---
title: "Is there a Strong Case for the Resurrection of Jesus?"
author: "Nathan Dieppe"
canonical: https://www.nathandieppe.com/post/1790244525467-is-there-a-strong-case-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus
date: 2026-06-20
category: Essay
tags: history, apologetics, essay
description: "An Essay on the Historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus"
---

# Is there a Strong Case for the Resurrection of Jesus?

> An Essay on the Historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

# Introduction

The question of Jesus’ resurrection is either the most important question for humanity or the least important, with no middle ground. It either proves that God exists or uncovers the greatest lie. It either shows who God is, or it has led millions to die for a falsehood. It is potentially the most important question that humanity has ever asked. And it is the question this essay will begin to investigate.

This essay will go through the reliability of the key sources for the resurrection before discussing the key facts, and then finally going through the key theories people have made based on the facts.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” This essay will go through all the important evidence and then leave it to you to decide what is possible. We will look at other rebuttals people have brought up against the resurrection and look at the strengths and weaknesses of these theories before finishing with the conclusion I have come to from the evidence in this essay.

 

# Ch 1:  The reliability of the Key Sources

## Introduction

Without demonstrating the reliability of the key sources, all the evidence utilised in this essay would be useless. What is the point in studying a fabricated source? This section aims to go through the key sources and discuss their reliability. This begins with the four Gospels. The word Gospel comes from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, meaning good news or good message. The gospels are the four biblical accounts of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). However, the Gospels are not the only useful sources in the analysis of Jesus’ resurrection. Through the additional evidence of Paul’s writings and the writings of non-Christian historians, we get a fuller picture of what happened and the beliefs that grew soon after the alleged resurrection.

## The Synoptic Gospels

The term ‘*Synoptic Gospels*’ refers to the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. These Gospels are distinguished from John for several reasons. One major difference is that the Synoptic Gospels focus primarily on Jesus’ life, from birth to resurrection, whereas John brings more of a theological twist to his account. The other difference is in the dates that they were written.

We know with certainty that the Gospel of Mark was the first written Gospel. It is debated among theologians on the exact date; the earliest dating, from historian James G. Crossley, would suggest the late 30s to early 40s AD, a more conservative dating from the theologian John A. T. Robinson would give a date of 50-60AD, and for the latest dates from the scholar Bart D. Ehrman, you arrive at closer to 70AD. Luke is seen as the last of the three, with dates ranging from 60 AD to the latest of the early 80s AD. Therefore, all three of the synoptic gospels were completed within living memory of Jesus’ death and can be counted as primary sources. Furthermore, Luke opens his Gospel by stating, “they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” This clearly expresses his reliance upon eyewitness testimonies in the writing of his Gospel.               

Having established when the gospels were written, we must now investigate just how reliable they are. They are regarded as reliable for a multitude of reasons. One of the most important arguments for historical reliability is known as the Criterion of Embarrassment. The historian John P. Meir sums up this criterion by saying, “The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents.” In summary, the inclusion of embarrassing details in the Gospel stories without a clear motive other than to stick to the truth is strong evidence for their reliability.

Perhaps the most compelling example of this is the account of the women finding the tomb empty first. In first-century Jerusalem, we know they viewed a woman’s testimony as worth half that of a man. We see this in the Mishnah (first written collective of Jewish traditions c. 200 AD), where it says, “The oath of testimony is conducted with men and not with women.” And the first-century Jewish historian Josephus writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.”

However, we see Luke write, “The women […] did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.” Furthermore, Mark writes, “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome […] looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.”

The case of the Women finding the tomb empty, in a culture where women’s testimonies weren’t well received, is just one of the numerous examples of the Gospel Writers including details that would simply not be included if they were just trying to fabricate a story.

Ultimately, the Synoptic Gospels are one of the most important sources we have for the case of Jesus’ resurrection, due to the texts being written within the living memory of Jesus, using eyewitness testimonies, and including embarrassing features. Through these pieces of evidence, we find it likely that the Synoptic Gospels were not fabricated myths but were based on the truth.

## The Gospel of John:

The Gospel of John is a very important early source. Unlike the other three gospels, it goes into deeper theology and is written in a completely different style. But this makes it a very early source on the opinions of Jesus’ followers as well as just another source into Jesus’ life from the perspective of one of his followers.

The Gospel of John, as inferred by the name, was written by the Apostle John, who describes himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” We know that not only was John a disciple of Jesus, but he was very close to Jesus, and ended up writing four of the books that are now found in the Bible.

The major argument against the Gospel of John as a useful source is that it can stick to theology over telling the events chronologically. But that doesn’t make it a less useful source. It makes it more useful. When compared with the three synoptic gospels, you get a strong combination of both events and how they were theologically thought of at the time. As D.A. Carson wrote, “The Gospel according to John is not just a theological meditation by a pious Christian …, it is a work in which the testimony of man and the testimony of the Spirit have been fused into one, to bring out the true meaning of Jesus’ earthly life.”

The Gospel of John is also extremely useful for the unique events it brings. Although written later, dating closer to 90 AD, it both has strong consistencies with the synoptic gospels, such as the empty tomb and the women being the first to witness, whilst giving us new details such as the folded linen cloths in the tomb and Jesus interacting with Mary Magdalene by name after his resurrection. These new elements are found in eyewitness memory and only give the source further credibility, as it has similarities but also independence, without contradictions, suggesting it isn’t just a copy.

Ultimately, the Gospel of John is a very useful source. Although it sticks closer to theology than telling the events chronologically, we know it comes from eyewitness testimonies of people important in the early church, making this a useful source for the historical claim to the resurrection of Jesus.

## The Writings of Paul

Paul is perhaps the most confusing source to dissect and understand. Unlike any of the other sources discussed within this essay, Paul’s writings are much more theological and based on experience and diverge much further from the accounts of Jesus’ life. However, that doesn’t make the source of Paul insignificant.

The writings of Paul are some of the earliest texts found within the New Testament. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, “The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, probably written about 53–54 CE at Ephesus, Asia Minor…” meaning it was written roughly twenty years after Jesus’ crucifixion, which, especially for ancient history, is very impressive. In comparison, the first writings about Alexandra the Great are four hundred years later. Paul’s writings, however, were within the living memory of Jesus.

Paul had probably the largest influence out of anyone in history on Christianity, apart from Jesus. Out of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament, at least thirteen were written by Paul. The books in the Bible were agreed upon in 325 AD, showing his huge influence in the early church.

Paul has potentially the greatest transformation of any character within the Bible. We see him going out to persecute Christians (it is assumed he killed them),  and then he has a huge revelation moment when even his name gets changed, and he becomes one of the most prominent characters in the Bible. He gave up a prominent position in society to follow Jesus. This adds credibility to his accounts.

## Other sources

Later in this essay, I reference a piece of writing from the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. It has been debated among scholars whether the section of his writing on Jesus, known as Testimonium Flavianum,* *was even written by Josephus. For example, the historian Richard Carrier wrote a blog post on the topic, with the title being, “The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already”. He brings forth the argument that it has a different style and was clearly written by early Christians.

However, this argument has been dismantled recently by the author T.C. Schmidt, who used computer algorithms to compare the language in Testimonium Flavianum and other writings of Josephus and found “that the TF [Testimonium Flavianum] actually matches Josephus’ style quite precisely and that its content is very like the things which Josephus often says elsewhere.” I find that this book successfully displays the reliability of Testimonium Flavianum, and therefore, the Testimonium Flavianum is a useful source that can be used throughout this essay, showing the opinion of a Jewish historian in first-century Israel.

## Conclusion

Ultimately, the sources of the Gospels and the writings of Paul are useful sources, showing not only the opinions of the followers of Jesus and the authorities, but also a full explanation of what they believed happened.

 

 

# Ch 2: The key historical facts

## Introduction

This section aims to evaluate the five key historical facts in the resurrection accounts and discuss their implications. This is called the “minimal facts argument”. As the philosopher Gary R. Habermas put it, “The minimal facts argument says, 'Even if you don’t assume the Bible is inspired, even if you don’t assume the Bible is reliable... There is still enough of a basis to say that Jesus was raised from the dead.”

 

## Fact I: Jesus Died

Fact number one is that Jesus died. Mark writes, “And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last.” The fact of Jesus’ death is perhaps the most important of anything discussed within this essay. If he didn’t die, then his resurrection can instantly be excluded from possibility. But if he did, then we are left with the problem of where his body remains. The Apostle Paul expressed the importance of death for Christians by stating, “If Christ has not been raised [from that death], your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”

However, the significance behind whether Jesus died on that cross is equally matched by the significant evidence behind it. As John Dominic Crossan, the theologian, said, “Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” We know that the Romans were expert killers. In John’s account, he states, “But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.” Here we see clear proof that Jesus must have died, for water to come out of someone’s body when stabbed, their heart must no longer be operating; therefore, he was dead. However, this record of Jesus’ death is not just recorded by the Gospel writers; the Roman historian, Tacitus (c. 100 AD), writes, “Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate.” And first-century Jewish historian Josephus states, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross."Through these historians, we clearly see that it was a common belief that Jesus died. Further evidence of this is seen when the Jewish Elders in Matthew order the guards to say the body was stolen. If Jesus was not killed, why would they try to claim the body was stolen?

This evidence means we can be sure that Jesus died on the cross. There is no credible historian who tries to claim otherwise, and no evidence to suggest anything otherwise.

## Fact II: The Empty Tomb

With Jesus’ death out of the way, the rest of the facts in this section discuss evidence for his resurrection. This starts with the empty tomb. All four of the gospels, along with early Christian writings, bring forth the point of the empty tomb. For example, Luke writes, “But when they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.” We can also see later Christians (2nd century), such as Justin Martyr, quote their Jewish counterparts and say, “His disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid.” There is no good reason for the Jews to argue that the body was stolen, unless the body was no longer within the tomb.

Looking into the motives of Jewish and Roman leaders, it becomes clear that if they had the body, they would, without any hesitation, instantly stop the “stirring” caused by the Christians by simply showing the body. Yet they didn’t. Hence, the tomb was empty.

In the words of the atheist historian Michael Grant, “If we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty.”

 

## Fact III: The Disciples experienced him

Jesus died, and his tomb was found empty, but that doesn’t just prove that he was resurrected. That moves us to our third fact: the disciples experienced him. The atheist scholar, Gerd Lüdemann, stated, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus died in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

The consensus of New Testament scholars is that the disciples genuinely believed they had seen the risen Jesus. Evidence can be found throughout the New Testament.  To quote Matthew, “And when they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted.” The disciples thought they saw him. And this continues further when you go outside the Gospels and read Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which contains a creed that is dated within three to five years of Jesus’ death, and reads, “he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [that is Peter], then to the twelve.”

But the appearance of Jesus to the disciples was not just once, and not just limited to the disciples. Paul follows up in 1 Corinthians by stating, “After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.” Clearly, the belief in Jesus’ resurrection had begun to spread far and wide in the land, with up to 500 people who were still alive claiming to have seen him. The Sceptical Scholar Bart Ehrman claims, “It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” Therefore, it cannot be denied that people genuinely believed they saw Jesus again in the flesh after he died.

Ultimately, would Christianity have even had its rapid growth that the early church witnessed unless there were people who genuinely believed they saw Jesus after his death?

##  

## Fact IV: Disciples’ Transformations

Jesus died, his tomb was found empty, and the disciples claimed to experience him, but that could just be their grief. That moves us to our fourth fact, the disciples’ transformations.

To sum this up, the pastor Dr Robert Jeffress once said, “They turned from cowards in 72 hours to courageous defenders of the faith, willing to give up their lives for the faith, willing to risk everything because of this belief that Jesus was alive.”

After Jesus’ death, we see John write about the disciples’ fear by stating, “On the evening of that day... the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'” Just a few weeks later, Luke writes in Acts, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished.” Here, we just see the clear transformation that took place in the disciples’ lives due to their belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

But it doesn’t stop there. The disciples are later described in the book of Acts as rejoicing over suffering when Luke writes, “they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name.”

But we can go further into specific disciples’ transformations. Thomas, after the acclaimed resurrection, states, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails... I will never believe.” Moments later, his belief is transformed, as John records, “Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God’.” That transformation we have seen instantaneously in Thomas is what we see in all eleven of the remaining disciples.

The words of the disciples alone are not proof of the transformations. The sacrifices they all made display that something massive must have happened to cause them to drop everything for their belief in the resurrection. We see the martyrdom of Stephen (technically not a disciple but a follower) related in Acts, where it says, “While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”  Then he … cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.” And then this is followed by James’ death: “He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.”

But it wasn’t just Stephen and not just James that were put to death; it was ten of the eleven faithful disciples that ended up dying for their faith. Ten of them paid the highest price for their faith that Jesus had been resurrected. That is true transformation

The simple question arising from all this sacrifice is: why would so many people create a lie, be suddenly transformed, and then all be willing to die for it, without any clear gain from the creation of the lie? As the author Sean McDowell said, "The strength of their conviction, marked by their willingness to die, indicates that they did not fabricate these claims; rather, without exception, they actually believed Jesus to have risen from the dead."

Ultimately, the disciples saw Jesus’ death, and then so strongly believed in the resurrection that they were willing to die for it.

## Fact V: Paul’s Conversion

Jesus died, his tomb was found empty, the disciples claimed to have experienced him, and had transformations, but it could just be them. That moves us to our final fact: Paul’s conversion. Paul, who was originally known as Saul, was a fierce opponent of Christianity. In the book of Acts, Luke writes, “But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.” Clearly, Paul here was not motivated to turn to Christianity.

This gets completely flipped after the events on the road to Damascus, where he goes from persecutor of the faith to proclaimer of it. He later writes the profound words, “But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died.”Showing very clearly his transformation from hatred to so much faith in the resurrection that he claims Jesus is the first of many to die. So very clearly proclaimed his belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

The fourth-century historian Eusebius of Caesarea writes, “It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself.” Paul becomes one of the most important figures in the early church, with at least thirteen of the 27 books in the New Testament being written by Paul, showing his huge influence within the early church, all caused by this one experience of Jesus.

Ultimately, it is also clear that Paul had such a vivid transformation that he went from persecutor to apostle, one of the most important leaders within the early church.

## Conclusion

This section has discussed five of the most important facts within the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection. That Jesus died, that the tomb was found empty, that the disciples then experienced him, and that the early Christians clearly believed it so strongly that they were completely transformed. It simply remains an impossibility that the narrative was made up; what gain could they have possibly had that was greater than their life, unless truly it was their belief in the gain of eternal life.

 

# Ch 3: Rebutting the other theories?

## Introduction

This Chapter will go through the main arguments that have been used in the last two millennia against the resurrection of Jesus, and discuss the plausibility of these arguments, whilst also discussing the motives and recorded actions of people in the following years after Jesus’ death.

## Option I: Stolen Body

The evidence for the body being stolen is remarkably weak. In Matthew 28, we see very early records clearly suggesting that there was a coordinated plan to get the population to believe that Jesus’ body was stolen. The Jewish Elders tell the soldiers to say: “His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.” And then follow this up with a clear motive when they state: “If this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”  Clearly, we find that in first-century Jerusalem, there was a common belief, as Matthew says in the next verse, that the body was stolen.

Although the theory of the stolen body has become, for the most part, extinct, there are a few historians who argue for its plausibility even if they don’t personally stand by it. One of them is Bart Ehrman. In a debate, Bart Ehrman claims a likely cause for the missing body was “Two of Jesus’ family members” who “raided the tomb, taking the body off to bury it for themselves.” The argument for family members taking the body is probably the strongest of all the stolen body theories.

Although the theory of the stolen body was widespread in the follow-up years after Jesus’ death, the theory has gone through a massive decline, and for good reason. As Don Stewart puts it, “the idea that Jesus’ body was stolen has become less popular as time goes by.”The serious problem faced by this theory is the lack of motive for the body being stolen, but a lot of motive to provide a body. This is extended further when you consider the martyrdom of Jesus’ disciples. If the family members took the body, you would expect the followers to find out, especially James, who was Jesus’ brother and didn’t believe till after his death. This theory simply finds no explanation for the disciples’ experiences of Jesus, or their transformations as seen in the five facts in chapter two.

Ultimately, the theory of the stolen body can be seen as incredible, as it lacks any motive but also fails to explain all the facts seen in chapter two.

## Option II: Swoon Theory

Perhaps the body was not stolen because there was no body to steal! Perhaps Jesus never actually died. The Swoon theory is the belief that Jesus never died; he was buried but was still alive; hence, he got up and left.

The three main reasons it simply doesn’t work starts with the Romans’ great skill at killing. The Romans knew how to crucify people. They knew to check afterwards with a spear going through the vital organs. Simply, if you were crucified, your chance of survival was null. As the historian Gary R. Habermas points out, “There are no known cases of unrescued survival in the ancient documents of those who were crucified and mistakenly thought to be dead.”

Secondly, the Swoon Theory relies on Jesus getting out of the tomb whilst somehow having escaped the crucifixion. According to the medical examiner Frederick T. Zugibe, if Jesus somehow survived, “The long spikes that penetrated Jesus' feet would have caused massive swelling and severe pain... Jesus would not have been able to stand or walk on his feet for at least a month or longer.” Therefore, it remains impossible that he was buried but then managed to walk over to the large stone, roll it away, and then get away from the Roman guards. That is simply impossible.

Finally, there is quite simply a lack of any evidence for this argument. As the protestant theologian David Friedrich Strauss said, “It is impossible that a being who had crept half-dead out of the sepulchre [tomb]... could have given the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave.”There are, in other words, four impossible hurdles to jump to believe the Swoon Theory. Firstly, Jesus must have beaten the odds to survive the Roman crucifixion. Secondly, he must have got up, and then thirdly used a staggering amount of strength to push the stone away. Finally, he must have escaped the highly trained Roman guards. Put together, the Swoon Theory is not remotely plausible.

Ultimately, the Swoon theory is impossible in numerous ways; it simply cannot even be considered. It also fails to explain the missing body, the disciple’s transformation and Paul’s conversion seen in Chapter Two.

## Option III:  Hallucination Theory

The hallucination theory is the idea that Jesus did die, but all eleven disciples truly believed they saw the resurrected Jesus, but they were just hallucinating. The problems with this theory, however, very quickly arise after just a little bit of thought.

The primary issue with the theory is that Jesus not only appeared to the eleven but to over 500. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he confirms, “After that, he [Jesus] was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.” This is an extremely problematic verse for this theory. Claiming that over 500 people all jointly hallucinated that they saw the living Jesus is clearly difficult to prove. The fact that people who saw Jesus were still alive means the belief of seeing Jesus alive again had become widespread as these people interacted with the population, telling of their sighting. The psychologist Gary Collins said, “Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature, only one person can see a given hallucination at a time... others cannot witness it.”It simply does not make logical sense to claim they all had the same hallucination.

After the issue of the 500 witnesses, there is the problem of different locations. It is unlikely that people had the same hallucination in different places.  The Gospels list Jesus’ meeting with Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ meeting with the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus’ meeting with Thomas, and so many more. The fact that all these people believed they met the resurrected Jesus in different locations and times, with consistent stories, makes the hallucination theory impossible.

The final argument opposing the hallucination theory is that of physical interactions. How is it possible for the disciples to touch and eat with Jesus if he was just a hallucination? We see Thomas touch Jesus in John, as John writes, “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve but believe.’” And then Luke records Jesus’ eating, “and he [Jesus] took it and ate before them.” It is impossible for a hallucination to be touched or to eat, yet Jesus did.

Ultimately, the hallucination theory is impossible on so many different levels. It is impossible that 500 people all hallucinated together about Jesus’ existence. It is impossible that he was hallucinated about in different locations to different people, at different times, but then the stories correlated. It is impossible that a hallucination was touched and eaten. It also fails to explain the missing body and Paul’s conversion seen in chapter two. The hallucination theory is inconceivable.

## Option IV: Wrong Tomb Theory

This is the belief that Jesus’ body was put in a different tomb, and then, when the tomb was visited on the third day, they visited a different tomb, causing them to believe that Jesus’ body was missing. This theory doesn’t solve the problem of the sightings of Jesus and a lot of the arguments for Jesus’ resurrection, but for the ones it does argue against, it simply does it poorly

The most significant of these issues is that it was a known tomb. The tomb was owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin (meaning member of the governing Jewish authority), making this a known tomb, as seen in Matthew. Connecting this with the fact that the soldiers waited outside this tomb thinking it was Jesus’, and the authorities being able to easily say it wasn’t Jesus’ tomb to avoid the Christian uprising, simply makes the Wrong Tomb Theory impossible.

This theory relies on too many different mistakes. The Women to get the tomb wrong. The authorities got the tomb wrong. Joseph of Arimathea, and finally the disciples, all got the tomb wrong.

Ultimately, the Wrong Tomb Theory is not at all credible because it relies on too many mistakes while not solving many of the big questions around the resurrection of Jesus. Along with that, it fails to explain the disciples’ transformation and the experiences of Jesus and Paul’s conversion, seen in chapter two.

## Conclusion

Ultimately, all these other theories have inconsistencies whilst also failing to solve all the questions that arise when looking into the events of Jesus’ resurrection. Although the resurrection is far from proven by simply stating some other theories don’t make sense, the lack of another credible explanation for the loss of Jesus’ body, and the four other facts in Chapter Two, make the case for Jesus’ resurrection certainly not obsolete, and if anything, quite compelling, whilst also proving these rebuttals as impossible.

# Conclusion

In this essay, we started by discussing the historical reliability of the main sources. We went through the Gospels, Paul’s writings and other key sources. We discovered that the sources were written within the living memory of Jesus’ life and are reasonably trustworthy due to arguments such as the criterion of embarrassment.

After discussing the main sources, we moved on to the five key facts. Utilising the minimal facts theory, we went through some of the most important facts for the resurrection that are generally agreed upon by historians. We discussed the implications of these facts as well as what different historians think of them.

Finally, we finished with the rebuttals. We went through other theories for what happened to Jesus, other than his resurrection. However, the main ones we went through all seemed to fall short of explaining the five facts mentioned in the chapter before.

Ultimately, I conclude that there is undoubtedly a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus. The five key facts alone seem to show the resurrection as the most likely cause of the early church’s foundation.

---
Originally published at https://www.nathandieppe.com/post/1790244525467-is-there-a-strong-case-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus by Nathan Dieppe.