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

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='825008' dateline='1419182804']

Are you really asking for tangible evidence for the non-existence of a character alleged to exist two thousand years ago?

Do you think it is unreasonable to find some kind of ancient text which disputes historicity?

Well yes actually I do think it unreasonable for a couple of reasons.

In the beginning it was a crazy cult that people dismissed as being kooky and took no real interest in.

Until that is Constantine thought it would be useful. Then it became the official government view and the Roman Catholic church would have suppressed dissenting views in any text found and it was the church that held all the texts for hundreds of years. There is a long history of fraud and invention in the catholic church as I am sure you are aware.

A person that has no contemporary evidence that supports them existing and just happens to conform to your personal bias, that person?

In my opinion, and no offense intended, but this clearly demonstrates the weakness of the Mythicist argument, for there is one thing that Mythicists either fail to understand, or intentionally ignore:

Paul was a 1st century contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, and he wrote of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Didn't he have a dream on a road and convert never having met jesus alive?

Is this the best you can present.

Requiring further evidence such as "oh but, he never met Jesus" is completely irrelevant to the point.

It is a perfectly valid point.

There is no mention of a jesus anywhere before paul, so it is entirely possible he made the whole thing up.

Talking about your"poorly scripted persuasive arguments".

Yes, as had just been demonstrated once again with yours. No offense intended.

No offense taken. Mainly because it you are wrong in every conceivable way.