Why should we believe in Jesus without eyewitnesses?

I received a question from someone struggling in evangelizing his friends.  He said he didn’t know how to overcome their objection that there were no eyewitnesses to Jesus’s ministry.

My response is below:

I’m not sure on what basis they are dismissing the scriptures as evidence?  Even atheist scholars do recognize that the New Testament is a collection of documents that have survived from the first century, and that they either are eye-witness accounts or they are based on eye-witness accounts.

I often see atheists who want to discard the Bible out of hand, but I would not let them do that without reason.  If they want to claim that the Bible is unreliable, then let them provide evidence for that claim.  If they want to say that the New Testament authors were biased, then again let them show that their accounts are inconsistent with real events.

It seems that people want detailed biographical accounts, but they dismiss the people who were closest to Jesus and are able to provide such accounts.  Do they really expect that one of Jesus’s detractors should have followed him around and chronicled his life?  That’s silly!  Only someone who believed in Jesus would invest so much time in following him, and so it is no surprise that the eyewitness accounts that we do have are from people who believed in him.

Sincerely,
Matt Bilyeu


Do you have a question?

Ask your questions about apologetics, evangelism, or the Christian worldview HERE

Be sure to subscribe to receive new Q&A as it comes out!