Sorry I didn’t get back to you more quickly, but thanks for the compliment. I’ve just switched comment systems to try and better engage… though I don’t know if it will notify you in this case (but should for future comments).

Hi Mikael,

Thanks so much for reading and taking the time to leave a comment! Yes, the objection of ‘willing to die for a lie’ is often misunderstood. Many have died for false ideas. However, very few, if any, are going to die for what they know to be a lie. The key word is know. Anyone who witnessed the events and knew Jesus would know what actually happened. They aren’t going to go to their deaths to protect their story if they knew they just made it up.

And, I like how you noted that this one piece of evidence kind of broke through for you. I’ve found there is often something like that… just one thing that really gets ‘under your skin’ and bugs you until you begin to investigate more. BUT, one thing I always caution people is that any belief system (Christianity included) is more like a ‘web’ of information and beliefs. Each strand might be something we’re more or less certain about… but there is a lot of strength (or not) in the whole web. So, while that one point might be your personal breakthrough… be sure to look at the strength of the whole web and compare to the strength of the webs of opposing world-views. In my opinion, that’s where Christianity really starts to shine and other systems fall apart (at least in terms of the evidence…. inner-witness is another thing).

Jay, thanks for your comment, and again, sorry for the delayed response. Take a look at my above reply to Brian. Are you saying Dr. Habermas’ doctoral committee were a ‘kangaroo court’? It matters not that they are religious works, but if they are historical and accurate.

1) While it’s true that the Gospels weren’t signed by the authors within the text of the work we have, this doesn’t mean they were anonymous. Typically, the name would have been attached to the scroll, much like a modern author might not state their name within the body of the work, but instead, on a title page, or the cover of the book. To put this more accurately, we can’t, with 100% certainty, determine who the author is, simply from the text itself. However, there is a pretty darn good clue in John, as well as testimony of the direct disciples of the authors, and a lot of internal clues. Basically, we can make an extremely well educated guess. But, I’m not sure I’m getting the relevance of this point.

2) You’ll have to elaborate. What didn’t they agree on?

3) re: eyewitnesses – this just isn’t accurate. Unless you assume late writing by authors other than associated with them, only one isn’t by a direct eye-witness… and he’s quite upfront about that.

4) re: Paul – how do you know Paul knows nothing of a virgin birth (argument from silence?) or parables or miracles? Paul is doing something other than the Gospels. If there were a Gospel of Paul which totally differed, maybe you’d have a point. Paul disagrees with Jesus’ sayings? I’m curious now. 🙂

5) re: ‘hundreds of dying and resurrecting Savior sun gods’ – I think you’ve just lost all credibility… if you like, how about we discuss just one.

6) Note that my article hasn’t made the case yet. 😉

Brian, thanks for taking the time to comment and sorry for taking so long to reply!

My point with the court analogy was that many do – whole cloth – dismiss the New Testament witness because Jesus’ disciples were ‘obviously going to say what they said’ (ie: bias… because they were Christian). They then go on to assert that for credibility, we’d need some secular or hostile source to confirm the events for it to be somewhat credible. While I do believe we have such (external, hostile) evidence – though very low in detail – we don’t necessarily need it, as the Gospels can be included in the evidence.

The question is, why isn’t the resurrection accepted as historically accurate? On what basis?

I’m not sure what you mean by the nativity narratives. The narrative isn’t present in all the Gospels… but should it be? Are you talking about the Jesus seminar? If so, they certainly aren’t the be-all, end-all of scholarship on the subject. (In fact, they and their techniques are somewhat laughable in many circles.) Contradictions? You’ll have to fill me in. If you would like to present a bit more detail, I’ll try to address it.

I’m also not suggesting that if we find a couple of correct details, then we simply accept the entire thing. There are many reasons we don’t take Achilles or Osiris seriously apart from there being supernatural elements to those stories.

As I note in part 2 of this article, Dr. Gary Habermas earned his doctorate degree at a secular university, arguing for the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. He was told before starting that he’d have to submit to ‘ordinary critical standards’ for any of the New Testament evidence he pulled into this argument. I could be mistaken, but I’m under the impression that they don’t give out degrees for failed or poorly argued dissertations.

If you seriously want to compare Osiris’ account to that of Jesus, I’ll be happy to take on that challenge. Have you ever researched Osiris? We don’t dismiss it simply because it is only in some ancient writings or ‘impossible.’ We dismiss it because there is nothing there to be taken seriously to begin with. For example, do you know one scholar who believes Osiris was a real figure? That is not the case with Jesus. There is also the resulting effect on the world to deal with (billions follow Jesus; met any Osiris followers lately?). Of course, then there is the last part of my article (to come) where we’ll see how difficult it is to come up with a plausible alternative explanation to what we know is historical fact.

We have much more than non-independent (one can make a case for the basics of what we know about Jesus from non-Biblical sources), inconsistent (can you find a problematic inconsistency?), badly copied (ever heard of textual criticism?), 2000-year old (are you claiming we can’t know anything about it because it is 2000 years ago, or should I consider this anachronistic bias?) texts. Also, note that the claim isn’t that we can, beyond any possible doubt, prove the resurrection via the historical data. The claim is that the historical data comports with the resurrection, and that any other theories (save one) to date, don’t. (You’ll have to read part three to find out what that one is.)

The same can be said about history. While some of the facts alleged in the New Testament are considered to be historically accurate by most mainstream historical Biblical scholars, the resurrection is not accepted as historically accurate by them. For example, the fact that INRI (Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews) was written on the cross is consistent in the Gospels and is well-accepted. The nativity narrative is absent or directly contradicted in the Gospels and is not considered historical.

Where texts are accepted as containing some historically accepted facts, this does not mean we should accept all claims in the text as historically accurate. Homer is a good example. Though we may accept as historical, that the battle of Troy happened, and that even that someone named Achilles actually existed, we do not accept that the Greek gods were real and that Achilles was invincible but for the heel on one foot, because he was dipped in a magic river. Even though we have named a tendon after him!

The claim that Jesus was human, fully died, and then was not dead is a huge claim. We do not accept this in the case of Osiris because it is, well, impossible and just stated in some ancient writings. We need more than non-independent, inconsistent, badly copied, 2000-year old texts to get us around this. It almost certainly isn’t ever going to be historically demonstrated, even if it is true. You can take it on faith, but it does violence to reason and serious historical study to suggest that these demonstrate the resurrection is true.