Two years ago Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 published an Essay Series: Is Christianity True?
Many apologetics bloggers contributed to the series. My piece was on
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This weekend as Christians around the world
celebrate Christ's resurrection- the event reconciles us to the Father-
let's not forget that if, in fact, this did not happen in history, our
faith is useless (1 Cor 15), and anyone who does not believe it has no
hope (John 14:6). Here is the greatly abbreviated case for the
historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, as submitted for the essay
series:
Every person has a worldview. A person’s worldview consists of a web of
beliefs, each with its own sub-web of evidences that support it. A
worldview’s truth can be judged by how closely it reflects reality as we
know it. The evidences for each belief should be tested. I believe that
the Christian worldview is the one that most accurately reflects
reality. I will focus on providing evidences for one of the foundational
beliefs of Christianity- that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead
and that the Christian worldview is the only one that can make sense of
such an historical event.
First, the fact that Jesus was resurrected needs to be established to
be an event that actually happened. Before a resurrection of anyone from
the dead can be concluded, two things must be demonstrated: 1. That
they, in fact, died; and 2. That they were seen alive after death.
Several lines of evidence support the fact that Jesus Christ died.
First, a large number of both Christian and non-Christian sources record
the event.1 Second, medical studies on the process of
crucifixion show that death occurs by asphyxiation. Third, ancient
sources record the “final blow” to Jesus that guaranteed his death.
Fourth, Jesus’ disciples were astonished to see him alive, because they
knew he had died. The vast number of historians who have written on the
issue of Jesus’ resurrection agree that these pieces of evidence point
to the fact that Jesus had died before his disciples claimed to see
Jesus in a “risen” state.2
Second, the fact that the disciples saw Jesus after they knew he died
needs to be established. Several lines of evidence support this fact.
First, the disciples believed that they had an experience of the risen
Jesus. Second, the disciples turned from being cowards (abandoning Jesus
just prior to his crucifixion) to being willing to die for their
belief. Third, the apostles proclaimed the resurrection extremely early
in the history of the Church (the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3 has a
history that may be traced to only a couple years after the death of
Jesus). Fourth, Jesus’ brother James was skeptical of Jesus’ claims,
until he had a post-death experience of Jesus. Fifth, Saul of Taursus
(Paul) was a learned Jewish persecutor of Christians, until he had what
he believed to be an experience of Jesus. The evidence provided here for
Jesus’ appearances is accepted by the majority of critical scholars who
have written on the issue.3
Seeing that the evidence for death and appearances afterwards is quite strong, we are left concluding that something
happened. But can we say that it was a “resurrection,” and if so, can
we say that God is responsible? Many theories have been proposed to
explain the evidence in a way that did not allow for a resurrection. One
such example is that the disciples’ experiences were psychological in
nature, and had no basis to reflect an actual occurrence. This has been
disputed by modern psychological research, showing (among other things)
that visions cannot be shared among people.4
Another such theory is called the “swoon” theory. This theory basically
posits that Jesus didn’t actually die, and the conditions in the tomb
were such that he could regain consciousness.5 This theory is inadequate for many reasons.6
One of them has to do with Jesus’ expected physical condition if such a
thing actually happened. If Jesus showed up to his disciples in a
post-crucifixion state (bloody, disfigured, and weak), then had made the
claim that he was their “Risen Lord,” the disciples would have, at
least, been more concerned about tending to his needs, and at most just
told him to “go away”, thoroughly convinced that their friend truly was
just another fraudulent messiah.
Naturalistic explanations for the evidence, such as the one provided
here, are not adequate to explain all the evidence provided, and still
remain consistent.4 Also, since naturalistically, things that
die do not come back to life, we must accept the fact that Jesus was
brought back to life (a resurrection).7 But we cannot jump
from here to say that God did it. Before this can even be a possibility,
it must be established that God exists or has the possibility of
existing.
Many
arguments have been posed to support the existence of God. Examples are
the Kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral
argument, the ontological argument, and several others. An explanation
and defense of each of these arguments is beyond the scope of this
essay, but many sources exist for investigation online. None of these
establish a proof for God’s existence on its own; however, if taken as a
cumulative case, God’s existence is the only possibility that can
account for all the evidence (philosophical, scientific, and
experiential) that the arguments provide. Since it is, at least,
possible that God exists, then the possibility exists that God is the
cause of Jesus’ resurrection,8 which is the cause for the appearances to the disciples, which is (half of) the cause for their transformation.9 The idea that God exists, makes sense of all the evidence provided, while the atheism cannot do so.
Christ claimed that his resurrection would provide proof of the truth of his claims.10
Since a supernaturalistic account would force the conclusion of
approval of Christ’s teachings, any religion that denies Christ’s claims
(he is deity and he is the exclusive way for salvation) will have to
account for the evidence for the resurrection with a naturalistic
account. Since this is not possible, we must accept the worldview that
accounts consistently for all the evidence. That is the Christian worldview.
This short investigation of the resurrection is, by no stretch of the
imagination, complete. It is part of a cumulative case for the truth of
Christianity and falsity of other worldviews. It provides powerful tools
to begin sifting through the available choices.
For more information on this topic, check out Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, and Ben Witherington.
More resources will be posted to the Faithful Thinkers' Twitter account and Facebook Page throughout the week. Be sure to subscribe and follow!
1. Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for The Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company), pp. 143-242
2. Habermas, Gary R. The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. 2003), p. 16
3. Ibid., p. 27
4. Ibid., pp. 10-15
5. Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for The Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company), pp. 69-72
6. Ibid, pp. 72-75
7. Habermas, Gary R. The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. 2003), pp. 67-69
8. Ibid., pp. 78-80
9. Ibid., pp. 17-26
10. Ibid., p 108