On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

Can you prove that?

Nobody outside of fundamentalist apologetic s believes otherwise

Road to Damascus.

That not an interaction with Jesus that's a story Paul wrote after his conversion 

LOL - it's unclear that there was a resurrection account before the earliest Christian documents?

And your ignorance of your very own religion of full display

---

1. For the first, you have otherwise sane witnesses attesting that they've experienced it, despite suffering from such attestation

Psychology disagrees with you .A person can be total rational the majority of the time and still have irrational experiences and attribute irrational believes to things they witnessed and again even sane people can be willing to die for a falsehood. 

2. For the second, you have no such witnesses

We don't need them for this to work 

The first is better supported than the second. You can choose not to believe either if you like, but to claim that there's no difference is ridiculous.

Nope there is nope difference one is just as indefensible as the other .

---

Can you prove that?


Road to Damascus.


LOL - it's unclear that there was a resurrection account before the earliest Christian documents?

Standard historical research into the documents proves what I said.

Paul's 'interaction' was certainly NOT with the Jesus of the gospels. It is much easier described as an epileptic fit.

It is unclear there was a resurrection story between the death of Jesus and the conversion of Paul.

Also there is zero evidence that Paul or any of the first gen Christians were killed for believing Jesus rose from the dead