Post Author: Bill Pratt
I sometimes hear skeptics say that they need extraordinary evidence to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. The reason they need extraordinary evidence, they claim, is that the resurrection is an extraordinary claim.
It is true that the resurrection is an extraordinary claim, but there are many extraordinary claims made about the past that we accept based on historical testimony. For example, how do you get more extraordinary than the conquests of Alexander the Great? His accomplishments are virtually unparalleled in history, yet we believe they really happened.
Or take a look at the Guinness Book of World Records some time. Most of us have no trouble accepting the things recorded in there, but none of us were there to see all of them. We have to rely on the testimony of those who were there.
The point is that multitudes of bizarre and outlandish marvels have transpired in the past, but for some reason skeptics are quite willing to accept these marvels as real, but not the resurrection of Jesus.
The standard for proving the resurrection should be trustworthy testimony from those who saw what happened, just like any other historical event. In fact, all we need is eyewitness testimony that Jesus was alive, that he died, and that he was alive again. If we know from history that these three things occurred, then we know Jesus rose from the dead.
There is nothing difficult about understanding this line of thinking. If you are a skeptic, go study the historical testimony that shows Jesus lived, that he was then killed by crucifixion, and that he was then seen again by over 500 people. There are libraries of both scholarly and popular level books that delve into these historical evidences. Why not go read some of them, with an open mind to the evidence?
If the historical evidence is there, as I claim it is, you have some serious thinking to do.