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. ?

[Goat]

You made a number of errors. First of all, Annals DID have other works of tactitus to compare it to.

Which of Tacitus works that meet the criteria you've set out are the authoritative ones? Make your case that there is enough of a similarity between them and the Annals to establsih authorship. Don't just tell me. So far your "fairly high" certainty that Tacitus wrote the Annals is hanging by a very thin thread and a bias is showing.

Really?? Do you know textual analysis? at all?? Do you have a degree that allows you to do textual analysis??? Do you know the studies that went into to make that determination?

Personally, I don't care of Annals was written by Tactitus or not. What you are doing is a 'red herring' logical fallacy.

For example, the Gospel of Matthew does not. It need not self identify, IF THERE ARE COMPARISONS, or if it is identified by unbiased sources.

What unbiased sources identity the Annals? How early? Did you even read my post? Therea re no ealry sources that mention the Annals. You keep telling us there are "comparisons." Make your case. Or withdraw it.

Now, what did the early church father say about the Gospel of Matthew?

Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

Now, if you look at the "gospel of mathew' we have, it was written in greek, and it was not a sayings book at all. In other words, the description Papias gives does not match the book we call "The Gospel of Matthew". Being that is so, to equate the Gospel of Matthew we have with the one that Papias was talking about is just plain wrong.

The Gospel of Matthew does contain sayings of the Lord does it not? Who said I was "equating" the Gospel of Matthew with what Papias said about the oracles of the Lord anyway. You didn't read the post did you. I said it was evidence that Matthew put something together. Similarily with Tacitus or Caesar. Papias may have merely been mistaken about the Hebrew language. And if the whole quote from Papias is taken in context Papias is speaking of the sayings AND deeds of Jesus.

I think the intellectually honest position here is, it's no better or worse than the speculative, ambiguous and at times incorrect evidence in support of the authorship of the Annals or Gallic/Civil Wars. Yet their authorship is considered "fairly high" or "undisputed."

I think your 'intellectually honest' position is very dishonest at the very least. The fact of the matter is that the descriptions of the book "matthew' was supposed to have written does not match the Gospel of Matthew that we currently have.

The GOM was not written in hebrew , but in Greek. That eliminates that right away.

And, the 'oracles' is a way of saying 'its a book fo sayings'. To try to say 'deeds' is to read into the text that which is not there.

I find your attempt to justify the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew hightly dishonest.

[Goose]

You made a number of errors. First of all, Annals DID have other works of tactitus to compare it to.

Which of Tacitus works that meet the criteria you've set out are the authoritative ones? Make your case that there is enough of a similarity between them and the Annals to establsih authorship. Don't just tell me. So far your "fairly high" certainty that Tacitus wrote the Annals is hanging by a very thin thread and a bias is showing.

Really?? Do you know textual analysis? at all?? Do you have a degree that allows you to do textual analysis??? Do you know the studies that went into to make that determination?

Ah yes. When one is backed into a corner and has nothing else to argue, just ask the other guy if he is qualified. Sounds reminiscent of another debater in this thread.

Personally, I don't care of Annals was written by Tactitus or not. What you are doing is a 'red herring' logical fallacy.

This comment, considering your position that the probability that Tacitus wrote the Annals is "fairly high," speaks such volumes it is deafening. If you don't care about this, then why should I care about your biased reasons for rejecting the authorship of the Gospels?

I think the intellectually honest position here is, it's no better or worse than the speculative, ambiguous and at times incorrect evidence in support of the authorship of the Annals or Gallic/Civil Wars. Yet their authorship is considered "fairly high" or "undisputed."

I think your 'intellectually honest' position is very dishonest at the very least. The fact of the matter is that the descriptions of the book "matthew' was supposed to have written does not match the Gospel of Matthew that we currently have.

The description of the Histories by Tertullian (the earliest external evidence) doesn't match the Histories we have today either. But that doesn't stop you from accepting Tertullain as external evidence to support the authorship of the Histories and ultimately the Annals. Another double standard.

The GOM was not written in hebrew , but in Greek. That eliminates that right away.

Why so dogmatic? To hold such position you must dismiss the unanimous attestation of the early church fathers and assume they are wrong without exploring any other options. The GOM we have toady was written in Greek, yes. That doesn't preclude a first Aramaic Gospel written by Matthew for the Jews. This first Gospel may then have been translated into Greek using Mark (asuming Markan priority) as well as the Aramaic Matthew as a source. It would take someone well versed in Aramaic and Greek to accomplish this, yes. Matthew being a tax collector(customs offical) would be presumably well educated enough in Greek and Aramaic to accomplish this. But you are not willing to explore these types of options because you dogmatically dismiss Papias and the Church fathers while accepting equally ambiguous evidence for other texts. Go figure.

With out digressing further into this, as I've already stated, for the sake of argument we'll assume Papias was simply mistaken about the gospel being first written in the Hebrew language. I'll refer you here for some evidence that Greek Matthew has an Aramaic base. Its certainly no less subjective than the "stylistic" evidence you hold as being so conclusive in proving that Tacitus wrote the Annals.

And, the 'oracles' is a way of saying 'its a book fo sayings'. To try to say 'deeds' is to read into the text that which is not there.

In the quote from Papias just before the section regarding Matthew, Papias uses "sayings" and "sayings and deeds" interchangeably in describing Mark's Gospel. It is there, if you read the entire text.

I find your attempt to justify the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew hightly dishonest.

That accusation doesn't carry much weight coming from a person that holds the probibility of authorship of one text to be "fairly high" but holds another which has at least equal evidence to be hoplessly anonymous.

[Goat]

You made a number of errors. First of all, Annals DID have other works of tactitus to compare it to.

Which of Tacitus works that meet the criteria you've set out are the authoritative ones? Make your case that there is enough of a similarity between them and the Annals to establsih authorship. Don't just tell me. So far your "fairly high" certainty that Tacitus wrote the Annals is hanging by a very thin thread and a bias is showing.

Really?? Do you know textual analysis? at all?? Do you have a degree that allows you to do textual analysis??? Do you know the studies that went into to make that determination?

Ah yes. When one is backed into a corner and has nothing else to argue, just ask the other guy if he is qualified. Sounds reminiscent of another debater in this thread.

I will point out YOU are the one that made the annals analogy, You never bothered to look at the evidence of Tacitus's authorship, you basically built a straw man. I am sure that any competent historian will say that 'It is attributed to tactitus because of xxx , xxx , xxxx'. It isn't important enough for me to do a lot of work to answer your straw man and your diversion.

I will also note you weren't able to refute the point that the sentence structure, the word choice, and the style of writing matches Tacitus. Now, if you can answer those critism, you might be able to bring more doubt to the attribution to Tacitus. If you are happy building arguement against me that I didn't make, well, that is your choice. It is dishonest though.

Personally, I don't care of Annals was written by Tactitus or not. What you are doing is a 'red herring' logical fallacy.

This comment, considering your position that the probability that Tacitus wrote the Annals is "fairly high," speaks such volumes it is deafening. If you don't care about this, then why should I care about your biased reasons for rejecting the authorship of the Gospels?

I think the intellectually honest position here is, it's no better or worse than the speculative, ambiguous and at times incorrect evidence in support of the authorship of the Annals or Gallic/Civil Wars. Yet their authorship is considered "fairly high" or "undisputed."

I think your 'intellectually honest' position is very dishonest at the very least. The fact of the matter is that the descriptions of the book "matthew' was supposed to have written does not match the Gospel of Matthew that we currently have.

The description of the Histories by Tertullian (the earliest external evidence) doesn't match the Histories we have today either. But that doesn't stop you from accepting Tertullain as external evidence to support the authorship of the Histories and ultimately the Annals. Another double standard.

The GOM was not written in hebrew , but in Greek. That eliminates that right away.

Why so dogmatic? To hold such position you must dismiss the unanimous attestation of the early church fathers and assume they are wrong without exploring any other options. The GOM we have toady was written in Greek, yes. That doesn't preclude a first Aramaic Gospel written by Matthew for the Jews. This first Gospel may then have been translated into Greek using Mark (asuming Markan priority) as well as the Aramaic Matthew as a source. It would take someone well versed in Aramaic and Greek to accomplish this, yes. Matthew being a tax collector(customs offical) would be presumably well educated enough in Greek and Aramaic to accomplish this. But you are not willing to explore these types of options because you dogmatically dismiss Papias and the Church fathers while accepting equally ambiguous evidence for other texts. Go figure.

With out digressing further into this, as I've already stated, for the sake of argument we'll assume Papias was simply mistaken about the gospel being first written in the Hebrew language. I'll refer you here for some evidence that Greek Matthew has an Aramaic base. Its certainly no less subjective than the "stylistic" evidence you hold as being so conclusive in proving that Tacitus wrote the Annals.

And, the 'oracles' is a way of saying 'its a book fo sayings'. To try to say 'deeds' is to read into the text that which is not there.

In the quote from Papias just before the section regarding Matthew, Papias uses "sayings" and "sayings and deeds" interchangeably in describing Mark's Gospel. It is there, if you read the entire text.

I find your attempt to justify the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew hightly dishonest.

That accusation doesn't carry much weight coming from a person that holds the probibility of authorship of one text to be "fairly high" but holds another which has at least equal evidence to be hoplessly anonymous.

Well, let's see, your primary source describes the GOM as he knew it, and it does not match the GOM as we know it. I would say that it is pretty conclusive that the text that Papais was discussing was not the text we have. The GOM does not show signs of translation to the Greek. Until you get over that hurtle you can't use Papias, or anybody who quoted him as to the authorship. However, my prediction is that you will just hand wave that barrier aside.

Let's see if I can quote just a small section from the early christian writings web site

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

[daedalus 2.0]

After reading all of this, I am still left with the impression that Goose is arguing: We can't prove the authors of the Gospels as much as we can't prove the author of other historical works.

Goose, your argument would be a whole lot stronger if you established how certain authors are known. Perhaps take JC's "Wars" and show how, even though there are questions, there are steps that you can take to establish the authorship beyond doubt, and then apply it to GoM.

Your entire argument simply seems to be arguing for looser rules for determining authorship, so you can fit the Gospel writers in. By doing so, you invite other works with questionable authorship under your ever expanding umbrella.

[Goose]

I will point out YOU are the one that made the annals analogy, You never bothered to look at the evidence of Tacitus's authorship, you basically built a straw man.

How can I be accused of building a straw man when you said the probability is "fairly high" using your own method? I also said you could choose any work from around the time of Christ. It sounds more like you are regretting rating the authorship of the Annals as "fairly high."

I am sure that any competent historian will say that 'It is attributed to tactitus because of xxx , xxx , xxxx'. It isn't important enough for me to do a lot of work to answer your straw man and your diversion.

If you wish to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative. However, in a way, hopefully, this is a by-product of this thread - that you/others will do some work. In doing so you will begin to realize the evidence in support of secular texts taken for granted is really no better than for the Gospels. Why won't you allow your biases to be challenged? What do you fear?

And as a side note. Please stop whining about Red Herrings and diversions. It is a premise of this thread set out in the OP to look at methods for authorship and compare evidence between secular texts and the Gospels. So there is no Red Herring. Actually, constantly crying "Red Herring" is a Red Herring in itself. Kinda ironic huh. You should have politely declined participation if the OP didn't appeal to you.

I will also note you weren't able to refute the point that the sentence structure, the word choice, and the style of writing matches Tacitus. Now, if you can answer those critism, you might be able to bring more doubt to the attribution to Tacitus. If you are happy building arguement against me that I didn't make, well, that is your choice. It is dishonest though.

There was nothing to refute. I already said much earlier that I agree there are similarities. I also gave a quote pointing out differences in style and gave examples directly from the text that I've discovered. You ignored this. It serves to demonstrate that in your method the subjective nature of stylistic differences can be overlooked if similarities exist. We'll keep that in mind as well as your insistence on the weight of stylistic similarities when we start looking at the Gospel of John. I predict you'll suddenly find stylistic similarities no longer as weighty.

Well, let's see, your primary source describes the GOM as he knew it, and it does not match the GOM as we know it.

Tertullain's account of Tacitus' Histories doesn't match the Histories as we know it either. What exactly is the problem? The problem is you apply one standard to the Gospels and another to other works.

I would say that it is pretty conclusive that the text that Papais was discussing was not the text we have. The GOM does not show signs of translation to the Greek. Until you get over that hurtle you can't use Papias, or anybody who quoted him as to the authorship. However, my prediction is that you will just hand wave that barrier aside.

You assume that the translation would show heavy signs of being translated. Though that is a reasonable assumption, it's not a necessary one. I've already provided a link citing some evidence. Did you read it?

But you are missing my point and not addressing it. And I'm repeating myself. Hopefully this sinks in. I am assuming that Papias was mistaken about the first Gospel being written in Aramaic. I don't think this is the best explanation as it leaves much evidence unaccounted for. But it is the easiest as it doesn't require any additional work. Does that mean Papias must be mistaken that Matthew put together something - that is the sayings and deeds of Jesus we now know as the GoM? No it does not anymore than Tertullian must be wrong that Tacitus wrote the Histories because Tertuallian was wrong about the donkey head accusation. You need to address this flaw in your logic. If we eliminate Papias and the Church Fathers for this, then to be fair we must eliminate Tertullian as an external source for Tacitus. You now have no external source for the Histories and therefore the Annals anywhere even close to what you expect for the Gospels.

Let's see if I can quote just a small section from the early christian writings web site



Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

Herman gives his opinion, goat. He says, "...while the standpoint I have adopted..." He also assumes that Matthew in composing his Greek Gospel would not use Mark as a source. Which isn't really that strange to think that Matthew would use Mark considering Mark was based upon Peter's preaching - a disciple holding more authority than Matthew. To hold this position of course Herman must assume Markan priority(a theory) and totally hand wave the evidence that suggests Mark used Peter's preaching and knew Paul. He's created an entirely circular argument.

But hey, if you need some scholars that hold Matthew was originally in Aramaic here:
C.F. Burney.
C.C. Torrey.
A. Schlatter.
P. Gaechter.
J.W. Whenham.
and those in the link I provided here.

[Goose]

After reading all of this, I am still left with the impression that Goose is arguing: We can[strike]'t[/strike] prove the authors of the Gospels as much as we can[strike]'t[/strike] prove the author of other historical works.

I think there was typo. Without the typo, you're close.

Goose, your argument would be a whole lot stronger if you established how certain authors are known. Perhaps take JC's "Wars" and show how, even though there are questions, there are steps that you can take to establish the authorship beyond doubt, and then apply it to GoM.

I thought that was what we've been doing. I don't think there are steps to establish authorship beyond doubt. I think we can be reasonably sure about the authorship of the Gosples, as sure as any other text.

Your entire argument simply seems to be arguing for looser rules for determining authorship, so you can fit the Gospel writers in. By doing so, you invite other works with questionable authorship under your ever expanding umbrella.

Well that's an odd accusation. I've been using goat's criteria and the Annals and other texts like the Galic Wars as a baseline. If you would like to suggest a method, now would be a good time.

[Goat]

After reading all of this, I am still left with the impression that Goose is arguing: We can[strike]'t[/strike] prove the authors of the Gospels as much as we can[strike]'t[/strike] prove the author of other historical works.

I think there was typo. Without the typo, you're close.

Goose, your argument would be a whole lot stronger if you established how certain authors are known. Perhaps take JC's "Wars" and show how, even though there are questions, there are steps that you can take to establish the authorship beyond doubt, and then apply it to GoM.

I thought that was what we've been doing. I don't think there are steps to establish authorship beyond doubt. I think we can be reasonably sure about the authorship of the Gosples, as sure as any other text.

Your entire argument simply seems to be arguing for looser rules for determining authorship, so you can fit the Gospel writers in. By doing so, you invite other works with questionable authorship under your ever expanding umbrella.

Well that's an odd accusation. I've been using goat's criteria and the Annals and other texts like the Galic Wars as a baseline. If you would like to suggest a method, now would be a good time.

You failed to acknowledge the methodology used by scholars to confirm to themselves that Annals was written by Tacitus. You failed to acknowledge the point about the description that the GOM as described by Papias does not match the
text we have. As far as I am concerned.. that is just hand waving, and cherry picking your evidence.

Surely you can do better than bad rationalizations.

[seventil]

.
I do not “play a game of ignorance�. I am not a theist.

I challenge you to identify “bible haters� among the membership of this forum AND justify your judgment. OR to do the honorable thing and retract your claim and apologize to all concerned.

I personally regard the bible as a myth, fable and fiction – but have no “hatred� for that book any more than I have hatred for any other book of fanciful tales and incredible claims. Why hate nursery rhymes or science fiction?

I, personally, regard myths, fables and fiction as insignificant in my world view.

While this might not be the best terminology, under no circumstance do I believe that you don't know what I mean.

I know exactly what the term “bible haters� means. That is why I challenge you to substantiate your claim.

I'm almost shocked, Dave. You've changed a lot in the past year since we've last debated.

You know what the difference is? You've become openly hostile. I remember when you first came to the forums and we talked about intelligent design, creation science and evolution. I remember thinking to myself "hey, at least he can maintain a sense of logical discussion without letting emotions be a big part of his argument."

And now we have this. Your attitude here is something I would expect from a teenager.

I'll up the ante here and say this:

You are a Bible Hater.

Now, that doesn't mean you literally hate the Bible, of course - it's more of a metaphorical meaning or terminology. Also, it's my personal opinion. Perhaps it was just used on the west coast where I grew up. My oh my though - after reading through your tiring comments of late, you fit the bill perfectly. Back when I was a Christian, its what people used to call people that just hated anything to do with Christianity.

I picture you, in your grey wizard robe, calmly reading through the entire Bible, slowly and methodically - for the first time. You smoke a pipe and read every word carefully. At the end, you calmly make the decision that this text you have read is not true; after all, it tells the story of things that just don't happen in "Nature" as we know it. You then place this Bible in your neat stack of "insignificant", just on top of Green Eggs of Ham and soon to be followed by The Chronicles of Narnia. Tell me; is this an accurate story of your "enlightenment"?

You have no respect for what other people think. You classify the Bible as "myth" and then downgrade it to the same level as Beauty and the Beast; and you call yourself objective and open minded?

Your outright hostility and absolute NEED to justify your position and view on the Bible is exactly what's wrong with the world. You're the polar opposite to every fundamentalist Christian idiot that protests military funerals saying that it's God's punishment for embracing gays in our country. You're the black to their white; the extremist on the other side.

In all of your elegant and brutal arguments and trying to downplay the Bible as nothing more than a perverted story of half and quarter-truths and everyone believing this fanciful story is no better than a Nazi-esc robot drone of fundamentalist extremism and portraying yourself as the enlightened, free thinking and every tolerant scholar - you've failed miserably.

Anyway, I think that's enough personal attacks for now. If I don't at least get a suspension or something for that, I'll be surprised. However, that's how I feel about everything. This sort of arguing is tiresome and really brings no enlightenment or discovery to any of us.

You know what the craziest thing about all of this is, Dave? We probably agree on almost everything. I don't believe in a literal Bible. I might be a Theist, but I'm an evolutionary theist, and I subscribe to no official "religion". My belief of Theism comes from a personal opinion or belief that there is a creative force in the Universe that we don't understand. Hell, that's almost agnosticism. Call me that if it makes you feel better.

My point in that is if you would actually listen and read what I say; other than just glancing over to the left under my user name and reading "Theist" and "Former Atheist" and having your eyes glaze over as you go into a hypocritical and almost intelligible frenzy of forum hostility - you'd find that we believe in a lot of the same stuff. You can point your guns elsewhere, my aged friend, because this is one chap who doesn't need you chasing me on your intellectual highchair.

Anyway, I hope we can still talk civilly after this. I guess it's all out in the air now: you refer to me as a disillusioned theist, I refer to you as a self-righteous atheist. I guess your "hostility" towards me was because you misread my statements, thinking I was in contrast to your ideas of Biblical authorship (when in fact we are in agreement, which I've stated twice in this thread).

And now, lastly...

.

Your statement of the gospels authorship being questionable at best... I've stated before that this is my position on the subject so I dont see why you're pointing it out.

I am not surprised that you disagree with my statements regarding bible authorship. You can prove my position erroneous by simply demonstrating that the authors are known and accepted by theologians.

Being unable to do so must be frustrating.

For the third time in this thread, I'm going to have to say this with colors and extra size I guess...

I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENTS REGARDING BIBLE AUTHORSHIP

[Beto]

I'll up the ante here and say this:

You are a Bible Hater.

Now, that doesn't mean you literally hate the Bible, of course - it's more of a metaphorical meaning.

I happen to share Zz's perspective, and also resent the use of your personal "metaphors" to characterize me. Could you be excessively sensitive to straightforwardness when it's your religious beliefs that are being questioned? I think you are definitely imagining an aggressive "tone" in Zz's post, that really isn't there if read by someone with no emotional stakes riding on it. Don't you think your reply, and your attempt to undermine Zz's credibility, can be considered an appeal to emotion?

EDIT: I would also add that I suspect Zz's "fundamentalism", as you put it, is completely made up of criticizable arguments, all liable to questioning and critical analysis. If you think otherwise, you can confront him, or other like-minded individuals, such as myself, on the aspects you think we cannot defend. "Fundamentalism", as I understand it, doesn't quite fit that category. Despite being diametrically opposite to "religious fundamentalism", my philosophy is in no way "fundamentalist".

[seventil]

.

However, depending on the number of witnesses and/or the evidence provided at the time, it could be proved genuine.

YES, a “resurrection� could be proved genuine with EVIDENCE. Until that evidence is presented it should rightly be regarded with suspicion of being a hoax.

Why would anyone believe tales from “long ago and far away� with NO evidence, but reject similar claims presently with the same evidence?

I think we have to ask why would anyone believe anything that doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of scientific method or even common sense: because they choose to.

I agree that doesn't make it right or any more nonsensical.

I think people believe that Jesus was brought back from the dead because they believe He is the Son of God, who can do anything, I suppose. They might believe this because they pray to Him/Them and things happen that wouldn't normally be possible. This is then explained by supernatural powers.

Explaining it like that makes it look pretty silly, I guess. Anyway, every person has their own reason on why they believe in the supernatural.

]

Evidence is a requirement for any modern proclamation of "miracles" such as these, for two reasons:

Evidence is a requirement for ANY claim that is challenged in debate. The lack of evidence renders a claim to be nothing more than a conjecture (a guess) and an opinion.

Incredible claims of nature-defying events that are not verified by other sources are SUSPECT.

Agreed! Though, it's important to recognize that certain things might not be provable as such, yet people can still believe them. You don't find many people arguing that there is tangible, physical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus - it's all taken on faith. It's not like we're trying to prove germ theory or something.

Would you believe a “resurrection� claim by Muslims from five hundred years ago with the “reasoning� that “there wouldn’t be much chance of evidence, so in the absence of evidence I will believe what they say�?

If belief in this event effected my life to the point it might bring good luck or fortune or the invervention of a higher-being, I can understand why some people would believe in it.

That said, no, I wouldn't personally believe in it without some sort of proof or personal experience; and that's the same way I feel about the Christian story of resurrection.

The flaw with this argument is that while reason #1 would be applicable in Biblical times (and always will be) -- #2 - evidence - was not possible.

Correction: There were methods of producing evidence in biblical times. However, there is NO evidence since biblical times. Yet, biblical promoters insist that incredible tales be believed WITHOUT evidence (“on faith alone�).

Perhaps true, though they would have to go into the "events" with the mindset of generating proof for future generations. This may or may not have been done; in any case I agree if any of these proofs did happen, they didn't survive the times.

Thinking about it, from ancient standards, the Resurrection of Jesus had the best "evidence" available at the time - eye witnesses.

Kindly cite ONE actual eyewitness account. An eyewitness account is a direct quotation from the person who was physically present and who observed the event.

Oh, come now. If I invoke Gospels here, you'll challenge the authorship? I suppose that's the whole point of the thread.

The eyewitness accounts are, in my opinion, just as valid as many other documents and texts from the period whose authorship is not questioned with the same or even less proof of authorship.

So, once again, we're back to square one. I think from a purely scholastic point of view, it's safe to assume that the Gospels were written by the supposed authors (where applicable). However, we still need to take into the possibility that the original texts were mistranslated or added / deleted from.

Kindly cite ONE account of any kind that can be shown to have been written within two decades (or four decades or six decades) of the supposed event.

If that's the standard you're invoking here, many of the texts Goose listed would be just as "suspect" as the Gospels. Why aren't they, in your mind? Is the subject material really worth the sacrifice of objectiveness?

There's really not much else they could have done.

Correction: A “resurrected Jesus� could have appeared to world leaders, historians, writers, heads of competing religions – instead of a supposed secretive appearance to believers. Widespread appearances would have left very strong or indisputable evidence.

Supposedly the creator of the universe visited Earth for thirty years, spoke only to a few chosen people, was “killed� and was “resurrected� – and there is NO evidence that the visit ever occurred or that any of the “miracles� were actually performed – except in tales by people promoting a new religion.

Kindly think on that deeply and sincerely before constructing a reply.

True enough. In fact, that's one of the weakest parts of the Bible - I've always thought. I would have thought God would have been a bit more creative in his Coming and Going, persay.

Sadly, John's cell phone camera must have been broken. However, these eyewitness accounts have the possibility of being fabricated by a later author, and that should be taken into consideration.

When you stop being silly you hit upon an element of truth. The possibility of fraud should be considered (fabrication would not likely have been accidental). Accounts that claim there were eyewitnesses (or anything else) could well have been added to the tale at any time.

Indeed, as I've stated above. While this could be said for any document at the time, we need to take into account the implications modifying the document would have brought. Changing the Gospels compared to the Annals is a bit, well, different - especially when pushing a religion state onto a bunch of unruly Pagans.

The gospels were not written until LONG after the supposed resurrection. For generations the tales were handed down in verbal form or in writings that are not available. There is no way to verify that the tales are true. Even after the tales were written, they were modified may times.

That's correct. A time machine is the only really way to know, I suppose. 1.21 gigawatts, here we come!

Are you aware that the bible was constructed by governmental order by a committee convened and controlled by a Roman emperor during the fourth century? Are you aware that the work has since been translated numerous times, transcribed by hand for a thousand years, revised, modified and rewritten?

Yeah, and I read the Da Vinci Code also. Gandalf did that whole scene pretty well in the movie as well.

While I'm apt to agree with this melodramatic summary, I want to mention that we don't really know the exact events around Constantine and such, may never know what the Bible was before and after those times.

How, after all that, can anyone claim that the tales are accurate or literally true?

Like I said, everyone has their own reason. We can judge for ourselves and say "I don't believe that's true!" -- but once we start trying to push our mentality onto other people, we're no better than than guys knocking door to door informing of us of our eternal damnation or a Muslim extremist doing whatever it takes to get others to believe in Allah.