"You are a very good thinker :) I enjoy talking with you. I'll respond in a point by point manner to make it easier:"

Good, sounds like a plan, I'm game!

"1a) "The account of the resurrection only exists in the bible, with no external contemporary sources"

That is simply not true. Dozens of people wrote about Jesus' life or Resurrection.

http://faithbibleministriesblog.com/2012/09/22/apologetics-part-1-extern...

The life and ministry of Jesus has been written about by dozens of external authors... which dismisses what you say next:"

Contemporary, it was the word I used, and precisely the word I meant. It means that there was no one, no one, outside the bible who lived at the time Jesus did, that wrote anything about him. Sure, later people(the vast majority Christian) wrote about him, but we also have writings about other religious and mythical figures. That is not even mentioning some of the parts I mentioned, like zombiefest, which you tactfully ignored because it is simply ridiculous.

"1b) "Don't be too offended, though, I also don't spend a lot of time demolishing any stories about Zeus or Odin either."

Zeus and Odin have none of the credibility of Jesus."

Actually, the prevailing theory is that they were likely kings or rulers whose lives and origins were mythologized through oral traditions, just like they believe happened to Jesus.

"You would not be taken seriously by historical scholars if you compared the historical Jesus with those two."

There are scholars doing so this very day, many will point out the bits and pieces of the story that were borrowed nearly verbatim from older myths and religions, taking the teeth out of this argument.

"Jesus was a historical figure and was written about as such by believers and non-believers alike."

Osiris is often written about as the first pharaoh of Egypt, by all sorts of historians, that doesn't mean he actually existed or was the sun of the sky god Geb and Earth god Nut. It doesn't prove he was murdered by his brother Seth(Cain and Abel much?), or that he was brought back to life.

"Zeus and Odin were legends, and written about as such by believers and non-believers alike."

Really, no mainstream historians talk about them as if they were actual kings and rulers who had their lives and origins mythologized by oral traditions after their death? That is utter horsecrap and you know it.

"Some? My friend, the VAST majority of scholars agree throughout the ages agree he existed... it's only those on the far left of scholarship that doubt it."

Yes, some, some of them believe he existed. Most, MOST, don't agree on anything beyond his baptism by John and his Crucifixion. That means that the majority do not take the accounts of his birth, miraculous acts, or even the empty tomb as actual history. The people who make this argument fail to take into account that MOST of modern scholarship in the subject HEAVILY DOUBT most of the necessary claims made about this Jesus, from virgin birth to empty tomb and resurrection.

"Few? Yes, I'm not saying that these scholars agree Jesus rose again (otherwise they would be Christians), but that they agree with many non-supernatural details that the Gospels say happened."

Oh? Spider-Man comics often have real people, places, and events too. I suppose I should start wearing spandex and practicing parkour, then, huh?

"2) For instance, A) most scholars agree that the disciples BELIEVED they had seen the risen Jesus (Now, that's not saying these scholars agreed He rose... but just that His disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus)."

Actually, most don't make any claims concerning the disciples.

"B) Most scholars agree that, somehow, Jesus' tomb was empty a few days after his death. Again, this isn't saying they believe He rose again."

Actually, MOST scholars don't say much of anything about the tomb story, except that it is problematic and inconsistent.

"C) Most scholars agree that James and Paul, skeptics of Christianity, were converted because they THOUGHT they had seen the risen Jesus."

They agree that these men claim to have seen Jesus, they make no claims about what these men actually thought, as that wouldn't be good practice.

"So when you come up with a theory to explain the Resurrection, you have to come up with a theory to explain ALL the physical facts most historical scholars believe happened. That's how historical theories work."

Given that the only factors that are almost universally accepted are:

1. The story is based, however loosely, on a person.
2. The person influenced by, and likely baptized by, John the Baptist.
3. The person was crucified.

Other than these three, nothing else is really universally accepted. The field is full of disparate scholars promoting conflicting ideas and contradictory narratives.

"For instance, many people love the hallucination theory. All the disciples "saw" Him because, in their great anguish and weak mental state, they hallucinated Him. However, this theory can't explain "C"... hallucinations aren't going to work on hardened skeptics."

I have had hallucinations due to stress and lack of sleep, some of things I don't believe in, and if I were a little less educated and put more stock in visions I probably would have started believing.

"The hallucination theory fails for that reason and another (simply the fact that group hallucinations can't happen)."

A. What about large groups who claim to see the Hindu pantheon then? Were they actually seeing their gods? Or, where these stories made up from a whole bunch of individual hallucinations? Or, perhaps, is it possible they were experiencing some from of collective delusion or mass hysteria? How about all the groups of people that have seen monsters, aliens, faeries and other such things? Where they lying or did they actually see it? It is much simpler, and by far more reasonable to assume, that sometimes groups can have such experiences.

B. I am surprised you claim to know, as fact, something which even the greatest experts in the field would argue with you about.

"You give a link that details the famed "swoon theory"."

I will assume you didn't actually read it then, because there is a marked difference between "swooning" and actually dying. This phenomenon chronicles people who have actually died, and auto resuscitated later, in some cases well after being pronounced dead.

"Problem with this theory is that it is extremely rare in human beings that are somewhat PERFECTLY FINE."

Sure, it happens less than resurrection in the bible, as the bible depicts people popping back to life like pop tarts.

"Read what Jesus went through and then ask yourself how likely it is that He only "fainted":

If you read what was actually written, you would notice that it wasn't about fainting, these people DIED.

"http://www.thenazareneway.com/holy_week/physical_suffering_jesus.htm"

Another part that isn't universally accepted by scholarship at all.

"Also, let's say He somehow miraculously did survive the Resurrection!"

Um, I am going to assume you meant "survive the crucifixion", as this makes little sense. It is somewhat implied, in resurrection, that the person is alive an not actually still dead... Hence, if it was a resurrection, survival of the resurrection is rather implied.

"What physical state would He be in?"

Depends on conditions, how long he was actually dead, and whether or not his heart actually stopped entirely or simply was slowed to the point that it was undetectable. People suffering Fugu(Sp? blowfish poison) poisoning have been known to be thought dead for days, before magically resuscitating to almost full health. Given the story of Jesus, there is actually a physiological condition that puts a persons body into a coma-like state when extreme trauma is suffered, and it can last only days or years. Is this what happened? I don't know, but it is a HELL of a lot MORE likely than what you believe.

"He would look terrible and would take months and months (probably years) to recover... would this inspire His previously terrified and cowardly disciples to start a worldwide religion? No! He would look like the beaten, broken man He would be... and that wouldn't inspire anyone the way the disciples clearly were."

Oh, the old "die for a lie" bit. You should really get better arguments, as people have died for silly things consistently throughout history, even things we know today AREN'T true.

"3) The difference between Jesus rising from the dead and all the others was that Jesus PREDICTED His resurrection..."

*Not universally accepted by scholarship.

"which takes things up a notch in terms of credibility, obviously."

Not really, resurrection was apparently more common than literacy in those days.

"Others rose, but only Jesus predicted He would rise."

Predictions found in the same text that chronicles his death, but no, it isn't possible that people retroactively put in in there for just this purpose!

"This wasn't some Nostradamian-like vague musing Jesus muttered... but something very specific (on the third day I will rise again). God knows the future. Only God can do that."

Oh, really? So I should also believe any other religious figure that predicted their own death and resurrection? You do, of course, realize that he isn't the only god or demigod to make this claim, right?

"Love talking, as always :)"

I can gather that, as if you didn't at least like talking to us a little bit, you probably would have abandoned this place already. Me and a few others aren't social butterflies, I am not a very tactful person, and my bluntness and cynicism often makes me come across as a complete jerk. So, I suppose, I am appreciative of the fact you can actually enjoy our conversations; even though I despair that we will ever agree on the topics that inspire them.