Evidence For the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

How important is the resurrection of Christ to the Christian faith?

I Corinthians 15:14 states, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

It would seem, from the passage above, that the doctrine of Christ's resurrection is the pinnacle on which the rest of the Christian faith rests. Interesting.... So, theoretically, if you can disprove the resurrection of Christ, you can disprove Christianity as a whole. Even we Christians would have no room to debate such a thing, seeing as how the Bible itself states how very important the resurrection is to the core of our belief.

Reading this passage, don't you think that many would try desperately to do just that? Finally! Once and for all to disprove that Christ rose from the dead! Once and for all to get all those Christians out there to shut up, for once! Once and for all to have the last word on a matter that has divided people across centuries!

Well, the truth is, many have tried. The problem with trying to disprove the resurrection is that the evidence in favor of it is incredibly overwhelming. There is better evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than there is for the existence of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. In fact, many who have set out pumped to finally get Jesus out of the picture, have instead ended up falling in love with Him. How's that for irony?

I will outline for you a few of the evidences for the resurrection:

* The earliest manuscripts in our possession today that record these events were written and circulated before those who had witnessed the execution and been impressed by the resurrection had died. In other words, the event itself and the surrounding events were still in the memories of those living in Israel at that time. If such wild accounts had been false or easily disproven by someone just saying, "Nope. I remember it all and it didn't happen that way," the movement would have met a swift end. (Matthew--within 20 years, Mark--within 30 years, Luke--within 30 or 40 years, John--within 20-30 years.)

* Jesus was medically proven to have actually, physically died. (In other words, he wasn't just in a coma or something like that.) John 19:32-37 states, "The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and foudn that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken,' and, as another scripture says, 'They will look on the one they have pierced.'" (See Context.)

* Jesus's body wasn't stolen by His followers. The religious and political leaders made sure of that by rolling a huge rock in front of Jesus's tomb, placing Pilate's seal on it and placing armed guards in front of it. (We're not sure how many guards were there. Estimates suggest between 20-100.) Matthew 27:57-66 has the full account of this. Some key verses are: "Joseph took the body, wraped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb.... The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 'Sir,' they said, 'we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.' 'Take a guard,' Pilate answered. 'Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.' So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on teh stone and posting the guard."

* There was a massive coverup--not by the disciples, but by the religious and political leaders who really goofed by "allowing" Jesus to, indeed, come back to life. Matthew 28:11-15 states, "...some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, 'You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.' So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed...." The trouble they spoke of was the death of any Roman soldier caught sleeping at his post. The Romans weren't exactly known for their forgiving spirit. So... if the disciples stole the body away while the soldiers slept, how did the soldiers know who had done it? Weren't they asleep? And, if they were really asleep, how did 20 or more trained guards sleep through all the noise the rolling away of that massive stone must have caused?

* Jesus's followers seemed to give up right after His death. They reacted as any one would if they believed that the one they had believed to be the Savior of the world, had suddenly met a very brutal end at the hands of the enemy. They went into hiding and with good reason, too. Now that the leader of thier revolt was dead, their lives were in danger from the relgious leaders who could kill them for being blasphemers--the same reason they used to crucify Jesus. Obviously, they weren't actively trying to fake anything or start a new religion. But then, suddenly,--upon seeing Jesus alive again and realizing that His triumph was over not only physical death, but the spiritual death of all mankind--they were so excited and zealous and outspoken that nobody could shut them up. John 20:19 states, "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' After he had said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord." (See Context.)

* Most of the disciples of Jesus and many of His followers who came later were martyred. They died still confessing that Jesus was God, the Messiah, the Savior of mankind, and that He had, indeed, conquered death by coming back to life on the third day as He had predicted. Obviously, they believed. Here's a list:

Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned and some 2,000 other Christians suffered at the time of Stephen's persecution, c. 35 A.D.
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
Matthew killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Jude was crucified.
Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.
(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).

For information on later Christian martyrs, see: http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/earlmart.htm

* There were over 500 eye witnesses who saw Jesus alive after He had died on the cross. I Corinthians 15:6 states, "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." Again, if these people were still alive and if this was a lie, wouldn't somebody have said something?

* If Jesus hadn't risen from the dead and if the disciples had no chance at all to steal the body, why didn't the religious and political leaders simply produce the body? They had control over the tomb. They certainly had sufficient reason to want Jesus's followers squelched and producing a Jesus's body would have quickly disproved that He'd come back to life. Why not? Because there was no body to be found. It was gone. They didn't have it.

Well, these are only a few of the evidences, as I said. There are many more; these are just the ones I remembered off the top of my head. Still, all in all, it's very unlikely the resurrection will ever be disproven. "Well, that's okay," some say, "I don't believe in Jesus or God anyway." Well, my response to that would be this: It's very easy to say something or someone "doesn't exist". It takes absolutely no work at all. You just have to sit there and turn your mind off. Easy. The work comes in when you try to discover the truth. What does the evidence tell you? And, if the character, Jesus, did, indeed, come back to life, how and why did that happen? Who was He, anyway?

A couple of verses later in the same book, the Bible has something else to say, which we should all consider:I Corinthians 15:17 states, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

That would certainly be a shame, would it not? To still be stuck in our sins while our lives are ebbing away?

The Origin of the Universe

Perhaps I jumped the gun a little when I started discussing the fossil record. Perhaps I should have started at the very beginning with the origin of the universe. This may even be a good place to find some common ground with our atheist friends. Let's see:

Question #1: How did the universe come into being?

The first possibility:
The universe had no beginning. It has always existed and will always exist into the future.

The second possibility:
The universe had a beginning. It had a beginning and is, therefore, finite. This idea also implies that the universe will eventually end.

Based on scientific discoveries of the motion of the galaxies, we have learned that the universe is expanding from one central location. (i.e. the Big Bang). Everything is moving slower now than it was millions of years ago. This suggests that we are not simply in a steady-state holding pattern.

Also, consider the laws of Thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in the universe remains constant. The second law of thermodynamics states that, though the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is steadily decreasing. It's running out. Everything is turning to disorder. Therefore, if we're running out of usable energy, it was never an infinite amount. The universe was never designed to exist forever.

Question #2: So, if the universe had a beginning, was this beginning caused or uncaused?

The Universe is Uncaused:
Some scientists once subscribed to the steady-state theory--the theory that the universe was brought about by natural causes. This theory is a bit out-dated, though, since it calls for the universe to be constantly generating hydrogen atoms from nothing. We now know, of course, that this does not happen. This stance also violates the law of casuality, which states that nothing happens without a cause.

The Universe was Caused:
If the universe was caused, what caused the explosion--the Big Bang--that hurled everything into existence? Some believe that the Big Bang was just a series of explosions, but that still leaves us asking, What caused the first explosion?

"Logically, if we are looking for a cause which existed before the entirety of nature (the universe) existed, we are looking for a supernatural cause. Even Jastrow [Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies], a confirmed agnostic, has said as much: 'That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.'" 

Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask

Just How Much Do You Know About the Fossil Record?

During a discussion with an atheist, I made an off-handed remark that the theory of evolution was full of holes. They asked me to prove it and, unfortunately, it had been some time since I had actually studied it, so they challenged me to do some research into evolution. I agreed, and here's what I discovered during my search: Science has not failed us, but the scientific community has.

Let me ask you, how much you really know about the fossil record? Are you basing your faith in evolution as the origin of the species on this evidence? Here's the site I visited:

29+Evidences

The evidences I saw were quite impressive at first glance. Then I started asking questions--questions like:
So, does the collected evidence support the conclusions being drawn by whoever put this site together?
How might someone like me determine that the experiments were performed correctly or by qualified people?
What evidences are still missing that would be necessary to draw the conclusions the scientific community is pushing?
Has the scientific evidence been taken for what it is or pushed into a preconceived mold?

Frankly, the answers to these questions cast a very dim light on these "evidences". The scientific data that has been gathered was so full of holes, it was laughable. They are drawing very distinct conclusions based on the teeniest shreds of data. In fact, none of it answers any questions--it just brings up new ones. Well, I take that back--It did answer one question for me. It showed me that to believe that all of the universe, our world, our plants, our animals and humanity sprung out of nothing--or even out of random energy patterns--is just as much of a faith system as it is to believe that an intelligent God made it all. The scientific community touts, "We don't have all the answers yet, but one day we will." Do you believe them? Or, could it be possible that God is still saying, "I AM the answer."

So, what are the holes, you ask? Here’s a closer look:

Again, at first glance it is quite impressive. “Wow!”, one might think. “We really did evolve from monkeys, after all!” But, since we’re adults now and able to do some digging for ourselves, let’s do. What we are looking at is a collection of skulls that are purported to be examples of transitional forms linking chimpanzee to humans (i.e. evidence that humans evolved from a chimpanzee-like creature). Based only on what this site said, here are a few of the holes I discovered. (The quotes were taken directly from the site mentioned.):

Skull A: A normal chimpanzee as we know them today.

Skulls B & C:

"In all, A. africanus is an enigma to paleoanthropology. Researchers are still
unsure about where A. africanus came from and which species, if any, it led to."

Skull D:

"The ER 1813 fossil is somewhat skewed on its left side, a result of the
pressures the skull experienced during the fossilization process…"

Skull E:

"The cranium was found crushed flat (hence the nickname) and cemented together
with a coating of limestone. Little value was placed on the find originally, but
after much effort, the skull was reconstructed. Despite this effort, there still
is a good deal of distortion from the fossilization process."

Skull F:

"The fossil was shown to Louis only several days before his death. But Richard
Leakey, leader of the expedition which uncovered the skull, refused to firmly
place ER 1470 into a species, listing it only as "Homo sp." or "genus Homo, but
species indeterminate." "

Skull G: Unfortunately, I didn’t have access to this item. Apparently, I had to pay $10 for a 24 hour pass to even look at it. Why? Isn’t this supposed to be public info?

Skull H:

"…ER 3733 represents a mature female of the early human species…"

My comment:
Apparently, this is the only thing available from the entire skeleton (as may be true for all of these skulls), and this is considered human. Whoa! Quite a big jump, wouldn’t you say? We’re going from “I don’t have a clue what this species is or even if it led to anything else,” to “this is an early human.” How can they possibly be sure?

Skull I:

"The braincase profile is low and slopes back from a large supraorbital torus
reminiscent of earlier H. erectus specimens."

My question: If these skulls are supposed to be showing signs of evolving—getting further away from the chimpanzee—why does this one seem to be more like the earlier skulls? Sounds like backwards evolution to me. &

"The cranium shows evidence of disease and wounds that occurred in the lifetime
of this individual. Ten of the upper teeth have cavities, and dental abscesses
of the upper jaw are clearly visible in the upper photograph (above the right
incisor/canine) and the middle photograph (above the first molar). Additionally,
a partially healed wound is visible in the bottom two photographs, above and
anterior of the hole for the ear."

Skulls J , K & L:
(A large gap in the fossil record admitted:)

"Neanderthals are known from Europe and western Asia from about 200,000 years to about 30,000 years ago, when they disappeared from the fossil record and were
replaced in Europe by anatomically modern forms."

&

"However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar
anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that
Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the
two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo
sapiens sapiens."

My comment: …Or maybe they’re actually both regular humans, and this one is just an example of a person who had an abnormally shaped skull. I wonder, if we were to examine the skulls of everyone in existence today, don’t you think we’d come up with at least a few oddly shaped craniums? Also, isn’t it interesting that they’ve found four skulls that fit into this same category when (according to the theory) there must be literally thousands of other missing links in between for which they have found nothing? Could it be possible that this abnormally shaped skull isn’t so abnormal among regular humans as one might think?

Skull L:

"The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved."

My comment: The jawbone seems to be missing entirely. From all appearances, it looks just like a fairly normal human skull—what’s left of it, that is.

Skull M: A regular human being just like you or me.

Obviously, there are many gaps and unknowns here. What, at first glance, looks like solid evidence, isn’t solid at all. It’s full of holes (just like many of the skulls). These skulls don’t answer a single question. In fact, they only bring up more. All in all, my point here is to show that belief in evolutionary theory (as the means by which humanity was created) is just as much of a faith system as Christianity. In fact, I think it requires a great deal more faith.

Cutting Away the Anchor

I've come across several people who, having once been a professing Christian, have since denied their belief in Christ and become atheists. Looking at this from the opposite perspective--one of confirmed belief and assurance, I have often wondered how they could possibly have made such a decision. I believe, though, that I'm beginning to understand. Here are several possibilities I see:

1. Their "Christianity" was merely a religion, with no actual relationship with God to begin with; therefore, everything they believed was based on head knowledge, rather than spirit knowledge. Understandably, they found their religion to be fruitless and empty and, finally, became disillusioned and left.

2. They were true Christians, but doubts and trials arose and, instead of relying on God to help them through, they succumbed to the world. They felt abandoned by God and faith, so they decided to abandon their faith in God. These people are still under God's grace, but are on a long journey--hopefully, one that will eventually bring them back. These people may indeed be atheists at this time. But even though we may turn our backs on God (free will), God will never turn His back on us once we have given Him the permission to save our souls.

3. Their understanding of God and Jesus was weak to begin with. They ran into some hard times that confused them. They believed some of the lies the world was telling them--such as "A good God wouldn't let anyone go to Hell." They were confronted by provocative-sounding "evidence" from the anti-God community, and eventually decided that there is no true evidence for belief in God.

Here's the problem with all of the above scenarios. Actually, there are several:

1. People tend to believe what they think is appealing, rather than what is proven to be true.

2. People tend to believe what is popular, rather than what is proven to be true.

And, most importantly:

3. Christians are most suseptible to doubt when they refuse to acknowledge or take into consideration the anchor of their faith--the hundreds of fulfilled prophesies about Jesus Christ, His death and His resurrection.

When a Christian decides to no longer be a Christian and becomes an atheist, it may feel very freeing. Suddenly the anchor is gone and you are free to live by your own rules and seek your own interests above all else. But, like a boat on a stormy sea, whenever you place your faith in yourself, you will soon discover how fallible you really are. A popular actor once said, "Christianity is only for weak people." And, yet, this actor had been through multiple divorces and addictions. Who is the weak person? Everyone. We are all weak and we all need the Savior. It simply takes a bit of humilty to admit it.