Hi, /his/
Was wondering whether there is any solid historical or archaeological evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Any primary sources, secular and non-secular, would be appreciated. Also, I was wondering how reliable the disciples accounts of the events are (i.e. can we confirm that the records of their statements haven't been tampered with?).
There are maybe two sources describing the event less than fifty years after it supposedly happened, though only one has been found. That's the sum total of the evidence.
>>455540
skeptics BTFO
>>455540
that just means that the text itself is likely closer to the original, not that the original isn't made the fuck up.
>>455540
How the fuck does this measure reliability?
If I make up a story and create 20 million copies of the text it doesn't make the story true?
The truth value of the bible would be the same with 1 or 50 trillion copies.
Also you statement about the years between the earliest surving copies and the origenal is litearllly a lie.
The earliest bibles are 300 years old. That's it.
>>455540
Not sure you understood the question, senpai. What you posted confirms the veracity of the account but not of the events therein.
>>456080
The earliest bibles. Which is a compilation created by the early church. The graphic is likely referencing some of the books in the New Testament, like Paul's letters and certain gospels, (Matthew?)
>>456080
I think it has to do more with the fact that we have so many early manuscripts. While the people who witnessed the events were still alive. If it was a fabrication they would have been called out on it.
>>455117
The primary sources just are the letters and accounts collected in what is the New Testament that were circulated among the early church later cannonized. Secondary sources would be Josephus mention of Jesus but it seems to have been fluffed up if you read it and think how could a jewish historian write this. But its core is intact and does mention Christ.
>>455540
They actually tacked on Jesus's return to the Gospel of Mark. The earliest Copies end with the empty tomb and the stranger there, and the women running away.
Even if the amount of changes is relatively small, if what you do change are things like that its still a pretty big deal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3P183MNI7c
This guy is a pretty legit authority on the topic. Only uses biblical sources that even most secular historians consider legit. Worth the hour of your time if you're really interested in it
You never know, might just give your life meaning or something.
>>455540
>Comparing philosophical/historic books with 'muh god' books
Of course the NT is going to be always more popular. It is telling you how to go to heaven.
>Was wondering whether there is any solid historical or archaeological evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
There isn't. The 'evidence' for this never reaches above the level of hearsay and rumour
>>455540
>the ancient version of 'The Secret' was more popular than more sophisticated works
Who would've thought
>>455597
Not even that necessarily. For example changes to poetic texts in specific meter (like Homer) are easier to detect.
>>456379
Habermas is just crappy apologetics.
To answer OP's question: there's absolutely no "solid historical or archaeological evidence" about the resurrection of Jesus and what kind of evidence for that sort of thing could there be anyway? This is more of a theological matter.
William Lane Craig is a shit philosopher, but his historical academics are top tier
This book is excellent
http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Testament-Historicity-Resurrection-Christianity/dp/0889466165
You can download for free here, but it will take a while: http://serious.freeonsciencelibraryguide.com/view.php?id=327524
>>456736
>his historical academics are top tier
They're not
>>456743
Since they've been published in numerous academic journals, I daresay they're good.
>>455117
>any solid historical or archaeological evidence for the resurrection of Jesus
There isn't even any solid historical or archaeological evidence for his existence. Never mind the hocus pocus magical bogus of the resurrection.
If you want to believe than just fucking believe already. Stop trying to science it up.
>>456776
Heythrop Journal ("Noli Me Tangere’: Why John Meier Won’t Touch the Risen Lord.")
Sophia ("Middle Knowledge and Christian Exclusivism")
Journal for the Study of the New Testament ("The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus")
My biggest problem is that many of the stories are just plain copies/re-told stories of older myths. The themes can be found on so many other stories.
>>456801
Neither qualifies as hard science
It's all so religious incrowding that it borders on incest
