From a scientist? Yes. Be he religious or not (but we know where the odds lie).What - you're going to get the truth from an atheist?
Those aren't 12 'facts.' Some may be, some may not. 'The resurrection is the most important message' -- literally that is an opinion.A careful study of the independently recorded events gives rise to a logical conclusion. And you can read about that in this link. There's 12 basic, historical facts that over 1,400 scholars (skeptic and non-skeptic) agree on.
12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas
Also, the fact is there's a number of non-biblical sources that wrote about Jesus, and they confirm a lot of interesting details. Many of these are covered in scholar Gary Habermas' book, "The Historical Jesus." Recommend you read it. Available on Amazon.
Yes and no. People study the history of Roman and Greek mythology, for instance. I'd lump it in with them.The vast majority of history is hearsay, goldsmith. Are you prepared to be consistent and rip out major sections of collegiate history books?
Yes, but there's not harmony. There may be some overlap, but not harmony.You didn't read the Harmony of the Resurrection link I provided earlier, did you? And don't miss the forest for the trees. They ALL confirm the resurrection!
Not for historical purpose. For scientific purposes. We know the natural order. If you're going to claim this natural order was interrupted, you better supply evidence for the claim.That's interesting. You want something that would almost certainly have to be faked: the transportation of modern scientific methodologies and capabilities two millenia backwards in time.
Caution everyone. The floor is wet. Watch out for that slippery slope.By that standard, the vast majority of history must be chucked.
Faith is faith. It's turtles all the way down.This is a common misconception. We do not believe in God because the Bible told us to. We believe in the Bible because God told us to.
What would I expect? A laboratory notebook. You write it down as it happens, not 10+ years later (again, even granting a premise Logic argued).Naturally. You write the accounts down as the generation who can attest to it directly dies so that their accounts can be preserved. Prior to that, we have the Epistles, the expository material of that early generation. Which is precisely what you would expect.
Would you like to lie again? Matthew says both Marys. John and Mark say Mary Magdalene. Luke says Cleopas. Corinthians say Cephas (I wonder if they meant Cephus, maybe we should ask him).Both John and Mark state that it was Mary. Matthew and Luke do not say, but simply record other interactions. Which is precisely what you would expect.
I dunno man. If they published that, it'd be a better story. I liked the dragons, though.yes. Jesus was whipped, flogged, starved, dehydrated, crucified, and then stabbed through the lungs.... and then upon being placed in a sealed cave with zero medical attention or water, revived, survived three days (again, massive blood loss, massive trauma, hands and feet split, no food, no water), tossed a giant stone designed to require multiple men to move out of the way, ninja-fought off a company of Roman soldiers, and escaped.
Thanks. - It's been a long day, and that was a good chuckle.