Looks as though we are almost 300 posts deep thus far. In my OP, I asked what makes the claims of a resurrection so compelling? I also asked if this belief is justified? Many responses ensued. Discussions formed. Transactions and exchanges took place. And yet, I fail to see much of anything related to the actual OP? Thus far, I see a handful of presumed believers, telling skeptics and unbelievers what they are doing 'wrong'. How about producing evidence to support the belief in question? -- The belief one holds, that a man lived, died on a cross, was placed in a tomb, and then rose from that tomb three days later.
Is anyone equipped to do this? Or, are we instead going to continue watching, as a handful of volunteering forum responding believers avoid this pretty straight forward line of questioning?
The only way we can know if the resurrection occurred is to find out through the facts that it did happen. Being that this alleged event is a "supernatural event" it doesn't make it any less unknowable through the field of historical investigation, it only becomes obscure if it were considered through the realm of philosophical speculation. Whether the resurrection may classify as a "miraculous event," it is a
historical event nonetheless and should be investigated as such. If this past event can be examined depends on the strick grounds of the method in investigating accounts from antiquity. Therefore, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is quite straightforward: If a man named Jesus died by crucifixion at point A, and is alive again at point B, then resurrection has occurred "res ipsa loquitur."
Fact #1 - Jesus died by Roman crucifixion
Fact #2 - The empty tomb
Fact #3 - People believed they saw the risen Jesus
Fact #4 - Non-believers radically changed
Fact #5 - The Christian faith grows despite the fear of torture or death
Conclusion:
The more naturalistic explanations for the above facts such as the swoon theory, legendary development, fraud, and hallucinations fail to account for all the relevant data compiled and in some cases, are outright false and ahistorical (copycat theories). The resurrection hypothesis, however, accounts for all known facts, has greater explanatory scope and power, is more plausible, and less ad hoc.
Despite the slew of books that go into great detail on the case for the resurrection, using a minimal amount of facts compiled together that virtually every scholar accepts as accurate is probably an approach appropriate for a forum formatted in a way that encourages conversation to be more dynamic rather than contemplative?
"The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing."
What evidence makes the claims of His alleged resurrection compelling?
