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?

[POI]

The bottom line here is, you are not being asked if "rotting bodies rise".

I find this response comical, in light of the reality you wish and choose to use terms like 'facts and evidence.' Well, 'facts and evidence' demonstrate that rotting bodies do not 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.

I've already explained countless times.

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.

This is not what I'm attempting to assert. I'm instead pointing out that scholarly mythicists also provide 'facts and evidence.' As absurd as their position(s) may sound to you, they are still deemed 'scholars'. My advice to you, moving forward, is instead of name-dropping specific "scholars", just stick to the reason(s) you hold to the position(s) you hold. Stating that most believe X, and also stating the quantity who agree with X, means nothing. The argument stands and falls upon its own merit(s).

The reason this is the case, is because we know beyond doubt that Jesus was a real historical figure.

Please remember, you are going off the grid here. Saul/Paul never met an alive Jesus. This is fact. The question then remains, did any of the Gospel writers know an alive Jesus? This little chestnut of a question may never be known, unless we know who wrote the Gospels, which may then also tell us of their possible motivation(s)?

The only "justification" for making such a bold statement, are mostly from the Gospels themselves, and they are likely not trustworthy anyways. I have the receipts to back that position up -- in the other thread for which you aborted. But sure, let's just go with the 'fact' there was a homeless preacher named Jesus who was later executed for 'treason/blasphemy.' Why not?

We also know beyond doubt that he was crucified.

See above. Also, seems strange that crucifixions were reserved for the most deemed "heinous" of crimes, to completely humiliate and disrespect the offender. "Treason" being one of those offences. But, all of a sudden, respect was applied to Jesus's dead body immediately after he died? Sure, okay, why not? Let's go with this too.... But all we have here are the Gospels, which is basically basing your convictions on a house of cards or a house built upon quicksand.

We also know beyond doubt that his early followers were claiming to have witnessed this same Jesus alive after death.

The only corroborated claim came from Saul/Paul. The rest were not. I know you want to over-reach here, but I'm sorry, your faith is getting the better of you here. Sure, we have enough to surmise Paul had a claimed experience. But the rest is much less assured, verses Paul's claim(s).

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.

Some scholars are convinced to the contrary. Your claim for 'very strong evidence' is now completely debunked here.

I am sorry to tell you this but simply proclaiming "dead bodies do not rise", has nothing to do with the questions above.

It has everything to do with it. The fact of the matter is, they don't rise, ever. Period.

I cannot simply explain away many ridiculous 'testimonials.' However, just like the claim(s) to rising rotting bodies, I also equally reject other ridiculous claims, such as but not limited to: Big Foot, haunted houses, exorcisms, etc... They are all equally ridiculous claims. The only reason we continue to lend credence to this set of ridiculous claims from the Bible, is because of authority and tradition to continue to do so. 4,000 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.

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, or any other risen rotting bodies, as expressed from "the Bible".

To instead make special concessions for the belief that the risen dead in the Bible DID happen, such as Jesus, or a Lazurus, of the other expressed dead saints in Matthew, is nothing more than special pleading.

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.

See my response(s) above.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #57]

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.

I don't see that as necessarily so. What Paul could have been doing was psychological grafting popular Roman mythology into the storyline as part of the attraction such mythology would promote re Paul's understanding of Roman culture and what is acceptable and what is not.

In this way, Paul working for the side which was interested in taming the beast, used his intelligence (perhaps in conjunction with other intellectuals) to create a fiction which also incorporated the culture of Judaism, which Paul seemed to understand as well as that of Roman culture.

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.

Even so, what has this got to do with believing in the resurrection?
And if it is just a case of the beastial wanting to be in the power position rather than than those who work to tame the beast, isn't that really the battle that has raged since (and probably long before) the invention and refinement of Christianity?

Some things do need to be forced upon an unwilling populace and it is just a question of which things and re Christianity - as Tanager pointed out - What does GOD want us to do with our energy? Invest it in building the thing that God knows will be good for us, or wait for Jesus to return and do it for us or focus upon the next level or "something else"?

Rome has always been ticking in the background and hasn't (according to popular belief) become some ancient dead empire...

The question is - if it is all based upon a useful fiction, what use has been the fiction?

Or put another way "If the rule followed brought us to this … of what use was the rule?

And that can be answered both positively or negatively depending on the rule one follows...

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".

What can I say. Here's a cherry reminded from the Roman book itself...

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Sounds "fishy"? Not to worry - they have that covered too!



Perhaps the best option is to concern ourselves with our local reality re taming the beast since we are more likely to assist changes at the coal face than arguing and worrying about what politicians are supposedly up to?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

I find this response comical, in light of the reality you wish and choose to use terms like 'facts and evidence.' Well, 'facts and evidence' demonstrate that rotting bodies do not rise.

We agree that facts and evidence demonstrate rotting bodies do not rise. The problem is, we also have facts and evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection appearances. What we need is some sort of explanation for this evidence, which would not include the unlikely, extraordinary, or the ridiculous. There is no known explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would not include all three.

I've already explained countless times.

You have not in any way given us an explanation of the facts we can know which would eliminate the unlikely, extraordinary, or the ridiculous.

This is not what I'm attempting to assert. I'm instead pointing out that scholarly mythicists also provide 'facts and evidence.'

And here is one of the tactics you continue to use, and that is to avoid the facts and evidence we can know surrounding the resurrection appearances and attempting to compare this to something else.

As absurd as their position(s) may sound to you, they are still deemed 'scholars'.

I do not even know what their assertions are, and I do not need to know what they are in order to determine if there are facts evidence and reasons surrounding the resurrection appearances.

My advice to you, moving forward, is instead of name-dropping specific "scholars", just stick to the reason(s) you hold to the position(s) you hold. Stating that most believe X, and also stating the quantity who agree with X, means nothing. The argument stands and falls upon its own merit(s).

My friend, I already knew these things before I cited the scholars. In fact, I had no idea what these scholars were saying until the other day when I looked them up to cite them. The only reason I went to look them up is because I was confident that there had to be critical scholars who would have to come to these conclusions, because I am aware of just how overwhelming the evidence is. I went on to cite them in order to demonstrate that it was not just me who was making these claims, but it was also critical scholars who are not Christian who are forced to come to such conclusions, as anyone else would have to if they are intellectually honest.

Please remember, you are going off the grid here. Saul/Paul never met an alive Jesus.

GOOD GRIEF! How many times does this have to be said? It is from Paul we can be absolutely certain the claims of the resurrection appearances were being made "SOON" after the execution of Jesus, and it is also from Paul we can be certain these folks could not possibly be making up the claims but were truly convinced in what they were reporting. This means, none of these folks could have been involved in some sort of deception. Moreover, we can also know from Paul that the apostles continued to proclaim these very same things for decades. We can also know with certainty, there is no known explanation for these facts we can know, which would eliminate the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous.

The question then remains, did any of the Gospel writers know an alive Jesus? This little chestnut of a question may never be known, unless we know who wrote the Gospels, which may then also tell us of their possible motivation(s)?

We do not need to know who the authors of the Gospels were, nor do we need to know what their motivations may have been, in order to know for certain that the early followers were making the claims of the resurrection appearances SOON after the execution of Jesus, nor whether they were truly convinced this to be the case. We also do not have to know who the authors were, nor their motivations in order to know that simply saying "dead bodies do not rise" does not in any way answer the question as to how, and why these folks were making such claims SOON after the execution, nor how, or why they were truly convinced this to be the case. I mean it is like, when you were a Christian and someone were to ask you how you know that Jesus now lives, your answer would be something like, "you ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart" which would be one who is satisfied with easy answers, to now being asked how you know Christianity to be false and you say, "because dead bodies do not rise" which demonstrates one who is satisfied with easy answers because this ignores all the other facts and evidence we have, on top of the fact that any other explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, is going to end up being extremely unlikely, extremely extraordinary, and extremely ridiculous.

The only "justification" for making such a bold statement, are mostly from the Gospels themselves, and they are likely not trustworthy anyways. I have the receipts to back that position up -- in the other thread for which you aborted. But sure, let's just go with the 'fact' there was a homeless preacher named Jesus who was later executed for 'treason/blasphemy.' Why not?

My friend, there is no credible scholar who would ever attempt to make the claim that Jesus may have been a fictional character. It is just not possible to hold to such a position. The only reason anyone at all would even attempt to make such an argument, is because they become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence we have, and the only resort they have left is to question if we can know anything at all.

See above. Also, seems strange that crucifixions were reserved for the most deemed "heinous" of crimes, to completely humiliate and disrespect the offender. "Treason" being one of those offences

Are you suggesting that it may be possible that Jesus may not have been crucified? Please! Please! Attempt to make that argument.

But, all of a sudden, respect was applied to Jesus's dead body immediately after he died?

WOW! That was abrupt. We went from seeming to be questioning whether Jesus was crucified or not, to the type of burial he may have received. All I can tell you is, no matter how Jesus may have been buried, this still does not explain the resurrection appearances of Jesus SOON after the execution. I mean, what in the world would the type of burial have to do with it?

Sure, okay, why not? Let's go with this too.... But all we have here are the Gospels, which is basically basing your convictions on a house of cards or a house built upon quicksand.

Well, no! What we have is Paul, who we know for a fact was attempting to put a stop to the claim of the resurrection, who goes on to become the reason for this claim spreading all over the known world at the time, and we know that Paul would have known the claims the original apostles were making, and we have facts and evidence which has convinced even the most critical scholar that it is a "historical fact" that these folks were making such claims SOON after the execution, with another critical scholar who tells us, "as a historian she can KNOW" these earliest followers must have seen something", along with another critical scholar explaining to 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", and these events go on to have not only the most significant impact in the history of the world, but there is no doubt it has had the most significant impact upon your personal life. I'm just telling you, that is an incredible, extraordinary, unlikely, and ridiculous tale, and yet, believe it or not this is exactly what we have. What is even more incredible, and ridiculous is to imagine that one can be under the impression that "bodies do not rise from the dead" is a satisfactory answer to all this evidence we have, until we consider the fact that this same person goes on to admit that they committed decades of their life to a movement which was promoting a dead man rising from the dead, and they go on to admit they did not really use the mind in order to be convinced of such a thing which consumed decades of their life, and continues to do so, and when we understand this to be the case, it is not so incredible, or extraordinary at all, but it is what we would expect.

The only corroborated claim came from Saul/Paul. The rest were not. I know you want to over-reach here, but I'm sorry, your faith is getting the better of you here. Sure, we have enough to surmise Paul had a claimed experience. But the rest is much less assured, verses Paul's claim(s).

I'm just telling you that Paul is all we need. Paul mentions the other apostles by name, and he goes on to explain exactly what they were proclaiming, and the date of this letter demonstrates beyond doubt that these claims were being made SOON after the execution of Jesus. There is no doubt about it. The Gospels, whether they are trustworthy or not, mention these same apostles by name and go on to tell the audiences at the time, that these apostles were making the same claims Paul tells his audience at the time they were indeed making.

Some scholars are convinced to the contrary. Your claim for 'very strong evidence' is now completely debunked here.

Okay? Well, I can defend the opinion of the scholars which I have provided with the facts and evidence involved. Would you like to defend the idea that these earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were not convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the execution? I do not think you will want to take such a position because I am certain you could not defend it, and if you do not it will speak volumes!

It has everything to do with it. The fact of the matter is, they don't rise, ever. Period.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with answering the question as to how, and why these folks would have been convinced they had indeed witnessed Jesus alive after the execution. I am asking you how it is possible for these folks to come to be convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the execution, and your answer is, "dead bodies do not rise" which is not in any way answering the question as to why, and how they became so convinced. Your next option would be to insist that we cannot know they were convinced of such a thing, but then the question would be, why in the world would they go on to make such claims which could and did only cause them problems, if they were not convinced this to be the case.

Because you see, again, we can know Jesus was a real historical figure, and we can know he was crucified, and we can know there were those who were making the claim he had rose from the dead SOON after the execution, and we can know they were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after execution. If one is going to insist what did not happen because said explanation would be unlikely, extraordinary, and ridiculous, then said person owns the burden to attempt to give an explanation for these facts and evidence we have which would not include the unlikely, extraordinary, or the ridiculous, and assuring us that rotting bodies do not rise is not an explanation of these facts we can know. Saying that "rotting bodies do not rise" is explaining away an explanation, it is not an explanation of the facts we know to be true.

I cannot simply explain away many ridiculous 'testimonials.'

In your mind, all you have done is to explain away the resurrection which you deem to be a ridiculous claim. What you have not done, even in your own mind, is to explain how we can be certain these folks were making the claim SOON after the execution, nor have you explained to yourself, or anyone else how these folks were convinced they themselves with their own eyes had witnessed Jesus alive after death. All you have to do is to deny that we can know these things, and the debate will go in a different direction, but I highly doubt you would want to do that. However, it is a fact that when folks become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence, we can know surrounding the resurrection, some of these folks go on to commit intellectual suicide by claiming we cannot know much of anything at all.

However, just like the claim(s) to rising rotting bodies, I also equally reject other ridiculous claims, such as but not limited to: Big Foot, haunted houses, exorcisms, etc...

Again, and over, and over, and over, you do yourself no favors by attempting to compare Christianity to these other claims especially when you know they are ridiculous comparisons, which serious scholars would never do, and that is because of the fact that Christianity is not based upon claims but is rather based upon facts and evidence we can know. These sorts of comparisons demonstrate one who is not serious about the debate, and also one who is satisfied with easy answers. When they were a convinced Christian, they were satisfied with simply taking the word of others, which means they did not have to think, and now that they have changed the mind, they are satisfied with comparing what they believe to be a ridiculous claim, with another claim they deem to be ridiculous, and in this way, they do not have to do much thinking at all.

As I have said, I really do not mind what conclusions one comes to, nor do I care if they are satisfied with easy answers, the problem comes in when these same folk want to go on to insist there would be no reason involved in coming to a different conclusion then they have, and going on to give these elementary arguments which any thinking person at all would have had to have considered these things from the start because they are so elementary. There is no way any thinking person could not have thought about comparing Christianity to these ridiculous claims, and there is no way it could have taken such a thinking person very long at all, to come to realize that there is no comparison at all, and even if there were, one claim would have nothing to do with the other. In other words, even if we demonstrate all other claims to be ridiculous, it would have no bearing upon another. In fact, it would not make another claim to be more unlikely, and yet this argument seems to satisfy your mind, which really only goes on to demonstrate to us all, how one could be convinced a dead man rose from the dead, with no evidence at all in support of this resurrection, and this one goes on to dedicate decades of their life to such a thing, who now wants to convince us they are serious about the thinking process, but their mind is still satisfied with the most elementary arguments which any thinking person at all would have eliminated right off the bat.

Seriously! I cannot imagine any serious thinking Christian not coming to some sort of doubt along the way, and I cannot imagine any of these folks (including myself) not thinking about the other religious claims, along with the silliness of things such as Santa, big foot, etc., and I cannot imagine any serious thinking person not eliminating these elementary arguments very quickly through the thinking process, and yet you continue to make these most elementary arguments as if they are somehow on the cutting edge, and that they are somehow powerful arguments, and the sad thing is, they seem to satisfy your mind. This is exactly why it is no shock at all to come to know such a one could have been convinced a dead man rose and go on to dedicate decades of their life to such a thing, with no facts and evidence in support of such a claim.

The only reason we continue to lend credence to this set of ridiculous claims from the Bible, is because of authority and tradition to continue to do so.

Do you really want to talk about a ridiculous claim? The reason we continue to have serious scholarship concerning Christianity is the fact that Christianity is not simply based upon claims, but is rather based upon historical facts and evidence we can know, which is why a scholar can say, "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". I really do not believe that any of these other what you deem to be ridiculous claims have serious scholars telling us things which we can be certain of as being historical facts, and yet you seem perfectly satisfied to make these silly comparisons which no serious scholar would ever attempt to make.

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, or any other risen rotting bodies, as expressed from "the Bible".

Which again goes on to demonstrate one who is satisfied with easy answers. In other words, "I do not know how, or why we have all these historical facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection that we can know. All I know is dead bodies do not rise and that is enough to satisfy my mind". Well, okay, but you have already demonstrated one who is satisfied with easy answers by freely admitting being convinced of this very same thing, with absolutely no facts and evidence in support.

To instead make special concessions for the belief that the risen dead in the Bible DID happen, such as Jesus, or a Lazurus, of the other expressed dead saints in Matthew, is nothing more than special pleading.

What I have done is to supply some of the facts and evidence surrounding the appearances of Jesus after death, along with the facts and evidence in support of the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) being convinced they had witnessed with their own eyes Jesus alive after the execution. I have not made a case for "Lazurus, nor the other expressed dead saints in Matthew". Somehow in your mind, you have convinced yourself, that if you could convince yourself, that the Gospels cannot be trusted, then this would somehow demonstrate in your mind that the resurrection is demonstrated to be false. What I have done is to demonstrate that we do not even need the Gospels in order to determine that the claims of the resurrection were being made soon after the execution, along with knowing that those making the claims were truly convinced they had witnessed with their own eyes, Jesus alive after the execution. This is not special pleading. It is simply a fact.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #63]

I went on to cite them in order to demonstrate that it was not just me who was making these claims, but it was also critical scholars who are not Christian who are forced to come to such conclusions, as anyone else would have to if they are intellectually honest.

I think this is key and that we should at least hold oneself accountable to this standard.

How many times does this have to be said? It is from Paul we can be absolutely certain the claims of the resurrection appearances were being made "SOON" after the execution of Jesus, and it is also from Paul we can be certain these folks could not possibly be making up the claims but were truly convinced in what they were reporting.

Assuming Paul was not co-creating a useful fiction, yes.

This means, none of these folks could have been involved in some sort of deception.

Should we define "useful fiction" as "some sort of deception"? Perhaps yes. Should we consign that then to being "useless information"? Perhaps no.

Moreover, we can also know from Paul that the apostles continued to proclaim these very same things for decades.

From Paul and from Church tradition yes. But we are still faced with the possibility that this was all a useful fiction re origins.

We can also know with certainty, there is no known explanation for these facts we can know, which would eliminate the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous.

Unfortunately therein, we leave room for bias which often fudges the data we are working with.

Some might think "this is all a useful fiction" is "unlikely" but is it really?

How is the elimination process handled? What are the rules governing said process?

My friend, there is no credible scholar who would ever attempt to make the claim that Jesus may have been a fictional character.

What is the rule governing this? That "credible scholars" cannot think that there is any chance Roman Authorities weren't clever enough to create such useful fiction?

It is just not possible to hold to such a position.

What is the rule governing this claim?

The only reason anyone at all would even attempt to make such an argument, is because they become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence we have, and the only resort they have left is to question if we can know anything at all.

That is way too sweeping to be of any practical use. We absolutely can and do know that Roman Authority could be and was unscrupulous and punishing and manipulative et al.

[POI]

We agree that facts and evidence demonstrate rotting bodies do not rise.

We also agree that we have the stoutest and strongest evidence that rotting bodies do not rise. Hence, the conversation is over. It is instead game-set-match. This means any/all claims from "the Bible' regarding a postmortem Jesus, a postmortem Lazarus, and postmortem saints roaming the city, are all equivocally false. But you wish to carry on anyhow... Okay.... Let the fun continue...

The problem is, we also have facts and evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection appearances.

We have one verified dude who claims to have had a 'Damascus Road experience.' He claims others saw a risen Jesus too. But unfortunately, this would then involve the Gospels, and we know the Gospels are wacked. I have stated this numerous times with no pushback, which means you likely conceded that the Gospels are "wack".

What we need is some sort of explanation for this evidence, which would not include the unlikely, extraordinary, or the ridiculous. There is no known explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would not include all three.

Of course there is... Paul himself was either mistaken - due to drugs, or maybe heat exhaustion, or disease (like Malaria, other), or unidentified mental illness (or), maybe Paul was part of the 'me-too' movement, (or) other other other (infinity)...? However, what we DO KNOW, is that because we have very stout evidence and very stout facts, which demonstrate that rotting bodies do not rise again, Paul could not possibly have actually seen what he says he actually saw. But sure, we will never really know why Paul claimed what he claimed for sure.?.?

And here is one of the tactics you continue to use, and that is to avoid the facts and evidence we can know surrounding the resurrection appearances and attempting to compare this to something else.

It's no 'tactic'. Please stop name-dropping, while calling them "scholars", and also announcing how many other skeptic 'scholars' agree. This means absolutely nothing. Just stick to the points for discussion.

I do not even know what their assertions are

Then maybe you are not as well versed as I previously thought you were. Do you honestly think that your position is a new one? Do you honestly think that your position never crossed the minds of the mythicist position? Seriously?

My friend, I already knew these things before I cited the scholars. In fact, I had no idea what these scholars were saying until the other day when I looked them up to cite them. The only reason I went to look them up is because I was confident that there had to be critical scholars who would have to come to these conclusions, because I am aware of just how overwhelming the evidence is. I went on to cite them in order to demonstrate that it was not just me who was making these claims, but it was also critical scholars who are not Christian who are forced to come to such conclusions, as anyone else would have to if they are intellectually honest.

I'm sorry, but I almost peed myself. You are too funny. I enjoyed reading the strawman though. I'm sure you really stumped all of them Just so you know, I'm not taking the mythicist position myself. Based upon my earnest research, he might have existed. But to what capacity, and what he did or did not do, as a mortal man, is all up in the air. However, I have also watched a few podcasts with mythicists, and I have to say they make some fair points too. I guess, for me, since I am no longer invested, like the believer, I absorb all of them all and take them all with a grain of salt. I do not see 'red' when I feel a 'scholar' takes a seemingly 'blasphemous' position - that Jesus was not real. I guess, for me, it is like studying any other said fella from ancient antiquity. The actual details really do not matter as much. The reason I persist here, is, as I already told you long ago... If authority was not going around using this religious set of ideas as 'reality', I would not care. 4,000 years ago, you and I may have instead been arguing the veracity of Zeus or Odin.

It is from Paul we can be absolutely certain the claims of the resurrection appearances were being made "SOON" after the execution of Jesus,

I have never disputed this. We have the claims and convictions of one dude.

and it is also from Paul we can be certain these folks could not possibly be making up the claims but were truly convinced in what they were reporting.

Negative, as no credible corroboration can attest to this claim. Once you introduce the Gospels, it's game over.

This means, none of these folks could have been involved in some sort of deception.

I have demonstrated that the Gospels are filled with deception, and/or 'alternative facts', and/or legend and lore.

Moreover, we can also know from Paul that the apostles continued to proclaim these very same things for decades.

Hmm, would this be from the Gospels? If so, then again, it is game over.

We can also know with certainty, there is no known explanation for these facts we can know, which would eliminate the unlikely, the extraordinary, or the ridiculous.

Technically, you know the only thing saving you here is that such claims are truly unfalsifiable. However, we also have very stout evidence that rotting bodies do not rise. So, it is logically game over.

I'm going to stop here.... I know there is a lot more to tackle, but I'll let this much marinate....

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #65]

I don't know POI.

I think your arguments re "rotting corpse" is somewhat invalid when we consider the possibility that I have presented re "Useful Fiction".

What do you think?

If the story of Jesus as recorded in the gospels is all the product of useful fiction - then what?

Remembering that fiction does borrow from fact and/but as you say in so many words - "let's not get carried away here re the unexplainable bizarre bits" and notably the Useful Fiction Theory explains such things adequately as already well installed/established into the Collective Roman Citizen Mind. Godlings raising from the grave was not a new idea even before Jesus.

It still shows us by the evidence, that Christianity has been a useful fiction and one which thrives up to and including to this very moment...what volumes of the paper trail should we examine and critique and which should we leave well enough alone?

Is that a fair question one should be asking? (I think so but that might be bias.)

[William]

A Useful Fiction: Consequence mapped.

Paul's Psychological Grafting: The notion that Paul might have incorporated popular Roman mythology into the Christian narrative to make it more appealing to Roman culture is an interesting perspective. This could be seen as a strategic move to bridge cultural gaps and make the new religion more relatable to a broader audience.

Good and Evil in the Name of Christ: It's undeniable that Christianity has been a force for both good and ill throughout history. The actions of individuals and groups who claim to act in the name of Christ can vary widely, and their motivations can be complex. The current political landscape, with figures identifying as Christian nationalists, adds another layer to this discussion. The potential for enforcing specific morals and ethics on a diverse population raises important questions about freedom, democracy, and the role of religion in governance.

Belief in the Resurrection: The debate about the resurrection's literal truth versus its symbolic or metaphorical significance is central to Christian theology. For some, the resurrection is a cornerstone of faith, while for others, its value lies in the moral and ethical teachings it represents. The idea of taming the beast versus succumbing to it is a timeless struggle, and Christianity's role in this battle is a topic of ongoing debate.

Rome's Enduring Influence: The idea that Rome's influence persists in the background of Western civilization is intriguing. The question of whether Christianity, as a "useful fiction," has been beneficial or detrimental depends on one's perspective and the specific "rules" one follows. This duality is reflected in the varying interpretations and applications of Christian teachings throughout history.

Political Implications: The rise of Christian nationalism and its potential impact on democratic processes is a serious concern. The quotes from the Roman book (Romans 13:1-7) highlight the tension between religious authority and political power. The interpretation and application of these verses can vary widely, and their use in contemporary political discourse adds another layer of complexity.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #66]

Calling it a (fiction) concedes/means you too do not believe the claim that a rotting body rose. One of the major tenets to this storyline is that one must truly believe that a Jesus rose again, etc etc etc... What you are instead introducing/engaging/asking warrants a separate topic entirely. Please create one and have at it.

[William]

Sorry my bad. I thought you had wrapped it up...

[Clownboat]

We agree that facts and evidence demonstrate rotting bodies do not rise.

This is a true statement. We even fully understand why such a thing doesn't happen and the process that begins once death occurs.

The problem is, we also have facts and evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection appearances.

Yes, it is a fact that people make claims. This is also a true statement, but it is not evidence that a decomposing body reanimated to life anymore than bigfoot is real because of claims. Why you don't understand this problem going on here is quite fascinating.

What we need is some sort of explanation for this evidence

No explanation is needed to explain that fact that people make claims. You have no problem rejecting claims about Joseph Smith or Allah for example. Therefore, if we want to know if a claim is true, we analyze the evidence for the claim. What we do NOT do is point to the claims and pretend that they are evidence.

We address this with you when we point to 'claims' made about Bigfoot, Nessie, alien abductions and competing god concepts. You rightly ignore these claims, but for some reason you apply special pleading to other potentially made claims from the Bible and this is not logically consistent. People reading here will notice this even though you refuse to.

Be well.