History 101 – Resurrection Challenge

These are just a few principles that historians use to make determinations about sources and testimony. I learned these from Habermas and Licona’s book The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus. Many of the replies I have received on Youtube reveal that skeptics resort to attacking the bible rather than accounting for the historical evidence. When a critic attempts to simply dismiss the bible out of hand, he is committing what is known as the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on its origin. Basically because the bible is a religious book they dismiss it as a historical source. Yet the truth is the New Testament has proven itself reliable over and over again. For instance, skeptics used to claim Pontius Pilate was a fictional character until archeologists uncovered a stone monument bearing his name. There have been many such vindications. A 19th century archeologist,  Sir William Ramsay , set out to expose the book of Acts as a work of fiction but after thorough investigation he ended up being so impressed by Luke’s accuracy that he converted from skeptic to christian believer. He wrote,

    Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.1

The New Testament is regarded as historically accurate as far as its mundane claims, thus the skeptic cannot simply dismiss its testimony to the miraculous. The evidence is abundant and compelling. How do you account for it?


1 Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.

The Resurrection Challenge

If you do not believe in the resurrection then the challenge is to provide an alternate explanation that accounts for all 5 facts. If you are a believer, the challenge is to submit arguments and evidence that support the 5 facts or additional facts you feel support the historicity of the resurrection. Submit your video responses via YouTube and let’s see where the evidence leads. Now pay attention to my channel as I will be releasing videos that support my 5 lines of evidence.  The first one, History 101, is just a brief overview of some general principles historians use in evaluating evidence. I will post a video supporting each point. I will do my best to respond personally to the most challenging alternate explanations. I will not respond to videos are overly vulgar or disrespectful. 

I will make a decision at the end of September and mail prizes, (2 new hard backs, The Case for the Real Jesus by Strobel and prodigious atheist turned deist Anthony Flew’s, There is not/a God) to the winners. I will be posting videos all through the month with my research supporting the resurrection. I hope you will follow the evidence where it leads! So how do you explain the evidence?