Is the Evidence for Christianity “Overwhelming” if Historians Can’t Agree on the Facts?

Image result for image of evidence

“Reasonable Conservative”, a Christian reader of this blog:

The evidence presented in the Bible is overwhelming, but primarily its focus on SIN, and its subsequent salvation through Jesus. Those that have received Him on HIS terms have discovered its truthfulness. Those that haven’t, haven’t. Sufficiency is in the eye of the receiver, and those who are FORSAKING their sins in honor and obedience to Jesus show the reality of all of His words and result. It is EVIDENCE that Jesus truly saves.

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.
1 Peter 2:15 KJV

 

Gary:  The evidence may be “overwhelming” to you, RC, but evidence is not classified as “strong” or “weak” based on one person’s opinion. The fact is that most of the claims related to Jesus’, in particular his alleged resurrection, are disputed by the experts. Even the empty tomb is disputed. You are certainly welcome to believe that the evidence is overwhelming, but your opinion is not of much value to educated people. Educated people want to know the consensus of experts. And there is no consensus of experts regarding the alleged resurrection of Jesus (or his other alleged miraculous deeds). The resurrection of Jesus is a highly contentious historical claim. For instance, we have zero uncontested eyewitness testimony of anyone seeing and talking with a resurrected body. This is why you won’t find the resurrection of Jesus listed as an historical fact in public university world history textbooks.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus MAY have happened, but the evidence for this alleged event is no better than the evidence for the supernatural claims of many other religions. It is very weak.

 

 

 

End of post.

4 thoughts on “Is the Evidence for Christianity “Overwhelming” if Historians Can’t Agree on the Facts?

  1. bradley bowen has just released another defense of the swoon THEORY .

    B. Jesus did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb.

    C. The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb.

    D. The Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb.

    E. Jesus’ disciples did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb.

    But there is a BIG LOGICAL GAP between these four premises and the conclusion that Kreeft is trying to prove. It is far from clear how the alleged movement of the stone is relevant to proving that the Swoon Theory is FALSE.

    Kreeft not only FAILS to clearly state his conclusion, and FAILS to clearly state the main premises of his argument, but he also FAILS to provide any explanation of how these premises are supposed to prove this conclusion! In short, his argument here is a steaming pile of dog crap, which is what I have come to expect from Peter Kreeft.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2020/01/21/defending-the-swoon-theory-part-19-analysis-of-objection-7/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Conservative Christian scholar Richard Bauckham pulls the same nonsense. One of his “discoveries” is that anyone named in a particular story in the Gospels was the designated “caretaker” of that story, preserving the accuracy of the story until he or she passed that information on to the authors of the Gospels.

      Evidence for this claim?

      Conjecture!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Is the Evidence for Christianity “Overwhelming” if Historians Can’t Agree on the Facts?

    No, not at all. Because their obsession and tunnel-vision strictly on (90% or more) dependent evidence, or rather primary evidence which is ONLY Greek Christian and very small portions of Canonical Judeo-Christian sources, not the numerous non-Canonical sources, demonstrates sufficiently their delusional denial of ALL the cumulative, contextual, INDEPENDENT sources and evidence—and their non-evidence and lack of supporting independent sources—all adequately demonstrate Christianity, that is Greco-Roman Christology, is a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-century Hellenistic fraud.

    And I won’t even go into the plethora of major problems between authentic, historical Judaism and Late Christology, major problems with their divine revelations and divine participations, other general/secular problems Theism is littered with, and finally a virtual Library of Congress list of specific biblical problems and failures within Christendom.

    But Gary, you know well they refuse to equitably consider and exam this vast library of sources and evidence. Tisk, tisk. 😞

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s