Is It Reasonable to Believe? Henri Blocher on the Evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection

Introduction

Many people around you claim it isn't reasonable to believe in Jesus Christ. In this interview with Benjamin Short, pastor of Église du Tabernacle (Paris 18th), theologian Henri Blocher, a member of that church since 1954 · answers the two great classic objections: Did Jesus really exist? And above all, how can one believe in his resurrection? Two questions that touch the very foundation of the Christian faith.

Message Outline

1. Did Jesus Really Exist?

The "legendary Jesus" thesis, brought back into fashion by a French philosopher reviving an old 18th-century argument, remains marginal and peripheral in academic circles.
The Christian phenomenon itself is already an argument: it is practically impossible to explain how a handful of first-century men managed to brave death and draw a multitude after them, unless there was a reality behind it from the start.
Jesus is better attested than most people who lived in the same era as him.
Outside the Bible, several external testimonies confirm his existence: a few Roman mentions (including the historian Tacitus), the Talmud (which treats him as a charlatan but does attest to his existence), and above all Flavius Josephus, the greatest historian of Judaism, who speaks of Jesus as a figure who preached to crowds, gained popular support, and was put to death.

2. How Can One Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?

This is the boldest claim of the Christian faith, and its very foundation. The Bible itself says so: if Christ has not risen, then preaching is empty and faith is empty too.
First condition: not to exclude the miracle in advance out of prejudice. Once one admits that there might be a God, it becomes absurd to say he could not raise the dead, that would be forbidding God to be God.
Second condition: having credible historical testimonies from people who saw him alive after his death.
The resurrection is not a mere resuscitation: it is entry into a life of a new quality, bodily yet eternal, which the Bible calls the life of the new creation. "He who is raised from the dead no longer dies."

3. The Strength of the Apostles' Testimony

The content of the testimony is substantial: the disciples do not merely claim to have seen Jesus, but to have eaten and drunk with him, and to have been taught by him for forty days about the kingdom of God.
The moral character of the witnesses is impeccable, even their opponents found nothing credible to slander them with.
They went to their deaths to seal the truth of their testimony, even though they gained absolutely nothing from it.
Blaise Pascal noted this well: in every religion and every century, men have died for their beliefs. But the apostles did not die for their religious convictions, they died for an eyewitness and ear-witness testimony, for something they had actually lived. This is unique.

4. Answering Common Objections

"A collective hallucination": impossible. What the disciples attest to is not a mere vision, but shared meals, teaching received, concrete exchanges over several days.
The change in the disciples' attitude is striking: after Jesus' death, they are terrified, locked in a room for fear of the Jewish leaders and the Romans. Jesus appears, invites them to touch him if they doubt. From that point on, they go to the ends of the earth and to martyrdom.
"Believing in such a miracle would be simple-minded": this argument rests on a prejudice against those who don't think as we do. A certain simplicity of mind is even a virtue, it is rather devious minds that construct complicated and deceptive reasoning.

5. Why the Resurrection Changes Everything

Henri Blocher confesses: "If Jesus had not risen, nothing would hold together for me anymore. I would no longer be a Christian. I would probably be a nihilist."
The resurrection is a powerful attestation of the truth of the Gospel: evil is conquered by the power, goodness, and love of God.
Beyond the evidence of testimony, contemplating who Jesus was in the Gospels brings understanding: "in a sense, he could not not be raised. He is so beautiful. He is so good."

Key Takeaways

The denial of Jesus' historical existence is a marginal opinion: no serious academic historian defends it.
Jesus is better historically attested than most of his contemporaries, including by non-Christian sources (Tacitus, the Talmud, Flavius Josephus).
The resurrection is the very foundation of the Christian faith: if it did not happen, preaching is empty and faith is too.
What makes the apostles' testimony unique is not their faith but their eyewitness testimony, they died for something they had lived, not for a religious conviction.
Believing in the resurrection is not irrational: if God exists, it is absurd to forbid him, as a matter of principle, the power to raise the dead.

Personal Application

Have you ever taken the time to examine the historical data on Jesus' existence, or do you simply go along with what you've heard?
What philosophical prejudice might be keeping you today from seriously considering the possibility of the resurrection?
If you are a Christian, is the resurrection of Jesus truly the foundation of your life, or just one doctrine among others that you recite without thinking?
How does the apostles' testimony, who went to martyrdom for something they had lived rather than for a mere conviction, challenge your own faith?
If you contemplated Jesus as he appears in the Gospels, would you say in turn: "he is so beautiful, so good, that he could not not rise again"?

Verses Cited

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there historical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the Bible?

Yes, several non-Christian sources attest to his existence: a few Roman mentions including that of the great historian Tacitus, a passage in the Talmud that treats him as a charlatan but confirms he existed, and above all Flavius Josephus, the greatest historian of first-century Judaism, who speaks of Jesus as a figure who preached to crowds, gained popular support, and was put to death. Henri Blocher notes that it is hard to find a recognized academic who would claim otherwise.

Why would the apostles' deaths be evidence for Jesus' resurrection?

Because it is unique in nature. As Blaise Pascal pointed out, men die for their religious convictions in every religion and in every era: the strength of their belief explains that. But the apostles did not die for a belief, they died for an eyewitness testimony, to affirm a fact they claimed to have lived: having seen, touched, and eaten with the risen Jesus. No one dies as a martyr for a fact they know to be false, especially when they gain no advantage from it.

How do you answer the objection of collective hallucination?

The content of the disciples' testimony does not match a hallucination. They do not merely claim to have "seen" Jesus, but to have eaten and drunk with him, to have been taught by him about the kingdom of God over several days, to have had real, concrete exchanges. A collective hallucination does not produce this kind of factual testimony, nor this radical change in attitude, from terrified disciples locked in a room to men ready to travel the world to the point of martyrdom.

All sermons on "Foi"

Never miss a sermon from Église du Tabernacle

A clear summary of every new message, delivered to you.

to take notes and ask questions.