The real religion?

[SteveII]

You seem to think that we are asking the disciples if they remember the color of Jesus' sweatshirt two weeks ago Friday. We are talking about seeing a man you had been with for several years die a horrible death and then appear to them 3 days later and then stick around for 40 more days. Do you think it remotely possible that hundreds of people were mistaken about such a thing?

I think it's possible that if the whole story is even about a real person, there was a lot of dupery going on.  Why is it that Jesus wasn't recognized after his resurrection?  Had he changed his hair style?  Bought a new toga?  Gone in for bitchin' new tattoos?  How about this: because Jesus was killed, and some dude punched holes in his hand to pretend he was Jesus?  That would readily explain why he wasn't easily recognized by these people who spent "years with him."

And that's assuming the whole story isn't just made up by a group of spiritualists who created an archetypal leader from myths well-established in other religious traditions of the day.  Show me these hundreds of witnesses, and more importantly their written accounts.  Show me, in particular, someone who would be antithetical to Jesus, like maybe a Roman magistrate, who even demonstrates a vague knowledge of his existence.  Show me the written records of Pontius Pilate, for example.

Your reply about Jesus not being recognized seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the story. Click here for the reference (it's not that long). Especially note verse 16 and then the point of the story in verse 31-32. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...2024:13-35

Regarding the list of what you want to see, you are just repeating an old tired objection that in reality had we had those things, they would be challenged under the standard fair atheist arguments like "hearsay, eyewitnesses are not reliable, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The real problem is the atheist presupposition that God does not exist and miracles do not happen and therefore the content of the NT can never be true no matter what piece of "evidence" turns up.