Reddit reviews Resurrection Son of God V3: Christian Origins and the Question of God

The N. T. Wright Christian Origins and the Question of God series are all $4.99 each. If you purchased the print copies at some time in the past, they are only $2.99. Whether you love or hate Wright, all four of these are excellent and a great value at a mere $5.

New Testament People God

Jesus Victory of God

Resurrection Son of God

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Two Book Set, Biggest bang for your buck.

Theism in general because of arguments. YHWH in particular because of the resurrection of Jesus.

> The bible claims he resurrected and appeared to his disciples and many others. My question is if he did, are there sources outside of the bible which points to his resurrection being true?

There are no early non-canonical sources for the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps the earliest you're looking at here are the writings of Polycarp or Clement. Almost by definition, any written document teaching the resurrection of Christ, from an authoritative source, would be included in the NT. Please don't think of the "Bible" or the "New Testament" as a whole though. It really wasn't for the first few hundred years. "The Bible" is not one book, but many books.

>Isn't there a possibility with the bible being refined so many times that, the story becomes more extravagant and perhaps the resurrection was an element that isn't entirely true?

There's the possibility that it was made up, yes. There's also the possibility that it wasn't made up. Careful analysis can show which one is more plausibly true.

To counter the claim that there was an evolution of the story, from a crucified teacher to a resurrected Son of God, all we can point to is the length of time between the crucifixion and the first reports of the resurrection. In the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul quotes what many scholars to be an early Christian creed, that can be dated to only a few years of Jesus' life. This certainly isn't 'proof', but man, it's really good evidence. Also of note is that Paul inserts this creed into a letter, almost as an off-hand inclusion, ie, he could have not used the creed and said his point a different way. This shows that the content of the creed was not controversial or being invented on the spot.

> How accurate is the bible in terms of the resurrection accounts? From my research, I feel some parts are definitely accurate historically but some aren't and seem to be more like twisted versions of the truth.what are the chances Christianity is the right religion among all. It seems more likely to me that all religions are just partial truths.

Let me quote a piece I heard from New Testament scholar recently, NT Wright. You should definitely look into his work, btw. It was on the topic of the historicity of the Israelite exodus, and he said this:

"There's no doubt in my mind that the account found in the book of Exodus has been written up with considerable theological literary artistry. But like the gospels, that doesn't mean it didn't happened, just that the book of Exodus is not giving us ... and no serious reading should assume it does ... a kind-of "what you'd have seen with a television camera perched on the edge of the pyramids"

(On this point, his book "The Resurrection of the Son of God" would be fantastic reading to get aquainted with these issues. I would recommend buying this book and letting us know what you think about it - https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Son-God-V3-Christian-ebook/dp/B00B1VG66E/ref=sr_1_1?crid=62UBH8WWCWTX)

A good example here is the end of Luke's gospel. A naive reading would lead someone to assume that Jesus gave the command to stay in Jerusalem on the day of his resurrection (from Luke 24). We know from Acts 1 (by the same author) that the command to stay in Jerusalem was attached to the ascension, not the resurrection, and now we're being told there was a period of 40 days where Jesus appeared elsewhere.

It's a really good example of how people at the time wrote their accounts. This would not work in modern writing, but they were not writing to modern standards. Simply saying "and then" (as Luke does in chapter 24) wouldn't give us an indication of 40 days. Indeed, Luke probably thought those additional appearances weren't worth including (he knew of the other gospels circulating, for example). Instead, he includes the unique account of the people on the road to Emmaus, and telescopes the entire period up until the ascension. It's a fantastic example of how Christians (and atheists!) should be very careful when reading these accounts.

So that's a whole heap of info for you, but it now gets to my point: what do you mean "accurate"? Do the gospel writers, Paul, Peter and John intend to say they came across a resurrected Jesus? Almost without a doubt, yes. Were they writing to the chronological, forensic standards of the 21st century? Almost without a doubt, no.

>I am a Christian btw, just really struggling.

Keep struggling. "Israel" means "He who struggles with God". My advice would be to question what you know and are being told, including my post, and including any atheist answers you get. No one is beyond your scrutiny.

Check out Resurrection of the Son of God, by NT Wright. He makes a powerfully compelling, historical case for the resurrection. You can check out this video for a taste of that argument (the content is similar to the book, but with less historical detail).