The Resurrection of Jesus is possible

I will once again summarize my points again in conclusion. Con is in either denial or just displays a lack of knowledge of wording or biblical history. A) I don't need to present you any other evidence other than the fact that they all died for christs divinity, which included the resurrection. You don't understand here.. Jesus didn't tell th apostles to kill themselves or do something. They did it mainly seperatly, and risked their own lives without being told to because they believed so strongly in this. This point is very similar to point d in that they believed so strongly in something that didn't necessarily have to be apart of the faith. Maybe they had bad times in the middle ages, but this is the first century bud. Also sacrifice of a life for an idea or event does prove the persons dedication... I don't know what you're even trying to get at at this point.. This isn't contrary to any Christian Faith B) con for some reason is insisting because Google gave him 11 million search results he must be right. Well if you search "should the United states dissolve" you get 22 million results. About double the results. So according to cons logic, double the legitimacy right? Nope, the amount of substance does not prove anything. What are you talking about? Catholic priests for years copied off other bibles... We have early bibles so if we need to we could just check them to see how close they are and oh look, they're the same.. The only differences are in translation and between catholic and Protestant bibles because Martin Luther removed parts of it. Con asks why we don't just copy them down word for word if we have ancient bibles? Well first of all, they're in Latin Greek and Hebrew if you want to find a Latin Greek or Hebrew bible it will be the same. But languages can be interpreted different ways, so the differences are in translation not history. The different Christian churches disagree because Martin Luther came up with the idea that every person can interpret the bible the correct way. (Didn't work out so well).. And now there are thousands of Christian churches that all claim different interpretations to fit their ideology. The only bible that remains unchanged from the council of nicea where they formulated the bible is the catholic bible. Translations may differ, but that's in no way priests changing verses for no reason. (Again, there is no reason for a catholic priest to change the bible.. It was made by Catholics so it fits the catholic doctrine). Well I can't tell you for a fact that the Catholics are the "correct ones", but I can say that they are the "original ones". This is not a discussion of the crusades.. This is about 1000 years before that so your argument trying to invalidate the church doesn't apply. The church, while corrupted by monetary bribes and such for a short period of time, has never once changed its core doctrine, or its bible. So that is why I use the catholic bible. Because if you grab a Hebrew catholic bible you have the closed thing you can get to an original bible. C) con shows either a lack of understanding of a purposeful twisting of words. Israel was apart of the Roman Empire, but again, many many miles from Rome. Your example was from the city of Rome and in no way applied to the entire empire. Israel mainly governed themselves, while the Romans stepped into the equation for large issues. This is why they attempted to stone Mary Magdalene. And how do I know this? Well the story comes from the bible, and has no theology in it so I don't see how it could come off as that illegitimate, especially considering that she plays a major role in the rest of the gospels. And because you claim you're a Christian, that should be a valid source. Mary magdalene was again about to be executed before jesus stopped the crowd, and she joined him. Contrary to con's statement, in this region of the Roman Empire (aka Israel) women WERE treated as second class citizens, not being able to divorce and so on. So my reasoning is just that of the story was a legend, and not true, it would make little sense at the time to have a woman be the hero in this case. It is very unlikely such a thing would happen and only makes the legitimacy of a writing greater. D) con, again, is seriously ignoring this point. This has nothing to do with time frame. It could apply in 3000 bc or now. To start the religion, they didn't need to add on a resurrection story. The ONLY reason I brought up other religions was to show they also became massive without a divine miracle at the end of their founders lives. So con, you cannot say any more about how the time frame affects the scenario. To clarify, of course resurrections were known in stories... But those are just stories. As christianity makes clear, if the resurrection is false then the entire faith is false. So it is a major deal. Why would the apostles in their right minds ever add something that critical to the faith that was false. It would be very difficult to spread early on, because people wouldnt believe them because they would've known jesus is still dead in his tomb. That would've sounded more like a conspiracy theory. To give an analogy, that would be like adding to the end of the eulogy of ghandi's funeral "and after he died, he rose from the dead, gave one last speech and then died". No... You don't need to add that to the life of ghandi because a) the people that knew him know that didn't happen and b) his life is already legitimate, you don't need to attempt to legitimize it with crazy stories if you plan to start a religion.