Your account does not take into account the establishment of resurrection believing communities within 2 or 3 decades of the event.
Back then, Vlad, in that place and culture, religiosity was the norm - so not surprising that there were a number of religious groups.
The new testament account itself suggests that the resurrection was not easy to swallow so you are wrong there.
Yet you do swallow it!
Rather than being easy to fabricate the resurrection account should more realistically have been scotched, quashed and trounced. It doesn't seem to have been.
That may be because the story only grew arms and legs much later - at the time of the death of Jesus these events may only have been of interest to his personal followers.
Even today, yer, average antitheist tends to ignore the actual history and recasts history from a ''these things don't happen perspective'' even to the point where he thinks he is modern, more intelligent on these matters......he isn't. They knew people didn't rise from the dead and yet many came to the opinion that it had happened.
Problem here though Vlad is that the alleged resurrection of Jesus isn't a historical fact: it is an anecdotal claim. At that time and place in history, and in that culture, a religious narrative probably had more currency than today.
It seems telling, to me anyway, that those here who actively promote the Jesus story as being historical fact seem unable to explain a method that would provide enough identifiable supernatural evidence to at least show how mistakes or lies can be excluded: this may be because, at base, they are (surprisingly to me) just as credulous as those early Christians were, and to the extent that they are deeply mired in fallacies such as those involving incredulity, ignorance, tradition and authority.
Religiousity is the norm in our world Gordon. You have equated religiosity with ready indeed preferential belief belief in the impossible. The NT epistles show this not to be the case.
You say that the resurrection isn't a historical fact. The fact is that just 20 or so years after we read about communities who believe it did. These communities were established. That is the historical fact your crowd hide.
Things were not as you present them.
Stop chucking the word shamanically about the place as if it were some kind of Brobat guaranteed to clean up all opposing views. The testimony is that some had seen and even felt Jesus. Paul challenges the doubter to interview up to 500. This is a material event. Your guff about wanting a supernatural methodology to establish this.
I agree that increasingly larger communities belief in the resurrection must have been bolstered. This would be the spiritual and religious encounter with Jesus. As far as I can see from the modern perspective even something like a resurrection would have faded and a dynamic on going experience would be needed to maintain the momentum.
Let's finally examine the religious roots the overwhelming opposition comes from other forms of jewish faith in which God does not come to earth incarnated, where Law and it's interpretation is the religious lynchpin and death is the end.
Your thesis that this time and place was fertile territory for a Christianity is off the mark somewhat.
