Correct me if I am wrong on this, because my bible history is fuzzy

Oral transmission was prevalent in th Jewish tradition, early Christians were Jewish, it is quite possible that Jesus’s life was preserved orally and then written down.

Jesus discipled Peter, Peter discipled the gospel writer of Mark, so it can appear that th Gospel of Mark is historically linked to Jesus via Peter.

Peter also has interacted with Paul, they had their disagreements

Paul had a “vision”, Luke was discipled by Paul, Luke used Mark as a source and probably Paul’s interpretation, however the core accuracy of what Paul taught was not questioned by Peter, only the aspects of Jewish Tradition of rituals/covenants in comparison to application to Gentiles. Gospel of Luke establishes some credibility, we know Paul exists, we assume the gospel writer of Luke exists, and historically we presume Peter exists.

No comments on Matthew

Gospel of John is questionable, but it appears Polycarp was discipled by John, perhaps not John the gospel writer, but John the apostle/evangelist. John the apostle is linked to Jesus, Polycarp is linked to John, Ireanus is linked to polycarp, and so forth.

This is off the top of my head, but what is the argument against this?

Only Jesus can do this work in a man, and all we need to do is believe on Him whom God sent.

What is the nature of your change of heart/mind? Could you elaborate?

Zoe: I wonder just how many of those people who have read your original arguments in The Case For Christ, realize that you no longer use those arguments regarding the martyrdom of the disciples?

First, even if the gospels had been written when you believe they were, there were no printing presses back then, so the assumption that everyone would have known of the writings is preposterous. (The population’s illiteracy is another factor that pops to mind).

Second, I won’t get into this, because admittedly, I am not a theologian. But most non-fundamentalist scholars put the writings of the gospels from 40-to-100 years after the Crucifixion. That’s a long time.

You can argue with me all you want. I, frankly, don’t like to argue. But there is no way you are going to convince me of the authenticity of the gospels.

To me, they’re DOCTORED documents. You feel free to believe as you wish. It is your right.

But keep in mind that I didn’t reach that conclusion by sitting on my living room watching TV. I have read much on the issue, including the infamous Case for Christ

I just wanted to add as well that the person who is believed to have written Mark (even though all of the gospels are anonymous) wasn’t a disciple of Jesus — he was a disciple of Peter who later wrote about Jesus. Mark forms the foundation from which the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke (who also wasn’t a disciple of Jesus) draw much of their information from. Not only this, but the accounts of the martyrdom of Mark, Matthew and Luke (John lived to old age) are regarded as quite dubious at best by modern historians, and were perhaps pious myth generated by the early church to lend credence to certain claims.

The Gospels were written within a generation of Jesus’ life and death

Gospel of Mark: 65-80 CE
Gospel of Matthew: 80-100 CE
Gospel of Luke: 80-130 CE
Gospel of John: 90-120 CE

(Early dates by conservative Christian scholars, later dates by most liberal scholars – best arguments are usually somewhere in between). None of these books make the same claims as Paul’s letters. There is no form of “Grace through Faith” of any sort in these narratives. Jesus did not abolish the law in these narratives, he re-interpreted it (sometimes making it harsher). At times, these narratives conflict with each other because they represent different communities of the Jesus movement.

you could say that Satan overthrew God and now controls the world…but it would be because we allowed.

We couldn’t have allowed it – this could have happened before we were even created. For all we know, Satan created us and has been toying with us ever since.

Anyway, if I were God over the world and I were evil, I can think just off the top of my head of quite a few things that I could do to torture people.

Hmmm…. like create a lake of sulphur, a place of eternal torment for those who do not worship you?

Besides, I thought to whole concept of evil was that, in order for evil to be present, a certain measure of good must also be present in order for evil to pervert the good.

Or vice versa?

You also mention the disciple’s references to Old Testament scripture. You speak as though these were cleaver masterminds in some grand plot to fool the world.

Woah, where did you get that story from? I never mentioned any great plot to fool the world. The writers of the New Testament wrote in the midrashic style – a very common Jewish way of writing which other Jews could relate to. Their style was not concerned with minute historical facts and details, historical accuracy was not a priority – it was the underlying message underneath it that counted (as well as the ability to read it through the liturgical calendar alongside their readings of the Torah).

They were fishers and tax collectors, the lowest of the low in that society. Why would they do this whole thing if they didn’t believe it?

The writers of the New Testament were not disciples. Even most Christian scholars agree with me on that one. I heartedly recommend some critical Biblical scholarship. The earliest gospel, Mark (not a disciple and only connected to Peter through a tradition of necessity) was, at the earliest, written twenty-five years after the life of Jesus (and up to forty years after).

Moreover, why would they believe it unless something happened that made them believe after Jesus’ death on the cross?

Did you see Jesus after the cross? No, but you still believe, simply because you want the hope-filled message it delivers.
I could ask you the same question about thousands of other such religious claims throughout various civilizations – you would have to not only dismiss the current major religions of the Buddha, Mohammad, and the Jews, but of every obscure religion around the world who make similar fantastical claims.

Also, someone said that we don’t have any historical evidence about Jesus (other than Biblical canon) until a couple of centuries after he died. Well…

I can’t speak for that someone. Their is much written text that could be considered evidence. However, all you have supplied with the passage from wikipedia is that their were Christians during that time, which we already knew because Paul’s earliest work that we have today (1 Thessalonians) is dated to around 50-55 CE. I don’t doubt the existence of Christians nor even the historical figure of Jesus. What i doubt is that the major claims to a resurrected Jesus come from a person that never met Jesus (Paul) and for some reason made huge ontological claims concerning this state of resurrection that Jesus, during his life, never did (according to even later written gospels).

I find it odd that, according to Tacitus, the Christians were convicted of “crimes against humanity” and were thus put to inhumane tortures…and yet the Church at the time grew through all of this.

Why is this odd?
As well, who says your church is the true church or even the same church as their church? Your church’s theology, I can guarantee, does not resemble the earliest Christianity in any way shape or form. The church continues to evolve and compromise in every generation (starting with Paul, who weaved in and out of Roman and Jewish authorities with ad hoc theology which to this day cannot be reconciled by itself without ignoring parts of it).

Let me tell you another story I heard that Lenin’s daughter told about his death…

The Christian subculture is full of casual myths – I know, I was part of it. This story, like Darwin renouncing evolution on his deathbed, is simple another creation of the Christian imagination. It didn’t happen, but it is nice and comforting to think it did.

This sort of represents my case for God: there’s far, far too many things that I see that can’t be explained by random chance (answered prayer, biological evolution, etc.)

Biological evolution didn’t happen by random chance – please pick up a science book before criticizing something you obviously deny based on your presuppositions – at least I have had the courtesy to study your beliefs. As for answered prayer – you know this is flimsy. You celebrate the answered ones but dismiss the unanswered ones for various reasons (forgetting about them, God saying no, God knowing what is best, etc.).

Regards.

How could the writers of both the Old and New Testament know that the Middle East would still be the center of world attention thousands of years ago? How could they know that Israel would be a “cup of trembling”, even in ur generation? How could they accurrately predict that muslim nations would be aligned against israel? How can you account for the Bible predicting that there would always be enmity between the Jews and the arab world?

Because it’s what’s called a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. That’s also a theme running through the last two books of another fairly famous recent series of books:

“But Harry, never forget that what the prophecy says is only significant because Voldemort made it so.” – Albus Dumbledore

The prophecies in the bible didn’t predict the problems in the mideast between the Jews and Arabs – they caused them. Without prophecies that they would take back their holy land, the Jews would have not felt obliged to take back Israel or to displace and mistreat the people they found there. The violence between Arab and Jew in the mideast is a direct result of the Jews determination to see their prophecies fulfilled.

How could the Bible also predict that final world war would occur in the Middle East, which doesn’t seem to far fetched?

But it hasn’t happened yet, so you can’t tell. And how would you gauge a “final world war”? World War I was characterized as “The War to End All Wars”, except that it didn’t. Every major war leaves us shaking our heads and saying “never again”. Then a new generation refuses to learn the lessons of their fathers, and makes some of the same mistakes, and drags us back into war again. As long as people are competing for scarce resources, we will be fighting one another.