Saturday, April 7, 2012

Resurrection Sunday

There is no more documented historical event than the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The average atheist will look upon these events as mere myth and mock those who refer to them as historical. The problem the atheist has is that they cannot disprove this. They reject it because they reject the possibility that there is a God who would or could do such a thing. Again this rejection is based in their own faith that they have placed in a complete and total natural explanation for our existance. Their denial of the supernatural is also not based on anything that can be proven. Yet with the crucifixion and resurrection, we have eye witness testimony from several sources. We have a movement that would never have spread unless a significant number of people witnessed such an event as the resurrection. The Bible says over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus. This is the only reasonable explanation for Jews and Gentiles alike to forsake their traditions, cultures, safety, families, and lives just to join some crazy cult. If this whole story was invented as atheists and unbelievers claim, there would never have been such a conversion of thousands upon thousands within a few years. Their was no political, social, or economic motive to convert. The only rational explanation for their motive is that Jesus really did do the things the New Testament testifies to.

1 comment:

  1. I already answered your first two requests. I am not sure what specifically you are referring to regarding Herod and Quirinius. I do remember some conflict over dates, but the Bible does not give dates. New Testament dating is based on tradition not on scripture, therefore whatever conflict you have is not with the Bible, it is with historical dating, which is debatable. My faith in the Bible does not rest on the confirmation of the scripture you pointed out in Matthew. There is no other account of this event but that does not matter, there is plenty of evidence of other Biblical events.
    TACITUS illudes to a significant population of Christians in his writing as Nero would have no interest in them if they were not a significant number.
    Paul's writings may well have been written down before the Gospels we have were, but there is nothing he writes that does not agree with anything in the Gospels. If i dont reply to something it simply means your statement is not worth a response. Of course salvation is the central issue in conversion, but all religions offer some sort of salvation, so there must be some othet compelling evidence. You say people may have been drawn for economic reasons in terms of the commune style communities that shared everything. That point does not float, because any religous group could do that, they did not need to convert to do that.
    You may well know the Bible better than me, but you do not understand it, much like the Pharisees.