Since it is Easter, I wanted to reflect on why I believe in Christianity. The lynchpin of the Christian faith is the historical reliability of the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus actually did rise from the dead as he said he would, he did it for a reason that changes your life and mind. If he did not, as C.S. Lewis puts it, "Christianity is null and void."
My Thoughts
I think at its core, the evidence suggests that the most likely scenario is Jesus actually rising from the dead like He said he would. The other explanations feel weak based on the evidence. The reason the resurrection is so challenged by some scholars is not because the evidence is lacking. It is because their worldview does not allow for the supernatural.
It is the exact same scenario with the creation of the universe. What caused the Big Bang? The evidence by far suggests that intelligent design created the universe, however that would mean accepting something that cannot be scientifically proven. So the question is, how open minded are we really? If we can infer from the evidence that the most likely explanation falls outside of our worldview, will we accept it?
The Death of Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth's death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is considered an indisputable fact of history, accepted by nearly all historians and scholars, both religious and secular. It is heavily documented in both early Christian sources and non-Christian records, including the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44) and the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3). This is not a contested starting point. Everyone agrees Jesus died.
The Empty Tomb
The gospels unanimously present the fact of the empty tomb, written within 30 to 60 years of the events. This is not strange at all given the strength of oral tradition at the time, and the fact that eyewitnesses were still alive and were expecting Jesus to return within their lifetime, so they were not as urgently concerned with writing things down.
What I find particularly compelling is the work of scholar Gary Habermas and his "minimal facts" methodology. Habermas identified a core set of historical facts that even the most skeptical secular scholars accept, and builds the entire resurrection case from those facts alone, without requiring the reader to first accept the gospels as scripture. His conclusion, arrived at through purely historical reasoning, is that the resurrection remains the most plausible explanation for what occurred. That is worth sitting with.
The strongest arguments for the empty tomb are these. All four gospels present an empty tomb, and there is no record anywhere, from Rome, from Jewish leadership, from anyone, of a body being produced. This matters more than people realize. Rome viewed the growth of the early church as a direct political threat. If a body existed, they had every incentive to produce it and crush the movement before it spread. They never did.
Early non-gospel sources, including Justin Martyr, reference the Jewish counter-claim that the disciples stole the body. This is actually an important detail because early Jewish critics of Christianity were not denying the tomb was empty. They were trying to explain it. > The empty tomb was not in dispute. Only the cause was.
And perhaps the argument I find most underrated: the resurrection accounts place women as the primary witnesses. In first century Jewish and Roman culture, the testimony of women carried lower legal standing. Nobody fabricating a story meant to convince people would have written it this way. The fact that it was recorded exactly as it was, against the cultural grain, is a mark of authenticity.
The Resurrection
Most scholars, including skeptical ones, accept that the disciples genuinely believed they had seen Jesus after his death, and that this belief spread rapidly even under severe persecution. Something happened. The real question is not whether something happened. The question is what kind of explanation you are willing to accept. Supernatural resurrection, mass hallucination, stolen body, or legend development. Each deserves honest examination.
The eyewitness testimony here was not based on one person's claim. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:3 to 8, one of the earliest texts in the entire New Testament, with many scholars dating the creed embedded in it to within just a few years of the crucifixion, that Jesus appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, then to more than five hundred people at once, most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote. He was essentially inviting people to go and verify it themselves. People walked with Jesus, talked with Him, touched Him. This is not the language of legend.
Then there is the transformation of the disciples, which I think is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence. Before the resurrection, the disciples were broken and afraid. Peter denied even knowing Jesus three times on the night of his arrest (Luke 22:54 to 62). After the resurrection, everything changed. That same man stood before the Sanhedrin and said they could not stop speaking about what they had seen and heard (Acts 4:19 to 20). These men went on to preach boldly, suffer imprisonment, lose everything, and give their lives for this claim. > People might die for something they genuinely believe to be true. Nobody dies for something they know is a lie.
The conversion of the skeptics is another thing I keep coming back to. James, the brother of Jesus, did not believe in Him during His lifetime. After the resurrection, James became one of the most prominent leaders of the early church and was ultimately martyred for his faith, something recorded not only in Christian sources but independently by Josephus (Antiquities 20.9). Then there is Paul, who by his own admission actively persecuted and destroyed the early church (Galatians 1:13), and who encountered the risen Jesus and was so completely transformed that he became its most influential voice. These are not the stories of credulous followers looking for something to believe. These are hostile witnesses who had everything to lose.
Something else that has always struck me is that Jesus prophesied his own death and resurrection, explained the reason for it, and then it happened exactly as he said it would. He was explicit that his death was the atoning sacrifice that would pay the price for our shortcomings, and that resurrection would be the sign validating everything he claimed. He told his disciples in advance, explained the purpose, and then fulfilled it. > That kind of coherence — the prediction, the purpose, the fulfillment — is not the shape of myth. Myths do not announce themselves ahead of time.
After the resurrection, the message spread with remarkable speed in the very city where Jesus had been publicly executed, among people who could have easily investigated and disproved it, with hundreds of alleged eyewitnesses still alive. This growth was not backed by money or political power. It was fueled entirely by the message that He had risen. For anyone who wants to go deep on this, N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God is the most thorough scholarly treatment of the subject, written not as apologetics but as rigorous history.
One last thing worth noting. The four gospels present different perspectives and varying details of the resurrection events. Far from undermining credibility, this is exactly what historians look for. Perfect uniformity across independent accounts is actually a red flag for collusion. Variation in the peripheral details alongside agreement on the core facts is the fingerprint of genuine independent testimony.
Why This Matters to Me
I find the historical case for the resurrection genuinely compelling, not because I need it to be true, but because when I try to follow the evidence honestly, it keeps pointing in the same direction. The empty tomb was not denied. The witnesses were not fabricated. The transformation of the disciples was real. The skeptics who converted had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
But beyond the argument, what really moves me is the reason behind it all. Jesus did not rise from the dead to win a historical debate. He did it because the whole point was restoration, a way back to God that we could not build ourselves. That claim, if true, is not just historically interesting. It changes everything. It is the reason I try to live the way I do, imperfectly, but with that as my anchor.
Happy Easter.
