One Christian Thought

If you looked at my last post, so far we're just passed the tip of the iceberg. I don't know if you found it convincing (I certainly do), but here we get into the major pieces of evidence that I explained in my introduction for this Blog Project. Prominent Christian apologist J.P. Moreland cited two colleagues, Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, from whom most of my argument finds its source (if you wish, see the primitive post about Mark and Peter ). Moreland was explaining "The inclusion of self-damaging or embarrassing details," and tells us, "There are answers to these cases, but that is not the point. That these are even present significantly increases the credibility of the Gospels." (1) Let there be no mistake: this isn't an attack on the character of Jesus. Actually, following all the evidence to its conclusion would practically necessitate reasonable, Christian explanations. If that sounds self-defeating, you've skillfully used critical

Everything listed on bullet points are either material that cannot be found elsewhere on my blog or are not explained in the essay itself. This  historical thesis essay  is from a while ago. It looks ugly to me, compared to other things, and any arguments worthwhile in it I will advance elsewhere sometime. But it has some good points.  Skeptical scholars are usually not labeled as such, so these are them: Norman Perrin, John Crossan, Rudolf Bultmann, Bart Ehrman, Jacob Kremer, Gerd Ludemann, Paula Fredriksen, and Reginald Fuller. The empty tomb passes two pieces of criteria for historical authenticity: contextual credibility and multiple attestation. Robert Jastrow explains that naturalistic presuppositions are not reasonable. My argumentative essay  is aesthetically pleasing, at least to me.  Jesus's crucifixion is reported by two non-Christian great historians. Jesus definitely died on the cross -- He did not survive. Luke, the historian appealing to Gentiles, has a historically