Handout argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

Here is a pdf that has a three-page argument for the resurrection of Jesus that is condensed and can be used as a resource to share with others.

Comments

Post a Comment

I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.

Popular posts from this blog

Are the Acts of the Apostles Accurate? Part 1

How I learned about the reliability of the book of Acts  (Or, the reliability of my sources) I don't really remember exactly when and in what order I came across the books that pointed me to my main sources for defending the fifth book of the New Testament, but of course purchased them after getting them from the library.  What first caught my eye the most was in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Christian apologists Frank Turek and the late Norman L. Geisler(1). In it they documented 84 historically confirmed facts from Colin J. Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History . Also, they cited William M. Ramsay's St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen . As probability would have it, what really inspired me to get Hemer's book was something Geisler said to Lee Strobel in The Case for Faith . "The noted Roman historian Colin J. Hemer, in  The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History , shows how archaeology has confirmed not...
Read more

Textual Criticism: The Two Made-Up Stories

Bart Ehrman exposed two actual passages that aren't original at all. They are the so-called ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery (usually placed as John 7:53-8:11). The fact of the matter is that, at any rate, obviously God did not leave enough evidence to show us if He inspired the passage. And I am firmly convinced we can prove they weren't inspired at all. The forgery in Mark The first verse, after 16:8, parallels Matthew's account, and more significantly John's first resurrection appearance account. Mary might have seen Jesus by herself before the other women. She did indeed go and tell others, specifically the Disciples, and Luke specifically says in 24:11 that they didn't believe the women. Luke 8:2 says Mary Magdalene formerly had seven demons. The next two verses contain errors along with truths. Jesus never appeared in a different "form." I remember reading a book where someone said Jehovah's Witnesses once used it to ...
Read more

Revisiting the Harmonization of the Gospels' Empty Tomb accounts

Sooooo... basically I found more of a historical ground to place my theory that Matthew's account is different than others, along with some new observations, even as critical charges. Here I'm further defending  " Bible Difficulties -- 4 Different Accounts of Empty Tomb Appearances ." I suggest you read it before considering the content of this post, because I deal with many other potential errors in the Gospel narratives of the empty tomb. Last month I finished reading Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible  by apologists Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw. Ehrman was the source of criticism they were trying to answer throughout the book. They deal with a case of chronological differences: "Luke likely mentions the tearing of the veil prior to the crucifixion [Luke 23:44-45] in order to put it beside other cosmic signs he gives. In other words, Luke is providing a list of cosmic signs without claiming a...
Read more