@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix That's not evidence, you're just simply repeating your claim. What evidence do you have for an attribution earlier than the late 2nd century? Surely there's an church father before Iraeneus that mentions Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John right? Go ahead and cite him

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix How do you know that the Church fathers correctly attributed the authorship of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Also, don't dodge my question - what other commonly accepted attribution for a work of writing appeared 100+ years later after publication?

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix Go ahead and demonstrate that Papias and John the Elder had earlier attributions than Irenaeus

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix Except I did back that up. I cited Irenaeus as the evidence for this late attribution, as his works are the first to say that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were the authors of the Gospels. Shakespeare identified himself as the author in all of his works. You're acting absurdly.

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix So you're saying that a book with no internal claims of authorship, and no known authorship at the time of publication, can have a valid attribution of authorship 100+ years later? How? Can you give me an example of writing besides the Gospels where you accept late attribution?

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix Ok, what evidence do you have of an attribution prior to the late 2nd century?

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix No, you're just not very good at tracking this conversation. My whole point this entire time is that the individual authorship of the Gospels is unknown, thus they are anonymous. All that people knew is that the Gospel authors were presumably important Christians.

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix The double standard regarding your position on the attribution of authorship. You're okay with 100+ year later attribution for the Gospels, but a hunch tells me you wouldn't accept the same logic when it applies to a Hindu text. What double standard am I employing?

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix Yes, that's exactly what I am saying - we can say that the "team" wrote the Gospels, i.e. early devout Christians, but that doesn't tell us anything about the actual individuals who wrote the Gospels. Thus, it's anonymous. Your second point is nonsensical.

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix You refuse to engage in the hypothetical because it exposes the double standard in your position here.

@naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix So what's your critique of the scholarly consensus amongst Biblical scholars that the Gospels are indeed anonymously written?

@Dontovercommit @RightWingCope @USA_Polling You're coping, but that's okay. It is an established historical fact that modern gun control laws were passed by Republicans to prevent people of certain racial and political identities from gaining access to firearms

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix That doesn't follow. Just because Justin claimed that they were written by apostles, does not mean that he know the identities of these alleged apostles. This is a reach my guy.

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix Whether or not you are Hindu is completely irrelevant as to who authored this Hindu text. So are you gonna adamantly claim that this Hindu text was not originally written anonymously?

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix You're confused. You said that the early church as fragmented, implying that it would be implausible for all of them to agree on the Gospel authorship. Please justify this claim.

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix Idk what you mean by your first question. Justin never named the authors, which is consistent with my take that the Gospels were anonymous. If they weren't anonymous, then Justin should have known the names of the Gospel author

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix Think about it this way - let's say there's a Hindu text written in 500 BC. The text has no internal claim of authorship, and there's no evidence of attributed authorship until 100 years later. Would you die on the hill that this Hindu text wasn't written anonymously?

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix What evidence do you have the early church was fragmented to the point that the early church leaders couldn't agree on the authorship of the Gospels?

@ChrisGeorgeBerg @naught_ewe @AtheistPhoenix Yes, do you not understand how church authority works in pre-modern societies? If the Church makes a claim, then most of the faithful will accept that claim. Even if there's no evidence. Disagreeing with the Church is heresy, which was a big deal back in the day.