Conservative Christians love to say that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is very strong. Some conservative Christians will go even further and say that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the best attested event in Antiquity!
Holy historical grand slam, Batman!
What is odd about that claim is this: How strong can any historical claim be if its veracity is only accepted as fact in one culture on the planet??
Imagine any other alleged event in history in which the historians of the Middle East and Asia reject its historicity. How strong would such an historical claim be?
How strong can an historical claim from Antiquity be if it is only believed to be fact in the (Christian) Western world??
End of post.
3 thoughts on “If the Evidence for the Resurrection is Strong, Why is Belief in this Event So Culture-Dependent?”
At the end of the day, we all know that preachers and many adherents of all religions have a history of exaggeration, embellishment, and to put it bluntly, making stuff up. The evidence we have for the resurrection was only provided to us by early ( but not the earliest) adherents and preachers of the of the religion of Christianity. That doesn’t automatically make it wrong, but certainly means we are going to have a very cautious and skeptical approach when dealing with them and the events they claim really happened. The same goes for Islam and Mormonism.
That most people in the world have not accepted the evidence of Christianity and its resurrection claim, even if they are theists and have no problem with supernatural claims, tells us that being born into a religion is the strongest indicator of whether or not one will find the evidence of that religion’s claims strong or not.
If the character Jesus of Nazareth truly ressurected the Romans would have been on the members of the Way like a ton of bricks.
A convicted criminal walking around as happy as Larry for 40 days?
I don’t think so!
And the Sanhedrin not even having a stern word or two with Joe Arimethea?
Hmmm … those Romans were a dumb lot, eh?
Or perhaps Pilate was just a real softy after all and people just didn’t understand him ‘cos his mummy didn’t breastfeed him or something?
Thing is … the concept of a a dying-and-rising god is not unknown in the ancient world. The Greeks, especially, were fond of this idea (e.g., Dionysus. Osiris, Odin, etc.) and, as we all know, they played a major role in the development of Christianity through Paul, who derived many of his teachings from them.
Besides, take away this core belief and what have you got? (I think most of Gary’s visitors know the answer to that.)
LikeLiked by 1 person