This section of the Library is for evidence and reasoning to show that Jesus Christ is God. The framework that points towards an intelligent designer of our Universe is found elsewhere. This section focuses on the who question, once a designer has been shown to be more logical and likely than random chance and something from nothing. The focus here is specifically Jesus Christ. The reason behind this focus would be the implications once shown to be true. If Jesus is shown to be God (and given God does not lie), then the existence of the Trinity, the path to salvation, the authenticity and inerrancy of scripture, and everything else said by Christ follows as true.
Prophecies Fufilled by Jesus
Perhaps it’s my mathematics background, but I decided to start this section with a look into prophecies and statistics of fufillment.
The total number of prophecies fufilled in Christ is debated amongst scholars. A range from 300-400 seems to be common depending on where you’re looking and how things are being defined. There may be debate over some, but there are hundreds of undisputed, fufilled prophecies. The prophecies range from things about Christ’s birth and bloodline, His ministry, His death and resurrection, timing related to historical events, and geography to name a few.
I have started to gather these on the Prophecies Page (link in picture below) and will continue to add them over time.
Things start to get even more interesting when you consider the odds of these prophecies being fufilled by a single person. Professor Peter W. Stoner wrote a book called “Science Speaks, An Evaluation of Certain Christian Evidences”. In it, he calculates the probability of one person fufilling just eight of the prophecies. In general you can think of each odds statment as how many people would it take for one to… (fill in the premise of the prophecy). For a much deeper look, Stoner’s work can be found here http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Christ_of_Prophecy.html
1. This prophecy states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
This was fufilled in
Odds of a person, at that time, being born in Bethlehem: 2.8 x 10^5.
2. This prophecy is about the Messiah having a forerunner prepare his way.
This was fufilled in
The conservative odds placed on this were 1 in 1,000 (or 1 x 10^3).
3. This prophecy is about the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
This was fufilled in
The conservative odds placed on this were 1 in 10,000 (or 1 x 10^4).
4. This prophecy is about the Messiah would be betrayed by a friend and wounded in his hands/back.
Note, the King James has hands instead of back. Either apply. This was fufilled in
The conservative odds placed at 1 in 1,000 (or 1 x 10^3).
5&6. These prophecies are about how the Messiah would be betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver. Then, this silver is not to be returned and is to be cast down in the house of the Lord to go to the potter.
This was fufilled in
A quick note. The specific first mention of 30 pieces of silver was in Matthew 26, verses 14-16. I just thought the above verses better outlined the connection with Zechariah and shows fufillment of both prophecies.
The conservative odds placed on the first prophecy of 30 pieces of silver were 1 in 10,000 (or 1 x 10^4).
The conservative odds placed on the second prophecy on what happens to the silver were 1 in 100,000 (or 1 x 10^5).
7. This prophecy is about how the Messiah will be oppressed, afflicted, and on trial for his life; yet, does not offer a single word in defense.
This was fufilled in
The conservative odds placed on this were 1 in 10,000 (or 1 x 10^4).
8. This prophecy is about the Messiah being crucified.
This was fufilled in
The conservative odds placed on this were 1 in 10,000 (or 1 x 10^4).
I want to point out I really do think these are conservative estimates. In all likelihood, the final number would be higher.
Multiplying each individual probability together produces the number of people needed for one to fulfil all eight prophecies.
(2.8×10^5)x(1×10^3)x(1×10^4)x(1×10^3)x(1×10^4)x(1×10^5)x(1×10^4)x(1×10^4) = 2.8 x 10^(5+3+4+3+4+5+4+4)=2.8×10^32
There were a few spots they reduced the odds by a factor of 10. You will see this come out to 2.8×10^28. For the sake of the weight the statistics carry, I’ll take the even further conservative approach and adopt this number. The 2.8 is not particularly relevant, so this can be expressed as 1×10^28 or written out, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
Next, to find the chances one person who has lived could have done this, we want to divide the 1×10^28 by the number of people who have lived.
Estimates place this around 88 billion or 8.8 x 10^10. To simply, we can round to 1 x 10^11. When dividing the exponents would subtract leaving us with a 1 in 10^17 chance a single person who has lived could have fufilled all eight prophecies!!!
For comparison some other statistics from https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2013/07/23/what-are-the-odds
- Getting hit by a falling piece of space junk, 1 in 1×10^11
- Getting attacked by a bear in Yellowstone, 2×10^6
- Catching a foul ball, 1 in 1×10^3
- An average handicap golfer getting a hole in one, 1.2 x 10^4
- Getting bit by a shark, 1.2 x 10^7
- Getting struck by lightning in your lifetime, 6.2 x 10^3
You could represent the 1 in 1×10^17 chance of Jesus fufilling the above eight prophecies as roughly the same chance one person would get hit by a piece of space junk and get attacked by a bear at Yellowstone. It’s also the same chance one person would catch a foul ball at a baseball game, get a hole in one golfing, get bit by a shark, and struck by lightning!!
Let’s now take this further! Stoner went on to calculate the probability of a person fufilling 48 of the 300-400 prophecies.
Applying the same principle of probability used so far, we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all forty-eight prophecies to be 1 in 10157.
1 in 1×10^157!!! A 1 with 157 zeros after it. To try and wrap your head around this, if even possible at all, let’s think of atoms. Universe Today has the count around
At this level, it is estimated that the there are between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known, observable universe.
For some context, the human body has 7 x 10^27 atoms. A grain of sand has 3 x 10^20 atoms. The exponent makes an absolutely enormous difference.
This means you would have a significantly better chance of randomly picking a single marked atom in the Universe than one person fufilling 48 prophecies. The odds of winning the lottery are about 1 in 1×10^7. To equate to 1 x 10^157, you would need to win the lottery 22 times with random tickets, and some probability is still left over!
And remember, that was only for 48 prophecies. There are hundreds of prophecies that Christ fufilled!!!
The odds are simply unfathomable.
The conclusion has to be that Christ was the prophesied Messiah. That Jesus Christ is God.
USA today has the odds of being in a fatal car crash as 1 in 103. A gamble we don’t often consider when getting behind the wheel. The odds Jesus was not the Messiah are mind-bogglingly minuscule. Yet, we gamble with our salvation by ignoring what Christ said. I think it’s something worth considering. To the non-belivers, the odds are not in your favor. There is a savior who loves you and there is still time. At least go see what Jesus had to say for yourself!
Do we have proof Jesus was a real historical figure?
The New Testament has multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ. In addition, there are additional accounts from sources who knew the eyewitnesses as well. However, especially concerning opponents of Christianity, some are reluctant to consider any biblical sources when the question of Jesus’ existence are raised. While the reliability of the Bible is covered at depth elsewhere in the site, here I’ll be focusing on non-biblical sources concerning Jesus.
I think the matter of Jesus’ existence has been well proven from biblical and non-biblical sources alike. Even National Geographic, in an article titled “What Archaeology is Telling Us About the Real Jesus” had this to say
Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics—but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to literal earth. “I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.” I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.
There are multiple, non-biblical sources to look at for corroboration with what’s found in the New Testament concerning Jesus. I believe these should be adequate examples of references which all point to a historically acknowledged, real person of Jesus Christ.
Tacitus
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (56-120 AD) was a Roman historian and senator. He provides a basis for who the Christians were and some further details.
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Here, we see acknowledgment of Christians as followers of “Christus” and a direct mention of Pontius Pilatus (while under the reign of Tiberius). These details are consistent with the information found within the New Testament.
Pliny the Younger
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (61 – 113 AD), better known as Pliny the Younger, was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome. Pliny provides a detailed reference of certain habits of early Christians.
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
We can see multiple things that are consistent with what’s found in the New Testament. A specific day set aside for worship, the acknowledgement of Christ as God, and worship to Hm alone. He also mentions how Christians try to follow and live according to Christ’s teachings.
Josephus
Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD) was a Romano-Jewish scholar, historian, and biographer of saints and ecclesiastical leaders. Josephus provides us with two references, the first being
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, ‘if indeed one ought to call him a man’. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. ‘He was the Messiah’. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. ‘He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him’. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Concerning this passage, scholars have come to the conclusion that Christian scribes likely added some text (which I have put in single quotes). However, even if you pull those sections out, there is a clear reference to Jesus.
The other writing from Josephus says
Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus, thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, “sanhedrin”] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah … James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.
Some have suggested this passage was also edited in a similar manner to the one above. This is less likely to be true in this case for a few reasons. First, James and Jesus were common names at the time. The addition of “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah” is a way of specifying which James he was referring to. As he only needed to refer to the specific Jesus we’re seeking to verify, the one who is called Messiah, this supports well known knowledge of a real person. Josephus would have wanted this to be readable and understood by many. If the citing of simply Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah was enough, it’s logical to conclude the widespread knowledge of his existence in the New Testament was not simply an invented story. Additionally, the usage of “who is called Messiah” stands out. A Christian scribe of, the time would have instead used “brother of the Lord” to refer to James. They wouldn’t have been shy about this langauge, as you can see from the first quote.
Lucian
Lucian of Samosata (125 – 180 AD) was a Syrian satirist and rhetorician. His reference provides additional details from the others above.
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. Well, the end of it was that Proteus was arrested and thrown into prison. This was the very thing to lend an air to his favourite arts of clap-trap and wonder-working; he was now a made man. The Christians took it all very seriously: he was no sooner in prison, than they began trying every means to get him out again,–but without success. Everything else that could be done for him they most devoutly did. They thought of nothing else. … and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Here is another clear reference to Christ. While he doesn’t mention Jesus by name, he speaks of “Christians”, the crucifixion, and the devotion of the early church. All this again, mirrored in the New Testament.
In addition to these references, others exist as well. Multiple Jewish sources, who would not acknowledge Christ as Messiah, record events in Christ’s life as real historical fact. In Islam, Christ is also known to be a real historical figure, but again, not as Messiah. There is abundant evidence of Jesus Christ having walked the Earth. From biblical to non-biblical sources. The only difference is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord compared to the others which just see him as a very influential, but nevertheless, real historical person.
Sources
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources#_edn5
http://www.vroma.org/~hwalker/Pliny/Pliny10-096-E.html
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl4/wl420.htm
Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
Jewish Antiquities, XX.9.1 in Whiston’s translation (§200 in scholarly editions), as translated by Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 57. Meier’s original passage includes the phrases in square brackets [ ]. The omitted words indicated by the ellipsis (…) are in Greek, to let scholars know what words are translated into English.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian
Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
The resurrection is vital to Christianity. It’s like a form of litmus test, where if the resurrection is shown to be false, then the rest of Christianity follows as false. If the resurrection is shown to be true, then Jesus’ teachings, including the inerrancy of the Bible and sole means of salvation through Him, follows as true. Unfortunately, the Romans of the first century AD did not have cameras to provide a photographic or video record of the resurrection. We’ll have to rely on the study of the past to answer that question. So, can we use historical information to show Christ rose from the dead?
How do historians study the past?
Let’s take a look at how historians study the past, looking at source criticism. Dictionary.com defines it as
The analysis and study of the sources used by biblical authors.
In “A Guide to Historical Method” Garraghan and Delanglez have divided this concept into six parts
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
This idea was deepened in “An Introduction to Historical Methods” by Bernheim and Langlois & Seignobos. In the context of a procedure for contradictory sources, they devised a seven-step procedure
If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most “authority”—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
Finally, in seeking to determine core principles for determining reliability, Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén developed the final seven principles we’ll look at
Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
The first set of principles from A Guide to Historical Method, as they relate to the Bible, were covered in another post on its reliability. For any other Roman or secular documents mentioned, they will be those that have already been accepted by main stream scholars as trusted.
I think the relevant criteria with which historians would judge the resurrection are contained in the second and third sets of principles above. These will be touched on throughout the rest of the post.
Can we prove Jesus rose from the dead using the historical method?
Once the logical theories which oppose the supernatural resurrection are shown to be false, the conclusion Christ rose on the third day will follow as true. Any further illogical theory would simply not hold any weight. However, if you feel I’m missing a theory which does carry weight, please let me know. I’d love to have a discussion.
Again, I believe the second and third sets of principles discussed above will also follow within the reasoning below.
We will be looking into the veracity of four main area
- Jesus’ death on the cross and burial in a tomb.
- The tomb was empty three days later and no one ever produced His body.
- Those who saw Jesus resurrected from the dead in multiple post ressurection appearances.
- The origin of Christianity, spread by disciples who were transformed following their resurrection observations.
Death on the cross and burial in a tomb
Christ’s death by crucifixion is perhaps the best attested historical fact of His life. The existence of Jesus as a real historical figure was covered at length in another post. Within that post multiple non-Christian sources were cited, many discussing the crucifixion. This is in addition to the accounts in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the letters of Paul.
Additionally, Roman soldiers would face death if they allowed a prisoner to survive crucifixion. I doubt the soldiers would have been mistaken when removing Jesus from the cross if their lives depended on it. It’s something they had done before. If the soldiers noticed the prisoners still appeared to be alive, they would break the prisoners legs to ensure death would follow. This occurred for the two other prisoners who were crucified with Jesus. Jesus, thought to be already dead, did not have his legs broken. Instead, the soldiers piecered his side. When Jesus’ side was punctured, water and blood came out. This combination of fluids medically supports that Jesus died on the cross.
Therefore, theories that say Jesus was not dead and managed to survive to later recover in the tomb do not hold weight. Furthermore, given the torture Jesus endured, there is no way three days later He could have been up, looking healthy, and walking around as described.
The burial and subsequent empty tomb can be shown to be the most likely conclusion through a variety of means. Rudolph Pesch, a German theologion who has intently studied Mark, has determined the empty tomb account is based on a source that originated within seven years of the resurrection. This is unbelievably early by historical standards. His reasoning dealing with the high priest of that time
This implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating.” For “if it had been written after Caiaphas’ term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events,
Can we say for sure Jesus’ body was placed in the tomb?
The source used by Mark mentioned above also confirms this and goes on to confirm the empty tomb as well. Additionally, Joseph of Arimathea is not the type of person the disciples would have used if they were concocting a story. They would have been far more likely to shift blame to the Jewish council rather than having someone step up to provide their tomb. Therefore, the likely conclusion is Christ’s body was indeed placed inside the tomb of Jospeh of Arimathea. Even Atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder concludes in “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig”
the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability
The empty tomb
Given the confidence in Christ’s death and burial, there are only a few theories which could carry any weight regarding the empty tomb which stand in opposition to what’s found in the Bible. These theories are that someone stole the body or the body was still in the tomb.
Couldn’t the body have been stolen? This is incredibly unlikely. The Roman and Jewish authorities would have had absolutely nothing to gain by removing the body. It was in their best interest to keep it there and provide proof that Jesus was dead. They were aware He had said He would rise. If the body was stolen, it could have only been by Jesus’ disciples. The Roman authorities had placed guards at the tomb to prevent this from happening.
The disciples were in hiding and fearing for their lives. They were not about to provoke a fight for the tomb, nor do any records exist, from the Bible or the Romans that cite a fight at the tomb.
We have multiple sources confirming the discovery of the empty tomb in the Gospels. But couldn’t the disciples have made their stories up? The veracity of the Gospels is covered in another section. That aside, the Gospels record a group of women discovering the empty tomb.
In those times, women had many less rights than they do now. They weren’t even trusted as witnesses in a court of law. It then follows as illogical the disciples would pen these details unless they were recording actual events. If you were making the story up to persuade people of your time, rather than recording what you saw happen, would you make up that the women were brave enough to venture near the Roman guards while the men cowered in hiding?
If the body had still been in the tomb, the Roman and Jewish authorities would have immediately produced it to disprove what the apostles were saying. They were never able to. The local people would have easily known if the apostles were lying.
The only logical conclusion is that Christ was buried and, three days later, was no longer within the unraided tomb.
Appearances after death in a resurrected body
There are many independent accounts of single people and groups of people seeing Jesus after the crucifixion. Within the following verse, Paul writes what scholars recognize as a creed said by early Christians. This creed dates within only a few years of the event.
Regarding this creed, Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide said, it
may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses.
This early creed also prevents there to be time for the development of myth or legend to be associated with these accounts as some theories would suggest. An Oxford historian specializing in ancient Roman and Greek history studied how myth and legend are spread and evolve in the ancient world. He concluded even two generations are not adequate to wipe out historical facts. There were simply too many witnesses and records, especially given the incredibly rapid spread immediately following the resurrection.
The only conclusion would be that the apostles either recorded what they saw or lied. The hypothesis that the apostles lied and made up the resurrection falls apart once we observe what happened to the apostles. There are eleven early sources which attest to the suffering and death the apostles faced. Why, if they knew they were making it up, would the apostles face horrible deaths? All they would have to do is admit they were lying about the resurrection and they would be spared. Many have died for what they believed to be true, regardless of the actual truth behind their beliefs. However, people aren’t willing to be martyred for something they know they’ve invented. Would you give up your life for a lie? Are we to believe ten of the apostles did just that, or is the more logical conclusion being they truly believed they saw the risen Christ and it transformed their lives?
The apostles could have honestly believed they saw Jesus when they wrote their accounts, but what if they were hallucinating or saw an imposter? Both of these scenarios follow as incredibly unlikely to be true once examined. There have never been any reported group hallucinations, ever. Additionally, these would have to be widespread in terms of who had them, how long they had them, and when they had them while also being identical in nature. That is a preposterous idea. Furthermore, if it was a hallucination, what happened to the body of Jesus?
The imposter scenario is also unlikely for a few reasons. First, the imposter would have had to look, sound, and act incredibly like Jesus. Given there were no recordings of Jesus, this person logically would have had to follow Christ around to gain this knowledge. Therefore, I think the apostles would already be familiar with such an individual. Jesus showed where the nails had pinned him to the cross. Hard to fake and hard to believe someone would pierce their own legs and wrists, let alone be able to heal so fast in a way that would match whats found in the Gospels. The imposter also could not have done things like suddenly appear in a locked room.
Finally, Jesus shared further teachings with the apostles after the resurrection. No one would have a better grasp on the material than the apostles. An imposter would have made mistakes they would have caught on to. All of this suggests the theories of an imposter or hallucinations could not be true.
The spread of Christianity
Christianity spread incredibly rapidly out of first century Israel. Within a generation, Christianity had spread over Europe, Asia, and Africa. Scholars are in agreement with these facts. Interestingly, not all those close to Jesus were completely convinced of who He was until after the resurrection. Jesus’ own half brother James did not become a believer until after he saw Christ resurrected. He ended up being martyred for this belief. What other event, besides seeing Christ alive again, would cause these men to devote the short rest of their lives to spreading this message? Scholars agree the disciples saw something. I believe once the evidence and thoughts above are taken into consideration, the fact that they saw Christ risen is the most probable and best describes what we know. They, in most cases, went to their deaths declaring the message of the Gospel. The exception being John who was banished to an island for the remainder of his life.
The resurrection has an incredibly strong record surrounding it. Multiple, early sources with conflicting interests record the same events. Christ died on the cross and His body was no longer in the tomb it was buried in three days later. Within that small region, these matching accounts flowed out accompanied by the testimony of over 500 people to having seen Jesus risen.
The Gospels represent multiple eyewitness accounts of the same event. We have them through letters, manuscripts, and scrolls rather than just passed down narrative. As covered in depth within another post, these accounts are consistent with an eyewitness account of observed events. Not only that but, as laid out in another post, we know we’re reading what the apostles actually wrote.
The Gospels are consistent with the apostles having observed Jesus die and rise again. The theories in opposition fall apart upon further analysis. If you can accept the supernatural aspect, everything else falls directly in place as the most logical, common sense conclusion.
Christ has risen!
Repent and be saved!
Sources
https://www.newyorkapologetics.com/the-resurrection-4-minimal-facts/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
https://crossexamined.org/the-minimal-facts-of-the-resurrection/#_ftn10
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Pesch
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection
https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/terasaka_david/misc/crucify.cfm
Upholding the Faith 