(July 31, 2014 at 12:37 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: You do realize Mark is the source for a large portion of the other synoptic gospels? Matthew and Luke "borrowed" something like 40-50% *directly* from Mark. John is a different case all together and much later - no possibility of there being anything other than a retelling of decades-old legends and tales.
Multiple shitty eyewitness accounts, don't make the case any stronger. They are all hearsay at best and based on weak, practically worthless eyewitness "testimony". And eyewitness testimony, as a class of evidence, we know today, with cold, scientific precision, isn't worth much of anything. Read those links. Human memory is not just a little fallible and faulty. It's MOSTLY faulty and fallible. The faintest ink is worth more than the best human memory.
Also notice, ZERO eyewitness testimony is available. Not one word from anyone alive at the time. Quite odd considering Jesus was a such a great, famous rabble-rouser. Pissing off the Romans and the Jews. Preaching to thousands! Healing the sick! Driving those nasty money-changers from the temple!
And yet, no one thought about writing one word down.
The Christian case for bullshit, I mean Jesus, is beyond weak. It's virtually non-existent. Like your god.
Where is your proof that no one wrote anything down? Guess what, most paper documents don't survive. The original gospels and Pauline letters have not survived and they would have been particularly prized. Jerusalem was sacked and burned--reducing further the likelihood of written Jewish records surviving. The Romans were not interested in Jesus until there was a large following to take note of decades if not a century later.
You also cannot make the claim that the writers of the Gospels were not working off of notes and written accounts of others. Clearly the goal was to tell a complete history so posterity could read and understand the context and content and not a court transcript with footnotes. There is no way for you to know the method by which this information was conveyed.
We know that Jesus existed and was almost certainly crucified. We know that a new religion sprang up around these events. We know that the very first adherents believed these events happened. These events were written down and distributed only 30-60 years from the death of Jesus--still plenty of time for the older group to object to inaccuracies. Add to this the content of this new religious was not something that was likely made up--in both the complexity of the theology, the strong break from Judaism, and the circumstance surrounding Jesus. This all adds up to the only two logical conclusion available: that some or all of the things written in the Gospels happened. Of course it seems you have chosen the illogical conclusion and decided to stick you head in the sand. I have chose the other end of the spectrum and believe what is claims to be.
