OT: The resurrection

[Wheels Of Fyre]

{snip of dumbshit dribble}

I thought you were going to stop posting here...that you were ashamed to hang with racists...why don't you stick to your word...please?

Yes - I said I was going to stop posting here but NOT because I was ashamed of any racists - you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to explain myself again especially to you because from what I've seen you're absolutely uninterested/incapable of understanding anybodt without tripping over your own bloated ego.

Now isn't there something you could go stick to...

[Marc S]

conversationpc

So your "God Squad" terminology and remark about "getting a life" were meant to be just terms of endearment?

No. They are meant to be derogatory. Hence why we are coming to verbal blows. I vehemently disagree with the whole premise and purpose of the bible and the way Christians shove it in my face. I think the morality stories and fables I was taught as a kid are all well and good. Indeed, you can't argue with the ten commandments. Infact I've always thought Christs teachings were a kind of acceptable communist manifesto, but when you start to say it was real and it happened, sorry pal, in the name of common sense and reality check, I glaze over. It's my responsibility to not let you guys get away with this.

To really bore you, when I got married some years ago I was a total hypocrite and wanted a nice rinky-dink country church for some nice pics. The rector said we would have to attend regularly for 6 months. I saw this as a real chance (no I am not taking the piss now) to dig deep and see if there was something I'd been missing for all of those years. We went every Sunday for 6 months. I tried the hardest I have ever tried to understand their faith and I kept hitting a brick wall. Time after time. Each time we had a discussion and it came to the crucial questions, all I got was 'because it says so in the bible' or 'because Jesus said'. When I mentioned Darwin or the Big Bang it was like talking to an automaton. Weird as hell. It was impassable. I came away thoroughly unfulfilled in my mission. It is utter bollocks I'm afraid.

[Indyjoe]

Its exactly that - read SJs post again. The very fact you want prove that the resurrection occurred, when, as even Fyre concurs, there is no evidence to support it. RaiderFan in his hermetically-sealed life-bubble talks of 'multiple eyewitnesses' - does he realise how Monty Python thats sounds? Infact that film is one of the most awesome piss-takes of organised religion ever made. Solid gold.

I have read SJ's post enough. I don't agree with him. I do however agree with Raider Fan.

I have long loved Monty Python, however, I agree with Rip Rokken, Life of Brian is a bit too much for me. And my views and beliefs in God do not come from Python movies.

People were recommending 'Mein Campf' in the 30's and Mao was pushing his little book for years - doesn't mean you have to believe them does it, however deluded they are?

I don't think this is comparable to my recommending a little book to Fyre at all. I sure hope he didn't see it that way!

Quote:
"Do something decent with your energies?" What energies? Do you mean rather than posting? Rather than attending church? Just wondering?

Exactly that. Rather than attend church and worship a non-existent 'god', get out there and involve yourself in something, anything thats real and based in fact....? How do all of these lunatic evangelical god channels on the TV raise so much dollar from such vulnerable and gullible people, its an offence to common morality, it really is.

My time in worship and church does not take away from my involving myself in reality. I have already stated I am not on board for the bad TV guys taking from the vulnerable either. God does exist so no worries my time is not wasted.

[Marc S]

RipRokken

Yes, actually, only once. I was a huge fan of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", having seen it about 14 times in a single year. I saw Life of Brian and it pushed the envelope too far with me... never watched it again.

See, if you can't watch that and see the irony, humour and supreme wit - how could it possibly push you too far - how fragile is your resolution and belief?.

The guys who wrote that were all pushed through the English Public School system with its jackboot approach to religious indoctrination and gave two fingers. Bright, bright Oxbridge graduates. Some of the finest, most intelligent and questioning minds to come form the UK.

[Rip Rokken]

See, if you can't watch that and see the irony, humour and supreme wit - how could it possibly push you too far - how fragile is your resolution and belief?.

Not fragile at all... but would you find a film funny that spent a good amount of time insulting your mother? How about your God? I was just offended by it, and it comes from my own conviction. Some things are just not meant to be poked fun of. Trust me, I love Monty Python, and like most everything they do. It just crossed a boundary for me.

[conversationpc]

They are meant to be derogatory. Hence why we are coming to verbal blows.

Nothing in thread has approached "verbal blows", in my opinion, other than your barbs about the "God Squad" and "getting a life" comments.

I tried the hardest I have ever tried to understand their faith and I kept hitting a brick wall. Time after time. Each time we had a discussion and it came to the crucial questions, all I got was 'because it says so in the bible' or 'because Jesus said'. When I mentioned Darwin or the Big Bang it was like talking to an automaton. Weird as hell. It was impassable.

People who use the "Because Jesus said so" or "Because the Bible says so" are immature morons who probably read the Wall Street Journal more than they do their Bible.

It is utter bollocks I'm afraid.

With all due respect, your attitude here doesn't appear to be all that dissimilar from that of the people you described above. So is it because of people like this that you've determined there is no God?

[conversationpc]

See, if you can't watch that and see the irony, humour and supreme wit - how could it possibly push you too far - how fragile is your resolution and belief?.

Those who are never offended probably don't believe in anything strongly enough to really make life worth living in the first place. There are two extremes and both are wrong...

1 - People who get offended at EVERYTHING.

2 - People who get offended at NOTHING.

[Marc S]

conversationpc

Those who are never offended probably don't believe in anything strongly enough to really make life worth living in the first place. There are two extremes and both are wrong...

1 - People who get offended at EVERYTHING.

2 - People who get offended at NOTHING.

I get offended by things that matter.

Third World poverty
Child abuse
Unjust Wars proliferated by Bush/Blair
Ruining this planet for our children
Racism
Fascism

Just a few, lots of things really piss me off. Real things that I can see and perhaps protest about.

[Marc S]

conversationpc

With all due respect, your attitude here doesn't appear to be all that dissimilar from that of the people you described above. So is it because of people like this that you've determined there is no God?

Absolutely not. I really gave it a chance. You're missing the point. The argument had no substance.

[Rip Rokken]

I'm thinking just about everything that can be said has now been said, and the conversation is going in circles now. You can't really explain faith... and it is really not to be explained. You can choose to have it or not.

I know this much... whether I'm right or wrong, I live with hope, and without fear of death. I don't have fear for my future, or even for tomorrow. That is priceless to me, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

I'm thinking just about everything that can be said has now been said, and the conversation is going in circles now. You can't really explain faith... and it is really not to be explained. You can choose to have it or not.

I know this much... whether I'm right or wrong, I live with hope, and without fear of death. I don't have fear for my future, or even for tomorrow. That is priceless to me, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Faith can absolutely be explained. It's simply belief without proof.

To simplify things I'll refer to the idea of everything being created in 6 days. That may have made sense 2,000 years ago but we know better now. So now the faithful are painted into a corner and can only respond: well, it's ultimately a matter of faith.

What I've been arguing is that the Bible really isn't what tradition has led us to believe. With every new scientific discovery the Bible as evidence and/or fact slowly dissolves away. In so doing faith becomes something of a delusion.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

And about the "fighting" if that is the way you see this thread(and maybe you don't), I don't see it that way at all! I like Wheels of Fyre and have enjoyed this discussion. My disagreement on these issues wouldn't change a thing about how I felt about someone.

~Wendy

That's part of the problem nowadays. People are offended too easily. There's really nothing wrong with having a good discussion like this or even a heated discussion, for that matter. I don't take things personally unless they're intended to be taken that way.

I think that is a good plan! I am learning to do the same!

That's why you and Dave are groovy

I know I've said some things that might've been taken the wrong way but I have absolutely no ill will towards anyone. This is always a GREAT topic and I've never understood the "rule" of never discussing religion with friends, etc. Silly.

[Indyjoe]

And about the "fighting" if that is the way you see this thread(and maybe you don't), I don't see it that way at all! I like Wheels of Fyre and have enjoyed this discussion. My disagreement on these issues wouldn't change a thing about how I felt about someone.

~Wendy

That's part of the problem nowadays. People are offended too easily. There's really nothing wrong with having a good discussion like this or even a heated discussion, for that matter. I don't take things personally unless they're intended to be taken that way.

I think that is a good plan! I am learning to do the same!

That's why you and Dave are groovy

I know I've said some things that might've been taken the wrong way but I have absolutely no ill will towards anyone. This is always a GREAT topic and I've never understood the "rule" of never discussing religion with friends, etc. Silly.

You have been very nice to me and can disagree without being unkind. I appreciate that. I think it is great to discuss! No ill will from me toward anyone either!!

~Wendy

[conversationpc]

What I've been arguing is that the Bible really isn't what tradition has led us to believe. With every new scientific discovery the Bible as evidence and/or fact slowly dissolves away. In so doing faith becomes something of a delusion.

It's just the opposite from how I see it. There are tons of examples of people saying such and such in the Bible couldn't possibly be so and then some archeological discovery proves that the Bible was correct. People used to think Sodom and Gomorrha never existed until evidence was discovered ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 497476.stm ) Same thing for other places, people, etc.

[conversationpc]

Here's a couple of funny caricatures of two different types of religious people...


Be he a Baptist, Scientologist or Zoroastrian, in the heat of battle Deacon will call down Divine retribution on all net sinners, and will never miss an opportunity to blather endlessly about his religion. Deacon is fervent and earnest, but seldom contributes anything of interest or substance to the discussion. Occasionally Tireless Rebutter or Philosopher will rouse themselves engage Deacon in battle, but they soon lose interest because of his utter predictability.


Atheist is Deacon's cyber-doppelganger. Deacon and Atheist hold equally fervent, though diametrically opposed beliefs about religion, and both feel compelled to share those beliefs at every possible opportunity. Should an unsuspecting forum member make even a passing comment about faith or spirituality of any flavor, Atheist will descend like one of the Furies, mercilessly hectoring all of the ignorant and delusional believers about the sordid history of the church and the pernicious effects of religion on society. After a few of Atheist’s anti-religious jeremiads most other Warriors will avoid the subject altogether, though Evil Clown may egg him on a little, and Philosopher may amuse himself by pointing out flaws in his reasoning. If a forum has the misfortune of having both Deacon and Atheist as members, the bickering often continues until Nanny or Admin pulls the plug. Bliss Ninny can also sometimes squelch the conversation by saying, “Well, everyone has a right to their [sic] opinion.”

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm

[Indyjoe]

What I've been arguing is that the Bible really isn't what tradition has led us to believe. With every new scientific discovery the Bible as evidence and/or fact slowly dissolves away. In so doing faith becomes something of a delusion.

It's just the opposite from how I see it. There are tons of examples of people saying such and such in the Bible couldn't possibly be so and then some archeological discovery proves that the Bible was correct. People used to think Sodom and Gomorrha never existed until evidence was discovered. Same thing for other places, people, etc.

I was thinking the same thing.

There is a really cool little museum(part of the institute) here in SoCal, down by San Diego. It is the Institute for Creation Research. Here is a link... http://www.icr.org/

Research that supports Creation.

[Rip Rokken]

Faith can absolutely be explained. It's simply belief without proof.

No, perhaps that describes "blind faith". You can have faith in things that you trust, such as that your spouse will arrive home at 6pm each day if that's her habit. The same with God -- God has never left me hanging, and therefore I have faith that He will continue to pull me through when I need him. That's faith based on experience.

What I've been arguing is that the Bible really isn't what tradition has led us to believe. With every new scientific discovery the Bible as evidence and/or fact slowly dissolves away. In so doing faith becomes something of a delusion.

I totally disagree -- there are tons of archaeological evidence that supports the Bible, and more is discovered all the time. Some may say that there is such evidence that also dispels the Bible -- like Jesus' grave they recently found and made a big deal about? Haha....

[strangegrey]

{snip of dumbshit dribble}

I thought you were going to stop posting here...that you were ashamed to hang with racists...why don't you stick to your word...please?

Yes - I said I was going to stop posting here but NOT because I was ashamed of any racists - you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to explain myself again especially to you because from what I've seen you're absolutely uninterested/incapable of understanding anybodt without tripping over your own bloated ego.

Now isn't there something you could go stick to...

Shit for brains, Here's your post:

Way to go! Way to stick it to MR.com and the Bash JOURNEY Forum! I've participated at both forums but have turned away from them precisely because of this garbage.

They've lost all credibility. In fact, this article has been the biggest piece of JOURNEY news in several days on both forums. This speaks volumes regarding the true nature of those forums. They don't talk JOURNEY - they talk TRASH.

My garbage can runneth over and I've moved on to a higher place

Where's this higher place?
Please....go there. Stop your windbag shit here...please...I dont need to keep reading your idiot views on religion....

If you want to infest people with your assinine views, please go to the dog-eater forum at philmusic and do it there...

[Rip Rokken]

Nothing in thread has approached "verbal blows", in my opinion..

I'm just grateful that nobody is tossing around that meaningless (due to gross overuse by idjits) term OWNED in this thread....

[Rick]

Nothing in thread has approached "verbal blows", in my opinion..

I'm just grateful that nobody is tossing around that meaningless (due to gross overuse by idjits) term OWNED in this thread....

[Wheels Of Fyre]

I don't think this is comparable to my recommending a little book to Fyre at all. I sure hope he didn't see it that way!

NO!!! I did not.

I may get around to checking it out. It's pretty cheap at Amazon.com however have you read the book reviews there? I'm not too impressed. Amazon's review doesn't stir me, either.

The people who like it generally state that it's a "good introduction to apologetics and for those seeking questions". Honestly, this doesn't grab me.

Claiming that Jesus truly existed requires more than circular reasoning - many reviews explain that Josh uses quotes from the Bible to prove the truth of what he's saying about it. Here's what I thought was a fiar review:

"Disappointing, Unconvincing, February 15, 2006
By Truth-Seeker (Daytona Beach, FL USA) - See all my reviews

McDowell fails to mention (I can only assume that it's intentional) that the gospels can only serve as hearsay accounts. The traditionally accepted authorship of the gospels is not historically sound by any means. All four gospels were anonymously written. Even if we do accept the traditional authorship of the earliest written gospel (Mark), on which other gospels obviously relied heavily for their information, we still do not have a first-hand account--only the account of a disciple of Peter.

McDowell also omits the embarrassing fact that despite Jesus' alleged fame, there is not one single writing from the actual lifetime of Jesus that mentions him. No writer that was alive during the lifetime of Jesus ever mentions him. In fact, the earliest writings that mention him are the biblical epistles of Paul, who never met an earthly Jesus. It's easy to make a case more convincing than McDowell's that perhaps Jesus, and even the city of Nazareth, never even existed.

Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.E. - 50 C.E) never mentions Jesus.
Seneca (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Nobody does.

This just scratches the surface, but please don't take my word for it. I urge any reader interested in a critical examination of Christianity to read this book (there are over 10,000,000 copies in print--one of your friends probably has a copy), but actually research its claims. It contains some of the best Christian apologetics arguments that exist. It shouldn't be easily refuted, right? I think you'll find otherwise.

I give the book two stars: one for its brevity, and another for helping me find some truth (although not contained in its pages)."

[Wheels Of Fyre]

{snip of dumbshit dribble}

I thought you were going to stop posting here...that you were ashamed to hang with racists...why don't you stick to your word...please?

Yes - I said I was going to stop posting here but NOT because I was ashamed of any racists - you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to explain myself again especially to you because from what I've seen you're absolutely uninterested/incapable of understanding anybodt without tripping over your own bloated ego.

Now isn't there something you could go stick to...

Shit for brains, Here's your post:

Way to go! Way to stick it to MR.com and the Bash JOURNEY Forum! I've participated at both forums but have turned away from them precisely because of this garbage.

They've lost all credibility. In fact, this article has been the biggest piece of JOURNEY news in several days on both forums. This speaks volumes regarding the true nature of those forums. They don't talk JOURNEY - they talk TRASH.

My garbage can runneth over and I've moved on to a higher place

Where's this higher place?
Please....go there. Stop your windbag shit here...please...I dont need to keep reading your idiot views on religion....

If you want to infest people with your assinine views, please go to the dog-eater forum at philmusic and do it there...

You just love to dig your hole deeper. You claimed that I said I was "ashamed to hang with racists" and then you post my actual comment which says nothing of the sort.

I made that comment for the same reasons Andrew temporarily closed this board.

If you don't like my windbag comments then don't read them. Why not go back to your bash forum and tell everyone for the bazillionth time how JOURNEY screwed you and that Neal is a lying, back-stabbing midget? *YAWN*

Please stop trying to hijack this thread.

BTW nice response - calling my wife names and insulting my children again. It's easy to pick on targets that can't fire back, isn't it? Coward. http://philmusic.com/main/content/view/152/7/

[Marc S]

RipRokken

I'm just grateful that nobody is tossing around that meaningless (due to gross overuse by idjits) term OWNED in this thread....

If you're referring to me for using the term 'verbal blows', then fine. Feel free to also infer I'm an 'idjet', I'll take anything you want to throw.

Discussion and argument are meant to be heated, it shows a little passion. Not a cosy little yes-club for like-minded people. If you are going to hold up your faith and belief you need to justify it.

Research that supports Creation.

It never happened - show me any evidence.

Be he a Baptist, Scientologist or Zoroastrian, in the heat of battle Deacon will call down Divine retribution on all net sinners, and will never miss an opportunity to blather endlessly about his religion. Deacon is fervent and earnest, but seldom contributes anything of interest or substance to the discussion. Occasionally Tireless Rebutter or Philosopher will rouse themselves engage Deacon in battle, but they soon lose interest because of his utter predictability.

How about just the plain deluded who have no proof but their 'faith' that will pull them through because, of course, they have seen the light, and can't for the life of them see why others, more based in reality, can't see that light also.

Atheist is Deacon's cyber-doppelganger. Deacon and Atheist hold equally fervent, though diametrically opposed beliefs about religion, and both feel compelled to share those beliefs at every possible opportunity. Should an unsuspecting forum member make even a passing comment about faith or spirituality of any flavor, Atheist will descend like one of the Furies, mercilessly hectoring all of the ignorant and delusional believers about the sordid history of the church and the pernicious effects of religion on society. After a few of Atheist’s anti-religious jeremiads most other Warriors will avoid the subject altogether, though Evil Clown may egg him on a little, and Philosopher may amuse himself by pointing out flaws in his reasoning. If a forum has the misfortune of having both Deacon and Atheist as members, the bickering often continues until Nanny or Admin pulls the plug. Bliss Ninny can also sometimes squelch the conversation by saying, “Well, everyone has a right to their [sic] opinion.”

How cute! What a lovely description...can we sing cum-by-ya now please?

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Faith can absolutely be explained. It's simply belief without proof.

No, perhaps that describes "blind faith". You can have faith in things that you trust, such as that your spouse will arrive home at 6pm each day if that's her habit. The same with God -- God has never left me hanging, and therefore I have faith that He will continue to pull me through when I need him. That's faith based on experience.

What I've been arguing is that the Bible really isn't what tradition has led us to believe. With every new scientific discovery the Bible as evidence and/or fact slowly dissolves away. In so doing faith becomes something of a delusion.

I totally disagree -- there are tons of archaeological evidence that supports the Bible, and more is discovered all the time. Some may say that there is such evidence that also dispels the Bible -- like Jesus' grave they recently found and made a big deal about? Haha....

Faith in the purest sense of the word is belief without proof therefore ALL faith is "blind". I think you're stretching it there. Having faith in something you trust is not having faith - that's simply trust that what has happened will happen again. - like expecting your spouse to return at 6pm each day because there's a FACTUAL history of them doing so.

What grave? Are you perhaps referring to the ossuary thought to be of Jesus' brother James? If so, it's pretty much proven to be a hoax.

Or are you talking about this grave:
http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/02/25/jes ... his-grave/
http://udayms.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/ ... ave-india/

[conversationpc]

McDowell fails to mention (I can only assume that it's intentional) that the gospels can only serve as hearsay accounts. The traditionally accepted authorship of the gospels is not historically sound by any means. All four gospels were anonymously written. Even if we do accept the traditional authorship of the earliest written gospel (Mark), on which other gospels obviously relied heavily for their information, we still do not have a first-hand account--only the account of a disciple of Peter.

Not according to Martin Hengel, who is apparently one of the most learned New Testament scholars in the world...

The unanimity of the attributions in the second century cannot be explained by anything other than the assumption that the titles were part of the works from the beginning. It is inconceivable, he argues, that the Gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors. If they had originally been anonymous, then surely there would have been some variation in second-century attributions (as was the case with some of the second-century apocryphal gospels). Hengel concludes that the four canonical gospels were never even formally anonymous.

Then your quoted review says...

McDowell also omits the embarrassing fact that despite Jesus' alleged fame, there is not one single writing from the actual lifetime of Jesus that mentions him.

Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.E. - 50 C.E) never mentions Jesus.
Seneca (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Nobody does.

That's refuted rather easily by Refuting Remsberg's List

Also...

http://www.forerunner.com/blog/2007/03/ ... -of-2.html

The Mythists’ argument is that no one from the time of Jesus wrote anything about him. They discount all the writings of the Apostles and early Christians because they were “biased.” They discount the dozen or so accounts of Jewish and pagan writers who mention Jesus near the end of the second century because they were not eyewitnesses. What they are looking for is a “smoking gun” – an actual letter or manuscript recording the existence of written by someone prior to Jesus’ death.

Such a plea for comtemporary written evidence is extremely unreasonable. We do not doubt the existence of other ancient figures who were not written about until after their death. Until the 20th century, we had no contemporary evidence that Caiaphas the High Priest or Pontius Pilate, who were mentioned several times in the New Testament, were real people either. They are mentioned by later historians, but except for the Gospels and Acts, there was not a single letter, writing or inscription by them or by a person living in theri time who recorded their sayings or doings.

[Rip Rokken]

RipRokken

I'm just grateful that nobody is tossing around that meaningless (due to gross overuse by idjits) term OWNED in this thread....

If you're referring to me for using the term 'verbal blows', then fine. Feel free to also infer I'm an 'idjet', I'll take anything you want to throw.

Dude... when you take another person's words so far out of context, you endanger your credibility. My first draft of that message actually included a comment that it spoke well for the IQ of the people in the discussion (yourself included) that they weren't using the term "OWNED", but I thought the joke was more effective without the explanation and cut it out.

Yes, I got sick of seeing the term "OWNED" on other boards to the extent that it rapidly became meaningless, and made the people using it look like idjits that had nothing substantive to say.

Regardless, I don't throw bombs, toss insults, so as to keep things lite... just so ya know!

[Rip Rokken]

Faith in the purest sense of the word is belief without proof therefore ALL faith is "blind". I think you're stretching it there. Having faith in something you trust is not having faith - that's simply trust that what has happened will happen again. - like expecting your spouse to return at 6pm each day because there's a FACTUAL history of them doing so.

Perhaps in your own dictionary, but Webster's defines it:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Your def is only one of many, and falls somewhere in the middle.

What grave? Are you perhaps referring to the ossuary thought to be of Jesus' brother James? If so, it's pretty much proven to be a hoax.

Or are you talking about this grave:
http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/02/25/jes ... his-grave/
http://udayms.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/ ... ave-india/

It was this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm

Hyped in a documentary put out by James Cameron, and to me seemed to be trying to grab some of the steam created by "The DaVinci Code". Amazing how many people seemed to be eager to accept it as truth. Stick to fiction, Mr. Cameron -- you are great at it!

[conversationpc]

More on why there aren't many contemporary writings about Jesus from The Forerunner blog.

The demands for "contemporary" records (that is, accounts written during Jesus' life) are as unreasonable as the demands for eye and hair color in order to prove a person existed. Many people from history were not written about during their life times. Jesus was not an internationally known figure in 30 A.D. The Jesus movement was all of 120 people -- and later 500 by the time of the resurrection. Christians were initially thought of as a sect of Judaism, but as they started to grow there appeared enough literature by pagan authors to corroborate what the New Testament says about Jesus. There are hundreds of corroborating events in pagan literature that confirm the New Testament. None of the pagan or Jewish writers at the time claimed Jesus was not a real person. In trying to refute the early Christians, the Jews and pagans would have found this easy enough to do if He were not a true person. This idea has been made up in the last 150 years. No credible, credentialed historian holds this view.

The fact is that we know more about Jesus' life than we do about William Shakespeare. There are no "contemporary" biographies of Shakespeare. However, we have to explain the body of literature bearing his name and the other contemporary playwrights of his day who mention him after his death as being the true author.

[AR]

Bible spoiler

[NealIsGod]

Bible spoiler

But that's just the beginning.