Is there any real proof of the Resurrection?

This is easily the most important aspect of Christianity. In my opinion, even if ALL other events mentioned in the Bible are downright false, as long as the resurrection is true, then Christianity has merit. But historically (people have tried to prove otherwise), the Resurrection has very little evidence.

For instance, the entire point of crucifixion was to shame criminals, not even giving them a proper place to rest (with the criminals remains most likely ending up in a mass grave). So why on earth would Pilate hand over Jesus’ body to Joseph of Arimethea?

I’m trying to keep this post short, but this is a website detailing why the Resurrection is improbable:

So am I and the author of this website looking at the wrong evidence, or making the wrong conclusions? Because if I am, I am sorely in need of guidance.

There is no 100% definite proof of the resurrection. It requires faith without a doubt.

One of the best arguments in my opinion is the fact that we do know christians remained alive that was alive when jesus walked the earth and was the same ones who then faced the persecution of the Roman Empire. The very men who would have been invoked with stealing the body would probably have been the very men that kept the lie even in the face of death. So there is that historical aspect that if anyone knew it was a lie, they were still choosing to die for it.

But there are some holes with that.

  1. Maybe someone who was not part of the innocent circle stole the body. Maybe they stole it and never told anyone and they stole it to help keep the lie going. It could also have been someone who stole the body that was Jewish to make sure it did not resurrect. Maybe they wanted to keep the body nust in case.

  2. We have cults nowadays that sincerely believe things and take on death. Dozens of cults have started where the “sheep” followed the leader even to suicide , foreign countries and so on. So the apostles could have very well decided to believe it despite it being a cult and they gladly faced death and persecution for it.

So ultimately there is no scientific data period and there is very little historical reason to provide a concrete set of knowledge. So for me it ultimately comes down to faith.


Chuck Colson’s book, Born Again, does a pretty good job. One of his arguments*, having been an insider in a conspiracy and coverup, is that if the resurrection had been a conspiracy, it would have failed. With fewer people, some of the most powerful people in Washington were involved in a much less involved conspiracy and they couldn’t hold it together. So of course, that is an inductive argument and not direct evidence. Scientific proof of the resurrection would constitute proof of God’s existence, and that is something God does not want, not that there isn’t plenty of evidence for it.

*The only one I remember after having read it two and a half decades ago. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Greco-roman texts have shown that in some cases the crucified bodies were left to decompose. However in other cases they were buried. Joseph was a rich man. So with bribing maybe the pilate etc etc he not only got around the jew leaders but managed to secure the body as well



No one survived a Roman scourging, let alone crucifixion on top and being run through with a spear and bleeding out. He was so dead they didn’t even bother breaking His legs with a mallet.

If you need to rationalize away the clinical account, water it down, I understand. But have no respect for that whatsoever.

As for improbable, what an absurd claim. Resurrection is naturally impossible.

So in answer to your final question, you’re making up evidence let alone conclusions.

It is indeed the linchpin that turned the fearful, defeated disciples into the unstoppable early church. If it wasn’t known to be impossible even back then, then it wouldn’t have been any great work of God. It was because of its impossibility that disciples had to literally be clubbed over the head with it - and by seeing Jesus himself on multiple occasions, to get them onboard. As to what kind of body this was with … scriptural testimony is at pains to tell us it is now a spiritual and unperishable body, and also one with the kind of substantial physical reality that we associate with our present flesh (touch me and watch me eat…). What that looks like to modern curiosities that remain flesh-focused only will (I think) remain forever a mystery to us, leaving the nonbelievers perfectly free to dismiss it as they will. Those willing to trust God that the promises and the resurrection are and will be the final reality to dawn on this world, are now called to live according to that trust and hope. We are called fools for doing so, and understandably so. All we can do is live according to that hope and in doing so, help others feel invited to also “taste and see” for themselves.

1 Like

Among other things, I would observe that there is a certain deductive argument, or argument to the best explanation involved in the question.

The existence of the multiple historical claims about the resurrection, by numerous (former) skeptics of such, is indisputable, of course. We do have to ask what is the explanation for all these numerous people embracing this idea.

So if we reject the idea that they all testified to this event, often on pain of persecution and death, because they had actually seen it happen, then what is the best alternate explanation?

And, for what it is worth, I would devote some of your natural and healthy skepticism to Richard Carrier’s own writings and arguments. I have found him to be extremely polemical, often being very selective or misleading or careless in his data in order to affirm his predetermined conclusion. Just one example in the article you linked… he says that

“This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted… Only a small class of elite well-educated men adopted more skeptical points of view, and because they belonged to the upper class, both them and their arrogant skepticism were scorned by the common people, rather than respected.

Carrier here is either entirely ignorant of, or glossing over and covering up, the consistent and persistent skepticism of all the original disciples when they were first told by other eyewitnesses about the resurrection. This is not a small error. This is one example of many I found just in this article.

I would be very careful in giving too much weight on this question to someone who is as committed to his atheism as Richard Carrier appears to be, and certainly don’t read him as anything approaching an “objective” perspective in the topic. If there is any good evidence for the resurrection, someone with his philosophical commitment will be all but assured to miss it, or misinterpret it.

So if I may be so bold… If Jesus did not rise from the dead, what would be your alternate explanation for the historical facts involved? Hypnosis? Group Hallucination? Conspiracy?

1 Like

Debunked,debunked and debunked. All of those have been debunked.


Pilate tried to get Jesus released, and he knew turning the body over to Joseph would irritate the Jews who wanted Jesus forgotten.

Also, it is possible a bribe was involved.

The spread of the gospel and the resolve of the early church is evidence of the resurrection. The memory of Jesus would have quickly died out without the resurrection.

Also, if the resurrection were fiction, the gospels would have been written differently. The Apostles scattered, not expecting the resurrection. And they were shocked and in disbelief when it happened. If the resurrection were fiction, the gospels would have had the Apostles waiting at the tomb rather than cowering in dark rooms.

To play the devil’s advocate could there not be a reasonable conclusion that is centered around someone stealing the body and then when Mary showed up two men where there and believe Jesus must have resurrected and left.

How though? Pilate had guards in the tomb. No matter the birbe the guards would ahve risked their lives. Also what about the latest appereances of Christ?

It wouldn’t explain the change of opinion if the disciples. The women came and reported everything they saw to the disciples, and by numerous accounts, the disciples did not believe the report of the women. If this is all that had happened, it would never have gained traction and we wouldn’t be here talking about it.

Let’s say there was proof that Pilate routinely guarded the tombs of the dead. Let’s say these guards that was protecting it were not one of the ones that stole it or that it was not stolen before they got there.

If the guards were risking their life, and if they lost the body they would be killed by Pilate, and the guards got scared and fled. Who would they have told? How would these roman guards in fear of their life tell random Christians that about it or if they told the Pharisees why would those Pharisees than tell random Christians. Would not the guards flee as quickly as possible and not tell anyone so they could not be tracked down?

What is the Pilate told the romans to remove the body and hide it in a new grave that others did not know about it and lie that they were ran off. So they told the jews these men ran them off and overtime that rumor was turned into angels did it from Christians.

There are burnout plausible alternatives that requires less faith than that in the supernatural.

So what about Islam and Buddhism? Billions believes in those and we don’t as Christians. How did these lies generate traction based off of lies?

1 Like

Mere peasents ran off the infamous roman troops? Unlikely

What I said is that the Roman guards themselves moved the body to better hide it under the command of Pilate and then lied and said they were ran off by men.

Again it’s easy to be critical that Pilate sent something of the most hardcore soldiers in their command to guard a tomb.

Course he did. The whole Judea was at the verge of rebelion. Tya last problem he wanted was some guys steing a body and then claiming he raised from the dead

What he had to gain from that?

1 Like

To hide it from others and cut down on keeping guards there .

But we would still need good evidence that romans routinely placed guards at tombs like this. Pilates wife could have convinced him to at least hide the body so others could not deface it. Or how long would they have to constantly send guards there to protect it. If Jesus did not raise up, someone a month later could come and steal it and claim he rose up.

They could have decided it’s easier to move it and lie saying someone stole it. Then make the coyotes believe Christians stole it.

Numerous reasons.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.