Jesus- Part 2- The Resurrection

Last post, I discussed the historicity of Jesus Himself, as in did He actually exist? You can check that out in the messages portion of the main site, but for this issue I thought I would carry on with the Jesus theme and discuss the most important thing about His life to Christians- the Resurrection. This is the focal point for any Christian’s faith, and with it Christianity is true, but without it it’s false. It’s that simple I’m afraid. Think about it- if the Resurrection is true, and it did actually happen, what does that mean for you and the whole world? It means that what He said was true; it means that miracles can happen and as such God does exist; it means that Jesus is who He said He was (the Son of God, God Himself in human flesh); it means that the claims of Christianity are true, and most importantly it means that the whole world should submit to Jesus Christ in humility and love. To me, these are very serious implications, albeit ones that Christians today have already considered.

Therefore, it should be clear to all of you that the resurrection is central to Christianity and perhaps one of the most important events in human history. However, the early Church in Corinth began to doubt the resurrection of the dead, and as such St.Paul had to reiterate just how profound and important Christ's is to Christianity in 1 Corinthians 15: 14-15 + 17- “...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."..."And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins".

So as you can see, the resurrection is all-important to Christians. Which is why it is even more disturbing that many doubt the historicity or logical possibility that Christ could have been raised.

In this article, I will deal with two different questions- 1) is the resurrection story reliable, and 2) what else could have happened? By doing this, we will slowly eliminate several doubts about Jesus rising from the dead, and as such you will be able to make an informed choice in regards to your own beliefs.

1) Are the accounts of Jesus rising from the dead reliable?

This is something that I considered briefly last issue with regards to the Gospel accounts being reliable, but I think it’s worthwhile it being assessed again under this context. I don’t think there should be much doubt as to whether or not the Gospel accounts we have today are reliable. As stated in issue 3, the Gospels are 99.5% textually pure, which means that the copies we have today are exactly the same to the earliest ones 99.5% of the time. Furthermore, the New Testament is also historically reliable. What may surprise some people is that there is as Dr. Paul Meier says, "positive evidence from a hostile source", for example Josephus and the Toledoth Jeshu. Non-Christian historians or sources dating to the 1st to 3rd Century record many of the people, places and events mentioned in the latter half of the Bible. For example, Thallus mentions the eclipse of the sun at Jesus’ death; archaeologists have discovered St.Paul’s hometown, and Josephus mentions King Herod. Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg; if you want more then you should hop over to somewhere like www.christsites.com or www.carm.org so you can get an even bigger picture.

So as you can see there is little reason to think that the Gospel accounts aren’t reliable. Although I acknowledge that many atheists have presented good arguments against its reliability, I also know that many Christians have defended it incredibly well. Infact, it is the consensus amongst historians and scholars that we should have confidence in these accounts.

2) If the resurrection didn’t happen, then what did?

This is an interesting topic, one that I love to debate with atheists about. The reality is that not many viable alternatives can be provided, if any at all. Although no doubt the sceptics among you will have an idea or a theory as to what happened, they may yet be discussed on here. So don’t hold judgement just yet. I will address this by looking at various alternatives, and I will analyse them to see whether they can hold up to scrutiny (NOTE- the following is an excerpt mostly from the Teen Apologetics site, situated on www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm. Why? Because I’m a lazy git…you try writing out 500 words all over again. It’s bloomin’ tedious…)

1. 'The disciples stole the body'- this is the most common alternative I hear. However, it really doesn't make any sense once you look at the details. Firstly, there were a group of (very hard) Roman Soldiers on guard near the tomb. EVEN if they were sleeping (which is unlikely in its self) then the wax seal on the tomb would have to be removed prior to the stone being rolled away, which would have required at LEAST four people. How can all have been done even if the guards were sleeping? They wouldn't have left their positions because the penalty would have been death, so I can't see many volunteers for doing that. And besides, the Disciples were extremely depressed at this point, they'd just lost the Person they'd loved the most in their lives so they wouldn't have gone all the way back to the tomb, having suddenly recovered from their grief, to execute an incredibly ingenious plan which would require a steady mind and steady nerves (and not to mention no body- they couldn't make a noise nor could they afford to be seen remember!).

2. 'The Roman Soldiers and the Jews stole the body'- erm, why? What possible reason could there be? After going to the extent of killing their leader, why would they give this tiny, seemingly insignificant movement any credence by fulfilling what their Lord had said He would do? Why would they then not produce the body once His followers started blabbering on about a resurrected Christ? Why would they place Roman Soldiers ON GUARD to protect the body from being stolen, only to steal it themselves? This just doesn't make any sense at all.

3.'Those who saw the risen Jesus were merely hallucinating'- there were literally hundreds of people who saw the resurrected Christ, and I've never heard of a single hallucination that was seen by hundreds of people in exactly the same way. Also, research suggests that hallucinations are not life changing and that those who experience them are usually helped to recover by their friends and family, and as a result those who had the experience just dismiss them. However, the disciples underwent a HUGE life change- they preached in front of thousands when before they were scared followers, they were persecuted, jailed, tortured and finally executed. Hallucinations don't do this.

4.'They were on drugs'- erm, all of the hundreds of witnesses? On the same drug, which by some chance all had exactly the same effect? In different places, at different times? Even though the Jews were pure people who wouldn't have took things that harmed the body, and even though there's no evidence of such a drug existing? Uh-huh...

5.'Jesus didn't die on the cross'- this is something I’ll probably be addressing next issue, or alternatively you can check out a version on www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm titled ‘Jesus didn’t die on the cross’.

6.'It was all made up, and therefore the Gospel accounts are merely fiction'- I have addressed this issue already.

7. 'Miracles can't happen'- see the article of the same title in the 'General Objections' section of the Teen Apologetics site (http://www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/generalobjections.htm).

So, what does this mean for everyone? Well I just want to tell you that what I’ve spoken here is by no means the final word on this issue. There are many scholarly atheists who would be more than happy to pick apart this article. However, there would be many more scholarly Christians who could easily pick apart their pickings. So I think its safe to say that this is a basic but still relatively satisfactory defence of the resurrection. Given this, it could be said that the resurrection is not as easily dismissed as some think.

What may seem ‘far out’ to many (including myself) is actually more logical than most of the alternatives, so does this mean that Christianity is vindicated and is therefore the truth? Well that’s up to you. All you need to do is to give yourself and Christianity the proper look-in that is deserved. If you’re not a Christian, then this means that you may have a personally challenging time. If you are a Christian, well to be honest that’s even more difficult. Not only do you have to carry on serving Jesus Christ, which is difficult enough in itself, but also you should defend the resurrection and the Lord Himself from sceptical attacks. Either way, it’s not an easy thing, all this resurrection stuff. That may be the case, but the rewards it carries with it are beyond reckoning.