Is there Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

When I was younger I used to think that as a Christian , I pretty much had to take the resurrection story of Jesus Christ on blind faith... and I guess didn't have a problem with that with all the other evidence I had both intellectual and experiential. 

However as I grew older I realized that this was a big deal and it needed some proper explanation and investigation. I was amazed at what I found. The article below summarizes quite well what I have been learning over the last few years.

God indeed requires faith - but never blind unreasonable irrational faith. 

Let's face it,  we believe in a lot of things with big implications that actually have a lot less evidence than this...

For me,  the rationality and reasonableness of Christianity ( on the Intellectual side) combined with my own personal experiences and those of millions of others makes it a beautifully true thing.

Here is the article:

Question: "Why should I believe in Christ’s resurrection?"

Answer: It is a fairly well-established fact that Jesus Christ was publicly executed in Judea in the 1st Century A.D., under Pontius Pilate, by means of crucifixion, at the behest of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The non-Christian historical accounts of Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Maimonides and even the Jewish Sanhedrin corroborate the early Christian eyewitness accounts of these important historical aspects of the death of Jesus Christ.

As for His resurrection, there are several lines of evidence which make for a compelling case. 

The late jurisprudential prodigy and international statesman Sir Lionel Luckhoo (of The Guinness Book of World Records fame for his unprecedented 245 consecutive defense murder trial acquittals) epitomized Christian enthusiasm and confidence in the strength of the case for the resurrection when he wrote, 

“I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

The secular community’s response to the same evidence has been predictably apathetic in accordance with their steadfast commitment to methodological naturalism. For those unfamiliar with the term, methodological naturalism is the human endeavor of explaining everything in terms of natural causes and natural causes only. If an alleged historical event defies natural explanation (e.g., a miraculous resurrection), secular scholars generally treat it with overwhelming skepticism, regardless of the evidence, no matter how favorable and compelling it may be.

In our view, such an unwavering allegiance to natural causes regardless of substantive evidence to the contrary is not conducive to an impartial (and therefore adequate) investigation of the evidence. We agree with Dr. Wernher von Braun and numerous others who still believe that forcing a popular philosophical predisposition upon the evidence hinders objectivity. Or in the words of Dr. von Braun, “To be forced to believe only one conclusion… would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”

Having said that, let us now examine the several lines of evidence which favor of the resurrection.

The First Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection

To begin with, we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Many of these eyewitnesses willfully and resolutely endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony. This fact attests to their sincerity, ruling out deception on their part. According to the historical record (The Book of Acts 4:1-17; Pliny’s Letters to Trajan X, 96, etc) most Christians could end their suffering simply by renouncing the faith. Instead, it seems that most opted to endure the suffering and proclaim Christ’s resurrection unto death.

Granted, while martyrdom is remarkable, it is not necessarily compelling. It does not validate a belief so much as it authenticates a believer (by demonstrating his or her sincerity in a tangible way). What makes the earliest Christian martyrs remarkable is that they knew whether or not what they were professing was true. They either saw Jesus Christ alive-and-well after His death or they did not. This is extraordinary. If it was all just a lie, why would so many perpetuate it given their circumstances? Why would they all knowingly cling to such an unprofitable lie in the face of persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death?

While the September 11, 2001, suicide hijackers undoubtedly believed what they professed (as evidenced by their willingness to die for it), they could not and did not know if it was true. They put their faith in traditions passed down to them over many generations. In contrast, the early Christian martyrs were the first generation. Either they saw what they claimed to see, or they did not.

Among the most illustrious of the professed eyewitnesses were the Apostles. They collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives.

The Second Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection

A second line of evidence concerns the conversion of certain key skeptics, most notably Paul and James. Paul was of his own admission a violent persecutor of the early Church. After what he described as an encounter with the resurrected Christ, Paul underwent an immediate and drastic change from a vicious persecutor of the Church to one of its most prolific and selfless defenders. Like many early Christians, Paul suffered impoverishment, persecution, beatings, imprisonment, and execution for his steadfast commitment to Christ’s resurrection.

James was skeptical, though not as hostile as Paul. A purported post-resurrection encounter with Christ turned him into an inimitable believer, a leader of the Church in Jerusalem. We still have what scholars generally accept to be one of his letters to the early Church. Like Paul, James willingly suffered and died for his testimony, a fact which attests to the sincerity of his belief (see The Book of Acts and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews XX, ix, 1).

The Third and Fourth Lines of Evidence for Christ's resurrection

A third line and fourth line of evidence concern enemy attestation to the empty tomb and the fact that faith in the resurrection took root in Jerusalem. Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem. It would have been impossible for faith in His resurrection to take root in Jerusalem while His body was still in the tomb where the Sanhedrin could exhume it, put it on public display, and thereby expose the hoax. Instead, the Sanhedrin accused the disciples of stealing the body, apparently in an effort to explain its disappearance (and therefore an empty tomb). 

How do we explain the fact of the empty tomb? Here are the three most common explanations:

First, the disciples stole the body. If this were the case, they would have known the resurrection was a hoax. They would not therefore have been so willing to suffer and die for it. (See the first line of evidence concerning demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony.) All of the professed eyewitnesses would have known that they hadn’t really seen Christ and were therefore lying. With so many conspirators, surely someone would have confessed, if not to end his own suffering then at least to end the suffering of his friends and family. The first generation of Christians were absolutely brutalized, especially following the conflagration in Rome in A.D. 64 (a fire which Nero allegedly ordered to make room for the expansion of his palace, but which he blamed on the Christians in Rome in an effort to exculpate himself). As the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recounted in his Annals of Imperial Rome (published just a generation after the fire):

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” (Annals, XV, 44)

Nero illuminated his garden parties with Christians whom he burnt alive. Surely someone would have confessed the truth under the threat of such terrible pain. The fact is, however, we have no record of any early Christian denouncing the faith to end his suffering. Instead, we have multiple accounts of post-resurrection appearances and hundreds of eyewitnesses willing to suffer and die for it.

If the disciples didn’t steal the body, how else do we explain the empty tomb? Some have suggested that Christ faked His death and later escaped from the tomb. This is patently absurd. According to the eyewitness testimony, Christ was beaten, tortured, lacerated, and stabbed. He suffered internal damage, massive blood loss, asphyxiation, and a spear through His heart. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus Christ (or any other man for that matter) could survive such an ordeal, fake His death, sit in a tomb for three days and nights without medical attention, food or water, remove the massive stone which sealed His tomb, escape undetected (without leaving behind a trail of blood), convince hundreds of eyewitnesses that He was resurrected from the death and in good health, and then disappear without a trace. Such a notion is ridiculous.

The Fifth Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection

Finally, a fifth line of evidence concerns a peculiarity of the eyewitness testimony. In all of the major resurrection narratives, women are credited as the first and primary eyewitnesses. This would be an odd invention since in both the ancient Jewish and Roman cultures women were severely disesteemed. Their testimony was regarded as insubstantial and dismissible. Given this fact, it is highly unlikely that any perpetrators of a hoax in 1st Century Judea would elect women to be their primary witnesses. Of all the male disciples who claimed to see Jesus resurrected, if they all were lying and the resurrection was a scam, why did they pick the most ill-perceived, distrusted witnesses they could find?

Dr. William Lane Craig explains, “When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what's really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women's testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren't even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it's absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women... Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status." (Dr. William Lane Craig, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 293)

In Summary

These lines of evidence: the demonstrable sincerity of the eyewitnesses (and in the Apostles’ case, compelling, inexplicable change), the conversion and demonstrable sincerity of key antagonists- and skeptics-turned-martyrs, the fact of the empty tomb, enemy attestation to the empty tomb, the fact that all of this took place in Jerusalem where faith in the resurrection began and thrived, the testimony of the women, the significance of such testimony given the historical context; all of these strongly attest to the historicity of the resurrection. We encourage our readers to thoughtfully consider these evidences. What do they suggest to you? Having pondered them ourselves, we resolutely affirm Sir Lionel’s declaration:

“The evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html

Recommended Resource: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas.

The Gospel According To Twitter

P.S. If you want to learn more about the evidences of Resurrection please read Is There evidence For the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Thank You Sarah

I just got back from a gathering of 2011 Grads that are part of the youth program I run at my local church.  I thought for a laugh I would dig out some old pictures of me and the “white man’s afro” look I had going on back in ’96.

I flipped through a few pages of my photo album and I was reminded once again of a very special and beautiful person and my eyes welled up.

Her name was Sarah. She passed away not long after our Graduation ceremonies in Valemount, BC…. just about 15 years ago now.

And I owe her a huge thank you.

I was a shy kid and didn't always fit in. I played a lot of road hockey with the local guys and had a great home-schooled education but when graduation time rolled around I realized I really didn’t have anyone my own age to celebrate with.

Enter Sarah.

We had become really good friends in the past few years. In the kindness of her heart she must have realized the same thing about my lack of graduation options, because she started inviting me to Grad meetings of the one and only public school in town.

I felt like I didn’t belong there but she insisted. I’m not sure how she did it but before long I was neck deep in Grad planning, fundraising etc.

Somehow I was invited to go along on the Dry Grad trip to West Edmonton Mall and had the time of my life.

And in one of the most special memories, I was somehow invited to take part in the public school grad ceremonies – even though I had never taken a class there in my life.

I went to Kamloops with Lyle and rented a tux just like everyone else. I got to go to the dinner and invite my very proud family. And I got to hear Mrs. Olsen introduce me just like I was one of the gang.

These are deep, precious memories and I owe so much of them, if not all of them, to my friend Sarah.  

She made me feel included and important. Her kind and thoughtful heart and bubbly personality will never be forgotten by me or anyone who knew her.

She was taken from us too early. I do not pretend to know all the reasons why but I am so glad that I knew her and that she knew me.

From conversations I had with Sarah (and other friends), I know I will get to tell Sarah in person one day what I was never really able to convey at the time – Thank you Sarah. Thank you for making such a difference in my life.

Joe

General Schwarzkopf Shed's a Tear

It surprised me to learn that General "Stormin' Norman " Schwarzkopf told Babara Walters in a 20/20 interview that he had a good cry every once in a while.  It didn't surprise me that he cried now and again - it surprised me that he would admit it.

He goes on to tell Walters:

"I've been scared in every war I've ever been in.                                                                     Any man who doesn't cry scares me a little."

On the same note, my friend Kent was telling me the other day how he had both watched the movie "Troy" with Brad Pitt and Eric Bana and had read Homer's "The Iliad" on which it was based.

He noticed that in the original, Hector walked around inside the fortress many times in fear and trepidation before coming out to meet Achilles in battle. 

However, in the Hollywood movie, this is strikingly missing. Perhaps because it would make Hector seem weak and not a true warrior. Yet we both agreed that the original was far better - as it was far more in tune with reality. 

Hector may have been filled with fear - but in the end he faced it. That seems like a more likely and more brave story to me.

My point here is the mixed messages we, as men,  

receive in our society. 

As one humourist summed up the dichotomy of what is expected of men in today's society , 

"I don't know whether to write a poem or punch my fist through the wall".

It seems we are a bit confused on what makes a man a man with all the mixed messages from society and media.  And, personally , I believe this has created some severe polarization in the hearts and minds of men.

On the one end we see someone seeking to fit the "man's man" stereotype. If you're not up to you're neck in cars, hunting, sports, technology, body building and sexual exploits - then you are really no man at all. You are to display no significant emotions except perhaps anger and rage - these seem to be acceptable. 

On the other end is the man who just doesn't naturally fit this stereotype and has finally become so frustrated with it all he says "screw it".  We often label this man at best as "metrosexual" or maybe "Emo" and at worst as a sissy, weak, gay or fag.

Here's something the Bible says on the topic though:

Jer 9:23 Thus says the LORD: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;

Jer 9:24 But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight," says the LORD.    

The truth is that men come in all shapes and sizes and personalities. It is the character and maturity of that person that defines him as a man.  It is the provision for and protection of the ones we love - and not just in the physical sense but also in the emotional and spiritual sense. 

When I've thought about what makes a man a man, I often think of King David in the Bible. He was a mighty warrior that many feared and yet he was also compassionate and kind and sensitive. He would pour his heart out to God in the Hebrew poetry we call the Psalms. If you have ever read them you will see how David shows his naked vulnerability and fervent passion to God and to those he loves. 


As fathers (As David was) ,  we need to not just be worried about reproducing an heir but more so on being a role model for that child and raising, disciplining and nurturing them ( I can think of a few kings in history who could have worked on that). 

And, of course, the ultimate example is the Son of God - Jesus Christ.  He completely revolutionizes how we think of a "hero" or "warrior". 

It is His incomprehensible humility that we are to follow. 

His steadfast and undying love for His people. A love so undying, in fact, that Jesus Himself would die before He would let this love for His Father and His people die. 

Though He could have called "ten thousand angels" , He instead let mere mortals crucify Him - for their very sake, and ours.

His compassion to the poor and needy, the marginalized women and men, the sick and the sinner  - that is our example. 

Of course we should make no mistake about confusing Jesus' meekness with weakness. For He will come again riding a mighty steed and bringing justice to the world - He is indeed both the Lion and Lamb.

And although , like Jesus, we are to be meek - unlike Jesus, we are indeed weak. But He says to us...  "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." 

Paul continues ..."Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities (weaknesses), that the power of Christ may rest upon me."   2 Corinthians 12:9

Why are we so afraid of taking on the responsibilities of being a man and, paradoxically, so afraid to show any signs of weakness in that attempt?

The principles and balance of manhood have always been right there in the Bible, but in different times and cultures we tend to focus on some and ignore the others. 

So on this father's day let us seek to know our Creator and thereby know more what it is to be a man. 

Let us develop healthy relationships with other men, whether they are our fathers, mentors, brothers, friends or sons.

 Let anything that has hurt us in the past and skewed our perception of manhood be healed.


Let us honour our fathers and mothers, love our wives as much as we love ourselves and raise our children well, with love, discipline and wisdom, never discouraging them.

And, as my Pastor said today, let us start a new legacy of Biblical manhood and fatherhood.

Indicatives, Imperatives and our Victory in Christ

“The irony of gospel-based sanctification is that those who end up obeying more are those who increasingly realize that their standing with God is not based on their obedience, but Christ’s.

My cousin Ben and I were recently having a conversion about how as we grow older we realize more and more how our victory as a Christian is already won for us in Christ.

That is not to say that we have any grandiose ideas about leading sinless lives but rather that we are understanding the concept of grace and of all the power that is available to us in the finished work of Christ on the cross and through His resurrection.

As Jabe Nicholson once said "The price of our re-training was paid at the cross."

We may call this concept of victory in Christ by different names and terms but one thing is sure - when we begin to understand it and tap into it -  it is life-changing and gloriously beautiful.

 Below I try to explain a bit of what I mean by looking the the Biblical definition of grace and Gospel sanctification  - that is to say, not just salvation,  but also personal holiness, obedience and a vibrant life of ministry to God and others....


I recently read a quote from a book called “Surprised by Grace” that has perhaps put the idea of Grace ( not just being saved by grace but also living by it)  more concisely than I’ve heard it anywhere else:

“People need to hear less about what we need to do for God and more about all that God has already done for us, because:

Imperatives minus Indicatives equal Impossibilities.

 If you’re a preacher and you’re assuming that people understand the radical nature of gospel indicatives, so your ministry is focused primarily on gospel imperatives, you’re making a huge mistake.”

*************

Because I didn't know what those terms really meant , I looked into them further -

Imperative – “Indicating authority or command; urgent, necessary” (Webster’s). An imperative is a statement of what one must do.  


A Statement of what is true and what one must do. A Commandment.


Indicative – “Designating that mood of a verb used to express an act” (Webster’s). An indicative explains what is true. It is not a command but expresses the rationale behind the command. 

An Explanation of why its true. Also the Motivation ( love) and Empowerment ( The Holy Spirit and grace) to keep the Commandment. 

One more quote from that book that really sums it up for me:


“The irony of gospel-based sanctification is that those who end up obeying more are those who increasingly realize that their standing with God is not based on their obedience, but Christ’s.


 The people who actually end up performing better are those who understand that their relationship with God doesn’t depend on their performance for Jesus, but Jesus’ performance for us.”


Adapted from Tullian Tchividjian's book “Surprised By Grace”.

To understand a bit more of the Biblical reasoning for the above statement you may want to read Position and Practice - the Biblical Distinction

To read more about my personal story with this concept of "grace"  read When I Understood Grace...or at least began to

At the end of the day , to truly understand the concept of God’s grace – we need to experience it, not just read about it. The Holy Spirit has to reveal it to us.


 Start praying for that!