Resurrection, hallucinations or lies?

[Laurens]

Hallucination or lies is a false dichotomy.

I'd say the resurrection is a myth. I won't lay out the entire argument in this thread, but I would recommend looking into Richard Carrier's arguments. He states that 1st Century Jews needed a theological solution to the Roman control of their temple---

So basically the “theory” is that Peter, James, Paul, John etc. decided to invent their own myth about a guy named Jesus who resurrected, and then they somehow fought and died in the name of this myth that they themselves invented?

People invent myths all the time and people fight and die in the mane of myths all the time, but nobody fights and die as a martyr, in the name of a myth that they themselves invented.

So confirming my point above. If this is what happened 2,000 years ago then something extraordinary and unprecedented occurred
Not to mention that according to the gospels Jesus was pacifist, and even encouraged people to pay their taxes to the Romans.
So if the goal was to invent a myth to free people from the roman empire, Jesus was certainly not the type of character that someone would have invented.

Not at all, as I said read Carrier's book or at least watch some of his lectures to get a more complete picture of his argument.

The Dead Sea Scrolls show rampant mysticism and messianism in 1st century Palestine. Extracting a dying and rising messiah called Yeshua from the scriptures.

The Ascension of Isaiah describes Christ going down into the firmament to be executed by Satan and his minions. A text so problematic that later Christians inserted a mini gospel into it.

The authentic writings of Paul do not mention Christ as a man who recently died at the hands of the Romans in Jerusalem. He talks about Christ revealing himself through scripture and visions, not as a recently dead preacher. Paul pre-dates the Gospels.

Mark---the basis of all the other Gospels---bears the marks of an elaborate work of fiction based off some Old Testament myths and Homer's Odyssey. The rest of the Gospels appear to take this and make theological changes to it based upon variants in their theology.

It wasn't one guy coming up with a character in the same way that Stan Lee might, it was a gradual process of development. This is why anyone can say anything about Christ, he was a proto-Marxist or a radical conservative or whatever---people find what they want within him, because there is so much contradiction in his character, because he was a fictional development over time. Nobody sat down and invented Christ and then decided to die for him, by that time people probably already believed he was a real person.

 

[Visaki]

Hallucination or lies is a false dichotomy.

I'd say the resurrection is a myth. I won't lay out the entire argument in this thread, but I would recommend looking into Richard Carrier's arguments. He states that 1st Century Jews needed a theological solution to the Roman control of their temple---

So basically the “theory” is that Peter, James, Paul, John etc. decided to invent their own myth about a guy named Jesus who resurrected, and then they somehow fought and died in the name of this myth that they themselves invented?

People invent myths all the time and people fight and die in the mane of myths all the time, but nobody fights and die as a martyr, in the name of a myth that they themselves invented.

So confirming my point above. If this is what happened 2,000 years ago then something extraordinary and unprecedented occurred
Not to mention that according to the gospels Jesus was pacifist, and even encouraged people to pay their taxes to the Romans.
So if the goal was to invent a myth to free people from the roman empire, Jesus was certainly not the type of character that someone would have invented.

I think you miss the point. It's not that Paul, James, Peter, John etc actually had a meeting and decided that they really should invent a myth for the purpose to free the Jews from Roman rule. It's just what they came up with over time as their view on Jesus and his teachings as they knew them changed over time and what they possibly really believed. Willingness to fight and die for a belief or myth says nothing about if that belief of myth is true, just that the person really believes it is worth fighting and dying for and you can do that even with myth you yourself came up with.

On another point; The Nazis "invented" the myth of aryan supremacy and the subhumanity of other groups and they seemed to fight and die for that myth they themselves "invented". Mormons did the same. And protestants. And the list of that kind of ideologies where the actually "inventors" of those myth were willing to kill and/or die for their myth goes on and on.

 

[leroy]

[ Nobody sat down and invented Christ and then decided to die for him, by that time people probably already believed he was a real person.

I have seen Carrier’s lectures, he basically says that Jesus was a mythical character, invented by early Christians. They were not trying to full anyone, supposedly everybody knew that he was a mythical character (like harry potter)
If Jesus was a myth, then this myth would have had to be invented by the founders of the early Christian church (James, Paul, John, Peter etc.)
And we know (from multiple independent historical sources) that these individuals did fight and died as martyrs in the name of Jesus.
To say that somebody died in the name of a myth (lie) that they themselves invented would be an extraordinary and unprecedented event.

Visaki:

On another point; The Nazis "invented" the myth of aryan supremacy and the subhumanity of other groups and they seemed to fight and die for that myth they themselves "invented"

I don’t belive that this view represented the majority of Germans, but I see your point.

However these people where dying in the name of something that they believed was true, while in the case of Jesus we are suppose to think that early Christians died in the name of something they knew was a lie (these are not analogous examples)

I would also like to add
There are dozens of ancient historians that talk about Christians, but none of them referred as Christians as a group of people that followed a mythical character. Remember according to Carrier, early Christians where not trying to full anyone, supposedly everybody knew that Jesus was not real. And the events described in the gospels where understood by everybody as events that occurred in heaven. Supposedly Jesus became “historicized” centuries after the events (before that Jesus was accepted to be a mythical person)

So why don’t we find any reference of any ancient historian that describes Christians as a gropup of people that follow a mythical person?

 

[Laurens]

You seem to misunderstand Richard Carrier. The apostles did not sit down and think "okay we need to design a character for this new religion we want to make." That is a complete misunderstanding of his thesis.

First century Palestine was occupied by the Romans. This created theological problems for the Jews living there, who noticed a conflict between their supposed status as God's chosen people and their subdugation at the hands of the Romans. How could this be? Some started to postulate a militaristic Messiah who would come along and fight off the Romans, but as more time passed some started to view this as unlikely.

The Dead Sea Scrolls show us that various people started to interpret passages in Daniel and Isaiah as referring to a Messiah named Yeshua who would suffer and die to atone for the sins of Israel. In some sects this idea took hold, and they began to believe that scripture revealed Yeshua as an archangel who descended into the firmament to be executed by Satan, only to rise again to atone for the sins of Israel and remove the bond between the Jewish people and their holy temple that was under problematic occupation.

They did not invent Christ like Stan Lee invented Spider-Man. They believed the message was revealed to them cryptically through scripture and supported by things such as visions and dreams. They didn't just create it off the top of their heads

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
that his family and his close disciples

They are likely fictitious characters.

That is a very naïve statement, really how do you feel when YECs say "if we came from monkeys then why are there monkeys still living today". Well this is how I feel

for example look at all the sources thta describe Paul´s dead, to say that he is a mythical character is naive and stupid

Paul's death is described in a number of sources:

I Clement (95–96 AD) suggests that both Paul and Peter were martyred.[84]
There is an early tradition found in the writing of Ignatius, probably around 110 AD, that Paul was martyred.[85]
Dionysius of Corinth, in a letter to the Romans (166–174 AD), stated that Paul and Peter were martyred in Italy.[86] Eusebius also cites the Dionysius passage.[87]
The Acts of Paul, an apocryphal work written around 160, describes the martyrdom of Paul. According to the Acts of Paul, Nero condemned Paul to death by decapitation.[88]
Tertullian in his Prescription Against Heretics (200 AD) writes that Paul had a similar death to that of John the Baptist, who was beheaded.[89]
Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History (320 AD) testifies that Paul was beheaded in Rome and Peter crucified. He wrote that the tombs of these two apostles, with their inscriptions, were extant in his time; and quotes as his authority a holy man of the name of Caius.[90]
Lactantius wrote that Nero "crucified Peter, and slew Paul" (318 AD).[91]
Jerome in his De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) (392 AD) states that Paul was beheaded at Rome.[92]
John Chrysostom (c. 349–407) wrote that Nero knew Paul personally and had him killed.[93]
Sulpicius Severus says Nero killed Peter and Paul. (403 AD)[94]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Death

I'm willing to accept evidence. Give me an authentic document from Pontius Pilate saying "Hey, I sentenced this guy to death. But now I regret it because the guy seems to have come back to life and is haunting a bunch of people", and I will grant you the historicity of Jesus.

Pontius Pilate? Why not someone like Paul? In this context Pauls testimony would have been as reliable as Pilate´s testimony

Paul was a Noble and an educated guy who said, hey this stupid Christians that are worshiping a charlatan named Jesus; I will kill all these Christians and get paid for it, but then he say Jesus resurrected repented, became a Christian and died as a martyr for his believe.

So if you say that you would accept a testimony from Pilate as evidence, why wouldn’t you accept the testimony of Paul?

Why? I would have never granted that the device even existed. The same way we don't grant the existence of Atlantis, even tough we have the accounts of Plato

Because Plato wrote about Atlantis 9,000 years after the supposed events, there are no independent sources that verify the story and Plato was explicitly writing science fiction, the goal of his novel was to express his political views, not provide a historical account.

This is not analogous, in the case of the resurrection we have multiple independent sources from people who lived within 1or 2 generations after the events, by people who intended to provide a historical account, by people who knew people that where there. And by people who honestly and sincerely believed that they were reporting accurate information.

 

[leroy]

They did not invent Christ like Stan Lee invented Spider-Man. They believed the message was revealed to them cryptically through scripture and supported by things such as visions and dreams. They didn't just create it off the top of their heads

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

And everybody had the same dreams and hallucinations?



Why aren’t there any ancient historians that describe Christians as a group of people that follow a non historical character?

 

[Laurens]

They did not invent Christ like Stan Lee invented Spider-Man. They believed the message was revealed to them cryptically through scripture and supported by things such as visions and dreams. They didn't just create it off the top of their heads

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

And everybody had the same dreams and hallucinations?



Why aren’t there any ancient historians that describe Christians as a group of people that follow a non historical character?

No but they had a framework of interpretation that tied them all together.

There are ancient historians who believe Christ was a myth Richard Carrier is one of them

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

 

[leroy]

And everybody had the same dreams and hallucinations?



Why aren’t there any ancient historians that describe Christians as a group of people that follow a non historical character?

No but they had a framework of interpretation that tied them all together.

There are ancient historians who believe Christ was a myth Richard Carrier is one of them

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk[/quote]


I meant historians that lived in ancient times (centuries I,II,III) like Josephus, Tacitus, clement etc why isn’t there any ancient source that describes Christians as a group that follow a non historical character?



What about early followers of Chist, (James, John, Paul, Peter ETC.) where they also mythical persons? What about Pilate, Caifás AND OTHER historical individuals mentioned in the gospels? Are they also mythical?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

for example look at all the sources thta describe Paul´s dead, to say that he is a mythical character is naive and stupid
[...]
Pontius Pilate? Why not someone like Paul? In this context Pauls testimony would have been as reliable as Pilate´s testimony

Paul was a Noble and an educated guy who said, hey this stupid Christians that are worshiping a charlatan named Jesus; I will kill all these Christians and get paid for it, but then he say Jesus resurrected repented, became a Christian and died as a martyr for his believe.

So if you say that you would accept a testimony from Pilate as evidence, why wouldn’t you accept the testimony of Paul?

Paul? Is this a Joke? Did you know that Paul the "disciple" wasn't one of the disciples of Jesus? That in fact he never seen Jesus, except "in visions" (but never in life and flesh).
Paul? The guy from which the expression of "had a road to Damascus experience" literally comes from?

This is not analogous, in the case of the resurrection we have multiple independent sources

We do? Where are they?

from people who lived within 1or 2 generations after the events,

Why not 0 generations? i.e. contemporary.

by people who intended to provide a historical account,

Like Paul?

by people who knew people that where there.

Who exactly was this person? And why not by people who actually was there?

And by people who honestly and sincerely believed that they were reporting accurate information.

How do you know that?

Because Plato wrote about Atlantis 9,000 years after the supposed events, there are no independent sources that verify the story and Plato was explicitly writing science fiction, the goal of his novel was to express his political views, not provide a historical account.

Because Paul wrote about Jesus 50 years after the supposed events, there are no independent sources that verify the story and Paul was explicitly writing science fiction, the goal of his novel was to express his political views, not provide a historical account.

Why aren’t there any ancient historians that describe Christians as a group of people that follow a non historical character?

That is ridiculous. Are there any ancient historian that describe Christians as a group of people that follow an historical character?

What about early followers of Chist, (James, John, Paul, Peter ETC.) where they also mythical persons?

Actually. We do know for a fact that John is mythical, that is not even up for debate. The gospel of "John" was anonymous, although a person for sure wrote it, the character "John" who wrote that Gospel was undoubtedly fabricated.
Not to mention that "John the Apostle", "John the Revelator" and "John the Presbyter", are disputed to be 3 different John's (talking about Christians and their trinities) and none of them are "John the Evangelist".
Neither Peter nor Paul ever saw Jesus. I will grant you they are not mythical, but how far does that take you really?
And nobody seams to agree about who James even was.

 

[Laurens]

I meant historians that lived in ancient times (centuries I,II,III) like Josephus, Tacitus, clement etc why isn’t there any ancient source that describes Christians as a group that follow a non historical character?

Well there is no contemporary sources that mention Christ. Both Josephus and Tacitus are questionable in terms of whether or not they were redacted by later Christians. It may have been the case that just as Christians now do not believe Jesus was a mythical figure, by the time people started to write about Christians it was already widely believed that Jesus was a historical figure. Bearing in mind that information and evidence was a lot harder to come by back then.

What about early followers of Chist, (James, John, Paul, Peter ETC.) where they also mythical persons? What about Pilate, Caifás AND OTHER historical individuals mentioned in the gospels? Are they also mythical?

The apostles most likely existed, but may have been the priests of a mystical cult that worshipped a celestial Christ rather than a recently dead preacher. There is evidence that Pilate existed, we have inscriptions bearing his name. This doesn't prove that Christ was a historical person, it would be simple to add real historical persons to a mythical story.

 

[Bango Skank]

@Laurens

What about John the baptist? He is a historical person and what we know, Jesus was associated to him in some way (A disciple originally?). Also, if Jesus was a myth how can he have a brother, which i believe Josephus talks about and which Paul met in person?

 

[leroy]

Paul? Is this a Joke? Did you know that Paul the "disciple" wasn't one of the disciples of Jesus? That in fact he never seen Jesus, except "in visions" (but never in life and flesh).
Paul? The guy from which the expression of "had a road to Damascus experience" literally comes from?

I would like a direct answer, if you said that you would accept the testimony of Pilate as evidence, why wouldn’t you accept the testimony of Paul?

from people who lived within 1or 2 generations after the events,

Why not 0 generations? i.e. contemporary.

We do have “0” generations, Paul for example

by people who knew people that where there.

Who exactly was this person? And why not by people who actually was there?

Well for example Paul knew James the brother of Jesus, and at least some of the original disciples, he had access to primary sources of information.

BTW, Can you provide a source written by a witness who was there, that confirms that Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia? If not, shouldn’t you reject the idea that Alexander was born in Macedonia?

Because Plato wrote about Atlantis 9,000 years after the supposed events, there are no independent sources that verify the story and Plato was explicitly writing science fiction, the goal of his novel was to express his political views, not provide a historical account.

Because Paul wrote about Jesus 50 years after the supposed events, there are no independent sources that verify the story and Paul was explicitly writing science fiction, the goal of his novel was to express his political views, not provide a historical account.

Well there is a difference between 50 years and 9,000 years, + the fact that Paul wrote within 10- 20 years after the event.

Imagine what would happen if we reject all the historical sources that where written 50 years after the event…..we would have to drop 99% of all ancient history.

If a journalists decides to interview war veterans, and write a historical book based about what happened in Vietnam, would you consider the book unreliable because it was written 50 years after the events? Would you reject the source because the journalist wasn’t there?

Paul, and the authors of the Gospels where communicating information that they thought was real, Plato did not intend to convince anyone that Atlantis is real, it was always intended to be a myth and an excuse to express his political views

 

[leroy]

I meant historians that lived in ancient times (centuries I,II,III) like Josephus, Tacitus, clement etc why isn’t there any ancient source that describes Christians as a group that follow a non historical character?

Well there is no contemporary sources that mention Christ. Both Josephus and Tacitus are questionable in terms of whether or not they were redacted by later Christians. It may have been the case that just as Christians now do not believe Jesus was a mythical figure, by the time people started to write about Christians it was already widely believed that Jesus was a historical figure. Bearing in mind that information and evidence was a lot harder to come by back then.

What about early followers of Chist, (James, John, Paul, Peter ETC.) where they also mythical persons? What about Pilate, Caifás AND OTHER historical individuals mentioned in the gospels? Are they also mythical?

The apostles most likely existed, but may have been the priests of a mystical cult that worshipped a celestial Christ rather than a recently dead preacher. There is evidence that Pilate existed, we have inscriptions bearing his name. This doesn't prove that Christ was a historical person, it would be simple to add real historical persons to a mythical story.

Ok so you do admit that you don’t have any ancient source that describes Christians as a group of people that follow a non-historical person right?

As for my burden, yes we do have Paul + 4 gospels + Josephus*+ early creeds, that where written within 0-2 generations after the event, and then we have Tacitus, Clement, Pliny the Younger that wrote about Jesus within 3-5 generations. And hundreds of text that where written within 500 years.

*at least this verse from josephus is uncontrovertial “so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,

 

[Visaki]

As for my burden, yes we do have Paul + 4 gospels + Josephus*+ early creeds, that where written within 0-2 generations after the event, and then we have Tacitus, Clement, Pliny the Younger that wrote about Jesus within 3-5 generations. And hundreds of text that where written within 500 years.

As a little side note it seems I have to say this again: The Gospels, or Pauls letters (those that are not forgeries or misattributions), are not evidence for the claim, they are the claim.

I'm not sure why we get into the historicity of Jesus again. That thing has it's own thread.

Also:

Well for example Paul knew James the brother of Jesus, and at least some of the original disciples, he had access to primary sources of information.

So? Paul just claims this. I have no problem thinking that he's just name dropping because he is in a fight with Peter over the control of the new cult that has sprung up around the myth of this one preacher. He succeeded too, most of the early Christian theology doesn't come from Jesus, or his named successor Peter, but from Paul.

 

[Laurens]

@Laurens

What about John the baptist? He is a historical person and what we know, Jesus was associated to him in some way (A disciple originally?). Also, if Jesus was a myth how can he have a brother, which i believe Josephus talks about and which Paul met in person?

I don't have Carrier's book to hand for reference but I believe his point about John the Baptist is something along the lines of his cult being a Messianic sect that at some point merged with Christianity hence his inclusion in the story. I'm certain he goes into more depth and I'm positive I haven't done his argument justice, but all of your points are addressed in his book if you are interested in looking in depth.

Josephus, he argues is an interpolation. It was edited by later Christians to make evidence. Paul speaks of James brother of the Lord, which Carrier argues is a term of fictive kinship as in "we are all brothers in Jesus". Again he goes into depth in his book. I don't have time at the moment to go into depth about his points.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

 

[leroy]

I'm not sure why we get into the historicity of Jesus again. That thing has it's own thread.

You are correct, any topic related to the historicity of Jesus should be commented on the other thread.
I will use the next paragraph as an excuse to retake the original point

[quote leroy]Well for example Paul knew James the brother of Jesus, and at least some of the original disciples, he had access to primary sources of information.

So? Paul just claims this. I have no problem thinking that he's just name dropping because he is in a fight with Peter over the control of the new cult that has sprung up around the myth of this one preacher. He succeeded too, most of the early Christian theology doesn't come from Jesus, or his named successor Peter, but from Paul.[/quote]

Fact: we know that Paul went to Jerusalem, where he met relatives and disciples of Jesus (including close disciples) where he learned about Jesus, his teachings and the alleged resurrection.

Then he wrote some letters, where he summarized what he learned.

Those letters include this paragraph

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raisedon the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

So how do you explain that paragraph (that asserts that Jesus rose from the dead) Lies Hallucinations or a real resurrection?

1 Lies
a) The relatives and disciples lied to Paul, and Paul wrote those lies (thinking that it was true)
b) Paul Lied, nobody told him about that

2 Hallucinations / dreams / Illusions

c) These people had an hallucination, dream etc. of a resurrection, that was interpreted as a real experience
d) The supposed risen Jesus was a fake Jesus perhaps a twin brother or perhaps a guy who looked more less like Jesus.

3 Resurection

e) They saw it because it was real, Jesus really did rose from the dead

4 Some other explanation that I haven’t thought of

Obviously I believe that “e” is the best explanation, but the point that I am making is that it doesn’t matter which alternative you pick, any alternative would be extraordinary and unprecedented.

There is no an “elegant” simple natural explanation for that

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

In A New History Of Early Christianity, Freeman argues that the high priest, knowing there'd be trouble over the death of a popular rabbi (Jesus), had the body removed - hence the proverbial "empty tomb" - and had a couple of his priests tell the women, who visited the tomb, that he was in Jerusalem. The women took these as "angels" - literally, "messengers".

Other authors have different explanations - I don't have these books to hand but the historians are of the opinion that no resurrection took place.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

In A New History Of Early Christianity, Freeman argues that the high priest, knowing there'd be trouble over the death of a popular rabbi (Jesus), had the body removed - hence the proverbial "empty tomb" - and had a couple of his priests tell the women, who visited the tomb, that he was in Jerusalem. The women took these as "angels" - literally, "messengers".

Other authors have different explanations - I don't have these books to hand but the historians are of the opinion that no resurrection took place.

Kindest regards,

James

Well if high priests where trying to “destroy” the early Christian movement and Christians where making a big deal out of the empty tomb, why didn’t they simply showed the body?

High priests tacitly admitted that the tomb was empty; they even accused Christians for stilling the body.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I would like a direct answer, if you said that you would accept the testimony of Pilate as evidence, why wouldn’t you accept the testimony of Paul?

Are you kidding me?

Paul's "knowledge" of Jesus is a dream. A freaking dream! Literally, he had a dream while on the road to Damascus. This is not a secret, this is the official version of the church.
The fact Paul "saw him in a dream", pretty much disqualifies him as a witness to anything.
The fact that he dreamed it up should have been a dead give away!
What the hell is wrong with you?

We do have “0” generations, Paul for example

Paul is hardly an unbiased source. Not to mention the problem I just described above. Paul's relationship to Jesus is trough "Visions", not Jesus a "real person".

Well for example Paul knew James the brother of Jesus, and at least some of the original disciples, he had access to primary sources of information.

Nobody knows who James was, or what was his relationship to Jesus, not even if he was a real person.

BTW, Can you provide a source written by a witness who was there, that confirms that Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia? If not, shouldn’t you reject the idea that Alexander was born in Macedonia?

Alexander was a real person. The king of a Kingdom. Founded a city that bared his name. Is face has been minted into coins. Son of the king of Macedonia, his childhood is described in great detail and explicitly mentions being raised in the court at Pella (Macedonia), had Aristotle as tutor who also mentions him.
Sure you don't have a scribe peering into his mother womb as he gives his first breath. But the mountain of evidence surrounding it is incontestable, and the claim in uncontroversial. For all I know maybe the mother was on a trip right outside the outskirts of Macedonia, it's a very trivial an uncontroversial claim that he was born in Macedonia.

You can not compare this to Jesus, not by a long shot. Not only because it literally asks to accept magic, an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, there are 0 independent sources, and you have nowhere near any evidence that he existed at all.
Sorry, but your comparison doesn't fly.

Well there is a difference between 50 years and 9,000 years, + the fact that Paul wrote within 10- 20 years after the event.

No there isn't. The story of Atlantis isn't real. Plato wasn't describing an event that happened 9000 years ago, it never happened.
The point that you should have taken from the 50 years, is that the person putting the accounts onto parchment couldn't possibly have been alive when the supposed accounts occurred. It is a dead give away that they are not giving first hand accounts, but they are at best giving and account from someone else, long after the cult had been established.
So his he writing history or parroting the lines of the cult?
Do you understand what I am saying?

If a journalists decides to interview war veterans, and write a historical book based about what happened in Vietnam, would you consider the book unreliable because it was written 50 years after the events? Would you reject the source because the journalist wasn’t there?

You have no comparison here. The earliest texts on Christianity are not related to anyone who was even supposedly there. None who claim to have seen Jesus as a person. And unless they figured away to time travel, or live for really long long, the texts that relate to people who had the opportunity of having a first hand account must necessarily (the texts) be second hand accounts.
You need to track the source of knowledge, paper isn't magic, a statements aren't automatically true just because it is written down. Someone had to physically grab an inscription tool an write the stuff down, so how did they know? Where is the information coming from the moment the "pen meets the paper"?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Those letters include this paragraph

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures [...]

He is working from scripture!

So how do you explain that paragraph (that asserts that Jesus rose from the dead) Lies Hallucinations or a real resurrection?
[...]
b) Paul Lied, nobody told him about that
[...]

e) [MAGIC!]

Obviously I believe that “e” [MAGIC] is the best explanation, but the point that I am making is that it doesn’t matter which alternative you pick, any alternative would be extraordinary and unprecedented [like lying].

There is no an “elegant” simple natural explanation for that [including lying]

Here is another alternative, he was not talking about fact or something someone told him, he was talking about conviction. Lying is intentional, and he couldn't be lying if he believed it, even tough what he was saying was not true.

why didn’t they simply showed the body?

a) There was no body because Jesus wasn't real.
b) How come nobody is digging up Elvis to put down the claim of all those people who have seen the risen Elvis and claim that Elvis is still alive?