Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Here are a few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ:

1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.
2. The only people that could have a motive for making up his resurrection were the apostles, most of whom died rather horrible deaths rather than deny that resurrection. While I know that people will die for what they believe in, if the apostles knew that Christ was not risen, why did they die for what they knew to be a lie?
3. His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands and referred to by Paul within 3 years of the event in front of crowds of people. If it didn't happen, why don't we have record of objections to Paul's statements?
4. Jesus was a nobody who appeared on the scene for 3 years and was then killed as a criminal, just like thousands of others were killed by the Romans in the same manner. Yet within a few years of his death, a religion in his name based almost exclusively on his resurrection had spread throughout the Roman empire. What was different about this man to all those others who claimed to be the Messiah?
5. The Jewish rulers were scared witless of revolutionary movements and would do anything to head one off at the pass. The Romans took challenges to their authority about as seriously as any group of people in history. Given that there were people running all over the place saying they had seen the risen Christ, if it wasn't true, why not just torture a few into denial of the fact and kill the movement in its tracks? Pliny the Younger re-counted doing just that a hundred years or so later and was astonished to see how many Christians went to their deaths rather than deny what they also knew to be true.

Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not.

[fredonly]

I would appreciate your providing something other than declarative statements supporting your view.

No problem. Let's start by reviewing the entire content of Pliny's letter to Trajan, and then look at Pliny's response.

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome

Pliny indicates he was punishing them for their stubbornness and obstinacy, not for their beliefs.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ

It was a simple matter to avoid being executed: say you're not a Christian and give tribute to the emperor.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food...

This latter reference to "ordinary and innocent food" refers to the secret crimes of which Christians are known to have been accused. The early apologist, Athenagoras, stated the charges: " Three things are alleged against us: atheism [denying the gods], Thyestean feasts [cannibalism], Oedipodean intercourse [incest]."

Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition

"superstition" = not a religion. Other belief systems (e.g. druidism) also earned this label from the Romans, and the context is always indicative of people who rejected the state gods, which was considered treasonous. It was treasonous because the continued success of the empire was attributed to the gods, and such favor would be lost if the gods were not paid tribute.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Pliny was enforcing the social order, not persecuting people for their beiefs. State religion was imbedded in society. Christians who failed to worship the gods (which means performing rituals) were considered antisocial.

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Pliny was obviously not suggesting Trajan round up all the Christians "they are not to be sought out"). His position is that the social order is to be maintained, and the state religion was imbedded in the social order (this is reported by historians).
=================================

There is nothing unclear about what Jesus' followers thought and believed. The Gospels and Epistles provide adequate explanation of that.

Jesus' disciples didn't write the Gospels or Epistles. Paul wrote some of the Epistles attributed to him, but relates very little of what he was taught by Jesus and his first followers. What little he did relate, it's unlikely he received directly from the disciples (the eyewitnesses to Jesus) -since he didn't go to Jerusalem until 3 years after his conversion (Gal 1:15-18). As I said, the comments he does relate could be interpolations. The Gospels were written in Greek, outside Palestine, decades after Jesus died. Scholars debate what portions of them are historical, and there is little that is generally agreed as being actually historical. We have very limited information of what Peter or James preached (the epistles attributed to them in the New Testament are almost definitely pseudepigraphal), nor any of the other direct disciples. It does appear that Peter and James taught that Torah should be followed by anyone joining their movement (Jew and gentile alike), a clear distinction from Paul " whom it appears was a major proselytizer among the gentiles. The significance of Paul to the development of Christianity is debated among scholars. Some consider Paul the true father of Christianity. Regardless of how far one goes with that, he was clearly very influential (his letters were the first writings to be collected and distributed in the early Church. The Gospels were written after Paul, and his views are highly likely to have indirectly influenced the content.

Your proof that what the disciples of Christ experienced were dreams is exactly what? Is this your theory, or do you have a theory of mass coordinated dreaming you would like to cite?

I didn't say I have proof. I provided just one hypothesis, there are others. We can't know what happened, because there are no reliable reports " just documents that were written decades after the fact to support belief (kerygma). The suggestion that the reports "must be true" is absurd, because there are many possible explanations " explanations that do not assume the impossible happened " that a corpse was reanimated. The only reason anyone would accept that implausible proposition is that they take it on faith. Feel free to do that, but don't insist it is the most likely historical explanation. It's certainly not.

There is no disagreement that Paul is referring in 1 Cor 15 to the earliest Christian creed that he received within 5 years or so of Christ's death. Would you like to cite the scholarship that disagrees with this, or do you feel your statement should be taken as evidence enough?

Robert Price (click here) has suggested it is an interpolation. Another possibility is that the comment is an interpolation by Paul himself.

The context of the epistle is a preaching that the resurrection has started, with Christ as the "first fruits." Paul might very well have interpolated the "500" to strengthen the case he was making to his audience that the resurrection was real. Verse 12: "How do some of you say there is no resurrection from the dead?" Paul was trying to correct this "error" by the Corinthians.

I don't hold to any particular theory. Even if it was recited as a creed before Paul, there's no way to know how such a creed might have been established. As I said earlier, if there had been a lot of people seeing Jesus' reanimated corpse " this would surely have been big news. He was executed as a criminal; the authorities would surely have taken note of the fact that the criminal didn't stay dead.

The rest of your critique is of a similar flavor. "You're wrong, and I'm right". That doesn't actually constitute a reasoned debate, now does it? In general, if you are going to challenge the historical accuracy of someone else's opinions, it is best for you not to make up your own history by way of rebuttal.

How do you think a debate starts? You said your opinion (without providing any references or support, I might add), and I respond in kind. I've been down this road before. If you'd like to see where I've taken it, read through this debate that I had with Winepusher on the same topic. You'll see that I provide lots of references.

That debate starts here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=77 and it became quite lengthy. I can be pretty tenacious.

Now I'll repeat your comment:

The rest of your critique is of a similar flavor. "You're wrong, and I'm right". That doesn't actually constitute a reasoned debate, now does it? In general, if you are going to challenge the historical accuracy of someone else's opinions, it is best for you not to make up your own history by way of rebuttal.

Your turn. Please elaborate on your original assertions that I challenged, and explain the source and why your interpretation should be considered correct.

[Autodidact]

I suspect that the discussion is going to end up rather circular without some kind of agreement regarding reliability of sources.

Typically, and I am speaking from a position of having had hundreds of these conversations over the course of my lifetime, my Christian discussion partner will increasingly heap invective upon me personally, and then eventually stalk off in a great show of moral indignation at my "rude" and "condescending" behavior in an attempt to tar-and-feather the messenger when it becomes apparent to them that the message is to accurate and disturbingly plausible to easily dismiss. This is already well under way here with Starboard Tack, who may well have already chosen to disengage from the discussion because of my disgusting display of "bile." And yet as you can see, and I would certainly invite everyone to check, I have been entirely civil during the course of the discussion, simply making my points as they arise. Eggs must be broken though, in the making of an omelet. If the story of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is false, then it is false and Christianity is based on a falsehood. That is not my fault.

Yet in his next post, Tired used the gospel of Matthew as a source for his argument:

It is hard to explain why the authors of the other three Gospels seemed to deliberately omit the entire story of the guard at the tomb given it's overwhelming and dramatic importance to the overall story, isn't it? The obvious conclusion is that the story of the guard was such a conspicuous fabrication at the time that even the other authors felt compelled to ignore it. Yet without the guard it's instantly clear that the solution to the entire question of the empty tomb and the "risen" Jesus is that someone simply moved the body and spread a false rumor. However I learned long ago that simply dismissing Gospel Matthew and the guard at the tomb as a total fabrication is pointless in any discussion with Christians. They do love their guarded tomb story. Yet even though the author of Gospel Matthew has clearly fabricated the entire story of the guard as a patch in an attempt to disguise the obvious conclusion that the followers of Jesus simply moved the body, the patch is itself faulty. The guard was not placed until the next day, the tomb was never searched, and Jesus' supporters ALREADY HAD THE BODY. So even within the text of Matthew, it's easy to see that the obvious answer to the whole missing corpse story is that it was an act of the living rather than an act of the corpse. Which should be obvious anyway.

The gospel of John apparently was indeed written by the disciple John.

Starboard and I have yet to even touch on the authorship of the Gospels, and I have many more points to be made on that subject, trust me. No one would deny that the author of Gospel John was a disciple, or follower, of Jesus, and that his name apparently was John. The question is, was the author the APOSTLE John. That question was well thrashed out in the link you provided.

Tired, you have your point of view, and you clearly take it, and your own wisdom very, very seriously. It is, however, not novel, original, nor particularly compelling. It can be found on any garden variety atheistic web site that fancies that no Christian has ever dared to think the bold thoughts of the atheist and that Christians run from the conversation because they can't match the logic or compelling deductive powers of the atheist. In fact, we run from boredom.

I had one atheist recently insisting that John's Revelation was the result of cave gas. Novel, certainly and he was certainly convinced of it, just as you are convinced of your arguments. Perhaps you also ascribe to the cave gas theory? I am sure you can find it on a website someplace.

The fact is that we have heard it all before and most Christians find the research done by thousands of scholars on the authorship and historicity of the Gospels to be more substantive than the same old blather from atheists about whether Jesus died or didn't die, whether guards are important or unimportant to the story, whether Paul was reliable, whether the apostles died horribly for their faith or in the arms of mistresses, whether Jesus body was spirited away, whether the Romans cared or didn't care, etc. etc. etc. etc.

But as I said, you are entitled to your opinions, which of course is what they are.

I take it from your response that you have no substantive objection to Mithrae's post?

The majority opinion of the thousands of scholars on the authorship and historicity of the gospels is that none of them were written by any of Jesus's apostles; we don't who wrote them, and none of them were written until decades after he died. Like you, I have heard it all before and find the research done by thousands of scholars on the authorship and historicity of the Gospels to be more substantive than the same old arguments from Christians who were raised to believe myths. However, unlike you, I would make a substantive response, rather than a petty insult.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

What mainstream scholarship would you like to point to that I disagree with? Defining the terms, what majority view of the majority of scholars taken on the issue at hand do you perceive I would take issue with? Be specific, please.

Some examples, if I have interpreted your position correctly: that the gospels were authored by anonymous noneyewitnesses, that they are not independent accounts. You speak of them as if they were reliable historical records, rather than compilations of oral and written traditions from unknown sources created for evangelical purposes.

The majority of biblical scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. According to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, modern biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I am getting the impression that you are suggesting "he came back from the dead" is also part of the reliable information about Jesus found in the Gospels as determined by biblical scholars, when it is not.

[Starboard Tack]

What mainstream scholarship would you like to point to that I disagree with? Defining the terms, what majority view of the majority of scholars taken on the issue at hand do you perceive I would take issue with? Be specific, please.

Some examples, if I have interpreted your position correctly: that the gospels were authored by anonymous noneyewitnesses, that they are not independent accounts. You speak of them as if they were reliable historical records, rather than compilations of oral and written traditions from unknown sources created for evangelical purposes.

The majority of biblical scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. According to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, modern biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I am getting the impression that you are suggesting "he came back from the dead" is also part of the reliable information about Jesus found in the Gospels as determined by biblical scholars, when it is not.

There are certainly modern scholars who dispute that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by the authors they are attributed to, but that would be very much a minority position. John is slightly, but only slightly more controversial, but again, the majority assume the apostle John wrote the Gospel.

And yes, I take these books as historically accurate, including the widely witnessed resurrection. If you take a moment to look at the sources in the Wikipedia article, and do a little research yourself, you will understand my comments.

[catalyst]

What mainstream scholarship would you like to point to that I disagree with? Defining the terms, what majority view of the majority of scholars taken on the issue at hand do you perceive I would take issue with? Be specific, please.

Some examples, if I have interpreted your position correctly: that the gospels were authored by anonymous noneyewitnesses, that they are not independent accounts. You speak of them as if they were reliable historical records, rather than compilations of oral and written traditions from unknown sources created for evangelical purposes.

The majority of biblical scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. According to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, modern biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I am getting the impression that you are suggesting "he came back from the dead" is also part of the reliable information about Jesus found in the Gospels as determined by biblical scholars, when it is not.

There are certainly modern scholars who dispute that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by the authors they are attributed to, but that would be very much a minority position. John is slightly, but only slightly more controversial, but again, the majority assume the apostle John wrote the Gospel.

And yes, I take these books as historically accurate, including the widely witnessed resurrection. If you take a moment to look at the sources in the Wikipedia article, and do a little research yourself, you will understand my comments.

As you claim to take the books in the bible as historically accurate, it would have been impossible for John to write ANYTHING. If you read Acts 4, it states clearly that John (and Peter for that matter) were basically ignorant, illiterate, unlearned, plebs (all these terms and more are... used in assorted versions of the bible).

Link to support my above comment. http://bible.cc/acts/4-13.htm

Also, another issue as to The Gospel of John, said to have been written c. 110CE (even such an early date is still being questioned), is the fact that most scholars tend to agree that John carked it around 98CE, making it impossible for him to write, even if he WAS actually literate in life, 12 odd years post death.

Now FOR these reasons and others, it's probably why biblical scholars, DON'T reckon John (the alleged apostle) wrote anything at all!

Catalyst.

PS. As to your claim that the resurrection was "widely witnessed". Please provide evidence to support this assertion, other than Paul (for example) claiming that 500 odd people did. One has to wonder if such a spectacle happened, then there would be far more than a "chinese whisper" rant from a dude whom, BTW, admits in his writings that a) he never met a "RL" jesus of nazareth, nor was personal witness to either; the crucifixion itself.. let alone the resurrection.

[Autodidact]

There are certainly modern scholars who dispute that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by the authors they are attributed to, but that would be very much a minority position. John is slightly, but only slightly more controversial, but again, the majority assume the apostle John wrote the Gospel.

This statement is false. In fact, we don't know who wrote the gospels. Since you are merely summarizing the present state of scholarship, I will use wiki:

Few scholars today question[27] the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles.[26] Scholars are more divided though deferential to the traditional claim that Mark the Evangelist, an associate of St. Peter who might have been an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Mark.[28] Scholars are more divided over the traditional claim that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew[29][30] and that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[31][32][33] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.

And yes, I take these books as historically accurate, including the widely witnessed resurrection. If you take a moment to look at the sources in the Wikipedia article, and do a little research yourself, you will understand my comments.

Well, you're entitled to believe whatever you like. Your beliefs, however, are not an argument. Do you have one?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

There are certainly modern scholars who dispute that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by the authors they are attributed to, but that would be very much a minority position. John is slightly, but only slightly more controversial, but again, the majority assume the apostle John wrote the Gospel.

This isn't true, and contradicts the information presented on wikipedia. Please provide a source for your claim.

And yes, I take these books as historically accurate, including the widely witnessed resurrection. If you take a moment to look at the sources in the Wikipedia article, and do a little research yourself, you will understand my comments.

I don't doubt this is your opinion, but I will again point out that the majority of modern biblical scholars do not agree with you. Having indeed researched this issue myself, along with studying it at university, I generally find myself in agreement with the conclusions of modern mainstream biblical scholarship.

[Starboard Tack]

As you claim to take the books in the bible as historically accurate, it would have been impossible for John to write ANYTHING. If you read Acts 4, it states clearly that John (and Peter for that matter) were basically ignorant, illiterate, unlearned, plebs (all these terms and more are... used in assorted versions of the bible).

Both Peter and John used others to write their words. They were illiterate, but not mute. John is presumed to have used one scribe for his Gospel and another for Revelation, which would explain the stylistic differences between the two works. In fact, Paul used a Scribe as well, so hardly an uncommon or unexpected practice. But you raise an interesting point. Illiterate fishermen debating the Sanhedrin, gathering multitudes and converting thousands and all without a college degree! Must have been the message.

Also, another issue as to The Gospel of John, said to have been written c. 110CE (even such an early date is still being questioned), is the fact that most scholars tend to agree that John carked it around 98CE, making it impossible for him to write, even if he WAS actually literate in life, 12 odd years post death.

Now FOR these reasons and others, it's probably why biblical scholars, DON'T reckon John (the alleged apostle) wrote anything at all!

As I said, there are some scholars who believe the Gospels were not written by who they are attributed to. However your statement on "Biblical scholars don't reckon John wrote anything at all" is simply false. The American Standard Bible, considered pretty much the most accurate translation in English states about the Gospel of John "The author is the apostle John." They note that it was written in "about 85 A.D. or a little later."

The Jerusalem Bible, a Jesuit translation, states that the authorship of the Gospel of John is "universally believed" to be the Apostle. They note that as early as 150 AD, the authorship of John was assumed by Ignatius, and probably Clement of Rome. By 200 AD, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all affirmed the apostolic authority of the Gospel.

The English Standard version dates the book from 70 AD to 100 AD (John's death) and acknowledges the authorship as John the Apostle. You could go through any mainstream Bible and find exactly the same data. These are translations prepared by the best scholars on the subject one could find, and certainly represent the mainstream of Biblical scholarship. You really should try to be more accurate when you make declarative statements, whether about neurosurgical consultations, or Scripture. Especially ones so easily proven to be untrue.

PS. As to your claim that the resurrection was "widely witnessed". Please provide evidence to support this assertion, other than Paul (for example) claiming that 500 odd people did. One has to wonder if such a spectacle happened, then there would be far more than a "chinese whisper" rant from a dude whom, BTW, admits in his writings that a) he never met a "RL" jesus of nazareth, nor was personal witness to either; the crucifixion itself.. let alone the resurrection.

That's as silly as demanding that I prove the battle of Gaugamela actually happened. Ancient events are never as widely documented as events are today, but to your point, you have the written statements of eye witnesses - James, Peter, Matthew, and John, in addition to Paul. You have no evidence from Romans or Jews ore even the assertion that the tomb wasn't empty, even though the religion founded on the premise that Jesus was risen spread like wildfire. You only have elaborate theories about frightened and demoralized illiterates engaging in grave robbing and spiriting the body away, or the Islamic view that he recovered from crucifixion and getting speared and high tailed it to India. You also have theories of mass hysteria, dreams, etc. All without the slightest evidence, other than an odd but compelling desire to disprove the divinity of Jesus Christ. Weird.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 48:

On requesting evidence for the resurrection...

That's as silly as demanding that I prove the battle of Gaugamela actually happened.

Unless you claim that battle actually occurred.

Ancient events are never as widely documented as events are today, but to your point, you have the written statements of eye witnesses - James, Peter, Matthew, and John, in addition to Paul.

We also have written statements of folks who claim Bigfoot exists. What we don't have is confirmatory data that he actually does.

You have no evidence from Romans or Jews ore even the assertion that the tomb wasn't empty, even though the religion founded on the premise that Jesus was risen spread like wildfire.

Argumentum ad indianapolis500ia.

Folks accepting belief real quick says nothing of the validity of claims regarding said belief.

You only have elaborate theories about frightened and demoralized illiterates engaging in grave robbing and spiriting the body away, or the Islamic view that he recovered from crucifixion and getting speared and high tailed it to India.

Is it so "elaborate" to think folks who are illiterate might fall for concocted stories?

All without the slightest evidence, other than an odd but compelling desire to disprove the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I propose your opponent has offered evidence, but that you reject it, for right or wrong. In such a regard, I propose there's not so much a "desire to disprove" as there is a "desire to fact".

Weird.

And a dude hopping up from a three day dead ain't?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

As I said, there are some scholars who believe the Gospels were not written by who they are attributed to. However your statement on "Biblical scholars don't reckon John wrote anything at all" is simply false. The American Standard Bible, considered pretty much the most accurate translation in English states about the Gospel of John "The author is the apostle John." They note that it was written in "about 85 A.D. or a little later."

Considered the most accurate translation by...? This is an antiquated translation, predating the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Jerusalem Bible, a Jesuit translation, states that the authorship of the Gospel of John is "universally believed" to be the Apostle. They note that as early as 150 AD, the authorship of John was assumed by Ignatius, and probably Clement of Rome. By 200 AD, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all affirmed the apostolic authority of the Gospel.

"Universally believed" by who? Church fathers, or modern biblical scholars? Because if it is claiming that modern biblical scholars universally believe this, it is clearly wrong. See wikipedia.

The English Standard version dates the book from 70 AD to 100 AD (John's death) and acknowledges the authorship as John the Apostle. You could go through any mainstream Bible and find exactly the same data. These are translations prepared by the best scholars on the subject one could find, and certainly represent the mainstream of Biblical scholarship. You really should try to be more accurate when you make declarative statements, whether about neurosurgical consultations, or Scripture. Especially ones so easily proven to be untrue.

You cannot go through "any mainstream Bible and find exactly the same data." I suggest you pick up a copy of of the HarperCollins Study Bible, you will find your claim quickly proven untrue. It seems quite odd to me that the NRSV and the Society of Biblical Literature are so conspicuously absent from the examples you chose to support your case.