Was Jesus resurrected

The minimal facts are not facts because I say so or because historian say so, I can prove you the historicity of those facts. Historical evidence demonstrates the"Gospel"of Mark was written before 37 A. D which would be about"four years or less after Jesus" crucifixion and scholars further note the"language, grammar and style used by Mark in his account of Jesus" crucifixion and resurrection (including the empty tomb) indicates Mark received the narrative from an earlier source. As noted by Oxford historian A. N. Sherwin-White, it is unprecedented anywhere in history for a legend to have arisen that fast so as to distort the account in the gospels of the resurrection. Mark's Passion source didn't end with Jesus' burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb. Jesus' empty tomb is also mentioned in the early sermons independently preserved in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36), and it's implied by the very old tradition handed on by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four independent sources. Same thing with the multiple attestations The dominant view among NT scholars is therefore that the Passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony (Mark Allen Powell,"JAAR"68 [2000]: 171). Indeed, according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A. D. 30) (Richard Bauckham,"Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243). So we're dealing here with an extraordinarily early source. Now Matthew and Luke probably knew Mark's Gospel, as you note, and used it as one of their sources. But the differences between Mark and the other Synoptics point to other independent sources behind Matthew and Luke. These differences are not plausibly explained as due to editorial changes introduced by Matthew and Luke because of (i) their sporadic and uneven nature (e. g. , Mark: "tomb which had been hewn out of rock"; Matthew: "tomb which he hewed in the rock"; (ii) the inexplicable omission of events like Pilate's interrogating the centurion; and (iii) Matthew and Luke's agreeing in"their"wording in contrast to Mark (e. g. ,"Matt. 27.58"="Lk. 23.52""This man went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. " Also the phrase translated "wrapped it in linen" is identical in Matthew and Luke. How could Matthew and Luke have"independently"chosen exactly the same wording in contrast to Mark? They both probably had another source. Indeed, as we'll see when we get to the empty tomb account, differences between Matthew and Luke emerge that suggest multiple sources. Moreover, John is generally believed to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels. As Paul Barnett points out, "Careful comparison of the texts of Mark and John indicate that neither of these Gospels is dependent on the other. Yet they have a number of incidents in common: For example, . . . the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" (Jesus and the Logic of History, 1997, pp. 104-5). Finally, the old tradition handed on by Paul to the Corinthian church, which is among the earliest traditions identifiable in the NT, refers to Jesus' burial in the second line of the tradition. That this is the same event as the burial described in the Gospels becomes evident by comparing Paul's tradition with the Passion narratives on the one hand and the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles on the other. The four-line tradition handed on by Paul is a summary of the central events of Jesus' crucifixion, burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, and his appearances to the disciples. What about the empty tomb account? First, it was also part of the pre-Markan Passion narrative. The empty tomb story is syntactically tied to the burial story; indeed, they are just one story. "E. g. , the antecedent of "him" (Jesus) in"Mk. 16:1"is in the burial account (15:43); the women's discussion of the stone presupposes the stone's being rolled over the tomb's entrance; their visiting the tomb presupposes their noting its location in 15.47; the words of the angel "see the place where they laid him" refer back to Joseph's laying body in the tomb. As for the other Gospels, that Matthew has an independent tradition of the empty tomb is evident not only from the non-Matthean vocabulary (e. g. , the words translated "on the next day," "the preparation day," "deceiver," "guard [of soldiers]," "to make secure," "to seal"; the expression "on the third day" is also non-Matthean, for he everywhere else uses "after three days;" the expression "chief priests and Pharisees" never appears in Mark or Luke and is also unusual for Matthew), but also from"Matt. 28.15: "this story has been spread among Jews till this day," indicative of a tradition history of disputes with Jewish non-Christians. Luke and John have the non-Markan story of Peter and another disciple inspecting the tomb, which, given John's independence of Luke, indicates a separate tradition behind the story. Moreover, we have already seen that John's independence of Mark shows that he has a separate source for the empty tomb. Same method with the post mortem apprences of jesus ". http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 6"The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It"s outstandingly different in quality and quantity. " ~Antony Flew Minimal fact 1: The burial by Joseph of Armathia There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus" burial by Joseph is "very probable," since it is "almost inexplicable" why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. "1 For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is "one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus. " Minimal fact 2: Empty Why the body couldn't have been stolen: . The guards stationed at the tomb would have prevented anyone from stealing Jesus" body. . No one stealing the body would have had a reason to leave the grave clothes behind or take time to fold the burial head cloth. . The initial reactions of the disciples when they found out the tomb was empty were inconsistent with them stealing Jesus" body. (When the women reported they had seen Jesus alive, the disciples initial reaction was to think the women were talking nonsense (Luke 24:10-12). Some of the disciples did not believe Jesus had bee resurrected until after they personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes (John 20:25). Thomas didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected even though the other ten apostles told him Jesus had appeared to them (John 20:19-25) . The resurrection of man the messiah was completely unexpected on judaism, jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah, the invention of that would lead the inventors to get persecuted and go to hell . Jewish propaganda presupposes empty tomb, they even paid for those who have seen it to lie . The explanation someone stole the body doesn't explain the eyewitness testimony of Jesus" post crucifixion and burial appearances Minimal fact 3: Post mortem apprences We have independent sources attesting to have seen jesus alive after his dead, even Paul who was persecuting ealy Christians have witnessed apparitions of jesus after his death . Hallucinations usually happen only once, except to the insane. "This one returned many times, to ordinary people (Jn"20:19-21:14;"Acts 1:3). . Hallucinations come from within, from what we already know, at least unconsciously. "This one said and did surprising and unexpected things (Acts 1:4,9)"like a real person and unlike a dream. . Not only did the disciples not expect this, they didn't even believe it at first. Neither Peter, nor the women, nor Thomas, nor the eleven believed. They thought he was a ghost; he had to eat something to prove he was not (Lk"24:36-43). . Hallucinations do not eat. "Yet the resurrected Christ did, on at least two occasions (Lk"24:42-43;"Jn 21:1-14). . Paul was persecuting early Christians until he saw jesus and came to genuinely believe in the resurrection, he hadn't met jesus before nor did he love him, no reason for hallucinations . The disciples touched him"(Mt 28:9;"Lk24:39;"Jn"20:27). . They also spoke with him, and he spoke back. "Figments of your imagination do not hold profound, extended conversations with you, unless you have the kind of mental disorder that isolates you. But this "hallucination" conversed with at least eleven people at once, for forty days (Acts 1:3). . The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb. "This is a very simple and telling point; for if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse? They would have checked for it; if it was there, they could not have believed. The resurrection of man the messiah was completely unexpected on judaism, they wouldn't have made this up. They would get persecuted, they did get persecuted in fact. And also that unjewish belief could lead them to hell in their mind. The only plausible explanation is the hypothesis "god raised jesus from the death" as written in the scripture