# Evidence for the resurrection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594 "2006-05-13T03:25:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/21 "2006-05-14T01:05:36Z")
> [@solkoe](#): > > I’ll try again. What is the circumstantial evidence that leads people like N. T. Wright to believe that the resurrection occurred without a doubt? As I understand, there is no evidence for the resurrection beyond the stories in the New Testament. (No newspapers headlining, “Tomb Empty! Witnesses Say Executed Criminal Rose From Dead” or other contemporary non-involved reporting of the event.) From a standpoint of serious evidence, the story is pretty shaky. Even if the tomb was empty, that’s no proof of supernatural involvement. The disciples or others could have simply stolen and hidden the body in order to give their new religion more credibility. The gospels claim that there were outside witnesses, but none of them left accounts of the event, so this could be a complete fabrication. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/22 "2006-05-14T01:56:01Z")
> [@cold cold night](#): > > I find more that Christians demand blind faith in the gospels without evidence. I find that many atheists make that claim about Christians. Apparently, they haven’t read the volumes of Christian literature that demonstrate otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/23 "2006-05-14T02:04:43Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > As I understand, there is no evidence for the resurrection beyond the stories in the New Testament. Not true. You have the martyrdom of the Apostles, for example, as recorded by the historian Eusebius. Eusebius had an exceptional track record for accuracy, and according to a historian professor that I know, he pretty much fathered the concept of copious footnoting in historical documentation. He was also deeply persecuted for his beliefs, was imprisoned, and came close to being martyred for them. (His mentor was indeed killed for such beliefs.) Admittedly, their martyrdom does not _prove_ that the resurrection occurred. As I said though, there’s a difference between _evidence_ and _proof_. [Dr. Simon Greenleaf](http://www.av1611.org/resur.html), one of the greatest legal authorities of all time, considered this to be a powerful piece of legal evidence that simply could not be ignored. The explosive growth of the early Christian church can also be taken as evidence (again, _not proof_) of the resurrection. As I’ve emphasized previously, one might disagree with regard to Greenleaf’s conclusions, but the point remains… the \*evidence \* goes way beyond just the documents of the New Testament. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/24 "2006-05-14T02:17:25Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Not true. You have the martyrdom of the Apostles, for example, as recorded by the historian Eusebius. Eusebius had an exceptional track record for accuracy, and according to a historian professor that I know, he pretty much fathered the concept of copious footnoting in historical documentation. He was also deeply persecuted for his beliefs, was imprisoned, and came close to being martyred for them. (His mentor was indeed killed for such beliefs.) > > Admittedly, their martyrdom does not _prove_ that the resurrection occurred. As I said though, there’s a difference between _evidence_ and _proof_. [Dr. Simon Greenleaf](http://www.av1611.org/resur.html), one of the greatest legal authorities of all time, considered this to be a powerful piece of legal evidence that simply could not be ignored. The explosive growth of the early Christian church can also be taken as evidence (again, _not proof_) of the resurrection. I thought so before too, but then I realized that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the growth of Christianity are so close in time that I do not think it is a coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/25 "2006-05-14T02:17:31Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Not true. You have the martyrdom of the Apostles, for example, as recorded by the historian Eusebius. Eusebius had an exceptional track record for accuracy, and according to a historian professor that I know, he pretty much fathered the concept of copious footnoting in historical documentation. He was also deeply persecuted for his beliefs, was imprisoned, and came close to being martyred for them. (His mentor was indeed killed for such beliefs.) > > Admittedly, their martyrdom does not _prove_ that the resurrection occurred. As I said though, there’s a difference between _evidence_ and _proof_. [Dr. Simon Greenleaf](http://www.av1611.org/resur.html), one of the greatest legal authorities of all time, considered this to be a powerful piece of legal evidence that simply could not be ignored. The explosive growth of the early Christian church can also be taken as evidence (again, _not proof_) of the resurrection. > > As I’ve emphasized previously, one might disagree with regard to Greenleaf’s conclusions, but the point remains… the \*evidence \* goes way beyond just the documents of the New Testament. Just because people believe something does not make it true. Could I say that because so many people believe the urban legend about Proctor and Gamble giving a portion of its profits to the Church of Satan that there’s _evidence_ that it’s so? The Heaven’s Gate cult were willing to die for their belief that they would be carried away by the Hale-Bopp comet-- does that give their beliefs any validity? The explosive growth in popularity of the Low Carb diet did not mean that the underlying premise was a good one. ---
**Author:** ![baronsabato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@baronsabato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/baronsabato)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/26 "2006-05-14T02:17:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > For example, the brief essays I have read from Wright lead me to believe that he is a fairly conservative Christian with quite orthodox beliefs. Given that as a premise (and I might be mistaken), I could see his efforts addressing a rather different perspective. There has been a movement within Christian scriptural scholarship since the middle of the twentieth century, first expounded most clearly by Rudolf Bultmann and recently elaborated upon by Bishop John Spong that attempts to recast the Gospel stories as mythmaking (in the good anthropological sense, not as “making up fairy tales”). Concurrently, scholars such as those participating in the Jesus Seminar have attempted to pin down the “real” elements in the Gospels, separating them from the less likely narratives. > If, as I suspect, Wright is opposed to both movements, he may be making a case _within the context of the Gospels_ to accept (more of) them at face value as literal recordings of events. In that case, he may not actually be appealing to any external evidence to ascertain the physical reality of the resurrection. > If the commentator whom you read did not make clear (or, possibly, understand) that distinction, he may have left you with a misunderstanding of exactly what Wright has claimed. That sounds about right from what I’ve read of Wright’s. He really isn’t a “conservative” Christian, but he does hold mostly traditional beliefs. His argument is essentially that the original authors of the Gospel fully believed in the historicity of the miraculous elements of their narratives, and that they did not merely intend the truth of the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the lesser miracles to be _only_ symbolic or metaphorical truth. Even so, Wright acknowledges that Jesus probably didn’t think of himself as God (although Wright believes he is) and did not predict his second coming, which separates him from most of the more conservative Christians I know. He and Marcus Borg, who is a Jesus Scholar and a typical “liberal” Christian, collaborated on the book “The Meaning of Jesus”, which is an excellent source for anyone interested in how two Christian historians/scholars see their faith. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/27 "2006-05-14T02:27:34Z")
> [@baronsabato](#): > > He really isn’t a “conservative” Christian, I tend to use “conservative” to mean “cautious about accepting new things” rather than to mean “reactionary zealot who wishes to march to the past in double-quick time.” ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/28 "2006-05-14T02:28:28Z")
> [@cold cold night](#): > > I find more that Christians demand blind faith in the gospels without evidence. That’s interesting. I find more that non-Christians demand that no faith be put in the gospels,\* in spite of the fact they’ve never read them. \* Go figure. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/29 "2006-05-14T02:32:38Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > That’s interesting. > > I find more that non-Christians demand that no faith be put in the gospels,\* in spite of the fact they’ve never read them. > \* > Go figure. :dubious: I can’t speak for others, but I am well-versed in the scriptures. (No pun intended.) I attended a Christian school for five years, and can still recite large portions of the scriptures from memory. I agree with you, though, that people who have not studied or even read the works in question shouldn’t condemn them. But I say that about all books-- I’d like nothing more than to slap the twat who wants to ban Harry Potter books without even having read them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/30 "2006-05-14T02:33:15Z")
OK. We have lots of threads for believers and unbelievers of all stripes to bash each other. This is a nearly **GQ** thread that I left here primarily in case there was a dispute over the findings of any authorities who were cited. Stop the sniping about who believes or who does not believe and about who has exercised the most effort to come to their conclusions. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/31 "2006-05-14T03:27:03Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Just because people believe something does not make it true. Did I make such a claim? Not at all, nor did anybody else in this thread. The question was whether there was evidence for the resurrection _outside of the New Testament_. There most certainly is. This is by no means the same as saying “Person X believes that Jesus rose from the dead, so obviously, he did.” ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/32 "2006-05-14T03:52:36Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > The question was whether there was evidence for the resurrection _outside of the New Testament_. There most certainly is. Please list this evidence. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/33 "2006-05-14T03:53:27Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Please list this evidence. Already done. Did you even read the post to which you responded? ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/34 "2006-05-14T04:05:56Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Already done. Did you even read the post to which you responded? I did. I saw no evidence. Let’s go through it bit by bit. > [@](#): > > Not true. You have the martyrdom of the Apostles, for example, as recorded by the historian Eusebius. Eusebius had an exceptional track record for accuracy, and according to a historian professor that I know, he pretty much fathered the concept of copious footnoting in historical documentation. I have no trouble believing the Apostles were martyred. Cult members thoughout the ages were slain, lest they spread heresy to the popular religion of the time. This is not evidence that the resurrection took place. > [@](#): > > He was also deeply persecuted for his beliefs, was imprisoned, and came close to being martyred for them. (His mentor was indeed killed for such beliefs.) See above. > [@](#): > > Admittedly, their martyrdom does not prove that the resurrection occurred. As I said though, there’s a difference between evidence and proof. As I understand it, “evidence” consists of concrete facts which lead to a conclusion. The fact that people were killed does not lead me to the conclusion that their beliefs must be valid. > [@](#): > > Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the greatest legal authorities of all time, considered this to be a powerful piece of legal evidence that simply could not be ignored. Smart people can be mistaken. Happens all the time. Newton spent most of his time on obscure scriptual musings. > [@](#): > > The explosive growth of the early Christian church can also be taken as evidence (again, not proof) of the resurrection. Not at all. Does the story that the Isrealites began worshipping the golden calf _en masse_ in the short time Moses was on the mountain equal evidence that the calf was divine? Throughout the ages, cults have sprung up and gained wide popularity-- Isis worship, for example, spread from Egypt into Hellenistic cultures. This does not equal “evidence” that Isis was really a divine being. > [@](#): > > As I’ve emphasized previously, one might disagree with regard to Greenleaf’s conclusions, but the point remains… the evidence goes way beyond just the documents of the New Testament. How so? Your entire post seems to be saying that lots of people believing something equals evidence. I do not agree. Show me outsider documentation-- a Roman sent to examine the empty tomb, for example. Show me testimonials from non-believers who saw (and could positively identify) Jesus walking around after he had been crucified. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/35 "2006-05-14T04:12:41Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Could I say that because so many people believe the urban legend about Proctor and Gamble giving a portion of its profits to the Church of Satan that there’s _evidence_ that it’s so? No, and I never said that mere belief was the same as evidence. Nor did Dr. Simon Greenleaf, as evidenced by the article to which I linked. > [@](#): > > The Heaven’s Gate cult were willing to die for their belief that they would be carried away by the Hale-Bopp comet-- does that give their beliefs any validity? Again, there’s a difference between evidence and proof. Do we really need to go over this again? Moreover, there’s a critical difference between the Apostles and the Heaven’s Gate cult. According to the historical evidence, the Apostles claimed to have been _eyewitnesses_ to the resurrected Jesus. The historical evidence – as catalogued by the scrupulously meticulous Eusebius – likewise says that they risked persecution, and that most of them were ultimately martyred for this belief. Either they were mistaken (in which case, one must account for how they were deceived), or they were lying (in which case, it’s difficult to explain why most of them were willingly martyred, or in John’s case, exiled unto death). As I emphasized earlier, **nobody** said that their mere belief was evidence that the resurrection was true. Rather, it was their willingness to die for what they claimed to have personally witnessed. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/36 "2006-05-14T04:17:47Z")
Hm. Actually, that’s a good point about Eusebius. If we can prove that the Apostles existed, it becomes more likely that Jesus existed. [http://www.direct.ca/trinity/disciples.html](http://www.direct.ca/trinity/disciples.html) How sure are we they existed? Eusebius is only 324AD. What was he working from? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/37 "2006-05-14T04:20:57Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Either they were mistaken (in which case, one must account for how they were deceived), or they were lying (in which case, it’s difficult to explain why most of them were willingly martyred, or in John’s case, exiled unto death). In the first case, religious fanatics are very gullible; they’ll believe anything, and go to their death over it. In the second, religious frauds overreach themselves all the time; that could easily be what happened to Jesus as well. And that’s assuming you’re right about what they said and what happened to them. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/38 "2006-05-14T04:28:34Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I have no trouble believing the Apostles were martyred. Cult members thoughout the ages were slain, lest they spread heresy to the popular religion of the time. This is not evidence that the resurrection took place. As I explained (and as Simon Greenleaf stated), the key is that the Apostles claimed to have _personally witnessed_ the resurrected Messiah. Moreover, you’re confusing evidence with proof. Again. Finally, let me remind you that Dr. Simon Greenleaf is considered to be one of the foremost authorities _of all time_ in the realm of legal evidence. Does this make him infallible? Certainly not… but it does suggest that you should perhaps study his argument more thoroughly before dismissing it offhand. > [@](#): > > See above. And my response still stands. > [@](#): > > As I understand it, “evidence” consists of concrete facts which lead to a conclusion. People don’t always agree on where the evidence leads. Just as any forensic scientist. That doesn’t make it non-evidence. > [@](#): > > The fact that people were killed does not lead me to the conclusion that their beliefs must be valid. Which simply means that you choose a different interpretation of the evidence. That doesn’t mean that the evidence is non-existent. As I keep pointing out to you, there’s a difference between evidence and proof. > [@](#): > > Smart people can be mistaken. Happens all the time. Let’s say it again. **There’s a difference betweeen evidence and proof.** Moreover, are you suggesting that the Apostles were mistaken in their belief that they had personally seen the resurrected Jesus Christ? If so, how were they deceived in this manner? Even the prominent atheist debater Greg Cavin acknowledges that there’s evidence for the resurrection. Instead of denying that the evidence exists though, [he postulates that Jesus had an identical twin that nobody had heard about](http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/cavin01.html) – not even Jesus’ family members – who was mysteriously switched at birth, and who moved away shortly after this accident occurred. Cavin postulates that this person moved back into town just after Jesus was crucified, and then – for some mysterious reason – chose to impersonate Jesus Christ. Supposedly, this person somehow overcame the guards at Christ’s tomb, single-handedly rolled away the massive stone, and then discreetly disposed of the body. This whole scenario seems absurd – IMO, implausibly so – but at least Cavin attempt to offer an explanation. He doesn’t just shrug his shoulders and say “Maybe they were wrong!” > [@](#): > > Not at all. Does the story that the Isrealites began worshipping the golden calf _en masse_ in the short time Moses was on the mountain equal evidence that the calf was divine? Again, I refer you to the previous answers. The issue isn’t merely a matter of worship or belief. Rather, the issue is one of _eyewitness claims_. > [@](#): > > How so? Your entire post seems to be saying that lots of people believing something equals evidence. No, I never said such a thing, for reasons that have already been explained. In fact, I respectfully challenge you to produce a single statement wherein I said, ‘Lot’s of people believing something equals evidence.’ ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/39 "2006-05-14T04:36:35Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No, and I never said that mere belief was the same as evidence. Nor did Dr. Simon Greenleaf, as evidenced by the article to which I linked. Yeah, I read the article. I have the same criticisms: > [@](#): > > it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ." Bullshit. Again, the Heaven’s Gate cult was willing to die for what they believed. Suicide bombers are willing to die for what they believe. _This is NOT evidence that their beliefs are valid._ > [@](#): > > Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history! This right here is enough to make me think that either Greenleaf was a bit of an idiot or he knew next to nothing about history. The first example off the top of my head is the trial of Jehanne D’Arc, and it’s a thousand times better, because it records the testimony of dozens of witnesses to Jehanne’s life, including both her friends and those who denounced her. > [@](#): > > After investigating the evidence of the resurrection, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, stated, “. . . there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.” Again, bullshit. The “evidence” in the page is simply the words of the Apostles themselves and their willingness to die for their beliefs. As I’ve said again and again, there have been thousands, possibly millions, of people down through the ages who were willing to die for what they believed, but this does not make what they believed TRUE. > [@](#): > > Again, there’s a difference between evidence and proof. Do we really need to go over this again? Apparently so. If you were on trial for murder, I would show that you had means, motive and opprotunity. As evidence, I would present your blood-spattered clothing, a weapon, fingerprints, etc. I would also bring forth any witnesses that said you were at the crime scene, but the defense might produce witnesses to say that you were elsewhere. Both stes of witnesses could be fully convinced they were telling the truth. > [@](#): > > Moreover, there’s a critical difference between the Apostles and the Heaven’s Gate cult. According to the historical evidence, the Apostles claimed to have been _eyewitnesses_ to the resurrected Jesus. I used to know a guy who swore that he had seen Elvis at McDonalds in 1986. This is not “evidence” that Elvis is alive. If you were listening to a sales pitch for a product, would you give 100% credence to the claims of the guy selling it? He has a vested interest in seeing that you buy the product (as did the Apostles.) Down through the ages, miracles have been ascribed to saints that the Cathoic church now agrees never existed. The people who were “healed” certainly believed it, but their faith was in a person who wasn’t real. Those who prayed to Isis or Baal certainly believed their prayers were answered. > [@](#): > > The historical evidence – as catalogued by the scrupulously meticulous Eusebius – likewise says that they risked persecution, and that most of them were ultimately martyred for this belief. So what? As I said, I have no problem believing that they died for their faith but this is not a unique occurance, and should not be given any undue weight. Again, suicide bombers die for their faith-- does the fact that they’re willing to die mean that they’re right? > [@](#): > > Either they were mistaken (in which case, one must account for how they were deceived), or they were lying (in which case, it’s difficult to explain why most of them were willingly martyred, or in John’s case, exiled unto death). It’s not difficult to explain at all. People do it all the time, and have done it for thousands of years, even before Christianity was ever concieved. As to whether they were mistaken or lying, I make no decision. I wasn’t there, after all. I will note that the scriptures have undergone some editing and creative revisions over the years. > [@](#): > > As I emphasized earlier, **nobody** said that their mere belief was evidence that the resurrection was true. Rather, it was their willingness to die for what they claimed to have personally witnessed. And again, I say that this doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. For every cause, there’s someone willing to die for it. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/40 "2006-05-14T04:37:14Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Hm. Actually, that’s a good point about Eusebius. If we can prove that the Apostles existed, it becomes more likely that Jesus existed. > [Telnet Communications - High Speed Internet & Home Phone Solutions](http://www.direct.ca/trinity/disciples.html) > How sure are we they existed? Eusebius is only 324AD. What was he working from? Eusebius was working from previous documents. Admittedly, those documents no longer exist, so we cannot _directly_ evaluate the accuracy with which he cited them. However, according to the history professor that I spoke to, Eusebius cited his sources meticulously… and whenever those sources did turn up, it was found that he cited them with impeccable accuracy. Eusebius also served as the bishop of Caesarea, and was badly persecuted for his faith. It is unlikely that he would have endured such persecution if he had pulled these historical records out of thin air. What’s more, Eusebius and his mentor Pamphilus were both imprisoned, and Pamphilus himself was martyred. Again, none of this proves that his records of the Apostolic martyrdoms were accurate, but the bulk of the evidence indicates that he was a trustworthy source. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594.md?page=3)