Reasonable Faith Podcast Can We Cross-Examine the Resurrection?
7 snips
Nov 10, 2025 Exploring the Resurrection, the discussion dives into using legal cross-examination tools and their limitations in historical contexts. Witness bias is challenged, with independent confirmations from figures like James and Paul highlighted. The idea that disciples had nothing to gain from fabricating the resurrection strengthens the argument, especially in light of their persecution. The reliability of the Gospels is defended against perceived contradictions, and the historical assessment is recommended over legal analogies for understanding the event.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Limits Of Legal Cross‑Examination For History
- Legal cross-examination techniques like BIC (Bias, Interest, Contradiction, Credibility) don't map neatly onto historical inquiry.
- Historians cannot cross-examine past witnesses, so legal analogies risk misleading historical assessment.
Independent Conversions Strengthen Evidence
- Bias is expected because disciples followed Jesus, but independent cases matter more.
- James and Paul converted from outside the movement, strengthening the resurrection claim.
Point Out Lack Of Personal Gain
- Use the disciples' willingness to suffer as an argument against fabrication.
- Highlight that proclaiming the resurrection brought persecution, not obvious gains.
