Zzyzx wrote:
Disingenuous is defined as: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere
I was being modest when I said
disingenuous, because I was tempted to say DISHONEST.
Zzyzx wrote:
“If (since)� indicates an alternative rather than a claim. Had I intended “since� only, IF would not have preceded it.
One should be VERY careful accusing others of dishonesty in this Forum. It is not only contrary to Forum Rules but false accusations are also a tactic often used by those who do not fare well in debate.
You said
one thing in the title of the thread, then once the first sentence of the thread is read, there is a word inputted in there which, in my opinion as I read it, seems to change the context of what the TITLE said.
But that's just me. But whatever.
Zzyzx wrote:
That case is made repeatedly in these debates:
1. Authorship unknown to Christian scholars and theologians – though “known for sure� by amateur (in-the-pew) Christians
No one knows who wrote anything in antiquity with 100% certainty, so the question becomes: what reasons do we have to believe that
x wrote
y, and can a case be made to demonstrate such?
Answer: Certainly.
Zzyzx wrote:
2. Place and time of writing unknown or uncertain
Can a case be made one way or the other? Answer: Certainly.
Zzyzx wrote:
3. No assurance that Gospel writers had personal knowledge of events and conversations they describe
Can a case be made one way or the other? Answer: Certainly.
Zzyzx wrote:
4. Written decades or generations after described events
Your #2 contradicts your #4: If you are claiming that
the place and time of writing is unknown/uncertain (#2), how can you go on to say it
was written decades or generations after described events (#4).
So on one hand; it is unknown when it was written. Other hand; it was written decades after described events.
Typical example of the skeptic trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Zzyzx wrote:
5. Sources of information used by writers unknown – and cannot be shown to be anything more substantial than hearsay, folklore, legend, myth, and/or religious fantasy.
If the content is nothing more than hearssay, folklore, legend, myth, fantasy...then there was no real event to be "described", yet you claimed in #4 that the material was
written decades or generations after the described events, thus, presupposing that there was an event to be described.
SMH. You are just living to attack the Gospels, aren't you, bruh?