Proof of Christianity

[Esquilax]

It's a little bit more than “variations”. Castor being allowed to share eternity with his brother in the form of twin stars has no connection at all with the C1 Jewish concept of the general resurrection. Again, it's oranges and hand grenades.

I think I know what the issue is here...

Let me recap the issue:

I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that vital, central elements of the Torah could now be ignored?” .Your answer was that they were employing a rebirth myth from Egypt. It's a non-sequitur.

Yeah, I've got it: you've completely misunderstood me. I'm not implying that the two stories are connected in any literal sense, but rather in a broader, human sense; these stories repeat, over and over throughout history, with variations according to culture and narrative context certainly, but the basics repeat. Your initial claim was that the idea of singular, personal resurrection would be so outlandish to the ancient Jewish people, as compared to their original resurrection claims, that it would never occur to them. I'm not saying they cribbed from other cultures, I'm saying that singular resurrection stories are endemic, a part of the human mindset. Death is the one universal, after all.

As to the question you've asked here... could be many reasons. Perhaps the old elements were no longer convenient politically or sociologically? Perhaps the weavers of the narrative were simply inconsistent in their doings; there are plenty of outright contradictions in the bible to attest to that. It could be any number of things, and to conclude that the only way this turn of events could have panned out is for the stories to be literally true is ludicrous.

I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that the Kingdom of God had arrived?”. Your answer was that they had used the story of Achilles. It's a non-sequitur.

Again, not my answer. My specific answer to that question would be, who knows? We're talking about superstitious desert people from the bad old days. Nothing in this question points at the truth of the resurrection either.

I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that the Jewish meta-narrative about God's people was redefined around the person of Jesus?” Your answer was that they had used an obscure centuries old resurrection legend from Greek literature. It's a non-sequitur.

Well, given that we can't even confirm that Jesus existed outside of inherently biased biblical accounts, I'm going to go ahead and say that on balance, the answer to that question probably isn't "Because Jesus really existed and everything he was purported to have done literally happened."

I think what's happening is that you're continuing to run with a favourite explanation against the more common Xian argument that 'The resurrection is forensically watertight', without realising that I'm making a different kind of argument. Now I would like to spend time contesting your claims about drawing from other religions, but since it's unconnected to my argument, it'll have to wait for another day.

Seriously, none of those were my contentions.