The resurrection is said by some to be the most important event in Christianity.

1 Corinthians 15:17
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
As a non-believer, I find the resurrection to be remarkable for reasons other than sin because of its implications, like life after death, etc. With that said, I have watched a lot of debate on it and wanted to see if there's a very strong argument for the resurrection.

For Debate...
1. What is the evidence for the resurrection?
2. Out of all of the evidence, which one makes the strongest case for the resurrection?
Last edited:
Here are probably the best lines of evidence for Jesus:
1. Jesus was likely crucified and killed accordingly
It is recorded in numerous books of the New Testament, including all four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. It is mentioned by non-Christians like Josephus and Tacitus. It is discussed in apocryphal gospels such as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Truth. And it is referenced by numerous early Christian writings, including 1 Clement and the epistles of Barnabas and Polycarp. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that the early Christians would have invented the story that their Savior was an executed criminal. Agnostic Bart Ehrman writes:
It is hard today to understand just how offensive the idea of a crucified messiah would have been to most first-century Jews. . . . Since no one would have made up the idea of a crucified messiah, Jesus must really have existed, must really have raised messianic expectations, and must really have been crucified.6

2. The empty tomb
The strongest piece of evidence in favor of the historicity of the empty tomb is the report that it was discovered by women. This detail may not strike us as odd, but it is surprising, given the low status of women in the first century.

3. The apostles believed they saw a resurrected Jesus and their actions correspond with how someone would act if they believed such...
The reason for this consensus is the persecution endured by the apostles for their belief in the resurrection. The apostles were repeatedly beaten and imprisoned. We have good historical evidence that James, Peter, and Paul were all executed for their faith, and church tradition maintains that as many as eleven of the twelve apostles were eventually martyred.21 Given the suffering that the apostles faced, it is difficult to maintain that they knew the resurrection to be a hoax.

Edit: withdrawing my source from Bart Ehrman's site. Turns out it wasn't written by Bart Ehrman, but was featured on his site. Also, the author is a pastor so there's not much of a rebuttal, if any, to any of the Christian arguments for the resurrection.
Last edited:
Here is my position on Jesus's resurrection:
Actually, let me say that I accept that Jesus did resurrect. I accept it as a historical fact because there is multiple attestation in terms of documentation and witnesses, and there's a lack of historical evidence to suggest that their observations were flawed. I dislike when people reject it on all levels all while accepting something else based on the same level of evidence or even less evidence. To me that exposes that it's not a validity issue (since the evidence is there), but rather it's a philosophical issue (it's not in line with naturalism).
The reason all of this is not enough to make me a believer is because I don't know that Jesus is God or that God was involved. My position is only based on things that the witnesses or anyone else today could've observed.