Bruce Said:

Please tell me who Jesus is and his purpose, writing a paper but drawing blanks?

We Answered:

Don't worry, all you missed is some cognitive dissonance.

There's no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed. The story of Jesus is just a myth bolted together out of prophesy and stories from the Old Testament and previous myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited evidence of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.

Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, his moral teachings, his disciples, or even when he existed. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.

If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this.

If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person format like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark.

If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus) wrote about him or his disciples.

Therefore Jesus didn't exist.
--

Jamie Said:

Need help writing a thesis statement for a research paper on Mental illness?

We Answered:

Is the insanity plea a valid one in criminal cases and what kind of assessment could be used to prove a person criminally insane?

"The insanity defense asserts that the criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. The theory behind the defense is persons who are insane cannot have the intent required to perform a criminal act because they either do not know that act is wrong or cannot control their actions even when they understand the act is wrong. But this theory is controversial because insanity itself is difficult to define, and the circumstances in which insanity can be used to excuse criminal responsibility are difficult to define."

Cindy Said:

Writing a paper on google?

We Answered:

Expansion, China, New Ideas.