouraging you to re-read what has been written obviously hasn't worked. Now you're even posting it which makes you look even more foolish than I thought possible.

I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange. But you don't want to answer (declined), so that's fine with me.

Thank you - you just proved my contention. (Not for the first time.)

Your answer proved that you intended all along to find a reason to belittle whatever answer I would come up with. You did exactly what I predicted you would do. It's amazing how you often shoot yourself in the foot. (Not the first time you've done that, either).

[jlisenbe]

1. You have no names. Period. That is settled.
2. You will not answer. Another period and another settled issue.
3. I have no intention of belittling your belief. I don’t even know what your belief is. But I think you do realize that the serpent speaking is nothing compared to the resurrection.
4. I enjoy answering questions but I know that not everyone does.

[Athos]

1. You have no names. Period. That is settled.

You cannot read. Period. That is settled.

2. You will not answer. Another period and another settled issue.

You did not give me a reason to answer. Another period and another settled issue.

3. I have no intention of belittling your belief.

Then why did you belittle my comments on your serpent belief.

I don’t even know what your belief is.

And it will stay that way because you are not trustworthy and your intention is to criticize/condemn whatever it may be.

But I think you do realize that the serpent speaking is nothing compared to the resurrection.

A talking reptile/serpent/snake is a figment of a writer's imagination. As an adult, you shoud know that. It has nothing to do with the resurrection.

[jlisenbe]

1. I can’t read unposted names. Period.
2. At least you now admit you would not answer. Period.
3. I don’t think I have belittled your comments other than to say I find it strange that anyone who believes in the raising of the dead should not find the serpent speaking to be remarkable. Is that you? Who knows as you refuse to reply.
4. Honestly, I find your fear of answering questions to be…interesting. You seem to think you cannot defend your beliefs.

[Athos]

1. I can’t read unposted names. Period.

You have to look for them in order to read them. They're there. Keep looking. Period.

. At least you now admit you would not answer. Period.

Your reading comprehension problem again. Try again. Period.

3. I don’t think I have belittled your comments

In your own words - "...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". This is getting pathetic. Period.

4. Honestly

You have no idea what the word means. Period.

I find your fear of answering questions to be

LOL - I find your lack of ability to communicate funny, if it weren't so pathetic. Period.

You seem to think you cannot defend your beliefs.

Your failure to understand English is, well, pathetic. Period.

[jlisenbe]

You have to look for them in order to read them. They're there. Keep looking. Period.

Sure they are, just like little green men from Mars. You just have to look for them...on Mars.

In your own words - "...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". This is getting pathetic. Period.

Yes, it's pathetic that now you are making up quotes. I guess you'll tell us that we have to look for that one, too.

We can sum this up as follows.

1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

[Athos]

Yes, it's pathetic that now you are making up quotes. I guess you'll tell us that we have to look for that one, too.

Nope. I'll do it for you. It's right there in YOUR post #366. In black and white. In your own words.

1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.

I'll do it for you again. Re-read MY post #349. When you're finished with that one, re-read these: #s338 (Oxford), #340 (criticism), #361 (Justin Martyr). Then there's #331 (WGs examples), #s344, #346, #366 (all from an actual Bible scholar familiar with the ancient languages and right here on this board! Can't get more authoritative than that). Finish up with #342 - another summary.

2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.

Is this a retraction of what you have written about the second century? If it is, consider it accepted.

3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

Why do you want to know? Why does it matter? Why is it any of your business? You ask this so often, you are sounding like an Inquisitor. Wrong answer according to you and it's off to the stake. Thank God the US is not a theocracy run by fundamentalists. Look what the fundie mindset has done to Islam.

[jlisenbe]

It's very simple. It's just this again.
1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

This is what you stated as a ridiculous quote from me. "...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with".

Well, here are my comments from 366. As anyone can see by simply looking, I never used the word "belittle". The phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with" are also nowhere to be found in my post. Hmmm. Very clearly you just made it up.

I don't depend on Wiki. There were other Gospels, as you say, "floating around", but they were not accepted by the church, and that was my statement. ONE person mentioned the 4 winds idea, and that was Irenaeus. Papias, decades prior to Irenaeus, also mentioned four Gospels, though that is admittedly not completely reliable.

Yeah. You said, "No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent." So you have not declined to answer, and yet you have not answered? Well, like I said, if that makes sense to you, then go for it, but it is plainly self-contradictory. It's like saying, "I have not declined to answer; I merely refused to answer." Hmmm.

I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange. But you don't want to answer (declined), so that's fine with me. I'm happy to answer questions, but not everyone feels that way.

So after that nonsense, I will waste no further time looking up your posts other than the one name you posted which was Justin Martyr. Here is what you said. "Justin Martyr makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels." Now show me anywhere in there where he suggested someone else other that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the four Gospels, because that is the question in discussion.

I have already said that your belief about the resurrection is your business. It's just curious that you would not want to answer and be so sensitive about it, but that's your deal. I'm fine with that. As I said, I enjoy answering questions and just assume everyone else does as well, but clearly that is not the case.

Is this a retraction of what you have written about the second century? If it is, consider it accepted.

Hardly.

[jlisenbe]

BTW, this is the post you plagiarized in your post 361. "The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: "The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] -- do not occur once in all his writings" (Christian Records, p. 71)."

The underlined portion is clearly ridiculous as Polycarp, Clement, Tatian, and Irenaeus all quoted from the Gospels, so to say they were "unknown" to them is patently absurd. And bear in mind that Polycarp is about as early as you can get and certainly earlier that Justin Martyr. Now ask me if I intend to attach much credibility to what he wrote about Justin Martyr who, by the way, DID quote from the Synoptics.

[Athos]

It's very simple. It's just this again.
1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.

Done. Not my fault you refuse to read it.

Well, here are my comments from 366. As anyone can see by simply looking, I never used the word "belittle". Very clearly you just made it up.

This may well be the best post revealing JL's mental faculties since he arrived here. Read Jl's claim above, then read the actual quote, which contains "... believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange." That, boys and girls, is how the mind of Jl operates. No further comment from me is necessary.

I will waste no further time looking up your posts

No surprise there. Denying the named scholar on this board, and the other named Bible scholars referenced in those posts does nothing for your credibility.

Now show me anywhere in there where he (Justin Martyr) suggested someone else other that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the four Gospels, because that is the question in discussion.

That is NOT the question in discussion. As usual, you have tilted the question to suit your purposes. The question is, and always has been, about the authorship of the 4 gospels.

The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars is that the named Evangelists did NOT write the gospels. Their names were used to provide authenticity.

NO ONE denies that except the literalists who want God or someone else to speak down from the clouds and say that the named Evangelists are the original authors. Lacking God or his representative speaking from heaven or earth, the literalists offer the absence of God et al speaking as a proof that the gospels are accurately named. That is what JL's argument boils down to. No matter how many times he is shown that, he refuses to believe it. Not rebuts it, mind you, but REFUSES to accept it.

I have already said that your belief about the resurrection is your business.

Then why do you keep asking about it?

Here's a piece of advice for JL similar to what others have already given him.

Tolle et lege.

[jlisenbe]

believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange." That, boys and girls, is how the mind of Jl operates. No further comment from me is necessary.

Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used ("In your own words - '...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with' ".). "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system. But even at that, where did you see the phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with"? Hmmm? Why did you make that up as you clearly did in claiming they were my, "own words"? This is why I don't bother to go back and read your posts. It always ends up being pointless as your past posts do not support your contentions at all. That is clearly seen from the two posts I wasted my time looking up and commenting on in post 374.

That is NOT the question in discussion.

It's been posted eight or ten times. Can you name any one ancient source who questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Plainly you cannot.

The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars is that the named Evangelists did NOT write the gospels.

You have no evidence for that at all. It is a ridiculous statement which flies in the face of the startling fact that NONE of the early church fathers questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Now you want to argue that a handful did not affirm it, but of that handful, most of their writings have disappeared, so you really have no idea whether they did or didn't.

Then why do you keep asking about it?

Because you attempted to say that you did not decline to answer the question ("No I have not declined") while, the entire time, you were refusing to answer. But as I said, that is now settled.

As I have said twice now, this simply sums up what we have.
​1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

[Athos]

Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used. "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system.

Dear Lord, he's worse than I thought. "Belittling" is not "belittle", says Jl. We are way beyond pathos here, folks.

It always ends up being pointless as your past posts do not support your contentions at all.

Having eyes, they cannot see.

Can you name any one ancient source who questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Plainly you cannot.

Can you understand the following:

Lacking God or his representative speaking from heaven or earth, the Jl offers the absence of God et al speaking as a proof that the gospels are accurately named. That is what JL's argument boils down to. No matter how many times he is shown that, he refuses to believe it. Not rebuts it, mind you, but REFUSES to accept it.

The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars is that the named Evangelists did NOT write the gospels. Their names were used to provide authenticity.

You have no evidence for that at all. It is a ridiculous statement.

The evidence is literally OVERWHELMING. It's the simplest of matters to verify it - all you need to is go to the internet and search. It's ALL THERE. Your refusing to do the work does NOT make it a "ridiculous statement". It makes YOU ridiculous.

3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

I thought you weren't going to ask about the resurrection again. It didn't take you long to break that promise.

[jlisenbe]

Dear Lord, he's worse than I thought. "Belittling" is not "belittle", says Jl. We are way beyond pathos here, folks.

Can't answer better than I did. You clearly don't understand the function of quotation marks. And, as usual, you didn't bother to answer the question of why you just made up the whole thing. Why did you? It's very obvious that you did. Can't you simply admit to it? Hmmm?

Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used ("In your own words - '...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with' ".). "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system. But even at that, where did you see the phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with"? Hmmm? Why did you make that up as you clearly did in claiming they were my, "own words"?

Lacking God or his representative speaking from heaven or earth, the Jl offers the absence of God et al speaking as a proof that the gospels are accurately named. That is what JL's argument boils down to. No matter how many times he is shown that, he refuses to believe it. Not rebuts it, mind you, but REFUSES to accept it.

Nonsense. It would be nice if you could show it ONCE. Sadly for you, you cannot.

The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars is that the named Evangelists did NOT write the gospels. Their names were used to provide authenticity.

Unsupported foolishness. Your response is always to suggest someone else look it up for you since you evidently can't do so yourself.

I thought you weren't going to ask about the resurrection again. It didn't take you long to break that promise.

Never promised that, but I'll be glad to drop it until you bring it up again as you just did.

As I have said three times now, this simply sums up what we have.
​1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection. (Not bringing it up. Just saying that this is where we are.)We can move on to something else if you'd like. You have no answers for any of this.

[Wondergirl]

3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection. (Not bringing it up. Just saying that this is where we are.)We can move on to something else if you'd like. You have no answers for any of this.

JL had posted in #370: "3. I have no intention of belittling your belief. I don’t even know what your belief is. But I think you do realize that the serpent speaking is nothing compared to the resurrection."

The "discussion" was about belief in a talking serpent. How did the resurrection get into it?