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

[Neo-Scholastic]

Didn't read.

[dyresand]

HM answer me this out of all the people why did jesus visit 3 illiterate women.
if they had said anything of jesus coming back to any men because during those days they
would have been put to death. why is it out of all the people why them.

[Minimalist]

So, now that I'’ve successfully made a case for and defended the historical evidence supporting Jesus of Nazareth'’s existence in human history,

You're off to a bad start, dickhead, seeing as how you managed nothing of the kind.

[Whateverist]

You know what? I don't deserve your efforts, Majestic_Stupidity. Please go now and let me enjoy what hours I have left before I start my long slow burn in hell. That's a good nitwit. Bye bye now.

[dyresand]

So, now that I'’ve successfully made a case for and defended the historical evidence supporting Jesus of Nazareth'’s existence in human history,

You're off to a bad start, dickhead, seeing as how you managed nothing of the kind.

what "kind" are we talking about here? some "kind" of fish or some "kind" of fish sandwich.

[Exian]

Wait, this is still the historical Jesus? I thought this was gonna be The Great Jesusini. What gives?

[Minimalist]

You're off to a bad start, dickhead, seeing as how you managed nothing of the kind.

what "kind" are we talking about here? some "kind" of fish or some "kind" of fish sandwich.

Some kind of shithead.

[dyresand]

what "kind" are we talking about here? some "kind" of fish or some "kind" of fish sandwich.

Some kind of shithead.

[Jenny A]

So, now that I'’ve successfully made a case for and defended the historical evidence supporting Jesus of Nazareth'’s existence in human history, …now I will make the case for the internal evidence for his existence… which is the reliability of the Gospels, and Paul's Epistles. While making a case for the reliability of these books, it would appear that one question immediately arise…:

:rofl:

It seems that the authors of the books were a given. If the early Church were so hell bent on giving “credibility” to the Christian faith and wanted to give potential converts more reasons to join the gang based on authorship, why would the early Church attribute names of the books (particularly the Gospels, in this case) to less respected men?

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.

Another point that can be made, a point that will likely be carried over to part 3 but is worth mentioning here...is the fact that whoever wrote the Gospels must have been living during the time, and in that region. How do we know this? Because only someone living during that time would know certain FACTS regarding the time and location...these facts include cultural customs, historical figures, and even the "nature" of things during the time.

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

Let's begin with Mark:

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[69][70][71]

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_...he_Gospels

So Mark seems to have difficulties with anachronisms. 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. 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

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."

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

Tal Ilan is a Israeli historian and lexicographer, and she wrote a book titled Lexicon of Jewish Names in late Antiquity, covering periods from 330 BCE-650 CE...and what she found out is that based on 15,000 names, the Jewish names in Palestine show different frequencies from Jewish names elsewhere http://books.google.com/books/about/Lexi...WtzDLwpyoC

Now, it can be argued that all Gospels AND the book of Acts was written outside of Palestine, so how would the authors have given the biblical characters the right names despite writing the material in locations OTHER than where the names that they attributed to the characters were centered?

Now keep in mind that Tal retrieved her information from extra-biblical sources, and based on her findings, she discovered that the top 2 Jewish names of men in Palestine during that time was Simon, and Joseph, which makes up 15% of all men names...and what is remarkable about that is the name Simon is used 18% of the time as the NAME of 8 different men in the Gospels/Acts.

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?

So in closing, it is because of ALL these reasons why I conclude that the Gospels were all written by either the disciples, or friends of the disciples. So now, between of parts 1 and 2, we can conclude that Jesus existed as a historical person, and that his biography was written by his friends, or friends of his friend...either way, reliable testimony nevertheless.

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.

[dyresand]

now excuse me i'm over due to be burning in hell.