When other popular teachers died, their movement died with them. However, after Jesus' death, his movement continued to strengthen and grow rapidly. James, Peter, John and Paul, Jude and the writer to the Hebrews were convinced of the resurrection of Jesus, they believed in it with such conviction that they did not even attempt to defend or demonstrate it. They stated it as fact. “In each story the names of those to whom the resin Christ appeared are given (Barnett 130).” This can be verified and proven true, based on eyewitnesses. After the death of Christ, the lives of the New Testament writers were radically changed. They traveled where they hadn't gone to reach people outside their comfort zone. They died in their defiance. If these men had not told the truth, would they have suffered as they did? “Their letters suggest no illusion or deception, but clear thinking and fiery integrity (Barnett 116).” They lived as they did based on a verifiable historical event, the resurrection of Jesus. The two traditions of when Jesus rose from the dead combine powerfully to reinforce the reality of the resurrection. They come from separate sources. From the women we learn that Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week. From the other disciples we learn that Jesus was resurrected on the third day. If the resurrection of Jesus were nothing more than a hoax or an urban legend, there would be no identifiable starting point. This is not the case with the resurrection. We know the location where he was buried and the time frame in which it occurred. There are various objections, other hypotheses about the resurrection. Some believe that another man was crucified, but Jesus was crucified in public. Officials specifically wanted him to die, so it would be noticeable if the wrong man was on that cross. Others say that Jesus only fainted, he didn't actually die. The Romans were very cruel in their punishments and executions. The only thing I thought completely confirmed their existence was that they were mentioned in non-Christian texts. The problem is that they weren't eyewitnesses; miracles could be rumors that could be messed up through retelling. I understand that eyewitnesses wrote the gospels and so if they said they saw miracles, they probably happened. But is there any other evidence? Miracles are not very well supported historically compared to other elements supported in this book. Why wasn't indirect evidence mentioned? The resurrection of Jesus is more credible because of indirect evidence, such as empty evidence