3 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Evidence of a Historical Jesus and Resurrection

Reader comment on item: A Christian Boom
in response to reader comment: prove it.

Submitted by Servant of Christ (United States), Aug 13, 2007 at 16:38

Go on and prove it.

We have four Gospels of Jesus and a quotation of an early church creed from Paul in 1 Corinthians.

Let me show you first that Jesus was a real person and even secular history doesn't disagree:

Ananus thought that he had a favourable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought them a man called James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned. (Josephus, Antiquities) emphasis added

(Josephus, Testimonium Flavianium) emphasis added

The above passage is agreed by scholars to have Christian additions but also authentic words of Josephus. For example, phrases like, "if indeed one ought to call him a man", "He was the Messiah", and "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life" are unJewish beliefs. Therefore we must conclude that Christians have added it or rewrote what Josephus wrote.

Generally scholars agree to something like this as what Josephus wrote (at a minimum):


There is also an Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianium.


Hmmm, the repressed for a time broke out again seems to indicate something that sparked a revival in the interest about Jesus... Like the Resurrection perhaps?

(Pliny the Younger) emphasis added

Lucian, The Passing Peregrinus)

There are other people who write about Jesus or support his historicity such as Celsus who called Jesus a mere sorcerer but did not doubt his existence, Seutonius who said many Jews were being expelled from Rome because of the instigation of Chrestus, and Mara bar Serapion who talks shortly about a king with descriptions very similar to a certain Yeshua.

The Jewish Talmud also writes about him as an evil sorcerer (not surprising because Jesus was rejected by them).

The early Church fathers wrote about Jesus and never doubted his existence.

But I see no reason why the Gospels are not reliable enough. I will demonstrate that the Resurrection is the best attested ancient event. I will not use the Gospels as 'inerrant, God-breathed' but only as reliable eyewitness material (as archaeology and manuscript studies have shown them to be, I can elaborate if you wish).

I will use five facts that are known to historians concerning Jesus.

1. Jesus died.
There is no doubt about it. The Swoon Theory was devised to explain that he wasn't but it's not possible for a man who was scourged until he was unable to walk to be crucified and survive in a tomb for Saturday and Sunday in 75 pounds of spices without food and water (John 19:35). And after that, he must push aside a rock that weighs about 1.5-2 tons (the seal that covered Jesus' tomb) and then defeat a squad of armed Roman soldiers and then appear to his disciples. If Jesus did do that and showed up before his disciples, then I doubt the disciples would be too eager to be 'resurrected' like Jesus was in his state. But we can see that any attempt to prove that Jesus was alive is ridiculous.

2. The tomb of Jesus was empty
Everybody agrees to this. The Romans, Jews, and Christians all agreed that the tomb was empty. They knew which tomb it was (the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea). The question was not if the tomb was empty but how. The Jews believed that the disciples stole the body. Now how would 11 disciples who scattered in fear because of the crucifixion and then suddenly have the ability to take down a squad of Roman guards and push aside the rock. This is more probable than the Swoon Theory but still ridiculous.

The ones who discovered the empty tomb were women. In the ancient world, women were looked down upon and not trusted as accurate sources. Why would the disciples use women as the ones who discovered the empty tomb when it would HURT THEIR STORY. The only logical explanation is that it was the truth.

3. There were eyewitnesses
The disciples all said they saw him. Skeptics said that they saw him such as James and Paul. 500 people saw Jesus walk and talk around them (check the 1 Corinthian 15 creed).

Now you may say that the disciples said that they saw that Jesus rose because they were lying. Possibly, but why would these Eleven men lie about such a thing. The Romans and Jews persecuted them until death. Tradition says that ten of these eleven were KILLED for their faith. Would these people die for a lie?

I know that many people die for their beliefs but what they die for is just a belief. These disciples were in a unique position. These disciples did not say, "We believe that Jesus was resurrected". NO! These disciples said that they SAW the risen Lord. It was not mere belief. These people claimed to SEE him. They either lied about seeing Jesus or told the truth. Once again, who would die for a lie?

Some people say that the disciples were hallucinating. Hallucinations do not occur in groups, especially when there are 500 people seeing him. Furthermore, skeptics were changed like James, Paul, and Thomas. In fact, Jesus Christ even let these disciples touch him to prove that he was there.

4. There were early writings
The Gospels and the 1 Corinthian 15 creed are very early writings. The creed existed when Paul became a Christian which was around 2-5 years after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Though many liberal scholars say that the gospels were written far too late, evidence points otherwise.

In all four gospels, there is no mention of the destruction of the Temple of Herod (A.D. 70). Three of the four prophesy about its destruction but none of them mention it. Wouldn't it logically be a good idea to mention the fulfillment of the prophecy to strengthen your case that Jesus is God by talking about the destruction of the temple if it was written after A.D. 70? Furthermore, after the temple's destruction, Christians were scattered and so writing the Gospels would have been difficult.

The Book of Luke and Acts are both written by Luke the doctor. The book of Acts is the second book and ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome. Paul dies in A.D. 67 which pushes the book of Acts to a date of the early 60s, thus pushing the Gospel of Luke even earlier.

The Gospel of John is usually said to be the last gospel written. The earliest copy of John is found on an Egyptian papyrus in Egypt dating to around A.D. 125. The gospel is said to originate from Ephesus so we can see that even in A.D. 125, John's Gospel was widely circulated to reach Egypt.

5. The church's emergence
Immediately after Jesus' death the disciples and Jesus' followers went into hiding. Suddenly, these same disciples emerged from hiding proclaiming the news that Jesus was resurrected into heaven and boldly spread this message even until death. James, Jesus' brother, doubted that Jesus was any different than himself but suddenly he became the leader of the Church of Jerusalem, even until death in the hand of the Jews. Paul, a zealous Pharisee who persecuted Christians, became a devout follower of Jesus, spreading the message across the Roman world even until his martyrdom in Rome. Churches were planted everywhere and people believed.

So what explanation can there be. Secular sources show that Jesus of Nazareth existed. We know that the Resurrection is evidenced by five things: Jesus death and empty tomb, eyewitnesses and early writings, and an emergence of a church even under persecution.

I await your response :D.

God Bless!



Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Evidence of a Historical Jesus and Resurrection by Servant of Christ

Email me if someone replies to my comment


See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker





For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)