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

Suggested Plan of Reading The Resurrection of Jesus Argument

 Because my latest blog project spans well over 10 posts, with virtually all being quite long, I wish to try to remedy that. I will be updating my little three-page argument on the resurrection (still keeping it short of course) with some reflection on this argument.  The Introduction is just that. It can be ignored as long as you realize here that I'm using a list of facts so well-evidenced that many, even a majority, of skeptical scholars believe in them. Fact #1 , the Disciples falling away, is a vital point, but the argument could be overlooked if someone could accept the fact otherwise.  Fact #2 , Jesus's crucifixion, is of course necessary, but the main point that a crucified Messiah looks like God didn't bless Jesus could be gathered later. Fact #3, parts 1 and 2 , can be ignored totally, because the evidence for the empty tomb will validate His burial. Fact #4 is the empty tomb and a vital fact. Part 1 is the most straightforward to understand, I think. Perhaps...
Read more

Revisiting Mark's Empty Tomb Story from the Resurrection Argument

The argument for Mark's story being accurate is here . Bart Ehrman has mentioned (as other skeptical scholars have argued) that the empty tomb was invented because it has to be. Since Jesus became to be interpreted as being physically resurrected, He would of course leave an empty tomb behind. This is why there is growing legend with Mark first only having that, and then Matthew, Luke, and John have Jesus being touched and maybe eating. However, if the empty tomb was invented to emphasize a physical body, certainly a legend writer would have included more details (like being touched). As a growing legend it doesn't make sense to leave out because it's just something they'd think of anyway. Being able to be touched is an important part of having a physical body, and makes it more explicit.  Moreover, even if that did make sense, there still is a lack of embellishment in how Jesus's empty grave was found.  I mentioned in the original post it could be argued that if Ma...
Read more

Four Quick and Significant Additions to the Conclusion of the Argument for the Resurrection

You can see the suggested reading plan here . I remember someone (I think America's leading skeptic Michael Shermer) saying (I paraphrase), "You come across people who say, 'Well, I don't really believe in that stuff of the Bible [other miracles], I only believe the main story [the resurrection].' But that's the stupidest part!" Is it really? If it's so stupid, why is the evidence so robust even a majority of skeptical scholars have accepted claims in favor of His coming back to life? I wrote in my post on the possibility of miracles that someone reasonably could believe in Jesus solely because of proof of His resurrection, and then learn about more evidence. The resurrection could prove the Bible inside out, not have to be worked toward by answering other objections. Bart Ehrman included that people in cultures that accept a certain belief (like people surviving death), and feeling guilty, can definitely lead to guilt-induced hallucinations. But he h...
Read more