Okay, G, thanks for sharing that. Here is how I see this proof: (1) empty tomb only means that a body was removed. How was it removed, I don't know; you don;t know either. (2) the eyewitness account are notoriously unreliable. In 1917 thousands of people in Fatima, Portugal, "witness" the Sun falling on earth.
Luckily (or not), the cameras of various reporters at the scene failed to confirm, that. Without the photographic evidence showing that no solar activity occurred, the mass hysteria, for the lack of a better word and not trying to insult anyone, would have been taken as "fact". How wrong would that have been? This is how myths and legends are created, G. In less than a century it can become a dogma.
My third objection to your proof is that Jesus eyewitnesses did not include the people who condemned him, such as the Sanhedrin or Pilate. Their eyewitness would have carried a lot more weight, I think. Converting your enemies always does.
As for "nothing else explains the phenomena of the Church", G, it was Emperor Constantine, not Jesus and not Paul, who is responsible for the phenomenon of the Church. He not only allowed Christianity, based on a superstitious dream he had, but made it a state religion, prohibiting all pagan religions with the penalty of death for those who did not convert.
The number of Christians, contrary to popular opinions, appear not to have been really very high before that.
Again, neither of us are eyewitnesses, nor do we have any definitive evidence one way or another that God exists. You choose to believe the evidence that you offer, and others choose to disbelieve based on the evidence they have. Others, like myself, chose to live with doubt without condemning either.
Kosta, your thoughts on the matter are neither new nor uncommon. Quite the contrary they have always been as so since Jesus first taught the truth....and since He arose.
I find it interesting that human nature, apart from Christ, mimics itslef over centuries. Truly there is “nothing new under the sun”.
Precisely!
Besides, the truth is not a popularity contest. If the growth of superstition is validation of its “truth” then what do these geniuses have to say about Islam’s growth? Or for that matter, that of the Mormons? The latter superstition developed and grew in an age of reliable documentation, barely a century ago, not 2000+ years into antiquity!
1 - an agreed upon fact - the tomb was empty. But then were the disciples in any shape to 'steal' the body. No, they were hiding in fear of their lives. Would they willingly die for a testimony that Jesus had supernaturally risen? Hardly kosta because they knew it was a lie.
There was no motive for Jesus' enemies to remove the body. When the teaching of the resurrection began - they could have easily provided the body and killed the new church there and then.
2 - Yet eyewitness testimony cannot be written off so easily kosta - it is considered reliable in our courts today. But it doesn't stop there for you kosta, this same Jesus was observed and spoke to these disciples on numerous occasions and up to as many as 500 at one time. So the eyewitness testimony of the empty tomb must also be matched up with other events.
This is how myths and legends are created, G. In less than a century it can become a dogma.
I don't accept fatima as an actual event - it was most likely a group hysteria imho. But you are correct - 100 years for the development of a myth to dogma. But in the case of the NT kosta - even you know that 1 Corinthians is believed to have been written 50-60 AD, making it less than 30 years after Jesus. It refers extensively to living witnesses. A parallel would be if someone constructing the idea in the 1990's that Kennedy never really died after the Dallas shooting, but the whole thing had been faked by Hollywood. Too many eyewitnesses still living that could contradict it. Myths can't develop into dogma in that short of time under those conditions kosta.
As for "nothing else explains the phenomena of the Church", G, it was Emperor Constantine, not Jesus and not Paul, who is responsible for the phenomenon of the Church.
Old whipping horse time eh kosta. The phenomena of the church predates constantine kosta. Its first century expansion and development in the face of persecution and its maintenance throughout the second century persecutions and external attempts to co-opt and corrupt it. The Church would have continued to exist inspite of constantine.
The number of Christians, contrary to popular opinions, appear not to have been really very high before that.
And that is the phenomena kosta - it grew and prospered in-spite of that.
Again, neither of us are eyewitnesses, nor do we have any definitive evidence one way or another that God exists.
The definitive evidences have been cited - you choose to ignore or try to explain them away.