The folks at Impact 360 have put together a great looking video discussing the minimal facts of the resurrection of Jesus. This minimal facts approach is useful when discussing why believing in the resurrection is reasonable. Take a look and then share it with a neighbor! This video is approximately 4 minutes long. Enjoy.

11 COMMENTS

  1. The 500 witnesses is weak evidence as it is only referred to in one letter by Paul, we don’t know who those people were. It does not reconcile with the total number of believers being recorded as being 120 in Acts 1:15 at Pentecost, which is after the Ascension.

    Based on the reasoning in this video a similar case could be made for the truth of Joseph Smith’s Golden Plates.

    • Hi Peter. Thanks for the comment. I’ll agree with you that, generally speaking, evidence can be viewed on a spectrum of strength. However, I think it’s not that easy to dismiss Paul as it is well known he is referencing a creed that came directly from the apostles only a few years after Jesus resurrected. As the video lays out, the apostles could have lied about this but what good reason did they have considering the consequences of their testimonies? I don’t see one.

      Also, be careful with the Acts passage. It never says the total number of believers were 120. It simply says that 120 were present in the room with Peter and the apostles when Peter got up to speak. It may be the case, as some have suggested, that a number of other brethren were already traveling in order to fulfill the Great Commission given by Jesus before He ascended.

      As far as your comment about the reasoning in this video being akin to a case for Joseph Smith’s Golden Plates, anyone who’s studied Mormonism can see these are apples and oranges comparisons.

      • Why would some of the 500 be travelling if the believers were told in Acts 1:4 not leave Jerusalem but to wait for the ‘power from on high’?

        To argue that they might have been elsewhere in Jerusalem preaching the ‘Great Commission’ goes against the natural reading of the Luke/Acts narrative.

        • Fair enough, Peter. I’m not going to press that particular point very far because, to be honest, I’m not sure where I stand on that issue (which is why I said “some have suggested”). But what, specifically, some were doing is besides the point to the greater assumption that you make in Acts 1:15, which is, the “brethren” must include all that existed at that time. Is it not possible that the 120 is a selection of a larger group of believers that existed at that time and saw Christ before He ascended? Because there is an argument (by D.A. Carson, Gleason Archer, and others) that the “adelphois” in Matthew 28 should be understood to include not just the eleven disciples.

          • Many things are possible, but some are more likely than others. I place greater store in what Don Carson says than what Gleason Archer says as Archer seems (or I should say seemed) to be an apologist first and scholar second whereas in my view it is the converse with Carson (just my opinion mind you).

            Of course if we do venture into Matthew’s Gospel then it does raise the question of why there Jesus told the Disciples to meet him in Galilee whereas in Luke/Acts the disciples are told to stay in Jerusalem? Now I realise that it is possible to ‘construct’ a harmonisation of the two accounts (much like the extra chapter that seems to have been added to the end of John’s Gospel), but once again there is a difference between the possible and the likely.

  2. “…a human is in no way better off than an animal. Everything goes to the same place: everything comes from the dust, and everything returns to the dust.
    — (Eccl 3:20) —

    …a human being, he dies and dead he remains.
    — (Job 14:10) —

    a human being, once laid to rest will never rise again.
    — (Job 14:12) —

    • Terrific verses, arch. You’re so right. Humans die and stay dead. They don’t rise again. The bible even makes that plain statement.

      That’s why it’s such a miraculous testament to Jesus’ divinity and confirmation of his place as Messiah that he was raised from the grave exactly when he said he would be. Thanks for the reminder!

        • I don’t think you understand the magnitude of Gene’s point. He’s talking about God, becoming a man, being tortured to the point of death, bearing the weight of every wrong ever to be committed on the history of time, and then raising from the grave in the most miraculous event ever recorded.

          In comparison, not even in the same ball park as 40 years of verbal oration. In fact, we see people so amazed at what they witnessed, they were sincerely more concerned with telling the good news that self reflecting in written form.

          Think about it like having a baby. Do you sit in the hospital writing letters or do you tell anyone who will listen? I was so excited, I told the doctor–who was holding my baby–“Doc! I’m a dad!!”.

          Thanks for the trip down memory lane arch. Hope that better describes what I think you meant to say.

Comments are closed.