This particular sermon was quite a good example of the genre, explicitly only leaning on information from non-Christian sources (mostly the Roman historians but also Jewish sources) to provide evidence for the claims
The problems: The Jewish Josephus is writing some 60 years after the crucifixion and most scholars agree that Christians doctored what he wrote. Even if we can determine his undoctored version of events, what was his source? Did he have independent knowledge of the events or is he relating stories that the Christians told about themselves? The first Roman source is Tacitus who is writing 25 years after that and the same question arises. Did Tacitus have independent information about Jesus or did he rely on the stories that Christian told about the origin of Christianity? We just don’t know whether the non-Christian sources actually constitute independent corroboration because they are long after the events and they give no indication of their sources.
They did use Biblical sources (1 Corinthians, which he claimed some research shows was earlier than the Gospels) for the 4th fact they were leaning their argument on (that there were a _lot_ of people who claimed to have personally seen the risen Christ, many of which had known him personally beforehand
When I was in Catholic grade school, the nuns used to tell stories about the tens of thousands of people who witnessed appearances of the Virgin Mary at Fatima. Unfortunately, none of the nuns were there or had talked to anyone who was there. They were simply passing along stories that they believed to be true.
In the New Testament, the only first person account of an appearance we have is Paul’s in 1 Cor. 15. He is the only one who says “Jesus appeared to me.” Unfortunately, Paul did not know Jesus and he gives us no details about the nature of the experiences. Paul also says that Jesus appeared to others, but he gives no details and he wasn’t present at those appearances. He is like the nuns passing along a story he believes to be true.
From the historian’s perspective, we do no have a lot of people who claimed to have personally seen the risen Christ. We have one person who claims to have seen the risen Christ who also claims that a lot of other people saw the risen Christ. We also have some later claims by unknown persons that a lot of people saw the risen Christ. It is some evidence, but not nearly as impressive as these types of sermons typically make it out to be.
who maintained their eyewitness testimony of this even to the point of being tortured to death
The historical evidence that eyewitnesses to the resurrection willingly died for their belief is much too shaky to bear any real weight. Many of the traditions concerning the deaths of the apostles are not first recorded until centuries after the fact. The earliest accounts are often found in apocryphal works like the Acts of Paul or the Acts of Peter which were rejected by the church as spurious and heretical.
no subject
The problems: The Jewish Josephus is writing some 60 years after the crucifixion and most scholars agree that Christians doctored what he wrote. Even if we can determine his undoctored version of events, what was his source? Did he have independent knowledge of the events or is he relating stories that the Christians told about themselves? The first Roman source is Tacitus who is writing 25 years after that and the same question arises. Did Tacitus have independent information about Jesus or did he rely on the stories that Christian told about the origin of Christianity? We just don’t know whether the non-Christian sources actually constitute independent corroboration because they are long after the events and they give no indication of their sources.
They did use Biblical sources (1 Corinthians, which he claimed some research shows was earlier than the Gospels) for the 4th fact they were leaning their argument on (that there were a _lot_ of people who claimed to have personally seen the risen Christ, many of which had known him personally beforehand
When I was in Catholic grade school, the nuns used to tell stories about the tens of thousands of people who witnessed appearances of the Virgin Mary at Fatima. Unfortunately, none of the nuns were there or had talked to anyone who was there. They were simply passing along stories that they believed to be true.
In the New Testament, the only first person account of an appearance we have is Paul’s in 1 Cor. 15. He is the only one who says “Jesus appeared to me.” Unfortunately, Paul did not know Jesus and he gives us no details about the nature of the experiences. Paul also says that Jesus appeared to others, but he gives no details and he wasn’t present at those appearances. He is like the nuns passing along a story he believes to be true.
From the historian’s perspective, we do no have a lot of people who claimed to have personally seen the risen Christ. We have one person who claims to have seen the risen Christ who also claims that a lot of other people saw the risen Christ. We also have some later claims by unknown persons that a lot of people saw the risen Christ. It is some evidence, but not nearly as impressive as these types of sermons typically make it out to be.
who maintained their eyewitness testimony of this even to the point of being tortured to death
The historical evidence that eyewitnesses to the resurrection willingly died for their belief is much too shaky to bear any real weight. Many of the traditions concerning the deaths of the apostles are not first recorded until centuries after the fact. The earliest accounts are often found in apocryphal works like the Acts of Paul or the Acts of Peter which were rejected by the church as spurious and heretical.