All language subtitles for rrrrrrrrrrrc

With 1 out of every 3 people on Earth identifying
as Christian, it's the single most important

event in human history.

But was Jesus of Nazareth really resurrected
from the dead, and is there any evidence for

it?

To examine the question first we have to establish
the historicity of Jesus himself.

While some doubt that he ever lived, no critical
historian alive today doubts that Jesus of

Nazareth was a real man who lived and died
in the time attributed to him in the Gospels.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions
Jesus twice in his histories.

The first mention is widely regarded- even
amongst Christian scholars- as having been

doctored by a later Christian scribe to be
more flattering, but still mentions Jesus

as having been condemned and crucified by
Roman authorities.

The second mention of Jesus by Josephus is
when he references the death of Jesus's brother,

James, who was stoned to death for his belief
in Jesus as the Christ.

Jesus is also mentioned by the Roman historian
Tacitus approximately 86 years after his crucifixion,

and affirms that he was in fact crucified
by Roman authorities and that a sizable contingent

of his believers were present in Rome at the
time of his writing, which further strengthens

the biblical account of Saint Paul.

Next, we have to establish the reliability
of the evidence used to argue that the resurrection

was a real event- namely Paul's letters and
the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and

Luke.

Today that material is together, along with
other books, known as the New Testament, and

a critic would be right in arguing that one
cannot use one's own source material to argue

for the validity of his or her argument.

Except that is a serious misunderstanding
of what the New Testament actually is- or

what it originally was.

Today the New Testament is considered to be
the second half of Christianity's 'holy book',

the Bible.

Yet before it was largely codified around
200 A.D., the New Testament was a collection

of apocalyptic revelations, letters to various
churches, and the formal writing down of oral

tradition in the form of the gospels.

Specifically, Paul's letters and the synoptic
gospels are considered to be valid historical

documents, that due to their content were
later turned into a 'holy book'.

In the words of historian and New Testament
scholar Dr. Gary Habermas, if you don't use

the historically accepted books of the New
Testament to argue for the historicity of

Jesus, then critics will use them for you.

But have the gospels reliably preserved historical
details through the ages, and are Pauls' letters

still in their original form and untampered
with for the purpose of empowering a Christian

agenda?

Historian, New Testament scholar, and textual
critic Bart Ehrman- himself an agnostic leaning

towards atheism- points out that we don't
have the original autographs by which to authenticate

the modern gospels and Paul's letters.

At best we have copies of copies of copies
of copies, with the earliest recovered fragments

dated back to around halfway through the second
century.

Furthermore, there is clear evidence of tampering
with the gospels, with some passages in modern

texts today widely known to have been introduced
into the text well after the originals.

Perhaps the most iconic of these fabricated
bible passages is John 7:53-8:11, the story

of Jesus and the adulterous woman.

This story tells of how Jesus came across
a woman about to be stoned to death for the

sin of adultery by the Pharisee authorities.

Jesus however interrupts the process and simply
asks that the first man without sin cast the

first stone, resulting in the accusers dropping
their rocks and going home.

Finally, Jesus comforts the woman and tells
her that he does not condemn her, then encourages

her to go forth and sin no more.

It's a wonderful anecdote and example of Jesus
as what 20th century Atheist philosopher Antony

Flew called, “a first-rate ethicist”.

Except it never happened, the story was fabricated
and inserted by an unknown scribe into the

text, and is only one example of several.

In further questioning the historical reliability
of the gospels, Ehrman also points out that

between various surviving ancient copies of
the biblical texts are thousands of errors,

and that the first written versions of the
gospels and Paul's letters weren't created

until decades after Jesus' death- leaving
plenty of room for details to be omitted,

forgotten, or outright fabricated.

Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church
wasn't written until 55 A.D., with the gospel

of Mark being written in 70 AD, Matthew in
80 AD, and John in 95 AD.

That's a spread of 25 to 65 years after the
death of Jesus.

So with made-up stories, thousands of textual
errors in the earliest available copies, and

such a massive time gap between Jesus's death
and his history being recorded, is there any

reason to think the New Testament is historically
reliable?

It's well established that teachings about
Jesus spread far and wide very quickly after

his death- in fact within as little as two
or three years after the crucifixion, Jewish

authorities were already persecuting Christians
across the near-East in a bid to exterminate

what they viewed as a heretical cult.

This wide geographic dissemination of the
core Christian knowledge about Jesus and his

life events makes it incredibly unlikely that
major revisions could have taken place without

them being discovered- if for example Christian
leaders in Rome wished to greatly change a

core fact of the life, death, or teachings
of Jesus, believers in Africa- which has one

of the world's oldest Christian communities-
would have immediately identified the manipulation.

The simple fact that we today are able to
know that the story of Jesus and the adulterous

woman was a fabrication is testament to how
difficult it can be to make even minor changes

to the text without them being discovered
thanks to the wide geographic distribution

of the original material.

Further, while Bart Ehrman is correct in pointing
out the thousands of errors and discrepancies

across various ancient manuscripts, the fact
is that the overwhelming amount of these errors

are insignificant to the core theology.

These errors are overwhelmingly misspellings
and other textual errors, or errors so insignificant

as to not affect the intended message of the
scripture.

While some may argue that over time errors
can pile up, as in a game of telephone, the

discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls proves the
great diligence with which holy texts were

copied and preserved by Jews.

A medieval copy of the Old Testament compared
with a copy discovered with the Dead Sea scrolls

dating back to between the third century BC
and first century AD showed that there were

astonishingly few differences in the text-
and once again, mostly copyist errors.

The early Christians, being former devout
Jews themselves, would have treated their

religious texts with the same reverence and
exacting care for precision.

Further, while we don't have the original
autographs, we do have many preserved copies

of some of the earliest church fathers' writing
on the gospels themselves.

From their musings on these earliest versions
of the gospels we can be confident that we

do in fact, have an incredibly well preserved
collection that if not perfectly, extremely

accurately reflects the content and message
of the autographs.

Professor Ehrman correctly points out to discrepancies
in the gospel accounts themselves as proof

that they are not reliable.

On just the discovery of the empty tomb, the
gospels vary in the telling.

Matthew states that Mary Magdalene and “the
other Mary” went to the tomb.

There they found an angel, who told them that
Jesus was risen and that they should tell

the disciples and that they should go to Galilee
to meet up with Jesus.

Mark states that both Maries, and a third
woman- Salome- went to the tomb and found

a young man inside who told them to tell the
disciples to go meet the risen Jesus in Galilee.

Luke states that “the women” went to the
tomb, and entering the empty tomb they could

not find Jesus when suddenly two men in bright
clothes appeared before them.

They are not told to tell the disciples about
the tomb nor to go anywhere.

John states that Mary Magadalene went to the
tomb and saw that the stone had been removed

from the entrance, so she went rushing back
to Peter and one of the other disciples and

claimed that the Jewish authorities or the
Romans had removed Jesus's body.

Peter and the other disciple returned to the
tomb to find Jesus's burial clothing, while

Mary somewhere outside the tomb and crying,
sees two angels and Jesus- though is not allowed

to immediately recognize Jesus.

So how can the various gospels be reconcilable
if they differ so much in their re-telling

of the empty tomb?

It's important to note that only one of the
gospel acounts- John's- actually differs in

any significant way.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written side-by-side,
but rather individually by different people,

thus it's unsurprising that they would slightly
differ in their historical retelling.

Neither of those three gospels contradicts
the other, they merely mention details important

to them.

While Luke seems to state that a group of
women went to the tomb, Matthew and Mark don't

omit the possibility- they simply focus on
two of the women in that group important to

the writer.

Luke also does not say that the women are
instructed to tell the disciples, or to tell

them to go to Galilee to meet Jesus there,
but the omission of this detail does not mean

it didn't happen- the writer of Luke could
have very correctly assumed that this part

of the history was so well known, it was unnecessary
to add it to his account.

The presence of the angels is likewise complimentary,
as Matthew and Mark may have simply chosen

to focus on the important angel- the one speaking.

John is the only gospel that differs significantly,
and is thus not considered a synoptic gospel-

yet that is consistent with the overall theme
of John which explores who Jesus was, not

what Jesus historically did.

Most historians accept this fact and don't
consider John a purely historical document

anyways, and neither should we.

As we can see then, the differences in the
gospel accounts are a) insignificant to the

core facts, and b) largely an issue of focus,
rather than irreconcilable discrepancies.

For comparison consider the accounts of the
Titanic's survivors- many of them swore that

the ship sunk without breaking in two, while
the rest swore that they saw the ship physically

break in two.

Nobody however doubted that the ship had sunk,
or any of the events immediately after the

sinking.

Further, if the gospel accounts had been perfectly
accurate to each other, they would've almost

certainly been collaborated, seriously damaging
their value as historical documents.

Lastly, while no serious historian objects
to the time gap between the gospels and Jesus's

death as being cause for concern over inaccuracy,
many non-historian critics do.

After all, how accurate can a historical account
be if it's written decades after the subject's

death?

First, this is ignoring the strong oral tradition
of ancient Jews.

In the first century, very few people knew
how to read or write, and thus most people

would rely on oral retelling of history- and
specially of their religious texts, with a

very strong emphasis on accuracy.

To a devout Jew, the thought of mangling holy
scripture by poorly recollecting it was an

unthinkable heresy.

This strong oral tradition would have been
present in the early Christians as well, themselves

recently converted Jews.

Next, while the earliest writings on Jesus
date to 25 years after his death, the fact

that we have at least 11 historical sources
for Jesus within a century of his death makes

Jesus of Nazareth the gold standard for ancient
historians.

Take for example Alexander the Great, of whom
there's not a single history class in the

world that doesn't tell of his deeds.

Yet the earliest available sources for Alexander
date to over 300 years after his death.

How about Tiberius Caesar then, the emperor
of the Roman empire during the life and death

of Jesus?

Surely if anyone was to be well-attested to
it would be the leader of the most powerful

empire at the time.

Yet while one contemporary source exists,
it's highly unreliable for historians as it

speaks on an all-too personal note.

The best, and earliest, source for the life
and times of Rome's emperor when Jesus died

is Publius Cornelius Tacitus, writing a full
eighty years after Tiberius's death.

The next after that is Suetonius, 85 years
after his death, and Cassius Dio almost two

centuries later.

Simply put, to doubt the veracity of the historical
account of the scriptures is to put into doubt

every single event of ancient history, as
the life, death, and teachings of Jesus are

the best sourced histories in the ancient
world.

With the gospels and letters of Saint Paul
accepted as valid historical documents, is

there then any evidence for the resurrection
as a historical event?

We can begin our investigation with the empty
tomb.

In the gospel accounts, the tomb is discovered
empty by Mary Magdalene.

Jesus's burial clothes are there, but not
the body.

Critics have argued that the empty tomb was
an early Christian fabrication, and presented

various theories as to what really happened.

The first is that the entire empty tomb narrative
was a fabrication, yet this has been widely

rejected by critical historians as the scriptures
themselves record the Jewish authorities reacting

to the empty tomb by claiming that the disciples
had stolen the body, along with their own

refutation to this claim.

An obvious back-and-forth dialogue is preserved,
showing that whatever the cause, the tomb

of Jesus was in fact discovered empty.

Next is the claim that the Jewish Sanhedrin
was right, and the disciples did steal the

body.

This is frankly, an absurd proposition, as
guards had been posted to the tomb.

In all likelihood these were actually Jewish
temple guards, as it's incredibly unlikely

that Pilate would have bothered to involve
Roman guards in what he saw as a purely Jewish

religious dispute, and instead simply told
the Sanhedrin to use the guards they already

possessed themselves.

The idea of the disciples bribing Jewish temple
guards successfully so as to perpetuate their

heretical belief in a resurrected Messiah
is incredulous to the point of sheer absurdity,

let alone bribing Roman guards who would themselves
face death for such a massive dereliction

of duty when the tomb was found empty.

The next theory is the 'apparent death' theory.

This theory states that Jesus didn't really
die on the cross, and instead survived his

crucifixion, somehow slipped past his tomb
guards, and returned to the disciples who

celebrated him as the resurrected Son of God.

Once more, it is completely absurd to believe
that a severely injured Jesus, who had just

survived a scourging, then being crucified,
and in need of critical medical care, could

possibly return to his disciples and convince
them that despite his utterly broken body,

he had in fact defeated death, quote, “in
glory”.

Secondly, crucifixion was simply not a survivable
event unless the person was immediately rescued.

The way that a person was crucified would
lead to a slow but sure asphyxiation as the

downward pull of gravity forced an individual
to physically push against the nails embedded

in his feet in order to lift their chest up
and relieve the pressure, allowing them to

gasp for breath.

This would have been not only an excruciatingly
painful experience, but an exhausting one,

compounded by the effects of blood loss and
exposure.

Additionally, Roman guards were quite used
to crucifying Jewish would-be Messiahs and

rebels by this time, and were under pains
of their own death to ensure that their prisoner

could not be rescued and did indeed die on
their cross.

Lastly, in the account of the crucifixion
in John 19, we have a Roman centurion ensuring

that Jesus is truly dead by piercing his side
with a spear, stabbing upwards and into the

heart to deliver a killing blow.

The scripture states that “blood and water”
came out of the wound, which perfectly mirrors

exactly what modern medical science would
expect from such a wound on a person who died

after being crucified.

Before death, fluid would have collected in
the membrane around the heart and lungs due

to heart failure- this is known as a pericardial
and pleural effusion.

Upon Jesus's body being pierced by the spear,
this fluid would have leaked out of the wound,

followed by blood, exactly as reported in
John 19, strongly hinting that whoever wrote

the John account either was physically present
at the crucifixion or had testimony from a

witness who was.

So is the empty tomb narrative accurate?

There is no realistic reason to believe that
Jesus's body was stolen, or that Jesus survived

his crucifixion.

Without an empty tomb, there could be no Christian
narrative of a resurrection.

As a well-known figure due to his perceived
blasphemy and heresy, the site of Jesus's

burial would have been known to anyone looking
to debunk the disciple's earliest claims of

resurrection, and all the Jewish authorities
would have had to do to shut the entire Christian

movement down as soon as it arouse was to
simply unseal the tomb and show that Jesus

still lay there, dead, and that the disciples
were liars.

It's important to note who discovered the
empty tomb as well- women.

In the very patriarchal society of the ancient
Jews, women were not regarded as credible

witnesses in court.

Both Jewish historian Josephus and Jewish
philosopher Maimonides made it clear that

women were not competent to testify in court.

As Josephus pointed out, testimony of a deaf,
mentally incompetent, or young person, as

well as women, was excluded in most cases.

Despite women being ineligible to serve as
witnesses in most Jewish courts, the early

Christians publicly proclaimed women- the
least trustworthy members of society- as the

discoverers of the empty tomb.

This would not just have been an incredulous,
but hugely embarrassing detail for the early

disciples, and the fact that the detail remains
is strong evidence that the disciples were

simply accurately relaying the discovery of
the empty tomb- no matter how embarrassing

it was for them personally.

Next in our investigation of the resurrection
is the appearances of Jesus after his death.

The majority of new testament historians affirm
that Jesus appeared to his disciples after

his death.

In the words of Ed Sanders, New Testament
scholar and former professor at Duke University,

“The following is an historical fact: the
earliest disciples saw the risen Jesus.

I don't know how exactly they saw him, but
they saw him.”

Most critics, including 20th century atheist
philosopher Antony Flew ascribe to the hallucination

theory to explain the postmortem appearances
of Jesus.

This theory posits that the disciples were
stricken with grief-inspired hallucinations,

and confused them as the real, bodily appearance
of a risen Jesus.

There are, however, serious problems with
this theory.

First, any belief in Jesus's resurrection
due to a hallucination could have easily been

dispelled by Jewish authorities by simply
checking the tomb and finding the body still

resting there.

Second, as is established by medical science,
hallucinations cannot create new ideas- they

simply work within the preexisting mental
framework.

As devout Jews, the disciples had no belief,
let alone an 'idea' of a bodily resurrection

that predated the end of days.

In the Jewish faith, resurrection only occurred
on the last day, as God cast his judgment

and called the faithful to live in paradise-
before this event there could be no resurrection

of the dead.

Revivification of the recently dead, much
like happens in our modern hospitals every

day, was certainly possible, but not a resurrection
to a “glorified body” as described by

the disciples of Jesus.

Therefore a hallucination could not have convinced
a devout Jew that an event for which he had

no basis for believing in, had occurred.

Secondly, the odds of all of the disciples-
or at least enough to jump-start the Christian

church- all suffering from grief hallucinations
are astronomical to the point of, once more,

absurdity.

There is not a single other recorded case
like it in verified medical history.

Further, it's well recorded that Jesus appeared
to groups of the disciples at the same time,

and hallucinations cannot be shared between
individuals.

One individual cannot see what another is
hallucinating, and vice-versa.

Lastly, there's the case of Saint Paul.

Paul was in effect, a religious terrorist.

As the early Christian church spread rapidly,
Paul was tasked with finding Christians and

imprisoning or killing them on behalf of the
Jewish authorities.

Yet two to three years after the crucifixion,
Paul- by his own account- encountered Jesus.

At the time he was on the way to the synagogues
in Damascus to request their aid in arresting

Christians and bringing them back to Jerusalem
to undergo trial and possible execution.

While on the road, Paul encounters Jesus and
is blinded, and remains so until one of the

very Christians he was sent to arrest or kill
finds him and heals him.

In 'The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection
Myth', Jack Kent argues that Paul suffered

from conversion disorder, a very real psychological
disorder that commonly affects soldiers, police

officers, and prison guards.

Commonly, sufferers will experience physical
maladies with no apparent cause while under

severe psychological stress- thus Paul's blindness
is believed to be a psychosomatic syndrome

of his conversion disorder, itself caused
by his internal conflict in killing and imprisoning

innocent Christians.

However, there are as usual problems with
this theory.

Conversion disorder is short-lived, and thus
would not explain Paul's dramatic and lifelong

change from devout Jew and persecutor of Christians,
to a champion of the early Christian faith.

It's also incredibly implausible that Paul
experienced conversion disorder along with

visual and auditory hallucinations which led
him to believe that Jesus was talking to him

personally- not to mention the Messiah complex
that would arise as Paul took on the mission

of spreading the Christian faith far and wide.

In short, Paul would have had to have been
one of the most mentally ill individuals in

history to suffer from all four mental disorders
simultaneously at exactly this stretch of

road on the way to Damascus.

Hallucination theory simply can't explain
why a sworn enemy of the Christian church

would experience the same hallucination as
Jesus's own disciples, years after Jesus's

death.

It also cannot explain the postmortem appearances
to entire groups of people as recorded by

the disciples, as hallucinations are a personal
experience.

Finally, a hallucination could not have led
the disciples to believe in something they

had no concept of before the event- namely,
the preapocalyptic resurrection of their former

teacher.

Next is the marked change in the disciple's
lives as a result of their postmortem encounters

with Jesus.

As stated about Paul, hallucinations simply
do not lead to lifelong ideological changes,

and the disciples clearly underwent dramatic
and unprecedented ideological and theological

changes practically overnight as a result
of their experiences after the crucifixion.

Immediately after Jesus's death, the disciples
went into hiding, fearful that the Jewish

authorities would crucify them next.

It can't be understated how devastating the
crucifixion was for the disciples- not only

had they lost their teacher, but he had suffered
a criminal's death, one so abhorrent to Jewish

society that it was believed those who were
crucified would not experience resurrection

on the final day.

In the eyes of the disciples, Jesus had proven
himself to be no different than the dozens

of other self-proclaimed Jewish messiahs that
came before, and after, his death.

Yet we know that within months of the resurrection,
possibly even weeks, the disciples were boldly

proclaiming Jesus's resurrection.

This is evidenced by two facts: the first
is that the Christian church had spread so

quickly that Paul was on his way to root it
out in Damascus just two to three years after

Jesus's death.

The second is what is known as the 'Corinthian
creed', written down by Paul in 1 Corinthians

15, which reads:

...that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that

he was raised on the third day according to
the Scriptures.

This creedial statement in Paul's letter is
authenticated as an early Christian creed

by the format it is written in the original
Greek, which differs from the way the rest

of Paul's letter is written.

In the ancient world, when you wanted to help
someone who couldn't read or write remember

something, you put it in the form of a creed,
and as Bart Ehrman himself attests, the Corinthian

creed can be dated back to within one or two
years of the crucifixion, with some historians

dating it as early as mere months after Jesus's
death.

This means that within months after the crucifixion,
the earliest Christians were already teaching

Jesus's resurrection- a concept that they
had no ideological basis for prior to the

crucifixion.

And not only were the demoralized and terrified
disciples coming to believe Jesus had risen

from the dead, but they were almost immediately
spreading their belief to thousands of other

Jews.

Belief in the resurrection was far from the
only heretical belief of the disciples however,

as almost immediately after the crucifixion
the young Christian church changed their celebration

of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

This move was motivated by the day of Jesus's
alleged resurrection and discovery of the

empty tomb, and to first century Jews, would
have been the height of heresy.

Handed down to them by God himself, and honored
for two thousand years, the sabbath and God's

commands to keep it holy were of paramount
importance to the Jews, and suffused nearly

every aspect of their culture.

For the early Christians to be convinced that
Jesus had risen from the dead, and thus shift

their sabbath celebration from Saturday to
Sunday, defying almost two thousand years

of tradition, would have required an incredible
burden of proof.

As observed across history, religious schisms
simply don't spring up overnight, and yet

one of the immediate defining characteristics
of the early Christian church was its adoption

of Sunday as the new sabbath.

Belief in Jesus as the messiah also completely
defied all Jewish messianic expectations.

To first century Jews, living under the Roman
yoke and having experienced no independence

for hundreds of years, the messiah was supposed
to triumph over Israel's enemies and drive

them out of the land.

The messiah was not supposed to be tried by
his enemies and then sentenced to a humiliating

death on a cross- let alone be resurrected
three days later only to leave Israel's enemies

in power.

For the early Jews, the messiah was a triumphant
figure, leading them to victory- not an atoning

sacrifice for the sins of the world.

Explaining how so many 1st century Jews could
come to believe in this radically different

version of a messiah is difficult, unless
the disciples had proof in the postmortem

encounters with Jesus, and the instructions
they received during those visitations.

Critics argue that the entire narrative was
fabricated by the early church, yet fail to

account for how truly difficult it would be
to come to believe in Jesus as messiah when

he defied centuries of messianic expectations
within a deeply religious society by dying

as a criminal and not driving out Israel's
enemies.

Lastly, we have the faith of the disciples
themselves.

Christian claims that all or most of the original
disciples were martyred cannot be substantiated,

but there are good sources for several of
the disciples.

Peter's martyrdom is attested to by Clement
of Rome, an early church leader elected from

amongst individuals who personally knew the
disciples.

He was crucified upside down, not believing
himself worthy to die the same way as Jesus.

The apostle James, not to be confused with
Jesus's brother, was killed by King Herod

in about AD 44.

The martyrdom is attested to in the book of
Acts, but also recorded by Clement of Alexandria

who was born 100 years after James died.

Paul, the famous persecutor of Christians,
is widely attested to by the earliest church

leadership as having been beheaded by emperor
Nero sometime before 68 AD.

James, brother of Jesus, is written about
by Jewish historian Josephus, who writes that

James was executed by stoning in 62 AD. James'
murder, according to Josephus, offended many

of the citizens as it had been carried out
by a hastily organized Jewish court during

a lapse in imperial oversight of the region.

James' martyrdom is particularly striking
because as the gospels state, he believed

Jesus was crazy while alive, and yet would
later die for his faith that his own brother

was indeed the messiah.

While the rest of the disciples cannot be
confirmed as having been martyred, the ones

which can be confirmed paint a telling picture
of a group of men who refused to give up their

belief in Jesus as messiah despite the threat
of death.

Often painted as con artists by critics, there
is no possible reason to believe that if the

disciples were truly con men, they would have
stuck to the con all the way up to their own

execution- and yet history records no mention
of their recanting of their beliefs.

Simply put, men don't die for false beliefs.

The final argument for the resurrection of
Jesus of Nazareth as a historical event argues

that the crucifixion and resurrection account
simply lacks legendary embellishments, as

is present in nearly every other religion.

This however is only mostly true, as there
are clear signs of legendary-ism that creep

into scripture.

For example, when Jesus dies the gospels speak
of a period of darkness, or of many of the

dead returning to life briefly, or of the
veil in the temple separating the holy of

holies from the public tearing in two.

While there is some evidence that an eclipse
may have occurred on the day Jesus died, there

is no evidence that the dead walked briefly
through the streets of Jerusalem, or that

the earth shook and the temple was damaged
in any way.

These are almost certainly, simply legendary
embellishments.

However, when compared with other religious
texts what immediately stands out about the

New Testament is the starkness of the text.

In fact, the entire account of the life, death,
and postmortem appearances of Jesus is quite

embarrassing to the early church.

Even before Jesus dies, the scriptures attest
to bickering, whining, and complaining from

his own disciples.

Jesus frequently rebuffs them for their lack
of faith or foolishness, and even outright

chastises Peter- the man on whom the church
would be built- as having an ungodly way of

thinking about things.

One of Jesus's closest disciples is a tax
collector for the Romans- men who were seen

as traitors and were so reviled by Jewish
society that they were not allowed to worship

at the temple and were considered unclean
along with various animals.

Jesus's own family was no better, with the
gospels recording that they believed he was

crazy- this would be most telling for James,
his brother, who would shortly after the crucifixion

come to believe in Jesus as messiah and even
die for that belief.

When Jesus is arrested, Peter- again, the
most important of the disciples- denies Jesus

three times, then flees along with the rest
of the disciples to hide in fear and shame.

When Jesus is crucified, most of the gospel
accounts state that at best, only a few of

the disciples watched from a great distance.

Only the gospel of John, least reliable in
this matter, mentions that a single disciple

was even near the cross- though what's clear
is that the disciples didn't dare come close

for fear of their own arrest.

After Jesus's death, none of the disciples
believe in his promise to return after three

days.

They are so demoralized by the crucifixion
that they are hiding from the Jewish authorities,

and even when Mary Magdalene brings them news
of the empty tomb, they refuse to believe.

It's only when Jesus appears bodily to them
that they believe, and even then at least

one of them, Thomas, refuses to believe Jesus
isn't a ghost until Jesus offers that he physically

touch him.

The picture painted by the gospels of the
original disciples is that of scared, doubting,

at times unfaithful men- exactly the opposite
of what you would expect if the entire narrative

had simply been created for the purposes of
legitimizing a belief in Jesus.

Rather than painting them as great patriarchs
of wisdom and faith as would be expected,

the New Testament is downright frequently
embarrassing in its portrayal of the disciples-

evidence that the scribes who penned the original
gospels were more interested in recording

truth than fictionalizing accounts and infusing
them with legendary attributes.

From a radical and sudden shift in deeply
held religious beliefs, to the independently

attested accounts of bodily postmortem appearances
of Jesus, to the inexplicable explosion in

growth of the early church, the question of
if Jesus rose from the dead or not remains

without a plausible naturalistic answer.

While a naturalistic theory can be posited
that answers one or more of the facts behind

the early church, no one theory can explain
all of them together.

The truth is something significant happened
in Jerusalem in the early 30s AD, an event

so incredible that it immediately split the
Jewish faith in two and led to an explosion

in belief in Jesus of Nazareth, executed as
a blasphemer and criminal, as the risen Messiah.

Now go watch most weird passages in the bible,
or click this other video instead!