If Christ is dead than you are right and our faith is worth nothing: Paul says this 1st Corinthians 15:12-22... BUT

"12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. "

CS Lewis is know for saying Jesus was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord. He says there is no other choice. Of course he chose Lord but if you do not believe that it only leaves the other two. He says, and I agree, one cannot say Jesus was not Lord and say he was only a good teacher, who just happened to say he was God. Personally, I think we can discoutn Liar because I dont think crazy poeple would die for thier faith but I could be wrong. So, I think our choice is Jesus was a lunatic, as were his followers, or he was Lord. I choose Lord. anyway, just some thoughts. Of course, I know you disagree with me but ya know... I mean, I had to respond, my compulssion to comment is like your own, ha ha ;.)

@Doubledb - "CS Lewis is know for saying Jesus was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord. "

Abraham Lincoln wrote in his secret diaries that he was a vampire hunter during the civil war era. http://tinyurl.com/ykgs5kc

When faced with these incredulous claims, we only have three possiblities: That Abe was lying, crazy, or an actual vampire hunter.

Or, of course, the source material could be a work of fiction and only falsely attributed to a figure of history.

@Doubledb - That's right. People will die for conviction but not for concoction. Even Friedrich Nietzsche said that while he believed that Christ did not resurrect, he thought that the apostles truly believed he did. They would not all be willing to die for something they knew was a lie and brought them nothing but persecution in return.

@soccerdadforlife - Only you believe you are capable of thinking. Only you. Just stating a fact. 

@Celestial_Teapot - I recommended your comment, but then decided that I should follow up with a question: Do you think that the Abe Lincoln vampire story is evidence that the Christian story is fiction?  I don't think that you would say "yes".  Your point simply seems to be to offer another possible explanation of the facts.  I don't think that your alternative would stand up to scrutiny, of course.

@Celestial_Teapot - The Pilgrim's Regress is one of the worst books ever written by a highly lauded, modern author. It's excellent fodder for the argument that Lewis was a pretty mediocre author. The Space Trilogy is also bad. I know literature is subjective, but Lewis's whole career is pretty "meh." There are more prolific authors Christians should rely on in their arguments. I never understood why they cling so fervently to Lewis, other than his simple-minded apologism being easy to soundbite.  

@Celestial_Teapot - It seems to me that if Paul is historical (and I don't know anyone who doubts that), then the Jerusalem church is historical, since Paul was involved in at least one hearing at the Jerusalem church.  If the Jerusalem church is historical, then the first fifteen years of the church is historical (which pulls in the apostles) and the critic must acknowledge that the Jewish influence on the church was profound, since the church was composed primarily of Jews for the first fifteen years up until Antioch.  Furthermore the early leaders of the church must have been Jews.  That pulls in the profound influence of the Law of Moses on the church and its epistemology of testimony.  Since the apostles claimed their leadership based on their claim that Jesus told them to be His witnesses (see Acts 1:8), we must consider it likely that they would have been giving their testimony a great deal in Judea and synagogues in the Diaspora; within the Jewish context, that necessarily implied thorough scrutiny, as in a murder trial under the Law of Moses where judges thoroughly questioned witnesses.

While Paul was an apostle to the gentiles, he always went to the Jewish synagogue first in every town he visited.

Thanks.  Thinking this through yet again gave me a new insight.

@soccerdadforlife - Congrats on not being merely a troll on this visit to my site! Now, on to what you said:

[It seems to me that if Paul is historical (and I don't know anyone who doubts that), then the Jerusalem church is historical]
Yes, but all Paul claims to have had is a spiritual vision of Jesus years after his death. You know who else has claimed to have had "historical" (by this precedent) encounters? Hillbillies with a high blood alcohol content and too many viewings of alien abduction movies.

On a completely separate tack, you seem to have embraced the "Jewish tradition of witness" so hard that you again forget the fact that even Jews lie and/or are misrepresented later in life. You (lately, and why only lately?) keep demanding ancient Jewish demands for evidence when you ignore the fact that Christians perform the most murders in this country by far. To think that someone JUST MIGHT change the words they were to transcribe either accidentally or with purpose seems so difficult that you dismiss it, but literally thousands upon thousands of Christians per year swear (unjustly... and by that I mean lie in their Lord's name) on the Bible. So you don't think this could have happened in the past?

@Doubledb - "I dont think crazy people would die for their (beliefs)"

Of course they will. You think people are less sincere if they are mentally disturbed?

@soccerdadforlife - [The naive view is that no changes have been
made since the gospels were first worded, which means between when the
authors witnessed Jesus, then they told somebody, and that somebody
wrote it down, and that somebody had it copied (repeat as needed) until
we reach our earliest copies of anything Biblical, which is hundreds of
years after Jesus.]

Right. So nobody knows what Jesus said. Great basis for a fucking religion. "I heard a guy who heard a guy who heard a guy who said we don't have to chop off our foreskins anymore" is enough for ANYOHNE to latch onto a new belief (I'd embrace Satan if it meant my genitals being untouched by a knife).

@GodlessLiberal - Sorry.  I came here to tell you that I really liked your post.  But when I read Doubledb's comment, I felt I had to respond.  After I responded, I realized I had said just about the same thing as you did to soccerdadforlife.  That was pure coincidence and not plagiarism, I assure you.  I laughed when I later read your response.

Anyway, I liked that difference of a cult versus a religion. 

@GodlessLiberal - exactly, but I believe those guys were crazy/lunatics.. and two of those are lunatics twisting scripture, whom I despise

.@Celestial_Teapot - I dont remember ever learning he said this, but if it was true, I would say he either was a vampire hunter or was crazy. The other option is it was am myth but how many people died because they thought he was a vampire killer, I dont remember hearing of any.

@soccerdadforlife - "People will die for things that they know to be lies, especially when they can't escape the trap in time." = What does that mean? And Lewis' LLL was a way to suggest one could not claim to be God and only be seen as a good teacher. In fact, CS Lewis wasnt even a believer. He was an Atheist who studied at Oxford. I believe he studied Philosophy. What I spoke of can be found in his books "Mere Christianity" and I can assure you CS Lewis was seen as conservative, maybe a moderate, but certainly not a liberal, as it pertains to the Christian faith.

@flapper_femme_fatale - the best reply to my comment yet! I can understand this as an exception, along with some suggesting Jesus never existed. But then you still have the question of why so many, even more than his disciples were willing to die from martyrdom. I just dont think if something was false, so many would die (especially without a leader).. and today Christians are still dying as martyrs, though mostly in Hindu, Muslim, or other places where they are the minority. But then you have 9/11 and extreme Muslims/Terrorist dying as they cause destruction and saying they are working for Allah, but I think this is different from one being killed or martyred for their faith. those are extremist who do not portray their faith and are in my mind crazy. Like a Christian bombing and abortion clinic... totally nuts and does not truly understand their faith or good ways to persuade others in my opinion.

@Lovegrove - But then you have to assume Jesus, his disciples, and all Christians in all time; those dead and some still living are mentally disturbed. Now, I dont doubt there are some who are crazy, because there are some people that are crazy, but it doesn't make sense, especially once Jesus died. If you note scripture, it says all the disciples dispersed. Originally they thought he was dead and so was their faith, so if Jesus didn't rise, then why would all of those people decide to come back, make up a lie, and then die horrible deaths. It doesn't make sense to me. I mean, in the Book of John, you have Peter already back fishing in John 21 when he sees Jesus again. He had gone back to his old life. but again, if you dont believe the scriptures to be real, then none of it would really matter I suppose. But again, my qualm with this post is that it assumes Jesus is dead, form the person who is not a Christian this might make sense but to the Christians, this is simply not true. If it were, their faith (my faith) would be worth nothing.

@GodlessLiberal - Actually if you study history, you know most of what we know came down from word of mouth, until someone finally wrote/copied it down. It really wasn't until after the invention of the printing press that historical records and data started being kept like today (as a social science not an art). So, all that history we get from books in school, came from old materials, which were also likely written down after hundreds or thousands of years of being orally passed through talking but especially though stories (or archeological finds which archeologist put facts/details together after the fact). Why do you think so much of the Old Testament is made up of stories and poetry, so they would remember them and pass them on (same for the Gospels). In addition, think how different Paul's letters/doctrines are from anything written in the Old Testament, including the law. I think the reason he wrote so much doctrine was because (and evidence) that the gospel was being orally passed on for so long but being mixed with Jewish beliefs and/or Pagan/Gentile/Roman ones. Paul wanted to clarify the beliefs, so the gospel was not to later become something else. Again, this was important to the Catholic church when they canonized scripture. So, if you would say we cannot believe the scriptures because of its oral history, then you must also presume we cannot truly believe any history except that which happened after the time the printing press was invented and historical records were recorded more as details and facts than stories and poems (a genre change currently seen as a social science from what was more of an an art form in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History).

Just in general I want to say how glad I am you posted this pic (and started this discussion), even if I disagree with you GodlessLiberal & some other here. I really do enjoy these discussions despite where we disagree (obviously). I also appreciate the logic and humor you possess and how you posts/blog about things. And how you dont just call me "stupid" and "naive" (even if you might think it, ha ha)