The Resurrection of Jesus is possible

This is the last round before conclusions Once again Con misunderstands and incorrectly uses examples. A) you don't seem to understand what I'm saying here. I understand that Greeks died for their cause, but the example doesn't work. They didn't just to die for the religion in general. Their passion is linked to the resurrection. If the resurrection didn't happen, then the great commission never happened, and therefore what the apostles cited as their command to spread the word never existed. Now, they didn't need a resurrection per say, but they definitely believed in one. Only total psychopaths would get together to plan out the biggest lie in history when it was not needed. The apostles died for the faith as well as the resurrection, and in many cases were presented with the option to deny Jesus' divinity and live, which essentially means denounce the miracles (and the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection). They chose not to do so, and were promptly executed. They died for Christianity. Not the name Christianity, but the system of beliefs. And the framework of that belief is that Jesus is divine and conquered death. B) you misue a critical example here. First of all, the amount of search results has nothing to do with the conclusion. Earlier you blamed translations on catholic priests, now you say companies change the bible. Original bibles in Latin/Greek have not changed because we still have them. It is not companies changing the bible how they see fit, it is different sects of Christianity that change the bible in translation of what they think each word means best. Now, if you want to see an original bible, look at a catholic bible, and it will be as close as you can get to the early documents. Word of mouth does not apply because we literally have very early bibles. Also, in pre-medieval times, monks and priests would translate bibles exactly from another bible. The bible does not have to be changed to fit catholic doctrine because Catholics assembled the bible. Con makes an extremely invalid and not thought out example by saying Paul was the sole or main source of information from Jesus' time. Besides the other books of the bible, there are many writings such as those of Tacitus, a prominent Roman historian during the times of the very army church pre 2nd century. Also the letters of Pliny the younger, governor of Asia minor who asked Rome about how to deal with the Christian problem. Back to the bible, con seems to disregard that these are Seperate documents not written by the same person. C) con displays a very weak knowledge of the bible and the history of the times. Although these were the "Roman times", the world was not Rome. This was in Israel. Maybe in Rome a prostitute could walk around freely, but if you would've remebered, Mary Magadelene was about to be stoned by the people when Jesus told them that whoever had no sin to throw them irate stone. She was not a popular figure. They attempted to kill her, and according to the bible, Jesus pulled 7 spirits from her, so she dedicated her life to him. She wasn't walking around as a prostitute, she was walking around as a follower of Christ just as the apostles were. So, again, for a major apostles or church father to say Mary magalene, a woman who was nearly stoned, found Jesus and was the one to report it to the hiding disciples. D) con again misunderstands everything I'm attempting to explain with d. The only point is that the apostles did not need the resurrection to legitimize the faith. The reason I brought up Islam is because Mohammad died without a spectacular performance or event, and the religion grew. There is no reason to make up an entire account of a story that they knew didn't happen. Why would they add this incredibly relevant and important issue to the faith when it was not needed? Multiple times in the bible it is said that if there is no resurrection basically the faith is a lie. They added this extremely important teaching that, if not true, 100% compromises then faith.