I would be interested in knowing what you consider a strong argument for the resurrection of Christ.
The vast majority of biblical scholars, whether Christian, Jewish, agnostic or atheist, admit three facts:
- Jesus died by crucifixion
- After a few days, the tomb was empty
- The early Christians began proclaiming his resurrection
The minimal facts argument seeks a plausible explanation.
None of these historical facts is remarkable. Yet as an historian — you don’t need to believe in the inspiration of the Bible to follow this reasoning or agree with the conclusion — what best accounts for the huge change in outlook (no. 3), even to the point of winning over the skeptical James (Jesus’ brother) and an official persecutor of the church (Saul of Tarsus)?
This is simple reasoning -- nothing convoluted or far-fetched. The conclusion is not far-fetched if there is a God. In fact, given the sorts of things Jesus had been teaching, it wouldn’t be surprising at all.
This "minimal facts" argument is simple:
- It doesn’t rely on the scriptures being inerrant.
- It doesn't get bogged down in arguments about the number of witnesses at the tomb, or whether the tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers or Temple police.
- Nor does it make any claim to Christ's divinity (though that does seem implicit).
- And so on....
The conclusion is this: The resurrection of Christ from the dead is the best explanation for these facts -- facts which the majority of biblical scholars readily concede. I have found the reasoning compelling -- encouraging and strengthening to me personally. Hope that you will, too.
