That simply doesn't square with his writings: he made it clear that he expected the dead to rise in their bodies, and the living to be likewise transformed. Furthermore, the testimony of the Apostles was that after rising from the dead, Jesus ate with the Apostle and was touched by them.

Mike I can only say the evidence for the Resurrection is on a much higher standing than you have so far heard. It is worth reexamining what actually happened. May I suggest: https://www.monergism.com/blog/making-case-resurrection

The fraud could only be known as a fraud when compared to the truth. Without their belief in Smith there was no fraud in their worldview.

I would say that they believe their prophet is true about the existence and nature of God. That is the point they are willing to die for that. They are not willing to die KNOWING its a lie! Nor are Christians. If the authorities wanted to prove Jesus was still dead all they needed to do was produce his body. They failed to do so because he was alive and now beyond their puny power to do anything to discount the truth.

He has to jump through you silly hoops or you won't believe?

Nope. Whoever tells me I should believe something is the one who has to jump through the hoops before I'll believe. Since God isn't talking to me, I'm not asking him to do anything.

Who of the eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death were still alive in 70 AD?

There could have been quite a few, for all I know. I have no problem with the mere possibility of the gospels' containing some eyewitness testimony. The bigger question for me is: Why (aside from the church's say-so) should I believe that any of the gospel authors actually talked with anybody who could have been an eyewitness?

This is a flagrant misrepresentation. Hume didn't say "lied" but deceived, which is far more broad-it could mean an honest mistake, or hallucination. Plus, not that it's certain, just more probable. Where exactly does Hume ever say that the world is "watertight"? Hume didn't even believe that causation can be proven. That doesn't really scream "watertight". To me this seems like he's arguing from something that both believers and skeptics agree with-that miracles are unusual at best. As for your proof of the resurrection, it's really a perfect example-there is only Paul's word to go by. We don't actually have the testimony of the other eyewitnesses he claims. Thus it's actually just his word you have to weigh.

Questioning their judgement is not another way of saying they are wrong in the way they are judging the evidence?

No, it's not. When I ask "Why should I believe that person?" I am not assuming that I know the answer.

If they were accepting the testimony of a victim of priestly sexual abuse would you demand they be just as skeptical?

I most certainly would. I have never for a moment thought that all those stories about pedophiliac priests were true. I believe in the presumption of innocence no matter who is being accused.

Your opinion of Bob matters.

That was my point. If I know nothing about John, then my opinion of Bob is all that can matter, because I cannot have any opinion about John.

Is he like one of those sailors who was deemed crazy simply because they claimed to see Iceland and giant squids and the like?

I don't call a person crazy just because they say they saw something that I don't think really exists.

It was a series of events he could only understand as supernatural right after he had prayed in a way that would explain these events.

I have no obligation to understand anything the same way John Wright understands it.

Deadlines make deals.

Nobody makes deals when they're unconscious. If he says he was conscious at a time when doctors said he wasn't, I'm going with the doctors.

"That is not what I said."

Word games. Questioning their judgement is not another way of saying they are wrong in the way they are judging the evidence? If fact, it is not the process you dislike at all. It is the conclusion. If they were accepting the testimony of a victim of priestly sexual abuse would you demand they be just as skeptical?

"I cannot judge any person's credibility without some reliable knowledge about that person."

Your opinion of Bob matters. Still what would your opinion of Bob be without this? Is he like one of those sailors who was deemed crazy simply because they claimed to see Iceland and giant squids and the like?

"Why shouldn't I? He was converted by a near-death experience."

Is he lying? Is he telling the truth and drawing bad conclusions from the data? Is it all a coincidence? You have to do something with his story.

"No one has ever explained to me why I should believe that our brains function better when they are dying than they do at any other time."

Deadlines make deals. There is no rational reason why people sign deals just before a deadline when the same deal was available months earlier. Yet it is common. When this might be the last day you get to respond to God then you have to decide if this is your final answer.

Yet in John's case it was not just being near death. It was a series of events he could only understand as supernatural right after he had prayed in a way that would explain these events.