Hello Tony, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to engage and respond.

But it feels like you didn’t actually read the article before responding. You ignore the evidence I do present, then critique me as though I presented an entirely different kind of evidence.

For example, you said:

“Like so many who've tried this before, you fall down on the FACT that the evidence for resurrection presented is all from the Bible and word-of-mouth stories at that since the gospels weren't written until well after the fact.”

This isn’t true at all.

Much of the evidence I present in the article above is from the enemies and opponents of Christianity, not from the Gospels.

If all I had done was quote the Gospels, you’d have a point.

But I made sure to write this article with critiques like yours in mind.

That’s why I quote primarily from scholars who are NOT Christians, who have no interest in peddling Christian propaganda. I quote non-Christian scholars and quote ancient accounts from outside the Bible specifically to counter the kinds of claims you made.

You said:

“The Josephus text is controversial, with evidence it was tampered with. Others are all well after the fact, simply recounting stories being passed down.”

I never cited the Josephus passage, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up.

Again, this feels like you’re responding to other things you’ve read, and you’re just assuming that I would be saying the same things.

You said:

“How likely are we to believe word-of-mouth stories about the US Civil War without documentation? That's a measuring stick we should be judging these histories of Jesus by.”

Hardly, my friend.

Every bit of historical and archaeological evidence testifies to the Gospels being written by close eye-witnesses or their scribes. Matthew and John were direct eye-witnesses to most of Jesus’ ministry. Mark recorded Peter’s lectures about Jesus while Peter spoke to high-ranking a Roman officials in Rome. Luke states up front he wasn’t an eye-witness, but consulted many who were.

I present much of that evidence here: https://medium.com/koinonia/historys-mysteries-who-crafted-the-gospels-and-why-91c7b364cdb1

I can already hear your objection, that scholars today don’t think the traditional authors wrote their books. But this is where scholars need to stick to the evidence.

Again, all the archaeological and historical evidence testifies to the Gospels being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, containing direct eye witness testimony, written down while thousands of eye-witnesses were still alive.

The crowd who want to claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the books do not have a single piece of historical evidence to appeal to — not one. There are no manuscripts lacking the author’s names. There are no historians or church leaders debating about who wrote the books. Everyone knew who wrote them and always refers to them as the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They never were anonymous, despite so much noise today swirling about the claim.

If you disagree, then your task is simple: find any piece of historical or archaeological evidence that says they were anonymous, that nobody knew who wrote them. Just find one. If you can do that, you might have a case.

But I’ll give you a spoiler: such a thing doesn’t exist.

You said:

“There is evidence of Jesus' historical existence, and of his crucifixion. The evidence of the resurrection, upon which Christianity, as it's been for nearly 2000 years, is hinged, is sorely lacking. Your article has done nothing to improve that or elucidate it.”

It’s empty statements like this that again suggest you haven’t actually read my article.

You don’t interact with the evidence I present at al. Rather, you act as though it doesn’t exist.

If you want to interact with the evidence, then please do.

But so far, all you’ve done is make empty blanket statements that don’t interact with any of the evidence.

You said:

“Pointing out that there are many who have set about to disprove the claims and end up converting is not an argument for veracity, either. How many have set about to prove their faith only to find it sorely lacking in substance? That number is, no doubt, far greater.”

Here you simply present your guess as though it’s evidence. How could you possibly know the number is greater? What’s your evidence? Do you have anything solid to base this on, or is it entirely a guess?

Yet it is indeed an argument for veracity that many who sought the truth ended up believing the Gospel’s claims.

This is further bolstered by the fact that so many of them were adamantly opposed to Christianity and were seeking to disprove it, yet were converted based on the strength of the evidence.

Such stories are indeed arguments for veracity.

But it is not an argument to make an unfounded guess that the opposite is taking place, and to assert that guess as more substantive than the actual stories of people digging deep into the evidence and finding it compelling.

You said:

“The fact that the biblical stories surrounding the resurrection have conflicts speak more to the desire the authors had to prove the resurrection yet hadn't figured the story out yet. One example that always bugged me every Easter was why the women were heading to the tomb to treat the body. Of course, with Passover, etc. they would have not been able to do the proper treatment immediately following crucifixion. However, important to the whole argument against the theft of the body is the tomb being closed, sealed, and guarded. It was repeatedly pointed out how no one would have been able to get into the tomb to steal the body. So, how is it that the women were heading there to work on the body and found the tomb open and empty? Part of this story doesn't add up.”

My friend, there are no conflicts in the four accounts.

Johnston Chenney proved this conclusively when he wrote “The Life of Christ in Stereo.” He combined all four accounts into one, adding no words and removing none. He simply lined all the details up in chronological order.

And the narrative flows perfectly.

The accusations of conflicts are vastly overblown.

Your example is good question, but it has a clear answer.

Jewish burial customs are well-known. They didn’t do anything to preserve the body, so they buried the dead immediately, often in a cave with a stone rolled in front. The stone kept the stench of the rotting body inside.

For four days, they could attend to the body, often putting on spices and incense to mask the stench. Whenever they would do so, they’d roll the stone away, then roll it back when they were done tending to the body.

The opening to the tomb was often small — maybe two feet wide and four feet tall. The stone would not have to be huge to cover such an entrance.

The women fully expected the guards to help them move the stone away. It was standard burial custom. It was one of those aspects of their culture that no one would even question. Yet because it’s different than how we do burial today, it stands out to us as unique.

You said:

“The fact that Jesus' apostles and disciples went on to martyrdom for their firm belief doesn't mean that the body wasn't stolen, simply that it wasn't them who did it and they did, fully, believe. Add to that the archaeological evidence of hallucinogens in wine used at the time for ritual like communion in the early church, it's certainly a possibility that they had very real experiences of a resurrected Jesus.”

We agree that the disciples fully believed. I agree with you completely that their martyrdom indicates their firm belief.

But they didn’t merely believe that the body was gone.

They believed that Jesus was alive. They believed that they saw Jesus for 40 days afterwards. They believed that they saw the holes in His hands and side, that they all saw exactly the same thing at the same time, and their testimonies all agreed.

If someone else had stolen the body, none of that would happen.

Hallucinogenics in wine don’t cause identical hallucinations. Twelve disciples wouldn’t see the same Jesus. They would see twelve different hallucinations, hear twelve different things, and have twelve different stories. Multiply that by 500 people and you see the problem.

Hallucinations don’t explain an empty body, either.

Nor do hallucinations account for the fact that the disciples were incredibly familiar with the wine used in the ceremony. They would know, from extensive life experience, if there was a risk of hallucination. So would everyone in Israel. If there was a chance they were hallucinating, why would they give their lives? They wouldn’t.

People who have never tried a hallucinogen before could perhaps be persuaded that the hallucination was real, if it wasn’t a “trippy” hallucination, as so many are.

But people who are well experienced with these wines, herbs, spices, and incenses, are not likely to be convinced that a hallucination was reality. They have the experience. They know the difference.

You said:

“Again, the 500 witnesses come up, but the only evidence of those witnesses comes from the stories of the people who need to sell their story.”

You’re applying a very western, profit-driven filter to this, my friend.

They didn’t need to “sell” anything, because they weren’t profiting from it.

As you agree, all the early church leaders were martyred. They lost all their property, their families, their friends, their reputations, their lives. They weren’t building mansions and signing book deals. They were being arrested and killed.

Now, if they were setting up a religion like Islam, you might have a point. Mohammed used Islam to build a power base for himself, an army that conquered, and amassed money, power, and wives. He had a need to sell his story, because he profited by it.

The disciples didn’t. They died because of the story. They weren’t trying to “sell” anything.

You said:

“Furthermore, you say no two people hallucinate the same thing, but that's also simply not true as many people have very similar hallucinations when affected by the same substance, mindset, and setting.”

Your statements contradict themselves.

A “similar” hallucination is not the “same” hallucination.

The problem with your claim is that the disciples didn’t present a story of them each having individual encounters with Jesus. That could, perhaps, be explained by “similar” hallucinations — they all see the same person, but have individual experiences.

They don’t claim that.

They saw the same Jesus as the same time, saying exactly the same thing, doing exactly the same thing.

A group of people don’t hallucinate exactly the same thing — ever.

Nor does it happen over and over, as it does with the disciples and Jesus. We have story after story of groups seeing exactly the same Jesus, saying exactly the same thing, doing exactly the same thing, interacting with them and the world around them in exactly the same way.

That just doesn’t happen.

You said:

“It is an indisputable fact that when people die, and are dead for three days, they don't come back.”

Of course. No one disputes this.

That’s why the Resurrection matters.

If people did simply pop back up regularly after being dead for three days, then the Resurrection loses all meaning. It becomes just another common occurrence.

The entire point is that this doesn’t happen in the natural world.

Therefore, if it does happen, it is evidence of the supernatural.

Again, that’s the entire point.

You said:

“For people to believe otherwise in this one instance, there would need to be massive evidence. And that evidence should be confirmed by the most rigorous medical and forensic examiners and peer-reviewed for credibility. That simply isn't the case in this story.”

My friend, you have a lofty opinion of human nature.

The evidence is there for those who will believe. It is clear, it is strong, and it is compelling.

But for those who don’t want to believe, no evidence is good enough.

Simply look at Covid. Some people made up their minds before the evidence came in, and they would not be persuaded by any kind of evidence, no matter how rigorous or scientifically valid. If people don’t want to believe, they won’t, no matter how strong the evidence is.

You said:

“That it's existed and been the lynchpin for the most powerful and sadistic political power for well over a thousand years and that the story still is used to dominate people to this day says more to me regarding the purpose of the story than anything.”

Now, I think we’re getting to the real heart of the matter.

This seems to be your primary objection. My guess is that no amount of evidence for the Resurrection will persuade you, as long as you perceive it to be a tool for oppression.

Yet the evidence says the opposite.

Compare Christianity to any other world religion — Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. You’ll find just as many, if not far more, cases of religious oppression there. Which suggests that many oppressors simply latch onto whichever religion is handy and use it as a tool, which says more about the oppressor than it does the religion.

Yet Christianity has consistently been on the forefront of freedom.

The Western world was intentionally built upon the Judeo-Christian values. These values led to the rise of democracy, freedom of speech, the right to personal property, and so on.

This isn’t a hard case to make, historically. Read The Book that Made Your World for a handy introduction to the topic.

You said:

“If there were truly a loving god, who is omnipotent and omniscient, he would have made sure that this story of the resurrection was without doubt, and he'd have not allowed for such terrible abuses of power from it.”

Again, the evidence is clear, compelling, and powerful, for any who are open to it.

But anyone who refuses to believe won’t be persuaded, no matter how strong the evidence is.

Any abuse of power is terrible, no matter who does it or what tool they use to accomplish it.

Yet Christianity has consistently fought the abuses of power. Even the examples people love to accuse Christianity over, like the Crusades, began as a reaction to the Muslim invasion, after Islam had conquered all of Arabia, all of northern Africa, Spain, and was preparing to attack France. The Crusades started to resist oppression, not foster it.

William Wilberforce fought to end slavery in the United Kingdom precisely because of his Christian faith.

We could go on endlessly with examples.

To be sure, there will always be leaders who will latch onto anything as long as it gives them power. Leaders have misused Christianity like this, but to do so, they ignore everything Jesus actually said.

Jesus refused to accumulate power. Jesus chose to sacrifice His own life to save others. Jesus commanded His followers to care for each other, even to the point of giving up their lives for the sake of love.

That’s Christianity.

Anyone who twists it into a tool of oppression has gutted it of all it’s actually saying