
Responding to Dan McClellan on the Resurrection Accounts
McClellan’s tone may suggest confidence, but his failure to engage seriously with the subject leaves the impression of bluster rather than substance.
McClellan’s tone may suggest confidence, but his failure to engage seriously with the subject leaves the impression of bluster rather than substance.
Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis.
The book of Acts recounts various miracles performed by Paul and the other apostles, as well as the deacons Stephen and Philip. If it can be shown that these miracle reports substantially represent the testimony of these individuals, then this is an important aspect of the testimony that must be accounted for.