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

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Welcome to One Christian Thought!