(March 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm)Lek Wrote: You're calling things "facts" that you don't know are facts, about the writers and the dates of the writings.
I'm sorry you don't agree with the findings of the scholars that are educated and trained in these matters, but that's not my problem.
Quote: You are right about the naming of the gospels after the fact, but the church didn't just pull names out of the hat. It was after extensive study and investigation, and they lived about 2,000 years closer to the time of the writings that we do.
Actually, you're wrong. Just taking the book of Matthew as an example, the epigraph was added sometime in the second century, but the idea that this referred to the Matthew was added yet later still by Bishop Papias; the name was added before the idea that the Matthew in question was the apostle. Claiming that the two were concurrent shows simple ignorance of the history involved.
Quote: I'd might be able to agree with you about 2 Peter, but not 1 Peter. There is not a consensus, but a split opinion from modern scholars. I'll still go with the early church.
So basically you'll go with the people that tell you what you want to hear, rather than those with a more expansive technological and cultural apparatus, because the guys capable of producing more accurate results disagree with what you already believed before coming into the discussion. Your presuppositions do not lend more weight to the bald assertions of long dead ideologues.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!