All religions claim some sort of "revelation." Buddhism depends on the profound insights gained by Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) during his moment of enlightenment while meditating under a Bodhi tree. Hinduism looks to the Vedas passed on to the first man at the dawn of time. Islam says that the angel Gabriel dictated to the Prophet Muhammad the very words of God.

But Christianity claims something very different: a series of events [about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection] which are said to have taken place in public, in datable time, recorded by a variety of witnesses …. It is as if Christianity places its neck on the chopping block of [public] scrutiny and invites anyone who wishes to come and take a swing.

[For example], imagine I came to you claiming that my late great, great grandfather revealed himself … in Times Square, New York, last Monday during the morning rush hour. His appearance stopped the traffic and left witnesses dumbfounded as he explained to them the truth about the spiritual realm …. The claim itself is one you could test to some degree. You could watch the news services, read eyewitness accounts, check the New York traffic reports and so on. You might not be able to prove it beyond all doubt … but a fair-minded person would be able to arrive at a reasonable judgment about its truth or falsehood …. If you found no evidence at all, you would be well within your rights to dismiss it. If you found good evidence, or at least more evidence than you would expect if the story were a fiction, then you could quite rationally accept it as true. This is what I mean by a testable claim.

The central claims of Christianity are to a degree testable. You can apply the normal tests of history … and find that we do in fact possess exactly the sort of evidence you would expect if the core of the Jesus story is true and decidedly more evidence than you would expect if the story were fabricated.