The Case For The Resurrection Summary

1. Introduction:

· Christianity is based on this historical event; no other religion has historical evidence for its foundational claims. While Antony Flew was still an atheist, he admitted "the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. Its outstandingly different in quality and quantity."

· This argument is essentially Christians asking historians what historical facts can be confidently established.

· It just so happens that the best explanation for all of these facts is the resurrection.

· In this conversation, atheists are strangely willing to butcher basic history and historical methods to fight against the facts that paint a picture they don’t like. Some go so far as to say Jesus didn’t exist or was a copy of other gods which attracts laughter from most historians. These theories are as fringe as flat earth. Jesus is one of the most well evidenced and reported figures of ancient history. More historical evidence for him than Julius Caesar why doesn’t anyone say he was a myth?

· Just because an atheist might ignore all the evidence and set a standard that can’t be reached, doesn’t mean the case is refuted. They must offer a better explanation or show that this isn’t what the evidence infers.

· Aviezer Tucker "Historiography does attempt to provide a hypothetical description and analysis of some past events as the best explanation of the present evidence." If someone claims Jesus rose, they must prove that theory strongest in the face of available data. The burden is on the one making the claim as well as the one refuting it.

· A position is demonstrated when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for not accepting it.

· What would happen if you assessed all the evidence and attempted to make a decision free from bias, prejudice, emotion and speculation?

2. Facts agreed upon by vast majority of historians including critical scholars:

· Jesus was a Jewish (proclaimed) prophet of Nazareth who claimed to be the fulfillment of scripture.

· Was unjustly crucified by Romans (Pilate).

· Disciples doubted, despaired and feared for their lives.

· They had real experiences they interpreted to be the risen Jesus.

· They were transformed and now willing to die for these claims, indicating contemplation and introspection for such serious consequences.

· Claims were made early on and close to events.

· This message was the center of their preaching. Kills legend development.

· First proclaimed in Jerusalem where he was killed.

· James, Jesus’ skeptical brother was converted as well as Paul, a leader in the persecution of Christians.

· Day of worship moved to Sunday, when he supposedly rose.

3. The Empty Tomb

· A Roman guard of disciplined men were stationed to watch and protect the entrance, fear of punishment “produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches.”

· Yet they fled.

· Gary Habermas surveyed 30 years of German, French and English critical scholarship relating to Jesus’ resurrection, 75% of scholars accept empty tomb as historical fact. Most common is that they agree disciples saw what they interpreted to be the risen Jesus. And Paul and James. Seldom are these challenged by critical scholars.

Reasons it was empty:

• Multiple attestation-all gospels. Scholars have found there are independent sources in all 4 on the empty tomb. As well as the book of acts.

• Early attestation- Mark’s source material goes back within 7 years of the events of the resurrection. As well as 1 Cor 15 creed within 5 years. No signs of legendary development.

• Eyewitness accounts: Peter and John

• Enemy attestation: The Jewish leaders spread the rumor that the disciples stole the body, if the tomb wasn’t empty, this wouldn’t be necessary. They’d just PROVIDE the body for everyone to see and silence them! Justin Martyr is an ancient Christian debating Trypho where he points out that the Jews are currently maintaining the myth that the body was stolen. Tertullian as well.

• Criteria of Embarrassment-Joseph of Arimathea is historical. It would be shameful that they let a rich stranger from the Sanhedrin (a corrupt and unjust court-especially in the case of Jesus’ death) take away his body.

• Further and far more significant embarrassment is the testimony of women. They could have reused Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus or male disciples. Using women could only hurt their credibility in that culture, so the only reason they would was if it was TRUE!

• Even calling the women’s report “idle tales” is again more embarrassment, they clearly didn’t understand despite Jesus’ predictions. They were mocked for using women. You can see God’s nature in that he uses women (viewed as lesser) to substantiate the fundamental claims underpinning Christianity.

• There are NO competing theories or traditions. No opposition to the empty tomb.

• Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem so this would be the worst place to create a myth about Jerusalem. You wouldn’t create a fable right in the place where it can be verified. This is where it was all FIRST proclaimed. Would have been impossible for Christianity to start if he was still in his tomb. There were further debates throughout the following years. The tomb would have come up if it were still occupied.

• Former oxford church historian William wand “all the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

4. Non-biblical Sources

· When examining the early sources, pay attention to all the things they provide that they don’t need the gospel for. Since they’re writing on the subjects of the gospels why not point out any flaws or issues if there is any? Why only confirm their historicity?

· From Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37AD-100AD) we learn the time in which Jesus lived, that he had a brother James, he was wise and moral, had many followers made up of Jews and non-Jews, Roman governor Pontius Pilate condemned him to death, his followers reported seeing him after his burial, and they continued to teach others about him.

· The first pagan to refer to Jesus was Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus (55-120AD). In the Annals, we see how unfriendly he is to Christians yet we learn from him that Christians are named after their leader Christ, put to death by Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius, Jesus’ death only suppressed the movement for a short time then it exploded, that it was popular in Judea where it started and spread to Rome, that followers were persecuted.

· Pliny the Younger (61AD-113AD) tells us Christians met at least once a week, sang hymns to Christ ‘as a God’, pledged themselves not to do wicked, lived exemplary moral lives, said he killed them when they persisted in their commitment to Christ.

· Suetonius 69-140AD

· Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata 115-200AD-gives a nice mocking description of what Christians do and believe.

· Celsus

· Thallus

· Phlegon

· The Jewish Talmud is a hostile, anti-Christian source and even it reports the empty tomb by claiming the disciples ‘stole’ it. Claims that Jesus led Israel astray with magic, admits he had a following and did miracles.

· Mara Bar Serapion-70AD “Or the Jews by murdering their wise king...after that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men...the wise king...lived on in the teachings he enacted.”

5. Biblical Sources:

· The New Testament, primarily the 4 gospels, Acts, and epistles (letters).

· It would be circular reasoning to reject the NT documents because the authors are Christian. The only reason they are Christian is because of what they saw…would you like the resurrection to be confirmed by an unbiased source like a Jew or pagan? If they didn’t immediately become Christians because of what they saw then you wouldn’t trust they even saw something!

· Clement of Rome

· Sermons in Acts do not show theological evolution, meaning they reflect early tradition. John Drane describes the Acts data as the earliest reports and states they almost undeniably go back to the resurrection itself.

· Luke 1:1-4

· People say Mark never mentions the resurrection and verses after verse 8 were added in. What is the point? It doesn’t use the word resurrection anywhere but it clearly describes the tomb being empty and being told by an angel! That’s in the non-added verses! Mark’s source material goes back within 7 years of events.

6. Enemy Conversions:

· Paul’s conversion is multiply attested by Paul in his letters, Luke in Acts and stories that were circulating among Christians in Galatia.

· He was still an enemy of the Church when Christ appeared to him. He became a Christian AFTER this.

· Paul’s persecution documented by himself, Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen.

· He died as a martyr.

· Historian Philip Schaff states “the conversion of Paul marks not only a turning point in his personal history, but also an important epoch in the history of the apostolic church, and consequently in the history of mankind. It was the most fruitful event since the miracle of Pentecost, and secured the universal victory of Christianity.”

· James the brother of Jesus was an unbeliever during Jesus’ ministry.

· James claims to have been visited by risen Christ.

· The early creedal statement in 1 Cor 15 includes appearances to James.

· James is soon labelled a leader of the church in Acts.

· He died as a martyr.

7. Consider the religiously charged context:

· Jews were waiting for a messiah at that period because of a prophecy in Daniel with a narrow time frame.

· Jesus made a plethora of claims about his divinity and equality with God.

· He made predictions about his own death and resurrection.

· He fulfilled the OT in its laws, stories, prophecies, foreshadows, when Jesus says the scriptures testify of him, he’s not joking. The OT has so many questions left hanging only for Jesus and the NT to come along and answer.

· And just as the OT predicted, this judicial death will/did cause the entire world to worship the one true God of Israel. Weird prediction for a group (Jews) that aren’t even into evangelism.

· Also the prediction that Jews would reject while gentiles embrace.

· This man claiming to be God also happen to bring teachings and wisdom that revolutionized the world and advanced its moral and technological progress.

· His life created a context where a resurrection would not be out of place or a surprise. This is somewhat of a response to people who say “people don’t just rise from the dead” yeah no duh that’s why this is important. That’s why God decided this would be the sign. A miracle isn’t a miracle if it’s something that happens all the time

· The OT was written in such a way where you couldn’t possibly guess what it was hinting at without hindsight. Like not realizing Bruce Willis was dead until you get to the end. Then when you watch it again it all makes sense.

8. Why 2000 years ago?

· Firstly, why not? It clearly worked! God’s goal was to use people to spread his message of salvation to the world. Check! Think of all the other countless beliefs that never made it past their hometown let alone country!

· Most of the human population came AFTER Jesus.

· Came at a time when road systems were developed.

· Roman soldiers would be around Palestine and could take the message and teachings back with them to their own regions.

· When things could be written down in increasingly large volumes. The codex was getting popularized.

· People say “but if he came now we could record it.” No, because people who don’t want to believe-like people saying this-can simply say “but videos can be edited!”

· Plus, what capital punishment do we have today that is as brutal as a roman crucifixion where they are whipped, beaten, legs broken or stabbed. If Jesus came back from an electric chair or lethal injection no one would bat an eye! It would just be dismissed like all the evidence that is already available.

· Would you really trust the news to tell you Jesus rose?

· This is the thing with asking “Why doesn’t God…” questions, it just takes a tiny bit of humility and creativity to debunk them.

· In 30 years (half a lifetime) Christianity powerfully sprang up in roman empire. To the point where Nero was blaming Christians for the fire because he saw them as a threat. Islam conquered and intimidated to be successful but the success of Christianity lies in its followers being conquered and intimidated, it started off with one man being killed. Then his followers, then theirs, until we get to the masses under Nero. The success of Islam isn’t surprising but Christianity’s surge? That’s astounding.

6 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

· Almost all scholars and textual critics date this creed to be within about 5 years of the crucifixion.

· How could he lie and not get caught out when he says Jesus appeared to over 500 people and lists many witnesses, his statements were replicated and made viral, we know this due to the hundreds if not thousands of manuscripts of 1 Corinthians. No document or manuscript has ever been found that claims Paul was lying.

· And it wouldn’t have been hard to verify, it was all occurring and being spread in the same place. Most were still alive and able to be questioned.

· The movement started in Jerusalem, the place where it claims to have happened, it wouldn’t work unless many thought it was true. It would have been better to claim the miracle happened far away where it couldn’t be challenged.

· Apostle Paul saying it is no good to lie for the sake of God.

· The terms ‘delivered’ and ‘received’ indicate oral tradition.

· Parallelism and stylized content.

· Proper names for Cephas and James.

· Non-Pauline words, possibility of it originally being transmitted in Aramaic.

· 3-fold use of ‘and that’ and 2 references to scripture being fulfilled.

· Hans van Campenhausen “this account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text.”

· Written down in mid 50’s

· Creeds were a popular format friendly to memorization.

· Critical scholars hold that Paul received it from Peter and James while visiting them 3 years after his conversion. If so, Paul learned it within 5 years of the crucifixion. Dean Rogers “this is the sort of data that historians of antiquity drool over”.

7 Experts:

· Skeptical historian E.P Sanders "It is an equally secure fact that Jesus' disciples saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death."

· 2 Oxford professors-Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton-set out to destroy the Christian faith, one would prove that Paul never converted to Christianity and the other would demonstrate the fallacy of the resurrection. Both came to the opposite conclusion and became Christians. Lyttleton “the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation.” Concluding that if Paul’s 25 years of suffering and service to Christ was reality, then his conversion was true.

8 Eyewitness Testimony:

· Eyewitness testimony is unreliable when: 1. The event happens quickly/short duration. 2. When there is an expectation (they know what they want to find). 3. When there is unfamiliarity with people close by. 4. When there is a weapon present. 5. When there is something to gain. 6. When a large amount of time has passed between event and thinking/talking about it. None of these factors are at play.

· Followers of Jesus report that he appeared to them over 40 days and showed them ‘many convincing proofs.’

· Individually he appeared to Mary Magdalene, Peter, James and Paul.

· But also appeared to a group of women, two travelers, 10 men in upper room, group of 11, and one occasion to 500 people.

· The gospels and eyewitnesses are the first ones to offer naturalistic explanations because they embarrassingly didn’t understand the scriptures or their rabbi’s teachings. When they did see, they thought it was a ghost. Also thought it was someone else. They thought the body had been moved.

· No fact is more universal than that the disciples saw something that they interpreted to be the risen Jesus. Why should we believe that? Well to start with because they claimed it. We have 9 independent sources. That fall into 3 categories. Testimony of Paul, oral tradition that passed through early church and the written works of the early church.

· Why should extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? If you’re deceased mum walked into your bedroom and turned the light on and had a long chat with you, how on earth can you prove this to someone the next day? All you’ve got is eyewitness testimony…does that mean because that’s the only evidence you have, the event didn’t occur? Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence.

· Can tell its eyewitness due to many small irrelevant details in different areas.

· J Warner Wallace.

· There are no contradictions! Yes, there are minor variations which is exactly what you’d want to see in multiple reliable accounts! All 4 gospels complement each other with differing perspectives, sometimes these are what’s known as undesigned coincidences but these features come in different forms.

· If all these accounts were identical then you’d start to suspect that they’d got together and colluded and got their stories straight. Lawyers call the process of drawing different accounts together ‘harmonization’. Variations in the description of Barabbas the criminal and the sign on Jesus’ cross.

· Paul is an independent source to the gospel authors while also claiming to have met the disciples, Luke, John, James, Peter

·

9. Who Would Die for a Lie?

· The disciples’ character transformation alone acts as a solid testimony and brings validity to Jesus’ claims. Not only in that they were fearful and faithless much of Jesus’ ministry (Peter denying Jesus and all of them deserting him) but also the fact they were depressed and discouraged after his death, terrified and in hiding. Something changed them from cowering deserters to confident martyrs.

· The disciples’ willingness to bet their lives on THEIR OWN CLAIMS and what they believe they saw is a great reason to trust their word. As with anything historical, we must rely heavily on testimony and what could make one more trustworthy than a willingness to suffer torture and die for it.

· No, terrorists don’t count as a rebuttal because they are believing what they are told. Yet the first martyrs of Christianity had to have known whether it was true or not-they were making the claims!

· Michael Green of St. John’s College notes that the resurrection “was the belief that turned heartbroken followers of a crucified rabbi into the courageous witnesses and martyrs of the early church. You could imprison them, flog them, kill them, but you could not make them deny their conviction that ‘on the third day he rose.”

· James and Paul the enemies also the martyrs.

From the Bible, Josephus and church fathers, we know:

· Matthew was killed by the sword for preaching in Ethiopia

· Mark killed and dragged through Alexandria

· Luke hung in Greece

· James beheaded in Jerusalem

· James was thrown from temple wall and then stoned

· Philip hung in Phrygia

· Bartholomew flayed alive.

· Andrew bound to cross with ropes and died of exposure

· Jude shot with arrows

· Thomas run through with lance in east India, memorial to him there today.

· Matthias was stoned and beheaded

· Barnabas stoned In Thessalonica

· Paul beheaded in Rome

· Peter crucified

Deceived?

· There’s no good argument that supports them being deceived somehow.

· Even when he did appear to them, they completely doubted him at first until he offered convincing proofs and evidences. Mark 14:50 and Acts 1:3. Thomas ignored the other disciple’s testimony and had to see for himself.

· The phrase doubting Thomas comes from him saying he won’t believe Jesus unless he can touch his wounds. The fact is they all doubted at first, but Thomas wasn’t around the first time when the other disciples demanded proof. You can’t say they were dumb and gullible because they didn’t believe at first and doubted just like we would.

· Because nothing supports them being deceived, one would have to argue they died for what they knew was a lie, not exactly the most probable theory especially with no evidence to think that.

Deceivers?

· The idea they did all this for a lie doesn’t line up with the moral quality of their lives. They condemned lying and stressed honesty. You can simply accuse them of hypocrisy problem solved, but ultimately despite whatever evidence there is and in your case isn’t, you can always throw out some theory that unsatisfactorily explains the available evidence while simultaneously exposing your inherent bias.

· On top of being hypocrites, they must have chosen to arbitrarily be beaten, tortured and killed. Pascal, the French philosopher, writes “let us picture those 12 men meeting after the death of Jesus Christ, and entering into conspiracy to say that He has risen. That would have constituted an attack upon both the civil and the religious authorities. The heart of man is strangely given to fickleness and change; it is swayed by promises, tempted by material things…”

· To attribute their new found boldness to a lie they just made up would be ridiculous.

· Keeping in mind as always that if they were lying, the Jews would have had great pleasure in providing the body, and proving them wrong and squashing Christianity for good.

· Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf lectured for years on how to break down a witness and determine their credibility. “the annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted.”

10 Alternative Theories:

· You have to remember whatever naturalistic theory put forward still has to deal with the religiously charged context and the ridiculous probability of it occurring after the thousands of years old prophecies of a messiah in that time period doing those things and causing all those after effects like reaching the ends of the earth and transforming the world through the hearts of men.

· All these theories are naturalistic miracles. A miracle is preferable to a series of ad hoc, convoluted, unprecedented, forced explanations that only have the goal of avoiding God.

· To account for all the data, one must invoke multiple improbable theories, which don’t actually make a better explanation but simply compounds the problem and improbability, meaning a miracle is just logically the better option.

· Isn’t it obvious to see that God has left us good evidence to examine 2000 years later to still deliberate on and make a free, well-reasoned choice?

· Some adopt David Hume’s view and define miracles out of existence saying that any physical explanation however improbable, is more likely than a miracle. This is silly and Hume was torn apart by philosophers for this reasoning but atheists still copy his fallacious thinking.

· In the 19th century the same scholars who created all these naturalistic theories, are the same who debunked them.

· Philosopher Richard Swinburn notes 3 ways to recognize a miracle, it has never happened before or happened since, definitely can’t be accounted for by current laws of nature, no foreseeable revision of our statement of the law of nature could describe it in natural terms.

· Sceptics will reason in a circle. Doesn’t matter what evidence you show because they will never give up their presupposition that miracles don’t occur. But how do they know they don’t occur? Who told them? How are they so smart and all-knowing? Shouldn’t evidence have the potential to change their mind?

· Nothing ruins an interesting argument like the facts.

· Disciples Stole Body: Doesn’t explain lack of protection from guard unit, or the transformation of disciples. J.N.D. Anderson was the dean of faculty of law at University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental Law, and director of advanced legal studies and in regards to the theory she says “this would run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality of their lives, their steadfastness in suffering and persecution. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle.” And how on earth are the disciples going to move the stone in front of the tomb? Let alone without waking the guard. If they stole the body, why were they never charged?

· Swoon and Revival: Maybe he just fainted from blood loss and exhaustion. He was later resuscitated or recovered alone in the tomb. This theory took a huge knock by another sceptic, David Friedrich. “it is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry.” Doesn’t explain the fact that Roman crucifixion was perfected and he was pierced with a spear as a safeguard, interestingly, medical professionals can confirm the gospels account that blood and water flowed from the piercing. Doesn’t explain the reports of appearances and his ascension or the tomb being rolled away, or his disciples renewed attitudes. German atheist NT Scholar Gerd Ludemann “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”

· Wrong Tomb theory. Not very strong, the Roman authorities certainly would have known which one he was in since they were watching it. Even if he was in another tomb, it wouldn’t have taken long to find the right one. The resurrection idea couldn’t have been maintained for more than a day if the emptiness of the tomb wasn’t a reality. The empty tomb became too notorious to be denied. Paul L. Maier “no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove [the empty tomb].” But as with all these theories, revert back to the established facts of the matter, you’ll see that this theory doesn’t explain all the supposed appearances.

· Grave robbers? If grave robbers somehow got in, why would they steal the body after finding no treasure? And why would they leave the only thing of value in the tomb…expensive ointments and perfumes used in embalming.

· Hallucination theory is unsupported by psychological principles of hallucinations. They are private/individual experiences. You don’t share it with another person, that’s how you recognize it isn’t a hallucination. How silly would it be to draw all of these up to hallucinations? Especially since group hallucinations are so rare that we don’t even have a recorded instance. Because of this, there’s little scientific literature on it. In fact there’s no scientific evidence proving they can happen at all. They would, if anything, most likely manifest in one sensory mode-not multiple! The resurrection was multisensory making the theory exceptionally improbable. Certain personality types are more prone to hallucinations but he appeared to all sorts of people, and all sorts of places, and times. They usually increase in intensity but they all reports suddenly stopped after 40 days.

· Fish Tale theory? Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is confidently dated to about 5 years after the crucifixion,

· Twin theory: makes no sense because he showed them the scars and wounds. Also, his hostile brother was converted, BROTHER.

11. Scholars:

· Karl Barth

· Raymond Brown

· Rudolph Bultmann

· Carl Braaten

· Hans von Campenhausen

· C.H Dodd

· John Drane

· Bart Erhman

· Reginald Fuller

· William Farmer

· Michael Grant

· Gary Habermas

· Gerd Ludemann

· Joachim Jeremias

· Pinchas Lapide

· Mike Licona

· Sean McDowell

· Josh McDowell

· JP Moreland

· Wolfhart Pannenberg

· Norman Parrin

· A.M Ramsay “I believe in the resurrection, partly because a series of facts are unaccountable without it.”

· Dean Rogers

· Kel Richards

· Richard Swinburne

· E.P Sanders

· Ulrich Wilckens

· J Warner Wallace

· Sherwin White

· William Wand

Sources:

· YouTube: The Fuel Project, Mike Winger, InspiringPhilosophy

·