Proof of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Before you begin reading, I understand if it will take multiple sittings to ingest. (Mercifully I hear it's a page-turner.) Nevertheless, I wrote this letter for all who have legitimate concerns and objections to the Biblical view of God and Jesus. Understand that this topic in particular is THE paramount issue any skeptic must face before writing off Christianity, because the Bible hinges itself on the Resurrection. As Paul said, "If Christ is not risen from the dead, your faith is in vain." For that reason I ask you to hear my argument for His resurrection; see for yourself if it makes sense.

---------------------------------------------------
Hey, everyone.

As promised to a number of student friends, I am finally writing my own edition of the research paper I had to do for my English class. For those of you who didn’t know, for English we were to write a ten-page research paper on any topic we wanted. The topic I chose was the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. But after doing the actual paper, I realized I didn’t feel like I was the one conveying information; it was just one quote after another, and that’s not the style I like. I also did not get to cover all the ground I wanted because of time and space constraints. (I actually went 26 pages; the file is attached for those who want to look into the sources more in depth.) (Also, before I continue, my major sources of info are www.carm.org, a Christian apologetics site, Gary Habermas and Mike Licona’s The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, and Josh McDowell’s More Than a Carpenter.)

Unlike most of my emails, this letter is intended not just for Christians, but also for Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Deists, and a few other groups that do not readily come to mind. For the Christian, this letter is confirmation of why you believe what you believe; it is a sensible account that can solidify your faith and debunk the common criticism of being narrow-minded lemmings. For the Atheist, this letter is proof that there is a God and that Jesus is that God, and that our faith in Him is not blind or unreasonable. For the Muslim, this letter will challenge what you believe about God, Jesus, the Bible, and the Qur’an. For the Jew, this letter is affirmation of the Jewish Messiah and His Deity. For the Buddhist, this letter is for the exclusivity of Christ as the way to God, and that He alone is the worthy role model and redeemer of humanity. For the Deist, this letter is for proof that Jesus is God and that He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that we cannot worship God like we want but how He wants. All else is idolatry. For all of these groups and more, this letter is meant to show that “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other Name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

With this all said, I know there are more religions than we can count. (I was recently surprised to a great degree to find out even Oprah Winfrey has a discipleship program going on for the New Age Movement, literally denying Jesus while claiming to be Christian. That’s just a side note of warning.) So with all of these differing beliefs, what makes Christianity stand out? Is it the high moral standard? (Well if it were, where do we place cults who have high moral standards? Are they automatically true?) What about the charisma of the leader/founder? (If that were the case, the Antichrist will be swept into power, and that’s exactly what will happen. Besides, even Hitler was ‘charismatic’.) What about the teachings of the leader? (Once again, he can be moral and still be incorrect. Even more so, hypocrites can teach truth and not live an ounce of it.) So what makes Jesus different? It was that He predicted His death and resurrection, and that He rose again as He said. But not only that, but that in doing so, He tackled the biggest problem facing man: physical death and spiritual death.

Before I go into all the apologetics (defense of the faith), I want to explain the theological aspects the Bible teaches about the death and resurrection of the Messiah. In Psalm 16:10, David prophecies, “You will not abandon me to the Grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” Though he died and did see decay, the Holy One (messianic title) did not decay for He did not remain dead, as Peter points out in the latter half of Acts 2. In Isaiah 53, Isaiah prophecies from the standpoint of Israel when he refers to Jesus: “Surely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered Him stricken by God, smitten by Him and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed… the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all… For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death, though He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer, and though the Lord makes His life a guilt offering, He will see His offspring and prolong His days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in His hand. After the suffering of His soul, He will see the light of life and be satisfied.”

And again, out of Jesus’ own mouth: “The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life—only to take it up again… This command I have received from My Father” (John 10:17,18b). But the clincher, spoken by Paul: “If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men” (1 Corinthians 15:16-19). Essentially, the resurrection of Jesus Christ assures us that God is satisfied with the atonement on the cross. Other holy books rely on subjective opinion to validate themselves. Off the top of my head, I can name an argument the Qur’an poses as its proof: that it is so masterfully written that it must be the work of God. If we cannot produce a chapter as well crafted as that of the Qur’an, we should stop doubting its divine inspiration (Surah 2:23). Though this is the only example I can think of right now, it is not the only subjective argument another religion uses when defending itself. However, Paul poses the objective challenge, if Christ has not risen, don’t even bother believing.

However, before we begin, answer within yourself the primary reason you do not believe in Christ or His physical resurrection, for this is key to the argument. Christ said Himself that men shun the light, because their deeds are evil. Whether you recognize it or not, many people flee from the light to any dark corner that will hide them. As long as the flashlight shines in one corner, they have three others they can flee to, and alternate corners as necessary. In the same way, unfortunately, when one of our arguments fails, we flee to another and another, as necessary, because the truth is inconvenient. I wanted to bring that to your attention, lest you follow the same pattern. So let’s tackle the issue.


Setting

Jesus’ teachings had gotten Him in hot water with the Jewish rabbis and Pharisees. (The Pharisees had been very strict sect that followed the Law to the letter, but missed, at times, the spirit of the Law. Jesus publicly denounced them and warned the people to do what they say, but do not act as they do, for they were proud and self-righteous hypocrites.) The major controversy surrounding Jesus was not His teaching about love or even the Kingdom of God, but of His claims to being more than a man. When Jesus specifically asked why they were trying to stone Him, they answered, “Not because of either of these (miracles), but for blasphemy, because you a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). After a particular instance of driving out the moneychangers from the Temple, the Jewish powers were determined to put Jesus to death, though Jesus did have some secret followers in the ruling council. When He was finally betrayed and turned over to the Sanhedrin (Jewish ruling council), numerous false charges were brought against Jesus, and because they did not agree, were tossed out. However, the claim was made that Jesus said He could rebuild the Temple in three days (when the present one took 46 years to build; Jesus was talking about His body, referring to the resurrection, not the physical Temple). So the question finally arose: Are you the Christ, the Son of God? Jesus responded, “I AM (Greek: ego eimi, the understood name of God), and you will see the Son of Man and sitting on the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven” (Mark 14:62). At this the Council was infuriated and sent Him to the Romans to be further examined, determined to have Him condemned. Pontius Pilate had Him examined (and by that I mean scourged and flogged), and found that He had done nothing worthy of death, and so turned Him back over to the will of the Jews, who were calling for His crucifixion. Pilate wanted nothing to do with the issue and symbolically washed His hands of the matter.

Jesus was led out, having already been whipped, sleep-deprived, beaten, and dehydrated. Having to carry the crossbar out of the city under such conditions, Jesus fell under its weight; the Romans compelled a Jewish man to help Him carry it to Calvary, where He was nailed to it (through the wrists). He hung for six hours and had to push Himself up against the rugged wood to breathe, splintering his previous wounds. Due to the immense pain inflicted by the cross, most criminals are given a mixture of myrrh and vinegar to intoxicate them enough to make the pain bearable, however Jesus apparently only took a sip and reviled its bitter taste. Because the Jewish Law did not permit dead men to be left unburied by nightfall, the Roman soldiers were to break the legs of the criminals (disabling their ability to push up on the cross for air, thus making their suffocation/asphyxiation quicker). Jesus was already dead, so His legs were not broken. However, shortly after he died, a soldier drove a spear through his chest, into his heart, causing a mixture of watery fluid to come out along with blood from his cardiac sack.

After being taken down from the cross, later in the day, Joseph of Arimathea came to ask for Jesus’ body. (Joseph was one of Jesus’ secret disciples among the Sanhedrin. I say he was a secret disciple NOT because he was planted by Jesus to influence events, but because he possibly didn’t want to lose credibility or honor among the council members or the people being Jesus’ follower. He can be better described as a “closet disciple”.) Jesus’ body was wrapped according to Jewish tradition, with a cloth around His body; that cloth had mixed among it about 75-100 pounds of oils and spices, most likely to keep the body from stinking so soon. They (Joseph, Jesus’ mother, Mary Magdalene, Salome, and a few others) watched as the large slab was rolled over the mouth of the tomb. Next day, the chief priests and Pharisees appealed to Pilate to have a guard (multiple soldiers) set to watch over the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body of Jesus. They figured the stolen body would be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead like He said, on the third day. So the guard was stationed by the tomb, and the Roman seal was put on it to keep it secure until the third day. Anyone who broke the seal would be put to death.

Early Sunday morning, Mary (Jesus’ mother), Mary Magdalene, and Salome went to the tomb wanting to anoint Jesus’ body, even though they weren’t sure how they would move the stone. When they arrived, they found the stone removed and the tomb empty, by angelic activity according to the Gospel of Matthew. (The soldiers present had apparently been so frightened by the angel’s appearance that they fainted, appearing dead, accounting for their incapacitation at such a crucial time. The penalty for job failure was death.) After receiving the angelic reports of Jesus rising again, the women ran back to the disciples Peter and John to alert them. Peter and John ran to the nearby tomb and investigated; John then believed Jesus rose again, but didn’t fully understand it all. Later in the day, Jesus appears to the disciples in different kinds of ways. Oftentimes his appearances had Him going long periods of time without being recognized until He performed a certain action, in which it suddenly clicked for the disciples. Another occasion, He ate food with them, and confronted the unbelieving Thomas, inviting him to do just as he asked and thrust his hand into His side and put his fingers through Jesus’ nail wounds. (It’s likely Thomas was wary of being deceived by ghosts, and wanted physical proof.)

(I personally think there is a lesson in that event with Thomas. Thomas wanted physical proof of Christ’s resurrection before he would believe. While Jesus reprimanded Thomas for his disbelief, He did not withhold from him the evidence he sought. In the same way, I believe unbelievers who are willing can find the evidence they seek for whether they should follow Christ or not. May God grant you the truth.)

After reportedly 40 days removed from the resurrection, Jesus gives His final blessings and ascends to Heaven in plain sight, but not before appearing to over 500 people at once, not including the disciples. He tells the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they are empowered by the Holy Spirit, and then they would begin to preach the Gospel across the world. On the 50th day, they receive the Holy Spirit, and begin preaching, not renouncing Christ once or stammering in the face of persecution, all but one dying a martyr’s death for their preaching. The rest has been history…

The New Testament

There have been many people over time whom I have encountered who question whether the Bible has been changed by man over the years, as has so often been reported. Most date the state’s inception of Christianity as the time period when man altered God’s Word and painted Jesus as the perfect man and God-man, twisting many of His sayings to benefit the Roman government establishment. ‘Constantine’ and the ‘Nicene Council’ are two things that immediately come to mind when this subject comes up. This argument is often used (even in religious texts) to undermine the New Testament in particular, therefore I want to address whether we can trust the NT as an accurate portrayal of Christ’s life and teachings. Obviously I will say we can trust the NT, but there are compelling reasons for the conclusion I came to.

Before I dive into the historical evidence, I want to tackle the ‘Telephone’ myth. If you are familiar, the game goes like this: A person at one end of the room whispers a phrase into the next person’s ears, who in turn tells another, and so on. By the time the last person receives the message, it is severely botched and the error is difficult to trace. Seldom is there uniformity even within the first few hearers. Now, if the Bible had been transmitted to us today like that, skeptics would have a point. However, the problem is no one transmits the Bible like that. Ever. For instance, we have the King James Bible for English. If I wanted to translate that into Japanese, I could, but I might skew the meaning even more. And the trend would continue if I then took that flawed Japanese version and translated it into Russian. Rather, the way translators do it is go back to the original manuscripts, compare them, date them, and depending on the age of the manuscript and its subtle differences, translate that into the given language with all its nuances. So the game of Telephone becomes more like a game of Copy, in that all subjects come to the one messenger for the phrase. Once asked to reveal what the secret phrase was, all shout in unison, and any dissention is quickly pointed out by the mass of people who heard correctly. Example: The teacher has sent out an email alert of an upcoming due-date for an assignment. While it might be plausible for a chain of two or three people for one to summarize the teacher’s memo and forward it along, it is not trustworthy to forward it along a chain of 20 people, each modifying and summarizing the summary over and over again. You yourself would want to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth, instead of the ‘he-said she-said’. So it would be better for the teacher to email all the students a carbon copy of the same message. This is how it’s done with the New Testament. There are many manuscripts to go back to (which we will explore momentarily), with amazing accuracy between them, and traceable dates for when the document was written. It is possible to eradicate the earth of every modern translation of the Bible, go back to the manuscripts and reproduce it as we have it today (perhaps even better). Hopefully this argument puts that myth to bed.

Now concerning the manuscripts themselves. The originals do not exist anymore due to much handling over time, as with any paper document. However, the copies of the texts are heavily abundant. To put this into perspective, look at some of the ancient writings from around New Testament times. I want to compare the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Homer (Iliad). Of the writings of Plato, there are 7 copies. The originals were written sometime between 427 and 347 BCE, but the earliest we have are from about 900 CE. That’s a separation of about 1,200 years. Of the writings of Aristotle, there are 49 copies. The date written was between 384 and 322 BCE, but the earliest known copies are from 1100 CE, a separation of 1,400 years. Of the writings of Homer, there are a whopping 643 known copies, which is exponentially more than other writings from the time. The original document was written in 900 BCE, and the earliest known copy is from 400 CE, a separation of 500 years. For another document in the ballpark of the New Testament (time-wise), the writings of Tacitus were originally written around 100 CE, but the earliest known copies are from 1100 AD, a separation of 1,000 years. There are 20 copies to date. Of the New Testament, there are over 24,000 known manuscripts, 5,600 of them being directly from the Greek. It was originally composed between 50 and 100 CE, and the earliest known copies are from around 130 CE, a separation of less than 100 years. It should be added, that these thousands of texts match almost letter-for-letter, with an accuracy rating of 99.6%. In addition to that, the New Testament is quoted in Lectionaries (worship books) from early Church fathers over 86,000 times. What I mean by Church Fathers is: the disciples of the original disciples. They lived primarily around 100-250 CE, before the Nicene Council of 325 CE, and uphold all the teachings of the Trinity, a term that was first penned by Bishop Theophilus of Antioch in 160 CE, and popularized by Tertullian almost 100 years before the Council of Nicea. It is also little-known fact that Emperor Constantine was an Arian, not a Trinitarian. In other words, he held to the belief that Jesus was a created being, not ‘of the same substance as God,’ but like God. The beliefs that were promoted as a result of the aftermath of the Nicene Council during Constantine and his son Canstantius’ reigns are more akin to what we call Jehovah’s Witness doctrine than Evangelical Christianity. Hopefully this sheds some light on the Nicene issue for those who have heard it misrepresented before. Also understand that the primary reason the Nicene Council was held was based on the salvation Jesus secured on the cross. “If he was God, his sacrifice redeems us,” versus “If he’s not God, the cross may not have been enough to save us. Maybe we need to work for our salvation.”

At this point, the argument that the New Testament is unreliable because of text errors is out the window, as well as the argument that the Nicene Council is responsible for the introduction of heresy into the Church. (I assume that the short lapse of time between Christ’s life and the penning of His life are too short to allow legend to creep in. Even more so, it is ridiculous to think that character-altering legends would creep into the life of Christ and overpower eyewitness accounts of His life and real character. That takes at least one or two generations to accomplish; ironically enough, that’s when the Gnostic gospels started to crop up. Nevertheless, Christ died in 30 CE. The first Gospel account written (by Mark) dates in the early 40s, a span of roughly ten years, by my source’s estimates.) The next issue that logically comes up is, Can we trust the writers? The major answer follows shortly. But what I can say now on the issue is that the 4 Gospel accounts were written by either eyewitnesses of Christ, or contemporaries of the eyewitnesses. For instance, Matthew was a disciple, as was John. Mark may have been an eyewitness the night of Jesus’ trial, perhaps referring to himself as the man fleeing naked when Jesus was arrested, but was surely a contemporary of Peter. Luke was a contemporary who investigated the life of Jesus for his friend to reassure that what he heard about Jesus was correct. He was the companion of Paul. Paul, a major New Testament writer, claims to have seen the risen Christ on his way to arrest Christians, and ranks his sighting of Jesus equally among the eyewitness meetings with Christ: Jesus’ brother James (who never followed Christ until after His death and resurrection) saw Him, along with all the disciples, Paul, and 500 others, many of whom were still alive the day Paul made the statement. Peter explicitly validates Paul’s writings as Scripture, on par with the Tenach (Old Testament) in 2nd Peter 3:15-16. Perhaps this adds a little more context to the argument, for anyone who may be anti-Paul or may deny the authorship of the Gospels.

To put this next major point into perspective, let me give you an example: Your mother says you are an honest person. That very well may be true, but because she is sympathetic to you, you could understand where a bias may come into play, especially if she is trying to protect your character. However, another person says he can’t stand your guts and hates the ground you walk on, but says you are honest if nothing else. That adds a lot to your case if your character is called into question, because the source is unsympathetic to you. The best witnesses on your side are either neutral or enemies. In the same way, when the disciples were opposed by the Jewish leaders when they preached Christ’s resurrection, they were accused of stealing Jesus’ body. This is an indirect attestation that the body of Jesus was unavailable for viewing. I’m getting ahead of myself, but this is just one of the factors to consider, so I want to put this in order, so all can understand. Therefore, let’s look at some key points that most scholars accept as fact.

Key Facts

Before I proceed, understand that it is next to impossible to find a subject that 100% of scholars accept as fact; if we were to evaluate history based on that, there would be very, very little history to begin with. What I’m looking for are the minimal facts, whatever most historians agree on. These are those facts:


1. Jesus died by crucifixion. This form of torture/execution was common during those times, and was used against people of lower class, slaves, soldiers who failed their duties, the violently rebellious, and those accused of treason. It was heinous, and the ancient historian Cicero said in the first century BCE that the word ‘cross’ should be removed from every Roman citizen’s person, thoughts, eyes, and ears. Early historians Josephus, Tacitus, as well as Lucian unequivocally attest to Jesus being crucified.

2. Jesus’ disciples believed He rose from the dead and appeared to them. It’s arrived from the previous point that once the disciples saw the risen Jesus, they were transformed from cowards who forsook Him when arrested and crucified, to steadfast heralds of His resurrection in the face of persecution, torture, even death.

3. The persecutor of the Church, Paul, was radically changed into a pillar in the Church. Whether you deny his vision of Jesus was genuine or not, it is clear that Paul suddenly changed and like the disciples, willingly suffered and died for his beliefs.

4. Jesus’ brother James was also changed. James, while Jesus was alive, did not follow or believe in his Brother as Messiah, and also thought he was crazy. However, after His reported resurrection, it is said that Jesus appeared to James, who became a pillar in the early Church as well. He retained his piety as a Jew, but also willingly suffered for the belief in his Brother and died. His death pleased the antagonistic Jewish leaders, and the ruler was about to have Peter killed shortly after him (though that fell through). James’ life and martyrdom are attested by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria, not to mention Acts 15:12-21, Galatians 1:19, and 1st Corinthians 15:3-7.

5. The tomb was empty. Shortly after the burial of Jesus and the posting of the guard, Jesus’ tomb was found empty 3 days later. Apparently the Jewish and Roman leaders were unable to find the body to refute the claims of the disciples, who were preaching His resurrection in the same city He was publicly crucified in.

These are the highly attested facts concerning Jesus’ resurrection. From these we can build an effective case. Here are the primary answers to objections that come up. They answer why we can believe Jesus rose from the dead, when all evidence is considered as a total package.

How Do We Know Jesus Died?

As described earlier, Jesus’ crucifixion was preceded by His scourging in which His hands were tied to a post, and the carnifex went on to lash his victim from His legs to His neck. The purpose of the scourging was to beat the victim to within an inch of his life, and this required great skill. If the person went unconscious, a soldier would open his eyes and see if they are rolled in back of his head. If so, they would splash a bucket of water in his face, and resume the process. In some cases, the scourging also included the front side. This process would never leave the victim alive for much longer, due to blood loss and risk of infection, as well as dehydration (for skin retains the body’s water). Once nailed to the cross, Jesus had to push up on the nails piercing His feet in order to breathe. Though His suffering only lasted a few hours, soldiers are able to tell when a person is dead. Remember, in order to breathe, they have to push up; once they stop pushing up, the soldiers know the person is near death. Fast-forward a few hours. The two remaining criminals are still alive, and so the Roman soldiers break their legs to hasten their death. As for Jesus, a spear is driven up through His stomach into His heart. So if He was never dead up to that point, He was now. Also bear in mind, when He was wrapped in cloth, He was anointed with oil weighing over 75 pounds. He was buried for days with no food, water, or medical attention. Even if His survival were remotely possible, He would have had to push aside a two-ton stone slab enclosing Him. It takes a lever to move one of those out of position. Then what about getting past the guards? Could a severely weakened man have taken on 4-12 heavily armored and equipped soldiers who would have been killed had they failed their duties? Also, when He came back to His disciples, would they have hailed Him as the Risen Lord? Would Thomas, James, or Paul believed in Him? Would Jesus have ever invited Thomas to reach into His wounds? Would they have been willing to die for Him? This theory is simply unbelievable to any rational person.

How Can We Believe the Disciples?

Today we often see people who are willing to die for their belief or cause. However there is a distinct difference between believers of an ideology or doctrine and eyewitnesses of an event. For the older crowd, if you remember the Watergate scandal, the co-conspirators of President Nixon were intensely loyal to the President, and were very powerful (being his closest aides), but John Dean turned around and testified against President Nixon to “save his own skin”—after only two weeks. Soon the others abandoned ship and testified against him also. The threat they faced was public humiliation, and at worst prison. Compare this with the disciples, who claimed loyalty to Jesus, but fled when He was arrested, who had no power or prestige, nothing to gain by preaching, and often faced death by stoning, sword, incineration, crucifixion, beheadings, etc. for said preaching. Not only that, sometime later they split up to carry their message to distant lands. Yet not one of them recanted their message. If a group is going to band together to carry a false message, and swore never to recant, it would be considerably easier to do if they all stuck together even when persecuted, but not so if they scattered. It’s simply inconceivable that they would split up to spread a lie that they KNEW was a lie, and yet be willing to die (alone) for it, having gained nothing the entire time. Not only that, remember the dramatic change that turned these spaghetti-spines into fearless purveyors of the Gospel—all within a 50-day period. Consider also that the first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women. This is important because women in those days did not have testimonial power. Their testimony was about as valuable in today’s standards as a psych-ward patient’s or a very young child’s word. It does not help their case to say they were the absolute first witnesses. Nor does it help for them to describe themselves in embarrassing ways when talking about their interaction with Jesus. It’s called the principle of embarrassment. If you tell something that hurts your character or cause or position, it probably means you’re telling the truth. It would not help your case as a well-respected priest to say you were going down to the male strip club when you witnessed a murder. If the disciples were trying to make their case sound good, they should have portrayed themselves as courageous heroes who stood by Jesus through thick and thin and comprehended absolutely everything He said. These three elements all help verify that the disciples indeed believed what they preached, and that even though unhelpful or embarrassing as the evidence may be, it was a true account.

How Can We Trust Paul?

Aside from the disciples’ strong convictions, what can be said about Paul, who admittedly had no prior contact with Jesus, and was determined to destroy the Church for what he believed was heresy? Once again, the principle of embarrassment comes into play here. Paul, if he wanted to be believed and received by the Church, would have to have painted himself as a staunch supporter of Jesus and the Gospel from afar, but rather, he admits to being a fierce enemy, infamous for consenting to the death of one of its prominent members, Stephen, and who was additionally on his way to Damascus to arrest even more Christians. He reports being blinded by a light brighter than the sun, and that Jesus appeared to him and questioned why he persecuted Him. Immediately broken, he asks what he must do, and is later instructed to continue into town to meet one of His followers, who would restore his sight. (That person, by the way, also received instruction to expect Paul to come to him to receive his sight back.) Not exactly a believable story, unless looked at it in proper perspective. Remember, Saul looked at the Christian movement as a damnable heresy, and it would have been unthinkable that he would want to be a part of it. Secondly, there was no inclination that he should expect to see Jesus, nor would he want to. For all he knows, Jesus is dead, and the body has been stolen. Hallucinations depend on the person’s mind frame, and Paul was not in a frame of mind sympathetic to Christ or Christianity. To him, it is God’s will to exterminate heretics. Some will argue, like some Jewish sources, that Paul infiltrated the Church to destroy it from the inside-out, and that HE, not Jesus, is the real founder of Christianity. Such a view may have a point, but it fails under scrutiny. For instance, it is well attested to in Acts that there was much interaction among the apostles, like Mark and Paul, Peter and Paul, etc. Immediately following his conversion, as he recounts in Galatians, he went into Arabia (pre-Islamic, just for the record) to learn from God before returning to Damascus. After three years, he returned to get acquainted with Peter, and met James (Jesus’ brother). He was there fifteen days, and later returned to be confirmed by the apostles, lest he find out he was preaching the wrong message. They (Peter, James, and John) realized God was using him to present the Gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter had been, with the Jews. They changed nothing about his message, and extended him the “right hand of fellowship.” There was no major difference between the messages Paul or his cohorts preached with those that Peter and the apostles preached. The Gospel message had been long established before Paul came into play, and his message reflects the necessity of belief in Jesus for salvation, just as Jesus himself stressed, and commanded His disciples to preach. Remember earlier where I painted the picture of Paul being closely involved with the other disciples, like the writers of the Gospels. That comes forth here again as even his partners intermingle with the original disciples. Paul is not the founder of Christianity, just a key player in its advancement. Though he didn’t have a starting position like the Twelve, he was a key player off the bench.

Also, as mentioned before, James the brother of Jesus was not a follower of Christ during His life, but converted after His death after apparently seeing Him. He was skeptical, was a pious Jew, and thought Jesus was deluded during life. He considered Jesus cursed by God for having been crucified. Now, if your family member claimed to be God, would you be inclined to believe him? That’s how James was. Do you think you would (especially if you’re very pious) be willing to alter your beliefs to worship your close family member, if you knew this could cost you your eternal soul if you’re wrong? That’s how James was. But after appearing to him, James turned around and became a pillar in the early Church. This raises the objection that perhaps he was hallucinating. We’ll explore this possibility shortly.

Perhaps the Body was Stolen

This is the first objection that comes up in discussions of this topic. However, it has been effectively debunked long before now. Here’s why the disciples did not steal the body:


1. They did not understand Jesus when He said He would die and rise again; other times they simply did not believe. They figured He was being symbolic or allegorical.

2. They were not in the frame of mind to believe He would rise from the dead three literal days later. According to Jewish beliefs at the time, the righteous person would perish and go to the spiritual realm known as ‘Paradise’ and ‘Abraham’s Bosom’. There they would await their physical resurrection at the end of the age, when God would judge the righteous and the wicked.

3. They were afraid of the authorities. For them to add fuel to the fire during an already tense week would not have been an advisable move, for they feared the wrath of the Romans and had seen the bloodlust of the Jewish authorities. For them to attempt to steal Jesus’ body (which was heavily guarded for this specific purpose) was to strap a crossbar to themselves and look around for soldiers with spare nails and nothing to do.

4. Pontius Pilate wanted nothing to do with the situation, and washed his hands of the matter. From what had been reported, Jesus was a threat to the empire, or at least the security and sovereignty of Judea. Jesus was killed because the Roman authorities feared the army from Caesar would come and level the place, and unseat them from their power, for failing to do their job and stop revolts. Stealing the body from its grave would not serve their purpose. Besides, when the disciples started preaching Jesus’ resurrection, they would have known the location and produced the body on demand and stopped the Christian movement right there.

5. Likewise, the Jewish authorities would not have stolen or removed the body, because they were explicitly fearful that the disciples would steal the body and claim Jesus rose. That’s why they wanted the guard posted for three days. For had the body been stolen, the disciples could have said Jesus rose, and begun preaching. To them, this error would be worse than the first. Like the Romans, had the disciples started preaching, they would have known its location, and produced the body. ‘Why not wheel it around Jerusalem while you’re at it?’ They would have been more than happy to do so.

They Went to the Wrong Tomb

This seems to be a newer objection to the resurrection. It basically says that the women were going to the tomb while it was still dark, and thus went to the wrong tomb by mistake. The problems with this theory abound. First of all, the women were present with Joseph of Arimathea when the body was entombed and the stone was rolled over it. So they knew where it was. When the women found the empty tomb, they did run back to the disciples; however, when the disciples came to the tomb, they were dumbfounded by the body’s absence. (So they also knew where it was.) They didn’t believe in Christ’s resurrection just because of the empty tomb, for they apparently figured someone moved the body. They were convinced by His appearances, not the empty tomb. And if by chance they were all mistaken and went to the wrong tomb, the authorities would have gladly shown them where the right one was and produced the body. Likewise, the guards would still be posted, the stone slab still in place, and the seal on the slab still intact. The argument from silence takes over from here. The authorities were unable to produce a body at all, which means it is nowhere to be found for one reason or another—all of this within only a few miles of Jerusalem. Also bear in mind, Thomas would not believe Jesus rose again unless he physically touched and examined Him. He, like the other disciples, were not convinced and emboldened by the empty tomb itself. Also, this theory fails to adequately explain why the disciples and many others report seeing Jesus alive. This also includes enemies like Paul and James.

The Disciples were Hallucinating

This argument could be leveled against the disciples. After all, someone could swear up and down that they saw 5 UFOs circling in the sky for three minutes, but without tangible proof (video) or multiple witnesses, at best it’s anecdotal evidence. ‘So maybe the disciples weren’t lying, but were hallucinating. After all, their beloved leader died tragically. Such a man deserves to live, they figure, and so here comes the risen Jesus.’ However this popular theory falls through on numerous fronts. One I can name off the bat is a quote from Acts 1:3, which said Jesus appeared to the disciples after His suffering, showing Himself to them 40 days with many infallible proofs, as He discussed with them the things of the Kingdom of God. I’ll show you how infallible those proofs were. First of all, hallucinations do not account for the empty tomb. It also does not account for Paul’s conversion, who similar to the disciples, was not in the mind frame to hallucinate the risen Jesus (for he despised Jesus and Christians and thought it was God’s will to destroy them). (I should mention, among those of faith, there seems to be a double standard against Paul. Men of God in the Bible or whatever religious book you name has had a ‘vision’, and their testimony is rarely refuted among us; however when Paul claims to have seen the risen Christ post-ascension, now he’s hallucinating. Well then, what about James and the other Apostles?) It also does not account for James’ conversion, who presumably saw Him in the flesh before His ascension. But here’s some of the more psychological reasons hallucinations did not occur.

Hallucinations are private occurrences. You can’t have a dream you’re taking a vacation and wake up to invite your wife to it so you can vacation together. In the same way as dreams cannot be shared, neither can hallucinations. Even in groups with common mind frames, the exact same hallucination is not possible, because it’s entirely subjective to the individual’s experiences and beliefs. Remember, the disciples never anticipated a physical, literal resurrection after three days. That was not their belief or mind frame. They were in utter despair, not counting down the days till His resurrection. Also, when Jesus appeared to them together, they all saw Him (hallucinations don’t happen in a group, much less exactly the same one). When He met them, he ate with them, hugged them, and invited Thomas to examine Him physically. He doesn’t stop there. In another occasion He appeared to more than 500 people at one time. It has been said that if these people were all having the same group hallucination, this would be more of a miracle than a resurrection. That’s how farfetched this claim is. To put it in perspective, try to sync your dreams with 5 other people, and if you have similar dreams, describe them in great detail that matches point for point with everyone else. For instance, you are all stranded on a desert island for weeks, hoping for escape when one person spots a ship on the horizon. What is the number on that ship? If it’s the same number, it’s real, and everyone should start trying to get its attention. In this same way, the resurrected appearances of Jesus are.

Conclusion

Though there are many more arguments that can be made about this subject, I do not suspect that there are any doubters within the scope of this message who are persuaded by an argument other than those presented here. If there are, feel free to let me know, and I will return your inquiry as soon as I can. So to close, here are the major facts that must be considered: Jesus’ death was predicated on His outrageous claims of deity. His death was severe, and His disciples did not understand His saying that He would rise in three days. The disciples were extremely fearful and cowardly, and hid because they feared they’d be recognized. Jesus’ body, meanwhile, was carefully guarded by the Romans by request of the Jewish authorities so that the disciples specifically would not steal the body and say He rose again. However, the guards were incapacitated and the body was unaccounted for. Immediately the disciples were accused of stealing the body, but they were not in position or mind frame to do so. (The Jewish authorities paid off the guards to say the disciples stole the body so the guards would not be killed for failing their duties.) There are then reports of Jesus rising from the dead, and presenting Himself before the disciples numerous times, rather convincingly. 50 days after His death, the Apostles are preaching in Jerusalem. From there they went on to spread the Gospel (Good News) throughout the known world, enduring many hardships and dangers because of their beliefs.

While there are many sub-objections to the arguments about the resurrection, in total, they do not account for the many angles that it’s based on. (A table with 20 legs can still stand with 19.) One argument may be perfectly tailored to rule out the miraculous appearance to Paul, for instance, but it fails to account for James, the Apostles, the people, etc. This is a logical fallacy called ad hoc. It is an argument designed for one specific task: to refute that one claim. However, it fails to answer the others logically. It’s flawed because it searches out and creates a scenario that is not necessarily probable. What I have found in my time of researching this topic is, when a good objection is raised, it sounds good until it’s further examined, just as the Proverb 18:17 (NIV) says: The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. In the same way, these objections seem compelling, but their fatal flaw is that they each require (at least) a second theory to explain the other events that back up the resurrection argument, and even then, are impossible to prove from a reliable source. Combinations of theories tend to lead to even higher improbabilities, and pose similar problems together as they do individually.

Therefore I lay down this logical, historical claim: It is most probable that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead, vindicating Himself before His enemies and proving Himself to be God, the Messiah incarnate. As God (the Son), He requires the full worship and devotion, as one would worship the Father. For one to be eternally safe and avert the just wrath for sin, one must put their trust in Jesus and turn from their sin and disbelief. One must believe Jesus is fully God in order to be saved (John 8:28; Exodus 3:14).

Now depending on how you came into this letter, you are either:
A) Already Christian and are just looking for solid confirmation, and are now further convinced of your beliefs;
B) An Atheist or Deist who wanted to investigate the claims, and are convinced, presumably ready to receive Christ;
C) An Atheist or any other kind of unbeliever who is not willing to believe due to personal biases and conflicts of worldview;
D) An Atheist or Agnostic who is genuinely not convinced and needs further explanation;
E) A Muslim, Jehovah’s Witness, Jew, Agnostic, Buddhist, or any other kind of Deist whose beliefs and/or worldviews are challenged and will need to dig deeper into the argument (which I’d encourage);
F) A Deist who acknowledges Jesus as the true way, but still has not received Him due to known demands of holiness.

Either way, I hope you will carefully consider the arguments I have gathered and take serious time to evaluate your own heart, and see what your mindset is reading this message. Are you intentionally hardening your heart so you can reject truth? Are you genuinely reading, looking for information? Are you searching the Internet for any reason not to believe? Are you reluctant to change your beliefs and worldview if it means radically changing your lifestyle? These are the questions I will leave you to answer. Like I said, the conclusion I have come to is that Jesus rose from the dead, and that He is genuinely, fully God in the flesh. I am Trinitarian. I am an Evangelical Christian. But I have not chosen a ‘religion’ based on emotion or convenience or upbringing, but on historical evidence. If you want to know the truth, I am sure God will guide you to it, for it is not relative or subject to one’s opinion. If you have any other questions or concerns, I gladly welcome them, and will answer them as best as I can. For those of you who do not believe what I have presented, I hope that at least you can see why I have come to this conclusion, and that if you do further research, I am nearly certain you would come to the same conclusion. Thank you all for your time and indulgence. God bless each of you.
-----------------

Objection Edition

A friend of mine from high school wrote a response to the paper, and brought up several key questions. Here is the excerpt of it, and my response.

“At one point you mention that whenever the Bible was translated into a different language, the ones compiling would go and copy from the oldest manuscripts they could find, rather than simply translating from an existing copy in another language. Even if this were true in every case, there is still a loss of accuracy in translation. Languages almost never match exactly, and often entire ideas remain idiomatic and make no sense when coming from one language to another…

As I mentioned a bit earlier, this usually isn't a problem, but when it comes to textured, metaphoric works such as poetry, and in the case of our discussion, the Bible, there is simply no way to convey every idea or meaning, and some will be lost completely. Maybe I can pull up some figures for you later, but I'm very skeptical about the *extremely* high level of accuracy which you cited (something like 99.6% I believe)…

Now, moving on to one of your other arguments, which is embellishments and legend not being in the New Testament because the time surrounding Jesus' life and the writings concerning it are too short - I am highly skeptical of this as well. There are countless myths, embellishments, and liberties taken when writing concerning figures who lived in the past century or century and a half or less, some who are even still alive today. Some examples could be Einstein, Hitler, Stalin, any number of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, and any number of well known, loved, or even hated figures. Even with relatives of some of these individuals alive to tell us how they really were, the majority of what is conveyed is embellished, inflated, and sometimes simply untrue. Now, if this can be done in terms of people who died so recently, and when there are people who knew them still living, why couldn't this be so in the case of Jesus? …”

You make some pretty good points. Before I go into the thorough answers to your objections, I should note there were some aspects of the paper I intentionally did not go into detail with because of readability and relevance. I wanted the paper to flow and get to some of the more "important" arguments rather than take up half the paper just setting the stage. Translation was one of those issues I didn't directly address because I didn't figure this would be a mainstream objection for the reading audience. Same thing with the legend/myth argument, though I did give consideration to including it, but it was getting late at the time, so I just wrapped up and sent it out. I hoped it wouldn't become an issue, but I see now that it did for at least one, so I'm glad you chimed in; I haven't received much feedback beyond you and two others.

Regarding the translations into other languages, you are absolutely correct that it can be difficult to translate statements into other languages, especially from some ancient ones. One advantage that Hebrew and Greek have is that they are still in use today. (Hebrew in particular is so well preserved, I hear, that an Old Testament prophet could come back to modern Israel today and be understood just as in his days.) Nevertheless, I caught where you said translation usually isn't a problem, with the exception of poetic books, like the Bible in this case. While I'll be the first to admit I don't always understand some passages of Scripture, especially with the obscure names of nations and regions which I don't know the modern equivalent of, that's not to say the passages concerning those regions are impossible to grasp. One thing I've learned about Biblical interpretation is, you must have a working knowledge of not only the language, but the culture, geography, time, and of course, context. These things are key to understanding the Bible. That said, a particular area the Bible excels in, especially in the Hebrew, is the ability of its poetry to not be restricted to rhymes, but to use symbols understood in any culture of the time. And I have found that in reading a book like Isaiah, that you can understand the majority of the context because the symbolism is clear enough to span time and culture.

Nevertheless, concerning the raw text itself, there is a site I know that has the literal text, with the literal translation immediately under it, and the English rendering (King James Version) at the side of the page. The site's primary strength is that it catches the exact denotation of a given word, which helps in direct translation, however you would need to see another source regarding its connotation. But a number of the textual nuances can be caught in the direct translation, as we have it today. Aside from that, the issue you raise is one of the reasons why Bibles normally are translated in one of two categories: word-for-word translations, and thought-for-thought translations. The King James Version, or the New American Standard Bible would fall under word-for-word translations, while New International Version or the New Living Translation would fall under the thought-for-thought translation slot. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. For instance, in the NIV, my preferred Bible, a strong statement Jesus made about His deity is softened by the NIV rendering. In John 8, Jesus says, If you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will die in your sins. The literal rendering should be, If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins. This goes back into the Greek as well as the culture. First of all, God's divine name was revealed to Moses as 'I AM', speaking of God's eternal nature. Fast-forward to Jesus' time. Now speaking Greek, there was a known phrase for claiming to be something or someone. When you say, 'I am twenty years old' or 'I am black' or 'I am Jewish', you would use the Greek word eimi. However, when using the name of God in the Greek, you would say ego eimi. Ego: I. Eimi: to be (I am). So to combine those together would be proclaiming to be THE 'I AM' they knew as God. Such a saying in the midst of fiercely monotheistic and pious Jews would get you stoned, which is exactly what happened every time Jesus used the phrase Ego Eimi. So this case highlights one of the shortcomings of the thought-for-thought translations, but the word-for-word translations make up for that.

On the flip side of that, there are areas the word-for-word is weak, which you brought up. For example, Jesus taught His disciples not to worry. The word-for-word says, 'Which of you by worrying can add a single cubit (18 inches) to his height?' However, the thought-for-thought says, 'Which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?' Logically speaking, no one actually worries about his height; what they worry about is their lifespan. The thought-for-thought translation reflects that, which is most likely based on the cubit's connotation at the time. So in reality, it's a balancing act of preserving the original text's integrity, while also conveying its original meaning. Responsible publishers let you know when there are differences in the manuscripts and texts, and when there may be alternative meanings, or alternative ways in which they could have rendered the passage. This is one of the strengths of the NIV Bible, and I think such examples actually uphold the English translations' reliability.

One other thing you brought up that I just now caught: you mentioned the poetry and symbolism of ancient languages. One would normally think allegories could obscure the meaning of the Bible's passages, but I have found in my studies that the Bible doesn't leave room for man's interpretation—it interprets itself. For instance, there are occasions in Daniel where he is shown visions of the future. Rather than closing it off there and leaving him to figure it out himself, the vision is explained to him immediately afterward and each symbol is assigned a meaning*. One reason people have trouble interpreting the Book of Revelation, for instance, is because they fail to read the rest of the Bible prior to it, and do not learn what the symbols represent, so they cannot connect the dots. There weren't many new symbols in Revelation that weren't used in prior books, and when there were, they are immediately explained.

(* "Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2nd Peter 1:20-21 NIV)

Concerning the embellishments argument you raised, it seems that this view may be viable at first glance, but under scrutiny doesn't stand. "The textual purity of the New Testament is rarely questioned in scholarship. It is well established and agreed among almost all who seriously studied the ancient texts that the text is virtually the same as what was originally written. Even critical scholars question very few words in the New Testament, and those words in question do not affect doctrinal issues. The question in scholarship is, "Did legend creep into Christian tradition before they were put into writing?" This was a quote from chapter 5 of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. The author specifically tackles this issue, and I want to forward to you what was written, though I'll paraphrase much of it.

There are several problems with the view that legend crept into Christianity before being put into writing. First is that the Resurrection story itself is traced to real experiences in the original apostles' lives. If these little details and embellishments came in over time to turn the story into a Resurrection, then it's likely the original story was that there was no resurrection at all. Basically, the fact that the resurrection was connected to real-life experiences contradicts what would be the original story that there was no resurrection. Why relate experiences connected with an event that didn't happen?

Second problem: Paul didn't become Christian because he was moved by some fable; he recounts literally having an encounter with the risen Jesus, completely disconnected from the disciples. Third: The same applies to James, who was among the first Jesus appeared to. We'll look at that one more closely later.

Fourth problem: The mere accusation that there were embellishments does not prove that there were, for this did not happen with all ancient accounts. The question then is raised whether such legend is enough to account for the reports of Jesus' resurrection.

The author goes on to paint a scenario in which it would sound reasonable that the story of Jesus' resurrection was made up so his teachings could live on forever along with his life and character. I can think of several reasons why this couldn't be the case. In my paper, if you remember, I laid out somewhat of a test to the objections that are raised against Jesus' resurrection, to be sure all factors of the argument are considered before the objection is taken seriously. Such tests include accounting for the conversion of Paul and James, enemy attestation (of the empty tomb, Jesus' teachings on His resurrection and divinity, etc.), as well as the martyrdom of the apostles. The embellishment theory seeks to undermine and circumvent the textual purity of the New Testament by changing the genre of the text from historical account to a mere work of fiction.

However this theory proves to be exceptionally weak because it's riddled with most-all of the flaws the "objection test" seeks to weed out. First of all, it does not account for the empty tomb, which is attested to by sympathizers and enemies alike (who still tried to say the disciples stole the body). Second, as mentioned earlier, Paul was an educated man, and would have been able to spot the potential mythology of the Gospel. The fact that he persecuted the Church was evidence that he viewed the Christians and their message as literal and dangerous. As for James, also a pious Jew, he continued to observe the Jewish Law closely, even after converting. He did not convert because he was moved by a story his older brother's disciples made up.

Also, in the Book of Acts, where Peter contrasts the deaths of King David and Jesus, he goes back into the Book of Psalms (16) to show that Jesus was the recipient of that promise not to be left in the grave, as opposed to David who originally wrote the Psalm. Peter said David wrote that Psalm and it now dead and buried, and decayed. His bones are still here. However Jesus (the Holy One the Psalm talked about) has been risen by God and has not seen decay. It's impossible to imagine actually reading Acts 2 and not come away with the impression that he was speaking literally. He could not have been clearer. However if Peter was talking mythologically, he could have said David died and was buried and saw decay, but his spirit rose up to be with God and in the same way Jesus died, is buried, and did see decay, but his spirit has risen to be with God, on his throne.

And again, enemy attestation shows that the early Church believed the resurrection was literal. Celsus in 170 AD responded to the claims of Jesus' resurrection by saying the disciples practiced witchcraft or some other form of deception. This implies that the claims were literal. The very fact that the disciples were persecuted shows that the story was understood to be literal. Otherwise it would just be seen as a weak attempt to come up with a Jewish fable like what is now known as the Midrash.

Concerning the possibility that the Resurrection story was borrowed from Greek myths: Remember the authors and audience: All Jews. They were fiercely monotheistic, had their own set of beliefs, and their own worldview of spiritual matters like the resurrection. They saw all other religions as pagan and had no respect for them. So why would 12 observant Jews make up a story to present to other observant Jews that borrows tactics and spiritual views from the least reliable of sources, namely pagans? And then die for it?

And even then, ALL the 'resurrection' stories that were produced from Greek mythology were in this wise: a god came down to earth, was killed or died some other way, and their spirit arose back into heaven. Even then, the details of that resurrection are vague at best. But notice how the body dies, the spirit is risen, but the body is still dead. This is what happened with those 'manifestations' of those gods. They came in flesh, died, spiritually arose, but the bodies are left, unlike with Jesus, who not only rises bodily, but presents himself before His disciples IN THAT BODY before ascending into Heaven. Big difference.

So in the end, there is no logical reason why one should believe the resurrection of Jesus is an embellishment or a legend. I think I should also elaborate on the claim I made in the paper about the embellishments taking at least a generation to take effect. When I made that statement, I did not mean that all details of the person's life would be perfect for at least a generation. Rather, what I mean is the important details of the person's life (known facts on which the person's nature and character hinged) would be preserved at least a generation. For instance, in the MLK example you gave, we know he was a civil rights activist/preacher who delivered eloquent speeches about equal rights, and was later shot and killed at a hotel. Those are staple facts of his life. Those have not changed. The intimate details of his life, like the state of his marriage, are possibly subject to embellishment, but not the core of his life. In the same way, the core facts of Jesus' life is that he was a teacher and healer who challenged the worldview of the strictly religious sect of Judaism, strongly alluded to his divinity and Messiahship, and was crucified and his disciples went on to spread his message, believing He rose from the dead. Those are the key facts. These went unchallenged until (interestingly enough) 100 years after the life of Jesus. The group known as the Gnostics challenged the view that Jesus came in a physical body as well as his deity. They specifically wanted to nullify the doctrine of His deity as well as the necessity of His crucifixion for atonement of sin. These two areas are paramount about the life of Jesus, so I find it rather suspect that they would try to propagate the exact opposite, 100 years after Jesus lived. I believe this actually helps my argument that core staples of a person's life are well-preserved for at least one generation.