Again, noselfwilling, I point you to the historical Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes, who notes in several public volumes and scores of refereed papers that there is little to no historical basis for the claim that Jesus was resurrected.
Of the 45 sources we have of Jesus within 150 years of His death, 24 of them speak of His resurrection.
Hence, the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. Since no naturalistic explanation can account for this we know it is true.
Praise the Lord!
Insisting that there is not a “naturalistic” explanation for the disciple’s beliefs does not actually mean that there is not one. Or many.
Here’s a few, in no particular order:
1) their “beliefs” have been misrepresented by historical revisionists
2) they were culled into believing something that never happened
3) mental illness or drug use allowed them to “see” something that never happened
4) there is always good old fashioned deception
You continue to assume that the “eyewitness accounts” to which you refer were created by people focused on a modern idea of historicity and accuracy. The reality is, however, you are living in a post-enlightenment context and lending that paradigm to a group of ancient non-dualistic persons. The aristotitelian tension you perceive between “the natural” and “the supernatural” was not part of their thinking at all. For example, all of these people believed that lightning was the wrath of god being dispensed upon the earth. If someone had been able to demonstrate the natural means by which lightning occurrs, it would have been no less an act of god to them. Their interest was not in factual accuracy, but spiritual sensationalism. The important part of any account they gave referencing the Jesus character was not its historicity, but rather how it could demonstrate his God-ness. There is every reason to assume that accounts of impossible miracles were precisely that: impossible and fundamentally mythological. Criticism within various denominations of the church remain in conversation about this topic, but one of the biggest theological questions facing the church today is, “what does it mean to our faith/theology if the story of Jesus contains serious historical inaccuracies?” I think most mainline leaders would still see a great deal of value and importance in Jesus the archetype despite questions about Jesus the man. That’s dynamic, respectable faith that does not, even for a minute, claim to be beholden to the confines of scientific reasoning (which is why I maintain respect for it). However, when folks like you waltz in claiming that, under the auspices of rationality and science, the Bible is literally true, I am blown away. Your faith seems to be less a matter of true belief and more a product of stupidity, really poor arguments/evidence, and a lack of capacity and willingness to criticize that terrible evidence.
If you have faith, then find a way to believe that is not contingent upon such silly reasoning as that which you continue to present to us. If you are looking for a worldview that proceeds purely from evidence on hand, then don’t expect to find anything that resembles the western dualistic idea of a god.