Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not what I said. And show your source to back up your claim that history says that Irenaeus named the Gospels.
The Gospels are Finally Named! Irenaeus of Lyons.
"At this stage, what we can say with certainty is that the Gospels are quoted in the early and mid-second centuries by proto-orthodox Christian authors, who never identify them as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
Seven. Not six. Seven - Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.
(sigh) Seven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
''Evidence for the reality of Paul comes from the dozens of writers who quoted him within a generation of his death. Every single Christian source agrees that he was a real person. Clement (AD 95) mentioned Paul. Peter {AD 60) mentioned Paul. Ignatius, Polycarp, and many other late first century and early second century writers mentioned Paul. That they could have been duped about the existence of the most important leader in all of Christianity while people who were alive when Paul was alive is beyond the possibility of belief. To say that they were deceived that Paul was an apostle and that he was a real person is to verge on irrationality. There is not a single example of an opponent of Christianity in the first two or three centuries who doubted his reality. It would have been like doubting that Seneca or Ovid or Cicero lived. Bart Ehrman, one of the biggest critics of the reliability of the Bible has debated unscholarly atheists who claim that Paul is not real and struggled to not laugh at his atheist friends for making the foolish and unfounded claim that Paul was not a real person.''
Historians of Paul's time didn't need to mention him for him to be a real person. Many writers did mention him. But since you reject anything written by Christian sources you automatically dismiss them as being invalid evidence. And that is irrational.
Now you see, Michael? This is what I mean about inherent dishonesty among Christians. You are one of the worst offenders in this regard and I have pointed this out to you before. You know darn well that most Biblical scholars classify 2 Peter as a forgery...pardon me, pseudepigraphical. And yet you continue to try to pass 2 Peter off as authentic. Shame on you.
"Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical."
Without having looked at the context in which the statements of the church fathers you quoted were made I will not make any assumptions regarding them, and I will not take your word regarding their honesty or lack of it. However, your claim that the apostle Paul, first on your list, admitted to lying is based on not understanding that Paul was dealing with arguments made by some of his critics and objectors. Taking the position of a hypothetical objector Paul deals with a possible argument made by that objector. It is that hypothetical objector who makes the statement in Romans 3:7 - 'But, if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? Paul had already stated in v.5 that he was speaking in human terms.
As scholar F. F. Bruce put it in his commentary on Romans, the objector was making the argument that if
The end ---God's glory---is good; why is the means---my sin---counted wrong? Surely the end justifies the means?'
Romans, F. F. Bruce, p. 101
Paul then goes on to say in verse 8 that this argument made by the objector in verse 7 is what some people say Paul's gospel amounts to and he states that the charge is slanderous. Paul is refuting the charge made by the objector in verse 7 and by certain people . . . not admitting to it.
So, no. Paul was not admitting to being a liar.
Well, I suppose you have to see the quotes in the only way your Christian apologetics' bias will allow you to see it. So be it. But most non-biased people will see the sentiments for exactly what they are: "It's okay to lie and deceive if it serves our purpose."
The Gospels are Finally Named! Irenaeus of Lyons.
"At this stage, what we can say with certainty is that the Gospels are quoted in the early and mid-second centuries by proto-orthodox Christian authors, who never identify them as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
Where did Irenaeus say this? I'm not a member of Ehrman's blog so can't access the whole article.
Quote:
(sigh) Seven.
Quote:
Now you see, Michael? This is what I mean about inherent dishonesty among Christians. You are one of the worst offenders in this regard and I have pointed this out to you before. You know darn well that most Biblical scholars classify 2 Peter as a forgery...pardon me, pseudepigraphical. And yet you continue to try to pass 2 Peter off as authentic. Shame on you.
"Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical."
You purposely avoided acknowledging that Paul was mentioned by a number of Christian writers and tried to slide around that to complain about 2 Peter being a forgery. An argument I don't agree with by the way.
There is multiple attestation from various Christian sources that Paul was a real person. Again, because you refuse to acknowledge Christian sources as valid you simply dismiss them and claim there is no evidence.
Quote:
Well, I suppose you have to see the quotes in the only way your Christian apologetics' bias will allow you to see it. So be it. But most non-biased people will see the sentiments for exactly what they are: "It's okay to lie and deceive if it serves our purpose."
What you bolded above seems to be the philosophy that you live by.
Anyone with the ability to comprehend what they read and looks at the context can see that Paul was not admitting to lying.
You whine about the dishonesty of Christians and ignore your own dishonesty.
By the way, I notice that the Christians' silence on my OP is deafening. I wonder why. Possibly because there isn't anything in it that they can refute?
By the way, I notice that the Christians' silence on my OP is deafening. I wonder why. Possibly because there isn't anything in it that they can refute?
The main contribution of Marcion may have been his promotion of Paul's writings, which he seems to have been the first known curator of. Marion's canon was what we know of today as Paul's writings plus a condensed version of the Gospel of Luke. Interesting to speculate how different Christianity and world history would have been if Marcion had had his full way in things.
Marcion's main contribution was the creation of a proto-Bible with his gospel as the centerpiece. This effort was so successful the proto-orthodox church emulated it and created its own gospels and canon. This bible effort is what saved Christianity from obscurity.
I cannot find a source for this, but I have seen mentions over the years that Christianity was close to dying after the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt and the dying out of Jewish Christianity.
By the way, I notice that the Christians' silence on my OP is deafening.
I wonder why. Possibly because there isn't anything in it that they can refute?
Possibly.
Or
1. They're tired of your posts so have you on Ignore.
2. It's hard to 'prove' many things in the Bible which is what they believe in and they know this. So?
3. It's not their 'mission' to waste their time trying to argue...'why be bothered'...
4. They are simply at peace with their beliefs...no need to 'prove' anything - especially to a professional doubter or unbeliever.
(Gets old after years of it!)
5. What if they see you as a lost soul and just wave you off? We always have that one!
Possibly.
Or
1. They're tired of your posts so have you on Ignore.
2. It's hard to 'prove' many things in the Bible which is what they believe in and they know this. So?
3. It's not their 'mission' to waste their time trying to argue...'why be bothered'...
4. They are simply at peace with their beliefs...no need to 'prove' anything - especially to a professional doubter or unbeliever.
(Gets old after years of it!)
5. What if they see you as a lost soul and just wave you off? We always have that one!
Pretty good summary. His "proof(s)" is/are about as solid as what he's supposedly disproving.
Since I don't the capacity to multi-quote I'll just take it point by point:
So you're saying that since we don't know who wrote the gospels it's okay to just assume it was the names that have become traditionally attached to them based on conjecture. Well, okay if you want to assume that. I can't prove it's not true, I can only go with the standard that if history says Irenaeus named them we have to go with that. And there already was a gospel of Peter in existence as I"m sure you know so "it seems likely" that they wouldn't want the confusion of having to refer to both by the same name.
In the end history has chosen to write that Irenaeus named the gospels and what they were called before that we have no idea so we can only make assumptions.
As for Paul I have acknowledged that secular Bible scholars are in agreement on the six authentic Pauline epistles. My objection goes to the fact that, like Jesus who was well-known past the borders of Palestine according to the synoptics yet isn't mentioned by a single historian whose work hasn't been tampered with in one way or another [Read: Josephus], Paul similarly, for someone so well known in the Mediterranean for all his missionary work and setting up churches and such, is also not mentioned by one historian even in passing. But you've made the assumption before that historians simply had more important things to write about than Paul so I guess that will always be your position.
But I thoroughly object to your stance that the Christian leadership was so pristine that it would never have lied to people about doctrine. Let's have a look at some of the attitudes of the early church fathers about falsehoods starting with Paul:
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my falsehoods unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.
Or Eusebius:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation
Or Clement of Alexandria who apparently had his own definition of what truth should be:
"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)
Or John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and bishop of Constantinople
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
Or Tertullian writing that Pilate had converted to Christianity:
All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions,
he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius.
– Tertullian Apol. xxi and Anti-Nicene Fathers, iii, 35.
And I could go on and on but is it really necessary?
Do you still think the early church fathers were that honest that they would never tell a lie?
By the way, I notice that the Christians' silence on my OP is deafening. I wonder why. Possibly because there isn't anything in it that they can refute?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
I think you're looking for attention.
Whether I am or not does not address the original issue. If there was anything in the OP to call "lie" on, Christians in here would have come out of the woodwork to call it. But outside of yourself and that, I'm sorry...pathetic attempt at catching me on something, "Christians have been lying since the beginning" there hasn't been a peep from the Christian quarters. And I did point out that early Christian leaders had no problem at all with lying to advance their cause which I will remind people of again, omitting Paul which for the sake of brevity I will accept as factual:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
But I thoroughly object to your stance that the Christian leadership was so pristine that it would never have lied to people about doctrine. Let's have a look at some of the attitudes of the early church fathers about falsehoods:
Or Eusebius:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation
Or Clement of Alexandria who apparently had his own definition of what truth should be:
"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)
Or John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and bishop of Constantinople
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
Or Tertullian writing that Pilate had converted to Christianity:
All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions,
he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius.
– Tertullian Apol. xxi and Anti-Nicene Fathers, iii, 35.
And I could go on and on but is it really necessary?
Do you still think the early church fathers were that honest that they would never tell a lie?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(sigh) Seven. 
We always have that one!
