Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Funny question that actually... You see you can always bring up the old, 'you weren't there how do you know,' question - therefore we must settle with the most historically credible answer available.

But first we need to do some learning. We need to learn just what exactly is 'Historical Credibility?'

The first thing we'd think about is people we identify as historically renown people ( aka: Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great etc ).

What if I told you that Jesus's resurrection was a more historically credible event than Julius Caesar's murder on the Ides of March?

Historical Credibility actually depends on a few simple factors:
1. Time document was written
2. Who was the writer
3. Other texts on the same subject or person
4. Purpose of the text (Biast or unbiast)

Obviously the most important from a historical point of view is number 1. Time document was written.

2000 years ago ( and prior to ) it was actually unheard of for a historical document to be written about any one ( even the Caesars ) before give or take around 400-500 years after the person in question had died. The reason was that the general populous was illiterate and couldn't read or write anyway. The select minority who could read were either scribes, messengers, or scholars. These men, imbued with this unique gift, would use their ability to read and or write as a means of employment and for media purposes, getting the word out to the masses.
There were no newspapers in Rome 2000 years ago, the mob actually received their day to day news about the world by a man standing in the pulpit reading from a scroll containing relevant news of the day, week, month or year. Once each person had heard the news it was used as fuel for gossip among the Roman people and as a result, news travelled fast.

The need to write down the story of a man's life who had recently died was considered quite menotinous to say the least. Who would read it? Everyone who wanted to know about that person did know all they needed to know about a person.

Think about it - if your Father died tomorrow, do you think the first thing you'd do is write a book about him. Then add to that - do you think you'd write a book about him in 20 years time if no one could read?

One of the great Historical significances about the four Gospels we know from the Bible ( Matthew, Mark, Luke & John ) is that these texts were written between 40 and 120 years after Jesus died. That sounds like a long time by our standards but 2000 years ago in an illiterate world that was a turning point in the way the world viewed historical texts.

Another twist in the historical credibility in Christ's life story were the writers and their sources. You couldn't just talk to a person who met Jesus one day and use their dribble as basis for what would be possibly consiered a historical text for years to come - if that had been the case for these four books they would be literally laughed at during the Council of Mycae ( the unification of the books & scrolls we know now as the Bible ).

Matthew, Mark and Luke used hundreds of eye witness accounts to create a 'highlight reel' of Jesus' life. When one of these men would travel to Palestine and ask an eye witness of Christ what he said during a speech on the top of a hill and then travel to Ethiopia and receive an identical word for word testimony from another eye witness - it still wasn't enough to include in these Gospels. As mentioned, these men travelled abroad and spoke to hundreds of eye witnesses to form these books.
The significance of John is that he, whether intentionally or not, is renown for using completely different eye witness accounts from across mesopotamia and still unearthed a corroborating story.

Many Historians and Scholars say there were no other writers of the time that mentioned Jesus but they are incredibly incorrect. Religious Historian, John Dickson has actually revealed several extra biblical writings of Jesus from even the most skeptical viewpoints expressed within the 200 years after Jesus' death.

One writer, considered a mojor skeptic, speaks of Jesus being a magical healer who claims to be the Ho Christo ( the Messiah ).

There were also other gospels that were considered by the Council of Mycae and further rejected from being included in the Canon. The Gospel of Phillip, which talks about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdelene. The main reasons for this book not being included was because it didn't fully survive the test of time and is now torn and missing the latter chunk of the document.

So when you look at Historically credible and not historically credible you can say that "according to History, Jesus did indeed rise from the dead,'

Whether or not he did is a question we may never answer.