Who wrote the Gospels?

[Tart]

Probably Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John... Peter probably wrote one too... He certainly wrote other Epistles. Likely? That he wrote about his experiences with Jesus in a Gospel? Very likely.

There very may be many more authentic Gospels in existence. We probably dont even know the half of the amount of documents that are written about Jesus.. But there are hundreds... And probably hundreds more...

How likely is it for Mark, Matthew, Luke, actually existing? Like real people? Its very likely....

How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony? Very likely

Far as im concerned, the best history we can research is the history of the Church and the Temple. The Jewish Temple all the way down to Jesus, and Jesus all the way up to our church today. Beginning right from its base... Jesus, and the Disciples, all the way up the line. Maybe some of the best history you can research

In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks, did you know the Church goes back to the First Century? It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave... It exists

[Willum]

[Replying to post 39 by Tart]

Why coudnt they have written the Gospels.. Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John?

I am not sure what you don't get about writing fairy tales.

If Matt., Mark, Peter et&al wrote about people coming back from the dead they are not credible.

Since there is nothing to back them up from the time-period, they are discredited.

It is not complicated.

You wish to ask who wrote the Gospels, but the answer we know for sure, the Counsil of Nicea is rejected by you.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 41 by Willum]

If we hold the presupposition that God doesnt exist, and cant do any of this... But that presupposition is something atheism itself says it cant prove...

I dont hold that presupposition and i see no reason to assume it...

I am simply trying to figure out where the Bible came from, and i see no reason to believe Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John couldnt have wrote the Gospels...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 42 by Tart]

I defy you:
What can't we prove?

Can't prove there isn't a God?
Nope, easily done.
What can resurrect something? Nothing, resurrection is impossible.
What is all powerful? Nothing. Something all powerful would be detectable by it mass, even if it were too terrified of people believing in it to show itself.

What other property of God needs to be shown only exists as nothing?
God is love? Love is a biochemical reaction.
God created the universe? The universe needs no act of creation.

Sorry, it is shown time and time again, denying it does not make it so.
Line 'em up, they have all been knocked down.

[Tart]

Ok willum, thanks for sharing your opinion... Im not going to participate in debate with you any more.

[Willum]

Ok willum, thanks for sharing your opinion... Im not going to participate in debate with you any more.

And that, gentle readers, is how you spell:
V-I-C-T-O-R-Y!

Except that, in honest defeat, the person does not acknowledge that the religion is based on premises that are impossible from a book that is unverifiable.

Ah, well.

Turning the tide, one wave at a time.

[Tart]

Like a pigeon playing chess... congratulations...

[otseng]

Moderator Intervention

Willum, Tart,

Claiming victory and retorting with an attack are not classified as civil comments.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Overcomer]

Willum wrote:

Can't prove there isn't a God?
Nope, easily done.

I think someone would have to know everything there is to know in the universe for all time to be able to say that he is positive that God doesn't exist. But if you can prove there is, without a doubt, no God, then please do so.

Willum wrote:

What can resurrect something? Nothing, resurrection is impossible.

Go ahead and prove that as well. You might start by refuting the arguments found here:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/ ... idence.htm

http://garyhabermas.com/

http://www.craigkeener.com/tag/miracles/

I also recommend C.S. Lewis' book simply entitled Miracles. He makes a great case for the rational possibility of them.

Willum wrote:

What is all powerful? Nothing. Something all powerful would be detectable by it mass, even if it were too terrified of people believing in it to show itself.

Not if the being is a spirit in essence.

Willum wrote:

God is love? Love is a biochemical reaction.

That's not a particularly romantic point of view! LOL! But seriously, how do naturalism and science answer questions about the meaning of life and other metaphysical matters?

See Philosopher J. P. Moreland's Kingdom Triangle.

http://www.jpmoreland.com/books/kingdom-triangle/

And this:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/th ... n-science/

Willum wrote:

God created the universe? The universe needs no act of creation.

Scientists say the universe had a beginning. Beginnings have beginners. Nothing comes from nothing. There has to be a first cause. Hawking tried to say God wasn't necessary, but he failed. See here:

https://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-c ... ng-and-god

http://www.focus.org.uk/god_and_stephen_hawking.php

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-c ... ument.html



https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hu ... &FORM=VIRE

I know that's a lot of information to go through, but it's worth the time and effort.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 48 by Overcomer]

OK, you propose five options, ignoring the obvious one that the New Testament was created by the Council of Nicea, and that all previous works were destroyed.

There is no evidence for a historical Jesus, only interpretations. No works of carpentry by Jesus. No Book of Lazarus, no interviews with Lazarus to tell us what death was like - something a must were the story true.

As to resurrection, yes perhaps you could give some logical rationale for it, however it is thermodynamically impossible, and may even be impossible for a creature of infinite power.
If you can think of anything post here: viewtopic.php?t=31263&start=0 But "God can do anything" is disputed by the post, you need to demonstrate a mechanism by which even a creature of infinite power could perform a resurrection.

Let's see what else is fundamentally flawed with your assertions? Oh, yeah logic can't be used to prove anything without beginning with a reality.

I think someone would have to know everything there is to know in the universe for all time to be able to say that he is positive that God doesn't exist.

Well you make a false assertion that you have to know everything to disprove something that really has no reason to be believed in in the first place.
Sad lol.

Scientists say the universe had a beginning. Beginnings have beginners. Nothing comes from nothing. There has to be a first cause. Hawking tried to say God wasn't necessary, but he failed. See here

It is absolutely true that ONLY nothing can co from nothing. In order to have nothing, you can not start with something. However, the converse is also true - only something can come from something.

That childish assumption that anything was created from nothing, even by a God. It is another impossibility, and an unnecessary one. The conservation of matter and energy states that matter is neither created nor destroyed, this is proven. Statements made by Hawking and others are being mis-interpreted. They DO NOT believe anything was created, despite beginning.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 48 by Overcomer]

Go ahead and prove that as well. You might start by refuting the arguments found here:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/ ... idence.htm

I'm going to respond to this one.

That link gives us several possible scenarios and then proceeds to go through them and supposedly we're left with only the resurrection being true being the only viable option.

What it does NOT give us is the possibility of legend. We're given the possibility of myth, but not legend. Now, I'm going to respond to things directly from the article.

If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1). The form of the argument here is similar to that of most of the arguments for the existence of God. Neither God nor the resurrection are directly observable, but from data that are directly observable we can argue that the only possible adequate explanation of this data is the Christian one.

I find this distasteful, in that it is a form of admission that what they want to prove cannot and does not have positive evidence for it.
No, strictly speaking, even if one eliminates other theories, this does NOT prove the one you are left with. I can have a list of suspects for a murder case, and eliminate all but one of them, but no judge would accept the one name left as valid evidence for a prosecution.

Refutation of the Swoon Theory: Nine Arguments

Nine pieces of evidence refute the swoon theory:

(1) Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way, including bungling a crucifixion. It was never done.

This may be nitpicky of me, but what should be said here is that it is unlikely for Jesus to have survived crucifixion...not that he couldn't. Even if there are procedures and laws, this does not mean it didn't happen.
Remember what the link seeks to prove. It seeks to eliminate the possible, what we all know can and does happen in the real world (such as people surviving executions) so that we're left with a far out explanation (that someone came back from the dead multiple days after dying).
Is it impossible for Jesus's crucifixion to have been botched? No. Unlikely, I'll admit, but not impossible.

(2) The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus' legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. Breaking the legs hastened the death so that the corpse could be taken down before the sabbath (v. 31).

Are we to treat everything from John as fact? Is everything from the Gospels, every word, letter and sentence, indisputable? What about John's Last Supper? I suppose it's a fact then that Jesus's apostles are complete and utter imbeciles.
This article has NOT established the veracity of New Testament texts. It takes them as gospel (pun intended) a priori.

(3) John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus' pierced heart (Jn 19:34-35). This shows that Jesus' lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation. Any medical expert can vouch for this.

If what happened...happened. There is no reason given to suppose this is a fact that happened in actual history. The Gospel of John is disputed among scholarly circles as to who wrote it. Just because someone writes that a spear pierced somebodies side, doesn't mean a spear really pierced their side.
Remember, Overcomer and the author of this article that he cites, does not give us any reason why we should believe anything from this New Testament text, any reason to think that what is written therein actually happened in history. It may have happened, or it may not have, but no reason is given for the "may have happened" side.

(5) The post-resurrection appearances convinced the disciples, even "doubting Thomas," that Jesus was gloriously alive (Jn 20:19-29). It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely struggled out of a swoon, badly in need of a doctor. A half-dead, staggering sick man who has just had a narrow escape is not worshiped fearlessly as divine lord and conquerer of death.

Really? Is Overcomer, or the author of this article, a psychologist? I myself have been convinced of all sorts of things. Why, I once believed I was a resurrected robot prince from Jupiter, despite the fact I had literally NO physical evidence to support this.
People are weird, and stupid. I see nothing strange at all about seeing a man survive an execution, and coming to believe he's a god.
This point 5 would make sense if we lived in a world where everyone acted rationally, but we don't live in such a world.

(6) How were the Roman guards at the tomb overpowered by a swooning corpse? Or by unarmed disciples? And if the disciples did it, they knowingly lied when they wrote the Gospels, and we are into the conspiracy theory, which we will refute shortly.

You mean the guards that are only mentioned in Gospel Matthew, and not in any of the other gospels? The guards that, had they NEVER been mentioned, there would have been nothing to stop the disciples of Jesus from stealing his body from the tomb?
Want to quote from John about the guards...oh wait, they're not in that gospel.
Very convenient, that.

(7) How could a swooning half-dead man have moved the great stone at the door of the tomb? Who moved the stone if not an angel? No one has ever answered that question. Neither the Jews nor the Romans would move it, for it was in both their interests to keep the tomb sealed, the Jews had the stone put there in the first place, and the Roman guards would be killed if they let the body "escape."

If there was a tomb with a stone. Remember, this entire chain of thought presupposes everything in the gospels is true, but I am not bound by that.
Also remember, the Gospels "record" conversations that no-one speaking to the disciples of Jesus could possibly have heard. There's a scene in Gospel Matthew where the guards talk to the Jewish chief priests and are told to spread the "lie" that the disciples stole the body...who was there to hear that conversation? The guards? The chief priests? Why...it's almost like the person who wrote Gospel Matthew *gasp* made something up, to try and save the story he's writing!

The story the Jewish authorities spread, that the guards fell asleep and the disciples stole the body (Mt 28:11-15), is unbelievable.

Yes it is, because of the point I just mentioned. That the conversation even gets into Gospel Matthew at all. Who is the source for this conversation?

Roman guards would not fall asleep on a job like that; if they did, they would lose their lives. And even if they did fall asleep, the crowd and the effort and the noise it would have taken to move an enormous boulder would have wakened them. Furthermore, we are again into the conspiracy theory, with all its unanswerable difficulties (see next section).

If one reads only Gospels Mark, Luke and John, there are no guards. Which is very strange.

(8) If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a dead one. Why did it disappear? There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus' life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. A man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.

I retort by asking "where's his childhood?" A man like that would have left traces...yet we're told only what? One or two scenes from his childhood, and then bam he's in his ministries during his early thirties?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If asking where Jesus went and what he did after waking up from a swoon is a valid question...then so is asking where he is for the first thirty years of his life.

(9) Most simply, the swoon theory necessarily turns into the conspiracy theory or the hallucination theory, for the disciples testified that Jesus did not swoon but really died and really rose.

Testified? Did they? What...in a court setting of some sort?

Why couldn't the disciples have made up the whole story?

(1) Blaise Pascal gives a simple, psychologically sound proof for why this is unthinkable:

The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead.

I wonder...does Pascal mean something different to imagine that I do? For in my view, yes, it is possible to imagine a man has risen from the dead.

While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act?

Are we to suppose that the Apostles could only do things if acted upon by a Jesus? Well...given John's Last Supper scene, not even Jesus could coax a response from them when he directly says that Judas will betray him...so there's that.

The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead.

Is this impossible to imagine?

This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out.

Peter did. Three times, according to the very same Gospels. Granted, this denial happens before the resurrection in the narrative...but there you have it. We have a disciple, who supposedly travelled with a Jesus who was dropping miracles left right and centre, including showing off his mastery over death itself (resurrecting Lazarus and the woman's daughter)...and yet we have a disciple denying even knowing Jesus under threat of imprisonment, torture and death.
What about Judas? Does he not count? He accepted the bribe.
That's TWO disciples.

The "cruncher" in this argument is the historical fact that no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic, ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in that bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn't have become Christians.

Oh...how does the article's author know this? What documentation are they sourcing that says that those people who would have known Jesus survived were
1) captured and tortured by the authorities
2) broke under the torture
3) denied Jesus
4) but never said that Jesus survived?

(2) If they made up the story, they were the most creative, clever, intelligent fantasists in history, far surpassing Shakespeare, or Dante or Tolkien. Fisherman's "fish stories" are never that elaborate, that convincing, that life-changing, and that enduring.

Really? There doesn't seem to be much to the story of Jesus's resurrection, that requires its author(s) to be better story-tellers than Shakespeare, Dante, or Tolkien. To be more creative, clever, or intelligent than them.
This article looks at this point 2 from our perspective, two thousand years later, where Christianity is the world's dominant religion. But back then? Nope, there isn't actually much detail in the story.
I can read Tolkien and get far more detail out of him for his world. I don't get much detail out of the Gospel authors.

(3) The disciples' character argues strongly against such a conspiracy on the part of all of them, with no dissenters. They were simple, honest, common peasants, not cunning, conniving liars.

The last line there operates on the assumption that simple common peasants and cunning, conniving liars, are two separate categories of people, with no overlap.
Anyway, what about Judas's character? He was a disciple, was he not?

Their sincerity is proved by their words and deeds.

What words and deeds? None are mentioned in this article. This article assumes that the reader already knows everything about the disciples. Besides, what about Peter's sincerity when he denied Jesus three times? What about Judas's sincerity for accepting the bribe?
Do they not count?

They willingly died for their "conspiracy." Nothing proves sincerity like martyrdom.

And that's all martyrdom proves, at best - sincerity. That the people dying believed it.

NOT that it is in fact true. Otherwise, the Japanese kamikaze bombers of World War II prove the divinity of their emperor.

The change in their lives from fear to faith, despair to confidence, confusion to certitude, runaway cowardice to steadfast boldness under threat and persecution, not only proves their sincerity but testifies to some powerful cause of it.

I thought this article wasn't going to presuppose the texts?

Can a lie cause such a transformation?

Yes, but I myself wouldn't say lie. I would say instead untruth. It doesn't have to be a deliberate lie, as in the disciples sat around in a smokey room twirling their mustaches like villains.
People believe things for all sorts of reasons, and I myself am evidence of that. Remember when I said I once believed I was a robot prince? I had literally no evidence of that, yet I believed it quite strongly.

Are truth and goodness such enemies that the greatest good in history—sanctity—has come from the greatest lie?

The plot of the Watchmen graphic novel is that the continued survival of the world depends on a lie (that there is a threat of alien invasion). The plot makes complete sense, even though the work is fictional, and within the narrative of the story, so is the threat of the alien invasion.
I myself would not find it strange or unbelievable if the apostles peddled a story about a resurrected Jesus even knowing it to be false, if they thought there was some good in spreading such a claim.

Use your imagination and sense of perspective here. Imagine twelve poor, fearful, stupid (read the Gospels!) peasants changing the hard-nosed Roman world with a lie.

Yes I do read the Gospels. Why are you undermining the credibility of your supposed sources, Overcome and article author?
The claim here wouldn't make sense yes...if the stupid peasants somehow changed the Roman world more or less overnight. But no, it's a gradual change, one that takes decades and centuries, involving people other than the initial apostles. So whether or not they were stupid is basically a non-factor.

In the midst of the tyranny of the persecutors, an innumerable throng of people, both simple and learned, flocked to the Christian faith.

I'm not surprised at this. People who oppose one narrative flock to the narrative that is being oppressed. It's called rebellion, being a contrarian. I myself am such a person - I tended throughout my youth to avoid all sorts of practices popular with people around me (apart from Christianity). I disdained football, popular movies, singers...etc.

Now, for the minds of mortal men to assent to these things is the greatest of miracles

Nope.

.This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness

So...the forced conversion of the world to the Christian faith at the point of a sword, is the clearest witness?
Want to run that by me one more time, Aquinas?

There could be no possible motive for such a lie. Lies are always told for some selfish advantage.

In the Watchmen graphic novel, what advantage is there for Ozymandias? (well, other than this own continued survival from the threat of nuclear war between the USA and USSR)?

What advantage did the "conspirators" derive from their "lie" ? They were hated, scorned, persecuted, excommunicated, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, crucified, boiled alive, roasted, beheaded, disemboweled and fed to lions—hardly a catalog of perks!

Did they predict this? Did they do all that they did, knowing for a fact that this list of things would happen to them?
Otherwise, you'd have to argue that criminals couldn't have committed their crimes, because afterward the courts sentenced them to prison.

(5) If the resurrection was a lie, the Jews would have produced the corpse and nipped this feared superstition in the bud.

If they could have even been bothered. Even the New Testament attests to how little attention Jesus received during his lifetime. He had what...barely a few thousand followers? None of whom were willing to even shout in support of him while he's being led to his execution, in defiance of the tyrannical oppressors?

This point 5 again is looking at things from a 21st century perspective, where Christianity is the dominant religion.
But at the time of Jesus? It's a tiny sect. No-one really cares about it. No-one would have bothered to actively refute it. Think about any local sects or cults that may be in your country, that you yourself do not believe but also do not actively try to disprove.
There is a branch of Scientology in Ireland...but I don't care to try to refute it. Odd that...does the fact that I haven't actively disproven Scientology to all and sundry mean that it is true?

The disciples could not have gotten away with proclaiming the resurrection in Jerusalem-same time, same place, full of eyewitnesses—if it had been a lie. William Lane Craig says,

The Gospels were written in such a temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events

I remind readers that the Gospels have been dated to numerous decades after the "fact" and that the disciples are not necessarily the authors of the Gospels.
Indeed, we cannot even be sure what it is the disciples actually believed, since we don't actually have anything that can be confirmed to be from their hand. The Gospels are, in my estimation, at absolute best second or third hand hearsay.

The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true

The continued existence of adherents to Nazism, even immediately after the defeat of Hitler and his Nazi regime in World War II puts the lie to this statement.
People can believe in all sorts of things, even things that are otherwise proven false.
This article's author, and William Lane Craig, are trying to pretend that people always think rationally and logically.

If there had been a conspiracy, it would certainly have been unearthed by the disciples' adversaries, who had both the interest and the power to expose any fraud. Common experience shows that such intrigues are inevitably exposed (Craig, ibid).

This is if we believe the Gospel's over inflated sense of the importance of their so called messiah. Besides...doesn't even Pilate, the Roman authority find no fault in Jesus?
Again, 21st century perspective. It's entirely plausible that once Jesus was executed, those in power would have thought the matter resolved and not cared what his followers believed...after all, they were few in number.

In conclusion, if the resurrection was a concocted, conspired lie, it violates all known historical and psychological laws of lying. It is, then, as unscientific, as unrepeatable, unique and untestable as the resurrection itself. But unlike the resurrection, it is also contradicted by things we do know (the above points).

Oh...so a resurrection isn't unscientific?

If you thought you saw a dead man walking and talking, wouldn't you think it more likely that you were hallucinating than that you were seeing correctly? Why then not think the same thing about Christ's resurrection?

This is thinking in our modern world view, one where science more or less rules the day.
But in a time and culture where such things were more or less commonly believed? Where the government authorities proclaimed their emperors to be gods?
Not so strange, to believe one has seen a dead man walking.
Besides, even in our own modern age, we have people who believe Elvis Presley is still alive.

(1) There were too many witnesses.

Readers, remember the author of this article promised at the start not to hold the New Testament texts to be infallible or to presuppose them.
Why should you or I believe that these meetings happened as described?

Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the disciples minus Thomas, to the disciples including Thomas, to the two disciples at Emmaus, to the fisherman on the shore, to James (his "brother" or cousin), and even to five hundred people at once (1 Cor 15:3-8).

None of whom wrote about it themselves. Instead, what we have is the following
"The authors of various Gospels, who are unknown, and Paul, wrote that these other people saw a resurrected Jesus".
It's hearsay.

Even three different witnesses are enough for a kind of psychological trigonometry; over five hundred is about as public as you can wish.

The five hundred comes from a single man, in a single line. It cannot be treated as five hundred. It ought to be treated as a singular claim from a singular man.

And Paul says in this passage (v. 6) that most of the five hundred are still alive, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses—he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies, if it were not true.

Which reader(s)? The readers alive today? How can we check the claim? It supposedly happened 2,000 years ago!
The readers alive then? How could they have checked the claim? Paul was writing hundreds of miles away in a time where travel was difficult. Who would have bothered to actively refute a tiny cult? How would they have been able to, even if one had wanted to? Did Paul actually NAME the 500? Did he give an address?
This is at best yellow journalism. Imagine a newspaper publishing an article (and this is different to a single man writing on his own) that say...bin Laden came back from the dead and appeared to a thousand people, and that if you're skeptical, you just have to ask them...but doesn't name who these people are or where they can be found.

Readers, just notice how utterly gullible one has to be, in order to believe what this article says.

(2) The witnesses were qualified. They were simple, honest, moral people who had firsthand knowledge of the facts.

To quote Wikipedia - citation needed. As I've just noted, either the people this line is talking about are complete unknowns...or that simple people can be dishonest.

(3) The five hundred saw Christ together, at the same time and place. This is even more remarkable than five hundred private "hallucinations" at different times and places of the same Jesus. Five hundred separate Elvis sightings may be dismissed, but if five hundred simple fishermen in Maine saw, touched and talked with him at once, in the same town, that would be a different matter. (The only other dead person we know of who is reported to have appeared to hundreds of qualified and skeptical eyewitnesses at once is Mary the mother of Jesus [at Fatima, to 70,000]. And that was not a claim of physical resurrection but of a vision.)

The five hundred people claim lies within a single line, for which we have nothing. There is no detail, nothing at all, to tell us exactly in what nature this supposed meeting occured. When it happened, to whom. Do we know that it actually took place to five hundred people simultaneously?
What the above quote does not mention about a hypothetical sighting in Maine is that this would take place in the modern day, and that the people making the claim can and could be tracked down.
This is not true for Paul's claim.

(4) Hallucinations usually last a few seconds or minutes; rarely hours. This one hung around for forty days (Acts 1:3).

I thought we weren't to presuppose the text is true? Readers, notice again how the article violates its premises.

(5) Hallucinations usually happen only once, except to the insane. This one returned many times, to ordinary people (Jn 20:19-21:14; Acts 1:3).

Again...if one believes the text, for which we have no reason to. Are ordinary people distinct from insane people? Is there no overlap?

(6) Hallucinations come from within, from what we already know, at least unconsciously. This one said and did surprising and unexpected things (Acts 1:4,9)—like a real person and unlike a dream.

Again...this requires the reader to believe the text is true.

(7) Not only did the disciples not expect this, they didn't even believe it at first—neither Peter, nor the women, nor Thomas, nor the eleven. They thought he was a ghost; he had to eat something to prove he was not (Lk 24:36-43).

Oh....! They thought he was a ghost at first! I suppose that's a more, I dunno what word to use...rational thing to believe?

Is this the methodology we're supposed to use in the real world? If a resurrection claim starts out as a ghost claim and then moves to resurrection, then it's true?

(8) Hallucinations do not eat. The resurrected Christ did, on at least two occasions (Lk 24:42-43; Jn 21:1-14).

Presupposes the text...how many times is this now? I'm not even bothering to keep count.

(9) The disciples touched him (Mt 28:9; Lk 24:39; Jn 20:27).

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some people touched Elvis after his reported death.

So?
Again, presupposing the text.

(10) They also spoke with him, and he spoke back. Figments of your imagination do not hold profound, extended conversations with you, unless you have the kind of mental disorder that isolates you. But this "hallucination" conversed with at least eleven people at once, for forty days (Acts 1:3).

Presupposing the text.
Besides...I've had conversations with figments of my imagination. Not ashamed to admit it. I've had conversations with people I know to be fictional, like Batman or Paul Muad'Dib.

Also besides...do mental disorders always isolate?

(11) The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb. This is a very simple and telling point; for if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse? They would have checked for it; if it was there, they could not have believed.

Presupposing the text...

(12) If the apostles had hallucinated and then spread their hallucinogenic story, the Jews would have stopped it by producing the body—unless the disciples had stolen it, in which case we are back with the conspiracy theory and all its difficulties.

Would the Jews have bothered? Plus...even if the yhad, is this an admittion from the author that if a body had been produced, the apostles would have said "Yup, that's Jesus all right, you exposed our conspiracy, we'll give up and go home and never bother you again"?
Or...would adherents to Jesus have denied that this hypothetical produced body was Jesus's, even if in fact had been? Wouldn't they have said things like Jesus had taken on new flesh, and abandoned his old body?

A hallucination would explain only the post-resurrection appearances; it would not explain the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the inability to produce the corpse.

Again, presupposing the truth of the text.

A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop. The original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for the writing of the Gospels; several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts.

Myths can be built up quite quickly, otherwise how does one explain the relatively rapid rise of Scientology?

Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions.

If they were of a mind to do so...

Julius Muller put the anti-myth argument this way:

One cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in an historical age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character [Jesus]....if eyewitnesses were still at hand who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels.

Okay Mr Muller...Paul's five hundred witnesses of a risen Christ...who are they? Where were they to be found?
Why is it that anything that says Person X saw a risen Christ, is written by a third party?

Muller challenged his nineteenth-century contemporaries to produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death. No one has ever answered him.

Here's my response to this challenge
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,734 ... 90,00.html
Since the Lubavitcher Rebbe died 12 years ago, the Chabad movement has known no peace. One faction recognizes that their beloved Rebbe has died, and another faction believes that he is the Messiah and is still alive. The word “mamash,� (“really,� “truly�), an essential part of Chabad’s messianic jargon, is especially significant because the three Hebrew letters in “mamash� are the same as the first letters of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s names, Menahem Mendel Schneerson. The messianists who believe the Rebbe is still alive say that our generation is too spiritually debased to actually see him. From time to time there are Chabadniks who say that they have seen him recently. The messianists are easy to identify, because they wear a yellow “Messiah� pin on their lapel.
In 1994, Schneerson, a prominent Jewish rabbi, died. That's twenty four years ago. Twenty four years, for a faction of followers to believe that their rabbi is still alive, still occupies his famous chair, but is invisible to other onlookers, and for some of their number to have seen him.

This is in an age of mass media, where information can be obtained quite easily, and people found and communicated with quite easily. If such beliefs can happen and survive in such an environment, what of the environment of Israel 2,000 years ago?
Suddenly all that talk about eyewitnesses who would know that Jesus never resurrected rings hollow.

Once a child asks whether Santa Claus is real, your yes becomes a lie, not myth, if he is not literally real.

If the parent believes Santa is real (when he is not), then the parent is not telling a lie.
Strange how this scenario is not mentioned.

Furthermore, it would have been impossible for forgers to put together so consistent a narrative as that which we find in the Gospels. The Gospels do not try to suppress apparent discrepancies, which indicates their originality (written by eyewitnesses). There is no attempt at harmonization between the Gospels, such as we might expect from forgers.

If I'm a cop, and I'm talking with four suspects one by one, who are accused of breaking into a building...but only one of them says that there were night watchmen that they had to get by...I'm a gonna be a bit suspicious of the story.

No one doubts that Caesar crossed the Rubicon; why do many doubt that Jesus rose from the dead? The evidence for the latter is much better than for the former.

Because the ability to cross a river, even a specific one like the Rubicon, is well known and not contested at all. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that Caesar could not have crossed the Rubicon.
Whereas a return from death?

This is simply ignorance. Not trusting documents is like not trusting telescopes. Paper evidence suffices for most of what we believe; why should it suddenly become suspect here?

The objection should be that paper is not enough when we're dealing with an extraordinary claim, like that a man returned from death.
Otherwise, the author of the article would have to be satisfied with the writings from people who claim Elvis is still alive.