On the balance of probability, Jesus faked his own crucifixion, resurrection and ascension

In my last post I gave provided a few devastating criticisms of OP’s argument that Jesus probably faked his death, res, and ascension. He replied and has argued that this conclusion stands. However, his reply has done very little, if anything, to overcome my response. Let’s take a look at why. Oh Boy a Red Herring, Let’s Chase It! To begin, in regard to my argument that value of one’s life is not indicative of the length of life OP initially replied with this: “Stalin was responsible for many deaths: that's true, but Stalin can't compete with God when it comes to mass murder – remember, with the exception of Noah and his family, God killed every single person in the world after he had a tantrum and flooded the entire planet.” Simply put this has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Honestly, I’m dumbstruck as to why OP thinks this comment was even helpful unless it was to blind us from the real argument and incite an unnecessary emotional response. Of course, this is probably clear to everyone and I needn’t have even mentioned it. Next he adds that Gandhi was prejudiced against various peoples and desired “white rule.” As much as this may be true it does nothing to avoid my initial point. It should be clear to everyone with a bit of historical knowledge that Stalin committed far worse atrocities than what Gandhi may have done. Specifically, I’m referring to his instituting of the Gulag. [1] Even so, let’s just say that both are terrible. They each lived seventy some years. Haven’t many died much younger that deserved longer lives? Do we need to even address this issue? Nope, in fact OP admits as much! “…the old adage that the ‘good often die young' does hold some water.” The point, once again, being that value of life is not indicative of length of life. Thus Noah’s long life and Jesus’ short life have nothing to do with how God perceives either. Even if Jesus is much more valuable in the eyes of God, as his son, it does not imply that God would allow him a longer life. Thus, we don't "have to consider the possibility that Jesus faked his own crucifixion, resurrection and ascension." Importantly, as I discussed in my previous post God might have had a better opportunity in store for him; namely, his return to heaven [2] and who would turn that down? Oddly enough OP does not address this in his reply. I’m assuming not because point-in-fact there isn't a good reply. Life in heaven is a far better option than here on earth especially in a place of honor. It’s even more surprising that he did not address this because this fact only defeats every single of his contentions. Here is why: Consider that life in heaven is much more agreeable than amassing earthly money/possessions where, according to its utopic ideal, you lack nothing. OP’s first point is defeated.[3] Consider that life in heaven is much more agreeable than “to have as much sex with girls as [a man] possibly can have” here on earth. OP’s second point is defeated. In regard to third point nothing really needs to be said except that it does absolutely nothing to increase the probability that Jesus faked anything. Do we have any evidence for this contention that Jesus “got fed up”? Nope. Any reason to believe its truth? Nope. Any reason to believe any one of OP’s claims? Nah. OP would like to think that baseless claims about what Jesus might have thought should compel us to his conclusion. However, without any facts supporting his claims and, furthermore, assertions to the contrary we are left without nothing, but one man’s subjective, and rather useless, opinions. Possibilities and Probabilities: In his pseudo-conclusion OP argues two points: (1) Jesus could still be among us today. (2) Jesus might be “The Blue Collar Investor.” What reasons do we have to accept either? In regard to (1) the mere possibility. In regard to (2) he says that this man is referred to as “a miracle worker” and Jewish and so, again, it is possible. Apparently, these connections alone should increase the probability of this man’s being Jesus so high that we will actually believe that Jesus faked his death and still lives today. Yet, what is the “possibility” that OP speaks of? Does possibility imply that something is more probable than not? Of course it doesn’t. In other words, asserting that something is possible does not compel us to believe that this possibility is, in fact, actual. For instance, I can say that unicorns possibly exist but that doesn’t mean they probably exist. Beyond mere possibility we need reasons why OP’s contention is more likely to be true than it is to be false. So far any reason he has given I have clearly shown to be without merit and, thus, the truth of his claim has no more support than believing that unicorns exist based possibility that they exist. This is really the only thing that needs to be said about his arguement. Recall that OP's argument is essentially based in the idea that Jesus would have preferred a longer life here on Earth because it would have been, according to him, more enjoyable (lots of sex, money, etc.). Yet, as I have clearly argued this is false given Jesus' alternative option to preside in heaven. It should be clear that none of his contentions provide us with a compelling reason for Jesus to stick around and to fake his own death in order to do so. Did Jesus' actually die, rise, and ascend? Maybe and maybe not - that discussion is a whole other debate. However, in regard to this debate, we have been given nothing but the mere possibility that Jesus, if he existed and is the son of God, faked his death, res, and ascension. In conclusion, If one is akin to believing unicorns do exist based on mere possibility they might vote pro, but if facts and reasons supporting likely probabilities are your “bag” I suggest voting con because OP simply dd not provide us with anything that comes even close to being a likely possibiliy. [1] You can read more about it on good ol’ wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Or, if you would like something in book form there is the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Anne Applebaum simply titled “Gulag: A History.” It's a difficult read (in terms of the atrocities), but gives an excellent picture of what early 20th century Russia was like. [2] By heaven let’s assume the biblical idea of an eternal utopia. [3] Above OP argues that his stereotype (in point 1) is not as offensive as I suggested. I would like to note that his second formulation is entirely different than the first which clearly suggested a person who ignored the plight of the poor in search of his own materialistic desires. OP is free to change his claim, which he did, but the offensiveness of his first post speaks for itself.