I've seldom seen an open minded Christ-denier.
Closed-mindedness characterizes faith-based thought. To be open-minded, one has to be willing and able to dispassionately and impartially consider the evidence under the light of reason and be willing to be convinced by a compelling argument. That's something that doesn't happen with the faith-based thinker, which is why if he is wrong, even if there is compelling evidence that that is the case, it won't sway him. He didn't use evidence to get to his faith-based belief, and evidence won't budge it for him.
Compare these two modes of processing information to decide what is true about the world.
- The moderator in the debate between science educator Bill Nye and Christian creationist Ken Ham on creationism as a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
Nye can be convinced if he is wrong and it can be demonstrated. He will see that. Ham will not.How are you going to penetrate that mind with evidence that he is wrong if he is wrong? You're not. That mind is closed for business.
Here's another example of somebody proudly declaring that he is cut off from evidence that contradicts his beliefs:
- "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig
I have several more examples of people proudly claiming as if it were a virtue that they are cut off from contradictory evidence. Here's a guy telling us something pretty shocking about how badly he has cornered himself with faith-based thought:
- “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
That's what closed-mindedness looks like, Nye being the exception.
Where do you place yourself on this spectrum? What could show you that you were wrong if you are? Suppose you have made a mistake - that Jesus didn't live the life you believe He did, that He is not risen, that there is no such thing as sin and no need for salvation? If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that you're like these guys, and that nothing at all could change your mind. That's closed-mindedness.
The reason and evidence based thinker has the advantage. He takes his information from observation of nature rather than by mere assertion, like this guy
- "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord." - Bill Maher
If he's wrong, there is a means for him to discover that. His mind is open. The contradictory evidence, if it ever manifests, will enter his mind and change it, something that never happens for the rest of these poor souls irreversibly ensconsed in their faith-based confirmation biases, cut off from evidence.
The resurrection is the only explanation that is logical
Resurrection is not known to occur as described in the Bible. There is nothing logical about accepting such an extraordinary claim based on words alone. That's how one slips off the road of reason into the ditch of faith, leaving one world for another.
that best fits the evidence, considering what the Gospel writers record
I really don't know any other way to tell you that mere words are not compelling evidence that what would be a magical event not known to be possible and never demonstrated ever occurred. Words in a book are not a demonstration that resurrection can occur or ever has.If you can assimilate that, perhaps you will stop offering such words as evidence of an actual resurrection
If I were willing to believe such testimony, why take it from the Christian holy book. Why not believe the Muslim one instead, or go with the Jews and ignore the New Testament. Or go with the Mormons or Scientologists. None of that appeals to me, but were I to pick one, why yours? Why did you pick it and not of the others?
It's the only explanation that fits the sudden, changed lives of the disciples, and explains why skeptics such as Thomas, James, and Paul did a 180 and afterwards believed in the resurrection.
No, it's not the only explanation for the words that make these claims. Cat Stevens did a 180 and became a Muslim and surely makes similar claims about a competing religion. So what? I don't believe that he has found anything of value to me, and I'll bet that you would say the same for yourself.
If so, then you know how I feel about stories of people having religious experiences. It's a pretty common psychological experience that I am directly familiar with. I had one myself in the early seventies. It was a state of ecstatic euphoria that I misinterpreted as the presence of a god, which led me to nearly a decade of Christianity, practiced zealously for several years. I had my own 180. I eventually finished the turn and returned to where I began, a 360.
That these three people are said to have had similar experiences is not evidence to me of anything other than that these experiences are commonplace and have been occurring for millennia.
What alternative explanation for all of that do you have that fits all those narratives? Be specific and lay something out for us and I'll give you reasons why your alternative explanation doesn't wash
See above. People have compelling psychological experiences that they misunderstand. They like to invent religions and gods. They write mythology. They generate a narrative over time, one that includes older myths such as the resurrected god. From Wiki
"A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected ... Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the Ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity ... Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus Christ"
Just like the flood myth. The story is the retelling of an ancient and pervasive motif, very possibly related to the motion of the sun in winter solstice.
"For inhabitants of the Northern Hemisphere, the winter solstice process becomes most noticeable around December 1 when the sun appears to “move” south and get smaller. By the day of the actual winter solstice [around December 21st], the sun has reached its lowest point in the sky at -25.5°. Once it has reached this lowest point, an interesting thing happens: the sun appears to stop moving south for three days. After this, the sun moves 1° north, announcing the coming of spring. It will continue to move northward until the summer solstice when it reaches its highest point"
source
Sol Invictus, the resurrected sun (son?), a Roman god.
I also suspect that what you will probably lay out, if anything at all, will be more of a theory than anything that has a factual basis to it.
You asked for an alternate explanation. I have no burden of proof here. I don't need to demonstrate that what I proposed happened. It's enough that it could have happened.
it's the reason why the resurrection was preached as the central message of the faith. In short, it's Occams Razor.
Your hypothesis is a major violation of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation consistent with the relevant evidence is the preferred one. My hypothesis only requires that people invent myths and spread them, something we know occurs commonly. Yours requires supernaturalism. Yours requires that a god exists. Mine doesn't Yours requires that resurrection can occur. Mine doesn't.
That's what skeptics do when they deny the resurrection - they trash the logical and throw a myriad of unsupported claims and theories against the wall to see what might stick.
What I say is that you haven't made the case for a resurrection - that I was not convinced by an argument based entirely in scripture.
I don't actually deny that a resurrection occurred, just that the evidence suggests that it didn't, and even if it did, I have no reason to believe as much. Neither do you.
If you ever feel like addressing what is actually written to you rather than whatever is spinning through your mind when you read it, this might be a good pace to start.