Originally posted by howardgee
This rubbish is typical of teh flawed logic of the average God botherer:
"Some things seem likely to be true, therefore, all of it must be true".
If the disciples wanted to concoct a fictional Master it is more likely that they would conceal certain embarressing information:
1.) I think they would conceal the fact that Jesus was called a "drunkard" ( Matt. 11:19)
2.) I think they would have kept under wraps that He was thought to be "demon-possessed" ( Mark 3:22; John 7:20, 8:48).
3.) I think they would have wanted the memory to pass away that He had been accused of being a "madman" (John 10:20)
4.) If they wanted to concoct a fictional pure person they might have wanted to conceal that a prostitute wiped his feet with her hair (Luke 7:36-39)
. Such an event had the strong potential to be taken as a sexual advance.
5.) It would not have served their cause to invent a Jewish Messiah if He were hung up on a tree. "Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse "(Deut. 21:23; comp. Gal. 3:13)
Why would they include such a disqualifying piece of information?
The inclusion of embaressing material tends to indicate the authenticity of the account.
6.) The women were the first to witness Him in resurrection. The men were afraid and hiding away in houses. I think if it were fictional the male authors would have had it the other way around. They probably would say that the women were hiding because of fear and the men folks were the first to see Him in His resurrection.
Where was the typical male chauvinist propoganda?
7.) Another potentially embaressing piece of information was that His own disciples failed to give Him a proper burial. Joseph of Arimethia had to come forward with courage and secure the body of Jesus in a proper grave. Would the disciples be eager to record that they were too chicken to do so?