Evidence God Exists

[tavarish]

tavarish your not reading what was written either I said salvation not christian many people who go to church are called christian but that in no way means they have received the gift of salvation from God. Actually tavarish I'm not sure how an atheist can qualifiy to speak on salvation since it requires a belief and understanding of who God is and what He did to secure our salvation.

read what YOU wrote:

I do not know if that Pope was a christian.Does history record him as saying he was a believer and if so was it recorded by a reliable historian who heard him say he was a believer.

Doesn't being Christian constitute that you accept the gift of salvation from your savior? Are you trying to argue that the Pope might not have been a Christian? When you're elected to the highest office in the religious hierarchy, it's pretty much a dead giveaway that you're a believer in the religion.

Now for the gospels, strictly speaking no one penned their name to the gospels. The early church gave credit to these men for writing the gospels.

Which backs up my point that we don't know who wrote them.

The best we can tell about the dates the first gospel was written around 52 AD only 19 years after Jesus crucifiction and the last around 80 AD some 47 years after the crucifiction.

That's a conservative figure, but I'll play along. If I told you that I heard about a guy who could fly and shoot laser beams out of his eyes, who died in 1991, and I had nothing to back this up with other than anecdotal evidence, would you believe me? How about if I heard it from a bunch of people that he lived in the 60s? Would that make it any more plausible?

What advantage would it be for the early church to place the name Matthew to one of these books. Matthew was a tax collector and tax collectors were not trusted by people in that time so logically this makes no sense.

Your assessment is based on personal incredulity and false assumptions. This isn't evidence of anything.

Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean you should assume a conclusion without supporting evidence.

Mark was a companion of Peter and is believed to have received his information directly from Peter,so it seems that if the early church was interested in popularizing the book named after Mark they would have put Peters name to it.

Again, what are you basing these assumptions on? There are many schools of thought on how the gospels' influence intertwine.

Now Luke like Mark was not a disciple of Jesus and this historically correct document could have been attributed to one of the other disciples so that the book would have carried more weight with the people.

It could have also been completely fabricated. The fact is, we don't know.

Also no one else has ever claimed to have written anyone of the gospels and no one else has ever been named the author of any of the gospels. John was given credit for writing the gospel named after him and this credit came from the early church. So what sense would it make to name the gospels after a tax collector,two mostly unknown companions of disciples and a man known for his fishing skills more than his writing ability.

This still doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support that any of this actually occurred, the ones who were said to write it ACTUALLY wrote it, or that any of it is more than hearsay decades after the fact of his death.

Leave the "Q" document out of this there is no evidence it ever existed.

Much like the evidence for Jesus' resurrection and godhood.