RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

...and if this has already been mentioned, I apologize.Most logical explanation for the Jesus resurrection story--it was a myth borrowed and co-opted from {insert ancient culture here}.Other "coincindences and stuff" in the NT (just to back up co-opted myth hypothesis)--virgin birth and immaculate conception in too many other cultural myths to mention, Mary--Miriam--Miriama--Maia--etc., Jesus is just a Greek translation of Joshua, Jesus story follows other stories from OT, etc.If Jesus was such a criminal, why would the Romans let him be buried when most of the time they just left the crucified person hang on the cross until he/she was either eaten by animals while hanging or eaten by animals after rotting and falling off the cross? Rising on the third day--anyone else in other "pagan" mythologies do this?OK, I'll stop. Thanks.

Just b/c you refuse to accept evidence for alternative explanations to the stories in the bible does not make me ignorant of religious matters. I am against your viewpoint and disagree with almost everything you say. Yet, just b/c I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am ignorant. Disprove my ignorant comments if you can. If you cannot then your silence will speak for itself.

quote:

---

Included in everything else He said was His validation of the Septuagint, which, of course, contained Genesis. The Bible clearly reveals that there are only two sources - God or Satan.

---

Now who is parroting myth? Supernatural beings playing games with humans is not a novel innovation first seen in the bible. Many other cultures used their myths to explain the same things that you and your misguided fundamentalist buddies are trying to explain. The major difference--christianity was a small Jewish "cult" that ended up the state religion of one of the greatest empires to ever exist. By gaining polical and social control over most of Europe, christianity became intrenched in the minds of our progenitors. The people of the middle ages in Europe can be forgiven for their ignorance since they truly were ignorant. However, the ignorance of rationality and the blind dismissal of evidence by you and your cohorts cannot be forgiven b/c you all have the capacity and the opportunity to "know better".

And all the King's horses and all the King's men could never put Humpty back together again...unless of course the King planned on reserrecting the egg-man, just like he reserrected so many other fairy tale caricatures

Remember willowtree, the absence of evidence to the contrary does not validate a claim in and of itself. You still have to provide evidence that supports your claim. Also, does the sacrifice of your own life based on a set of beliefs in a figure-head automatically make that figure-head divine?Furthermore, the major players, so to speak, of Jesus's circle have occult origins. Christianity actually gets very interesting once we realize that it is a belief system based on ancient myths, just like the rest. People only take offense to calling the bible stories myths b/c of their pre-conceived notion that a Christian god exists and that god had a son that redeemed all of mankind. There are also angels and devils/demons implanted into our psyche at a young age. Even if you are not very religious, the symbols and stories in Christianity are in our memories. One difference I can see between a believer and a non-believer is that the non-believer is not trying to proove or support a subjective idea at all costs. A little objectivity can go a long way.

I thought the members of the Taliban were monotheists who believed in the same god that the Christians and Jews and other Muslims believed in. Don't try to sound witty by referencing the current "enemy" of the "free world". If you have a problem with athiests then pray for them. Isn't that what Christians do?Also, I am sure Thomas Aquinas said a lot of things. Isn't he the one who said "a woman is a temple built upon a sewer"? Or was that "Saint" Augustine? Or Saint Jizzleslobber!?!Furthermore, can't you think of better evidence than a quote from someone with obvious confirmational bias? That would be like saying "David Koresch is god" based on a quote from one of his followers.I still don't see the logic behind using the bible to prove that the stories in the bible are true. And don't cite works by dark age monks and "scholars" whose chief reference was the same book that they were and you are trying to validate.From another realistic standpoint--the physical reserrection of a three day old human corpse does not happen. You can say it was a miracle, but miraculous claims demand miraculous evidence. Where is your miraculous evidence? IF you had presented it already, this thread would not now be at 139 posts!!!Can't anyone produce Roman records about these "martyrs"? How about any ancient record from any non-biased source? How were the Romans unbiased, you ask? Easy, they didn't care what your beliefs were. They killed you if you didn't follow their rules regardless of your personal faith.One last thing--other parts of the bible are clearly in error. The epistles of Paul weren't even written by Paul and it says so in the bible! So, who really wrote Acts? The book as a whole cannot be taken seriously as a historic text. The current version of the bible even runs afoul of the gnostic texts that predate the bible. I am sure other discrepencies would be found if the early church fathers had not burned all the classical knowledge they could get their hands on. Why would they do that? To cover up something!?! This alone should cast doubt on the bible and the unsubstantiated stories associated with its dogma--like the resurrection.I am not saying that people didn't die b/c they professed faith in Christianity, I am just saying that martyrdom does not validate Jesus's "resurrection".