Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Radrook]

I was referring to the young man in the tomb.



Mark is the earliest gospel. The earliest copies of Mark do not contain the second half of Mark 16.



Scholars. Even conservative scholars.



By looking at the earliest manuscripts.



Did you not read what I said? Suppose the Sanhedrin acted as one entity (so we ignore the possibility that they disagreed with one another as that could be solved by either voting or a power hierarchy). Then we have two possibilities: the Sanhedrin either believed the guards or they didn't. Suppose they believed the guards. Is it plausible that angels appeared and that the tomb was empty, yet Jesus was not who he said he was? Why is there no record of even one of them converting? Is it reasonable to believe that one of them would convert and that none of the four gospel writers would care to mention it? Suppose they didn't believe the guards. Is it plausible that they would then pay the guards hush money when the guards were not only incompetent but also lying to them? Was that the plan? To put a couple clowns there who would be rewarded no matter how incompetent they are? Why even place guards there?



That's kind of the point. These claims ought to be met with skepticism.



See above.

Big difference between a boy and a man.

Exactly what detail of my UFO account do you find unbelievable?

I don't see anything unbelievable in the way that the events described in the Gospel's unfolded.
The guards were emotionally distraught and behaved as if they had experienced a traumatic supernatural event which affected their better judgment and so they blathered.

Why should we expect a mass conversion of members of the Sanhedrin when these same members had seen other miracles and had resisted and called it the work of Satan?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There is a world of difference between a boy and a man.

I said young man, not just man.

Otherwise I would not have found the reference strange. A boy ranges from infant to young adolescence. A man is from approx. 18 onward.

Back then you didn't have to be 18 to be a man. Everyone knows this. You are making a terrible argument and on top of that, there's no point. What if it's a man? What if it's a boy? So what? How does that change the discussion?

You say that earliest manuscripts aren't as detailed as later manuscripts and that therefore the later manuscripts must be the result of chicanery. If indeed that is so, then why did not the Early Christians notice the Chicanery and why didn't the Jews who were intensely watching Christianity's development like hawks in order to point out flaws pounce on that supposed purposeful tampering?

Like hawks? You realize that there are like 40 gospels that contradict one another and that gospels were not canonized for centuries, right? Your view of the situation is quite bogus.

Is indeed your accusation of chicanery the only feasible interpretation in view of this discrepancy? It can be argued that God is a God of progressive revelation. After all, he did take thousands of years to fully reveal his plan salvation to mankind. So if indeed he chose to gradually reveal the full account of what occurred with Jesus during the first century, it would fit right in with the gradual revelation modus operandi.

God is a God of progressive revelation. Or maybe Judaism evolved as it encountered other religions and philosophies. Show me a demonic entity in the Old Testament apart from Satan and I'll owe you a Coke. Demons came about when Jews were exposed to the Greek idea of daemons.

About a UFO experiences being met with skepticism. Why? I saw what I saw and am claiming nothing about what I saw. So what is it that you can be skeptical about? If I made a specific claim about the MEANING of what I saw, then you can be skeptical. But you have no details!

Skepticism? I was skeptical and dismissed it as an illusion. However, what I saw was seem at the airport a few moments later. It was reported in the newspapers the next day. So exactly what is it that you are being skeptical about. In fact, you are being skeptical about NOTHING because you haven't even cared to ask in your desperate need to assume the skeptical stance what it was that I actually saw.

I don't care about your UFO claims.

The men at Jesus' tomb might have reported truthfully exactly what they experienced and might have been doubted. No guards with any common sense would offer such a story as viable unless shocked into it by the experience itself. Otherwise they would have calmly reconsidered the claim's ramifications. But under the immediate shock of the experience they hysterically lost common sense and placed their reputation on the line in a foolish display of emotional honesty. The emotionally illogical nature of their described behavior indicates truth.

For the last time, I'm not talking about what the guards did. I'm saying that the actions of the Jewish priests were not believable. Are you even reading what I'm saying? This is twice now that you have been talking past me.

Big difference between a boy and a man.

Exactly what detail of my UFO account do you find unbelievable?

I don't see anything unbelievable in the way that the events described in the Gospel's unfolded.
The guards were emotionally distraught and behaved as if they had experienced a traumatic supernatural event which affected their better judgment and so they blathered.

Why should we expect a mass conversion of members of the Sanhedrin when these same members had seen other miracles and had resisted and called it the work of Satan?

If they had good reasons to think Jesus was Satan, could you tell me your reasons for rejecting that hypothesis?

 

[Radrook]

I said young man, not just man.



Back then you didn't have to be 18 to be a man. Everyone knows this. You are making a terrible argument and on top of that, there's no point. What if it's a man? What if it's a boy? So what? How does that change the discussion?



Like hawks? You realize that there are like 40 gospels that contradict one another and that gospels were not canonized for centuries, right? Your view of the situation is quite bogus.



God is a God of progressive revelation. Or maybe Judaism evolved as it encountered other religions and philosophies. Show me a demonic entity in the Old Testament apart from Satan and I'll owe you a Coke. Demons came about when Jews were exposed to the Greek idea of daemons.



I don't care about your UFO claims.



For the last time, I'm not talking about what the guards did. I'm saying that the actions of the Jewish priests were not believable. Are you even reading what I'm saying? This is twice now that you have been talking past me.



If they had good reasons to think Jesus was Satan, could you tell me your reasons for rejecting that hypothesis?

This has NOTHING to do with me wanting you to care. It has to do with logic.

Yes it makes a difference if a boy in said to be in Jesus tomb because you are contradicting scripture.
That you were considered a man before age eighteen back then has absolutely nothing to do with your gratuitously inserting a boy into Jesus tomb.


Too many manuscripts to what? To criticize? That is absurd! If the original was flawed they would have been on

it like fur on a gorilla. As soon as they noticed the discrepancy, did thy object? You ignore the question because

the answer is that there was no objection.

God is definitely a God of progressive Revelation. It can be illustrated via the Messiah theme where first the prophecy occurs in Genesis 3:15. Gradually we are told that through Noah's son Shem the Messiah would arrive. Then via Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, then through the family of David until we finally arrive at Jesus. That spans thousands of years. He is not slow since to him, a thousand years is as one day as Peter points out

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Nevertheless, we can tell from his other uses of these terms that is what he means. Just because he doesn't say it the way you would say it, does not refute the understanding. But you are partially right, flesh and blood as it now is while we are alive does not enter heaven, it is a transformed type of BODY (not spirit).

dm: Where are you getting this stuff? Please show me one place where Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" to mean anything other than "flesh and blood". You cannot simply say "flesh and blood" does not mean "flesh and blood" in Paul's writings unless you can show me one example in Paul where it does not mean "flesh and blood".
When Paul describes the resurrection as not being flesh and blood, I think he means it is not flesh and blood.

It is called logical inference. He calls our "flesh and blood" a corruptible body and our resurrected bodies "incorruptible". The corrupt cannot inherit the kingdom of God (read I Cor. 15:42, 50). In addition, verses like 12-19 make no sense if Paul does not believe Christ rose bodily. He says that himself and Christians are most to be pitied and ridiculed if Christ was not raised. Many ordinary jews and gentiles believed that people turned into spirits/ghosts after death, why would he say that we would pitied and ridiculed if we just believed what everybody else believed? Again, such statements make no sense if he believed what you think he believed.

ed: Yes, a seed is transformed into a plant. He is saying it has some very different qualities but yet the same essence and even few of the same qualities. Of which being physical is a quality of both.

dm: Actually his whole emphasis of I Corinthians 15 is that different bodies have different essences, and that the resurrected body has a different essence from the flesh and blood that dies.

No, Paul was highly intelligent and well educated, he knew that a kernel of wheat produces the wheat plant, and a mustard seed produces a mustard plant. The essence of the object remains the same even while there is a PHYSICAL transformation of a PHYSICAL body. THAT is Pauls point throughout this passage.

ed: Uhhh MOST?

dm: Oh, jeez, now you are back to counting scholars again? Truth is not determined by counting scholars.

Where there is a clear consensus among scholars, then one can rightly refer to that clear consensus as evidence that something is true. But when there is broad disagreement in scholarship, then one cannot resolve the issue by counting scholars and seeing who gets the most. That is especially true when many claimed scholars have questionable credentials, and where there are strong biases, as is the case for the resurrection. So we will need to stick with the facts, rather than try to add up votes.

As I explained earlier a scholar conducted a study and determined that 75% of biblical scholars believed that there was an empty tomb. If 75% is not a consensus then I don't know what is

ed: The women are extremely credible because as I stated earlier first century jews would have never had them as the first to see the empty tomb if they were trying to make it a credible story unless it actually happened. Women's testimony was at the bottom of reliability to first century jews.

dm: OK, but the question is whether the women testified to these things. The original Mark (ending at 16:8) says that they told nobody, and makes no mention that they saw a resurrected Christ. That story about seeing Christ and their testimony does not come until later, and the accounts contradict. And Paul, who was first, makes no mention of the women at all.

You are missing the point on this one, I am referring to their witness of the empty tomb. This is very strong evidence that the tomb was empty and that fact is obviously very important to the early Christians. This makes no sense if His resurrection was spiritual, then obviously there would be no empty tomb and its importance would be downplayed by the early Christians. Which is plainly NOT the case.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Exist? I'm not even sure what to do with this counterexample.

I believe you without question. I find your statement here to be the most candid comment you have made.

...quantum physics... Nor is there anything extraordinary about it... well, at least not 'supernaturally' extraordinary.

What a silly statement. When proposed and argued early on, Quantum Mechanics was suspected and opposed more than General Relativity.

I find your attempt at logical scrutiny lacking, to say the very least. Nothing you've said here is analogous to the point I made.

What you have said is you don't understand the silliness of your argument. With which I completely concur.

And that is based on eyewitness testimony, so take it how you will.

In fact, it is based on your subjective opinion. I won't take it. Or I take it in the same way I 'take' Marxism.

We're done.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

If you follow my posts I ask lots of questions. I am not here to tell you what you believe but to listen to you.

Rather obviously that statement is not true. You have told us what Paul thought, you have told us the witnesses to the Resurrection are all false, and you have told us that what we know from God is all illusion.

It would seem the only reason you are here is to deny everything about God and that somehow gratifies you. Which reminds me of the man who died of lung cancer because no one could tell him what he should or should not do.

If you want a serious conversation, let me know.

 

[miknik5]

This has NOTHING to do with me wanting you to care. It has to do with logic.

Yes it makes a difference if a boy in said to be in Jesus tomb because you are contradicting scripture.
That you were considered a man before age eighteen back then has absolutely nothing to do with your gratuitously inserting a boy into Jesus tomb.


Too many manuscripts to what? To criticize? That is absurd! If the original was flawed they would have been on

it like fur on a gorilla. As soon as they noticed the discrepancy, did thy object? You ignore the question because

the answer is that there was no objection.

God is definitely a God of progressive Revelation. It can be illustrated via the Messiah theme where first the prophecy occurs in Genesis 3:15. Gradually we are told that through Noah's son Shem the Messiah would arrive. Then via Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, then through the family of David until we finally arrive at Jesus. That spans thousands of years. He is not slow since to him, a thousand years is as one day as Peter points out

What do you mean by progressive revelation?

 

[Radrook]

What do you mean by progressive revelation?

The phrase is self explanatory.

 

[miknik5]

The phrase is self explanatory.

No not really

It can be seen two ways Radrock

As if GOD is gradually throughout time progressively making HIMSELF known

When in truth the TESTIMONY of JESUS is the very Spirit of prophecy

Meaning GOD from the beginning revealed all HIS HIDDEN truths and men are coming to that revelation from generation to generation until the year of GOD's FAVOR is complete

In Revelation we hear said
the revelation of JESUS
CHRIST

We do not hear

The revelations of JESUS CHRIST

So what are you meaning when you are saying progressive revelation?

It isn't a progressive revelation to GOD

And it isn't a progressive ongoing revelation from GOD

GOD has revealed all HIS hidden truths in HIS SON and today GOD speaks to us by HIS SON

Those who are servants of the LIVING GOD are those who hold to THE TESTIMONY of JESUS and nothing will be added to that ONE TESTIMONY

 

[miknik5]

And all men are called to come to the knowledge of THE TRUTH until the knowledge of THE LORD covers the earth as the waters of the seas. And ALL will say one to another. Cone let us go up to the mountain of THE LORD, HE will teach us HIS WAYS

 

[doubtingmerle]

If 75% is not a consensus then I don't know what is

OK, so be it. You apparently don't know what a consensus is. If 75% agree on something that is not a consensus.

You are missing the point on this one, I am referring to their witness of the empty tomb. This is very strong evidence that the tomb was empty and that fact is obviously very important to the early Christians. This makes no sense if His resurrection was spiritual, then obviously there would be no empty tomb and its importance would be downplayed by the early Christians. Which is plainly NOT the case.

And you are missing the point that Mark says they told nobody.

And you are missing the point that Paul says nothing of the women or an empty grave.

And you are missing the point that, if people report a grave is empty, that is in no way convincing evidence of a resurrection
Suppose somebody dies, you expect the body to be somewhere, and 3 days later you find it is not where you expected it. Do you proclaim then that a miracle happened? I think not. For you realize that bodily resurrections are rare (if they happen at all). So you would be far more inclined to think that you were mistaken on where the body was, or that somebody had moved it, or even that the person was never really dead but was only unconscious for a while. You would want far more evidence than "I can't find the body" to convince you of a bodily resurrection.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
See post 252.

dm: That post in no way proves that I Corinthians 15:3-7 is part of a memorized creed. I have posted links and arguments saying Paul did not quote this as a creed. You simply ignore the arguments, and pretend you make your case.

I just referenced several scholars that disagree with you.

dm: Paul specifically says he did not receive his gospel from men and was not taught it by men. You say what he really means is that he received it of men and was taught it of men. That is the exact opposite of what he says! You cannot simply claim that Paul means the opposite of what he says.

The creed and the Gospel are not the same thing. The creed is a specific apologetic response to those that rejected the bodily resurrection. Paul did receive that from men/the apostles. He received the Gospel from God/Jesus Christ.

dm; I have shown you lengthy evidence that I Cor 15:3-11 could well be a later insertion. You simply ignored it.

Maybe my memory is bad, but I don't remember you doing so.

dm: If verses 3-5 is indeed a creed, there is a strong scholarly opinion that the creed does not extend beyond v5. You simply ignore that, and state that you are right.

No, I provided several scholars that DO think it goes beyond that to 7.

dm: You have given no evidence that Aramaic wording is there. You simply state it is in some book somewhere. That is not a argument.

I provided several scholars, whose work you can read, that IS evidence.

ed: YOU were the one using this belief that spirits can die and be buried as part of your argument that Paul believed Jesus was only spiritually raised from the dead. I am just refuting the first part of your argument which therefore refutes the second part of your argument.

dm: OK, I thought I could get by with only a few repetitions of this point. Apparently with you, it takes a lot of repetitions to make this simple point. Once again.

The argument that Jesus was never a physical person is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.

I would be more than happy to take that up in that thread if you wish.

This thread is about the claim that, regardless of where Paul thought the original story came from, regardless of whether Paul thought he walked on earth as a man, he thinks the resurrection is of a spiritual body.

Get with the program please.

Again, YOU made that part of your argument earlier in this thread. You need to tell yourself that. Nevertheless it was refuted in my post just prior to this one. Nothing Paul wrote makes sense if he believed that Christ was a spirit prior to or after His death.

ed: In context Paul was saying that believing those things produce salvation is rubbish. He was saying nothing about the overall Hebraic worldview, ie beliefs about bodies and spirits. He never questioned such foundational beliefs. That would be like a scientist saying he now believes in dark matter and then saying therefore he no longer believes in the laws of physics. It makes no sense.

dm: I disagree with your interpretation.

Regardless, it is clear to me, and I think to most of the lurkers, that the message taught by Paul was very, very different from Judaism. If Paul thought his Christ was in any way different from Judaism, then he had absolutely no hesitation to vary from Judaism in proclaiming his Christ. Your view that he found himself so bound by Judaism that he could not allow himself to think out of the Pharisaic box is absolutely unsupportable.

It is somewhat different from first century Judaism but not very different from the Judaism of the Torah.

ed: Clement quotes from the synoptic gospels referencing their authors as did Polycarp and Papias.

dm: Flapdoodle. Clement absolutely does not specifically reference the gospels and claim they were written by the traditional authors. This is absolutely false. If you think he did, please show us where he says that.

Clement has some sayings that are similar to the Sermon on the Mount, but he does not attribute them to Matthew. Matthew and Clement could have both used a common source.

In his letter to the church at Corinth.

dm: And Papias? Oh dear. You want to get into discussing Papias?

Sure, he had some information about the origins of the gospels.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

. The reading of camouflaged conjectures based on wishful thinking and lacking solid evidence is not the reading of science. It is the reading quackery striving to pass itself off as science..

BTW
I need not be a creationist literature reader in order to recognize quackery when I see it.

That's true. You could just be generally ignorant.

 

[Radrook]

That's true. You could just be generally ignorant.

Avoiding the reading of the quasi-scientific doesn't lead to ignorance. It avoids falling inexorably into a state of credulous euphoria over meticulously elaborated conjectures.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Avoiding the reading of the quasi-scientific doesn't lead to ignorance. It avoids falling inexorably into a state of credulous euphoria over meticulously elaborated conjectures.

Dressing up your willful ignorance with big words does not magically make it admirable.

Again, trying to get back on track - you are proving the point I made. I don't accept 'eyewitness testimony' as evidence for extraordinary claims, and neither do you.

 

[Radrook]

Dressing up your willful ignorance with big words does not magically make it admirable.

Again, trying to get back on track - you are proving the point I made. I don't accept 'eyewitness testimony' as evidence for extraordinary claims, and neither do you.

I don't consider those big words or difficult words to understand. If indeed I thought them difficult to understand I would not use them since my purpose is to communicate accurately and not to befuddle via vague terms. That you find the words unintelligible is more of a personal matter than having to-do with the words themselves.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I don't consider those big words or difficult words to understand. If indeed I thought them difficult to understand I would not use them since my purpose is to communicate accurately and not to befuddle via vague terms. That you find the words unintelligible is more of a personal matter than having to-do with the words themselves.

I said nothing at all about 'difficult to understand', of course.

Once again, trying to get back on track off this asinine detour, I think my point stands. No one relies on 'eyewitness testimony' to assess the truth value of an extraordinary claim.

 

[Radrook]

I don't consider those big words or difficult words to understand. If indeed I thought them difficult to understand I would not use them since my purpose is to communicate accurately and not to befuddle via vague terms. That you find the words unintelligible is more of a personal matter than having to-do with the words themselves.

I said nothing at all about 'difficult to understand', of course.

Once again, trying to get back on track off this asinine detour, I think my point stands. No one relies on 'eyewitness testimony' to assess the truth value of an extraordinary claim.

The detour was yours when you mindlessly focused on supposedly BIG words. So the asinine is yours as well by default.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I just referenced several scholars that disagree with you.

So what? Having a few scholars does not make you right. I have referenced scholars that disagree and have posted their arguments. My scholars can beat up your scholars. Their arguments can beat up your arguments. But you ignore the arguments, and hide behind those that agree with you

The creed and the Gospel are not the same thing. The creed is a specific apologetic response to those that rejected the bodily resurrection. Paul did receive that from men/the apostles. He received the Gospel from God/Jesus Christ.

And the "creed" includes the memorized statement that many of the 500 have died!?!?

And the "creed" includes the memorized statement that I (Paul) have seen Christ!?!?

You have been presented with these arguments, and just ignore them.

Creeds are about doctrine. They are not about lists of evidence. V5-7 can certainly not be a creed by the definition of creed.

And no, you are wrong when you say I Cor 15 does not declare this to be the gospel. Read it:

Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
by which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (I Corinthians 15:1-5)​

So yes, as written, these verses claim to be stating the gospel, and as written they claim to be written by Paul. The problem is that Paul says he did not receive the gospel from men:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:7-8)​

And yes, I know you say Gal 1:8 really means, "For I did receive it from man, and I was taught it," which is the exact opposite of what Paul says!

And as I explained to you before (and you ignored) Paul would never say that he did not receive his gospel from men, and then, when he summarizes the gospel, repeat verbatim what he memorized in a creed received from other people.

Anyway, back to I Corinthians 15:3-11, there is a strong case that this was inserted later, which, again, you simply ignore.

Sigh.

Maybe my memory is bad, but I don't remember you doing so.

See post #92 where I presented arguments and a link arguing against I Cor 15:5-7 being a creed quoted by Paul. You simply ignored it and declared victory.

I provided several scholars, whose work you can read, that IS evidence.

Do they say that there are Aramaic wording in I Corinthians 15:3-5 as you claim. What wording? You refuse to answer. What wording?

Oh, and did I tell you I wanted to know what Aramaic wording you were talking about in I Corinthians 15:5-7?

Sigh.

Shaking my head in sorrow.

Again, YOU made that part of your argument earlier in this thread. You need to tell yourself that. Nevertheless it was refuted in my post just prior to this one. Nothing Paul wrote makes sense if he believed that Christ was a spirit prior to or after His death.

ROFL!

Most people can understand things after a few repetitions. Let's try again.

The concept of a mythical Jesus dying is another thread.
The concept of a mythical Jesus dying is another thread.
The concept of a mythical Jesus dying is another thread.
The concept of a mythical Jesus dying is another thread.
The concept of a mythical Jesus dying is another thread.
The concept of a mythical Jesus dying is another thread.

Please let me know if I need to repeat that a dozen times more for your benefit.

Once again this thread is not about a mythical Jesus dying. It is about the question that, even if Jesus was real on earth, where is the credible evidence that he arose from the dead? Get with the program please.

If you would rather talk about the historical Jesus rather than this topic, then please read the lengthy discussion of that topic in that thread, http://www.christianforums.com/thre...city-of-jesus-a-community-discussion.7939658/ . If that is the topic you want to discuss, please join in with what I said there. Please don't make me hijack this thread and repeat that entire argument here. That has nothing to do with this thread.

It is somewhat different from first century Judaism but not very different from the Judaism of the Torah.

ROFL! Pauline Christianity is very different from the Judaism of the Torah. I strongly disagree.

In his letter to the church at Corinth.

Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

Once again, Clement does not mention the names of the traditional gospel writers as the authors of these books. If you think he does, please quote it back. Please don't make stuff up and hope nobody looks it up. You can find the book of Clement here -- http://earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html .

Sure, he had some information about the origins of the gospels.

Papias? We don't even know what he wrote about the gospels, since we only have the words of Eusebius, who was notoriously unreliable, and claims that Papias wrote something 2 centuries earlier. Even if Eusebius is telling the truth, the portion he "quotes" from Papias in no way identifies the current gospels as being written by Matthew and Mark. The books Papias seems to be referring to are far different from the books of Matthew and Mark. And Eusebius credits Papias as only saying third hand what Papias supposedly learned from an evangelist who claimed to have known about the apostles of the previous century. Nowhere does Papias even claim to have saw the books. In fact, Papias even says that he didn't think he would get much benefit from books written about Jesus. You are on shaky ground indeed if this is your evidence.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What a silly statement. When proposed and argued early on, Quantum Mechanics was suspected and opposed more than General Relativity.

That is true.

And utterly irrelevant - quantum physics do not rely on eyewitness testimony, and so are not analogous to my point.

What you have said is you don't understand the silliness of your argument. With which I completely concur.

You're confused. Nowhere have I said anything like that.

The closest thing I said was that your counterexamples are not analogous to the point I was making - that no one, including Christians, relies on eyewitness testimony when assessing extraordinary claims.

We're done.

Oh. Ok. Have a nice life.

Anyone else want to take a crack this?

My point, to reiterate, is that whether or not there are credible witnesses to the resurrection is irrelevant, because no one, including Christians, relies on eyewitness testimony when assessing extraordinary claims.