(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)No. we don't know that at all. There were a shedload of wandering rabbis at the time.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministryNope.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: c. They presided over the early churchNope.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: d. This early church instructed PaulThe same Paul who made up crap on the basis of a vision that nobody else saw. Political opportunism.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)Paul can write whatever he wants much like Tolkien or Rowling. Doesn't mean it is real.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospelsDo you accept the koran? Using the same reasons, you should.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present dayHow do you know "Luke" had anything to do with it? All that happened long after he was dead.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)Wrong.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular bookName them. You cannot.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.Oh yes there is. Historically speaking, there is doubt that paul even existed.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
Except that they don't. They describe the very first schism between James the supposed brother of Jesus and Paul. And such schisms continue such that there are something in the region of 30,000 denominations. To quote Fr. Jack, that will be an ecumenical matter.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: There are eight witnesses to Joseph Smiths so called golden plates, and the three witnesses who claimed they had heard gods voice instructing Joseph Smith, what's more we know who these people are, even what they looked like.They were of course frauds there is no reason to believe them any more than NT writers. Or the Koran writers.
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did.Why might that be? Did you ever stop to wonder?
(December 26, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: See a through k above for my evidentiary framework of the NT.
You have no evidence for the existence of any god, not yahweh, not allah, not any of the countless thousands of claimed gods.
No evidence at all. If you had any, you would have presented it already.