The Resurrection of Christ

Throughout history there have been many ongoing debates as to the historic truth of many events. Some people contend that the holocaust never happened, others will argue about the truth of Julius Caesar's reign or how much we really know about Robin Hood or King Arthur. Throughout all of history, however, few topics have incited as much hot debate as the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. There are millions of Christians who believe this to be an unquestionable truth, most say that the bible is enough proof for them to believe that Jesus did rise from the dead. There are other Christians who believe for another reason, they say that their belief stems from the very convincing historical facts related to the resurrection.

What kind of hard evidence could be found for such an outrageous claim? Many people, atheists and members of other religions contend it is impossible to prove something so far outside the norm of science. People do not, typically, get up after dying and live again. In a way this creates a bit of a catch 22. If other people did not return from the dead than it is impossible for Jesus to have done so, however if many people did return from the dead, thus proving it is possible, it makes Jesus' resurrection just another day with no true significance. In the following article I intend to present the historical arguments for the resurrection of Christ which has helped to strengthen my faith and demonstrate how competing theories fail to explain all the evidence without straining.

Firstly I would like to state that it is a very well documented Historical fact that Jesus did die on the cross. Aside from the biblical accounts of the crucifixion we also have accounts from Josephus and Tacitus, both well known historians from the first century, who report the crucifixion of Jesus. Even very liberal scholars admit that the death of Jesus on the Cross is a very well attested historical fact.

The first evidence I would like to present is the empty tomb, a fact which is not refuted by even the enemies of Christ. On that first Easter Sunday, when the women had returned to the tomb to finish the burial of Jesus, they reported that the tomb was empty. This is corroborated by the apostles and other followers of Jesus. Of course many people would not take the testimony of Christ's followers at face value, since they might suspect a conspiracy; however we do have other evidence for this fact. The most convincing evidence in my opinion is the fact that the Jewish authorities, who had tried so hard to silence Jesus, did not refute the empty tomb.

Christ had been crucified and buried in Jerusalem the very city in which they were proclaiming his resurrection, if it were untrue and the tomb was not empty, than the Jewish leaders of the day would have been very happy to go over to Joseph of Arimathea's family tomb and say 'Look at this, Jesus is still here, still dead and still not the Christ.' However what they said was this 'The tomb is empty because they stole the body.' To me the idea that a handful of fisherman could overwhelm a well trained Roman guard is kind of like saying a few angry townspeople could take on Fort Knox and succeed in stealing all the gold from the National Guard stationed there. I would also like to point out it is unlikely that the followers of Jesus would have even tried since the Bible itself tells us they abandoned him and went back to their lives in shame.

Now, alone, the evidence for the empty tomb is only a little helpful, while it does prove that Christ's body was missing it really doesn't prove why. Another piece of evidence that points more directly to Christ's resurrection is the fact that many followers, and a few enemies, had life changing experiences with the risen Jesus. With the exception of John, who lived the last of his life in exile, the remaining eleven apostles were willing to suffer and die for the Gospel they were spreading. As mentioned earlier, the apostles had given up hope and tried to go back to their lives after the death of their leader. Further even if they still wanted to believe in Jesus they were on the scene and knew for a fact whether Jesus had been risen or not, if they knew that he had truly not been raised from the dead how likely is it that they would suffer and die for something they knew was a lie?

Not only did the apostles do so, but so did skeptics and others who were dead set against the Christian church. James was the half brother of Jesus, in the lifetime of Christ none of his brothers or sisters believed him to be the messiah, they all doubted Him. After the resurrection appearances James became a devout follower and even the leader of the Church in Jerusalem until his violent martyrdom in which he was skinned alive. Even more convincing was the conversion of Paul, who had formerly been known as Saul and had persecuted the early Church. Paul not only became a follower of Christ after a reported experience with the risen Christ but became one of the most well known missionaries in the history of the church; he also suffered much for his beliefs and ended up imprisoned and finally beheaded. Why would someone who had been an influential leader of the Jewish faith, a man with power, status and money give that all up to be persecuted and hated by his own people unless he had in fact seen the resurrected Lord? It would be akin to Donald Trump giving up all his money and power in exchange to follow an obscure religion he was dead set against, he would not do it unless he was sure he needed to.

A good piece of evidence that shows that the people writing the Gospel accounts wanted to be totally honest about what had happened is the fact that they admit that women found the tomb. In today's society this may not seem to be such a big deal, but a look at how first century Jewish culture treated women and we find this to be very important. Women were not allowed to testify in courts of law because they were considered unreliable and below men. Now take this into account when the Jewish men writing the Gospels admit that women found the empty tomb and it shows that even though this fact was embarrassing to the men in the group, they still reported it. If they are going to make up lies why make up embarrassing lies? Why not say that Peter, John or even Joseph went to the tomb to pay some last respects or question God before heading home?

Looking through the rest of the Gospel accounts we find many similar embarrassing reports about the apostles and other followers of Christ. They doubted Jesus on many things, argued among themselves over who was his best loved and who was the greatest, they demanded power and just acted in many ways that seemed silly and selfish. Peter, whose reports influenced the writings of Mark, admits that he did in fact deny Jesus to a simple serving woman. Thomas does not ever deny what was written in the Gospel accounts about him when they said he doubted the other apostles who had seen the Risen Jesus. The apostles look bad in the Bible, even self centered and selfish but in the end they tell the truth of how they acted rather than puff themselves up to look better. If they were willing to do this, why would they lie about the central theme of the Gospel which is the return of Jesus from the dead?

There are other facts which I have researched about, so many in fact that they were made into a book by Michael Licona, one of the most respected resurrection scholars of our time. The ones I have presented are very convincing on their own, but if you want to look deeper into the topic I suggest looking into any of the books I used in my reaserch. These include 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus' also by Strobel and 'The Case for the Ressurection of Jesus Christ' but Michael Licona.

In conclusion to my argument that Jesus did rise from the dead I truly believe that the empty tomb, coupled with the belief of the disciples, even to the point of death, and topped off by the fact that they were willing to let themselves look foolish to get the true story out is very hard evidence to refute with any other Historic theory. The idea presented in the Koran that Jesus did not die but was made to look to die does not explain why the disciples were willing to die for their new belief. The theory that Jesus' followers suffered from hallucinations does not explain the empty tomb or the conversion of Paul. The idea that the followers did in fact steal the body is not only ludicrous but fails to explain away the conversion of Paul and James and does not sufficiently explain why Peter, John and the rest were so willing to die for what they knew was not true. It is hard for me to imagine someone being skinned alive or crucified for what they knew to be false and not crying out 'Hey guys, I was just kidding, this never really happened, let me show you where the body is!' There is no sufficient explanation that takes into account all the pieces of evidence without sweeping something under the rug or straining to make it fit, and, as I already said, this isn't even all the evidence I could have used.