Search results

“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...

I haven’t dodged. I’m hoping to find out what you think the biggest supernatural claim in the Bible is. I don’t want to deal with Mickey Mouse. I want to deal with King Kong. If there is a bigger supernatural claim in your mind than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, then let’s deal with it.

Is there a bigger supernatural claim in your mind than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

What is written is evidence that has to be evaluated. What is written may be true; what is written may be false. It’s still evidence. When I was called as a witness in court cases, what I wrote in my field reports was always entered as evidence.

Writings are evidence. AI overview - “Writings are a primary and crucial form of evidence in many fields, including academia, law, and historical studies. They provide a tangible, reviewable record that can support claims, establish facts, or offer expert opinion. …” “Writings aren’t evidence”...

They haven’t been dead as long as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans and others have been dead. You, like everyone else, accept their writings as evidence. That’s the subject of Wallace’s books and videos. That’s evidence. Historians don’t call it hearsay and the authors...

Encouragement from the owl - “Make this the year when you begin reading every day. Get a library card. Pursue the study of your enthusiams. You’ll be staving off brainrot, and will be pleasantly shocked at the joy that books can bring.” (Boze the Library Owl)...