By John Lloyd Bautista
The Existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the resurrection. Why? Because majority of historians & even skeptics admit tha disciples believed that Jesus really rose from the grave. But, in conclusion, don’t we have to ask ourselves what implications this has? Why does it matter? Well, Simply because if Jesus Christ really rose from the Dead that means 1. There is Life after Death, 2. Jesus is really who claimed to be 3. Our life and our purpose here on earth is totally dependent on the person of Jesus Christ BUT.. how do we know its TRUE?
Can people really know what happened in the past? Historical relativists argue that the past cannot be known. If this view is correct, then it becomes futile to try to determine if Jesus rose from the dead. Historical relativism claims that the past cannot be known as there are too many factors that can destroy any reliable information that is recorded. However, historians have developed tests of historical reliability. With these tests, history can be known with varying degrees of certainty. The more tests that are passed, the more probable it becomes that the event in question actually took place. This process of assessing an events’ probability of having happened in the past is called “historiography”.
Tests of Historical Reliability
The first test of historical reliability is the test of manuscript evidence. There are no original documents left from ancient times. They have worn out from much usage. The original documents were copied by hand, and these copies remain in the present. Before any historical text can be evaluated, it must be accurately reconstructed. Generally speaking, texts that are older, and closer to the events they record, have had less time to be corrupted by copyist errors. Documents that have more and older manuscripts have a greater chance of being accurately reconstructed to show what the original document said.
The second test is the test of multiple attestation. This means that an event is recorded by more than one source. It is vastly improbable that two or more people will make up the same thing. Therefore, if multiple sources record the same event, it raises the probability that the event actually happened. The sources should also be independent of each other. Often two historians record the same event, but one historian has simply based his record on the testimony of the historian before him. In such a case, this is really only one source.
A third test of historical reliability is eyewitness testimony. If the account of an event is written by someone who witnessed the event, then it is more probable that the record is accurate. The reason this is significant is clear. There are no opportunities for the story to be changed. The recipients of the account are receiving the story directly from the source.
Another test is the criterion of embarrassment, which is also known as the test of internal evidence. This test tries to find details that are embarrassing or damaging to the one recording the event. Humans are not prone to invent stories that reflect badly on themselves. In fact, humans will frequently leave out details that would make themselves vulnerable in some way. If a historical account contains details that are counterproductive to the author, then it increases the probability that the author is recording what actually happened.
The Best Explanation of the Facts
When assessing various competing historical hypotheses, the principle of the best explanation of the facts should be accepted. The best explanation of the facts should explain more evidence than any other competing hypothesis. It should not have to strain the evidence. It should require the investigator to accept the fewest assumptions without any new evidence.
It is, of course, important to remember that no test can absolutely prove what has happened in the past. These various tests are a means to evaluate what most probably happened in the past. Virtually everything human beings “know” is probabilistic. Therefore, if Jesus’ resurrection is the most probable explanation it should be accepted. When assessing the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the defender only needs to show that the evidence renders it more probable than not that Jesus did rise again.
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
It is important to note that the five historical books of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts) were not written as divinely inspired scriptures. The books never claim this of themselves. All they purport to be are reliable historical accounts (Luke 1:1-3). In other words, the authors understood themselves to be recording history, not giving divine revelation. This does not mean that God did not inspire their writings. Nonetheless, since unbelievers do not believe that God was involved in the writing of the New Testament, the defender of Jesus’ resurrection ought to first defend the Gospels and Acts as reliable history. Critics often hold the New Testament to a higher standard than other historical documents. However, this is unfair. To be consistent, the Gospels should be treated like any other historical document.
The Gospels are the earliest narratives about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Since there are reliable methods of determining the reliability of historical accounts, the next question becomes clear. How reliable are the Gospels?
Textual Reliability
How much manuscript evidence exists for the Gospels? Some critics (most notably Bart D. Ehrman) have said that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament contains so many variants that no one can actually know what the original texts said. Variants are differences among existing manuscripts. These can range from spelling errors, to synonyms, to the order of words. Variants are expected when ancient documents are copied by hand over many centuries. But, are the differences so grave as to jeopardize any knowledge of what the original Gospels said? The evidence would suggest otherwise. The New Testament is the undisputed champion of ancient documents when it comes to manuscript evidence. Currently, over 5,800 manuscripts and fragments are documented for the New Testament. Several hundred manuscripts date to before AD 1000. There is more, and earlier, textual evidence to support the New Testament than for any other document from antiquity. No other document even comes close. The reason for the large number of variants that skeptics, like Ehrman, complain about is that there are a large number of texts. But, this is a good thing. There is a greater chance of restoring the original document when more manuscripts exist for it. The vast majority of these variants are due to spelling errors, synonyms, and obvious mistakes. These are easily correctable. Ehrman has grossly overstated his case. No variant would undermine any essential Christian doctrine. Even if there were no manuscripts of the New Testament, scholars are able to reconstruct virtually all of it from the quotations of the early church leaders alone. To sum that up, granting the skeptic the most generous points, the New Testament is still textually trustworthy. If a skeptic wants to reject the New Testament because he does not believe there is enough manuscript evidence, he had better reject all knowledge of ancient history.
Early Dating
Some critics place the Gospels into the mid to late second century. Since this is two hundred years after the events are supposed to have happened, they regard the Gospels as largely mythological. This view is untenable in light of new evidence. Almost no scholar believes the Gospels are complete fabrications. The majority of scholarship now recognizes that the Gospels are ancient biographies. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament shows that it was written in the first century. The earliest existing New Testament fragment from the Gospel of John dates to about 125 AD. This is significant because John is generally regarded as the last of the four Gospels to have been written. If John dates to the first century AD, then the other Gospels certainly do as well. However, the Gospels can be dated even earlier. Consider the book of Acts which was written after Matthew and Mark and was a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. Acts never records the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The author would have had every motivation to record it since it would have validated Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 21, which the same author recorded. However, Acts never mentions it. The best explanation is that Acts was written before AD 70. The book of Acts features Paul as the main character in the narrative. However, the author of Acts never records Paul’s death, which occurred around AD 67. The author would have had every motivation to include this detail as it would make Paul a martyr and thus make Christianity more credible. But, Acts ends with Paul still alive. The best explanation is that Acts was written before Paul’s death in 67 AD. If Acts dates to before AD 67 then the synoptic Gospels must be even earlier. Historically speaking, this is incredibly close to the life of Jesus. Critics complain about apparent contradictions in the Gospel accounts. However, these are not unusual among historical documents. Most of these apparent discrepancies can be easily reconciled. Even if they could not, that would show that the Gospel accounts are independent of each other, and this further strengthens their reliability.
Eyewitness Testimony
The question of who wrote the Gospels is highly controversial. The early church leaders identify Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors of the Gospels. Unfortunately, the majority of scholars remain unconvinced. What are the reasons for accepting that the four canonical Gospels were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? The earliest account for traditional authorship is from Papias, and is later recorded by Tertullian and Justin Martyr . Critics point out that the gospel authors never identify themselves in the text. They also point out that the early Christians would have every motivation to invent eyewitnesses as the authors of the Gospels. First, it was not uncommon for ancient biographers and historians to not identify themselves. The Roman historian Tacitus never identified himself as the author of his works. He is identified from external sources. The biographer, Plutarch, wrote over fifty biographies and never once identified himself in the text. Yet, the idea that he authored the biographies attributed to him remains uncontroversial. Far from undermining the credibility of the Gospels, the fact that the authors followed the standards for historical documents of their time, strengthens the hypothesis that they preserved reliable history. Second, the hypothesis that the early church leaders simply attached the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to the Gospels in order make them look legitimate falls apart under closer investigation. Two of these men (Mark and Luke) were not even eyewitness. Indeed, they were not even very significant figures within early Christianity. There is no motivation for anyone to invent Mark or Luke as an author. The best explanation is that Mark and Luke actually were the authors. Matthew would have been an eyewitness. However, it must be remembered that the Gospel attributed to Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Matthew was a tax collector (Matt 9:9, Mk 2:14, Lk 5:27). The Jews did not like the tax collectors since they worked for Rome (Lk 18:9-14). It seems unlikely that anyone would make up the idea that Matthew wrote this Gospel. Therefore, it seems most likely that the reason the early church leaders said Matthew was the author of this Gospel is because he actually was. Finally, there is the Gospel of John. John would have been an eyewitness, and in Jesus’ inner circle. Interestingly, the case for John being the author is the strongest of all the Gospels. The Gospel directly claims to have been written by a disciple (Jn 21:24). Moreover, the Gospel claims it was written by the disciple who Jesus loved. Polycarp, who was a student of the apostle John, testifies that John was the disciple who Jesus loved. This is confirmed in the writings of Irenaeus. Even many scholars who not believe John wrote this Gospel, still believe it was written by (or based on the testimony of) an eyewitness. It is worth noting that there are no known rivals for the authorship of the four Gospels. While the evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is not conclusive, it is weighty. It must be remembered that history does not seek absolute certainty, but rather for what is most probable. The traditional authorship of the Gospels should be accepted until the critics present some more reasonable alternatives.
Internal Evidence
The Gospels are filled with numerous examples of embarrassing details. The disciples repeatedly fail to understand Jesus, mess up, do wrong, and ultimately end up abandoning Jesus to be executed (Mk 14:50). The question must be asked, why did the authors make themselves look so bad? Why make up that these incredibly embarrassing events happened if they never did? Obviously, the best explanation is that these shameful events were recorded because they actually happened. If judged by normal standards of historicity, the Gospels should be regarded as highly reliable accounts of Jesus’ life.
Miracles and History
Undoubtedly, the largest reason that most critics reject the Gospels is because of the miracles they record. The skeptic, David Hume, is said to have destroyed the possibility of rationally believing in miracles. Since Jesus’ resurrection is, by any standard, a miracle, Hume’s philosophical objection to miracles must be addressed before further inquiry may take place. Hume’s argument goes as follows:
Premise 1: Natural laws describe what regularly happens
Premise 2: Miracles are rare events
Premise 3: Evidence for regular events is always greater than evidence for rare events
Premise 4: The wise man should base his beliefs on the greater evidence
Conclusion: Therefore, a wise man should never believe in a miracle.
Premise one and two of the argument are both true. Obviously premise four is true. Wise people will always believe the greater evidence. The problem lies in the third premise. The evidence for the regular is not always greater than the evidence for the rare. Consider certain rare events that only happened once. The universe came into existence only once. The origin of life happened only once. These are as verifiable as anything can be. David Hume’s birth only happened once. If he consistently applied his method to reality then he could not believe that he had ever been born . This method would rule out belief in any rare event. It seems clear that the evidence for the rare can often be as strong, or stronger, than the evidence for the regular. Therefore, Hume’s argument against miracles fails.
Miracles as Divine Revelation
A miracle is a supernatural act within the natural world. Because humans know natural laws, it makes it possible for them to identify when something happens counter to these laws. If something (like a resurrection) happens that cannot be accomplished by nature, then it must have its source in something outside of nature. This is as much as to say the source of something caused from beyond nature would be supernatural by definition. Since God is supernatural, it is reasonable to attribute a miracle to God. The context of a miracle can also serve to establish its divine origin. The context of the resurrection is Jesus’ incredible life and His claims to be God. Skeptics, like Bart Ehrman, claim that Jesus’ deity was a later idea. But, this is unsubstantiated. Paul, who provides the earliest evidence for Jesus, clearly believed Jesus was God (Col 1:16, Col 2:10, Eph 1:21, Phil 2:10). Therefore, if the resurrection happened, it is the evidence that Jesus was God, and it is against His claims to deity that His resurrection should be understood.
The Relevant Historical Evidence
In order to establish that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, three things must be established. The first is that Jesus was alive at one point. The second, is that He was dead later. The third, is that He was subsequently alive again. If these three facts can be established with a high degree of probability, then the historical case for Jesus’ resurrection succeeds.
Jesus Existed
In recent times, it has become popular to deny that Jesus ever even existed. While this idea has been ridiculed in scholarly circles, it remains popular on the internet . . According to them, the historical evidence that Jesus existed is not sufficient to establish that he actually lived. Therefore, before one can investigate the evidence that Jesus rose again, one must establish that such a person as Jesus actually lived.
Paul’s Epistles
The earliest evidence for Jesus’ existence would be the letters of Paul the apostle. From Paul’s epistles, one can learn that Jesus lived (2 Cor. 8:9), that He died (Phil 2:8), and that He rose again (Rom 1:4). Skeptics, such as Price and Carrier, charge that Paul did not believe that Jesus was a recent, historical, figure. They say, Paul believed that Jesus died and resurrected eons ago in heaven. They say that Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus presented in the Gospels, and that the Gospels are later fiction that turned Jesus into a historical person
.
First, Paul was not writing biographies of Jesus, he was addressing specific problems within early churches. Thus, it should not be surprising that there are only passing references to Jesus’ life on earth. However, there is evidence that Paul did believe that Jesus was a recent, historical, person. Paul mentions that he had met James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19). Clearly Jesus could not have had a brother living at the time that Paul was writing if He had not been a recent, historical person. Price and Carrier have responded to this by saying that there was a sect within the early church known as “The Brothers of the Lord.” They say, James was a part of this sect, and that this title is all Paul was referring to. This counter-argument fails for a number of reasons. First, there is no evidence that there ever was a sect called “The Brothers of the Lord”. This idea is imaginative speculation, but hardly responsible history. It is true that Paul shows knowledge of sects and factions within the Corinthian church (1 Cor 1:12). However, none of them are called “The Brothers of the Lord.” Furthermore, in the context of 1 Corinthians, Paul is condemning the Corinthians for having these different sects. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Paul would ever reinforce this idea of having different sects by calling James “The Brother of the Lord.” Another example of Paul’s knowledge of a historical Jesus can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Here Paul discusses the Lord’s supper. He incorporates specific words of Jesus and mentions that Jesus was betrayed one night. All of this fits best with the hypothesis that Paul believed Jesus was a real, historical, person In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul discusses a list of people who saw Jesus after His resurrection. He mentions that Jesus was seen by over five hundred at one time and that the majority of these people are still alive. It seems useless to mention that these people were still alive unless Paul believed that Jesus had lived and resurrected recently.
Non-Biblical Sources
Contrary to the claims of skeptics, that only the Bible records that Jesus lived several, non-biblical, sources actually say that He did. These sources include Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Thallus, Lucian, Agrapha, Phlegon, and Mara Bar Serapian. Probably the most significant, non-biblical source about Jesus is that of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He recorded that Jesus was a wise teacher who had many followers. He said that Jesus did mighty works, was hated by the Jewish leaders, and was ultimately crucified. He further records that Jesus’ disciples believed that Jesus had risen again, and that they were still spreading the gospel in Josephus’ day. Most manuscripts also hint that Jesus was God, that He was the Messiah, and that He resurrected. Josephus’ testimony has come under severe criticism because of this. Some have argued that the entire passage is a later forgery because Josephus, being a Jew, would simply never say Jesus was God, the Messiah, or that He rose again. However, others have argued that the language and style are the same as the rest of Josephus’ work. Most scholars believe that the passage is indeed original, but that the obviously Christian parts within it are later forgeries. This idea has been confirmed by the discovery of Islamic manuscripts of Josephus which contain the passage minus the obviously Christian elements. Additionally, Josephus references Jesus again later in a passage which is not disputed. Josephus says that James, the brother of Jesus, was martyred. Jesus is only mentioned in passing, which assumes the reader is already aware of who Jesus is. This only makes sense if Josephus’ first passage is original. In summary, there is considerable testimony for Jesus’ existence even apart from the Bible. Those who deny the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth do so in spite of the evidence – not because of it.
Jesus Died by Crucifixion
If it is reasonable to believe that Jesus once lived, the next step is to establish that Jesus actually died. While virtually all scholars hold Jesus’ death by crucifixion to be the one indisputable fact about His life, some have challenged this key point. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the evidence for Jesus’ death before one can investigate His resurrection. Those who deny that Jesus actually died on the cross, have rarely taken the time to understand how death by crucifixion worked. Crucifixion was essentially death by suffocation. Therefore, to fake death by crucifixion, one would have to fake the inability to breath. The problem is that this cannot be faked for very long before actual death occurs. Additionally, the Roman soldiers would have been well acquainted with what a dead crucifixion victim looked like. If all this were not enough, the Gospel of John records that Jesus’ side was pierced with a spear to ensure His death. The author includes the detail that blood and water came out. Since the author was not likely a medical man, it is unlikely that he would realize that this would have meant that Jesus’ heart had ruptured. There is no theological reason to include that water came out of Jesus’ side. It is best explained by the hypothesis that water actually came out, and that the reference to it is an incidental, eyewitness detail. This shows that Jesus was dead beyond all reasonable doubt. Jesus’ death by crucifixion is the one thing that nearly every source about Jesus mentions. This is why it is the least controversial fact about Jesus’ life.
Jesus’ Tomb was Discovered Empty
If it can be said that Jesus was really alive at one point, and dead at a later point, the only thing left for the Christian apologist to show is that Jesus was alive again later. If this is done, then the resurrection is proven. The first piece of evidence for this is the empty tomb of Jesus.
Evidence for Jesus’ Burial
Was Jesus really buried? Scholars, such as J. D. Crossan, say Jesus was simply thrown to the dogs after His crucifixion. According to those putting such a view forward, the story of Jesus’ burial is a late, Christian legend. The first problem with this view is the mentioning of a man named Joseph of Arimathea who all four Gospels say buried Jesus in his own tomb. This seems unlikely to be a Christian invention. The Gospels mention that Joseph was part of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the court that condemned Jesus to death. Additionally, the early Christians frequently clashed with the Sanhedrin. It becomes inexplicable why Christians would invent this story. Why would they make up a character who does the right thing, but who is also part of an organization that they disliked and condemned their Savior to death? The better explanation is that they recorded Joseph honoring Jesus with a proper burial because this actually happened.
The Jerusalem Factor
All this may confirm that Jesus was buried, but was His tomb found empty three days later? It seems very hard to explain how Christianity ever even got started if one does not believe in the empty tomb. All the records agree that Jesus was crucified and buried a short way out of Jerusalem. This means that anyone could verify that Jesus’ tomb was actually empty. This is significant because the disciples were preaching that Jesus was alive mere days after the crucifixion. If Jesus’ body had been in the tomb, anyone could take a short walk to Jesus’ tomb and prove that Jesus was still dead. The fact that this never happened is a powerful argument that Jesus’ tomb was actually empty. The Jews’ very first counter-argument to Jesus’ resurrection also presupposed an empty tomb. They said that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:15). Why would they say this if Jesus’ corpse was still in the tomb? Obviously Jesus body must have been missing in order for the Jews to feel the need to come up with an explanation for the empty tomb.
The Testimony of Women
In the first century, the testimony of women meant virtually nothing. Women were not even allowed to testify in court because the Jews regarded them as too emotional to be reliable. This is significant because all the tradition regarding the empty tomb mentions that it was discovered by women. Why would they invent women as the prime witnesses when the culture regarded them as unreliable? A better explanation is that the women were mentioned as the first witnesses to the empty tomb because they really were.
Jesus’ Disciples Believed Jesus had Risen Again
It is not widely disputed that Jesus’ apostles came to believe He had risen again, and as a result were executed for preaching this. Nonetheless, skeptics such as Richard Carrier, have argued against this. Therefore, the evidence for the apostles conversions will be examined. The first line of evidence is their collective testimony. These men spent the rest of their lives preaching that Jesus was alive again. Certainly they must have believed it. There was no motivation for them pretend that Jesus had risen again. They did not become rich or powerful from dedicating their lives to this message. Why should eleven men dedicate themselves to something they knew to be false? In addition to there being no real motivation for them to make the resurrection up, there was every motivation for them to abandon it. Tradition has it that ten out of the eleven apostles were brutally killed for their faith in the resurrection. Richard Carrier charges that the accounts of the apostles martyrdoms are too late and legendary to be considered reliable. In fairness, many of the accounts are late and probably based more on legends than eyewitness testimony. However, Clement of Alexandria records the death of Peter and his account can be dated no later than 95 AD. A little later, Ignatius records the death of Peter. Tertullian records that Peter was crucified upside down. Historically speaking, the evidence for Peter’s martyrdom is strong. Even if martyrdoms cannot be firmly established for all of the apostles, it is enough that they dedicated their lives to preaching this. It is clear that the apostles actually believed Jesus was alive again, and at least Peter was willing to die for this belief.
Skeptics of Jesus Believed Jesus had Risen Again
Perhaps even more interesting than the fact that Jesus disciples believed He was alive again, is the fact that at least two people, who were initially skeptical of Jesus’ resurrection, came to believe it had really happened. The first is Paul the apostle. Paul described himself as a vicious opponent of Christianity (1 Cor. 15:9). Something happened to Paul which caused him to reject his old Jewish beliefs and embrace a religion that he vehemently opposed (Licona The Resurrection 375-376). That he truly believed that Jesus was alive again is attested to by multiple lines of evidence. His own testimony that he had seen Jesus risen again (1 Cor. 15:8), his willingness to endure personal danger and loss (2 Cor. 11:23), and finally his execution because of his faith in Jesus, all point to the reality of Paul’s conversion. Paul’s death is recorded in the writings of Clement, Tertullian, Dionysius, and Ignatius. Polycarp also says that Paul was beheaded (McDowell 112). The evidence is fairly clear that Paul came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, despite having every reason not to. The second skeptic that came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection was Jesus’ own half-brother, James (Licona Resurrection 455). The Gospels are clear that James did not believe in Jesus prior to the crucifixion (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55–56). Yet, James came to believe that Jesus was indeed Lord, and that He had risen again (1 Cor. 15:7; Jms. 1:1). James was also killed for his belief in Jesus resurrection as recorded by Josephus and Hegesippus. It seems clear that people came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection even though some had a disposition to the contrary. Any historical hypothesis must account for all of the above data in order to be adequate.
Examining Competing Explanations
The Disciples Stole Jesus’ Body and Lied About His Resurrection?
The earliest alternative to the resurrection is the hypothesis that Jesus’ disciples stole Jesus’ body and then lied about Him rising again. This hypothesis would explain why Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty, as well as why the disciples claimed Jesus was alive again. However, it fails to give any motive for why the disciples would lie. As was shown, there was every reason for the disciples to not say Jesus was alive. Yet, they were killed for preaching that Jesus was alive again. Also, how would this explain Paul? What about James? Both are said to have been convinced by seeing Jesus alive again — not believing what the disciples said. This view adequately accounts for some of the evidence, but not all of it. Therefore, this is an inadequate explanation of the known data, and should be rejected.
Someone Else Stole Jesus’ Body?
Some have modified the above view to say someone other than the apostles stole the body. This view is actually worse, because now it only explains one piece of evidence, namely the empty tomb. The disciples were not convinced of Jesus’ resurrection based on the empty tomb, they believed when they saw Jesus alive again. This view still leaves Paul and James’ conversions unexplained. And it adds a further problem. What motive is there for someone else to steal the body of Jesus? This modified view creates more problems.
The Disciples Went to the Wrong Tomb?
Another theory is the view that the disciples went to the wrong tomb. When the disciples saw that the tomb was empty, they concluded that Jesus was alive again. Once again, this would only explain one piece of evidence, the empty tomb. And it is highly debatable that it even explains that. Surely someone would have thought of going to the correct tomb and disproving the disciples. The disciples were not convinced by the empty tomb, so this theory fails at explaining why the disciples were willing to die for their faith in the resurrection. Additionally, this theory offers no explanation for the conversion of the skeptics Paul and James. As such, it is a poor, historical, hypothesis.
Jesus Did Not Really Die on the Cross?
One theory says that Jesus never died on the cross. Rather, he fainted, was placed in the tomb, and when he regained consciousness He found His disciples and convinced them He had risen again. This view is creative, but unbelievable. First, this theory does not take the multiple line of evidence for Jesus’ death seriously. There is simply no historical reason to doubt that Jesus was dead even before the spear pierced His side. Even if one can strain their imagination that far, they must further believe that a Man who was nearly dead got up, unwrapped Himself, pushed a heavy stone aside with nailed-pierced hands, walked for miles on nail-pierced feet, and was able to find His disciples. Even if Jesus managed to do all that, it is not rational to believe that He could ever convince His disciples that He had conquered death. He would have looked like exactly what He was, a half-dead man that barely survived the cross. This view also cannot realistically explain the conversions of Paul or James. Some appeal to Josephus’ account of a man who survived Roman crucifixion. It is true that Josephus records that he found three men dying by crucifixion. At his request, they were taken off the crosses and given immediate medical treatment. Even so, two of the men still died. This is hardly grounds to conclude that Jesus could have survived crucifixion. Indeed it demonstrates how improbable it is that someone could survive crucifixion even if it was incomplete. Furthermore, Jesus received no medical attention.
The Disciples Experienced Hallucinations?
Among the more popular theories today is the hallucination hypothesis. On this view, the disciples were so grieved at Jesus’ death, that they experienced vivid hallucinations in which they saw Jesus alive again.This view explains why the disciples sincerely believed in the resurrection and were willing to die for this belief. However, it fails to explain much else. First, hallucinations are, by nature, personal experiences. The same hallucination cannot be experienced by more than one person at a time. Yet, the accounts of Jesus after His resurrection show that He was experienced by multiple people at one time. There are currently no documented cases of mass hallucination. While it is true that many people experience hallucinations of departed loved ones, people do not come to believe that their loved one is alive again. This makes the hallucination hypothesis implausible. Paul and James were skeptics of Jesus, so it seems highly unlikely that either of them would be grieving over Jesus’ death. Therefore, neither of them would have been in a state of mind to have a hallucination. Finally, hallucinations would not explain why Jesus’ tomb was empty. Even if the disciples were convinced by hallucinations, Jesus’ body would still be in the tomb.
Conclusion: Jesus Rose From the Dead
Since the naturalistic theories that attempt to explain the relevant historical data fall so short, another explanation is required. The theory being suggested here, is simply this: the best explanation of all the evidence is that Jesus supernaturally came back to life. It only requires one new premise, namely that God exists. And if someone already accepts that God exists, then this theory does not even ask them to accept a new belief. The resurrection is, by far, the simplest, the most plausible, the least contrived, and the most adequate explanation. History is based on probabilities. Jesus’ resurrection is the most probable explanation of what happened that first Sunday morning. Therefore, the Christian is being perfectly rational and reasonable to believe that Jesus’ resurrection
Source: Books and others: Habermas and Licona 74. Scholars, such as J. D. Crossan, Gary Habermas, Dr. Dave Pallman, Sean and Josh Mcdowell. Geisler Christian Apologetics. Book: I dont have enough faith to be an Atheist: Frank Turek.
