Yeah I agree - a CDT type explanation of the rise of Christianity cannot account for Paul at all. It fails at that important first hurdle. This is the problem with these naturalistic arguments for the resurrection- they require multiple implausible explanations to account for the evidence!
Very valid points you raised with Paul. His presence makes the cognitive dissonance theory completely untenable.
Yeah I agree - a CDT type explanation of the rise of Christianity cannot account for Paul at all. It fails at that important first hurdle. This is the problem with these naturalistic arguments for the resurrection- they require multiple implausible explanations to account for the evidence!
Indeed so.