Is the resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene (or Chad Kruger from Nickelback) the "best attested event in ancient history" as claimed by some theistic apologists?
For many people, it has been the study of the bible itself that has led them to atheism. As Paul mentions in Corinthians, if the resurrection did not take place, then Christianity is worthless. Like a lot of Paul's opinions, this is probably not quite true (and certainly many apologists argue this point too - they argue that Christianity has brought many benefits to humankind, regardless of whether it is "true" or not).
However, one thing that is very clear is that the resurrection of Jesus is not only NOT the best-attested event in ancient history, the bible actually contains a stack of evidence that shows it to be false. The accounts of the resurrection and the post-resurrection appearances (rather, visions) of Jesus are all flawed in a number of particulars, and the motivations of the people who made the gospels are all there in the text.
Far from the resurrection being the "best explanation of the facts" as claimed by some apologists, several explanations present themselves that are far far more likely - including the idea that the whole story is complete fiction, from Bethlehem to Calvary.
In future posts we'll have a look at some of this evidence, but for now it is probably worth thinking about what the resurrection means as a story for the Christian Atheist. Feel free to comment...
