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 refer to part 2 if more evidence is needed.
Fact #5, the appearance to Mary Magdalene, is also a vital point, and a shorter post.
Fact #6, the appearance to the Disciples, is a very vital post, and quite long. However, everything under the headings "The early creed" and "What was originally in it?" can be avoided. 
Fact #7, the conversion of Paul, is also super-important. Everything up to the heading "Did Paul have an epiphany?" can be avoided. The answer is basically alternative ideas don't account for the evidence, as scholars recognize. You could see the last sentence in that post for a quote cited by Bart Ehrman.
Fact #8, the conversion of James, is vital, but the fundamental evidences all appear before the heading "Did James really believe it?"
All four posts looking at alternative theories are up to you to determine how interested you are in challenging the Resurrection hypothesis as the only reasonable explanation:
Reflecting on the Evidence is the overall conclusion. It begins with some more support for knowing Jesus rose from the dead, and ends with why Jesus died and rose again in the first place. It is not technically necessary to read, but is shorter and brings my entire blog project to a pleasing close. There you are specifically invited to post how well you think my argument works overall.

As always, thank you for reading, and feel free to comment on any post. 

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