Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

3.)  Since we are talking about epistemology, I would highly recommend you ask anyone who is telling you that the Gospel authors where assigned arbitrarily "how do you know that?"  We have a number of manuscripts and copies of Gospels.  It is my understanding, that each place, where we have the top of the scroll or there is a heading on a page, the gospels are attributed to their traditional author.  There is no dispute about the authors, as well it seems there would be little reason to ascribe them to those of lesser authority (Mark, Luke)  if they are just choosing someone. 

4.) I'm afraid, that this is not the lines of which I was thinking.   I was speaking more to those had met Jesus and drastically changed their life because of it.  While it doesn't mean that it is necessarily true,  I think that it does speak towards the truth, if someone acts like it is true (especially in the face of adversity).   Paul had a fairly high position, which he gave up, to join those he was previously persecuting.  John  the brother of Jesus is reported to be skeptical early in Jesus ministry.  Many dropped what they where doing to follow Jesus.  

5.)  This also connects to the last.  Many of the claims of the new testament where done in public, they where falsifiable to those who they where preaching to.  Persecution a conspiracy theory or a lie, is more likely to fall apart, when there is pressure against it.  There is some questions about some of the tradition of martyrdom, but it is difficult to say that the early church wasn't persecuted.  Criteria of embarrassment is an indicator of truthfulness, in that it paints the teller in a poor light (which most people are unlikely to do if given a choice).   

AS well we have witness to the following outside of Biblical and Early Church writers which comes from early and often hostile writers.  From these external sources you can verify quite a bit about the story of Jesus.  -Cold Case Christianity

3) From what I've read (wikipeadia, Bart Earlman Blog, Quora, etc), the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John are anonymous writings with the names being given the them as a Christian tradition. The identity of authorship for the Gospel of Mark is though being debated still. Would you agree with this?

4) But again, if your evidence does not speak towards its truth, should it be discussed at all? I can also give several examples where people were influenced by religious leaders drastically changed people's lives. I'm an ex-Buddhist so Buddha comes to mind where he has also influenced several kings and nobles.

5) This point needs more research from my end. I'll get back to you on it.

3.)   No I wouldn't..... and I would ask how they came to the conclusion that they where anonymous.  The only reasons I heard are not very good, while all the information for these books seem to point to the traditional authors without dispute to anyone else.  

4.)  If it gives us reason towards a belief, then doesn't that mean that it speaks towards the truth?  It doesn't have to get you to 100% to your destination, but getting you a little further down the road is still helpful. 

I believe I asked before;   do you think that you need 100% certainty in order to know (or have justified belief)?   Do you believe that others can testify to their knowledge, and thus you gain knowledge that you did not personally experience?