I Don't Beleive In Him,however...

I beleive a man named Jesus may have once walked the Earth,preaching the word of God.
And,as George Carlin once said,Jesus had integrity.He didn't plea bargain with the Romans.He took what he had coming to him without grassing up the Apostles.What he should have done at the Last Supper,though,is kick Judas's ***.
See?
Even a sworn athiest like me can learn something interesting and good from religion.And I bet if you tried to plea bargain with God to get into Heaven by telling him all the bad **** your friends and relatives did while he wasn't looking,he'd say "**** you,you snitching,rat-bastard!" and then he'd send you to Hell.
deleted deleted
26-30
2 Responses Nov 29, 2012

I'd only like to point out that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a matter of historical fact.

“It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” (Gerd L¸demann, "What Really Happened to Jesus?", trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

British scholar N. T. Wright states, "As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” (N. T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today (September 13, 1993)), p. 26.

Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”(Gerd L¸demann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.)


In fact, in his book, Justifying Historical Descriptions, historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” passes all these tests:

1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead” doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the resurrection hypothesis.

Likewise.

I guess with any story, it's what you learn or take away from it. I never looked at the passion in that way. It's completely valid. Thanks.