Search results

Why do Roman sources show even the least bit of interest in Jesus? It’s not for the same reason you do @Riven.

Then the case remains open and there is more investigation to be done, unless you just don’t care. (I don’t think you do.)

The dead don’t come back to life on their own. That leaves supernatural. All possibilities have to be considered. Yes. All possibilities have to be considered and evaluated. See Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. Yes. No to both. See above on the dead coming to life...

“The supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth could be true because there is no evidence.” How many of my readers are (or might be) persuaded by that?

Since you declined to say flat out that it isn’t true @Riven, give me your best answer to this: The supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth could be true because ______.

“The battle of the Christian life is the battle for the Christian mind.” - John Stott

The disciples of Jesus themselves initially had difficulty believing it was true. Jesus himself proved to them that it is.

Even Jews in his day and in ours who don’t believe he is the Messiah believe the crucifixion event happened @Riven. Is that sufficient evidence for you to say that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified 2,000 years ago?

So then you believe that it could be true. The reason to entertain it is because it could be true. That takes us back to the alleged event: a man who was dead for three days and three nights was brought back to life. There is evidence that he was. Wallace invites his readers to examine that...

Give me your best answer: The supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth isn’t true because ______. So far I have in my notes: 1. It’s not true because you weren’t personally there to see it. 2. It’s not true because the Bible cannot be used as evidence. 3. It’s not true because eyewitness...