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

[abaris]

What basics did he get right?

The basics that most historians nowadays believe there was some character upon which christianity is built. Nothing more, nothing less.

Based on that I consider the bible as a collection of campfire tales, growing bigger and bigger with everyone telling the story. And then someone decided to write that shit down, imbuing it with his own legends collected from much older myths and making some divine being of a figure that was anything but that. The point is, we can argue from here to eternity if this Jesus bloke was real or not. But what we can't argue about, since we're entering serious bullshit territory, is the divine nature of the guy in question. All the miracles he supposedly performed up to the resurrection trick he pulled have been there before he supposedly lived. There are countless preexisting myths claiming the same kind of wonders.

So what I'm saying is, this is getting us nowhere. Let him embark on his real suicide mission. To prove the resurrection.

And I'm sorry to say, I know next to nothing about the meso-american pantheon other than there has been a certain god, who's risen from the dead too. I know a lot more about European and christian mythology, since I studied history. Again, most historian believe there has been a real being on which Jesus has been built. Might be a person, might be a collection of persons. On that the jury is still out and will be for the foreseeable future, since many self proclaimed Messiahs walked Palestine at the time in question.