The case for the resurrection

[Grazer]

I put this together quickly a few months ago for a friend but thought I would share it here for others to comment;

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

There is no doubt that the resurrection is the single event on which Christianity is based on. As Paul says above, if it did not happen then Christianity is false and the whole faith falls apart. So what is the evidence for Christ rising from the dead?

I think the first thing to point out is that the New Testament is a collection of accounts from either eye witnesses or those who spoke to eye-witnesses. Historians treat them as they do any other document from that era. The vast majority of the evidence comes from Pauls letters who historians accept as an eye witness but it is not limited to just him. There is also evidence outside the biblical text. The evidence for the resurrection can come down to 4 facts with evidence that 99% of historians/scholars agree and accept (even sceptical ones) and 1 about 75% do. The below is taken from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus [1] The bits in brackets are the documents that contain the evidence;

- Jesus died by crucifixion (non Christian sources include Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serpoian and Talmud)

- Disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them (this has a couple of parts to it)
They claimed it (sources include Paul, Oral Tradtion [Creeds and Sermon Summaries] Written Tradition [Gospels/Acts] Apostolic fathers [Clement, Polycarp]
They believed it and were willing to suffer for it (Acts, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen)

- Conversion of Church Persecutor Paul
Conversion (Paul, Acts, Known by early Christians in Judea [Galatians]
Suffered and Martyred (Paul, Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, Origen)

- Conversion of skeptic James
Conversion (Before - Gospels report Jesus's brothers were unbelievers prior to the resurrection, early creed reports of appearance of risen Christ to James. After - Paul & Acts identify James as a leader in the church)
Martydom (Josephus, Hegeisppus, Clement Of Alexandria)

- Empty Tomb (the 75% one) (Jesus had enemies in Jerusalem, he was executed in Jerusalem, anything but an empty tomb would have killed the resurrection story there and then - Enemy Attestation, the Jewish authorities accused the disciples of stealing the body thus indirectly admitting the tomb was empty - Testimony of Women; women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, according to Talmud a woman had the same standing in court as a robber, if you make it up you don't claim women were witnesses especially at the time)

Now all that is just an overview but all the above is strongly evidenced as highlighted above and the data is granted by virtually all scholars on the subject. You need to bear in mind the time this all was set in. They passed their accounts in way of short overviews (creeds and summaries) the dating on the new testament (especially Pauls letters) put the claims that Jesus was raised from the dead within months (if not sooner) of his death. Also, if you take the number of secular (non-Christian) sources mentioning Jesus and compare them to the number we have on the Caesar at the time (Tiberius Caesar) they come to 9 a piece.

Many alternative explanations for the above have been put forward but for me, the resurrection is the only explanation of all the above and also, the birth & rapid rise of Christianity and stands up to scrutiny. As C.F.D Moule says:

'If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? … the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church… remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself' - [2]

The question that follows this is "it happened, so what?" I can't really put it any better than John:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him - John 3:16-17

For further details on the historical evidence for the resurrection and rebuttals to the common objections, please see the below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxTcRetfZAk – History and the resurrection part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcBSK7imJ_o – History and the resurrection part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HfibXfykeg – History and the resurrection part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACljoLzPQ14 – Debate between Gary Habermas & Anthony Flew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsPpRp63Nc – Debate between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ - Debate between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan part 2
http://publicchristianity.org/library/the-easter-story-reasons-to-believe - The easter story: reasons to believe

References

[1] Habermas, Gary R and Licona, Michael R (2004) The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Kregel Publications
[2] http://www.bethinking.org/resources...-the-contemporary-influence-of-david-hume.htm

 

[Atothetheist]

I put this together quickly a few months ago for a friend but thought I would share it here for others to comment;

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

There is no doubt that the resurrection is the single event on which Christianity is based on. As Paul says above, if it did not happen then Christianity is false and the whole faith falls apart. So what is the evidence for Christ rising from the dead?

I think the first thing to point out is that the New Testament is a collection of accounts from either eye witnesses or those who spoke to eye-witnesses. Historians treat them as they do any other document from that era. The vast majority of the evidence comes from Pauls letters who historians accept as an eye witness but it is not limited to just him. There is also evidence outside the biblical text. The evidence for the resurrection can come down to 4 facts with evidence that 99% of historians/scholars agree and accept (even sceptical ones) and 1 about 75% do. The below is taken from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus [1] The bits in brackets are the documents that contain the evidence;

- Jesus died by crucifixion (non Christian sources include Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serpoian and Talmud)

- Disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them (this has a couple of parts to it)
They claimed it (sources include Paul, Oral Tradtion [Creeds and Sermon Summaries] Written Tradition [Gospels/Acts] Apostolic fathers [Clement, Polycarp]
They believed it and were willing to suffer for it (Acts, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen)

- Conversion of Church Persecutor Paul
Conversion (Paul, Acts, Known by early Christians in Judea [Galatians]
Suffered and Martyred (Paul, Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, Origen)

- Conversion of skeptic James
Conversion (Before - Gospels report Jesus's brothers were unbelievers prior to the resurrection, early creed reports of appearance of risen Christ to James. After - Paul & Acts identify James as a leader in the church)
Martydom (Josephus, Hegeisppus, Clement Of Alexandria)

- Empty Tomb (the 75% one) (Jesus had enemies in Jerusalem, he was executed in Jerusalem, anything but an empty tomb would have killed the resurrection story there and then - Enemy Attestation, the Jewish authorities accused the disciples of stealing the body thus indirectly admitting the tomb was empty - Testimony of Women; women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, according to Talmud a woman had the same standing in court as a robber, if you make it up you don't claim women were witnesses especially at the time)

Now all that is just an overview but all the above is strongly evidenced as highlighted above and the data is granted by virtually all scholars on the subject. You need to bear in mind the time this all was set in. They passed their accounts in way of short overviews (creeds and summaries) the dating on the new testament (especially Pauls letters) put the claims that Jesus was raised from the dead within months (if not sooner) of his death. Also, if you take the number of secular (non-Christian) sources mentioning Jesus and compare them to the number we have on the Caesar at the time (Tiberius Caesar) they come to 9 a piece.

Many alternative explanations for the above have been put forward but for me, the resurrection is the only explanation of all the above and also, the birth & rapid rise of Christianity and stands up to scrutiny. As C.F.D Moule says:

'If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? … the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church… remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself' - [2]

The question that follows this is "it happened, so what?" I can't really put it any better than John:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him - John 3:16-17

For further details on the historical evidence for the resurrection and rebuttals to the common objections, please see the below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxTcRetfZAk – History and the resurrection part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcBSK7imJ_o – History and the resurrection part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HfibXfykeg – History and the resurrection part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACljoLzPQ14 – Debate between Gary Habermas & Anthony Flew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsPpRp63Nc – Debate between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ - Debate between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan part 2
http://publicchristianity.org/library/the-easter-story-reasons-to-believe - The easter story: reasons to believe

References

[1] Habermas, Gary R and Licona, Michael R (2004) The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Kregel Publications
[2] http://www.bethinking.org/resources...-the-contemporary-influence-of-david-hume.htm

Josephus writing has been considered a hoax.

Lucian was neither an eyewitness to the crucifixtion. Plus he didn't believe in the ressurection. He only mentioned that these people worshipped a man that died on the cross, that does not at all mean Jesus did.

Just because they believed it, doesn't mean it's true. "Would they die for a lie?" Argument is dishonest.

The reason we believe in Ceaser, Is because we not only have secular historians, but we have things written by him, commentaires.

You are making the assumption that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts.

Again, relying on the book that makes the claim, is does not put forth a compelling argument.

The funny thing that made me lol was, I could tell it was from a case for the ressurection as soon as I saw the "Empty Tomb." Again,this is just blatently relying on the Bible.

This isn't a good case for the ressurection. And even if we could use the Bible to find acient locations. We used the Illiad by Homer to find an ancient city, does that prove that ALL of the illiad is true?

 

[Grazer]

Josephus writing has been considered a hoax.

Lucian was neither an eyewitness to the crucifixtion. Plus he didn't believe in the ressurection. He only mentioned that these people worshipped a man that died on the cross, that does not at all mean Jesus did.

Just because they believed it, doesn't mean it's true. "Would they die for a lie?" Argument is dishonest.

The reason we believe in Ceaser, Is because we not only have secular historians, but we have things written by him, commentaires.

You are making the assumption that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts.

Again, relying on the book that makes the claim, is does not put forth a compelling argument.

The funny thing that made me lol was, I could tell it was from a case for the ressurection as soon as I saw the "Empty Tomb." Again,this is just blatently relying on the Bible.

This isn't a good case for the ressurection. And even if we could use the Bible to find acient locations. We used the Illiad by Homer to find an ancient city, does that prove that ALL of the illiad is true?

Not a hoax, exaggerated yes but not an out and out hoax

https://publicchristianity.org/library/josephs-and-jesus-a-christian-forgery

Either way, doesn't account for everything else and neither is he the only source we have.

Lucians documents show that Jesus did die on the cross. He doesn't have to believe that he rose from the dead again for his document to be counted as evidence that Jesus died which is why his name appears where it does in the list.

How is the "would they die for a lie?" argument dishonest? It shows that they so believed Jesus appeared to them that they willingly died for it. Now we can say they are wrong in that Jesus didn't appear to them because he was dead, but we can't say they knowlingly made it up.

Luke himself tells us about his account

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

To say we can't accept the gospels is like saying we can't accept any account of the holocaust written by a jew. They may not be direct eye witness accounts but they are based on eye witness accounts and other sources. As I put elsewhere, the length of time between the event and the first writings (40 years) is unprecendented in historical study. I accept we can't just blindly agree cos its the Bible but we can get valuable and accurate information from it.

Caesar was a head of state, Jesus was a jewish carpenter, it's hardly a fair comparison. But Jesus is mentioned in other writings as demonstrated above.

As for the empty tomb, as I put, if the tomb was empty then all the jewish authorities had to do was produce a body and they kill the resurrection story dead. But they didn't. Anthony Flew concedes in his debate with Habermas that he has no material explanation for the empty tomb i.e. he believes based on the evidence that the tomb was empty. Pinchas Lapide in his book "Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective" concludes that based on the evidence, Jesus rose from the dead.

All of the above is accepted by historians (with the possible exception of the empty tomb), what conclusion then best fits these facts? As C.F.D Moule says, how do you explain the birth and rapid rise of Christianity? An event that no historian disputes?

 

[Atothetheist]

Not a hoax, exaggerated yes but not an out and out hoax

https://publicchristianity.org/library/josephs-and-jesus-a-christian-forgery

Either way, doesn't account for everything else and neither is he the only source we have.

Alright, I editted an eleborated.

 

[Atothetheist]

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Is is what apearently the Talmud says about Jesus. Are you sure you didn't just copy and paste?

 

[Atothetheist]

How is the "would they die for a lie?" argument dishonest? It shows that they so believed Jesus appeared to them that they willingly died for it. Now we can say they are wrong in that Jesus didn't appear to them because he was dead, but we can't say they knowlingly made it up.

Many people die for a lie. Even Muslims Buddists, and Hindus have Martyrs.

The reason this is a dishonest argument is because dieing for a lie is an easy thing to do, and back then people believed in just about anything.

 

[Grazer]

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Is is what apearently the Talmud says about Jesus. Are you sure you didn't just copy and paste?

As I put in my original post, the 5 facts and their supporting evidence were taken from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. I have other books and articles that refer to the same evidence, I listed some others at the end of the original post.

 

[Grazer]

Many people die for a lie. Even Muslims Buddists, and Hindus have Martyrs.

The reason this is a dishonest argument is because dieing for a lie is an easy thing to do, and back then people believed in just about anything.

Dieing for a lie that you yourself created? As I put, we can say they are wrong but we can't say they made it up themselves.

Do you deny any of the above I put in terms of the actual events (Jesus died by crucifixion, his followers so sincerely believed Jesus appeared to them, the conversion of Paul, the conversion of James, the empty tomb?)

 

[Atothetheist]

Dieing for a lie that you yourself created? As I put, we can say they are wrong but we can't say they made it up themselves.

Do you deny any of the above I put in terms of the actual events (Jesus died by crucifixion, his followers so sincerely believed Jesus appeared to them, the conversion of Paul, the conversion of James, the empty tomb?)

I never said the crucifixtion didn't happen, I believe there was a historical Jesus which Christianity is based off of. Can you show me the empty tomb? No you can't you are relying heavlily that the bible said there was an open tomb, so whatever it says must be true.

Again, a lot of people believe in lies.

 

[Grazer]

I never said the crucifixtion didn't happen, I believe there was a historical Jesus which Christianity is based off of. Can you show me the empty tomb? No you can't you are relying heavlily that the bible said there was an open tomb, so whatever it says must be true.

Again, a lot of people believe in lies.

Can you show me the tomb wasn't empty? No, I may be relying on the Bible (which is not totally in-admissable as evidence for the reasons I put re: example of the holocaust and jews) but you have nothing to rely on.

So what converted James, who was a sceptic and Paul who at one stage was actively killing Christians?

 

[Atothetheist]

Can you show me the tomb wasn't empty? No, I may be relying on the Bible (which is not in-admissable as evidence for the reasons I put re; example of the holocaust and jews) but you have nothing to rely on.

So what converted James, who was a sceptic and Paul who at one stage was actively killing Christians?

... I don't know. I wasn't there, but it is an argument from ignrance to atuomatically assume Jesus.

 

[Atothetheist]

Can you show me the tomb wasn't empty? No, I may be relying on the Bible (which is not totally in-admissable as evidence for the reasons I put re: example of the holocaust and jews) but you have nothing to rely on.

So what converted James, who was a sceptic and Paul who at one stage was actively killing Christians?

First of all, the example with the holocaust is a horrible one. We know they are eyewitnesses because the Nazi's documented their names, and imprinted numbers on them. That's how we can know they were in the holocaust, and therefore we can rely on their claim.

[Edited by staff]

How do I explain how Christianity rose early, Oh I don't know... Maybe because it preached a hopeful message? Because people were ignorant and credulous back then? Because emporoer Constanine made it the official religion of Rome?

 

[Grazer]

First of all, the example with the holocaust is a horrible one. We know they are eyewitnesses because the Nazi's documented their names, and imprinted numbers on them. That's how we can know they were in the holocaust, and therefore we can rely on their claim.

[Edited by staff]

How do I explain how Christianity rose early, Oh I don't know... Maybe because it preached a hopeful message? Because people were ignorant and credulous back then? Because emporoer Constanine made it the official religion of Rome?

People weren't so ignorant of things back then. If you take a look at the account of Jesus birth, when Mary was told she would bear a son, her response was "how can this be?" She knew that she would need more interaction with Joseph to have a child than she had at that point. She wasn't exactly happy at the fact an angel appeared to her either.

The example of the holocaust was to show that the Bible cannot be dismissed simply because it has a biased p.o.v but in hindsight it wasn't the best example. Please accept my apologies.

You say it is an argument from ignorance but that completely ignores the evidence we have to show that Paul converted because he believed he received an appearance from the risen Jesus, same for James and the other disciples. You have yet to provide any evidence to suggest that they converted for reasons other than this. Your argument seems to come from your belief that the resurrection didn't happen so it must have been for other reasons. This seems a little fallacious to me.

Constantine may have made it the official religion but it had already been started and on the rise before Constantine was even on the scene. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead was preached very early on (Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians in 55AD, tracing back his steps put his conversion at about 33 AD and then he met up with disciples James, Peter and John) The only sticking point is the empty tomb but all the Jewish authorities had to do was produce a body which would have destroyed what the disciples were saying. We have nothing to suggest they did produce a body but we do have writings to suggest that the disciples preached that Jesus rose from the dead and died for that.

The only other explanation I see for that is the disciples convinced themselves so deeply but reading the accounts they weren't expecting Jesus to rise again so why would they convince themselves that he did? Plus we're still left with the empty tomb (something that most historians accept was empty as does Anthony Flew) and Paul and James's conversion.

 

[Atothetheist]

People weren't so ignorant of things back then. If you take a look at the account of Jesus birth, when Mary was told she would bear a son, her response was "how can this be?" She knew that she would need more interaction with Joseph to have a child than she had at that point. She wasn't exactly happy at the fact an angel appeared to her either.

The example of the holocaust was to show that the Bible cannot be dismissed simply because it has a biased p.o.v but in hindsight it wasn't the best example. Please accept my apologies.

You say it is an argument from ignorance but that completely ignores the evidence we have to show that Paul converted because he believed he received an appearance from the risen Jesus, same for James and the other disciples. You have yet to provide any evidence to suggest that they converted for reasons other than this. Your argument seems to come from your belief that the resurrection didn't happen so it must have been for other reasons. This seems a little fallacious to me.

Constantine may have made it the official religion but it had already been started and on the rise before Constantine was even on the scene. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead was preached very early on (Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians in 55AD, tracing back his steps put his conversion at about 33 AD and then he met up with disciples James, Peter and John) The only sticking point is the empty tomb but all the Jewish authorities had to do was produce a body which would have destroyed what the disciples were saying. We have nothing to suggest they did produce a body but we do have writings to suggest that the disciples preached that Jesus rose from the dead and died for that.

The only other explanation I see for that is the disciples convinced themselves so deeply but reading the accounts they weren't expecting Jesus to rise again so why would they convince themselves that he did? Plus we're still left with the empty tomb (something that most historians accept was empty as does Anthony Flew) and Paul and James's conversion.

....
....
....
....

....
....

I want to scream at you... I wan to talk to you personally. If you have skype, maybe I can try to explain.

I get the feeling that you never read a secular opinion on things like these.

 

[Grazer]

....
....
....
....

....
....

I want to scream at you... I wan to talk to you personally. If you have skype, maybe I can try to explain.

I get the feeling that you never read a secular opinion on things like these.

Explain what? Let me think about the idea of Skype

and yes I have, I've had a few conversations with atheists over this - plus I wasn't always a Christian.

 

[Atothetheist]

Explain what? Let me think about the idea of Skype

and yes I have, I've had a few conversations with atheists over this - plus I wasn't always a Christian.

[Edited by staff]
Simply because saying it is better in my opinion.

 

[Grazer]

[Edited by staff]
Simply because saying it is better in my opinion.

Ok, I'll agree to Skype to allow you to explain your position better on the provision that you allow me to do the same and the conversation remains civil. I'm not interested in a slanging match or one that just goes "nope you're wrong"

 

[Atothetheist]

Ok, I'll agree to Skype to allow you to explain your position better on the provision that you allow me to do the same and the conversation remains civil. I'm not interested in a slanging match or one that just goes "nope you're wrong"

Ok. Private message me it, and we can get it going.

 

[stovebolts]

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Is is what apearently the Talmud says about Jesus. Are you sure you didn't just copy and paste?

This really sparked my interest for several reasons. First, I enjoy reading bits and pieces of the talmud on occasion as well as other Jewish writers.

What I found peculiar while reading the web page and what drew my attention was the writings of the Sanhedrin.

As you may or may not know, the Sanhedrin consisted of 70 leaders who guided the Jews and were considered the Supreme Court of the Torah. What is interesting, is if you read any Hebrew history at all, you will find that King Herod killed most of the Sanhedrin when he came into power and replaced them with his own counsel. Furthermore, Jewish history states that the Sanhedrin were inept at even the most basic discernment within Torah. This is qualified by writings consistent from both prominent schools of thought of the day which derive from Hillel and Shamai.

What is for sure, is that the counsel of the Sanhedrin were killed and new appointees were appointed by King Herod, who was half edomite and half jewish. History shows clearly that this man was in constant fear for his throne and had complete control over the Supreme court.

Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.

Matthew 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

The Elders were the Sanhedrin.

Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.

Matthew 27:11-12 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

It sounds reasonable that the Sanhedrin would respond with the words they use in 43a doesn't it?

 

[stovebolts]

Atothetheist,

BTW, you made mention earlier about Constantine. As an FYI, Christianity was first to the Jews, then to the gentiles. Constantine didn't come around until about 300 years after Christianity and what he inherited was mostly the greek gentile side of the fence, not the Jewish side of the fence. It is said that Mark established the church in Egypt and they are known as the Coptics. They were doing just fine without Constantine as were other Christian groups, including many Jewish Christians.

Luke, a Jew wrote in Acts 2 that over 3,000 Jews converted to Christianity in one day and were baptized. Clearly, the thrust came from within Jewish culture as noted by Paul's writings who later took the good news to the bulk of the Gentiles.