That it was the disciples and other early eyewitnesses who had these experiences likewise rules out legend or myth theories, since the original teaching concerning the resurrection is therefore based on the early testimony of real eyewitnesses and not
78 See Eusebius, Book II: IX, XXIII; XXV.
79 See Habermas and Moreland, Immortality, pp. 245–246, endnote 67.
80 See note 74 above. See also Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, especially pp. 175– 178; W.T. Jones, The Medieval Mind(New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1969), pp. 34–35; Carl Braaten, History and Hermeneutic(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), p. 78.
81 Grant, ibid., p. 176.
82 Braaten, History, p. 78.
83 See Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic, chapter I for this argument in expanded form, including support for these facts.
on later legends (as shown by the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.). Paul’s experience likewise cannot be explained by legends, since such could not account for his conversion from skepticism. Lastly, the stolen body and fraud theories are disproven by the disciples’ experiences and by their transformation, both because this change shows that the disciples really believed that Jesus rose from the dead and because of the probability that such liars would not become martyrs. Similarly, Paul would not have been convinced by such fraud.^84
Second, these four core facts also provide the major positive evidences for Jesus’ literal resurrection appearances, such as the disciples’ early and eyewitness experiences that have not been explained away naturalistically, their transformation into men who were willing to die for their faith and Paul’s experience and corresponding transformation. Thus, these core historical facts provide positive evidences which further verify the disciples’ claims concerning Jesus’ literal resurrection, especially in that these arguments have not been accounted for naturalistically.^85
Page 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
