Christianity ruins families.

[giblets]

I already said, about 20 years after the event occurred.

Multiple sources corroborate with one another.

Which sources are these?

Think about that for a second. Bodies smell. If you are stealing the body, why would you unwrap it and just take the corpse? Wouldn't you just take the body and the wrappings?

I imagine a lot of people would, but I'm not sure why you would refuse to believe someone may have left a shroud while they were taking the body, but readily accept that someone rose from the dead.

We are talking about an event 2000 years ago. Not a fair comparison. Compare it with the account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

You have more evidence available to you that hindu gods can drink milk than you have that Jesus rose from the dead. I'm not sure what Caesar has to do with this. Are you pointing out that ancient events are poorly documented? Then why believe ancient supernatural stories?

They refer to details that only an eyewitness would know.

So does J.K. Rowling. I guess Hogwarts is real because no one is capable of writing detailed accounts of things that never happened. She must have personally interviewed someone who knew Harry Potter.

[Ben Kenobi]

When was the earliest source written?

I already said, about 20 years after the event occurred.

How could you confirm this isn't some rumor?

Multiple sources corroborate with one another.

And how do you know that if someone was taking the body, they would want the wrappings?

Think about that for a second. Bodies smell. If you are stealing the body, why would you unwrap it and just take the corpse? Wouldn't you just take the body and the wrappings?

Compare that to the level of documentation for the Hindu Milk Miracle.

We are talking about an event 2000 years ago. Not a fair comparison. Compare it with the account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

And what evidence is there that they actually interviewed eyewitnesses?

They refer to details that only an eyewitness would know.

[giblets]

Why would they leave the burial wrappings?

When was the earliest source written? How could you confirm this isn't some rumor? And how do you know that if someone was taking the body, they would want the wrappings?

That we currently possess?

20 years after the fact, either interviewing eyewitnesses, or written by the eyewitnesses themselves.

Compare that to the level of documentation for the Hindu Milk Miracle. And what evidence is there that they actually interviewed eyewitnesses?

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe the disciples did take the body. It's a plausible explanation

Why would they leave the burial wrappings?

And when was the earliest documentation of this event written?

That we currently possess?

20 years after the fact, either interviewing eyewitnesses, or written by the eyewitnesses themselves.

[giblets]

Then 'false' supernatural is redundant.

Well, sort of. The people who claim the Hindu Milk Miracle is real are describing something that happened, but they're claiming a supernatural cause when most nonbelievers would accept capillary action as a better explanation. Throughout the world, throughout history supernatural explanations have been employed to plug in gaps in understanding. The disappearance of a dead body isn't really that different.

The Jews claimed that the disciples stole the body. All they had to do to disprove that Christ had risen is to produce the body. They could not, so they claimed the disciples stole him.

Maybe the disciples did take the body. It's a plausible explanation, and rejecting it isn't that different from rejecting capillary action as an explanation for statues appearing to drink milk. And when was the earliest documentation of this event written? Maybe someone made up the whole story about the body disappearing and jews claiming it was stolen? Maybe it was just a rumor?

[Ben Kenobi]

There aren't any that I believe.

Then 'false' supernatural is redundant.

The Jews claimed that the disciples stole the body. All they had to do to disprove that Christ had risen is to produce the body. They could not, so they claimed the disciples stole him.

[giblets]

Do you believe there are any true supernatural stories?

There aren't any that I believe.

Because the Jews who were hostile witnesses admitted that the tomb was empty.

Could you elaborate?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why take any religion seriously when there are so many false supernatural stories out there?

Do you believe there are any true supernatural stories?

Hell, even according to the Bible some people thought Jesus was John the baptist risen from the dead, so what makes rumors of Jesus rising from the dead plausible?

Because the Jews who were hostile witnesses admitted that the tomb was empty.

[giblets]

That is a possibility. Another is that they all have some special revelation, and that they are all partially true. Another is that one could be true, and the others could all be lying.

You are right that they can't all be true. So why couldn't one be true and all the others be wrong?

Why take any religion seriously when there are so many false supernatural stories out there? Hell, even according to the Bible some people thought Jesus was John the baptist risen from the dead, so what makes rumors of Jesus rising from the dead plausible?

It's been my observation that those who are hostile to Christ tend to be more hostile to the Catholic church than anyone else.

Do you really think people attack the Catholic church for, say, protecting pedophiles because they hate Jesus?

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus was just another alleged divine revelation. And people who are hostile to Jesus have very diverse opinions on many things.

It's been my observation that those who are hostile to Christ tend to be more hostile to the Catholic church than anyone else.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're retarded. Every religion claims to have some special revelation and they're all lying.

That is a possibility. Another is that they all have some special revelation, and that they are all partially true. Another is that one could be true, and the others could all be lying.

But the alleged revelations are different so you get everything ranging from human sacrifice to passing bigoted legislation.

You are right that they can't all be true. So why couldn't one be true and all the others be wrong?

[giblets]

If we assume that those who are most hostile to the truth of Christ are the guides, then the most repugnant religion to them, would contain the most truth of Christ.

Jesus was just another alleged divine revelation. And people who are hostile to Jesus have very diverse opinions on many things.

[giblets]

These claims are contradictory. If they were all equally true, they would be equally repugnant.

You're retarded. Every religion claims to have some special revelation and they're all lying. But the alleged revelations are different so you get everything ranging from human sacrifice to passing bigoted legislation.

[Ben Kenobi]

And no one claimed religions are equally repugnant, the point is that all religions are all equally fictitious.

These claims are contradictory. If they were all equally true, they would be equally repugnant. If we assume that those who are most hostile to the truth of Christ are the guides, then the most repugnant religion to them, would contain the most truth of Christ.

[Ben Kenobi]

The story is in no way trustworthy like the Bible would be for a Christian. BTW, I read once that all the splinters of the cross found during the middle ages, could have built a whole church.

Which says more about the medieval church than it does about helena who lived nearly 10 centuries earlier. The cross they found was the second time it was lost. The first time is after the church of the holy sepulchre was wrecked, and then re-excavated in the time of helena in the early 4th century.

This medieval cross found by the crusaders may or may not have been the same one. Helena's cross was stolen by the Sassinids several centuries later, and then returned to build the church of the holy sepulchre yet again. it seems reasonable to me that Helena's cross was the true cross.