MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[abaris]

As with everything he posts and argues, he's got no real clue about the finer details.

Apart from the fact that we have only copies of copies of copies .... of ancient texts, he doesn't understand that the definition of history was different back then. It didn't rely on facts but rather on an ideal. Miracles and the supernatural were part of every day life. Roman generals used to ask their augurs about the chances they would have to win certain battles and this found it's way into serious accounts of serious authors.

Also, you have to take into account that the only scribes of the middle ages were actually monks and clergy. They had the task of copying what came to them and noone knows what they left out or added. We also have only vague ideas of what is lost for ever, since noone bothered to copy it.

The second part of what he wants to do is even more in the realm of mythology, since the resurrection story of Jesus isn't in any way original. It's based on many ancient myths from Osiris over Horus to Mythras and many other deities that are supposed to have pulled that trick before.