5 Historical Facts Surrounding Jesus’ Resurrection [Video]

Is there any evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? The minimal facts approach, adopted from Gary Habermas, states that there are 5 historical facts accepted by almost every New Testament historian – whether skeptic or believer – that are most reasonably explained by a resurrection.

Square Blog Ad

18 Replies to “5 Historical Facts Surrounding Jesus’ Resurrection [Video]”

  1. Faith and belief require no facts for they go far beyond facts; hence why they are called a “leap of faith.”

    In the story, “The Shawshank Redemption,” the character named, “Andy Dufresne” said to the character nick-named “Red” that “hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”

    Jesus is a good thing too. Jesus never dies:
    Without hope, faith, and positive belief, you have absolutely nothing at all.

    Thank you for sharing,
    “Tivy”

  2. Wrong.
    The approach of Habermas is, like all apologists, presuppositional, based on the belief that the biblical tale as described is historical fact, when this is simply not true. There is not a scrap of contemporary evidence to suggest otherwise

    1. Almost every New Testament historian even the atheist and agnostic historians agree on those 5 facts.

      1. Okay, no problem.
        You have made a statement claiming it is factual.
        Let’s test your assertion.
        There must be hundreds of NT historians, so cite me twenty-five secular NT Historians that agree with Habermas.

      2. Yes, Ehrman. Everyone’s go to guy.
        I would have been disappointed had you not mentioned him up front.
        Twenty four to go ….

      3. If you see an issue with any of the historical facts i presented, by all means present counter evidence.

      4. I already listed one. There is no contemporary evidence for any of the claims you are making.
        So … Ehrman out the way.
        24 more historians please.

      5. How would there be “contemporary evidence”? It happened 2,000 years ago? It’s a question of history and the historians who study it almost unanimously agree on these 5 facts. Sorry, but you aren’t making any sense and making claims without a shred of support. Have a nice day, friend.

      6. You keep repeating the same thing, yet have not provided a single piece of verifiable evidence for a single claim.

        Why should there not be contemporary evidence?

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contemporary

        Contemporary:
        happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time.
        The book is based on contemporary accounts.

        Which is something the New Testament most definitely is not based on, is it?

        So, outside of the bible there is absolutely nothing to support the claims you ( or Habermas) are making.

        However, I’ll reduce my list to make it easier for you. I am not an unreasonable bloke.

        Cite 12 secular New Testament historians who agree with Habermas and his supposed facts.
        You’ve mentioned Ehrman ( and I’m not going to nit pick on what he actually says) so you only need provide 11 more.
        Surely you have the names of a mere 11 secular historians on your hard drive you can cite?

      7. Please allow me a little respect that I am fully conversant with Habermas’ argument. It is cited by apologists on a regular basis.
        He does not mention contemporary evidence neither does he cite any secular NT historians.
        Why are you so reluctant to cite any?

        Again, surely you must know of some besides Ehrman?

      8. He does in the article, I just re-read the whole thing. Citations throughout.

      9. I know.
        Now, please list 11 secular historians that agree with Habermas.
        And obviously, Wright,Borg, Crossan etc do not qualify as secular.
        I am serious. If you truly know this stuff and are not merely regurgitating apologetics then you should have an answer down pat.

  3. Good points but weak as any skeptic will point out. Facts are the early writers outside of the New Testament believed there was a person named Jesus and early Christians wrote of Him as if He was the Christ. The writings of 1st century attest to a historical Jesus. Jesus is recognized by every major religion as a person that lived. Jesus is the only resurrection claimed by anyone ever crucified by the Romans. No record of anyone surviving a full Roman crucifixion is evident. Josephus writes of some that were stopped mid-execution. It takes Faith to believe. I would not want to base my belief on facts, for then it would not be of Faith, but fear of punishment or greed to obtain eternal life. Jesus is who He said He is or He is a liar, fool, or insane person and our Faith is worthless. I believe because I want to. If I am wrong then I sure have been blessed to live my life believing in Jesus and I have lost nothing. If I am right then All is mine in Him in whom I have believed. Comes down to a personal choice and no amount of facts or experts will change the heart if one chooses to reject Jesus. Jesus is my savior, not any religion, church, reverend or rules and rituals can save me if I miss Grace. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. BTW move the mike it is distracting. HTH

    1. Jesus is who He said He is or He is a liar, fool, or insane person.

      Or he could have been simply legend?

Leave a Reply