1 Comment
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
TB's avatar

Oh, and you have an eyewitness who was there and can confirm that they were not eyewitnesses? ;)

Whether the events that were witnessed included an actual resurrection or only some kind of delusion is obviously the entire question in debate, but there is a pretty strong case that the gospel writings are based on direct experience by either the authors or by other witnesses who told the authors what happened. (Luke-Acts, for example, has way too many historical details to have been written by someone who hadn't been present in the places it describes.)

"Differences between the accounts" is much too big of a topic to get into here, only to say that different witnesses recording things differently doesn't prove that the thing they recorded didn't happen. (Especially when they might have a literary purpose for how they wrote it -- they were not following the genre conventions of modern documentary/biographies that didn't exist yet in their time.)

To be clear, I'm not claiming that we can now, still, personally verify it. What I'm saying is that Christians claim it to be a verifiable event at the time, which is why they don't consider it the same as "superstitions and magic" (your original question).

Expand full comment