The case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ depends on various well-supported facts: that Jesus’ followers believed that they had seen him alive again; that they believed he had been resurrected; and that his tomb was empty a few days after his death. Not one of these facts is supernatural in character and each can be established by normal historical methodology. The cumulative case for a faith based on the events of the first Easter is powerful and compelling. These articles explain why. (For a quick summary, we’ve added a few of our favourite videos to the bottom of the page).
Michael Martin, James Crossley and Bart Ehrman argue that historians shouldn’t believe in miracles. Are they correct?
A detailed case for the resurrection, which can be supplemented by the articles below.
Paul’s letters give us primary sources about the resurrection.
Archaeology and a critical reading of the sources show that Jesus’ tomb was empty.
JFK was not killed by the Illuminati; MI6 did not kill Princess Diana; and the disciples did not steal Jesus’ body!
Apparent contradictions in the sources do not undermine the historicity of the resurrection.
Historians – and sceptics – cannot dismiss the testimony of Matthew because they find a few verses dubious
William Lane Craig gives a brief summary in this video
NT Wright gives his case in this short video
Michael Licona and the One Minute Apologist give a very brief case