The Resurection of Jesus Christ.

The Flood: 1. Having many myth accounts of an event does not necessarily make one of the myths true, certainly not just because it is the bible, I consider all of them to be myths. 2. However we have scientific evidence that shows that a flood did not happen. There are core samples from the ocean, and the Ice core samples going back 40,000 years. The core samples do NOT reveal any evidence for a flood. Even tree samples disprove the flood and it also shows that a young earth belief is not reasonable with the dating of the trees that go back 11,000 years. The flood is suppose to have happened 4359 years ago accord to "Answers in Genesis". [. https://answersingenesis.org......] So science reveals a certain lack of a deluge evidence just within these few examples. 2348 B. C the flood happened and in 2250 b. c we are aware of an Egyptian dynasty that shows no evidence of a flood, the tombs alone would have evidence of a flood, yet none have been found. 3. If the evidence was there people would have no choice but to accept it, are a majority of scientists just ignoring plain truth? 4. A single world wide flood cannot explain the distribution of fossils. Believers in the flood cannot account for the earth's sedimentary layers of fossils. Certainly there would be evidence of a catastrophic flood in the fossil record, yet we have no evidence in the fossil record for a flood? Again scientists are either ignoring the evidence on a large scale or there is just no evidence. 5. It's just another one of the stories we cannot believe in the bible. The Census: 1. The point of showing the discrepancies of Matthew and Luke is simply this, why would god's word be this confusing? Why is hurdle jumping required just to get an understanding of simple time lines in scripture? The more discrepancies we look at in the bible, the more hurdles Christians have to go through to explain such things that make no sense upon causal reading and even hard study. 2. The Pro concedes that "Relevant historical facts are too incomplete to determine a more definitive solution" Well then we should blame god for not giving us plain words. I would conclude that this saying can be applied to the resurrection as well, along with the flood and the creation story. It just doesn't add up like the city of Tyre, the bible says that it wouldn't ever be rebuilt. It was never even breached by King Neb. and the city still stands today. The Genealogy of Jesus 1. The reason I brought this up was merely to show how when confronted the Pro has to explain the problems away. If the book is for us to understand that Jesus was the one from the prophecies foretold and that he was the right "ONE" being introduced into the world, why wouldn't god have it recorded for us so we wouldn't have to question every problem we encountered? Certainly he would know all of us and prepare something special for us to follow him that would make us believe. Instead we have a book full of things that do not add up. 2. All the guessing and conjecture only brings the Pro to this: "They demonstrate that the two genealogies are not inherently incompatible. " So god could not see to it that a simple genealogy be plain between to of his chosen messengers to all mankind for us to understand? The Resurrection: 1. It fails for reasons given from the beginning of the debate. First and foremost based on the unreliability of scripture, one must wonder where it is reliable. 2. Three days in a fish? Not only do I think the fish story is a myth, I think the actual resurrection is a myth. Jesus prophecies three day and night and only supposedly gave us one and a half. 3. So why is it that one of the most important facts about the Christian faith is the one thing that god could not see it fit that we received viable proof of? 4 He gives us a book full of errors and false prophecies, gospel accounts and epistles written mostly anonymously, some known to be forgeries. Conclusion: If there is a god, he hides. If there is a god, he could not see fit to at least give us a good source of understanding. If seeing Jesus brings belief in him then why did he only show himself to some and not all? Certainly he would have the power. Instead we have this book that haphazardly stumbles through stories that do not add up. Why does doubting Thomas get to stick his fingers in the risen Christs wounds and I do not? Why does Saul get a vision and become Paul and I do not? Is it because I didn't seek him well enough? Certainly god knows what evidence would be convincing for me and to hold me so I never would be in danger like a father is for his children. Instead I have a book that tells me this loving father is going to burn me forever. I do not know a father like that and I have seen some bad fathers. Either way Christians always try to explain away the guess work that needs to be done to continue believing things that don't add up. The resurrection is really only to those who subscribe to what they think the book teaches, But because they cannot all agree on so many topics Christianity has so much division. .. .. 40,000 plus denominations. I am sure it is believed that a father would want all his selected children to be of one accord. How can you know you are in the right one? Who is right? Who is wrong? Should we care? You would think that this god cared, but does not care to reveal himself to many. Religion in general does not reveal god, only man's apparent need for a father figure that beats his children. Heaven, Hell, this is the game where most lose and a few win. Try looking at the bible with an unbiased view, it's hard, but it must be done. What is faith? According to the book it cannot be seen. So is it felt, can we know when we really have it? Or do we go on through our lives not certain of a lot of things and call it faith? That is not how I want my children to view me as a father, so why does the god of the book play games? The resurrection fails because the book of god fails, which shows me that god failed.