If he's a skeptic and a skilled critical thinker, he'll reject any claim that isn't sufficiently evidenced. Jesus died should be changed to, "There was probably a person very closely fitting the description of an itinerant Hebrew rabbi named Jesus, who died." That's something most skeptics can concede.
Also, that if he existed and died, that was buried is fairly likely to be the case as well, although the crucified body might have been disposed of in any way the Romans considered fit, including cremation and just being left somewhere to be eaten by scavengers.
But neither of these can be called fact, just likely or reasonably likely. I think you consider them facts rather than likely to be true. That's where the faith-based thinker and critical thinker part ways.
If Jesus existed, died, and was buried, there is no reason to believe that if the tomb in question was the right tomb, and that it was found empty, that that was because of resurrection. The testimony of those claiming to have seen the risen Jesus is not good evidence for resurrection. There are other possibilities that more consistent with what we know can and does happen. People misunderstand what they see or consider a lie for good reasons acceptable. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this extremely influential church father:
- "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther
Likeliest alternative explanation - a man named Jesus wandered the Levant with an entourage of disciples preaching Jewish fundamentalism, ran into trouble with the local authorities and was executed, the fate of his body was not well documented, that there was no resurrection, and a legend grew about all of this over time that become of interest to Paul, who chose to make a religion out of it, and Constantine, who promoted it at the point of a sword, as have crusaders, conquistadores, and missionaries since, leading to a world religion.
You seem to think that this could not have happened, that it has been ruled out by something that elevates the supernatural explanation from the least likely, where it remains with most skeptics, to all but certain.
In your legend hypothesis : Did Paul knew that the resurrection stuff was just a legend ? What about Peter james John etc. ? Did they knew that the resurrection was just a legend? Or did they trully believed that Jesus resurrected?
You didn't address the central thesis of my post in rebuttal to yours, which is your principal responsibility in a discussion if there is to be any forward progress. You wrote
1 Jesus died
2 He was buried
3 The tomb was found empty
4 Peter and the disciples (and others) had experiences that they interested as having seed the risen Jesus
5 The best explanation for these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead
.
My point is that you will deny (or remain skeptical) about these claims without offering an alternative explanation for what could have happed.
I addressed your points directly, but you didn't return the favor. I told you that I thought 1 and 2 were likely to be historically accurate, and that the report of an empty tomb had little meaning to me. I would need to know that it was Jesus' tomb, and if so, and a body was placed in it, that it wasn't later removed. All of that is much more likely than that a supernatural event occurred, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is nothing better than hearsay in support of that claim. I have no idea what experiences were being reported as having seen the living Jesus, but the same objection applies. We don't know these people, or what they saw or claimed to see. We don't know if they would lie to promote their faith as Luther suggested was appropriate, or if they are easily suggestible and actually saw nothing.
I contradicted your point 5 and addressed the next line by offering not just an alternative explanation, but reasons why it was also the most likely, as I have done again.
And what did you give me back? More questions about one word in the entire answer, legend. How about an actual discussion where we each acknowledge what the other has written, broken down into its major point and the various minor points provided to support it, and everywhere you disagree, please say so explicitly and also say why. If you won't do that, the discussion has already stalled and can make no further forward progress. The subject was one you wanted to discuss. It was one you solicited input on. I gave you that, and you went off an irrelevant tangent asking more questions about one word I used, the answers to which would be useless to this discussion.
I called the story of Jesus a legend because as I've noted, I consider it partly factual and partly fictional. It really doesn't matter which of those figures believed what they reported and which knew that they were "Luther-ing" it on the supernatural claims. What's the harm in lying if it's for the greater good, right? It could be either, I couldn't guess, and as I said, what they actually believed wouldn't matter either way.
*I* don't believe that they witnessed a resurrection, because I don't believe a resurrection occurred. Maybe, but the best evidence for that miraculous event actually occurring is hearsay, and there are much better and likelier explanations, which was a contradiction of your central point, was it not? Didn't you want to address that? You didn't.
So, If you wish to engage in a cooperative discussion, please show as much attention to my words as I do to yours, and address them as I have outlined - as I have addressed yours here. You now have two theses to rebut if you care to: the first about why a naturalistic explanation for the supernatural claims of resurrection is possible, and in my opinion, also likely, but possible is enough, as you seem to have ruled that out based on your belief in scripture. You may have ruled it out, but I have not, and I would appreciate a comment from you why you disagreed with my analysis if you did. This is what I mean by acknowledging that there are two of us participating, but only one of us acknowledging the other.
Let me summarize what somebody else has called the pyramid of disagreement. The highest form of disagreement is to address the central issue in the way I've described. Next is doing so with a part of the reply, while ignoring the rest of it including the central point. Next is simply disagreeing with no reason given, sometimes followed by words that don't rebut the rebuttal, sometimes simply, "That's not what I believe." The lowest forms don't even explicitly disagree, as was the case with your answer.
I offer these words constructively. I think if you take them to heart, you'll come out ahead for it, as will others you converse with. Ask yourself what's in it for the other guy?
You now have a second central thesis to respond to if you care to do so - the idea that a response to a post ought to be as I have suggested, that you haven't done that, and that it would be to our mutual benefit if you did. You can either address those points and explain which you agree with, which you don't, and why you disagree if you do.
