MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

Because they weren't written by disciples? And they were written much to late to make any such claim. And it's that much too late part that makes them essentially worthless.

I will gladly answer this in part 3.

Un huh, and because they didn't really know, and weren't really contemporary they made some big mistakes:

Let's begin with Mark:

Its author seems to be ignorant of Palestinian geography. Mark 7:31 describes Jesus going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by way of Sidon (20 miles farther north and on the Mediterranean coast). The author of Mark did not seem to know that you would not go through Sidon to go from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, and there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the 1st century, only one from Tyre.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels[/url]
So Mark seems to have difficulties with anachronisms.

It depends on which translation you read....because after reading this one, there is no problem:

Mark 7:31: "And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis." King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

How about Mathew:

Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria.[76] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Well if Mark is wrong and Mathew copies Mark, then we can't trust Mathew either.

Nonsense. First, you have to prove that Mark is wrong, which you haven't done yet.

What about Luke?

Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine.[86] Like Matthew, Luke drew on Mark and added material from Q.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Uh oh. Copying from bad sources again. But it gets worse. He probable wasn't a companion of Paul's either:

Some scholars uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Well I will put it to you this way; again, in the preface the author is acknowledging the fact that the information he is giving is being PASSED DOWN from eyewitnesses...so regardless, that is where the source of the information is from. Second, I'd like to know what did Act's say that contradicts Paul's letters? I don't want to click on links, I want YOU to tell me.

What about John? Second had at best:
In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[105][106] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[107] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[108][109] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."

Well, if the Gospel of John is based on a person who heard and followed Jesus, that would make the testimony credible, right? Remember, contemporary??

Funny, that they got the names right, but messed up basic geography. --- No wait? You're citing the synopsis of an unreviewed self published book, really? Really?

Well, the book as been out there for all to see, for at least the past 12 years..and the information that she gathered is also for all to see...and don't make it seem as if this is a special pleading issue either...a shoalin monk could do the pain staking research that she did and draw the same conclusion...it was unbiased research that any person could do and draw the same conclusion.

Not really, no we can't. We can conclude that they were all written too late to be of much factual value and that the authors didn't know much about either the geography or the history of the time and places they wrote about.

So if they were written much later by people who had no connections to people that were there, how would they get the names right? Second, you gave one geographical concern regarding a chapter in Mark that really isn't a concern at all, and you are making that as the big white hope for your entire objection.

Nonsense.