Idk, there's very little to support the claim of Jesus being resurrected except for "his followers strongly believed it." Just because people believe in miracles doesn't make it true; heck, belief in the supernatural and miraculous events was widespread all over the Near East in that time. You can find true believers of modern day miracle-doers, some who'd probably give their lives if they believed strongly enough.
Imo, we can dismiss that literal resurrection actually occurred because we know scientifically it's impossible. Working from there, we can come up with other theories. I'm convinced that something occurred that many people witnessed, but it was either misinterpreted or exaggerated/embellished.
I agree that the resurrection claim on its own . Of course, none of this means that Christianity is certainly true, simply that I believe a strong case can be made for it based on historical evidence. Back to the context of the thread, I would argue that better teaching in apologetics would convince more young people to stick with Christianity, even if it's still imperfect.
I would refer you to this fantastic site, specifically to the negations argument:
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/
1. Jesus is the most influential human being who has ever existed. I would argue that this fact alone means that the accounts of his resurrection should be taken far more seriously than other miracle claims, because the inherent probability of him being a divine figure is much higher on this account, especially when one considers that this is consistent with the Christian teaching that God would spend the Holy Spirit to the Earth to draw people to the repentance and belief in Jesus and make disciples of all the nations.
2. Jesus fulfills many Jewish prophesies of a Messiah. So this is a miracle claim that has a foundation in past predictions, which again heightens the probability that this is a miracle
3. As Christian bishop NT Wright puts it, both the empty tomb and the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to his disciples are like two half-arches that are historical facts, and the resurrection is the cornerstone that ties them together and offers the best explanation of the facts. Even opponents to Christianity concede the empty tomb as recorded by Early Church Fathers, which is a critical piece of evidence in favor of the resurrection.
So retrospectively, we have a man who impacted human history more than any other and is worshipped as God by 2 billion people around the world, whose life circumstances were extraordinary in relation to the much-earlier descriptions of the Jewish messiah; we further see evidence of numerous post-resurrection experiences and an empty tomb. With respect to the resurrection being unscientific, the basic Christian premise is that the laws of nature are upheld by God and can be changed in the event of a miracle; arguing that miracles are unscientific is simply dismissing the possibility of a God with supernatural power, which to me is an unreasonable starting point when investigating the Gospels if we rule out supernatural explanations without further examining the evidence.
Jesus is not particularly influential in the Middle East, India or China. His influence overlaps areas where Christianity is prevalent.
Jesus does not fulfill Jewish prophesies of a messiah as there are still Jews who objectively have suffered more than most other religious groups (and often at the hands of Christians) to maintain that belief. Muslims also feel the same way. Whether or not someone fulfilled Jewish prophesies really should only concern those who believe Jaweh is the one and only god and the Jews were its chosen people (who happened to be the same tribe that worshipped it). Would be converts told that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of another religion except that religion doesn't believe he did and Islam doesn't think that either isn't exactly a 'wow' moment.
The historicity of the empty tomb is easily refutable.
There were no guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Mark. If the empty tomb teaching pre-dated Mark, Mark would have addressed the naturally occurring issue of grave robbery in his gospel. Instead, it is only after Mark makes his announcement of an empty tomb that we see a Matthew addressing the issue originally raised by Mark.
Why did the empty tomb suddenly became a very important detail that needed to be emphasized in all 4 canonical gospels when previously no one found it important enough to mention in writing?
Paul (in the earliest Christian account of the resurrection) claims the risen Christ appeared before him just as the risen Christ appeared before the disciples. But Paul did not witness a flesh and blood risen Christ. Paul gives us no reason to believe anybody witnesses a flesh and blood risen Christ. So Paul gives us no reason to believe the tomb was empty.
In the gospels, the disappearance of Christ's physical body needed to be explained with an ascension. Paul says nothing about an ascension. Paul has no reason to explain the disappearance of Christ's physical body because Paul's risen Christ has no physical body.
The gospel of John reveals the fact that a non-corporeal risen-Christ was among the earliest traditions of Christianity. The stone blocking the entrance to the tomb was rolled aside but, in John 20, the risen Christ could walk through walls. If the risen Christ could walk through walls then surely he could have walked through the stone blocking the entrance to the tomb.
The absence of an empty tomb tradition until approx. 70 AD also explains why no one really knows where Christ was buried. No one gave a thought to where the resurrection miracle had occurred until approx. 70 AD. That's because, prior to approx. 70 AD, the resurrection miracle was a purely spiritual event and did not involve a disappearing flesh and blood corpse
A non-corporeal resurrection was a part of Jewish tradition: "The view expressed in the [Dead Sea] Scrolls accord in general with those attributed by Josephus (Antiq. XVIII.i.5; War II.viii.11) to the Essenes, with whom, indeed, the Qumran sectaries may be identical...They held that although bodies were perishable, souls endured and mounted upward, the good to the realm of bliss, the evil to be consigned to a place of torment. This view is expressed also in Wisd. Sol. 3:1ff.; 5:16; Jub. 25; while something of the same kind--though without the reference to ultimate judgment--appears in Eccl. 12:7 ('the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God')
