These assertions are poorly evidenced. 1 and 2 are hearsay. 3 is reported differently in different gospels. 4: People interpret things as supernatural events all the time. In this case we have an interpretation of hearsay, passed around as gossip for who knows how long, embellished, edited, and eventually written down. Do you seriously find "a high degree of certainty" in such evidence? 5: Who were Paul and James, and what do we really know about them?
Well most scholars accept these facts ,so in your opinion what are they missing? What information do you have that you think scholars are missing?
Which of these facts do you fibd less likely to be true (so that I can support it)?
Who were Paul and James, and what do we really know about them?
We know tons of stuff about them.....but the relevant things are
1 they where non Christians (on their view jesus was a blasfemist )
2 they had an experience / they saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus
3 the became followers of christ to the point that they where persecute6and willing to die for jesus.
What does this proves?
Imagine that someone like Richard Dawkins witnesses something that he interpreted as a miracle and becomes a Christian/ as a consequence he losses his job, his followers, people stop buying his books, etc.
Wouldn't that strongly suggest that he witnesses a real miracle? A vague experience or something that could have been explained by hallucinations, or other natural phenomena would have not convince someone lik Dawkins. .....At the very least this will prove that something really strage and extraordinary happened.
Paul and janes (specifically Paul) where like Dawkins "strong non believers" so the experience that they had was something big and extraordinary.... (it had to be something good enough to change their minds) .... so if it wasn't a true miracles what other alternavive do you suggest?