The truth according to Bart D. Ehrman

[Angrboda]

I've never understood this argument. What, someone was willing to just make up the book but were too scrupulous to include a false name?

The problem with the argument is two-fold. Think about heretical Gospels - who do they choose for their titles? Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter. They mainly use prominent church figures, mostly disciples. Choosing "Mark" or "Luke" to represent your heretical work would be futile - their names would not be recognized or accepted late in the 2nd century. The only reason we know of these two figures is because they wrote the books. Furthermore Luke writes both his books to Theophilus - someone we know nothing whatsoever about (aside from the fact that he received the letters from Luke). If you were making a forgery why address them to some unknown?

Ehrman discusses this very point in Forged. That you have created a thread to dispute Ehrman's points, without having read them, and completely oblivious to the fact that the argument you're presenting has been dealt with by Ehrman, simply paints you as the bottom-feeding, ignorant, stupid, moronic, disingenuous Christian apologist that you are.

(Feel free to "resent" my saying so at your convenience.)

You do more to make yourself appear stupid with the words out of your own mouth than I could hope to accomplish on my own.

There are occasional Christians who come around who are decent, but the majority are like you, who come around with lying spirits in their mouths, armed with ancient arguments that have been refuted so many times that the shit stains in their undies have shit stains, and by doing so you do more to discourage faith in the godless than any non-Christian source possibly could.

Congratulations. The Lord must be proud of his little soldier.