I've bent over backwards to give as much credence and benefit of the doubt as is consistent with reasonable skepticism to the possibility of there being anything at all to the resurrection story. In the process, I've been accused of 'adding' to the story by pointing out that to people of the time there would be no practical difference between an apparent resurrection and an actual one.
But is it even in the earliest copies of the gospels? IIRC, Mark is the earliest (and shortest) Gospel, and it doesn't mention Jesus being born of a virgin or walking around after being crucified. That stuff appeared in later Gospels, which is very suggestive of fantastic additions to the account creeping in as the story was retold.
But is it even in the earliest copies of the gospels? IIRC, Mark is the earliest (and shortest) Gospel, and it doesn't mention Jesus being born of a virgin or walking around after being crucified. That stuff appeared in later Gospels, which is very suggestive of fantastic additions to the account creeping in as the story was retold.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
