Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful

I will be debating backwardseden not the comments. If you want to debate concerning this topic, Send me a challenge. Let's get started. I will start by debunking every one of his points. 1. Sometimes God says NO, Or later. 2. Humans cannot invent something that is outside of time, Space, And matter. I will provide proof for the existence of a Christian God now. It is recognized worldwide that Jesus existed. I will present proof for his reservation after being crucified. The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good. Scholars such as William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, And others have done an especially good job of detailing that evidence. 1 It is the aim of this article to offer a sort of synthesis of some of their key points and show the strength of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation. " William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, If true, Provide the best explanation of that evidence. " In other words, We ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it. When we look at the evidence, The truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even come close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, There is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, We do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, We are going to focus here on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, These three truths are so strong that they are accepted by serious historians of all stripes. Therefore, Any theory must be able to adequately account for these data. The three truths are: The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, Which had the resurrection at its center, The Christian church was established and grew. Virtually all scholars who deal with the resurrection, Whatever their school of thought, Assent to these three truths. We will see that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for each of them individually. But then we will see, Even more significantly, That when these facts are taken together we have an even more powerful case for the resurrection--because the skeptic will not have to explain away just one historical fact, But three. These three truths create a strongly woven, Three chord rope that cannot be broken. The Empty Tomb To begin, What is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion? First, The resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, But instead began preaching in Jerusalem, The very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, The resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, For a single hour, If the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned. " Second, The earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, There is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, Their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, A compilation of early Jewish writings, Is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, And attempts to explain it away. Further, We have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, In which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb. Why is this important? Remember that the Jewish leaders were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, They were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, If a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, The fact is genuine. " Third, The empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, And makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, Points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, Who we know was high priest at that time, Was still high priest when the story began circulating. " For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, His name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A. D. 18 to 37, This story began circulating no later than A. D. 37, Within the first seven years after the events, " as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, That implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary. Fourth, The empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, A sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as frauds. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, If the burial account was legendary, One would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have. But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, Indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, If the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, If the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, It would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, Or insane at best. Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, It suggests that his bones weren't there. Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, A forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, And many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, With their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, And we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter! Seventh, The tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, Then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, Whose testimony was deemed worthless, Were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, Like it or not, They actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb. " Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, Most recent scholars do not deny it. D. H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions. " Jacob Kremer, Who has specialized in the study of the resurrection and is a NT critic, Has said "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb" and he lists twenty-eight scholars to back up his fantastic claim. I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, Such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars. I am out of Characters so I will finish my argument in the comment