What would it take to convince you that Jesus rose from the dead?

This was written for the “What Would It Take” challenge (see an explanation of what that is here). Since this challenged was posed by a Christian, my references to “you” in this post should be taken as referring to someone in that demographic.

1) The first, absolutely essential, thing required to convince me that Jesus rose from the dead, is that I would have to be convinced that it is possible for people to rise (or be risen) from the dead.

I think we can both agree that is simply impossible in naturalistic terms, so it would follow that I’d have to accept the existence of the supernatural (and probably the existence of God), for a resurrection to even be possible. I do not think that I could ever be convinced in the other direction (be convinced that God exists only because I was already convinced that Jesus rose from the dead), because even William Lane Craig has admitted that resurrection is only the most plausible theory for the “minimal facts” if you already accept that some type of God does exist. (I've delved further into the problems with using miracles as evidence that God exists here.)

Of course, this is a necessary but not sufficient condition. If I became convinced that some supernatural force existed which could raise people from the dead, it still doesn’t mean that Jesus was such a person.

2) If you have first convinced me that God or the supernatural exists, then I think the additional step required would be to convince me that a historical account which includes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead was a historically accurate document. There are a few different ways I can think of that you could achieve that result:

2a) I think probably the most effective way would be to convince me that the gospels were inspired by God.

2b) Even if I didn’t believe that the gospels were inspired, I would still have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead if I was convinced that the gospels were purely-human documents that were nonetheless accurate. There’s no reason that couldn’t be possible without inspiration; they don’t necessarily have to be God-breathed for them to be conveying true events of history. Convincing me of their inspiration just seems like the most direct approach, since the belief that they are inspired seems like the most common reason that people believe they are historically accurate. But it’s not essential, so if I could be convinced that they were accurate histories without believing that they were inspired (which wouldn’t be out of the question, if I had already come to accept that some type of supernatural does exist), then I would be convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

But bear in mind, it’s not enough to point out some historical facts that the gospels got right, and then expect me to accept the miracle claims as well. I would have to be convinced that at least one of the gospels was thoroughly accurate for this to convince me.

2c) If there were authentic non-Christian sources which reported that Jesus rose from the dead, then I would think that would be pretty compelling evidence (if I already believed that resurrection was possible). I’m including this for the sake of completeness, even though I appreciate that it’s quite a long-shot. Naturally, it only makes sense that if  someone believed that Jesus was raised from the dead, then they probably would become Christian, so then that wouldn’t be a non-Christian source anymore. 

That may seem like setting too high a standard, but I don’t think I should be expected to accept a miracle claim just based on the testimony of that religion’s adherents. There are plenty of mutually-exclusive religions which have plenty of adherents who devoutly believe in that religion’s miracle claims. I contend the reason why that’s the case (even though they can’t all be true) is that these believers first accept belief in the religion for other reasons, and then they accept belief in the miracle claim because they already believe in the religion.

Of course, I understand that in the case of the resurrection, the claim being made is that the earliest Christians (particularly the apostles) only came to believe because they directly experienced the risen Christ. But that is just a claim. Since there have been so many other religions that have sprung up over the course of human history, I cannot accept the argument that the rise of early Christianity could not be explained without postulating that they really saw Jesus risen from the dead. So, ultimately, it’s just hearsay.

That’s why I specify non-Christian sources here. Of course, I understand this is incredibly unlikely, and I’m only including it for the sake of thoroughness, but if it happened to be the case that somebody back then wrote something like, “sure, Jesus appeared to me after I saw him crucified, but heck, Caesar rose from the dead too, so I’m just gonna keep following the Roman gods, because they’re more cool,” then that would go a long way toward convincing me. Of course, you would have to further convince me that any such document was authentic, since there is an established history of the early church screwing with secular documents.

I want to say that I understand and appreciate how this answer might be frustrating to a believer. Because it make sense that anyone who did believe the resurrection was real would become a Christian, it’s bordering on the toupee fallacy to say that I’ll only consider evidence from non-Christian sources. I want to point out, though, that I did previously state that convincing me the gospels were true would be a valid way to change my mind on this issue, so I’m not completely ruling out Christian sources. I’m just saying that some random guy who happens to be Christian writing about how the resurrection was absolutely a real historical event is not gonna sway me, because of course a Christian is gonna believe that. A Mormon will just as dependably believe that Joseph Smith received the golden plates from the angel Moroni; it doesn’t mean they have actual evidence that such an event really occurred, it’s just an article of faith for that religion.