What is Reddit's opinion of The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Its a tome of depth and breadth, but check out Licona's <em>The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach</em>.

Very often, I find the popular criticisms fail to stand up to scrutiny because the conclusion they cannot be applied consistently to other fields of historical study. Popularizers tend to not be privy to the theory or method of historical inquiry pertaining to ancient texts. Understanding the theory and method at any level will help, as if we are able to establish the NT documents as an average ancient document for historical inquiry, the question then becomes "What are we to make of the historical facts we can discern from the texts?"

This book on the resurrection of Christ was probably one of the biggest as it takes the facts about the life of Christ that all scholars accept as factual and the different theories and answers to what happened in the life of Christ. https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B005LUJDNE/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1

Next was a fairly in-depth look into the phenomena of Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles. I was agnostic when I read into Fatima with an open mind. I was Catholic very shortly afterwards.

The existence (or lack thereof) of God is fundamentally the most important question you can ask. For Christianity, the main question hinges on whether the resurrection was a true historical event or if another theory better explains the growth and existence of the church.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B005LUJDNE/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1

&#x200B;

Outside of that question, there are plenty well documented cases of mystical and supernatural events in the Catholic tradition that can't be explained by natural causes.

&#x200B;

Good luck in your journey!

Understood. I can't speak to Exodus particularly, but lack of collaborating evidence doesn't always mean that the event didn't happen. Consider Luke (author of Luke and Acts) for example.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/a-brief-sample-of-archaeology-corroborating-the-claims-of-the-new-testament/

&#x200B;

I spent years caught up in some of this analysis, as well as the textual criticism arguments (I've probably read 5 or 6 Bart Ehrman books.) I definitely considered myself agnostic for a good period of time. At some point, I decided that the most important thing was analyzing the resurrection... if that event happened, I could personally be comfortable with anything else that may have happened over time to the historical scripture documents. I found this book listed below to be quite compelling to me, as it breaks down a lot of the current criticisms of the gospel accounts and looks for evidence inside and outside of the New Testament. It's a super long read but would definitely recommend it if you ever reach the point of no longer believing.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B005LUJDNE/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1

&#x200B;

So, fast forward, I decided the resurrection was more likely historical than fiction, and then the following things kind of fell into place for me...

• The old testament prophecies predicting the messiah written 100+ years before his birth look stunningly accurate (especially Isiah)
• I still found myself doubting miracles and ended up reading "The Miracle Detective" (Randall Sullivan) and learned about Marian apparitions and other prophecies that have continued throughout human history.
  
• I also had problems with all of the casting out of demons in the NT and stumbled upon a book called Rite (Matt Baglio).

&#x200B;

I could go on and on, but after a while there were so many data points leading me to the Catholic faith and I realized that there's definitely more than the material world out there.