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:
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:
