Jim: What was that compelling reason? The fact that Jesus was not who he
said he
Loss of face for instance ? Following someone they believed to be their
savior for many years and then finding out he was a fraud would not only
be detrimental to themselves but they would realize it might affect the
belief of many thousands who after finding out about the fraud might lose
their faith.
Jim: was? They were compelled to make up a story about a resurrection, one
that
sent them to persecution, and eventually to death. All of them?
Perhaps I am not aware of all the disciples' stories but to deny the
possibility of a combined effort to save face is nothing new.
Jim: This is an unreasonable supposition. Or maybe I'm missing something.
What was the motive for all of them to lie, IYO?
Loss of face, fear of people losing their faith in face of the fraud ?
<<Coincidence cannot be used to show the supernatural part of the gospel
merely the historical nature of the account.>>
Jim: But if you have reliable, historical testimony of the miraculous, why
do you reject it? The only answer is a modern bias against
supernaturalism. But this is an assumption only.
Heck, there is historical testimony on witchcraft, do you suggest we take
such testimony seriously as well ? Stories to inflate the 'stature' of
historical figures are not uncommon.