The God of Convenience

[Esquilax]

I do believe that Plato existed based on the evidence that we have for that assumption. We don't have better evidence for the existence of Plato that we do for Jesus. You claim that the writers we attribute to the books of the new testament are not the actual writers. Why should be assume that the 1,300 year or older copies of Plato's works were actually written by him?

... Because we don't have any indication that they were written by someone else. Meanwhile, we have the history of the church, indicating where the epigraphs of the new testament come from; the content of the books themselves never mention the author's name, and we know that the traditional epigraphs were added later since the Gospels aren't even mentioned by name until about 150 AD. Furthermore, we actually know who popularized the idea that the Gospels were written by the apostles; it was bishop Papias, several centuries after Jesus' death. Once again, you're attempting to make a comparison that isn't even remotely valid.

Why not? We have unexplained healings now. Why couldn't Jesus have the done the same thing then?

Once again, unexplained does not mean god, or even supernatural. How many times do you need the argument from ignorance fallacy explained to you?

No. Your're wrong about that. Some church historians attribute them to someone else. I'm aware that it appears that the synoptic gospels relied on other sources for information, but that doesn't mean that they weren't written by the named authors. Many authors rely on other sources.

Mhmm, but when we actually know that even the earliest Gospel was penned 30 years after Jesus died, and we don't even have an early manuscript of it until around 120 AD, and we know that the epigraphs were added later, the simple answer is that we only have evidence that the claims to authorship are manufactured, and not truthful accounts.

If you think that all christian historians agree with you, read the introductions to the books of the new testament in the New International Version and the New American study bibles. These bible translations were accomplished by teams of qualified bible scholars and historians.

I didn't say all, but then again you don't need complete consensus for this kind of determination. The fact is, historians agree that the authorship of the four gospels is unknown, and there is no evidence to verify that the claimed authors, who we know were added later and don't appear in the oldest manuscripts or historical records of the time, were in fact the real authors, while there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Stop arguing from convenience, Lek. If you had any evidence you would have presented it by now.

Did they have to? The early church carried along that knowledge, just they carried along the gospel message.

Yes, they had to: I think it's pretty important that if you're going to argue for a claim you think specific people made, that they actually make that claim themselves. I'm surprised you think that the "early church," by which you actually mean the church at least a century later, is more fit to speak for these authors than the authors themselves.

If it's supernatural, natural science is inadequate to verify it.

Why? Because you say so? Because it's convenient for your argument?

We've given science a chance to decide if there was a natural cause for the healing of individuals, which they didn't find, and we've determined that these people did have faith and prayed for healing. We don't have any instruments to detect the power of God working in them. Based on that and other countless other testimonies to the power of God, I'll accept it. You need more so you won't. Okay.

Yes, we already know you'll accept an argument from ignorance when it suits your argument, and that the rest of us understand that it's a fallacy. But let me ask you this: a muslim is sick, he prays to Allah, and when he recovers science doesn't know why. Do you take this as evidence that Islam is true, and Allah actually healed him?

If not, why not? It's precisely the same as your argument here. Don't dodge by saying you're unaware of any examples like this, or anything like that: just answer the question. If a mystery and prayers to Jesus is evidence, to you, for god, then isn't the same thing also evidence for other gods? Miracle healing isn't a claim unique to your religion, you know; if all you're going on are arguments from ignorance, by what right to you accept the christian accounts and dismiss all the other ones, from all the other religions, throughout history?

Special pleading?