For popular or very good threads
Imagine that some event in the past is documented. It has multiple attestation, it has explanatory power, etc. Would not such an event be accepted as a historical fact by many, including historians? The answer is yes.

But, then let's say that the event is a supernatural one, like the resurrection of Jesus. Now all of the sudden, the event is not accepted despite having the same level of evidence. To show the absurdity even more, let's say that Jesus's resurrection had many different sources, even from rivals. Even the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate that sentenced Jesus to death says that the guy is alive again somehow. That would of course be the strongest type of evidence that we could have for an event that occurred in the ancient past. Yet, it seems some of the experts in the field still wouldn't accept it.

Where I'm going here is that it appears that historical evidence doesn't matter, and that's a bad thing of course. In my view, the real problem here is one of ideology. Supernatural events don't fit the narrative (materialism), and are therefore treated differently. When evaluating the truth of a claim, only logic and evidence should matter. Therefore, it is unreasonable to reject the resurrection if it is backed by evidence.

I welcome any thoughts on my argument above.

Related threads and posts:
1. Why do historians reject the supernatural?
2. For the evidence that persuaded me, read post #3
Last edited:
A skeptic might say, if you reject one supernatural story then you have to accept all of the biblical stories about talking donkeys, Jesus walking on water, the 6 day Creation story, etc.

My response is that Jesus's resurrection may make these things more plausible in that there's some precedent for supernatural events via the resurrection. But being possible or plausible doesn't elevate these stories to being fact unless there is evidence for them. Unlike these stories, Jesus's resurrection has historical evidence for it.

Also, accepting Jesus's resurrection does not involve accepting all other aspects surrounding it that aren't evidence. For instance, Christians may question why I accept the resurrection but not God's existence. The simple reason is because there is evidence for one thing and not the other. Saying that God did it is an interpretation, or an inference, at most, and not one that anyone could've objectively observed. But you could at least observe that a man died at some point, and then is back walking around at some point after that. And that's all that I think the evidence says. To bring in God brings in philosophy, and I'm more into having both empirical evidence and logic, and not just relying on philosophy which comes with its own baggage.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scooter
Two pieces of evidence that persuaded me that Jesus resurrected:
1. The origin and rise of Christianity. I don't believe you can have a Christianity without the resurrection (or at least the belief in such). People would not knowingly be eager to spread a lie and with nothing to gain. The Apostles evangelism did not put them in some rock star status like what we see from evangelists today. Some apostles were imprisoned, suffered/persecuted (e.g. Roman Emperor Nero persecuted them), and likely died from punishment (there is no written record that the Apostles were martyred but their persecution makes that likely).

2. Multiple attestation and witnesses for the resurrection. The resurrection is recorded in multiple sources, the Synoptic gospels (presumably started as oral tradition before being written down at a much later time), Gospel of John, by Luke in Acts (Luke is a secondary witnesses documenting what others say they saw), and by Paul in 1 Corinthians. That's at least 4 different sources.

I could've split point #1 into two separate points but chose not to.

To sum everything up, eventhough we are not there to examine the body ourselves, to witness Jesus right before us, or to ask the witnesses more probing questions, but this is at least enough evidence to say that the resurrection is a historical fact.
No amount of evidence will persuade someone if they are not willing to believe. Evolution, the creation, the resurrection are all accepted by faith. People could offer a ton of evidence for evolution and I will not accept their evidence as valid because I believe in the Creation as put forth in the Bible. You could offer the same amount of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but if others don't want to accept the evidence, they will never believe. I believe people believe things that fit into their ideology.

Now, I was raised in a Christian home. I was taken to Sunday school, church, revivals, etc...I was taught all the stories about God and Jesus. But when I had a personal encounter with Jesus, and He saved me, my belief changed. It was no longer based on Bible stories or what the preacher said. My own personal experience with the risen savior changed me forever. Can I offer any empirical evidence that can be handled, and examined under the microscope that proves Jesus arose from the dead? Nope. But that does not change what I know happened in my life when I met Jesus.
No amount of evidence will persuade someone if they are not willing to believe.

I believe people believe things that fit into their ideology.
That's very true. It's easier to spot that problem in people who follow a religion than it is with the non-believers that claim to follow logic and evidence. The problem with the latter group is that they don't follow their standards consistently, and some belief or bias always creeps in.

Also, as we've discussed elsewhere, I think trying to get someone to believe in the sense of being a faithful follower of Christ is a difficult task. I'm more interested in at least getting people to accept the verifiable parts of the Bible for factual reasons, as opposed to trying to get them to accept the Bible wholesale. That's the difference between approach the Bible as history vs. approaching it as a religious book.
  • Like
Reactions: Scooter