Jerusalem-centric proclamation and falsifiability

Primary Datum

Jerusalem-centered resurrection proclamation creates modest public-location and checkability pressure against late-legend or simple-fabrication accounts, while overlapping strongly with burial and empty-tomb rows.

Scoring / Hypothesis Pressure

Dependency / Cap Metadata

dependency_cluster_id

empty_tomb_burial

dependency_cluster_role

sibling_support

dependency_cluster

empty_tomb_burial

dependency_role

sibling_support

cap_profile

moderate_semi_independent

evidence_function

anti_legend_pressure

directness

supporting

Counter-Pressure

title

Jerusalem is public-location pressure, not another empty-tomb proof.

text

The strongest caution is overuse. A Jerusalem setting does not prove an empty tomb or a resurrection event by itself, and Acts' presentation must be read with Lukan shaping in view. This row should be read as public-location pressure on legend and conspiracy accounts, not as direct Resurrection proof.

path

Start with what the row actually shows: the proclamation is remembered in the city of execution and burial. Then move to the separate rows for creed, burial, empty tomb, women witnesses, Paul, James, and alternatives. Public checkability matters, but it is only one governed strand.

Apologetic Note

label

Apologetic leverage

title

Jerusalem makes the claim more public, not automatically proven.

key point

The row asks why resurrection proclamation is remembered in the city of execution and burial rather than in a distant, insulated setting.

conversation move

Use this as public-location pressure only. Then move to the separate rows for creed, burial, tomb, witnesses, Paul, James, and alternatives.

caveat

Do not use this as a second empty-tomb row or direct Resurrection proof.

Scripture Passage

Acts 2:22-24; Acts 3:15; Acts 4:10

Caveats / Notes

Source note

Source/prose cleanup only. Acts 2-4 is used for Jerusalem proclamation context with Lukan-source caveats. No BF change and no direct H-RESURRECTION score.

Cap notes

This row belongs to the Resurrection context family. Its force should remain inspectable while overlap with sibling context rows is governed in cap diagnostics.

Cap profile note

Semi-independent convergence rows are capped, but not treated as exact duplicates.

Cluster note

Context/location row only. It modestly pressures late-legend or simple-fabrication models through local checkability, carries no direct H-RESURRECTION score, and overlaps burial/empty-tomb rows.

Scoring note

Context/location row only. It modestly pressures late-legend or simple-fabrication models through local checkability, carries no direct H-RESURRECTION score, and overlaps burial/empty-tomb rows.

Governance note

Source/prose/encoding cleanup only. Preserved active BFs and kept row capped as supporting anti-legend pressure, not direct Resurrection evidence.

Citations

• Acts 2:22-24; Acts 3:15; Acts 4:10.
• N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003).
• Dale C. Allison Jr., The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (Bloomsbury, 2021).
• Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP Academic, 2010).

Recommended Citation

The Signal Evidence Dataset, "Jerusalem-centric proclamation and falsifiability," Evidence ID: E-HIST-JERUSALEM-LOCALE, Version 0.6. Accessed [access date]. https://logos-signal.org/evidence/E-HIST-JERUSALEM-LOCALE/

Machine-Readable Source

This page is generated from the public evidence mirror without recalculating or changing scores.