If Christian eschatology’s general resurrection of the dead obviously didn’t happen when canonical gospel Jesus predicted that it would (see yesterday’s post), then how likely is it that Jesus himself rose from the dead?

Basically zero, one would think.

Jesus’ resurrection was supposed to be proof of concept for the general resurrection of the dead, after all (see: 1 Corinthians 15:12-20, etc.).

And Paul says:

“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.”

Paul is referring to the idea of resurrection being possible in principle, but I imagine he’d agree with my point.

According to much of mainstream secular New Testament scholarship Jesus was a false prophet who predicted that he would return by the end of the first century (i.e. within his own generation, see: Mark 9:1, 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 23:36, 24:34, Luke 9:27, & 21:32). For this Judgment Day scenario to happen he would have had to raise about 7 billion people from the dead (in a young earth creationist scheme of things and billions more in an old earth creationist scheme of things). Needless to say none of this rising from the dead happened at all, but somehow Christian apologists in debates largely have us focusing on the unverifiable *Jesus* magic trick. Why should we let them do that?

I suggest we shift gears on them. Obviously the general resurrection would have been massively more verifiable than tracking one missing body in history through the dirty lens of religious propaganda. We’d be like 2,000 years into paradise or hell by now. That’d be pretty hard to miss.

How many debates have you seen on the resurrection of Jesus? How many debates have you seen on whether or not Jesus predicted the general resurrection by the end of the 1st century? Which case is easier to make? Pretty much all you have to do is engage your audience in reading comprehension of Mark 13:1-30, Matthew 24:1-34, & Luke 21:5-32, stick the end point of Mark 13:30, Matthew 24:34, & Luke 21:32, and know the choice excuse for “this generation” not meaning “this generation” from whomever your Christian apologist opponent might happen to be. And don’t let the debate get off track. Off course adding in all the supporting evidence (and there’s plenty) just makes your case all the better.

If Christian apologists want to appeal to a mainstream scholarly majority on basic secular historical facts that may infer a supernatural resurrection of Jesus (the “minimal fact approach”), they must also deal with a mainstream scholarly majority that says Jesus’ resurrection of the dead didn’t happen when he said it would. Naturally you’ll want to pounce on their double standards. And point out they’d never give Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or anyone else the benefit of the doubt when it comes to failed prophecy. Or let the pious of other religions infinitely redefine words however they want in order to squirm out of basic reading comprehension when it’s a clear damning case against them.

So, food for thought. Have a debate about the resurrection of Jesus if you want. I’m sure I will (see: my argument map on the topic). But bring this up, too, maybe?