The Resurrection of Jesus and the Cognitive Dissonance Hypothesis

What Did The Disciples Mean When They Said “Jesus is Risen!”

Mike Licona lectures on historical methods and the New Testament (directly related to the Resurrection)

Are Marian Apparitions Comparable to the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Response to Hector Avalos

The Metaphysical Hurdle and The Miminal Facts Argument


The Resurrection of Jesus: a Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter Joseph W. Bergeron, M.D. and Gary R. Habermas, Ph.D

Richard Swinburne – The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus

Michael Licona On The Resurrection of Jesus: How We Know It’s True and Why It Matters

Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: Hallucination

Is the Resurrection of Jesus a Qualification for Being the Jewish Messiah?

Paul’s Warnings About Bearing False Witness About the Resurrection of Jesus

“Resurrection-Faith and the ‘Historical’ Jesus” by Larry Hurtado

Historians and Miracle Claims: Michael Licona

A Look at the Evidence for the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus

Dr. Tim McGrew lecture on the resurrection of Jesus


Resurrection Apologetics: Why I Start with Paul’s Letters

Paul’s Gospel of the Empty Tomb: The Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15

Is the Resurrection a Parable? Why Redefining the Resurrection of Jesus is a Dangerous Game

Handling a Rabbi’s Objection About The Resurrection of Jesus

Dr Peter Williams: Things Which Ought To Be Better Known About The Resurrection Of Jesus

Why Death is Not Natural: A Look at the Resurrection

A Look at the Carrier/Goodacre Debate: How Did Paul Receive the Gospel? Clearing Up A Supposed Contradiction Between Galatians 1:11-12, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

What Do Christians Mean When They Say “Resurrection?”

The Earliest Record for The Death and Resurrection of Jesus: 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7

Alister McGrath on the Ernst Troeltsch Objection to the Resurrection of Jesus

15 Suggested Readings on the Resurrection of Jesus

Mike Licona lectures on new insights into the resurrection of Jesus

Why the Hypothesis that God Raised Jesus from the Dead is the Best Explanation

A Roundtable Discussion with Michael Licona on The Resurrection of Jesus:A New Historiographical Approach: Danny Akin, Craig Blomberg, Paul Copan

The Resurrection of the Son of God:A Reduction of the Naturalistic Alternatives

Answering Eleven Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus

What Did Paul See? A Look at the Resurrection of Jesus and What Happened to Paul

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ-Peter Kreeft

Say Hello to my Little Friend: Blog Archive: Richard Carrier on the Resurrection part 1: Dr Glenn Peoples

The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth


  1. Gary M February 12, 2015 / 6:51 am

    For every other alleged historical event we determine its historicity by examining contemporaneous, corroborating, independent testimony from two or more known sources along with any available archaeological evidence.

    The Resurrection of Jesus has no such supporting evidence. To believe that this supernatural event occurred, one must suspend belief in the laws of nature and in the rules of evidence to believe it.

    This alleged event can only be believed by faith.

    • chab123 February 12, 2015 / 4:51 pm

      Hi Gary, there are contemporaneous, corroborating, independent testimony from two or more witnesses with the resurrection. I don’t have the time to explain that all to you. You can see Peter William’s teaching on it-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbBVBUeHXZ4

      As far as miracles, your argument goes back to Hume. There were plenty of responses in his own day and there have been plenty written on it over the last century. See
      Hume’s Abject Failure The Argument Against Miracles by John Earman or In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History by R. Douglas Geivett, and Gary R. Habermas. Don’t have alot of time to go back and forth. That will be it.

  2. nonsupernaturalist June 27, 2016 / 9:53 pm

    Two of the biggest assumptions that many Christians make regarding the truth claims of Christianity is that, one, eyewitnesses wrote the four gospels. The problem is, however, that the majority of scholars today do not believe this is true. The second big assumption many Christians make is that it would have been impossible for whoever wrote these four books to have invented details in their books, especially in regards to the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection appearances, due to the fact that eyewitnesses to these events would have still been alive when the gospels were written and distributed.

    But consider this, dear Reader: Most scholars date the writing of the first gospel, Mark, as circa 70 AD. Who of the eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death were still alive in 70 AD? That is four decades after Jesus’ death. During that time period, tens of thousands of people living in Palestine were killed in the Jewish-Roman wars of the mid and late 60’s, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem.

    How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus in circa 30 AD was still alive when the first gospel was written and distributed in circa 70 AD? How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus ever had the opportunity to read the Gospel of Mark and proof read it for accuracy?

    I challenge Christians to list the name of even ONE eyewitness to the death of Jesus who was still alive in 70 AD along with the evidence to support your claim.

    If you can’t list any names, dear Christian, how can you be sure that details such as the Empty Tomb, the detailed resurrection appearances, and the Ascension ever really occurred? How can you be sure that these details were not simply theological hyperbole…or…the exaggerations and embellishments of superstitious, first century, mostly uneducated people, who had retold these stories thousands of times, between thousands of people, from one language to another, from one country to another, over a period of many decades?

  3. chab123 June 27, 2016 / 11:40 pm

    Hi there, we have provided numerous resources that respond to your objections. Feel free to explore the Evidence for the Resurrection link here (see above) or the Historical Epistemology tab. Read up. Many of your questions are dealt with under the genre issues/eyewitness testimony section on the Historical Epistemology tab.


    As noted in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham, the Greek word for “eyewitness” (autoptai), does not have forensic meaning, and in that sense the English word “eyewitnesses” with its suggestion of a metaphor from the law courts, is a little misleading. The autoptai are simply firsthand observers of those events. Bauckham has followed the work of Samuel Byrskog in arguing that while the Gospels though in some ways are a very distinctive form of historiography, they share broadly in the attitude to eyewitness testimony that was common among historians in the Greco-Roman period.

    These historians valued above all reports of firsthand experience of the events they recounted. Best of all was for the historian to have been himself a participant in the events (direct autopsy). Failing that (and no historian was present at all the events he need to recount, not least because some would be simultaneous), they sought informants who could speak from firsthand knowledge and whom they could interview (indirect autopsy).” In other words, Byrskog defines “autopsy,” as a visual means of gathering data about a certain object and can include means that are either direct (being an eyewitness) or indirect (access to eyewitnesses).

    Byrskog also claims that such autopsy is arguably used by Paul (1 Cor 9:1; 15:5–8; Gal 1:16), Luke (Acts 1:21–22; 10:39–41) and John (19:35; 21:24; 1 John 1:1–4). As Bauckham says, “This, at least, was historiographic best practice, represented and theorized by such generally admired historians as Thucydides and Polybius. The preference for direct and indirect testimony is an obviously reasonable rule for acquiring the testimony likely to be reasonable.”

    I don’t do much online discussion. Have a nice day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s