.

(This is my 2nd post on Chapter 1)

In Chapter 1, the authors take on the claim that Jesus did not predict His resurrection. It’s indisputable that the gospels record such predictions (Mark 8:31, for example), so the question is whether those gospel records are authentic.

The authors point out that if the gospel writers were going to fabricate those predictions, it’s odd that they would fabricate them in such an embarrassing way. Here’s one example (they provide many, but I’ll just give one):

[Mar 16:14 KJV] 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their UNBELIEF and HARDNESS OF HEART, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Why would the apostles (or later writers like Mark who were taught by the apostles) portray themselves (or their teachers) so negatively, if the whole thing is made up anyway?

I anticipate the response that they deliberately made themselves look bad in order to make the story more believable. The problem with this response is that I can just as easily counter-claim that if they were making up the story, they wouldn’t do it that way because then people would say…drum roll please….that the writers “deliberately made themselves look bad in order to make the story more believable”. Where does the second-guessing end?

So, are people offering evidence that truly undermines the idea that Jesus really made these resurrection claims? Or are they just hesitant to accept that He made those claims because then those claims help build the case for the resurrection itself?

No supernatural abilities are required to claim that you are going to rise again. And all 4 gospels record these claims (Habermas/Licona cite 10 different passages).

So wouldn’t it be most reasonable to believe that He claimed He would rise again?

God bless you!