Did Jesus rise from the dead?
In the following, we will consider why it matters whether Jesus rose, a three-step process to determine whether Jesus rose, and why people are so averse to the idea that Jesus rose.
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
The reliability of the Christian faith hinges upon the resurrection of Jesus. Paul writes, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17)
Without a resurrection, we have no intercessor, no renewal, no victory - we are hopeless. You pluck out the resurrection, and our faith falls apart like a house of cards.[1]
But if Christ resurrected, then we are forgiven, we can have eternal life.[2]
And this is a physical bodily resurrection, not just a spiritual or metaphorical thing. Jesus said, “Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have,” and he ate in their presence.[3]
The resurrection is our foundation. We need to be able to defend it.
And fortunately, it’s not that hard to do.
3-STEP FORMULA
Proving a resurrection is a relatively straightforward process.
Along a timeline, you must show the following:
That the person was alive at time 1 - the earliest time on our timeline.
That the same person was dead at time 2 - after time 1.
That the same person was alive at time 3 - after time 2.
Then you have a resurrection! We can make a cumulative case for Christ’s resurrection through this process. But if any of these steps don’t check out, then you have falsified a resurrection.[4] It goes both ways.
WAS JESUS ALIVE? [5]
Step 1: we must establish whether Jesus existed at all.
And the answer is YES! A big yes! It’s hardly even up for debate.
Virtually all scholars dismiss theories of Jesus's non-existence or regard them as refuted.[6] The Christ myth theory is considered a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars. And speaking of scholars, here’s what some of them say… [7]
“No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.” Michael Grant (atheist/agnostic historian)
“I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” “He did exist, whether we like it or not.” Bart Ehrman (atheist scholar[8])
Jesus' non-existence is “a thoroughly dead thesis.” James D G Dunn (theologian)
“This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false.” Maurice Casey (professor)
“Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.” Amy-Jill Levine (professor)
There are several reasons why most scholars believe Jesus existed. First, there is Bible reliability and all that entails. There is also the existence of early Christian communities and writings - surely there was a central figure who started all this.
Jesus’ life also doesn’t look much like the stories of ancient mythological figures. It doesn’t fit the archetype, aside from some very superficial similarities. This critique may attack Jesus’ divinity, but not his existence.[9]
Non-Christian sources also mention Jesus. Some important mentions were from Josephus (a Jewish historian) and Tacitus (a Roman historian). From just these two writers,[10] we learn much about Jesus, such as:
He existed as a man
His personal name was Jesus
He was called Christ (Messiah)
He had a brother named James (Jacob)
He won over both Jews and Greeks
Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him
Pilate determined that he would be executed
He was executed via crucifixion
He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea, during Tiberius’s reign
Robert Van Voorst said, “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point.”
Another reason scholars think Jesus existed is because the story of Jesus’ life is authentic.[11] Scholars will sometimes use the criteria of authenticity to evaluate historical plausibility. For example:
Criterion of embarrassment – something is more likely to be true if the author would have no reason to invent a historical account which might embarrass them.
For example, crucifixion was designed to humiliate and execute criminals, and Jesus is said to have died this way. Similarly, Jesus is recorded as being baptised, which was understood as only necessary for sinners. But if Jesus was believed to be sinless, then the baptism would have seemed inappropriate. The baptism also makes Jesus seem subordinate to John – fake story is unlikely to include this.
Criterion of multiple attestation – satisfied by Josephus and Tacitus, for example.
Criterion of dissimilarity – if a saying or event of Jesus is different from the Judaism before him and the early Christianity after him, then it is more likely that Jesus himself originated this particular saying.
For example, Jesus said to love your enemies. Jews knew to love their neighbour, but going further and extending that to their enemies was a radical idea. And early Christians also struggled with this teaching because they were heavily persecuted. So, it seems likely that Jesus actually said that.
There’s lots of debate about what he actually did and said, but that’s irrelevant here. Jesus for sure existed. He was a real person.
If you encounter someone who doesn’t believe Jesus was a real person, then you have encountered someone who either has no clue what they’re talking about, or is blinded by their rampant anti-theism, or has deliberately chosen to oppose majority scholarship and clear evidence to the contrary.
The man was alive - step 1 complete. Onto step 2.
DID JESUS DIE? [12]
As seen earlier, Amy-Jill Levine writes that most scholars agree that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers. And this is true.[13] One of the few things about Jesus that no ancient scholar seriously questions is the fact that he died via crucifixion.
But why do they agree that he died?
Well, similar to before, the New Testament is a pretty reliable account and we have lots of early Christian writings which tell us Jesus died. Non-Christian sources also confirm that Jesus died - like Josephus, Tacitus, and others. We apparently have twelve sources which say he died.[14]
There’s also the fact that crucifixion is a humiliating way to go, satisfying the criterion of embarrassment.
Additionally, the story of Jesus’ death fits our understanding of Roman and Jewish contexts. Crucifixion was a common method of execution in the Roman Empire, particularly for those who were perceived to challenge Roman authority, as the Jewish leaders argued he did. And the way the Jews handed him over to the Romans aligns with what we know about the Jew-Roman dynamic.
Finally, there’s also the fact that alternative theories lack credible evidence. The main theory being that Jesus survived the crucifixion. There are some serious problems with this theory.
Here’s what went down:
The night before, Jesus is sweating blood from extreme stress.[15] Hematohidrosis a rare thing, but it does happen.
He then faces six separate trials over the night. It’s unclear how much sleep he would have gotten during all this.
Then Jesus was flogged with a Roman flagrum.[16] You’ll often hear that it was the cat-o-nine-tails, but no, the cat-o-nine-tails was the friendlier British version based on the Roman flagrum.[17] The flagrum could range from leather strands to leather strands with metal and bone shards attached.[18] Sometimes it had hooks on the end for extra damage. They’d take the flagrum and lash the person's back, pulling out chunks of flesh. It wasn’t uncommon for people to pass out from blood loss or die from this.
According to Jewish law, a person could not be lashed more than 40 times (so they would just cut it down to 39, just in case); however, Romans had no such restriction. It is unclear how many times Jesus was flogged.
Then Jesus was given the crown of thorns - head wounds don’t have to be deep in order for them to bleed heavily.[19]
Jesus was beaten and spat on. He collapsed several times while carrying his cross to Golgotha, eventually needing someone else to carry it for him - which is unsurprising given how much blood he would have lost by that point.
Then Jesus gets crucified.[20] A slow and painful execution…
Seven-inch nails would be driven through the wrists, so that the four carpal bones on either side could support the body's weight. The nail would pierce the median nerve, causing immense pain and paralysing the hand. The feet were nailed to the upright part of the crucifix, bending the knees at around 45 degrees.
Most of Jesus' weight would have been held by his arms, putting massive strain on them - gradually pulling the shoulders from their sockets. Other joins would do the same, making his arms six or seven inches longer than before.
He would also have to bear his weight on his chest, causing him to have trouble breathing, as he scraped his bleeding back up and down the wooden cross.[21] At some point, insects would start to take interest in Jesus’ open wounds.[22]
Lack of oxygen would cause damage to his tissues and blood vessels, including the lungs and sac around his heart.[23] This would lead to unconsciousness. Then, finally, death by exhaustion, asphyxiation, and multiple organ failure. It’s also probably thanks to blood loss that Jesus died only six hours into this.
It’s one of the worst ways to go. Cicero described it as “the most cruel and hideous of tortures.”[24] The word “excruciating” actually comes out of the Latin “ex-crucis,” “out of a cross.”
Suffice it to say that one does not simply survive a crucifixion. It was designed to kill and was carried out by professional killers.[25]
Usually, to hasten the death, executioners would break the legs of their victims. But Jesus was already very dead by the time they came around.
We read that he was speared on his side, and blood and water came out. When you’re suffocating, watery fluid leaks from the blood into the tissues and builds up around the heart and lungs.[26] The decreased oxygen also leads to cardiac arrest. If Jesus had still been alive, blood would’ve just pumped out. But we had water.
He was very dead, and certified dead by the Roman executioners present.[27] And those soldiers had to be certain of it, because they could face severe punishment if they didn’t finish the job.
Even if Jesus defied these odds, he wouldn’t have survived suffocation by burial cloth, nor would he have been fit to move the 1-2 tonne stone sealing the tomb and evade the guards stationed there.[28]
This is why scholars say that the idea that Jesus survived crucifixion lacks credible evidence. Modern forensic and medical studies also confirm that Roman crucifixion was basically always fatal. Jesus died on that cross.
WAS JESUS ALIVE AFTERWARD? [29]
Alright, so everyone agrees that Jesus existed, and everyone agrees that He died by Roman crucifixion, but this is where the debate comes in. Not everyone agrees that Jesus was God and that he actually rose from the dead.
BUT we do mostly agree on some key facts. We have two questions we need to ask:[30]
What are the facts that require explanation?
What explanation best accounts for these facts?
Most scholars, regardless of their personal beliefs, recognise a set of facts about the aftermath of Jesus’ death. I’m going to focus on four of these.
Fact 1: The tomb was empty.[31]
We know this for several reasons.
Firstly, this is recorded in six independent New Testament sources and are among some of the earliest written.
Next, women were reported as the first to discover the empty tomb. It’s unlikely that people would have made this up because this would actually hurt their story, not helped it. Women were considered unreliable witnesses in first-century Jewish culture, so the involvement of women at such a crucial moment satisfies the criteria of embarrassment.[32]
The Jewish authorities also responded to hearing of the “resurrection” by saying the disciples stole the body of Jesus, admitting that the tomb was in fact empty.
The tomb's location was also known, which would have made it difficult to fabricate an empty tomb story, because people could just go check if it was true.
Most importantly, Jesus’ body was never produced.
Fact 2: People experienced appearances of Jesus after his death.[33]
We have many early sources, both biblical and extra-biblical,[34] which report that people claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death.
In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8,[35] Paul lists the post-death appearances, including individuals and groups, one of which was a large group of 500 people. Paul even says that most of these witnesses were still alive while he was writing, effectively saying to his audience, “Don’t believe me? Ask them!”
The report that women saw Jesus also supports the reports authenticity, as we’ve already said.
And the reactions to Jesus’ appearances were also pretty much what you’d expect if they’d experienced something wild. They had authentic and varied reactions. They were afraid, confused, joyful, sceptical, etc. Some thought he was a ghost, they worshiped him, they tried to explain it away. All very real reactions to something like this.
Most scholars agree that the people experienced something extraordinary.[36]
Fact 3: People believed that Jesus rose from the dead.[37]
From very early on, Jesus’ followers proclaimed his resurrection and the movement grew rapidly.[38] Early Christian creeds also affirmed the resurrection,[39] and are dated to within a few years (or even a few months, according to some estimates) after Jesus’ death, when witnesses would have been around to correct it had it been wrong.
The belief that Jesus rose also began in the same place Jesus was buried, which would have made it easy for people to verify.
On top of this, Jews had no real conception of an individual resurrection of the Messiah. They believed in one final resurrection at the end of days, when everyone would be raised from the dead. It’s unlikely that people would have believed Jesus rose if it hadn’t actually happened. This little fact is one of the things which all naturalistic explanations struggle to explain.
Finally, Fact 4: People were transformed by their belief in the resurrection.[40]
After Jesus died, the disciples were fearful, disheartened, and demoralised,[41] hiding in fear of the Jewish authorities. But then, suddenly, they came to sincerely believe that God raised Jesus from death,[42] and they were willing to proclaim this belief despite persecution and death - and they did die for this belief, often quite brutally. They were truly transformed. Judaism was their identity, and they gave it up for this belief.
But it wasn’t just the disciples who were transformed. Paul, who persecuted Christians, suddenly became a major advocate of the resurrection.[43] And Jesus’ sceptical brother James would later become a leader in the Jerusalem Church.[44] Both were eventually martyred, never denying the resurrection.
So, these are our four facts:
The tomb was empty.
People experienced appearances of Jesus after his death.
People believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
People were transformed by this belief.
They require explanation. So, let’s consider what explanation does the best job at accounting for these facts. We’ll look at five common naturalist theories first.
Swoon theory[45] basically says that Jesus survived crucifixion, revived in the tomb, escaped the tomb, then convinced people he rose from the dead.
Some obvious problems with this:
We’re pretty confident Jesus died. We went over this. You don’t just casually survive a crucifixion.
You also don’t just casually escape a stone tomb. The stones blocking the entrance could weigh 1-2 tonnes. Then there’s the guards, etc. It’s just not feasible.
Nobody was going to see a bloody man barely clinging to life and think, “Wow, what a glorious resurrection!” Give the ancient people some credit. They knew the difference between survival and resurrection.
The Conspiracy theory, or Hoax theory,[46] says that the disciples stole the body and fabricated the resurrection theory. It basically goes like this (see link).
To be fair, it explains the empty tomb, but it ignores some obvious things:
First century Jews had no concept of a defeated and executed Messiah who would rise from the dead - they just believed in the final universal resurrection.
It ignores the disciples' genuine belief in the resurrection. They gained nothing – no power, wealth, or security. They were willing to die for this and people just don’t die for something they know is a lie. Most of them died quite brutally.
Some people will say the body was stolen by the Jewish authorities instead, but why would they do that? And another question, why wouldn’t they just pull out the body when rumours of a resurrection started? It’s just silly.
The Displaced body theory is the idea that Joseph of Arimethea moved Jesus' body later, and didn’t tell anybody.
This theory ignores Jewish laws which say you can't move a corpse once it’s interred.
It ignores the fact that Joseph would have shown the body when the resurrection rumours started.
The Hallucination theory tries to explain the appearances, more than anything else. It says the disciples experienced some psychological phenomena which made them believe they saw Jesus alive after his death.[47] This theory is challenged by the following:
The grouped and varied nature of these appearances. Jesus appeared to many people, in many places, groups and individuals, believers and unbelievers, over the course of 40 days. Hallucinations don’t work like this.[48] Hallucinations are typically individual experiences, not group events. There is real doubt about whether collective hallucinations of any kind are possible at all. In order to even have similar hallucinations, they would need the same mental state, the same triggers, and the same interpretation of those triggers. But the diverse nature of Jesus’ appearances makes this impossible.
Expectations play a key role in hallucination, but we know that the disciples did not expect this – sceptics like Thomas and James, and enemies like Paul, especially did not expect it. Again, it wasn’t even in the Jewish frame of reference to expect an individual resurrection.
Some people also didn’t even recognise Jesus at first, which doesn’t make much sense if it was their own hallucination.
Hallucinations would have made the disciples believe Jesus had died and gone to heaven, not risen from the dead. Visions of the deceased were considered evidence that a person was dead, not alive.
This theory doesn’t even attempt to explain the empty tomb.
Our last naturalistic explanation is the Myth theory,[49] which says that people came up with the resurrection later down the track. But this is obviously challenged by all of the early reports of Jesus’ resurrection.
So, our naturalistic theories aren’t looking good. But there is another theory we can consider.
Maybe Jesus actually did rise from the dead.[50] Call it the Resurrection theory.
If Jesus rose, then it makes total sense that the tomb would be empty, that he appeared to people, that they would believe he rose, and that they would be transformed by it.
It makes sense of all the facts, but at what cost? It requires a supernatural event.
But if it’s even possible that God exists, then the resurrection explanation cannot be ruled out. Peter Slezak said that “For a God who is able to create the entire universe, the odd resurrection would be child’s play!”
Many scholars agree that the Resurrection offers a comprehensive explanation for all of these facts. But whether they accept this explanation depends on their perspective on the plausibility of miracles.[51]
Of all our options, the best account is a Resurrection. The naturalist explanations just don’t make sense of all the facts.
John Dickson writes that we have a “resurrection-sized hole” in the historical record.
Sir Lionel Luckhoo said, “the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it… leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”[52]
Previous Chief Justice Lord Caldecote said it is a “fact beyond dispute.”[53]
Napoleon Bonaparte was onto something when he said that Jesus was “no mere man.” He rose from the dead.
And that’s how you prove a resurrection.
It’s so simple, right?
Well, not for everyone.
WHY DO PEOPLE REJECT THIS? [54]
A lot of people reject this Resurrection theory, for a whole range of reasons.
Resistance toward the Supernatural
One very common reason is that the Resurrection is a supernatural event,[55] and a lot of people are very uncomfortable with this. To them, it just seems impossible, and that’s because they presuppose a naturalist worldview. If you assume miracles are impossible, then any natural explanation will be preferred over the supernatural one, no matter how unlikely it is.[56]
I watched one discussion between two very intelligent nonbelievers. One of them felt that naturalistic explanations were just intrinsically more probable, because that’s how things usually go - more people hallucinate than resurrect from the dead - which, as the other pointed out, is kind of the point. Jesus was special. In the end, they could only agree that “something weird happened.”[57] Whatever happened back then, it was very unusual.
Exaggerated Scepticism
Which brings us to another reason people reject the resurrection - rampant scepticism. Some people are hard to convince, particularly when it comes to religious claims.[58]
They argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - but, they say, the reports aren’t close enough to the events! And the Gospels differ in their accounts! There’s some nitpicking going on.
But I must stress that it’s fine to expect to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, but you set yourself up for failure if you expect to be convinced beyond unreasonable doubt. Scepticism for scepticisms sake isn’t helpful.
Postmodern Apathy
For some, this is born out of the postmodern age in which we live. Both materialism and scepticism are related to postmodernism, and so is relativism (the idea that each man has his own truth). Some will just dismiss some ideas as “your truth” in order to escape critical discourse. It’s apathy. Some people do not care and do not want to engage.
Resistance toward Resurrection Implications
On the other hand, some people will act sceptical or uninterested but really be facing something much more fundamental.
For some, there is a moral-spiritual element at play. If Jesus actually rose from the dead, then his claim to be the son of God carries weight. The existence of God becomes very probable, which means that there is an afterlife and you will be held accountable for your time here on earth. For many, this is unsettling - they don't want it. They don’t want to have to rethink their whole worldview.
C S Lewis said, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
The stakes are high, and some people are disturbed by this.
But it seems to be pretty clear and straightforward that Jesus did rise from the dead.
This is our best explanation, so it’s high time we accept the consequences.
[1] The keystone. Foundation, creeds.
[2] The good news - sin is dealt with, God’s plan prevails.
Jesus is God → Why is God on the cross? → Death for our sins → We can be forgiven → Friends with God → God loves us → God’s spirit can be in us → We can change the world → Go God’s way!!
[3] Luke 24:39-43
Jesus is described as the “firstfruits” of our own future bodily resurrection. We will be restored, body and soul. “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep… he body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable…” 1 Corinthians 15
[4] The resurrection is a falsifiable fact. We can test it to see whether it’s true or false.
[5] God on earth. Miracles. Seems like someone who could resurrect from the dead tbh. Says he’ll die and resurrect.
[6] Truth should not be determined by consensus, but this is still worth noting.
[7] Prof. Charlesworth - Director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project “Jesus did exist.”
[11] https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-nt/the-criteria-of-authenticity/
[12] Cosmic happenings while Jesus was on the cross - not a normal man.
[16] 39 so that they couldn’t accidentally go over 40.
[21] The victim would then have to bear his weight on his chest. Immediately, he would have trouble breathing as the weight caused the rib cage to lift up and force him into a constant state of inhalation - making it impossible to take a full breath.
[25] Josephus does describe one dude who survived though. He pleaded with Roman general Titus for the lives of three friends, they were taken down immediately, and two of them died. Jesus was not afforded such luxury.
[26] https://www.apu.edu/articles/the-science-of-the-crucifixion/ Pericardial and pleural effusion.
[29] Objection that it was just a spiritual resurrection?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A12jkbPOuI Most NT critics largely agreed upon the central facts that undergird the inference to the resurrection. Different historians use different criteria e.g., explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, accord with accepted beliefs, degree of ad hocness. Establish a body of facts to be explained and compile a pool of live options/hypotheses for explaining these facts. Sometimes one will emerge as the best explanation.
[31] “Most scholars, by far, hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb.” Jacob Kremer https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jacob-kremer-on-jesus-empty-tomb
[32] Suggesting authenticity.
[33] Not just brief appearances, but quite long. For 40 days afterward.
What caused these appearances? Were they hallucinations, visions, or actual encounters with a resurrected body?
[34] 1 Corinthians 15:3-8; Gospels; Acts. Clement of Rome; Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp.
Josephus, Tacitus, and Mara Bar-Serapion (vaguely) allude to the belief that Jesus was divine and resurrected from death.
[35] 15:5-8 – Cephas (Peter), the Twelve, over 500 people at once (most of whom were alive at the time of writing), James (Jesus’s brother), "all the apostles,” and Paul himself.
[36] “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Gerd Lüdemann
[37] Existence and perseverance of the Church.
A Roman seal placed on the tomb was also broken, with no investigation - which is strange because breaking a Roman seal was a capital crime. Guards bamboozled.
What accounts for this unprecedented growth and focus on the resurrection as the central tenet? How did the belief in the resurrection emerge so quickly and universally among Jesus's followers?
[38] Despite opposition from both Jewish and Roman authorities.
[39] 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. These creeds are dated to within a few years of Jesus’s death, reflecting the beliefs of the earliest Christians.
[40] “Some sort of powerful transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.” Luke Timothy Johnson
Transformed lives today.
What explains these radical changes in belief and behavior? What could have caused this radical change? Skeptics argue for psychological or sociological reasons, while believers point to the resurrection.
[41] Devastated. Disciples were scared little chickens until Jesus returned.
[42] It might be more honest to say that they died for what they had seen, rather than what they had believed.
[43] After what he described as a personal encounter with the risen Jesus.
[44] Mark 3:21, John 7:5. Initially skeptical of Jesus’ mission. Died claiming to have seen the risen jesus.
[45] Apparent death hypothesis. Resuscitation theory.
Jesus did not actually die but revived in the tomb. Highly unlikely given Roman execution methods.
[46] Disciples faked the resurrection. Stole the body and lied about it. Passover plot.
Emphasising a bodily resurrection of Jesus would only have made it harder for Jews to believe it.
[47] They imagined it. Mass hallucination (vs mass hysteria, people who wanted him dead saw him).
Anticipation and expectation play a crucial role in the occurrence of hallucinations. Hallucinations cannot produce new information.
[49] Legend development. Challenged by the early dating of resurrection claims.
[50] God raised Jesus from the dead.
[51] Scholars don’t take naturalistic explanations seriously. Naturalistic explanations – all nearly universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. There is no plausible naturalistic explanation.
[54] Contact movie (analogy). A good objection isn’t a defeat, it’s homework. Voices e.g. John 10, Tate Art Gallery sound panels.
“I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as an historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very centre of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.” H. G. Wells
[55] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A12jkbPOuI Many historians would say they are methodologically bound to consider only naturalistic explanations of evidence. Then they ought to present the evidence then come to a conclusion apart from their profession.
[56] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CJxSgaqG6y7z6Rbij/are-mass-hallucinations-a-real-thing A failure of senses seems more legit than supernatural events.
[57] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cPfxjwAubY&t=4562s (from 1hr 40min) It explains why the apostles believed as they did despite being persecuted, it explains why we have reports of seeing the risen Jesus. (O’Connor and Schmid) Jesus predicted that this would happen to him. You need to spend time thinking about this, you need to work on it. (Intrinsic probability.) It would be weird if somebody just made all this up, it would be weird if people conspired to lie about this.
[58] Some are automatically skeptical of any religious claim.
Comments