newton01, that's a mistranslation from the Hebrew, as everyone knows.

"American Audio Q-Spand PRO 4-Channel DJ Mixer" should be read as a Jewish criticism of Christ's failure to produce thumping new-school trip-hop breakbeats at his weekend party sermons.

In fact, we know from the apostles that the messiah's fusion Eurotrance stylings reinvigorated Jerusalem's retro acidfunk DJ scene.

That's why Catholics conclude their prayers with "...the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. That rad s--t is off the hook, yo!"

Trav,

Sorry wasn’t clear about Jesus’ ability to pull crowds. I was referring to events, such as the feeding of the multitudes (5,000). It is doubtful Rome would not have allowed it. Also whom Jesus could minister to would have been governed by the Herodians (Thiering).

Dionysus was known to Homer and the Ancient Greeks. Mithraism was brought toRome sixty years before Jesus was born:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578314/mithraism.html

Wells and Toynbee present Jesus in the middle of a Religious Age. When the sorts of the characteristics attributed to Jesus were shared across deities and his needs reported known to teacher mendicants. Mendicants to the Gentiles were from the House of David. This is why think he is an historical person. Much of the description of the crucifixion also seems accurate, though he would not have carried a 150 kg cross – only the crossbeam.

My reference for the Gospel of Thomas was Burton Mack of Claremont Theological College. Thomas is not a flowing narrative. I mention it because the sources I have read place it as early as Mark. Yes, Thomasine manuscripts are dated much later.

Although Qumram 7Q5 might represent an early edition of Mark; given, the tiny Rylands P52 fragment’s dating, we simply do not have significant NT manuscripts of canonicals, either:

http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/

Thomas is in on a similar footing as Mark in reconstruction. Researchers would try to associate its saying with Q and the canonical gospels. It is hard to ago before 200 CE in dating respectably sized NT manuscripts: Usually codexes suggesting the pages were flipped for comparison.

One way alterations come about, it is thought is that copiers “copy” (ahem) margin notes made on the target document into a new document.

[Busy. I could be offline for a few days.]

I thought this was all cleared up when Jesus come back in the form of Mr Moon. If you got any questions shouldn't you just ask him, I think he's moved to the US.
LOL

OK, you guys have raised a few points that I wasn't aware of! That doesn't bother me in the slightest though, because I'm no expert and never claimed to be. However, I will look into this further. In fact, I've read a few books on these subjects and some of these points have been discussed in those books, but obviously I can't recall every detail of everything I read.

Still, a few questions:

"The more than 100 documented writers of the time around the area make no mention of anything surrounding the bible"

What do you mean by "surrounding the bible"? That's a rather ambiguous statement, please clarify and specify exactly what you mean. Do you mean "none of the places and people mentioned in the bible are mentioned by these authors?", or do you mean "None of the events in Jesus life have also been recorded by these authors?"

Also, who are these 100 authors? Have you got any website links (or books) which delve into this further?

"An event like the loaves and fishes, would have been headlined everywhere with such a large group of people attending. But there is no mention of anything ever."

I'm arguing that Jesus was crucified. Nowhere have I attempted to argue that every event, as recorded in the bible, is literally true.

"It's the same with Paulini, Josephus and others, they never met him any fleeting mention, is hearsay many years later."

As with most ancient history, Josephus wrote much later than the events he was describing. Nothing unusual there at all.

"The section in Josephus writings has been debunked as having been added by the church."

Incorrect. Please read my previous posting on this. There's 3 lines of his testimonium flavvium which are universally considered interpolations, however most historians agree that the rest is legit-for good reasons too, such as Josephus using words he regularly used. And thats only one of the two references. So in other words, there's not much doubt at all that Josephus mentioned Jesus twice, and that he mentioned the crucifixion.

Candide,

With respect, I mention Vatican approved miracles, precisely because that is where secularist and non-Catholics are involved. Don't you think the Vatican has a vested interest in approving something modern science cannot debunk? Think about it. Get past your "Da Vinci code" like predudice and get your hands dirty. As for the mockery of secular media about toasted Mary or something...Get real...as if anyone takes them seriously. By the way tell me someone who has a spontaneous tumor. I'd be interested to know...As for dead cells regenerating instantly, in remission cases, are you for real?

Pericles could you also please define evidence for us? That would be nice....What dictionary do you use? We could then discuss something useful? Dismissing evidence without valid proof is just your surmise. You might as well dismiss ALL the classics, as just about everything we have was preserved by monks...Most works we have today are copies of copies. Just close your history books, since you disbelieve in everything? There is more evidence for Gospel accounts than anything else. Papyrus fragments are amongest the earliest we have. Look at Fr Wren, Fr Carmingac, Carsten Thiede etc...You have not checked my links page...cited earlier.

They have found the tomb and home of Caiaphasis the high priest, they have found the sheep pool with five porticos. We have found a marker with the name Pontius Pilate - Governor from early 1st century Israel.

If your wondering why Discovery Channel, Time, Ron Howard, Dawkins, Hitchens and co are peddaling rhetoric and conspiracy stories, and fake tombs, it is because their ideas are intellectually bankcrupt and everyone knows it, except perhaps yourself. Heck every Antony Flew believes in God now? Wonders never cease. Read Scott Hahn's and Wiker's book on "Answering the New Atheism". They blow them away.

"Trav, your approach to history reflects your desire that the foundations of your faith are based in accurately recorded events. You might have to accept that historical precision is not only impossible, but entirely unnecessary. Then you won't have to have these arguments all the time."

Sorry, I'm not sure where you got that impression. I've already stated numerous times here that I understand that historical investigation can only go on probabilities. But here's the thing: the events surrounding the resurrection are historical facts, as in, we can say with a reasonable level of historical certainty that they happened- the crucifixion, empty tomb, and the disciples strong belief in post mortem appearances- so I'm simply proposing that the best explanation of these is a resurrection, especially in the absence of any plausible natural explanation.

However as we can all see, we're discussing the crucifixion right now.