# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aristotle's 12 virtues are a great checklist to understand the different morals, values, and virtues that you could cultivate or restrain in your life. It's like an ancient Greek personality test.

Moderation in all things, including moderation: Aristotle was clear that too much (excess) of any virtue is just as bad as lack (deficiency). You must find the mean, the right balance.

For example, too much courage is foolhardy and could get you killed. Too little courage and you avoid healthy risks and are seen as a coward. Too much modesty and you may be seen as shy and withdrawn. Too little modesty and you become irritating and boastful. And so on.
Aristotle's 12 virtues:
1) Courage - bravery

2) Temperance - moderation

3) Liberality - spending

4) Magnificence - charisma, style

5) Magnanimity - generosity

6) Ambition - pride

7) Patience - temper, calm

8) Friendliness - social IQ

9) Truthfulness - honesty, candidness

10) Wit - humor, joy

11) Modesty - ego

12) Justice - sense of right / wrong, indignation

Of the twelve above, I find myself struggling the most with a deficiency of #7, patience. All of us struggle with all of the virtues, at least some of the time. But that's Aristotle's point: it's a process, it's about balance, and it's not easy.
2020 update:
I left out an important aspect of this list: Aristotle also gave specific labels to each virtue when it was either excessive or deficient.

For example, too much courage is RASHNESS, and too little is COWARDICE.

Too much magnificence is VULGARITY, and too little is PETTINESS.

Here is a great chart below, all credit belongs to Productive Flourishing!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aristotle's 12 virtues: from courage to magnificence, patience to wit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aristotle's 12 virtues are a great checklist to understand the different morals, values, and virtues that you could cultivate or restrain in your life. It's like an ancient Greek personality test. Moderation in all things, including moderation: Aristotle was clear that too much (excess) of any virtue is just as bad as lack (deficiency).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Introduction to Year 13 Christian Education at St Kentigern College

# data[].attributes.headline
Welcome to this collection of resources we're using in CE for Year 13

# data[].attributes.subject
Welcome to this collection of resources we're using in CE for Year 13

# data[].attributes.body
Welcome to Year 13 Christian Education - a brief introduction from Mr Kemp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Captain Sully speaks out 10 years after 'Miracle on the Hudson'

# data[].attributes.headline
Trailer for the film Sully (starring Tom Hanks)

# data[].attributes.subject
Trailer for the film Sully (starring Tom Hanks)

# data[].attributes.headline
Sully Unfiltered - and interview with Captain Sullenberger

# data[].attributes.subject
Sully Unfiltered - and interview with Captain Sullenberger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Captain Sully's Minute-by-Minute Description of The Miracle On The Hudson | Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Hardest  'Would You Rather' Dilemmas Ever

# data[].attributes.body
Brain Science and the role of habituation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of Habits | Marco Badwal | TEDxFS

# data[].attributes.body
Did Aristotle say this? Possibly Will Durant in 1926. Often attributed to Aristotle.

# data[].attributes.headline
What's with the fish as a Christian symbol?

# data[].attributes.subject
What's with the fish as a Christian symbol?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Christian History | Learn the History of Christianity & the Church

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the origin of the Christian fish symbol?

# data[].attributes.headline
Extra-biblical resources on the resurrection

# data[].attributes.subject
Extra-biblical resources on the resurrection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements.

In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.[1]This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."[2] He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"[3] The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Evidence from Tacitus

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....[5]

What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."[6] While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.[7] How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10]

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."[12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."[13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."[14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."[15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.[16]

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.[17]

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19]

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans! [24]

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians ... worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[27]

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Conclusion

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

References
© 2001 Probe Ministries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F.

# data[].attributes.headline
Proofs of the resurrection - with response by Gary Habermas

# data[].attributes.subject
Proofs of the resurrection - with response by Gary Habermas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Of all the teachings of Christianity, no doctrine is more central than the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The truth of the resurrection has been attacked from every angle. New books and television media regularly appear questioning the resurrection, re-hashing old theories about what happened to Jesus' body. Since the resurrection is crucial to Christianity, Christians ought to be able to give answers to these inevitable questions with proof and evidence.

Historically Credible Accounts in the Gospels

The first step in defending the resurrection from its detractors is to establish the fact of the historical events that took place as conveyed in the Gospels. As philosopher William Lane Craig notes in his book Reasonable Faith, "The issue is whether the gospel narratives are historically credible accounts or unhistorical legends."

The Existence of the Empty Tomb

One of the easiest parts of the resurrection data to establish is the fact that the tomb is empty. Because the location of Jesus' burial was known to those living in Jerusalem, it is unlikely that they would have believed the apostles' claims about the resurrection of Christ if there was not an empty tomb. Jesus' burial is widely attested in early, independent testimonies, both biblical and extra-biblical.

The fact that women are primary witnesses of the empty tomb in the Gospel accounts is further evidence of their authenticity. This is because, as is often noted, women were not considered reliable witnesses in first-century Jewish culture, so it would have been foolish for the authors to fictionally construct an account involving women in order to gain credibility.

Matthew 28:11 speaks of a myth that was spread among the Jews concerning the body of Christ. Apparently, the Jews were saying the disciples stole the body of Christ. This is significant because the Jews did not deny the tomb was empty, but instead sought an alternative explanation to the resurrection. The emptiness of the tomb is a widely attested historical fact.

However, just because the tomb of Jesus Christ was empty does not necessarily mean the resurrection happened. There are four alternative hypotheses to the resurrection that have been advanced over the years:

1. The Conspiracy Hypothesis

The conspiracy hypothesis says that the disciples stole the body of Jesus and continued to lie about his appearances to them. According to this account, the resurrection was a hoax.

This hypothesis is not commonly held in modern scholarship for several reasons:

This hypothesis does not take into account that the disciples believed in the resurrection. It is highly unlikely that numerous disciples would have been willing to give up their lives defending a fabrication.

It is unlikely that the idea of resurrection would have entered the minds of the disciples, as such an event was not connected to the Jewish idea of a Messiah. The scholar William Lane Craig writes, "If your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you either went home or else you got yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus' corpse and saying that God has raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples."

This hypothesis cannot account for the post-resurrection appearances of Christ.

2. The Apparent Death Hypothesis

The second hypothesis attempting to explain away the resurrection is the apparent death hypothesis. This view says Jesus was not completely dead when he was removed from the cross. Once in the tomb, Jesus was revived and escaped, thus convincing the disciples of his resurrection.

This view is difficult to hold for a few reasons:

It is unlikely that a half-dead man would have been capable of even getting up to walk, much less moving the huge stone that sealed the tomb, over-powering Roman guards, and fleeing from sight.

This theory cannot account for the disciples' attribution of resurrection to Christ, for if they had seen him after he was revived, they would have merely thought he had never died.

It is also foolish to think the Romans, who had perfected the art of executing people, would have let one slip by without ensuring he was dead.

Finally, given the physical torture described in the Gospel accounts, it is highly unlikely that Jesus could have survived crucifixion.

3. The Wrong Tomb Hypothesis

The wrong tomb hypothesis suggests that the women had gotten lost on their way to Jesus' tomb and accidentally stumbled upon the caretaker of an empty tomb. When the caretaker said, "Jesus is not here," the women were so disoriented they fled, their story later being developed into a resurrection myth.

Like the other theories, virtually no reputable scholars hold to this view. There are at least three reasons:

First, this theory does not explain the post-resurrection appearances, and it is spurious to think that such a simple mistake would have led a first-century Jew to think a resurrection had happened.

In light of the early evidence that is available concerning the location of Jesus' tomb, it is almost impossible that the women would have confused its location.

This hypothesis emphasizes that the caretaker of the tomb said that Christ was not there, but it passes over the next phrase: "He is risen!"

4. The Displaced Body Hypothesis

The displaced body hypothesis says Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus' body in his own tomb, but later moved it to the criminal's graveyard. The disciples were not aware that Jesus' body had been moved and therefore wrongly inferred that he had risen from the dead.

Because of the spurious nature of this theory, virtually no modern scholars hold to it:

This theory cannot account for the post-resurrection appearances of Christ or the origin of the Christian faith.

It is unclear why Joseph would not have corrected the error of the disciples by simply showing them where he had moved the body of Jesus.

The criminal graveyard, most likely, was quite close to the crucifixion site, so it would have made little sense why Joseph would not have simply buried Jesus there in the first place. In fact, it was against Jewish law to allow a body to be moved after it had already been buried.

The Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus

In 1 Corinthians, an authentic letter composed by a man acquainted with the first disciples, the Apostle Paul claims that numerous people saw Jesus alive after his death ( 1 Corinthians 1:1).

It is fairly indisputable that Jesus actually appeared to the people that Paul mentions. Even the notorious New Testament critic Bart Ehrman admits, "we can say with some confidence that some of his disciples claimed to have seen Jesus alive."

The gospels all speak of post-resurrection appearances of Christ. It would be quite ridiculous to suggest that each of these events was a hallucination. Few scholars argue, therefore, that on different occasions different groups of people had experiences of seeing Jesus. They therefore question whether the experiences were actual physical, bodily appearances of Christ. However, Paul leaves no room for a merely psychological experience. His theology of the resurrected body ensures that he meant that Christ actually, physically appeared.

The resurrection is the most plausible explanation for the postmortem appearances of Christ. The alternative-the disciples were hallucinating-says nothing to explain the empty tomb. Nor does it explain the disciples' belief in the resurrection. In typical psychological postmortem experiences, the person having the experience rarely would think that a dead person actually returned physically to life. As New Testament scholar N.T. Wright argues, postmortem appearances in the ancient world would be more evidence that the person was dead than that he was alive.

The physical resurrection of Jesus proves to be the best explanation for the postmortem appearances described in 1 Corinthians 1:1.

The Existence of Christianity

The fact that Christianity started and grew is also evidence of the resurrection. For Jews, the Messiah was viewed as a figure that would be triumphant and rule on David's throne, not a figure that would be crucified and die.

The resurrection of Jesus undid the catastrophe of the crucifixion. The Messiah, who had died, is risen! The resurrection validated and verified the claims Jesus had made about his own identity. The origin of Christianity rests solely on the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

It stands to reason that Jesus Christ did in fact rise from the dead victoriously on the third day after his death. No alternative hypothesis can adequately explain the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus, and the origin of the Christian faith.

What 3 Facts Prove the Resurrection of Jesus?
Read a transcription of this video by Gary Habermas about the proof of Christ's resurrection:
Well, I'm the guy that goes through the key sources to see where scholars are today. If I'm going to tell you where scholars are across the board, I kind of have to have an idea where they're hanging out. And in the literature, this is hard to imagine. In the critical literature, I found over 20 reasons to believe in an empty tomb, over 20. You think really? I mean, where do you get that kind of thing. But critics are convinced, at least if you go by the times they mentioned it most, that the best reason to believe in the empty tomb is because the women are reported as witnesses. Now here's how it works.

If I'm faking a gospel or half faking, half telling the truth. And I don't mean that I'm a liar, that's way too simple. I'm telling a story about this great man, and I just kind of fill in the blanks with things that I've heard, you know, and I don't know what goes in there. And I'm writing this a few decades later. When I get to the important parts central part about empty tomb, where we're getting up to appearances, I don't pick women as my witnesses. Because it's not true that women couldn't testify in a court of law, they could. But there's an inverse relation between how important the subject matter was and whether you would use women witnesses. Maybe it's all you have. And in this case, at least the beginning till the disciples go there and who knows who else, that's all we have.

So why is it that four gospel writers, now they're not just down the block from each other, right? They're in different parts of the Roman empire. As they're telling the story, why do they all commit this sort of faux pas and say, "The women did it?" Why wouldn't you say, "Well, I'm pretty free to tell the story. I think I heard someone say Peter and John went there." Okay, well that's later in the accounts. But let's make them go there at the beginning. Are let's just say I misunderstood. I thought Peter and John were with the women and they went early in the morning. I mean, I'm looking to get the guys to that story. There's not a single man in the original trip to the tomb. How come it's told that way four times different parts of the empire? Because there wasn't a single guy in the group. That's just an oppressive reason. You don't put your worst foot forward unless you're trying to tell the truth.

Another key reason is the story's told in Jerusalem. Where does the preaching start? Jerusalem. Where's the empty tomb? Jerusalem. How was the tomb again? Empty. Well, a skeptic sometimes say, "Come on, your book Acts says that they don't start preaching for 50 days. You couldn't tell who the person was after 50 days." And I'd respond, "That's not the teaching. That's not the text. That's not what it says. You have to do justice to what the text says." And here's what the text says. It's empty. Not there's a body in the tomb, don't mind him. We don't know who he is, anyway. Nobody's in the tomb. If there's a body in the tomb, the preaching is false. The New Testament is an empty tomb, no tomb. I mean, nobody buried in the tomb. And so the fact that it was preached in Jerusalem where anybody could get there easily on an afternoon walk and prove it or disprove it, it only works if there's no body in the tomb, ie, empty.

A third good reason is again, critics look for different sources, different, you know, two heads are better than one. And they're not agreed. But of the five sources that I outlined for the gospels, they believe that we have three to four are independent, admitting the empty tomb. That's three out of four out of a five max. That's a pretty good indication. Those are three.

There's a number of other indications. I think they're the best ones. The women, the fact that it was preached geographically in the place that it could most readily be refuted, and the fact that we have several sources, independent sources for the empty tomb.

Further Reading
Why Is the Resurrection So Important? Resurrection of Christ - Easton's Bible Dictionary 6 Reasons We Can Believe in the Resurrection Of Jesus Christ
Learn more about the meaning and significance behind the Easter holiday and Holy Week celebrations:
At Easter, the Son of God took on the world's sin and defeated the devil, death, and grave. How is it, then, that history's most glorious moment is surrounded by fearful fishermen, despised tax collectors, marginalized women, feeble politicians, and traitorous friends? In The Characters of Easter, you'll become acquainted with the unlikely collection of ordinary people who witnessed the miracle of Christ's death and resurrection. This FREE podcast provides a fresh approach to the Lenten season and can be used as a devotional or study for both individuals and groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
what is the proof and evidence for the resurrection of jesus?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Proof and Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Of all the teachings of Christianity, no doctrine is more central than the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The truth of the resurrection has been attacked from every angle. New books and television media regularly appear questioning the resurrection, re-hashing old theories about what happened to Jesus' body.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Key evidences of the resurrection distilled from 3400 scholars

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Key evidences of the resurrection distilled from 3400 scholars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resurrection of Jesus Christ Biblical Extra-biblical Evidences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many more evidences that Jesus rose from the dead, which are either described in Scripture or derived from it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lee Stroebel - 4 evidences for the resurrection

# data[].attributes.subject
Lee Stroebel - 4 evidences for the resurrection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Proofs of the Resurrection - Lee Strobel from The Case for Christ

# data[].attributes.body
The Bible Project

# data[].attributes.body
Check out this summary of Worldviews. Not all worldviews are here, or course. What might be the worldview of the person who designed the chart? What assumptions is the artist/author makin? How would you know this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated worldview summary by Cameron Blair from FEVA. PDF version (3.5 MB)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As our world grows more complex, and we must confront hundreds of minuscule moral choices in any given week, how do we begin to define our characters?

Who we are is determined by how we choose to move through the world. Our choices define us, but how do we make those choices?

What influences our thoughts and action s?

Our good character is defined by certain virtues that we value as our moral code. However, knowing what those virtues are and why they are important is key to developing your personal operating system for life.

What are virtues, and why do we need them?

Virtues are the cornerstone of ethics and morality, impacting how we navigate our relationships with others and ourselves.

Living in alignment with these virtues affords us a more fulfilling life, one in which we intrinsically value the worth of humanity. A life of virtue means making the conscious choice to love and respect the world around you.

Virtues are important for a number of reasons. These traits help us navigate the uncertain waters of moral obligation, and bring us closer together as social beings.

Here are a few reasons why we ought to define our character by virtuous traits:

To help you figure out your moral code, we've put together a virtues list of 100 words and their meanings.

Let's begin with one of the most famous lists of virtues.

Aristotle's List of Virtues

Philosophers have sought to understand the complicated arena of morality for hundreds of years. There are as many theories on how to live an ethical life as there are years spent attempting to understand it.

However, Aristotle's Virtue Ethics is an excellent place to start when tackling the concept of living morally. He boils down these truths into 12 virtues to live by.

1. Courage- To not define yourself by fear, but to live bravely.

2. Temperance- To live in moderation and not seek joy from material wealth.

3. Liberality- To not restrict oneself but to live freely.

4. Magnificence- To be charismatic and move in style.

5. Magnanimity- To possess a spirit of generosity.

6. Ambition- To have a healthy pride in what one does.

7. Patience- To be of good temper. To have a calm manner of being.

9. Truthfulness- To live honestly and with candor.

10. Wit- To find humor in the world and express it with joy.

11. Modesty- To regulate one's ego.

12. Justice- To be guided by truth and a moral sense of right and wrong.

The Definitive List of Virtues

While Aristotle gives us a simple list of good virtues, the recipe for living well isn't always simple. His moral virtues list sketches out an outline of his more complex philosophical musings on ethics.

You don't have to scour the philosophy section of your library to understand and value essential virtues. We have gathered an additional list of virtues and their definitions you can aspire to which will bring more balance to your life.

13. Acceptance - To be able to come to terms with what you cannot change.

14. Accountability - To hold yourself to what you say and to take ownership for what you have done.

15. Appreciation - To recognize the good you have been given and value the work of others.

16. Assertiveness - To take your place and take up space.

17. Authenticity - To be true to oneself, your spirit, and your nature.

18. Beauty - To possess pleasurable traits, physically and otherwise.

19. Caring - To show concern for your fellow man.

20. Certitude - To have conviction in what you believe.

22. Courage - Mental and moral fortitude in the face of fear and uncertainty.

23. Cleanliness - The practice of being clean, keeping yourself, and the areas you inhabit in a clean state.

24. Commitment - To fulfill one's agreements, to make a pledge regarding the future.

25. Compassion - The ability to empathize with the pain of others and to possess a desire to help alleviate that pain.

26. Confidence - To believe in one's own potential for success.

27. Consideration - To think cautiously and pragmatically about your choices.

28. Contentment - To find happiness and fulfillment in your current state of being.

29. Cooperation - To work together in order to achieve together.

30. Courtesy - To consider the needs of others while making decisions for oneself.

31. Creativity - The power to conceive new ideas.

32. Decisiveness - The ability to effectively and quickly make choices and decisions.

33. Detachment - To be able to experience your emotions without allowing them to control or overwhelm you.

34. Determination - To be committed to achieving something difficult.

35. Devotion - A sense of loyalty and commitment.

36. Dignity - To possess self-control and a sense of honor.

37. Diligence - The intersection of persistence and care.

39. Empathy - To be able to understand the feelings and emotional worlds of others.

40. Endurance - The ability to find strength and move forward in a continuous state of difficulty.

41. Enthusiasm - Excitement for something or someone you enjoy. To take an active interest in them.

42. Excellence- To be of the highest quality.

43. Fairness - To give equal weight to the treatment of people.

44. Faith - To have a strong belief in something.

45. Fidelity - Continuous faith in something or loyalty to someone or something.

46. Flexibility - A willingness to change or take part in a change.

47. Forbearance - A sense of restraint or self-control.

48. Forgiveness - To be able to forgive or able to be forgiven.

49. Fortitude - Strength or courage amidst adversity.

50. Generosity - To lack selfishness, and possess the qualities of kindness and a giving spirit.
More Related Articles: 185 Words Of Encouragement: Quotes And Thoughts To Boost You Up 12 Of The Most Important Values To Live By 29 Humility Quotes To Awaken Your Best Self
51. Gentleness - A quiet demeanor without malice.

52. Grace - To offer forgiveness before it is asked for.

53. Gratitude - To be thankful or to give thanks.

54. Helpfulness - The desire to help and follow through on that intention.

55. Honesty - To be truthful and trustworthy.

56. Honor - To respect what you believe to be right and good, and live through those beliefs.

57. Hope - To desire certain outcomes and believe in the potential of them coming true.

58. Humanity - To be in touch with your human nature.

59. Humility - To not believe yourself above others.

61. Independence - The ability to be alone and fulfilled with oneself. To be able to operate independently of others.

62. Initiative - The ability to take charge without waiting for others to do so.

63. Integrity - The ability to adhere to one's moral code or sense of right and wrong.

64. Joyfulness- To be full of joy. To give and receive joy.

65. Kindness - The quality of being considerate and open to others.

66. Love- The strongest form of continued admiration and affection.

67. Loyalty - To be devoted and have a strong sense of allegiance to another person or idea.

68. Mercy - To be compassionate towards someone who has caused harm or pain.

69. Mindfulness- To be conscious of your presence, your surroundings, and your effect on them.

70. Moderation - To be reasonable in all measures. To avoid passing limitations set for a good purpose.

71. Openness - The state of being open to others without restriction.

72. Optimism- To have a sense of hope and excitement for the future.

73. Peacefulness - A state of calm and acceptance. To be tranquil.

74. Perceptiveness- The ability to analyze with a sense of keenness or intuition.

75. Perseverance - To be persistent in your actions despite the threat of fear and failure.

76. Purity - The lack of adulteration, to be free from immorality.

77. Purposefulness - To possess a sense of purpose. To move with reason.

78. Reliability - To be accountable for your promises and stay true to commitment.

79. Resilience - An ability to recover from hardship. To be able to move forward from a state of pain.

80. Respect - To have admiration for those with great abilities, in terms of their achievements or character.

81. Responsibility - A sense of duty when wielding power or purpose. To be responsible for someone or something.

82. Reverence - A deep sense of respect towards a person or thing.

83. Righteousness - To be morally good and right in your actions. To possess good character and make justifiable choices.

84. Sacrifice - The willingness to give up that which is important to you for the sake of others.

86. Serenity - To be at peace with oneself and others.

87. Service - The act of using your skills, privilege, time, and kindness towards helping others.

88. Simplicity - To be in a natural state or a state of ease. To discard unnecessary complications.

89. Sincerity - To say what you mean without pretense. To speak and take action without deceit.

90. Steadfastness - To be unwavering in one's choices. To be resolute.

91. Strength- The ability to persevere under pressure.

92. Tact- The ability to deal with difficult issues with sensitivity towards the parties involved.

93. Thoughtfulness- The ability to think through your actions and how they will affect others.

94. Tolerance - To respect the choices, behaviors, and states of being of others when they do not align with your personal beliefs.

95. Trust - A steadfast belief in someone or something.

96. Understanding - The ability to be sympathetic in your comprehension of others.

97. Unity - The state of being one. To join together to create a whole.

98. Wisdom - To possess good judgment, character, and knowledge due to experience.

99. Wonder - The mixture of admiration, awe, and curiosity towards something unknown or unfamiliar. Something that is often beautiful or sublime.

100. Zeal- To be enthusiastic in your pursuits.

Examples of Virtues

These types of virtues can be applied to many different practices. Here are a few examples of these virtues in action:
How will you use this list of virtues?
It is not always easy to live by our moral codes. These virtues are a guide rather than a strict set of rules. They provide a framework for living but not directions.

We all could work on improving some of the virtues listed here. In our culture today, we value certain virtues over others, making it even more difficult to know where to focus our energies.

For example, we are often rewarded for the virtue of ambition rather than compassion. Both are important, but everything in life requires balance and regular calibration.

Take time with this virtues list to find where you could use more balance. Write down specific actions you can take to improve these areas of your life. Then make a plan to implement the actions.

May your virtuous life bring you peace and contentment and serve as beacon to others searching for a life of integrity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Definitive List Of 100 Virtues To Live By

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As our world grows more complex, and we must confront hundreds of minuscule moral choices in any given week, how do we begin to define our characters? Who we are is determined by how we choose to move through the world. Our choices define us, but how do we make those choices?

# data[].attributes.body
Think about how you are going to portray/display your four virtues. What family motto would you include? Latin? English? Think deeply about what your "elephant is standing on"!