Reserection "historical Reality"

[Guest T-K]

I have been reading up on the resection as its about the last part of the bible that I have not studied enough to understand why it bullshit. After watching Lee Strobel's DVD the case for Christ I found he gave some very misleading info on the authenticity and wording of documents especially the Talmud.

 

Any way every christian apologist says the reserection is undeniable, obviously this is not true but I feel like Im missing some part of of their argument or logic. For instance when they say the disciples couldnt have stolen the body because of the Tomb stone soilders ect. How do we know that Jesus was put in a tomb with a huge stone and soldiers guarding it? Maybe he was thrown into a unmarked grave or unguarded marked grave.

 

Then they mention the prophecy. Couldn't the NT authors have just penciled in the prophecy's? There actually not that impressive and the Jewish messiah was suppose to be a military and political leader not a blood sacrifice.

 

They also claim that early Christians all had a similar beliefs(not true) it took off to fast ect. Actually on some of the topics Im not educated about they made me wonder and I didnt have answers for them. It felt like I was missing some great argument they had and I wondered why Lee Strobel would be converted by this weak evidence I understood and maybe I am missing something.

 

If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Hi T-K,

 

The usual arguments for the resurrection are as follows:

He was crucified and died, and his body was in the tomb. The claim is that he rose from the dead, and the empty tomb is the first evidence. The Romans had no reason to take the body, since they wanted to quell anything that could disrupt the civil order. They wanted him dead.

 

The Jewish leaders had no reason to take the body, since they also wanted him dead. If either they or the Romans had taken the body, they could have produced it and quelled the stories about a resurrection.

 

The last part is the assumption that the disciples would not have lied about a resurrection when they knew that it would mean a death sentence. That is, any rational person would rather deny something that they already knew to be false rather than be tortured to death. If they had hidden the body, they would know that the resurrection was false and even if tempted to start a new religion, they would recant under torture. Thus, it is assumed that they really did believe it to be true. And since they are regarded as first-hand witnesses, their testimony is taken to be compelling.

 

However, having spent the last few decades studying cults and the behavior of cultists, I'm not so sure that this last part can be considered so ironclad. I've seen people put up with the most degrading conditions and abusive behavior from their religious leaders, and remain fully convinced of the spiritual goodness of the leaders. A recent documentary on the "Strong City" cult by National Geographic shows a group of people that are following a messiah figure who was recently arrested for sexual impropriety with the younger members, yet the members remain doe-eyed and dedicated to this man. The documentary concluded with footage from the night that the leader predicted would be the end of the world. Of course the world didn't end, and the followers instantly re-wired the prediction from a literal end to a spiritual end. They all shouted with glee, "Liberty! We no longer exist!" They will gladly follow this man to death. Examples like this make it entirely possible that the apostles of Jesus were as unswervingly dedicated to him even if they had to make-believe that he rose from the dead. Once people have a strong emotional/spiritual investment in following, it is very difficult to convince them that they have been deceived (as many of us here know firsthand).

 

Religion becomes a filter through which reality is interpreted. When the religion is questioned, it seems to the believer that the foundations of reality are being questioned, and that is a deeply disturbing thing. So most people laugh off any accusations or questions about their faith, or make bold proclamations of divine judgment against the one doing the questioning. So again, while entire books have been written about the strong testimonial value of the apostles, when their statements and actions are compared with common cultic reactions to loss of leadership, there is not much difference. And since it is not possible that each of the thousands of cult leaders around the world are really "the messiah", the dedication of the followers to their leader is not an indication of the truth of their religion.

 

I have only skimmed the book by Strobel, but I tend to doubt he was converted by his investigation, and find it more plausible that his conversion came earlier.

[Thurisaz]

Actually on some of the topics Im not educated about they made me wonder and I didnt have answers for them. It felt like I was missing some great argument they had and I wondered why Lee Strobel would be converted by this weak evidence I understood and maybe I am missing something.

 

No morontheist is educated either. All they have is memorized babble that sounds educated to the unprepared. Kind of sad actually, I'm quite sure most of them are not just idiots. They have the brainpower and willfully shut it down.

 

They have no great arguments. They have no arguments. And whenever a morontheist makes a claim about itself ("I have a degree in blah", "I once was an athiest™", et cetera, ad nauseam), my advice is: Don't you believe a single fucking word of it. Lying is second nature to a morontheist preacher.

[ogilvy]

Hi T-K,

 

They will gladly follow this man to death. Examples like this make it entirely possible that the apostles of Jesus were as unswervingly dedicated to him even if they had to make-believe that he rose from the dead. Once people have a strong emotional/spiritual investment in following, it is very difficult to convince them that they have been deceived (as many of us here know firsthand)..

 

But if we're going by the bible account, the disciples didnt seem to have really believed Jesus would in fact rise from death. They were despondent after the crucifixion, not hopeful. When the women told them they had seen Jesus, the disciples didnt believe. So how would that fit in with this theory?

[bubbleloulicious]

Maybe his followers experienced stress-induced hallucinations as a result of both grief and fear for their own lives.

[Ouroboros]

If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated.

The first assumption is that the Gospel stories are telling a true story. That the disciples did in fact do this or that, and Jesus in fact said this or that, or did that miracle, or walked over there... Considering that the Gospels are portraying huge events with thousands of people watching him, and listening to him, there would be many other documents from that time. Jerusalem was a hub for travelers from the whole know Roman empire. So why is there no letters, eye-witness accounts, from Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, and so on? I mean, supposedly some of these events were BIG, and yet only a handful of accounts have been saved? And not only that, but they are written in third person, and not in first person, like a eye-witness would do, so they're even doubtful as actual recordings of the person who saw it! Or take simple things like, how do the author know what went on between the leaders and the Roman soldiers? How did the author know that they were paid to keep quiet? The Gospels are full of this side stories which are either speculations from the author, or information he wouldn't know. Or take things like: how does the author know what Jesus said in his prayer to God, when the story say they all fell asleep? Well, even if Jesus could have told them word-by-word later in theory, he was arrested just after his prayer, and then taken to court, and then executed. And the author goes on by telling intricate and secret dialogues between Jesus and the Pharisees, and the Pilate, and ... the Gospels are told just like you read a fiction book, the author is making up the story. So the first assumption Strobel has to do is to believe these fiction style written "accounts" are literally and historically correct. Now, with that in hand, then why even try to use them to "prove" that they must be true? If the assumption is that they're true to begin with, there's no need to try to prove them to be true. Because if we start with assuming they're NOT true, then of course, nothing in the stories can be used as evidence for their truthfulness! It's like using the Lord of the Ring quotes and plots to prove that the ring really did make Frodo invisible.

[bdp]

But if we're going by the bible account, the disciples didnt seem to have really believed Jesus would in fact rise from death. They were despondent after the crucifixion, not hopeful. When the women told them they had seen Jesus, the disciples didnt believe. So how would that fit in with this theory?

 

Presuming any of it were true, there would also exist a possibility that Jesus was never dead, so seeing a 'resurrected' Jesus would be completely possible. Nobody saw the 'resurrection' actually occur.

[Antlerman]

Any way every christian apologist says the reserection is undeniable, obviously this is not true but I feel like Im missing some part of of their argument or logic. For instance when they say the disciples couldnt have stolen the body because of the Tomb stone soilders ect. How do we know that Jesus was put in a tomb with a huge stone and soldiers guarding it? Maybe he was thrown into a unmarked grave or unguarded marked grave.

Well they start with the assumption that the story promoting it's own beliefs is in fact accurate. It's true because it says it's true, and it's reliable because it says it is. Self-referential witness. "I bear witness to myself that I tell the truth!" That's the Biblical literalist in a nutshell.

 

Moreover no one knows who wrote the Gospels, a fact accepted by all Christians save but for the most ignorant of them. So in essence you have to argue God wished to communicate the single, most significant event he directly performed in the history of the entire universe, through anonymous authors citing unnamed witnesses to validate His Greatest Act of Love. That's simply stupid. Yet that's what this book is viewed as by the literalist crowd. The most reliable witness mankind has, yet we can't even check who wrote it or the sources they cite as corroboration.

 

BTW, the stories of the Roman soldiers only appears in writing AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, long after the soldiers would have ransacked graves for bounty, obliterated any chance of actually verifying this story line. Odd how Paul who actually wrote before 70 AD never once mentions any of these, or frankly any other story of the Gospel stories, and considering he supposedly talked with Peter and James and the others who ostensibly were there. Funny they don't seem to have passed these tales on the Paul, isn't it?

 

Then they mention the prophecy. Couldn't the NT authors have just penciled in the prophecy's? There actually not that impressive and the Jewish messiah was suppose to be a military and political leader not a blood sacrifice.

Yes, like the prophecy of the Virgin birth. These of course are loose, and often very bad readings of the OT to fit the story line they created in the spirit of Homer's Odyssey. In all it would be like me doing this: And all these thing I now write to you today, as it was prophecies by the prophet Hezikah, 'and he shall share words of profound insights in that day'. See! I'm from God!

 

They also claim that early Christians all had a similar beliefs(not true) it took off to fast ect. Actually on some of the topics Im not educated about they made me wonder and I didnt have answers for them. It felt like I was missing some great argument they had and I wondered why Lee Strobel would be converted by this weak evidence I understood and maybe I am missing something.

Lee Strobel was unlikely converted by any of these arguments. These arguments are justification he makes to others for his decision to stick with the religion of his culture which he was raised to be - even though he wasn't in it for some time and identified himself as an "atheist", which in his case simply was a non-believing Christian, as opposed to one who had reasoned through why not to believe it.

 

One becomes a "believer" in a religious way for emotional reasons, not because of logic arguments that could be used to prove the Wookies are the rulers of this sector of the galactic federation.

 

 

If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated.

Here's a start for one of many resources: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...on/lecture.html

[Guest Minimalist]

When the Romans crucified someone it was to make a statement. That statement was " Do not f*ck with us or you will end up HERE." Crucifixion was reserved for rebels and slaves. It was considered the most dishonorable of deaths. Thus, the notion that Pilate would release the body for an honorable burial is quite possibly the stupidest assumption in the whole tale. The Romans left the body hanging on the cross until it fell off.

[mwc]

Thus, the notion that Pilate would release the body for an honorable burial is quite possibly the stupidest assumption in the whole tale.

I disagree. Crucifying a non-existent person would probably be a stupider thing for Pilate to do. But if we're assuming he caved in to the Jews demands so easy then, hey, why not? Whatever keeps the peace on at least one Passover I guess.

 

mwc

[Guest Minimalist]

Thus, the notion that Pilate would release the body for an honorable burial is quite possibly the stupidest assumption in the whole tale.

I disagree. Crucifying a non-existent person would probably be a stupider thing for Pilate to do. But if we're assuming he caved in to the Jews demands so easy then, hey, why not? Whatever keeps the peace on at least one Passover I guess.

 

mwc

 

 

I thought we were proceeding from the assumption that it happened and were then dealing with the typical xtian "special pleading" which always seems to enter into their arguments.

 

Oddly, in Philo of Alexandria's Embassy to Gaius he made numerous complaints about what a miserable bastard Pilate was (as opposed to the gospel picture of him as a sort of an uncertain wimp) but Philo doesn't bitch about Pilate crucifying anyone....least of all someone allegedly hailed by "multitudes" as a messiah.

 

Frankly, I always look at the Joseph of Aramathea "give-me-the-body" horseshit as a plot device to get the body off stage ( like Shakespeare where at the end someone always shows up to carry off the dead body of the hero) so the "deceased" did not have to get up and walk off during the scene change. For that matter, the whole idea of having Pilate in Jerusalem at this time seems like a plot device in order to have a trial. Things were relatively calm in Judaea during the reign of Tiberius. I can't think of a logical reason why Pilate would have gone to Jerusalem for the Passover. His "army" was a few cohorts of auxilliaries most of which were scattered in garrisons. In the event of real trouble his recourse was to contact the legions in Syria.

 

Pilate, as a gentile, had no official role in Passover and his presence could really only serve to remind people that the last time the temple had been desecrated it was by the Roman general, Pompey. In a political sense there seems to be little to gain from actually leaving Caesarea and going to Jerusalem at this time period. Later on, it is true, that Roman procurators did go to Jerusalem because they expected trouble and wanted to make a show of force. But that was a generation after xtians set their Jesus tale.

 

Of course, such anachronisms are no stranger to the NT story. "Luke" actually constructs a nativity scenario in which a "citizen" of Galilee ( 'Joseph') goes to participate in a census in "Bethlehem" which was, at the time, in another country. I suppose that by the time that they sat down to write their stories that the temporary political separation between Judaea and Galilee in the early part of the first century AD had slipped from memory. The Romans would, after all, have slaughtered a great many of the people who may have remembered during the Great Revolt.

[hereticzero]

Historical fiction is still fiction. The story of Jesus takes place in an ancient time in history. This does not mean that Jesus is by any means a historical figure any more than Jason and the Argonauts are a true group of adventurers. Fiction is still fiction whether the story takes place in modern times or in ancient times.

 

All anyone has to go on is the traditional teachings of the catholic church and its minions. The church claims the apostles followed christ and were killed spreading the gospel. There is no historical evidence to substantiate the church's claims the apostles died for christ and the gospel. Even the church hierarchy fully admitted the story of Jesus was a myth; "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us?" -- Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521). The church admitted the story was a fable and was profitable for the sake of obtaining vast amounts of wealth at the expense of the ignorant who believed this superstition.

 

There is no evidence, historical or otherwise, that points to a resurrection noted anywhere other than the christian bible. With the christian penchant for lying and exaggeration to spread their religion, it is doubtful beyond a shadow of doubt that anything in the bible actually occurred. Proof does does not have to be absolute proof but it does need to be beyond the shadow of doubt. This is what christians swear to in court when they are suing each other so hold them to this same standard when they are babbling their nonsense about the resurrection. The proof they offer is not beyond a shadow of doubt: the guards could have been paid to look the other way while the body was removed and buried elsewhere, or the tomb was empty to start with, or Jesus never died, or the whole story about Jesus is fiction. The story of Jesus is the direct result of the story of eden, the magic fruit and the talking snake, and the fall of man. The story of Jesus is based on the fictional account of Genesis to be true. One cannot derive truth from fiction. The resurrection could not have happened as the story of Genesis and the talking snake did not happen, they are two counts of fiction being taught as history but this is church history and not historical reality.

[Guest Minimalist]

Have you read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, HereticZero?

[hereticzero]

Have you read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, HereticZero?

No. Is it a good read?

[Guest Minimalist]

I'd say it is worth your time. His discussion on the Argument from Silence is well worth the read and his assertion that "Mark's" gospel (the earliest) started out as a bit of midrash ( a claim which he backs up by demonstration later on) actually deals with the issue of historicity.

 

You see, this is the problem with "history." First off, we do not know that the intent of the author was to write "history." He may have simply been telling a story which others, who came along later, assumed was historical. The author cannot be held responsible for the misapplication of his words by others. He was long dead by then. A modern example of this position: The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown wrote a novel. There are certain historical facts and places mentioned ( Gone With The Wind does the same) but Brown's topic has caused insecure xtians ( which seems to be most of them) to react with outrage to his suggestions. Tough. It's a novel. Fiction.

 

Then there is the secondary question. How much of actual "history" is "historical?" This is a tougher question. History is not only written by the winners in ancient times it was usually written by someone with a vested interest in the outcome.

[Jeff H]

You see, this is the problem with "history." First off, we do not know that the intent of the author was to write "history." He may have simply been telling a story which others, who came along later, assumed was historical. The author cannot be held responsible for the misapplication of his words by others. He was long dead by then. A modern example of this position: The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown wrote a novel. There are certain historical facts and places mentioned ( Gone With The Wind does the same) but Brown's topic has caused insecure xtians ( which seems to be most of them) to react with outrage to his suggestions. Tough. It's a novel. Fiction.

That's not really a good analogy. After all, Dan Brown's book says in the beginning "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." He at least claimed that some of it was true. No such thing in the Gospels, until we get to Luke anyway. So I don't particularly like your analogy - it gives too much credence to the Gospels

[Guest Minimalist]

Well....there WAS a land known as Judaea which was run by the Romans, did have an imperial praefect named Pilate and did use crucifixion on certain undesirables.

 

The rest of it, of course, is a large bag of manure.

[mwc]

Aha. Here's this thread. I thought it was in the Lion's Den. I guess I should have paid more attention.

 

Any way every christian apologist says the reserection is undeniable, obviously this is not true but I feel like Im missing some part of of their argument or logic. For instance when they say the disciples couldnt have stolen the body because of the Tomb stone soilders ect. How do we know that Jesus was put in a tomb with a huge stone and soldiers guarding it? Maybe he was thrown into a unmarked grave or unguarded marked grave.

Well, unlike my last post (where I didn't bother to read the thread and so didn't notice we were assuming that "jesus" actually lived or anything...though this wrecks my wonderful Pilate crucified nothing theory), this is a load of crap. The guarding of the tomb is mentioned only in G.Matthew. The other two synoptics disagree entirely. So if we're using a court room type setting with what the "witnesses" have to say, well, only one witness testifies to this silly crap taking place and yet Strobel believes him as the most credible for no apparent reason. Why? Because it makes the stronger case for his silly apologetic and not because there is any reason to accept a single testimony over two others (ignoring G.John entirely here).

 

This doesn't even go into whether or not their may have been an alternate burial site or anything of that nature but simply taking the three texts at their word. It's two to one against any guards at the tomb.

 

Likewise the gospels report that no one. Not a single person. Was a "witness" to a resurrection. The "women" (the accounts vary) were witness to an empty tomb and various "beings" (what they were vary) within said tomb. Not really a slam dunk there either. Witnessing an empty tomb isn't proof that anything amazing happened. It's proof of an empty tomb. At face value I can believe them. Why not?

 

Well, let's "cross examine" the women to find out the 'why not?' It is the idea of the book isn't it (as I recall)? So "women" why would you gather up a bunch of spices, go out to a tomb before dawn by yourselves only to ask yourselves "Who will roll back the heavy rock blocking the door of the tomb for us since us poor weak women surely won't be able to manage such an amazing feat?" Is this simply a literary device to tell the reading the door was blocked with a stone so big that you little women couldn't have moved it yourselves and, with no one else around including soldiers, something else must have happened? Of course it is. It's not to make "women" equal to men in the religion but to demonstrate that there was no other explanation for the movement of the incredibly heavy stone. Equality is far from being important in this religion as quickly as the orthodoxy crushed any traces of it.

 

Then they mention the prophecy. Couldn't the NT authors have just penciled in the prophecy's? There actually not that impressive and the Jewish messiah was suppose to be a military and political leader not a blood sacrifice.

G.Mark has nearly zero "prophecy." G.Matthew has lots and lots of "prophecy." G.John is a mess. As time went on the only way to show that "jesus" was an anything was through prophecy. These guys scoured the old texts and used anything that suited their needs.

 

They also claim that early Christians all had a similar beliefs(not true) it took off to fast ect. Actually on some of the topics Im not educated about they made me wonder and I didnt have answers for them. It felt like I was missing some great argument they had and I wondered why Lee Strobel would be converted by this weak evidence I understood and maybe I am missing something.

They did have similar beliefs...depending on how you define "similar." Hell, work hard enough and they may have even had identical beliefs. In fact I know they did and I'll prove it. They all believed they, and their sect was absolutely right, and all others were horribly wrong. There. All xians had identical beliefs (and still do).

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

T-K, I didn't read all the posts in this thread but I don't see this video series listed anywhere. This post (below) was originally written for another forum but I checked all the links just now and they still work. If you have the technology to watch the videos, they might answer some of your questions. Here goes:

This four-part YouTube series, Strobel Under Fire, critiques Lee Strobel's defense of the Bible and Christianity.

 

in response to Strobel's

Bible Reliability

in response to Strobel's

Reliability of Christ's Resurrection

Jesus' failed prophecies, and the problem of the miracle claims as presented by Strobel

sources on the errancy of the Bible

 

Lee Strobel's Testimony

[L.B.]

Antlerman said:

 

"...logic arguments that could be used to prove the Wookies are the rulers of this sector of the galactic federation."

 

Um, and your PROBLEM with our esteemed rulers would be...?

 

[Guest Minimalist]

Um, and your PROBLEM with our esteemed rulers would be...?

 

Wookies cheat at chess.

[R. S. Martin]

Now I read the thread. I also read Dan Barker's detailed critique of the resurrection story as reported by the four Gospels. It's in his book Godless. Some of the items were listed in the posts of this thread. The video series I posted looks at them in systematic order.

 

One thing Dan brings to the table is Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15 (I think). He looks at the Greek words and makes the argument that Paul is not speaking about a flesh and blood post-resurrection Jesus that could be handled and that could eat, like the Gospels and Acts portray. These were written later than Paul's account. He argues that Paul's account was the equivalent of a hallucination or phantom. Paul claims the post-resurrection Jesus was seen by 500 people. Dan reminds us that similar claims have been made for sightings of the Virgin Mary in recent times in some parts of the world by large groups of people.

 

I don't know the number of people re sightings of the Virgin Mary but there were more than one so we need an explanation for a "shared hallucination" phenomenon and apparently such things do happen when people share beliefs/superstitions. I have read of similar things happening in societies that believed in monster creatures inhabiting the wilderness. A group of hunters was in a boat out on the water and got close to an island shrouded in mystery and superstition.

 

They were on the alert for dangerous monsters and sure enough, they sighted one disappearing into the undergrowth. They fled the vicinity. There were probably no more than half a dozen, possibly only three or four men, in the hunting party, but this was a shared "vision," since no such creatures have ever been found and studied in the light of day.

 

To look at this argument from a slightly different perspective. Last night I was reading a thread on William Lane Craig's forums about the DSC Shroud of Turin, and what can be learned from it. I was impressed that the Christians were focusing on all the gaps of knowledge as physical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Here's a sample quote from Post 10 in the thread:

 

If it's the image of someone other than Jesus, then there's no explanation for the miraculous image. If it is Jesus' image, then the image could be the by-product of the atomic transformation of Jesus' mortal body into his resurrection body, and the infusion of the pure life force therein.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Note how the author pins his hopes on the unknown. Apparently, something has been identified that the Christians label "miraculous," which translates into natural terms (I would guess) as "cause unknown" or "we don't have an explanation at this point." I'm simply amazed at how they have worked out the exact physics of Jesus' dead body turning into a resurrection body, and what this might do to the linen shroud.

 

Then he says "If it is Jesus..." and emphasizes that in such case, the image "could be" the by-product.... There are so many unknowns and they seize at all of them. This is so opposite to how I was taught to establish fact. In the void of missing fact, and strong desire, imagination can easily fill in the necessary details. Voila! we've got a resurrection complete with all the evidence because there's no one to disprove it.

 

Maybe the two parts of this post don't really hang together. I guess in my mind, the common theme is that I'm always trying to figure out how it is possible that such a story ever came to be, and why people believe it. I think the second part contributes to this.

[Guest kcdad]

Lying is second nature to a morontheist preacher.

 

They ain't the only ones...

 

But Strobel is definitely not practicing his craft as a journalist when he writes his apologies. They are presumptive, uncritical and shallow.

[Badger]

If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated.

Contrary to what HanSolo said, I do not think we must assume "the Gospel stories are telling a true story;" nor, of course, we should presuppose they are entirely fictous. Instead, let's say the New Testament is essentially a theological document that tells more about the early Christianity, or one branch of it, than about the historical Jesus.

 

I would propose the following events as "historical facts:"

• Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards.
  
• His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty.
  
• The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  
• Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed.
  
• James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience.
  
• A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church.
  

(As a side note, this is actually the opinion of the majority of the scholars, non-Christians and Christians alike, who have studied the resurrection of Jesus. Of course we can't conclude that something is true simply because so and so many scholars agree with each other, but this is good place to start in oder to avoid hyper-scepticism.)

 

I'm not going to back up these claims right now, since that would make a long post. However, I believe in the resurrection since I find it to be simple the best explanation for all this facts and it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists.

[bdp]

I don't believe in it since there are no eyewitness accounts of it ANYWHERE, and since so many other explanations for an empty tomb are a lot more logical and rational.