Evidence of Jesus' resurrection
Noah's Dove
Evidence of Jesus' resurrection
http://www.wcg.org/lit/disc/11evidence.htm
Christians, Jews, and atheists agree that Jesus was crucified and
buried. The crucial belief for Christianity is that he was also
resurrected - as evidence that he is the Son of God, the teacher of
truth, the door and the way of salvation, the firstfruits of the
resurrection. Here is the evidence for his resurrection:
First, most historians agree that the early disciples believed that
Jesus had risen from the dead. Although at Jesus' death they were
dejected and fearful, they were soon dramatically different: They
risked their lives repeatedly to preach about Jesus. Even Christians in
the second and third centuries (as well as many today) put their lives
on the line to preach about Jesus. Of course, erroneous ideas abound,
and people sometimes give their lives for erroneous ideas - but only
if they think they are true. People do not put their lives on the
line for things they don't believe. The disciples never wavered in
their belief in Jesus' resurrection. None of them ever changed their
story under the pain of persecution. Even agnostic historians will
admit that the disciples believed that Jesus had been resurrected.
Then, we can consider how dozens of disciples could come to such a
conviction. Perhaps the first possibility we could consider is that
Jesus didn't really die. Perhaps it wasn't really him on the cross.
Maybe Judas led the soldiers to the wrong man, or a substitution was
somehow made at the last minute (as Muslims believe). Is it possible
that the disciples were in such a state of shock that they did not
recognize the substitute on the cross, nor when they took him down to
anoint and wrap his body for burial? Was it then a coincidence that the
tomb somehow became empty, and his disciples thought he had reappeared?
No, all this stretches the imagination so much that this is not
seriously considered.
Well, then, perhaps Jesus did not die on the cross - he just went
into a coma, and then later revived. Is this a plausible historical
possibility? Would Roman soldiers botch a crucifixion and take down a
body without noticing that it was still alive? Would this severely
injured person then be able to revive, unwrap his own grave clothes,
roll away his own tombstone, and convince his disciples that he had
good health? Then after 40 days he would never be seen again? No, this
borders on the preposterous.
Perhaps the disciples helped Jesus revive. They rolled away the stone,
unwrapped the clothes, bandaged the wounds, and told a story about
getting their leader back alive out of the grave - a story that
turned quickly into a tall tale about resurrection and miraculous
appearances, a story that the disciples never tried to set straight.
Not only is this historically implausible, it turns the disciples into
frauds and deceivers - and yet, as we mentioned above, people do not
give their lives for something they know is false. This does not
provide a believable explanation for the rise of Christianity, rooted
even in the early first century in the conviction that Jesus had risen
from the dead - and this faith spread first in Jerusalem, where the
facts could be investigated most easily!
It is not historically likely that Jesus could have survived the
crucifixion. Well then, could the disciples have made up the
resurrection? Did they steal the body, hide it somewhere, invent the
story of a guard, and then preach a resurrection with conviction? This
does not make sense, either. These fishermen did not make up the
biggest lie in history, going against all the facts of life and death
as they knew it, going against all religious beliefs of the day, going
against Jewish and Roman authorities, risking their lives to tell the
story they made up, without any of them ever betraying the conspiracy.
No, these folks were not conniving liars. Their words and deeds do not
suggest any such deception. Their behavior matched their message.
As an interesting side point, we might also observe the indirect
evidence of the empty tomb. (If it wasn't empty, then the Jewish
leaders could have stopped the whole problem by producing the body.)
And yet according to the Gospel stories, the empty tomb did not
convince all the disciples. They were convinced only when Jesus
appeared, and it is on the basis of the appearances that they preached
the resurrection. If they had gone to the trouble of stealing the body,
surely they would have used the empty tomb as part of their evidence.
The fact that they didn't, tells us that they had what they thought was
much better evidence: eyewitnesses of a living Jesus.
As another indirect evidence of the authenticity of their faith, we can
observe that the Gospels report that women were the first eyewitnesses
of the empty tomb and the risen Christ - and the testimony of women
was not accepted in that culture. If the disciples were trying to make
up a story, they would have invented witnesses who had more authority.
It is not likely that these fishermen would have been so subtle in
creating evidence, and yet be so bold in preaching. And what about the
fact that the Gospel stories vary somewhat? If this had been an
enormous conspiracy, wouldn't they ensure that the story was told in
exactly the same way by everyone? The most believable explanation again
is that the disciples genuinely believed Jesus to be resurrected, and
told it the way they remembered it.
Now let's consider another scenario: graverobbers (hoping for riches in
the rich man's tomb) got the guards to drink so much wine that they
fell asleep; then the graverobbers took the body and dumped it in the
desert. The guards, wanting to cover up their failure and knowing the
fears of the religious leaders, made up the story of the angels and the
resurrection, and were bribed to blame the disciples. Then the
disciples had hallucinations of a risen Jesus.
However, did all the disciples have the same hallucination, several
times, against their expectations, against their religious beliefs? Did
the hallucination eat and drink, speak, and then suddenly cease 40 days
later? This is not the way hallucinations work. The evidence does not
match this hypothesis, either.
Let's consider one more idea, that the idea of resurrection was just a
religious allegory (sometimes described as a "myth," meaning religious
ideas expressed in allegorical stories), and Christianity made a big
mistake in taking it literally for almost 2,000 years. There are
several problems with this idea. First, the Gospels are not written in
a mythological style. And it is clear that the resurrection was
understood in a literal way even in the first century, when
eyewitnesses of Jesus were still available to either support or refute
the story. There was no time for legends to develop. The biblical
writers give us history: This is what I saw. This is what it meant.
They denounce the idea of myth. They are presenting what they saw.
The disciples were not deceived, nor were they deceivers. They just
tell us what they believed, and it is clear that they believed that
Jesus died and was buried and was resurrected. And it is clear that the
reason they believed this is because they saw it with their own eyes.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched
-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we
have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal
life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to
you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship
with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus
Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)
The disciples clearly believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Why did
they believe this? The most plausible explanation is to accept their
testimony. All other theories are far-fetched and historically
unlikely. When we also take into consideration the need for God to
intervene in humanity to save us, and the Old Testament predictions of
a suffering servant who would give his life for his people, the
explanation that makes the most sense is that the disciples believed
that Jesus was resurrected because Jesus appeared to them and told
them he was resurrected. That is why they had such a transformation in
their beliefs, and why they preached with such conviction. As Luke puts
it, by looking at the evidence we "may know the certainty of the things
we have been taught" (Luke 1:4).
Michael Morrison
The New Testament authors were all witnesses to the resurrection of
Christ
John.20
1 [24] But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with
them when Jesus came.
2 [26] And after eight days again his disciples were within, and
Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in
the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
3 [27] Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold
my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be
not faithless, but believing.
4 [28] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
5 [29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou
hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have
believed.
Peter as recorded in the book of Acts declared King David prophesied
his Lord the Holy One (Messiah) would not suffer corruption.
Acts 2:
[25] For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always
before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
[26] Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover
also my flesh shall rest in hope:
[27] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou
suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
[28] Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me
full of joy with thy countenance.
[29] Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us
unto this day.
[30] Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an
oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
[31] He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that
his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
[32] This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul was also a witness to the
resurrection...this is what he declared to the Corinthians:
1Cor.15
[1] Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
[2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
[3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
[4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
[5] And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
[6] After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep.
[7] After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
[8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
[9] For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called
an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
[10] But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was
bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than
they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
[13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not
risen: [14] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain,
and your faith is also vain. [15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses
of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom
he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
[16] For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
[20] But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits
of them that slept.
[29] Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the
dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
[32] If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,
what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for
to morrow we die.
Noah's Dove
the Resurrection of Christ:
by Christopher Louis Lang
3-7-93
The Evidence: A Brief Survey
Approaching the Bible
In order to examine the evidence for the resurrection we must place
ourselves in the historical situation. The events surrounding the life
and death of Christ didn't occur at a place where we can gain no
knowledge of them. Rather, they occurred in history, on earth, and were
recorded by men who witnessed the events.
When we approach an ancient document such as the Bible or another
ancient document such as Tacitus' History of Rome (115 A.D.) we must
come to the text with an understanding attitude. This does not mean
that we assume the text to be 100 per cent true. But we need to be able
to ask the right questions. In the first century much less writing took
place than does in our time. Many were illiterate, few could read, much
less write, and paper or parchment (leather) to write on was expensive.
The incentive to fabricate was not as it is today. In other words, The
National Enquirer, could never have been published at this time. A high
regard was given to writing and the luxury to create fictional material
was virtually non-existent, for instance there was no such thing as a
novel or a newspaper, although there were artistic writings such as
poetry. The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It
was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry.
It was for the most part written as history and is intended to
communicate truth throughout.
The gospel of Luke begins:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things
accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word [Paul, Peter, etc] have handed
them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated
everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in
consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know
the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Lk 1:1-4)
Luke was not an apostle, he was however the companion of Paul and
probably dictated some of his letters. Luke tells us that he is writing
in consecutive order because the other gospels, Matthew, Mark and John,
are written more by topic than chronologically.
How do we know anything historically? There is no "scientific" proof
that Lincoln was the president. We cannot recreate him in a laboratory
or bring him back to life. We cannot reproduce the experiment. We
cannot calculate an equation that tells us that he was. But we can
assert with a high degree of probability that Lincoln was indeed our
president and was assassinated in 1865. We do this by appealing to
historical evidence. Many people saw Lincoln. We have some of his
writings and even his picture, not to mention his likeness on our
pennies. But none of this "proves", in a scientific sense, that Lincoln
ever lived or was the president.
The kind of evidence used in historical research is the same kind as
that used in a court of law. In a courtroom case certain kinds of
evidences are appealed to in order to determine what exactly happened,
eyewitnesses are questioned, motives are examined, and physical
evidence is scrutinized such as fingerprints or journal writings.
It is the same kind of evidence that we appeal to in order to establish
Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Granted, the evidence is not as
great as that for Lincoln, nor as recent. But it is better evidence
than we have that Plato ever lived, or Homer, or many historical
figures that we take for granted.
Historical Evidence Outside of the Bible
Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few
scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2
BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but
a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For
instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D.,
records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After
the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being
responsible:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ],
from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during
the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius
Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection]
thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the
first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous
and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become
popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)
In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey
wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:
"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not
know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what
limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. .
. whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be
punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile,
this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought
before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they
admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening
capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do
not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have
confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly
be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a
wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought
before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All
who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be
discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did
reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which
it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do." (Bettenson, p.
3)
These passages indicate that Christianity was wide spread in the Roman
empire within 80 years of Christ's death. Again, these are eyewitness
accounts, not historians looking back years later.
The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote
concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence
seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish
opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization,
vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one
generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so
lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be
a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid.,
p. 557).
It is a substantial thing that an historian who spends his life
considering historical facts should affirm the reality of Christ's
existence as well as the rapid growth of the early movement.
The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the
70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the
church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod
(this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death
of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.
. . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews,
Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have
sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical
reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the
time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this
also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge
of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him
and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.
The Accuracy of the Biblical Records
The question often arises when discussing the biblical records, "How
can a document that has been copied over and over possibly be reliable?
Everyone knows there are tons of errors in it." While it is true that
the documents have been copied many times, we often have misconceptions
about how they were transmitted. All ancient documents were copied by
hand before the advent of the printing press in the 16th century. Great
care was exercised in reproducing these manuscripts. When we think of
copying manuscripts we often assume that one copy was made and then
another from that and another from that and so on, each replacing the
copy it was reproduced from. This is not how manuscripts copying
worked. Copyists were usually working from one or two documents that
were very old. They would make many copies of their source copy, all
the while preserving their source and comparing the copies they have
made.
Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament. "We have given
practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although
such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or
to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every
Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God,
to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against
Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158). Josephus statement is no exaggeration.
The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters where in every line
of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This
enabled them to check for errors (Shelly, Prepare to Answer, p. 133).
The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be
punishable by Hell. This is not like the modern secretary who has many
letters to type and must work hard to keep their job, and consequently
feels that mistakes are inevitable. Great care is exercised with
scriptures when someone holds a conviction such as this.
But even with the great amount of care exercised in copying, errors
have crept into the manuscripts. No one questions that spelling errors,
misplaced letters, and word omissions have occurred. What is not true
is that these errors have gradually built up over time so that our
copies look nothing like the originals. This view was commonly held
until recently.
In 1947 the accuracy of these documents was confirmed by the Dead Sea
Scrolls. These scrolls were found in caves in the dessert near the Dead
Sea by a shepherd boy. Before the discovery of these scrolls, the
earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had were from about 980 A.D. The
manuscripts discovered in the caves dated from 250 B.C. to shortly
after the time of Christ. In careful comparison of the manuscripts it
was confirmed that the copies we had were almost precisely the same as
those which date over 1000 years earlier. Old Testament scholar Gleason
Archer said that even though there is such a difference in dates of the
manuscripts, "they proved to be word for word identical with our
standard Hebrew Bible in more that 95 per cent of the text. The 5 per
cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and
variations in spelling." No other historical literature has been so
carefully preserved and historically confirmed.
When we come to the New Testament we see a similar phenomenon. There
are over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence. This is by
far more than any other historical documents, which usually have maybe
a dozen copies from very late dates. The New Testament manuscripts are
many and old and they are spread over a wide geographical area. What
this enables the New Testament historian to do is collect manuscripts
from Jerusalem and Egypt and Syria and other places and compare them
for variations. And variations do exist, but as with the Old Testament
they are relatively few and rarely important to the meaning of the
text. What these manuscripts demonstrate is that different families of
texts existed very early that were copied from the original or good
copies of the original. This allows us to trace the manuscripts back to
the source as one would follow the branches of a tree to get to the
trunk. Aside from the manuscripts themselves, "virtually the entire New
Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of
the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations
in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)"
(Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).
Historical Reliability
There is one more important feature of the Bible to examine before we
move to the evidence of Christ's resurrection, that is their historical
reliability. Unfortunately I cannot go into the history of this topic.
Many critics have challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible and
have been proved wrong. Let me provide one example. Historians
questioned the accuracy of the accounts surrounded Pontius Pilate's
crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate found nothing wrong with him and was
reluctant to crucify an innocent man. The Jews put pressure on Pilate
saying that if you refuse this "you are no friend of Caesar" (John
19:12). At which point Pilate gave in to the Jews. This did not fit any
historical records we had of Pilate who was a cruel and dominating man,
not likely to give in to a group of Jews whom he hated. Many believed
that this account was historically inaccurate because of the way in
which it portrayed Pilate.
Later it was discovered that Pilate had been appointed by a man named
Sejanus who was plotting to overthrow Caesar. Sejanus was executed
along with many of his appointees (Delashmutt, Sejanus, p. 55, 56).
What this demonstrated was that Pilate was in no position to get in
trouble with Rome. The Jews had him in a tight place. If word returned
to Rome that Jerusalem was in rebellion, Pilate would be the first to
go. The gospel account was confirmed as accurate.
Many facts recorded in the Bible have been challenged with the same
result, later archeology confirms the reliability of the biblical
records down to the smallest detail. A respected Jewish archaeologist
has claimed that, "It may be stated categorically that no
archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference"
(Shelly, p. 103). This is a strong statement for any archaeologist to
make because if it were not true, he would quickly be condemned in his
own field.
The conclusion that one draws from this material is that the Bible is a
reliable historical document. Its accuracy has been proved numerous
times. Its historical inaccuracy has never been demonstrated. So that
when we approach the Bible, we do so with a good amount of confidence
that what it records actually happened. If this is true, then we need
to come to terms about what the Bible claims. We cannot dismiss it out
of hand because we were not there, regardless of the difficulty of what
is said.
Miracles and Modern Man
This brings us to the issue of miracles. The Bible records many
miracles occurring over a period of more than 4000 years. It is easy to
get the misconception that miracles were common occurrences in the
biblical times. This is not the case. It is the nature of history to
record events out of the ordinary. The Bible is no exception. The very
reason that these things were recorded is because they were unusual
occurrences of supernatural activity.
We must be careful, however, when we approach the Bible to be willing
to entertain the idea that something outside of what we see, hear, and
feel could exists. All of these sensory experiences are in the realm of
science. But science, which deals with the laws of nature, can say
nothing of the supernatural. Science has its limits -- especially in
the area of the miraculous -- because miracles are by definition
non-repeatable, non-natural, and non-ordinary events. If miracles exist
and if they function as I've described, then we would not expect
everyone to have experienced a miracle in their lifetime.
We cannot rule out miracles because we have never personally witnessed
one. In other words it is wrong to reason that a miracle cannot occur
on logical grounds (by reason alone) because one has never seen one
(something that can only be validated by experience). It is certainly
possible that supernatural events have indeed taken place throughout
the history of mankind. And it is better to come with an attitude that
maintains that it might be possible and with reliable witnesses we may
be convinced that something supernatural has taken place. Let's leave
this question open.
Those who lived a long time ago were not necessarily more gullible than
we are. We commonly assume that ancient peoples believed miracles
occurred regularly. This is not true in the sense that we use the term
miracle. They certainly wouldn't have been able to explain as much
about the natural world as we can. But this does not make them ignorant
individuals willing to believe any abnormal event is a supernatural
occurrence. They were awed by things that we can explain using the
"laws of nature." But they were also aware of a difference between
things that occurred naturally, such as lightning, and those which
didn't, such as people rising from the dead. They were men who lived
day to day without these amazing experiences just as we do.
The Biblical Record
At this point I would like to move on to the direct evidences for the
resurrection of Christ. There are a certain number of historical facts
that we can glean from the biblical records. They are: Jesus died by
crucifixion, he was buried in a tomb known to the authorities, his
disciples were distraught because of his death, his tomb was found
empty, the disciples believed that they saw Jesus risen from the grave,
this experience changed their lives, the message was central to early
church teachings, and it was preached in the very city in which Jesus
died (Miethe, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, p. 19, 20). These
historical facts will be the basis of our argument for Jesus'
resurrection.
Jesus died by crucifixion. Crucifixion was a most painful and certain
means of death. Christ was whipped by Roman soldiers before his
crucifixion (Mt 27:26-31). The Roman method for this was to give
thirty-nine lashes before crucifixion. (Forty lashes was considered
legally dead after which point an individual could no longer be
punished.) The effect of this was to induce considerable blood loss.
The Romans used what was called a "cat-of-nine-tails." This whip had
many ends to it and usually had pieces of bone, glass, and metal shards
attached to it which would rip open the flesh. After being whipped
Jesus was forced to carry his own cross to the place of crucifixion.
The gospel records indicate that in his weakened state, he was unable
to carry the cross (which would have been carried on his wounded back
Mt 27:32). Incidentally, Jesus was probably not a weak man. Before his
preaching ministry he had been a carpenter and during his ministry he
walked hundreds of miles throughout Israel.
Jesus was then nailed to a Roman cross at which point his death came
within hours. The Jews were concerned that no bodies would be left on
crosses at sundown that evening because it was the beginning of the
Sabbath. "The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so
that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that
Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken,
and that they might be taken away" (Jn 19:31). Crucifixion victims,
depending on their health and the method of crucifixion, could last
days on a cross. Victims died primarily through blood loss,
dehydration, and suffocation. In order to breath when on a cross, it is
necessary for the victim to push up with their legs to release the
pressure on the lungs. This is a painful process because of the nails
in both the hands and feet or ankles. The purpose of breaking the
victims legs was so that they would be unable to push themselves up to
breath and thus dies more quickly.
However, when they came to Jesus the Roman guards realized he was dead
already. "The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first
man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to
Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His
legs; but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and
immediately there came out blood and water" (Jn 19:32-34). John records
this detail of piercing Jesus side to indicate that he was in fact
dead. In an article published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association the doctors examining the historical evidence concluded
that the spear probably pierced the sack of fluid that surrounds the
heart (JAMA, Vol., 255, No. 11, 1986, p. 1455ff ). If he had not been
dead before this time, he was surely dead now.
The gospel records indicate that upon his death two prominent Jewish
admirers came to gather Christ's body. "And after these things Joseph
of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one, for fear of
the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and
Pilate granted permission. And Nicodemus came also, who had first come
to Him by night; bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred
pounds weight" (Jn 19:38). These men were both of the ruling class of
the Jews (seventy-one men in all) and well known in the community as
well as to Pilate. The mention of prominent men indicates that this
account is not fictitious. If the disciples had created this story it
would have been counterproductive to make up a person that was supposed
to be in a prominent position. This could easily have been refuted were
it not true. (Moreland, p. 167).
"And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and
laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he
rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.
And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the
grave" (Mt 27:59-61). Archaeological evidence confirms the description
of this tomb being that of a rich man, which was rare in this day. The
probable location described in the gospels correlates with the specific
location of the Garden Gate at the north Wall of Jerusalem where tombs
have been excavated like those described in which Jesus was laid
(Ibid.)
There are some important features to this account. First, this was not
a poor man's grave. Only the rich had tombs carved in rock and situated
in a garden area. Second, the tomb was identified by Joseph, Nicodemus,
and the women who watched where he was buried. The grave is also
carefully marked by the Jewish and Roman authorities as this same
passage records,
Now on the next day, which is the one after the preparation, the chief
priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and said,
"Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said,
'After three days I am to rise again.' Therefore give orders for the
grave to be made secure until the third day, lest the disciples come
and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,'
and the last deception will be worse than the first" Pilate said to
them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." And
they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set
a seal on the stone. (Mt 27:62-66)
It is also important to note here, that a Roman guard is a group of
soldiers not an individual. The seal which was placed over the grave
was a wax seal with rope, to break this Roman seal was punishable by
death in the Roman empire.
We know also that the disciples were very disillusioned by Jesus'
death. The man they had followed around Israel for three years, whom
they believed would be the next ruler of the nation, had just been
crucified. They had expected a Messiah who would be king, not a
criminal to be convicted and killed in the most humiliating way. They
probably felt that their lives had been wasted for the past few years
and they had publicly been made fools. Of course, they realized that
what they had experienced with Christ for the last three years was
significant. But how and what was significant, they did not yet
understand. The disciples scattered when Christ was arrested in the
garden of Gethsemene (Mrk 14:50ff). Peter denied ever knowing Jesus
during his "trial" on the night before his crucifixion (Mrk 14:66ff).
The disciples were ready to return to their lives as fishermen because
they thought it was over (Jn 21:3).
Three days after his burial the tomb was found empty. Each of the
gospels reports that Jesus' tomb was found empty (Mt 28: 1-10, Mrk
16:1-8, Lk 24: 1-3; Jn 20:1-10). "But on the first day of the week, at
early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had
prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when
they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus" (Lk
24:1-3). When it had been reported to the disciples by Mary that the
tomb was empty, they came running:
Simon Peter therefore came, following him, and entered the tomb and he
beheld the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth, which had
been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in
a place by itself. So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb
entered then also, and he saw and believed [that the body was gone].
For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise
again from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own
homes. (Jn 20:6-10)
This recording is significant, but what is more significant is that the
events which followed Jesus' resurrection bear witness to the fact that
his body was indeed missing.
An historical question confronts us at this point. What happened to the
body. Scholars have generally agreed that the body was indeed gone and
many explanations have been put forth to account for this fact. The
most common response is that it was indeed stolen. But this view is
hampered with many problems. Who would have stolen it? The Jews would
not want to steal it. It was they that posted the Roman guard and they
had the most to gain by ensuring that Jesus stayed in his tomb and his
teachings died with him. The Romans really had no motivation. It was in
Pilate's best interest as a governor whose job was in jeopardy to keep
his realm quiet, not to mention that the Romans hated the Jewish
religious fanaticism.
The only reasonable explanation for the missing body is that the
disciples stole it. But is this plausible? These are the same men who
scattered when Jesus was arrested. They were cowardly. They were
disillusioned and depressed. And they would need to overpower the Roman
guards. It is not likely that they would have had the courage or
motivation to carry out such a plan. Why would they steal it? Possibly
they wanted to start a new religion, to gain fame and fortune. This is
possible but not likely as we will see. The disciples would have put
themselves in great risk to steal the body. The Jews and Romans both
wanted this disruption stopped, had they believed that the disciples
stole the body they would have dragged them into prison and beaten them
until they confessed and produced the body. No such thing happened.
A number of incidental details in this account bear the markings of
history as opposed to fraud or fiction. The gospels do not portray the
disciples in a very glamorous light. If the disciples had propagated
this myth we would expect their own accounts of the events to paint
them in a better light than we actually see them in. The disciples were
not the first to see the risen Christ rather, a group of women were.
The disciples were very reluctant to believe that Jesus was alive again
when the women reported what they had seen. "Now they were Mary
Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women
with them were telling these things to the apostles. And these words
appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them" (Lk
24:10,11). Thomas response was, "Unless I shall see in His hands the
imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails,
and put my hand into His side, I will not believe" (Jn 20:25). These
men knew that when someone died, they were dead. Thomas was no fool.
It is of crucial importance to notice in all the accounts that the
women were the first to see the risen Jesus (Jn 20:11-17; Lk 24:1-9;
Mrk 16:1-8; Mt 28:1-7). In the first century women had no legal power
as witnesses in a court of law. A woman's testimony was unacceptable.
But it is to the women that Jesus first appears. If the story is
fabricated, why choose women, whose testimony no one would accept, to
be the first witnesses? Instead of being a story concocted by the
disciples for their own gain, it appears to be an historical record of
what actually took place.
When Peter stuck his head in the tomb he saw something unique that made
him realize that something out of the ordinary had happened there. He
saw the linen wrappings that Joseph and Nicodemus had used to coat the
body. This was done by wrapping the body, head to foot, in cloth and
caking on the spices and burial ointments which would be reapplied in
succeeding days to help the smell of decomposition. Peter probably saw
the wrappings in the shape of a body without a body inside. But he also
saw the head cloth, "rolled up in a place by itself." No one stealing
the body would have had time to roll up the face cloth and carefully
set it aside. This is a curious detail that caught Peter's attention.
But this was only a foreshadowing of what was to come as Peter and the
others personally experienced Jesus Christ in the succeeding days.
And while they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their
midst. But they were startled and frightened and thought they were
seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do
doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I
Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as
you see that I have." (Lk 23:36-39)
This is no less remarkable for us today than it was for them. And we
can understand their reluctance to accept him. But they came to believe
that they had witnessed something unique as Jesus appeared to them many
times over a period of four days. These experiences had a profound
impact on their lives.
How their lives changed after they had seen the risen Jesus is another
mark of the story's truthfulness. The disciples became the forerunners
of a new movement that swept the world. They spoke out for the message.
They were persecuted for the message and they ultimately gave their
lives for this message: Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Reliable
historical sources tell us that all twelve of the disciples except John
died as martyrs. Peter was crucified in Rome. Paul was beheaded. And
James was stoned to death, to name a few. This is of crucial
importance. If they had pulled off a hoax, why would they go to their
graves proclaiming that it actually happened. Certainly, many have died
for a lie. Nazis gave their lives for what was false. Plenty of other
religious followers have died for their faith, but the crucial point
here is that the disciples would have known it was a lie, if they had
stolen the body or made up the story. They all would have died for what
they knew was a lie. Is it plausible to believe that not one of them,
under the threat of death would have admitted, "we made the whole thing
up?" What they saw changed their lives. They believed they had seen
Jesus Christ rise from the dead.
And because of what they believed they saw, these men who were meek
suddenly became powerful spokesmen for Jesus Christ. Peter who denied
Christ a few weeks earlier preached to over three thousand people in
Acts 2.
Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man
attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--[he
is appealing to their common knowledge of Jesus and what he did] this
man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,
you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
And God raised Him up again, putting and end to the agony of death,
since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. (Acts 2:22-24)
Not only were they now bold spokesmen, but of a fundamentally different
religion than Judaism. For a Jew of the first century to change his
religion or preach some heretical doctrine would be to risk eternal
damnation. (Moreland, p. 172). For us in the twentieth century, we are
not surprised by new religions, but this kind of hoax is almost
unthinkable in first century Judaism whose culture and beliefs changed
slowly (Ibid., p. 180). They were convinced that what they saw and
experienced was true.
What did the disciples see? Could they have seen a vision that they
assumed was the risen Christ? Could it have been an hallucination.
Because of the strength of the evidence that something did happen that
changed the disciples' lives, some critics have suggested the idea that
what they saw was an hallucination. There are two problems with this
theory: it doesn't match what we know of the account and it doesn't
match what we know of the psychology of hallucinations.
J.P. Moreland summarizes the nature of hallucinations well.
First, hallucinations happen to persons who are high-strung, highly
imaginative, and nervous. Second, they are linked in an individual's
subconscious to his past beliefs and experiences. Third, it is
extremely unlikely that two or more people would have the same
hallucination at the same time. Fourth, they usually occur at
particular places (places of nostalgia which create a reminiscing mood)
and they recur over a long period of time. (p. 177)
I would add further that the idea of mass hallucinations has been
disproven in modern psychology. If you hold that what the disciples saw
was an hallucination, then you must acknowledge that they experienced
this hallucination in groups of three, four, twelve, and even five
hundred people.
The hallucination theory does not fit what we know of the disciples'
expectations. As I have said earlier, the disciples were not expecting
Christ to rise from the dead. They had no concept in Judaism of the
Messiah rising physically from the dead with the same body, a body they
could touch and interact with. Nor do the descriptions given in the
gospels reflect the kind of vagueness that makes up an hallucination.
What they experienced was concrete. They could recall and explain it
clearly. And because many of them experienced the same thing,
separately and together, they could confirm their experiences with each
other.
The hallucination theory also fails to explain one other fact: the
empty tomb. Had the disciples, and many others, hallucinated Jesus'
appearances, the commotion they were causing in Jerusalem could have
been easily stopped by producing the body. This is an argument from
silence. In other words, there is nothing said in history about whether
the Romans and Jews tried to produce Jesus' body. But it is crucial in
this case that there is nothing said in recorded history about what
happened to Jesus' body other than what we find in the gospels. Had
Jesus' body been exhumed by the Jews or Romans and presented to the
mass of people who were deluded about his resurrection, it is hard to
believe that the early church could have gotten started. But the
movement did start and the resurrection of Jesus was the grounds on
which it began.
Jesus resurrection from the dead was central to their faith. Peter
preached the message in Jerusalem as Acts chapter 2 goes on to say,
"Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David
that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day."
Peter is saying that we know where David's body is. We can go and dig
it up. But Jesus' body is missing. Had this not been true, anyone in
the audience could have refuted his claim. The Jews or the Romans could
have opened the tomb and paraded the body through the city to show
everyone that the disciples' message was false. But they didn't because
there was no body to find and all of Jerusalem had heard the news (Lk
24:18). Even the Jewish historian Josephus writing forty years later
comments on Jesus' death.
It is important to note that the message was preached, not in a remote
location where no one could verify the account, but it was preached in
Jerusalem where all of these events took place and where the story
could have easily been falsified or verified.
It is from this location that the church grew. The movement grew very
quickly. Acts records three thousand people being baptized in one day
(Acts 2:41). On another occasion five thousand people came to believe
(Acts 4:4). This corresponds to what we know of the growth of the early
church and it is one of the reasons historians do not suspect that
Jesus was a legend. Legends take many years to accumulate and gain
acceptance. Christianity spread immediately. The Jewish authorities
were unable to contain its growth because it was so rapid.
The resurrection of Christ is central to the Christian faith. Without
it, there is no Christianity. Paul says, "if Christ has not been
raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I
Cor:15:14). Paul who was a vigorous persecutor of the church before
seeing the risen Christ maintains that Jesus did rise from the dead. In
writing to the Corinthian church he says,
[F]or I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He
was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve.
After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep [died]; then
He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all . . .
He appeared to me also.
(I Cor 15:3-8)
What he is telling his readers is that many people saw Jesus after the
resurrection. He is saying, "if you are skeptical you can go and speak
with them yourselves because most of them are still alive!" Paul is so
confident of what he and the others saw that he is willing to stake
everything on this claim. This was not an event that occurred to a few
men in a remote location. It happened in a huge metropolitan city and
there were many witnesses to verify it.
Our Response
Christians stake their entire faith on the resurrection of Christ
because it is only through this event that forgiveness can come. The
gospels and the historical evidence bear out this claim that Jesus rose
from the dead. The question is what will you do with the evidence? It
has been God's practice to give evidence to those who are willing to
respond. Christ appeared to his disciples because they were willing to
believe when given enough evidence. He will not give evidence to those
who refuse to believe.
And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with
them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst,
and said, "Peace be with you." Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here your
finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into my
side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said
to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (Jn 20:26-28)
Thomas was willing to accept the evidence he saw. The question is, how
much evidence will it take for us. As Christ states in the very next
verse, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they
who did not see, and yet believed."
There is much more evidence for the truth of Christ's message than is
presented here. This is only a brief sketch of some of the historical
evidence. There is also the evidence of fulfilled prophecy from the Old
Testament, as well as other kinds. The point is that the evidence
exists. If the evidence is weak and unconvincing, then we can throw
Christianity out and look elsewhere. But if it is true, the message of
Jesus Christ applies to us. And we must be willing to submit to it,
regardless of what it says about us.
God demands humility from us. If he is indeed our Maker, we cannot
approach Him with an attitude that is arrogant and demanding. We must
approach Him on His terms. Christ spelled out those terms: mankind is
in rebellion toward God and in need of forgiveness. This is exactly
what Christ came to offer. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My
word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come
into judgment, but has passed out of death into life (Jn 5:24). And
also, "I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly"
(Jn 10:10).
Bibliography
Bettenson, Henry, Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford Press,
London, 1943.
Delashmutt, Gary, The Xenos Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, Columbus, OH, 1988.
Durant, Will, The Story of Civilization, Simon and Schuster, New York,
NY, 1944.
Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, MI, 1974.
McCallum, Dennis, Christianity: The Faith that Makes Sense, Tyndale,
Grand Rapids, MI, 1990.
Miethe, Terry L., ed., Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, Harper and Row,
San Francisco, CA, 1987.
Moreland, J.P., Scaling the Secular City, Baker House Books, Grand
Rapids, MI, 1987.
Shelly
Chris
Fear.
There is no doubt about the historical accuracy of the Biblical account. The
Bible of St James has additional material such as the Gospel of Mary, Jesus
Wife, and James, Jesus Brother.
This snippets I've read indicate that Jesus had Astronomical knowlege not
known at the time and physics knowlege also not known at the time.
There is alleged to be a letter from Jesus to James written by Jesus after
his ressurection that says exactly who he was.
If I recall, it says. "I am from one of those lights in the sky, I'm a king
of those lights in the sky, my miracles are due to me technology and I am
alive because of that too. You are not immortal, I am very sad because of
the terrible misunderstanding".
However I cannot vouch for the existance of this letter.
As far as I understand it there is a federation of sentient beings from many
stars out there and we are invited to join, it is only human culture that
prevents it.
I believe I am another creature from this galactic empire, not a king not
even a diplomat just a starship commander. I have been implanted in a body
with problems and I will soon loose this body.
I am very confused because of contact with human culture and my attempts to
make contact has been met with terrible hostility and anger.
We too have a religion along the lines of being immortal in God memory. Our
machines keep us alive but it not for ever and our starships can fail too.
Our machinery are able to carry out advanced medical procedure but they are
not miracles and because of these machines teleportation and changing
apearance is possible.
Unfortunately I fear people who know me sometimes are so outraged they want
be dead, we have a respect for life especially sentient life similar to you
and do act altruisticly ocassionally to save human life, but because of
misinterpretation I am unwilling to do this in an obvious manner, if at all.
After all, look what happened to Jesus.
I'm not the only visitor here and our contacts have gone on for centuries
from other planets from all over the place. I don't have special knowlege of
these.
Many of our contactees end up with their brain removed, even after 5 years
on one of our starships sent there for education to be returned to earth for
passing our knowlege on in the hope of civilising you so you can join our
civilisation.
Most of our missionaries have been murdered.
This place is known as a graveyard of flying saucer (starship) crews.
Space travel is very dangerous and you are one of the principle hazards.
Chris.