There's something rational about looking at historical events and asking if it's unlikely, likely, or strongly likely that they happened at all.
For example, I have heard of a handful of Germans today who for one reason or another say the Holocaust never happened. In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?
Another example, there are atheists today who for one reason or another say the Resurrection never happened, and not necessarily because they have ever looked into the historical primary and secondary sources.
In light of the hundreds of people who died at Roman hands in the 1st century, refusing to recant that they had seen the risen Lord, is it sensible to label their testimony a delusion, or inherited from their parents, without any thorough investigation at all?
As for those who had seen Christ themselves:
"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church."
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."
"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep."
Are the New Testament sources primary, accurate, unbiased, trustworthy? When were they written? Have they been corrupted or do we read them as they wrote them? How many sources are there inside and outside of the New Testament? Are they independent? Are they coherent?
Here are some people who have tried to address these questions:
For example, I have heard of a handful of Germans today who for one reason or another say the Holocaust never happened. In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?
Another example, there are atheists today who for one reason or another say the Resurrection never happened, and not necessarily because they have ever looked into the historical primary and secondary sources.
In light of the hundreds of people who died at Roman hands in the 1st century, refusing to recant that they had seen the risen Lord, is it sensible to label their testimony a delusion, or inherited from their parents, without any thorough investigation at all?
As for those who had seen Christ themselves:
"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church."
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."
"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep."
Are the New Testament sources primary, accurate, unbiased, trustworthy? When were they written? Have they been corrupted or do we read them as they wrote them? How many sources are there inside and outside of the New Testament? Are they independent? Are they coherent?
Here are some people who have tried to address these questions:
Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament history?" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/...)
FF Bruce, "New Testament Documents" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/...)