Funky, I agree with your first statement. If Jesus is resurrected though, there is no fear of Islam being true, because Islam denies that Jesus even died on the cross (as that would be unjust of God).
As for the second, I believe that God is behind the growth of Christianity, but what I offered wasn't intended to be absolute proof of its truth as a religion. It was to answer your claim that there was NO reason to believe that Christianity would have survived any longer, except for the intervention of Constantine.
Farkel, If you really meant to say that no one could persuade YOU to believe in the resurrection of Jesus—well, you’re right about that. I’ve noticed that you can’t force a JW to admit that the WT’s claims are shot full of holes, even in the face of overwhelming evidence such is freely available online! But an unbiased person with enough valid info would see that the WT is a total crock of horse poop. If you could be consistent, then after examining evidence you’d have to admit that the only reasonable answer to "What happened the third day after Good Friday?" is, Jesus was resurrected.
No one can prove this? How about Simon Greenleaf? He was an eminent professor of Harvard Law School, raising the status of Harvard to its prominence today, and a Jew. His forte in law was witnesses and evidence, and he wrote a 3-volume text called "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence" (pub. 1842), which is still considered by many the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure. It was required for many years as a textbook at law schools. Greenleaf was challenged to examine the claim of Christianity that Christ rose from the dead. He did, and concluded that the resurrection was one of the best supported events in history. It compelled him to believe in Christ. He also wrote a book that details how he came to that conclusion. It is called, "Testimony of the Evangelists".
Here is an excerpt:
All that Christianity asks of men... (is) that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things. And that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses (to the resurrection) be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth."
Farkel, isn’t this the same thing that people try to get devout JWs to do? To be objective and not let their personal biases intervene? You ask this of other readers, but refuse this action for yourself.
(BTW, here’s the book if you want to order it (or, just try a library).
Then there’s Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton. They believed that Christianity was a tale "gone mad" and determined to refute the Christian faith. Lyttleton resolved to disprove the conversion of Saul, and West would refute the resurrection of Jesus. ...But after examining the evidence, they both separately came to the opposite conclusion. Lyttleton authored a book called, "Observations of Saul’s Conversion" and West wrote a book called "Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus." These books are available on microfiche thru university libraries, btw, not Amazon.
These guys aren’t the only ones to come to the conclusion that proof truly exists. After investigating the evidence of the resurrection, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, stated, "...there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true."
Frank Morison understood that the foundation for Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus—not the actions of its followers—and this is what he focused on disproving. His book "Who Moved the Stone?" is the result of his research. He finally realized that the evidence for the resurrection was insurmountable, and he, as did Greenleaf, West, and Lyttleton, converted.
There are several other authors who detail their crisis of conscience. CS Lewis is also an agnostic-turned Christian apologist, as is Josh McDowell. (It really is a crisis of conscience!!)
Pinchas Lapide, a noted Orthodox Jewish theologian who is one of only four or five Jewish NT scholars in the world. In his book "The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective" , he says, "according to my opinion the resurrection.. (is) a fact of history." He also acknowledges, "Without the resurrection of Jesus, after Golgotha, there would be not have been any Christianity." (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1983), p. 92
He also wrote:
If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on that Easter Sunday were a public event which had been made known...not only to the 530 Jewish witnesses but to the entire population, all Jews would have become followers of Jesus. To me this would have had only one imaginable consequence: the church, baptism, the forgiveness of sins, the cross, everything which today is Christian would have remained an inner-Jewish institution, and you [Gentiles], my dear friend, would today still be offering horsemeat to Wotan on the Godesberg. Put in other words, I see in the fact that the Easter experience was imparted to only some Jews the finger of God indicating that, as it says in the New Testament, "the time is fulfilled." Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine: A Dialogue by Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 68
"I accept the resurrection of Easter Sunday not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as a historical event." Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine: A Dialogue by Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 59.
Here is a quick overview of his book, and his very unusual viewpoint:
Farkel, your arguments here are simply very interesting, colorful, useless red herring/ad hominem attacks. No substantial argument for any courtroom. I’m sure you’d agree with me when (if?) you’re in a better mood.
---Actually, your real argument is a personal issue, with how God allows evil things to occur at all--let alone in His name--not Jesus’ resurrection. But if Jesus is resurrected, then God is giving assurance to you (and everyone) that He recognizes your great frustration with evil. And thru the resurrection God reminds all to have faith that, despite what appears otherwise, He is in control even now, and that every one of those who opposes goodness and love will completely fall, because God is good; God is love. Easter give those who honestly hunger and thirst for righteousness hope and relief.
Even if you don’t believe that God is good, you will still always have problems refuting the resurrection of Christ. God seems to have effectively shut off every escape route for any other conclusion.
I'll eat my own penis if anyone can prove differently.
Dare I ask the size of the bun you'll need?....