Religion

While it wouldn't definitively prove anything either way if 99.9% of scholars were in agreement, the above statistic does show that there are many scholars (knowledgeable people for the most part) that don't just brush the resurrection off as an impossibility.

 

Certainly an worthwile post, with too few comments.

 

In no way do I doubt the perception of resurrection. I believe people documented verbally and later in writing what they believed to be true. All I am saying is the knowledge of the people at the time, the controls in place concerning the integrity of the perception, and the science to make an accurate determination of actual "death" was not sufficient to be accurate beyond a reasonable doubt the authenticity of the perceived act.

 

I'm more skeptical than you are. I think the whole resurrection story was invented afterwards out of whole cloth, as were those of the miracles that had anything actually "miraculous" about them. (E.g., the loaves and fishes could easily have been everyone unpacking their picnic baskets as soon as Jesus made his guys unpack theirs.)

Again from Sam Harris: Tell a man that yogurt will make your invisible, and he'll demand evidence. Even Wildkow would be skeptical. Heck, even Windstrings would want to see evidence if you told him that yogurt would make you invisible. But tell them that a guy rose from the dead two thousand years ago, and they believe it on the word of a book that's riddled with mistakes, with no evidence whatsoever.

 

Now this is something I would have written. I always tell people how smart my Prius is.

 

Those are common doubts and questions that a lot of people bring up. However, scholars have solid answers to those doubts and questions. Thus, those that do believe aren't just putting a lot of stock in a obviously impossible event.

Instead of typing a lot, here is an article by New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III: -- Beliefnet.com

 

In determining the reality of the resurrection, as with other details concerning the life of Christ, I find it necessary to include all references of reasonable accuracy (considering the time, age, and manner of preservation).

What I am trying to say is as the life of Christ is considered, references to Jesus from the Koran, Gnostic and Coptic gospels, and other works should all be considered as a whole instead of the acceptance of Biblical references as the only reliable source of information.

It is usually difficult for the follower of a denomination or church to step outside the boundaries established by their own beliefs, but if a person is a true student of Christ, hence a Christian, then it makes sense to understand and studdy all information concerning him and not limit oneself to the filtered (approved) information contained within the Bible.