But i’m not arguing that there weren’t christians at the time nor would I assume that any of these extra-biblical sources purportedly were there at the resurrection or any of the other miracle in the bible. These confirm that the stories and many of their historically accurate accusations were there at the time but doesn’t in any way corroborate the claims substantiated.
How about, We Don’t Know. True, these are possibilities and guesses that I could throw your way but that would really be contrary to what I actually think whereupon very little information is given to substantiate any conclusion. Though, substantiating he rose from the dead would be a much heartier response to support and wouldn’t really be given much consideration as an actual explanation but more along the lines of a throw away response.
Ignore the lack of any support for the claim purposed, just think about how stuped all the other responses are (Though i would agree on a few of them that they are unconvincing) and thus that somehow counts as evidence for the previously supposed claims. How? How do you get from, there is no other explanation at all or they are not sufficient enough there for the claim that cannot be supported by historical consideration or investigated in anyway through scientific probing is king? I could still lack any consideration at all in my rational mind for the resurrection explanation or claim even if there wasn’t any other claim to replace it or all are unconvincing as well as unlikely. That is the position i’m taking. . . so is there anything else that supports the resurrection claims of the bible without appeals to the lack of explanations to the contrary, the unconvincing nature of them, or the personal beliefs that people founded on the claim itself.
Where do we go from here. . .