Some nitpicking, that’s not exactly what the study on consensus on the empty tomb was about-
“A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event.[39] But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.
Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.”
ESV Acts 5:40 and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
If that is correct, then some of the apostles (it's admittedly not explicit that it included all 12, but that is a natural reading) were unjustly jailed and then beaten because they were preaching the gospel. This happens very early on. At the very least, all of the Apostles (and early Christians in general) knew they were risking imprisonment, physical harm, and even death by continuing to preach the gospel, which had the resurrection of Jesus at its core. Normally, this would be enough to dissuade someone from continuing to testify to events that they themselves knew were false. Each individual does not have to be directly severely persecuted to create an atmosphere of fear. I know. I lived in a Muslim majority nation for 14 years and probably over 1,000 Christians were killed for being Christians on the island we lived on while we were there (this is well documented). And yet, we knew many Christians who were never physically harmed. I was never physically harmed. But many felt fear. Some of those Christians courageously continued to share the gospel with their Muslim neighbors and friends despite the fear. But the atmosphere of danger often mixed with fear was real and constant. Now, the Christians there were remaining faithful to Christianity for many reasons, but they were not claiming to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection. But the Apostles did claim that. And they would have known if it was not true. But they continued to witness and thus the gospel and spread and the church grew in a setting where there was frequently intense persecution and always danger.
I don't think these facts are actually very well attested to. Paul writes first and it's pretty rare for him to discuss details of Jesus life. The gospels are very late and may be informed by story telling. Group hallucinations do happen, and look at our inability to discuss what happened in 2021 well, let alone 33ad. Finally last I checked most of the apostles deaths were attributed by church history. biased much?
I find the tone of this kind of bizarre to be honest. I will be surprised if we cover all religions like this. What about Roman miracles etc etc.
I think that the case for Christianity is, while unpersuasive, much better than the typical religion. It's true that gospels are somewhat influenced by storytelling but there's still a broad historical consensus around a variety of core facts. I don't think that most of the apostles deaths are well-attested, but a few are. I'm not sure if group hallucinations happen but if they do they're very rare.
Seems like a strong argument against all this evidence is that many religions, major and minor, have similarly devoted followers and miracles with just as much historical evidence. Why Believe Christianity in particular?
Well as I say, I don't. But I think the evidence for Christianity is better than other religions. We don't have widespread attestation of group appearances, for instance, or solid evidence of an empty tomb.
Some nitpicking, that’s not exactly what the study on consensus on the empty tomb was about-
“A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event.[39] But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.
Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.”
http://garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
Luke was a good historian. In Acts he wrote:
ESV Acts 5:40 and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
If that is correct, then some of the apostles (it's admittedly not explicit that it included all 12, but that is a natural reading) were unjustly jailed and then beaten because they were preaching the gospel. This happens very early on. At the very least, all of the Apostles (and early Christians in general) knew they were risking imprisonment, physical harm, and even death by continuing to preach the gospel, which had the resurrection of Jesus at its core. Normally, this would be enough to dissuade someone from continuing to testify to events that they themselves knew were false. Each individual does not have to be directly severely persecuted to create an atmosphere of fear. I know. I lived in a Muslim majority nation for 14 years and probably over 1,000 Christians were killed for being Christians on the island we lived on while we were there (this is well documented). And yet, we knew many Christians who were never physically harmed. I was never physically harmed. But many felt fear. Some of those Christians courageously continued to share the gospel with their Muslim neighbors and friends despite the fear. But the atmosphere of danger often mixed with fear was real and constant. Now, the Christians there were remaining faithful to Christianity for many reasons, but they were not claiming to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection. But the Apostles did claim that. And they would have known if it was not true. But they continued to witness and thus the gospel and spread and the church grew in a setting where there was frequently intense persecution and always danger.
I don't think these facts are actually very well attested to. Paul writes first and it's pretty rare for him to discuss details of Jesus life. The gospels are very late and may be informed by story telling. Group hallucinations do happen, and look at our inability to discuss what happened in 2021 well, let alone 33ad. Finally last I checked most of the apostles deaths were attributed by church history. biased much?
I find the tone of this kind of bizarre to be honest. I will be surprised if we cover all religions like this. What about Roman miracles etc etc.
I think that the case for Christianity is, while unpersuasive, much better than the typical religion. It's true that gospels are somewhat influenced by storytelling but there's still a broad historical consensus around a variety of core facts. I don't think that most of the apostles deaths are well-attested, but a few are. I'm not sure if group hallucinations happen but if they do they're very rare.
A little two parter you may enjoy from the author of "Dominion" ...
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/jesus-christ-the-history/id1537788786?i=1000590935799
Seems like a strong argument against all this evidence is that many religions, major and minor, have similarly devoted followers and miracles with just as much historical evidence. Why Believe Christianity in particular?
Well as I say, I don't. But I think the evidence for Christianity is better than other religions. We don't have widespread attestation of group appearances, for instance, or solid evidence of an empty tomb.