The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Quotes

“The rule that science is the only way to know something is itself unscientific; it cannot be tested. So the claim
that only science can demonstrate truth actually flunks its own test, since it cannot validate itself!”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Historians employ a number of common-sense principles in assessing the strength of a testimony. Here are five of those principles:
1. Testimony attested to by multiple independent witnesses is usually considered stronger than the testimony of one witness.
2. Affirmation by a neutral or hostile source is usually considered stronger than affirmation from a friendly source, since bias in favor of the person or position is absent.
3. People usually don't make up details regarding a story that would tend to weaken their position.
4. Eyewitness testimony is usually considered stronger than testimony heard from a second- or thirdhand source.
5. An early testimony from very close to the event in question is usually considered more reliable than one received years after the event.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Cicero calls it the most horrendous torture.' So hideous was the act of crucifixion upon a man that he also writes that "the very word `cross' should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Even the highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agreed that historical criticism can establish "the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection" and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus.67 Atheistic New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann concludes, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."6R Paula Fredriksen of Boston University comments, "I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Atheistic New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann concludes, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."6R”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Has science proven that a resurrection is impossible and, therefore, not a credible belief?”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“3. Embarrassing admissions support historical claims.
An indicator that an event or saying is authentic occurs when the source would not be expected to create the story, because it embarrasses his cause and `weakened its position in arguments with opponents. "5”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“We observe that the life of Jesus differs substantially from typical alien accounts. Aliens usually arrive in a spaceship; Jesus was born on earth. Aliens usually appear for a very short time; Jesus was on earth for over thirty years. The usual report of an encounter with aliens describes them as abusive; Jesus was loving and compassionate.
The supposition that life exists in the universe outside Earth is questionable. Contrary to the popular media's portrayal of aliens in movies like ET, Cocoon, and Contact, the scientific evidence from astrophysics within the past thirty-five years makes it seem increasingly improbable that life exists anywhere else in the cosmos.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider the critical thesis that other authors wrote the pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we'd have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors20 and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross.21 Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within the 150 years: Josephus, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; and probably the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion.22 In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death.
In comparison, let's take a look at Julius Caesar, one of Rome's most prominent
figures. Caesar is well known for his military conquests. After his Gallic Wars, he made the famous statement, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Only five sources report his military conquests: writings by Caesar himself, Cicero, Livy, the Salona Decree, and Appian.23 If Julius Caesar really made a profound impact on Roman society, why didn't more writers of antiquity mention his great military accomplishments? No one questions whether Julius did make a tremendous impact on the Roman Empire. It is evident that he did. Yet in those 150 years after his death, more non-Christian authors alone comment on Jesus than all of the sources who mentioned Julius Caesar's great military conquests within 150 years of his death.
Let's look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus' ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke.24 Compare that to Jesus' forty-two total sources in the same length of time. That's more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular non-Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of nine each.25”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Aside from the faith factor, when it comes to reports of miracles, the historian must seek a natural explanation before considering a supernatural one.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“there is an important difference between the apostle martyrs and those who die for their beliefs today. Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The disciples of Jesus died for what they knew to be either true or false.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus' resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus' death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead. This conclusion has been reached by
data that suggest that (1) the disciples themselves claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and (2) subsequent to Jesus' death by crucifixion, his disciples were radically transformed from fearful, cowering individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold proclaimers of the gospel of the risen Lord. They remained steadfast in the face of imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom. It is very clear that they sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“The external evidence of Jesus' resurrection confirms the truth we have received via God's written revelation.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“5. Early testimony supports historical claims.
The closer the time between the event and testimony about it, the more reliable the witness, since there is less time for exaggeration, and even legend, to creep into theaccount.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“4. Eyewitness testimony supports historical claims.
Eyewitness testimony is usually stronger than a secondhand account.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“When Jesus predicted his resurrection from the dead, we are told that the disciples did not seem to have a clue what he was talking about or simply did not believe (Mark 8:31-33; 9:31-32; 14:27-31; Luke 24:13-24). Even when his empty tomb was discovered, it is reported that the first conclusion was that someone had stolen the body (John 20:2, 13-15). When the women reported that they had seen him risen, the disciples thought they were telling an idle tale (Luke 24:10-12). Upon viewing the empty tomb, they still did not know what to think (John 20:9).Thomas simply refused to believe (John 20:24-25). Now it seems quite unlikely that the disciples or early Christians who highly respected them would invent sayings of Jesus that would place them in such a bad light.This is what is referred to as the "principle of embarrassment," which will be discussed later, and argues strongly in favor of the authenticity of the predictions of Jesus concerning his resurrection.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Facing issues of this magnitude, it's unreasonable to think that anyone comes to the investigation with no personal hopes or preexisting beliefs. However,”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“What is the "gospel"? Gospel is defined by a minimum of three essential facts in the book of Acts2 and Paul's letters3: (1) the deity of Jesus; (2) the death of Jesus in our place; and (3) the resurrection of Jesus.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“should”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Although the nonhistorical genre theory can seem quite reasonable at first glance, it is plagued with serious problems. First, it cannot account for the empty tomb, especially since this can be established by multiple arguments, even from texts outside the New Testament accounts.')”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Second, Paul came to Christ through an experience in which he thought he encountered the risen Jesus. This account also dates very early. We need reasons for his conversion from unbelief, since his conversion was based on a personal appearance of Jesus and counts very heavily against embellishment.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“2. Attestation by an enemy supports historical claims.
If testimony affirming an event or saying is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message, or cause that profits from the account,
we have an indication ofauthenticity.”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus

“Jesus' use of the title "Son of Man" in reference to his resurrection predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34) weighs in favor of authenticity. As argued in chapter 10 ("Who Did Jesus Think He Was?"), one reason for thinking that Jesus claimed this title is that it is recorded by multiple sources. Further, the New Testament epistles never refer to Jesus in this manner. But neither did the Jews think of the Son of Man in the sense of a suffering Messiah (see Dan. 7:13-14). So the principle of dissimilarity points to authenticity here. This criterion "focuses on words or deeds of Jesus that cannot be derived either from Judaism at the time of Jesus or from the early Church after him”
― Gary R. Habermas, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus