This Week! Presenting a Strictly Bible-Centered Case for the Truth of the Resurrection (Without Circular Fallacies)

This might be a completely new case for the Resurrection. I could be wrong on that; I haven’t done the extensive research to know for sure. I do know that I haven’t heard it before.

This week I’ll be sharing the keynote stage with William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and Fazale Rana at the Areopagus Apologetics Conference, hosted by SAFT Apologetics. Find the schedule here.

If there’s one good thing that’s come out of COVID, it’s that we can all speak at a conference based in India, and it hardly seems out of the ordinary now. Except for the talk times, that is. My keynote, for example, starts at around 8:45 am Saturday. That’s 8:45 am, as in Saturday morning. My talk is simply titled, “The Resurrection is No Legend.”

Bad News That’s Good News

So what’s this new case for the resurrection about? I’ll give you this preview of how I’m planning to open the talk, with bad news that isn’t actually so bad:

“I have bad news and good news for you as we begin. The bad news is that while I can introduce you to the case I’ll be making for Christ, you really won’t feel its full force until you put in many hours reading ancient original sources. The good news is, you already have those sources, and you were already planning to put in those hours with them, because these sources are the letters of Paul in your Bible.”

(I could change that opening before Saturday. Just reserving the right to do so, that’s all.)

Yes, A Non-Circular Biblical Case for the Resurrection

You see, although I don’t know where it’s been done by any recent apologist, there is a powerful case to be made for the Resurrection from Paul’s letters alone. That is, Paul plus some outside information on which of his letters are undisputedly his. That’s easy, though. I’d even allow you this for your research on that. (Just this once, okay?)

If you’ve read Too Good to be False, you know I made a case against “legend” theories there, too. It, too, was a new case. It, too, relied almost entirely on the Gospels as the material to study.

If you’re thinking a case for the Resurrection drawn from Scripture alone must be circular and fallacious, as in, “You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible,” my answer is that I know that pitfall very well. I’m not falling into it here, just as I didn’t fall into it when I wrote Too Good to be False.

So if you wonder how that can be done, sign up for the conference! Or ask me afterward. Sorry, but I’m not revealing it in advance. I do hope to see you there!