Raf

George Lucas JK Rowling JRR Tolkien Homer Siegel & Schuster Campbell merely identified the elements. He didn't invent them.

Russell Crowe Charles Laughton

No one is suggesting there were no believers in the first century. I would even go so far as to concede these two people existed, although there is no extra-biblical reason to make that assumption. So what? Paul talked them into Christianity. What does that prove? L Ron Hubbard talked oodles of people into Scientology. Why did they believe? because Scientology is true? Or because they were gullible as f? The existence of believers does not establish the authenticity of what they believed. If it did, literally all religions would be true!

No dispute there. There are people who believe Muhammad ascended into heaven on a winged horse, that joseph Smith received the book of Mormon on golden plates, that L. Ron Hubbard had ascertained spiritual information leading to the development of Scientology. The fact that people believed those things doesn't make them true. It doesn't mean they happened.

BELIEF doesn't mean it happened

Christianity cannot have it both ways. The most significant event in the history of the world should have a more reliable footprint than the contradictory accounts of non witnesses writing mutually exclusive stories two or three generations after the events allegedly transpired!

I don't disagree.

Because if something actually happened, especially something of historical significance, there should be more evidence of its occurrence than a fairy tale concocted by a fiction writer (or four). One should expect that the evidence for a significant event that actually took place should be of greater weight than the "evidence" or indicators it did not.

But there should be.

Making sure we stay on topic: what is the evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead?

To be clear: If you are claiming tht YOUR SIT is genuine, then according to the Bible, you are producing a language. Can you establish, through evidence, what that language is? If so, you might have some claim to some spiritual connection. If not, you're full of sh*t and I am under no obligation to believe otherwise. Anyone can fake tongues. If you claim to not be faking it, then the burden is on you to prove it. What''s the language? That's the thing. If you make a testable claim, then that claim is subject to testing. Like, if I say I have a time machine, it's not YOUR obligation to DISprove it; it is my obligation to PROVE it. You claim to speak in tongues. Prove it. What's the language? Cue the excuses.

Yeah. Sumbitch witnessed to me and was convincing. In seriousness i blame myself and no one else

I blame WordWolf

That was meaningless. Seriously. You're babbling.

David Oyelowo Anthony Perkins Geoffrey Rush

Jesus told them to make disciples of all the nations. They didn't. TLC is not convinced they didn't follow his instruction. Good lord. You said you wouldn't discuss it with "the likes of" me. Be a person of your word, mk?

bzzzt

Plant a seed, plant a flower, plant a roseYou can plant any one of thoseKeep planting to find out which one growsIt's a secret no one knowsIt's a secret no one knowsOh, no one knows

I said three Beatles were alive AT MOST. That gives you a span of more than 20 years. it's a 90s song. And peppy. upbeat. Not that you can tell from these depressing lyrics

move up. Paul Young is not peppy!

Ernest Borgnine ?

The reason we don't accept "spiritual information" as evidence is as follows: 1. You cannot demonstrate objectively that such a thing exists. Really the list should stop right there. 2. You have no way to objectively evaluate the reliability of the information. Comparing it to the Bible doesn't count because it's the book's reliability that is in question. That would be begging the question (aka circular reasoning). 3. You have demonstrated no means of determining the source of the spiritual information. Is it from God? Allah? Ra? Vishnu? Thor? Satan? Calling it "spiritual information" demands an answer as to its source, which for the sake of presenting evidence you must identify. An objective observer is not obliged to assume the Christian God is any more or less real than any other deity. 3a. You have demonstrated no means of distinguishing between spiritual information and your own predetermined conclusion (aka, made up sh*t). Unless you can address those issues, those who evaluate evidence are under no obligation to put your "spiritual information" on the same plane as actual evidence.

Ascertaining spiritual information means drawing a conclusion and then examining the evidence, tossing out evidence that does not conform to the conclusion you already reached before you started looking at the issue. Calling it "ascertaining spiritual information" is simply an appeal to emotion, trying to frame this fundamentally dishonest tactic in terms that elicit sympathy from fellow believers in opposition to the atheist bogeyman who won't let you get away with using made-up sh*t as facts.

Made perfect sense to me

Before his death Jesus and his apostles were ministers to the circumcision. Matthew 28:19 is post death and post resurrection. In that verse, Jesus plainly tells the apostles to make disciples of all the nations. Given the change in circumstances, and the change in "news," and the change in instructions, it is plain that the gospel they were to preach to the nations would make the nations disciples of Christ... it is improbable that he was telling them to preach the same gospel as previous to his death and resurrection, as the new gospel would at LEAST have to include that information. Not even I, in all my skepticism, would argue that every word Jesus spoke to the 12 during this time was recorded in the gospels. To think that he would tell them to make disciples of all the nations without adjusting the gospel to account for his own death and resurrection defies reason. But even so, once the apostles began carrying out his abundantly clear instruction to preach the gospel to all the nations, it is consistent with the theology of the Bible to surmise they would have received the exact same required revelation that Paul later received. The likeliest explanation consistent with the scripture is that the apostles went as far as they wanted to. Paul gets commissioned when, for whatever reason, the apostles frankly disobey Jesus' instruction by not going further. You asked a question. The Bible gives an answer. You moved the goalposts because you had a pet theory that didn't account for the Bible having an answer that conflicted with it. Your theory has no credible reason Jesus would tell the 12 to preach to all the nations. If he was only sending them to Israel, he would have said so. But in Matthew and Luke he makes his expectations very clear (so does Mark 16:15, if you accept it as canon). In none of those verses does he give the 12 ANY indication that he wants them to restrict their preaching to the circumcision. They didn't. That's on them, but his instruction could not be more clear.