[JerryLove]

No I used the dictionary definition from real dictionary--especially without concern for the needs or interst of others. And no I do not equate especially with alwys either.

So now "Webster's Collegiate" is not a "real dictionary"? You have repeatedly and vehemently asserted that "always" was the case, depsite a complete lack of any definition anywhere to use such language, and despite the fact your "authoratitive appeal" doesn't return emails.

It is a claim nonetheless. I have just been repeatedly asking on what evidential basis you form your claim of doubt on.

I asked the authority on weather I doubt (me) and I told myself "yes, I do doubt".

I can with a high degree of confidence say that Josephus and Pliny, and Trajan and other historical writers about Jesus bar Joseph did not footnote there writings (as it was not the practice of the day anyway) because people 2 millenia afterwards wwould not asccept the fact that they were writing on things they had garnered info on.

He didn't footnote *because* people would not accept his writings? Can you prove your claim that this is the reason? Or are you just asserting a blind belief?

Yes it did serve to spread their faith in someone. Bu thtat does not of neccesity make it "dubious". What evidence do you have to support they may not be accurate in their reporting.

The evidence that it is an uncorroborated, self-serving work.

But you have been given evidence.

I have been given claims. I have rejected them as sufficient evidence because of their self-serving (in the case of the gospels) nature.

Remember even self serving eyewitness accoiunts can be truthful.

You seem to have been arguing that they cannot; but yes, being self-serving does not make it untrue... It does make it unreliable unless its corroborated.

Do you reject all historical documents this way--all things are guilty until proven innocent?

Self-serving works are viewed with skepticism unless they can be validated... yes.

Is this the standard? Once again you are free to consider anything you wish "dubious" and "untrustworthy", I am just asking why you hold this. What evidence do you have that would say that these writings should not be considered truthful.

The should be considered "suspect" for their lack of independant corroboration, and their self-serving nature.

BTW the last and this post are nolidad--PC problems still exist. Had to post this because I also never said self serving things disregard truth.

You said "Self serving is extreme selfishness with intentional disregard for others."

I've pointed out that the dictionary says "especially" or "often", and you've repeatedly asserted that there *must* be selfishness and disregard for others. You have equivocated "often" and "especially" with "always".

From you:
"In order to be self serving--one does ignore the needs of others to satisfy ones own needs--thats why iot is called self serving." - 10-12-2003, 08:19 PM

"Yes the word especially is a modifier, it makes the one serving his own interests even crueler and more self cenntered thasn just one who casulaay iognores others. " - 10-12-2003, 12:53 PM

I think, where English said "especially when it's bad" and turned it into "when it's especially bad". The trouble being that the latter is not the definition of the word.

Also I hate to nag--but even if we consider the gospels self serving, please supply us with empirical evidence why they are not truthful when saying their was Jesus who they claim is called the Messiah or Christ.

I'm not claiming, at present, that they are untrue. I'm claiming they are unreliable because they are self-serving and uncorroborated. I've been claiming this for about 8 pages now, do you think you will manage to understand this claim any month soon?

Well I would gladly start if their was a book written about a giant platypus, their were over 500 eyewitnesses to that giant platypus, if some of these witnesses wrote about the platypus as being divine and then founded a religion on it.

And if you prove 500 people could personally testify as witnesses to Jesus's historical existance, then I would conclude he exists. It takes no effort at all for me to say "and 500 people gathered around and witnessed the Giant Platypus".

So what is your positive support?
A couple wrote about Jesus (more than a couple wrote about Zeus).
The couple people claim lots of people say Jesus (Zeus freed the world from the Titans, I'm sure everyone saw that)
There was a religion formed around it (ditto)

None of this is compelling.

You see I can choose to reject anything historical I want to, but if I do not come up with evidence to support my rejections or "doubts" then it is just subjective opinion.

Either accepting or rejecting a non-testable fact is, by definition, opinion. This is intrinsic in my statements and far to obvious to be worth pointing out. IOW "duh!"

You fail to support your suppositions of dubiousness.

"It's uncorroborated and self-serving" is my support. I've been saying it for 8 pages... Let me repeat it for you a few times so *maybe* you can remember and not re-ask for a few posts.
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving
It's uncorroborated and self-serving

If we are to accept your critique of the biblke as how we should critique all writing, then every one who writes to prove a point should be automatically rejejcted until the veracity of their statements are proven

No. they should not be rejected nor accepted until they can be verified.

All newscasts, scientific journals and religious and philosophical statements should be rejejcted until we get first hand neutral or unbiased verification of their writings or reportings.

They should be considered dubious until confirmed. Stop equivocating (in this case equivocating "view with skepticism" with "reject").

The gospels *could* be correct... and uncle Joe *could* have really been abducted by aliens and given an anal probe, but the evidence is unconvincing that either story *is* correct.

[Joel]

I have been given claims. I have rejected them as sufficient evidence because of their self-serving (in the case of the gospels) nature.

But yet you offer no counter documents to prove their unreliabilty. You offer nothing that wouold call into question the character of the gospel writers. You offer no evidence that syas thes e"self serving" documents are untruthful.
Let us look at some general facts.

All these disciples ministered shortly after the events of the "alleged" christ took place. They won over thousands of converts from Judaism to the "alleged" Jewish Messiah. We see nothing in history, either the immediaste history or subsequent history, denying the historicity oif the person Jesus of Nazareth. We see writings from Christian and secualr history refer back to Him in a manner of writing that directly accepts Him as a real person (thogh some doubt all the miracles attributed to Him).

You have failed to sahow conspiracy on their part to deceive and defraud a nation then an empire with a possible myth. We have centuries of testimony. Jerry do you really think that billions throughout the century are just iverly simplistic and gullible??

Given the impact that Christians had by the middle of the first century on Israel and the Empire don't you think if Jesus was butr a myth He would have been easily exposed as ficticious?? Do yo uthink all those officials were unabvle to quell a myth when they were busy trying to destroy the followers of Jesus? To deny His existence defies Logic. To deny His divinity and miracles is a matter of apologetics.

So now "Webster's Collegiate" is not a "real dictionary"? You have repeatedly and vehemently asserted that "always" was the case, depsite a complete lack of any definition anywhere to use such language, and despite the fact your "authoratitive appeal" doesn't return emails

Well of course Merriams is a real dictionary--the real dictionary I referred is the name of an online dictionary. I never asserterd always was the case. I said self serving people are seeking their own gain ESPECIALLY without regards for others.

As for his returning emails--I will ask him to check tomorrow-He has been busy with a terminal ill father and a large event for the academy He headmasters.

You said "Self serving is extreme selfishness with intentional disregard for others."

I've pointed out that the dictionary says "especially" or "often", and you've repeatedly asserted that there *must* be selfishness and disregard for others. You have equivocated "often" and "especially" with "always".

From you:
"In order to be self serving--one does ignore the needs of others to satisfy ones own needs--thats why iot is called self serving." - 10-12-2003, 08:19 PM

"Yes the word especially is a modifier, it makes the one serving his own interests even crueler and more self cenntered thasn just one who casulaay iognores others. " - 10-12-2003, 12:53 PM

I still agree with these statements I made in light of the definition. People would not have a hard time picking out a self serving individual from a normal "average" person. Once again the reason it isd defined as self serving is because the individual is highly highly selfish. even his supposed charity is only to advance his own cause. I do not see why you have a problem with this at all. Self serving individuals are by definition doing things out of asn extreme selfish desire-regardless of who gets hurt or who benefits--ONCE AGAIN THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED SELF SERVING and not philanthropy.

Someone who is devoted to a cause is not self serving unless they created the cause for their own needs.

I asked the authority on weather I doubt (me) and I told myself "yes, I do doubt".

And that is your right and perogative. I just wish you would hold yourself to the standard you expect of others and just honestly admit that you have no factual reasons for doubting the historicity of Jesus, you have no factual reason for doubting the veracity of the writings and that your position is just based o n your own subjectivity. This I can accept. All this other folderol is just good exercise but doesn't gain a thiong otherwise.

He didn't footnote *because* people would not accept his writings? Can you prove your claim that this is the reason? Or are you just asserting a blind belief?

He didn't footnote cause footnoting wasn't thew practice back then as far as I know. the tool of footnoting is a much later invention. However if Josephus could foresee you ranting against his works, I am sure he would have tried to make some attempt to let you know all the sources he garnered his info from.

The evidence that it is an uncorroborated, self-serving work.

Thats circular reasoning.--You have no evidence that the works were used to promote the individuals and not their cause. If that is the case then communism, democracy, socialism all the isms, even evolution itself are all self serving. They reamin uncorrborated from independent sources. I do not see a nonevolutionist corroborating the truths of an evolutionist. I just see converts to the theory of evolution proclaim the veracity. I see socialism and the same reasons. Everything then of the philosophical nature is dubious.

You seem to have been arguing that they cannot; but yes, being self-serving does not make it untrue... It does make it unreliable unless its corroborated.

Never did I imply a self serving individual cannot tewll the truth. As far as its corroboration--you just dislike the saources and complain they are not close enough.in time. Once again what evidence do yo uwish to present that they could not or did not research before writing.

No. they should not be rejected nor accepted until they can be verified.

Well millions throughout the centuries have become convinced of the veracity of the Scriptures through the available evidences. I know you consider us unwise but that is OK. We can wait cause the truth is on the side of the beleiver (actuasly we are onthe side of truth for He is truth)

The gospels *could* be correct... and uncle Joe *could* have really been abducted by aliens and given an anal probe, but the evidence is unconvincing that either story *is* correct.

But once again we do not see history undergoing a profound change for "uncle Joe" and his anal probe. Jesus has far more evidence to support HIm than is needed to convince many sceptics that he truly did exist.

It's uncorroborated and self-serving

Once again unless the disciples created the cause and unless the cause promoted their own gain can it be called self serving--please show the self nature behind this cause the disciples promoted. their is no argument thast the disciples were intently serving a cause, but self serving requires more proof than you saying so,

[nolidad]

Main Entry: self-serv·ing
Pronunciation: -'s&r-vi[ng]
Function: adjective
Date: 1827
: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others
- self-serv·ing·ly adverb

M-Ws online dictionary defintion.

[nolidad]

Main Entry: self-serv·ing
Pronunciation: -'s&r-vi[ng]
Function: adjective
Date: 1827
: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others
- self-serv·ing·ly adverb

M-Ws online dictionary defintion.

One entry found for self-serving.


Entry Word: self-serving
Function: adjective
Text: Synonyms EGOCENTRIC 2, egoistic, egomaniacal, egotistic, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-concerned, self-interested, self-involved, self-seeking

Rogets on line thesaurus.

Now if anyone can show me the self centered nature of the writings of the apostles and disciples I would like to see it! No one is disputing they were promoting a cause but I really need to see some evidence that the cause they were promoting was their own selfish nature.

If trhere are any definitions or synonyms that put sel;f serving in a more charitable light would someone please post them.

American Heritage online dictionary definition.

M-Ws on line thesaurus

[JerryLove]

The writing served an interest which they had a personal[self] desire to accomplish.

If I write a book saying what a great guy I am, the book is self serving. It's irellevent weather I am a great guy. If I write a post saying how the martial art I do is the best one, it's self-serving. It is irrelleven weather it is true.

The definations are both clear. You seem incapable of understanding "especially" as used in basic English, so I pointed you at a definition that used "often". Then you arge that the dictionary is wrong and start looking for synonyms. You'll notice not one of the synonyms has the same definition... wonder why? Because they are "similar", not "the same".

This is really ******* plain-language, since I don't believe anyone capable of breathing through their nose cannot understand it, I must presume at this point you are either in denial, or just deliberately being an ass. I'm done with this conversation.

PS. Like pretty much every other claim you've ever made of having support; yours failed to pan out. Your so-called friend who agreed with you, never wrote me back.

[nolidad]

The definations are both clear. You seem incapable of understanding "especially" as used in basic English, so I pointed you at a definition that used "often". Then you arge that the dictionary is wrong and start looking for synonyms. You'll notice not one of the synonyms has the same definition... wonder why? Because they are "similar", not "the same".

This is really ******* plain-language, since I don't believe anyone capable of breathing through their nose cannot understand it, I must presume at this point you are either in denial, or just deliberately being an ass. I'm done with this conversation

Sorry Jerry, but tis you wo is in denial here. According to all definitions posted, plus all thesoraus synonyms, plus english teachers and my administrative friend(who I will be seeing tonight and will verify if you emailed him) Self serving deeds are extreme acts of self centeredness and selfishness. You wish to make them these benign acts that have benefit to one self--but they are not. They are a deliberative act that one does to gain advantage over others ESPECIALLY without regards for the needs and concerns for others. It is not just me doing something because I care about it--it is like the man who has determinied to become the next head of the company and will claw his way to the top no matter who he has to step on to get there! Yo ureally need to accept word usage .

The writing served an interest which they had a personal[self] desire to accomplish.

That is not self serving.

Once again Jerry three dictionary definitins and 2 thesaurus postings give no implication that self serving is a benign act , but a heightened extreme self centered egotistical act. Now please show how the writings of the New Testament meet the dictionary (and not your own slef serving ) definition.

[dungscooperdave]

Oh my goodness. I can't believe you guys have seriously been haggling over one definition for so long. If you're looking for another vote on the matter (not that I make any claim whatsoever to be an expert on New Testament history or linguistics), I side with Jerry.

self-serving
adj.
serving one's own selfish interests, esp. at the expense of others

The word "especially" does not mean that it is necessarily at the expense of others, it simply means that it is often accompanied by acting at the expense of others.
Besides, the definition of the word isn't quite that important to the topic at hand here to argue over this much. I would have to again agree with Jerry here on this one, if a document serves the personal interests of the writer, it must be studied with some skepticism to make sure that the author was not writing the document simply for self-gratification. To do otherwise would be foolish, as we would end up believing all sorts of absurd things.

It's obvious that if this discussion doesn't move forward with this issue, then it is over. However, I am quite disheartened to see such an interesting topic pushed aside simply because we can't agree on one little basic issue of the discussion.

By the way, I want rep points for this post, but that doesn't make it either self-serving or suspect to incredibility.

[Joel]

The word "especially" does not mean that it is necessarily at the expense of others, it simply means that it is often accompanied by acting at the expense of others.

Well I wish to ask where you get your info from. A synonym of especially is particularly which singles something out. to use an old example from this thread: I like apples ESPECIALLY Jonah macs. This means that I like Jonah macs quantitatively and qualitatively above other apples. Now as used in the definition of self serving--it means that when others are involved or by circumstance in the picture I do not have regard for their needs if their is a conflict with my need. Just like the man clawing his way up the corporate ladder, He will use anyone to get his concerns met. His "apparent" help for others is only to better position himself. Self serving is not a benign act towards others, but a malignant act towards others if they are in the picture. That is why i continue to battle over the definition, for no one I have talked to and that has included scholl administrators, high school english teachers and professional educators, has said thsat self serving has any positive or benign connotation to it.

I agree any work should be looked at, maybe not skeptically, but guardedly. It should be tested with any other materials from that era. It should be looked at for its meaning. Of this I have no problem with. But to declare the gospels dubious cause they are self serving is to fly in the face of logic or we are forced to declare that nayone who either verbally or with pen and paper promotes an idea or a cause or even a favorite activity is self serving. Then we havbe to decide to what degree of self serving is it. Is it benign and just being dseclared because they like it? Is it malignant and they are seeking to use people for their benefit? Do we actually witness any of this in the writings of the new Testament? Can you honestly say that promoting the cause of Christ is a self serving event?

BTW jerry, if you read this, I spoke to my friend the school aheadmaster last night. He said he had quite a few emails scrubbed from his mailbox--reasons unsure. He said if you would resend your request he wopuld quickly write back.

Also as far as straining at slef serving--Jerry has made that one of the primary reasons for declaring the gospels unreliable, dubious and questionable. He has declared them untrustworthy not becuase of evidence against them, but the lack of extra non christian writings verifying them (Christian works are also self serving to Jerry) He also said non eyewitness material falls into the hearsay category.

We have pretty much run the gamut of materials to bring into the argument. jerry rejects the New testament for subjective and not objective reasons, which is his right.

[JakeW]

Not that I'm excited about stepping on to *this* particular shooting range, but my question is about doubting eye-witnesses. I believe that the gospels are true. Why is it surpriseing that everyone who saw Jesus resurected is a christian? If I was an eye witness I know I'd sure be a believer. The fact that all of our eye witnessed accounts are christians just isn't that shocking.....

I see eyewitness accounts claiming the resurection happened, and no accounts claiming it didn't. Where can I find some accounts I'm missing?

I understand that Jerry believes that the Gospels are not reliable evidence because he feels they are self-serving. I personally have a hard time imagining that there would be even 1 person who's interests were to spread a false religion and get themselves shunned and killed. Let alone four at the same time (matt, mark, luke, john).... But that's Jerry's right to believe! I can (sorta) imagine that a particularly twisted individual could have these thoughts (i.e. that it's worth risking crucifiction to live in poverty and spread a fictional religion) it's just a larger stretch to me thinking it was multiple people at the same time.

In the scales of belief I have the Gospels in one hand, with their records of events and what do I have in the other hand to refute them? (Honest question! I figure there's GOT to be something)

Jake

[JerryLove]

Why is it surpriseing that everyone who saw Jesus resurected is a christian? If I was an eye witness I know I'd sure be a believer. The fact that all of our eye witnessed accounts are christians just isn't that shocking.....

What about the guy that was cleaning the stables when Jesus walked by? What about the money lender who he threw out of the temple? What about the centurian that had to write a report on a crowd of people? Very few people (according to the Bible) witnessed the resurrection; but many thousands (again according to the bible) saw him. None managed to mention it.

Then, everyone that did mention it, was convienantly together 40+ years later to write it. And, of crouse, we have no witnesses that the claimed witnesses wrote it. Really, John and Paul are about it in terms of people we can verify were even around when the gospels where written.

The problem is that we have essentially one, unverified source which *claims* it is 4 eye-witness accounts of self-serving material. It is dubious at best.

I see eyewitness accounts claiming the resurection happened, and no accounts claiming it didn't. Where can I find some accounts I'm missing?

You want an account of not-witnissing an event? How many of you did not witness me levitating last night? No one?

I understand that Jerry believes that the Gospels are not reliable evidence because he feels they are self-serving. I personally have a hard time imagining that there would be even 1 person who's interests were to spread a false religion and get themselves shunned and killed.

So all religions spread by people are true.

Let alone four at the same time (matt, mark, luke, john)

If you can prove that all four of these people went around personally claiming to have witnessed these events, then you will be ahead of the game. I find that claim suspect as well.

In the scales of belief I have the Gospels in one hand, with their records of events and what do I have in the other hand to refute them? (Honest question! I figure there's GOT to be something)

I'm ont trying to refute them. I'm not saying they are false. I'm saying they are not convincing.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by JakeW

In the scales of belief I have the Gospels in one hand, with their records of events and what do I have in the other hand to refute them? (Honest question! I figure there's GOT to be something)

Like maybe the Koran, God's true revelation...

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

Like maybe the Koran, God's true revelation...

I may be showing (further) my ignorance, but doesn't the Koran claim to be a FURTHER unveiling of the truth? I see that it claims to update our knowledge of God but doesn't it also refer to the OT and NT as sacred?

It seems to me like even the competeing religions don't try and refute the OT & NT..... Just add to 'em....

Jake

[JerryLove]

Judaism refutes the NT et al. Islam says that the OT and NT are inspired works which have been corrupted by man and are not true (despite having been inspired truely).

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

What about the guy that was cleaning the stables when Jesus walked by? What about the money lender who he threw out of the temple? What about the centurian that had to write a report on a crowd of people? Very few people (according to the Bible) witnessed the resurrection; but many thousands (again according to the bible) saw him. None managed to mention it.

I disagree.... And those who mentioned it was bound up in the Bible....

I can understand that you don't believe what they mentioned, just not that they didn't mention anything....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Then, everyone that did mention it, was convienantly together 40+ years later to write it. And, of crouse, we have no witnesses that the claimed witnesses wrote it. Really, John and Paul are about it in terms of people we can verify were even around when the gospels where written.

That's very true I suppose, it IS hard to verify who wrote what 2000 years ago.... All we really have are their claims of who they are and other circumstantial evidence (writing styles ect...)

Isn't it interesting though that people *might* have written up a false religion in order to serve themselves but gave credit to other people....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The problem is that we have essentially one, unverified source which *claims* it is 4 eye-witness accounts of self-serving material. It is dubious at best.

All of the sources that were preserved were preserved because they were of high quality (of course a bias in quality judging).... The fact that the Gospels are bound into one book hardly makes them into one source though. I'm curious what you would claim as a verified source.... Who has to write it and with what motives for it to be "verified"...

(I don't mean an offensice tone by the way, I am curious what you need so that I can better look)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You want an account of not-witnissing an event? How many of you did not witness me levitating last night? No one?

My point exactly! There's nothing to be looked for! So why are we interesting in finding non-christian interpretations of these events if everyone who saw them became a christian?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So all religions spread by people are true.

That's a pretty unfair summarization of what I said... After all Muhammad didn't exactly get killed or shunned for his extra-biblical claims.... It is my understanding that Joeseph Smith wasn't hunted down and killed either.... It seems like quite a jump to me to summarize my thoughts that spreading a religion "self-servedly" is *harder* to swollow when that self service results in shunning and death as all religions are true....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

If you can prove that all four of these people went around personally claiming to have witnessed these events, then you will be ahead of the game. I find that claim suspect as well.

You are not the only intelligent person to find it hard to believe, but there are equally intelligent people who DO believe it. Sometimes you go with the more likely (as I'm SURE you are aware given your take on miracles) and it seems more likely to me that if people were writing to serve themselves they either would not have given someone else credit, or they would have advocated something that DIDN't get them killed....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm ont trying to refute them. I'm not saying they are false. I'm saying they are not convincing.

I'll conceed certainly that YOU are not convinced.....

Empirical Analysis does seem to point toward them being convincing, what with so many people convinced and all.....

Jake

[JerryLove]

I disagree.... And those who mentioned it was bound up in the Bible....

Of the thousands who supposedly witnessed Jesus, how many wrote anything about it? Four? Coincidentally all founders of the Church. Of those four, how many can be established as having actually written the gospel credited to them? One? None? *Paul's* deciple, a man who never met jesus following a man who never met Jesus wrote a bunch of it.

That's very true I suppose, it IS hard to verify who wrote what 2000 years ago.... All we really have are their claims of who they are and other circumstantial evidence (writing styles ect...)

And when we look at the writing styles, most historians see not 4 but 2. They see John as a work, and the other three as copies of a single source. So writing style, rather than supporting your case, adds to the dubiousness of the evidence.

Isn't it interesting though that people *might* have written up a false religion in order to serve themselves but gave credit to other people....

Isn't it interesting that you've already argued exactly why they would do so. You said "who would want to lie and get punished for it", and now you imply a question "why would someone sign someone else's name (ghostwrite)". You also ignore that this is not an uncommon occurance.

All of the sources that were preserved were preserved because they were of high quality (of course a bias in quality judging).... The fact that the Gospels are bound into one book hardly makes them into one source though. I'm curious what you would claim as a verified source.... Who has to write it and with what motives for it to be "verified"...

Unearthing a status report from Pilate would be nice... how about a letter from one Rabbi to another asking for advice, or talking about the cool party the other week when Jesus came into town?

My point exactly! There's nothing to be looked for! So why are we interesting in finding non-christian interpretations of these events if everyone who saw them became a christian?

Because the Bible clearly says that not all believed... so the question becomes "can you trust a story which is self-serving to it's authors, when it's authorship cannot be confirmed, and when there is no supporting evidence of its authenticity".

That's a pretty unfair summarization of what I said... After all Muhammad didn't exactly get killed or shunned for his extra-biblical claims.... It is my understanding that Joeseph Smith wasn't hunted down and killed either.... It seems like quite a jump to me to summarize my thoughts that spreading a religion "self-servedly" is *harder* to swollow when that self service results in shunning and death as all religions are true....

The Mormons and Muslims were both persecuted. Do you think the Mormons ended up in the middle of a desert next to a lake of undrinkable water because they liked the view?

You are not the only intelligent person to find it hard to believe, but there are equally intelligent people who DO believe it. Sometimes you go with the more likely (as I'm SURE you are aware given your take on miracles) and it seems more likely to me that if people were writing to serve themselves they either would not have given someone else credit, or they would have advocated something that DIDN't get them killed....

Maybe they did. Maybe Thomas wrote all four? Perhaps they weren't expecting to get killed at the time they wrote it? OTOH, do I really need to list off religious leaders that have killed themselves?

Empirical Analysis does seem to point toward them being convincing, what with so many people convinced and all.....

That's not emperical analysis, that's an appeal to popularity... and it fails the same test... I guess the Quran is true, with so many people believing it and all.