Wednesday, August 20, 2014

EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION



Although we intend to deal with many different topics on this blog, we thought it fitting that this first installment should specifically tie in very closely with the name of the blog.  This article is addressing an incredibly important issue.  It is about the life and claims of Jesus of Nazareth, and the fact of His resurrection. 
 
As Christians, we look to the Bible for truth.  And it is absolutely clear that the Bible teaches about the sinless life of Christ, His miracles, His crucifixion and death on the cross, His burial, and His resurrection.  All Christians believe (or should believe) in these things, and should be persuaded by what the Bible says about them. 
 
But what about those who don’t believe the Bible?  If atheists, naturalists, etc., are right, and the resurrection of Jesus is not true, then all of Christianity is false and we (Christians) are to be most pitied and are left in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).  But if Jesus Christ was indeed raised from the dead, then all His statements are true and all His miracles actually did happen.
 
The skeptic might ask, “But are there any records outside the Bible that suggest that Jesus even existed in the first place?” Yes indeed there are.

There were very early non-Christian (pagan and Jewish) sources who testified of Jesus and His followers.  Some of these include Cornelius Tacitus (115 A.D.), Caius Suetonius (115 A.D.), Pliny the Younger (112 A.D.), Lucian of Samosata (165-175 A.D.), and Flavius Josephus (93 A.D.).  The evidence of these non-Christian historians and authors, taken together, demonstrates that there was indeed a person named Jesus, who was called the Christ, who was said to have done miracles (which the pagans called “magical superstition”), and who was considered a “lawgiver,” and was executed as a criminal and crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.  His followers were said to have loved the truth at any cost, yet were despised and persecuted by Nero.  Even so, they experienced a rapid growth in their “new religion,” and they spoke of their leader as a god and still worshiped Him after His death.  See here for more details:


Remember, all this is from ancient pagan and/or Jewish historians.  None of the above historians were Christians, so no one can accuse them of bias toward Christianity.  Yet, much of what they said confirms what Scripture says about Jesus and His disciples.  Not only does this demonstrate the existence of Jesus, but it also strengthens the integrity of the other things mentioned in the gospel accounts.

Add to that the fact that Julius Africanus (215 A.D.), who was a Christian, speaks of a (pagan) Syrian historian called Thallus (52 A.D.) who acknowledged the period of darkness at the time of the crucifixion.  In the same passage, Africanus also refers to a (pagan) Lydian historian, Phlegon (138 A.D.).  Africanus writes, “Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth.”  (Chronicle, Fragment 18, Section 1)  The Christian historian Eusebius (300 A.D.) directly quotes Phlegon:  "However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad, an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea." Jerome’s translation (2005) of Eusebius’ Chronicle, Part II (Page 257 - online)

Both Thallus and Phlegon attributed the darkness to a solar eclipse, but even so, the point is that they both verified that this darkness was a real event.  But this was a supernatural darkness - solar eclipses don’t make it dark enough to see the stars, and they only last for several minutes, not three hours.  Not only is this event of the darkness referred to in Scripture (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44), but so is the earthquake that Phlegon mentioned (Matthew 27:51).  So we have unbelievers recording many things that verify the historical truth of the gospel message.  Is all this just a coincidence?  Surely not.  This should boost the Christian’s confidence in the truth of the resurrection (and the Bible, itself).

There are also many more modern writers who have spent a significant part of their lives diligently studying the facts of history, and have concluded that the resurrection did indeed happen.  These include historians, scholars, textual critics, lawyers, etc., some of whom are non-Christians.  As you will see, the resurrection is not just based on a “blind leap of faith.” Below is just a small sampling of those who acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the basis of historical evidence.

Thomas Arnold, English educator and historian said:

“Now in this same way the evidence of our Lord’s life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been shewn to be, satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad.  Thousands and ten thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as ever judge summed up on a most important cause:  I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others, but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind, which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than the great sign which God has given us, that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”   Christian Life, Its Hopes, Its Fears and Its Close (page 15-16, online)

British scholar and theologian, Brooke Foss Westcott wrote:

"Indeed taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic incident better or more variously supported than the Resurrection of Christ.  Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”  The Gospel of the Resurrection:  Thoughts on its Relation to Reason and History (Page 117-118, online)

Scholar and historian F. F. Bruce:

“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt… in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.”  The New Testament Documents:  Are They Reliable? (Chapter 2, online)

British lawyer, Sir Edward Clarke (King’s Counsel) in a letter to E. L. Macassey:

“As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day.  To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling… as a lawyer I accept [the Gospel evidence for the resurrection] unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate.”  Basic Christianity  (J.R.W. Stott, Page 58, online)

According to Simon Greenleaf (Harvard Professor and world renowned expert on evidence):

“It was therefore impossible that they [the apostles] could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.”  The Testimony of the Evangelists: Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice (Page 29, online)

In the same book, Dr. Greenleaf also said:

“The evidence which we have of the great facts of the Bible history belongs to this class, that is, it is moral evidence; sufficient to satisfy any rational mind, by carrying it to the highest degree of moral certainty. IF such evidence will justify the taking away of human life or liberty, in the one case, surely it ought to be deemed sufficient to determine our faith in the other.” Ibid. (Page 46, Online)

Historian Philip Schaff, on “rationalistic” historians:

“The ablest of the infidel [unbelieving] biographers of Jesus now profess the profoundest regard for his character, and laud him as the greatest sage and saint that ever appeared on earth. But, by rejecting his testimony concerning his divine origin and mission, they turn him into a liar; and, by rejecting the miracle of the resurrection, they make the great fact of Christianity a stream without a source, a house without a foundation, an effect without a cause. Denying the physical miracles, they expect us to believe even greater psychological miracles; yea, they substitute for the supernatural miracle of history an unnatural prodigy and incredible absurdity of their imagination.” History of the Christian Church (Paragraph 15)

There are several “explanations” and “theories” today by skeptics as to why the resurrection can’t be true.  But an actual resurrection of Jesus Christ would explain ALL the evidence, e.g., the empty tomb, Jesus’ appearances to His followers, the change in the disciples’ boldness, the rapid rise of Christianity, etc., while the theories of the skeptics cannot.  The resurrection is the best explanation.
 
This has been only a small part of the evidence.  It is our hope that this evidence has encouraged and strengthened the faith of fellow Christians, and has also provided some food for thought for the skeptic.

See also:


9 comments:

  1. Jesus' resurrection after his death is the ultimate and defining proof of Jesus' divinity. Just about everyone knows the story, which is summarized in the Apostles' Creed. Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

    There is only one way for Jesus to prove that he rose from the dead. He had to appear to people. Therefore, several different places in the Bible describe Jesus' appearances after his death:

    •Matthew chapter 28
    •Mark chapter 16
    •Luke chapter 24
    •John Chapter 20 and 21

    1 Corinthians 15:3-6 provides a nice summary of those passages, as written by Paul:

    For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. As you can see in this passage, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people a number of different times.

    Being like Paul: When we look at these Bible passages, there is a question that comes to mind -- why did Jesus stop making these appearances? Why isn't Jesus appearing today? It really is odd. Obviously Paul benefitted from a personal meeting with the resurrected Christ. Because of the personal visit, Paul could see for himself the truth of the resurrection, and he could ask Jesus questions. So... Why doesn't Jesus appear to everyone and prove that he is resurrected, just like he appeared to Paul? There is nothing to stop Jesus from materializing in your kitchen tonight to have a personal chat with you. And if you think about it, Jesus really does need to appear to each of us. If Paul needed a personal visit from Jesus to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why wouldn't you? It is an important question for the following reasons:

    •We are told by the Bible that Jesus appeared to hundreds of people.

    •We therefore know that it is OK for Jesus to appear to people -- it does not take away their free will, for example.

    •We know that it would be easy for Jesus to appear to everyone all through history, since Jesus is all-powerful and timeless.

    •We know that, if Jesus did reappear to everyone, it would be incredibly helpful. We could all know, personally, that Jesus is resurrected and that Jesus is God. If Paul (and all the other people in the Bible) needed a personal visit to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why not you and me?

    •Yet, we all know that Jesus has not appeared to anyone in 2,000 years.

    THINK folks! Which is more likely: A dead man walked out of his grave 2,000 years ago, ate a broiled fish lunch with his fishing buddies and then 40 days later levitated into outer space, or, this entire story of a Resurrection is a legend: a legend based on false sightings and/or visions and hallucinations, of well-intentioned but uneducated, illiterate, hope-shattered, superstitious Galilean peasants, desperately trying to keep alive their only source of hope in their miserable, first century existence?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Gary,

    Thank you for your input.

    I will agree to the truth of your five bullet points above. But I believe that your conclusion does not follow.

    Yes, Jesus PHYSICALLY appeared to some of His followers, and He has the ability to continue to appear to people if He wants to, but it does not necessarily follow that He MUST show Himself in this way to everyone in order for Him to validate His resurrection (or His existence).

    All that is necessary is for Him to have clearly shown Himself (as resurrected) to witnesses early on, and have some of those witnesses give testimony of that truth. That truth is then preserved in a reliable form (Sacred Scripture), protected by God, and passed down to succeeding generations. There is no need for Jesus to physically visit every single human being in his kitchen and have a “personal chat” with him. We have the New Testament. As some of those historians in the article above have testified, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament far exceeds the manuscript evidence of certain secular sources that no one dreams of questioning! Even some secular and pagan sources verify His existence and certain events of His life.

    But having said that, I believe that your “requirement” for Jesus to reveal Himself to everyone is, in a sense, exactly what He does… only not physically, like He did for Paul and the first-century witnesses.

    I believe that God has indeed given to all of us an INNATE knowledge of His existence. You may certainly disagree, but I believe every individual who can think is given, somewhere deep in his conscience, a “knowing,” perhaps an “assurance,” that an Almighty God does indeed exist. And once we recognize this, we are then accountable to this God, accountable to reach out for Him and to seek to know Him, and to find out what He requires of us. If one is faithful to this “urge” to search for Him, then he will eventually find Him. I fully believe that the place to find Him is in His inspired Scriptures (the Bible).

    You may call the biblical account of Jesus just a “legend,” but these “uneducated illiterate, hope-shattered, superstitious Galilean peasants” were convinced enough to give their lives for this Savior, whom they knew personally. Their lives were drastically changed for the better and they turned the world upside down. No one gives his life for something that he KNOWS is a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Russell,

    When I was a young child, I was raised in a Christian environment. At first I did not really believe in the biblical truths that were being taught to me at the time. Perhaps I did not thoroughly comprehend the concepts that were being introduced to me. Whatever the case, I somehow learned how to accept and believe the truths revealed within the Word of God.

    In the article, the documentation that you have recorded of ancient historians(especially those who are non-Christians) admitting that the events preserved in the Gospels (and other parts of the Bible) occurred only testifies to the truth of the Holy Scriptures. Hopefully, we can compile sufficient evidence to convert the Atheists and other Bible critics and bring them to the One who can grant them eternal salvation in Heaven. As you can see, the admission(of the non-Christian sources) to the fact that the events in the Gospel indeed took place and that Jesus Christ indeed existed is most troubling to their myth that Christianity is a false religion!

    It really shocks me that the historians and scholars who conducted studies on Christianity all concluded that the events that took place in the Gospel actually happened. That fact alone says A LOT about the Bible!

    " For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16)

    Jesse

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting "history" of how you "discovered" the Gospel.... I ask you Jesse, why are you a Protestant if this is really the case?

    From your Roman Catholic Buddy,
    Jonathon

    ReplyDelete
  5. Russell,

    This gave me a big LOL. I did not know people still pretend like Christianity is true. There may be some vague deistic concept but The Christian God is demonstrably false. It is a shame you go to such great lengths to maintain your cognitive dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This was OBVIOUSLY a copy and paste from my article:

      https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-brief-critique-of-humanist-logic.html

      So I had decided to share my reply here. I'm really sorry about that, Russ.

      Delete
    3. Good eye, Jesse!

      This is probably the same person who's been doing the same thing here on my blog.

      Yep, if you don't have an argument, just copy and paste!

      Delete
  6. Hello Anonymous,

    Yes, my atheistic friend, it seems that me and my “cognitive dissonance” are in good company, given the quotes in this article. Even some of your ancient pagan friends confirm the facts of Scripture.

    I think the pretenders are on your side.

    ReplyDelete