The Resurrection of Jesus is possible

Well, first of all I'm not sure why you're contending this is you agree with me. Don't understand how you could "win". Also you misunderstood many of my examples. A) yes, you're example is correct that the Greeks and Spartans did fight and die for their countries, as all soldiers sign up to do. But the difference is that Athens and Sparta were things. It is not debated that they existed. Fighting for a country is fighting for an identity that is in no way non existent. The resurrection is a hotly contended topic that is not proven and can never be fully proven (I'm just saying it's very possible). So, yes the apostles went out and died for not only their faith (which is one thing that is definitely a thing and is existent), but also specifically taught of the resurrection until the death. Like point D, I pointed out that the Christian faith could possibly have grown without a resurrection. So the apostles specifically went out with this in their minds. You're example would be valid if Spartan soldiers went out and died for their leader who had just risen from the dead or something. B) ah.. a good old Protestant argument that has little to no validity of substance to it. You cannot assert that catholic priests altered the bible (when in fact Martin Luther took out major books to help his doctrine) when we literally have many bibles and documents going back to pe- middle ages. The latin vulgate and the Greek Septuagint, if translated correctly, are still the same. Yes, you could say translation but that does not remove the fact that these are seperate accounts of the resurrection. Marks gospel, for one, lacks theology so much, that it is written just like a historical document. I am also not holding the bible as truth, I am just using it to point out the independent sources. You misunderstand my argument about the other sources. I am not using them as facts, but simply as a tool to show that multiple people with little to no affiliation wrote about a similar topic with very similar results. Your argument at the end of B makes no sense. C) yes you could say they were treated better than in other areas of the world, but it does not change the fact that if it were made up or a legend, it would make no sense to have the apostles, our church fathers and heroes, hiding, while the women who was a former prostitute making the discovery. This and the tomb of Joseph of arimathea would not be a very popular thing for someone to just say as a Christian and would only damper one of the most crucial teachings. Again, I am not proving the resurrection, just asserting that it is very possible and in no way attempt to prove it with that statement. D) con again majorly misunderstands what I am saying. I did not imply that buddha or Mohammad were around with Jesus, I only used the religions as examples. Both their founders died, and both became 2 massively popular religions. So my point is that christianity did not necessarily need the resurrection to become a validated religion. But instead they go into a new level of theology with this teaching that did not need to be utilized. If there was no resurrection , why make up an entire story completed with the ascension just because?