It's one thing to demonstrate or provide evidence for someone living, fighting, and dying, it's a completely other thing altogether to believe he is the son of Zeus. So why do you not accept the claim that Alexander is the son of Zeus, while still accepting most other Alexander claims? (Rhetorical question really)
The same goes for Jesus, and a resurrection claim.
So I guess this means the Roswell myth is not myth at all? Had the Roswell event happened before modern science was present to test and disprove the claim, then it may still be in circulation today.
How might one actually disprove a resurrection event 2K years ago, where one is required to visualize the event in real time for it to be validated?
On another note, when I was in eighth grade, I was friends with twins. They were moving away. One of my other friends was not aware they were moving. Me not thinking it through, I decided to play a practical joke on this friend. I told the twins to keep it a secret that they were moving. After the twins moved, I told my friend that they died in a car accident. Yes, this is horrible, and I regretted it later on. I obviously did not think that one through.
However, by the end of the day, I was walking home from school about 3 hours later. I heard a group of kids behind me discussing, in graphic detail, many events which happened to these twins in the 'car accident'. My initial story was quite generic. In a few hours time, a very elaborate story had ensued. This school comprised of about 1,200 students.
The resurrection story developed over years, decades, and centuries. You don't think there was ample time for such lore to develop?
(http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/):
'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'
a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.
b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary
c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.
D) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true. Faith is belief in place of, or instead of, evidence. Please also remember we do not even have the original manuscripts.
If willingness to die for belief is the meter stick for it's truth, then the clear winners are radical Islamic extremists.
I'm not really sure why you're on these forums asking these questions as you seem to have decided what you want to believe
Upvote
0
