Apparently the four gospels are not actually written by the apostles they are named after? Is there a refutation to this to show they were? Or that even if they are not, then that is OK?
Been reading Bart Ehrman. Maybe not the best choice for someone like me who is so shaky in faith. But this is the kind of stuff that troubles me the most, so I feel like if I can read this stuff and get through it without it destroying my belief, then nothing would ever risk that again.
pic unrelated
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
apuritansmind.com
apuritansmind.com
actheologian.com
twitter.com
If you're reading Bart Ehrman, I'm afraid you're not merely "shaky" in faith. It would seem you have very little at all.
The one thing on the side of the traditional authorship is… wait for it..
Tradition. Exactly what it's named after. We have Church Fathers already in the early 100s AD, like St. Ignatius, who attested to Matthew writing that gospel, for example. You accept a guy who lived mere decades after it.. or you accept the other guy from 2000 years later. Your choice.
The only reason why it's even brought into question starts with Protestants to begin with, who originally dispensed with tradition and decided to look on all of it in bad faith. After that, ALL of the faith slowly was chipped away at. This very impetus to break from tradition, in turn, produced later scholars who doubted even more by the Enlightenment period of the 1700/1800s. Finally you get Bart Ehrman in the postmodern period.
People make a big deal about him, as if it was some remarkable thing that a bible scholar lost his faith and writes skeptical books now. But the thing is, he was always a skeptic. His whole pedigree and the family of "faith" he comes from was always trash. It led him down this stupid path to begin with. All Protestants are inherently anti-tradition, overly rational, and will be skeptical in some degrees. And inevitably, their own "kids" will pick up where each generation left off and chip away more and more.. until there's nothing. Only having a real respect for God's church and it's traditions keeps you from doing this.
Oops, correction.. Ignatius only quoted Matthew (but that alone shows it was already widely circulating and had some authority). It was Appolinaris (circa 180) that actually called it Matthew's gospel by name.
Papias was earlier than both of them (right after the Apostles, post 60s AD), but we only have Eusebius' quotations of him from later (300s). In any case, he quotes Papias as saying Matthew wrote a gospel.
Doesn't matter if gospels are misattributed does that refute Christianity? No.
Promptly stop
The very premise of textual criticism is predicated on the rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy. There's actually a good book debating this particular topic called "five views on biblical inerrancy", I think it's on libgen.io
This
And if you kept reading church fathers around 100 ad you’d see
Seems like cherry picking at its finest to me. All of those church fathers that you've named there are far more Catholic in their theology than Protestant. Also Catholics don't have a works based soteriology so that last quote by Ignatius is perfectly in line with the Catholic rejection of Pelagianism
I appreciate that you're at least partly relying on the work of a fellow heretic of yours to justify your Sola Fide nonsense, it's a fresh breath of air from bastardizing real Christian writings but c'mon on now friend, you can't be serious, quoting Eusebius? Please.
If the attributions were based on theologians extrabiblical reasoning it wouldn't be a problem, but when the author names himself (not intending to he pseudonymous) and that is found to be lie, the authority of the text is compromised