Easter: Message of Jesus?

Quote: FrGamble

It is a historical fact.

That's about as far from reality
as you can get.

"You have the same problems for all of the sources and for all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses; they’re Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling for years and years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed." Bart Ehrman

The accounts of the event aren't
even historically reliable, let alone
taking the leap to historically factual.
They're made up stories meant to
sell a product to uneducated and
mostly ignorant, hugely superstitious
people. The real 'fact' is, it worked
well as a selling tool.

Does anyone know what Mary Magdalene charged?

Quote: Evenbob

That's about as far from reality
as you can get.

"You have the same problems for all of the sources and for all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses; they’re Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling for years and years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed." Bart Ehrman

The accounts of the event aren't
even historically reliable, let alone
taking the leap to historically factual.
They're made up stories meant to
sell a product to uneducated and
mostly ignorant, hugely superstitious
people. The real 'fact' is, it worked
well as a selling tool.

It doesn't seem really fruitful to discuss your arguments but I can at least point out where you are factually wrong. The New Testament is a relliable account. In fact it is by far the most attested to ancient writing that exists, nothing comes close to the number of manuscripts that support it. If we are to believe anything that comes from the time period we are talking about or before or after, which of course we should, then the NT would be by far the most relliable account available. Many of the authors were in fact eye witnesses, for example Paul is writing in his letters of his own experiences and of having spoken with the Apostles themselves. Many of Paul's letters were written less than 20 years after the events of the Resurrection. The accounts of the NT are also historically factual and verified in ancient writings and archeology. You also have a fact that things that are broken, false, not helpful, and not true do not "sell" well.

Quote: aceofspades

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/492277-louisiana-church-expecting-2000-at-easter-service-despite-coronavirus-satan-and

You first Tony.

Quote: FrGamble

The New Testament is a relliable account.

It's an account of the stories
floating around in the decades
after the event. That's all. No
eye witness ever wrote a thing
about it. It's a compilation of
urban legends, popular tales
from the first century. There
were so many of these 'stories'
that in the 4th century they
had to pick and choose which
ones they wanted to keep
and throw the rest away. From
this shoddy hearsay 'evidence'
a religion was born. This would
be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

There are eye witnesses that wrote in the NT.

Quote: FrGamble

There are eye witnesses that wrote in the NT.

Which book in the NT was written
by somebody who was actually at the
crucifixion?

Quote: Evenbob

Which book in the NT was written
by somebody who was actually at the
crucifixion?

I'm sure you don't actually doubt the crucifixion, what you are really asking is which books in the NT were written by somebody who actually saw the Resurrection? In that case Matthew and Mark, you could count Paul because he really saw the Risen Jesus, John the Apostle while not writing the actual text of his Gospel surely gave first hand testimony of both the crucifixion and the Resurrection. In fact all of the NT was written by people who either actually saw the Risen Jesus or by someone who directly heard from someone who were eye witnesses.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm sure you don't actually doubt the crucifixion, what you are really asking is which books in the NT were written by somebody who actually saw the Resurrection?

There was no resurrection, it's nonsense.
There is no book in the NT written by
somebody who actually saw the crucifixion
or saw Jesus walking and talking and
hanging out with his friends. It relies
totally on stories that circulated for
decades before anything was finally
written down. This was such a 'big
event' that nobody even thought to
write about it until the stories had been
so blown out of proportion decades
later that it just had to be recorded.
That it happened that way is obvious.

Maybe the virus is a train to Heaven. Get on the Heaven train. Jesus is rounding up the flock. All aboard!