Do you think jesus christ existed

[Belac Enrobso]

I am assuming that you have no idea of the difference between primary and secondary evidence so ill explain it.

Primary evidence is actual artifact. Secondary evidence is Narrative. Here is an example.

Le'ts take an imaginary battle from 1500 CE We have reports that x number of people were there. These change from person to person and from how long afterwards the events happened so they aren't very reliable. This is secondary evidence.

However lets say we find stack of bills for provisions and munitions and a book of accounts. this is primary evidence, it will give us a far better idea of how many people were there.

The Gospels are at best very poor primary evidence based on testimony, probably second hand, from decades before.

a Good analogy would be a court case. Witness testimony is considered to be the worst evidence. Indeed courts in the UK will only accept narrative from notes if the notes were written within 24 hours and they don't accept hearsay and yet you believe 30 year old memories (at best) and hearsay are actually good evidence

The Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness. The Epistle of James is written by the brother of Jesus, another eyewitness. I don't expect either of those points to convince you, much less would I expect you to believe 1/2 Peter is written by Peter.

Luke-Acts is written by Luke - or at the very least a single author (concensus view), and he is a companion of Pual. More than half of the events recorded in Acts happened at the time of the author's involvement in the church and many of them were witnessed by him.

Paul is the undisputed author of 7 Epistles, but he's the author of a total of 13-14 Epistles. Paul is an early church leader, he knew the apostles personally and he knew James and the family of Jesus, and he knew other early church leaders.

So for those 9 books you have no recourse to say that they are bad quality evidence at all based on the authorship criteria.

Scholars don't stop with that criteria, they look at far more things than you have bothered to list. Luke obviously made use of the Gospel of Mark believing it to be a reliable source.

Here's some examples...

Luke-John bound together:



Further evidence that Luke-Acts is written by the one author comes from Codex Bezae, which contains all the gospels and acts, and has an anti-Semitic strain found only in Luke-Acts. Thus the strain has to go back to a copy that was made containing only Luke-Acts bound together. Since all four gospels were bound together by the middle of the second century, it's believed that you can't date the inception of this "corrupted" copy of Luke-Acts after that. Thus the Luke-Acts component was a separate codex bound together and written no later than mid 2nd century.

Sceptics like yourself believe that John was written in the second century, or at the very earliest in the AD 90's. Yet there are more early manuscripts for John dating to the second century than for any other gospel, and one that may even date to the first century (but likely dates to the early 2nd century). The most important of these is this one:


(Papyrus 66)

It is near-complete. Like all early manuscripts, it contains the nomina sacra, which itself is strong evidence of canonization. It has the title "Gospel according to John" as is found on every copy - every one (this is true for all the Gospels). But you know what's interesting is the sceptics say this gospel had to have been written no earlier than the very late first century, they say it's written after all the other Gospels - yet the manuscript evidence is the reverse and we have more early copies of John than any other Gospel, so what evidence is this based on?

The bible May just be a nice work of fiction that envelopes themes of good morals and proper etiquette and lifestyle,

I mean c'mon, talking snakes, apples of knowledge, residing in the stomach of a large fish for three days, a goat with seven eyes and seven heads, machine like wheels in the sky accompanied by angelic creatures, a floating sword that swing sporadically to keep the unwanted out of the garden of Eden, a world flood that peaked to mountain tops in sea level, Earth being created in 6 days (which was in a reference of time that God perceives), one fish fed 2000, Jesus rising from the dead and exiting a cave that was sealed by a large boulder that must have weighed tons, all of these instances and more of the like are fictional literature due to the fact that all of these instances/things were used to symbolize either themes of the bible or to reinforce to the themes brought upon by the bible. I'll admit its a fantastic work of literature and it greatly influences western culture in a positive light. But it's Fiction, and many people sadly often take the bible too literally. Just visit a Pentecostal church in the Bible Belt (where I grew up, by the way) and watch how these people praise God. I've seen people shake on the floor as if they were having a seizure, only because they thought they were feeling the power or hand of God. I would love for the Bible, and other religious novels as well, to be integrated into the core curriculum of English and social studies classes in public schools. Children and teenagers could learn valuable literature skills such as symbolism from the bible and other religious works, as well as positive morals.

[Zen Badger]

So you are presenting manuscripts written in the second century as proof of Jesus?

Good-o

[agapelove]

I'm atheist and i like the character Jesus Christ but i'm not too sure he existed.

Richard Dawkins believes he existed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUB5fDW5xq8

So did Albert Einstein:

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/einsteinonjesus.html

[là bạn điên]

The New Testament is a stack of evidence, and some of it is universally accepted as fact. Ie, that Jesus lived, that he called disciples, that he was baptized and that he died by crucifixion. There are no contradicting accounts on any of these from the time of the NT material, or even from any time in the 2nd century.

Sorry but you have not demonstrated that these are universally accepted as fact. As I said before I do not claim that there was no Jesus, indeed I personally think it most likely that there was a man called Joshua ben Yusuf who was crucified but it is just that -me thinking it more likely , There is certainly a reasonable doubt though.

The NT is evidence but then so is the Koran.

.
Stop making straw man arguments. It is the consensus view that he mentions James of Jerusalem, and not just some "random person named James".

Considering that Yakoff is one of the most common names in Hebrew and Yoshua is pretty damned common too there must have been an awful lot of guys called Yakoff with brothers called Yoshua in Jerusalem

I'm talking about facts accepted by all serious scholars, regardless of their faith.

Now why don't you hurry up and prove the claim you made before, please.

Again your nonsense about 'scholars'. lecturers at Bible colleges are hardly rigourous academics. There is no consensus at all from proper historians that Jesus existed

---

Richard Dawkins believes he existed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUB5fDW5xq8

Dawkins is a zoologist. Don;t remember him ever having been a Classical historian

So did Albert Einstein:

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/einsteinonjesus.html

Again I think Einstein was a physicist not a classical historian.

---

This is the sort of Abject lie that Christians send out

T

he university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

I get shit like this over the internet all the time. Why do Christians lie so much?

[Belac Enrobso]

---

The Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness. The Epistle of James is written by the brother of Jesus, another eyewitness. I don't expect either of those points to convince you, much less would I expect you to believe 1/2 Peter is written by Peter.

Luke-Acts is written by Luke - or at the very least a single author (concensus view), and he is a companion of Pual. More than half of the events recorded in Acts happened at the time of the author's involvement in the church and many of them were witnessed by him.

Paul is the undisputed author of 7 Epistles, but he's the author of a total of 13-14 Epistles. Paul is an early church leader, he knew the apostles personally and he knew James and the family of Jesus, and he knew other early church leaders.

So for those 9 books you have no recourse to say that they are bad quality evidence at all based on the authorship criteria.

Scholars don't stop with that criteria, they look at far more things than you have bothered to list. Luke obviously made use of the Gospel of Mark believing it to be a reliable source.

Here's some examples...

Luke-John bound together:



Further evidence that Luke-Acts is written by the one author comes from Codex Bezae, which contains all the gospels and acts, and has an anti-Semitic strain found only in Luke-Acts. Thus the strain has to go back to a copy that was made containing only Luke-Acts bound together. Since all four gospels were bound together by the middle of the second century, it's believed that you can't date the inception of this "corrupted" copy of Luke-Acts after that. Thus the Luke-Acts component was a separate codex bound together and written no later than mid 2nd century.

Sceptics like yourself believe that John was written in the second century, or at the very earliest in the AD 90's. Yet there are more early manuscripts for John dating to the second century than for any other gospel, and one that may even date to the first century (but likely dates to the early 2nd century). The most important of these is this one:


(Papyrus 66)

It is near-complete. Like all early manuscripts, it contains the nomina sacra, which itself is strong evidence of canonization. It has the title "Gospel according to John" as is found on every copy - every one (this is true for all the Gospels). But you know what's interesting is the sceptics say this gospel had to have been written no earlier than the very late first century, they say it's written after all the other Gospels - yet the manuscript evidence is the reverse and we have more early copies of John than any other Gospel, so what evidence is this based on?

The bible May just be a nice work of fiction that envelopes themes of good morals and proper etiquette and lifestyle,

I mean c'mon, talking snakes, apples of knowledge, residing in the stomach of a large fish for three days, a goat with seven eyes and seven heads, machine like wheels in the sky accompanied by angelic creatures, a floating sword that swing sporadically to keep the unwanted out of the garden of Eden, a world flood that peaked to mountain tops in sea level, Earth being created in 6 days (which was in a reference of time that God perceives), one fish fed 2000, Jesus rising from the dead and exiting a cave that was sealed by a large boulder that must have weighed tons, all of these instances and more of the like are fictional literature due to the fact that all of these instances/things were used to symbolize either themes of the bible or to reinforce to the themes brought upon by the bible. I'll admit its a fantastic work of literature and it greatly influences western culture in a positive light. But it's Fiction, and many people sadly often take the bible too literally. Just visit a Pentecostal church in the Bible Belt (where I grew up, by the way) and watch how these people praise God. I've seen people shake on the floor as if they were having a seizure, only because they thought they were feeling the power or hand of God. I would love for the Bible, and other religious novels as well, to be integrated into the core curriculum of English and social studies classes in public schools. Children and teenagers could learn valuable literature skills such as symbolism from the bible and other religious works, as well as positive morals.

---

Any rebuttals?

[Aractus]

The NT is evidence but then so is the Koran.

The Qurʼan was written in the 7th century, it's hardly going to be as reliable as evidence for events in the 1st century than those written in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Considering that Yakoff is one of the most common names in Hebrew and Yoshua is pretty damned common too there must have been an awful lot of guys called Yakoff with brothers called Yoshua in Jerusalem

Did you read what I said?

• Ant. XX.9.1:
  AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

What part of that is obscure as to which James he is talking about, and why are you disagreeing with the consensus view?

Again your nonsense about 'scholars'. lecturers at Bible colleges are hardly rigourous academics. There is no consensus at all from proper historians that Jesus existed

The only proper New Testament historians are New Testament scholars that specialize in texts written around the first 5 centuries AD, which includes the New Testament, gnostic texts, church records, other texts, etc. That would include the works of Josephus. The faith of the scholar makes no difference to their academic credentials, rather their studies of the ancient manuscripts do.

Scholars can specialize on more narrow aspects of this, of course, and so you have scholars that specifically specialize on the gnostic texts, or the works of Josephus, etc, rather than say the letters of the church fathers.

New Testament scholars are not Old Testament scholars, and vice-versa. Old Testament scholars are intently interested in the (non-biblical) works found in the DSS, and other materials from the time of the OT times written in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.

[Belac Enrobso]

The bible May just be a nice work of fiction that envelopes themes of good morals and proper etiquette and lifestyle,

I mean c'mon, talking snakes, apples of knowledge, residing in the stomach of a large fish for three days, a goat with seven eyes and seven heads, machine like wheels in the sky accompanied by angelic creatures, a floating sword that swing sporadically to keep the unwanted out of the garden of Eden, a world flood that peaked to mountain tops in sea level, Earth being created in 6 days (which was in a reference of time that God perceives), one fish fed 2000, Jesus rising from the dead and exiting a cave that was sealed by a large boulder that must have weighed tons, all of these instances and more of the like are fictional literature due to the fact that all of these instances/things were used to symbolize either themes of the bible or to reinforce to the themes brought upon by the bible. I'll admit its a fantastic work of literature and it greatly influences western culture in a positive light. But it's Fiction, and many people sadly often take the bible too literally. Just visit a Pentecostal church in the Bible Belt (where I grew up, by the way) and watch how these people praise God. I've seen people shake on the floor as if they were having a seizure, only because they thought they were feeling the power or hand of God. I would love for the Bible, and other religious novels as well, to be integrated into the core curriculum of English and social studies classes in public schools. Children and teenagers could learn valuable literature skills such as symbolism from the bible and other religious works, as well as positive morals.

Any rebuttals?

I guess not...
Bitches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rpOfmnuquw

[là bạn điên]

The Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness.

i) The gospel of John seems to have been written about 90-100 AD according to most sources, therefore about 60 years after the supposed death of Jesus, this makes an eyewitness account rather unlikely but even if it is (according to a few Christian theologicans) earlier it doesn;t actually prove that the writer was an eye witness

The Epistle of James is written by the brother of Jesus, another eyewitness. I don't expect either of those points to convince you, much less would I expect you to believe 1/2 Peter is written by Peter.

If you would like to prove who wrote it then Ill be happy to accept it. Theer were some diaries proporting to be Hitler's some years ago. they were fake too AND managed to fool lots of people

Luke-Acts is written by Luke - or at the very least a single author (concensus view), and he is a companion of Pual. More than half of the events recorded in Acts happened at the time of the author's involvement in the church and many of them were witnessed by him.

And we know this how?

Paul is the undisputed author of 7 Epistles, but he's the author of a total of 13-14 Epistles. Paul is an early church leader, he knew the apostles personally and he knew James and the family of Jesus, and he knew other early church leaders.

We don;t even have evidence of Paul's existence much less that he is the author of anything at all

So for those 9 books you have no recourse to say that they are bad quality evidence at all based on the authorship criteria.

Oh yes I do, you have not given an Iota of evidence for your claim. All you have is some documents with a name who is proported to have written them

Scholars don't stop with that criteria, they look at far more things than you have bothered to list. Luke obviously made use of the Gospel of Mark believing it to be a reliable source.

"Scholars". Not academics then but BAHBUL beleivers

Here's some examples...

Luke-John bound together:



Further evidence that Luke-Acts is written by the one author comes from Codex Bezae, which contains all the gospels and acts, and has an anti-Semitic strain found only in Luke-Acts. Thus the strain has to go back to a copy that was made containing only Luke-Acts bound together. Since all four gospels were bound together by the middle of the second century, it's believed that you can't date the inception of this "corrupted" copy of Luke-Acts after that. Thus the Luke-Acts component was a separate codex bound together and written no later than mid 2nd century.

Sceptics like yourself believe that John was written in the second century, or at the very earliest in the AD 90's. Yet there are more early manuscripts for John dating to the second century than for any other gospel, and one that may even date to the first century (but likely dates to the early 2nd century). The most important of these is this one:


(Papyrus 66)

It is near-complete. Like all early manuscripts, it contains the nomina sacra, which itself is strong evidence of canonization. It has the title "Gospel according to John" as is found on every copy - every one (this is true for all the Gospels). But you know what's interesting is the sceptics say this gospel had to have been written no earlier than the very late first century, they say it's written after all the other Gospels - yet the manuscript evidence is the reverse and we have more early copies of John than any other Gospel, so what evidence is this based on?

I see you link above is actually to a seminary. We aren't going to get much in the way of objectivity there are we!

---

The Qurʼan was written in the 7th century, it's hardly going to be as reliable as evidence for events in the 1st century than those written in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
[/quote]

But according to your logic it is reliable as to events of the 7th century. So why aren;t you a Muslim?

• Ant. XX.9.1:
  AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

What part of that is obscure as to which James he is talking about, and why are you disagreeing with the consensus view?

Again your nonsense about 'scholars'. lecturers at Bible colleges are hardly rigourous academics. There is no consensus at all from proper historians that Jesus existed

The only proper New Testament historians are New Testament scholars that specialize in texts written around the first 5 centuries AD, which includes the New Testament, gnostic texts, church records, other texts, etc. That would include the works of Josephus. The faith of the scholar makes no difference to their academic credentials, rather their studies of the ancient manuscripts do.

We know that Joespehus has been massively forged.

Scholars can specialize on more narrow aspects of this, of course, and so you have scholars that specifically specialize on the gnostic texts, or the works of Josephus, etc, rather than say the letters of the church fathers.

That word' scholars' again

New Testament scholars are not Old Testament scholars, and vice-versa. Old Testament scholars are intently interested in the (non-biblical) works found in the DSS, and other materials from the time of the OT times written in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.

And they are christians who are out to find evidence of Gawd

[Aractus]

Luke-Acts is written by Luke - or at the very least a single author (concensus view), and he is a companion of Pual. More than half of the events recorded in Acts happened at the time of the author's involvement in the church and many of them were witnessed by him.

And we know this how?

Glad you asked. Very few scholars dispute the author is the same person, they're both addressed to the same person Theophilus, and Acts begins with "In the first book, O Theophilus ..." The writing style is similar and very well written, the only book in the NT that scholars say is more sophisticated in its Greek is the book of Hebrews and for this reason many scholars hold the view that Luke penned the Epistle and that Paul or somebody else close to Paul dictated it to Luke (this of course assumes that Luke didn't use a scribe). Regardless of the authorship of Hebrews, Luke-Acts total 27.5% of the NT text - so there's a huge amount of text to compare between the two. In comparison, all 13 of Paul's Epistles total 23.5% of the NT text, yet many scholars as you know claim that the much shorter epistles is enough to gauge his writing style - despite the fact that he uses scribes and doesn't pen his own letters!

We don;t even have evidence of Paul's existence much less that he is the author of anything at all

Oh yes we do, there's no doubt that Paul existed. First off there are his 13 Letters - the 7 undisputed plus the six additional ones that all contain similar greetings, and similar farewells to them, and all say that they're written by Paul. Then we have the book of Acts which talks about Paul extensively in the present, and three times Luke uses the first-person plural narrative which strongly implies that at the very least in those passages the author of Acts himself was present. 2 Peter also mentions Paul. We know more about St Paul than any other early Christian after Christ dies in the first century.

Somebody had to write his 13 Epistles, as you know sceptical scholars (atheists, agnostics, etc) only accept his authorship of 7 - leaving 6 that they would believe are pseudographically attributed to him - well pseudepigrapha requires that the person you're attributing your letter to is a real person. Also, nobody would write 7 letters and pseudographically attribute them to the one person, the notion is absurd. So any way you look at it, Paul had to have existed.

Feel free to provide your counter-evidence - specifically I'd like to know why somebody would attribute 7-13 letters to an invented character?

Oh yes I do, you have not given an Iota of evidence for your claim. All you have is some documents with a name who is proported to have written them

Rubbish, I provided you more than that. I've given you primary considerations, and secondary considerations - and then there are literacy considerations, etc, that come in to play as well. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, and before you kick up a fuss about whether we know the authorship or not (since it's not one of the magic 7). The Last Supper takes place in all three synoptic gospels. Most accounts omit the first passing of the wine, but Luke's does not. Luke's also says this:

This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

And in 1 Corinthians 11:24 we have:

This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

Matthew 26:26b: Take, eat; this is my body.
Mark 14:22b: Take; this is my body.

And,

Matthew: Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Mark: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.
Luke: This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!

Paul knows Luke's version, and not the version recorded in Matthew/Mark. The wording in the original greek for the phrase "this is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me" is so similar to Luke that it's inconceivable that one isn't a direct quotation of the other. The reason why it's not completely word-for-word identical is because Paul dictates his letters to a scribe who then pen them from memory. The second part "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" is also Luke's, the version in Mark/Matthew reads "this is my blood of the covenant". So Paul is either quoting Luke, or they're writing down the same version of the Lord's Supper independently to each other.

There's plenty more internal evidence like this.

"Scholars". Not academics then but BAHBUL beleivers

I've already explained to you the definition of scholar, stop making stupid straw man arguments please.

But according to your logic it is reliable as to events of the 7th century. So why aren;t you a Muslim?

No, we know that it's partially reliable, which is what atheist scholars "know" about the Bible too.

We know that Joespehus has been massively forged.

Irrelivant as that section isn't forged - and you've just changed your argument.

That word' scholars' again

Fuck you, I grow impatient of your ignorance and stupidity. Go troll elsewhere.

[Zen Badger]

Good-Danny, but any evidence for the resurrection yet?