Jesus's story is just another version of many other ancient deities

Did any of the writers of the NT know Jesus? MarkIt is true that Mark was alive in Jesus' time, but false that he knew Jesus. He was not a fragmentry writer as he wrote a whole gospel. And the book of Mark does not state "I was only young at the time" or anything like that. The closest you get is if you assume the guy in the linen cloth who ran away was Mark, which is: not supported by the text, and makes no sense if the story is midrashic, which it is, and at best, proves that Mark saw Jesus passingly and then ran away from him, which is different from knowing him and his teachings. Remember I'm not saying Jesus did not exist, only that the reporters knew almost nothing about him Also, Iraenus was one of the "fathers" of the church, in the same sense as people in the USA talk about their "founding fathers" (. http://en.wikipedia.org...).PeterIf signing each letter is sufficient to prove he wrote the letter, then I guess you'll also need to accept the Acts of Peter, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Revelation of Peter, and Judgement of Peter too. Furthermore, Acts 4:13 states Peter was "unlearned and ignorant," which given the state of education in Judea at the time, probably meant he could not read or write, let alone speak two languages. Poor fishers rarely got much of an education at all. PaulPaul was boastful of the argument he had with Peter and his victory over him, talking about it in 2 Galatians:11-21 - that argument is all that is recorded about the meeting. Luke writing about Paul's revelation is probably what he heard from Paul himself, given that Luke says he got his information from "eyewitnesses". So how do you know that Paul knew anything about Jesus? The point is that Paul is not a primary - nor I would argue even a secondary - source for the life of Jesus, since he did not know him and did not ask others about them.2. Evidence of Chinese Whispers - are there contradictions? Matthew 1:17 vs 1:2Contradiction is simple - the passage starting 1:2 lists 41 generations, and 1:17 states there would be 42. Matthew must have skipped one (see . http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... for the lists). Timothy/CorinthiansThe text in Timothy does not state "unless stated otherwise", it says that ALL of the scripture is of God. Corinthians is a part of the scripture. It states it is not of God. So while you can say Corinthians is the exception and Timothy is the rule, the fact is that Timothy does not allow for exceptions to be made. ActsGiven that Luke wrote a gospel, and all his other gospel quotations were from his own gospel, it seems unlikely that Luke forgot to write it in. He opens his own gospel by saying that he has carefully investigated "everything" and will write an "orderly account" of his investigations, showing that he did not intend to leave information he has found out about Jesus out. Thomas/JudasFor Thomas, the idea of a person who passes by and then moves on sounds suspiciously like the Pharisee in the story of the Good Samaritan. Tell me how the two are not alike. For Judas, the translation is under copyright to National Geographic so I can't cite it, but if you have it then it's the very end of the book.3. Evidence of Chinese Whispers - Lack of Evidence3a. So the apostles preach the story of Jesus for two lifetimes and then one of them gets a smart idea and decides to write it down? Doesn't sound very likely, or else that would make the apostles immensely stupid. At the very least one would expect more than just a fragmentry saying or two after one lifetime.3b. I know because if what you're saying is true, then Paul is arguing that Gentiles can repent after death. However, this is inconsistant with the rest of the Bible which makes it clear that we are judged based on how we act in life, not after death. That's why God did such things as write 10 commandments etc. Otherwise the whole thing would be quite pointless and we might as well not bother with the whole Bible. Besides that, your interpretation makes no textual sense in context, which is why I went through the whole text passage by passage last round. As anyone can see who has read the passage, it is definitely NOT generic.4. Gods that contributed to the Jesus narrative. Orphic Tradition Dionysus Dionysus' teaching was highly spiritual - as the "good" side of man personified, he was the teacher of Orphism, which included many spiritual beliefs (". http://en.wikipedia.org...(religion) ") As my opponent will do several times, he is confusing what actually happened with what people believe happened. We're dealing with what some people thought the birthday was, not what the actual birthday of Dionysus or Jesus was (which we don't know in both cases anyway). People's beliefs are what provide the evidence that one influenced the other, as people influence on the basis of belief. In this case, what people believe about Dionysus influenced what they believed (and thus passed on) about Jesus. Calling the mother of a God a "virgin" is sufficient to establish similarity. Seleme birthed the reincarnation of Dionysus, after he had previously been born to the virgin Persephone. Dionysus was called "Dionysus Zagreus" by Orpheus himself, in his first manifestation. "Zagreus" is not a Greek word but part of the vocabulary of the Orphic priests. It means either "first-born" or "only child", however when other children have been born the correct word is the Greek "Prototokos. " "Only child" is thus the only gramatically correct translation. Can also be rendered as "Only begotten son. " That specific cast was of a piece of jewellery made around then, but the symbolism goes back to well back, as is evidenced by my red-figure amphora from the golden age of Athens. I should add that the first Christian jewellery of Jesus hanging from a cross dates from about the same time as this one. Egyptian Horus I am not saying they are the same, only that the story of Horus was one influence on the story of Jesus Isis was called the Divine Virgin. Dr. Reginald E. Witt wrote in his book "In Isis in the Ancient World" that she was "The Egyptian goddess who was equally "the Great Virgin" (hwnt) and "Mother of the God" was the object of the very same praise bestowed upon her successor [Mary, Virgin Mother of Jesus]. " In fact on the temple wall of the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself says "I am the great virgin. " She sounds like a virgin to me. Similar art implies similar religious motifs - the point is that it shows people believed he was crucified. The truth of it is irrelevant - all that matters is that people believed it and could have applied it to other "saviour" narratives. Zoroastrian Zoroaster It's completely irrelevant whether the myth of the virgin birth is true. What matters is that some people believed it. My opponent's narrative for Mark's gospel's ending cannot be true, because: I gave litrary evidence in round 1 that such an ending makes no sense in the context of the story, and Eusebius (in "Quaestiones ad Marinum I") states the ending is "not accurate" (this was shortly after the "change"), and Jerome (in Epistle CXX.3) testifies all the authentic manuscripts of Mark lack the resurrection ending Furthermore, the ending of Mark differs from the other gospels in several important respects, such as who discovered the empty tomb. ConclusionPlease bear in mind that I am not debating the authenticity of the Bible - nor am I saying there was no Jesus. I am saying that the story of Jesus as reported in the Bible is unlikely to have been sourced from any real Jesus, but rather by religious influences . If there was an original saviour, you'd expect him to behave differently from the rest in SOME way. Jesus fits the archtypes of all the other Judean religions nearly perfectly, and thus is unlikely to be an original story.