Summary

1. Jesus lived. 2. Jesus died on a Roman cross. 3. Jesus was buried in a tomb. 4. The disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them after the resurrection. 5. The antagonist Paul believed that the resurrected Jesus appeared to him and as a result, his life was radically changed. 6. The skeptical brother of Jesus, James, believed that he saw the resurrected Jesus and his life was radically changed. 7. The tomb of Jesus was empty. 8. The believers in Jesus grew in number in spite of intense persecution and the eyewitnesses of the resurrection died as martyrs for what they believed regarding Jesus’ resurrection. These eight facts have a wide basis of acceptance among New Testament scholars and historians, (including those very skeptical and liberal in their philosophies) and they lead us to a conclusion. Are the claims of the New Testament true? Did Jesus Christ literally rise from the dead? The clear and absolute affirmation of the New Testament is, Yes. Jesus bodily rose again from the dead. On this factual foundation, the verdict of the New Testament rests.However, if the narratives of the Gospel are not true, then what are the options regarding what really did occur? Is there a more viable possibility that better explains the resurrection claims and if so, what is it?

Alternative Theories and Common Objections regarding the Resurrection of Christ

There are (3) common objections to the resurrection of Jesus and (5) main alternate theories as to what actually happened on Easter Sunday.

Three Main Objections

1. The New Testament cannot be trusted to give us accurate information concerning Jesus Christ. It was written down long after the actual events and has developed legendary material regarding Jesus . The miracles, the claims of Christ and His resurrection are mythological in nature. 2 There are so many contradictions in the Gospel account of Jesus’ resurrection that this information cannot be trusted. 3 All of this information in the Gospel is old, ancient history. We cannot make major decisions of life and death based on old events of history that might or might not have taken place.

Alternate Theories

1. The disciples or someone else stole the body of Jesus and His disciples falsely claimed that He had risen from the dead. 2. Jesus did not die on the cross. He recovered in the tomb and then showed Himself to be alive and the disciples claimed that He rose from the dead. 3. The disciples and women went to the wrong tomb and then the disciples proclaimed the false story that Jesus had risen from the dead. 4. The disciples hallucinated and saw the “risen Jesus”. 5. The resurrection of Jesus is a mystery and an unexplainable event. It might have been a supernatural, misunderstood vision, or a natural occurrence that we do not understand.

 

Three Main Objections

 

Objection #1: The New Testament cannot be trusted. It is mythological information.

This is an objection regarding the New Testament (and the Bible as a whole), that is frequently employed by various critics of the Christian Faith. To properly answer this objection, there are three areas of evidence that need to be examined.First, can we trust that the New Testament documents are narratives written by the authors who claimed to be providing eyewitness information regarding Jesus Christ? If this is not the case, who did write them? Second, has the transmission and copying process that has taken place over these past hundreds of years been reliable? When we read these documents today, do they accurately record the actual narratives of the original writings or have they been corrupted over time? Third, did these authors attempt to actually record history correctly, or did they only want to convey their religious agenda? If we are able to demonstrate that the New Testament documents measure up properly in all three of these areas of evidence, then the accusation that they are mythological in nature cannot be true. Myths and legends are always developed by individuals removed from the actual events by at least one generation (70 years). Myths do not record history and it is obvious especially, to the trained mind, the difference between myth and historical narrative. If legendary material was injected into the literature over a period of time through the copying and transmission process, is there evidence to support such a claim? It is not the goal of this presentation to completely examine this material within the limitations of this writing, however, the books and authors listed at the end of this presentation cover this material thoroughly and in very complete detail. (Also see the article “Are the New Testament Gospel Documents Reliable?”) 19 (See note #19 for information on the quotes from the early church fathers).

 

Who wrote the Gospel accounts and when did they write them?

1. First, did Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, write the Gospel of Matthew, did Mark write the Gospel of Mark, did Luke write the Gospel of Luke, did John, the disciple of Jesus, write the Gospel of John ? When we examine this, it is not enough to make a claim, we must have factual evidence to back up the claim.Eusebius, the 3rd century church historian has preserved some of the writings of Papias, the bishop of Heirapolis, who died in A.D. 120-130 and was a student of the “elder”, the apostle John. Papias stated:“The Elder used to say this also: Mark having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake writing down in this way some of the things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them.” – Eusebius, Church History, III. 39 19This information, from an individual who accompanied the apostle John, gives solid historical evidence that Mark (from the apostle Peter as the source) wrote the Gospel of Mark.Irenaeus, (A.D. 125-202) the Bishop of Lyons, was a student of Polycarp, (who like Papias was a student of the apostle John). Irenaeus wrote:“Mathew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure (death), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching . Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast (John 13:25; 21:20) himself produced his Gospel while he was living in Ephesus.” – Ireaeus, Against Heresies.

Again, information from Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp, who in turn was a student of the apostle John, affirms that all four Gospels were written by the individuals so named as the writers of the Gospels. This is information from the apostle John, to Polycarp to Irenaeus. F.F. Bruce, the professor of biblical criticism at the university of Manchester stated – “About A.D. 115, Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch refers to ‘The Gospel’ as an authoritative writing and as he knew more than one of the four Gospels it may well be that by ‘The Gospel’ sans phrase he means the fourfold collection which went by that name.” 20The Muratorian Fragment (A.D. 170), the earliest known list of the books of the New Testament includes only the four Gospels (and Acts as the companion book to the Gospel of Luke) as the accepted, reliable Gospel accounts of the New Testament.The Diatessaron (A.D.160-175) was an early harmony of the Gospel written by the Christian apologist and writer Tatian. The only sources for this harmony were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.If someone wants to claim that someone else other than Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote these Gospels, then they need to provide the evidence for this claim. Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus and other second century sources provide us with the evidence that these writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were the composers of the Gospel records.

When did the writers of the Gospel and New Testament books write their narratives?

If these named authors did indeed write the Gospel accounts, when did they write them? Is it possible that they wrote the Gospel narratives hundreds of years after Christ? Is there time enough between the date that they wrote these narratives and the life of Jesus so that they would be able to develop legends regarding Him?In order for a legend to be developed, there must be a sufficient gap in time between when the author is recording the narrative and the occurrence of the alleged events that he is describing. The corrective influences of the eyewitnesses and the common knowledge of the people living close to the time of the actual events acts as a defense against such false information. It is safe to say that all of the books of the New Testament were written before A.D. 100 with all four of the Gospels written before A.D. 70-90. This puts the date of the composition of the Gospel records to be within 40-60 years of the death and resurrection of Christ (A.D. 30-33). How do we know this?There are three early church fathers who we know wrote letters in which they quoted passages from books of the New Testament. These men are Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp and we know that they wrote their letters between A.D. 95-110. In order for them to quote from these New Testament books, the books would have to be in existence. Clement of Rome quoted passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke and I Corinthians all of which are key books dealing with the resurrection accounts. (He quoted from 11 N.T. books in total). Ignatius quoted passages from Matthew , Mark , Luke, John, Acts and I Corinthians. ( He quoted from 24 N.T. books in total). Polycarp quoted passages from Matthew, Mark. Luke, John, Acts and I Corinthians. (He quoted from 18 N.T. books in total). The fact that these books were quoted by known individuals within a definite time period (A.D. 95-110) points to the fact that these New Testament books were already in existence at that time.

The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was the center piece of the Jewish Faith in the first century. However, the temple was destroyed by the Roman Emperor Titus in A.D. 70 along with the siege of the city of Jerusalem and the killing of thousands of Jews. The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) all record Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple but they do not mention or allude to the fact of this taking place. They cover so many things in detail regarding the temple and the Jewish Faith, why not mention this obvious and very important fact? The reason they do not mention it is because it had not taken place yet. This places the composition of these Gospels accounts before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.Another area of support that indicates the early authorship of the Gospels is found in the book of Acts. The author of the book of Acts (Luke) demonstrates with exacting detail numerous events, buildings, geography, cities, cultural expressions… He mentions the martyrdom of Stephen and the apostle James and records many of Peter’s sermon and activities . He also covers in detail Paul’s conversion, imprisonments, journeys, perils…. And yet at the end of the book of Acts , he does not mention either Peter’s or Paul’s deaths. Solid church history confirms that Peter and Paul both suffered deaths as martyrs in Rome between A.D. 66-67. Why would Luke cover so many seemingly less important matters but not provide the reader with the deaths of two key figures in the book of Acts? We also know from the Jewish historian Josephus that James, the half brother of Jesus, who was the key leader and pastor of the church in Jerusalem, was killed as a martyr in A.D. 62 and yet again, his death is not mentioned in the book of Acts. Why? Because the book of Acts was written before these events occurred.Based on this understanding, the date of it’s authorship is prior to A.D. 62.The book of Acts was a companion book to the Gospel of Luke. Acts was written by Luke some time after he wrote the Gospel of Luke. (See Luke 1:1-3; Acts 1:1-3). This puts the authorship of the Gospel of Luke before A.D. 62. Almost all New Testament scholars believe that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written before the Gospel of Luke based on numerous lines of evidence. This then puts the date of these two Gospel accounts before A.D. 62.There is further evidence for the early authorship of the Gospels that can be examined by reading the material in the books listed at the end of this presentation. This information is mentioned here only as foundational evidence for the early composition of the Gospel records.So if we have the synoptic Gospels written by A.D. 62 and the crucifixion and resurrection events taking place in A.D. 33, we have a time gap between the eyewitness authorship of the Gospel narratives and the historical events that they describe to be a period of less than 30 years. By all the known standards dealing with the development of legendary narrative, there is not enough time for legends and myths regarding Christ to have developed. It takes at least 70 years for legendary material to be created under all of the right circumstances. The New Testament documents do not have any of the characteristics required to be considered legendary.

2. Second, was the copying process for these documents reliable and trustworthy? Do we have accurate copies (manuscripts)?All ancient literature is reconstructed from its original form by comparing the manuscripts that survive. The material that the original documents (the autographs) were written on is perishable and will not survive for any significant length of time. There are no original manuscripts that have survived from any ancient documents and the books of the New Testament are no exception. When we compare the New Testament documents with other ancient pieces of literature, how do they measure up?The New Testament has far more manuscript attestation (more copies) than any other document of the ancient world. As of today there are 5,700 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and there are over 19,000 manuscripts in other languages (Coptic, Latin, Arabic…). The next closest documents in contrast to the New Testament’s textual attestation are Homer’s “Iliad” with 2,000+ manuscripts and Demosthenes, the prominent Greek orator with 200 manuscripts. Plato – 7 manuscripts, Tacitus – 20 manuscripts, Caesar – 10 manuscripts, and Pliny – 7 manuscripts. Most other writings have less than a dozen manuscripts from which to reconstruct the originals.The next area of evidence that is considered is the amount of time between the original date of the composition of the autographs and the date of the composition of the copies. Again, how does the New Testament measure up?The time gap between the writing of the Gospel of John and the earliest fragment that we have of this document is about 25 years or less. The closest gap in time between the original of an ancient non-biblical writing and its earliest copy or fragment is the “Iliad” by Homer at approximately 500 years. The earliest copies of partial books of the New Testament (A.D.200) and the completion date of the New Testament (A.D.50-100) provides a gap of 100 years. The earliest complete copies of the books of the New Testament (A.D. 325) provides a gap of 225 years and these manuscripts have punctuation, spelling characteristics, and notations that can be derived back to manuscripts dated A.D. 100-150. When compared with all other ancient documents, the New Testament has by far the closest time gap between the original and its earliest copies.The last area of evidence is textual information from sources outside of the documents themselves that come from the same approximate time period and can be cross referenced with the text in question to help authenticate the reliability of the text for reconstruction purposes. Again, how does the New Testament measure up with other ancient documents?The New Testament books have numerous passages that are quoted by second and early third century church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus and others for a total of 36,289 times so that all but eleven verses of the books of the New Testament could be reconstructed from these quotations. When we look at other writings of ancient literature, the independent external attestation of these texts cannot be substantiated.Sir Fredric Kenyon, an authority on ancient manuscripts has sated – “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or the other of these ancient authorities.This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.” 21Bruce Metzger, the great Biblical textual critic stated: “The works of several ancient authors are preserved for us by the thinnest possible thread of transmission. For example, the compendious history of Rome by Velleius Paterculus survived to modern times in only one incomplete manuscript, from which the edition princeps was made – and this lone manuscript was lost in the seventeenth century after being copied by Beatus Rhenanus at Amerbach. Even the Annals of the famous historian Tacitus is extant, so far as the first six books are concerned, in but a single manuscript, dating from the ninth century. In 1870 the only known manuscript of the epistle to Diognetus, an early Christian composition which editors usually include in the corpus of Apostolic Fathers, perished in a fire at the municipal library in Strasbourg. In contrast with these figures, the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.” 22F.F. Bruce said – “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the new Testament.” 23It is from this wealth of textual information that the text of the New Testament is reconstructed to accurately reflect what the original autographs stated. There is no ancient document that comes even close to the amount of material to resource from like the New Testament. If the New Testament is unreliable in regards to its text, then the ability to reconstruct any ancient text is hopeless. This is the level of skepticism that one would have to go to in order to deny the textual reliability of the New Testament.

3. Third, did these writers make up their Gospel accounts to fit their agenda and to create a “legendary Jesus” in order to meet their own religious needs? To answer this question we need to look at what the documents actually say and come to a conclusion on the merits of the narratives themselves, not on a “subjective theory”. What do we find when we examine the New Testament Gospel records? We know that the authorship of the four Gospels was within 30 – 60 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the close proximity of time to the actual events and the presence of eyewitnesses would seem to be a deterrent to the creation of a “legendary Jesus” . However, for the sake of the objection, would it still seem plausible that these writers would attempt to create legendary material regarding Jesus Christ?

The apostles and writers of the Gospel accounts claim to be providing eyewitness testimony.

As stated earlier, the writers of the Gospel accounts claimed to be eyewitnesses of the message that they preached. We know from early church fathers that Matthew was the author of the Gospel of Matthew and that he was a one the original twelve disciples of Christ. This certainly placed him in a position of seeing and knowing the facts he reported regarding Jesus. The same early church fathers also provide us information on the Gospel of Mark. They tell us that Mark reported the things regarding the life and ministry of Jesus from Peter, another of the twelve disciples of Jesus. Peter’s own profession was that “we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord. We saw His majestic splendor with our own eyes.” – II Peter 1:16 NLT. Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke, by his own affirmation in Luke 1:1-4, sought out eyewitness reports for his narratives: “Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They have used eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so that you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught”. – Luke 1:1-4 NLT. The author of the Gospel of John, which was John himself, also one of the twelve disciples of Christ stated – “This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account”. – John 19:35 NLT. The early church fathers mentioned above also confirm the authorship of the Gospel of John to be the apostle John. The book of Acts records the early proclaiming of the Gospel and in each instance, the apostles point out that they are providing eyewitness testimony – Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:18-20; 5:30-32; 10:39,40.This is the reoccurring theme of their preaching – “we are eyewitnesses of these things”.

 

They provided accurate historical information

The Gospel writers provide numerous details in their accounts of people, places, dates, cultural and geographical settings which have been confirmed by non-Christian historical sources and archaeological discoveries. Luke, more than any of the other Gospel writers, lists numerous details in his writings (Gospel of Luke and book of Acts) that provide the historian and archaeologist with first century information from which to investigate. Sir William Ramsey (1851-1939) was the professor of classical archaeology and art at Oxford and the professor of humanity at Aberdeen University. He is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists to have ever lived. He started his career completely skeptical regarding the New Testament documents and did not believe that they were documents of the first century and probably had very little value on first century history. However, after more than 30 years of study, his conclusion on the historical value of Luke’s writings certainly changed. He stated – “Luke is an historian of the first rank; not only are his statements of fact trustworthy….. this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians”. 24 He further states – “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness”. 25F.F.Bruce, in his book -The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, goes into great detail examining Luke’s use of cultural terms, statements of fact, geography… He states: “Three sections of the Acts are commonly known as ‘we-sections’, because in them the writer suddenly passes from a narrative in the third person to one in the first person plural, thus unobtrusively but adequately indicating that at certain periods he himself was present at the events described . Of these ‘we sections’ perhaps the most interesting is the last, which contains the great story of Paul’s voyage and shipwreck as he and his companions sailed from Palestine to Italy. This narrative has been called ‘one of the most instructive documents for knowledge of ancient seamanship’. The standard work in English on the subject is The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, published in 1848(4th ed. 1880) by James Smith of Jordanhill, himself an experienced yachtsman who was well acquainted with that part of the Mediterranean over which Paul’s ship sailed, and who bears witness to the remarkable accuracy of Luke’s account of each stage in the voyage, and was able to fix by the details given by Luke, the exact spot on the coast of Malta where the shipwreck must have taken place”. 26(For further details, see the list of books complied at the end of this presentation for information on the archaeology and historical accuracy of the New Testament documents).Historian and classical scholar, Colin Hemer is his book – The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (1990) lists over (80) facts recorded in the last 16 chapters of Acts, starting in Acts 13 that have been confirmed by archaeological and historical discoveries.

Some examples are as follows:

 

1. The proper port (Perga) for the direct destination from Cyprus – Acts 13:3. 2 2. The proper location of Lycaonia – Acts 14:6 3. The proper term “ politarchs”used of magistrates – Acts 17:6. 4. The correct title “ Areopagites” for members of the court – Acts 17:34. 5 5. The references to the presence of synagogues in Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth- Acts 17:1; 17:17;18:4. 6. The use of the term “Asianos” – Acts 20:4. (See Colin Hemer’s book for the complete details on all (84) of these facts.) Historian and scholar Craig Blomberg has studied the Gospel of John and examined the historical narratives that John provided. He has found almost (60) facts that have either been confirmed or are very likely correct based on discoveries in archaeology and secular history. See his book – The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel.

Some examples are as follows

1. The use of stone jars in the first century New Testament period – John 2:6 2. The hostility during Jesus’ time between the Jews and the Samaritans – John 4:9 3. The exact description of the composition of the Sanhedrin – John 11:47.4. The fact that Caiaphas was the high priest at the time recorded – John 11:49.5. The small insignificant village of Ephraim – John 11:54 6. The five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda – John 5:2.(See Craig Blomberg’s book for the complete details on all (59) of these facts.)Historians have studied and found that at least (30) people mentioned in the Gospel accounts and (the book of II Corinthians) are confirmed by secular historians or archaeological research. These include – Agrippa I; Agrippa II; Ananias; Annas; Aretas; Bernice (wife of Agrippa II); Caesar Augustus; Caiaphas; Claudius; Drusilla (wife of Felix) ; Egyptian false prophet; Erastus; Felix; Gallio; Gamaliel; Herod Antipas; Herod the Great; Herod Philip I; Herod Philip II; Herodias; Herodias’s daughter – Salome; James; John the Baptist; Judas the Galilean; Lysanias; Pilate; Quirinius; Porcius Festus; Sergius Paulus; Tiberius Caesar. (This is not a complete list. See the books mentioned at the end of the presentation for complete details). The Gospel writers, (and in particular Luke) provide numerous historical details in their narratives and yet they also record the fact of the miraculous events that transpired in the ministry of Jesus and in the early proclamation of the Gospel. For instance, Luke provides (84) verifiable historical facts in the last (16) chapters of Acts and yet he also records supernatural events. Right in the same narrative that he records historical facts that can be verified, he provides the accounts of the supernatural. If Luke is accurate on issues of fact like directions, names of towns, people, depth of water, ship destinations… why can he not also be accurate when he records the miraculous events? If he can be trusted as an historian on matters open to verification, why not trust him on events that contain miracles? This is true not only for Luke, but for all of the Gospel writers. Where they can be examined as to their historical and factual truthfulness and are found to be accurate, why not trust them when they report miraculous occurrences?

The narratives that they wrote and the lives that they led, confirms their sincerity and their commitment to telling the truth.

There are numerous factors that indicate that the Gospel writers were interested in telling the truth of what they recorded instead of simply trying to embellish and convince their readers of their narratives.

1. The writers of the Gospel were firmly rooted in the Jewish Faith and had certain theological and cultural views that they held to with strong conviction. When they became followers of Jesus they had to be willing to change these long held beliefs and practices. Some of the cherished beliefs that they had to give up were the following: A. The belief that the Messiah would come to conquer and set up his kingdom, not to die on a cross. When Jesus died on the cross, their idea of a reigning Messiah was crushed. This is one of the reasons that the disciples felt so hopeless and defeated.B. The ultimate authority of the Law of Moses now had to surrender to the Lordship of Christ.C. The Sabbath day of worship changed from Saturday to Sunday, the day of the resurrection of Christ.D. The unity of God – “Hear O Israel, the Lord our Lord is One” – Deuteronomy 6:4. Now they embraced and understood that the One God of Israel is a unity but He is also a plurality – Jesus is God Who became a man.E. The temple sacrifice system which was the heart of the Jewish Faith was now fulfilled in Jesus Christ’s work as the Lamb of God.These disciples and early Jewish believers, some of whom were priests, scribes and Pharisees, left these beliefs and convictions for what they knew to be true. The miracles and teachings of Christ certainly had a profound effect on them, but the resurrection from the dead was the sealing witness that convinced them of the truth of Who Jesus was. These writers and eyewitness believers of the Gospel gave up these cherished institutions and beliefs and this is a powerful evidence for their sincerity. 2. The writers did not leave out derogatory statements directed at Jesus. They left details in their testimony that was very hard to believe for those to whom they were writing and in some cases put Jesus in an embarrassing position. The fact that Jesus’ family thought that he was losing His mind – Mark 3:21,31. His own brothers did not believe in Him (Mary His mother is never included in this description) – John 7:5. He was called a ‘madman’ –John 10:20. He was referred to as ‘demon possessed’ – Mark 3:22, John 7:20; 8:48. He was called a ‘drunkard’ – Matthew 11:19.

3. The writers of the Gospel included material that they knew would not be well received by people in the first century, but they included it because they wanted to convey the truth and not just attempt to place Jesus in the best possible light. This is what people do who are telling the truth. 4. The writers report information that does not provide the best advantage for the most important witness in the Gospel – the witness of the resurrection of Christ. The Gospels all state that it was women who first found the empty tomb. Women in the first century had no legal weight in regard to their testimony. They were considered unreliable and untrustworthy witnesses and yet the writers of all four Gospels place them as the foundational first witnesses to the resurrection of Christ. This would not be the best way to make your case if you were devising a plan to convince people living in the first and second centuries that Jesus rose from the dead, but this is exactly what they did. Mary Magdalene was the first to witness the risen Jesus Christ and according to Luke she is the one to whom Jesus cast out seven demons – Luke 8:2. Using women and a formerly demon possessed woman as your primary basis of witness would not be a good idea unless you were wanting to tell the truth.

5. The writers of the Gospels include numerous details about their own failures, doubts, foolish and cowardly actions which is something that you would not do if you wanted to impress your readers and make the case that you are a reliable and intelligent witness. They recorded their foolish pride and their inability to minister in difficult situations – Mark 9:18,34. They indicated that they were doubters – John 2:18-22; 3:14-18; Matthew 12:39-41; 17:9, 22-23.They are depicted throughout the crucifixion as cowards who denied Jesus – (Peter) Matthew 26:33-35 and ones who fled in Jesus’ most dark moments – Mark 14:50. They slept in the garden while Jesus suffered – Mark 14:33-42. Their honesty and willingness to tell the truth regarding their own failures adds credibility to their ability to tell the truth regarding the other details of the Gospel most importantly, the resurrection of Christ. 6. The writers of the Gospel were disciples of Jesus Christ and were taught His teaching regarding the high value of truth. The teachings that these writers conveyed to their readers were based on the absolute importance of telling the truth. It is hard to believe that these men could stand for the truth and live noble lives (willing to die for what they believed was true) and then fabricate a lie like the resurrection, unless they were completely corrupt individuals. What motivation and for what possible gain would they lie and fabricate a legend regarding the resurrection? They made no money, never held positions of power, they were beaten, oppressed, imprisoned and died for what? They had no motivation to create a legend and then die for it. It appears from all that they said and from what they stood for, that they were people who believed in telling the truth.

This is not material that is legendary but rather it is the conveying of the truth of what really happened in the past. The affirmation of these eyewitnesses is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

 

 

Objection #2: There are so many contradictions in the Gospel account of Jesus’ resurrection that this information cannot be trusted.

The Gospel writers provide what appears on the surface to be contradictions or discrepancies. Writers who truly want to convince their readers by collusion, work together by minimizing these divergent materials in order to appear uniform in their story. For example, how many angels were at the tomb, one, two or was it a young man as Mark indicates or two men as Luke indicates? Who were the women that came to the tomb? Was there one, two, three or more of them, because there appears to be a different number of them and they appear to have different names from one Gospel writer to the other. When was Jesus crucified, was it Thursday or Friday? John seems to indicate Thursday and Matthew, Mark and Luke indicate Friday. Was it dark when the women came to the tomb on Sunday morning or was it dawning? Matthew’s account says it was dawning and John says it was still dark. When you examine each of these apparent differences, none of them are contradictory. It is very important to remember that claiming that something is a contradiction and proving it is quite a different matter. In order for something to be a contradiction, there cannot be a plausible explanation for the differences. In each of these cases there is a plausible explanation for this divergent testimony. Discrepancies are very common in historical documents and in court room testimony. The advantage of the court room setting is that the witnesses can be cross examined to see if their testimonies converge or if one witness has provided details that the other witness did not observe for plausible reasons. Rarely do two witnesses of an event see all the details the same and they do not describe the occurrences the same. In the case of historical documents, we do not have the cross examining possibility. However, discrepancies do not invalidate the reliability of a document in question especially when the details do converge in so many areas as the Gospel accounts do.For example, the account of Matthew indicates that there was one angel who spoke to the women; Mark says that there was one young man who spoke; Luke says that there were two men and John says that Mary sees two angels. How do we reconcile these divergent details?The appearance of angels in the form of men is very common in the Bible. As a matter of fact, it is the most common form in which they appear. According to the Scriptures, they are servants of God and they are spirit beings. When they do appear, they usually appear in the form of a human. Luke describes the two men as having shining garments . Mark describes the young man as being clothed in a long white robe. In both Mark and Luke, the women are described as being fearful and Luke states that the women bow their faces to the earth. Angelic appearances in the Bible are recorded as being very fearful and awesome experiences and both of these records indicate this. All four accounts make it clear that these are angelic appearances in the form of men. Were there two angels or one? A contradictory statement would be present if Matthew or Mark stated that there was only one angel, while Luke and John state that there were two. This would be a contradiction. But neither Matthew’s nor Mark’s account state this. The most plausible explanation is that there were obviously two angels, but one spoke, or one was the more prominent and featured angel. There is no way to know for sure but this is a very possible reality. A contradiction is not present if there is a plausible explanation and in each case in the Gospel records, there are viable explanations for divergent details without any compromise to the validity of the testimony. (See the article “Are the New Testament Gospel Documents Reliable” for more information on the subject.)These divergent and differing details add credibility to the veracity of the Gospel writers and provide evidence that their Gospel accounts are not based on collusion.

Objection #3: All of this information in the Gospel is old, ancient history. We cannot make major decisions of life and death based on old events of history that might or might not have taken place.

This objection is one that takes a couple of different positions. First, some people view history (the events of the past) as not reliable in general and dependent upon the biases of the sources. While it is true that history is not a science that can be proven with 100% certainty, we can know certain history with a very high degree of probability. It is also true that many things that have been recorded and are proposed to be history, when examined, prove to be very uncertain if not completely implausible.

 

Here are four key points in examining the reliability of historical sources:

1. Were the writers of the documents in a position to be able to tell the truth?2. Were the writers willing to tell the truth?3. Were the documents that they wrote faithfully preserved?4. Where possible, do the documents find support from other avenues of investigation and documentation? rnWhen we examine the record of the New Testament and the resurrection accounts, all four of these questions can be answered in the affirmative. First, the writers of the Gospel were either eyewitnesses or based their narratives on eyewitness information. Matthew was a disciple and an eyewitness of the life of Christ; Mark, according to early church fathers, wrote his Gospel based on the information given him from Peter, another disciple and eyewitness of the life of Christ; Luke, who was a companion and associate of the apostles, wrote his Gospel based on information from eyewitness sources (Luke 1:1-4). John was a disciple and an eyewitness of the life of Christ. They were all clearly in a position to tell the truth.Second, as presented earlier, the writers of the Gospel demonstrated a willingness to tell the truth. (See above regarding their sincerity and desire to tell the truth).Third, the documents have been remarkably well preserved. (See above material on the reliability of the textual transmission process).Fourth, the Gospel records have been confirmed by archaeological sources and by other secular historical writers in numerous cases. (See the above material on archaeological evidences.)So when we examine the record of the Gospel and the resurrection, we have an excellent basis for the credibility of the resurrection account. But for some this is not enough, we want provability. In the case of historical events, this is not possible. We can only deal with levels of probability. However, everything in life is based on probability not 100% certainty.

 

Where do we Start?

So where do we start in an investigation into the facts of the Gospel and the resurrection of Christ? Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), the former Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University is considered by many to be the greatest legal expert on the laws of evidence that has ever lived. The one unchanging and abiding principle that he taught his law students was to “never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering all the evidence ”. This approach should be employed as we examine the issue of the Gospel and the resurrection of Christ. To discover what is true and factual, we must use all of the principles of logic, physical, historical and science based evidences that are available to us. The two basic rules of logic that this examination is based on are the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle. These two primary, self-evident laws of logic are called first principles. These principles are not something that we learn or are instructed in but rather we simply know them intuitively and we use them every day in the normal course of life. When investigating any question of fact, including the question of the resurrection, these laws of logic must apply.The law of non-contradiction is a self- evident first principle that simply says that contradictory statements cannot both be true and false at the same time and in the same sense. A principle or affirmation of a fact cannot be both true and false. Testimony in our court systems, business transactions and general communication on a personal level of any factual matter is based on this law of non-contradiction.The law of the excluded middle simply states that something either is or is not. There is no middle ground or third alternative. For example, either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not rise from the dead. Either one or the other is true but not both. There is no third or middle option.Based on these first principles we establish a logical argument that must correspond with reality and if the premise of our argument is true it follows that the conclusion will be true.The next area in our examination regarding the resurrection of Christ is the question “can our reasoning process based on these laws of logic and evidence be trusted to provide us with any degree of certainty”? The answer to this question is yes but not with 100% certainty. Can we know for example that Jesus rose from the dead? Well, if by “ knowing” we mean 100% absolute assurance then the answer is no. If we mean can we prove that Jesus rose from the dead with moral certainty, then the answer is yes. But we must remember that this proof does not mean that people will accept the evidence regardless of how good it may be. This type of proof is not a perfect or absolute certain proof, but rather it is a level or standard of proof that can lead to certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard of moral certainty is what our judicial system has historically based its decisions on. A judge or jury makes their decisions on high probability not 100 % certainty. If judicial decisions had to be rendered only where 100 % certainty was determined, no court room decisions would ever be reached.

 

What about faith?

All of us are people of faith. We make decisions everyday based on probability not 100 % certainty and we make these decisions and choices based on a certain level of certainty and the remainder on faith. As limited, finite human beings, we do not have the capacity or the capability to acquire or possess the type of knowledge that can provide us with 100 % certainty on any matter of fact. We must always exercise some level or degree of faith.For example, the simple task of sitting into a comfortable chair. We examine the chair by sight, we consider where the chair is located and we might even test it by pushing against it to see if it is mechanically and structurally sound and then based on our observations we choose to sit down. Are we 100 % certain that it will support us securely? – no. We may be 99 % certain but there will still be a requirement of 1 % faith. Based on this high level of probability we choose to place ourselves into the chair. We must employ this same willingness to examine the evidence for the truth of the Gospel and the resurrection and then exercise faith based on the high probability that this evidence provides.There are people who desire absolute, 100 % certainty prior to believing in the Gospel and the resurrection of Christ. Yet they do not apply this high level of certainty in other matters of significance. It should be noted that the atheist (denies that God exists) and the agnostic (doubts that God exists) must also exercise faith in atheism or agnosticism. I would argue that it takes far more faith to believe that complicated life forms evolved through a natural selection process and from the random interaction of molecules which came into existence through random chance, than to believe in a Creator (God) and that this God has stepped into human history in the Person of Jesus Christ. The point is that both the Christian and the atheist / agnostic must exercise and employ faith. So from the theist position, can we prove the truth of the Gospel and the resurrection with 100 % certainty ? – no. With reasonable moral certainty? – yes, if we are willing to weigh and evaluate the evidence and follow where it leads us. We must recognize that when we step outside of the knowledge of our own limited experience, we have moved into the area of probabilities. This requires us to evaluate the evidence and do the hard work of examining what we believe and why we believe and then exercise faith based on the evidence for our beliefs.The second position that people take who affirm this objection is that ancient history does not have any direct impact on me, so why worry about it?It is true that much of history does not have a direct impact on us. The events of Roman and Greek history for instance probably have no connection to our lives. We live out of lives and this information is not pertinent to the way we live nor does it have any effect on the choices and decisions that we make. However, some historical events do have a bearing on us. If the Creator God exists and if the Bible is an accurate account of His history (His Story), then what the Bible has to say and the information contained within its historical and narrative record may have an eternal impact on our lives. The point of this presentation is that the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is well documented and provides us with a high probability for the truth claims of Jesus Christ. Jesus said – “Unless you believe that I AM who I claim to be, you will die in your sins”. – John 8:24 NLT. Jesus also said – “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father except through Me”. – John14:6 NLT.If the events of the Gospel and the resurrection of Christ are true, then this is history that has a very significant impact on all of us.

 

Alternate Theories

1. “The disciples or someone else stole the body of Jesus and the disciples falsely claimed that He had risen from the dead.” This theory simply affirms that the empty tomb and the disappearance of the body of Jesus is based in the theft of His corpse. Someone stole the body of Jesus and most likely this was Jesus’ disciples. The second part of the theory affirms that once this theft occurred, Jesus’ disciples then proclaimed that He had risen from the dead and the Gospel accounts were written to substantiate this claim and to encourage the faith of the followers of Jesus.The first requirement for this theory would indicate that the disciples had to be deceivers and thieves. Not only this, but they would also have to be complete hypocrites. The teaching of the Jewish Faith (the Law of Moses) and culture that they were a part of, set a high standard for honesty and stating the truth. They were also taught by Jesus Christ this same high standard and then they themselves taught this standard to others. The same would be true for the moral fault of theft. Exodus 20:15,16, Matthew 5-7. So now they had to be liars, thieves and hypocrites of the highest order.These disciples were willing to die for the witness of the risen Jesus. For what possible motivation would they have done this? Are we to believe that they were willing to die for a lie? They were willing to lie, deceive and steal for what purpose? Reliable church history affirms that at least 11 of the key early church leaders and witnesses of the resurrection died for their faith in Christ. They experienced poverty, persecution, imprisonment and for many, a martyr’s death. This is hardly motivation to lie and deceive.Second, if the disciples and believers in Jesus were the party that stole the corpse of Jesus, how did they do it? We know from the Gospel accounts that they were fearful and that they fled from the scene at the garden of Gethsemane. They abandoned Jesus and were looking on at all of the crucifixion events from a far distance. The Gospel of Matthew states that the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to guard and seal the tomb so that this very potential of stealing Jesus’ body would not take place – Matthew 27:62-66. The Roman guards were set in place and the tomb was sealed. Now we have to believe that the fearful disciples are going to take courage and plan out a daring theft operation. They are going to get past the Roman guards while they are sleeping, roll the large stone (approximately 2,000 pounds.) away quietly, remove the body of Jesus and put it into hiding and of course then go on to preach convincingly the resurrection of Christ.Third, when we examine the empty tomb, the scene that is described does not look like a robbery scene. First, the grave clothes are left “in place” as if the body was lifted out of them whole. The napkin for the wrapping of the head was folded by itself. For what reason would the thieves unwrap the body and form the clothes in such a perfectly laid out manner and then fold the napkin. They remove a dead body that has been in the decomposing state for at least 36 hrs. along with removing the approximate 65-70 pounds of burial spices neatly with exacting care and then carefully fold the burial clothes. This would be quite a task and all the meanwhile, doing it quietly so as to not alert the guards.Simon Greenleaf, the Harvard Law professor and expert on the laws of evidence stated (when examining John’s response to the empty tomb in John 20:28) – “The grave clothes lying orderly in their place, and the napkin folded together by itself, made it evident that the sepulchre had not been rifled nor the body stolen by violent hands; for these garments and spices would have been of more value to thieves, than merely the a naked corpse; at least, they would not have taken the trouble thus to fold them together. The same circumstance showed also that the body had not been removed by friends; for they would thus not have left the grave clothes behind. All these considerations produce a mind of John the germ of a belief that Jesus was risen from the dead.” 27

If the disciples did not steal the body of Jesus, who would have had the motivation to do so? The Jewish leaders certainly did not have a reason. Why would they have set the guard to prevent such an occurrence if they then went ahead and performed the theft themselves? When the disciples began to preach the resurrection of Christ, never is there any evidence that these religious leaders knew where the body was. If they did have His body, they had every motivation to stop this new religious movement and present the body of Jesus to the public. To put an end to this would have been their first priority, however this never happened.The Romans certainly had no reason to steal the body. This new movement of the Christian Faith produced much turmoil in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. There are least five recorded persecutions against Christians living in Jerusalem that were instigated as an attempt to stop this proclamation of the Gospel and the resurrection of Christ. Along with this, there was violence and turmoil. The Romans wanted peace in their communities and if they had the body of Jesus they would have also, like the Jewish leaders, brought it forward to the public and stopped this religious enterprise in its tracks. However, this never happened.If common thieves stole the body, how would they have done this and for what? If they wanted money for the body, the only ones interested in that would be the Jewish leaders and possibly the Roman authorities. How could thieves have got past the guards and then done such a remarkable job in making the tomb scene look like a resurrection with the graves clothes made to look held in place and the napkin folded separately in its place? This is not what thieves do. The ones who might pay money for Jesus’ body never do and the question then is asked again: What benefit is there that these thieves could gain by their actions? The evidence indicates that this act of theft never happened. Fourth, if the body was stolen, how do we account for the appearances of Jesus to the doubting Thomas, the skeptical James and the antagonist Paul? It would take more than simply affirming something to convert them. Paul undoubtedly was aware of the proclamation of the resurrection message that the disciples of Jesus were preaching and this simple and straight forward claim did not seem to impress him. What did they see that convinced these unbelievers and antagonists to embrace the resurrection claims? The stolen body theory cannot account for this.Matthew 28:11-15 provides the record of the guards who return to the Jewish leaders and inform them of the events of the appearance of the angels, the removed stone, the earthquake and the empty tomb. The religious leaders tell these guards to state that the disciples stole the body of Jesus while they slept. They were paid money to do so and were made secure with their superiors by the support of these leaders. This claim was commonly reported not only in the first century ( Matthew 28:15) but also in the time period of the early church fathers and apologists Justin Martyr(A.D. 100-165) and Tertullian ( A.D. 160-225). They both wrote of this common accusation regarding the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus in the Jewish communities of their day. However, the foundation of this response goes back to the account in Matthew which is rooted in a cover up and deceit.None of these possibilities can account for the empty tomb and the proclamation of the resurrection because they are inadequate. When a theory like this is offered, it needs to have some first century evidence to back up the theory and yet there is no evidence pointing to any first century narratives to substantiate the claims of this theory.

2. “Jesus did not die on the cross. He recovered in the tomb and then showed Himself to be alive and His disciples claimed that He rose from the dead.”This alternate theory requires Jesus’ disciples to be liars, deceivers and hypocrites of the highest order which is a very unlikely possibility as we examined earlier. In a first scenario, they had to know that Jesus did not rise from the dead and in a willful lie and cunningly deceit, craft a plan to falsify the claims of the resurrection for some unknown motivation. Then they sealed this deceitful testimony with their own blood. The other option is that Jesus fooled them into believing that He had actually risen from the dead and then after 40 days disappeared without the knowledge of the disciples. The disciples in this scenario would also have had to lie by their description of the empty tomb, the angelic appearances, the description of Jesus’ body which could appear and then disappear and they would have to lie about viewing His ascension into the clouds. In both scenarios the disciples would have to be liars and deceivers.This theory requires that Jesus had to endure the scourging, beating and the crucifixion ordeal and then after 36 hrs. in a cold tomb, revive, remove His grave clothes , roll the stone away, get past the guards and allude capture. We would also have to consider that the Roman soldiers who were professional executioners, did not notice that Jesus was alive when they took him off the cross. The description of the spear wound clearly signifies death (blood and water came from His side) and He would have had to survive this thrust into His side for this theory to be correct. The crucifixion was an instrument of death and the very purpose of this execution method was to torture and eventually kill the victim. These soldiers would have had to fail to accomplish this for this theory to be valid. When the news that Jesus was dead reached Pilate, he was surprised that Jesus was already dead and he asked the centurion in charge to confirm for him that He was dead. The soldiers had already verified this, so they simply confirmed to Pilate that Jesus was indeed dead. This confirmation request by Pilate regarding Jesus’ death, provides a very high probability that Jesus was put to death on the cross.Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who had prepared Jesus’ body for burial, also would have had to overlook the fact that there was still life in Jesus’ body and continue with the burial process unaware that Jesus was still alive.Theologian John R.W. Stott stated regarding this theory:“that after the rigors and pains of trial, mockery, flogging and crucifixion He could survive thirty six hours in a stone sepulchre with neither warmth nor food nor medical care? That He could then rally sufficiently to perform the superhuman feat of shifting the boulder which secured the mouth of the tomb, and this without disturbing the Roman guard? That then, weak and sickly and hungry, He could appear to the disciples in such a way as to give them the impression that He had vanquished death? That He could go on to claim that He had died and risen, could send them into all the world and promise to be with them unto the end of time? That He could live somewhere in hiding for forty days, making occasional surprise appearances and then finally disappear without any explanation? Such credulity is more incredible than Thomas’ unbelief”. 28This theory requires immense deception on the part of Jesus and the disciples. In one scenario, the disciples would have to be fooled by Jesus to believe that He had risen from the dead and then deceivers to add details about the resurrection and ascension of Christ that were untrue. In the second scenario, they would have to develop the entire plan themselves and be utterly deceitful in their presentation regarding Jesus and the resurrection and then go on to die for this lie for some unknown motivation.This theory also does not explain the appearances to skeptical James and antagonist Paul. These two would not be inclined to believe a deceitful plan as they were already disposed to not believe in the resurrection.This theory also fails to have any first century evidence to back up the claim.  3. “The disciples and women went to the wrong tomb and then the disciples proclaimed the false story that Jesus had risen from the dead.”This theory simply stated affirms that the women and Peter and John went to the wrong tomb and mistakenly thought that Jesus had risen from the dead because the tomb was empty. The other disciples of Jesus believed their report and all of them assumed that the empty tomb pointed to the inevitable fact that Jesus had risen from the dead. Is this possible that both the women and then later Peter and John could both go to the wrong tomb and based on these observations believe that Jesus had risen from the dead?First, the Gospel’s tell us that the women knew where the body of Jesus was laid and the location of the tomb because they were eyewitnesses to the burial process. –“When Joseph had taken the (Jesus’) body, he wrapped it in a clean cloth and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb and departed. And Mary Magdalene was there and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb”. – Matthew 27:59-61. Mark’s Gospel says – “And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses observed where He was laid”. – Mark 15:47. Luke says – “And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid”. – Luke 23:55. In order for the wrong tomb theory to be valid, either the accounts are not correct or for some reason the women became confused and could not find the tomb many hours later.Secondly, the disciples Peter and John would likewise also have made the same mistake and gone to the wrong tomb. In John’s Gospel account, he provides details about the location of this tomb – “Now the place where He was crucified there was a garden and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid”. – John 19:41. John and Peter both visited the tomb and John provides details of where it was located. He is the same witness, who when he viewed the up lifted grave clothes, folded napkin and the state in which the tomb existed, believed that Jesus had risen from the dead – John 20:8. It would appear that based on his description of the tomb’s location and what he found in the tomb on the Sunday morning of Jesus’ resurrection, that he knew where the tomb was. Third, it is important to note that this tomb was not a public cemetery, but rather was a private tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea and not in location that was a common public area. This makes the possibility of forgetting the location of this tomb much less likely.Fourth, the writers of the Gospels and the disciples of Jesus would all have to be the same deceitful liars and manipulators as described in theory #1. The report of the appearance of the angels, the earthquake, the stone being rolled away and all of the appearances of Christ would have to false in order for this theory to be upheld.Fifth, if this theory was true, when the disciples of Jesus and the early preachers of the Gospel proclaimed that Jesus had risen from the dead, the Jewish leaders could have simply located the right tomb and gone to it, removed the body of Jesus for public display, and this movement would have been discredited. The Jewish rulers had every motivation and the authority to do this. But this never happened.Sixth, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus both knew where the tomb was because they were the ones who buried Jesus. They were also followers of Jesus and if the witnesses on Sunday morning actually went to the wrong tomb, they would certainly have gone to the right tomb, which was owned by Joseph, and produced the evidence that Jesus’ body was still in the tomb and corrected this misunderstanding. If they did not correct this but allowed this deceitful lie to continue, then they also, like the disciples, would have been guilty of willful deceit and manipulation.Seventh, if this theory is true, who appeared to skeptical James, the antagonist Paul and the doubtful Thomas? Simply proclaiming the resurrection would not have convinced these men. They were not at all inclined to believe the resurrection reports. It is also worth noting that the only person in the Gospel accounts who believed in the resurrection based on the evidence from the empty tomb is John. All of the rest are doubtful at best regarding the fact of the empty tomb. The empty tomb, by itself, did not convince Jesus’ disciples that He had risen from the dead. It would not have convinced these three men either.Again, this theory has no first century evidence to back up its assertions.  4. “The disciples hallucinated and saw the risen Jesus.” This theory asserts that the disciples of Jesus and the other witnesses recorded to have seen Jesus alive, did not in reality see Him but rather hallucinated. A hallucination is a perception that something is real when it is not real. According to this theory, the resurrection appearances of Jesus were not real at all. The disciples saw these things in their minds and imaginations. They thought that the appearances were real, but in truth were not real at all.First, hallucinations are individually experienced. They are a very private matter. People do not see hallucinations in a group. If this was possible, people would all see things in their hallucinations differently. The record of the New Testament is that Jesus appeared to numerous groups of people and they all saw and heard the same things. Jesus did appear to some people individually, but seven out of the eleven recorded appearances of Christ to His disciples, were to groups of witnesses.Second, hallucinations are typically experienced by a certain type of person with a certain type of personality, one that is high strung, nervous or highly imaginative. They typically occur with an individual who is predisposed or has a hopeful expectation toward seeing the hallucination. If you look at the disciples and the witnesses of the resurrection, they have numerous moods and dispositions during this time. The descriptions of their responses at this time were – weeping, sadness, fear, astonishment, disbelief, doubt, remorseful, bewildered and hard hearted. All of these descriptions have degrees of differences, not something that is true with those who are experiencing hallucinations.Third, hallucinations are usually restricted to certain places or settings that bring back memories or create a certain mood. The appearances of Christ to the resurrection witnesses, was in numerous different settings. In the garden near the tomb, on the road to Emmaus, on the roadway back to the city of Jerusalem, in the room at someone’s house, on a Galilean hillside, near the sea of Galilee, on the road to Damascus. These numerous different locations of Jesus’ appearances to the witnesses of His resurrection does not fit with the typical type of places where one would experience an hallucination.Fourth, hallucinations generally take place over a lengthy period of time with regularity and then at a crisis or breaking point, they slowly begin to fade away. In the case with the resurrection witnesses, they see numerous appearances of Jesus and then after forty days –Acts 1:1-3, Jesus ascends and the appearances stop suddenly . The only recorded appearance after this was the appearance of Christ to Paul on the road to Damascus and this appearance had definite and defined differences from the other appearances recorded in the Gospel accounts.Fifth, this theory does not account for the empty tomb. The tomb was empty and hallucinations do not need an empty tomb. Why the empty tomb?Sixth, what was it that the skeptical James, the doubtful Thomas and the antagonist Paul saw? They were all predisposed to not see a hallucination. They were in no way anticipating an appearance of the risen Christ.Again, as in all of the preceding theories, there is no first century evidence to back up this claim. As you examine these theories, they all need other additional assistance from other theories to make the theory under examination look more plausible. Dr Gary Habermas explains the difficulties inherent with this necessity.“Even if all of the opposing theories conjectured by skeptics fail to account for the collection of historical data on an individual basis, what if a few of these explanations were combined? As an example, let us make up a combination theory and call it the ‘theft/multiple psychosis theory’. In this theory, someone other than the disciples stole the body from the tomb. Peter experienced a hallucination of the risen Jesus and subsequently deluded the disciples into believing that they saw Him as well. Paul had a conversion disorder, and James also experienced a hallucination of Jesus. Would this account for all of the historical data and be as good an explanation?…. If a combination theory is to be true, all of its sub-theories must be true. If one is not, then the theory fails to account adequately for all the data. If one theory fails, the combination fails”. 29 Dr. Habermas is pointing out that combination theories are actually more improbable for each time you have to combine them in a theory in order to make the theory being presented appear plausible. Instead of strengthening the theory, it is weakened for each combination. This is exactly what many of these theories require and as each combination is added to the theory, it becomes even more implausible.

5. “The resurrection is a mystery and an unexplainable event. It might have been a supernatural, misunderstood vision, or a natural occurrence that we do not understand.”This is a theory that seems to be held be many who have a skeptical view of the resurrection of Christ. It essentially affirms that something did happen to the body of Jesus and that the disciples really did see “something”, but we do not know what it was that they saw and we cannot put a definition as to what this occurrence really means. On the surface it seems to be conciliatory to the resurrection accounts but when you look at it carefully, it has many of the same features as the objections that we just examined. It still presents an alternate theory to the New Testament account of the resurrection thereby labeling the Gospel account as fictitious or at least not reliable.First, this theory really offers no supporting evidence or support for its presentation. Without any data to support this position, the theory is substantially weak. Simply raising possibilities does not advance a theory. If no evidence is offered to back up a theory, we really do not need to attempt to refute it.Second, this theory still relies on multiple theories that must combine in some way to make it appear plausible. The tomb was empty and the body was gone and yet it was not a real resurrection but rather some type of vision, or was it a resuscitation? Was it a natural event and a spiritual event? Some witnesses saw something real like the empty tomb, but others saw an appearance that was a hallucination? As each combination is added, it becomes a weaker probability.Third, there is no question that the resurrection of Christ is a mystery in the sense that we do not fully know the “how or why” of this event. There is also a mystery of the cross of Christ that Christian theologians have discussed for hundreds of years. Yet the reality of the cross and its implications are factual and believed because the event, as described in the New Testament, really happened. The resurrection is similar to this. We may not fully understand all that the resurrection entails, but we know that it happened and that it has the far reaching implications that the New Testament affirms.Fourth, the Gospel accounts clearly report that Jesus’ body was not a spirit or a mystical manifestation. The disciple Thomas was the disciple of Christ that maintained that he had to physically see and touch the real Jesus in order for him to believe the resurrection. He wanted to see the real body of Jesus. This is what the Biblical understanding of what a resurrection would be. It would have to be a bodily resurrection and if it was not, then it wasn’t a resurrection. In John’s Gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples with Thomas present. “And after eight days His disciples were again inside and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut and stood in the midst and said ‘Peace to you’. Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and look at My hands and reach your hand here and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believe. And Thomas answered and said to Him,’ My Lord and My God’. Jesus said to Him, Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”. – John 20:26-29.  Any attempt to make the appearance of Christ a non-physical or mystical experience has to call the eyewitness accounts of the Gospel into question. The New Testament recorded (3) times that the disciples touched Jesus – Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:27, and (2) times either states or implies that He ate with them – Luke 24:52; John 21:12,13. This is not what takes place with a spirit or a vision, but rather this is something that takes place with a person in a body. The Gospel writers absolutely affirm that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form.Last, this theory attempts to propose a different meaning for the resurrection of Christ. It does not offer what the resurrection means nor does it offer any evidence for a meaning, but it certainly calls into question the meaning that the Gospel supplies for this event. So where should we look to provide a meaning for the resurrection? Should a philosopher who lives today or four hundred years ago and who is centuries removed from the resurrection provide this meaning? Or should the eyewitnesses of the first century who lived with Jesus Christ and reported what He had to say about His resurrection provide the meaning? It would seem that the One who predicted His death and said that He had the power to rise from the dead and then actually rose from the dead should be the One to provide the meaning for His own resurrection. If it is granted that “some kind of resurrection” occurred, then the One to whom it happened should be the One who provides the meaning. (See John 2:18-22;John 6:30-33,48-51; 10:11,15;12:23,24,32-34; 13:31-33; 14:19)