Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 303 by The Tanager]

Not enough time to go against what those who were alive and knew Jesus and his disciples and what happened. These were ascribed to the disciples, those closest to Jesus. We have no literature from an earlier tradition. Other traditions come later.

Really? I follow some Youtubers activities. Recently, at a Youtube convention called Vidcon, one of them was sitting in the audience at a panel that a second Youtuber was hosting, when the second one started calling the first one names from the panel.
Video evidence shows that the first one never moved from his seat in the audience.
Despite this, despite the video evidence and despite the incredibly short amount of time, talk started circulating online that the first guy stormed the stage.

Also, we don't actually have anything from the earliest sect of Christians on what precisely it is they said. Conveniently enough, all we have are the later generation Christians. It is entirely possible that the later generation people believed things that the first generation didn't, and that the first generation people either didn't circulate their own beliefs or somewhere along the way, their own writings were lost, with only the writings from the later generation people surviving.

I was just saying that the form the movement has after Jesus' death (of the actual disciples/apostles of Jesus and Paul) claims Jesus also taught about the importance of his death and resurrection.

Paul and disciples of Paul never met Jesus. Yes, they may certainly have learned what Jesus taught via Peter...but how can we confirm this, given we don't have anything we can confirm is from Peter or from some other first generation disciple?
Even if we did, it is entirely possible that first generation disciples either wittingly or unwittingly could have made mistakes about Jesus's teachings.

[The Tanager]

What makes it improbable?

That we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a different, earlier Christian tradition. We have no evidence that counters the traditional Christian movement as the first. It's complete speculation.

So what? People laugh off religions and superstitions all the time and yet they persist. Just about everyone I know laughs off Scientology yet Scientology is still a very real and persistent religion. Ridicule and opposition is hardly ever successful in stopping a religion.

Scientology is not centered in what is claimed to be a historical event that could have been easily falsified, unlike the Christian movement.

I never said all history is equally speculative. But the cases you have provided thus far are.

The case for the traditional Christian movement being the earliest Christian movement versus some unknown alternative is not equally speculative.

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Your original argument was "if this was just a group making stuff up, it would not have really gained much steam". I met the standards to refute this argument by presenting Mormonism and pointing out how it was just a group making stuff up, yet it gained steam. I met the original standards to refute your arguments. After having done so, you make changes to the argument to add further clauses such as "it wouldn't have gained steam unopposed". This is textbook moving the goalpost.

It was a point made in a context, not a general argument. You responded to it as though it was a general argument. I was making the point in a context of talking about a faith centered on supposedly historical events growing in the area those events took place. You just make stuff up in the same geography and people will respond against that with actual history. You didn't take the point in that context, which I didn't spell out at first, so I clarified the distinction between your example (Mormonism) and the context of Christianity within which I was making my point.

I'm not faulting you for not seeing the context at first, but when I clarify the context you need to respond to the clarification in a rational way, rather than settling for an out. Respond to the content and stop acting like you know my motives. Ask more questions when something seems off or say "it seems to me like you are saying or how is this not moving the goalpost..." so that you give the other person a chance to clarify their statements, if you are interested in truth and not approaching these kind of discussions like a debate to be won regardless of actual truth. Otherwise, you MAY be unknowingly ignoring the content that is actually challenging your views.

If you still just think I'm trying to move a goalpost, don't waste your time with me. If you want to look after truth with me please stop jumping to conclusions and accusations.

Anyway, whether they gained steam or not and whether or not they were opposed, it still doesn't change the fact that it could very well be a group making stuff up.

Yes, and that is a possibility we have to consider. Not just leave it at "maybe this happened" but weigh it against all the possible alternatives and see which one(s) have good explanatory power.

So, the three probable facts are:

1. Jesus was buried in a tomb that was shortly later found empty.
2. Individuals claimed to have seen appearances of Jesus after he died.
3. The original disciples came to believe Jesus was risen from the dead and this was the center of their message.

What might explain these facts?

1. The disciples stole Jesus' body and lied about the resurrection appearances.
2. Jesus didn't die on the cross, but revived and escaped to convince the disciples (the swoon theory).
3. The disciples were hallucinating.
4. The disciples were fooled by an imposter.
5. Christians were copying from pagan religions.
6. The disciples' claims were distorted later.
7. The disciples were telling the truth and Jesus actually resurrected.
8. Any others to consider before moving on?

[The Tanager]

Really? I follow some Youtubers activities. Recently, at a Youtube convention called Vidcon, one of them was sitting in the audience at a panel that a second Youtuber was hosting, when the second one started calling the first one names from the panel.
Video evidence shows that the first one never moved from his seat in the audience.
Despite this, despite the video evidence and despite the incredibly short amount of time, talk started circulating online that the first guy stormed the stage.

And we have a record of people saying, "yeah, but look at this clear evidence to the contrary." We don't have a record of a different earlier Christian tradition at all. That's the difference.

Also, we don't actually have anything from the earliest sect of Christians on what precisely it is they said. Conveniently enough, all we have are the later generation Christians. It is entirely possible that the later generation people believed things that the first generation didn't, and that the first generation people either didn't circulate their own beliefs or somewhere along the way, their own writings were lost, with only the writings from the later generation people surviving.

Most scholars (including those that believe much is added by a later generation) will date the saying in Paul about the resurrection to being formed within 5 years of Jesus' death. That's something we have from the earliest sect of Christians on precisely what they believed. Many scholars see earlier forms within the finished forms of the Gospels (an earlier version of Mark, of John, etc.). We have no evidence to believe there were different earlier writings. They don't exist. I'm not going to base my belief on what historically happened in this time period on the mere speculation that maybe these earlier alternative writings were just lost.

[Justin108]

What makes it improbable?

That we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a different, earlier Christian tradition.

Doesn't make it improbable. But whatever. Let's just assume that they are the earliest Christians so we can move on.

So what? People laugh off religions and superstitions all the time and yet they persist. Just about everyone I know laughs off Scientology yet Scientology is still a very real and persistent religion. Ridicule and opposition is hardly ever successful in stopping a religion.

Scientology is not centered in what is claimed to be a historical event that could have been easily falsified, unlike the Christian movement.

That's completely beside the point. You suggested that laughing off a religion or superstition will result in the end of said religion or superstition. Scientology demonstrates that laughing off a religion is not a successful way of ending it. Ergo, your argument that "those around that area would have laughed them off" is moot.

I never said all history is equally speculative. But the cases you have provided thus far are.

The case for the traditional Christian movement being the earliest Christian movement versus some unknown alternative is not equally speculative.

Yes it is.

Anyway, whether they gained steam or not and whether or not they were opposed, it still doesn't change the fact that it could very well be a group making stuff up.

Yes, and that is a possibility we have to consider. Not just leave it at "maybe this happened" but weigh it against all the possible alternatives and see which one(s) have good explanatory power.

So, the three probable facts are:

1. Jesus was buried in a tomb that was shortly later found empty.
2. Individuals claimed to have seen appearances of Jesus after he died.
3. The original disciples came to believe Jesus was risen from the dead and this was the center of their message.

What might explain these facts?

1. The disciples stole Jesus' body and lied about the resurrection appearances.
2. Jesus didn't die on the cross, but revived and escaped to convince the disciples (the swoon theory).
3. The disciples were hallucinating.
4. The disciples were fooled by an imposter.
5. Christians were copying from pagan religions.
6. The disciples' claims were distorted later.
7. The disciples were telling the truth and Jesus actually resurrected.
8. Any others to consider before moving on?

1-6 all fall within the realm of what we know to be possible. 7 doesn't. Therefore, 7 is the least probable explanation

[The Tanager]

Doesn't make it improbable. But whatever. Let's just assume that they are the earliest Christians so we can move on.

Perhaps we are using probable/improbable differently, but we can move on.

Yes it is.

I don't understand how good evidence pointing to (and no known evidence pointing against) theory A versus no evidence whatsoever pointing to theory B is equally speculative in their pointings.

That's completely beside the point. You suggested that laughing off a religion or superstition will result in the end of said religion or superstition. Scientology demonstrates that laughing off a religion is not a successful way of ending it. Ergo, your argument that "those around that area would have laughed them off" is moot.

I responded to this point the last time you made it and your response back is to just make the same point, ignoring my response? Okay.

1-6 all fall within the realm of what we know to be possible. 7 doesn't. Therefore, 7 is the least probable explanation.

I'm interested in looking at what happened in a specific situation, not the prior probabilities of general possibilities. Could you explain your point more in that context, if you think it still holds?

[Justin108]

I don't understand how good evidence pointing to (and no known evidence pointing against) theory A versus no evidence whatsoever pointing to theory B is equally speculative in their pointings.

Because no evidence points to this particular brand of Christianity being the first. The fact that it is the earliest brand of known Christianity is not evidence of it being the first brand of Christianity to ever exist. No one would conclude that the oldest known human fossil is necessarily the first human to ever live, so why would we conclude that the first known Christians are the first Christians to ever exist?

I responded to this point the last time you made it and your response back is to just make the same point, ignoring my response? Okay.

Your response was "Scientology is not centered in what is claimed to be a historical event that could have been easily falsified, unlike the Christian movement", which is a Red Herring. It's completely besides the point. My point is not that "Scientology is as valid as Christianity", my point is that "laughing off a religion is not a successful way of stopping a religion".

Simple question: if laughing off a religion is a successful way of stopping a religion, why is Scientology still around?

1-6 all fall within the realm of what we know to be possible. 7 doesn't. Therefore, 7 is the least probable explanation.

I'm interested in looking at what happened in a specific situation, not the prior probabilities of general possibilities. Could you explain your point more in that context, if you think it still holds?

I'm not exactly sure what you want me to explain?

[KenRU]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

Yes.

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

Good point, imo, yes.

[The Tanager]

Once again, I'm sorry for how long it takes me to get back to you. The end of summer break is usually quite busy for me, but I do appreciate you challenging me on my thoughts.

Because no evidence points to this particular brand of Christianity being the first. The fact that it is the earliest brand of known Christianity is not evidence of it being the first brand of Christianity to ever exist. No one would conclude that the oldest known human fossil is necessarily the first human to ever live, so why would we conclude that the first known Christians are the first Christians to ever exist?

I agree with you that the certainty is not 100%, but it's more likely than not, which is why it isn't equally as speculative (for the surface of the point I was making). We should conclude that the first known Christians are highly likely to have been the original Christians. Because we have material from this time period. We have evidence of later groups in later periods, but note earlier. People keep records of themselves, of those around them.

There is no reason beyond speculation to think there is a different original Christian movement. If that evidence comes to light, then we must reassess. In the meantime we (tentatively, as in most of our knowledge) are more rational to believe the traditional origin of Christianity is the actual origin of Christianity.

Your response was "Scientology is not centered in what is claimed to be a historical event that could have been easily falsified, unlike the Christian movement", which is a Red Herring. It's completely besides the point. My point is not that "Scientology is as valid as Christianity", my point is that "laughing off a religion is not a successful way of stopping a religion".

Simple question: if laughing off a religion is a successful way of stopping a religion, why is Scientology still around?

It's not a red herring. I know you aren't saying scientology is as valid as Christianity. My response isn't claiming you think that and then trying to refute that point. And I'm not saying that laughing off a religion, in general, is a successful way of stopping a religion.

Scientology makes no historical appeals, so it's harder to "laugh off" or disprove. It's claims don't rest on Hubbard doing such-and-such at so-and-so a time. A person around it's origin couldn't just say "wait a minute, we were all there when Hubbard supposedly did such-and-such and we know that isn't how it went down."

A worldview that makes historical claims is a different kind of thing. Jews who knew of Jesus but were not disciples of Jesus while he lived became Christians living through the events of the crucifixion and supposed resurrection. They could have and would have just said "wait a minute, we were all there and Jesus' tomb is still occupied and that's not how it went down" and "this theory of resurrection wasn't publically around for the first 10-20 years" and stuff like that.

The Latter-day saints movement made historical claims, although they were secretive, not as public as the crucifixion/resurrection was. And they still had to move to many places to gain a hold on new converts.

Your comparison doesn't take account of these distinctions, but you should.

I'm not exactly sure what you want me to explain?

You seemed to take the possibilities and look at them as isolated possible events and then compared those general probabilities. Well, of course, a resurrection doesn't happen all the time, so it's probability, generally speaking, is very low. While people lie, steal, survive traumatic events, etc. more often. But we need to talk about this specific situation.

1. The disciples stole Jesus' body and lied about the resurrection appearances:

This is the earliest recorded response by Jewish authorities against the Christian claim of resurrection. I don't think this explains the simplicity of the resurrection narratives or why they would use women as the primary witnesses to the tomb being empty. It doesn't explain why the disciples would perpetuate the story that they stole the body (like the author of Matthew does). I would think you wouldn't want to incriminate yourself like that. This doesn't explain that the disciples felt they had experiences of seeing the risen Christ and turned from being dejected runaways to become witnessess who were willing to suffer and die for their belief. This theory seems to be anachronistic because there doesn't appear to be any 1st century Jewish expectation of a suffering servant Messiah who would be executed like a shameful criminal who then rose again before the end of time. If you were Jewish and your messiah got crucified you went home or got a new messiah. Nor does this explain why Paul would have converted.

2. The swoon theory:

I'm not sure this theory takes seriously what the crucified would have gone through with the torture and trauma. Jesus' faking His own resurrection would go against anything anyone believes Jesus taught. He would have told his disciples that he didn't really die. On top of that, a half-dead resurrected messiah would not have been that impressive to others. That is not a person that shows himself to be a conquerer of death and grave, a picture of eternal life (like the disciples maintained) and would transform the disciples into who they become proclaiming Jesus' resurrection. This also appears anachronistic because the Jewish belief was a final resurrection at the end of time and they would not have been convinced by a half-dead Jesus that this was a resurrection from the dead within history. They would have concluded that he didn't die. The Roman soldiers would have known what they were doing and would have executed Jesus. This theory doesn't arise in the early literature we have in anyway. And it can't account for a skeptic like Paul in his conversion.

3. Hallucination:

I don't think this is strong either. The testimony is of physical, bodily appearances from Jesus. If they weren't originally physical, bodily, it's strange that all testimony we have is that they were physical and bodily. There is no trace of a supposed original non-physical appearance. Hallucinations aren't group experiences, but that earliest piece from 1 Corinthians (and later ones as well), notes such appearances. This theory doesn't explain the origin of their belief in Jesus' resurrection. Even back then visions of the dead don't make people think these people are alive. If hallucinations are projections of the mind, then they don't contain new material. Jewish understanding would have given them hallucinations of Jesus in heaven or in Abraham's bosom, not a resurrection now. Hallucinations don't explain there being an empty tomb, why a skeptic like Paul would convert.

4. Imposter

This comes from later Gnostic writings claiming Jesus had a twin. It can't explain the supposed supernatural aspects of the appearances of Jesus, or Jesus' wounds. The disciples would have noticed a difference in Jesus' twin who was never around them. He couldn't just step right in and be exactly like Jesus and fool people who had been living with Jesus for multiple years. This goes against Jewish thinking about the messiah, which was not in a crucified and resurrected before the end of time kind of messiah. The twin would not want to impersonate a man they just crucified for being a heretic/treason. It wouldn't explain the tomb being empty. And it's just ad hoc. There is no evidence Jesus had a twin, that they grew up apart, that this twin was unethical, learned of Jesus, came just as Jesus was being crucified and hatched this hoax and then tricked everyone into believing it.

5. Copycat religion

Almost every scholar laughs this response off, which doesn't mean it's not true, but should cause us to at least pause. They have good reasons to dismiss this, nearly universally. Those that peddle this view are self-made 'scholars' and usually rely on dated scholarship to provide a scholarly basis. The context of this movement is first-century Palestinian Jews, not pagan mythology. The earliest accounts of a dying and rising god that even somewhat parallels the Jesus account are in texts written at least 100 years later than Jesus' resurrection (the chronology, if anything, points to borrowing in the other direction). And even if it showed parallels exist, then wouldn't mean the resurrection of Jesus was untrue (coincidence doesn't prove causal connection). The alleged similarities are usually greatly exagerrated or just made up with the purpose of fitting Christian language. The mystery religions are not exclusivistic (Christianity is) and not grounded in historical events (Christianity is).

6. Later distortion

These claims are supported by early testimony, which is more reliable and less likely to be the result of legendary development. It's within 5 years. There isn't time for a great deal of myth and legend to accrue and distort the historical facts in a significant way. Leading scholar of Roman and Greek history at Oxford, AN Sherwin-White argues that not even a span of 2 generations is sufficient for legend to wipe out a solid core of historical facts. The accounts are simple and lack theological development, which comes with later texts like the gnostic texts.

7. Jesus actually resurrected

I'll let you criticize this theory, so that my bias can't get in the way.

8. Others to consider?

[Justin108]

I agree with you that the certainty is not 100%, but it's more likely than not

Yet it's more likely than not that older fossils exist than the oldest known fossil.

So X is the oldest known human fossil, but probably not the oldest human ever.

Similarly, Y is the oldest known Christian sect, but probably not the oldest Christian sect ever.

But again, is this crucial to your point? Do these Christians have to be the very first Christians for your argument to work?

Scientology makes no historical appeals, so it's harder to "laugh off" or disprove. It's claims don't rest on Hubbard doing such-and-such at so-and-so a time. A person around it's origin couldn't just say "wait a minute, we were all there when Hubbard supposedly did such-and-such and we know that isn't how it went down."

Actually, L. Ron Hubbard supposedly did many things that others point out simply did not happen. He claims to have been awarded several war medals, despite there not being any official record thereof. Many of his medals have been analysed and shown to be fake. He claims to have used Scientology to recover from several war wounds. The Navy denies that he ever sustained these wounds. And of course there is the matter of his death. Followers of his church believe he "voluntarily discarded his body in order to research higher OT levels" when in fact he simply died from a stroke.

So even during his lifetime, people believed things about L. Ron Hubbard that simply never happened. I see no reason why this couldn't be true of Jesus.

1. The disciples stole Jesus' body and lied about the resurrection appearances:

This is the earliest recorded response by Jewish authorities against the Christian claim of resurrection. I don't think this explains the simplicity of the resurrection narratives or why they would use women as the primary witnesses to the tomb being empty. It doesn't explain why the disciples would perpetuate the story that they stole the body (like the author of Matthew does). I would think you wouldn't want to incriminate yourself like that. This doesn't explain that the disciples felt they had experiences of seeing the risen Christ and turned from being dejected runaways to become witnessess who were willing to suffer and die for their belief. This theory seems to be anachronistic because there doesn't appear to be any 1st century Jewish expectation of a suffering servant Messiah who would be executed like a shameful criminal who then rose again before the end of time. If you were Jewish and your messiah got crucified you went home or got a new messiah. Nor does this explain why Paul would have converted.

2. The swoon theory:

I'm not sure this theory takes seriously what the crucified would have gone through with the torture and trauma. Jesus' faking His own resurrection would go against anything anyone believes Jesus taught. He would have told his disciples that he didn't really die. On top of that, a half-dead resurrected messiah would not have been that impressive to others. That is not a person that shows himself to be a conquerer of death and grave, a picture of eternal life (like the disciples maintained) and would transform the disciples into who they become proclaiming Jesus' resurrection. This also appears anachronistic because the Jewish belief was a final resurrection at the end of time and they would not have been convinced by a half-dead Jesus that this was a resurrection from the dead within history. They would have concluded that he didn't die. The Roman soldiers would have known what they were doing and would have executed Jesus. This theory doesn't arise in the early literature we have in anyway. And it can't account for a skeptic like Paul in his conversion.

3. Hallucination:

I don't think this is strong either. The testimony is of physical, bodily appearances from Jesus. If they weren't originally physical, bodily, it's strange that all testimony we have is that they were physical and bodily. There is no trace of a supposed original non-physical appearance. Hallucinations aren't group experiences, but that earliest piece from 1 Corinthians (and later ones as well), notes such appearances. This theory doesn't explain the origin of their belief in Jesus' resurrection. Even back then visions of the dead don't make people think these people are alive. If hallucinations are projections of the mind, then they don't contain new material. Jewish understanding would have given them hallucinations of Jesus in heaven or in Abraham's bosom, not a resurrection now. Hallucinations don't explain there being an empty tomb, why a skeptic like Paul would convert.

4. Imposter

This comes from later Gnostic writings claiming Jesus had a twin. It can't explain the supposed supernatural aspects of the appearances of Jesus, or Jesus' wounds. The disciples would have noticed a difference in Jesus' twin who was never around them. He couldn't just step right in and be exactly like Jesus and fool people who had been living with Jesus for multiple years. This goes against Jewish thinking about the messiah, which was not in a crucified and resurrected before the end of time kind of messiah. The twin would not want to impersonate a man they just crucified for being a heretic/treason. It wouldn't explain the tomb being empty. And it's just ad hoc. There is no evidence Jesus had a twin, that they grew up apart, that this twin was unethical, learned of Jesus, came just as Jesus was being crucified and hatched this hoax and then tricked everyone into believing it.

5. Copycat religion

Almost every scholar laughs this response off, which doesn't mean it's not true, but should cause us to at least pause. They have good reasons to dismiss this, nearly universally. Those that peddle this view are self-made 'scholars' and usually rely on dated scholarship to provide a scholarly basis. The context of this movement is first-century Palestinian Jews, not pagan mythology. The earliest accounts of a dying and rising god that even somewhat parallels the Jesus account are in texts written at least 100 years later than Jesus' resurrection (the chronology, if anything, points to borrowing in the other direction). And even if it showed parallels exist, then wouldn't mean the resurrection of Jesus was untrue (coincidence doesn't prove causal connection). The alleged similarities are usually greatly exagerrated or just made up with the purpose of fitting Christian language. The mystery religions are not exclusivistic (Christianity is) and not grounded in historical events (Christianity is).

6. Later distortion

These claims are supported by early testimony, which is more reliable and less likely to be the result of legendary development. It's within 5 years. There isn't time for a great deal of myth and legend to accrue and distort the historical facts in a significant way. Leading scholar of Roman and Greek history at Oxford, AN Sherwin-White argues that not even a span of 2 generations is sufficient for legend to wipe out a solid core of historical facts. The accounts are simple and lack theological development, which comes with later texts like the gnostic texts.

You can ask a thousand questions for every one of these possibilities. All I want to know is whether they are more probable than someone coming back from the dead, and they are. Why would the disciples lie? I don't know, but it's still more likely that they lied than someone coming back from the dead. Why would they use women as the primary witness? I don't know, but it's still more likely that they used women as false witnesses than someone coming back from the dead. If you want to analyze every one of these alternate theories in depth, we can. But to me, the most sensible conclusion to every one of these is that "this is more likely than someone coming back from the dead".

8. Others to consider?

You're using the same tactic liamconnor uses. "If Jesus didn't come back from the dead then what did happen?" I don't know and I don't need to know in order to be skeptical about your claim. You claim that Jesus came back from the dead. I ask for proof of that claim and your only proof is essentially asking me to disprove it by coming up with an alternate explanation. This is basically shifting the burden of proof.

[The Tanager]

Yet it's more likely than not that older fossils exist than the oldest known fossil.

So X is the oldest known human fossil, but probably not the oldest human ever.

Similarly, Y is the oldest known Christian sect, but probably not the oldest Christian sect ever.

I am very suspect of arguments from analogy. I think they should be used to clarify a point, not make an argument for a point. You have a huge burden to show that the two things you are comparing should be compared in the way you are doing that. Fossils of hundreds of thousands of years old (and our ability to access and study them) are very different things than human societies two thousands years old (and our ability to access and study them).

But again, is this crucial to your point? Do these Christians have to be the very first Christians for your argument to work?

Again, I don't think it is.

Actually, L. Ron Hubbard supposedly did many things that others point out simply did not happen. He claims to have been awarded several war medals, despite there not being any official record thereof. Many of his medals have been analysed and shown to be fake. He claims to have used Scientology to recover from several war wounds. The Navy denies that he ever sustained these wounds. And of course there is the matter of his death. Followers of his church believe he "voluntarily discarded his body in order to research higher OT levels" when in fact he simply died from a stroke.

So even during his lifetime, people believed things about L. Ron Hubbard that simply never happened. I see no reason why this couldn't be true of Jesus.

My point was that these claims aren't central to the core doctrine of scientology. Jesus' resurrection is the core doctrine of early Christianity. People can accept/reject scientology without hearing about the medals and claims about what happened at Hubbard's death. That's not the same with Christianity. Attack a scientologist on those claims, show them improbable, and they can keep the teachings; attack a Christian on the historicity of the resurrection, showing it irrational, and the message is gone.

You can ask a thousand questions for every one of these possibilities. All I want to know is whether they are more probable than someone coming back from the dead, and they are.

Why? In light of the various facts (surrounding the empty tomb, claims of seeing a resurrected Jesus, and the early Christians and their message), why? I specifically (although briefly) shared why I didn't think the various theories were more probable than that the resurrection actually happened. If it's a general point like "resurrections don't normally happen" or something like that, fine, share it. If you want to get more specific on each one, fine, share it.

You're using the same tactic liamconnor uses. "If Jesus didn't come back from the dead then what did happen?" I don't know and I don't need to know in order to be skeptical about your claim. You claim that Jesus came back from the dead. I ask for proof of that claim and your only proof is essentially asking me to disprove it by coming up with an alternate explanation. This is basically shifting the burden of proof.

I am absolutely not shifting the burden of proof. I list every theory I am aware of from the greatest minds who have ever thought about this supposed historical event (and countless people put their mind to this task) and analyze why I think they fail when we look at things historically. Your response here SEEMS to basically be something like "I don't know, but it has to be something else." Fine, if you can share why it is rational to make that claim. Why is this (if it is your actual feeling) a rational position to take? What do you base that on?