Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Goose]

Is it external evidence and internal evidence on how you determine authorship? I challenge you to show me you speak the truth, without appealing to the supernatural.

What?

I can show that Matthew was not internally identified, and is not written by an eye witness, and I can find accounts showing the John was not written by John, external evidence written by early church fathers.

I didn't claim Matthew internally identified. I claimed John internally claims to be a witness. The external evidence that John and Matthew wrote their respective Gospels is virtually unanimous though not impressively early. Now, as an initial control what is the external evidence for, say, the claim that Nicoluas of Damascus wrote Life of Augusts since it does not internally identify either?

[Nickman]

Dude, stop it! We get it! You persuaded us.

The resurrection of Jesus was a perfectly natural and well documented historical event, just like the assassination of Caesar and the resurrection of Zack Dunlap.

Neither of these three events is supernatural, we get it. Thank you.

I ask the question "do you have any evidence for the supernatural", and your answer is a clear and resounding "NO", because you proved that the resurrection of Christ is NOT supernatural, but a regular natural event like Zack Dunlap's resurrection or Caesar's assassination.

Now that you've firmly established that Jesus is not the Son of God, but just an average dude like Zack Dunlap, can we please talk about the talking donkey?

No, I don't think you do get it. To save me the time of having to respond to you on this silly argument of yours I was hoping you’d realize on your own the painfully obvious blunder in your reasoning here. But since you insist on chasing me around with it I guess I have to take the time.

Firstly, you’re assuming Zack’s return to life wasn’t a miracle. I see no reason to draw that conclusion just yet. Secondly, and more importantly, you are fallaciously assuming in your argument that the resurrection of Zack and resurrection of Jesus are perfectly analogous. They aren’t for a variety of reasons most of which should be self evident. Zack’s return to life doesn’t demonstrate Jesus’ return to life was by natural causes anymore than Zack’s resurrection establishes Jesus’. Zack was introduced to create a baseline of plausibility for a return to life after being brain dead thus moving us off the proposition that brain dead people always stay dead. He wasn't introduced to establish Jesus' resurrection. Capiche?

Zack Dunlap
Zack Dunlap doesn’t remember much from the day he died, but he does remember hearing a doctor declare him brain-dead. And he remembers being incredibly ticked off.

“I’m glad I couldn’t get up and do what I wanted to do,� the strapping Oklahoman said in a soft drawl in an exclusive appearance on Monday on TODAY in New York.

And what would he have done, asked TODAY’s Natalie Morales, who has followed Dunlap’s miraculous recovery from a Nov. 17 ATV accident that left him with a catastrophic head injury.

“Probably would have been a broken window they went out,� the 21-year-old said with a hint of a smile.
It doesn't appear that he was truly dead now does it?

[Goat]

Is it external evidence and internal evidence on how you determine authorship? I challenge you to show me you speak the truth, without appealing to the supernatural.

What?

I can show that Matthew was not internally identified, and is not written by an eye witness, and I can find accounts showing the John was not written by John, external evidence written by early church fathers.

I didn't claim Matthew internally identified. I claimed John internally claims to be a witness. The external evidence that John and Matthew wrote their respective Gospels is virtually unanimous though not impressively early. Now, as an initial control what is the external evidence for, say, the claim that Nicoluas of Damascus wrote Life of Augusts since it does not internally identify either?

Shrug. I see you are avoiding the issue, rather than actually answering the question. I have never made a study of Nicoloas of Damascus, so I am not going to address that.. but I will note that rather than actually provide evidence, you deflect the issue.

Give me the evidence you have, and let's see if it holds up to scrutiny. Rather than do that, you deflect.

[Nickman]

Is it external evidence and internal evidence on how you determine authorship? I challenge you to show me you speak the truth, without appealing to the supernatural.

What?

I can show that Matthew was not internally identified, and is not written by an eye witness, and I can find accounts showing the John was not written by John, external evidence written by early church fathers.

I didn't claim Matthew internally identified. I claimed John internally claims to be a witness. The external evidence that John and Matthew wrote their respective Gospels is virtually unanimous though not impressively early. Now, as an initial control what is the external evidence for, say, the claim that Nicoluas of Damascus wrote Life of Augusts since it does not internally identify either?

Where does John internally identify? Here?

John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

This is telling the reader that this is second hand information at best. To internally identify, you need to say something like "My name is John, and I walked and talked with Jesus while he was on earth." "This is my recollection of the events surrounding the man while he was on the earth."

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goat]

If you are planning to be the new Joey, Goat, then please try not to get yourself tossed off of the forum.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

If you are planning to be the new Joey, Goat, then please try not to get yourself tossed off of the forum.

I have to dedicate SOMETHING to his going .

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goat]

The late great Joey K was the author of his own demise, I am afraid.

[Goose]

Zack Dunlap
Zack Dunlap doesn’t remember much from the day he died, but he does remember hearing a doctor declare him brain-dead. And he remembers being incredibly ticked off.

“I’m glad I couldn’t get up and do what I wanted to do,� the strapping Oklahoman said in a soft drawl in an exclusive appearance on Monday on TODAY in New York.

And what would he have done, asked TODAY’s Natalie Morales, who has followed Dunlap’s miraculous recovery from a Nov. 17 ATV accident that left him with a catastrophic head injury.

“Probably would have been a broken window they went out,� the 21-year-old said with a hint of a smile.
It doesn't appear that he was truly dead now does it?

And the very same article says the doctors performed a PET scan of Zack’s brain and found “no blood flowing to [his] brain; he was brain dead.�

So, the empirical data suggests Zack was dead but despite that you argue Zack wasn’t truly brain dead because he testifies he remembers hearing the doctors talk. So apparently testimony does outweigh empirical data – when you want it to of course. There are some people in this thread who might be very disappointed in you. I’m certainly willing to concede Zack wasn’t truly brain dead so long as you concede testimony can be strong enough to outweigh empirical data.

[Goose]

Shrug. I see you are avoiding the issue, rather than actually answering the question. I have never made a study of Nicoloas of Damascus, so I am not going to address that.. but I will note that rather than actually provide evidence, you deflect the issue.

Give me the evidence you have, and let's see if it holds up to scrutiny. Rather than do that, you deflect.

I'm not avoiding the issue goat. I was under the impression you were already aware of the evidence. What I'm trying to do is frame the argument correctly. I'm sure you have your arguments against authorship memorized. But we have no way knowing if those arguments hold water if we have no control. How about Caesar's Gallic Wars as a control if you aren't familiar with Nicolaus of Damascus then?

[Danmark]

I'm no scholar, so I rely on what scholars in the area say.

Actually, it seems you rely on what wikipedia says in the area. You are at the very least proficient at arguing by cut and paste jobs from wikipedia.

Give us your credentials for scholarship that make the argument we should consider a minority position among scholars.

You claimed Matthew and John wrote the books with their names on them. But you give no evidence, nor do give reasons for opposing the majority view among scholars. You have an opportunity to view the Wikipedia entry yourself, combined with examining the footnotes listed there.

Unless you examine those arguments and dispute the points made, simply making a personal remark about a poster's use of sources offers nothing.

We can assume you have no scholarly rebuttal, until you make one.