The Most Documented Person in Antiquity

[Parture]

Just because scholars agree that it is not natural to come back to life, do not assume that they belive that it happened.

I can use this same argument to "prove" that all of the greek Gods exist.

Where did I assume scholars all believed it happened? You must have misread, for I said scholars concede this is what the disciples truly believed, but scholars don't have a naturalistic explanation to account for it.

You can't use the same argument for Greek gods because the ancients never walked among the people and they were not multiply attested by eyewitnesses like for Jesus.

[Parture]

Have you considered the possibility that "Luke" hade no knowlege of Paul's death?

Luke traveled with Paul. If you read Acts they were in regular contact. They both kept writing about each other. "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4.11). So if either died, they would have known about it. What I recommend you do is read the Bible intimately because you are filled with prejudices that are easily exposed and torn down by reading God's word.

[Parture]

So you agree that Luke "took" from mark???

Given your position the argument can be made that since "Luke" is a revision of Mark (dated to no earlier than C.E. 70) and "Acts" is "part 2" it could not have been writen earlier then "Luke" which could not have been writen any earlier then "Mark". Which would put it after C.E. 70.

Since everyone agrees Mark was extremely early, I think it's fair to say Luke may have had access to it and incorporated it into his writings, after all Luke worked with Peter and Mark, and Luke was meticulous.

"Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught" (Luke 1.1-4).

Luke is not a revision, but Luke is Luke's collection of everything he could get his hands on. Based on the argument given to you before, Luke's account would be written likely no later than 45 AD. Mark was written even earlier you admit so that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross or even earlier.

[Parture]

Ok, since no person can come back from the dead after 2 and a half days. I conclude that "ressurection" is impossible.

The Bible doesn't make the claim Jesus resurrected naturally so that blows your theory. Since you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, you concede Jesus resurrected. Praise the Lord!

[Parture]

Remember the only manuscripts that most scholars belive are not forgeries are Romans I and II Corinthians and Galatians. And if "Acts" was writen after C.E. 70 (which I have argued is more then valid) Then it is likely an addition, not what Paul actually stated. So you lose.

According to the list of scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, by Gary Habermas who has the longest list in the world, one thing they almost all agree on is Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. In fact they believe Paul wrote all his letters with only some minor contention about Hebrews.

Acts as we have seen was written around 55 AD at the latest which you have not been able to overturn the argument given.

Basically you can believe all the writings were written right when the events happened or very shortly afterward unless you have a good reason to think otherwise. You have no good reasons to date.

[Parture]

Lets list them shall we?

People that were not there.
People that are exagerating.
People That want to make money.
People that are liers.
People that don't know how to translate correctly.

I can do this all day. Do you want me to list more?

The documentation is better than for any other event in antiquity so it wouldn't be a valid argument to say they weren't there. They are very well multiply attested.

How do you exaggerate from resurrection? This was the original teaching of the Church by the original disciples. And an exaggeration would be a lie. A person can't partially resurrect. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so that's why most scholars concede they believed it.

How do you make money in what was clearly a religion that did not profit in the early Church. They were mocked, thrown to the lions, blamed for burning down Rome, etc. They were told by Jesus they would be martyred. It's hard to see dollar signs in that.

99% percent of Biblical sources are the same and no differences on major doctrine.

Since you first attempts don't work, what else do you got?

[Parture]

First of all, it is clear that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, because when their Gospels contain material found in Mark, the wording in Greek is almost identical as that in Mark's Gospel. This could not have happened if they were relying on oral sources, Aramaic sources, or even a common Greek source. Also, the Missing Block convincingly shows that Luke was relying on Mark's Gospel for everything he knew about the life of Jesus. So, the first clue, as to when Matthew and Luke were written, is to define when Mark was written. One of the internal clues to the date of Mark's Gospel is at Mark 13:2, where Jesus was said to prophesy the destruction of the Temple, an event that occurred in 70 CE. According to Mark, Jesus went on to predict the end of the world within the lifetime of his followers. If Jesus had really prophesied the destruction of the Temple, he would have been correct, but he would have been in error about the imminent end of times. Since it can not be accepted that Jesus made predictions that were capable of being in error, these prophecies must have originated with Mark, writing at a time when he would have known of the destruction or imminent destruction of the temple. Other references in this Gospel indicate that it could not have been written much after 70 CE. So, we can say that Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or very early in the 70s CE.

I am glad you can't show the wording is almost identical. However, you ought to expect some similarities because oral tradition uses same phraseology repeated over and over again. Luke said he used many sources not just Mark.

Mark never predicted the end of the world. Nobody in the whole Bible predicted the end of the world. How silly. Nor does he predict any such thing in the span of their lifetime. What the gospel writers do is mention this evil generation will continue till these things are finished, including the destruction of the Temple and the prince that is to come at the end of this age.

The fact that none of them mention the destruction of the Temple had already happened but was going to happen shows the accounts were written before 70 AD and likely sometime before because otherwise they would have said the Temple is being destroyed as they wrote these things down. Only does John suggest the Temple was destroyed in Rev. 11: "But the court which is without the temple leave out" (v.2). John wrote Revelation around 95 AD.

As was said before since Acts was written around 55 AD because no mention of Paul's death is given, that places Luke around 45 AD and since Luke took from Mark that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross.

[Parture]

To quote my self:

Again Tacitus only mentions a Christion Idol (the founder of the name), he never validates Jesus' ressurection (or name) in any way shape or form.

Why not respond to what I said already in response? ... The part that almost all scholars agree is authentic still speaks of Jesus. Tacitus mentions Jesus also.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44.

The Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus. Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value.

"Christus, the founder of the name [Christians]". This is called enemy attestation. Now Tacitus wrote this around 95 AD, 62 years after Jesus died on the cross, so all he can do is work with information, but surely he would not make the mistake about these very events and claims of the Church. He is an accurate reporter.

Christians consider secondary sources of little value. Only the primary sources count which are the writings of the New Testament and to a lesser extent those apostles such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome and some others who knew Peter and John personally and also commented on Paul.

Based on everything you said, you are wrong in everything you said.