• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The natural light heavenly constant.

Gases burning above our heads holy flame in womb vacuum it's sacrificed birth. Where water baptism over our head allows life.

A human aware teaching.

Spirit in science explanation a gas.
The natural science teaching with no machine science.

Human man life the theist designer gets attacked. Life sacrificed and mutated.

It becomes a science review.

Science never owned the constant of light. Heavens did as the status day. The day was once expressed as the dies.

Science natural observation told designer machine reaction scientists they caused life sacrifice. Of nature garden animals and humans.

As the gas spirit in holy sacrifice had changed its mass sacrifice and it became radiation fallout.

Life lived by natural gas alight sacrifice in womb vacuum. Above our heads.

Then science wanted the coldest gas state being immaculate in dark cold space conditions. Not burning. They caused the day to stop. Not burning gases is first claimed as God body in its stone tomb.

Science ownership manipulation was God earth tomb body.

Day went dark as a vacuum effect. Sucked out heat as it was activated.

God science did not equal immaculate. Caused a man science memory about hot burnt dark radiating gases of daylight removed . Night time gases cold for a long time in natural dark space. Immaculate.

Where the brain mind man science AI possession was recorded. In the effect. Day light removed.

Humans conscious teach I live by light existing. Light stopped. Which was the teaching. How dangerous copying in science is. Light was life continuance yet humans owned human life already as life.

Why we said no man is God cold not alight gases.

The teaching.

The sacrificed light gas body returned and reignited the day. Life lived on saved in lights return the resurrection teaching.

For the effects on humans in science atmospheric change was badly life attacked for the spatial vacuum to suck out daylight preceding the event of notified causes.

Humans owned the experience.

Human science a choice caused it to activate. Mass sacrifice body falling on the cross off the cross. Vacuum.

Documented history to explain why nuclear science caused life's sacrifice. God mass releasing bodily extra radiation changed the vacuum effect.

It was unnaturally heavenly released increasing gas mass burning unnaturally in atmosphere causing radiating fallout.

As God mass stone was never the heavenly gases. No man is God teaching.

Sun owned by mass of radiation earths historic conversion.

To convert God mass you have to force the radiation effect upon the mass. Not earths held fused radiation mass. To be stone present.

Science caused earth core heart to change its mass inside God body so God mass released the radiation amount into heavens to support ground fusion into fission by activating ground mass removal itself.

God activated involves the fission of mass. Science activated.

Eventually proof was a sin X K...k symbol in science was for constant caused holes that God as mass in radiation release was leaving earth. God as the body was forced involved naturally in the fission effect.

You learnt it was. And taught science how dangerous it was.

Said original sin was removed. Original sin answer in science equalled the presence of God as stone as an answer.

Sin was owned body of God for once God in mass was a burning planet.

To stop origin sin attack science human activation caused the vacuum effect that took out the radiation effect. Sucked out. Why day went dark also.

How original sin a man science cause saved human life as removal of God gases deceased meaning not burning activated into burning out of stone stopped.

A scientists false claim. Science never saved life. The womb vacuum had. Science however taught that if it had not caused daylight to stop then we would have burnt to death.

A false prostelyzed teaching. Science always trying to give itself false idolisation. Claimed itself lucky.

Life was evicted out of nature garden by original sin of man. Science converting God mass.

Emptied out tombs as sink holes that stopped opening. Science said God earth owned non alight gas spirit. So God was in a tomb deceased. As gas spirits alight owned life support.

Due to spatial womb vacuum effect. Light burning X mass in radiation fallout was stopped. Science blamed body God earth for causing it. Never took personal man blame.

Reason science never owned natural. Natural changed and attacked us.

A science teaching.

The teacher proved man scientist was to blame not God as the teaching.

God stopped original sin action burning. God and vacuum stopped God gases leaving tomb...burning sacrificed was cooled by radiating mass in heavens removal.

Humans not any sacrifice was attacked life sacrificed by science cause.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?



First you are not being truthful right from the start. The article you are sourcing is not from a historian but from an apologist and philosopher. Then you keep saying it as if "scholars" all believe this resurrection. No. Apologists do. William Lane Craig does.

No historians support the gospel narratives. Historians find the gospels to be widely mythicized accounts of a Jewish teacher who was just a man. He may or may not have actually existed.
Bart Ehrman does not consider the gospels accurate representations of what Jesus said or did.
Richard carrier considers the gospels to be entirely fiction.
Goodacre has demonstrated that Mark is the source gospel.
R. Purvoe has shown beyond a doubt that Acts is not history and taken entirely from other literature.
Historians are also aware 2nd century opinions on who Jesus was (man, angel, demigod, different God than Yahweh..) were all over the place among groups. Many were Gnostic.

Apologists like WLC are not PhD historians. They have no desire to do comparative studies and study source material but rather want to assume the gospel stories are the basic idea of what happened.
Again, almost no historians believe a man was resurrected from the dead. You are trying to pass theologians off as "scholars". They may be scholars but they study scripture with the assumption it's a god-message.
Historians do not. They challenge all assumptions.
Thomas Thompson demonstrated in the 70's the Moses and the Patriarchs were myth and since then more and more is being shown as myth.
Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou is also doing interesting work. None believe the gospels are anything but the mythization of a human person.


Christian scholarship is convinced a solution to the Synoptic problem is that Mark is the source gospel.
So breaking down Mark can demonstrate this is fiction using narratives from the OT (Psalms) and other sources of fiction.
Mark also heavily relies on Pauls 7 authentic letters and often changes things Paul claimed Jesus said into earthly stories and events. Mark was clearly creating an earthly narrative. He also uses all types of triadic-cycles, inversions of other stories, a chiasmus that is completely improbable unless it's a made up story and endless uses of exact phrases Paul used and reifies many of Pauls statements into entire stories set on Earth.
The resurrection is central to the theology which comes from other popular dying/rising savior gods who get followers into the afterlife. But it's never mentioned outside the gospels and the gospels are a religious myth.
Marks version has a man (not angel) tell them to find Jesus in Galilee (not Jerusalem). Later gospels greatly add to the mythos. These stories are not considered historical.



You have some fallacies here as well:

1 The existence of God is at least possible

Historians do not factor this in any more than they do when they study Greek mythology. They are not thinking Zeus is that God and neither is Yahweh.

2 Jesus died on the cross
3 Jesus was buried
4 The tomb was found empty
5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

All gospel narratives. Mark started the story and the others added to it to make it their version. The writers were not intending to have 4 gospels as canon but were likely writing so their gospel would be the one true gospel. Since Mark was using Paul and OT stories the resurrection is simply a fulfillment of an OT narrative.
Bart Ehrman has a good lecture on the contradictions that are theological and do not make sense.

Again, here is a quote from a Historian on the beliefs of gospel narratives among historians:

"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
As a human body affected brain irradiated. Felt as an intense brain prickling burning feeling I tried to make common sense of my attack.

To realise what human self spiritual science explained naturally as life conditions in attack was. As an actual witnessed human experience.

A gas in old science term is a spirit body of the heavens. I saw wispy brown smoke and black smoke as an effect. So immediately I said gas burning.

God in science was obviously the sealed stone.

Basic science common sense. No science conditions.

I had phenomena conditions my whole life seeing spirit images as shadows. As a baby I nearly died in an epedemic which involved fever. The two circumstances made common sense in a human life experience. Why.

What I determine is a human natural medical aware advice. A healer. Aware of harmed self without a doctor study. About life changing and phenomena seen whilst living inside our heavens. Gas water body.

Human life owned.

Heavens natural.

Today science not natural. Was not natural before either.

In the past Multi modern human studies stated science was practiced before. By what bible information had used in statements with numbers.

Common sense. Science owns documentation itself.

You look back reviewing a non natural event. Even before you study the event science says it is not natural.

Yet you ignore human natural aware living advice.

Why a human life gets changed in an equal atmospheric condition.

Science changed natural. The advice. Science as a practice is not natural.

Then you try to state the human written documents about why life was sacrificed are false. As science is false.

Because science is false.

Natural life real.

Real life should not be sacrificed. So you state the Jesus event not true to natural life as it was not natural.

Yet if you ask can human life be science caused sacrificed the answer is yes. Science today is told what causes science has caused to a natural atmosphere.

And they documented the advice.

In the past the ancients stated the sacrificed life of man in science.

Humans gave it a human reference. We are name givers and word owned describer. We claim we own the human descriptions and discussions of information without being the information.

Why the status said it happened to one man. Yet it documented happened before twice. To the group's who were life attacked.

Christian human group Jewish incorporated.
Jewish group in ancient past.

Yet other world groups owning written documents not unlike the Bible who claimed the same life conditions. Civilization destruction.

How is that not a correct human review of a human life that revised? Giving titles to human named incidences?

If you said no human being is a science thesis then you would be stating common sense. Yet you didn't.

If you read it as a human life attacked instead of discussing what occurred to human life falsely then you read it incorrectly. Stating it not real as it should not have occurred by logic.

Natural first. Not logic.

The Bible proved that a human scientist theorising for a reaction was by pre reacting first in a thesis intent on causing a space to open in fusion before the next stage reaction.

Science is not natural. It is human intent forced control. Science said natural could not have caused what was stated.

Human reasoning as science activated it.
Which is not natural as it was for machine control.

Natural never reacted by a controlled process. Why science says it is fake reasoning.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yes these are claims accepted by the majority of scholars, if you think there is a mistake then elaborate your case and explain why is that a mistake.

This article represent my view




The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

This does not represent the consensus of historians nor Christian historians,



Yes this thread presupposes that you grant that the existence of God is possible (analogous to the existence of Aliens, Big foot, Unicorns etc)

With possible I mean “there is no conclusive evidence against the existence of God”

So under this definition do you grant that the existence of God is possible?

I believe in the existence of God, but the question of 'proof' of the Resurrection is too high a bar for the assumption of the possibility that God exists, which many many agnostics will acknowledge, but by far do not believe there is 'proof' of the Resurrection.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The letter 's' in a quote bubble does not support anything, let alone your specific claims.
Now don't get me wrong, I strongly suspect it to be a technical error....
just click the little arrow in the quote .... you should be redirected to the posts where I supported my claims

show the opposite of what is true?

If you believe that most scholars (more than 50%) reject any of the 5 claims please let me know and provide your sources.

If you are asking for something that shows your "most scholars support it" claim is in major dispute, QuestioningMind has already done that.
But I am sure you can’t quote the exact words where he (or his source) did it.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The entire article is literally about how much disagreement there is among experts as to whether or not Jesus actually existed. Since you can't demonstrate that the majority of experts actually agree that Jesus existed, all of your 5 points become unsubstantiated claims.
that is easy
Nearly all historians accept that Jesus existed,
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

The entire article is literally about how much disagreement there is among experts
Granted there is disagreement among experts, … however my claim is that most experts (more than 50%) accept each of the 5 claims in the op.,,,,

I am not arguing that there is zero disagreement, I am just arguing that most experts accept this 5 claims.

Your article doesn’t deny this claim.

I did supported the claim that most experts accept this claims,
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I believe in the existence of God, but the question of 'proof' of the Resurrection is too high a bar for the assumption of the possibility that God exists, which many many agnostics will acknowledge, but by far do not believe there is 'proof' of the Resurrection.

I am not arguing that there is proof for the resurrection.

I am arguing:

A) that the 5 claims in the OP are probably true (which you seem to agree)

B) The resurrection is the best explanation for those 5 facts , if you have a better hypothesis you are free to share it and explain why is that hypothesis better than the resurection.



The resurrection is a better hypothesis than:

1 Jesus had a twin brother

2 Early Christians hallucinated

3 The resurrection is a conspiracy / legend

And others that have been proposed.

The good news is that my claim is testable, you can always argue that say “#1” is a better explanation and we can look and measure the evidence for both hypothesis to see which is better
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I am not arguing that there is proof for the resurrection.

I am arguing:

A) that the 5 claims in the OP are probably true (which you seem to agree)

B) The resurrection is the best explanation for those 5 facts , if you have a better hypothesis you are free to share it and explain why is that hypothesis better than the resurection.



The resurrection is a better hypothesis than:

1 Jesus had a twin brother

2 Early Christians hallucinated

3 The resurrection is a conspiracy / legend

And others that have been proposed.

The good news is that my claim is testable, you can always argue that say “#1” is a better explanation and we can look and measure the evidence for both hypothesis to see which is better

All of the above alternate hypothesis are ridiculous except for #2 maybe. Simply it is possible that the physical Resurrection did not take place, and the belief evolved by the belief of the church fathers. Remember we do not have any documentation of the what the early Christians saw during the life of Jesus.

One alternative is that it was a spiritual Resurrection and not physical.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
just click the little arrow in the quote .... you should be redirected to the posts where I supported my claims



If you believe that most scholars (more than 50%) reject any of the 5 claims please let me know and provide your sources.


But I am sure you can’t quote the exact words where he (or his source) did it.
No one has seen you ever support your claims in this thread. When you use improper sources you are not supporting your claims.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
that is easy



Granted there is disagreement among experts, … however my claim is that most experts (more than 50%) accept each of the 5 claims in the op.,,,,

I am not arguing that there is zero disagreement, I am just arguing that most experts accept this 5 claims.

Your article doesn’t deny this claim.

I did supported the claim that most experts accept this claims,

I did supported the claim that most experts accept this claims,

You mean that you FINALLY provided evidence. Up until this post all you did was continue to make an unsubstantiated claim. But of course 51% of experts making a claim hardly qualifies as verifiable evidence.

For instance, if 51% of doctors tell me that taking a certain pill will cure me of my ailment without side effects, but 49% of doctors tell me that taking the pill will kill me, I'm certainly not going to be convinced that I should take the pill. CLEARLY far more research needs to be done before a definitive answer to the question of the pill's safety can be answered.

The same holds true for claims about Jesus having actually existed. A bare majority of experts claiming that he did certainly doesn't constitute evidence that he absolutely did. In fact it indicates that there's about a 50/50 chance that it's true or that it's false.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
These are very wide claims, I will not elaborate a 5 arguments from zero , this thread presupposes that you are already familiar with the evidence typically provided by apolegetics

Support your accusation, go to the article, quote the specific words, and expalin why is that “dishonest”

No, sorry, those are very wide claims. I will not elaborate on the argument from zero. My post presuposes that you are already familiar with the evidence typically provided by rational people on how William Lame Craig is a dishonest liar for Jesus.


tenor.gif
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
I did supported the claim that most experts accept this claims,

You mean that you FINALLY provided evidence. Up until this post all you did was continue to make an unsubstantiated claim. But of course 51% of experts making a claim hardly qualifies as verifiable evidence.

For instance, if 51% of doctors tell me that taking a certain pill will cure me of my ailment without side effects, but 49% of doctors tell me that taking the pill will kill me, I'm certainly not going to be convinced that I should take the pill. CLEARLY far more research needs to be done before a definitive answer to the question of the pill's safety can be answered.

The same holds true for claims about Jesus having actually existed. A bare majority of experts claiming that he did certainly doesn't constitute evidence that he absolutely did. In fact it indicates that there's about a 50/50 chance that it's true or that it's false.
From the list of 5 claims in the OP

Claims 1 and 3 and 4 are supported by 70+% of the experts

Claims 2 and 5 by nearly 100%

so we are not talking 51%

CLEARLY far more research needs to be done before a definitive answer to the question of the pill's safety can be answered.

Granted, nobody is stopping you to make more research

But you asked me to support the claim that most scholars accept the 5 claims in the OP, and I succeeded in doing so.

Is there any other claim that you would want me to support?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Well, it off course would be kind of hypocritical of you to demand us to support our claims while at the same thinking you are exempt from that little burden.
Can you quote a single claim made in this thread that I haven’t supported?


Please do not answer something vague and ambiguous like ..............”support everything”
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Can you quote a single claim made in this thread that I haven’t supported?


Please do not answer something vague and ambiguous like ..............”support everything”
"1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus"
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human says I was being irradiated sacrificed by pyramid temple sciences stop science by group rebelling then they did. Owning Moses history pre documented argument. As human evidence life attacked before. Ignored.

I am born. Taught by adults. Said the story jesus sounds really evil scary to me. I won't believe the teaching. Then I did. Believe. I got attacked.

I however learnt what a crown of thorns in a stigmata state that comes and goes in human cell body sacrificed felt like. Gas burning irradiation of brain chemical effect.

Light life water owner human not science reaction.

To read attack victims quote the UFO status abducted me. We live by presence water oxygenated ground mass. We are psychic. We see visions and hear voices not naturally. Just as a human.

Humans causing all events in presence human life.

Radiation science uses water interactive cooling.

Is that situation too difficult to review?

If Jesus spirit man image was seen in the burning light gas spirit released out of cold stone body earth the tomb not burning. The tomb emptied of it's spirit deceased. Meant in science God earth stone gases were not previous burning held in stone as tomb explanation.

A science explanation about science.

Then it was a spirit image vision evidence of why life human not living in a burning alight gas state at ground got sacrificed.

Not too difficult to reason the phenomena witnessed event. A spirit man image seen leaving in the burning gas state.

Involving vacuum that sucked out the unnatural gas mass burning. Human life attacked was saved from the sin of man. Science conversion. Saved by God reaction stopped.

Light that was removed daylight returned. Life continued as light still existed yet earth nearly lost its natural spirit atmosphere.

The science teaching why life got sacrificed. Medical reasons.

I had a witness to life attack yet I am not a man. Not the adult self original brothers as a science theist who owned causes.

So my female life had a similar yet nothing like my human brother experience.

As females did not invent human sciences.

A father is only a father as a human who has sex to own a man baby human life. Ignored as taught. My science father in my homeland DNA owner did it to me. Jesus teaching.

DNA in their homeland still existed. The miracle dna had not again mutated was human expressed in a human review.

Why I got sacrificed. Science caused UFO gas burning heavenly cause. Converting earth mass. By conscious gas spirit advice heavens that are not stone gases.

Stone is stone.
Heavenly gases are heavenly gases.
No man is God one earth where science as a product is abstracted.

Heavens never the one God.

Reason science said God earth radiation invented human life is their theory for a machine life. A resource. Was never a theory where human life began itself as a human.

God stone.
Radiation released out of stone just radiation.

What lying in Science means. No human spirit came out of God the stone in a UFO belief.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
that is easy



Granted there is disagreement among experts, … however my claim is that most experts (more than 50%) accept each of the 5 claims in the op.,,,,

I am not arguing that there is zero disagreement, I am just arguing that most experts accept this 5 claims.

Your article doesn’t deny this claim.

I did supported the claim that most experts accept this claims,

From the wiki article you linked to:
"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[59] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[8] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[59]"

Half of these "scholars" are NOT HISTORIANS BUT ARE THEOLOGIANS so this article is inaccurate.
Sanders who is a theologian believes in a crucifixion because of critera of embarrassment. He clearly wasn't aware that all the dying/rising savior demigods had to undergo a "passion" a death and a resurrection to defeat death and get followers into the afterlife. This is typical fiction writing, the hero always goes through a low point and is defeated. Neo in the Matrix is killed then resurrected and is then in his full god-power and flys into space, like Jesus.

Historians do not believe the gospels are true.

Ehrman:

"One of the most interesting developments within New Testament studies happened in the 1950s. To set the development in context, I need to remind you that the long “quest” of the historical Jesus – trying to determined what Jesus said and did historically – was evidently put to rest by the work of Wrede and Schweitzer fifty years earlier, and not a whole lot was being done in that field, as scholars *either* thought that our sources were basically reliable and so should be simply be accepted for what they said, *or* realized that our sources were so highly problematic that we couldn’t actually say much about what had happened in Jesus’ life historically."
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human used science and natural earth conditions changed. Would you write a thesis advertising how to achieve it?

Or would you write the status secretly being a human order in social power during those times who knew the reality of occult UFO sciences?

Put the documents under secret orders and discuss the information in public as rhetoric?

It would be what I would do. As a human.

Science human expressed is the only status human claiming knowing everything yet studying everything.

If humans own unequal DNA health in human form yet the atmosphere is the same atmosphere for all living life then it is easy to remind yourself that scientists...just humans lied.

If you question was a stigmata human attack witnessed and it still is today as changed cell and blood conditions. Human. No argument exists.

If you quote phenomena conditions attacked life. The evidence is witnessed. No argument.

If you ask is a human a supernatural being. There is no argument. No one knows where life came from. As life of a human.

As you cannot discuss self when you don't exist and we already know we don't exist as one day the self dies.

Phenomena ideals as a human in an expressed human theory talks this way about self human life notification.

Of course you are supernatural you overcome human death everyday yourselves. You live until you die. Special self by circumstance what I see occurring to other humans.

If you ask did a man called Jesus have a human supernatural experience. You don't own any evidence yourselves that said he didn't.

As a name is just a name.

What science theories was the man named as Jesus special.

Seeing science as men gave everything names and still today in their society think human names and codes own meanings.

Which first says I am a special man as I inferred names. The scientist himself.

For men in the sciences involving predictions for humans living on earth. As a science man notified reason. What I knew science had activated.

Being the earth released heart core UFO effect.

Why?

Science as men tried to claim radiation began life inside a natural heavens already owning natural light and water with ground dusts on a planet.

As a supernatural man didn't you confess that you realised you had survived unnatural death only?

Dust on the ground is dust on the ground.

Dust reacting on the ground is a nuclear reaction that begins and ends and removed the dust.

You can only discuss a reaction if you knew that dusts could be reacted.

Meaning you already lived.

One condition you did not own was unnatural human death.

The theme a teaching. Science teaching science does not make a reaction natural history.

The earth floods continually many communities in various earth places.

Most humans only know their own life where they personally are living.

How could the ancient self know if it was flooding elsewhere? They didn't have any means of knowing.

What you ignore as human relevant to the times and forms of technology that was used. No TVs back then to give you world news.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?
I am late to this thread. Please provide the link to the post where you presented souces that demonstrate that majority of historians (not theologians, religious scholars or Christian leaders, historians with degree in ancient history) believe that Jesus's tomb was actually found empty.

If you do not have any such evidence of consensus of historians, then your claims of historicity of these events cannot be substantiated.
Also: please provide an actual opinion poll or something regarding this. I do not care if a Christian leader claims such a consensus, I want to see the actual evidence that there is such consensus among historians.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I am late to this thread. Please provide the link to the post where you presented souces that demonstrate that majority of historians (not theologians, religious scholars or Christian leaders, historians with degree in ancient history) believe that Jesus's tomb was actually found empty.

If you do not have any such evidence of consensus of historians, then your claims of historicity of these events cannot be substantiated.
Also: please provide an actual opinion poll or something regarding this. I do not care if a Christian leader claims such a consensus, I want to see the actual evidence that there is such consensus among historians.

Yes around 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb , this was determined by making a survey of scholars that have written and published on this topic.




In a survey of 1,400 German, French, and English academic publications on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth over the last 30 years, Dr. Gary R. Habermas noted that roughly 75% of scholars favor one or more arguments for an empty tomb.
Where do critical scholars stand on the resurrection?
primary source: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58822082.pdf
 
Top