if you want in on some GOOD discussion on the resurrection of Jesus from a historians point of view (what exactly can a historian say about the resurrection?) – you need to go over and check out Brian LePort’s blog and read up, even contribute if you want. Read carefully and learn much. :-)
He quotes from Vermes’s Jesus the Jew – then asks:
Of course, where one stops being a historian and begins being a philosopher or theologian can be a difficult differentiation to make, but Vermes statement does seem to present wise caution when we speak of the resurrection from the perspective of a historian. What do you think of the limitations set by Vermes? Is further speculation permissible or should the historian stop with these details (assuming one agrees with Vermes conclusions that Jesus was killed and his tomb identifiable) and let the philosopher, theologian, and lay reader decide what they believe about the missing body?
What say you? Go over and share there.