RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

Willowtree...maybe you could tell me in WHICH of these posts, summarized below, did you post evidence???????1. The following 8 facts must be assumed as facts or it is pointless to talk about the Resurrection. And the following 8 facts are progressively easier to prove than the Resurrection, that is, in sequence, starting with number 1 and ending with number 8, these 8 facts are easier to prove than the Resurrection.
1) Jesus lived
2) crucified a) by the Romans
b) instigated by certain Jewish leaders
3) considered dead
4) buried in a known accessible tomb
5) preached; raised, ascended, and an empty tomb
6) Jewish leaders concerned to disprove
7) persecution of disciples for claiming He raised
8) empty tomb/Jewish leaders position at stake.
These 8 things must be assumed as fact, as they are, starting from number 1 being the most easy to prove, with number 8 being the hardest to prove, and of course the Resurrection itself to be the most difficult to prove4. listed three 2nd and possibly 3rd century texts and called Chip a know nothing, mouthing ignorance5. told me you weren’t ignoring me.12. answered to AdminBrian on the ad homenim from post 4.13. asked me if I wanted book titles about the apostles.14. explained the texts from post 4 and called them 1st thru 2nd century.16. retracted insult from 4. rant on Jesus Seminar.18. discussed regaining God sense with Rand.23. told PaulK to read post 16.24. told Ned that part of the NT was found in Qumran 726. more about Q7 and Theide and the JS not believing in miracles30. again make the checkmate evidence claim.32. more about miracles and myths37. telling me you don’t know what I am asking for. And asking US to prove you wrong42. telling Schraf that you have no trouble believing the miracle claims of other religionstwo possible sources: god or satan45. telling Chip that things have to be assumed in any debatemaking martyr claim again46. short post on Q7 again47. telling Ned about two sources of miracle again: god or satan48. talk about miracles with Chip49. disputing Crash about martyrs of other religions50. laughing at Ned’s talk of aliens.59. long post accusing everyone of lying concerning knowledge of the apostles and their deaths..hundreds of sites a fact that every honest and intelligent and educated person knows again requiring the 8 assumptions60. telling Brian to read 59.61. saying that if Jesus rose then everything he said is validated to be truetalking about witchdoctors in Haiti and Africa62. short post to Crash about his saying that Atheism changed his life for the bettershort point about 11 losers becoming 11 men of iron64. told me to read three apologetics and listen to some sermons by Scott (I replied asking for the references these books had and asking for specifics on the sermons you meant)65. sort of apologized to me concerning the ad homenims in 59.72. quote I never said I didn’t know where or how each were
martyred.73. calling Hitchy ignorant about myth statement77. again claim to KNOW this evidence and refusal to give itclaims of dishonesty in your opponents83. said There is no avoidance claim to have answered my questions alreadymore claims of dishonesty90. claim of denial of evidence posted after post one claims
of revision98. telling N-lighter to read an apologetic by Sherlock99. argument with PaulK about John and Alexander.100. claims of ..a room full of debaters who refuse to even recognize all you have posted since post 1.101. claims of massive and voluminous amount of evidence that you again refuse to divulgetalk of dishonesty again

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

lol dont tell people what God expects please... your just lining yourself up to be gunned down.The fact remains that the only evidence to support religious claims are writings that took place 2000 years ago. There is a 50% chance that this book (sorry collection of books) was picked up from the fiction end of the library There is no solid evidence and there is no solid evidence because of the very simple reason that Faith is the key. And like i said you cannot give someone with doubt in there mind Faith... Priests, Bishops, The Pope do a lot to keep political order in the world and make people happy. They can make someone believe in what there saying, but they cannot give those people Faith...only Hope.If you have Faith then good on you but you will never be able to teach someone to have it. If you want to do your part for humanity to ease the pain of people then God Speed but dont try to prove a point it was never meant to work that way !

Apostles, Disciples, fate and death, Thomas, Bartholomew, John, Peter, Andrew
This was the site that I stumbled upon that lists the apostles and what happened to them after the NT stories. Mostly where they travelled is known, but alot of the other details about where and how they died is lost in history.

Thanks for the link Wert. I have seen this one and many others. And the only reference ever listed for the claims not made in the bible are "by tradition" or "stories say". What I have been looking for for several months from WT is the actual evidence that these "stories" are true. He continues to claim that the evidence is "voluminous" and he knows where and how (post 77) each died. He claims to have this evidence and he claims to have given it to us already.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

I do not think it is forthcoming Asgara. WT has painted him/her self into the proverbial corner and has hung him/herself by his/herselfs' namesake.

It's just the usual theme.

[REPLACED in EDIT]
OK, so John WASN'T martyred. One down. How about the rest of them. How about dealing with the evidence I produced from Tacitus ? How about producing sources describing the martyrdoms, showing that they are reliable and that they actually back up your claims (none of the ones *I* have seen have been specifically focussed on the Resurrection - and for many of the apostles it isn't even certain WHERE or WHEN they died).Try this link - to a very conservative site that is clearly biased in favour of views at least similar to yours:Amazing Bible Timeline with World History – Easily See 6017 Years of Biblical and World History Together!Some examples:Matthew "There is a legend that he died a martyr in Ethiopia"Simon the Canaanite "No information either in the Bible or by tradition. "Philip "No information either in the Bible or by tradition."Without a proper discussion of the historical sources you have nothing. ANd that is why your refusal to discuss the evidence is so damning. As for your false accusations of dishonesty raised against people who dare to disagree with you - I am disgusted but not surprised. [END REPLACEMENT]And I really do suggest that you try to understand both the posts you are answering and the subject matter. I never claimed that Alexander *created* the Greek culture - however he did do a lot to *spread* it, by conquering so much of the world. And don't underestimate Alexander himself - he had Aristotle as a tutor. As for the Greek culture - that was mainly Greek - not copied from Egypt.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-12-2004]

Hi WT I am not feigning ignorance here, I have never seen any evidence to support any martyrs death. I did say that St. Paul has been credited with two different deaths they both cannot be true. So, if it is not known for sure how the best know Christian of all time died, why should we believe ‘traditions’ and ad hoc claims about how they died. If you know how and why they died, why are you refusing to inform those of us who are ignorant what the evidence is? I don’t think that this is the problem, the problem is how and why these people died. Their deaths seem of central importance to your argument for the resurrection, yet we are still all ignorant as to how you know the disciples were martyred, why not drag us out of our ignorance by helping us out with some of the evidence you allegedly have? Or the difference between a dishonest professor Thomas and the honest, truth seeking historians?The reason that there is so much revisionism going on is because the Bible is such a mess, it is so unreliable that people feel obliged to try and make sense of its outrageous claims. I need to inform you again that my reason for rejecting miracles has nothing to do with my atheism and everything to do with the methodology of critical historical research. I use the Bible (Old Testament) as a source for recreating an historical past but I treat it in the same was as I treat the Amarna letters, or the Mari texts, or the Anastasi Papyri. A critical historical enquiry cannot include a miracle as an explanation for anything, it may include the BELIEF in a miracle, but the miracle itself is beyond historical enquiry. If you want to call it a moral decision then that is fine with me, as long as you realise that it is done from an honest viewpoint, I am not like these mickey mouse ‘scholars’ you cite who are only interested in misleading people and making a fast buck. You are making the claim WT, you have to support it.Look at it this way:WT: The disciples all died a martyrs death.Brian: Did they, that is very interesting, how do you know this?WT: Well there is no evidence to say they didn’t.Brian: Is there evidence to say they did?WT Yes, tons of it.Brian: Such as?WT: Oh there is so much of it you really must know about it, there is so much I am not even going to tell you what some of it is.
You made the claim WT, it doesn’t matter what I know, the members want to know what YOUR evidence is. Well in regard to the Bible, they revise it because as a representation of actual history the Bible is especially poor as a source, so historians revise it to make sense of it. This is a new one to me. Of course a lot of the conversations in the Gospels are pure fiction because some conversations were not witnessed by anyone. Jesus chat with Pilate for example, who was there to record their words? This is circular reasoning WT. Outside of the Bible, no one noticed Jesus at all. Oh I don’t know, I am sure there are some scholars who said that the apostles were fictional and represented the 12 signs of the zodiac. But maybe not And as any HONEST historian knows, there was no such custom in existence. Funny how it is atheist historians who find out facts such as this, and the Christian scholars are content to continue misleading people. You have to be a little more critical of your sources.I dealt with the Barabbas story here feel free to refute anything in it. I think it is safe to assume that our Bible believing friends would disagree with me in calling the Priviligium Paschale a piece of propaganda, and that they are content that this custom is an established fact. However, I believe that it is fairly easy to prove that this piece of Bible ‘history’ is nothing more than a work of fiction, and sadly, a work of fiction that has had heartbreaking results.

​

The first thing that should send alarm bells ringing is that there is no evidence outside of the Gospels that confirms this custom as happening in Jerusalem or indeed in any other part of the Roman Empire. This doesn’t automatically mean that the Gospels are incorrect, but the evidence against such a practice is overwhelming. I believe that one piece of evidence stands out above all others in regard to the authenticity of this custom, and that is the fact that Josephus is silent about this practice.

​

Anyone who is familiar with Josephus knows that he was particularly enthusiastic about recording all the privileges that the Roman government had given to the Jews, it seems highly unlikely that Josephus would have failed to mention this notable privilege if it had existed (Brandon. p. 259).

​

Surely if there was such a custom, anywhere in the Roman Empire, or even in Jewish tradition, then there would be some record of it? This deafening silence is only one reason why many historians conclude that the Priviligium Paschale is pure fantasy.

​

The custom alluded to is wholly unknown (Montefiore. p.363).
‘There is absolutely no evidence that the pardoning or release of a prisoner had ever occurred, even once, before the time of Pilate’ (Husband. p.111)

​

and

​

There seems to be no instance on record, either from Rome or from the provinces, in which a Roman officer pardoned any person who had been convicted of a crime (Husband. p.112).

​

Also,

​

Now this custom is not attested to anywhere outside of the New Testament, whether in connection with Pilate or in connection with some other governor of Judea (Legasse. p.68).

​

As should be expected, Christian apologists have been plying their trade over this custom in an attempt to justify its historical accuracy. There have been various attempts to uphold the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts, Roman and Jewish records have been ransacked in the search for supporting evidence, but the results of these efforts have been negative (Winter. p.131). Their apparent favourite piece of ‘evidence’ is a reference to a document referred to as Papyrus Florentinus 61.

​

There is evidence in the papyrus that a Roman official in Egypt stopped the scourging of a certain suspect at the population’s request but we do not know whether legal proceedings had already been instituted when the culprit's release was ordered. But this is immaterial since the person in question had not been accused of a capital offence. It is clear that this incident does not reflect a custom similar to the Priviligium Paschale . So I am correct unless I want to change the paramenters of historical research, why should I do that to accommodate the Christian myth? So the entire story is a myth.Brian.

WELL DONE BRIAN...WT...THROW IN THE TOWEL...YOU'RE BUSTED!
I'M CHECKING OUT SHERLOCK! ISN'T IT A WORK OF FICTION?

Whether you actually admit it or not this "debate" is now a two pony show - you and me.With a hundred pages come and gone, you/the room, finally admit the apostles/disciples existed. Once again, my opponent, suddenly and quietly, now recognizes the existence of the claimed eyewitnesses.Why the teeth pulling ?You could of declared this fact early on, but instead the deliberate choice was made to allow the ignorant to infect the debate with endless nonsense. You damn well know none of your amen audience is going to cross or contradict their Admin./scholar.This late admission (apostles existence) reveals the dishonest spirit I repeatedly complained about. The point is, you tried to get away with saying they never existed, why don't you scroll backwards and apologize to everyone who made the same dishonest claim that you could of prevented.Then in response to my accusation of "atheist revisionist activity" - you straight out admit it. This is the first time I ever encountered an atheist admitting this - almost unbelievable !I aint impressed though, revisionist is a euphemism for liar/fraud, and your non chalant and shameless attitude, that atheism, which hates the God of the Bible, can somehow clean up the "mess" is the ultimate oxymoron I ever heard."NOBODY can separate their worldview from the ax they grind " says Dr. Scott. There is no such thing as an objective historian - they all have axes to grind. Now how silly for you to insist that your atheism plays no part in your admitted revisionism !I demand that you name the sources for your beliefs about Jesus, whatever they be I will prove they contain claims that preclude any reasonable person from characterizing Jesus as "good and wise". Then why don't you explain how atheist revisionist frauds have "found" the "Q" document ? I have access to every codex, manuscript, and papyri fragment in existence, including facsimiles of the three Great Uncials. You can "revise" the interpretation but not the sources.Once again, how can atheists/scholars, who do not believe in the existence of the supernatural/miracles be even remotely objective to a religion that claims its very existence on a miracle (Resurrection, 1Cor. 15) ?The reason the Bible makes no sense to you is because you have no God sense. The Bible is utter nonsense if miracles/God doesn't exist.
Apostle Paul said the cross of Christ is foolishness to the Greeks, yet when he encountered the philosophers on Mars Hill they had the sense to recognize that just maybe they could be wrong, so they erected a monument to the "unknown god". Those Greek philosophers had God sense/integrity when the chips were down. So did Professor Thomas.In previous topics I have generically defined "fundementalism" to be the bad element in any given good. Presently, christianity has been completely corrupted by fundementalism, so has atheism. Larry Thomas fact driven atheism has been corrupted by Talibanic revisionism. Prof. Thomas would never change the basic facts and claims of any other dimension of truth.Its the integrity of 1950's atheism that produced Dr. Scott, who used this methodology to determine the validity of the Resurrection.According to Dr. Scott, whatever evidence that exists about the apostles/disciples martyrdom, whether tradition or legend, or account, or bio, or story, not a shred, NOT EVEN ONE PIECE that indicates they did not die alone, for the claim of the Resurrection.It is not unreasonable for an objective mind to find this convincing, it surely (if true) fulfills an evidenciary basis to have faith. This type of evidence creates the conclusion "there is no other explanation". But if your mind is made up then thats the hallmark of fundementalism - a closed mind.I had no intention of ever posting martyrdom evidence. That would give dead-enders undeserving access to desecrate the evidence and rob those who really want to know from pursuing the most important claim of all time and thus cheating them out of a "laying the last book down" experience concluding He rose.You say outside of the Bible almost no one noticed Jesus at all.Thats because there is a Devil with legions of demons working full time to prevent that. Satan must be realized or one is engaging in selectiveness.Barrabas would never be eligible for pardon IF his crime was perped against Rome or Romans. He robbed Jews, so the Romans didn't really care. Its Passover, and the Romans didn't entirely rule by brutality, they kept the conquered in line by using their smarts also. Jews are formidable, so a custom that has an undeseving sinner be pardoned from death perfectly fits the circumstances of the first Passover. There is no stretch here in this respect. Your critique fails when you start from the assumption that the Bible is wrong to begin with.
Josephus was indeed a meticulous historian of Jewish affairs, but the lack of mention in his writings (if true) doesn't prove your case, however it is evidence. I feel you lack a clear preponderance to claim victory.Three trials in one night is impossible unless God is involved.Why would the gospel writer make that up ?The writer is an eyewitness of the Resurrection - that is the claim of the overall context.Why did Mark have Jesus call Himself "Son of Man" when writing to Gentiles ?If he is a liar promoting myth why not have Jesus call Himself "Son of God" ?Because Mark is telling the truth. Jesus called Himself "Son of Man",
and the audience of Jews in the temple knew exactly what He meant, this is why they told Pilate "He made Himself Son of God".By the way, why was the 2nd temple re-built ?[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-14-2004]

Most of this thread has been taken up with asking you for the evidence on which you base your assertion that all the Apostles were martyred. Since you are using this martyrdom to "prove" that Jesus was the Messiah, then if the martyrdom didn't happen, your bit of evidence for Jesus being the Messiah disappears down the plughole. I would appreciate some help here. Can you tell me your sources for the martyrdom of the Apostles? Why hide your light under a bushel?

The previous post explains exactly why I don't.I only answer this post of yours because of the line "why hide your light under a bushel ?"Because the preface truth just prior to the parable of the sower says God intentionally hides the truth in parables for the expressed purpose of preventing some people from getting converted.If you really want to settle the Resurrection, then I have pointed you in the direction you need to go.

I don't need to "settle" the Resurrection, I already believe it happened. Have you forgotten that I am a practicing Chrstian? I am asking you for the evidence on which you base your statement that EVERY Apostle died a martyr's death. You have said that this fact proves that Jesus was the Messiah. All I'm asking for is evidence that this fact is indeed fact. You see, if you have evidence which strengthens the idea that Christianity has been right all along about Jesus being the Son of God, then it is your duty as a Christian to spread that truth. If I had evidence which was as strong as you claim, then I would be shouting it from the rooftops. I would be "witnessing" Jesus as the Son of God. The Apostles weren't hiding their light under a bushel - Jesus sent them all out to spread the Gospel and that's why they were martyred, according to you. So, if I had the evidence, I wouldn't be telling people to "go look for it themselves". If people come to us Christians with questions about our faith and why we believe then we should be prepared to help them to come to the same place. I certainly wouldn't say "If God has chosen you, you wouldn't need to ask that, so I'm not telling". I let God judge people, it's not my place to do it. Maybe God does hide the truth to revent some people being converted, but I'm not God and neither are you so surely it's not up to us to hide the truth? If the early Christians had used your logic, Christianity would have died out at the start because the whole thing would have been kept secret, just in case someone who God didn't want enlightened actually herad the message. I thought Jesus came to save ALL of mankind, not just a few.

Willowtree, have you forgotten your medication again?Instead of ranting and raving, how about answering the simple questions which have been directed at you. Asgara shows in messge #106 that you have not given any substantive evidence to support your assertion that the apostles were all martyred and that this supports the resurrection of Jesus.The teeth pulling is by others trying to get any sort of verifiable evidence out of you.

Hi WT, Oh well you better crank up the quality of your posts a little then. I have never ever stated that they did not exist, at no time have I claimed at this discussion board or any other discussion board that the disciples never existed. I did question whether or not there is any evidence for how and why they died, this is the crux of the matter, how did they die, not if they existed or not. You mean why should I have the audacity to ask you to support your claims of martyrdom? This is a basic part of constructing an argument WT, you claim they all died a martyr’s death, yet you do not say why you believe this. But I have never once stated that they did not exist, I am only questioning how you come to the conclusion that they all died a martyr’s death, you have dodged this question throughout the entire thread. I beg to differ, there are many people at the forum here who know a great deal more about the Bible than I do, and they would happily correct me in a non-aggressive way, and I would appreciate their assistance. Show me where I denied the existence of the disciples. What is wrong with that, have you never encountered honesty before? When I see your sources I reckon you probably haven’t. Just think how shocked you will be when you find out how many Christian scholars have revised the Old Testament! You should check out people such as William Albright or Nelson Glueck, two God fearing, bible thumping, Christian ‘archaeologists’ who revised much of the primary history books of the Old Testament. It is not only the atheist that revises the Bible narratives, many Christians have done so as well, there is no escaping that fact that it badly needs revising. I could say the same about the word ‘Christian’, but I wont I would say that the world denying Christian theology has been an abomination to mankind though, Christianity hates truth, Chrsitianity cannot deal with the truth, this is why the Christian fathers debased reason with faith, they rejected the huge advances in history writing by people such as Hecataeus, Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius, and replaced it with a childlike naivety. The leading historical works were reduced to pagan campfire tales, and the ‘history’ of the Old Testament was taken as the first part of Jesus’ life story, all other histories were rejected, Christianity and reality are at two opposite ends of the spectrum of truth. I don’t hate the God of the Bible, or any other God for that matter, I do not believe in them so why would I waste my time and energy hating them. In fact, I don’t hate anyone, it is contrary to atheist ideology to hate anything. So you will admit that Dr. Scott is subjective as well then? I also still insist that my atheism does not influence my research, the type of research I do is through a critical historical approach to the sources, of which the Bible is only one of many, this type of enquiry does not allow for miracles or divine intervention, I didn’t make up the rules of history writing, I just follow them. My beliefs about Jesus come from my life experiences. My 20 years as a Christian and a great deal of study since that force me to conclude that Jesus was just a man, and not that wise a man. I basically have the same sources that you do, the NT as no one else at the time was aware that Jesus was alive. My opinion of the Gospels is that that are not very reliable at all, they contradict, they are historically inaccurate, they were not written by any eyewitnesses and they include all sorts of logical flaws, they are not reliable. The Q document is a hypothesis, it is used, mainly, to explain the synoptic problem. I got news for you, every document, every artefact has been interpreted, the text has no meaning without context. The problem with this of course is that you never know for certain if your particular interpretation is correct, in fact, no historian would ever claim that their research ‘proves’ anything, every historical theory has the potential to be falsified, if it doesn’t then it is not a true history. Well it is because Christians insists that their particular theology applies to every one, including these atheist scholars, if Christianity sat quietly in the corner and stopped spouting garbage at everyone then it would probably be left alone. The Bible make perfect sense to me, you are the one reading it incorrectly. Hey I know I could be wrong, but I really don’t think I am, I actually don’t really care either. You show the same naivety as the early Christians did. You place your faith in the hands of a few scholars whom you have never seriously questioned. Dr. Scott is leading you a merry dance, you cannot see how he has rigged the enquiry in his favour, I ownder how much money old Scotty boy has made out of gullible Christians. The eight assumptions he insists you take as Gospel, and a world of circular reasoning, is embarrassing. You and Dr. Scott have totally failed to produce a single shred of evidence that any disciple died a martyr’s death. Don’t you think the lack of sources to say that they didn’t die a martyr’s death is because they actually didn’t, or that outside the world of the Bible people couldn’t care less about the disciples? Why would non-Christian historians bother writing about a few docile holy men?If I were you what I would be worried about is the utter lack of evidence to support their martyrdom. If they were so important why didn’t anyone keep a decent record of their lives, why did other Christians have no idea how and why they died, why don’t we know for certain how the most famous Christian of all time, Paul, died? Yes, IF TRUE , none of us know if it is true or not, not even good old beam me up Scotty. But even if these claims are true, it doesn’t prove Jesus rose from the dead, it only suggests that his followers believed he did. I believed in the resurrection of Jesus for around 20 years, but I grew up, I realised that when you get to a certain age you need to stop believing in fairytales, you need to start questioning things, my questions led e to conclude that there never was any resurrection, I had taken the belief in Jesus resurrection on faith, it cannot be taken any other way. If you, or anyone else, has to try and prove the resurrection as an historical event in order to bolster your faith then I have a great deal of pity for you, you have missed the point entirely. I think we all knew that a long long time ago. You are not doing yourself any favour, this is so transparent an excuse that I feel sorry for you. Why not be honest and admit that you have no evidence? Yes, no one noticed him he was insignificant. So you agree that there is no evidence out side of the Bible that supports Jesus ever existing, good, at least we are getting somewhere. But, to use the devil as an excuse is desperation, why not substitute ‘devil’ with ‘don’t know’?Living in a world of demons and gods must be pretty scary WT, maybe you should convert to a more sedate faith, try atheism it is very liberating. I sometimes have to question whether some Christians have ever actually read the Bible, or if they are playing a bluffing game when they come out with blatant lies such as this WT.Open your Bible(s) to Luke 23:18-19 and you findNIV: With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!" (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) KJV: And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.) ASV: they cried out all together, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: one who for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison. And in support John 18:40NIV They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion. So where do you get the idea that Barabbas was someone who only robbed Jews, and that he never commited a crime against Rome? Is this from your Dr. Scott character, if it is then you need to look for a new demigod to worship? Pilate certainly ruled by brutality, he was so brutal that he lost his job over it. In first century Palestine Jews were formidable in comparison to the Roman Empire, why don’t you do some honest research WT, what happened in 69 CE? No it doesn’t and, as shown, your beliefs about Barabbas are incorrect so you maybe need to alter your conclusion about the Passover release myth. The custom actually contradicts EVERYTHING that is know about the Roman Empire, and Pilate in particular. Yes there is, it is only acceptable if you want it to be, with NO supporting evidence you gleefully accept this piece of propaganda, you have nothing at all to support this story. But I didn’t start from this stance. It certainly helps my case a lot more than it helps yours! Yes it is evidence, maybe now we can start to see some of your evidence? Of course you do, it would shatter your delusion to admit that the Bible is incorrect about something. Fair enough, but this makes the stories mythological. The three trials are historically impossible, if you want to use God every time there is a barrier then go ahead, just don’t expect rational thinkers to be as gullible as you. To try and emphasise how important Jesus was, they had to make it up because in reality Jesus was a hopeless example of a messiah. Not a single person witnessed the resurrection, the Bible even tells you that, if you care to read it that is. Mark didn’t even know Jesus, he has no idea what Jesus said. Why not call himself son of Joseph? What is your point? You have answered your own question. Don’t you think it is exactly because that author of Mark knew what it meant that he said this? Because the first one didn’t exist.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 03-14-2004][This message has been edited by Brian, 03-14-2004]