Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[brokensymmetry]

Examining the different views of time is irrelevant, because on neither view of time will you be able to adaquately answer my question. If infinity could be traversed, then it should be easy to give an answer. I will patiently wait for an answer.



I would have thought that the rigorous philosophical and theological background checks would prove to be pivotal.



The disciples claimed they saw the Resurrected physical body, though? Why not just focus on what they claimed instead of adding our own little twists?



The empty tomb is still unexplained.



Exactly, they are led to the water but they refuse to drink. First, I'd like to find out why they are unconvinced, and then focus on why they are unconvinced and offer suggestions. If that doesn't work, hey, you can't please everyone.



What is the single most biggest concern regarding the Resurrection which is keeping you a skeptic?

There isn't a problem on B theory of time. Do you think there is a conceptual issue with an infinite number of things existing at once?

Rigorous philosophical and theological requirements are a big issue insofar as now it seems t hat you have to build up a background knowledge *first* which is rather rich in content before accepting or rejecting eyewitness accounts as meaningful evidence. So I am left again wondering, why should an atheist care about the historical case for the resurrection?

I'm not convinced there was an 'empty tomb'. I don't find the case for that particular assertion compelling.

The single biggest issue is that I think there are other explanations for the body of facts that doesn't include a resurrection. If that is the case, and the resurrection is such an enormous claim that entails so much about the fundamental nature of reality, the entire system is in grave jeopardy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There isn't a problem on B theory of time. Do you think there is a conceptual issue with an infinite number of things existing at once?

Oh absolutely. The argument is against forming an actual infinite set of anything. Someone cannot have an infinite number of marbles or baseball cards. It isn't something that can be possessed or gained. The argument is also against traversing infinity, as one cannot traverse infinity by successive addition, which is basically what you are claiming if the argument is that the Mormon god acheived his "god" status after being exalted by a previous god, who was also exalted by a previous god, etc. It just can't happen.

Rigorous philosophical and theological requirements are a big issue insofar as now it seems t hat you have to build up a background knowledge *first* which is rather rich in content before accepting or rejecting eyewitness accounts as meaningful evidence. So I am left again wondering, why should an atheist care about the historical case for the resurrection?

Well, as long as that question is asked regarding ANY historical claim in history, not just the Resurrection. I will simply ask the atheist...if it was found out with 100% centainty that Jesus rose from the dead, would it matter? Is this important? If the answer is yes, then the question of why should an atheist care is something that the atheist would have to ask himself/herself. If the answer is no, then there is nothing else to discuss.

I'm not convinced there was an 'empty tomb'. I don't find the case for that particular assertion compelling.

So you don't think it would have been rather foolish for the disciples to go around claiming that Jesus physically appeared to them after his death if his body still lay in the tomb?

The single biggest issue is that I think there are other explanations for the body of facts that doesn't include a resurrection. If that is the case, and the resurrection is such an enormous claim that entails so much about the fundamental nature of reality, the entire system is in grave jeopardy.

Other explanations like what?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Oh absolutely. The argument is against forming an actual infinite set of anything. Someone cannot have an infinite number of marbles or baseball cards. It isn't something that can be possessed or gained. The argument is also against traversing infinity, as one cannot traverse infinity by successive addition, which is basically what you are claiming if the argument is that the Mormon god acheived his "god" status after being exalted by a previous god, who was also exalted by a previous god, etc. It just can't happen.



Well, as long as that question is asked regarding ANY historical claim in history, not just the Resurrection. I will simply ask the atheist...if it was found out with 100% centainty that Jesus rose from the dead, would it matter? Is this important? If the answer is yes, then the question of why should an atheist care is something that the atheist would have to ask himself/herself. If the answer is no, then there is nothing else to discuss.



So you don't think it would have been rather foolish for the disciples to go around claiming that Jesus physically appeared to them after his death if his body still lay in the tomb?



Other explanations like what?

Alright man. I appreciate you having gone through this but as I am seeing this going in circles that won't satisfy my concerns (which is frankly why I continued on with this exchange in the first place) I will bow out at this juncture.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have no clue what you are talking about here.

Not a surprise. To put it simply "You can't believe till you are willingly brainwashed. And then you will believe, not because you were brainwashed, but because god can only talk to you after you have been brainwashed."

Historical evidence that the disciples claimed they saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ, which they sincerly believed, and this belief is best explained by the the truth value of the claims.

Citation needed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not a surprise. To put it simply "You can't believe till you are willingly brainwashed. And then you will believe, not because you were brainwashed, but because god can only talk to you after you have been brainwashed."

Oh please. The bible already states that the message of the Resurrection seems foolish to those that are lost.

Citation needed.

Tacitus wrote in his annals regarding a Christian movement that was taking place during the reign of Nero. He said that the Christians and the "superstition" that they brought with them, was to a point where it was out of control throughout the Roman Empire. This superstition was undoubtedly the good news of the Resurrection, and this event took place around 64AD, which is around 30 years after the cross....and Paul mentions the disciples belief based on the creed that he said was PASSED DOWN TO HIM from the disciples in 1 Corin 15:3-7, which was within 5 years of the cross.

 

[Katzpur]

The argument is also against traversing infinity, as one cannot traverse infinity by successive addition, which is basically what you are claiming if the argument is that the Mormon god acheived his "god" status after being exalted by a previous god, who was also exalted by a previous god, etc. It just can't happen.

You really need to either get your facts straight or stop pretending you know what you're talking about. Just like every other Christian denomination, Mormonism teaches that God was God "in the beginning." We teach that Jesus Christ was God "in the beginning." We do not teach that either the Father or the Son "achieved" his "god status" at some point. You have clearly misunderstood our doctrine. It is clear to me that you have taken a statement made at some time by some LDS leader out of context and decided for yourself that because some Mormon said it, it's Mormon doctrine. It's time for you to admit that you basically don't have a clue about what Mormon doctrine is, aside from the half-truths you have read about it on various anti-Mormon websites. Try just defending your own position for a change, without constantly trying to denegrade someone else's.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Oh please. The bible already states that the message of the Resurrection seems foolish to those that are lost.

Yup. Its also a tactical way to get people to doubt the truth when they see it. If someone finds your beliefs to be ******** then that is just more evidence that we're right.

Tacitus wrote in his annals regarding a Christian movement that was taking place during the reign of Nero. He said that the Christians and the "superstition" that they brought with them, was to a point where it was out of control throughout the Roman Empire. This superstition was undoubtedly the good news of the Resurrection, and this event took place around 64AD, which is around 30 years after the cross....and Paul mentions the disciples belief based on the creed that he said was PASSED DOWN TO HIM from the disciples in 1 Corin 15:3-7, which was within 5 years of the cross.

Zero. That is the number of third party historians that mention miracles that supposedly happened with Jesus. Zero is also the number of people to mention how the sky went dark after Jesus was killed.

There is no rock solid evidence (or even strong evidence really) that Jesus even existed. The biggest piece of evidence we have is the existence of the christian movement and the deduction that it may have had a leader. However this gives Christianity no more credibility than any other religion.

Also notable to mention that Paul doesn't mention Jesus being resurrected from the dead or any of his miracles. Even if the new Testament was considered historical and factual this seems a bit contradictory.

 

[idav]

Oh please. The bible already states that the message of the Resurrection seems foolish to those that are lost.

This is problematic for the Christian. It doesn't work to just say, "if they don't agree they are idiots", especially when the scriptures state very specifically that it is based on faith. Yeah wonder why people think it's foolish, cause they can't see it or experience it or know it is anything other than wishful thinking. The scripture Monk pointed out is very telling, it says you have put faith before you can believe in god. That means the bible says there will not be evidence, belief in god is based on faith. Romans says, in not so many words, that it should be obvious just by looking at the world but that is largely subjective. Frankly it isn't obvious and takes faith.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You really need to either get your facts straight or stop pretending you know what you're talking about. Just like every other Christian denomination, Mormonism teaches that God was God "in the beginning." We teach that Jesus Christ was God "in the beginning." We do not teach that either the Father or the Son "achieved" his "god status" at some point. You have clearly misunderstood our doctrine.

No I haven't misunderstood your doctrine. Do you think I am just making stuff up off of the top of my head? No, I am going by my research...

God the Father According to Mormonism | Mormonism Research Ministry

And just because I want to really drive home the point, I will paste the first paragraph of the above link...which states:

The Mormon doctrine of God is not the same as the historic Christian view. It holds that God and man are essentially of the same species, and that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. He is not uniquely self-existent, transcendent, or eternal. Neither is he truly the creator of all things, for he is one among potentially billions of Gods, and does not even have the ability to create matter.

So I haven't misunderstood anything. So if you are going to be upset at anyone, you need to be upset at the person or person's who created the website that I linked to you, and also be upset at the countless other websites that say the same thing that this one say.

It is clear to me that you have taken a statement made at some time by some LDS leader out of context and decided for yourself that because some Mormon said it, it's Mormon doctrine. It's time for you to admit that you basically don't have a clue about what Mormon doctrine is, aside from the half-truths you have read about it on various anti-Mormon websites. Try just defending your own position for a change, without constantly trying to denegrade someone else's.

Also, mentioned in the link is a statement by Joseph Smith himself, at which he stated:

"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings, pg. 345).

So according to the founder of the entire religion, God isn't even eternal. So once again, don't kill the messenger, kill the message.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yup. Its also a tactical way to get people to doubt the truth when they see it. If someone finds your beliefs to be ******** then that is just more evidence that we're right.

Say whatever you need to say to make yourself sleep good at night.

Zero. That is the number of third party historians that mention miracles that supposedly happened with Jesus. Zero is also the number of people to mention how the sky went dark after Jesus was killed.

The ancient historian Thallus did mention the darkness in his works, and this was referenced by Julius Africanus...he said that Thallus mentioned a darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus.

Now before you go looking everything up and then telling me how wrong he was...that isn't the point..the point is Thallus said that there was darkness, and he looked for a naturalistic explanation to explain this darkness, namely, an eclipse.

There is no rock solid evidence (or even strong evidence really) that Jesus even existed.

That is bull crap. Virtually all historians agree that Jesus existed, so to claim that Jesus didn't exist, or claim that there is no "rock solid evidence" that Jesus existed is to be placed in a very small minority group. Even the most radical skeptics acknolwedge the fact that the historical evidence supports the existence of Jesus.

The biggest piece of evidence we have is the existence of the christian movement and the deduction that it may have had a leader. However this gives Christianity no more credibility than any other religion.

We have evidence from both Christian and non-Christian sources that Jesus existenced. That conclusion is inescapable, no matter how much you want to deny it.

Also notable to mention that Paul doesn't mention Jesus being resurrected from the dead or any of his miracles. Even if the new Testament was considered historical and factual this seems a bit contradictory.

Then you are apparently ignorant of the letters of Paul, particularly 1 Corin 15:12-14, which states:

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of th dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Verse 20..

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep"

I would hope we can keep the ignorance to a minimum. Read before you post.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is problematic for the Christian. It doesn't work to just say, "if they don't agree they are idiots", especially when the scriptures state very specifically that it is based on faith. Yeah wonder why people think it's foolish, cause they can't see it or experience it or know it is anything other than wishful thinking. The scripture Monk pointed out is very telling, it says you have put faith before you can believe in god.

This is a good ole classic example of taking scriptures out of context...in John 20:25, Thomas didn't have faith...he said he would not believe "unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hands into his side, I will not believe it".

In other words, Thomas didn't have faith. Jesus appeared to them again, this time Thomas was there, and he had Thomas put his fingers where the nails were, and then Thomas believed...and Jesus said "You have seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those that have not seen, and STILL believe".

Christians living today have not seen, and we are blessed because Jesus said that because we believe without having nowhere near the amount of observational evidence that the disciples have...and yet we still believe, and that is part of how we demonstrate our love for Christ.

So there is a method to the madness.

That means the bible says there will not be evidence, belief in god is based on faith. Romans says, in not so many words, that it should be obvious just by looking at the world but that is largely subjective. Frankly it isn't obvious and takes faith.

I don't think it is at all subjective. Once it was found out that the universe had a beginning, cosmologists throughout the 20 century were SWEATING in efforts to create some kind of pre-big bang model to explain how the universe began to exist...where do you think the steady state and oscillating model came from?? They know the implications, and they try to negate a cosmic beginning at all costs.

But again, on the part of faith, I think that is mainly for the question of which religion is true, that is why faith is so important in Christianity. You don't need to believe in Jesus to be a theist, but you do need to believe in Jesus to be a Christian, and if you accept Christianity, you are accepting it by faith because as Jesus said above, not everyone will have the opportunity that the disciples had, so we must accept by faith...not that we don't have good reasons to believe, but obviously these reasons aren't mathematical proofs or anything.

 

[idav]

This is a good ole classic example of taking scriptures out of context...in John 20:25, Thomas didn't have faith...he said he would not believe "unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hands into his side, I will not believe it".

In other words, Thomas didn't have faith. Jesus appeared to them again, this time Thomas was there, and he had Thomas put his fingers where the nails were, and then Thomas believed...and Jesus said "You have seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those that have not seen, and STILL believe".

Christians living today have not seen, and we are blessed because Jesus said that because we believe without having nowhere near the amount of observational evidence that the disciples have...and yet we still believe, and that is part of how we demonstrate our love for Christ.

So there is a method to the madness.

I am familiar with the method, and still is based on faith. Sure blessed are those who have not seen yet believe. In other words its like saying, your special if you believe this stuff even though you don't have evidence. That is great and all but it is just faith and speculation.

I don't think it is at all subjective. Once it was found out that the universe had a beginning, cosmologists throughout the 20 century were SWEATING in efforts to create some kind of pre-big bang model to explain how the universe began to exist...where do you think the steady state and oscillating model came from?? They know the implications, and they try to negate a cosmic beginning at all costs.

But again, on the part of faith, I think that is mainly for the question of which religion is true, that is why faith is so important in Christianity. You don't need to believe in Jesus to be a theist, but you do need to believe in Jesus to be a Christian, and if you accept Christianity, you are accepting it by faith because as Jesus said above, not everyone will have the opportunity that the disciples had, so we must accept by faith...not that we don't have good reasons to believe, but obviously these reasons aren't mathematical proofs or anything.

It doesn't matter if the universe began or not. I don't sweat it. God has the same problem. Would you have a problem if someone says God began to exist? Does god have to be eternal to make sense? That "beginning" is completely subjective. Something either began or is eternal, and that thing is god, and as a monist, neither answer is an issue to me.

You got it. We can say god exists, but attributes goes to speculation or even specific interpretation of scriptures. We can always have good reason, speculation and imagination can be completely logical without being real.

 

[viole]

Oh absolutely. The argument is against forming an actual infinite set of anything. Someone cannot have an infinite number of marbles or baseball cards. It isn't something that can be possessed or gained. The argument is also against traversing infinity, as one cannot traverse infinity by successive addition, which is basically what you are claiming if the argument is that the Mormon god acheived his "god" status after being exalted by a previous god, who was also exalted by a previous god, etc. It just can't happen.

I wonder what the problem with actual infinities is. Mathematics deals with them regularly. Maybe you can lay down the logical problem with actual infinities, because I do not see it.

Incidentally, if God is omniscient then all events should be known by Him a-temporally. Is God omniscience only potentially infinite? Is Himself only potentially infinite?

Well, as long as that question is asked regarding ANY historical claim in history, not just the Resurrection. I will simply ask the atheist...if it was found out with 100% centainty that Jesus rose from the dead, would it matter? Is this important? If the answer is yes, then the question of why should an atheist care is something that the atheist would have to ask himself/herself. If the answer is no, then there is nothing else to discuss.

If you could provide real evidence that Jesus was dead and rose from death then that would be important. To be honest, I would be more impressed if Jesus lost one arm for our sins and grew a new one . Death could be so ambiguous sometimes (we have reports even today of people presumed dead) whereas a chopped off arm is not only presumed, usually.

So you don't think it would have been rather foolish for the disciples to go around claiming that Jesus physically appeared to them after his death if his body still lay in the tomb?

No less foolish than all appearances of Elvis after his death. People tend to have visions of people they loved, post mortem. These things happen all the time, really.

At least appearances of Elvis have witnesses that can be interviewed today. Appearances of Jesus are only to be found on a book that might not be more plausible than the stories of King Arthur and mighty Excalibur.

Other explanations like what?

Fiction? Superstition? Mythology? Delusion?

There Is probably a plethora of possible explanations far more plausible than god's sons walking on water, taking a three days break for our sins and getting airborne to disappear into Heaven to never come back.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

In other words, Thomas didn't have faith. Jesus appeared to them again, this time Thomas was there, and he had Thomas put his fingers where the nails were, and then Thomas believed...and Jesus said "You have seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those that have not seen, and STILL believe".

Christians living today have not seen, and we are blessed because Jesus said that because we believe without having nowhere near the amount of observational evidence that the disciples have...and yet we still believe, and that is part of how we demonstrate our love for Christ.

So there is a method to the madness.

I don't know that Jesus is saying this is a particularly admirable quality. So you believe based on ignorance, not knowledge. Your "blessed" (lucky) to happen to believe in Jesus. Because of ignorance one could accept whatever teachings came their way. They would not know any better. These people got lucky and happened to have the correct teaching provided and they happen to, without good reason accept that teaching.

Don't think that means being lucky is a better personal quality than being rational.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I wonder what the problem with actual infinities is. Mathematics deals with them regularly. Maybe you can lay down the logical problem with actual infinities, because I do not see it.

Incidentally, if God is omniscient then all events should be known by Him a-temporally. Is God omniscience only potentially infinite? Is Himself only potentially infinite?



If you could provide real evidence that Jesus was dead and rose from death then that would be important. To be honest, I would be more impressed if Jesus lost one arm for our sins and grew a new one . Death could be so ambiguous sometimes (we have reports even today of people presumed dead) whereas a chopped off arm is not only presumed, usually.



No less foolish than all appearances of Elvis after his death. People tend to have visions of people they loved, post mortem. These things happen all the time, really.

At least appearances of Elvis have witnesses that can be interviewed today. Appearances of Jesus are only to be found on a book that might not be more plausible than the stories of King Arthur and mighty Excalibur.



Fiction? Superstition? Mythology? Delusion?

There Is probably a plethora of possible explanations far more plausible than god's sons walking on water, taking a three days break for our sins and getting airborne to disappear into Heaven to never come back.

Ciao

- viole

Yes I think the essential part of this for me is, when you have a claim like this which is supposed to show that a very specific God exists, that there is one way to eternal salvation or damnation etc it really ought to be something that has a very thorough grounding to carry all that weight.

If God doesn't exist, or there is no reason to think that God exists more specifically, it makes it much much less likely that Jesus was resurrected from the dead also. This is what I've been trying to point out to call via the importance of background knowledge in terms of assigning relative plausibility to claims.

As far as the infinities go, what i want to know is if God has existed forever....for an infinite past amount of time because according to call's own reasoning God can now not exist.

 

[idav]

As far as the infinities go, what i want to know is if God has existed forever....for an infinite past amount of time because according to call's own reasoning God can now not exist.

A little off topic but I am plenty curious about this too. Call argues that there cannot be infinite past cause you will never arrive at the present. That much I agree with but then he states that it is a problem that the universe has a beginning. According to what he states God has a beginning so how is this not a problem for him but is for science because the universe supposedly has a beginning. I have my own answer for that, pantheism, but I have yet to hear how other types of theologies can solve that other than chalking it up to supernatural magic beyond our understanding yada yada.

 

[brokensymmetry]

A little off topic but I am plenty curious about this too. Call argues that there cannot be infinite past cause you will never arrive at the present. That much I agree with but then he states that it is a problem that the universe has a beginning. According to what he states God has a beginning so how is this not a problem for him but is for science because the universe supposedly has a beginning. I have my own answer for that, pantheism, but I have yet to hear how other types of theologies can solve that other than chalking it up to supernatural magic beyond our understanding yada yada.

I suspect that stuff has always existed, and will always exist. Some sort of stuff. The observable universe as a finite beginning, I don't' think that implies there is a discrete beginning to all things. An important complication to this is that I also think that all moments exist simultaneously and are equally 'real'. In that sense there is no 'beginning' as a start either. So in this case, I mean that besides the spacetime manifold of our observable universe there is more.

As far as God goes, if God exists then I suppose that God is also 'beyond' all physical things and certainly 'outside of' spacetime.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am familiar with the method, and still is based on faith. Sure blessed are those who have not seen yet believe. In other words its like saying, your special if you believe this stuff even though you don't have evidence. That is great and all but it is just faith and speculation.

Well, I mean..that is the reason lol. You guys were the one making a big fuss about faith this and faith that...as far as speculation is concerned, that is all history is..one big game of speculation, for the most part.

It doesn't matter if the universe began or not. I don't sweat it. God has the same problem. Would you have a problem if someone says God began to exist?

Yes, because if God began to exist, then God's existence would have to be explained by an external cause...and this strikes me as rather, absurd.

Does god have to be eternal to make sense?

Depends on what you mean by "eternal". In the sense that he was timeless before creation, then yes. In the sense of enduring throughout all time...then no.

That "beginning" is completely subjective. Something either began or is eternal, and that thing is god, and as a monist, neither answer is an issue to me.

I absolutely agree, and that is the point that I made elsewhere...whether you are a believer or unbeliever, you have to believen in eternity. You either have to believe there exist God or "gods" that existed eternally...or you have to believe that the universe is eternal.

You got it. We can say god exists, but attributes goes to speculation or even specific interpretation of scriptures. We can always have good reason, speculation and imagination can be completely logical without being real.

Well, in my humble opinion...the existence of God seems rather intuitive. I just can't believe that inanimate material got to a point where "came alive". Just don't buy it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't know that Jesus is saying this is a particularly admirable quality. So you believe based on ignorance, not knowledge. Your "blessed" (lucky) to happen to believe in Jesus. Because of ignorance one could accept whatever teachings came their way. They would not know any better. These people got lucky and happened to have the correct teaching provided and they happen to, without good reason accept that teaching.

Don't think that means being lucky is a better personal quality than being rational.

I believe based on the historical evidence which I find more plausibly true than not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I wonder what the problem with actual infinities is. Mathematics deals with them regularly. Maybe you can lay down the logical problem with actual infinities, because I do not see it.

Mathematics deal with infinities, but this all conceptual. It doesn't reflect reality. Ok so lets say you have an infinite amount of marbles, right? Now lets say you give me 3 of your marbles. How many do you have? Infinity. Lets say you have an infinite amount of marbles, and I give you 3 marbles, how many do you have? Infinity. Now lets say you have an infinite number of marbles, and you gave me all of the odd numbered marbles, how many do you have? Infinity. So what do we have here?

Infinity + 3 = infinity
Infinity - 3 = infinity
Infinity - Infinity = infinity

These are absurd results, because when you subtract, you are supposed to have less than what you had previously, and when you add, you are supposed to have more than you had previously, but this is not the case when dealing with infinity.

And the infinity - infinity seems even more absurd. If you have an infinite number of marbles, and you gave me all of the odd numbered marbles (an infinite amount), then you are left with an even numbered of marbles....So in actuality, I didn't really lose any marbles, DESPITE giving you an infinite number of marbles from my collection.

Oh, the absurdities!!!!

Incidentally, if God is omniscient then all events should be known by Him a-temporally. Is God omniscience only potentially infinite? Is Himself only potentially infinite?

I don't think all events are known to him a-temporally, since God is not longer atemporal. He was atemporal "before" the creation of the universe, but since then he has and will be forever in the realm of time, and thus his thoughts are in time. Now before the universe, I guess it would make sense to say his thoughts were "fixed" in the sense that his thoughts weren't temporally becoming, like our thoughts are.

If you could provide real evidence that Jesus was dead and rose from death then that would be important.

The evidence is based on background events. We are basing it on inference.

To be honest, I would be more impressed if Jesus lost one arm for our sins and grew a new one . Death could be so ambiguous sometimes (we have reports even today of people presumed dead) whereas a chopped off arm is not only presumed, usually.

Jesus' was flogged, beaten and battered, and he appeared to his disciples as if nothing ever happened. I like that better than growing a new arm, personally.

No less foolish than all appearances of Elvis after his death.

LOL but no one is saying that Elvis resurrected from the dead. They may claim that he wasn't really dead, but no one is saying that he was dead, and rose from the dead. Big difference.

People tend to have visions of people they loved, post mortem. These things happen all the time, really.

To bad the disciples claimed they saw the physical Jesus...

At least appearances of Elvis have witnesses that can be interviewed today.

The same thing won't be said 2,000 years from now. And its funny you mention this, because in 1 Corin 15:6, Paul states:

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

At the time Paul wrote this, most of the brothers and sisters that saw Jesus was still alive, just like you said the witnesses that claimed to have saw Elvis are still alive and can be interviewed...well, so could those that saw the appearances of Jesus.

Fiction? Superstition? Mythology? Delusion?

As you read the Gospels & Paul's letters, how do you think the authors intended their message to be taken as?

There Is probably a plethora of possible explanations far more plausible than god's sons walking on water, taking a three days break for our sins and getting airborne to disappear into Heaven to never come back.

Not everyone is willing to accept eternal life.