You don’t need an actual person to start a religion; a book can do all that. A single book can spread ideas and ideals to millions and billions of people, but it cannot that many people speak Latin. Jesus did not need to exist for Christianity to exist.

So, not to put words in anyone’s mouth, but it would seem you discount Biblical narratives largely because you view them as legends passed down over time. Therefore the question of how much time lapsed is a crucial one. I AM, you mentioned the game of telephone, but of course you could play this game with the account of any historical event or figure. Do you doubt the accuracy or existence of Alexander the Great? The earliest biographies of him were written nearly 400 years after his death. Though I don’t know for sure, my guess is your skepticism toward any religious history is MUCH more intense than it is toward any sort of accounting of secular history.

But to the point of time lapse in the initial telling of the Christian story, there’s a stong case to be made that it is a much shorter gap than people have thought before the story of Christ’s resurrection (in its current form) was being told and passed down. The crucifixion of Christ occurred around 30 A.D. The apostle Paul’s conversion was roughly 32 A.D. and it is believed his first meeting with the apostles was in 35 A.D.

This meeting was documented in Corinthians 1:15 wherein Paul cites a creed (already in existence at the time) that he is passing which mentions the birth and resurrection of Christ. In short, a very good case can be made that the crux of this story was being handed down verbally less than five years after Christ’s death. I realize you’ve got lots more objections, but that is a crucial one.

Indeed! Probably why most religionists never learn much about there religion.

Do keep blogging, I Am. The Internet would be ever so lonely without you.

Chad:
I’ll ignore the part of your rebuttal that deals with the existence of Jesus. My arguments don’t require him to be a fictional character. In fact, while I can’t say for certain (and neither can you), I think it’s more likely that he was a real person.

On another point, have you ever played the game “telephone” for two minutes? Imagine playing it for 2,000 years. It give you another perspective on “chronological snobbery.” By the way, this argument can be used to defend things like flat earth theory and abiogenesis. I personally feel that knowing more information allows one to arrive at better conclusions, but the religious never seem to see it that way.

I would consider the resurrection to be an enormous factor.

So would I. Prove it.

As well as Christ’s own words as outlined in the Gospels.

Don’t go around believing what people tell you about themselves. There’s a very good reason the private investigators are still in business. Joshua Norton said he was the Emperor of the United States. That didn’t make it so. Actually, that’s a pretty good analogy, because lots of people treated him as though he were while he was alive, even though they knew better.

Neither Buddha nor Mohammed claimed to be God and certainly their followers did not claim that they rose from the dead.

If I make an even more proposterous claim, is it more likely to be true? Let me try. I am a 300 foot tall superintelligent eggplant with the ability to travel through time and turn any bicycle I touch into plutonium. Do you see the flaw in this argument now?