Resurrection Skepticism is Apparently a Futile Endeavor?

[POI]

Okay, so we reject the resurrection because it would be impossible, and we reject the idea that the resurrection story was made up because that would be impossible. So then, any thinking person would attempt to move on to another scenario which may be possible and think through what all that would have involved. My friend, you do not even have to do the work here, because the scholars have done the work for you, and there is no known scenario which would be possible. The thing is, you have to know this. Because you see, if any of the scholars had come up with this neat and tidy explanation of the facts we can know which would even be possible, we would all be aware of this scenario. It does not exist, and this does not matter to you because you hold out hope, against all hope that there must and has to be a scenario out there that may be possible. This is exactly what you are doing because you have not come up with any scenario which would be a possibility, and yet you have somehow convinced yourself that there must and has to be another explanation. There is no known explanation of the facts we can know which would not include the extreme extraordinary, which means you have to exchange one extraordinary tale for another, or you have to hope against all hope there is an unknown explanation out there.

For Debate:

1) Apparently, it is impossible for 'the resurrection' storyline to have been made up?

2) Have all the skeptical positions been thoroughly debunked? And even if so, does this then logically render the claim of "the resurrection" a completely valid one - (maybe by mere process of elimination)?

3) What 'facts' do we really have surrounding this Jesus character, and how exactly do we know this?

4) Are any given naturalistic explanations, proposed by skeptics throughout history, anywhere near as 'extraordinary' of a claim as instead concluding Jesus really rose from his grave?

5) And for "the resurrection" skeptics and doubters, care to share your position(s) which has seemingly been thoroughly debunked by scholarship?

[POI]

The questions in the OP seem either overly broad or contextually specific to your earlier conversation with Realworldjack -- neither of which seem particularly inviting.

I cannot disagree. The topic was specifically tailored for Jack.

The historical method can only tell us what most likely or probably happened in the past.

I guess this statement would place quite a lot of emphasis on both the terms 'most likely' or 'probably'. Meaning, Jack states (paraphrased): "Based upon the facts and evidence we have, it is impossible for the resurrection story to have been made up."

If Jack's basis for 'most likely' and 'probable' are on the same level as the term 'impossible', then we can logically at least also apply the same rubric for these given terms to the following statement: "Based upon the facts and evidence we have, it is impossible for a dead rotting body to ever rise again".

Jack's belief system seems to also rise and fall upon a mission statement from Paul, which is: "If Christ has not been raised, then your faith is in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14.

*****************************

In a nutshell, seems Jack has backed himself into a corner for which applying some sort of fallacious reasoning may be his only viable way out? This remains to be seen, as we are still exchanging.

I think the Resurrection is better described as an expression of faith.

I think it depends on what one means exactly, when one uses the term 'faith'? One could argue we all apply faith in virtually any and all position(s).

[bluegreenearth]

What you got in my earlier reply, instead, was a critique of your exaggerated description of his videos.

Yes, your opinion was already noted. So, are you able to refute Paulogia's argument or not?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #19]

Sorry for the delay, but I am finding it hard, especially during the week to find time to respond. I do have a full-time job, and I usually am the one who has to do the cooking. Also, as I have said, I spend a lot of time keeping up with and attempting to combat Christian nationalism, so as folks such as yourself can continue to voice your views freely. So again, I appreciate the understanding. This is the exact reason why I have left the conversations in the past, because it may be weeks later before I have the time, and by that time, I have let it go and decide to spend what time I have on CN.

At any rate, back to the topic at hand. I have already started on the second question, and it will answer a lot of your objection here. However, to continue here, there are indeed folks who will stop right here at the impossible, and I have no problem if this is where some folks want to stop. The thing is though; there are others who go on to want to know how in the world all the events came to be. When one begins to do this sort of thing, they soon discover it would have been impossible for the story of the resurrection to have been made up. They then go on in an attempt to understand what could have caused the disciples to come to be convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. There are indeed some folks who want the story to be over at this point, and are willing to accept any sort of explanation, no matter how impossible and or extraordinary it may be, as long as it does not include the impossible, and or extraordinary they would rather not believe. However, there are no explanations of the facts we can know which would be possible.

I mean, what in the world do you imagine happened? What caused these folks to be convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion? It is a fact that the easiest thing to believe is that these folks somehow made the story up, until you come to realize this would have been impossible, and the impossible is the impossible. My friend, there is no "absolutely impossible". There are no degrees of impossible. Once you come to understand something is impossible, it is impossible on the same level as any other impossible event.

It is not only folks who want to go on to discover how all these things came to be, but also those who want to honestly understand how in the world extremely intelligent folks have come to believe the resurrection occurred. Of course, there are those who are satisfied with easy answers, and go on to insist that these extremely intelligent folk must, and have to be guilty of cognitive dissonance, as if these folks do not understand what such a thing is.

The bottom line is, you have no answers for how these events occurred, and it really does not matter to you in the least. Rather, you are placing hope, against all hope, there is some sort of answer out there which would not be impossible, and or extraordinary, even though you have no idea whatsoever what that could possibly be. You remember, right? It was easy believism when you were a Christian, and now that the mind has changed, we just go with what is easiest to believe and the facts and evidence do not get in the way. And with all this easy believism being the case, you can actually insist that reason could not have been possibly use to come to a different conclusion than you hold.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #23]

If a) and b) are impossible, then Christianity is false. We can still speculate until the cows come home, as to what really happened. And sure, it can be entertaining to explore why some ancients made these claims. Thus, if you still feel the need to explore questions 2-5, have-at-it. However, since it is impossible, Paul's statement is confirmed. Since it is impossible for a dead rotting body to rise again, Christianity is false and your faith is indeed all in vain.

Thanks

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #24]

I am going to break the second question up into sections beginning with the first sentence.

2) Have all the skeptical positions been thoroughly debunked?

This is more than likely going to be a very long post, because it involves a whole lot. In order to demonstrate this to be the case, I am going to supply you with a link which is fairly long in length. The first thing I will point out about the author is the fact that he is an academic with a vast amount of knowledge. Next, he is a critic of the resurrection, in that he does not believe it occurred in that he says in the article, "I have a hard time believing it happened". As I said the article is fairly long, but I encourage you to read the entire article. At any rate, I want to share something this author says at the beginning of the article,

Anyway, as I say, I have been wanting to write about the topic (the resurrection) for a while, but I have been stopped in my tracks by its complexity.

This statement by an academic certainly should cause one to understand that the issue is not simple in the least, and that there are no easy answers. In other words, it is not as simple as, "a resurrection is impossible" because if it were then this author would not be "stopped in his tracks by its complexity". I have indeed read the whole article and again, I encourage you to do so as well. I am certain that you will agree with a whole lot of what he has to say. Of course, I do not agree with some of what he has to say, and I believe I can demonstrate a number of mistakes he makes. But this is not the point at this time. The point is even critical academics who do not believe the resurrection claims are forced to admit the issue is not simple in the least.

Really, all you have to do is to read the article, and you will notice that he is attempting to come up with logical explanations which may explain the facts and evidence we can know concerning the resurrection claims, and he is taking these issues on one at the time. In other words, he is taking on the fact that the story could not have been made up, and giving some reasons why this may have been the case, and after a long discussion concerning this, he will then move on to say, the empty tomb and go on to explain how this may have been, and in the end when you sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for his first explanation to be the case, you are then forced to move on in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the next explanation to be the case, and so on, and you begin to realize all the hoops one must jump through in order to come up with any sort of scenario which may explain the resurrection away.

Of course, it is not my aim, nor my goal to take on his arguments in this post. Rather, it is what this academic, and other academics must do in an attempt to explain away what they admit is hard for them to believe, demonstrates just how complex the issue is, which goes on to demonstrate that it is not as simple as a resurrection is impossible. The alternative explanations I know of would be, The Swoon Theory, The Theft Theory, The Hallucination Theory, The Wrong Tomb Theory, The Legend Theory, The Spiritual Resurrection Theory. These are all the proposed explanations I know of, and you and I certainly do not have the time, and it would in fact be impossible to go through all of these explanations, but the fact that we indeed have all these alternative explanations certainly demonstrates all these critical scholars understand that they must, and have to come up with some sort of alternative explanations for the facts and evidence (which you say we do not have) we can know.

Allow me to give you another quote from an academic on your team which is Paula Fredriksen who is a historian and professor of religious studies at Boston University. Remember, this is an academic who does not believe the resurrection,

"I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. Thats what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that thats what they saw".

My friend, whether you would like to admit it or not, that is a pretty stout admission coming from a critic of the resurrection. In other words, she is admitting as a historian that the evidence (which you say we do not have) demands us to come to the conclusion that these earliest followers of Jesus were somehow convinced that they saw the resurrected Jesus. That alone in itself is extraordinary.

Because you see, if it was as easy as knowing that a resurrection is impossible, then this is all these critical scholars would have to refer to, but they understand the facts and evidence demands far more than simply knowing a resurrection is impossible. This is one of the reasons it is useless to compare Christianity to the religions of the world such as Islam, and Mormonism, etc. because it is extremely possible that the stories of these religions could very well have been made up, and we have no evidence whatsoever which would determine this to be an impossibility. On the other hand, as far as Christianity is concerned, we know for a fact that it would not be possible that these folks made the story of the resurrection up. We then move on to whatever else may explain how all these folks could have come to be convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and we begin to understand that none of these explanations would be possible. The fact of the matter is, no matter how you slice it, and no matter what it is you choose to believe, you are left with a most extraordinary tale, and you are simply exchanging one extraordinary tale for another extraordinary tale, and attempting to justify what it is you choose to believe by insisting that it would be the least extraordinary. This is exactly why we can have an academic with extreme knowledge who claims to have wanted to write about the resurrection but was "stopped in his tracks because of its complexity", while we have one who freely admits to believing a man rose from the grave for decades of their life with absolutely no good reason at all, who now wants to insist that it is as easy as knowing that a resurrection is impossible. So then, on the one hand we have one who freely admits to believing something for decades of their life with no reason at all to believe such a thing, who now wants to insist it would take a simple mind to believe what they once believed for decades because it is as simple as understanding that what they once believed was impossible, while we have actual academics, historians, and scholars who are insisting upon the complexity of the subject.

I mean, when you were a Christian, did you truly believe a resurrection was possible? Or did you understand a resurrection to be impossible? If a resurrection was possible, then what in the world would all the fuss be concerning the resurrection of Jesus? If a resurrection was possible, then it would have been another ordinary event. NO! As a Christian you were proclaiming the resurrection to be true, because you understood that such an event would be extremely out of the ordinary, to the point that it would be impossible. In other words, you were not proclaiming the resurrection to be an ordinary event but rather understood very well that what you were proclaiming was indeed beyond any possible explanation. So then, are you now under the impression that the early followers of Jesus were under the impression that a resurrection was possible? Or do you understand that they understood beyond any doubt that a resurrection would be impossible, and the evidence demands they were convinced the impossible had occurred, and they were not in any way attempting to proclaim a resurrection was possible but were rather proclaiming the impossible has occurred?

It is an extremely simple argument to make to say a resurrection is impossible as the final argument against the resurrection and this in the face of those who dedicate their lives to the study of such things, and know all that would be involved, and even though these experts "find it hard to believe" a resurrection occurred they understand the complexity of the matter, and go on to understand that the simple argument of the impossibility of a resurrection is far too simple an argument with all the facts and evidence we have concerning the matter. This sort of argument must be coming from one who has no more arguments to make, because I can assure you that this argument is not going to satisfy the critical scholars who have a hard time believing a resurrection but go on to understand that the complexity of the matter and also understand that such a simple explanation is just that, far too simple to satisfy one who is truly thinking. However, this is not the only place this sort of thinking will occur in this OP as we will see as we move on to the rest. At any rate, here is the link to the article. https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blog ... tical.html

Now let's take a look at the second part of this question,

And even if so, does this then logically render the claim of "the resurrection" a completely valid one - (maybe by mere process of elimination)?

No, it is not the above alone which causes the resurrection to be valid. Rather, it is all the facts and evidence we have surrounding the claims along with the impossibility of all the other explanations to the point we come to the conclusion that any way you go you are left with the impossible. As I have already explained to you there is no need in placing the word "absolutely" in front of the word "impossible" because once we have determined a scenario to be impossible, then it is already "absolutely impossible". All one is doing when they add this word to impossible is to hope there is some sort of degrees concerning the impossible, and maybe we should go with the impossible which would be the most possible.

It is sort of like this. We know for a fact that folks make stuff up all the time, therefore, it would be far easier to believe the resurrection stories were made up. Until of course you go on to examine all the facts and evidence we have concerning these claims, and you come to understand that this scenario would be impossible, and it would be impossible on the same level as a resurrection even though we know folks make stuff up all the time. Knowing folks make stuff up causes us to understand that believing the story was made up is easier to believe, until one goes on to examine the actual evidence, and at this point believing the story was made up is no easier to believe than the resurrection.

I mean, what in the world do you believe occurred which gave us all these facts and evidence we have concerning the resurrection? I am convinced this does not concern you very much at all, since all that seems to matter to you is that you would now rather not believe the resurrection to the point you are on record as saying, "there are no facts and evidence to examine". You know, it is kind of like when you were a Christian and all you knew was the fact of how you felt, and how good it felt to be a Christian, and the facts and evidence was not going to get in the way of being "hooked on a feeling, high on believing". Now that the feelings have changed concerning Christianity, this is what has caused the mind to change, because it certainly cannot be the facts and evidence which changed the mind, because if this were the case then one would certainly understand that the argument that a resurrection would be impossible is really no argument at all.

This brings us back to the question as to what in the world do you imagine occurred which has given us all these facts and evidence, we have concerning the resurrection? Again, it would be easy to believe these folks made the story up, and I would imagine this would be the first thing we would think of. However, it does not take a scholar, nor does it take very much time at all, to come to know beyond any reasonable doubt that this could not have possibly happened. So then, we are left with the fact that Jesus lived, had a following, was crucified, dead, and we have those who were claiming that Jesus appeared to them days after the crucifixion and it would have been impossible on the same level as the resurrection for these folks to be making the story up, and you seem to be under the impression that it is a simple as knowing a resurrection is impossible and this is the end of the resurrection in your mind, and it matters not how impossible any other scenario would be, because you are somehow under the impression that any other scenario would be less impossible than another which is demonstrated by the fact that you place the word "absolutely" in front of the word "impossible" thinking that this causes one scenario we know to be impossible, to be more possible than another scenario we know to be impossible.

Getting back to the question at hand, I am not suggesting, and I am certainly not insisting that it would be unreasonable to come to the conclusion that the resurrection did not actually occur. I am insisting that it would be unreasonable for those on either side to insist there can be no reason involved in coming to a different conclusion. My friend, this is where you are at. Not only do you have to defend the position that the resurrection did not occur, but you are also forced to defend the idea that it would be impossible to use reason to come to a different conclusion. Because you see, although you refer to yourself as some sort of agnostic, your insistence that it is impossible to use reason and come to a different conclusion than you hold demonstrates you are not agnostic. Rather, you have convinced yourself that the resurrection did not occur no matter what the evidence may be, and it does not concern you in the least that you have no possible explanation of the facts and evidence we can know concerning the resurrection claims. Rather, you are placing hope, against all hope, that there is some sort of unknown natural explanation of the event we have so much evidence for, because I can assure you there is no known natural explanation which could explain the event. Many have tried, none have succeeded.


Now let us move on to the third question of the OP which I am most eager to get to.

3) What 'facts' do we really have surrounding this Jesus character, and how exactly do we know this?

As I said, this is the one I am most eager to get to, because this is exactly what I predict concerning those who make such arguments as you and that is the fact that the folks who make such arguments will eventually be forced to question as to whether we can really know anything at all. In other words, when the facts and evidence we have begins to mount against the arguments one is making this is when one becomes desperate and begins to question as to whether we can know anything at all. It is what has been called "intellectual suicide" and there have been many who have committed this suicide.

Allow me to tell you just a few things we can know, and it is just these few things we can know which really matters concerning this discussion. We can know beyond any doubt that Jesus lived, Jesus had a close following, Jesus was publicly crucified, and we can know for a fact that there were those just days after the crucifixion who claimed to have witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and we can go on to know that it would be an impossibility, on the same level as a resurrection, that these folks somehow made the story up. I mean, there is a whole lot more we can know concerning Jesus, but these other things really do not matter as far as what we are discussing now, because it is these few facts we can know concerning Jesus which is what causes this matter to be so complex, and it would certainly be to commit intellectual suicide to attempt to question if we can really know the things above.

As I say, this tactic is not shocking at all, in that it is extremely easy to see this coming, because when one travels down the road you are on it is inevitable that this is the sort of move you are going to have to make. Because you see, it is reasonable to be skeptical of the resurrection, and it is reasonable to have a "hard time believing a resurrection occurred". What is unreasonable is to go on to the conclusion that it is impossible to use reason and come to a different conclusion, and when one becomes unreasonable in this way, it is inevitable that they will be forced to be unreasonable in other areas, until it comes to be willing to commit intellectual suicide.

My friend, it does not take a whole lot of thinking to come to know that if a historian who is critical of the resurrection tells you that, "as a historian I know" and this historian goes on to tell you that we can know that the early followers actually saw what they were claiming to have seen, and then goes on to tell us that "all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that thats what they saw". Notice, this historian is not saying "some of the historical evidence" but rather "ALL of the historical evidence". Knowing that we can know these few things concerning Jesus, should absolutely demonstrate there must and has to be a whole lot more we can know concerning Jesus, in order to come to know these few things we can know, and it does not take a scholar in order to know this.

Your problem is not that you do not believe the resurrection, and your problem is not that you attempt to make a case against the resurrection. Your problem comes in when you go on to insist that it would be unreasonable to hold to a different position than you have, and this will force you to have to become unreasonable, to the point of committing intellectual suicide, by questioning if we can know anything at all in the face of all the facts and evidence we have, and it is not very hard at all for the rest of us to see, and predict that this is what you will have to end up doing. In other words, if the facts and evidence are getting in the way of what I would rather believe (in this case that it would be unreasonable to come to a different conclusion than you have) then we simply attempt to get rid of the facts and evidence.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #25]

You completely skipped my devil's advocate proposal. WHY? I was willing to concede your position that it is absolutely impossible for the story to have been made up. And since both a) and b) are both impossible, we can effectively rule them both out. Which means Christianity is false. Why? Paul says so.

The reason the debate is so complex is because the storyline was written during a time of ancient antiquity. Which means it's really hard to 'prove' if any given individual claim is true, false, exaggerated, other? But according to you, yourself, it is absolutely impossible for the story to have been made up. Kool. So too is it absolutely impossible for the rotting dead to rise again.

So now what? Are we still exploring questions 2 through 5 for funsies, or not? Let me know? I may or may not then find it necessary to address your last long response?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

It is abundantly clear that you are running out of steam, and your reasoning is catching up with you. I not only did not "skip your devil's advocate" I completely debunked it. You conceded your position concerning the impossibility of the resurrection story being made up, because the facts and evidence demands this to be the case, and you have no choice but concede this to be the case. I went on to completely debunk your idea since we know a resurrection is impossible, that this somehow demonstrates we can know a resurrection has not occurred, by demonstrating that you have no possible explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would be possible, and yet you are on record as saying that you would choose to believe a scenario you knew to be impossible. The bottom line is whatever it is you choose to believe, it is going to be impossible, and I have demonstrated there is no such thing as degrees as far as the impossible is concerned.

Next, and this is really comical, you are shooting yourself in the foot, and it is working badly against you to actually quote Paul as saying, "if Christ has not been raised then your faith is in vain." How in the world can you not see this is working against you? Because you see, this demonstrates that Paul understood the stakes involved, and he was not willing in the least to concede the resurrection in any way whatsoever. In other words, if Paul was simply attempting to keep folks involved in Christianity it would have been extremely easy to concede on certain things which folks may have a hard time with, and especially the resurrection. It would have been quite easy for Paul to tone down the insistence upon belief in the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus, in order to cause Christianity to be easier to believe. However, Paul stakes the whole claim of Christianity on the bodily resurrection of Jesus and goes on to say that if this has not occurred, then Christianity is useless. How in the world can you not see that this is killing your argument? I mean, we all know there are Christian pastors today, who are toning down Christianity in order to make it easier to cause folks to convert, but you are actually quoting from Paul who was not willing to concede anything at all.

The reason the debate is so complex is because the storyline was written during a time of ancient antiquity.

LOL! You know, I know, the experts know, and everyone else knows that the complexity of this subject has nothing whatsoever to do with "ancient antiquity". The reason we know this to be false is because even though these things were written in the time of "ancient antiquity" there are a good number of things we can know beyond any doubt by reading this material, and one of the things we can know, which you have conceded is the fact that we can know that the story of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up. My friend, the complexity that is involved here is the fact that we all know a resurrection is impossible, and the first thing one would think of here in order to explain the impossible away would be to consider the idea that the whole mess was a made-up story, until you come to realize that this would be just as impossible as a resurrection. It is a huge problem to come to know the resurrection could not have been made up by those who were proclaiming the resurrection, because then one is forced to attempt to discover what could possibly explain all we can know from reading these texts from antiquity, and when one sits down in order to do such a thing they will begin to discover that any scenario they attempt to come up with, cannot explain all the facts and evidence we can know. I keep attempting to explain to you that as far as the religions of the world, it is possible that the stories were made up, and we have no evidence to demonstrate that this would not be possible. On the other hand, as far as Christianity is concerned, we have the historical evidence which demonstrates this would not be a possibility. This completely debunks your idea that the complexity of the argument has a thing in the world to do with "ancient antiquity".

So now what?

"So now", the ball is in your court, and it will be useless to bring up "ancient antiquity" and the fact that Paul acknowledges that, "if Christ has not been raised" then Christianity is false.

Are we still exploring questions 2 through 5 for funsies, or not?

Man, I have absolutely answered questioned 1 thru 3. I did not address question 4 because it would seem as if the responses I have provided would have clearly answered number 4. However, since you seem to want to read more of what I have to say, allow me to respond to this question directly.

4) Are any given naturalistic explanations, proposed by skeptics throughout history, anywhere near as 'extraordinary' of a claim as instead concluding Jesus really rose from his grave?

I mean, I would have thought that my response to the other questions would have made this one clear. All you are doing here is to demonstrate just how complex the issue is. You seem to be admitting that any natural explanation of the facts we can know would have to be an extraordinary explanation, and you are simply asking if any of these other extraordinary explanations would be as extraordinary as the resurrection? What else do I have to say? You certainly seem to know that any explanation is going to be extraordinary, and you seem to be insisting that we should go with any explanation at all that would seem to be less extraordinary. I do not know how I can help you out here. It would be indeed extraordinary if Jesus was raised from the dead. However, it would be an extraordinary tale in order for these folks to have made the story up. It would be extraordinary to come to the conclusion that all these folks were deceived into being convinced they had truly witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. It would be an extraordinary tale to believe that Jesus did not really die from the crucifixion. It would not be extraordinary, but it would rather be impossible to believe these folks were referring to some sort of spiritual resurrection. It is also impossible to come to the conclusion that all of this adds up to some sort of legend theory, since we can know that these folks were proclaiming the resurrection days after the crucifixion.

I mean, you seem to be acknowledging that any explanation would have to be extraordinary, and you are simply asking your audience to decide which would be the least extraordinary, as if this would be the answer to the question. The real question would be, which of these explanations would be possible? The answer would be, NONE! None of these explanations are possible, and a resurrection is not possible, which means we are left with an explanation which is not possible, and it is not going to help to determine which would be the most possible, since the impossible is the impossible.

[POI]

It is abundantly clear that you are running out of steam, and your reasoning is catching up with you. I not only did not "skip your devil's advocate" I completely debunked it.

If you debunked it, you would win a Nobel prize, as it is currently deemed absolutely impossible for dead rotting bodies to rise again. Therefore, we can rule this option out of the equation with 100% certainty.

You conceded your position concerning the impossibility of the resurrection story being made up, because the facts and evidence demands this to be the case, and you have no choice but concede this to be the case.

I did no such thing. If you would read my response in post 2, you would see I clearly stated the ONLY TRULY IMPOSSIBLE conclusion would be that a rotting body rose again. Yours is not impossible, but instead maybe less likely.

I went on to completely debunk your idea since we know a resurrection is impossible, that this somehow demonstrates we can know a resurrection has not occurred, by demonstrating that you have no possible explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would be possible, and yet you are on record as saying that you would choose to believe a scenario you knew to be impossible. The bottom line is whatever it is you choose to believe, it is going to be impossible, and I have demonstrated there is no such thing as degrees as far as the impossible is concerned.

LOL! The only option 100% ruled out of the equation, with 100% certainty, would be the claim that a Jesus character actually got back up and spoke to folks, 1-3 days after rotting in a tomb. We can still decipher/consider the rest, until the end of time.

Next, and this is really comical, you are shooting yourself in the foot, and it is working badly against you to actually quote Paul as saying, "if Christ has not been raised then your faith is in vain." How in the world can you not see this is working against you? Because you see, this demonstrates that Paul understood the stakes involved, and he was not willing in the least to concede the resurrection in any way whatsoever. In other words, if Paul was simply attempting to keep folks involved in Christianity it would have been extremely easy to concede on certain things which folks may have a hard time with, and especially the resurrection. It would have been quite easy for Paul to tone down the insistence upon belief in the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus, in order to cause Christianity to be easier to believe. However, Paul stakes the whole claim of Christianity on the bodily resurrection of Jesus and goes on to say that if this has not occurred, then Christianity is useless. How in the world can you not see that this is killing your argument? I mean, we all know there are Christian pastors today, who are toning down Christianity in order to make it easier to cause folks to convert, but you are actually quoting from Paul who was not willing to concede anything at all.

Blah blah blah. Many words with little substance... You missed my point. I can care less what Paul says. However, if Jesus is not risen, then your faith is in vain. This is correct. Why? Because your entire set of beliefs is based upon this one faith-based claim, which is absolutely impossible, BTW.

LOL! You know, I know, the experts know, and everyone else knows that the complexity of this subject has nothing whatsoever to do with "ancient antiquity".

Yes we do. With all claims from antiquity, we often deal with scarcity, preservation issues, interpretive issues, authorial bias, cultural misunderstanding, the focus applied to the elite, archaeological restraints, etc.... Exploring claims from ancient antiquity involves confronting numerous obstacles stemming from the nature of the surviving evidence and the limitations of research methodologies. And guess what, exploring claims from these writings is no different.

Man, I have absolutely answered questioned 1 thru 3. I did not address question 4 because it would seem as if the responses I have provided would have clearly answered number 4. However, since you seem to want to read more of what I have to say, allow me to respond to this question directly.

You moved on to 2) before you 'debunked' 1). Again, here is my response from post #2:

1) It's not impossible, but instead maybe less likely or even much more-so improbable. The only impossible conclusion is that Jesus really rose again.

I'm sorry, but you already lost the exchange at this point. Why? Because even IF I completely conceded to your claim that "the story could not be made up", we know claims to the rising dead are completely impossible. If we are in the business to 'rule out' options, I will happily rule out your claim just because..., but you KNOW you have no choice but to rule out THE claim, which is THE claim that a 'dead body rose.' Which immediately makes Christianity false.

Had enough? Or, do I need to pound this FACT home with you even more? Remember, I told you it was not going to go very well for you. Let me know if you don't understand, or somehow want to demonstrate that the impossible IS somehow possible.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #28]

If you debunked it, you would win a Nobel prize, as it is currently deemed absolutely impossible for dead rotting bodies to rise again. Therefore, we can rule this option out of the equation with 100% certainty.

My friend, I can assure you that I would not deserve any sort of prize for debunking the arguments you make because they are elementary. On the other hand, if you were to be able to demonstrate that the resurrection can be ruled out with 100% certainty, it would be you who would win the "Nobel Prize" because it has not been ruled out in the 2000 something years this debate has been raging. So then, if you could rule it out you would be accomplishing a task which none of the critical scholars have accomplished. I mean, do you know how many folks would give one of their limbs in order to be able to rule out the resurrection with 100% certainty? And here you are on a debate site and have accomplished what no one else in over 2000 years has accomplished. It's amazing! It is not amazing in that you have actually demonstrated in any way whatsoever that the resurrection can be ruled out with absolute certainty, rather it is amazing that you can actually fix your fingers to type out such things.

Really! Do you ever really think through the arguments you are making? Do you recall making the argument concerning "cognitive dissonance"? Do you actually know what "cognitive dissonance" is? Allow me to give you a definition from google.

"Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort experienced when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or attitudes simultaneously."

Okay, get this definition in your head, and now allow me to ask you if you remember attempting to make the failed argument which I have debunked concerning "unfalsifiable claims"? Can you see your cognitive dissonance? Do I have to explain it? I mean, you really cannot make this stuff up. You cannot on the one hand insist that the resurrection can be ruled out with 100% certainty, and then on the other hand insist that the resurrection is an unfalsifiable claim. In other words, you cannot whine about the resurrection being an unfalsifiable claim, meaning you are complaining because the resurrection cannot be ruled out, and then go on to insist it can be ruled out with 100% certainty. Let's say this another way. If the resurrection is an unfalsifiable claim, this necessitates that it is impossible to rule the resurrection out of the equation.

I'm telling you, there are times in our debates when I have to get others to help me out because I really cannot believe what I am reading, and I just want to make sure that I am reading what I think I am reading. I mean, it is really like you throwing out any and every argument at all that you hear from others up against the wall, hoping against all hope that just one of these arguments may stick, and it does not matter in the least in your mind, if they even contradict each other.

This is exactly what happens when one allows others to think for them. You know, like when you were a Christian and you come to the realization that you did not think for yourself, and all the pieces came crumbling down, and you had to go and pick all the pieces up? Well, it is the same thing all over again. You are making arguments which did not originate with you, and none of these arguments are sticking to the wall, and they are all sliding down the wall, into a complete disaster.

I did no such thing.

Are you suggesting then that it would be a possibility that the story of the resurrection was made up? Again, have you really thought through what you are saying? GOOD GRIEF! I am absolutely telling you that it does not take a scholar to understand this would be an impossibility, and it is impossible on the same level as a resurrection. I know of no scholars who would even attempt to make the argument that it would be possible that the resurrection stories were made up. I mean, all you have to do is to think through what all would have to be involved, and you would have to come to the conclusion that the resurrection would be just as easy to believe. This is exactly why there are no scholars I know of who would even attempt to make such an argument. There is no doubt that the scholars would make such an argument if there was even a chance this could have been the case. Moreover, you know yourself that it is impossible that the story of the resurrection could have been made up, and I know you know this to be the case, because you would not dare to attempt to make the argument. So then, you can either concede the fact that the story of the resurrection being made up is not a possibility, or you need to start making the argument, and we both know that you are not going to make the argument.

If you would read my response in post 2, you would see I clearly stated the ONLY TRULY IMPOSSIBLE conclusion

And what I keep attempting to explain to you is, there is no need in you placing any other words in front of the word "impossible", because once something has been deemed to be impossible, it is impossible. In other words, there is no such thing as "absolutely impossible" nor is there any such thing as "TRULY IMPOSSIBLE". I think you are being confused and allow me to attempt to explain it again.

We know a resurrection is impossible, and we do not need to do any sort of investigation to know this to be the case. On the other hand, we know for a fact that folks make stories up all the time. However, we cannot simply assume that it is possible a particular story was made up, simply based upon the fact that folks make stories up all the time. Rather, we would have to apply the historical method, in order to determine if this would be a possibility in the case we are investigating. Once we have applied the historical method, and know beyond any reasonable doubt that it would be impossible for the story to have been made up, it would be impossible on the same level as the resurrection which we did not have to do any investigation at all. The impossible, is the impossible.

I'm thinking your confusion comes in when you think of the fact that it is impossible for a resurrection to occur, but it is possible for folks to make stuff up. Okay, it is indeed impossible for a resurrection to occur, and it is a fact that folks make stuff up. Your problem is, that it is a fact that the story of the resurrection was not made up, which goes on to mean there is no possibility whatsoever that the story of the resurrection was made up. It is impossible, and it is impossible on the same level as a resurrection, even though it is possible for folks to make stuff up. We know folks make stuff up all the time. We know the story of the resurrection was not made up. PERIOD! It is not a possibility. If it were you would make the argument, but that is not going to happen.

Yours is not impossible, but instead maybe less likely.

The above demonstrates I have indeed identified your problem and there is no doubt about it. You are indeed confused. Yes it is possible for folks to make stuff up. However, and again, when we apply the historical method, and come to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the story of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up, then this means that there is no likelihood involved in the matter concerning the story of the resurrection being made up, because it has been eliminated as a possibility.

LOL! The only option 100% ruled out of the equation, with 100% certainty, would be the claim that a Jesus character actually got back up and spoke to folks, 1-3 days after rotting in a tomb. We can still decipher/consider the rest, until the end of time.

My friend, I hate to inform you of this but we are indeed racing toward the end of time, and there have been experts on both sides of the equation who have been extremely busy attempting to come up with some sort of possible explanation, and your problem is the fact that there are no possible explanations, and I can assure you that you are not going to come up with one.

You missed my point.

I understood your point very well, and got to the root of your point.

I can care less what Paul says.

Until, or unless you believe what he has to say supports what it is you would rather believe. However, as I have pointed out, what you quote from Paul is badly working against your argument. Because you see, if the story would have been made up, in order to get as many folks to believe as possible, then Paul would not be making the story difficult to believe. But you see, Paul is making it clear in what you quote from him, that he understands the stakes involved, and he is placing his stake in the ground, by standing by the actual resurrection. I mean, I really do not know what you are not understanding? It is this statement from Paul along with others, which causes the critical scholars to come to know the resurrection was not a made up story, and you are quoting this as if it is helping your argument. It's unreal.

However, if Jesus is not risen, then your faith is in vain. This is correct.

It is correct which is exactly why Paul made the statement and we can know for a fact that Paul went to his grave continuing to insist on this being the case, and you have no possible explanation to explain this. I know you think you do, but you do not. It is not as easy as throwing what you believe to be possible up against the wall and hoping against hope something will stick. Rather, you will have to go on in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for such a scenario to be possible, and it does not come down to one, or two facts you have to consider, but rather a whole lot of facts.

I mean, let us just think about the time, energy, and space you have put into attempting to demonstrate just how the Gospels contradict each other. All this time, energy, and space was wasted, because in the end we come to find that it does not matter in the least. The only ones this will matter to are those who are under the impression that the Bible is inerrant. But here is some facts we need to think about, and it is that we can know that Paul was alive at the time of the resurrection, and we can know that Paul not only knew, but also spent a great deal of time with the original followers of Jesus.

Do you see what I am saying? The point is, before you make the arguments you are hearing from others, you really need to think about the argument. Because you see, we know for a fact that the arguments concerning the contradictions in the Bible did not come from you, and if you would have taken just a little bit of time thinking through the argument, then you would have come to know that it really does not matter, and that little bit of time thinking would have saved you a ton of time attempting to regurgitate the arguments you were forced fed.

Why? Because your entire set of beliefs is based upon this one faith-based claim, which is absolutely impossible, BTW.

And here again is where you are not thinking for yourself. The argument that the resurrection is a "faith-based" claim did not originate with you. But, the thing is, if you would have taken just a little bit of time thinking through this argument then you would have come to know that the resurrection is not a "faith-based claim". Rather, belief in the resurrection is based upon facts and evidence, and it is these facts and evidence which allows us to know with certainty that it is not a possibility that the resurrection was a made up story. So then, with all these facts and evidence to examine, one can look at, weigh, analyze, and study the evidence we have and come to a conclusion one way or the other concerning the resurrection. You see, this is not a faith based claim. What I need faith to believe is that the death and resurrection of Jesus atones for my sin. In other words, forgiveness. Because you see, I can not look at, touch, feel, or analyze forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection.

Allow me to say this again, because I do not believe you have responded to it. Your problem is not the fact that you do not believe the resurrection. Your problem is not the fact that you attempt to make a case against the resurrection. These are not the problem because I understand the unbelief, and I also understand the arguments against the resurrection, and this causes me to understand that reason can be used to hold to a different position than the one I hold to. Your problem is the fact that you insist that it is impossible for one to use reason to believe the resurrection. I know that you did not use reason as a Christian. I also know extremely well that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not use reason in order to arrive to the conclusions they think they have. However, neither the fact that you did not use reason, nor the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not use reason, is any sort of evidence that reason cannot be used.

I can assure you that there are a good number of folks who were absolutely opposed to Christianity, to the point they were out to demonstrate just how false Christianity was, and it was during the study in order to falsify Christianity, these folks came to believe. This does not in any way whatsoever demonstrate that Christianity must be true, but it does in fact demonstrate that reason can be used to come to the conclusion. Again, there are folks far more intelligent than you and I will ever be, who are convinced by the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. There are indeed folks far more intelligent than you and I will ever be who are convinced the resurrection did not occur. The difference between you and I is the fact that I understand this, and it causes me to understand that reason can be used on both sides, while you have to understand this to be the case, and insist that it is not possible to use reason and come to a different conclusion than you hold concerning the resurrection.

Yes we do. With all claims from antiquity, we often deal with scarcity, preservation issues, interpretive issues, authorial bias, cultural misunderstanding, the focus applied to the elite, archaeological restraints, etc.... Exploring claims from ancient antiquity involves confronting numerous obstacles stemming from the nature of the surviving evidence and the limitations of research methodologies. And guess what, exploring claims from these writings is no different.

I am not attempting to argue that we do not deal with the things you have listed above. However, even though all of the above may be the case, we can know with certainty by reading this same material which may include all of the above, that it would not be a possibility that the resurrection was made up. I mean, you are acting as if all the above would be fact, that we cannot really know anything at all, when the fact is, we can know certain things with certainty, even if all the above is the case. I am just telling you I could continue on with things we can know with certainty by reading the material we have, even if all the above were the case. If I did list all we can know, this post would be extremely long.

You moved on to 2) before you 'debunked' 1). Again, here is my response from post #2:

1) It's not impossible, but instead maybe less likely or even much more-so improbable. The only impossible conclusion is that Jesus really rose again.

I believe I have answered this above.

I'm sorry, but you already lost the exchange at this point.

Of course you would think this to be the case, but the evidence is against this being the case, but I think we have determined that evidence really does not matter to some folks.

Why? Because even IF I completely conceded to your claim that "the story could not be made up"

My friend, you have "completely conceded the story could not have been made up" and we know this by the fact that you will not attempt to make the argument, and the reason you will not attempt to make the argument is because you know the evidence demonstrates this to be the case. As I have already said, if there was any chance at all the story could have been made up, not only would you attempt to make the argument, but so would the experts. It is pretty simple. You can concede that it is impossible the story of the resurrection was made up, or you need to explain to us how this may be a possibility. You are not going to be able to explain to us how this could have been a possibility, because the facts and evidence demonstrates this to be impossible.

You know what? I am beginning to see how I may be able to help you out, because I think I have just thought of the problem. In order to do this allow me to concede the fact that the story being made up would be more possible than the resurrection, since we know folks make stories up all the time. However, once we have determined that the story being made up is not a possibility, then this makes the idea that the story was made up to be "ABSOLUTELY, and TRULY IMPOSSIBLE, just like the resurrection is "ABSOLUTELY, and TRULY IMPOSSIBLE. Even though I know there is no reason to insert words in front of impossible, I thought it may help you better understand that once we have deemed that the story of the resurrection being made up to be impossible, then it is impossible on the same level as the resurrection.

The bottom line is, you and I both know a resurrection is impossible, and you and I both know that it would have been impossible for the story of the resurrection to have been made up. What I am waiting on is any sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we have which could be a possibility, and I have yet to hear any sort of scenario which would be possible, even though the experts have given their best shot, and we know beyond any doubt that there are experts who would give a limb in order to be able to give any sort of explanation which would even be a possibility, while you are holding out hope, against all hope, that there must be some sort of natural explanation which we have not thought of as yet. The point I am making is, until, or unless you come up with some sort of possible explanation for the facts and evidence we have, then we are all believing the impossible occurred, unless of course, you have faith that there must and has to be some sort of explanation which has not been thought of as of yet. Your problem is the fact that it has been over 2000 years and there is no known possible explanation for the facts and evidence we can know (which you say we do not have). You continue to harp on the fact that I believe the impossible, and I am not denying that what I believe would be impossible, while you have no possible explanation for what it is you believe concerning the resurrection. Rather, all you have is what you would rather believe, just like when you were a Christian, along with faith that there must, and has to be a natural explanation in order to explain away what it is you would rather not believe, which is what you would have rather believed for decades of your life.

If we are in the business to 'rule out' options, I will happily rule out your claim

You see, you continue to be confused. I am not the one who is making the claim of the resurrection. That claim was made over 2000 years ago, and you have no possible explanation which would explain all the facts and evidence we can know. Furthermore, I am not even insisting that a resurrection occurred. However, you are indeed insisting that a resurrection has not occurred. I am not insisting that those who do not believe the resurrection are not being reasonable. You on the other hand are indeed insisting that it cannot be a possibility to use reason and come to a different conclusion than the one you hold concerning the resurrection. In the end you say, "I will happily rule out your claim" but this is not because you have any possible explanation of the facts and evidence we know, but rather it is simply based upon what you would "happily rule out". In other words, it is based upon what you would rather believe. You know, like when you were a Christian?

Which immediately makes Christianity false.

Let us go through this again. I am acknowledging the fact that what I believe concerning the resurrection would be impossible. You have no explanation of the facts and evidence we can know which would be a possibility. Therefore, we are both believing the impossible happened, unless you have some sort of faith in the idea that there must and has to be some sort of natural explanation to explain away what it is you would rather not believe, which is exactly what you would have rather believed for decades of your life.

Next, I am not the one who is insisting that reason could not possibly be used to come to a different conclusion then the one I hold, because I absolutely understand the reason involved on both sides, while you are indeed insisting that it cannot be possible for one to come to a different conclusion than you have concerning the resurrection. The question is, who is being reasonable? Is it the one who is certain in what they claim to believe, with no possibility of error? Or is it the one who acknowledges the possibility of error on their part, and goes on to understand that reason can be used on both sides?

Had enough?

I am sure that you certainly hope that I have "had enough" but the fact is, I am having the time of my life, and as the song goes on to say, "I owe it all to you".

Or, do I need to pound this FACT home with you even more?

You can continue to "pound this FACT" all you like, but it does not change the fact that you have no possible explanation for the facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection, which is leaving you with believing the impossible, or having faith in the idea that there must and has to be some sort of natural explanation, even though there have been folks for over 2000 years who would love to come up with a possible explanation and have failed to do so. I want to be as clear as I can here. There is no possible explanation of the facts and evidence we can know. I am admitting to believing the impossible, based on the facts and evidence we have, while you are believing the resurrection to be false, with no possible explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which demonstrates beyond any doubt that you believe the impossible occurred, or your belief is built upon faith.

Remember, I told you it was not going to go very well for you.

Yeah, you have made this threat more than once. I am taking this as an empty threat, because you and I have been at this for years, and if you had some sort of bomb to drop, you would have dropped it by now. The fact of the matter is, when folks start making threats like this, they are simply attempting to scare folks off, since their arguments are not working. But the thing is, we know you have no arguments of your own, and we all know that if the folks you are getting your arguments from had any sort of bomb it would have already been dropped. As it is, the folks you are getting your arguments from are being forced to admit they know of no possible explanation for the facts and evidence we can be certain about. I would say, thus far it is going pretty well for me. For you? Not so much.

Let me know if you don't understand

Oh, I think I am demonstrating that I understand very well.

or somehow want to demonstrate that the impossible IS somehow possible.

I have no desire to explain how the impossible is "somehow possible". Again, I admit to believing the impossible has occurred, while you have no possible explanation for what it is you believe concerning what we can know concerning the resurrection. This leaves you with believing the impossible occurred, or you are basing your belief upon faith.

Allow me to end again with the one conclusion which is indeed unreasonable in this case, and that is for one to insist that reason cannot be used to come to a different conclusion. When one is unreasonable in this way, it is inevitable that they will have to become ever more unreasonable, and I always predict that such a person will end up committing intellectual suicide, and they will wind up questioning as to whether we can know anything at all. The reason I can predict this is because this is what they will end up having to do, and they will do this when they come to the conclusion that the arguments they are making are actually demonstrating that reason can be used to hold to a different conclusion. Well, guess what? You are indeed well on your way to committing this intellectual suicide because you have started an OP entitled "Jesus is a Myth". The most hilarious thing about this OP is the fact that you make this statement,

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position.

Oh, MY GOODNESS! I have laughed at this until my sides hurt. You really cannot make this stuff up. And you say it is "going to go bad for me"? CMON man. The reason why you were sure to let it be known you are agnostic toward this position is because you understand very well that it cannot possibly be defended. However, it is intellectual suicide for one to even claim to be agnostic. This is SO, SO, FUNNY! There is no way you can possibly be agnostic toward this in the least. The reason for this is the fact that you know that the story of the resurrection could not have been made up. My friend, just knowing this to be the case allows us to know that Jesus lived, Jesus had a following, Jesus was crucified, Jesus was dead, and just days after the crucifixion we know it to be a fact that the disciples were making the claim that he had risen, and we can go on to know that they did not make the story up. Knowing these things to be fact, completely eliminates the idea that Jesus was a myth.

I'm just telling you that I am beside myself right now. What you are suggesting is unthinkable. You know this to be the case, which is why you made sure to let it be known you were agnostic toward the idea, and somehow missed the fact that even being agnostic toward the idea is to commit intellectual suicide. My friend, you are dead in the water, but I will be here if you would like to continue because as I said, "I am having the time of my life and I owe it all to you" and I really mean that. However, as was the case with this post, it will take me some time to respond with the time I have.

[POI]

Another "textwall" answer, and also a lot of repeat responses from you to boot. You know what this means... I'm going to address it in sections, so onlookers can digest. Also, so onlookers do not shy away from reading these otherwise very long responses -- in which virtually no one would bother reading otherwise....

My friend, I can assure you that I would not deserve any sort of prize for debunking the arguments you make because they are elementary. On the other hand, if you were to be able to demonstrate that the resurrection can be ruled out with 100% certainty, it would be you who would win the "Nobel Prize" because it has not been ruled out in the 2000 something years this debate has been raging.

Debate for all sorts of god(s) have been raging for a long time. This means nothing. All that matters are the facts, which you lack severely. You see RealJack, I actually have facts. You instead have wishful thinking and faith. The rotting dead remain both rotting and dead. I've responded to your useless argument countless times now. Here we go, yet again... As long as belief in Christianity has such a stronghold, it will remain relevant. This is why we are not here arguing for some ancient Greek god, even though we know we cannot rule them out with 100% certainty either. And yet, we both know it would be absurd to believe some god is throwing down lightning bolts or something. If belief in that god were still relevant in society, you better believe there would be rigorous debates about why Zeus really is truly the purveyor of lightening.

So then, if you could rule it out you would be accomplishing a task which none of the critical scholars have accomplished. I mean, do you know how many folks would give one of their limbs in order to be able to rule out the resurrection with 100% certainty? And here you are on a debate site and have accomplished what no one else in over 2000 years has accomplished. It's amazing! It is not amazing in that you have actually demonstrated in any way whatsoever that the resurrection can be ruled out with absolute certainty, rather it is amazing that you can actually fix your fingers to type out such things.

Supernatural claims, from antiquity, from a 'historical sense', are unfalsifiable. I know this term triggers the heck out of you. However, they cannot be falsified because we were not there to disprove them. This is why you believers get to 'argue' for them anyways. However, we know better regardless. Meaning, we know rotting bodies do not reverse their rotting ways and rise again. We also know dudes do not actually fly to heaven on a winged "horse". We also know Alexander was not really the son of Zeus, etc etc etc..... We 'technically' cannot disprove any of these claims, because of both philosophical and historical restraints. Thus, you are SAFE Weeeee!

Really! Do you ever really think through the arguments you are making? Do you recall making the argument concerning "cognitive dissonance"? Do you actually know what "cognitive dissonance" is? Allow me to give you a definition from google.

"Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort experienced when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or attitudes simultaneously."

Yes. I happily admitted I possess a cognitive dissonance because I eat meat. You possess a cognitive dissonance because you believe a rotting body rose again, based upon bad evidence. If the claim were from some differing religion, for which you were never exposed to, and you were to investigate it, I doubt you would ever give it any clout regardless. Likely because of both influences of your geography as well as possessing a predisposition to early Christian indoctrination -- which was likely instilled into your subconscious as a youngster. But I digress...

Okay, get this definition in your head, and now allow me to ask you if you remember attempting to make the failed argument which I have debunked concerning "unfalsifiable claims"? Can you see your cognitive dissonance? Do I have to explain it? I mean, you really cannot make this stuff up. You cannot on the one hand insist that the resurrection can be ruled out with 100% certainty, and then on the other hand insist that the resurrection is an unfalsifiable claim. In other words, you cannot whine about the resurrection being an unfalsifiable claim, meaning you are complaining because the resurrection cannot be ruled out, and then go on to insist it can be ruled out with 100% certainty. Let's say this another way. If the resurrection is an unfalsifiable claim, this necessitates that it is impossible to rule the resurrection out of the equation.

You completely missed point 1) in the OP. Which was based upon prior discussion. Allow me to elaborate, again... There exist varying degrees of both the term(s) impossible and extraordinary. Here it is in a nutshell:

a) a rising Jesus > b) made up story

In this instance, as shown above, a) is both more so impossible as well as more so extraordinary. Why? People have been demonstrated to make junk up all the time, while there has been no demonstration of the rotting dead ever rising again.

Just so you know, I'm not saying the story was completely made up. I'm just demonstrated a basic point. And I hope you finally get it. Which is to mean, there exist varying degrees of these terms, and a claimed "rising dead body" redlines or maximizes these two terms well above and beyond a claim that it was made up.

I'll stop here for now....