A Brief Analysis of The Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection

Lalnuntluanga Ralte, Santosh Kumar
{"title":"A Brief Analysis of The Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection","authors":"Lalnuntluanga Ralte, Santosh Kumar","doi":"10.56934/sauraj.v1i2.127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The resurrection of Jesus has been a debatable subject since the beginning of the 1st century AD; in as much as it is simple and easy to believe in the resurrection of Christ for Christians, it is not quite so in the world today, where skepticism and agnosticism dominate the culture. In the last two centuries, with various revolutions emerging, due to the prevalence of naturalistic view in the literature world, and theology, in particular, several leading scholars started a quest to re-study the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and subsequently considered the four accounts of the four gospels to be merely a myth. This article attempts to briefly analyze the quest and, most importantly, provide legitimate evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus. In this article, the gospels’ account is considered ancient literature since our main priority is to know whether it is historical. Therefore, the historicity of the gospel account is analyzed through the methodology employed by both the secular and religious scholars, which in turn makes the study not biased. The analysis concludes and reclaims that the account of the gospel is historical. \n ","PeriodicalId":236535,"journal":{"name":"Spicer Adventist University Research Articles Journal","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spicer Adventist University Research Articles Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56934/sauraj.v1i2.127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The resurrection of Jesus has been a debatable subject since the beginning of the 1st century AD; in as much as it is simple and easy to believe in the resurrection of Christ for Christians, it is not quite so in the world today, where skepticism and agnosticism dominate the culture. In the last two centuries, with various revolutions emerging, due to the prevalence of naturalistic view in the literature world, and theology, in particular, several leading scholars started a quest to re-study the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and subsequently considered the four accounts of the four gospels to be merely a myth. This article attempts to briefly analyze the quest and, most importantly, provide legitimate evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus. In this article, the gospels’ account is considered ancient literature since our main priority is to know whether it is historical. Therefore, the historicity of the gospel account is analyzed through the methodology employed by both the secular and religious scholars, which in turn makes the study not biased. The analysis concludes and reclaims that the account of the gospel is historical.  
浅析耶稣复活的历史性
自公元1世纪初以来,耶稣的复活一直是一个有争议的话题;对于基督徒来说,相信基督的复活是简单而容易的,但在今天的世界,怀疑主义和不可知论主导着文化,这就不那么容易了。在过去的两个世纪里,随着各种革命的出现,由于自然主义观点在文学界的盛行,尤其是在神学领域,一些主要的学者开始寻求重新研究耶稣复活的历史性,随后认为四福音书的四个记载只是一个神话。本文试图简要地分析这个问题,最重要的是,为耶稣的死亡和复活提供合理的证据。在这篇文章中,福音书的叙述被认为是古代文学,因为我们的首要任务是知道它是否具有历史意义。因此,通过世俗学者和宗教学者所采用的方法来分析福音书的历史性,这反过来又使研究没有偏见。分析总结并重申福音书的记载是历史性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信