The Naysayer Argument

[rikuoamero]

Sometimes on this forum, I hear arguments like if the resurrection weren't true, then the authorities of the day (Pilate and/or the Jewish high priests) just needed to display Jesus's body, and that would have been the end of Christianity.
Or that someone within Jesus's circle would have spoken up about it, and that too would have been the end of Christianity, before it even took off.

I would like to ask those who make this (or similar arguments) - really? Is that what you honestly think? That the first Christians would have accepted Pilate showing off what he says is the body of Jesus (which it may or may not actually be, in this hypothetical), without complaint or conflict? That there wouldn't have been rationalizations? Are you Christians telling us that the first Christians were so honourable, so decent and logical, that they would have given up their beliefs and stopped preaching them simply because Pilate produced a body he says is Jesus?
Or when a disciple says no? Would the other disciples have given up and gone home, simply because one of them disagrees with the rest? Or would they have called him just like Judas?

Question for Discussion - Do you Christians really think Christianity was that...fragile or susceptible (for lack of better wording) to being defeated, that the first Christians would have folded that easily?

[Jagella]

This is why Paul, although he thought Jesus had been crucified (in the lower heavens), buried (in the heavenly realm, where Adam was also thought to have been buried), never once references Jesus's arrest, his trial before Pilate/Sanhedrin, the tomb, the stone, and/or the Roman guards. He never mentions Jesus's appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem, or his appearances on the shores of Lake Tiberius. None of these were part of the initial, early resurrection tradition that Paul cites.

Some real-Jesus apologists defend the historicity of Jesus claiming that Paul didn't say much about Jesus' "earthly" life in the gospels for various reasons. Maurice Casey, for example, argues that the Gentiles Paul wrote to would not have cared one bit about the "Jewish" Jesus, so Paul didn't bother to tell them! Another argument I've heard is that Paul's followers already knew all about the gospel Jesus, so Paul didn't need to say anything. Why harp on all those old gospel stories wearing them out? LOL

Hmmm. The Christians Paul wrote to must be different from Christians today. Most modern Christians, despite being Gentiles, show a lot of interest in the Jewish aspects of the gospel tale. In addition, they never seem to tire of hearing those stories in the gospel no matter how familiar they are with them.

In any case, I agree with your position that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ have little if any good evidence for them, and despite what real-Jesus apologists argue, it is odd that Paul didn't say more about Jesus' "life."