As for the resurrection story, I don’t see Mike’s claims about the resurrection of Jesus story to be convincing. In fact he does not champion the biggest resurrection story in the Gospels (that of the many saints in Matthew). If the author made such a huge resurrection story up then is it not plausible that there were people willing to fabricate resurrection stories into the oral tradition of the time? Thus is it possible the resurrection story about Jesus was fabricated to be a physical resurrection or simply some conjecture after he was seen in visions or physically after being saved from a crucifixion?
And why is Licona not trying to prove the resurrection story of the many saints is historical? It’s because his faith does not revolve around it so he marginalises it just like he does with doctrines like the Trinity. Rest assured if we found a NT manuscript saying the resurrection of the saints is integral to Christian salvation there will be a number of Christians trying to prove it to be historical in the same way Licona operates with the Jesus resurrection story!
Licona is a minimalist who has tried to reduce the amount of convincing he needs to do in his preaching to Atheists (and uncertain Christians) hence why he goes down that path. Ehrman would point to the contradictions in and around the crucifixion story and the post resurrection narratives to highlight the lack of reliability of the accounts and he would also state the historical methodology Licona claims to be using does not deliberate on miracles as likely possibilities.
Ehrman would say Christians changed their stories to try and convince people into the faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment