Jesus Christ rose from the dead

Well, this is gonna get fun. A01: "Actually there are numerous books in the Bible that are relevant." Not at all. And i can answer this with one easy word: Judaism. The reason why Judaism rejects Jesus as the messiah is strictly because he DIDN'T fulfill the requirements, even in Isaiah. Although Jesus was never called Immanuel, it is also stated in Isaiah that the Messiah will be of paternal lineage to that of King David via King Solomon, neither of which Jesus or Mary was. Isaiah talks about the Messiah bringing an era of peace, lead nations to admit they were wrong about Israel, etc etc etc... The list goes on. The Talmud states that "If a man claims to be God, he is a liar". Deuteronomy states that any person who claims to contradict the laws of God cannot be a prophet or Messiah because Gods laws are firm. Astonishingly, the rest of Isaiah almost seems like it contradicts the Gospels accounts. Furthermore, Isaiah 7 predicting the virgin birth, most scholars agree, is a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek. The original Hebrew word used describes "Young woman", which does not mean a virgin. This is further confirmed when we know that the hebrew word for Virgin exists, separate from the hebrew word of "young Woman". A02: "They would not have credited authorship of Mark to John-Mark if they did not have good reason to do so;" The sole authority on the authorship of Mark stems from the obscure mention by John the Presbyter. Although i usually have no problem with the claim that Mark is the author of the Gospel of Mark, I dont think this is a good reason at all. A03: Regarding Matthew and Luke. Although most scholars agree that the Gospel of Luke is written by a different author, this is why i say that at most, the 4 gospels are written by 2-3 authors. Both the Gospels of matthew and Luke have such similarity to Mark, that many scholars accept the two-source hypothesis, regarding Mark and the Q document. Therefore, regarding Mark, Matthew and Luke, there could not have been more than 2 principle authors that are responsible for the most important aspects of the three gospels. A04: Regarding John. Historically, yes, the author of the Gospel of John is attributed to John. And that The gospel of John and the epistles of John were written by the same author. However, modern scholars beg to differ. Papius, for example, who is also the sole authority of the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, indicates that the two Johns must be distinguished between John the Apostle and John the Presbyter. When you consider that even the Bible states that John is "Unlearned" as a fisherman, it is unlikely that he authored the Gospels at all, since the Gospel of John is written in an intellectual manner in accordance to rabbinic traditions. Furthermore, the Gospel is dated to be written around 100 AD, making John very, very old, which is even more uncommon. This makes the Gospel of John, increasingly obvious that it was written by someone other than John. A05: "The New Testament is also full of references to Jesus, his death and resurrection by different writers." Different writers, yes. Eyewitnesses, no. A06: Josephus. An additional note that makes that argument even less conspicuous. Jospehus wrote about many different Jesus'. Jesus was a popular name in the 1st century. A07: "This is a powerful argument period." No, it isnt, and ill tell you why. The Divinity of Jesus does not rest on the resurrection alone. There is a reason why the Apostles are all male. There is a reason why Jesus did other miracles, like heal the blind, heal the sick, walk on water, etc etc. Its not as if these things were of a daily occurrence in 1st century Jerusalem. Its not as if the resurrection is the only miracle that could have come from God, and all the other miracles could be replicated by men. The argument that Women were the first to discover the tomb, does nothing to diminish the fact that apostles were also claimed to have seen, met and talked with Jesus after his death, and therefore is not a powerful argument, period. If all they had was the word of the women, then yes, that would lead credence to your argument. But the fact remains, the apostles met and talked with Jesus, which means that the authors of the bible were not using the Women as an especially strong argument at all. Again, read my argument. The Romans did not care. The Jews did. Theres a reason why Paul was only arrested after he caused a stir in the temple. A08: "Secular reports are found in Tacitus and the Josephus. " I have a copy of the antiquities on my computer. Where does Josephus say that James was discouraged after Jesus' death? A09: "Mass hallucinations are extremely unlikely." Extremely unlikely, yes. All but impossible, as you previously claimed? Absolutely not. Paul recorded that over 500 people witnessed Jesus after his death. Or so the story goes. Do we have their names? Do we have any confirmation that they were telling the truth? Do we know that they knew who Jesus was and could identify him? Furthermore, are you saying that these people witnessed a UFO, and that this is historical proof that aliens have been observed and exist? A10: "Paul's records had remarkable early origins" First off, I don't exactly understand what you mean by "Tradition", but if you mean "Started to collect eyewitness testimony regarding Jesus' resurrection", then yes, he probably talked about the resurrection with other christians who were at Antioch. Congrats, because this is STILL several decades off when you consider the epistles were written around 50 AD. Secondly, if i put that against other ancient works that secular scholars hold as accurate, congrats, i would have to accept the Quran, which was written only a decade or so after Muhammad's death by 2 authors who we know. Although this goes into the next section, i am sure you do not accept the Quran as a historically accurate depiction. A11: "Does one copied Gospel prove the other three wrong?" When 3 out of the 4 are of extremely questionable authorship, while the 4th has only one source by a known follower of the religion who obviously has reason to lie, then yes, one copied gospel casts extreme doubt. Furthermore, i feel as though you have not addressed two of my arguments at all. The argument regarding how eyewitness testimony of alien abductions, despite the fact that we can visit these people right now, is not valid, and the argument of how other holy books, such as the Quran, have the same amount of historical credibility yet are easily rejected, and am sure that you reject them too.