Doug writes:
If I am able to make others think, then I am more than satisfied.
Why not apply this same standard to yourself? You have been working on a thesis that the whole Christian religion was invented by Paul out of thin air decades after the events happened, especially the resurrection upon which the whole thing is based.
When presented with scholarly evidence to the contrary, you completely ignore it and either talk about pot bellies or just tell everyone (especially me) to just believe whatever you want. I'm cool with that; but I would MUCH rather you actually respond to an honest critique of your ideas.
Why so many atheists, agnostics and heretics seem to be consumed with rewriting the accounts surrounding Jesus is the REAL story here. It is just fascinating to me.
You have spent probably a year rewriting what some critics (who cannot be taken seriously) say about Salvation. Isn't it obvious? Here it is in a nut shell without all the pseudo intellectualism:
A guy performed lots of miracles and fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written long before. Then, he was murdered by leaders but came back to life three days later showing himself to hundreds of people. People wanted to be able to keep living like this man did and either not die or be resurrected as they had just witnessed.
And that's it Doug. Just like people today, People don't want to die. Simple. That's what Salvation is all about ...eternal security.
After the events, and at great personal cost (family shunning or worse), those eye-witnesses and many others put faith in the man Jesus because they had good reason to. Like anyone with any sense they reasoned that they could either keep living or be resurrected since they had seen it done with their own eyes. You simply cannot divorce Salvation from the Resurrection.
That is what makes your attempts to ignore clear evidence contrary to your assertions so egregious. Lots of scholars know that the foundational Christian events were recorded and believed to have taken place in Jerusalem at about the same time that they are purported to have taken place.... as I posted.
If you are bound and determined to remain an unbeliever, it is simply not necessary for you to resort to the recesses of denial (or pot-bellies). Your determined unbelief will not be threatened by just accepting what other scholarly unbelievers also concede to.