Jesus Rose From The Dead

Wow. Well first off in order for you to prove that jesus rose from the dead, you would have to prove him worthy of that decisive ideal, thus prove that he was the messiah in which he was not. Nevertheless, let"s see what you"ve got. "To begin, we need to list all of the plausible explanations," "1 - He wasn't really dead" Isn"t plausible. "2 - The disciples stole the body and claimed he was alive" Isn"t plausible according to the bible. "3 - The disciples were hallucinating" Is very plausible and didn"t tell anything accurately. After all memory is not reliable. "4 - Jesus was the son of God and he really did rise from the dead." Strange isn"t it that you did not want to argue that christ was not the messiah? Wow. Well that"s not true according to the bible at any rate as jesus was NOT the son of god. 1: You didn"t refer to scripture at all. So when you say "Refer to scripture as much as possible when composing your argument" it is expected that you do the same. Regardless, your god would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody like you can get it wrong. And the thing about it ESPECIALLY in quoting jesus, is how can anybody get it right when memory is truly unreliable? And then you have translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies with dead languages upon dead languages with absolutely no possible way to trace it back to the original. So NOBODY is interpreting correctly. Not you, not the pope, not any minister, not any priest, not any pastor, no-bo-dy. 2: You didn"t refer to scriptures at all. So when you say "Refer to scripture as much as possible when composing your argument" it is expected that you do the same. Regardless, your god would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody like you can get it wrong. And the thing about it ESPECIALLY in quoting jesus, is how can anybody get it right when memory is truly unreliable? And then you have translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies with dead languages upon dead languages with absolutely no possible way to trace it back to the original. So NOBODY is interpreting correctly. Not you, not the pope, not any minister, not any priest, not any pastor, no-bo-dy. 3: You didn"t refer to scriptures at all. So when you say "Refer to scripture as much as possible when composing your argument" it is expected that you do the same. Regardless, your god would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody like you can get it wrong. And the thing about it ESPECIALLY in quoting jesus, is how can anybody get it right when memory is truly unreliable? And then you have translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies with dead languages upon dead languages with absolutely no possible way to trace it back to the original. So NOBODY is interpreting correctly. Not you, not the pope, not any minister, not any priest, not any pastor, no-bo-dy. 4: You didn"t refer to scriptures at all. So when you say "Refer to scripture as much as possible when composing your argument" it is expected that you do the same. Regardless, your god would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody like you can get it wrong. And the thing about it ESPECIALLY in quoting jesus, is how can anybody get it right when memory is truly unreliable? And then you have translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies with dead languages upon dead languages with absolutely no possible way to trace it back to the original. So NOBODY is interpreting correctly. Not you, not the pope, not any minister, not any priest, not any pastor, no-bo-dy. So when you come up with proper translations from YOUR scriptures, then perhaps this debate can continue. But not until then.