Two papers I wrote this year about Jesus's Resurrection

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 accurate description of the empty tomb scenario.
  • Skeptical scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Michael Goulder admitted that Christians can use an appeal to the majority to support the resurrection.
  • An argument that Paul and Peter might have hallucinated.
  • Explanations as to why Jesus died and rose again.
  • A consideration of Hell and what people should do when they believe in their fallen state.
For a potentially easier argument to read of three pages, which uses many of the points from these other papers that are about three times as long, see my first post on this blog.

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

About 8 Minute Read: In the Midst of the Coronavirus -- Hope

"We each need to make sense of coronavirus in three different ways: intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. All are important—and together they present a formidable challenge to anyone." Mathematician and apologist John C. Lennox sincerely believes this, and I agree. Thus, it makes sense that an apologist is someone who doesn't fit the typical description of a religious person -- they argue for their belief system on an objective, rational level.  It would take me a while to get my hands on a physical copy of Lennox's book " Where is GOD in a Coronavirus World? " but fortunately, the kind hearts (and minds!) at RZIM have published a free excerpt.  I don't keep up with the news, and information I get about issues of the large world around me usually comes from my family. I do know that tens of thousands of people, at least, have already perished from this dreary phenomena. So it's very serious -- we are in the midst of unmistakable evil.   Or are...
Read more

"The True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded -- Part 2: Embarrassing Testimony

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 ...
Read more

My Case Against the True Lost Gospel of Peter (and refutations)

Because of reading Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene by Bart Ehrman, and using other knowledge (theology theory and specific considerations for purported evidence), I have come to be able to create what is to me a thorough and powerful case against the internal evidence for the book of Mark being the true Gospel of Peter. But, as suggested in the title, and if you already know about me, it is safe to assume I haven't abandoned belief that there is strong evidence in the Gospel of Mark to prove it as eyewitness material.  If you have read my 6 part blog project titled "The True Lost Gospel of Peter," you've already come across why I believe the miracles in the book of Mark (the conclusion contains the five other links), although the material dealt with here was first recorded in what I call " my primitive post ." Don't bother looking at it now: everything is dealt with here, where we can be more confident of my conclusion because of the cross-examination....
Read more