The God of Convenience

[Lek]

... 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.

So Papias who lived two to three generations after Jesus died was less able to identify the authors of the gospels than we are today? Papias could have had access to parents or grandparents of Jesus' contemporaries. So tell me why Papias wasn't qualified to determine who wrote the gospels? Here is Papias' own statement concerning his methods of gathering evidence. I'll go with Papias.

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

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

Since we experience unexplained events to this day, we can't say that Jesus didn't have the power to perform miracles. You may not believe it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Until I've been convinced otherwise I'll accept the testimony of the church fathers who were so close to the time of Jesus.

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 we know that the earliest gospel was penned 30 years after Jesus' death, then it obviously could have been written by an eyewitness.

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.

You seem to be saying that your historians and scholars are smarter than mine. Since there is no consensus, that means you're historians are right. You agree that there is disagreement among historians and then you say that you don't need complete consensus to make the determination. You make these big statements as if you are unarguably right.

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.

I think that the authors are more qualified to speak for themselves, but obviously they didn't give their names. Someone wrote them and whoever they were didn't mention their names. They must not have felt compelled to tell who they were. If Mark didn't write the Gospel of Mark, then why didn't the "real" author tell who he was?

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?

Yes.

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?

It's a subject that's very interesting to me. God can heal anybody, including atheists. God knows the hearts of us all.

Special pleading?

You and your "special pleading".

---

Lek... here is something to think about....
There is a person in the hospital going into surgery and you were the surgeon.
You do a great job and fix the guy or gal up and you visit the room with the doctors.
The guy thanks only god for healing him or her wouldn't you be a slight bit pissed off since god didn't play a role
in his recovery when the only 2 people in room that actually helped?

We were discussing people who were healed and medical experts and scientists could not determine how the person was healed. There were no doctors to thank for the recovery. The people had prayed to God for healing and thanked him for it.