- The resurrection of Jesus arguably has better historical support than the assassination of Julius Caesar. There are about 4 primary sources for Caesar's assassination, whereas the resurrection has 5-6 primary sources. The sources for Julius Caesar's death were all written over 100 years after the assassination happened. The sources for Jesus' resurrection were all written within 70 years after it happened, sometimes even within 5 years.
- The facts normally used to support the resurrection of Jesus are accepted by >90% of scholars writing on the subject. This statistic is based on a real survey of all the publications written by Phd's about Jesus.
- If a person rejects the resurrection itself, but accepts all of the historically sound facts surrounding his death (i.e the appearances after his death, the burial, the crucifixion, etc.) they will be left with an unsolvable historical puzzle with many unexplained "loose ends."
- Alternative theories like "the disciples stole the body" or "the disciples hallucinated the resurrected Jesus" make very unbelievable explanations in real life. For example, no one would tell a police officer that they simply "hallucinated" drugs in your car.
- Some argue that the resurrection theory itself an unbelievable explanation. It would be, but only if Christians claimed Jesus rose from the dead through natural causes alone. Christians claim God raised Jesus, not that he just naturally rose on his own. On the contrary, skeptics of the resurrection postulate impossible events (i.e. multiple group hallucination) as by natural causes only.