In Christianity, blind faith is good faith

[Esquilax]

I suppose it would depend on which sampling of scholars your use for your "consensus", but over the past 20 years or so, the shift has been toward a more traditional or conservative view; namely, that Jesus really existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, that his disciples believed that he was resurrected, and so forth.

See, now you've changed what you're talking about; we were discussing the authorship of the gospels, for which the scholarly consensus leans toward anonymous authorship, and now you're talking about the existence of Jesus, which is not only irrelevant, but it's a moot point to begin with, because the existence of Jesus says nothing about the divine claims associated with him.

Now, you are correct in saying that the names of the Authors were not written on the title pages of the manuscripts; but that does not mean that we cannot be confident about their actual authorship. For example, Luke is a slam-dunk. He identifies himself in the book of Acts as the travelling companion of Paul (there are several "we" passages, and Paul mentions him by name in an epistle or two. Further, in the opening of Acts, Luke says explicitly, "In my former work...". So, there really isn't any doubt about the authorship of Luke-Acts even among skeptics.

So what you have here is a work in which the author never personally identifies himself, with some "we" passages written in first person plural without identification or personal pronouns, and an allusion to a former work, which could literally be any other book... and this is sufficient for you to believe that a name added centuries later just so happens to be the right name? That is your "slam dunk"? Literally no identification at all is a slam dunk? Look at you bend over backwards to reach the conclusion you've already come to!

As to your claim that there isn't any doubt, that's bullshit: when even Wikipedia lists two or three schools of thought on the issue, you can't exactly say there's no doubt... Well, except if you're vastly overreaching.

John is self-actually identified by the author who refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved". John was younger, possibly a cousin of Jesus, and perhaps because of this familial relationship, Jesus looked out for His young cousin.

The modern scholarly consensus is that John 21 was a later addition to the gospel, which originally ended at John 20.

Here are the two passages of scripture:

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

Yeah, there's "Luke" specifically stating that he's using eyewitness testimony of other people to compile his account, something he wouldn't need to do if he was himself an eyewitness.

Now, you seem to dismiss Papias' indentification of the gospel writers. On what authority or basis are you able to do this?

Papias was in no position to know, and the total convenience of unconnected traditional names just happening to be not only correct but important is simply too coincidental; more likely, like so much of christian theology added on later, this view was arranged to make the gospel story cleaner and sleeker, than for any factual reason.

Isn't it interesting that Eusebius cites Papias who said that Mark recorded the sayings of Jesus which he heard from Peter accurately but "not indeed in order" and that Luke specifically states that he is writing an "orderly account".

Is that just a coincidence? Or was Luke aware of Papias' comments and Mark's un-ordered account and specifically stated that he was taking a different approach in the writing of his own reportage?  

... So what?

[Brian37]

Regurgitating words in an antiquated comic book is what all religions do. If one is not willing to accept this tactic from someone of another religion and god claim, the atheist would agree, don't blindly swallow a parrot's claims. We'd merely suggest that if you rightfully DONT blindly swallow others repeating words out of a different holy book other than yours, why would you stupidly expect the atheist to blindly swallow that when you do it?

[robvalue]

Prosecution: I move for this to be an open and shut case. I have four witnesses here who didn't see any of the events. But they have given statements that they heard someone say the defendant committed the crime. Witnesses 2 and 3 actually heard it from witness 1.

Judge: Agreed, he's clearly guilty. Four people wouldn't lie or hear inaccurate information. No further evidence required. The defence need not speak, I will sentence tomorrow.

[Nope]

You have to remember that even though Christians CLAIM to be the biggest religion each group/church is a minority in thier own religion.. even 2 churches of the same denomination will have differnt teachings based on personal prefance of the minister/chaplain/preacher......... So what holds true for one will not for all or even the majority most of the time... Thats why I say Christians are a minority.....1000's of differnt denominations .. lolz...

Faith is a cop-out...
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits. It is intellectual bankruptcy. With faith you don't have to put any work into proving your case you can "just believe"......Dan Barker

 Christianity seems to be made up of many different religions who all worship the same god except none of them want to admit that other Christians think differently than they do.  Before I can even have a respectful debate with a Christian, I have to determine which particular beliefs system they hold because if I get one fact incorrect, the other person will decide that I  know anything about their entire faith and so they can ignore everything I say. 

Of course, faith is blind. If you think too hard about Christianity, it makes no sense.