Original subtitles

With one out of every three people on earth identifying as a 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 Nazareth was a real man who lived and died in the time attributed to him in the Gospels.

The Jewish historian Flavvias Josephus mentions Jesus twice in the histories.

His 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 Josifice is when he references the death of Jesus' 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 eighty six years after its 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 this writing.

Which further strengthens the biblical account of St. Paul.

It's well established that teachings about Jesus spread far and wide very quickly after his death, in fact, within as little as two to 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.

The 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 wish 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.

Further, while Bart Ermine 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 air is so insignificant as do not affect the intended message of the scripture.

While some may argue that overtime 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 A-D, showed that there were astonishingly few differences in the text.

Once again, most copiest errors. The early Christians, being former devout Jews themselves, would have treated their religious texts with the same reverence and exacting care for precision.

Furthermore, while we don't have the original autographs, we do have many preserved copies of some of the earliest church fathers riding on the gospels themselves.

From their musings on these earliest versions of the gospel, so 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 autograph.

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, considered the accounts of the Titanic survivors, many of them swore that the ship sunk without breaking into, while the rest, war that they saw the ship physically break into.

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 have 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' death as being caused for concern over in accuracy.

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, many people would rely on oral retelling of history and especially of religious texts, with a very strong emphasis on accuracy.

To a devout Jew, the thought of mangling holy scripture by poorly recalling it was an unthinkable heresy.

This strong oral tradition would have been present in the early Christians as well, themselves, recently converted juice next, while the earliest writings on Jesus State did twenty five years after his death.

The fact that we have at least eleven historical sources for Jesus within the 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 Day to over 300 years after his death, how about Tiberia? 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 in times of Rome's emperor, when Jesus died, is Publiest. Cornelius Tacitus, writing a full eighty years after Tiberius's death,

The next after that is Plutonous. Eighty five years after his death,

And Cassie Steel, almost two centuries later.

S simply put to doubt. The veracity of the historical account of the scripture 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 Magdalen.

Jesus' 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 tube narrative is a fabrication.

Yet this has been widely rejected by critical historians, as the scriptures themselves record Jewish authorities reacting to the empty tomb by claiming that the disciples had stolen the body.

Along with their own refutation of 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 saint Heedron 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 pilot would have bothered to involve Roman guards, and what he saw as a purely Jewish religious dispute.

And instead, simply told the send Hedrin to use the guards they already possessed themselves.

The idea of disciples bribing Jewish temple guards successfully, so as to perpetrate 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 Apparen't death theory. This theory states that Jesus didn't really die on the cross and instead survived a crucifixion.

Somehow slipped past the tomb guards and returned to the disciples who celebrated him as the resurrected son of God.

Once more, it's completely absurd to believe that a severely injured Jesus.

Who had just survived this scourging and 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 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 not only been 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 the pains of their own deaths. To ensure that the prisoner could not be rescued?

And did indeed die on the cross.

Lastly, in the account of the crucifixion in John, nineteen, we have a Roman centurion ensuring that Jesus is truly dead by piercing his side with a spear.

Stabbing upwards and into the hearts to deliver 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 the heart failure.

This is known as Perry cardio and plural 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, nineteen.

Strongly hinting that whomever wrote the account either was physically present at the crucifixion.

Or had testimony from a witness who was.

So is the empty two narrative accurate There's no realistic reason to believe that Jesus's body was stolen, or that Jesus survived this crucifixion.

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

As a well known figure, due to is perceived blasphemy and heresy, the sight of Jesus' burial would have been known to anyone looking to debunk the Disciples' 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 arose was to simply unseal the tomb and show that Jesus still lay there Dead.

And that the disciples reliers. 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, his story and Josephus and Jewish philosopher, my monities made it clear that women were not competent to testify in court.

As Josephus pointed out testimony of a death, mentally incompeted, 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. Two.

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 the 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 a historical fact.

The earliest disciples saw the rise in Jesus, I don't know how exactly they saw him, but they saw him.

Most critics, including twentieth century atheist philosopher Anthony Flu, ascribe to the hallucination theory, to explain the post mortem appearances of Jesus.

This theory pauses that the disciples were stricken with grief, inspired hallucinations.

And confuse them as the real bodily appearance of arisen Jesus. There are, however, serious problems with that theory.

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

There could be no resurrection of the dead, reviveification 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 the devout Jew that the event for which he had no basis for believing in had occurred.

Secondly, the odds of all his disciples are at least enough to jump start the Christian Church, all suffering from grief. Hallucinations are astronomical to the point of once more absurdity.

There's 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, or 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 and 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 Kenta argues that Paul suffered from conversion disorder, a very real psychological disorder that commonly affects soldiers, police officers and prison guards.

Commonly suffers will experience physical maladies with no apparen't 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 disorders, 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 farm wide.

In short, paul would have 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' own disciples. Years after Jesus' death,

It also cannot explain the post mortem appearances to entire groups of people, as recorded by the disciples, as hallucinations are a personal experience.

Finally, hallucination could not have led the disciples to believe in something they had no concept of before the event, namely, the pre apocalyptic resurrection of their former teacher.

Next is the marks change in the disciples lives as a result of their post mortem encounters with Jesus.

I stated about Paul.

Hallucinations simply do not lead to lifelong ideological changes.

And the disciples clearly underwent traumatic and unprecedented ideological and theological changes practically overnight as a result of their experiences after crucifixion.

Immediately after Jesus' 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.

Once so important 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' resurrection.

This was 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' death,

The second is what's known as the Corinthian creed.

Written down by Paul in First Corinthians, fifteen, 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, the creedial statement in Pauls letter is authenticated as an early Christian creed by the format, it's written in the original Greek.

Which differs from the way the rest of Pauls letters, 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 Ermen himself attests, the Caribbean creed can be dated back to within one or two years of the crucifixion.

With some historians dating it to as early as mere months after Jesus' death.

This means that within months after the crucifixion, the earliest Christians were already teaching Jesus' 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 that 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 2000 years, the Sabbath and God's commands to keep it wholly 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 2000 years of tradition.

Would have required an incredible burden of proof.

As observed across history, religious schism simply don't spring up overnight.

And yet one of the immediate defining characteristics of the early Christian Church was its adoption of a Sunday as the new sabbath.

Belief in Jesus says the Messiah also completely defied all Jewish messyonic expectations.

The first century Jews living under the Roman yoke and having experienced no independence for hundreds of years.

The Messiah was supposed to triumph for 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 in its toning sacrifice for the sins of the world, explaining how so many first century Jews could come to believe in this radically different version of a messiah.

Is difficult.

Unless the disciples had proof in the post mortem encounters with Jesus and the instructions they received during those visitations, critics argued that the entire narrative was fabricated by the early Church.

Yet failed to account for how truly difficult it would be to come to believe in Jesus as Messiah.

When he defied centuries of messyonic 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 martyr cannot be substantiated.

But there are good sources for several of the disciples. Peters martyrdom was attested to by a climate 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' brother, was killed by King Harrad in about eighty forty four. The martyrdom is attested to in the book of Axe.

But also recorded by a climate of Alexandria, who was born one hundred 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, sometimes before sixty eight A-D.

James, brother of Jesus is written about by Jewish historian Josephus, who writes that James was executed by stonening in sixty two A-D.

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 and imperial oversight of the region.

James is martyrdom is particularly striking.

Because as the gospel 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, painted, telling picture of a group of men.

Who refused to give up their belief in Jesus as Messiah despite their threat of death.

Often painted as con artists by critics, there's no possible reason to believe that if the disciples were truly conmen, they would have stuck to the con all the way up to their own execution.

And yet, history records no mention of their recanting 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 legendaryism that creep into the scripture.

For example, when Jesus dies, the gospel speak of a period of darkness or of many of the dead returning to life briefly.

Or of the veil and the temple, separating the holy of holys from the public. Tearing in two.

While there is some evidence that in eclipse might have occurred that 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 startness of the text.

In fact, the entire account of the life death and post mortem 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 traders 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' 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, shortly after his crucifixion, come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and even die for that belief?

When Jesus has 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 ever near the cross.

Though, what's clear is that the disciples didn't dare come close for fear of their own arrest.

After Jesus' 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 Magdalen brings the 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, refused to believe Jesus is in the 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 purpose 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 describes who penned the original gospels are 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 post mortem 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 positive, 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 thirtys 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.