I once had a debate with an apologist who stated that if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then Christianity isn't true.

It seems pretty cut and dry then. Christianity isn't true.

I see absolutely no justification for the belief that Jesus was resurrected.

Not only do I not accept it as a claim, I think it is one of the weakest claims that Christianity

makes. The Gospels are not only not eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, but the earliest

is the equivalent of a newspaper report written 40 years after the events based on the earlier

rumours. Let's put that into context.

Imagine you had never heard of the Chernobyl disaster,

and a newspaper report came out telling you about it in 2024.

In this scenario, we have no way of independently verifying

that Chernobyl ever even existed, never mind exploded.

The reporters never claim to be there, but they do say that they've based their stories on

what they've heard circulating for the last 40 years, and they do name people who they say were there,

people who we can't track down and ask independently.

Furthermore, there isn't just one newspaper report.

Between 2024 and 264, a further three newspaper reports come out to claim the story is true.

In each report, the details vary hugely, the number of people who were there, the time of date happened,

the fact there are only two consistencies in the entire reports. One of the people is named,

and that Chernobyl did in fact explode. If you think that the gospel accounts are eyewitness accounts,

this is the equivalent of saying those newsraper reporters are eyewitness accounts, this is the equivalent of saying those

newsraper reporters are eyewitnesses to the Chernobyl disaster. Think about it carefully. Would

you, under any circumstances of the facts presented, ever considered that the reporters

...