Quote Originally Posted by Neal Cary
Given all of the contradictions in the Bible, given that there were so many different early sects of Christianity (some gnostic sects believing that Jesus was not an actual living person), given that most of the elements in the story of "Jesus" can be found in religions that preceded Christianity...
I've never found any contradictions in the Bible, but you don't even need to rely on inerrancy to prove the resurrection, but by simply treating the 66 books of the Bible as a historical document to glean what you can from it using historical standards and methodology. There is always competing views, so just because there was then, many of which are weeded out by God's word, is not a valid reason to deny the truth. There are common elements in the human condition across all religions, but there are no resurrections before Christ. Gnosticism is something that developed in later centuries after the word of God was completed. Those books, therefore, are too late to be considered.

Given that much of the symbolism in the Jesus story has roots in astrology, and given that the town of Nazareth was not in existence at the time of this supposed birth of Jesus, it is highly likely that the whole persona of Jesus began as a fictional story to teach lessons from the Old Testament, and then evolved through exaggeration and retelling.
I couldn't find any symbolism having to do with astrology. Have you thought you are perhaps reading into the text that which is not there? There is no reason to think Nazareth didn't exist at the time when Jesus was born. If Jesus is fictional then you would have to throw out every historical figure in antiquity since Jesus is the most documented person with 45 sources within 150 years of His death. Whereas Tiberius who died just 4 years after Jesus only had 9. By your approach Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Julius Caesar never existed. Of course no credible historian is so cavalier to disregard evidence.

Legends theory is not possible because the eyewitness testimony goes right back to the original disciples and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/legendstheory.htm

The church has had plenty of time and power to make up "evidence" to support this story as fact, and there have been many instances where Christians have been caught lying and creating fraudulent "evidence."
I am not aware of any situation where Christians have been caught lying and creating fraudulent evidence, and even if there was in subsequent centuries that doesn't discount what the 66 books of the Bible says, since the Bible must be merited on its own account.

There was not plenty of time to make stuff up. For example, Acts gives a biography of Paul but makes no mention of his death after recounting several instances where he almost died. In a biography that's not something you would leave out. Paul died in 65 AD. Therefore, Acts can be placed around 55 AD. But Luke said Acts was part two of his former work, so that places Luke around 45 AD. Since Luke took in part from Mark that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross. And since Mark worked closely with Peter that places Peter's two books quite early also. Such closeness to the events holds the highest standards in antiquity. There is just not enough time for your legends theory to develop. Paul recounts the gospel message, and he said he spent 15 days with Peter, with James and John. Most of the books of the Bible were written before 65 AD, because they were martyred around then. And you can recite all the verses of the NT except for 11 verses from quotes of the church fathers in late first century and second century.

Josephus lived after this supposed Jesus so his writings about Christian events are at best second hand. After all, he was Jewish wasn't he, so even he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. The original manuscripts of Josephus have not survived, and the various copies of his work do not agree on wording and content. This variance in content and other evidence seems to indicate later scribes (Christian, of course) interpolated material many times over hundreds of years into his work -- and did so in a very sloppy manner.
That Josephus spoke of Jesus but did not agree with his divinity is called enemy attestation which gives support for the historicity of Jesus. The original manuscript of all writings in antiquity have not survived but what historian closes up shop because the original papyri are no longer in existence? Whatever portion you think is not of Josephus almost all scholars agree he was nonetheless talking about Jesus and the brother of Jesus who was James, an Elder of the church of Jerusalem and was killed for his faith. All of Josephus' writings are consistent. There are not subsequent copies that disagree with Josephus' writings so that is just wishful thinking on your part.

I doubt whether Jesus and the disciples ever lived at all. The story has all the earmarks of any fish tale. The resources to back up my statements can be found on the American Atheists website (atheists.org), in the collected writings of Frank Zindler, and in books such as "The Jesus Puzzle."
Cordially,

Neal Cary
Chairman of the Board
American Atheists, Inc.
There are no earmarks of a fish tale to speak of, perhaps that's why you are being coy, because you have no evidence for your accusations. Praise the Lord!

All the responses to to alleged claims by Frank Zindler can be found in the award winning, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004) by Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona. Also check out The Historical Jesus by Habermas. And see Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus by Habermas.