The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important event in human history. Christianity is not based on the teachings of Jesus or on the Ten Commandments. Christianity rises or falls on the actual, historical event of the resurrection. If Jesus did not come back to life in a physical body, Christianity is a pointless exercise. A “spiritual” resurrection is no resurrection at all.
If someone can disprove the resurrection of Jesus, I will gladly turn in my Christianity card and look for a different way.
However, there is an abundance of evidence regarding this event. The best explanation for this evidence is the resurrection of Jesus. There are resources out there to study this most important point of Christianity. I encourage you to investigate. Studying the evidence will inspire your faith.
“[I]t is very important to accept this event as historical, for in so doing the remainder of the Christian faith is demonstrated to be valid.” Gary Habermas.
The Resurrection Factor- Josh McDowell
The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry- Gary Habermas
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus- Gary Habermas, Michael Licona
Resurrection- Hank Hanegraaff
Risen: 50 Reasons Why the Resurrection Changed Everything- Stephen D. Mathewson
Crossing Swords 
What evidence?
Let’s start with the empty tomb. After Jesus died, he was placed in a tomb. The tomb was empty, and no one disputes that. The fact that no one could produce the dead body of Jesus is huge evidence for the resurrection.
The eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus alive after his death is strong evidence for the resurrection.
The evidence for the reliability of these sources adds to the credibility of the resurrection account.
This is hearsay and when one considers the amount of erroneous text the bible contains there is no reason to regard these accounts as anything but narrative fiction.
You cannot pursue this issue by first laying out a presupposition and that includes considering the gospels are reliable accounts.
So, once again, verifiable evidence, if you please.
First of all, I reject your premise that the Gospel accounts cannot be used as evidence.
Secondly, you have gotten the presupposition in reverse. You do not disregard a source until you have found it to be unreliable. You must defend your position that the Gospels are unreliable.
Thirdly, if you actually did the research instead of crowing about it, you would find that the New Testament documents were written in the middle to late 1st Century; they were written by eyewitnesses or relayed the account of eyewitnesses; there are more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient document; the New Testament we have today can be compared to the ancient manuscripts and is verified to be in substantially the same for as it was originally written.
Fourthly, with the New Testament being written and circulating while the eye witnesses were still alive, the opposition could have disputed it claims of the resurrection. No such dispute was made.
Fifthly, the hearsay rule is a rule on the admissibility of evidence, not a determination on whether the hearsay evidence is true. For example, Person X says “I was at the Phillies game in Atlanta yesterday and I saw four Phillies pitchers throw a no-hitter against the Braves.” His account is as an eye witness. Person Y says “Person X was at a Phillies game yesterday and four Phillies pitchers pitched a no-hitter against the Braves.” Person’s Y statement is hearsay (if offered to prove that the Phillies pitched a no-hitter). Just because Person Y’s statement is hearsay does not mean it is not true.
Sixthly, the Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (16) makes ancient documents an exception to the hearsay rule.
So, your presupposition that the Gospel accounts are narrative fiction needs more proof than just your wishful thinking.
An expert such as Ehrman has already done this, but I will add to this, the account of the Virgin Birth, which is nothing but a piece of spurious nonsense.
Wrong again. Your entire worldview s based on presuppositional apologetics. You posit a god int the picture, add a capital letter, and call it God without a shred of evidence then formulate ever argument from this basis. This doesn’t even consider that you regard this god as the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth, whose godhood was bestowed by the church.
Wrong yet again. Only fundamentalists these days consider the gospels were written by eye witnesses and there is no more evidence that they were relayed either. Add to this, facts such as around 600 verses of Matthew appear in gMark and we are looking at a reasonable case for plagiarism.
Couple this with the suspect ending to gMark and the lousy geography etc of Luke and the report of the Acts seminar and we are moving ever closer to finally admitting the gospels are nothing but fiction.
Nonsense. The NT was not put together until the fourth century. Stop preaching like an apologist.
I don’t need proof. If you have to rely on rules that bend the rule in your favour then you are already in trouble.
Your faith has left you blind to reason. Even your hero Ehrman acknowledges the Gospels were written in the 1st Century. I see from your responses that you are not interested in the evidence. You have made up your mind, no matter how illogical your conclusions are.
My faith? Smile…. Are you demented?
You said the New Testament. learn to be precise with your terminology.
Ehrman’s pov is based on the internal writing of the gospels. NOT on verifiable evidence.
There are no originals and for all we know there never have been.
Ehrman is no hero of mine, of this I can assure you.
I am more interested in verifiable evidence than you could possibly imagine. Alas , to date I have not seen a shred.
And neither has a single scholar on this planet.
My conclusions are based on commonsense, logic and verifiable evidence.
Yours are based on faith – first, second and last, quit possibly due to indoctrination of social pressures due to emotional issues.
Please, don’t try to fool yourself that you have intellectual qualities above your station, my friend.
if you have verifiable evidence present it. Don’t just stand there pissing up against the wall.
Furthermore, as the account of the Virgin Birth is fallacious and the source of Matt’s ”prophecy” is spurious, – ripped off from the Old Testament and had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth in the first place – why should one trust anything written by whoever the author was?( and in some bibles the difference between alma and parthenos is mentioned)
The resurrection of the saints at the time of the Crucifixion is yet another glaring piece of fiction – one for which evangelist Mike Licona lost his job over when even he wrote in his 2010 book that it should not be taken literally.
The gospels are rife with such nonsense.
The Acts seminar has recently concluded that tActs too, is also largely a work of fiction.
So you see, once we start to get really serious your so-called evidence has more holes in it than a Galilean’s fishing net.
Even a Catholic theologian such as Raymond Brown has admitted the Resurrection accounts cannot possibly harmonized. So where does one go after this?
The Pentateuch is regarded as fiction by all but the most Orthodox Jews, there is no evidence for the Patriarchs the Egyptian Captivity, Moses, The Exodus, It is now conceded there never was a conquest of Canaan.
As your man-god, the character, Jesus of Nazareth refers to the Patriarchs and supposedly meets ”Moses” during the transfiguration then it is quite clear we are dealing with a work of fiction, from top to bottom. A fraud of quite ‘biblical’ (sic) proportions.
You want truth? Start by ditching blind faith for five minutes and begin reading the bible ( if you have not ever done so) with open eyes and complete honesty.
This is where you will find real truth.
Lack of evidence is not your problem, for there is plenty of “verifiable” evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament and it’s historical accuracy. What is holding you back is your will. You don’t want the resurrection to be true, therefore, you categorically deny it despite the evidence to the contrary. Yours is not a problem of evidence, but of volition.