Atom Wrote:Professional historians writing for peer reviewed articles are prevented from concluding that Jesus was resurrected because of the assumption of naturalism that is an essential, and I would even say proper, part of their methodology. If the presupposition of naturalism is set aside, the resurrection can be deduced directly from the historical events acknowledge by most critical historians.
The problem with the resurrection is that no one witnessed it. Have a look at Mark, it ends with the young man claiming Jesus is resurrected and then the women flee telling no one about it. Witnesses? None to be found. Of course later on, the Gospels based on Mark (Matthew & Luke) give us erronious information like a birth story and witnesses to a resurrected Christ and then voila, Mark suddenly conforms with them.
The only thing you've got going as far as witnesses is good ol' Paul and his spiritual encounter with a light. Is there evidence in the Bible for a human resurrection? No sir.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
