Thread by @Apotheiite

It is frustrating that Christians, when asserting the resurrection's historicity, their evidence is just the mere alleging by NT authors of there being some many hundreds of witnesses. When suggesting they could just be fabricated, it's replied "the lie would be simply too big."

It shouldn't need to be said that the rate at which information spread in antiquity has utterly no parallel with today. There is this strange assumption that these witnesses could be verified with, that fabricating them would be impossible because people would check on them.

Near all of these witnesses have no names, the only named being the religion's principal evangelists, but even if they were named in their hundreds upon a grand list, an Antiochene convert couldn't just wander down to Judea to check the veracity of the claim, let alone a Greek.

Since the first converts to Christianity were of low character (1 Cor. 1:26-29), the message taught to them that enabled them to not boast in themselves, but "boast in the Lord", struck a chord with the disenfranchised who were viewed by society to be essentially valueless.

The bestowal of an intrinsic value, and even the spiritual raising above the rich due to their acceptance of this faith, gave them a sense of worth society didn't offer. So amidst this "inspiring elevation" of self, the demand for stringent evidence was quickly forgotten.

It was due to the growing size of the church from having converted these disenfranchised groups that the authenticity of the witnesses was taken for granted, the religion's institutionalisation making it essentially beyond any meaningful contemporary reproach.

But today, we are liberated of any obligation to affirm these accounts. We're exposed to far more knowledge and wisdom now, through which we can come to better know what is true and inspect what was thought to be true. And towards this end of truth, we can find no resurrection.

The foundation of Christian metaphysics regarding the resurrection rests upon the resurrection's historicity. It does not work dialectically from fundamental principles, but rather works dialectically from the assumed historical event of the resurrection.

If it were that, when working dialectically with fundamentals, we would necessarily find the need for a Messiah, that this Messiah would come to be our salvation from sin, and that he would be the only means for Man to come to God, then we could be more forgiving regarding proof.

However, this is not the case and has not been shown to be case. Even in Aquinas there is a presumed historicity in his resurrection metaphysics, working from the event and not solely from reason. The Church admits its reality can't be deduced discursively and is taken on faith.

Were it the case that Christianity was the only religion in the world, taking something like this on blind faith wouldn't be such a burden.

But Christianity is not alone, there are others which absolve the believer of needing to take anything "by faith", taking reason instead.

When there is an alternate theology, one that is holistic and coherent, one that abhors reliance upon your willingness to accept things just on faith, instead urging everyone to believe only in what can be reasoned to be so, how can any well-reasoned person opt for Christianity?

If God has intentionally made salvation in this manner to test our faith and trust in him, then it is God who has damned me to Hell.