The Canonical Gospels Have No Authority

[FallentoReason]

their is a big gapping hole in this line of reasoning. The assumption being because we only have a written record of 2nd century involvement with the gospels that they must have orginated in the second century.
This would be a valid conclusion IF our records of the first and second century church were any where near complete. They are not. It would be like someone 100 years from now going through all my posts, and proclaim that I never owned a 1967 Mustang or a 64 ranchero because in all my posting I never mention the mustang or ranchero.

Again this would be a logical conclusion if my threads here were a complete chronical of my life. However my work here does not center around my life, (even though I have shared personal experiences) and the work here does not include my two cars, which doesn't mean I never owned them. Like wise to point to a hole in a incomplete historical record is in this case an Arguement from silence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Which produces fallacious reasoning/Faulty conclusions.

I partly agree with what you're saying. Except where your example fails is that it's not representing the actual reality of things. To make it true to our dilemma at hand, your example should have you posting in a car forum and only then if you never once mentioned your 1967 Mustang or 64 Ranchero can the person 100 years from now rightfully conclude that you never owned them, with the assumption being that it's incredibly unlikely that you wouldn't mention such information. Remember that we're not dealing with mindless data. We're dealing with people who have certain *intentions* and from these intentions we can justifiably expect certain things of them.

It's sort of the same deal here. We have Church Fathers and apologists exhausting all the resources they have on hand in order to defend the faith, yet the most glaringly obvious documents they should have referenced are nowhere to be found in their writings. Take Papias for example - 5 volumes of what Christ had to say, and not one word he uttered appears again in our Gospels.

Fishy eh? And I'm not talking about the age of Pisces in which Jesus was born

[Godscreated]

Biblical canon New Testament, this was the google search.

GC

[ThomM]

their is a big gapping hole in this line of reasoning. The assumption being because we only have a written record of 2nd century involvement with the gospels that they must have orginated in the second century. This would be a valid conclusion IF our records of the first and second century church were any where near complete. They are not. It would be like someone 100 years from now going through all my posts, and proclaim that I never owned a 1967 Mustang or a 64 ranchero because in all my posting I never mention the mustang or ranchero.

Again this would be a logical conclusion if my threads here were a complete chronical of my life. However my work here does not center around my life, (even though I have shared personal experiences) and the work here does not include my two cars, which doesn't mean I never owned them. Like wise to point to a hole in a incomplete historical record is in this case an Arguement from silence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence



Which produces fallacious reasoning/Faulty conclusions.

Actually - since there was never a person named "Jesus Christ" who lived in the time between 6 bce and 35 ce - it really makes no difference when they made up the stories.

If we actually had ALL of the stories that the Catholic church had when it decided what mumbo jumbo it would include in the bible - how they determined what was correct - and what was not - simply was decided by people who were not eye witnesses and could not have been. So - the stories of the bible were chosen by a vote of human who had no idea - and simply wanted to define their religious beliefs.

Just as much of the old testament is proven to not be true - and the fact that there is NO support for large portions of the rest - shows that the bible itself - of which the Old Testament is part of - is certainly not the words of an all knowing god. It is simply just another set of fairy tales. Remembering that the majority of people on earth who still believe in such nonsense - do not accept the christ - simply points to that as well. People will believe whatever they are taught to believe - as religious education wanes and disappears in the world - so will the belief in spooks, demons - and all that nonsense

[dyresand]

Remember religion its not suppose to make sense otherwise there wouldn't be followers.

[abaris]

If we actually had ALL of the stories that the Catholic church had when it decided what mumbo jumbo it would include in the bible - how they determined what was correct - and what was not - simply was decided by people who were not eye witnesses and could not have been. So - the stories of the bible were chosen by a vote of human who had no idea - and simply wanted to define their religious beliefs.

Mostly a political decision, since within the 4th century they saw a real chance of becoming Roman state religion. So many believes of early christians were thrown out the window. They were opposed to military service and excommunicated everyone serving with the legions. They also were mostly opposed to capital punishment and that went out the window too. Both standpoints weren't popular with the Roman emperor.

I call the rise of christianity the Constantinian buttkissing contest.

[Mudhammam]

Of course, everybody who does history and has a lick of common sense (which apparently excludes most apologists) knows that the date of a source doesn't determine the truth of its content.

[Minimalist]

This from Wiki

Certainly a reliable source, G-C. Don't suppose you'd take the extra step and find out which bible-thumping shithead is the author of that.

Richard Carrier uses these same works mentioned in the OP to dismiss your fucking bible for the tissue of lies that they are.

[FallentoReason]

Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles," which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels," and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[16]
This from Wiki

GC

As it was stated earlier, I don't think this changes anything that I've said in the OP.

[Esquilax]

their is a big gapping hole in this line of reasoning. The assumption being because we only have a written record of 2nd century involvement with the gospels that they must have orginated in the second century. This would be a valid conclusion IF our records of the first and second century church were any where near complete. They are not. It would be like someone 100 years from now going through all my posts, and proclaim that I never owned a 1967 Mustang or a 64 ranchero because in all my posting I never mention the mustang or ranchero.

Again this would be a logical conclusion if my threads here were a complete chronical of my life. However my work here does not center around my life, (even though I have shared personal experiences) and the work here does not include my two cars, which doesn't mean I never owned them. Like wise to point to a hole in a incomplete historical record is in this case an Arguement from silence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Which produces fallacious reasoning/Faulty conclusions.

Does it bother anyone else that Drich's argument here, boiled down, is nothing more than: "Your argument would only make sense if we knew, but since we don't know, you must be wrong."

I mean, I get that the argument from silence is a thing, but the two things that come to my mind there is that if we had a lack of evidence for a thing we'd expect silence, and that once again a christian's position hinges solely on ignorance.

[Minimalist]

None of drippy's arguments ever make any sense.