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?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #50]

You're certainly understanding what I'm asking. I agree that without objective morality, nothing puts the person beating people for yucks above the person helping people, except the subjective feelings of the people being helped/hurt and I don't think that qualifies as morality.

Being themselves qualifies as a good answer if they sacrificed to help others because they wanted to. Imagine though, that they don't want to help people, but think they should. Is there nothing to describe this person's difference from the person pummeling everybody, but stupid and misinformed?

There is a thread of proper benefit of the self here. For example, maybe God is nonexistent, or perhaps he exists but is silent on smoking. We still say people shouldn't smoke because it'll give them lung cancer. We say people shouldn't hurt themselves, to the point that we lock them up if they do.

So maybe, even in an atheist universe, kicking the helpful guy in the pants and calling him stupid is something we shouldn't do, just selfishly. He ought to be elevated, not because he is better than anyone - he's not - but because in doing so, all the people elevating him are helped.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #45]

Some scholars also alternatively believe the resurrection story came from later myth.

I'd like to know who these scholars are. Allow me to give you a quote from Bart Ehrman whom I will assume you know,

It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.

You know, I know, and even Ehrman knows that he would much rather not have to admit this fact, but he is forced to because the evidence (which you say we do not have) is overwhelming. Notice, how Ehrman does not simply say "in my opinion" but rather says, "it is a historical fact". That it is a fact that this is a historical fact is easily demonstrated by the writings of Paul, which is exactly what Ehrman tells us. In other words, Paul was alive at the time of Jesus and would have known what the original apostles were proclaiming, and Paul reports on what the original apostles were proclaiming to audiences who were alive at the time.

In fact, Paul tells the Corinthians, that Jesus "was buried and that He rose on the third day". Paul then goes on to tell the Corinthians,

"Jesus appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born"

My friend, even you can see from this that it is impossible to believe the story of Jesus appearing to the earliest followers of Jesus could have possibly derived from "later myth". In fact, an elementary student would be able to do this math. So then, I would really like to know what scholars are arguing that "the resurrection story came from later myth?" If there are such scholars, you and I have just refuted such a ridiculous theory out of hand.

Therefore, it is not that we cite the scholars because we believe they are some sort of authority. Rather, we cite them, and if the position they hold can be refuted then we do what you and I just did, and demonstrate the ridiculousness in the view they put forth. The point is, I believe I have now cited 3 different critical scholars who are not Christian, one who tells us "as a historian she knows the early followers of Jesus must have seen something" while Ehrman above assures us that "it is a historical fact" that the early followers believed Jesus raised from the dead "SOON" after his execution. Again, this is not in any way to say that we should take what they say as authorities. Rather, the point is, you cannot refute the fact that the earliest followers of Jesus, including the apostles, were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, and as we have just seen, telling us there are scholars who hold to the position that the stories of these appearances were later myths is easily refuted, to the point of being ridiculous.

To end on this point, the question is, can you defend the position that the resurrection stories derived from later myth? No, you cannot. Next, can you refute the scholars who say we can know that the reports of the resurrection were being made SOON after the death of Jesus? No, you cannot. Again, you are creating a "straw man" by attempting to make the argument that I am insisting that the scholars are authorities, when I have made it abundantly clear that this is not the case. I am fine with one disagreeing with the scholars, but you at least have to make an attempt to refute them, and I know, and you know, you are not going to attempt to refute these scholars who tell us we can know the early followers of Jesus, including the apostles were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death.

So then, before we move on, continuing to blur the conversation, let us attempt to get this one point straight before moving on, and that is the fact that I am not citing scholars because I am insisting that we must and have to take their word. Rather, it is because I know, and you know, you will not, because you cannot, refute what they have to say.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #48]

If it’s not the best way to read the texts, then one shouldn’t think about it that way. Which specific verses give you the impression that it is about how things pan out in the next level?

I did not argue that the bible or specific verses give me that impression. I argued that my observation of general Christian beliefs about the next level in relation to the story of Jesus (including the resurrection) tell me that.

Which specific verses give you the impression that it is about how to live life and form society in the ways God knows is good for us?

I don’t think one should believe the resurrection is true because it has pragmatic value for them to reach some goal they want in life.

Unless "the goal" is to form society in the ways God knows is good for us?

In any case believing the resurrection is " true" isn't what the OP is asking

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

Rather the question is asking WHY believing it is true, and therein there are more than your particular answer, and in that I am pointing to a general observation re Christian beliefs about that which obviously don't align with your own - or we would be living life and forming society in the ways God knows is good for us - motivated by the belief that the resurrection is about that, as you are saying is your belief.

I’m not saying the resurrection doesn’t or shouldn’t motivate people; I’m saying the point of the resurrection happening is not to simply motivate people to better follow God’s ways because the message throughout the entire Bible is consistently that we can’t do it on our own power; that it’s about relying on God’s strength

Is that not also able to be translated into beliefs about the next level in relation to the story of Jesus? What would have you think that beliefs about the next level in relation to the story of Jesus are not expressions of God's strength?

I was motivated to find the truth out here just like everyone who pursues this question. There are many different motivations. I’m not saying the resurrection is the motivation for that search for everyone; it wasn’t for me. I’m saying the resurrection is the way we get to actually living out that way of life should we be motivated to do so.

I am more motivated re God's Strength by things which have happened to me in my personal subjective reality experience than specifically with the stories of the resurrection.
I think this is because I am not relying on the personal experiences of others re their personal subjective experiences to be the main motivation.
This is not to say that I don't take into consideration such reports - whether they are biblical or otherwise. For example, I consider the reports from NDE experiences as equally valid as(and even supportive of) biblical reports, but even so, it is my own subjective experience which I must (and I think we all must) focus on in relation to these peripheral objective observations.

So - while I share a certain enthusiasm for the ideal of humanity reaching stage 1 as a successful specie I have to say that the belief that living life and forming society in the ways God knows is good for us - while relative to my subjective position and "wants" re my "life on earth" I see no objective evidence that this is God's desire for humankind and even biblical stories have it that humans will require a cosmic intervention in order for that to be reality. An outcome perhaps still an example of reliance on God's strength but objectively so, rather than how you are seeing it as motivating humans through the belief in the resurrection = forming society in "the ways God knows is good for us" in that we need no cosmic intervention other than what has been supplied in the reports and what is being supplied in subjective experience.

So far you have yet to connect those dots....

[POI]

You know, I know, and even Ehrman knows that he would much rather not have to admit this fact, but he is forced to because the evidence (which you say we do not have) is overwhelming. Notice, how Ehrman does not simply say "in my opinion" but rather says, "it is a historical fact".

I figured you'd be picking up what I was putting down, at least by now. An argument from authority is a logical fallacy that uses the opinion of an expert to support a claim without providing evidence.

That it is a fact that this is a historical fact is easily demonstrated by the writings of Paul

I'm going to have to stop you here, as I have spoken to this response ad nauseum. Yes, Paul had an "experience". But we cannot verify if anyone else actually did? Why? Because such said other experiences come from the Gospels, which we know are corrupt -- (see the other thread). The Gospels also were not a "thing" until well after Paul died. By the time the Gospels became a 'thing', Paul was way dead. Paul would have absolutely no clue what the official "Gospels", which were likely edited over and over again, would have said, for a Paul-approved verification proofread. Kapeesh? You got it now?

Here is THE fact. Rotting bodies don't rise again. Period. The Gospels, which are corrupt, speak about a rotting risen Jesus, as well as also speaking of other rotting corpses rising from their graves to roam the city. Apparently, 'resurrections' were (common place) during these ancient times? Such claims were not exclusive to "the Bible". I guess the question becomes... Who copied who? Was the Bible the originator of such claims, or did "the Bible" get its ideas from existing floating stories of other rising rotting bodies?

Being we are attempting to examine claims from ancient antiquity, we can only go by what we do have. At the end of it all, this ancient collection of documents makes ridiculous claims, for which we can pretty much just dismiss outright. Why? Because rotting bodies do not rise. Fin!

which is exactly what Ehrman tells us.

You've mentioned Mr. Ehrman a lot. Why do I care? The fact of the matter is we have bonafide/verified writings from Saul/Paul. The rest of the 'NT' is corrupt, and we also do not know who wrote them. Which means we also do not know of their motivation(s)? But we do know when we compare Mark to Luke alone, their stories are irreconcilable. We also know Mark itself is corrupt. Hence, you cannot use any other writings, as "legit," besides Pau's' and Paul's alone, in regard to corroborating the claims of a witnessed rotting Jesus corpse. And the kicker here is that Paul does not even claim to have been part of the official 'resurrection tour'. So basically, in regard to the 'resurrection tour', you are shooting (0/1) so far. The Gospels themselves do not count.

The storyline is easily dismissible, especially while already knowing that rotting bodies do not rise. So yes, there are no good reason(s) to believe that rotting bodies sometimes rise, especially if you have to rely upon the corrupt accounts from these ancient documents.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #54]

I figured you'd be picking up what I was putting down, at least by now. An argument from authority is a logical fallacy that uses the opinion of an expert to support a claim without providing evidence.

I am not making an argument from authority. Rather, I am simply pointing out what these critical scholars are telling us we can know by the evidence we have and asking if you can refute what they are assuring us we can know? You can continue to avoid answering this question by creating a "straw man" argument, or you can tell us whether you agree with these scholars or not, and if not, all you have to do is to explain why you believe them to be in error.

Yes, Paul had an "experience". But we cannot verify if anyone else actually did? Why? Because such said other experiences come from the Gospels, which we know are corrupt -- (see the other thread).

GOOD GRIEF! Did you even read what I supplied concerning what Paul had to say to the Corinthians? Paul, who was alive at the time of Jesus, who would have known the original apostles, is plainly explaining to the Corinthians (not those of us 2000 years later) who all Jesus appears to. The first thing this completely eliminates is the argument that the Gospel authors added the myth of the resurrection appearances decades later. That argument is completely blown out of the water, because of the fact of how early this letter was authored to the Corinthians. The one thing we can verify beyond any reasonable doubt is the fact that the resurrection appearances were not created by the Gospel writers decades later.

Moreover, because of the date of this letter to the Corinthians, we can know the claims were being made very early on, to the point that Ehrman can say, "it is a historical fact" that they were being made "SOON" after the execution. Again, this demonstrates no one can make the argument that the resurrection appearances were myths made up later on by the Gospel writers. So then, from Paul, we can demonstrate that the claims of the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion were made very early on, and it would not be possible that this was created by the Gospel writers decades later.

I'm going to have to stop you here, as I have spoken to this response ad nauseum. Yes, Paul had an "experience".

Well, I am going to stop you right here. We do not know Paul had an experience. What we do know is that Paul claimed to have an experience, and we know that Paul made this claim long before it would have been possible for any sort of later Gospel writers to include this myth much later on. But the thing is, Paul does not simply mention his experience, he goes on to claim that many other folks had the same exact experience. This does not demonstrate that what Paul was claiming about these many other folks was correct. What it does in fact demonstrate is that it is not possible to make the argument that the claims of the resurrection was myth added much later on by the Gospel writers.

But we cannot verify if anyone else actually did? Why? Because such said other experiences come from the Gospels, which we know are corrupt -- (see the other thread).

First, we cannot verify that anyone had any experience at all. What we can indeed verify is that Paul claimed to have an experience, and Paul goes on to claim many others had the same experience, and we have verified these claims were being made very early on. Next, this verifies that the resurrection appearances were not a myth added later by the Gospel writers.

The Gospels also were not a "thing" until well after Paul died. By the time the Gospels became a 'thing', Paul was way dead. Paul would have absolutely no clue what the official "Gospels", which were likely edited over and over again, would have said, for a Paul-approved verification proofread. Kapeesh? You got it now?

But the thing is, we do not even have to refer to the Gospels to know the claims were being made very early on. In other words, we know the Gospels make the claims of the resurrection, but even if the Gospels were authored much later on, and they are not trustworthy, we can know that the claims of the appearances of Jesus after death were being made inside the lifetime of Paul, which puts it inside the lifetime of the apostles.

Here is THE fact. Rotting bodies don't rise again. Period.

Right, and according to you this claim is unlikely, extraordinary, and you even referred to it as being ridiculous in your last post. What I am looking for is some sort of an explanation of the facts and evidence we have, which would not include the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous. As I have said over, and over, if one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, what they will come to realize is, they cannot avoid the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous. As an example, we have just demonstrated that it is not simply unlikely that the appearances of Jesus after death may have been added later on by the Gospel writers, rather we have demonstrated that it would be a ridiculous argument which cannot hold up to the facts we can know.

The Gospels, which are corrupt, speak about a rotting risen Jesus, as well as also speaking of other rotting corpses rising from their graves to roam the city. Apparently, 'resurrections' were (common place) during these ancient times? Such claims were not exclusive to "the Bible". I guess the question becomes... Who copied who? Was the Bible the originator of such claims, or did "the Bible" get its ideas from existing floating stories of other rising rotting bodies?

You continue to want to make the argument that the Gospels are corrupt, and it is a waste of time, because I am not arguing that the Gospels are trustworthy, because as I have demonstrated over, and over, it does not matter. I mean, what you are describing above, is unlikely, extraordinary, and ridiculous. We know that it was Paul who was making the claims, and Paul was making the claim outside of the Bible, and we know where Paul got these claims and that would be from those who were making the claim, and we have enough evidence to be certain that Paul would have known and spent time with those such as Peter, James, John, Mark, Matthew, etc.

Being we are attempting to examine claims from ancient antiquity, we can only go by what we do have. At the end of it all, this ancient collection of documents makes ridiculous claims, for which we can pretty much just dismiss outright. Why? Because rotting bodies do not rise. Fin!

You continue to say the same thing over, and over, but you are failing to give us an explanation of the facts and evidence we can know which would eliminate the ridiculous. It is one thing to insist the appearances of Jesus after death is ridiculous. It is quite another for one to give an explanation for these appearances which would not be ridiculous.

You've mentioned Mr. Ehrman a lot. Why do I care?

I can tell you one thing; you certainly do not seem to care to attempt to refute what he insists to be a "historical fact" we can know by examining the facts and evidence you claim we do not have.

The fact of the matter is we have bonafide/verified writings from Saul/Paul. The rest of the 'NT' is corrupt, and we also do not know who wrote them.

Rather, as demonstrated above, you would rather waste your time on arguments I am not even making. I can assure you that Ehrman does not consider the Gospels to be reliable, but he goes on to insist that it is a "historical fact" that the claims of the appearances of Jesus after death were being made "SOON after His execution".

And the kicker here is that Paul does not even claim to have been part of the official 'resurrection tour'.

And yet, it is from Paul that we can know beyond any doubt that the claimed appearances of Jesus after death were being made inside the lifetime of the apostles. No doubt about it.

The storyline is easily dismissible, especially while already knowing that rotting bodies do not rise. So yes, there are no good reason(s) to believe that rotting bodies sometimes rise, especially if you have to rely upon the corrupt accounts from these ancient documents.

I will agree that a resurrection is unlikely, extraordinary, and it would be ridiculous to simply believe a corpse rose from the dead. What I am looking for is some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would not include the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #55]

To me it doesn't matter if the stories are real or useful fiction. The results speak for themselves.

The impact of these narratives, whether they are rooted in historical events or crafted as useful fiction, is undeniable. They have shaped societies, influenced cultural norms, and provided moral and ethical guidance for generations.

The enduring influence of these stories, regardless of their origin, highlights the power of narrative in human history. Whether it's the creation of social cohesion, the promotion of ethical behavior, or the reinforcement of cultural identity, the results of these narratives have had profound and lasting effects.

This resonates with the idea that the value of a narrative lies not just in its supposed factual accuracy, but in its ability to inspire, guide, and shape human behavior and societies.

Any concerns either way with the process are just peripheral.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #55]

To me it doesn't matter if the stories are real or useful fiction. The results speak for themselves.

The impact of these narratives, whether they are rooted in historical events or crafted as useful fiction, is undeniable. They have shaped societies, influenced cultural norms, and provided moral and ethical guidance for generations.

The enduring influence of these stories, regardless of their origin, highlights the power of narrative in human history. Whether it's the creation of social cohesion, the promotion of ethical behavior, or the reinforcement of cultural identity, the results of these narratives have had profound and lasting effects.

This resonates with the idea that the value of a narrative lies not just in its supposed factual accuracy, but in its ability to inspire, guide, and shape human behavior and societies.

Any concerns either way with the process are just peripheral.

WOW! If I am understanding you correctly this seems to certainly go against what the Apostle Paul had to say when he said, "if Christ has not been raised, we above all people are most to be pitied". In other words, if Christ has not been raised then the whole thing is useless.

It is certainly true that Christians have performed a whole lot of good in the name of Christ, but it is also a fact that there have been a whole lot of what I believe you would consider to be evil under the name of Christ. As an example, I am convinced there are those in the White House right now who are attempting to do away with our democratic process, and they are doing this in the name of Christ and calling themselves Christian nationalists. If they are successful, and are able to enthrone a Christian Prince, which many of them claim is their aim, in order to declare this a Christian nation, it may well "shape our society, influence our cultural norms" but it will not just simply "provide moral and ethical guidance for generations" but will rather enforce these morals, and ethics upon us all.

If you do not believe this to be all that serious, you may want to consider the fact that the two folks who are next in line behind the president, J.D. Vance, and Mike Johnson, are both self-proclaimed Christian nationalists. Add to this the fact that our secretary of defense is also a Christian nationalist. Moreover, the architect of "Project 2025" Russell Vought, who is a Christian nationalist is in the presidential cabinet, and the president of the Heritage Foundation from which Project 2025 originated is quoted as saying, “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless ― if the left allows it to be".

Now, I do not know about you, but I am certainly not looking forward to this type of "enduring influence".

[POI]

I am not making an argument from authority. Rather, I am simply pointing out what these critical scholars are telling us we can know by the evidence we have and asking if you can refute what they are assuring us we can know?

Not only do you violate this one, but you also commit the "argumentum ad populum," meaning "argument to the people" or "appeal to popularity," which is a logical fallacy where someone asserts a claim is true or correct solely based on its popularity or widespread belief, rather than valid evidence. I can care less how many scholars (believe) something.

I've already spoke to this. We have one dude, Paul. Kool! Who else do we have? Some scholars alternatively tell us it is from myth. You do not think these scholarly mythicists have considered scholarly pushback and refuted them to retain their position(s)? Come on man! Like I said, I can care less what some scholars believe. There! You are also basing your entire catalogue of 'facts and evidence' on one dude, Paul. The rest are unverified in the same manner.

To the rest, being these are works from ancient antiquity, we have very little, if any 'valid' evidence to support virtually anything about "the Bible." Before canonization in the 3rd or 4th century, it is basically the 'wild west', or a 'free-for-all'. We have no originals. We have no early copies. Heck, we have no later full copies until centuries later. All we have prior to ~300 years later of the Gospels, are small fragments and/or pieces. And from what we do have, demonstrates 'alternative facts' and manipulation. Which, by basic logic, means we can also surmise that what is unknown also possesses some, or a lot, of manipulation/corruption. These are the facts. I'll explain more below.

you can tell us whether you agree with these scholars or not, and if not, all you have to do is to explain why you believe them to be in error.

I have, over and over and over again. I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. So for the risk of repeating myself, yet again, rotting bodies don't rise. Therefore, no one really saw rotting bodies postmortem. Fill-in-the-blank, how ever one wishes, to determine WHY we have 'testimonials' of folks seeing dead bodies rising -- (from a claim to a postmortem Jesus, to a risen Lazarus, or the expressed many saints popping out of their graves to roam the city landscape). It's really no different than arguing the inter-workings to any other untrue story line. As I told you prior, the rising dead seemed to be a common thing, as we have other ancient stories of resurrection(s) as well. Maybe it was the early 'me-too' movement? Who really knows??? All we do know is that rotting bodies remain rotting. Which means, no one really saw a risen Jesus.

We do not know Paul had an experience.

Then the case for a risen Jesus is even less likely. If we are uncertain as to (whether or not) Saul/Paul even had a genuine "experience", and his writings are the only ones really worthy of critic, then what are we even discussing here?

What we do know is that Paul claimed to have an experience, and we know that Paul made this claim long before it would have been possible for any sort of later Gospel writers to include this myth much later on. But the thing is, Paul does not simply mention his experience, he goes on to claim that many other folks had the same exact experience. This does not demonstrate that what Paul was claiming about these many other folks was correct. What it does in fact demonstrate is that it is not possible to make the argument that the claims of the resurrection was myth added much later on by the Gospel writers.

This entire attempt at a rationale is instead null and void. If we cannot know that Paul really had a genuine experience or not, then we cannot know if Paul really collaborated with others to verify these same said experiences. Couple this with Luke/Acts (alone), and you have a recipe for a tall tail being told, one way or another. And since we know rotting bodies stay rotting, and since we cannot go back 2K+ years in a time capsule, we can speculate until the cows home, as to whether Paul was crazy, or a liar, or genuinely misinformed, or other other other?

Right

Since you agree rotting bodies don't rise, then I guess this topic is closed?

and according to you this claim is unlikely, extraordinary, and you even referred to it as being ridiculous in your last post. What I am looking for is some sort of an explanation of the facts and evidence we have, which would not include the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous. As I have said over, and over, if one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, what they will come to realize is, they cannot avoid the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous. As an example, we have just demonstrated that it is not simply unlikely that the appearances of Jesus after death may have been added later on by the Gospel writers, rather we have demonstrated that it would be a ridiculous argument which cannot hold up to the facts we can know.

Ancient antiquity is a "B". I've already explained above.

I will agree that a resurrection is unlikely, extraordinary, and it would be ridiculous to simply believe a corpse rose from the dead.

It's more than unlikely. It's about as sure of a thing as you can assure that you really do exist in some capacity.

What I am looking for is some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would not include the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous.

These are the same types of questions I ask of myself, all the time, while still holding to the conclusion that Big Foot, haunted houses, exorcisms, etc, do not really exist either. Meaning, I cannot simply explain away the 'testimonial.' However, like rising rotting bodies, they too are all ridiculous claims (just the same). The only reason we continue to lend credence to THIS ridiculous claim, is because of authority and tradition to do so 3,000 years ago, we might instead be arguing for Greek god(s) and are also unable to explain away countless pieces of "testimonials". The bottom line is, many of these claims are unfalsifiable.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #57]

Though I would love to chime in here, it is a completely different topic. Can we all remain focused on why some still believe rotting bodies actually rise?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #58]

I have, over and over and over again. I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. So for the risk of repeating myself, yet again, rotting bodies don't rise.

The bottom line here is, you are not being asked if "rotting bodies rise". What you are being asked is, do we have enough evidence to know that the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death? If you say we do not, then the next question would be, how then did we end up with what we have contained in the NT. If you attempt to answer that they were made up myths with no truth in reality that would be extraordinary, along with being extremely unlikely, and ridiculous.

The reason this is the case, is because we know beyond doubt that Jesus was a real historical figure. We also know beyond doubt that he was crucified. We also know beyond doubt that his early followers were claiming to have witnessed this same Jesus alive after death. We also have very strong evidence (enough to convince the scholars) these claims were being made SOON after the execution, along with the evidence which convinces scholars that they were truly convinced in what they report.

I am sorry to tell you this but simply proclaiming "dead bodies do not rise", has nothing to do with the questions above. Because you see, saying "dead bodies do not rise" does not explain in the least how and why these folks were proclaiming this to be the case, and it does not explain the life of Paul. In Paul, we have someone who we know was violently opposed to Christ raised from the dead, and for some strange reason he not only convert to Christianity but also becomes the reason for the message of Christ raised from the dead spreading all over the known world at the time. Moreover, it is a fact which can be demonstrated that Paul knew the original apostles and we know he spent much time with them, and knew the claims they were making. All of these events we can be certain of, goes on to have an enormous impact upon history, and is more than likely the biggest impact in your personal life as you admit to dedicating decades of your life to what these folks were proclaiming, but also continue day, after day to continue to discuss and debate what these folks accomplished some 2000 years ago.

So again, to be clear here, you are not being asked if dead bodies rise. You are being asked if we have enough evidence to know that the early followers were not making the story up, but were truly convinced that they themselves had witnessed Jesus alive after death. Giving the answer to these questions by responding "dead bodies do not rise" is not answering the question being asked, and also demonstrates one who is satisfied with easy answers. But hey! When one freely admits to being convinced of something for decades of their life, who now wants to go on to insist there is no evidence in support of what they were once convinced of, has already demonstrated themselves to be satisfied with easy answers.