[rainoflove]

I thought we could discuss the evidence relating to the existance of Jesus Christ, and that the Gospels and New Testament can be trusted completely.

Basically what i wanted to do was discuss the evidence relating to the following questions:

(a) Did Jesus exist?
(b) Are the eye-witness accounts of the Gospel reliable?
(c) Is the doctrine taught in Paul's letters reliable?
(d) Are the doctrines taught in the other letters reliable and in any contradiction?
(e) What secular (non-church-related) evidence is there of Jesus (ie secular historians etc.)
(f) Is there any evidence that christianity was a myth religion created by the disciples or the later church?

Let me expand on the above
(a) Did Jesus exist?
I think that the examination of the other five points will no doubt seal this one for us, so this is basically the crux of the debate

(b) Are the eye-witness accounts of the Gospel reliable
My point : I'm no theologian or historian, but its my understanding that Luke, for example, was very precise in details and many things he has spoken about from a historical perspective are still being discovered in archaeology today.

(c) + (d) the doctrines of the letters and Paul
Given that they are written BEFORE the gospels, and so close to the death of Jesus, i'd have to say that the doctrines taught in the letters, including Paul's, were those taught by the disciples and therefore probably by Jesus

(e) What secular (non-church-related) evidence is there of Jesus (ie secular historians etc.)
Here i think the likes of JerryLove can tell us WHY he feels (as i've seen in some similar posts, or i could be wrong) that the accounts of Jesus and Christianity given by Josephus and Tacitus etc. are not supportive enough to claim the existance of Jesus

A quick point i want to say here : surely, logically speaking, the fact that the church was founded so close to the death of Jesus is to its credit? This would indicate that it was not a myth, as NO ONE questioned whether the man existed... ?

(f) Is there any evidence that christianity was a myth religion created by the disciples or the later church?
ie, what did anyone have to gain by starting it? Is there any evidence saying its a myth? Any recorded evidence of anyone, or the church, burning historical documents, or creating false documents?

I hope this can make a healthy, RESEARCHED discussion. Perhaps we should take our time and research our points and rebuttals before making assumptions. Also, please let this NOT end up in some presupposition/does God exist debate. This is to debate the historical evidence of Jesus, the reliability of the NT, and pretty much that only.

Hope it leads to some great discussion!

Rain

[JerryLove]

(a) Did Jesus exist?

I am dubious, but really don't know.

My point : I'm no theologian or historian, but its my understanding that Luke, for example, was very precise in details and many things he has spoken about from a historical perspective are still being discovered in archaeology today.

Three of the gospels appear to have a single parent source from which they are all created.. the fourth seems to be an independant writing.

While the 4 accounts of the crucifiction given by the gospels are consistant (AFAIK), there is no emperical data which establishes any of the specific events (we know the hill exists, we know people were cricified there, we have no evidence reagrding Jesus being crucified there); there are also no contemporary eye-witness records to the event outside the gospels.

the doctrines of the letters and Paul
Given that they are written BEFORE the gospels, and so close to the death of Jesus, i'd have to say that the doctrines taught in the letters, including Paul's, were those taught by the disciples and therefore probably by Jesus

I see Paul and Jesus's messages as conflicting rather heavily... but if we presume for a moment that they do match, and we assume that Jesus was fictional (and assuming your order of authorship is correct); I see no problem with the hypothesis that the gospels are consistant with Pauls epistles because the gospel writers were familiar with them.

What secular (non-church-related) evidence is there of Jesus (ie secular historians etc.)
Here i think the likes of JerryLove can tell us WHY he feels (as i've seen in some similar posts, or i could be wrong) that the accounts of Jesus and Christianity given by Josephus and Tacitus etc. are not supportive enough to claim the existance of Jesus

Because, in addition to the likelyhood that Josephus's text on the matter is largely a forgery.. neither offers and claim of the events beyong "here's what Christians believe".

This would indicate that it was not a myth, as NO ONE questioned whether the man existed...

You don't know that what you are saying is true... you simply are not personally aware of someone who did.

Is there any evidence that christianity was a myth religion created by the disciples or the later church?

There is some; mostly around suspicious similarities with other stories, particularly with Yesuah Bar Perdiah (spelling)... though the dating on that story cannot be strictly confirmed either.

ie, what did anyone have to gain by starting it?

Leadership of a growing religion? What does anyone ever gain by lying?

Any recorded evidence of anyone, or the church, burning historical documents, or creating false documents?

Sure... but I presume you are referring to the apostles/deciples in particular... I have no knowledge that would establih any of them performing those acts.

[dungscooperdave]

I find that the easiest and most convincing way for us to know that the NT is invalid and unreliable is to simply just read it.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...stencies.shtml

One of my favorites is how Jesus tells us not to take oaths and to let our yes be our yes and our no be our no, yet he himself begins some of his statements by saying "Verily Verily I say unto you". What's that supposed to mean, we can't trust him when doesn't say that?

Another one I like is how in Matthew it says that Judas hanged himself but in Acts it says that "falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. " How can we trust either one of these accounts when they obviously contradict each other?

From the Epistles,
TI 6:20, 2TI 2:14-16, 3:1-7 Do not argue with an unbeliever.
2JN 1:10-11 Anyone who even greets an unbeliever shares his wicked work.
1PE 3:15 Always be ready to answer any man concerning your faith.

[JerryLove]

I cannot go with you on the oath one at least... It's "don't swear on anything on heaven or on Earth or on your own head" (paraphrased) and your example does not have Jesus doing any of those.

[dungscooperdave]

Matthew 5:33-37
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' [34] But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; [35] nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. [36] Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. [37] But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

I don't understand what the difference between saying "I swear!" or "I'm really telling you the truth!" is any different than taking an oath. I've always been taught that the point of the passage is to mean that we shouldn't take oaths because we should be telling the truth all the time, so taking oaths is pointless, and by taking an oath we are indicating that we sometimes don't always tell the truth but that in this particular instance we really are. Yet Jesus himself sometimes tries to convince that he is telling us the truth by saying, "Most assuredly" or "Verily Verily". Even if this doesn't count for hypocrisy and an inconsistency, it should at least count as an absurdity.

[JerryLove]

A reading of the passage does not seem to support your "don't swear because it's redundant"... Rather, the examples all basically tell you that the things you swear by are not yours (you have not even the poswer over your own head to change its hair-color), and therefore you should not swear by things.

To emphasize something "seriously, I mean it" is not to swear on something "May God strike me down and my teeth fall out if I am not telling the truth".

In an absoulte worst case (most favorable for you) it's uncertain... and it's hardly reasonable to say "one interpretation might cause this to be contrary so it must be contrary".

[dungscooperdave]

Either way, though, it really doesn't matter. Just take a look at the list from infidels.org (from which there are many other and much better examples) and it doesn't take too long to realize that we must really place some serious doubt on the validity and authority of the Bible.

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Three of the gospels appear to have a single parent source from which they are all created.. the fourth seems to be an independant writing.

Many scholars actually believe that there were two sources-- the 'signs' tradition and the 'sayings' tradition. Because we have extant examples of 'sayings' gospels, it is reasonable to postulate that there might have been a sayings gospel which predated the canonical gospels. Most likely, the Gospel of Mark borrowed heavily from one or more of these traditions, and the other two borrowed from Mark and other elements of the 'sayings' and 'signs' traditions. John, on the other hand, appears to have been composed either with other material on-hand, especially 'signs' material, and other traditional material that was unavailable to the other writers.

[rainoflove]

While the 4 accounts of the crucifiction given by the gospels are consistant (AFAIK), there is no emperical data which establishes any of the specific events (we know the hill exists, we know people were cricified there, we have no evidence reagrding Jesus being crucified there);

Do we have any recordings of who was crucified etc? Or just some? Did the Romans actually record who was crucified?
A search on google didn't really come up with much, except some references that the answer is no. They didn't bother (most of the time) recording who was crucified. Or at least, we have no documents of names etc.

there are also no contemporary eye-witness records to the event outside the gospels

Yes, but here is the deal from my perspective:

The gospels were written by people who had 'interviewed' or taken the details from eye witnesses. Now, if Luke got the account from Peter then surely there were others around to counter what was written? Perhaps, even non-christian people verified what they at least had witnessed.

Remember, the jews probably were just happy to get rid of him and the leaders of the day wouldn't encourage much talk of the guy anyway. And the Romans probably didn't even care, they had nothing really to do with it...

However, if the eye-witness history was wrong don't you think SOMEONE out of the 500 or so disciples, or even of the twelve, would have eventually stood up and proclaimed that it was all a lie? There's a great deal of people here that were apparently witnesses, contrary to a mythical perspective where usually there's only one witness...

We also have more public accounts in the gospels than private. I find that especially interesting, as these accounts were written so close to the actual time they happened. Surely it would have been alot more easier to have just written a whole lot of private stuff that Jesus did? Then it wouldn't be disputed, because no one else was actually there...

I see Paul and Jesus's messages as conflicting rather heavily... but if we presume for a moment that they do match, and we assume that Jesus was fictional (and assuming your order of authorship is correct); I see no problem with the hypothesis that the gospels are consistant with Pauls epistles because the gospel writers were familiar with them.

Cool, so we can agree that Paul and Peter were not at headlocks (save over an issue over the jews once) over the doctrine or who Jesus actually was. That's important, i think, so that we don't accuse Paul of distorting the original message.

However, your statement that Paul's messages conflicted with Jesus' would mean you're saying (given the latter statement) that John's and Peter's contradicted as well. If so, any particular reason?

Remember, bear in mind that these guys are jews and probably have a greater understanding than even the christians have today of what the messiah actually meant. Given the prophecies they believe Jesus fulfilled, and the scripture Jesus quoted (when reffering to himself perhaps) their doctrines of him could match up quite perfectly, and so re-iterate what Jesus' message was.

Because, in addition to the likelyhood that Josephus's text on the matter is largely a forgery.. neither offers and claim of the events beyong "here's what Christians believe".

I'll grant you that, but remember that most scholars agree that Josephus's writings are not without "interpolations." So its not all a forgery alltogether.

Also, please remember that the gospel writings and the letters were not in a Bible at the first century. So, they would seem to be independent (and in fact, really are.) So, why can they not be accepted as valid historical documents that carry some reliable weight?

You don't know that what you are saying is true... you simply are not personally aware of someone who did.

You're right, i'm just throwing the question out there. But surely SOMEONE, even perhaps the jews, would have questioned the authenticity of what they were saying. No one in history seems to dismiss it as a myth. Out of all the first century christians, surely someone checked out the details and spoke to the witnesses, or people living in the area, and discovered it was untrue? Probably more than one person, at least. Yet there's no recorded evidence of someone disputing the apostles stories round that time. In fact, in 1 Cor 15 Paul is basically inviting people to go check it out, when he mentions that some of the witnesses are still alive.

There is some; mostly around suspicious similarities with other stories, particularly with Yesuah Bar Perdiah (spelling)... though the dating on that story cannot be strictly confirmed either.

I'll grant you the similarities, but most of the other stories seemed to have come from single sources. As well as a mythical quality as they supposedly occured 'along time ago' kind of thing.

Leadership of a growing religion? What does anyone ever gain by lying?

Usually something advantagous to them, not expelsion from their families, religion, background and the possibility of death. Yes, i know people have stood for dumb things in the past, but we're talking a sizeable number of people here, not a few wacko's.

Sure... but I presume you are referring to the apostles/deciples in particular... I have no knowledge that would establih any of them performing those acts.

Pretty much yes. But also, some have claimed that Constantine's so called church institution formulated the whole thing. Any documented evidence of such a theory?

I know this is long reading again. Sorry! I'll adress the other's posts seperately.

Take care
Rain

[rainoflove]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

Another one I like is how in Matthew it says that Judas hanged himself but in Acts it says that "falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. " How can we trust either one of these accounts when they obviously contradict each other?

I read a very plausible theory for this one today on the net, after reviewing your post. Basically, we're talking 1st century where certain phrases or words might mean different things.

They took the idea from Esther 7:8-10, where a man is hanged. Basically, at the time people were'nt hanged from ropes, but hanging basically meant that you were impaled. They even called the devise used to impale a 'gallows.'

So, if Judas impaled himself, it would make sense to say that he fell headlong and, depending exactly where he impaled himself, his guts would spill out.

Remember the time period. It would be natural for them to refer to this as a 'hanging,' and so when they say 'he hung himself' this is what they are meaning.

I haven't checked this out myself completely yet, but it seems a plausible theory that makes sense. You can't view the writings in the bible through a 21st century mindset. Meanings of words or actions change over time (an example would be some of our modern day expletives )

Rain

[JerryLove]

Do we have any recordings of who was crucified etc? Or just some? Did the Romans actually record who was crucified?

Weather they did or did not (they were generally meticulious, but I don't know how much so in the provences), they point was to ask what the original poster was referring to when asserting that "archeology" was constantly coming out in support of the NT.

The gospels were written by people who had 'interviewed' or taken the details from eye witnesses.

If that is the case, then the Gospels, being written first-person, are obviously lies.. the only question becomes if there is any truth in there as well.

Now, if Luke got the account from Peter then surely there were others around to counter what was written? Perhaps, even non-christian people verified what they at least had witnessed.

Or perhaps they all said "what rubbish" and the Christians published it anyway; or perhaps evil gnomes used their mind-control powers... "Perhaps" doesn't do much here.

Since you are not interacting with my post, I'm skipping forward.

Cool, so we can agree that Paul and Peter were not at headlocks (save over an issue over the jews once) over the doctrine or who Jesus actually was. That's important, i think, so that we don't accuse Paul of distorting the original message.

That's not at issue. The topic of this thread is weather Jesus (Joshua Bar Joeseph) existed. We are not discussing what he ment, or what his message was or any of that; we are discussing weather he existed. Again you are not interacting with the topic, again I am skipping forward.

I'll grant you that, but remember that most scholars agree that Josephus's writings are not without "interpolations." So its not all a forgery alltogether.

I realize that; but they also do nothing to establish that Jesus existed... they only tell of what 2nd century Christians believed... wht they believed is not in dispute.

Also, please remember that the gospel writings and the letters were not in a Bible at the first century. So, they would seem to be independent (and in fact, really are.) So, why can they not be accepted as valid historical documents that carry some reliable weight?

Asked and answered... They are self-serving, they are unsupported by secualr eye-witnesses, and 3 appear to be compies of one original story.

You're right, i'm just throwing the question out there. But surely SOMEONE, even perhaps the jews, would have questioned the authenticity of what they were saying. No one in history seems to dismiss it as a myth.

You answer your own question... "surely someone disputed it" (even if it did happen), but there is no record. This establishes that the record of disputes is neccessairily incomplete.

Out of all the first century christians, surely someone checked out the details and spoke to the witnesses, or people living in the area, and discovered it was untrue?

Maybe, though it's worth noting most all the witnesses would have been dead.

Probably more than one person, at least. Yet there's no recorded evidence of someone disputing the apostles stories round that time.

No evidence of anyone disputing a given appearance of Ra or Zeus either.

I'll grant you the similarities, but most of the other stories seemed to have come from single sources. As well as a mythical quality as they supposedly occured 'along time ago' kind of thing.

The *other* Jesus is dated and shows up as a record of events. He was born from a woman named Mary and a Roman soldier, went around healing people, was convicted of herecy, was stoned to death and hung from a tree. At oen point, the Bible even slips up and uses the wrong legend:

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead–whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree." - Acts 5:30

Usually something advantagous to them, not expelsion from their families, religion, background and the possibility of death.

What did John Smith gain? Or Muhammed? Or the leaders of Falun gong, or Heaven's Gate?

Yes, i know people have stood for dumb things in the past, but we're talking a sizeable number of people here, not a few wacko's.

How many authors can you prove wrote the Gospels while asserting first-hand knowledge? Two? Three?

Pretty much yes. But also, some have claimed that Constantine's so called church institution formulated the whole thing. Any documented evidence of such a theory?

Dunno, I have not made a positive claim like that.

[rainoflove]

Weather they did or did not (they were generally meticulious, but I don't know how much so in the provences), they point was to ask what the original poster was referring to when asserting that "archeology" was constantly coming out in support of the NT.

I was the original poster by the way
At any rate, I was proposing a discussion not asserting anything. There have been certain archaological findings of places, and of certain documents relating to who Luke said ruled a particular province etc. You've brought up the crucifixion as a starting point, and now i would like to wait and see if anyone else has any info pertaining to it because its a good discussion.

If that is the case, then the Gospels, being written first-person, are obviously lies.. the only question becomes if there is any truth in there as well.

The Gospels are written first person? I don't recall seeing "I went here" and "I saw Jesus do this." I may be wrong, but they don't come across as first person to me (unless history textbooks are 1st person)

Or perhaps they all said "what rubbish" and the Christians published it anyway; or perhaps evil gnomes used their mind-control powers... "Perhaps" doesn't do much here.

I am merely trying to come to some logical reasoning... placing ourselves in the shoes of the people at the time.

That's not at issue. The topic of this thread is weather Jesus (Joshua Bar Joeseph) existed. We are not discussing what he ment, or what his message was or any of that; we are discussing weather he existed. Again you are not interacting with the topic, again I am skipping forward.

No we are discussing the evidence of Jesus of Nazareth, and we are discussing the origins of christianity (as per the thread's title.) The point i was trying to discuss with you was whether christianity found itself in Jesus or whether it was the imagination of Paul.
So, my point was that if Paul and the apostle boys agreed then we now have 12 guys who were in on the conspiracy. I'm assessing whether they made Jesus up or merely distorted his words, or if they represented him exactly as he would have wanted him to.

Maybe, though it's worth noting most all the witnesses would have been dead.

MOST ALL is not all of them, and besides the 1 Cor 15 creed that Paul mentions apparently can date back to about 37AD, which is just a few years after the death of Jesus. The fact that the letters were written before the gospels means there was teaching that a man called Jesus existed, and that there were witnesses to the fact (they say that there were witnesses.) Therefore, at the time of the letter people could dispute with many witnesses still alive.

No evidence of anyone disputing a given appearance of Ra or Zeus either.

No evidence of Hercules whom Zeus appeared to either... as far as i know. Mythical God's appearing to mythical people is hardly a good argument. Unless you'd like to argue the existance of Paul and the disciples as well, which you're more than welcome to.

was stoned to death and hung from a tree

At oen point, the Bible even slips up and uses the wrong legend:

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead–whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree." - Acts 5:30

Interesting that you used the wording 'hung FROM a tree' and the Bible says 'hanging ON a tree." This would indicate he was physically ON the tree. Hanging FROM a tree is entirely different.

Please can you supply me the dates and details of this guy so i can research it myself as well. thanks!

What did John Smith gain? Or Muhammed? Or the leaders of Falun gong, or Heaven's Gate?

I'll research each independently before judging any of these people.

How many authors can you prove wrote the Gospels while asserting first-hand knowledge? Two? Three?

I don't think i can prove exactly who was giving their account, not so much as we can prove how many people gave their account to the battle of blood river in South Africa. Historians get eye witness accounts from various people and put it together. Certain key people would get mentioned, especially if they were involved in some big way, others probably not.

Rain

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How many authors can you prove wrote the Gospels while asserting first-hand knowledge? Two? Three?

We have enough extant gospels that seem to borrow from the same sources that I would venture that probably, there were at least a few which predated any that we now have. Given that Mark was probably written in the 60s or 70s, it doesn't seem unlikely that there were accounts written or dictated by the disciples. The fact that we have none of them is very disturbing to me.

[JerryLove]

At any rate, I was proposing a discussion not asserting anything. There have been certain archaological findings of places, and of certain documents relating to who Luke said ruled a particular province etc.

We also know that Pilate was the govenor of the region, and that most (if not all) of the mentioned physical locations exist. My issue with your comment about physical evidence is that none relate to Jesus; they simply establish the historical context of the Gospel. You'll find the same historical context can be established for "Shogun" or "Sum of All Fears", but both are fictional.

The Gospels are written first person? I don't recall seeing "I went here" and "I saw Jesus do this." I may be wrong, but they don't come across as first person to me (unless history textbooks are 1st person)

You are correct... In this case, they suffer from no reference whatsoever to source.

I am merely trying to come to some logical reasoning... placing ourselves in the shoes of the people at the time.

But you are trying to support a positive claim (Jesus existed) with postulation from ignorance.

No we are discussing the evidence of Jesus of Nazareth, and we are discussing the origins of christianity (as per the thread's title.) The point i was trying to discuss with you was whether christianity found itself in Jesus or whether it was the imagination of Paul.

I think that liberal Christianity (formerly the mainstream) is more heavily founded in the Gospels and less heavily in the writings of Paul and his deciples. I think fundamentalist Christanity is the opposite... I don't have any emperical evendece or secular eye witnesses to support that the events in the Gospels are actual.

So, my point was that if Paul and the apostle boys agreed then we now have 12 guys who were in on the conspiracy.

From where comes your information that all 12 apostles claimed to have witnessed the events? You are not simply trusting the Bible are you?

MOST ALL is not all of them

But if I start talking about this big bru-ha-ha that occured in Acron Ohio back in 1920; there's not gonna be a lot of people standing up across the nation disputing it.

Now remove newspapers, education, the internet, phones, cars, planes, and discretionary income and see how much harder it becomes to find out if my claim is true.

and besides the 1 Cor 15 creed that Paul mentions apparently can date back to about 37AD, which is just a few years after the death of Jesus

On what basis do you assert this age?

The fact that the letters were written before the gospels means there was teaching that a man called Jesus existed, and that there were witnesses to the fact (they say that there were witnesses.)

It means that there were people with writing saying there were witnesses... I have no idea if anyone said "I saw it" (though I believe Peter did, and I know Paul did, but only after Jesus was dead and again without corroboration)

Therefore, at the time of the letter people could dispute with many witnesses still alive.

We don't know when witnesses started waling around, we don't know where, we don't know if the story changed, and we don't know if people disputed it or not.

I write myself a book saying God came to me and said "eat only odd numbers" in the middle of a mall. I get some followers (who soon start believing they heard about that elsewhere). A bunch of people dispute it, but it's not like the mayor is gonna put out a proclimation that we can reasearch later... After 70 years, a cult of odd-nubmer-eating people is around; and most everyone else's memories are rather foggy... Some believe, some don't... 2000 years pass...

No evidence of Hercules whom Zeus appeared to either... as far as i know. Mythical God's appearing to mythical people is hardly a good argument.

The people in question are not mythical... Several Roman emperors claim to have been visited by their dieties.

Please can you supply me the dates and details of this guy so i can research it myself as well. thanks!

I'll see what I can find.. it's been a while and it's not like I sit here with a pile of references... if I could remember the spelling of his last name I'd be doing better.

I don't think i can prove exactly who was giving their account, not so much as we can prove how many people gave their account to the battle of blood river in South Africa. Historians get eye witness accounts from various people and put it together. Certain key people would get mentioned, especially if they were involved in some big way, others probably not.

OK. We know that no physical evidence exists to corroborate any of the events directly involving Christ... What can we establish about the written record? Who wrote it? What were their sources?

[Joel]

One of my favorites is how Jesus tells us not to take oaths and to let our yes be our yes and our no be our no, yet he himself begins some of his statements by saying "Verily Verily I say unto you". What's that supposed to mean, we can't trust him when doesn't say that?

Another one I like is how in Matthew it says that Judas hanged himself but in Acts it says that "falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. " How can we trust either one of these accounts when they obviously contradict each other?


On your first point, Jerry answers very well. There is alot of history and jewishness in oath taking before God and Jesus is addressing these issues mostly. the main point being- yes should mean yes and it shouldn't have to be hitched with oaths before God.


As to your second point, both are correct. Judas did hang himself. But it was a high passsover and to have a dead body hanging out in the open would be a defilement so early writings speak of the Jews taking Judas' body to the citry walss and throwing it over--where his bowels burst asunder and where the cemetery called aceldema (the field of blood) was established in honor of Judas' betrayal of Jesus.

But you are trying to support a positive claim (Jesus existed) with postulation from ignorance.


But all the claims that the historical writings that do prove Jesus existed are merely bias fiction hasn't been proved. Just because some religious writings are works of fiction by their authors do not mean that all religious writings are ficticious works done by people to gain advantage over others. What needs to be done is to establish proof that the writings of Levi (Matthew) Mark (John Mark who travelled with Barnabass and Saul) John (the beloved apostle of Jesus) and Paul(who was alive in Jerusalem when Jesus would have been there) are all conspiratorial in nature. Proof needs to be given that these men sought to defraud Israel in tentionally, by creating a ficticious religious leader and providing details which could have been refuted by thousands and thousands. We need to see evidence that this all was an intentional attempt at deception. Which would make these writers despicable characters and thus making Christianity a faith that should be shunned at all costs for it is founded on fraud, deception, and malicious intent.




[QUOTE]We have enough extant gospels that seem to borrow from the same sources that I would venture that probably, there were at least a few which predated any that we now have. Given that Mark was probably written in the 60s or 70s, it doesn't seem unlikely that there were accounts written or dictated by the disciples. The fact that we have none of them is very disturbing to me.

Matthew, Mark and John wrote as eyewitnesses. Peter wrote his epistles as an eyewitness. Yes they borrowed heavy from letters that were circulated, but also from interviews (such as talking to Mary) fropm those directly involved in the 31/2 year ministry of Jesus.

As far as extant manuscripts, unfortunately there are none known to exist. but this should not trouble asny so. The closest we have is the John Ryland papyri which is dated c.100ad. It is a portion of the gospel of John if I remember correctly and this would put it as the closest source document historically speaking of any document in existence.