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).
A quick summary of the case for the resurrection
Can an historian believe in the resurrection?
Michael Martin, James Crossley and Bart Ehrman argue that historians shouldn’t believe in miracles. Are they correct?
An in depth case for the resurrection
A detailed case for the resurrection, which can be supplemented by the articles below.
The apostle Paul provides important eyewitness testimony for the resurrection
Paul’s letters give us primary sources about the resurrection.
The first disciples discovered Jesus’ empty tomb
Archaeology and a critical reading of the sources show that Jesus’ tomb was empty.
We can’t use conspiracy theories to explain away the evidence
JFK was not killed by the Illuminati; MI6 did not kill Princess Diana; and the disciples did not steal Jesus’ body!
“Contradictions” in the resurrection accounts
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