4. Is there a Strong Historical Basis for Believing that Jesus Rose from the Dead?

Program 4: Is There a Strong Historical Basis for Believing that Jesus Rose From the Dead?


Dr. John Ankerberg: The search for the historical Jesus is a hot topic in both popular and academic circles today and has drawn a lot of attention from national magazines, such as Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. Further, the media has given an undue amount of attention to the outlandish statements of the Jesus Seminar, a self-selected liberal group representing a very small percentage of New Testament scholarship. Today we will address the questions surrounding the debate over the historical Jesus and show there are a significant number of historical facts about Jesus in secular and non-New Testament sources which prove that the Jesus of history is the same Jesus of the Christian faith.

My guest is world-class philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas, author of the book, The Historical Jesus and about twenty other volumes. He received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Dr. Habermas is chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty University and has written more than 100 articles, mostly on the life of Jesus, which have appeared in scholarly journals and elsewhere. Join us for this edition of The John Ankerberg Show and learn why Jesus is one of the most historically verified lives of ancient times.

Ankerberg: Welcome. Today we’re going to examine three things. First, how has modern scholarship changed its ideas about Jesus as it has examined his life? Is there still a strong historical basis for believing Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead? Second, we’re going to talk about the main question that is in the background of all historical study about Jesus, namely, what about the miracles found in the New Testament? Can a twentieth century historian conclude that they really happened?

Then third, we’re going to look at 12 historical facts that are accepted by virtually all critical scholars today that present a solid foundational basis for believing Jesus lived, claimed to be God, died on a cross, and rose again.

But first, how has modern scholarship changed its ideas about Jesus as they have examined his life? Dr. Gary Habermas explains:

Habermas: Primarily New Testament scholars speak today of three periods in which the investigation of the Historical Jesus flourished to one extent or another, plus a “No Quest” period thrown in for good measure.

(1) Let’s overview the classical period.

Now there were some forerunners here, but they were not very influential. I’m talking about English deists like Thomas Woolston and Peter Annet, along with German rationalists like Herman Samuel Reimarus. But the prototypical “Lives of Jesus” were written during the period called “Old Liberalism,” or “German Liberalism.” Oftentimes this movement reflects the philosophical side of German idealism as it made its way into theology. For over one hundred years, many scholars wrote their own, usually quite lengthy, lives of Jesus. In fact, a lot of these books had that same title: Life of Jesus.

In general, the usual German Liberal presupposition was that we can basically use the gospels more-or-less as historical sources, minus two large areas. One area is the wide-ranging avoidance of dogmatic theology: the Deity of Jesus Christ, the atonement, his uniqueness, exclusivism, and so on. The other area is that of supernatural events: they usually circumvented Jesus’ miracles and especially his resurrection. A few of these scholars supported certain aspects of dogmatic theology and even miracles, but these were not the majority views, especially among the most influential scholars.

So they freely made use of the gospels, at least the portions that they thought were historical. But generally, they eschewed the dogmatic theology and the belief in actual miracles. What remains? That’s called the Historical Jesus.

Now, for a little over a hundred years this movement was termed, “The Quest for Historical Jesus,” after Albert Schweitzer’s famous book title. This well-known, highly-acclaimed volume was written in 1906 and contained a reservoir of often obscure information regarding this movement.

(2) After “The First Quest” came the initial reaction—what has frequently come to be called the “No-Quest period.” Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann were in the limelight here, but for widely divergent reasons. In spite of broad disagreements, they agreed that, while historical events are clearly found in the New Testament texts, history did not serve as a foundation for faith. Therefore, the Historical Jesus did us very little, if any, good. Faith is sufficient, and it is not based on history. Apologetics was viewed as an abomination.

So, there was a classical liberal period–German Liberalism, when studies of the “Life of Jesus” were the norm. The pushback followed in the form of a “No- Quest period”–featured by the influential “reigns” of Barth and Bultmann. Barth came on the scene a littler earlier, but rocked the theological world in 1918 with his famous volume, Epistle to the Roman at the close of World War I. Bultmann was more radical than Barth, and his 1941 essay, “New Testament and Mythology,” set an agenda for what was known as demythologizing—reinterpreting early mythology in terms of its existential significance in present preaching. But to repeat, both scholars were unhappy with pursuing studies of the Historical Jesus.

(3) Then in the 1950s, scholars such as Ernst Käsemann, Günther Bornkamm, and James Robinson–all of these former students of Bultmann--thought that some of these trends were moving a little too far in the wrong direction. In some very important publications in the 1950s, like Bornkamm’s Jesus of Nazareth, they argued that while faith is not based on history, we do need to know some basic historical facts about Jesus or we may be doomed to let him slip into the pages of legend. So they concluded that we can a few things about the Historical Jesus, though certainly not enough for a historical reconstruction of Jesus’ life. Again, like their mentor Bultmann, they still didn’t think faith was based on history. This became the “Second Quest for the Historical Jesus,” or what it was called at the time, “The New Quest.” It was a short-lived movement.

(4) What is now being called, “The Third Quest for the Historical Jesus” had some forerunners in the 1970s, but this movement blossomed in the 1980s, 1990s, and ever since. We’re still seeing an outpouring of books and articles from every theological persuasion–skeptical, left, moderate, and right. Arguably, more historical information has emerged about Jesus during this period than from any of the others, and it has continued right up until the present. The books from the Third Quest basically share in common the general, overall agreement that Jesus was very much a Jewish person, and we should study him against his Jewish background. Jewish customs, anthropology, and sociology became important areas. Jesus became once again a man of the Jewish calendar, rather than a man of the Gnostic calendar, as per Rudolf Bultmann.

This is a very basic overview of four movements: three involved historical quests for Jesus (one hundred years of German Liberalism, the “New Quest,” and the almost four decades of “The Third Quest of the Historical Jesus,”), as well as the “No Quest” period sandwiched in-between the first two of these. The Third Quest is still going strong and is arguably what is currently making the study of the historical Jesus the hottest single topic in western religious venues today.

Ankerberg: Now, what about the miracles found in the New Testament? Is it possible for a twentieth century historian to come to the conclusion that Jesus really did perform miracles and really did rise from the dead? On this topic Dr. Habermas is an acknowledged expert who has debated the well-known philosopher Antony Flew on this topic, and written scores of scholarly publications. Listen:

Habermas: Okay, this brings us to the question of Jesus’ miracles. A few members of the First Quest might argue for some of these events, but not many. The topic was usually shelved as one of the “off limits” portions of the gospels, except to raise natural theses in place of the supernatural elements. The Second Quest really wasn’t interested in this subject. But for the Third Quest, the question of Jesus’ miracles is again on the front burner at the present time.

Critical scholars usually divide miracles into three categories: healing miracles, nature miracles, and exorcisms. Generally, they think that something was really going on here, at least in the sense that Jesus healed people in some sense. The crowds agreed, as well. Regarding the exorcisms, again, something was really happening. A minimal view might be that this sort of phenomenon actually transpired, even if it was another species of psychosomatic healing. Unquestionably, it was agreed both by Jesus and his contemporaries, as well as by most critical scholars today, that Jesus really did heal the sick and relieved much psychological pain.

Contemporary scholars think that either a number of these gospel scenes (or something very close to them), are at least fairly accurate and even close to what actually occurred.

The supernatural portion of the miracle is still doubted by many scholars today. However, this is not a unanimous conclusion. Responding to questions like Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead or walking on water, even skeptical scholar Marcus Borg thinks that, due to Jesus’ power, authority, and other qualities, we cannot be sure exactly what he actually may have been able to accomplish.18 Plus, the vast majority of critical scholars do think that the historical situations in the gospels, or ones very similar to them, did indeed take place.

Of course, many today will respond, “Come on! We’re modern. We can’t believe in miracles!” But this is an inductive, scientific world. So where is the preponderance of facts here? If we look at the data and they look like something has occurred that has a chance to be miraculous, then put the question of miracles on the back burner and at first just ask the historical question: What happened in each of these instances? What happened with the resurrection? It should at least be kept in mind that if God raised Jesus, and the evidence mentioned here looks excellent, this should at least push us in the direction of openness to these issues.

Further, what often drives us to assume that miracles don’t really occur? If the answer is metaphysical or methodological Naturalism, then ask your friend how she or anyone else knows that Naturalism is true? Since this worldview cannot be proven per se, why should it be the default setting of the universe? Why should an unproven position like this one occupy a privileged position over a worldview that is supported by much evidence? I think it’s about time that we question Naturalism instead of everything else around it!

Some historians will simply say that they don’t have either the tools or the training to decide if an event is a miracle, caused by God—that they can only work with natural facts. But where does that conclusion lead?

Follow me on this. What I am pointing to here goes something like this: I want to know if a man named Jesus of Nazareth walked and talked on the earth just prior to about 30 AD. Historians will answer, “Oh, yes—we can say that all right. Virtually nobody thinks that Jesus didn’t live.” (By the way, even Rudolf Bultmann proclaimed, “By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.”19)

Okay, well tell me next, did Jesus probably die by crucifixion? And the historian might respond, “Well, that’s not a problem, either. Everyone dies and we have good historical evidence for this event, not to mention some major medical testimony here.” After all, even skeptical scholars are basically unanimous that Jesus died by Roman crucifixion, as supported by some of the most concrete data in the ancient world.20 So it appears that we occupy pretty solid ground when we assert that Jesus lived, was crucified, and died, though we of course cannot argue the specific details right here.21

Now, when we get beyond the cross, perhaps some folks begin to get a little nervous. But let’s not ask the more philosophical question, “Did God intervene and pull him out of the tomb?” Instead, let’s ask an easier, historical question: “Okay, we’ve said that Jesus of Nazareth walked and talked in Palestine, and then was probably crucified and died on the Roman cross. Did his followers at least believe that he was walking around soon afterwards and that he appeared to people, seeming to be just fine?” This foundation seems to encapsulate much of the crux of our historical issues.

Okay, then, what natural, historical facts do we know here regarding Jesus?

(1) Historians certainly do have the tools to ascertain whether this man walked and talked in first century Palestine.

(2) Historians also definitely have the tools to say that our best data indicate that he died as a victim of Roman crucifixion.

(3) And historians likewise have the tools to conclude at the very least that his early followers believed and proclaimed that they saw him alive after his crucifixion.

Note carefully that point (3) does not say that Jesus was raised from the dead.

It simply concludes that his disciples believed that they saw him again after his death—not as a ghost or an illuminated body, but simply that they believed that they saw him again. What I’m getting at here is that historians at the very least have a duty to pursue a line of “earthly” facts in the direction that the data most likely point us. If strong historical arguments say that Jesus taught or did thus and so, we have to be open to that direction—to at least be willing to look at that.

On our third point, I quote from the well-known skeptical agnostic scholar, Bart Ehrman:

Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.22

What accounts for this belief? Ehrman clearly answers that question, too: “we can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that that he had been raised from the dead.”23

On this subject, then, we are asking straightforward, historical questions. We asked whether there existed a man named Jesus who walked and talked in Palestine, died on the cross, and that some people believed that they saw him afterwards? These are certainly claims that historians can get their fingers on—and we have strong data here. So as I said, let’s first talk about what is knowable history. The question concerning whether any of this could be a miraculous act of God is a further, philosophical issue.

Ankerberg: Now, during these programs you have heard Dr. Habermas constantly refer to historical facts about Jesus that are accepted by the majority of critical scholars. What are some of these? I asked him to identify 12 facts that most critical scholars accept as true. Listen:

Habermas: Now, the question arises, obviously, what kind of data do we have, then? What are these “historical facts” that I keep referring to? A few people may question if we even have historical facts!

Earlier I differentiated between audiences. Evangelicals may look at the New Testament text and say, “Everything I read here is a historical fact. Credible data are all over the place. Everywhere I read I find them, because I believe that the Scriptures are inspired.”

Skeptics, on the other hand, might say, “No. The New Testament is only a book of ancient literature. Some claims are clearly better than others, but there’s no way that it is all history.”

So we have to address the question, which are the best-evidenced historical facts here? Most scholars will grant a list of at least twelve items surrounding the overall events towards the end of Jesus’ life, including his death, burial, and the nature of the disciples’ claim that they saw him alive again after his death. Actually, I have long said that there are more than just twelve of these admitted historical facts, but that’s the number that I’m going to list here. The majority of critical scholars will admit virtually every one of these:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried. There’s nothing strange about this fact. People die and people are buried. (We’re not even designating a particular place or kind of burial.)

3. Jesus’ death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope, believing his life had ended. This is psychologically natural and understandable, for sure: how would you feel if your best friend, on whose account you had left everything in order to follow, died very suddenly and horribly?

4. Now I admit, as I likewise repeat all the time, that this next fact is not quite as widely held, but the majority of scholars still think that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.

5. Arguably the most crucial fact here beyond Jesus’ death is that his disciples had experiences that they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. In other words, they thought that Jesus appeared to them. I’m wording this very carefully, and it is held extraordinarily widely by scholars.

6. Because of these experiences, the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus, into bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection appearances. They were even willing to die for their faith in these gospel events.

7. This message was the center of early church preaching. Remember Paul’s testimony: The events of Jesus Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances were “of first importance.”

8. This message was especially proclaimed in the environs of Jerusalem, the city where Jesus had died and was buried just shortly before.

9. As a result of this preaching, the church was born and grew.

10. Sunday became the primary day of worship, which is a significant fact especially for the initial Jewish believers.

11. James, who had been a skeptical unbeliever, was converted to the faith most likely when he also believed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus.

12. A few years later, Saul (Paul) was also converted by an experience which he, likewise, thought to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.

What I’m saying is that, with the exception of the empty tomb, virtually all critical scholars accept as historical the events listed here, and most of these scholars will even grant the empty tomb. If anyone wants to check some of the data or sources on this, they may find lists of critical scholars who accept these facts, as I’ve listed many of them in my volume, The Historical Jesus24 and elsewhere. Of course, there are many additional books on these subjects by others, as well.

Now, someone might say, “Now, wait a minute. Twelve facts, that’s not bad, but can we shorten this list even further? Would more skeptics express their support if we were even pickier in what we accepted here?”

Well, it was precisely for this reason that I arbitrarily reduced this list to, say, three to seven facts–somewhere within that number. If I were to reduce these data, I might list something like the following five facts: 1) Jesus died due to crucifixion. 2) His disciples had experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. 3) Their lives were transformed because of this conviction. 4) As a result, they proclaimed this message very soon after Jesus’ death, actually within weeks as we said earlier. 5) A man named Saul of Tarsus was converted to Jesus Christ by what he also concluded was a personal appearance of the risen Jesus to him.

These are five tough facts that virtually everyone is going to grant as historical, especially the scholars who have studied this area. Here’s the key: I think that we can build a case for that central proclamation of this gospel message of the death and resurrection of Jesus based on just these five facts alone.

Ankerberg: Now, these are just 12 facts that are accepted by all critical scholars. Some skeptics would probably concede 20 or more such details. But Dr. Habermas believes you only need four to six of these facts to establish a strong historical basis for saying Jesus lived, died on a cross, and rose again from the dead. Listen as he explains:

Habermas: Now, we just finished listing five historical facts that I think are going to be admitted by the vast majority of critical scholars, folks in the middle, and even those on the left side of the aisle. We might add a couple of others here in order to make additional points: 5) The resurrection was at the very center of early Christian preaching. 6) The message was taught in Jerusalem where their claims could be checked out. 7) The apostle James, the brother of Jesus, was another skeptic who became a follower of the Christ based on his own appearance. What do we do with this brief wealth of data?

Here’s my point. It has been mentioned that some critical scholars are going to recognize a longer list of historical facts. Some skeptics might event grant 20 events. But as I said, I don’t need 20. I only need 12. But some may wonder, “Can you make your case with any less than the list of 12?” To that question, I’m saying that, even using just five of these, yes, I think we can make just such a case. But understand, that’s an arbitrary number. Why? Because virtually nobody will hone the list down that far. But I’ll reduce it rather arbitrarily to 12, and then to five, or perhaps to just a few more. Here’s my contention: with these data, along with the equally-recognized items that indicate and modify each of these facts (for we will no doubt be asked for the back-up!), we have enough of a basis to say that Jesus died and that he was actually seen again afterwards. We can, in a sense, have our cake and eat it too with just these facts.

Ankerberg: Now, here’s the bottom line for all the information we’ve given you today. If you just take four to six of these accepted historical facts about Jesus’ life, they can also knock out and refute all of the naturalistic theories that have been proposed to explain away the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Additional facts show that Jesus claimed to be Deity. Instead of running from Jesus, you should run to him for forgiveness and eternal life. Dr. Habermas explains:

Habermas: Using just these four to seven Minimal Facts as confirmed by the recognized data that establish each of these, which are basically just some of what most critical scholars will grant, natural theories that propose to explain the resurrection as normal events can all be shown to fail. In other words, these historical facts address attempts that basically say, “Jesus was not raised from the dead. What really happened was _ (fill in the blank).” So with just these approximately half- dozen facts, we can refute all those major alternative hypotheses and at the same time have the very best evidences that favor the resurrection, since these are also contained right in this same list.

To repeat the two criteria, or the two prerequisites, for these Minimal Facts,

(1) by far the most crucial one is that each one is individually attested by strong, additional data.

(2) Precisely this factual support is the reason for the second criterion: that’s why they are so well recognized, admitted, and allowed by virtually all critical scholars who focus in these areas. Remember, too, that this listing is shorter than most other lists of facts produced by critical scholars for this same time period in Jesus’ life. So I’m really using less facts here than most scholars would be willing to grant. This is why the “lowest common denominator” approach also describes an angle on this method!

Could someone be willing to grant historical facts, but not the same ones that appear in my list? While that’s possible, it’s unlikely if it is from scholars who do their research in this field. That’s because the facts I’ve chosen are the best-attested as well as the most-recognized ones, so they would be among the first to be endorsed or allowed.

What about the person who may come along and assert, “OK, well, I’m not going to grant any of your half-dozen historical facts. I’m not going to allow any of these that you’ve listed here. So let’s see how far you get now!” So, whether just for fun, belligerence, or actual conviction, this individual states that none of these historical facts is true. Can anything be done in such a case? What sort of rejoinder is possible?

In such a case, I would build the factual underpinning from the ground up. I’d begin with zero particulars and work through each of the half dozen pieces of data, citing the evidence on behalf of each one. I’d present the evidence for each of the statements on the list. There are reasons why these facts are allowed as historical even by so many critical scholars who actually hold that the New Testament is an unreliable book, or they would not be recognized as such!

But also remember that just because someone states that they still reject all the facts, this by no means constitutes a refutation. Until each of the data-points for each individual fact is refuted, it is simply an assertion, and, of course, anyone can assert anything! It is done all the time! As mentioned, it could even be done strictly for the sake of belligerence or out of anger.

But once the Minimal Historical Facts are established, they can also, in turn, be utilized in order to provide the major refutations of the naturalistic theories, as well as providing the chief evidences on behalf of Jesus’ resurrection.

Let’s take an example here, by choosing not just some straw man or a weak natural theory. Let’s take the most popular naturalistic theory in the Nineteenth Century—the hallucination hypothesis, though we will necessarily be very brief in the details. Jesus died for sure, but he didn’t really rise from the dead. Instead, his disciples were seeing things that were not actually there. So they produced the images of the risen Jesus in their own minds—they saw merely their own subjective images.

From the list of recognized Minimal Facts, notice that the disciples had experiences that they were convinced were actual appearances of the risen Jesus. This plus the death of Jesus are the most widely-recognized facts on the list. But

(1) the exceptionally early, pre-Pauline creed cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 asserts three times that these experiences occurred to groups of people (15:5, 6, 7). However, hallucinations are not contagious--they do not spread and they do not occur to many individuals at one time. Therefore, experiences in group settings of people are powerful objections, since these people would not all witness the same hallucination at once.

(2) The consensus position among New Testament scholars today is that Paul probably received this creed from the apostles Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, during his first visit to Jerusalem, usually dated at just five years after Jesus’ crucifixion. These initial two problems, then, would indicate that the list of appearances, including the group sightings, probably came from the apostles themselves at a very early date, especially when the other two men had the data before Paul received them. That’s precisely why Paul concluded the creed by asserting that the other apostles were teaching the same thing that he was with regard to their own resurrection appearances—he heard their testimony with his own ears (1 Corinthians 15:11)!

(3) The group appearances of Jesus that are reported in the early Acts sermon summaries25 contribute further weight to the group nature of Jesus’ appearances. Whatever evidence might be derived from the additional group sightings also recorded in the gospel accounts would provide extra evidence gathered from establishing the appearances to the group of woman, or to any of the other appearances to the disciples as listed in those sources.

(4) Within these groups of people, many different personality types as well as both genders were represented, from hardheaded Peter, to tender-hearted John, to (presumably) the soft-hearted Marys, along with all of the others. The different genders, personalities, times, and places involved all lengthen the odds against hallucinations, since these experiences are related to such factors. Not all persons are “wired” for psychological events of this nature. It’s highly unlikely that, among those in the different groups, that each of these people would be precisely in just the proper frame of mind to see hallucinations.

(5) Further, the apostles were thoroughly changed by these experiences. However, hallucinations rarely transform anyone at all. In fact, most are simply talked out of their hallucinations. I know two researchers who have done some personal study during these occasions and they found that many of these folks changed their minds especially when the hallucinations were of one of two sorts: when their colleagues who were nearby either didn’t witness the same thing they did, or when it was determined that this sort of thing doesn’t happen normally. Guess what? Both of these conditions would have applied to the resurrection of Jesus—if no one else present had seen him, and because dead men don’t rise anyway. A few trusted friends repeating each of these factors would probably be enough to change the testimony. But of course, that never occurred because Jesus did appear to groups of people after his death!

(6) I have argued often that there are many indications that Jesus’ burial tomb was discovered to be empty just a short time later, even though this is not quite as widely allowed by scholars. But since hallucinations definitely do not explain this feature of the accounts, another hypothesis is necessary. This simply complicates the process here rather significantly.

(7) How do we handle the conversion of the Apostle Paul? The infamous church persecutor wouldn’t be in the proper frame of mind to see a hallucination! Why would this man want to see the resurrected Jesus? What we need is evidence that he had somehow changed beforehand.

(8) The same may be said concerning Jesus’ brother, James. What would we think if our brothers were getting that kind of attention? And James was a skeptic, as critical scholars usually admit. But I doubt severely that James longed to see hallucinations of his risen brother!

These are a few of the major problems that emerge from just our shortened list of historical facts that we already recognized. This is especially significant in that hallucinations are probably the most popular naturalistic thesis ever, yet it is plagued by many significant issues, even beyond these issues.

Consider an illustration of what I’m talking about here with the Minimal Facts argument. Let’s say we’re surrounded by a group of people and over on one side are the conservatives. They will grant me all of the facts in the New Testament.

Obviously Jesus existed, died, and was raised from the dead.

The next group doesn’t grant all of the data, though they allow most of it. The general conclusion is that Jesus was still resurrected.

Further over on the left are the folks who explain that they will acknowledge, say, between 12 and 20 of the facts. I’ll either tell them that I’m willing to work with that number, or I’ll actually work with less.

But for the person who says, “I’m not going to give you any of these historical facts at all,” as I mentioned earlier, I would work individually from zero to each one of them. So I’d produce the data that establish each. The bottom line is that these facts alone refute the naturalistic theories on the one hand and still provide the best evidences for the resurrection on the other.


18 Marcus Borg, Jesus, A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1987), pp. 59-71.

19 Rudolf Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” in Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, trans. by Frederick C. Grant (New York, N.Y.: Harper and Brothers, 1962), p. 60.

20 The testimonies of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg to this fact will be presented below.

21 For details, see Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), pp. 69-75.

22 Bart D Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 231.

23 Ehrman, Ibid., p. 230.

24 Habermas, The Historical Jesus, Chap. 7, pp. 143-170.

25 Such as those found in Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:30-32; 10:38-43; 13:30-31.

3. Did Jesus ever Consider himself to be Deity? Did Jesus Designate Himself as the Son of Man or the Son of God?
Top of Page
Top of Page