Your apologetic book does not reflect on the majority of scholars. Produce a secular non apologetic scholar making that claim and we can go from there. See? I can answer questions, unlike you.
How could you possibly know what I like or don't like? Again you are assuming way too much and making a fool of yourself. Let's see if you are able to answer in a factual non apologetic opinionated way...
Proof that Paul supposedly wrote this 3-5 years later? We'll assume that this Paul even existed for the time being. That would fly in the face of conventional reasoning because the earliest shred of gospel doesn't appear until over 50 years later. Proof please. The only historically accurate letter of Clement is a letter to a church in Corinth berating church leadership. Anything else is a later writing attributed to him. And even if those weren't an early Christian forgery as is so prevalent in those days, he is doing nothing more than writing early Christian beliefs. Again this on no way answers why this man Paul, who we'll pretend existed for now, would be the first to write about this miracle man son of god instead of people who had actually supposedly met him. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
As expected you did not answer the question but rather desperately tried to change the subject in an effort to proselytize. Epic fail.
Lol expansion and compression! Lmfao! Come on man that is a total cop out and you know it. Apologetic bleating at it's finest! How could you possibly know the writer is doing that since we have no idea the person who actually wrote them? Provide the actual author and them documenting that they cruelly did this. Otherwise you are just making sht up again and you know it.
Tell me compress and expand where Jesus was born. Was it in Mary and Joseph's home or in a manger? Lol! So silly! Epic fail as expected. There are several errors and contradictions in the gospels and we don't need to compress or expand them to see them.
If I were a history student looking into the matter of Jesus' resurrection I would seek out verifiable, unbiased sources showing such a thing was even considered to have happened. Such an event would have been clearly documented by many in that time period especially since he marched into Jerusalem with hundreds of resurrected dead Jewish Prophets walking behind him. Such a thing surely would have been noticed correct? It would have made more waves than pottery sales yes?
That's not possible. No historian investigates the past without bias.
I notice you didn't say anything when I demonstrated that the books and the ten tests actually exist.
I'll be glad to fill in the blanks for you, but on my terms,And you don't like that do you?
Paul wrote first and likely within 3-5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthian church in 96A.D. in which he talks about the earlier letters of Paul.
Now for challenge 2:
The alleged contradictions in the New Testament are only apparent contradictions. Meaning, they can be reconciled by knowing the context, the culture, the style of writing, etc.
For example, there is the subject of expansion and compression. How many women or angels were at the empty tomb is a great example of an apparent contradiction, and it's only because of one writer compressing the account.
Now I have a question for you.
If you were a history student, and were given the assignment of looking for historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, how would you proceed?