Can you please provide evidence for these Biblical events?

[Compassionist]

Can you please provide evidence for the following Biblical events?

1. Creation Miracles (Genesis 1–3)

Creation of the universe: God creates light, sky, land, seas, plants, stars, animals, and humans in six days.
Creation of angels: Implied in passages like Job 38:4–7; often considered an early act before physical creation.
Creation of Adam and Eve: God forms Adam from dust and breathes life into him; Eve is made from Adam’s rib.
Creation of other organisms: All species of plants and animals are said to have been created by divine command.
The Garden of Eden: A paradise created for Adam and Eve.
The Fall: The serpent speaks; Adam and Eve eat forbidden fruit and are evicted from Eden; curses are pronounced.

2. Early Genesis Miracles

The mark and protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
The longevity of pre-Flood humans (many living 900+ years).
Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6–9): God floods the entire world, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.
The rainbow covenant: God sets a rainbow as a sign of the promise never again to flood the earth.
Confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11): Humanity’s speech is divided, and people scatter across the world.

3. Miracles in the Patriarchal Era (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)

Call of Abram: God speaks directly to Abram (Genesis 12).
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19).
Lot’s wife turned to salt (Genesis 19:26).
Birth of Isaac to elderly Sarah (Genesis 21).
God’s testing of Abraham: A ram provided in place of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jacob’s ladder dream and wrestling with God (Genesis 28; Genesis 32).
Joseph’s prophetic dreams and interpretations (Genesis 37–41).

4. Miracles of Moses and the Exodus

The burning bush (Exodus 3).
Staff turned into a serpent (Exodus 4).
The Ten Plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7–12):

1. Water to blood
2. Frogs
3. Gnats or lice
4. Flies
5. Livestock disease
6. Boils
7. Hail
8. Locusts
9. Darkness
10. Death of the firstborn
The Passover protection (Israelites spared).
Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14).
Pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, guiding Israel.
Manna and quail were provided in the wilderness.
Water from the rock (Exodus 17).
Mount Sinai theophany: God’s voice, thunder, lightning, and tablets of stone.
Bronze serpent healing (Numbers 21).
Aaron’s rod budding (Numbers 17).
Moses’ radiant face after speaking with God (Exodus 34).

5. Miracles in the Time of Joshua, Judges, and Kings

Jordan River stops flowing so Israel can cross (Joshua 3).
Walls of Jericho fall (Joshua 6).
The sun stands still (Joshua 10).
Gideon’s fleece tests (Judges 6).
Samson’s strength feats (Judges 14–16).
Fire consumes Elijah’s offering on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).
Elijah raises the widow’s son (1 Kings 17).
Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2).
Elisha parts the Jordan, purifies water, multiplies oil, raises the Shunammite’s son, feeds 100 men with loaves, heals Naaman’s leprosy, and makes an iron axe-head float (2 Kings 2–6).
The shadow on the sundial goes backwards for King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20).
Angelic destruction of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19).
Daniel’s survival in the lions’ den (Daniel 6).
Three men survive the fiery furnace (Daniel 3).
Handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5).

6. Miracles in the Intertestamental and New Testament Era

Zechariah was struck mute until John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1).
Virgin (immaculate) conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1; Luke 1).
Star of Bethlehem guiding the Magi (Matthew 2).
Angelic announcements to Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds.
John the Baptist’s prophetic calling before birth.

7. Miracles Performed by Jesus

Turning water into wine (John 2).
Healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame (many Gospels).
Cleansing lepers (Matthew 8).
Casting out demons (Mark 5, etc.).
Feeding 5,000 (Matthew 14) and feeding 4,000 (Matthew 15).
Walking on water (Matthew 14).
Calming the storm (Mark 4).
Raising Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5).
Healing the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8).
Healing the bleeding woman (Mark 5).
Restoring sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10).
Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11).
The Transfiguration (Matthew 17).
Paying temple tax with a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matthew 17).
Cursing the barren fig tree (Mark 11).
The resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20).
Post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24; John 21).
Ascension into heaven (Acts 1).

8. Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles

Tongues of fire and the gift of languages at Pentecost (Acts 2).
Peter and John heal a lame man (Acts 3).
Peter raises Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead (Acts 9).
Paul blinds and heals various people (Acts 13–28).
Earthquake freeing Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16).
Paul survives a viper bite (Acts 28).
Philip’s teleportation (Acts 8).
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying (Acts 5).

9. Apocalyptic and Prophetic Miracles

Visions of Heaven and angels (Revelation 4–5).
Trumpet and bowl judgments: cosmic catastrophes, locusts, plagues, blood rivers, darkness.
Two witnesses calling down fire (Revelation 11).
The New Jerusalem descending from heaven (Revelation 21).
Creation of a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22).
God dwelling with humanity eternally - the final miracle of restoration.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #120]

Questions on justifying method

2. On the need for more epistemic clarity

My claim is conditional and structural, not dogmatic. It is this:

If a system:
• assigns ultimate consequences based on belief-response, and
• operates under systematically asymmetric epistemic conditions,

then either
(a) culpability cannot be presumed, or
(b) the system’s designer bears responsibility for the misalignment.

Yes, (a). But that doesn't mean non-culpability can be presumed either and, therefore, your critique against God for punishing those non-culpable fails and we can get onto the topic of the resurrection.

I agree with you that the Calvinistic concept of predestination would show God to be cruel and unjust, but I reject it as biblical. This thread isn't for that discussion, though.

All there is is literally possibility or impossibility.

This is where your moral framework collapses nuance that ordinary moral reasoning preserves.

We routinely distinguish:
• coerced vs. voluntary,
• reasonable vs. unreasonable expectation,
• foreseeable vs. unforeseeable cost,

even when an action is “possible.”

Your battered spouse example proves my point rather than refutes it.

You concede:
• she is culpable for the choice only in a minimal sense,
• but not culpable for the morally salient outcome.

Yet in soteriological contexts, belief is itself the morally salient outcome.

You are applying a binary standard in one domain that you relax everywhere else.

Ah, that's the cause of your confusion. Soteriology and morality are distinct things, but you are treating them as one. We are talking about being responsible for one’s soteriological choice, not any moral choice.

And, yes, if determination is true, we aren't socially or morally responsible for anything. But that's another issue.


3. On supernatural/metaphysical claims having a higher evidential burden[\i]

Continuity is part of resurrection theory and discontinuity is part of twin theory or imposter theory.

Exactly — and that is the problem.

If:
• resurrection predicts continuity by definition,
• imposter theories predict discontinuity by definition,

then the data are not discriminating between theories so much as being sorted by them.

No external theory is telling us in advance how much continuity to expect or why that degree matters.

Contrast this with psychology:
• where degrees of continuity and fragmentation are independently modeled,
• and where certain patterns would have counted against specific explanations.

That is what “independent constraint” means.

The external theory of continuity/discontinuity is logic, biological realities, etc. Other features involve other external theories to discriminate the models. Then we look at the data and see what matches best. Your vision theory isn't on any different ground.

And it is the same with what kind of appearances. And with the different flexibilities present in all theories.

But flexibilities are not symmetrical.

A hypothesis that:
• tolerates private and public,
• embodied and visionary,
• insider and outsider,
• early and late (with carve-outs),

necessarily rules out less rival space than one constrained by external theory.

My point is that all hypotheses are flexible on some points and not others, while you are picking one particular point to try to support your claim that a supernatural response is way more flexible than a naturalistic one. That isn't a reasonable method.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #121]

1. On “neither culpability nor non-culpability can be presumed”

You say:

Yes, (a). But that doesn't mean non-culpability can be presumed either and, therefore, your critique against God for punishing those non-culpable fails.

This does not follow.

If culpability cannot be presumed, then punishment that presupposes culpability is unjustified unless independently established.

I am not claiming:
• that all non-believers are non-culpable,
• or that culpability is impossible.

I am claiming:
• culpability is not the default inference,
• and therefore punishment cannot be justified by default.

If the system continues to impose ultimate consequences without a reliable mechanism for establishing fault, responsibility does not disappear — it relocates.

Underdetermination blocks justification. It does not license punishment.

2. On separating soteriology from morality

You write:

Soteriology and morality are distinct things, but you are treating them as one.

They are analytically distinct — but not normatively separable in the way you are using them.

Soteriology:
• assigns consequences,
• tracks responsibility,
• and evaluates responses to obligation.

Those are moral functions, even if the domain is theological.

If a soteriological outcome hinges on choice, responsibility, or fault, then moral reasoning applies to how those judgments are made.

You cannot insulate soteriology from moral standards while simultaneously grounding it in personal responsibility.

If belief-response is responsibility-tracking, moral criteria apply. If it is not, responsibility cannot be assumed.

3. On determinism as a deflection

You add:

And, yes, if determination is true, we aren't socially or morally responsible for anything. But that's another issue.

It is not another issue — it is structurally parallel.

Your framework insists on:
• binary responsibility,
• grounded in mere possibility,
• irrespective of causal asymmetry.

That is exactly why the epistemic asymmetry critique matters even under non-determinism.

If causal structure matters for responsibility in one domain, epistemic structure matters in another.

Hard determinism is 100% evidence-based. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of a planarian flatworm, you could behead me, and my head would grow back. With my current genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, if you behead me, I would die instead of growing my head back. If I had libertarian free will, I would have been able to grow my head back even though I don't have the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of a planarian flatworm.

4. On “logic and biology” as external constraints

You reply:

The external theory of continuity/discontinuity is logic, biological realities, etc.

Logic and biology do not supply degree-of-expectation constraints here.

Logic tells us:
• identity requires some continuity.

It does not tell us:
• how much continuity to expect,
• which kinds matter more,
• or which deviations would count against resurrection rather than against testimony, memory, or interpretation.

Biology constrains living organisms.
Resurrection explicitly suspends biological regularities.

So neither logic nor biology independently calibrates the evidential thresholds being used.

That calibration is coming from resurrection theology itself — which is exactly the concern.

5. On flexibility and “picking one point”

You write:

All hypotheses are flexible on some points and not others, while you are picking one particular point.

I am not picking one point.

I am identifying a pattern:
• flexibility across multiple high-leverage dimensions,
• combined with few externally imposed limits,
• and resolved largely by post-hoc coherence.

Flexibility is not evenly distributed across hypotheses.

A theory constrained by:
• independently modeled psychological timing,
• known failure modes,
• population-level expectations,

rules out rival space before seeing the data.

A theory that accommodates:
• private/public,
• embodied/visionary,
• insider/outsider,
• early/late (with carve-outs),

rules out rival space after fitting the data.

That asymmetry is methodological, not rhetorical.

Bottom line

We are no longer disagreeing about:
• whether hypotheses can be compared,
• whether supernatural explanations are possible,
• or whether resurrection is logically coherent.

We are disagreeing about this core methodological issue:

Whether explanatory strength comes primarily from internal coherence with a hypothesis’ identity conditions, or from constraints imposed independently by shared background theory before the data are assessed.

Until that is resolved, appeals to “logic,” “biology,” or “flexibility on both sides” will keep missing the point I’m making.

A. Claims about Jesus’ origin and nature

1. Virgin birth
– Conceived by the Holy Spirit, born to a virgin (Matthew 1–2; Luke 1–2).

2. Pre-existence
– Existed before birth and before creation itself (John 1:1–3; John 8:58).

3. Divine sonship
– Uniquely the Son of God, not merely metaphorical (Mark 1:11; John 5:18).

4. Incarnation
– God becoming human (“the Word became flesh”) (John 1:14).

5. Sinlessness
– Lived without committing any sin (Hebrews 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

B. Miracle claims (during his lifetime)

Healing miracles

6. Healing the blind
7. Healing the deaf and mute
8. Healing leprosy
9. Healing paralysis
10. Healing chronic illnesses instantly
11. Healing at a distance (without physical presence)

Exorcisms

12. Casting out demons
13. Demons recognising his authority
14. Transferring demons into animals (e.g., pigs)

Nature miracles

15. Turning water into wine
16. Walking on water
17. Calming storms by command
18. Multiplying food (feeding 4,000 and 5,000)
19. Causing a fig tree to wither instantly

Knowledge miracles

20. Knowing people’s thoughts
21. Knowing hidden personal details about strangers
22. Predicting future events (betrayal, denial, destruction of the Temple)

C. Authority claims

23. Forgiving sins directly (normally God’s prerogative)
24. Redefining religious law (“You have heard… but I say…”)
25. Claiming authority over the Sabbath
26. Claiming unique access to God (“No one comes to the Father except through me”)

D. Claims surrounding death

27. Atoning death
– His death pays for the sins of others.

28. Cosmic significance of crucifixion
– Darkness over the land, veil of the Temple torn, earthquake (Matthew 27).

29. Descent to the dead / hell (varies by text and tradition).

E. Resurrection claims

30. Bodily resurrection from the dead
31. Empty tomb
32. Post-mortem appearances to individuals and groups
33. Physical interactions after resurrection (eating, touching wounds)
34. Resurrection as immortal, transformed body
35. Resurrection as first of a general resurrection of humanity

F. Post-resurrection / exaltation claims

36. Ascension into heaven (Acts 1)
37. Exaltation to God’s right hand
38. Ongoing heavenly intercession
39. Granting salvation
40. Sending the Holy Spirit

G. Eschatological (end-times) claims

41. Future bodily return to Earth
42. Final judge of all humanity
43. Authority over eternal destiny (heaven/hell)
44. Establishment of God’s eternal kingdom

You have yet to prove any of the above extraordinary claims in the Bible about Jesus with actual evidence.

I agree with you that the Calvinistic concept of predestination would show God to be cruel and unjust, but I reject it as biblical.

Ephesians 1:4-5 (ESV)

“Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”

John 6:44 (ESV)

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

Romans 8:29-30: Outlines the chain of salvation: those God "foreknew," He "predestined" to be conformed to Christ, "called," "justified," and "glorified".

Romans 9:11-23: Discusses God's sovereign choice in election, using Jacob and Esau, and the analogy of the potter and clay.

Acts 4:28: Mentions that Jesus' crucifixion happened according to what God's power and will had determined beforehand.

1 Corinthians 2:7: Speaks of God's wisdom, which was ordained/predestined before the ages for believers' glory.

2 Timothy 1:9: Notes that God saved and called us based on His purpose and grace given in Christ before time began.

1 Peter 1:1-2: Describes believers as "elect according to the foreknowledge of God".

John 6:37, 44, 65: Jesus indicates that only those given by the Father to him will come.

Ephesians 2:10: States that believers are God's workmanship, created for good works prepared beforehand.

Matthew 24:22, 31: Jesus speaks of the "elect" for whom days are shortened.

Revelation 13:8: Refers to the "Lamb's book of life" containing the names of the chosen from the foundation of the world.

The above verses prove that divine predestination is claimed by the Bible itself.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

Creation Miracles (Genesis 1–3) Early Genesis Miracles

No, why would you expect there to be empirical evidence for creation, even if it were true? What would be the empirical way to demonstrate a metaphysical act?

Call of Abram: God speaks directly to Abram (Genesis 12).
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19).
Lot’s wife turned to salt (Genesis 19:26).
Birth of Isaac to elderly Sarah (Genesis 21).
God’s testing of Abraham: A ram provided in place of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jacob’s ladder dream and wrestling with God (Genesis 28; Genesis 32).
Joseph’s prophetic dreams and interpretations (Genesis 37–41).

What evidence would convince you of such crazy acts so long ago in history? That last question applies to the rest of your post.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #123]

You could pray to the Biblical God, and the Biblical God could answer the prayer by transporting everyone in a time machine to show everything happening as described in the Bible. This would be incontrovertible evidence that the Biblical events are real and the Biblical God is real. Otherwise, these are just stories. Stories that don't match what we know from astronomy, geology, archaeology, history, physics, chemistry and biology.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #122]

Compassionist,

I appreciate your many, good questions and I enjoy talking about them, but we need to get back on track. We are talking about whether the resurrection historically happened. Whether God unjustly punishes people is irrelevant. Whether free will or determinism is Biblical or true is irrelevant.

As far as the on-topic historical methodology, we obviously disagree and I feel like we are now repeating ourselves. Your comments, I believe, are very vague and don’t match the reality of the situation. That would be better served to wait until the later step when we are doing that with very specific information and theories.

So, where do you want to go from here?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #122]

Compassionist,

I appreciate your many, good questions and I enjoy talking about them, but we need to get back on track. We are talking about whether the resurrection historically happened. Whether God unjustly punishes people is irrelevant. Whether free will or determinism is Biblical or true is irrelevant.

As far as the on-topic historical methodology, we obviously disagree and I feel like we are now repeating ourselves. Your comments, I believe, are very vague and don’t match the reality of the situation. That would be better served to wait until the later step when we are doing that with very specific information and theories.

So, where do you want to go from here?

Thank you for your post. There is zero evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. If you had actual evidence, you would have provided the evidence a long time ago. The Bible is not evidence. My points are not irrelevant. The Biblical God is evil and imaginary.

[The Tanager]

Thank you for your post. There is zero evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. If you had actual evidence, you would have provided the evidence a long time ago. The Bible is not evidence. My points are not irrelevant. The Biblical God is evil and imaginary.

We haven't been able to get to the evidence because of your claims about the methodology effectively ruling supernatural answers out, which I think have been very vague. I'd love to get to the actual evidence, of which there is more than zero, even if you end up rejecting it.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #127]

If there is evidence, why haven't I seen it? Why isn't everyone 100% certain that Jesus was resurrected? Everyone is 100% certain that all living things die. I have seen many types of death. I have not seen any resurrection of someone who is brain-dead. I have seen the resurrection of people whose hearts have stopped beating, but that is not true death - brain death is true death. I also have not seen any authenticated video of someone who is brain-dead being resurrected. If you have an authenticated video of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, please upload it.

[The Tanager]

If there is evidence, why haven't I seen it? Why isn't everyone 100% certain that Jesus was resurrected? Everyone is 100% certain that all living things die. I have seen many types of death. I have not seen any resurrection of someone who is brain-dead. I have seen the resurrection of people whose hearts have stopped beating, but that is not true death - brain death is true death. I also have not seen any authenticated video of someone who is brain-dead being resurrected. If you have an authenticated video of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, please upload it.

100% certainty is not rational. Requiring an authenticated video is not rational. Let's look at the evidence right now. You've already agreed that we can reasonably say that Jesus (the historical core of the individual) historically existed. That's one part of the evidence. Let's look at piece 2: Jesus being buried in a tomb. Do you believe we can reasonably say that rather than the alternative that Jesus was not buried in a tomb?

Then we will move on to the following three:
3. Jesus' tomb was later found empty
4. People claimed to experience post-mortem appearances
5. The Christian movement originally focused on the resurrection as its centerpiece

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #129]

On certainty and evidential standards

You say:

100% certainty is not rational. Requiring an authenticated video is not rational.

There are many things I am 100% certain about. Please see my previous post in another thread about it: viewtopic.php?p=1178891#p1178891

Absolute certainty is not the epistemic standard. But notice what is doing the work in my objection.

I am demanding asymmetry of evidence.

There is a crucial difference between:

• claims that align with all known background regularities, and
• claims that violate the strongest regularities we have.

Everyone is 100% certain that:
• all biologically dead organisms stay dead,
• irreversible brain death is permanent,
• no verified resurrection of a brain-dead human has ever been observed.

That certainty is not philosophical dogma — it is inductive saturation.

By contrast:
• resurrection claims are rare,
• unrepeatable,
• mediated entirely by testimony,
• and contradicted by every confirmed case we do have.

Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary evidence to prove it.
The demand is extraordinary evidential asymmetry.

Richard Carrier (ex-Christian atheist) and Robert Price (ex-Christian ex-Baptist minister atheist) are convinced that Jesus the human didn't exist.

They argue that:

The gospels are late and theological.

Paul gives few biographical details.

Ancient mystery religions had dying-and-rising gods.

Jesus may have started as a celestial being, later “historicised.”

However, ex-Christian agnostic atheist Bart Ehrman is convinced that Jesus the human existed, but his virgin birth, his miracles and his resurrection didn't happen. He is not alone. There are many professional historians who share this view.

You could pray to the Biblical God, and the Biblical God could answer the prayer by transporting everyone in a time machine to show everything happening as described in the Bible. This would be incontrovertible evidence that the Biblical events are real and the Biblical God is real. Otherwise, these are just stories. Stories that don't match what we know from astronomy, geology, archaeology, history, physics, chemistry and biology. After all, if the Biblical God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, why wouldn't it do this? Unless, of course, the Biblical God is actually evil and imaginary, in which case, it won't be doing this.

On moving to “the evidence pieces”

You propose a stepwise method:

1. Jesus existed
2. Jesus was buried in a tomb
3. The tomb was empty
4. People experienced post-mortem appearances
5. Resurrection became central to the movement

This looks neat — but it quietly smuggles in a methodological problem.

Each step:
• depends on the same source class (the Bible),
• is not independently corroborated at the same strength,
• and becomes increasingly theory-laden.

Agreement with (1) does not obligate agreement with (2–5).

On Jesus being buried in a tomb

You ask:

Do you believe we can reasonably say Jesus was buried in a tomb rather than not?

At most, we can say: burial in some form is plausible, but burial in a known, identifiable, visitable tomb is underdetermined.

Why?

• Roman crucifixion victims were often disposed of in mass graves.
• Burial narratives vary across gospels.
• The tomb story serves a clear theological function.
• There is no external corroboration of the tomb.
• Paul (our earliest source) shows no awareness of a tomb tradition.

So even step (2) is contestable, not a firm foundation.

And that matters — because (3) depends entirely on (2).

On “empty tomb” reasoning

Even if we grant burial in a tomb for the sake of argument, even though it is not proven with evidence:

An empty tomb does not uniquely support resurrection.

It is compatible with:
• body relocation,
• temporary burial,
• mistaken location,
• legendary development,
• lies or delusions.

Multiple low-cost natural explanations dominate a single high-cost supernatural one.

On post-mortem appearances

People claiming experiences is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the inference.

Human psychology under grief, expectation, trauma, and religious pressure:
• produces vivid experiences,
• produces sincere conviction,
• produces social contagion.

None of this requires deception.
None of this requires resurrection.

And crucially:
We already know minds can generate such experiences; we do not know that dead brains can restart.

On the resurrection becoming central

Movements often crystallize around:
• powerful symbols,
• martyr narratives,
• cosmic vindication stories.

Centrality of belief ≠ truth of belief.

Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, and Buddhism all have central miracle-laden narratives with comparable sociological strength.

Science explains this via:
• motivational salience,
• identity reinforcement,
• group cohesion under threat.

No resurrection required.

On background probabilities (the part being skipped)

The key issue your stepwise approach avoids is this:

Resurrection is not evaluated in a vacuum.

We bring to the table:
• billions of confirmed deaths,
• zero confirmed resurrections from irreversible brain death,
• perfect alignment between death and non-return.

That background knowledge matters.

You do not get to reset priors by slicing testimony into steps.

Bottom line

Yes:
• Jesus the human may or may not have existed, as his existence is not incontrovertibly proven.
• Some followers sincerely believed extraordinary things.

But from an evidence-weighted perspective:

The resurrection hypothesis is massively underdetermined relative to natural explanations and massively disfavored by background regularities.

That is not skepticism for its own sake.
That is epistemic responsibility under causal realism.

Many humans were crucified by the Romans. You need to prove with extraordinary evidence the extraordinary claim that only Jesus was resurrected after being killed by crucifixion.