Hi Dr. Craig, I am a Muslim and I have a question. I agree that most of the historians agree on the crucifixion of Jesus, but why is there

not consensus among historians regarding the resurrection of Jesus? How can I risk accepting

Christianity? If resurrection is not an established historical fact, Ashutosh Nepal.

I'm thrilled to receive a question from far away Nepal.

The short answer to your first question, Ashutosh, is that in comparing Jesus' crucifixion and

Jesus' resurrection, you're comparing apples with oranges. I hope that this metaphor

communicates in your culture. The idea is that one is comparing two things that are on different

levels. Let me explain. In my case for the resurrection of Jesus, I distinguish two steps.

One, establishing the facts to be explained, and two, determining the best explanation of the facts.

With respect to one, the facts include Jesus interment in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea,

the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb by a group of his female disciples,

the disciples' experience of post-mortem appearances of Jesus alive,

and the disciples suddenly and sincerely coming to believe that God

had raised Jesus from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary. These facts do

represent the consensus among historians today. With respect to two, I argue that the

hypothesis, God raised Jesus from the dead, is the best explanation of those facts. It is here

that the disagreement arises among scholars. Virtually no one argues

that there is a better explanation than the resurrection hypothesis. But a great many will

simply remain agnostic about the matter. They will often grant that something very dramatic happened

that produced the radical change in the disciples, but they will not identify it. They are, in

effect, left without any explanation. Now, obviously, world view considerations play a major role here.

If a person is a naturalist or anti-supernaturalist, then the resurrection hypothesis is ruled

...