The Validity of Jesus' Resurrection

The validity of the life, sayings and works of Jesus Christ rests on whether or not the biblical resurrection actually happened. If it weren’t true, if his resurrection did not happen in history, then we would be justified to believe whatever we want about Christianity. But if it did happen, then it legitimates the following statement of Jesus, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me (New American Standard Bible-John 14:6)." John 14:6 outlines the main reason why Jesus would rise from the dead. How could Jesus have effectively claimed to be "the true way to eternal life" (The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible) if he were still dead?

It is reasonable to say that his resurrection is quite possibly a real event because of the absence of evidence that would prove the contrary: no one to this day has found Jesus' body. Now the occurrence of the resurrection would validate not only his claims to rise from the dead (Matthew 16:21, 17:9,23, 20:19; Mark 8:31, 9:9,31, 10:34; Luke 9:22, 18:33; John 2:19,21, 11:25), but also his character, actions (i.e. miracles), various other claims, and overall credibility. But what if these things could not be validated? What if someone actually found his body at any point from that time to now? And what if a person can scientifically and objectively identify the remains as that of Jesus of Nazareth with reasonable probability? Such evidence would prove that he was lying about and/or was crazy enough to claim his ability to rise from the dead. Also, such a discovery would consequently raise serious questions as to his supposed character and other claims, if not destroy his credibility outright. However, Jesus' body has not been verified in any way as being found, which will continue to thwart hostile skeptics' attempts to disprove his resurrection. It is the principal reason why Jesus' resurrection seems at least plausible, if not historically accurate.

This aforementioned premise, if it is valid, would also help legitimize two other reasons why Jesus would rise from the dead: his God-given authority over all things, including death, and his sinless life. I will now present what the Bible gives as support for these reasons, but I will later discuss why the Bible should be considered a valid historical document, at least regarding the premise of this essay. About his God-given authority, in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), John 13:3 says, “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God, and was going back to God…” this being said before Jesus’ death. Matthew 28:18 (New International Version Bible or NIV), says, “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’” Jesus did not simply claim to have such authority over everything; he stated it as fact. It is worth noting that he said this after the resurrection took place, and not just beforehand. Furthermore, Acts 2:22-36, the events of which occurred after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension in the Bible, in NASB reads:

"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
"For David says of Him, 'I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN. THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE; BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY. YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.'

"Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."' Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."

Second, other people can attest to the sinless state of Jesus Christ throughout the Bible. John 1:29 in NASB says, "The next day he (John the Baptist) saw Jesus coming to him and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'" Peter, one of the twelve apostles, explains further in 1 Peter 1:18-19 (NIV) that “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” Peter, who would certainly have known if Jesus were in fact sinless and would have said otherwise if it were not the case (I will explain this point later), was showing how Jesus’ sinlessness had actually been alluded to in the Old Testament in Exodus 12:1,5 (NIV). This verse states, “The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, ‘The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats.’” And Paul in Hebrews 9:14 (NIV) also attests to Jesus’ nature by saying, “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!”

We can look at it this way, too: if Jesus, being the self-proclaimed fulfillment of the (Jewish) Law and the Prophets according to Matthew 5:17, had sinned at any time in his life, then according to the Jewish Torah, he would have forfeited all of his God-given authority, including his authority over death itself. Such a forfeiture had already occurred in the Old Testament when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3 (KJV). In other words, if Jesus had sinned, he would have died like any other human being and would not have risen from the dead until God’s judgment of humanity, according to Jewish belief. However, I will show that Jesus’ historical resurrection from the dead did happen to validate the aforementioned premise and other reasons by examining the resurrection account using both internal and external tests.

Before we begin examining the legitimacy of the previously mentioned statements about Jesus and his resurrection, we must first determine if the New Testament is historically accurate, especially since most people doubt the historical accuracy of this document. First, the New Testament is historically accurate in that scholars have verified that there was not a long period of time between the events themselves and the recordings of them. Archaeological discoveries have confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts (the John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130; the Chester Betty Papyri, A.D. 155; and the Bodmer Papyri II, A.D. 200) bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date (McDowell 1977). Millar Burrows of Yale says: “Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri (discoveries) is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament itself” (1956). “Such findings as these have increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible” (McDowell 1977). William Albright, who was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist, writes: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today” (1955). Dr. John A.T. Robinson’s research has an even earlier estimate. His research led to the conviction that the whole of the New Testament was written before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (1976).

Such findings also rule out possible inaccuracies from oral tradition and criticisms of the Gospel accounts from being folklore. Simon Kistenmaker, professor of Bible at Dordt College, writes:

“Normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time. But…we must conclude that the Gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one generation…the formation of the individual Gospel units must be understood as a telescoped project with accelerated course of action” (1972).

We must understand that in biblical terms, a generation is roughly forty to fifty years. “In the Jewish religion, it was customary for a student to memorize a rabbi’s teaching” (McDowell 1977). According to C.F. Burney’s theory (in The Poetry of Our Lord, 1925), we can assume that much of Jesus’ teaching is in Aramaic poetical form, making it easy for memorization by his disciples who later wrote the New Testament (McNeile 1953). In addition, regarding Luke (the author of one of the Gospel accounts and the book of Acts), Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever, concluded that “Luke is a historian of the first rank…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians,” in his archaeological research of the history of Asia Minor as applicable to the book of Acts, which was accurate in its description of the geography, antiquities, and society of that region (1915). Albright’s conclusion regarding this matter was that “a period of any twenty to fifty years is too slight to permit of any appreciable corruption of the essential content and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus” (1946).

Also, the New Testament is historically accurate in that it can easily pass three essential tests to which any historical document must be submitted to determine its degree of reliability. These tests are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test (Sanders 1952). First, according to McDowell, the bibliographical test:

“…is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy? We can appreciate the tremendous wealth of the manuscript authority of the New Testament by comparing it with textual material from other notable ancient sources. The history of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from just eight MSS dated about A.D. 900, almost 1,300 years after he wrote.” (1977)

Like Thucydides, the MSS and the history of Herodotus is not any more reliable, but according to F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals” (1964).

Additionally, McDowell presents other historical documents compared in reliability against the New Testament:

“Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400-year gap, and only five MSS are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its manuscript authority rests on nine or ten copies dating 1,000 years after his death. When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri manuscript documents that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament” (1977).

Sir Frederic Kenyon, who was the director and main librarian at the British Museum and foremost in authority in making statements about manuscripts, concluded, “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (1940).

New Testament Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee adds, “Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the New Testament is likewise assured” (1964).

Second, according to McDowell, the internal evidence test has “to determine whether that written record is credible and to what extent” (1977). There are some factors to consider when using this test. Aristotle stated that “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.” In other words, as John W. Montgomery states, “One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies” (1971). It should be noted that although it seems as if the four gospel accounts of Jesus’ life contradict each other, that simply is not the case. Each of the authors of the gospels wrote independently of each other and from his own perspective of the situation. This explains the slight differences in the authors' recounting of the same events and including other things unique to each account. Although they wrote independently of each other, their individual accounts are clearly unified in overall purpose and actually complement each other to paint the entire picture of Jesus Christ, as the following will show.

Dr. Louis Gottschalk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago, outlines his historical method in a guide used by many for historical investigation. Gottschalk observes that the writer’s and/or witness’ ability to tell the truth is helpful to the historian to determine credibility, “even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay evidence, or is from an interested witness” (1969). McDowell states that “this ability to tell the truth is closely related to the witness’ nearness both geographically and chronologically to the events recorded. The New Testament accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been either eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events or teachings of Christ” (1977). The following Bible verses from the NASB are examples of these eyewitness accounts:

Luke 1:1-3 "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus."

2 Peter 1:16 "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

1 John 1:3 “…what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”

John 19:35 "And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe."

Luke 3:1 “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene…”

McDowell further states:

“This closeness to the recorded accounts is an extremely effective means of certifying the accuracy of what is retained by a witness. The historian, however, also has to deal with the eyewitness who consciously or unconsciously tells falsehoods even though he is near to the event and is competent to tell the truth. The New Testament accounts of Christ were being circulated within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of his life. These people could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts. In advocating their case for the gospel, the apostles had appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning Jesus. They not only said, ‘Look, we saw this’ or ‘We heard that…’ but they turned the tables around and right in front of adverse critics said, ‘You also know about these things…You saw them; you yourselves know about it.’ One had better be careful when he says to his opposition, ‘You know this also,’ because if he isn’t right in the details, it will be shoved right back down his throat.” (1977)

The next few Bible verses (NASB) exemplify such appeals:

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know…”

Acts 26:24-28 "While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, 'Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.' But Paul said, 'I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do.' Agrippa replied to Paul, 'In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.'"

About the value of the New Testament records, F.F. Bruce states:

“And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts) which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.” (1964)

Lawrence J. McGinley of Saint Peter’s College also discusses the importance of hostile witnesses in terms of the recorded events: “First of all, eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challenged” (1944).

An important point to make here is that it is, at the very least, highly unlikely that the New Testament, including the gospel accounts, were simply made up by the authors and/or evangelists. Will Durant, who was trained in the discipline of historical investigation and spent his life analyzing records of antiquity, writes:

“Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom (of God and heaven as stated numerous times in the gospels), their flight after Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross…” (1944)

To summarize the end result of the internal evidence test, scholar Robert Grant of the University of Chicago says, “At the time they (the synoptic gospels) were written or may be supposed to have been written, there were eyewitnesses and their testimony was not completely disregarded…This means that the gospels must be regarded as largely reliable witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus” (1963). Will Durant continues:

“…no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.” (1944)

Third, the external evidence test, according to McDowell, determines “whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves. In other words, what sources are there, apart from the literature under analysis, that substantiate its accuracy, reliability, and authenticity” (1977)? Gottschalk argues that “conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or more witnesses” (1969). The New Testament passes this test as well. For example, McDowell mentions that “friends of the Apostle John confirm the evidence from John’s accounts” (1977). The historian Eusebius preserves writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 130):

“The Elder (Apostle John) used to say this also: ‘Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them.’”

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180). Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had been a Christian for eighty-six years, and was a disciple of John the Apostle) wrote:

“Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews (i.e., Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure (i.e., death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neronian persecution in 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast (this is a reference to John 13:25 and 21:20), himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.”

According to McDowell, “Archaeology provides powerful external evidence. It contributes to biblical criticism, not in the area of inspiration and revelation, but by providing evidence of accuracy about events that are recorded” (1977). Archaeologist Joseph Free writes: “Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts” (1969). Recalling Ramsay’s change of heart about Luke and the book of Acts, F.F. Bruce notes that “where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional (external) evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record” (1969). Classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White agrees, writing that “for Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming; any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (1963).

To conclude, McDowell writes: “After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity” after having applied the same test to the Bible as with any other historical document, secular or religious (1977).

Now, in showing that the New Testament is in fact a reliable historical document, we will examine the historical accuracy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Again, the historical accuracy of Jesus' resurrection centers on this: no one to this day has found Jesus' body.

Some believe that he escaped the cross. But he did not escape. He did not run away when he had the chance. From his arrest in the Garden of Olives to his death, in all four gospel accounts there were witnesses the entire time who surely would have said something if he had escaped, given the widespread publicity of Jesus' ordeal (at least throughout the Roman empire, in both gospel and non-gospel accounts).

Some have thought that Jesus never really died according to the swoon theory. McDowell states,

“Popularized by Venturini several centuries ago and often quoted today, the swoon theory says that Jesus didn’t really die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought him dead, but later he was resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection” (1977).

But the skeptic David Friedrich Strauss, who did not believe in the resurrection, actually disproves this theory:

“It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.” (1879)

Some believe that his body was cremated. And some say it never made it to the tomb. But his body was not cremated, and there were witnesses who saw his body get put in the tomb. Matthew 27:57-61 (NASB) say,

"When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away. And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the grave."

Mark 15:43-47, Luke 23:50-55, and John 19:38-42 present the same events.

Some believe that Jesus’ body was placed in the wrong tomb, but that is untrue. According to McDowell:

“A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported the body missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women’s statement must also have gone to the wrong tomb. We can be certain, however, that the Jewish authorities, who had asked for that Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent the body from being stolen, wouldn’t have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there. If a wrong were involved, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor of a resurrection.” (1977)

Some argue that Jesus' resurrection would not be possible if evidence of human remains were found in the tomb. But that is not so. Notice Luke 23:53 (NASB) saying "And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain." John 19:41 also verifies this event. Thus, it was only Jesus' body in the tomb.

Some also debate that robbers (they most often implicate Jesus' disciples since they had the motive to) took the body from the tomb. But that is implausible as well. Matthew 27:62-66 in NASB says,

"Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and said, 'Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, "After three days I am to rise again." Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, "He has risen from the dead," and the last deception will be worse than the first.' Pilate said to them, 'You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.' And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone."

So Roman guards, who were very disciplined and extremely good at what they did, constantly patrolled the tomb. However, it is obvious according to the gospels that the disciples, depressed, discouraged, and outright cowardly, were in no position to even attempt to steal the body from the tomb. The “bravest” of the disciples, John, did nothing more than follow the mob that captured Jesus from a distance. So even if enough of Jesus' disciples were able to roll away the stone (it was apparently a big enough stone to cover a cave entrance), there is no way that they could have done it quietly enough to not wake up the guards. Plus, there is no mention in any of the gospel accounts of Jesus' disciples even trying to steal Jesus' body. Finally, it would have been totally against what they believed in the first place and defeated the cause of biblical Christianity before it even began. Also, according to Josh McDowell:

“The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ’s body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn’t they explain that they had taken it? If they had, why didn’t they explain exactly where the body lay? Why didn’t they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would certainly have destroyed Christianity.” (1977)

Thus, we can conclude that Jesus' body was not stolen from the tomb.

Some think that Jesus' body is still in the tomb because the stone was never rolled away. Again, that is not the case. NASB Matthew 28:1-3, the most uniquely detailed account, says,

"Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow."

Mark 16:1-5, Luke 24:1,2, and John 20:1 confirm the basic event.

Some question how the stone could be rolled away without any resistance, because the Roman guards were still there. Matthew 28:4 (NASB) says "The guards shook for fear of him (the angel) and became like dead men." The guards were simply rendered helpless.

Some do not believe that there were any competent witnesses to prove the angel's existence. However, that is not correct. NASB Mark 16:5,6 say "Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, 'Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.'" Matthew 28:1-3,5, and Luke 24:4-6 verify this basic event.

Some contest that despite the stone being rolled away, that Jesus' body was still there. But Luke 24:3 of NASB states "But when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." NASB John 20:2 says the same when Mary Magdalene told Peter and John, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." Although she knew Jesus wasn't in the tomb, she had forgotten about what Jesus had predicted until Jesus appeared to her as mentioned in Mark 16:9 and John 20:14-17. Also, angels were at the tomb, and at least one of the angels assured the two Marys that the body was not there. Matthew 28:5,6 say "The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.'" Mark 16:6 and Luke 24:5-8 attest to this basic event. According to Matthew 28:7 in NASB, the angels then told the women, "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you." Mark 16:7 also mentions this.

So the women did what the angels said, seeing Peter and John (albeit John's name was not mentioned, he was referred to throughout the gospels as the one whom Jesus loved) and telling them what happened. But at first the disciples, still grieving his death, did not believe it (Matthew 28:8,9, Mark 16:8,10,11, Luke 24:9-12, and John 20:2-10). The disciples did not believe it, even after they got to the tomb because they, like Mary Magdalene, forgot Jesus' prediction of his rising from the dead. But that would soon change.

So, the fact that Jesus’ tomb was empty has been established. A.M. Ramsey writes: “I believe in the Resurrection, partly because a series of facts are unaccountable without it,” since the empty tomb was “too notorious to be denied” (1969). Paul Althaus states that the resurrection “could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned” (1941). And Paul L. Maier concludes: “If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement” (April 21, 1973).

So, some argue that no one actually saw the resurrected Jesus before his ascension into heaven. But the gospels provide a different story. As mentioned earlier, Mary Magdalene was the first to see him. She then told the disciples in John 20:18 and Mark 16:10. They still did not believe. Jesus then appeared to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus in Mark 16:12,13 and Luke 24:13-35. Those disciples told the rest of them, but they just did not believe. But Jesus appeared to them (except for Thomas) in a closed room that evening as recounted in Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-49, and John 20:19-25. Then they believed, but Thomas did not. Thomas finally believed when he saw Jesus eight days later in John 20:26-29. These and other instances before his ascension disprove those who say the disciples were delusional and hallucinating since Jesus appeared to them in different places at different times (see Acts 1:2,3).

Finally, some say that Jesus' body is still somewhere on this planet, thus denying the ascension happened. And yet there are witnesses who saw Jesus ascend into heaven according to Acts 1:9-11, Luke 24:50,51, and Mark 16:19.

The above explanation is the bible's historical account of these events. Several scholars and other prominent people attest to this awesome truth as well. Professor Thomas Arnold, headmaster of Rugby, author of History of Rome, and appointed chairman of modern history at Oxford, said:

“I have been used for many years to study the histories 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 inquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead” (1859).

English scholar Brooke Foss Westcott said:

“Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no 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” (1967).

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard, wrote a volume in which he examined the legal value of the apostles’ testimony to the resurrection of Christ. He said that it was impossible that the apostles “could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact” (1874). McDowell says that “Greenleaf concluded that the resurrection of Christ was one of the best supported events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence administered in courts of justice” (1977). Another lawyer, Frank Morison, initially set out to disprove the resurrection, but eventually changed his mind. He wrote a bestseller, Who Moved the Stone?, which deals decisively with the evidence for Christ’s resurrection (1930). George Eldon Ladd says, “The only rational explanation for these historical facts is that God raised Jesus in bodily form” (1975). And after examining the evidence from a judicial perspective, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, concluded that “there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true” (1968).

So since the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ did happen, this evidence legitimates NASB John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." It is clear that everything Jesus of Nazareth represented is validated by his death, resurrection, and ascension. It is also clear that millions of people in this world today cannot deny the truth and impact of not only John 14:6 and the resurrection account, but also the passages of the bible in general.

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

The truth is, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God as stated in the Bible. And NASB Romans 6:23 states, “For the wages of sin is death…” Now by what standard are we judged by God? The Ten Commandments, as written down by Moses in the Old Testament. However, in NASB John 5:39,46, Jesus says, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me…for he (Moses) wrote about me.” Jesus also says in NASB Matthew 5:17, “"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law (which Moses wrote) or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” So “by the law is the knowledge of sin (KJV Romans 3:20),” and “the law of the LORD is perfect… (KJV Psalms 19:7),” Jesus came and claimed to be perfect and without sin according to the law, and with his life thus submitted himself as God’s ultimate standard for justice and mercy in John 14:6.

According to the Bible, we all have sinned according to God’s standard, the Ten Commandments, and that we need a Savior. There is good news: God has provided a Savior for you and for me, and his name is Jesus Christ. You need to hear the unabridged truth of the matter.

No human being can convince you that these things are true; only you can see for yourself about all this. I am simply presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only you can decide.

What may seem to be a doomsday message for you is also your message of hope and ultimate life. A friend of mine once said this: "...I was wondering why I was here...But then my heart was touched by God. I wondered why I shouldn't become a Christian. I decided to ask Christ into my heart. Here's why. If I die believing in Jesus and there is nothing after death, what have I lost. However, if I die not believing in Jesus and I go to Hell, then I have lost everything. That is something for you to think about and decide for yourself. If you have read this far, thank you. Maybe my testimony will help you."

So, for your sake, PLEASE seriously consider everything you've heard here. It will make a world of difference for you, I just know it. It has for me.

God bless you
Shaun

P.S.- I have included in a related post over 300 prophecies fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ "300 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ"  (the odds of one person doing that is astronomical). Coincidence? No. And possibly, in later posts, I may present specific examples of extra-biblical evidence of the existence and resurrection of Jesus (other than the sources cited here). I have also included my Works Cited list for this essay on a separate file ("Works Cited for items 197423 & 325427" ).