Are the Gospels hopelessly anonymous?

[Goose]

There have been several threads recently comparing the evidence for Christianity with other ancient secular events/persons. I've noticed in these threads that there is trend to speak of the Gospels as being anonymous or at least having uncertain authorship. Then, the same person while comparing will speak of other ancient works as though the authorship of those works are established with great certainty. In other words, it's assumed the Gospels are hopelessly anonymous but we know who the authors are of other secular works.

I would like to know the method the sceptic employs to arrive at the conclusion that the Gospels are anonymous, but is so sure about the authorship of other ancient texts. Obviously this has significant impact for both the Christian and sceptic. Eyewitness attestation hangs in the balance.

Technically speaking, it is true the Gospels are anonymous. They do not make a direct claim to authorship in the text proper. However, if this is the single criterion used to establish that the Gospels are anonymous then I'm afraid many other ancient works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, are equally anonymous. So surely, there must be more to the method than this single criterion.

So, the questions for debate:

1. What is the method used to determine authorship of an ancient text?

2. Are the Gospels rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method?

3. Are most other secular works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method as well?

4. Can we be as sure about the authorship of the Gospels as let's say: the Gallic/Civil Wars (Julius Caesar?), Parallel Lives (Plutarch?), the Annals (Tacitus?) etc. ?

[daedalus 2.0]

.Attempting to excuse the anonymity of gospel writers by claiming that "the authors of those other works can be questioned too" is nothing more than making excuses for the lack of evidence to support religious contentions. .

Exactly. It's almost saying "Nah, nah nah, you don't know as much as we don't know, so we might be right, too!"

Except, that we know an awful lot abut many secular writings - and none of them claim to be absolutely true and sanctioned by some absolute Truth-Maker.

And, NONE of the secular writings accept that a man walked across water as a true historical event. Because that doesn't happen, and isn't true. It's myth or a lie.

[Fisherking]

So, the questions for debate:

1. What is the method used to determine authorship of an ancient text?

Anti-Christian's answer: "We will not disclose our method or even attempt to answer any of the questions for debate because if we did, it would expose our bias against Christianity and the bible and complete indifference to what the truth may be."

2. Are the Gospels rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method?

Anti-Christian's answer: "Of course they are. Our non-existant method of determining authorship of ancient text doesn't exist. All we have to do is blather on and on how they are anonymous (because we continually say they are) and we will eventually wear everyone out without ever answering anything."

3. Are most other secular works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method as well?

Anti-Christian's answer: "If we did decide to actually answer this question or disclose our method, the answer would still be no. Secular works are not questioned because they are secular. The authorship of Christian works must be questioned because they are Christian. Any novice Anti-Christian can figure that one out! "

4. Can we be as sure about the authorship of the Gospels as let's say: the Gallic/Civil Wars (Julius Caesar?), Parallel Lives (Plutarch?), the Annals (Tacitus?) etc. ?

Anti-Christian's answer: "Absolutely not. We have already determined through our secret methodology that we can be sure the Gospels are anonymous. Instead we will rant about unicorns, spagetti, pixies, greek mythology, and the untruth of the anonymous Gospels (We could care less whether or not they are true ). A little clue as to what our secret methodology is: Secular=true -- Christian=false"

[daedalus 2.0]

Anti-Christian's answer: "We will not disclose our method or even attempt to answer any of the questions for debate because if we did, it would expose our bias against Christianity and the bible and complete indifference to what the truth may be."

Not true! you are lying, trying to be deceitful or seed discord. There are clear methods.

Anti-Christian's answer: "Of course they are. Our non-existant method of determining authorship of ancient text doesn't exist. All we have to do is blather on and on how they are anonymous (because we continually say they are) and we will eventually wear everyone out without ever answering anything."

Not true. You are purposely trying to speak for other people you hate/distrust and not speaking for yourself.

Stop lying.

Anti-Christian's answer: "If we did decide to actually answer this question or disclose our method, the answer would still be no. Secular works are not questioned because they are secular. The authorship of Christian works must be questioned because they are Christian. Any novice Anti-Christian can figure that one out! "

Speak for yourself. This is a debate site and not an "asassinate your hated rival with lies" site.

Have some decency, child of God.

Anti-Christian's answer: "Absolutely not. We have already determined through our secret methodology that we can be sure the Gospels are anonymous. Instead we will rant about unicorns, spagetti, pixies, greek mythology, and the untruth of the anonymous Gospels (We could care less whether or not they are true ). A little clue as to what our secret methodology is: Secular=true -- Christian=false"

It is not secret. You are being deceitful. You are truly a great Xian.

Please show that Xianity is true, and that "secularism" is some sort of agreed on position.



in fact, please show that even Xians agree on Xianity.




















edit: I will note that MANY people who declare themselves Xian agree that the Gospels are anonymous, that Jesus was not God, or that the Bible is Myth - That it takes FAITH to believe in the Bible, despite the evidence.

Something this person seems to lack, or evidence to the contrary. He is NOT debating but prostilyzing. And being deceitful in the process.


Will ANY Xian have the courage to speak out against this kind of preaching and distortion?

[Zzyzx]

.
FisherKing,

Why post false statements attributed to others?

Is it necessary to be deceitful to defend or promote your religious beliefs?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

[Fisherking]

Why post false statements attributed to others?
Is it necessary to be deceitful to defend or promote your religious beliefs?

I hate to be the one to break this to you guys, but just because someone holds a different position than yourselves doesn't make it a lie.

[daedalus 2.0]

Why post false statements attributed to others?
Is it necessary to be deceitful to defend or promote your religious beliefs?

I hate to be the one to break this to you guys, but just because someone holds a different position than yourselves doesn't make it a lie.

Fisherking. God is watching. Is the following a true statement - not your interpretation, but is this what an "Anti-Xian" has said?:

Anti-Christian's answer: "We will not disclose our method or even attempt to answer any of the questions for debate because if we did, it would expose our bias against Christianity and the bible and complete indifference to what the truth may be."

?

Isn't it true that this is your interpretation? Your personal view and not those of others? I suggest that you made this up and can't find ONE person, Xian, Non-Xian or Anti-Xian who has said this. You have lied.

Is your statement true? Is this an "Anti-Xian's" answer?


Your answer will be educational for all the people on this site, all the people who come across this conversation, and all the people I send to this site.

Let's see if humility exists in Xians.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why post false statements attributed to others?
Is it necessary to be deceitful to defend or promote your religious beliefs?

I hate to be the one to break this to you guys, but just because someone holds a different position than yourselves doesn't make it a lie.

In post #22 in this thread you provided “Anti-Christian answers� to several questions.

Were any of those answers actual answers made by Non-Christians that you can cite verbatim?

Or, were the answers made up by you and falsely called “Anti-Christian answers�

That is clearly dishonest.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

[daedalus 2.0]

I prophetize that, like Goose and others, Fisherking will suddenly grow tired of this thread.

[Goat]

I prophetize that, like Goose and others, Fisherking will suddenly grow tired of this thread.

Me, I am just waiting for them to post evidence of their authorship.

I won't hold my breath

[seventil]

I prophetize that, like Goose and others, Fisherking will suddenly grow tired of this thread.

Me, I am just waiting for them to post evidence of their authorship.

I won't hold my breath

I don't really see how this is relevant to the discussion. No one (including Goose) has ever proclaimed in this thread that the Gospels have better authorship than any secular works. So why are you hounding this point? If you long for some fundy literal interpretations of anything Biblical I can point you to about 10,000 other threads here that might satiate you.

Really - is it even possible to have a discussion here without someone crusading to prove something wrong?

Anyway, moving on.

.
Attempting to excuse the anonymity of gospel writers by claiming that "the authors of those other works can be questioned too" is nothing more than making excuses for the lack of evidence to support religious contentions.

I have to defend Goose here again (aren't I the apologetic?).

You are twisting this situation to make it seem like some dire attempt at crazy religious people to justify their belief or something. That isn't the case. Goose never said what you said: you did.

You are construing this argument to be much more than it is.

Basically, it comes down to this:

1. Bible haters are quick to point out that authorship can't be determined for many Gospels or books of the Bible.

2. These same Bible haters accept authorship of secular works that have less evidence than the Gospels (or the same).

Therefore, the conclusion would be that there is a double standard in judging the authorship of certain literary works, based upon a predisposition or dislike towards a certain work (mainly the Bible).

These are generalizations, I know. I think that for the sake of sanity, though, that we all must preserve the same standards when judging or deciding the validity of authorship for any literary work, no matter it's origin or religious context or importance. The implications of authorship might be more dire for sacred religious works, but we shouldn't let that stand in our way when making a rational conclusion.