5 Facts Nearly All Historical Jesus Scholars Agree On

/ Prayson Daniel

1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion

2. Jesus’ followers sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead

3. Early Eye-Witness Testimony to Belief in Jesus’ Resurrection

4. The conversion of Jesus’ skeptical brother, James

5. Saul, a major enemy of Christianity, became Paul, an Advocator for Christianity

23 thoughts on “5 Facts Nearly All Historical Jesus Scholars Agree On”

  1. re: Which stories

    any of them

    the garden of eden stories are patently silly – 2 people then and Noah and his family later could not be genetically viable basis for all humans – and mitochondrial DNA shows that we’re from Africa and can track the emigration throughout the rest of the world

    there’s no evidence Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, so there goes the Moses story

    King Herod was dead before the alleged birth of Christ, so there goes that story, Nazareth was a Roman village founded around 300 CE – long after the alleged birth

    There’s never been giant people, so out goes David and Goliath

    There’s also nothing to support the claims of how big a kingdom David or Solomon ruled over

    that some stories contain real place and real people who are historic figures is like saying Forest Gump was a documentary.

    • Hej Random,

      I believe you went in dark on the exegesis of Genesis’ creation of Adam and Eve. God could have used evolution to create Adam and Eve.(“could”)

      With the Historicity of Jews in Egypt, David, and Solomon , Biblical Archaeology Society is against your claims 😀

      Bruins, H.J. and J. van der Plicht. 1996. The Exodus enigma. Nature 382: 213-214.

      Here is are Biblical Archaeology Society

      Please give evidences to your argument to support your position that there is no evidence for the Jews in Egypt or David and Solomon? 😀

  2. Again, héhé, those points don’t force the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead…there’s that likelihood issue I went over again and again on here, it’s still less likely for a human being to actually rise from the dead than for all those to be coincidences/mass hysteria/conspiracies, etc…and that’s true even if you consider the fact that the explanation: “Jesus rose from the dead” FITS better (and I agree that it does)…it’s like saying that that magician you’re watching is actually doing magic ’cause that explanation FITS better…

    • Your correct is saying “it’s still less likely for a human being to actually rise from the dead” naturally 🙂 But that is not the explanation, nor the first Christians, they say GOD DID IT 🙂 Supernatural.

      Again and again you have fail to defend coincidences, mass hysteria and conspiracies, that I think the best explanation remain to be Resurrection 🙂

      • It’d be great if you said that I failed to defend them instead of blocking me, héhé…no, I don’t need to defend the more likely scenarios, you defend the less likely one, explain why it’s in fact more likely…

        • Hehe, you were not block, and would not be! I have looked in spams, if you your comment had many links, but I do not see any. If you would like I could give you editor access to my blog were you could investigate your claims of being blocked 🙂

      • Of course, of course…it all makes sense now: I had too many links!! [cough, cough]…wow, I’m so paranoid!!

    • Héhéhé…we’re not talking about the ’cause, we’re talking about an event occurring…whether God, Zeus, an angel or a fairy did it, or whether something bizarre happened in nature, A HUMAN BEING STILL ROSE FROM THE DEAD…that’s what usually doesn’t happen, that’s what’s not likely…it’s very simple…

      • You are right it does not happen in nature, I agree total. That is why the first Christians knowing it does not happen in nature, claim supernatural cause 🙂

      • Héhéhé…I don’t know how to put it more simply…did it or did it not happen that a man was dead and rose from the dead, in your opinion? Is that or is that not less likely than things that have occasionally been recorded to happen? Imagine it’s unlikely that apples are square…now someone reports he saw a square one…what would you think if a witness said: “It’s not more likely that the man was mistaken since it’s a fairy who did it”…don’t you think you’re using your conclusion (that it actually happened) to establish itself? Think about it a little, you’ll understand in time, héhé…

        • Remember that an explanation need to explain all 5 facts, without being ad hoc 🙂 Add Jesus resurrection stands as the best explains 🙂 More than a mistaken ID. Mistaken ID does not explain the 4. The conversion of Jesus’ skeptical brother, James and 5. Saul, a major enemy of Christianity, became Paul, an Advocator for Christianity

  3. I’d really like to know since when…last time I checked was a month and a half ago or something, I think…I didn’t bother to try after…well, you know, héhé…

  6. why are you claiming that these are facts when they are not actually facts?

    since there is no evidence for an historical Jesus and in fact absolutely no contemporary eye witness accounts, you are making claims without citation and without supporting evidence

    the only text about Jesus are contained in the bible texts, there are no secular records that support the Jesus story

    I invite you to read: Rational Revolution: Jesus Myth History

    • Dear Random,

      I claimed that these are facts because Historical Jesus Scholars, even non-Christians, affirm them:

      Here is a List of “[s]ome New Testament specialists, theologians, historians, and philosophers who grant these facts include:

      1. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:44-46, 52, 60, 80-83.
      2. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 2:153-58.
      3. John Hick, Death and Eternal Life (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 171-77.
      4. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 179-86.
      5. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84-86, 100.
      6. Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4, part 1, 334-36, 351-53.
      7. Emil Brunner, Dogmatics, 3 vols., trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950-79), 2:363-78.
      8. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 165-66, 172, 197-202.
      9. C.H. Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 124-25, 131-33.
      10. Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 78-84.
      11. Robinson, Can We Trust? 113-29.
      12. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 27-49.
      13. Grant, Jesus, 174-79.
      14. Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 88-106.
      15. Wilckens, Resurrection, 6-16, 112-14.
      16. Jeremias, “Easter,” 300-311.
      17. Werner Georg Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament: According to its Major Witnesses: Jesus—Paul—John (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), 102-5.
      18. Brown, Virginal Conception, 80-82, 128.
      19. Goppelt, “Easter Kerygma,” 35-37, 43-53.
      20. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 3-12.
      21. Marcus Barth and Verne H. Fletcher, Acquittal by Resurrection (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), part 1 (Barth), 11-15, 37-39.
      22. Paul Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel: Based on an Analysis of its Language (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 126-34.
      23. Wand, Christianity, 51, 59, 84, 93, 108.
      24. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour, 98-107.
      25. Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ, 35-45.
      26. W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, 5 vols, 2nd ed., (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1969), 2:34-35, 39.
      27. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection, 36-43, 93, 109-11.
      28. Daniel Fuller, Easter Faith and History (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965), 208-29
      29. Thielicke, “The Resurrection Kerygma,” 59-62, 86-91.
      30. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 231-33, 276-77, 281-88.
      31. Perkins, Resurrection, 84-95, 196-210.
      32. Kee, What Can We Know?, 1-2, 21-23, 60-61, 85-86, 90.
      33. Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 91-99, 125-31.
      34. Sheehan, The First Coming, 101-18.
      35. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 115-34, 159-61.
      36. Craig, Assessing, 36-38, 53-82, 163-96, 379-420.
      37. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 10-13, 125-26, 133-36, 277-81.
      38. O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 99-147.
      39. Johnson, The Real Jesus, 110-22, 133-36.
      40. Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? 47-56, 239-43, 255-60.
      41. Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 77-107.
      42. Funk, Honest to Jesus, 33-40, 260, 267-75.
      43. Murray Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983), 5-11, 60.
      44. Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 9-17, 102-5, 125-34.
      45. Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 131-36, 141-44, 184-87.
      46. Clark, Interpreting the Resurrection, 89-101.
      47. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 164-88, 204-5.
      48. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), 372-75, 397-98.
      49. Crossan, Jesus, 135, 145, 154, 165, 190.
      50. Davis, Risen Indeed, 15, 177-85.
      51. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 227-31.
      52. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:67-71, 146-47, 234-35, 251-52, 625.
      53. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 4-15, 47, 113-17, 188.
      54. Wright, The New Testament, 111, 353-54, 400-401.
      55. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 109-12, 480, 487, 551-52, 659.”
      Cited from Jesus’ Resurrection is the Most Plausible Explanation

      I am sorry to tell you that the Myth allegations are widely denied in academia both by serious Non-Christian and Christians Historical Jesus scholars.

      NB: The debate is not on those facts but whether the Plausible explanation of those facts is the resurrection of Christ Jesus

  7. thanks Prayson,
    just came across your blog in a recommendation, somewhere.
    I appreciated your story of how you came to faith in Christ.
    All the best with your blog.
    Cheers,
    Trevor Faggotter

Comments are closed.