Where do I go from here?

[waynepii]

1. Is a rational person not a person who goes where the evidence leads?

Absolutely.

2. Is an irrational person not a person who chooses to ignore where the evidence leads (but acts on blind faith)?

You said it, but I'd agree.

3. Is there not extensive evidence for Jesus' resurrection (and for Christianity in general)?

I have been asking for this "extensive evidence" since I came here and have yet to receive any other than references to scripture, highly individual and personal epiphanies, or "open your heart to Christ and He will reveal Himself to you" (or similar).

4. Is not the rational person, then, the one who assents to the truth of Christianity?

IF item 3. is fulfilled.

5. Is not the irrational person, then, the one who is aware of the facts, but based on a blind commitment to his philosophical preconceptions, chooses to reject the necessary conclusion of Christianity's truthfulness?

IF item 3. is fulfilled. If not, then I assert it is entirely rational to question Christianity's truthfulness.

6. Do I wish to live my life as a rational or irrational human being?

Rational - definitely.

So item 3. is key. Can you provide compelling evidence for "Jesus' resurrection (and for Christianity in general)"? Remember, the evidence needs to be compelling to someone who does not already believe in Jesus' resurrection (or for Christianity), and possibly not in the existence of God in general. Most atheists are quite rational and are open to compelling evidence which runs counter to their current understanding of the universe. But most atheists are also not expecting the evidence presented to be compelling - in fact, many atheists were raised with a strong religious background and gradually began to have doubts because of inconsistencies and lack of evidence. That is to say, lack of compelling evidence is the reason they ended up as atheists.

My intent of this post is only to point out that your six points only hold if a person accepts item 3. If not, you get an entirely different answer.

[warhoop]

Dear Sleepykid,

There are many intelligent and well spoken christians that post on this board, that write books, etc. who, irregardless of differences in theology or doctrine, have one thing in common, and that is the love of God. And I say this because the answers you seek will not be found on a computer screen or in a debate.

Do you have any relationships with someone whose life seems to embody traits and characteristics that you desire or that you may consider to be christian in nature? Because God will write the love that He has for you on your heart, using one of His children as the pen. You see, we, as christians, aren't called to the faith and then to have a seat. We are called to make disciples of the world. And that does not happen through persuasive arguments and well crafted rebuttals. That happens through relationships; by coming along side someone and saying, "I don't have all the answers you seek, but I can tell you and show you who God is to me and what He has done in my life."

So keep your eyes open and your heart available, because I think someone is coming. And keep praying, whether or not you realize that you already have been. Take heart, all who seek shall find.

[Jac3510]

I have been asking for this "extensive evidence" since I came here and have yet to receive any other than references to scripture, highly individual and personal epiphanies, or "open your heart to Christ and He will reveal Himself to you" (or similar).
.
.
.
So item 3. is key. Can you provide compelling evidence for "Jesus' resurrection (and for Christianity in general)"? Remember, the evidence needs to be compelling to someone who does not already believe in Jesus' resurrection (or for Christianity), and possibly not in the existence of God in general. Most atheists are quite rational and are open to compelling evidence which runs counter to their current understanding of the universe. But most atheists are also not expecting the evidence presented to be compelling - in fact, many atheists were raised with a strong religious background and gradually began to have doubts because of inconsistencies and lack of evidence. That is to say, lack of compelling evidence is the reason they ended up as atheists.

My intent of this post is only to point out that your six points only hold if a person accepts item 3. If not, you get an entirely different answer.

I imagine the reason you've not gotten a discussion on the evidence is that it is so well documented elsewhere. But, for the sake of argument, I'll lay out the bare bones, and you can question what you like.

There are two ways to present the argument. One is to follow William Lane Craig. The other is to follow N. T. Wright. I prefer the latter, and so will walk through a modification of his argument.

1. Jesus' disciples believed in His bodily resurrection from the dead. Whether or not this ever happened is neither here nor there. Here, we must distinguish between resuscitation and resurrection. In the former, a person "comes back to life" only to die again later. In the latter, a person is raised to eternal life or death (cf. Dan 12:1-2).

2. Jesus' disciples believed that salvation could be procured only by trusting in Jesus Christ. This doctrine is called "Justification by faith" and it is held to by absolutely ALL forms of Christianity, though many may differ over its extent or nuances. This doctrine, however, is based on no two fundamental facts:

a. The death of Christ - Since sin separates a person from God, Jesus' death in some manner paid for sins and is pointed to by the Old Testament Levitical code of animal sacrifice;
b. The resurrection of Christ - The covering of sin alone is not sufficient to save. Also required is the imparting of eternal life by a living Savior. Thus, the doctrine of justification by faith assumes the resurrection of Jesus.

3. Jesus' disciples were practicing Jews. Relevant to our discussion are three beliefs to which they held:

a. Jews believed that to worship anyone other than God was to condemn ones' self to Hell;
b. Jews believed that there would be a resurrection at the end of time and that would be for all people, not a few;
c. Jews believed that when the Messiah came, He would bring with Him His eternal kingdom.

Now . . . these three facts are indisputable. Jesus' disciples were orthodox Jews who believed the only way to be saved was to put their faith in the resurrected Christ. Now, the historical question: Where did they get that idea?

The question may not sound too difficult on the surface, but even a cursory attempt to answer it proves futile. They could not have gotten the idea from mere hallucinations for no less than five reasons:

1. Hallucinations presume a given set of ideas. They are, by nature, projections of what we want to be the case, but what we want to be the case can only be that which we consider could, in some sense, be the case. The disciples could have believed Jesus was resuscitated; that would be defensible. But they made no such claim. They claimed He had been resurrected.

2. Multiple people cannot interact with the same hallucination, which is exactly what the disciples claimed they did.

3. If they had hallucinated, a simple trip to the tomb would have verified that that Jesus' body was still in the grave.

4. If they had hallucinated, Christianity's enemies, which there were many (consider, for one example, Saul), could have simply produced the body.

5. Hallucinations do not explain fully enough how the disciples became so convinced that Jesus actually was raised from the dead. People hallucinate all the time, but we are not talking about merely thinking you see a loved one after he died. We are talking about a change in people so fundamental that they altered their entire perception of God, heaven, hell, salvation, and the eternal kingdom. In short, a hallucination may be a necessary condition for the rise of Christianity, but it is in no way a sufficient condition.

So, then, the chances are immensely against the notion that the disciples got the idea that Jesus rose from the dead via hallucination, and even if they did, you still have to have other conditions to couple with that to give them grounds for developing a new faith. What would those other grounds be? They tell us an empty tomb did it. And certainly, seeing a person post-mortem, followed by finding his tomb empty, would be sufficient reason to make such a belief. Again, let's look at that with more detail. An empty tomb by itself would not be sufficient (though certainly necessary). If I go to a grave tomorrow and find a body missing, I don't assume immediately that the person has been resurrected. Likewise, if I think I see them walking around after they are dead, I don't assume it either. But if I see the empty grave and then sit down with them at lunch, then I have very good reason to believe that to be the case.

How, then, do you explain the empty tomb? The disciples could not have stolen the body, for if they did so, they could not have believed that Jesus really rose from the dead (which we know they did). It is also ludicrous to claim conspiracy, because these people believed--whether wrongly or rightly is not the issue--that if they worshiped a false God then they would go to Hell. If these people, then, stole Jesus' body, then they would have known what they were teaching was a lie. Thus, they would have known that they were sending themselves to Hell. No motivation can be given to explain why a person--much less a group of people--would willingly send themselves to Hell in exchange for NOTHING.

All this is further true, not only of the disciples, but of early enemies of Jesus. Where did James, Jesus' unbelieving half-brother get the idea? What about Saul, who later became Paul? These people had no motivation. They had to be convinced.

What we have, then, is very good historical evidence for an empty tomb and for the post-mortem appearances. Those facts compelled the first disciples to accept what they found as true, and those same facts would compel any modern person to accept them as true as well.

We could go further--the belief that Jesus was God, the early church creeds, the origin of the Gospel materials, the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, etc. All these things lend further support to the idea that Jesus was raised from the dead. But in the end, we come to a few simple conclusions:

1. Given the empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances, the disciples had good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead;
2. Given the same evidences, we have good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
3. If we reject the conclusion, we have to explain those historical facts, as well as explain the rise of what can be called creedal Christianity, which was built around the central belief--present in Jerusalem no later than 35 AD--that Jesus had been resurrected.

The simple fact is that there is no good argument for how that could have happened without appeal to Jesus' resurrection. Thus, the only rational response to the evidence is to assent to the truth of the resurrection. Bottom line: I have good reasons for believing Jesus rose from the dead. Those who say He didn't, don't.

[ageofknowledge]

Excellently said I love William Craig's material on the ressurection.

[waynepii]

Seeing the empty tomb and its intended occupant walking around could simply mean the victim was never dead in the first place - perhaps he was in a coma, was entombed as dead, and then regained consciousness.

Of course, the fact that the story was passed verbally for many years before being (officially) written down leaves the door open to significant embellishment, probably unintentional and incremental, over time.

[Jac3510]

The idea that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion doesn't stand under scrutiny. First, it assumes that the Romans didn't do their job. They were something of experts in the art of crucifixion (they only invented it, after all), and if a person did not die, then the soldiers paid their lives instead. Second, a person who somehow could have survived the crucifixion would have been in no shape to claim to be any kind of Savior. Third, if Jesus merely survived the crucifixion, the disciples would have no reason to say He had been resurrected (remember the distinction made before--resurrection is an important theological concept in Jewish theology, which is the background we are working with here).

As for embellishments over a long period of time, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny either. Even if we allow for a very late date for the Gospel accounts (which we have very good reason not to), even that fact only strengthens the case. The earliest Christians ascribed the Gospels all to Jesus' disciples (the apostles). Even if the texts themselves were late, the apostles taught something, and that something was widely taught widely. The mere fact that they were accepted as representative of the apostolic doctrine by the end of the first century (which is indisputable) proves that they are accurate reflections of apostolic doctrine. Thus, even if the stories themselves were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they definitely are at worst largely accurate pictures of what Jesus' twelve disciples believed to be true.

Secondly, you have Paul's autobiographical comments in his epistle to the Galatian churches. Even the most rabidly liberal scholars accept Galatians as a genuine Pauline epistle. It could have been written no later that 50 AD, a mere twenty years after Jesus death, and then it was written to a church that had been founded in the early 40s. Paul, in the early 40s, was preaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Thus, you have, AT BEST, 10 years for the story to be embellished or fabricated. Still further, Paul himself tells us that he went to Jerusalem to check out the facts and meet with the twelve to be sure that he was teaching the same things they were, at which time he tells us that they gave him "the right hand of fellowship." That is, they endorsed his doctrine (of bodily resurrection) as precisely the same as their own. He did this in the mid 30s. That means that we have really less than ten years for the story to be embellished in Jerusalem.

So, we return to my basic point from my argument: something convinced the first disciples that Jesus, whom they had watched die, had spent no less than a month talking to them about His resurrection (not simply resuscitation), and this after they found his body missing from its tomb. Obviously, the actual resurrection perfectly accounts for this. Outside of that, no other explanation seems possible. The evidence demands assent or irrational rejection. We must either accept where the evidence leads us or, in blind faith, choose to reject it with no alternative.

[waynepii]

The idea that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion doesn't stand under scrutiny. First, it assumes that the Romans didn't do their job. They were something of experts in the art of crucifixion (they only invented it, after all),

Actually, crucifixion is much older than the Roman empire. The Romans might justly be considered to have perfected it, however.

... and if a person did not die, then the soldiers paid their lives instead.

Maybe, if the powers that be wanted the person dead or didn't bother to check.

Second, a person who somehow could have survived the crucifixion would have been in no shape to claim to be any kind of Savior.

One of the "advantages" of crucifixion was that the "beneficiary" could be kept alive pretty much indefinitely. But even without the conspiracy theory, a crucifixion victim could have appeared "dead" (at least to those who expected him to be dead), yet regained sufficient strength after being removed from the cross (which reduced stress on the body, drastically improved the ability to breath, and increased the blood flow to the brain) to have revived after being placed in the tomb.

Also, who cared for the body after it was placed in the tomb? What do you think would have been their reaction should there have been some signs of revival while caring for the body? I can't see Mary and Magdalen rushing out yelling "He's alive", can you?

Third, if Jesus merely survived the crucifixion, the disciples would have no reason to say He had been resurrected (remember the distinction made before--resurrection is an important theological concept in Jewish theology, which is the background we are working with here).

Couldn't that have been a reason to have embellished what actually happened, in much the same way that certain groups see miraculous images in stains on buildings, grilled cheese sandwiches, etc - even today? Don't forget, the disciples and other followers already considered Jesus to be divine, so they wouldn't have been surprised (and quite probably expected) miracles. There also wasn't much upside for the disciples to have done rigorous fact-checking - they were presumably already convinced of Christ's divinity and were very unlikely to have questioned their belief. It's human nature that in situations such as this, the group unintentionally refines what each other remembers seeing until they "all saw essentially the same thing".

As for embellishments over a long period of time, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny either. Even if we allow for a very late date for the Gospel accounts (which we have very good reason not to), even that fact only strengthens the case. The earliest Christians ascribed the Gospels all to Jesus' disciples (the apostles). Even if the texts themselves were late, the apostles taught something, and that something was widely taught widely. The mere fact that they were accepted as representative of the apostolic doctrine by the end of the first century (which is indisputable) proves that they are accurate reflections of apostolic doctrine. Thus, even if the stories themselves were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they definitely are at worst largely accurate pictures of what Jesus' twelve disciples believed to be true.

Secondly, you have Paul's autobiographical comments in his epistle to the Galatian churches. Even the most rabidly liberal scholars accept Galatians as a genuine Pauline epistle. It could have been written no later that 50 AD, a mere twenty years after Jesus death, and then it was written to a church that had been founded in the early 40s. Paul, in the early 40s, was preaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Thus, you have, AT BEST, 10 years for the story to be embellished or fabricated. Still further, Paul himself tells us that he went to Jerusalem to check out the facts and meet with the twelve to be sure that he was teaching the same things they were, at which time he tells us that they gave him "the right hand of fellowship." That is, they endorsed his doctrine (of bodily resurrection) as precisely the same as their own. He did this in the mid 30s. That means that we have really less than ten years for the story to be embellished in Jerusalem.

So, we return to my basic point from my argument: something convinced the first disciples that Jesus, whom they had watched die, had spent no less than a month talking to them about His resurrection (not simply resuscitation), and this after they found his body missing from its tomb. Obviously, the actual resurrection perfectly accounts for this. Outside of that, no other explanation seems possible. The evidence demands assent or irrational rejection. We must either accept where the evidence leads us or, in blind faith, choose to reject it with no alternative.

In Christ's time, relatively few people were literate, so the telling of Christ's story was verbal with little chance of fact checking, so the opportunity for embellishment was present.

As I've said before, I'm NOT trying to impugn your beliefs. Rather I'm trying to explain my doubts.

[warhoop]

As I've said before, I'm NOT trying to impugn your beliefs. Rather I'm trying to explain my doubts.

Fair enough. And as I stated earlier on this topic, a good debate may raise an eyebrow or gain a nominal concession, but it won't win anybody to the faith; that's a relational thing.

The Romans might justly be considered to have perfected it, however.

If you hold that to be true, which I agree is an accurate statement, then your following statement,

One of the "advantages" of crucifixion was that the "beneficiary" could be kept alive pretty much indefinitely. But even without the conspiracy theory, a crucifixion victim could have appeared "dead" (at least to those who expected him to be dead), yet regained sufficient strength after being removed from the cross (which reduced stress on the body, drastically improved the ability to breath, and increased the blood flow to the brain) to have revived after being placed in the tomb.

while possible, bears little weight in light of your former acknowledgement. During the Roman Empire, crucifixion, while bearing great prominence in the Christian faith, was essentially a non event. Maybe akin to a beheading in medieval times or maybe a rock concert today. You went if you could, but if you didn't make it, you knew another one was coming. And I don't mean that to sound flippant, but I am trying to make the point that even though it didn't happen everday, it was not an uncommon occurence. And as a result of that frequency, if you will, the Romans became very good at killing people by hanging them on a cross, which raises considerable doubt as to whether they would have screwed this one up.

Don't forget, the disciples and other followers already considered Jesus to be divine, so they wouldn't have been surprised (and quite probably expected) miracles.

I don't get the impression from any of the post resurrection accounts that the apostles were hanging out waiting for Jesus to show up based upon their expectation of miracles. Some were fleeing, some were hiding, and some just went back to work as if nothing had ever happened. And when Jesus did reveal Himself to them, he had to prove to them that he wasn't a ghost. So based upon his followers' reactions to seeing the risen Jesus, there really is no support for this statement, because they were suprised to see him and even then, some required more proof.

In Christ's time, relatively few people were literate, so the telling of Christ's story was verbal with little chance of fact checking, so the opportunity for embellishment was present.

You are absolutely right(except for the fact checking thing)! Which is why Paul, all the apostles really, dedicate a great deal of ink decrying false gospels and incorrect teachings, because people were embellishing and making stuff up.

The bottom line is, most if not all, doubts raised concerning the veracity of the events relating to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus aren't really much more than smokescreens. And all I've really done is regurgitate what alot of other people have said way before me.

[waynepii]

One of the "advantages" of crucifixion was that the "beneficiary" could be kept alive pretty much indefinitely. But even without the conspiracy theory, a crucifixion victim could have appeared "dead" (at least to those who expected him to be dead), yet regained sufficient strength after being removed from the cross (which reduced stress on the body, drastically improved the ability to breath, and increased the blood flow to the brain) to have revived after being placed in the tomb.

During the Roman Empire, crucifixion, while bearing great prominence in the Christian faith, was essentially a non event. Maybe akin to a beheading in medieval times or maybe a rock concert today. You went if you could, but if you didn't make it, you knew another one was coming. And I don't mean that to sound flippant, but I am trying to make the point that even though it didn't happen everday, it was not an uncommon occurence. And as a result of that frequency, if you will, the Romans became very good at killing people by hanging them on a cross, which raises considerable doubt as to whether they would have screwed this one up.

This was not a "normal" crucifixion which the typical victim got to "enjoy" for several days. Because of the desire not to inflame the mob and the imminent holiday this was very much of a "rush" job.
- How likely was it they'd screw it up? Probably not very.
- Could they have screwed it up? It's still possible.
- Did they screw it up? Beats me.

Don't forget, the disciples and other followers already considered Jesus to be divine, so they wouldn't have been surprised (and quite probably expected) miracles.

I don't get the impression from any of the post resurrection accounts that the apostles were hanging out waiting for Jesus to show up based upon their expectation of miracles. Some were fleeing, some were hiding, and some just went back to work as if nothing had ever happened. And when Jesus did reveal Himself to them, he had to prove to them that he wasn't a ghost. So based upon his followers' reactions to seeing the risen Jesus, there really is no support for this statement, because they were suprised to see him and even then, some required more proof.

I agree, I doubt the disciples were "were hanging out waiting for Jesus to show up based upon their expectation of miracles", but they were likely expecting *some* sign and were thus preconditioned to see something miraculous in anything out of the ordinary.

In Christ's time, relatively few people were literate, so the telling of Christ's story was verbal with little chance of fact checking, so the opportunity for embellishment was present.

You are absolutely right(except for the fact checking thing)! Which is why Paul, all the apostles really, dedicate a great deal of ink decrying false gospels and incorrect teachings, because people were embellishing and making stuff up.

Or were they decrying gospels which differed from the party line as "false". By "fact checking", I mean some method to determine what really happened.

The bottom line is, most if not all, doubts raised concerning the veracity of the events relating to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus aren't really much more than smokescreens. And all I've really done is regurgitate what alot of other people have said way before me.

The smokescreen is time and potentially unreliable accounts. The smokescreen obscures what really transpired. Christians rely on their beliefs as "proof" that Christ actually died on the cross and truly resurrected. Relying on one's beliefs is fine, we all do it to some degree. I can think of any number of other possible explanations which don't rely on miraculous events - everything from nothing (the whole thing is a myth) to a botched crucifixion, among others. I have no idea what really happened, but I find it far more likely that no divine intervention was involved. I don't discount the divine, but I do find it improbable.

[B. W.]

...The smokescreen is time and potentially unreliable accounts. The smokescreen obscures what really transpired. Christians rely on their beliefs as "proof" that Christ actually died on the cross and truly resurrected. Relying on one's beliefs is fine, we all do it to some degree. I can think of any number of other possible explanations which don't rely on miraculous events - everything from nothing (the whole thing is a myth) to a botched crucifixion, among others. I have no idea what really happened, but I find it far more likely that no divine intervention was involved. I don't discount the divine, but I do find it improbable.

How does a jury come to its conclusions? Through testimony and evidence. What you appear to be seeking is evidence of Christ work on the cross outside the bible and what the records state in the bible about the many eye-witnesses accouts and the recorded evidence.

Here is a challenge — go to your local Court files and look up a trial that occurred 200 to 300 years ago in the USA. The evidence is all gone — and all you have is a written transcript recording the event and outcome. So did the trial and court case ever really happen?

It appears your belief system is set to one purpose — don't use the bible, don't believe because anything is possible. Since anything is possible there is nothing anyone can believe in. Sadly, you appear not to know what belief is. Sounds like to me that you interpret belief as merely believing in Santa Clause, or the tooth fairy.

That is not Christian Belief. Why don't you try becoming a Christian and see what Believing really is like? Come on, afraid you may have to change your life? Right on, you will — with the Lord's help! Can't take that kind belief then the belief you accuse us of having is not the same as you define.

Come on! Become a Christian — find out what true belief is all about! What are you afraid of? Here is the Lord holding open the windows of heaven (so to speak) to you and what will you do? Choose, to malign faith, criticizing, selfish ambition, pride over what Christ offers — a changed life and true liberty?

You want to argue what belief is — then become a Christian and find out yourself because for you — seeing is believing — therefore come to Christ and find out.

What will happen when you die? Don't know — don't care? Think you're so good you got to get into heaven — if that is the case your attempts to malign faith, criticizing, selfish ambition, and pride recorded here testifies against your ever entering. Or -- Don't believe you'll exist anymore after your die? Hold up there Tex — you believe in something! How do you know what you believe in is true for certain?

Why take the chance? Come to Christ and find out what true believing is all about. How can you criticize Christian's when you know nothing about what we believe, how we believe? Oh sure, you know a few hypocrites but do not judge all of us from their account. If you do, your belief is merely opinion.

How can you be an honest scientist, that purveyor of logic you claim to be and not take the plunge becoming truly born again and experience what the kind of belief Jesus told us to have in him is all about and what it really does?

Come on! Become a Christian!
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Wayne,

First off, I don't think you appreciate just what actually crucifixion was. May I suggest you read Medical Aspects of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ by David Teraska, MD? There is simply no way Jesus (or anyone) would have survived.

BUT, even if He did, you still didn't answer my other two objections:

• Second, a person who somehow could have survived the crucifixion would have been in no shape to claim to be any kind of Savior. Third, if Jesus merely survived the crucifixion, the disciples would have no reason to say He had been resurrected (remember the distinction made before--resurrection is an important theological concept in Jewish theology, which is the background we are working with here).

The first Christians didn't just claim Jesus was alive after He was crucified. They claimed He was RESURRECTED, which is NOT the same as being resuscitated. Lazarus was resuscitated. Jesus, they believed, was resurrected. That, by itself, disqualifies the notion that Jesus could have survived.

Now, let's look at a scenario you posited:

Also, who cared for the body after it was placed in the tomb? What do you think would have been their reaction should there have been some signs of revival while caring for the body? I can't see Mary and Magdalen rushing out yelling "He's alive", can you?

Let's play your scene out. Jesus is half dead, but amazingly, still alive. Jesus recovers and the women go running to tell the disciples. Peter sees Jesus, and then goes around telling people that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, that He is the Savior of the World! He, and the other disciples, then proceed to preach that Jesus had a glorified, resurrection body. He and the others then proceed to endorse Paul's teaching of the same doctrine.

That's just absurd. There's a big difference in "He's alive!" and "He's been resurrected!" Put yourself in their situation. Would you have confused revival with resurrection (a distinctly theological term)? Of course not. Do you think that whenever a patient spontaneously revives in a hospital that the doctor's run around telling people that they've been resurrected from the dead? What about their less educated family members?

In short, in order to maintain this scenario, you have to completely ignore the definition of 'resurrection,' assume the historical absurdity that Jesus survived the cross, and assume the historical absurdity that Jesus' friends were so stupid that they equated a barely alive Jesus (can you imagine what kind of shape He would have been in?) whom they had to nurse back to health with a divinely resurrected Son of God.

And besides, if all that happened, where did Jesus go a few days later? The disciples taught that He ascended to heaven! They called Him God. If they knew He didn't ascend, but instead, maybe they were hiding Him until He got better, then they knew He was not who they were saying He was. They were lying, and they knew it, and they were, thus, according to their own belief systems, condemning themselves to Hell.

Sorry, man, that's way too many historical absurdities for me to accept. Better to argue Jesus was a space alien that was teleported off the cross just before he died and was replaced with a hologram!

Couldn't that have been a reason to have embellished what actually happened, in much the same way that certain groups see miraculous images in stains on buildings, grilled cheese sandwiches, etc - even today? Don't forget, the disciples and other followers already considered Jesus to be divine, so they wouldn't have been surprised (and quite probably expected) miracles. There also wasn't much upside for the disciples to have done rigorous fact-checking - they were presumably already convinced of Christ's divinity and were very unlikely to have questioned their belief. It's human nature that in situations such as this, the group unintentionally refines what each other remembers seeing until they "all saw essentially the same thing".

Where do you get the idea that they were convinced of Christ's deity. They weren't convinced of that fact until AFTER the resurrection took place. And even if they had thought so (which is absurd in a Jewish context), such a belief would have been shattered by the crucifixion. I keep going back to this because it is essential:

The disciples believed Jesus had been resurrected, not resuscitated. The idea of resurrection has theological importance that goes back to Daniel 12:2 (and before). The idea that a battered, bloody Jesus who would not have been capable of walking could be seen as the Resurrection Itself is absurd on its face. These people were solidly monotheistic Jews.

Secondly, this line of argument makes them out to be liars, not embellishers. They argued that Jesus appeared to them in His resurrected state, not that they nursed Him back to health over a period of time. Further, remember that Christianity spent its first few years in Jerusalem. What convinced all those Jews to believe that Jesus was God? They had just seen the man killed. What changed their mind? What kind of shape would Jesus have been in one month after the crucifixion? He still would not have been able to move much, if at all.

Put it this way: what would convince you that someone you had just seen killed a month ago was now alive and well? Certainly not the rantings of a few people. You'd need more than that. If Jesus were alive, don't you think they would have showed Him off? Or don't you think Jesus would have showed Himself off? He had a massive public ministry. Why not just reveal Himself?

In Christ's time, relatively few people were literate, so the telling of Christ's story was verbal with little chance of fact checking, so the opportunity for embellishment was present.

And the Gospel was first told in the city in which it happened. That limits the chances at embellishment. Second, Paul's creed in 1 Cor 15 dates easily to the early thirties, not nearly enough time for embellishment. Third, even if we accept a late date for the Gospels (which there is no reason to), they still must reflect proper apostolic teaching on Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection for the simple reason that the broader Christian community accepted it as such by the end of the first century. In fact, that would SUPPORT the claim, because that would mean that it was widely known at the END of the first century that the apostles taught and believed that they saw Jesus alive after He had been in a tomb for three days. In short, the fact that the Gospel accounts were accepted as representative of the apostles' teachings tells us a lot about what the apostles actually believed, and since they are indisputably eye-witnesses, what they believed carries a LOT of weight and has to be explained.

As I've said before, I'm NOT trying to impugn your beliefs. Rather I'm trying to explain my doubts.

Doubts are fine. But I expect doubts to be reasonable. In short, your "doubts", as I see them, are as follows. IF:

1. Jesus survived the resurrection, and
2. Jesus' disciples forgot the difference in resurrection and resuscitation, and
3. Jesus' disciples were foolish enough to believe that a broken a bloody Jesus could somehow be said to be the Savior of the World, and
4. Jesus' disciples felt free to lie about Jesus appearing to them after His "death", and
5. Jesus' disciples felt free to lie about the fact that there ever was an empty tomb, and
6. Jesus' disciples somehow managed to convince a multitude of orthodox Jews that this Jesus had been raised from the dead and was actually God in the flesh, and
7. Jesus didn't feel the need to present Himself in public again, and
8. Jesus' enemies didn't feel the need to call the disciples out on their "empty tomb" story, but instead went along with it and argued that the disciples stole the body, and
9. Paul and James, both unbelievers, were likewise convinced for some unknown reason that Jesus appeared to both of them, and
10. This Jesus, who we have no idea what happened to Him, managed to convince these men that He was going to come back at the end of time and rescue the world, and then somehow vanished so that the disciples believed He went to heaven (seems out of character for Jesus, doesn't it?) . . .

Yeah, IF all ten of those, and others I don't really want to spend a ton of time typing, were able to happen, then your doubts would be justified. As it is, they simply don't line up with the historical record. And THAT, my friend, is the problem I have with your doubts. You only doubt by denying the record. With all the evidence in, you have no alternative but to ignore pieces of it so that you don't have to come to the necessary conclusion.

My conclusion, then, is just what I said before: the evidence for Jesus' resurrection IS overwhelming. If you don't believe, it is only because you choose not to accept parts of the evidence, but you cannot get away with arguing that there is no really good evidence, or that the evidence doesn't compel belief. When your way out of belief is to deny (part of) the evidence to present your doubts, that tells me that the evidence I've presented does lead to the proper conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.

So . . . I've given you tons of evidence for my scenario. My question to you is simple: what evidence do YOU have for your wildly improbable historical scenario, starting with the ten points I listed above?