5 Reasons to Believe Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Professor Gary Habermas asks us to consider these 5 facts.

“What? Are you serious? Who’d believe this in our modern world? You’d have to think the gospels are inspired by God or something like that, and they’re a bunch of myths!”

To the contrary, I will assume nothing special about the New Testament writings whatsoever. I will use only the historical information that is accepted as historical by virtually all scholars who have studied this material today — no matter how skeptical or liberal they are. That means, for example, that I will only cite New Testament passages, ones that pass the customary skeptical standards and are recognized as such.

Using only these “minimal facts,” I will still maintain that Jesus’ resurrection is the most likely explanation for what we know.

Consider just the following details that the vast majority of skeptical scholars allow:

1. Most scholars agree that Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty shortly afterwards.

With almost two dozen reasons favoring this report alone, what best explains this? Other hypotheses do not account for all the data.

2. Many eyewitnesses assert that they saw the risen Jesus, both individually and in groups.

Even apart from the Gospels, we can establish this totally from just two passages in Paul’s “undisputed writings”:

–Paul told the Corinthians that he had received the  resurrection report from others (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).

–The consensus critical view is that Paul probably obtained this material in Jerusalem, when he visited the eyewitness apostles Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:18-24).

–Paul returned to Jerusalem 14 years later and specifically checked out the nature of the Gospel message, again with eyewitnesses Peter, James, and now John (Galatians 2:1-10).

–All the apostles agreed that Jesus appeared to them after his death (1 Corinthians 15:11).

3. Scholars also agree that Paul received this material from the other apostles at an exceptionally early date — only about five years after the crucifixion.

But since the others knew the reports before Paul did, we are right back to the events themselves. Even one of the best-known critical scholars today, non-Christian specialist Bart Ehrman, dates several Christian traditions as early as just a year or two after the crucifixion!

4. But why should we believe that these eyewitnesses were being honest? We have first century sources that the three apostles mentioned above were all martyred: Paul, Peter, and James the brother of Jesus.

Of course, people die for all sorts of ideas, but only for what they are convinced is true. But unlike others, the apostles were in a position to know whether or not they had seen Jesus Christ alive after his death. By being willing to die, scholars agree that they were convinced that Jesus had indeed appeared to them. At the very least, this addresses their honesty and conviction.

5. Of these eyewitnesses, Paul was a persecutor of the early Christians, and James was an unbeliever.

Skeptical scholars accept this in both cases. But why did they become believers? Again, they were certainly in a position to know whether the risen Jesus had appeared to them.

But aren’t the gospels full of myths? I don’t think that claim can be substantiated at all, but that’s another subject. Notice that we didn’t use the gospels here. We only used texts that are accepted by virtually all scholars who have studied these events in detail. As Ehrman points out, the pagan dying and rising gods motif has many serious problems and cannot be used to argue some sort of copycat theory by the early Christian apostles.

Altogether, these five reasons are each based on a well-evidenced foundation, built on texts that are accepted as historical by virtually all scholars, whatever their religious persuasion. Readers who choose to reject them must consider whether they are doing so for other than factual reasons.

More on: ,
Gary R. Habermas
Written by

  • emacee1701

    Liberty University? Jerry Fallwell. How can anybody take this article and it’s author seriously. This piece has no place in a serious newspaper.

  • davemfit

    I hope you have the same prejudicial view of Notre Dame, Boston College, Southern Methodist, Texas Christian, BYU, Baylor and many, many other religious affiliated universities.

  • lipschitzantwon

    Not all religious affiliated universities are equal. Georgetown and Boston College are much better institutions of learning than the other schools you mention.

  • Patty M Collins

    Since when does being liberal imply skepticism? I am very familiar with what Liberty University thinks about liberals, or according to the Oxford Dictionary people who are: tolerant, broadminded, open minded,enlightened, unprejudiced, generous, magnanimous, copious, bountiful…
    I have been in love with Jesus since I was about 3-4 years old. I have been a died in the wool, tree huggin, bleeding heart yellow dog democrat since G W Bush took over the White House and he and his minions gave God a black eye.

    Consider this, are you rejecting “Liberals” for other than “factual” reasons?

  • scottwsomerville

    I wake up every Easter morning thanking God for His mercy on me, the last person i would expect to be a believer. I often refer to myself as the “last living 20th century materialist” (since everybody else has gone all post-modern on me), but I’m stubbornly committed to following the EVIDENCE wherever it leads–and the evidence for the Resurrection is enough to persuade me that I can’t explain this universe as a mere combination of time, space, matter, and energy.