Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Apologiaphoenix]

i doubt that crucifixion was akin to pedophilia by any stretch. this is just a statement that is invented to make this point seem credible than it is.

Then you think wrongly. Crucifixion was not talked at around the dinner table. People would avoid using the word even.

"oh, he was unjustly executed because they didnt like his message of love and peace, that's awful, tell me more." "... oh. he was crucified. ew, never mind, that's just as nasty as raping children, never mind..."

Yeah. Keep in mind this was a culture where Pederasty was acceptable. Women were often seen as mere objects. If someone was crucified, they were not unjustly executed. They obviously deserved it. Society had spoken. (Also, Jesus's message was not love and peace. That would not have got Him crucified.)

thieves were crucified. rebels were crucified. it may have been embarrassing to be crucified, but it just makes no sense to suggest that the people viewed being crucified the same way we view being a pedophile. that's almost as absurd as suggesting dead people can come back to life and fly away.

No. No it's not.

look, making statements that like, or about the female witnesses, and then saying, "so see, a man couldnt not have just made that up," doesnt help support the claim. If the dead coming back to life and flying into heaven, through the sky, is possible, then people plugging female witnesses and crucifixions into a contrived or embellished story certainly is. saying "impossible" to a perfectly possible and natural event is just ridiculous when you're simultaneously trying to claim that the impossible event of dead people coming back to life and flying away is not only "possible," but "the most likely" is close to insanity.

If you were making up a story, you might include bizarre things and things that would not normally happen, but if you were trying to convince someone, you would not include shameful things. The Gospels are Greco-Roman bioi so the authors did at least think they were writing history.

[Gary]

Well first of all, you don't have to be a non-Christian to be considered a critical scholar. Some of academia's most critical scholars call themselves Christian. But anyways, Gary Habermas wrote a peer reviewed paper on this subject in 2005 called "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?". I don't think anyone has successfully challenged his claim that the majority of biblical scholars do accept the tomb was empty. Again, major disagreement tends towards why it was empty.

The majority of Koran scholars believe that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? So since the overwhelming majority of Koran scholars believe this event happened, should we accept it as historical fact?

[Gary]

Scholars agree that the gospels (except John) were written BEFORE 70AD (the destruction of the Temple) Jesus himself prophesied the falling of the temple. It is strange that none of the gospels would not mention the actual event if they were written after 70AD. As for Mark, he was the scribe for Peter, who was martyred in 68AD, so it is most likely his gospel was written before that. Evidence found shows it closer to 55AD

This is a preposterous assertion. Please list the scholars that believe that the Synoptics were definitely written before 70 AD. I will bet that the handful that assert this are graduates from evangelical universities in Virginia and Texas.

[William]

Then you think wrongly. Crucifixion was not talked at around the dinner table. People would avoid using the word even.



Yeah. Keep in mind this was a culture where Pederasty was acceptable. Women were often seen as mere objects. If someone was crucified, they were not unjustly executed. They obviously deserved it. Society had spoken. (Also, Jesus's message was not love and peace. That would not have got Him crucified.)



No. No it's not.



If you were making up a story, you might include bizarre things and things that would not normally happen, but if you were trying to convince someone, you would not include shameful things. The Gospels are Greco-Roman bioi so the authors did at least think they were writing history.

people don't talk about executions around dinner tables these days.

it is absurd.

If you were telling someone a story about a guy they should devote their lives to, I can see why you'd deliver it in package that created sympathy for him. when they're conveying a story about his crucifixion, they dont end with "he was crucified" they wrap in neatly, for affect, and say, "through no fault of his own, and even though he was sinless, he loved you so much that he allowed himself to be sacrificed, even to the lowly and painful death of crucifixion, to save you, because he loved you.." it adds sympathy, and guilt and a sense of unfairness that people usually sympathize with. This isn't hard.

But i dont think the crucifixion was fabricated anyways. I think truth is mixed in with legend and mythology. this isnt hard or unheard of either - it happens all the time. but putting a bit of truth into a story doesnt mean that the whole story is true nor does it lend any credit to supernatural claims, like the one who was crucified came back to life.

you're just parroting baseless claims people make about jews who lived 2000 years ago and how they thought. since no 2020 years old jews are around to question, I guess anything can be made up without it being "disproven," and it just results in "nuh-uh," "uh-huh" even if it were unlikely, it's not impossible. and an unlikely natural explanation is far better than an unlikely, one of a kind, supernatural explanation.

I mean, I guess Muhammad marrying his 9 year old niece was embarrassing, so Muhammad must be God's prophet, especially considering the unlikely spread of islam... I mean, we can make stuff up all day about anything and say stuff like, "it would be impossible for a man to admit that an illiterate man, like Muhammad, was the god's prophet, therefore, since it's impossible, we can know that Muhammad was God's prophet.

It's just inventing some rule and then pretending it's a real rule. and it's made in the same breath as another claimed rule that something impossible is actually possible and also the most likely scenario, so we should trust it.

if someone wants to devote their lives to a book written by men who claim to have special insights into god's will, and if they find that believable, then that's okay with me - i just dont find it compelling and I cant get myself to believe these invented rules people are trying to pawn off.

[Apologiaphoenix]

people don't talk about executions around dinner tables these days.

it is absurd.

If you were telling someone a story about a guy they should devote their lives to, I can see why you'd deliver it in package that created sympathy for him. when they're conveying a story about his crucifixion, they dont end with "he was crucified" they wrap in neatly, for affect, and say, "through no fault of his own, and even though he was sinless, he loved you so much that he allowed himself to be sacrificed, even to the lowly and painful death of crucifixion, to save you, because he loved you.." it adds sympathy, and guilt and a sense of unfairness that people usually sympathize with. This isn't hard.

Except you're putting it in modern times, as if sympathy would be what was felt. Guilt itself would not be felt. That's a modern projection from our times on to theirs. Jesus was shameful and you don't embrace a shameful figure lest his shame rub off on you. Even if someone did feel sympathy by chance, they'd just say that was a nice story. They'd have no need to identify with the person.

But i dont think the crucifixion was fabricated anyways. I think truth is mixed in with legend and mythology. this isnt hard or unheard of either - it happens all the time. but putting a bit of truth into a story doesnt mean that the whole story is true nor does it lend any credit to supernatural claims, like the one who was crucified came back to life.

I don't accept a natural/supernatural dichotomy, but yes, legend and truth do get mixed. But again, to say it is possible does not mean that that happened. It must be shown that it di d.

you're just parroting baseless claims people make about jews who lived 2000 years ago and how they thought. since no 2020 years old jews are around to question, I guess anything can be made up without it being "disproven," and it just results in "nuh-uh," "uh-huh" even if it were unlikely, it's not impossible. and an unlikely natural explanation is far better than an unlikely, one of a kind, supernatural explanation.

No. I'm not making things up, unless you think context scholars like Richards, Malina, Pilch, Neyrey, Witherington, DeSilva, etc. are just making things up. This is scholarship that passes peer-review.

I mean, I guess Muhammad marrying his 9 year old niece was embarrassing, so Muhammad must be God's prophet, especially considering the unlikely spread of islam... I mean, we can make stuff up all day about anything and say stuff like, "it would be impossible for a man to admit that an illiterate man, like Muhammad, was the god's prophet, therefore, since it's impossible, we can know that Muhammad was God's prophet.

Unlikely spread of Islam? Yeah. It's unlikely a religion spread where if you joined it, you got to participate in battle and receive honor and get wealth and women to boot.

If it wasn't for the sword, you'd have a case.

It's just inventing some rule and then pretending it's a real rule. and it's made in the same breath as another claimed rule that something impossible is actually possible and also the most likely scenario, so we should trust it.

if someone wants to devote their lives to a book written by men who claim to have special insights into god's will, and if they find that believable, then that's okay with me - i just dont find it compelling and I cant get myself to believe these invented rules people are trying to pawn off.

Feel free to think that way. I mean, you have to ignore the context group of scholarship and impose your own modernistic worldview and individualism, but hey. Just don't go to any country, and a huge number are like this, where they still think this way. You'll be in for a major culture shock.

[Gary]

I had not answered Gary last night because

First, I live in Tennessee in the Eastern Time Zone. It was late in the evening.

Second, I am trying to go through books here. I get several from IVP to review and then I got one from interlibrary loan yesterday that I only have until the 30th and I understand is about 500 pages long.

Third, I was done on the computer and once I'm done with it, I normally stay off for the day, though I am often connected through my Kindle Fire. I just know if I come back I will be dragged in again and I wanted to maintain my focus.

Finally, when Allie is ready for bed, I tend to put a stop to debating. Things can wait until the morning as she wants me by her side as much as possible.

But as for Saul. Why would Saul not believe?

Probably for the same reasons others didn't. Jesus was crucified at the start. That told Saul enough about the identity of Jesus. Jesus was a blasphemer to YHWH. Why care about a blasphemer? Paul would also have views about the people of Israel and the Law of Israel. Consider a group like the Essenes. They thought that much of Judaism was corrupt and established their own society at Qumran. They still saw themselves as the fulfillment of the promises of Scripture and they still kept the law. How much? Well here's how much. We read the Gospels and we see the Pharisees as the bad guys and look at how stringent they were on the Law.

The Essenes thought the Pharisees were wimps when it came to the Law.

So yes, in Paul's view, Jesus would not be the Messiah at the start because He was crucified and because He had a reputation as a Lawbreaker. No Messiah would be a Lawbreaker.

As for the people of Israel, the Messiah would bring about the Kingdom of God and He would restore Israel to power. At least, that was popular thought. Jesus didn't do that. Jesus would have been seen as a failed Messiah for Rome was still in charge. Thus, Paul would reject Him.

Finally, if Paul believed all of this, of course He would persecute the church. They were being unfaithful to YHWH and by that, YHWH would bring about judgment on Israel. (Ironically, it was just the opposite. It was by rejecting Jesus that the Jews rejected YHWH and brought judgment on themselves.)

We have to realize what a stigma crucifixion was. I liken it to imagine being a member of the SBC and being told you were to vote on a new president named Joe Jones and his story starts with "Joe Jones was a convicted pedophile."

Everything you hear afterwards will be tarnished after that.

Crucifixion was worse.

You are missing my point, Nick. Saul of Tarsus knew the following:

1. First century Jews do not believe in the Resurrection of individuals.
2. It would be very odd to claim women witnessed an event if you were lying.
3. The tomb was empty, a tomb guarded 24/7 by Roman guards.
4. Paul witnessed the earthquakes, the three hours of darkness, and dead saints walking out of their graves.
5. Paul would know the temple veil was torn down the middle at the time of Jesus' death.
6. Paul saw the change in behavior of Jesus' disciples and family (James).
7. Paul saw Christians willing to be tortured and die for their claim of a Resurrection. People do not die for a lie.
8. Christianity was spreading like wildfire even among Jews, even though it was a shameful belief system.

Saul was aware of all this evidence, but did not believe.

This is the very evidence that you presented me. You said this evidence was sufficient for the average person to believe and chastised me for being closed-minded for not believing it. Yet, Saul, a student of the Bible, did not believe this evidence was sufficient. If Saul found it insufficient without a personal appearance of Jesus (in a "heavenly vision") why am I and other skeptics of your claim being closed-minded for not believing your evidence without a personal appearance to us?

[Adrift]

The majority of Koran scholars believe that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? So since the overwhelming majority of Koran scholars believe this event happened, should we accept it as historical fact?

Well, first of all, that isn't the claim. The claim is that the majority of critical scholars accept that the tomb was empty. So not only do you need to provide a source for your claim that the majority of Koran scholars believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a steed, they specifically need to be critical scholars.

Second of all, the historical observation about the empty tomb is not a supernatural claim. Historians don't typically defend supernatural or personal theological claims in their academic work. A good historian uses the historical method to examine the historical record and lay out their findings as objectively as possible. So, most critical scholars who accept that the tomb was empty offer natural reasons for why it was empty, or offer no explanation for why it was empty leaving it a mystery. So the parallel you're attempting to make here isn't going to work.

[William]

Except you're putting it in modern times, as if sympathy would be what was felt. Guilt itself would not be felt. That's a modern projection from our times on to theirs. Jesus was shameful and you don't embrace a shameful figure lest his shame rub off on you. Even if someone did feel sympathy by chance, they'd just say that was a nice story. They'd have no need to identify with the person.



I don't accept a natural/supernatural dichotomy, but yes, legend and truth do get mixed. But again, to say it is possible does not mean that that happened. It must be shown that it di d.



No. I'm not making things up, unless you think context scholars like Richards, Malina, Pilch, Neyrey, Witherington, DeSilva, etc. are just making things up. This is scholarship that passes peer-review.



Unlikely spread of Islam? Yeah. It's unlikely a religion spread where if you joined it, you got to participate in battle and receive honor and get wealth and women to boot.

If it wasn't for the sword, you'd have a case.



Feel free to think that way. I mean, you have to ignore the context group of scholarship and impose your own modernistic worldview and individualism, but hey. Just don't go to any country, and a huge number are like this, where they still think this way. You'll be in for a major culture shock.

i'm not igoring anything. people want to act as if those in the first century didn't have basic human emotions. guilt has always been there. Sympathy too. self sacrifice has always been admired and respected. loving other more than loving oneself.

and if we're going off the bulk of the scholars, the majority aren't christian, so they don't find it believable either, unless you only recognize christian scholars that is.

islam and christianity arent too different from how it spread. The crusades. the inquisition. The conquest of the new world. Constantine. Christianity has its own sword play and booty and death unless you convert. and islam isn't only spread by war and terror either. I'm tempted to say that arabs in the 1st century werent motivated by women and war glory in an attempt to try and mirror similar arguments that try and support Christianity, but people are people and have been for a long time. people feel lust, and pride, and seek adventure, but also feel guilt, and love, and admiration, and anger at unfairness and injustice, and so on.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You are missing my point, Nick. Saul of Tarsus knew the following:

1. First century Jews do not believe in the Resurrection of individuals.

False. They did. There were some in the Old Testament. What was believed was that the eschatological resurrection was at the end of the age.

2. It would be very odd to claim women witnessed an event if you were lying.

Correct

3. The tomb was empty, a tomb guarded 24/7 by Roman guards.

Correct

4. Paul witnessed the earthquakes, the three hours of darkness, and dead saints walking out of their graves.

This is not known. Earthquakes in themselves would have been common and if there was darkness, most would say that was an eclipse of some sort. It also assumes this is a literal account.

5. Paul would know the temple veil was torn down the middle at the time of Jesus' death.

See above.

6. Paul saw the change in behavior of Jesus' disciples and family (James).

Which would in fact raise suspicion. Personality was static.

7. Paul saw Christians willing to be tortured and die for their claim of a Resurrection. People do not die for a lie.

Paul saw them being arrested more often. The death we know he saw was Stephen and Stephen would be easy to write off for Paul.

8. Christianity was spreading like wildfire even among Jews, even though it was a shameful belief system.

And for that, it needed to be stopped.

Saul was aware of all this evidence, but did not believe.

This is the very evidence that you presented me. You said this evidence was sufficient for the average person to believe and chastised me for being closed-minded for not believing it. Yet, Saul, a student of the Bible, did not believe this evidence was sufficient. If Saul found it insufficient without a personal appearance of Jesus (in a "heavenly vision") why am I and other skeptics of your claim being closed-minded for not believing your evidence without a personal appearance to us?

For the reasons I gave. Paul would have let his other positions come through instead and there's no indication that he was "investigating" the claims of Christ. He just heard them and decided they were false. Also, as for the honor-shame, a lot of that stuff came about AFTER Paul.

And furthermore, if you say "I will not believe unless I have a person experience" then that tells me no study of history will convince you. Whatever historical argument you're given, you will not accept it because of your experiences.

That is not how to do history. I have given a standard apart from experience. You have given one that just says "I will not listen to what you say because I do not have what I want."

[Apologiaphoenix]

i'm not igoring anything. people want to act as if those in the first century didn't have basic human emotions. guilt has always been there. Sympathy too. self sacrifice has always been admired and respected. loving other more than loving oneself.

No. It hasn't. Shame was the way things were in the first century. It wasn't guilt. The industrialization of society allowed people to function more on their own and break away from others. You're reading your culture into the times and assuming everyone was just like you.

and if we're going off the bulk of the scholars, the majority aren't christian, so they don't find it believable either, unless you only recognize christian scholars that is.

No. For the most part, the scholars I presented to Gary were non-Christian.

islam and christianity arent too different from how it spread. The crusades. the inquisition. The conquest of the new world. Constantine. Christianity has its own sword play and booty and death unless you convert. and islam isn't only spread by war and terror either. I'm tempted to say that arabs in the 1st century werent motivated by women and war glory in an attempt to try and mirror similar arguments that try and support Christianity, but people are people and have been for a long time. people feel lust, and pride, and seek adventure, but also feel guilt, and love, and admiration, and anger at unfairness and injustice, and so on.

Well minus the major historical inaccuracies, Christianity should have never even got to Constantine. It should have died immediately. As for the Crusades, do you realize the Crusades were a defensive measure? The East needed help from the West when Muslims were persecuting their people. Long before, it had been Charles "The Hammer" Martel who stopped the Muslims from advancing and conquering all of Europe. In fact, the Crusaders were explicitly said to not go for missionary purposes and the main reason they were to go was love of their neighbor. How? Their neighbor was being persecuted by Muslims.

The Inquisition? The state killed just as the church did and the church did not do that much. In 300 years time, the Spanish Inquisition (Which no one was expecting) killed 3000. That's 3,000 too many, but it's still 3,000. It isn't the millions people make it out to be. This was also done because there was no separation of church and state. Going against the church was a form of treason as it was going against the social order that held society together.

I recommend you really read some history on these matters. You're simply reading your own culture into the text.

[William]

Well, first of all, that isn't the claim. The claim is that the majority of critical scholars accept that the tomb was empty. So not only do you need to provide a source for your claim that the majority of Koran scholars believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a steed, they specifically need to be critical scholars.

Second of all, the historical observation about the empty tomb is not a supernatural claim. Historians don't typically defend supernatural or personal theological claims in their academic work. A good historian uses the historical method to examine the historical record and lay out their findings as objectively as possible. So, most critical scholars who accept that the tomb was empty offer natural reasons for why it was empty, or offer no explanation for why it was empty leaving it a mystery. So the parallel you're attempting to make here isn't going to work.

do the critical scholars agree that the empty tomb was Jesus' tomb? The scholars get their info from the gospels like everyone else. there's nothing else. Paul said buried, the gospels say tomb. So there was tomb that someone claimed and believed was Jesus. That's what the scholars agree on. Maybe there was a tomb. it may have even been jesus tomb. but like you said, that doesnt mean that the tomb is evidence for Resurrection, it's evidence of an empty tomb.

so, if this were not jesus we were discussing, but a missing body case, as if we were detectives, would we ever accept a claim or hypothesis that stated the dead body was missing because it's not dead anymore and after returning to life, flew away?

say this was a cold case and we're coming back to in 50 to 70 years later after a recent book said that the body went missing 50 to 70 years earlier, but thousands of years prior to that, there was a passage in another book, that appeared to be talking about something else, yet referenced someone suffering with pierced hands and feet. Well the missing body had pierced hands and feet, so therefore we can safely conclude the body is missing becuase it came back to life and flew away. case closed?

we wouldnt buy that today. we wouldnt buy that story of anyone else back then. We wouldnt even consider such claims from any other religion or holy book, no matter how many witnesses they claimed there had been. we wouldnt be moved to believe it no matter how many times or how many ways they tell us it would be impossible for men to invent - because we know that dead men dont come back to life, and neither undead nor living men fly.

belief in such either takes young age indoctrination or influence or seeing first hand... and honestly, i'd have to take a second glimpse of i thought I saw something like that. I'd wonder if i dreamed it or imagined it or of i were going crazy, because let's face it, the dead coming back to life and flying away sounds pretty crazy. Take that account out of the bible and put it anywhere else, and it's crazy to christians too.

[William]

No. It hasn't. Shame was the way things were in the first century. It wasn't guilt. The industrialization of society allowed people to function more on their own and break away from others. You're reading your culture into the times and assuming everyone was just like you.



No. For the most part, the scholars I presented to Gary were non-Christian.



Well minus the major historical inaccuracies, Christianity should have never even got to Constantine. It should have died immediately. As for the Crusades, do you realize the Crusades were a defensive measure? The East needed help from the West when Muslims were persecuting their people. Long before, it had been Charles "The Hammer" Martel who stopped the Muslims from advancing and conquering all of Europe. In fact, the Crusaders were explicitly said to not go for missionary purposes and the main reason they were to go was love of their neighbor. How? Their neighbor was being persecuted by Muslims.

The Inquisition? The state killed just as the church did and the church did not do that much. In 300 years time, the Spanish Inquisition (Which no one was expecting) killed 3000. That's 3,000 too many, but it's still 3,000. It isn't the millions people make it out to be. This was also done because there was no separation of church and state. Going against the church was a form of treason as it was going against the social order that held society together.

I recommend you really read some history on these matters. You're simply reading your own culture into the text.

you're saying that people in first century Palestine didn't feel guilt, love, sympathy or anger over unfairness? Sure they felt shame too, but devoid of all other emotions. I dont think everyone is like me, I just think the people are generally the same. Can you cite where scholars believe that first century people in palestine had no feelings of guilt and could not comprehend love, admiration, sympathy, anger over unfairness and injustice? I mean, the bible seems to illustrate these in both the old and new testaments, yet you seem to being saying that they just weren't there... where do you get this?

and I didnt say they were identical, but that they had similarities and werent that different. we can read the history together all you like. christianty was spread by the sword on occasion, gather followers with the potential for glory, and got others in my the threat of death or torture - and islam doesnt only spread that way. That was my point, and it's not historically inaccurate.

Muhammad should have lost several battles they were engaged in, being out numbed. And islam certainly had and has it's oppositions yet it not only exists, but thrives. that's the point. christians want to take unlikely longevity and make into a sign of divine origin, but many religions can do that. when looking at the history of both religions, it's wonder either continued, Judaism too

[William]

False. They did. There were some in the Old Testament. What was believed was that the eschatological resurrection was at the end of the age.



Correct



Correct



This is not known. Earthquakes in themselves would have been common and if there was darkness, most would say that was an eclipse of some sort. It also assumes this is a literal account.



See above.



Which would in fact raise suspicion. Personality was static.



Paul saw them being arrested more often. The death we know he saw was Stephen and Stephen would be easy to write off for Paul.



And for that, it needed to be stopped.



For the reasons I gave. Paul would have let his other positions come through instead and there's no indication that he was "investigating" the claims of Christ. He just heard them and decided they were false. Also, as for the honor-shame, a lot of that stuff came about AFTER Paul.

And furthermore, if you say "I will not believe unless I have a person experience" then that tells me no study of history will convince you. Whatever historical argument you're given, you will not accept it because of your experiences.

That is not how to do history. I have given a standard apart from experience. You have given one that just says "I will not listen to what you say because I do not have what I want."

"faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." This passage came to mind when reading your response. If hearing wasnt enough for Paul, and Paul (Saul) should have investigated the religion thoroughly before discounting it, then should we thoroughly investigate all religions before we discount them, if we end up doing so?

and if we study other religions, do we do it as we did the bible, with the mind that it's true and we're trying to get all we can out of it, ro do we only treat the bible that way while we search other religions with a far more skeptical eye?

[RumTumTugger]

That's not fair, in the least. I perfectly understand how busy Nick is, and he does not owe it to any of us to engage in debates.

It would still be nice to see a debate between you and Nick.

[Adrift]

do the critical scholars agree that the empty tomb was Jesus' tomb?

He was either buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, or a common criminal tomb.

The scholars get their info from the gospels like everyone else. there's nothing else. Paul said buried, the gospels say tomb.

Burial implied a tomb. This is backed by both the archaeological evidence, and later Jewish writings on the subject. So we see this from the Babylonian Talmud,

Source: Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin

MISHNAH.

© Copyright Original Source

So there was tomb that someone claimed and believed was Jesus. That's what the scholars agree on. Maybe there was a tomb. it may have even been jesus tomb. but like you said, that doesnt mean that the tomb is evidence for Resurrection, it's evidence of an empty tomb.

so, if this were not jesus we were discussing, but a missing body case, as if we were detectives, would we ever accept a claim or hypothesis that stated the dead body was missing because it's not dead anymore and after returning to life, flew away?

say this was a cold case and we're coming back to in 50 to 70 years later after a recent book said that the body went missing 50 to 70 years earlier, but thousands of years prior to that, there was a passage in another book, that appeared to be talking about something else, yet referenced someone suffering with pierced hands and feet. Well the missing body had pierced hands and feet, so therefore we can safely conclude the body is missing becuase it came back to life and flew away. case closed?

we wouldnt buy that today. we wouldnt buy that story of anyone else back then. We wouldnt even consider such claims from any other religion or holy book, no matter how many witnesses they claimed there had been. we wouldnt be moved to believe it no matter how many times or how many ways they tell us it would be impossible for men to invent - because we know that dead men dont come back to life, and neither undead nor living men fly.

belief in such either takes young age indoctrination or influence or seeing first hand... and honestly, i'd have to take a second glimpse of i thought I saw something like that. I'd wonder if i dreamed it or imagined it or of i were going crazy, because let's face it, the dead coming back to life and flying away sounds pretty crazy. Take that account out of the bible and put it anywhere else, and it's crazy to christians too.

Again, one needs to take into account presuppositions and the cumulative case. If apologists are just looking at the empty tomb, and saying that that is proof that Jesus rose from the dead, then you would have a point. But that's not what most apologists do. Most apologists build a cumulative case, and the empty tomb is only one part of that cumulative case. I think I've repeated this about a dozen times now, but apparently it's not getting through.

Second of all, presuppositions have a lot to do with what you or I are willing to accept. I believe that their exists a divine being that has the power and ability to do things like raise men and women from the dead. So I'm starting from a presupposition that you're lacking. Now, I also happen to think that there's good reason to believe that a powerful divine being exists, and that this divine being not only has the power and ability to raise Jesus from the dead, but that he also had a desire to do so. But that's a whole nother topic from "do we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?" Also, unlike you, because I accept the possibility of divine non-material entities, I'm far more willing to accept the claims of other religions. I may not agree with the source of those divine claims, or the exact details of those divine claims, but neither would I reject their claims outright. Again, that's a major difference between you and I.

Finally, it's not the case that it takes young age indoctrination or influence to come to one's views about the resurrection. If that were the case then there would never be any converts from any religion or non-theistic belief system to Christianity, and that's certainly not the case.