Jesus of Nazareth never existed

Wikipedia on the Gospel of Matthew states. .. " That's one man's opinions. Specifically, it was Erhman's opinions. Many more agree with Matthew's authorship. From the same article: "The first evidence for Mattean authorship was believed to be Papias, a second century Bishop of Hierapolis. His findings are stated in Eusebius H. E. 3.39, that says, ‘Matthew made and ordered arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew (or: Aramaic) language, and each one translated (or: interpreted) it as he was able' (Allison and Davies 2004, xi). .. Many scholars have asked 'Why would an eyewitness rely so heavily on the work of someone who was not an eyewitness' (DeSilva 2004, 234)? However, it is seen that Matthew only used the 90 percent of Mark's Gospel as a foundation and he 'would try not to reinvent that part of the wheel that worked for him, giving his attention rather to combining Mark's building blocks with his own enormous collection of Jesus' teachings' (DeSilva 2004, 235). " So, your claim is not set in stone. "At what point does evidence become irrelevant and faith become sufficient? " I don't know, but it is a case in favor of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, what evidence is used to back the datings that are supposedly correct? "In the three Synoptic Gospels, there are numerous lines that are almost copy and pasted into one another, which is a problem if the Gospels were constructed in very different places at very different times, as is likely the case. " And why is it likely the case? It could be very well possible that Luke and Matthew both read Mark's writings before they wrote the information that they knew. Hey, Mark's writings could have even inspired the two of them to research the life of Jesus of Narazeth. "The Synoptic Gospels estimate the length to be 1 year and the alleged Gospel of John estimates 3 years. " John could have been bad at math. If the ministry started in March of one year and ended in October two years later, one who isn't adept in math would see one full year (the middle year), while a wiser man would count a full year, and great chunks of two additional years, to make three years. It is only an estimate, after all. They could also be thinking of different points at which to consider the ministry to be started or ended. Your source for the Greek argument fails. The link is broken. "All I have to say is try working that defense in a court of law. " This is not a court of law. This is a debate. "The Bible is hearsay evidence. The apostles did not write the Gospels. Their names were attached to the Gospels, which were until that point anonymous. " For one thing, the Gospels haven't been proven to not be apostles, and there is still much evidence for the authenticity of the Gospels, such as the accuracy of the Gospel of Luke. Furthermore, you asked for that something that survived, and that was the Bible. Of course, it was hearsay, but it still survived, and it's all we've got. The radicals could have done a pretty good job with the rest of the stuff. "Aside from that, there is little evidence to support that the Romans hated Jesus that much, or feared Jesus that much so as to erase him from history. " For one thing, it didn't have to be Romans. It could have easily been a group of anti-Jesus radicals. They obviously wouldn't record their actions, as that would defeat the point of their actions. Documents would have to survive for two thousand years. All it takes is one man's decisions to remove it. "Jerusalem was a center for education and Jewish record keeping, and the Romans were quite diligent in their reports. Consider Philo Judaeus, a noted philosopher and historian of the era who lived in the region of Jerusalem, and wrote detailed accounts of events in his neighborhood during the time of Jesus. And yet not one word of Jesus. Was Philo was literate? . http://www.newadvent.org... "But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends. " Apparently, there are a few scattered sources of Jesus, including: "The earliest non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A. D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A. D. 94. Two passages in his 'Antiquities' which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of 'John called Baptist' by Herod, describing also John's character and work; in the other he disapproves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against 'James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ. '" From Josephus' writings: "About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ. ) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him. ) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day. " "The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. .. " "These holes are simply too big for apologists to fill. Even if we decide to grant all the leniency we can, it remains a huge mystery why the only knowledge we have of Jesus comes from these hearsay documents. " I have a solution to the mystery, and with "all the leniency we can [grant]," it is the solution.