The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof

[AchillesHeel]

The resurrection argument requires that witnesses really saw Jesus alive again after his death. This is because there is literally no other way to confirm a resurrection took place. So the evidence needs to indicate this otherwise one should not be persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person. This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me" and our only source by someone in the entire New Testament who claims to have met Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). Moreover, scholars are unanimous that Paul actually wrote at least 7 epistles attributed to him whereas most critical scholars do not accept traditional authorship of the gospels. In response to this argument, any appeal to "but the gospels say..." is an admission that the earliest testimony found in Paul's letters is not sufficient evidence that anyone really saw Jesus. Moreover, each account tells an entirely different story which is irreconcilable if one wants to maintain they're all reliably reporting what actually took place. viewtopic.php?t=41563

From these sources, it seems the aorist passive ὤφθη was more commonly used to indicate the subject takes the initiative to "reveal itself" to the viewer rather than indicate a viewer seeing by their normal eyesight. Philo's comment on Abraham's vision is relevant where he contrasts the active form of the verb with the aorist passive ὤφθη and the emphasis is on "comprehension" rather than literal seeing.

“For which reason it is said, not that the wise man saw (εἶδε) God but that God appeared (ὤφθη) to the wise man; for it was impossible for any one to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless he himself displayed and revealed himself to him.” – Philo, On Abraham 17.80

Notice how when Paul unambiguously refers to seeing someone or someone's actions in the past tense, he uses the active form εἶδον.

Gal 1:18-19

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see (εἶδον) any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal. 2:14

But when I saw (εἶδον) that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

"There are three ways of translating the aorist passive ὤφθη + dative proper noun (v. 5):

Passively: "He was seen". The seer is the active agent. Grammatically this version, in which the seer is in the dative, seems problematic and is consequently ruled out.

As a deponent/middle form: “He made himself seen”, “he showed himself". This translation is possible as a Christological interpretation of "seeing".

Theological passive: “He was made visible by God.” In the style of LXX translations of OT theophany passages (cf. Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1, etc.; Ex 3:2.16; 4:1; 6:3) God becomes the active subject who makes the resurrected Christ visible.

In principle both the second and the third ways of translating ὤφθη would be a possibility. The already observed proximity between a theological and a Christological view of the resurrection message makes it seem irrelevant to seek a definitive deciding of this question. Interpretations of the nature of the “seeing" range from the assumption of a sensory, physical seeing to vision theories and finally to an ignoring or excluding of the element of making visible in favour of a - however understood - “manifestation". Despite any reservations, Pannenberg would prefer to retain the term "vision" because when someone sees something that others present are unable to see, this is a “vision”. - Hans Waldenfels, Contextual Fundamental Theology, pp. 336-37

“The meaning of ophthe. Ophthe is the aorist passive form of the Greek verb horao (I see). The word is used nine times in the New Testament in relation to the raised Jesus (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:16a; 1 Cor. 15:5–8 (four times); and 1 Tim. 3:16). When used with the dative, it is usually translated ‘He appeared’, and as such emphasizes the revelatory initiative of the one who appears. The sense is almost, ‘He let himself be seen’ (as opposed to something like ‘he was seen’).

Some scholars who favour objective visions rather than ordinary seeing argue that the New Testament’s use of ophthe entails this conclusion. Thus Badham says: ‘most New Testament scholars believe that the word ophthe . . . refers to spiritual vision rather than to ocular sighting.’ The argument is that the religious use of ophthe is technical, marks a clear difference from ordinary visual perception of physical objects, and entails some sort of spiritual appearance, vision-like experience, or apprehension of a divine revelation.” – Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, pg. 136

"Christian Easter faith has its origin in the visionary experiences of Peter, James and Paul and the others named in 1 Cor 15:5–8, who perceived Jesus as a figure appearing to them from heaven.

This conclusion is allowed by the use of the Greek expression ὤφθη + dative in 1 Cor 15:5–8; Luke 24:34 and 1 Tim 3:16. The Septuagint uses this expression as a technical term to describe theophanies. It denotes appearance from heaven, especially of God himself (e.g., Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 1 Kgs 3:5), of an angel (e.g., Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12; Tob 12:22) or of God’s glory (e.g., Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10)." - Michael Wolter, The Quest For the Real Jesus, p. 15

"The word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception, or to the presence of God who reveals Himself in His Word. It thus seems that when ὤφθη is used to denote the resurrection appearances there is no primary emphasis on seeing as sensual or mental perception. The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, encounters with the risen Lord who reveals Himself or is revealed, cf. Gal. 1:16…..they experienced His presence...

When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5, pp. 358-59

"The LXX uses ὤφθη thirty-six times with all but six referring to theophanic events (or angelophanies). Likewise, of the eighteen occurrences of ὤφθη in the NT, all but one refer to supernatural appearances to people." - Rob Fringer, Paul's Corporate Christophany, pg. 99.

[AchillesHeel]

Anyone can give their personal definition of Bible words, specially to this case, the word "vision."

Ok then, here's the definition from the BDAG:

BDAG 717 s.v. ὀπτασία: “an event of a transcendent character that impresses itself vividly on the mind, a vision, celestial sight, of that which a deity permits a human being to see, either of the deity personally or of someth. else usu. hidden fr. mortals” (cf. also 2 Cor 12:1; Lk 1:22; 24:23).

The context describes Paul seeing a "bright light" and hearing a voice while others with him do not see or hear the same thing he does. This is a supernatural revelation made known to Paul alone - compare against the vision of Daniel in Dan. 10:1-9. Others with Daniel did not see the vision. This is called "selective revelation" and it coheres with Paul's own description in Gal. 1:12-16 whereby he claims a "revelation."

In Acts 26:19, it speaks about not just "vision" but "heavenly vision" in Greek "ouranios optasia."

Yes, Jesus has ascended to heaven at this point which is why he now only "appears" through visions and revelations from heaven. He's no longer physically located on the earth and so now has to supernaturally appear to people. He is not to physically appear on earth again until the Second Coming.

As there are various meaning of "vision or heavenly vision" by the lexicon, he might be referring to the other definition as "sight, or an appearance presented to one."

And even from Jesus words in Acts 26:16, the word "appeared" "ὁράω" again is defined as "the basic meaning is see with the eyes."
The same definition rendered by Louw and Nida, TDNT and Vine's.

Again, the context of a normal appearance is ruled out because the others with Paul "saw no one" - Acts. 9:7. If this was a normal appearance where a person was objectively visible in the sky then the others would have seem him too.

I don't feel the need to engage with the rest of your quotes because you're just appealing to possibility and ignoring the context of Paul's vision. You conveniently highlight the part that says it can mean "sight" but then ignore the part that says it can mean a "vision." Selective bias doesn't get more blatantly obvious than that.

To deny the appearance to Paul was a vision is equivalent to saying Scripture is wrong in what it says. This is quite hilarious because it shows two things:

1. Paul's vision wasn't a vision! And so this interpretation requires one rewrite the accepted Christian Orthodox narrative! Have you told your pastor that Paul didn't have a vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road and that the Bible is wrong?

2. No one, not even Christians, takes claims of visions seriously. That's pretty awkward given the numerous accounts of visions in the Bible! Do you doubt those too?
https://www.openbible.info/topics/dreams_and_visions

[Capbook]

Anyone can give their personal definition of Bible words, specially to this case, the word "vision."

Ok then, here's the definition from the BDAG:

BDAG 717 s.v. ὀπτασία: “an event of a transcendent character that impresses itself vividly on the mind, a vision, celestial sight, of that which a deity permits a human being to see, either of the deity personally or of someth. else usu. hidden fr. mortals” (cf. also 2 Cor 12:1; Lk 1:22; 24:23).

Yes, even BDAG supports other Bible lexicons by defining "vision" as "which a deity permits a human being to see either of the deity personally."
And "personally" in Greek "σάρξ sarx' defined by Bible lexicon as "flesh, the body, bodily, bodily condition and etc.
Jesus ascension was seen by His disciples personally, bodily, in bodily condition etc.


(NASB+) Col 2:1  For I wantG2309 you to knowG3609a howG2245 greatG2245 a R1struggleG73 I haveG2192 inG5228 your behalfG5228 and for thoseG3588 whoG3588 are at R2LaodiceaG2993, and for allG3745 those whoG3745 have not N1personallyG4561 seenG3708 my faceG4383, 

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) Col 2:1  θελωG2309 V-PAI-1S γαρG1063 CONJ υμαςG4771 P-2AP ειδεναιG1492 V-RAN ηλικονG2245 A-ASM αγωναG73 N-ASM εχωG2192 V-PAI-1S υπερG5228 PREP υμωνG4771 P-2GP καιG2532 CONJ τωνG3588 T-GPM ενG1722 PREP λαοδικειαG2993 N-DSF καιG2532 CONJ οσοιG3745 K-NPM ουχG3756 PRT-N εορακανG3708 V-RAI-3P τοG3588 T-ASN προσωπονG4383 N-ASN μουG1473 P-1GS ενG1722 PREP σαρκιG4561 N-DSF 

G4561 σάρξ sarx (Thayer)
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body

G4561 σάρξ (New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance)
sarx; a prim. word; flesh:—
bodily(1), bodily condition(1), body(3), earthly(1), flesh(126), fleshly(3), human(2), humanity(1), life(3), mankind(3), own people(1), people(1), personally(1).

[Haven]

G4561 σάρξ (New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance)
sarx; a prim. word; flesh:—
bodily(1), bodily condition(1), body(3), earthly(1), flesh(126), fleshly(3), human(2), humanity(1), life(3), mankind(3), own people(1), people(1), personally(1).

These meanings are more than just “physical body,” and also suggest “life,” which very well could have been used spiritually or metaphorically when writing about a supposed resurrection. Colossians 2:1, btw, is not referencing the resurrection, and for that matter seeing Jesus personally (in a dream) would not be something out of step with what society believes.

There’s nothing here that specifically implies it can only refer to a literal, physical body, and indeed the context in Acts makes it clear that that is not the reference (otherwise why mention heavenly visions, hidden from ordinary mortals, at all?). The fact that there was, among Second Temple Jews, a pre-existing belief in the resurrection and transformation of the dead (into a non-physical form) provides more evidence for this interpretation. (https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... ple-period).

For that matter, a physical object ascending (moving in a physical direction) to a non-physical place / state of being (heaven) is absolutely incoherent logically. It’s the interaction problem on steroids, and again, there simply is no evidence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to AchillesHeel in post #0]

The resurrection argument requires that witnesses really saw Jesus alive again after his death. This is because there is literally no other way to confirm a resurrection took place. So the evidence needs to indicate this; otherwise, one should not be persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

First, no one is persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

Eph 1:4-5
"For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will," Since you all like Paul so well.

John says it like this. "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." John 15:16

Second, the evidence for the resurrection is not whether or not someone saw the risen Jesus, but what was the reaction they had when they saw the risen Jesus. Paul went from being a persecutor of the church to proclaiming that Jesus died and rose again. "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it." Gal. 1:13

Paul was rich and powerful. Why would he choose to be poor and hunted? Any alternative argument to the resurrection must answer why Paul would do this.

Third, the creed of the death and resurrection that is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is dated by most scholars as going back to the early thirties.

The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]

Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]

Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

N.T. Wright (NT scholar [Oxford, 5+ honorary Ph.ds]): “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it. (So Hays 1997, 255.)” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 319.

This indicates that the death, burial, and resurrection were the central message of Christianity since its conception. Therefore, for Paul to become a Christian, he had to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

[Difflugia]

First, no one is persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

At least if you're a Calvinist.

Since you all like Paul so well.

What is that supposed to mean?

Paul was rich and powerful. Why would he choose to be poor and hunted?

Even if we take accept both of those claims at face value, Usama bin Laden did the same thing. Since there have always been crazy people and religious people, sometimes those overlap.

Any alternative argument to the resurrection must answer why Paul would do this.

Neither crazy nor religious requires an actual resurrection to kick it off.

Third, the creed of the death and resurrection that is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is dated by most scholars as going back to the early thirties.

Nobody doubts that Paul was early. In fact, he's the earliest Christian writer we know.

This indicates that the death, burial, and resurrection were the central message of Christianity since its conception. Therefore, for Paul to become a Christian, he had to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The question in the OP differentiates between a physical and spiritual resurrection. Paul calls the resurrected body, "heavenly" and "spiritual," contrasting it with pre-resurrection bodies that are "earthly" and "naturally living." For Paul, this resurrection resulted in a heavenly and supernatural existence, such as might necessitate communication through spiritual visions. This was, as you say, the central message of Christianity since its conception.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #65]

First, no one is persuaded to believe in the resurrection.
At least if you're a Calvinist.

Defining it as Calvinistic does not change what Paul wrote.

Even if we take accept both of those claims at face value, Usama bin Laden did the same thing. Since there have always been crazy people and religious people, sometimes those overlap.

No, he did not. He did not change religions; he was born in Saudi Arabia. He was always Islamic.

Any alternative argument to the resurrection must answer why Paul would do this.
Neither crazy nor religious requires an actual resurrection to kick it off.

Paul said why he changed religions.

1 Cor. 15:3-8

Gal. 1:13- 15
"For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how severely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased "

Why would Paul stop trying to destroy Christianity?

The question in the OP differentiates between a physical and spiritual resurrection.

What is a spiritual resurrection? Paul was a Pharisee, therefore he already believed the a spiritual resurrection.

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. It is because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” As soon as he had said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is neither a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. A great clamor arose, and some scribes from the party of the Pharisees got up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” The dispute grew so violent that the commander was afraid they would tear Paul to pieces. He ordered the soldiers to go down and remove him by force and bring him into the barracks. Acts 23

The Pharisees believed in spiritual resurrection already. If Paul was just speaking of a Spiritual resurrection, then the Pharisees would not have had a problem with Christianity, and there would have been no reason for Paul to make such life-altering decisions.

Therefore, how does this spiritual resurrection differ from what the Pharisees already believed?

[Difflugia]

Defining it as Calvinistic does not change what Paul wrote.

It does, however, change how you interpret the ambiguity about whether election and predestination are individual or corporate.

No, he did not. He did not change religions; he was born in Saudi Arabia. He was always Islamic.

How does that shifted goalpost change anything? Your criterion was "rich and powerful" to "poor and hunted."

Paul said why he changed religions.

1 Cor. 15:3-8

Maybe, but not in the verses you're referencing. That's just his claim for what he's preaching. It says nothing of the motivation that you're claiming that other explanations have to "answer." Do you even know what your own argument is?

Gal. 1:13- 15
"For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how severely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased "

Why would Paul stop trying to destroy Christianity?

Why was he trying to destroy it in the first place? Crazy is as crazy does.

The question in the OP differentiates between a physical and spiritual resurrection.

What is a spiritual resurrection?

An imaginary one. Like that manifests in visions rather than a body that has wounds and eats fish.

Paul was a Pharisee, therefore he already believed the a spiritual resurrection.

What's your argument, again? I don't think your claim here is true, but even if it is, then you're just saying that Paul's Christian beliefs follow directly from his Jewish ones.

The Pharisees believed in spiritual resurrection already.

Are you sure about that? Rabbinic Jewish tradition is that the dead will be bodily resurrected where they are buried. Since Rabbinism matches closely to what little has been preserved of Pharisaism, you should probably support any claims to the contrary.

If Paul was just speaking of a Spiritual resurrection, then the Pharisees would not have had a problem with Christianity, and there would have been no reason for Paul to make such life-altering decisions.

That sounds made up. Did you make that up or do you have a source?

Therefore, how does this spiritual resurrection differ from what the Pharisees already believed?

Probably something to do with messianic expectations.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #55]

I don’t think you’re being fair to Achilles’ Heel here. If there’s no claim of authorship in the text and no way to verify the origin of the accounts (aside from church history centuries after the fact), then it’s reasonable to conclude that the gospels are not firsthand accounts

False. It's more than reasonable to note that firsthand is not necessarily proven. It's highly unreasonable and subjective to then conclude it's not firsthand, unless there is internal or external proof otherwise.

- or at the very least, that there’s no way to verify their provenance.

Which in the gospel's case that John wrote, is not true. There's no reasonable dispute of John being the one whom Jesus loved, that testifies to writing the gospel himself.

Moreover, it’s well-established that the three synoptic gospels drew on both Mark

Only to subjective disbelievers, in what the writers themselves say: That they independently write by inspiration, not by collective collusion.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

(the earliest-written gospel, and crucially one without any resurrection appearances detailed in it) and a “sayings” (of Jesus) document called Q, now lost.

Gee. Unfortunate that. But, I don't read any Nicaean meeting notes of any lost gospel, especially not of the first one ever written. With something that important to the whole NT and Bible itself, you'd think they would at least mention and mourn over it's loss to mankind...

But since someone says it was written and lost, then so be it. And, we therefore prove by direct historical analysis of what's lost, that the other 4 remaining gospels are just amalgamated legends of second and third hand colluding writers.

The Synoptics also drew on church legends, hearsay common among early Christians

Sometimes, I feel prophetic in these debates. Right, just amalgamated hearsay legends of second and third hand colluding writers.

(including those with and without connection to the historical Jesus) - and there is, of course, no way to verify their claims.

Why bother, when already subjectively believing, that they are just amalgamated hearsay legends of second and third hand colluding writers?

Of course, proving their claims is not the debate, but rather proving or disproving personal charges of contradiction.

Considering all this, and the evangelistic, hagiographical and miraculous nature of the writings, it’s easy to conclude that they are not reliable historical texts and their claims should be approached with skepticism.

I would too, if I considered that the 4 written gospels are just amalgamated hearsay legends of second and third hand colluding writers. And specially, if I considered a lost gospel without Jesus resurrection, is worth considering...

Circular conclusion by personal bias, are always easy. No need of proven examples.

You may argue the same thing about other historical writings (like the Iliad),

No you may not, at least not any historian who also knows what a myth is, vs what is written as accurate historical fact in all things.

There is no argument that the people in the Bible are mythological characters, whether it be Jesus of Nazareth, Saul of Tarsus, or Gov Pilate. Calling it a myth is therefore is not an option, for anyone who knows what a myth is. However, anyone is free the writers are lying about Jesus, Saul, and Pilate...

And, of course, no myth ever has a disclaimer written into it, that says it's not a myth.

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

but historians don’t accept these writings at face value.

Right. All the 'historians' that personally conclude the gospels are just amalgamated hearsay legends of second and third hand colluding writers. Are they also the experts that trust in the very first gospel, that is unfortunately lost, to confirm their personal conclusion?

'Some Bible reviewers' don’t accept these writings at face value, is accurate.

They match up their claims with physical elements and,

Can't wait to see one. So far, it's just some readers' claims made against what the writers claim.

crucially, discount the supernatural claims and other supernormal statements as unreliable.

Only if those physical claims are proven reliable.

The Bible, on the other hand, is believed (by Christians) to be the literal word of God and above analysis and reproach…

False. The Bible itself exhorts objective study, to see if the record is true.

which is exactly why fundamentalist scholars’ claims should be weighted lower than those of non-fundamentalists.

Which is exactly why such circular arguments of biased readers, should be weighed lowest of all. I.e. they'd rather hear from unbelieving believers, than believing believers...

They literally cannot do Biblical criticism, or treat the text like any other ancient writing,

Exactly. They're too personally biased against the book, to teat it like any book, that can be read and analyzed objectively.

on pain of heresy

Well, that's only if someone invades their churches to argue with them. I'd be an heretic among some.

and (in their beliefs) eternal torment.

I didn't know that biased disbelievers fear eternal torment for arguing against the Bible?

Edit: on naturalism vs. supernaturalism: because they are mutually exclusive and exhaustive positions, the lack of evidence for the supernatural is itself indirect evidence of naturalism via the law of the excluded middle. Even if that were not the case, however, the fact that there is no evidence of any supernatural occurrences means that those advocating supernaturalism bear the burden of proof here, and must overcome very low prior probabilities to make their case. Even if the gospel accounts were confirmed to be firsthand and independent, that would still not be enough to justify accepting supernatural claims.

That's only if anyone were trying to prove the spiritual things, that are eternal and not naturally temporal.

Not the case when physically reviewing the Book for internal or external error. So long as the Bible remains unerring, then anyone can also believe in the spiritual things unseen. If the record is all true in the physical things, then it can also be true in the spiritual.

We have independent, firsthand accounts of the supernatural in Mormon writings,

False. Smith is supposed to have copied such things from lost golden plates. (Maybe those had the lost first gospel ever written?)

His only firsthand claim was the angel delivering the plates. Which according to the Bible, there's no reason not to believe him:

Gal 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

in Swaminarayan Hinduism (which claims an ordinary man was God, similar to Christians…but their claimant was born in the 1800s and his own writings survive to this day),

False again, He made no firsthand claims, but was only later claimed by zealous followers, that he was an incarnation of God.

Sloppy handling of books, is the first sign of personal bias seeking a circular conclusion. No surprise then, that the Bible is sloppily handled as just amalgamated hearsay legends of second and third hand colluding writers. Especially when putting more stock in a lost 'gospel', than the 4 books we can physically read.

[RBD]

G4561 σάρξ (New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance)
sarx; a prim. word; flesh:—
bodily(1), bodily condition(1), body(3), earthly(1), flesh(126), fleshly(3), human(2), humanity(1), life(3), mankind(3), own people(1), people(1), personally(1).

These meanings are more than just “physical body,” and also suggest “life,” which very well could have been used spiritually or metaphorically when writing about a supposed resurrection.

And the bones too? Sounds like a word-study argument against Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

I.e. no matter how specific an author is, someone can always try to argue around it. Especially the ancient sophists playing word-games.

There’s nothing here that specifically implies it can only refer to a literal, physical body,

There’s nothing in the context, that specifically implies it can't refer to a literal, physical body. Especially when specifically saying it's flesh and bone...

For that matter, a physical object ascending (moving in a physical direction) to a non-physical place / state of being (heaven) is absolutely incoherent logically. It’s the interaction problem on steroids, and again, there simply is no evidence.

Disbelief by natural understanding alone, is not an objective argument, but a personal objection to something spiritual, that they don't believe, nor understand.

[Difflugia]

False. It's more than reasonable to note that firsthand is not necessarily proven. It's highly unreasonable and subjective to then conclude it's not firsthand, unless there is internal or external proof otherwise.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Many, many, many stories aren't firsthand accounts, while a few are. Your claim that it's "unreasonable and subjective" to draw the conclusion without evidence is like saying to that it's unreasonable to conclude that a handful of rocks aren't diamonds without proof. Even in the absence of any evidence at all, the conclusion is still very probably rightr. It's possible that it's not, but that's not a very high bar. Many, many, many rocks aren't diamonds. Some are, but proably not the one you've just picked up from the field.