The event that divides time
The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are not fringe claims; they are among the best-attested events of the ancient world. To deny them, you must deny the very standards by which we know anything about antiquity.
Consider this: we accept the Gallic Wars largely on Caesar’s own word, preserved in far fewer manuscripts and centuries later than the New Testament documents. We accept the existence of Alexander the Great on fragmentary sources written hundreds of years after his death. No serious historian calls these into question. Yet the New Testament stands with thousands of manuscripts, some within decades of the events, alongside corroborating testimony from hostile witnesses and secular sources.
The crucifixion is virtually undisputed by historians. Tacitus confirms it. Josephus references it. Even the Talmud acknowledges it. The resurrection is harder for skeptics to swallow, yet the evidence is weighty: the empty tomb, the explosion of eyewitness testimony, the radical transformation of the disciples, and the birth of the church in the very city where Jesus was killed. If the body remained in the grave, Christianity never gets off the ground.
To dismiss these accounts requires a double standard. If we applied the same skepticism to every other event of antiquity, history itself would dissolve. The resurrection is not less credible than other ancient claims; it is more credible. Which leaves us with a simple challenge: if you trust ancient history at all, you must face the reality that Jesus Christ really did rise.
