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

[His_Majesty]

The possibility... never forget that it's not established that such a man existed for real.

The vast majority agree that he did exist, pocaracas. Jesus of Nazareth's existence is about as certain as any other historical figure. Anyone that says otherwise comes from a very small percentage of historians, and secular individuals on atheist forums who don't have a freakin clue on what the historical consensus is regarding the subject matter...either way, it is the minority.

yeah.... so?

The further you get away from the timeline of the events, the more legendary hocus pocus will result. The belief in the Resurrection was something that was held extremely early, which makes it more trustworthy than crap written hundreds of years later.

derp... christian stuff is jewish stuff.
You ever seen the acronym INRI?
What does the last I stand for, huh?
I was showing you a story already in circulation about 100 years before J.C.'s alleged birth... a story which shares way too many details with the J.C. myth.
One more ember in the fire that destroys the credibility of those eyewitnesses still alive after the year 60AD.

Ummm, huh?

I know... that is why you believe in the fairy tale and I don't.

Well, believing that life came from nonlife and reptiles changed to birds, that is worse than a fairy tale...that is voodoo.

Could Luke... *gasp*... be lying about that?

Sure, but then again, so could any other person that has written anything regarding events in antiquity. So we shouldn't believe anything that was written at any time pre-camcorder/photo days.

A Lie that, if believed, would boost the credibility of the remainder of the story.... worth a shot... and see where it's brought him!

It could be a lie...but it also could be the truth..I will base my life on it being the truth, and you base your life on it being a lie...we will let the chips fall where they may

It's an analogy... I thought you people liked analogies...

We do, but the analogy has to bear some similarity to what it is being compared to.

Kinda like how Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't believe in life after death or a literal hell. But when you point out the fact that Jesus told a story of a man that died and went to hell (The rich man and Lazarus) and was tormented, witnesses will say "That was only a parable"....but if it there is no life after death or a literal hell, why would Jesus tell a parable about life after death and a literal hell???

Makes no sense.

ah... of course... yes... you keep telling yourself that.

History is the one telling me.

I would much easier believe the story of the Teacher of Righteousness, than J.C.

Then, like...believe it.