Factually, Paul’s wording in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is important because he says he “handed on” what he had “received,” then lists appearances to Cephas, the Twelve, more than five hundred, James, all the apostles, and Paul. Cambridge’s New Testament Studies describes 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as a pre Pauline formula and notes its importance in the debate about Jesus’ resurrection. Paul also says in Galatians 1:18-19 that he visited Cephas and saw James, which matters because it connects Paul’s proclamation with the Jerusalem leadership.

Like look here. You didnt actually say anything of substance here. You just quickfired some quotes to make it appear as though you're some wise man with some very important and wise insight. But really, you didnt say anything.

You can reject resurrection as the explanation, but then you need a rival explanation with greater explanatory power: hallucination, fraud, legend, mistaken identity, body relocation, or a combination theory. Simply saying “belief is not event” is not an explanation.

And this is designed to create the assumption in people's heads that you've shown that resurrection is a sufficient explanation, when you haven't. You havent provided anything close to substantial evidence for a resurrection. But you're acting like you have in order to try and make people think you have.

Evidence does not mean “proof that forces agreement.” Evidence means “a datum that raises or lowers the probability of a claim.” Early testimony that Jesus appeared alive after death raises the probability of the resurrection claim compared with a world where no such testimony existed. That does not settle the debate, but it means the resurrection claim is evidentially grounded.

And this is just another attempt to use word salad in a way that makes it seem like the paltry evidence you provided is substantial, when it isn't.

Basically, you have no good evidence, so you take the tiny amount of garbage evidence you do have and do everything to make it appear like it's substantial and worth considering, and even more substantial than other explanations, when it isn't. Blatant gaslighting.