Living Dead Man

I’ve been engaged in an email conversation for the past week regarding the historical reliability of the New Testament, was Jesus a real historical person, and is the Resurrection (and Jesus’ other miracles) a real event or a later invention by Roman Catholicism and the Council of Nicaea. Just taking a slice of the overall conversation and focusing attention on the Resurrection, there are five facts that need to be addressed by any alternate or opposing theory if it is to effectively challenge the orthodox Christian view of the Resurrection of Jesus. These five facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them
3. The conversion of the church persecutor Paul
4. The conversion of the skeptic James (brother of Jesus)
5. The empty tomb [1]

Why these five facts and not others? Because facts 1 thru 4 are accepted by nearly every historical scholar across the board. That means there is close to 100% agreement among all historical scholars of every stripe, believers and skeptics, that the first four items are real historical events. The fifth item, while not as widely held, still receives about 75% acceptance by historical scholars. Because of such broad acceptance of these facts, competing theories must account for them when attempting to reject the orthodox position that Jesus physically rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, his brother, and Paul.

1. These five facts are taken from The Case for the Resurrection of Christ by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. This particular approach is something that Gary came up with while he was a Ph.D. student in the mid-70s and had to write his dissertation on the Resurrection without being allowed to use a “the Bible says it, so that settles it” approach. He was forced to go to historical sources, many outside the Bible, to prove his case. This approach is called The Minimal Facts method.