One of the most compelling arguments for the resurrection comes from the
New Testament itself, it seems to me.
In Luke Chapter 22 we see Peter denying his knowlege of Jesus: "But he
denied it, saying, 'Woman, I do not know him.'" and later "Man, I do not
know what you are talking about."
The next words from Peter are in Acts Chapter 2, where he says: "Jesus of
Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonder, and
signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know--this man,
handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God,
you curcified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God
raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for
him to be held in its power."
What could possibly have occurred that caused this complete change of
Jonathan Clarke <email@example.com>@udomo5.calvin.edu on 06/12/2001
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
cc: American Scientific Affiliation <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: historicity of Christ
george murphy wrote:
> Whether Jesus rose from the dead, performed miracles, was the
> Messiah, &/or Son of God, &c - i.e., all the theological claims which
> Christians have made about Jesus - is another matter. These are the
> beliefs that many people in various ways have attributed to hellenistic
> mystery cults and so forth.
You are doubtless more knowledgeable about this than I, but I suspect that
this type of criticism is best answered by looking at the cultural
likelihood of such beliefs arising in 1st century Judaism, especially after
the execution of the leader of the movement. There were many messiah
figures in the 1st century AD and BC in Judea and Galilee, none had such
stories associated with the birth, life and death.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 12 2001 - 08:30:40 EDT