Changes

{{box2 quote |text="To me the evidence is conclusive…Over conclusive... Over and over again in the high court I have secured the verdict on evidence no nearly so compelling [as the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection]." - .. Sir Edward Clarke, former Justice of the High Court of England}}

The story of [[Jesus]] is either the greatest event, or it is the cruelest hoax in history. If it is a hoax, then the whole of the [[Christian]] message crumbles together with the hopes of those multitudes of lives built on His name ([[1 Corinthians15]] 15:14-19). But if the story is true, then this world has been hit with extraordinary news of earth-shaking consequences. Have you taken the trouble to decide which it is? In a matter this weighty, it is in your interest to explore the truth or falsity of His claims. Amazingly however, many people who don’t believe haven’t ever bothered to explore the evidence in support of Jesus,1 but rather, often run away from it. At the same time, many Christians themselves are not sure, at bottom, whether the claims of Christ are solid. Is the Christian claim a hoax? Is it just wishful thinking? Or is it actually true?

The next few pages will demonstrate that the story of Jesus, and of His resurrection in particular, rests on solid historical grounds. So wherever you may be in terms of belief, unbelief, doubt, or indecision, I invite you to take a new look at this evidence.2

A very relevant detail that cannot be ignored is what Jesus says about Himself. The fact is His claims are staggering! If the [[Bible]] is correct, Jesus looms above and stands apart from every other figure in history. No one else with an ounce of sanity ever made the lofty claims He did. He accepted worship ([[Matthew]] 14:33]], [[John]] 20:28]]), and claimed the right to (as a third party) forgive the sins of other human beings; a privilege every Jew understood to be reserved only for [[God]] Almighty ([[Luke5:20]] 5:20f). And He said of Himself, "I and the Father are one" ([[Gospel of John]] 10:30); a claim that aroused certain parties to plot His death ([[John]] 5:18]]; [[John 10]]:30-33). Significantly, a wide array of [[New Testament]] writers speak of this One born in a Bethlehem stable to Joseph and Mary as no less than the Creator of the universe in His heavenly pre-existence ([[John1]] 1:1-3,14, [[Colossians1]] 1:16f16, and [[Hebrews]] 1:2f2). In summary, the claim of the New Testament is that Jesus is God, the Eternal Son, who became a human being in the fullness of time ([[Galatians4]] 4:4, [[Philippians2]] 2:5-11).

Our relativistic age is confusing the whole issue about Jesus by imagining His relevance to be merely a matter of individual taste, like one’s choice of hats! But the issue is really of an altogether different kind. Your eternal destiny and mine is at stake over what we have done with Jesus Christ ([[1 John 5]]:11,12). Either this claim of the New Testament is true or it isn’t. If it is falsehood, then let us go on to something else. But if the claim is true, shall we not come to terms with Him and believe in Him as He commands? The answer to that question rests not on what we may happen to prefer, but on whether Jesus of Nazareth stacks up as the One He claims to be. Helping you decide He indeed is the Eternal Son of God ([[John 8:58]]) is what this essay is all about. The following THREE ARGUMENTS, now to be elaborated, point to this conclusion:

Since it is from the New Testament that we gain our knowledge of Jesus, it is fitting to ask whether such literature is sound and historically accurate. Critics often describe the [[Gospels]] as pious legend, having no historical competence, and designed only for propaganda purposes. But while it is acknowledged that the Gospels are not biography in the strict sense according to 20th century definitions,8 the following facts give immense weight to the historical accuracy of the New Testament.

The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details.10

Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda ([[John 5:1f1]]), and "The Pavement" ([[John 19:13]])--their existence was doubted just a few decades ago—and the accuracy of the setting of Jacob’s Well ([[John ch. 4]]).11 Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author demonstrates an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of Jesus’ generation, just as we would expect from the Apostle John, the traditionally held author. Such detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later generation, since Jerusalem was demolished and all Jews scattered for centuries thereafter, under Titus’ Roman army in the year 70 A.D.

Also, the recent recovery of a Roman census similar to the census in [[Luke 2:1f 1]] (which had earlier been discounted on the grounds of being outrageous), and the historical confirmation of his "synchronism"12 in [[Luke 3:1f1]], underscores the care Luke took in writing His Gospel (1:1-4). Critics of his Gospel often retreat into non-verifiable and subjective opinions, but their writings have not overthrown Luke’s historical confirmations.13 By extension, the other two "Synoptic"14 Gospels of Matthew and Mark, painting essentially similar portraits of Jesus’ ministry, are also trustworthy accounts of His life.

It is popularly held that Jesus’ existence is not mentioned by any person of His times outside of the New Testament. But that is simply false. Numerous contemporaneous non-biblical and secular writers, living within 150 years of Jesus’ life, some of whom are outright hostile, mention Jesus’ existence, including Roman writers Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus, and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud.15

There are also characteristics within the texts themselves which mark the Four Gospels as sober history and neither legend nor fictional propaganda. Consider that the Gospel writers set the leading disciples in very poor light ([[Matthew 14:30]], [[Mark 9:33f33]], [[Luke 22:54f54]]). Notice as well that they included harsh words and difficult sayings by Jesus, which in fact repelled many hearers ([[Matthew 21:28f28]], [[Luke 9:23f23]], [[John 8:39f39]]). One distinction of the Four Gospels is that their famed treasure of good news lies not nakedly on the surface, but hidden behind both challenge ([[Mark 8:34f34]], [[John 12:25f25]])16 and threat ([[Matthew 25:31f31]]). Such characteristics would have been counterproductive to propagandists. Their presence in the Gospels demonstrates the willingness of the evangelists to tell the truth, however embarrassing or inconvenient.

Some express concern that the Bible has been altered down through the centuries. It is to this matter that Textual Critics address themselves. They have discovered hundreds of ancient manuscripts, one portion dating to the beginning of the 2nd Century. The New Testament has far better textual support than do the works of Plato, Aristotle, Heroditus, or Tacitus,17 whose contents no one seriously questions. In addition, the New Testament documents have always been both public, and widely disseminated. Thus it would be impossible for any party to have materially changed their documents, just as the Declaration of Independence, for example, as a public document, could not be altered without raising widespread notice and creating public furor. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Director of the British Museum, comments:

The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence [i.e. our oldest manuscripts] becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.18

IN CONCLUSION, it is not necessary that the New Testament be treated with "kid gloves" and backed up by special pleading. With the single addition of an openness to the possibility of the miraculous (see p5), simply allow it to be subject to the very same historical-critical standards that Classical historians apply to their literature. When equal treatment is permitted its course, the Gospels fully pass the test.19

The most powerful sign of all that Jesus is who He claims to be, namely the Son of God, is His resurrection from the dead ([[Acts 2]]:29-36), [[Romans 1:4]]). Here again we are faced with a question of huge implications: Did it happen? Is the Easter story the great exception to the "usual dreary end of human life?" Some consider the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be superstition. But take notice of the following partial review of the evidences supporting it as one of the sure and certain events of history.

These facts include: "(1) Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion and (2) was buried. (3) Jesus’ death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. (4) ...Many scholars hold that Jesus’ tomb was discovered to be empty just a few days later. (5) ...At this time the disciples had real experiences that they believed to be literal experiences of the risen Jesus. (6) ...The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify with Jesus, to bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection, even being willing to die for this belief. (7) [The resurrection] was central to [their message] and (8) ...proclaimed in Jerusalem [where critics could easily examine the facts surrounding the tomb]. As a result... (9) the Church was born and grew, (10) with Sunday the primary day of worship. (11) James [Jesus’ skeptical brother], and (12) Paul, the great persecutor of the faith, [were both converted by the resurrection]."21

'''ANSWER''': Negative critics charge that the Gospels have cloaked the original "primitive" Jesus (who is represented in the hypothetical Gospel of Q—see endnote 19), in layers of legend and myth.25 Yet there are at least FOUR REASONS why the mythological interpretation fails. Firstly, comparative literature demonstrates that myth requires a number of generations to develop. There are simply no parallels in other literature of myth developing and being believed in the presence of eye-witnesses and within the short time-frame in which the New Testament was formed.26 Secondly, many of these eye-witnesses to His public ministry were hostile toward the Jesus the Gospels describe (Matthew 12:22f). These opponents had both the motives and the means to correct falsehoods about Him had the first disciples attempted them.27 Yet their opportunity did not produce a serious correction. Thirdly, the Gospels are demonstrably independent from the mystery religions. Nor do they resemble either pagan myth or Jewish legend.28 Rather, the Gospels are absent of embellishment and naked in their descriptions. They betray no burning desire to persuade. They also lack theological reflection, but to the contrary, use rather "primitive" language ("the first day of the week"—Matthew —[[Matthew 28:1]], [[John 20:1]], as opposed to "on the third day"—1 —[[1 Corinthians 15:4]]). They also contain other details that are counter-productive to the invention of legendary heroes. For example, the following six factors in John chapter 20 are at odds with the tendency of legendary material: a) With great restraint, no attempt is made to describe the actual drama itself of Jesus rising from the dead. b) Mary neither recognized Jesus (the "hero") initially (v.14), c) nor even considered there was anything special about Him (v.16). d) Indeed, even by the end of the day His disciples were still in hiding "for fear of the Jews" (v.19). e) And were the Gospels the product of paternalistic (male dominant) bias, as feminists charge, it is incredible their alleged "inventors" would have chosen to create women as the first witnesses of the Risen Jesus. The testimony of women didn’t even count legally in ancient Middle Eastern cultures.29 f) Yet it was their courage going to the tomb on Easter morning that effectively put the men’s contrasting cowardice to shame. Fourthly, the Jews were the poorest candidates for inventing a mythical Christ. No other culture in history has more opposed mythically confusing deity with humanity, than they.30

'''ANSWER''': The tomb was indeed empty.32 Yet neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who had the tomb guarded ([[Matthew 27:62f62]]), would have taken the body. Rather, both had every motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the first disciples and nip their movement in the bud. And since the scene in question was right at Jerusalem, it was completely within their power to locate the corpse should it still have existed. Yet to their dismay, no such body was ever produced.

Some assert, however, that Jesus was raised only spiritually and not bodily, so that whether the body remained in the tomb is irrelevant. But Jewish anthropology rejected both the body/soul dualism and the notion of the immortality of the soul of Greco-Roman thought. Judaism could not conceive of a "spiritual" resurrection without a body. And if it indeed actually had happened that Jesus’ body remained in the grave, Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body ([[1 Corinthians 15]]) would have attempted to reconcile the apparent contradiction.33

'''ANSWER''': On one point virtually all scholars of every stripe agree: The first disciples were themselves utterly convinced they had seen the risen Christ.35 The Easter message breathes through virtually every New Testament document. So the real question is, how do we account for their obvious conviction? Were they just hallucinating? While sounding plausible, many factors contradict it.36 For one, the large number of witnesses ([[1 Corinthians 15]]:5-8), covering the spectrum of personality types ([[John 20 ]] -- Peter, Thomas, the two Marys, etc.), contradict the theory of hallucinations which, by definition, are not shared experiences. Also, the substantial, permanent, and positive change in lifestyle of many of the converted overthrows any theory of hallucination. Jewish scholar, Dr. Pinchas Lapide, has written:

One is often surprised to find how many apparent contradictions turn out to be not contradictory at all, but merely supplementary... Divergences appear very great on first sight... But the fact remains that all of the [Easter accounts], without exception, can be made to fall into a place in a single orderly and coherent narrative, without the smallest contradiction or difficulty and without any suppression, invention, or manipulation, beyond a trifling effort to imagine the natural behavior of a bunch of startled people running about in the dawnlight between Jerusalem and the garden.38

The explosive growth of the Church demands the resurrection of Jesus to account for it. It wasn’t the powerful, backed by armies, wealth, and prestige, but mere commoners,39 burdened with every cultural strike against them (1 Corinthians 1:26f), whose Easter message peacefully overcame the Roman Empire. Who could have predicted such an impossible feat? Yet the "impossible" actually did happen!40

That Christianity had its origin in Judaism41 is further evidence for His resurrection. What else could have led so many Jews who had longed for a military deliverer, instead to accept a shamefully hung "criminal" ([[Galatians 3:13]]) as their promised Messiah? And what else could have moved Jews to break their monotheistic42 monotheistic convictions to worship Jesus as God the Son (John 1:18, Acts 6:7), or change their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday (Acts 20:7)? Jewish bias against the Jesus of the New Testament was massive. A mere invented myth would have been powerless to overthrow their hopes and traditions in favor of a condemned outcast.43 Neither could metaphor have empowered Jews into their willing martyrdom.

In addition, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus points to a momentous miracle. Without question something major happened to this most influential figure of the entire 1st Century apart from Christ.44 Having begun as a violent enemy of the Church (Acts 8:3; 9:1), he was utterly turned around into becoming Jesus’ servant. Henceforth choosing suffering for Christ’s sake (2 Corinthians 11:23f), Paul gave up all he had, endured persecution, and preached "Christ crucified" in city after city all the way to Rome, where he died a martyr’s death. For reasons described in the previous paragraph, his new faith was "miles" from a natural progression out of Judaism. Nor was his conversion impelled by a sense of guilt and inadequacy. Rather, he had been a proud and satisfied Pharisaic Jew ([[Galatians 1]]:13-15, [[Philippians 3]]:4-7). Nothing short of an encounter with the risen Christ has remotely explained his major about-face.

Indeed, this essay is not about mere historical curiosity, but about an event of enormous consequences to you. For according to Romans 1:4, Jesus’ resurrection affirms the Bible’s high claims about Him (see p. 2 of this essay), and that He is the way to heaven that God has provided ([[John 14:6]], [[Acts 4:12]]). It guarantees there will be a Last Judgment ([[Acts 17:31]]), and that there is a Heaven and a Hell ([[Revelation 1:18]]). Yet this Risen Christ offers the forgiveness of sins and everlasting salvation for whoever believes in Him ([[John 11]]:25,26, [[Romans 4]]:24,25). Everyone is inescapably affected by these implications. Therefore you cannot afford to remain an agnostic regarding Jesus and His claim on you. While many today are indifferent to such matters, avoiding Him is not an honest proposition. The mounting evidence supporting His claims demands your consideration.

And consideration is demanded not only for your intellect, but for your whole being! For the One who is "Alive forevermore" ([[Revelation 1:18]]) says, "Behold I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and [fellowship with you]" ([[Revelation 3:20]]). By "door" is meant access to your heart, mind, and will. Jesus wills entry into your life that He may be your Savior and Lord. So "Today...Do not harden your heart" ([[Hebrews 4:7]]). Rather, open your heart, and let the One who died and rose for you come in!48

 ----  Go to {{returnto}} [[Historical evidence Resurrection of Jesus Christ]] contents page