I don't pin my faith on supernatural experience or a mystic faith. I pin it on historical reality
In reality, Christ lived and died, but ... his resurrection is not historical reality, it is a matter of mystical faith.
Evidence for the Resurrection
For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?
A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.
Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.
From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.
LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.
The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.
F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University
.
Imagine that you have been hiking all day in the mountains of Colorado, and you are lost. An enormous snowstorm is fast approaching, and if you do not find a way out soon, it will cost you your life. Up ahead there is a fork in the road, where you see two people. One is laying down on the ground--dead. The other is standing up and wearing a park ranger's uniform--alive. Who would you ask for directions? Obviously, the living one.
A similar situation surrounds the questions of life after death. Many religions claim to have the answers, but they all contradict each other.[1] They cannot all be true. So how can we know who to believe?
Christianity seems to be unique. Its founder and leader, Jesus Christ, not only experienced death, but it is claimed that He also rose from the dead and remains alive. If this is true, who would you believe concerning matters of eternal destiny--one who is lying in his grave, or one who has risen from the grave?
If Jesus has risen, it would seem reasonable to consider His claim to be the only way to God: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me" (John 14:6). But, according to the apostle Paul, "If Christ has not been raised, [the Christian's] faith is worthless" (1 Cor. 15:17). So the question arises: Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
To investigate this issue, we will examine six facts which virtually all scholars--even critical non-Christian scholars--who address Christ's resurrection accept as historical.[2] We will also see that the Bible is not the only source of evidence for Christ's resurrection. John Singleton Copley, recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, sums up the matter well: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."[3]
1. Jesus Christ died due to the rigors of crucifixion and was buried in a tomb
Jesus was crucified. Extra-biblical sources (sources apart from the Bible) confirm this fact. Of particular interest is a reference by Thallus, a non-Christian Samaritan historian. He regarded the crucifixion of Jesus as so significant that he included it in his History of the World, which he wrote about A.D. 52. Thallus tried to explain away the darkness that fell when Jesus died on the cross as an eclipse of the sun.[4] Jewish sources also refer to Jesus' crucifixion at passover.[5]
Jesus was dead. The nature of crucifixion ensures death. After analyzing the medical and historical evidence leading to Jesus' death, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes: "Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge" (March 21, 1986, p. 1463). Even if Jesus had not died on the cross, surely He would have died from three days in the tomb without food, water, and much needed medical attention.
2. Jesus' tomb was empty just a few days later
Professor of philosophy Dr. G.R. Habermas in his Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus writes: "Our study [of the extra-biblical sources] has shown that Jesus taught in Palestine and was crucified and buried in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate. These sources assert that Christianity had its beginnings in the same location." Christ's apostles did not go to some obscure place to begin preaching about His resurrection, but instead went back to the city of Jerusalem, the very place of Jesus' execution and grave. If what the apostles were preaching had been false, it would have been evident to the people in Jerusalem and Christianity more than likely would not have begun.
This situation therefore demands that Jesus was no longer in His tomb. Paul Althaus writes that the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."[6]
Second, early Jewish testimony admits the empty tomb. Matthew 28:11-15 makes reference to the Jewish assertion that the disciples stole the body. The author then adds that this story was still being spread at the time when he was writing. This text could not have been written unless there really was a Jewish counterargument to the empty tomb--otherwise, this passage would have been exposed as a fraud. Also, the passage would have been pointless, since its main purpose was to refute the Jewish allegation. The significance of this is that the early Jews did not deny the empty tomb, but rather admitted the empty tomb by trying to explain it away. Additionally, Josh McDowell points out that a compilation of 5th century Jewish writings, called the Toledoth Jeshu, acknowledges that the tomb was empty. Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine." That is exactly the case with the empty tomb.
Because of the strong case for the empty tomb, there are many natural theories that attempt to explain it away in order to deny Christ's resurrection.
Did the disciples go to the wrong tomb? This cannot be the case because the Jewish authorities, since they were against Christianity,would have wasted no time in producing the body of Jesus from the proper tomb, putting an end to Christianity. Surely someone would have discovered this "mistake."
Did the disciples steal the body? If so, then the men who delivered to the world the highest moral standards it has ever known were frauds, liars, and hypocrites. Is this credible to believe? Paul Little asks, "Are these men, who helped transform the moral structure of society, consummate liars or deluded madmen? These alternatives are harder to believe than the fact of the resurrection, and there is not a shred of evidence to support them."[7]
Did the Jews or the Romans steal it? Dr. John Warwick Montgomery dispels this possibility: "It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and preached it among those who might easily have refuted it by producing the body of Jesus."[8] If they had the body, why didn't they put the corpse on a cart and wheel it through Jerusalem, thus eliminating for all time any belief in Christ's resurrection?
What about grave robbers anonymous? They steal what's on the body, not the body. Who would want to steal a dead corpse?
In addition, most scholars today reject these natural theories because they all fail to explain another crucial factor:
3. The disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ
This fact is not widely disputed today, even among critical scholars,[9] because of the first-hand testimony supporting it. The gospels, which record these appearances, claim to have been written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and by those who recorded eyewitness testimony. These internal claims are confirmed by external sources.[10] In addition, the reliability and trustworthiness of the New Testament has been confirmed by extra-biblical sources and archaeology.[11] For these reasons, the conclusion that the gospels record eyewitness testimony, as they claim, cannot be denied.
In these reliable eyewitness documents, Jesus is reported to have appeared physically alive to His disciples after His crucifixion. This testimony is verified by 1 Cor. 15:3-8. In this passage, Paul is recording an early creed concerning the resurrection appearances which, the majority of scholars believe, he received within six years of the crucifixion from Peter and James. Since Peter and James are both mentioned in this creed as having seen Jesus alive after His death, we may agree with Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide who says that this creed "may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses."[12]
Because the gospels and this creed are the early testimony of eyewitnesses (not to mention that these eyewitnesses have been shown to be trustworthy), the theory that the resurrection is a myth or legend can be ruled out. There are only three options--the disciples hallucinated, lied, or really encountered the bodily risen Christ.
The disciples could not have been hallucinating because this theory is flatly contradicted by certain psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations. Also, the disciples record touching Jesus and giving Him food (Luke 24:39-43), which cannot be done with a hallucination. In addition, this theory fails to account for the empty tomb. The next option is that the apostles were lying. But... 4. Jesus' disciples were transformed into bold witnesses who died for their belief in the resurrection.
Of the twelve disciples, ten died for their belief in Christ's resurrection and their belief in Him as the Son of God. This is significant because if Jesus had not risen from the dead His disciples knew it. People may die for something they believe to be true, but is in fact false. But if the resurrection did not happen, the disciples did not just die for a lie which they mistakenly believed to be true, but died for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they knew to be a lie.
Josh McDowell puts this well: "Jesus followers could not have faced torture and death unless they were convinced of His resurrection. The unanimity of their message and course of conduct was amazing...if they were deceivers, it's hard to explain why one of them didn't break down under pressure."[13] After witnessing events such as Watergate, can we reasonably suppose that the disciples could have totally covered up such a lie?
5. The existence of the Christian Church
Christianity requires an historic cause. It did not exist until about A.D. 30, when it suddenly burst to life, spread like wildfire, and changed the world. What could have started this if not the resurrection, as the early Christians claimed?
Josh McDowell writes, "The Church was founded on the resurrection, and disproving it would have destroyed the whole Christian movement. However, instead of any such disproof, through the 1st century, Christians were threatened, beaten, flogged and killed because of their faith."[14] It would have been much simpler to silence Christianity by putting forth evidence disproving the resurrection, but this could not be done.
6. The conversion of Paul
If there was no resurrection, then Paul deceived the other apostles of an appearance of Christ to him, and they in turn deceived Paul! "Even worse, what could have motivated him to `sell out' to his former `ministry' of persecuting the Christians when he was convinced that it was God's will? From his point of view, why would he risk the damnation of his own soul by converting to what he perceived as anti-Jewish beliefs?"[15] Paul says that it was an appearance of the risen Christ that convinced him that Christianity is true.
Based on the evidence, my conclusion is that the Christian faith is a reasonable faith (not a blind faith), based not on myth or legend, but on a solid historical event--the resurrection of Jesus. What do you think? Would you agree with George Ladd, who said, "The only rational explanation for these historical facts is that God raised Jesus in bodily form"?[16] How else would you explain all of these facts? Perhaps before you come to a conclusion, you should consider one more reason.
Jesus has transformed millions of lives throughout history
My reasons for believing in Christ's resurrection are not simply based on historical facts, as important as they are. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead because He lives in me and I have experienced the abundant life He offers. Millions of others have experienced this, too, which leads us to the most important question of all: What is the significance of Christ's resurrection?
First, we can be sure that life does not end at the grave. Second, we can be certain that Jesus is who He claimed to be -- fully God and fully man. Therefore, Jesus is the only one who can speak with certainty and final authority on matters of eternal destiny. This verifies Jesus' claim to be the only way to God and the claim that Christianity is true. Third, there is genuine hope. Through the risen Jesus, we can enter into a personal relationship with the living God, have the certainty of eternal life, and experience His abundant life.
Several years ago, I began this relationship with God. I understood that God loved me and created me to know Him personally. But, I was also aware that before a holy and just God I was morally guilty (i.e. sinful) and deserving of His judgment. I came to understand that a relationship with God could not be restored unless the penalty for my sin was paid--eternal death (Rom. 6:23).
The good news is that, on the cross, Jesus died in our place to pay the death penalty for our sin (Rom. 5:8). That's what it means to say "Christ died for us." That is also why He is the only way to God--only Jesus has died to provide our forgiveness. If there was any other way, Jesus' wouldn't have died. His resurrection demonstrates that He conquered death and sin.
The Bible says that this relationship with God and eternal life is a gift and therefore cannot be earned by good moral behavior (Eph. 2:8,9). Like any other gift, I knew that I had to accept it before it would become mine (John 1:12). So I admitted to God that I was guilty of rebellion toward Him and made a decision to put my trust in Jesus to forgive me and to give me eternal life. I have been encouraged by His promises to come into my life (Revelation 3:20), to give me eternal life (John 5:24) and to make me a new person (2 Corinthians 5:17). This gives me hope not only for the here after, but also for the here and now.
No one wants to believe in something that isn't true, especially me. The resurrection of Jesus has given me substantial reason to believe that my faith is not in vain.
The evidence is clear: Mohammed's tomb -- occupied. Buddha's tomb -- occupied. Confucius' tomb -- occupied. Jesus' tomb -- EMPTY. What is your verdict?
Notes
1. Mortimer J. Adler, Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth, Macmillan, 1990.
2. Antony Flew and Gary Habermas, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?, pp. 19-20.
3. Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand, p. 425.
4. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, InterVarsity Press, 1972, p. 113.
5. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a.
6. Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p. 217.
7. Paul Little, Know Why You Believe, Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1971, p. 63.
8. John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity, InterVarsity Press, 1972, p. 78.
9. Carl Braaten, History and Hermeneutics, p. 78. 10. History and Christianity, pp. 31-35.
11. Evidence, pp. 65-74.
12. Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, p.99. For a more in-depth treatment of 1 Cor. 15:3-8, refer to endnote 15, pp. 67-68. 13. Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, Tyndale House Publishers, 1977, p. 67.>br> 14. Evidence, p. 218.
15. Gary Habermas & J.P. Moreland, Immortality: The Other Side of Death, Tyndale House Publishers, 1992, p. 58.
16. George Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, William B. Eerdsman Publishing, 1975, p. 141.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, by the Lockman Foundation.
THE COMA THEORY.
This is the claim that Christ did not really die on the cross, but rather He fell into a coma and later revived.
Mark 15:44-45 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.
1. The Roman soldiers affirmed that Christ had died. These men were professional executioners who would not have made a mistake.
John 19:31-35 Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
2. Jesus' friends saw Him die and entertained no hopes that He had somehow survived the crucifixion, which was the most severe form of execution of ancient times. With his own eyes the Apostle John saw a soldier pierce the Savior's side. He reported that blood and water flowed out of Christ's side. Doctors today recognize this flow of fluids as convincing evidence that Jesus had indeed expired.
3. In addition, those who hold to the coma theory are forced to give a logical explanation for the following unlikely occurrences:
a. How Jesus, though severely injured, survived 36 hours in a cold tomb without food, water, or any other care.
b. How this severely weakened man rolled away the stone that blocked the exit, a feat requiring the strength of several healthy men.
c. How He sneaked past the soldiers without being detected.
d. How, in spite of His broken health, He could convince the disciples that He had won a victory over death.
e. How He had the energy to walk 14 miles to the town of Emmaus and back that very day (See Luke 24:13-15, and 28).
Clearly, the coma theory is more incredible than the resurrection.
THE THEFT THEORY.
This is the oldest of all arguments against the resurrection. The Apostle Matthew tells us how it came into existence.
Matthew 28:11-15 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble. So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
Is the theft theory plausible?
1. The depression and cowardice of the disciples argues against it. They had abandoned Jesus upon His arrest (Mark 14:66-72). All of them were thoroughly disillusioned by the death of their leader of whom they had expected so much. They were in no mood to dare to attack a detachment of well-armed soldiers and snatch the body out of the tomb.
2. Even if the disciples had attempted to steal the body, they would have been killed. The Roman soldier was the most stalwart and well-trained fighting man in the world. The soldiers would have made mincemeat out of non-professional fighters such as the disciples.
3. The claim is made that the soldiers fell asleep. However, Roman soldiers were not prone to fall asleep. Why? Because it was death for a Roman sentinel to snooze at his post, and this law was rigidly enforced. In light of this fact, it is impossible that all of them could have fallen asleep when they had been stationed there for the very purpose to see that the body was not stolen. And one other question: Even if they had fallen asleep, how then did the disciples roll away the stone without making a loud racket?
4. If the soldiers were snoozing, how could they know that the disciples stole the body? What judge would listen to you if you said that while you were sleeping, your neighbor came into your house and stole your television? Who knows what goes on while he is asleep? Testimony like this would be thrown out of any court. [Paul Little, Know Why You Believe, Scripture Press, 1971, p. 63,64]
5. The most convincing argument against the theft theory is the drastic change that took place in the apostles. They had been a disillusioned, cowardly bunch. Then suddenly they were transformed into bold witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (See Acts 4:17-20).
They dedicated their entire lives to spreading this message to the world, without receiving any material or financial benefit for themselves.
What caused this turnabout? The Bible says it was caused by the rising of a man from the dead. Those who believe the theft theory must say that it was caused by the crime of stealing the body, followed by the falsehood of proclaiming that Jesus had returned to life.
Tell me, would you die for a lie? The Watergate Scandal of the 1970's is an example of how people are unwilling to be persecuted for what they know to be a lie. At first, President Nixon's aides tried to maintain a united front against the investigators and the press. But before long, they were ratting on each other in order to save their own hides. None of them was in danger of losing his life. Yet, even so, they turned on each other and revealed the truth, in the hope that they could thus bargain a lighter sentence from the judge.
Men do not die for what they know to be a lie. All the Apostles of Jesus were persecuted for their beliefs, and all but John were martyred for their faith. To save their skins all they had to do was say, "Look, it was all a hoax. Jesus did not really rise." But instead the apostles went to their deaths proclaiming what they knew to be an historical fact--Jesus Christ rose from the dead!