One Christian Thought

  So far we've only looked at data in the Gospels.  The only claims used were those which could be critically determined as historically true because they are things that Christian culture wouldn't like, wouldn't invent. Of course this is the way to go, because eyewitness Gospel authorship can't be assumed. Critical scholars like Ehrman deny it.  But a piece of the resurrection case, which cannot be undervalued, is reported by Paul. His writings on the resurrection fit what Ehrman wished we had for a single source on the life of Jesus: a "contemporary" writing by someone "close to the time of the events," and someone impartial "toward the subject matter." (1) The strong reason for him and other people to be unbiased will appear throughout the rest of the evidence in this blog project. As for the writings of Paul not all being a forgery, Ehrman reports that "almost all scholars are convinced that of the thirteen letters attributed to Pa...

I don't know how widely believed this is among skeptical scholars. However, Ehrman believes it, as he explains it is supported by good evidence. Also I read about this elsewhere. Mary Magdalene's conviction is strongly related to the empty tomb, which was previously established, so this is no surprise. His argument in Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdelene from 2006 "Just with respect to the empty tomb, the Gospels differ on who went to the tomb, what they found there, whom they encountered, what they were told, and what they did in response. ...Mary Magdalene is a key figure in them." (1) Elsewhere he observes: "Still, there are several points on which the sources do agree, for example, that Jesus was buried and that on the third day his body was no longer in the tomb, and that Mary Magdalene was the first to find out. This is found independently in Mark, in John, and in the Gospel of Peter. Moreover, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which are independent of one another...

  The Primitive Markian Account Bart Ehrman makes it clear throughout his two chapters on the resurrection that he was once a believer who bought Christian arguments and was convinced that they could prove the resurrection happened. "Christian apologists often argue that the discovery of the empty tomb is one of the most secure historical data from the history of the early Christian movement. I used to think so my self. But it simply isn't true." (1) (One great supposed proof of this is the implausibility of Jesus actually having been buried in an honorable tomb the Gospels describe. But the real historical certainty of Jesus's burial does not at all indicate that it was empty soon after His death.) But when Ehrman wrote about this there is no mention of anyone like Jacob Kremer, a late Australian specialist in the resurrection, who was critical himself. Craig cited his work from 1977, where he said, "by far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the bi...

 Ah, Jesus's tomb. Its discovery being the start of Easter Sunday, Christian churches depict the power God has over death: He raised His one and only beloved Son. Jesus left His grave in His glorified body, assuring the same for everyone who will believe in Him. But is there any credible evidence to believe that Jesus's tomb really was discovered empty soon after His crucifixion? I have read a number of details which seemingly appear unlikely to be something that actually happened. Do skeptics have a point when they say we can't know? Preliminary doubts In The Case for Christ , Lee Strobel asked William Lane Craig why the women visited the tomb in the first place. It doesn't look sensible to try to anoint a body if they were wondering who would move the stone. But Craig made a handful of points: these devoted, grieving women could have a "forlorn hope" to anoint Jesus, maybe guards would be there or other men could move it, and their actions fit contextual cre...

  Claim 3: Joseph would have been a good historical invention (First, I should pause here to say that this information comes from a chapter titled "The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Cannot Know." Ehrman doesn't demand that Jesus certainly wasn't buried by Joseph, but rather he argues contrary indications and the possibility of Christian storytellers raises uncertainty.) As you might recall from reading the introduction, 6 of the claims I will use to support the resurrection are (or at least were and probably still are) on a scholarly consensus. The two others which aren't so agreed upon but still have some skeptical support will be labeled as such in their titles, so of course this fact isn't one.  In two debates between skeptical scholars, John Dominic Crossan and the one against Ludemann, leading Christian apologist William Lane Craig gives examples of critical scholarship not debunking Jesus's honorable burial. Highly critical twentieth century scholar...