Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Mistrial]

Do you honestly believe some guy rose from the dead some odd 2000 years ago, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God doesn't bring anyone back today?

Lifelong atheist here. I mean, don't you ever wonder why God's own son gets this treatment, and yet God doesn't bring anyone else back to life, he doesn't create new habitable Earthlike planets, he doesn't cap childbirth at two kids per person. This guy's got the f***ing balls to accept everyone's worship, and yet he doesn't solve the population problem, the pollution problem, global warming, anything.

He just... lets people die. I am, of course, only assuming for argument's sake that he exists, but still, don't you ever get angry? I know I would.

[jimwalton]

I honestly believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I have examined the evidence over and over with a fine-toothed comb, and am convinced that the evidence is both worthy and convincing enough to warrant a positive conclusion. The facts that we know, combined with the historical corroboration, combined with the subsequent change in the culture, the growth of the Church, and the change in people's lives all give evidence to its veracity. I know that people who presuppose that miracles are not possible can't buy into it—I get that. But I'm sold on it. If we are trying to reason to the most logical conclusion, resurrection is that conclusion.

That's different, however, from all of the other questions you are asking. Why doesn't God bring anyone else back to life? After the resurrection, according to the book of Acts, He did. There are also stories around the globe, even today, of people coming back to life. I don't have enough information to evaluate the reliability of those accounts, but they're out there for anyone who really wants to dig into it.

Why doesn't God solve the population problem? God made it clear in the Bible that He's in the business of saving souls, not regulating human decisions. He commissioned humans to rule the earth and subdue it. It's our job to regulate population (we are, after all, the ones having sex), the pollution problem (we are, after all, the ones ruining things), global warming (there are huge debates about whether this is a planetary cycle or whether humans are contributing significantly to the problem that is obvious), or anything else.

Do I ever get angry? Sure, about a lot of things. But mostly what I see is humans making a mess of everything that we're supposed to be taking care of. Political corruption, business corruption, greed, power, murder, sex trafficking—these are perpetrated by humans. I get angry at humans, shooting people on campuses, trafficking in kidnapped women and boys, prolonging governmental misconduct, profiteering in business. That's what I get angry at. You want God to solve our problems. The only real solution is to change the human heart, and that's exactly the problem God continually addresses. But as a lifelong atheist, you (along with many others) have turned your back on the only real solution. Don't blame God.

But what does any of that have to do with the resurrection?

[anonmoniker1111]

[quote="jimwalton"]I honestly believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I have examined the evidence over and over with a fine-toothed comb, and am convinced that the evidence is both worthy and convincing enough to warrant a positive conclusion. The facts that we know, combined with the historical corroboration, combined with the subsequent change in the culture, the growth of the Church, and the change in people's lives all give evidence to its veracity. I know that people who presuppose that miracles are not possible can't buy into it—I get that. But I'm sold on it. If we are trying to reason to the most logical conclusion, resurrection is that conclusion.
.....[quote]

Can you elaborate on some of this? What "...facts that we know" specifically? What "historical corroboration" exactly?

I also disagree that "...the subsequent change in the culture, the growth of the Church, and the change in people's lives all give evidence to its veracity". I do agree that all those things give evidence to the power of the idea of Jesus rising from the dead. It's something that resonates with a lot of people. No argument there. But just because a lot of people find something to be interesting or life changing or think it's true, that doesn't necessary make it true or false.

[jimwalton]

Sure. Glad to talk.

First you want to talk about facts we know specifically. Here are some of them, to get us started:

1. Jesus was crucified and buried. Historians, both Christian and non-Christian, admit the evidence is strong of the historicity of his death and burial. Tacitus (AD 55-120): "Cristus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate..."
2. The tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body. The easiest way to squelch the stories of alleged resurrection would be to produce a body. That was never done. The site of his tomb was known to Christians and non-Christians like. If the tomb had not been empty, it would have been impossible for the movement called Christianity to explode into existence in the very same city in such a short time.
3. The lives of the people who claim to have seen Jesus in a resurrected form after his death were radically changed. Of the ones we know by name and about their lives, there was a distinctive difference in them after the "resurrection". We have seven ancient sources that the disciples lived lives of deprivation, persecution and suffering for their stance on the resurrection. We also have no evidence that the apostles were considered to be dishonest or mad.
4. The Church (Christianity) grew after the alleged resurrection, and it even began in the city of Jesus' execution. The people who turned to Jesus (to Christianity) would have been the same ones who had been exposed to his person and teaching while he was alive, and it's reasonable to assume that many of them had been witnesses to his death, since there were great crowds in Jerusalem at Passover.

There are many other facts that the NT teaches, but we'll set those aside for now. Our task is to arrive at the most reasonable explanation for at least the items I've mentioned. It's indisputable that Jesus' disciples taught he was raised from the dead and appeared to individuals/groups. It's also indisputable that Jesus' disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event. Any who would oppose the historical resurrection need to produce credible explanations for the empty tomb and the changed lives. I'd love to discuss it with you.

Now let's talk about the historical corroboration.

1. Clement of Rome, in about AD 95, wrote, "[The apostles were] fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ." It's true that the apostles taught with confidence that Jesus had risen from the dead.

2. Polykarp, writing in about AD 125: "The one who raised Jesus from the dead will raise us also." It's an extrabiblical reference to the resurrection.

3. We have the gospel of Mark. Though skeptics question its author, its date of writing is generally admitted to be quite early (possibly late 50s-early 60s). Papias, in about AD 120, says that Mark wrote the memoirs of the apostle Peter. Most historians, even critics, agree with this assessment. There is evidence that Mark got his passion narrative from an earlier source that was written in the late 30s, just four years after Jesus' resurrection.

4. The gospel of Luke. Most scholars agree that he got his information from primary sources and was a traveling companion of Paul's.

5. The Gospel of Matthew. Though some scholars question his authorship (I think the evidence is in Matthew's favor), there is eyewitness testimony in the book.

6. The Gospel of John. Evidence is strong that it was written by John. There is an abundance of eyewitness testimony in the book.

7. The apostle Paul, a one-time hostile persecutor of Christians and a non-believer, converted to faith in Christ after claiming to see the risen Christ in a vision. He is a very early source to the resurrection narrative, and he knew Jesus' disciples.

8. Josephus (end of the 1st century): "...for he appeared to them alive on the third day..."

But don't we want non-Christian evidence? No. Suppose we had a person who said "I saw Christ after his death, he definitely rose from the dead, and I talked to him, but I don't believe any of it," we'd think he was a moron.

You expressed that the idea of resurrection had power, resonating with people. I agree that just because people find an idea interesting doesn't make it true. But that doesn't fit the context of a preposterous idea proposed immediately after a known event in the city responsible for his brutal execution. We're talking resurrection here (scientifically impossible) after a barbaric crucifixion, not a cute story. It's not an interesting idea, but an outrageous claim. We also have to consider that no one was expecting a resurrection, so there was no predisposition to the reality, let alone the power of an idea, of a rising from the dead. Initially it wouldn't resonate, it would be risible. The only way to convince someone of such a thing was evidence, of which the Bible speaks. They didn't believe but became convinced and then turned into powerful witnesses to a story that was reasonably absurd—with nothing really to gain except ridicule and hardship from telling it. In my opinion the idea had no power; only the evidence had power.

Talk to me.

[anonmoniker1111]

Sure. Glad to talk.

First you want to talk about facts we know specifically. Here are some of them, to get us started:

1. Jesus was crucified and buried. Historians, both Christian and non-Christian, admit the evidence is strong of the historicity of his death and burial. Tacitus (AD 55-120): "Cristus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate..."
2. The tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body. The easiest way to squelch the stories of alleged resurrection would be to produce a body. That was never done. The site of his tomb was known to Christians and non-Christians like. If the tomb had not been empty, it would have been impossible for the movement called Christianity to explode into existence in the very same city in such a short time.
3. The lives of the people who claim to have seen Jesus in a resurrected form after his death were radically changed. Of the ones we know by name and about their lives, there was a distinctive difference in them after the "resurrection". We have seven ancient sources that the disciples lived lives of deprivation, persecution and suffering for their stance on the resurrection. We also have no evidence that the apostles were considered to be dishonest or mad.
4. The Church (Christianity) grew after the alleged resurrection, and it even began in the city of Jesus' execution. The people who turned to Jesus (to Christianity) would have been the same ones who had been exposed to his person and teaching while he was alive, and it's reasonable to assume that many of them had been witnesses to his death, since there were great crowds in Jerusalem at Passover.

There are many other facts that the NT teaches, but we'll set those aside for now. Our task is to arrive at the most reasonable explanation for at least the items I've mentioned. It's indisputable that Jesus' disciples taught he was raised from the dead and appeared to individuals/groups. It's also indisputable that Jesus' disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event. Any who would oppose the historical resurrection need to produce credible explanations for the empty tomb and the changed lives. I'd love to discuss it with you.

Now let's talk about the historical corroboration.

1. Clement of Rome, in about AD 95, wrote, "[The apostles were] fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ." It's true that the apostles taught with confidence that Jesus had risen from the dead.

2. Polykarp, writing in about AD 125: "The one who raised Jesus from the dead will raise us also." It's an extrabiblical reference to the resurrection.

3. We have the gospel of Mark. Though skeptics question its author, its date of writing is generally admitted to be quite early (possibly late 50s-early 60s). Papias, in about AD 120, says that Mark wrote the memoirs of the apostle Peter. Most historians, even critics, agree with this assessment. There is evidence that Mark got his passion narrative from an earlier source that was written in the late 30s, just four years after Jesus' resurrection.

4. The gospel of Luke. Most scholars agree that he got his information from primary sources and was a traveling companion of Paul's.

5. The Gospel of Matthew. Though some scholars question his authorship (I think the evidence is in Matthew's favor), there is eyewitness testimony in the book.

6. The Gospel of John. Evidence is strong that it was written by John. There is an abundance of eyewitness testimony in the book.

7. The apostle Paul, a one-time hostile persecutor of Christians and a non-believer, converted to faith in Christ after claiming to see the risen Christ in a vision. He is a very early source to the resurrection narrative, and he knew Jesus' disciples.

8. Josephus (end of the 1st century): "...for he appeared to them alive on the third day..."

But don't we want non-Christian evidence? No. Suppose we had a person who said "I saw Christ after his death, he definitely rose from the dead, and I talked to him, but I don't believe any of it," we'd think he was a moron.

You expressed that the idea of resurrection had power, resonating with people. I agree that just because people find an idea interesting doesn't make it true. But that doesn't fit the context of a preposterous idea proposed immediately after a known event in the city responsible for his brutal execution. We're talking resurrection here (scientifically impossible) after a barbaric crucifixion, not a cute story. It's not an interesting idea, but an outrageous claim. We also have to consider that no one was expecting a resurrection, so there was no predisposition to the reality, let alone the power of an idea, of a rising from the dead. Initially it wouldn't resonate, it would be risible. The only way to convince someone of such a thing was evidence, of which the Bible speaks. They didn't believe but became convinced and then turned into powerful witnesses to a story that was reasonably absurd—with nothing really to gain except ridicule and hardship from telling it. In my opinion the idea had no power; only the evidence had power.

Talk to me.

The problem with a lot of what you stated above is that a it's a big version of the telephone game: person A believes it because they heard it from person B who believes it because they heard it from person C who believes it because they heard it from person D, etc. which basically gets us to where we are today. Even if we could go all the way back and find the first person who claims they saw Jesus walking around alive after he had been killed (assuming that was the original story), then that's still just a claim being made by somebody. It's not necessary true or false just because of that but it's not great evidence, given that it's an extraordinary. Anybody can claim anything, much like on the internet. Objective proof is what we want.

With regards to the synoptic gospels, I strongly disagree with you there. Most modern new testament scholars (who very often are strong believers as well) agree that the authors claimed by the bible (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) did NOT write those works. None of the gospels self-identify the authors. Those names were attributed after the fact when the Bible was created. Jesus's earliest followers were uneducated fisherman who could not read or write and spoke Aramaic. The earliest versions of the Gospels were in Greek and show some level of sophistication. It's a big leap to suppose that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were their original authors.

Furthermore, the Bible was created to contain works that highlight the whole story behind Christianity. It's a marketing document and a not an impartial historical narrative. Sure, there are historical facts in there but there's also a lot of historical inaccuracies conjecture, circular reasoning, and salesmanship. I would say it's not a good source of history especially if we're trying to look at something objectively.

Christianity did grow quickly. You're definitely right on that. But do you know that the rate of Christianity's growth is about the same as the rate of growth of Mormonism? (I can cite the source later but I'm writing all of this off the top of my head). Do you think Joseph Smith had some sort of divine revelation in upstate New York? Again, I think the symbolism behind the idea of Jesus's resurrection touches a very powerful human emotion and that's the impetus but I don't think the growth rate in and of itself is proof of an actual resurrection.

I also agree with you that Jesus was most likely a real person who was killed by the Romans. The empty tomb claim is interesting but there are other plausible answers than a resurrection. Have you ever read anything by Bart Ehrman for instance? He's a well regarded N.T. scholar at the University of North Carolina. Here's an interesting take on the empty tomb story: http://ehrmanblog.org/women-at-the-tomb/

Sorry for typos. I'm writing this on the fly.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for good discussion. Glad to converse about this stuff.

The first problem I see is that you have no evidence for most, if not all, of what you are claiming. On what basis have you concluded that it was like the telephone game? That's the evidence I'd like to see, if you have it. The account of the resurrection is deliberate to show that it was not a story heard but an event witnessed. The records we have say it was an eyewitness account, and we have no record to support what you are claiming.

But it also sounds like you are disparaging all eyewitness accounts. "]Just because somebody] saw Jesus walking around alive after he had been killed...[is] just a claim being made by somebody." Eyewitnesses and personal testimony are a valid source of information in our courts of law. Granted, they have to be weighed, but they're not disregarded just because they are a claim being made by someone. We believe personal testimony and anecdotal evidence all the time, though not always. The source has to be weighed. And that's a credible point with the resurrection story: there is no logical reason to doubt the reliability of the sources of the story, except a priori bias. Anybody can claim anything, you are right, and that's why objective proof is given. John is careful to lay out his gospel account (Jn. 20) like a court case: stone removed from the entrance, body missing, grave clothes lying in a particular position—that's the hard "objective proof" you're asking for. Then we also have an appearance to Mary, appearance to disciples, and appearance to Thomas. Now, if you don't go for the hard evidence, I can expect that you have hard evidence in the other direction: perhaps the body was still there, that the stone was not removed, that...whatever. If hard evidence decides it, what hard evidence do you present to support your case?

The discussion about the authors of the gospels is a long one. I'll have to keep it short. Every evidence we have is that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Every early attestation is unanimous. None of them were ever attributed to anyone else. All of the accusation and skepticism of the modern era is educated guesswork based in modern skepticism without any objective evidence. In contrast to your claim (and you're welcome to investigate it further), the names were connected with those respective gospels from the very beginning.

I don't know what makes you say that Jesus' earliest followers were illiterate. Every Jewish boy in the 1st century was schooled in the Torah and taught to read and write it. It was part of their upbringing. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. Many people of Palestine were tri- or quadra-lingual: Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. We don't know if they could read and write in ALL of those languages, but those were all languages of the culture. Jesus spoke with centurions, so we can assume he spoke Latin. He conversed with Gentiles, so he probably knew Greek. Aramaic was his native tongue. This kind of linguistic capability was common, just as in many Latin American countries today they speak their native dialect, Spanish, and some English.

We also know that at least some of the writers of the NT used secretaries (Rom. 16.22). The elevated Greek of some of the NT writings is no particular surprise, and not necessarily an evidence of authorship.

"the Bible was created to contain works that highlight the whole story behind Christianity." That's definitely true. Mark 1.1 and Luke 1.1-4 are explicit about that. But you need to give me some proof of your claim that it's a marketing document. Is it impartial? Of course not; they had seen the risen Christ and were convinced. There's not doubt that they have an agenda. John is explicit about his bias (Jn. 20.31). Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But bias doesn’t mean you’re wrong. If it were, then we can’t believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust, or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don't come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples' lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus' claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins has an objective, an agenda. Luddeman has an agenda. The reporters about Arab Spring in Egypt a few years ago had an agenda. We don't reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased.

I'm familiar with the works of Ehrman. He also is a biased writer, but you seem to attribute credibility to him. I don't think Ehrman's arguments have the weight of other arguments; each one of us has to decide in his or her own mind. We study, we weigh evidences and credibility, we reason to our best abilities, and we make decisions. I think Ehrman is wrong; you think he's right. That's why these discussions are so much fun! But they're no different than arguments about politics, economics, education strategies, business strategies, or even the evening news. Just because Ehrman says something doesn't mean it's true or is accurate. If, as you said earlier in the discussion, it's just what someone is claiming, then it has no substance anyway. Anybody can claim anything, and so we always have to be weighing and reasoning.

Here's my bottom line for this part of the conversation:

1. I think the objective evidence for the resurrection is strong. It's not irrefutable, and I wish we had more, but it's strong. None of us can go in a time machine to observe directly. We can't possibly look for absolute certainty, but we can look for reasonable certainty. It's the way we do all historical investigation.

2. So also, the writings of the NT have reliability and credibility. A few weeks ago I traced through (in response to another question) the entire gospel of Luke looking for events that have historical corroboration and credibility, and those that don't. I found that about 98% are reliable, proved, and corroborated, and about 2% are debated. That's pretty good. So objective proof is available and gives strength to the case that Luke is a reliable historian. I have investigated the objective and subjective evidence for the authorship of the books of the NT, and again, the case is strong for the traditional assignment of almost all of the books (some are much debated with little evidence in either direction), especially the gospels.

3. The writers of the Bible clearly show their agenda, but that's no reason to warrant the claim of "untrue". It is not only possible, but commonplace, that people with agendas write very reliable documents.

4. What I perceive in the things that you said, and I'd like to keep discussing them, is a whole lot of opinion with not much to back it up: (a) telephone game, (b) the assumed unreliability of personal testimony, (c) the anonymity of the gospels makes them untrue narratives, (d) the Bible is just a marketing document, (e) historical inaccuracies, (f) circular reasoning, and (g) because Mormonism grew as fast as Christianity makes Christianity just an emotional tale. We can discuss your evidence for these claims.

I would like to keep talking. Obviously I have examined the evidence and concluded quite differently from the skeptics of our culture, and apparently from you as well. But don't just give me opinion; show me what ya got.

[anonmoniker1111]

Thanks for good discussion. Glad to converse about this stuff.

The first problem I see is that you have no evidence for most, if not all, of what you are claiming. On what basis have you concluded that it was like the telephone game? That's the evidence I'd like to see, if you have it. The account of the resurrection is deliberate to show that it was not a story heard but an event witnessed. The records we have say it was an eyewitness account, and we have no record to support what you are claiming.

But it also sounds like you are disparaging all eyewitness accounts. "]Just because somebody] saw Jesus walking around alive after he had been killed...[is] just a claim being made by somebody." Eyewitnesses and personal testimony are a valid source of information in our courts of law. Granted, they have to be weighed, but they're not disregarded just because they are a claim being made by someone. We believe personal testimony and anecdotal evidence all the time, though not always. The source has to be weighed. And that's a credible point with the resurrection story: there is no logical reason to doubt the reliability of the sources of the story, except a priori bias. Anybody can claim anything, you are right, and that's why objective proof is given. John is careful to lay out his gospel account (Jn. 20) like a court case: stone removed from the entrance, body missing, grave clothes lying in a particular position—that's the hard "objective proof" you're asking for. Then we also have an appearance to Mary, appearance to disciples, and appearance to Thomas. Now, if you don't go for the hard evidence, I can expect that you have hard evidence in the other direction: perhaps the body was still there, that the stone was not removed, that...whatever. If hard evidence decides it, what hard evidence do you present to support your case?

The discussion about the authors of the gospels is a long one. I'll have to keep it short. Every evidence we have is that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Every early attestation is unanimous. None of them were ever attributed to anyone else. All of the accusation and skepticism of the modern era is educated guesswork based in modern skepticism without any objective evidence. In contrast to your claim (and you're welcome to investigate it further), the names were connected with those respective gospels from the very beginning.

I don't know what makes you say that Jesus' earliest followers were illiterate. Every Jewish boy in the 1st century was schooled in the Torah and taught to read and write it. It was part of their upbringing. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. Many people of Palestine were tri- or quadra-lingual: Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. We don't know if they could read and write in ALL of those languages, but those were all languages of the culture. Jesus spoke with centurions, so we can assume he spoke Latin. He conversed with Gentiles, so he probably knew Greek. Aramaic was his native tongue. This kind of linguistic capability was common, just as in many Latin American countries today they speak their native dialect, Spanish, and some English.

We also know that at least some of the writers of the NT used secretaries (Rom. 16.22). The elevated Greek of some of the NT writings is no particular surprise, and not necessarily an evidence of authorship.

"the Bible was created to contain works that highlight the whole story behind Christianity." That's definitely true. Mark 1.1 and Luke 1.1-4 are explicit about that. But you need to give me some proof of your claim that it's a marketing document. Is it impartial? Of course not; they had seen the risen Christ and were convinced. There's not doubt that they have an agenda. John is explicit about his bias (Jn. 20.31). Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But bias doesn’t mean you’re wrong. If it were, then we can’t believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust, or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don't come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples' lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus' claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins has an objective, an agenda. Luddeman has an agenda. The reporters about Arab Spring in Egypt a few years ago had an agenda. We don't reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased.

I'm familiar with the works of Ehrman. He also is a biased writer, but you seem to attribute credibility to him. I don't think Ehrman's arguments have the weight of other arguments; each one of us has to decide in his or her own mind. We study, we weigh evidences and credibility, we reason to our best abilities, and we make decisions. I think Ehrman is wrong; you think he's right. That's why these discussions are so much fun! But they're no different than arguments about politics, economics, education strategies, business strategies, or even the evening news. Just because Ehrman says something doesn't mean it's true or is accurate. If, as you said earlier in the discussion, it's just what someone is claiming, then it has no substance anyway. Anybody can claim anything, and so we always have to be weighing and reasoning.

Here's my bottom line for this part of the conversation:

1. I think the objective evidence for the resurrection is strong. It's not irrefutable, and I wish we had more, but it's strong. None of us can go in a time machine to observe directly. We can't possibly look for absolute certainty, but we can look for reasonable certainty. It's the way we do all historical investigation.

2. So also, the writings of the NT have reliability and credibility. A few weeks ago I traced through (in response to another question) the entire gospel of Luke looking for events that have historical corroboration and credibility, and those that don't. I found that about 98% are reliable, proved, and corroborated, and about 2% are debated. That's pretty good. So objective proof is available and gives strength to the case that Luke is a reliable historian. I have investigated the objective and subjective evidence for the authorship of the books of the NT, and again, the case is strong for the traditional assignment of almost all of the books (some are much debated with little evidence in either direction), especially the gospels.

3. The writers of the Bible clearly show their agenda, but that's no reason to warrant the claim of "untrue". It is not only possible, but commonplace, that people with agendas write very reliable documents.

4. What I perceive in the things that you said, and I'd like to keep discussing them, is a whole lot of opinion with not much to back it up: (a) telephone game, (b) the assumed unreliability of personal testimony, (c) the anonymity of the gospels makes them untrue narratives, (d) the Bible is just a marketing document, (e) historical inaccuracies, (f) circular reasoning, and (g) because Mormonism grew as fast as Christianity makes Christianity just an emotional tale. We can discuss your evidence for these claims.

I would like to keep talking. Obviously I have examined the evidence and concluded quite differently from the skeptics of our culture, and apparently from you as well. But don't just give me opinion; show me what ya got.

Wow, that's a long response.

Let's take a step back. It seems that for both of us the gospels figure prominently in our argument. Can you cite any support for your argument that they were authored by who the bible claims to authors to be? Books, papers, whatever. I'd be curious to see that. I agree that if the gospels were authored by who they claim, that be a step towards your conclusion.

By the way, just curious, but what would convince you that you might be wrong?

[jimwalton]

Glad to comment. And as to your last question, which I'll answer first, hard evidence would convince me otherwise. As to the authorship of the gospels, I'll give you my own research, though I'm not sure I can fit all four in one post. Heads up ahead of time: I'll keep it in outline form, but it could be long.

MATTHEW:

Arguments for Matthew as author:
1. The author was a conservative-minded Jew, aware of but not inclined to sectarian views. This fits the description of a Levite (Matthew is also known as Levi).
2. The gospel preserves material that details Messianic titles already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would show the author is familiar with the OT and its Messianic prophecies, and that the document was likely written early.
3. The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. This would fit with Matthew being a Levite and a tax collector.
4. The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from a Levite.
5. We do not find Matthew, despite what some say, engaging in an attempt to represent Jesus as a “new Moses.” To the contrary, we find that the author’s interest lies in carefully preserving sayings of Jesus that re-establish the true principles of the Mosaic Law.
6. The book's collection of parables reflects a consuming interest in the spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people. The ministry of Jesus required him to re-examine the theological implications of God's choice of his ancient people.
7. Mark is not a necessary source, neither was it necessarily written first. Some scholars are now re-evaluating the "Q" theory, and the Marcan primacy theory. Matthew could have been written much earlier than formerly supposed.
8. The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
9. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Hermas—all first century writers—quote from the Gospel of Matthew; Hermas mentions that there are 4 gospels. These all indicate an early writing and circulation.
10. The superscription "According to Matthew" was part of the first edition that we still have (p4 fragment of a flyleaf, mid-2nd c. AD) and is found on all known manuscripts of the gospel starting at around AD 130. Papias, in about 125, attributes it to Matthew. It is also attributed to Matthew in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (4th c.). We have no documents that attribute the gospel to any other writer.
11. The early church fathers were unanimous in attributing the gospel to Matthew.

Arguments against Matthew as author:
1. Tradition says Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic, but our Greek text doesn't seem to be a translation of an Aramaic original.
2. Matthew doesn't write like an eyewitness. There are very few eyewitness factors in his gospel.
3. Matthew would not have needed to copy from Mark and Q if he were an eyewitness.

MARK:

Arguments for Mark as author:
1. Papias, in about AD 125, attributes it to Mark. Clement of Alexandria also attributes it to Mark, and claims that the gospel was written while Peter was still alive (Peter is thought to have been martyred in about AD 64).
2. The author preserved Aramaic expressions, and indication of early writing and by someone who knew Aramaic. (Disclaimer: just about everyone knew Aramaic.) The number of Aramaic words and phrases are evidence that the author was a Jerusalemite.
3. The book is written in an atmosphere where the theological understanding of the ministry and message of Jesus are still in their primitive and elemental forms. This would give evidence of very early writing and of someone familiar with the actual events and words of Jesus.
4. The author's Jewishness can e inferred from his frequent use of biblical quotations and allusions.
5. The gospel has similarities to Paul's themes. Mark was a traveling companion of Paul's.
6. We have no documentary evidence attributing it to any author other than Mark.
7. The early church fathers were unanimous in attributing the gospel to Mark.
8. Some Marcan material seems to stem from the controversy over the status of Gentiles, clearly a concern in Paul's writings in the 50s, and a completely dead issue after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Mark was a traveling companion of Paul's, a close friend of Peter's. This theme would give evidence that Mark was written early, and Mark could easily have been the writer.
9. It doesn't make sense that anyone would adopt Mark's name as a pseudonym.
10. The quality of the Greek is not terribly high, consistent with Palestinian Jews.

Arguments against Mark's authorship:
1. The Gospel seems to have a Gentile orientation. This could speak against a Jewish author, or confirm that the author was well-travelled in Gentile circles, so it's not a strong argument against Mark.
2. The alleged mistakes and/or unconcern about Jewish laws and customs. (There are about 3.)
3. The supposed mistakes about Palestinian geography.

LUKE:

Arguments for Luke as author:
1. The uniform testimony of the early church is that Luke was the author.
2. There are numerous technical medical terms in the gospel, consistent with Dr. Luke (Col. 4.14) as the author.
3. The Greek in Luke has a high quality consistent with a Gentile author.
4. His knowledge of Palestinian geography and customs betrays that he is not a Palestinian.
5. He claims not to have been an eyewitness, but to have gotten his information from others, which is consistent with Luke.
6. The author was well educated.
7. The author was acquainted with both Old Testament literary traditions and Hellenistic literary techniques.
8. The title “According to Luke” is on the oldest extant manuscripts.
9. Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero’s persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64), or Peter (65). If Acts was written in the early 60s, Luke’s gospel would have been prior to that.
10. Many expressions in Acts are very early and primitive. That puts Luke early.
11. Acts deals with issues that were especially important prior to Jerusalem’s fall (70). Luke was likely written in the late 50s.
12. More than half the material (59%) found in the gospel of Luke is not in any of the other three gospels. Which gospel came first, and the source of the material, is still a matter of debate.
13. Luke/Acts should be dated prior to the formation or circulation of the Pauline corpus. There is no internal evidence that Luke was acquainted with Paul's letters, much less with his corpus as such.

Arguments against Luke as author: I couldn't find any.

JOHN:

Arguments for John's authorship:
1. The statement in Jn. 21.24 affirms John's authorship.
2. The character of the "beloved disciple" in the gospel fits the image of John that we know from history.
3. Son of Zebedee (21.2)
4. If it were written by someone else, they likely would have mentioned John's name to bolster the credibility of the work.
5. The writer knew Palestine and its culture very well.
6. The writer knew the topography of Palestine.
7. The writing style is that of a Jew of Palestinian culture.
8. Many many texts in John have the touch of an eyewitness.
9. The controversies written about are 1st-century controversies, not the kinds of questions discussed in the 2nd century.
10. The writer had good knowledge of the 12, their personalities, conversations and thoughts, the places the frequented, etc.
11. We have no documents attributing the gospel to any other author. The uniform testimony of the early church is that John was the author.

Arguments against John as author:
1. He hardly used any material in common with the other three gospels.
2. The writing style is radically different from the other three gospels.
3. The reference to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is not a natural way to speak of oneself.
4. Most of the action in the book takes place in Judea. If John were the author, we would expect more interest in Galilee.
5. There is no mention of the Transfiguration or of the agony in Gethsemane, in both of which John had special access.

My conclusions: As you can see, I think the evidence weighs very heavily in favor of the traditional authors of the gospels. Add to that that there is absolutely no hard evidence of any other direction. All of the evidence against traditional authorship is conjecture, and in my opinion far weaker than the evidence in favor.

Sorry this was so long.