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.”
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
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.