
Originally Posted by
Gary
I am willing to discuss the claim of the Resurrection based on accepting the positions of the majority of NT scholars, but for some reason, now Nick is not so sure of himself. If we accept the positions of the majority of NT scholars, this is what Nick and I would be forced to agree upon:
1. Jesus was a real person in first century Palestine, crucified by the Romans.
2. Shortly after his death, his tomb was found empty.
3. Very soon after his crucifixion, Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus.
4. Very soon after his crucifixion, Christians claimed that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to multiple people.
5. Early Christians were willing to die for their belief in a Resurrection.
6. Paul, a Jewish Pharisee, converted to Christianity due to a heavenly vision on the Damascus Road.
7. Paul wrote at least seven, maybe thirteen, epistles after his conversion. Most scholars believe these epistles were written in the 50's and possibly early 60's.
8. The first of the four Gospels, Mark, was written in the period 65-75 AD, most probably not by an eyewitness, nor an associate of any eyewitness.
9. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written approximately 70-90 AD, and both borrow heavily from the Gospel of Mark. Most scholars do not believe that these gospels were written by eyewitnesses either (Luke says he wasn't.)
10. The last gospel, John, was written in the last decades of the first century or the first few decades of the second, and most scholars do not believe that this gospel was written by an eyewitness.
Nick: Can we agree to assume the above as the accepted evidence and move forward in our discussion? If not, why not? You said that even if the above is true, it wouldn't hurt your case and I said that the inclusion of the empty tomb would not hurt my case. So shall we proceed?