Hello Steve, thanks for responding.

You said:

"I think we are talking past each other. If there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the resurrection happened, why is it not public knowledge?"

My friend, did you live through Covid?

There were a few true ideas being spread around in a vast sea of false ideas. In those first few months it was seemingly impossible to distinguish truth from lies.

Even when the truth gradually emerged, people had become so entrenched in their preferred points of view that they couldn't be budged from them, even when presented with clear truth.

That's why the evidence for the Resurrection isn't wider known.

The facts are clear. The reasoning is simple.

But people are entrenched in their positions. People don't want to consider the evidence. People don't even want to believe that such evidence could exist.

So they don't.

You said:

"You have to interpret the data, the way you want to. A book says a thing, or an article says a thing is not sufficient to believe."

Indeed. The interpretation of the evidence is a key point of the article. I present every known interpretation I could find and compare how well each one handles the evidence.

Interpretations are not equally valid. If one interpretation handles all the data, but another has to ignore half of it to work, it's likely the former is true and the latter isn't.

You said:

"You’re straw manning my point. You brought up historical events and asked why not put them under the same scrutiny as a god, impregnating a woman with himself, to sacrifice himself, back to himself to be a loophole for rules that he created."

None of that happened.

God didn't impregnate Mary. She was still a virgin when she gave birth. She never had intercourse, certainly not with God.

What happened was essentially IVF: God placed the embryo in her without the need for intercourse. We can do the procedure today. Why couldn't God do it then?

God didn't sacrifice Himself back to Himself. Jesus willingly took on the punishment we had earned in order to forgive us. In financial terms, Jesus assumed the debt we had wracked up and paid it in full, so that our accounts are clean.

It wasn't a loophole. The Law always involved a sacrifice to atone for sins. The Law always understood that we would fail, and need a way to pay for our guilt without the shedding of our own blood. Jesus fulfilled the Law. He didn't find a loophole.

You said:

"Before I read this article, is this what convinced you? Do you believe based on the evidence or is it faith?"

Faith is worthless without evidence.

God never asks people to believe with "blind faith." Try to find "blind faith" in the Bible. It isn't there.

Rather, the Bible commends people like the Bereans, who tested every claim Paul made before they would believe them. (Acts 17:11).

Paul also argues in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Jesus didn't physically rise from death, then Christianity is worthless. Paul has no use for blind faith, or for a faith that rejects evidence.

If Jesus didn't genuinely rise from death in real history, then Christians are "of all people most to be pitied," in Paul's own words.

Faith is built on evidence. I trust God because of the evidence, not in the absence of it!

The evidence and arguments for the Resurrection are compelling, to me. They're not the only reason I believe in God, but they are a key part of it.

I invite you to read the article and consider the five facts, as presented by secular/critical/non-Christian sources.

Take these through the interpretations offered. See if you can find any interpretation that explains them all other than Christianity.

Then let's talk.