What Proves the Resurrection of Jesus?

This is the fifth in a series of five essays titled:

A Historical and Methodical Approach to Finding Faith in Jesus

***

Of all the things that we learn about Jesus of Nazareth from the primary historical sources associated with him – which are the 27 texts called the New Testament – nothing carries more weight than the subject of his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus did not rise from the dead as those writings claim, then faith in Jesus is worthless and any of us who speak to him as if he’s alive are to be pitied. On the other hand, if he really did rise from the dead according to the promise of God, then ​life is a whole new ballgame​.

The importance of determining whether or not Jesus really was raised from the dead cannot be overstated. This claim is central to the reliability of the entire New Testament. If every other claim it made were true but this one, what would those other claims matter? The writers would be lying about their central claim! If a witness gives you his correct name, tells you his correct address, and testifies truthfully about everything except the central matter of the case, what good is that? He’s a liar! The same goes for the writers of the New Testament. They don’t have to be infallible like God; they don’t have to get every single detail exactly right. After all, “to err is human.” They do, however, have to be telling the truth about whether not Jesus was raised from the dead. That’s not too much to ask. No one should report on something that unusual unless they’re absolutely sure about it!

Some historians will say that they cannot opine on whether or not Jesus was actually raised from the dead because it’s a supernatural event and history only reports on natural events. Says who? Ancient people might not have known modern science but they knew how to tell the difference between a living person and a dead one. If there are witnesses who can tell that Jesus was alive before He died, they’re certainly qualified to tell us if He was alive after He died. Alive is alive; dead is dead.

To say that history cannot report on supernatural events is an arbitrary decision – not a position that the study of history forces on you. Not only that, it also sets up an argument about what is natural versus what is supernatural. If you define supernatural as that which is extraordinary, don’t be surprised if your historical records turn out to show no support for a resurrection from the dead. A common man’s definition of history is simply documenting ​what happened​. People can secularize history (which is to censor it) if they choose to, but there’s no logical requirement to do so. Through the New Testament writings we learn ​what happened​ with Jesus. That’s what we want to know.

By the way, what’s so difficult about believing that God could raise someone from the dead? Either there’s ​no​ God and the dead ​cannot​ be raised, or else there ​is​ a God and He ​can​ raise the dead. Believing there’s a God but that He’s not powerful enough to raise the dead is not a reasonable option.

Something specific, profound, and highly unusual bound together everyone associated with the New Testament writings in the 1st century – that something was that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead on the third day after being crucified. These writings name a dizzying number of people and places. The writings deal with small, mundane things as well are large, weighty things. They portray vibrant congregations spread widely across the Roman Empire. Of course, not every one of these people had a personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus, but many did – over 500, at least (1 Cor 15:1-11). And within that number are included the names and personal testimonies of Peter, John, Paul, James, Jude, Matthew, and others. By the 4th century, copies of practically all these writings existed in practically all the congregations – which had multiplied greatly in the 300 years since the 1st century. Are we to believe that these writings are not what they appear to be – that some vast conspiracy has falsified this vast and deep body of evidence?

To believe that the New Testament writings are falsified – that is, to believe that they are not what they appear to be – is the equivalent of believing that the 1969 moon landing by Neil Armstrong was faked. As difficult as it would have been to fake the moon landing and get it into the history books, it would have been even harder to fake the New Testament. This is primarily because the technology you’d use to fake a moon landing (cameras, electronics, video screens, etc.) didn’t exist in antiquity. You’d have to write thousands of manuscripts and plant them in hundreds of congregations all around the Mediterranean Sea, and get the congregations to think that they always had these manuscripts, and…you get the idea. Only a world-class conspiracy theorist could think that the New Testament was anything other than what 1st-century believers in Jesus produced in the course of serving his cause.

The primary historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is hiding in plain sight on the coffee tables and bookshelves of American homes. It’s as if all the best evidence for the homicide has been placed in a file folder labeled “New Testament” so that when the detective comes in, he can go straight to work examining it. This is sworn written testimony. No, these aren’t literally affidavits – they’re something much better. They are writings produced in the normal course of living and working. Is there something other than Jesus’ resurrection from the dead that could better explain the existence of those 27 writings?

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the 27 texts of the New Testament is either the most pernicious and successful lie ever told…or else it is the banner headline of human history for all time. There is no third alternative.

***

This is the concluding essay in this series.

Related essays:

11/19/25

Question or Comment