Five reasons to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

[DemPGH]

1) Well, I don't know what "data" that could be since there is no solid evidence that he existed, and there were other Messiahs at the time of whom similar stories were told. Someone took the body or els it was never there to begin with, I would say. The resuscitation argument is interesting - after taking the beating that Jesus supposedly took, he probably wouldn't be up walking around a few hours or a day later.

2) Well, people see all sorts of things. This is one of those items that without it being known to happen, and it does not happen, we have to discount this as mythological storytelling, like the miracles, which were either staged or else made up. Perhaps someone saw someone who looked like Jesus after the crucifixion, and then the myths started. The resurrection is also symbolic - "he lives in our hearts."

3) and 4) are peripheral issues.

5) To say someone converted so Jesus must have risen from the dead is fallacious reasoning to say the least.

The thing is, I don't see that there will be anything close to empirical evidence for any of this, so I do not accept it. To accept it you must suspend critical thought and analysis, and just believe something that your better sense tells you cannot be. The other things is, human beings are imaginative creatures - we've been inventing mythological stories about all kinds of deities (there is archaeological evidence from 30,000 years ago of people making statues of half lion / half man things and half man / half fish kinds of things - depending upon where they lived) for a very, very long time. This is all more of it.

[DemPGH]

I think in particular reference to the completely unfounded and unrealistic suggestion of resurrection being historically accurate and scientifically possible, the particularly weak religious and sociological defense absolutely disqualifies it from any serious consideration at all, yes. Someday we may have a conversation about, if there's any science or history at all on its side. As of now however, there's literally not a single reason to acknowledge its merit beyond superstition and fantasy.

Out of intellectual honesty, and for what it's worth, you're right - there really must be a differentiation between History and mythology. Empirical standards absolutely exist in History - otherwise, for e.g., we'd teach that King Arthur existed, had a 14th century military in the 6th century, had a round table, a huge castle, went looking for the holy grail, and so on.

I've said before that I question whether or not "Theology" is even really a valid academic subject. I'm sure there are quarters where I'd get into a great deal of trouble for suggesting that, but really, my only point is that we as a society and as educated people really bend over backwards to afford religion a nearly untouchable spot where [empirical] standards that are applied to quite literally everything else are not applied to it. I only think that should change.