Now I never said that you put forth the theft theory. However you did put forth what Erhman said and adjusted it a little.
Ehrman's theory which I simplified wasn't a fraud theory, either.
However, it still remains, why did he give up being a Pharisee
There is nothing in the record that Paul ever stopped being a Pharisee. Jewish Christians generally didn't stop being Jews, but rather became
Chrisitians as well as Jews. Jews await a Messiah. Christian Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews were awaiting.
Like what? We have no account of why James joined the movement, nor any compasrison of his views before and after he joined, nor any account of what
events persuaded him to drop his obections to his brother's ministry. Lots of brothers reconcile in spirit when one of them dies.
So, when Paul says that Jesus was resurrected, he means physically.
Luke says Paul saw a light in the sky, not a human body on Earth, nor does Paul say in his own surviving work that he ever encountered Jesus in a
human body. When Paul discusses his theories about the general
resurrection to come, he imagines some pneuma
body, that has some
attributes in common with physical bodies, and some differences.
For example, his traveling companions also saw light, heard the voice.
Putting aside that we don't have their statements, and that what they saw or heard differs in the two times it comes up in Acts
companions aren't reported to have seen Jesus in a human body, nor to have associated their experience with Jesus.
However, he didn't expect a resurrection to happen in the middle of history.
Paul believed that he lived at the beginning of the end of days, with Jesus being the "first fruits" of the general resurrection. That would be
similar to other Chrisitans of the first generations.
Paul DID make radical change in his views, for he considered Jesus God, and that he did resurrect physically.
There is no evidence that Paul considered Jesus to be the equal of the God of the Hebrew Bible. Paul believed that Jesus was resurrected, apparently
with a pneuma
body, whose "physicality" is more a question for philosophers than historians.. Pharisees believed that God could and would
resurrect the righteous. Paul went from believing God would to believing that God did. Paul's evidence for that was that he saw a light in the sky,
and heard a voice, which was explained to him by Ananias of Damascus.
So now you have to come up with something that accounts for that as well, that is ad hoc reasoning, because now you are piling one theory on
top of another theory in order to explain the facts.
The physical resurrection of Jesus fails to account for how his body moves through walls, cannot be recognized by people who knew Jesus, sometimes is
experienced as a disembodied voice, and flies. Subjective visions of the actually living account for all of that quite well. You haven't presented
any explanation of those aspects of the problem at all.
The resurrection is not ad hoc since it answers all of the facts at hand without piling one on top of another in order to explain the
The resurrection hypothesis is exactly ad hoc
for the reason explained in my previous post.