Why Believe This Claim?

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #6]

I don't see the resurrection as a reason for us to be more moral. It's a sign of the power we need so that we can be more moral.

[POI]

I am afraid it is just not that easy for you, my friend. I wish it were. Again, your problem is the fact that even the critical scholars agree that we have enough evidence in the material, whether it is trustworthy or not, to know the early followers were not making the reports up. I can give you all sorts of quotes from the critics, but here is one from a critical scholar who was not Christian,

The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.

Pretty stout my friend

LOL! Thus far, here is a summation of your argument -- (paraphrased). Sure, RealJack may have to concede that the Bible is neither trustworthy, nor, does the Bible contain accounts from corroborated eyewitnesses to a resurrection tour. However, even secular scholars have to reconcile that the described postmortem Jesus appearance accounts were not made up.

Okay... And drum roll please... Out of all these cited secular Bible scholars, so far, you elect to quote from one who does not 'admit' to your given claim. My friend, so far, you are (0/1). But even IF you provided one, I already spoke to this... Since you admit you can give a flip what Bible scholars personally think, and it is instead logical to base one's own personal conclusion upon the evidence, I find it convenient that you, all of a sudden, care what secular scholars think.

Again, in order to believe a ridiculous claim, that rotting bodies rose 2K years ago, it is quite sensible to have hard evidence. Or, as you'd say, "stout evidence." If this is your idea of "stout evidence", then my given counter evidence, from the other thread, which demonstrates many receipts, is "Godly evidence" against the claim that many believers really saw a postmortem Jesus.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Our OT was produced by Masorete Jews 1000 years after Christ called them sons of Satan.

Our NT is pseudepigraphical (forgery) manuscripts written 300 years after Christ. Ordered into cannon by...for...
____________
Masoretes -"𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛". Masoretic Text - "𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛" (Jewish Tanakh, from 1008BC) is our Old Testament.
Jeremiah 8:8 

Many ancient manuscripts have been found. Mystic, Gnostic, another messiah...

Let's start here... Do you believe the claim, or not? If not, then there is really no need to continue in this thread. If you do believe this claim, please tell me why?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #32]

LOL! Thus far, here is a summation of your argument -- (paraphrased). Sure, RealJack may have to concede that the Bible is neither trustworthy, nor, does the Bible contain accounts from corroborated eyewitnesses to a resurrection tour. However, even secular scholars have to reconcile that the described postmortem Jesus appearance accounts were not made up.

All you do is to continue to avoid dealing with the plain facts in front of you, and above you create a "straw man" in order to avoid the facts. I have not conceded that the Bible is untrustworthy, nor have I conceded that the Gospels were not authored by those alive at the time of the death of Jesus. Rather, what I have demonstrated is that it does not matter, because even with the material we have, even the critical scholars are convinced the early followers were convinced they had truly witnessed Jesus alive after death. Allow me to give you another quote from a historical scholar who is not Christian,

Paula Fredrickson (Historian and scholar of early Christianity)

I know in their own terms, what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know as an historian, that they must have seen something.

Here is another scholar who is not Christian and is assuring us we can know, from the material we have, whether trustworthy or not that it is not possible that the early followers made the story up but were rather convinced they had seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Do you even understand what that means? What this means is, even if the Gospels were not authored by eyewitnesses, and even if they were authored decades later (which would be expected by the way) we have enough facts and evidence to know that the early followers were making the claim of Jesus being raised in their lifetime. This means, the story was not embellished later on by the Gospel writers to include a resurrection.

However, and most importantly, this means you can save the time, space, and effort of arguing that the Gospels were not eyewitness accounts, and that they are untrustworthy, because in the end it does not matter in the least. This is what I have been attempting to get across to you, and also why I do not even bother with the argument concerning the authorship and, or trustworthiness of the Gospels because it does not matter in the least. From this material, we can know these folks were making the claim very early on. We can know they did not make the story up, and we can know the claims they were making go on to have the most significant impact in the history of the world. Now, I do not care which way you slice it, that is extremely stout, and it is extremely extraordinary. Again, the fact is, no matter what explanation you choose to explain these events you are going to end up with the extremely unlikely, along with the extremely extraordinary, and as we have seen, attempting to compare these events to other religious claims is not doing you any favors.

So, let's go through this. With the facts I have presented, we can eliminate the argument concerning the authorship of the Gospels. We can eliminate the argument that the Gospels are not trustworthy, and we can eliminate comparing these events to other religious claims. In other words, we have eliminated 3 of your arguments.

Okay... And drum roll please... Out of all these cited secular Bible scholars, so far, you elect to quote from one who does not 'admit' to your given claim.

That was never the aim, and it was not the purpose. The purpose was to demonstrate that you do yourself no favors by attempting to compare these events to other religious claims. It also demonstrates there are facts and evidence surrounding the claims which are "outstanding in quality and quantity" while you continue to insist there is no evidence at all. You wasted a "drum roll".

Well, my friend, so far, you are (0/1)

Actually, I am batting a thousand since my purpose was to eliminate 3 of your favorite arguments.

But even IF you provided one, I already spoke to this... Since you admit you can give a flip what Bible scholars personally think, and it is instead logical to base one's own personal conclusion based upon the evidence, I find it convenient that you, all of a sudden, care what secular scholars think.

I have already explained this. What the scholars believe adds no weight to one's argument. I find myself in disagreement with them on a number of things and can explain why. However, the point is, I am citing critical scholars, and I am not insisting this adds any weight, but I highly doubt you are going to attempt to refute it. So again, to be clear, it has nothing to do with the "scholars say it I believe it and that settles it" but rather the fact that you will not attempt to refute it.

Again, in order to believe a ridiculous claim, that rotting bodies rose 2K years ago, it is quite sensible to have hard evidence.

You keep saying the same thing over, and over, which causes me to have to do the same. I have supplied very hard evidence concerning what we can know, and this hard evidence demonstrates that whatever option you choose in an attempt to explain them, you are going to be left with the extremely unlikely which you are attempting to avoid. In the end, no matter which option you take, you are left with the extremely unlikely, along with the extremely extraordinary.

[1213]

Then by your own admission, the most rational reason to believe Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse is because we still have millions/billions who worship the claims from the Kuran.

I don't know anyone who worships claims.To me it is not relevant did Muhammad fly to heaven. And to me it is a different matter, because it did not have similar consequences. Disciples of Jesus were killed and persecuted for their beliefs. It is a more difficult to hold ideas that have no consequences than ideas that likely causes many troubles for the person.

Please recall what you stated:

It is the best explanation for why we have the Bible still.

Your response implies it's true because people still believe, to this day.

Yes, and perhaps I should have been more accurate. It is the best explanation for why we have the Bible, because if it would not be true, it is unlikely that we would have it because of all the persecution. If it was just made up story by some random person, no one would probably have been ready to stand all the persecution and threat of death.

It is easy to believe a story, if it has no consequences. Therefore the Muhammad story is not the same. However, I don't say it can't be true.

[POI]

All you do is to continue to avoid dealing with the plain facts in front of you, and above you create a "straw man" in order to avoid the facts. I have not conceded that the Bible is untrustworthy, nor have I conceded that the Gospels were not authored by those alive at the time of the death of Jesus.

Hmm? I guess this means you believe the Gospels are both a) trustworthy and from b) direct corroborated eyewitnesses? If this is the case, you would have said so as I have repeatedly laid out the case, with many receipts in the thread dedicated in your honor, that the Gospels are neither of these two things. Your silence in that thread was quite telling.

Rather, what I have demonstrated is that it does not matter,

Well, RealJack, this would HAVE to be your position, as you realize these writings are likely a) neither trustworthy nor b) from actual corroborated eyewitnesses.

even with the material we have, even the critical scholars are convinced the early followers were convinced they had truly witnessed Jesus alive after death.

I know this is the ONLY play you have now RealJack. You are grasping at straws -- to keep such a faith-based belief relevant.

Allow me to give you another quote from a historical scholar who is not Christian,

Paula Fredrickson (Historian and scholar of early Christianity)

I know in their own terms, what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know as an historian, that they must have seen something.

Here is another scholar who is not Christian and is assuring us we can know, from the material we have, whether trustworthy or not that it is not possible that the early followers made the story up but were rather convinced they had seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Do you even understand what that means? What this means is, even if the Gospels were not authored by eyewitnesses, and even if they were authored decades later (which would be expected by the way) we have enough facts and evidence to know that the early followers were making the claim of Jesus being raised in their lifetime. This means, the story was not embellished later on by the Gospel writers to include a resurrection.

Hmm? Are we supposed to a) care what Bible scholars believe, b) or not? Please pick one.

However, and most importantly, this means you can save the time, space, and effort of arguing that the Gospels were not eyewitness accounts, and that they are untrustworthy

Likely because you now know they are not.

because in the end it does not matter in the least.

Oh, but it does. But I understand why you need to take this position.

This is what I have been attempting to get across to you, and also why I do not even bother with the argument concerning the authorship and, or trustworthiness of the Gospels because it does not matter in the least.

I have another hypothesis... You do not bother because you agree the Gospels are likely not trustworthy nor actually from actual corroborated eyewitnesses.

From this material, we can know these folks were making the claim very early on.

The phrase "very early on" is doing both some very heavy lifting as well as over-reaching in terms of relevancy.

We can know they did not make the story up,

LOL! We honestly don't know RealJack. But thanks for the laugh. We don't even know such said/claimed folks were the ones who professed all asserted claims to begin with?

and we can know the claims they were making go on to have the most significant impact in the history of the world.

I cannot see how this is relevant, in the least. Islam may soon take over as the number one believed upon religion. Which then means all folks under these set of claims will influence the single largest group of folks on the planet. Then what? The point is, it is irrelevant as to whether or not the set of beliefs are actually true or not.

Now, I do not care which way you slice it, that is extremely stout, and it is extremely extraordinary.

No buddy, it is not. Again, your use of the term 'stout' is doing some very heavy lifting.

Again, the fact is, no matter what explanation you choose to explain these events you are going to end up with the extremely unlikely, along with the extremely extraordinary, and as we have seen, attempting to compare these events to other religious claims is not doing you any favors.

I've repeatedly given you alternative explanations. The point is, however, any/all alternative positions are still more likely than the conclusion that rotting bodies rose from their grave(s). Why? Because we do know rotting bodies don't actually rise.

So, let's go through this. With the facts I have presented, we can eliminate the argument concerning the authorship of the Gospels.

Nope. You just choose to ignore this fact, and instead, all of a sudden, care what some scholars believe.  Which I find convenient.

We can eliminate the argument that the Gospels are not trustworthy,

Nope. We cannot eliminate this fact. I know you would instead like to sweep this problem under the rug, however.

and we can eliminate comparing these events to other religious claims. In other words, we have eliminated 3 of your arguments.

No, we can't eliminate this argument. My position is that it is absurd to belief any ridiculous claims. And you have provided no 'stout' evidence which would suggest that this claimed event is (distinct or different) from any other believed upon ridiculous claim.

I have already explained this. What the scholars believe adds no weight to one's argument.

Then your entire argument fails miserably. You keep shooting yourself in the foot when you quote what scholars believe.

I find myself in disagreement with them on a number of things and can explain why. However, the point is, I am citing critical scholars, and I am not insisting this adds any weight, but I highly doubt you are going to attempt to refute it.

I don't need to. Your argument makes no logical sense. It refutes itself. All who read along, see this... You either care what scholars believe, or you do not. Not instead only when it is convenient.

You keep saying the same thing over, and over, which causes me to have to do the same.

You are certainly the pot calling the kettle black.

I have supplied very hard evidence concerning what we can know,

No, you have not. Readers will see this exchange...

and this hard evidence demonstrates that whatever option you choose in an attempt to explain them, you are going to be left with the extremely unlikely which you are attempting to avoid. In the end, no matter which option you take, you are left with the extremely unlikely, along with the extremely extraordinary.

I would respond here, again, but then you will just accuse me of repeating the same thing....

[POI]

Then by your own admission, the most rational reason to believe Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse is because we still have millions/billions who worship the claims from the Kuran.

I don't know anyone who worships claims.To me it is not relevant did Muhammad fly to heaven. And to me it is a different matter, because it did not have similar consequences. Disciples of Jesus were killed and persecuted for their beliefs. It is a more difficult to hold ideas that have no consequences than ideas that likely causes many troubles for the person.

Please recall what you stated:

It is the best explanation for why we have the Bible still.

Your response implies it's true because people still believe, to this day.

Yes, and perhaps I should have been more accurate. It is the best explanation for why we have the Bible, because if it would not be true, it is unlikely that we would have it because of all the persecution. If it was just made up story by some random person, no one would probably have been ready to stand all the persecution and threat of death.

It is easy to believe a story, if it has no consequences. Therefore the Muhammad story is not the same. However, I don't say it can't be true.

(1) Many people martyr and die for beliefs all the time; a) the many recipients in Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, in the early 2000's, b) Islamic believers for their cause (Sirat al-Mustaqeem and Shuhada from the Quran), c) the Hindu Arjuna - whom claimed Krishna informed him to perform martyrdom for the cause; just to name a few.

(2) How do you know the claimed martyred victim did not recant the second they were captured, but were still killed anyways, because during this time period, claims or professed belief in 'false gods' was often punishable by death? Many preached, or voiced their beliefs publicly, or even did not preach publicly at all, but were still harvested for punishment if others were somehow aware of their differing religious position. The claimed disciples would have been blacklisted, as they were already identified as Jesus followers. But who's to say they did not attempt to retract their internal beliefs verbally, to save their skin, but it was already too late, because the law was to kill all non conformists?

Even the Bible condemns belief in competing gods, as passages suggest death for alternate god claims. Ironically, these moral prescriptions are sighted in the Old Testament. The same text the Orthodox Jews address today, which deny Jesus as a messiah. For all intents and purposes, civilization was simply adhering to Old Testament law, as the new Testament was not written yet. At the time, differing belief to mainstream and accepted worship in the 'wrong god' may result in execution. No reliable documentation for any claims to these individual's death exist regardless, in any true capacity.

(3) No reliable source even discloses 'how' any of the said disciples died; not really much even in the Bible itself. Non-partisan sources, like National Geographic, even states the following, due to the underwhelming and scarce available claimed sources (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/k ... stles-die/):

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'

a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.

b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary

c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.

D) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true. Faith is belief in place of, or instead of, evidence. Please also remember we do not even have the original manuscripts.

If willingness to die for belief is the meter stick for it's truth, then the clear winners are radical Islamic extremists.

[1213]

(1) Many people martyr and die for beliefs all the time; a) the many recipients in Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, in the early 2000's, b) Islamic believers for their cause (Sirat al-Mustaqeem and Shuhada from the Quran), c) the Hindu Arjuna - whom claimed Krishna informed him to perform martyrdom for the cause; just to name a few...

But, by what i see, they were not killed or captured because they believed some story.

I was speaking about the beginning of a religion. If someone makes up a false story, it is unlikely it will survive, if the few original people in the religion are killed, or have death threat for believing the "lie". Was Muhammad under death threat for what he believed? Was he crucified for what he believed?

[POI]

I was speaking about the beginning of a religion. If someone makes up a false story, it is unlikely it will survive, if the few original people in the religion are killed, or have death threat for believing the "lie".

I spoke about this, and you ignored it. Please re-read my last reply.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

Hmm? I guess this means you believe the Gospels are both a) trustworthy and from b) direct corroborated eyewitnesses? If this is the case, you would have said so as I have repeatedly laid out the case, with many receipts in the thread dedicated in your honor, that the Gospels are neither of these two things. Your silence in that thread was quite telling.

It is for sure you are running out of gas, because you simply keep repeating the same thing over, and over. The reason I am silent as to whether the Gospels "are both a) trustworthy and from b) direct corroborated eyewitnesses" is because it does not matter as I have demonstrated. Again, as I have already demonstrated, even the critical scholars who do not believe the material is trustworthy, nor do they believe the material to be authored by direct corroborated eyewitnesses, tell us that we can know from this material that the early followers could not have possibly made the story up, because the evidence we have is overwhelming that these folks (which would include the apostles) were somehow truly convinced they had encountered the risen Jesus after death. With this being a fact, there is no need in anyone even being concerned about whether the accounts are trustworthy, nor whether the authors were direct corroborated eyewitnesses, because if we can know they could not have possibly made the story up, because they were truly convinced, they had seen Jesus alive after death, then neither one of these things matter in the least.

You also want to continue to argue just how unlikely, and extraordinary a resurrection would be, but the fact of the matter is, there is no other explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would not be extremely unlikely, or would not be extremely extraordinary. You are the one who is insisting that any, and everyone who comes to a different conclusion than you have, could not have possibly used reason to arrive to such a conclusion. Therefore, since this is the case, you should be able to use your vast reasoning skills in order to come up with a scenario which would explain the facts and evidence we can know which would eliminate the unlikely along with the extraordinary.

If you cannot do this, and you have not, and will not, then it seems your only argument is a resurrection is unlikely and extraordinary, while any other explanation leaves us with the unlikely and extraordinary. You also have insisted there is no evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection, while we have critical scholars assuring us we can know the early followers could not have possibly made the story up, along with at least one who was an atheist and never a Christian assuring us that "the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity." Now to be sure, I am not in any way suggesting that this scholar is correct, but if he is not then you should be able to refute it by demonstrating how the evidence for the resurrection is no better than any of these other claims.

What I am doing is to get us to the point of things we will have to agree upon and eliminating arguments which only bog the conversation down. By eliminating arguments which do not matter in the least, we can concentrate on the arguments which matter. If you continue to bring up these arguments which do not matter in the least, I will continue to point out that they do not matter in the least and attempt to keep you focused on the arguments which matter.

So then, let us go through this again. Arguments as to whether the Gospels are trustworthy or who the authors may have been will not be entertained, because they have been demonstrated to not matter. Next, attempting to compare the events surrounding the resurrection to other religious claims will not be entertained because this has been demonstrated to not matter.

Well, RealJack, this would HAVE to be your position, as you realize these writings are likely a) neither trustworthy nor b) from actual corroborated eyewitnesses.

I can assure you this is not my position in the least, but I am not going to waste a moment of time debating this when it is a fact which has been demonstrated that it does not matter. I have demonstrated that it does not matter in the least, and you continue to insist on bringing something up that adds nothing to the conversation. I mean, if you are convinced that you have demonstrated that the Gospels are unreliable, and not from actual corroborated eyewitnesses, that is great, but it still in no way has a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence we have surrounding the resurrection, unless of course you can demonstrate how the critical scholars are in error.

I know this is the ONLY play you have now RealJack. You are grasping at straws -- to keep such a faith-based belief relevant.

I would say, "what you are failing to realize" but I really do believe you do indeed realize it, is the fact that this is all I need concerning what I am arguing. Because you see, I am not insisting that a resurrection occurred, and I am not insisting that those who doubt, or do not believe could not have possibly used reason to come to the position they hold, because I know it to be a fact that both sides can use very good reason and come to different conclusions. No, that would be you. You are the one who is insisting that no one could possibly use good reason and come to a different conclusion than you hold, and since this is the case, it seems like you are insisting that a resurrection did not occur. If I am correct concerning both cases, then it would be you who owns the burden of proof. My only burden is to demonstrate that one can use reason to not only believe, but can know, the early followers could not have possibly made the story up, and go on to demonstrate that whether the Gospels are reliable or not, or whether the authors were eyewitness accounts, does not matter in the least, along with the fact that comparing the facts and evidence we can know concerning the events surrounding the resurrection, with any other religious claims does not matter in the least, and does not add anything at all to the conversation. I have accomplished this. In other words, and again, all these arguments have been eliminated from the conversation.

Allow me to attempt to explain it this way. When you were a convinced Christian who did not use reason to be convinced, because you took the word of others, being exposed to extremely reckless theology, you were taught that the Bible was inerrant and that it was impossible for the Bible to contain any error. You took this "hook line and sinker" and therefore, it there was any error to be found, this would have surely shipwrecked your faith. You go on to transpose this reckless theology you were exposed to upon others who hold to the position you once held, and insist that they as well must, and have to hold to the same position, and if they do not, they are "picking and choosing", because you cannot imagine anyone at all who is convinced as you not insisting upon the same thing.

On the other hand, there were those of us who were exposed to the same exact reckless inerrant theology, who became of age, and had no interest in the least one way or the other. Later in life, when they are forced to study the claims, when they would have really rather have not, they come to the realization that what they were taught as a child was reckless, and holding to inerrancy has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and the only thing which matters was, whether there was facts, evidence, and reason surrounding the claims of the resurrection. That's all that matters, and I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that there are indeed facts, evidence, and reasons surrounding the claims of the resurrection which needs some sort of explanation which would not include the extremely unlikely, and or the extremely extraordinary.

It is a fact that a resurrection would be extremely unlikely, and it would be extremely extraordinary. What I am looking for is an explanation of the facts and evidence that would not include the extremely unlikely, or the extremely extraordinary, you have neither, nor do any of the critical scholars. There is no critical scholars who has come up with any explanation of the facts and evidence we have concerning the facts and evidence we can know, which would be likely in any way, nor would it exclude the extraordinary, and that is a fact, and if it is not, then you should be able to supply us with this explanation.

Hmm? Are we supposed to a) care what Bible scholars believe, b) or not? Please pick one.

We should certainly take into consideration what the scholars (or anyone else) has to say. If we can refute what they have to say, then that is what we should do. The question is, are you prepare to refute the critical scholars who tell us "We can KNOW the early followers of Jesus could not have possibly made the story up, and the evidence we have clearly demonstrates they were somehow convinced they had seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion? Can you refute the critical scholar who assures us that, "the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity?" If you cannot, this does not in any way mean the scholar, or whoever else must be correct, it simply means you cannot refute it.

Likely because you now know they are not.

You continue to go on what you believe to be likely, and you are completely in error here, because I do not in any way know the Gospels are untrustworthy. What I do know to be a fact is, whether they are trustworthy or not, has nothing to do with the fact that we can know, even critical scholars admit we can KNOW the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) could not have possibly made the story up of Jesus being raised from the dead, but were rather convinced this to be the case.

Oh, but it does. But I understand why you need to take this position.

It does not matter in the least, because I have demonstrated the things we can know with almost certainty concerning the events surrounding the resurrection. I do not "need" to take this position rather; I take this position because it is simply a fact which you cannot refute.

I have another hypothesis... You do not bother because you agree the Gospels are likely not trustworthy nor actually from actual corroborated eyewitnesses.

Again, you keep repeating the same things over, and over, and what you are attempting to do is to divert the conversation from what you cannot defend, by attempting to get us in a debate which has been demonstrated to have no bearing whatsoever on the matter.

The phrase "very early on" is doing both some very heavy lifting as well as over-reaching in terms of relevancy.

My friend, it is extremely easy to demonstrate that the claims of Jesus being raised from the dead were being made very early on, even to days after the crucifixion. We know this to be the case, because we know with certainty that Paul was alive at the time of the crucifixion, and we know with certainty that he knew and spent a whole lot of time with the original apostles, and Paul would have heard the claims they were making from their own lips, and Paul explains to his audiences at the time (you know, those alive at the time) what the apostles were proclaiming. This is exactly why that even the critical scholars understand that this fact cannot be refuted, because it is not possible to deny this to be a fact, with the facts and evidence we can know. The reason this is relevant is the fact that it eliminates the idea that the authors of the Gospels embellished the reports to include a resurrection decades later, and that is a fact.

LOL! We honestly don't know RealJack. But thanks for the laugh. We don't even know such said/claimed folks were the ones who professed all asserted claims to begin with?

My friend, you are living in a "fantasy world" if you believe this to be the case. We can know beyond any reasonable doubt the apostles were making the claims of Jesus being raised from the dead, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to the claims, and we can know this beyond a reasonable doubt exactly because we know without doubt that Paul was alive at the time, and knew the original apostles, and would have known what they were proclaiming from their own lips. This is exactly what even the critical scholars tell us, and if this is not the case, then you need to explain to us how these scholars are in error. Notice, I am not saying that since the scholars agree on this that we must and have to believe it, but rather that if you are going to insist this is not the case, then you own the burden to demonstrate where they are in error. I highly doubt you will endeavor to take on such a task.

I cannot see how this is relevant, in the least. Islam may soon take over as the number one believed upon religion. Which then means all folks under these set of claims will influence the single largest group of folks on the planet. Then what? The point is, it is irrelevant as to whether or not the set of beliefs are actually true or not.

It is not relevant in that it demonstrates the claims are true. Rather, it is relevant in that either way we go, we are left with the extraordinary. You continue to want to compare Christianity to religious claims, but the fact of the matter is there is no comparison in the least, because Christianity is not based upon claims, but rather based upon historical facts and evidence we can know. In other words, Christianity is based upon the fact that we can know ordinary no count disciples of Jesus had just watched Jesus crucified as a criminal, and days after Jesus was crucified, we can know these ordinary no count mostly fishermen were not simply claiming Jesus had rose from the dead, but we can know they were convinced Jesus had been raised, and it is these events which go on the have the most significant impact upon the history of the entire world. So then, Christianity is not simply based upon claims, but rather upon historical facts we can know. It is your job to demonstrate that we cannot know these things, which will be a tall order seeing as how most all scholars are forced to agree we can know these things.

No buddy, it is not. Again, your use of the term 'stout' is doing some very heavy lifting.

My friend, we have clearly demonstrated that the evidence for Christianity is "stout" because we have established this evidence to be outstandingly different in quality and quantity, and I highly doubt you will want to attempt to refute this. We know this to be the case, because Christianity is based upon historical events we can know, as opposed to simple claims being made. There is a tremendous difference between one claiming God spoke to them, and getting a whole lot of folks to believe it, as opposed to historical facts we can know, such as a good number of folks being convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, and these events we can know, go on to have the most significant impact in history.

I've repeatedly given you alternative explanations.

You have not! As an example, assuring us that,

"Jesus likely was not respectfully buried at all, as it is a contradiction to the entire premise surrounding the act of "crucifixion", is not in the least an explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would eliminate the extraordinary. This would simply suggest that Jesus was not buried in a tomb, and yet we can know from the facts we have that the apostles, along with many others were convinced they witnessed Jesus alive after death. How in the world can you imagine this would eliminate the extraordinary? When you go on to say,

"As you admit, the Bible is not trustworthy" -- (I created an entire thread about it, in your honor). How can you imagine this would eliminate the extraordinary? This would simply mean that even though the Bible is not trustworthy, we can know from what is contained that these folks were making the claims very early on, and continue to do so well into old age, and that they were convinced that what they were reporting was true. How in the world would this eliminate the extraordinary, or the unlikely? You say,

" As you also admit, outside of Saul/Paul, we have no corroborated eyewitness attestation to anything "supernatural," which would be necessary to substantiate a one-time claimed event from antiquity." And yet it is from Paul that we can be certain that the claims were being made very early on, even to days after the death of Jesus. How does this eliminate the extraordinary, or the unlikely? You say,

"Rotting corpse(s) don't rise, period." And yet, we can be certain these folks were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, and we can be certain they could not have possibly made the reports up, and these events we can be certain of, go on to have the most significant impact in history. How in the world can you imagine you have eliminated the extraordinary, or the unlikely? Moreover, none of the things you say above, is even an explanation of the facts and evidence we can know.

The point is, however, any/all alternative positions are still more likely than the conclusion that rotting bodies rose from their grave(s).

This is impossible to know until or unless you supply us with an explanation of the facts and evidence we can be certain about. The fact remains, no matter the explanation you are left with the extremely unlikely, along with the extremely extraordinary, and it does not matter which we deem to be the least unlikely or extraordinary, because we are still left with the extremely unlikely, along with the extremely extraordinary.

Why? Because we do know rotting bodies don't actually rise.

And yet we can be certain of the fact that these early followers of Jesus were somehow convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, and they go on to continue to make this claim well into old age, and we have no known explanation of these facts and evidence we can be certain about which would explain all the facts we can know which would eliminate the extremely unlikely, or the extremely extraordinary.

Nope. You just choose to ignore this fact, and instead, all of a sudden, care what some scholars believe. Which I find convenient.

It is only "convenient" in that I know you cannot refute the fact that we can know with certainty from the material contained in the NT, whether it be trustworthy or not, that the early followers could not have possibly made the story up but were rather convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death. The fact remains, even if you have convinced yourself that the Bible is not trustworthy, how does this change these facts we can be certain of by reading this material you have convinced yourself is not trustworthy?

Nope. We cannot eliminate this fact. I know you would instead like to sweep this problem under the rug, however.

I did not say we could eliminate the NT as being trustworthy as being a fact. Rather, I said we can eliminate it as an argument, because it does not matter in the least, since it can be demonstrated there are certain things we will have to agree upon by reading this material whether trustworthy or not. My friend, you do not read the Bible, (nor anything else for that matter) believing that it is trustworthy. Rather, you read any material attempting to determine what you can know to be fact, and there are certain things we will have to agree upon by reading the NT whether it be trustworthy or not.

No, we can't eliminate this argument. My position is that it is absurd to belief any ridiculous claims. And you have provided no 'stout' evidence which would suggest that this claimed event is (distinct or different) from any other believed upon ridiculous claim.

This was explained above, in that one, we have a critical scholar who was an atheist, and never a Christian who assures us that "the evidence for Christianity is outstandingly different in quality and quantity." Now, I am not insisting that since he is a scholar that we must take his word for it, but I am insisting that you refute this scholar if you want to insist this is not the case. I can tell you that the reason this scholar has come to such a conclusion is the fact that he understands that Christianity is not based upon claims. Rather, he understands that Christianity is based upon certain historical facts and evidence we can be certain of.

Then your entire argument fails miserably. You keep shooting yourself in the foot when you quote what scholars believe.

Again, the weight does not lie in the idea that the scholars say it. The weight lies in the fact that you cannot and will not attempt to demonstrate where these scholars are in error. I am not citing the scholars because I believe they are an authority. I am citing them because I know it will be impossible for you to refute what they have to say.

I don't need to. Your argument makes no logical sense. It refutes itself. All who read along, see this... You either care what scholars believe, or you do not. Not instead only when it is convenient.

I have explained this clearly above, and you are avoiding. The fact remains, either you do not agree with these scholars and can argue against them, or we will have to allow what they say to stand.

No, you have not. Readers will see this exchange

Correct! And the readers will see that I have established it to be a fact that we can know that it would not be possible that the early followers of Jesus were not making the story up, but were rather convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, and the audience will also have to agree we can be certain of these things by reading the material in the NT whether it be trustworthy or not. They will also have to come to the conclusion that we can know these things by reading the Gospels whether the Gospels are eyewitness testimony or not, because these facts we can know, do not depend on the material being authored by eyewitnesses. Moreover, the audience will also come away knowing that it does not add anything at all to the argument to compare Christianity to other religions, because not only does each stand on its own, but we also know that Christianity is not based upon claims, but rather upon historical events which we can be certain of.

I would respond here, again, but then you will just accuse me of repeating the same thing.

The fact remains that you have insisted that the explanation must avoid the unlikely and or the extraordinary, and you have failed to come up with any scenario at all, which would avoid either the unlikely, or the extraordinary. I know for a fact that you will not be able to avoid this, because the critical scholars have been attempting this for thousands of years, and even they admit there is no known explanation which would be likely in the least. That is a fact.