To Shepherdless
What are these "numerous lines of historical evidence" and "several lines of historical evidence"? Outside of the bible, the only mention of a resurrection I am aware of , is a brief reference in the Testimonium Flavianum (by Josephus), which when translated reads something like:
Cornelius Tactitus {54 AD -117AD] Annals 15.44 [Some words adjusted to modern English for clarity].
But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiation of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most destructive superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in the capital, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of setting fire to the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
Pliny the Younger was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome 61-113 AD
In a letter he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD.
“They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god,”
So the reference to a resurrection seems to be an addition by Chritian apologists in around the 4th century. Therefore the only written evidence of a resurrection is in the bible alone.
I should point out:
a missing body doesn't necessarily mean a resurrection;
True, but notice this, it is one thing to claim a resurrection in a far away land, that took place centuries ago, and it is another thing to claim a resurrection in the same town that not only the death occurred but also the burial, within a year of the event and not have been proven wrong. Notice all that had to have produced was a corpse, any corpse would have suffice after several days, but the movement was not quenched in Jerusalem but thrived there.
Mary Magdeline seeing Jesus on the Sunday morning but not recognizing him raises serious credibility issues right there (same issue applies to the "appearance" on the road to Emmaus);
In that cultural setting women had no credibility. If the Gospel accounts are embellishments why record this.If I was embellishing I would have excluded this account. Read the Gnostic accounts and you will see how over time the accounts are embellished and sensationalized. This points out the honesty of the writer.
of the 11 to 13 mentioned appearances, all but one was an appearance to a small private group (often the same group) or just an individual; the only public appearance mentioned (see 1 Cor 15:6) is not referred to in the 4 gospels or Acts. Further, if such a public appearance occurred, why are some apostles still doubting the resurrection afterwards (see eg Matthew 28:17) ;
Your argument lacks chronological order. The appearance recorded in 1 Cor 15:6 happened after the recording in Mt. Now the question, why would the Apostles doubt.
Jews expected resurrection for the righteous at the end of days but not for anybody before that.
Jews had no conception of the Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel's enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. A Messiah who failed to deliver and to reign, who was defeated, humiliated, and slain by His enemies is a contradiction in terms. Nowhere do Jewish text speak of such an assignment. Therefore, it's difficult to over emphasize what a disaster the crucifixion was for the disciples’ faith. Jesus death on the cross spelled the humiliating end for any hopes they had entertained that He was the Messiah.
Saul/Paul wouldn't have known what Jesus looked like.
Why would Paul know what Jesus looked like, according to the narratives they never met.
There have been many more documented sightings of Elvis, leprechauns etc. Even accepting the bible as accurate, apart from the supposed appearance to Paul, it is all second-hand accounts.
Now immediately we confront the problem. Since Jesus Himself didn't leave behind any writings of His own, we are dependent upon the records of others for knowing what Jesus said and did.
Now the situation isn't unusual for figures of antiquity. But while the situation isn't unusual it does raise the question, how do we know that these records are accurate? Maybe Jesus' followers said that He said and did certain things that He really did not. In particular, since the early Christians believe that Jesus was God, maybe they made up sayings and stories about how Jesus claimed to be divine. So we should not be surprised that Jesus in the Gospels makes claims and does things implying His divinity. Maybe the historical Jesus who really lived was very different from the divine figure we read about in the Gospels. How can we tell if these records are historically accurate?
The writings contained in the New Testament can be scrutinized using the same historical criteria that we use in investigating other sources of ancient history.
Now the first thing we need to do in order to conduct a historical investigation of Jesus is to assemble our sources. Jesus of Nazareth is referred to in the range of ancient sources inside and outside the New Testament, including Christian, Roman, and Jewish sources. This is really quite extraordinary when you reflect on how obscure a figure Jesus was. He had at the most a three-year public life as a Galilean preacher. Yet we have far more information about Jesus than we do for most major figures of antiquity. The most important of these historical sources have been collected into the New Testament. References to Jesus outside the New Testament tend to confirm what we read in the Gospels. But they do not really tell us anything new. Therefore the focus of our investigation must be upon the documents found in the New Testament.
Historians are treating the New Testament just like any other collection of ancient documents and investigating whether these documents are historically reliable.
The church chose only the earliest sources, which were closest to Jesus and the original disciples, to include in the New Testament and left out the later, secondary accounts like the forged apocryphal Gospels, which everyone knew were fakes. So from the very nature of the case, the best historical sources were included in the New Testament.
People who insist on evidence taken only from writings outside the New Testament do not understand what they're asking us to do. They're demanding that we ignore the earliest, primary sources about Jesus in favor of sources that are later, secondary, and less reliable, which is just crazy as historical methodology.
(William Craig)
And why didn't Jesus just walk into Jerusalem on the Sunday morning and just yell: "Ha ha, I am back!" I think I know why.
Hundreds of miracles over three years including bringing people back from the dead did not convince them, you think Jesus walking into Jerusalem would have? I doubt it.