Was Jesus Really Resurrected?

“And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God--for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can't be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished. And if we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone” (1 Corinthians 15:14-19).

From the Apostle Paul himself, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was and is still today absolutely central to Christianity. Christianity either stands or falls on the resurrection. If Jesus rose, Christianity is true and He is the Son of God. On the other hand, if the early writers were lying, this has all been an elaborate joke. As Philip and David Schaff write, “It is either the greatest miracle or the greatest delusion which history records.” Sadly, though, this once prominent event often is only discussed during an hour-long sermon on Easter Sunday. And even then, we assume it is a given fact. The church was once ripe with confidence, but we’ve lost our foundational sense of a well-reasoned faith. If all rests on this one event, shouldn’t we dig just a little more into its claims?

As our society becomes more and more pluralistic, it has become politically incorrect to claim that God has revealed Himself decisively through Jesus. But what justification can Christians offer, in contrast to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and the other world religions, for believing that the Christian God is real? The answer is: the resurrection of Jesus. “For God has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man He has appointed, and He proved to everyone who this is by raising Him from the grave.” So, how do we know that Jesus is risen? An Easter hymn sings, “You ask me how I know He lives. He lives within my heart.” This answer is perfectly appropriate on a personal level. But when Christians engage the marketplace of religious claims, then it’s crucial that we be able to present evidence in support of our beliefs; as 1 Peter 3:15 states: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” Whether the resurrection took place or not is a historical question. Hence, historical research is necessary to determine what truly happened that first Easter.

Fortunately, Christianity is a “religion” rooted in history, and makes claims that can be investigated historically. Suppose then that we approach the New Testament writings not as inspired Scriptures, but merely as a collection of Greek documents from the first century. Such a conclusion of the divine nature of the Scriptures is not necessary to explain the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as an historical event. When studying history, secular or religious, the principles are exactly the same; you want the earliest sources possible and as many eyewitness sources possible. Hence, you want the best sources possible. Applying those principles to our historical investigation of the resurrection, and to be fair in not giving any Christian bias, in the following timelines, let’s strictly use the calendar dates that are accepted by historians who are critical towards Christianity (keeping in mind that A.D. does not mean “After the Death of Jesus”). Before exploring Biblical matters, though, let’s first start with a figure in history that’s relevant to our discussion: Alexander the Great.

Do you think we know a lot of information about Alexander the Great? You may say “Yes, of course we do. He was the King of Macedonia. He conquered the great Persian Empire. By age thirty, he conquered the known world and created one of the largest empires of all time. He died in 323 B.C.” But where did we get this well-known information? The best sources are from Arrian and Plutarch in 120 A.D. That’s 443 years after he died!

It has been (falsely) stated by critics that we are not completely for certain who wrote the four gospels of the Bible. But they admit, though, that absolutely no scholar can deny the Apostle Paul and his writings. Before his death, the world’s most famous atheist, Anthony Flew, stated: “There is no question that the Apostle Paul was a first rate philosophical mind.” Virtually all New Testament scholars (non-believing and believing alike) agree that he, in fact, was once a Pharisee who studied under Gamaliel, was an honest scholar himself, and went on to write the vast majority of the New Testament.

We’ve seen the best sources for Alexander the Great that these scholars accept. Now (again, strictly using the calendar dates that are accepted by historians who are critical towards Christianity), let’s follow the footsteps of the best source for the resurrection: the Apostle Paul.

One of the books of the Bible that scholars agree Paul wrote is First Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul states: “I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.” So, when did Paul first go to the city of Corinth? 51 A.D. When did Paul “receive” his message of the resurrection that he presented to the people of Corinth? 35 A.D. What year do scholars believe Paul (then referred to as Saul of Tarsus) was converted, after stating that he saw the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus? 32 A.D. Now, what did Paul do directly after his conversion? In another book that Paul wrote, Galatians 1:16-20 states: “I did not immediately consult with anyone, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter (and James, the Lord’s half brother) and remained with them fifteen days.” These three years would place Paul on our timeline at 35 A.D. Scholars agree that this meeting took place. In fact, Bart Ehrman, arguably the most famous skeptical New Testament scholar today, has stated in regard to these verses: “Paul spent fifteen days with Peter and James the brother of the Lord. I would like to spend fifteen days with Peter and James. Where can you get closer to eyewitness testimony than this?”[emphasis added]. The information given to Paul by Peter and James is the creed that is reported in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11. If Paul received this creed in 35 A.D., this would mean that Peter and James had possession of it from an even earlier date. In regard to this creed, four of the most influential , critical New Testament scholars: Ehrman, Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckman, and James D.G. Dunn, all agree that it was formed in the same year as the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Dunn states that the absolute latest it took to form the creed was six months after the resurrection!

By using non-believing and believing scholars’ data alike, we can trace the footsteps of the best source for Christianity back to six months or less. Now compare that data with Alexander the Great, where the best source we have for his life was reported 443 years after his death, and then question why skeptics who accept all of this information are skeptical about Jesus!

That’s just it, you see. Stubbornly, these critical scholars turn their noses up and absolutely refuse to come to that conclusion as they grasp the facts. Indeed, you may be surprised that virtually all of these scholars accept the central facts supporting the resurrection:

1.) Jesus died on a Roman cross and was placed in a private tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, at the time of Passover in Jerusalem.

2.) Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of His female followers, and no one ever produced His body.

3.) Following His burial, on multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups saw Jesus alive.

4.) Following their alleged resurrection observations, many suddenly and sincerely came to trust that Jesus was risen from the dead. These include the skeptic James (the half brother of Jesus), and the church persecutor Saul of Tarsus (later named Paul). This was the origin of the Christian faith.

In other words, these critical scholars will say “It is evident that these events happened, but surely they were due to something other than Jesus being the Son of God.” They accept these central facts, but it’s their conclusion in regard to these facts that are puzzling at best.

You'll notice that none of these facts actually require that Jesus miraculously rose from the grave. In other words, there may be any number of explanations that account for these facts. This is simply a list that virtually all scholars (critical and believing alike) accept and that all of us must explain. In fact, in examining the resurrection, these are the first two steps that must be followed when conducting historical research. First, establish the facts to be explained. Second, with an honest, fair, and open mind, figure out what is the best explanation of these facts. Third, one must take into account all of the facts and not just pieces. Fourth, one must not try and force facts into a biased conclusion. Historian Philip Schaff states well that, “The purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to their own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself.”

Throughout history, many theories from non-believers have been made attempting to try and “explain away” the resurrection. But since the listed facts of the resurrection are undeniable, these attempts involve (with an unquestionable anti-supernatural bias) contriving an alternative for simply pieces of the facts.

The Conspiracy Hypothesis

This theory states that the disciples must have stole the body of Jesus and fabricated the resurrection account. In fact, this was the very first alternative theory ever presented. As the story goes, three angels removed the giant stone that was in front of Jesus’ tomb. The guards that were stationed to protect the tomb panicked and fled to seek help. ‘“The guards went into the city and told the leading priests what had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large bribe telling them, "You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep’ If this report gets to the governor, we will persuade him and keep you out of trouble." So the guards accepted the bribe and said what they were told to say. Their story spread widely among the Jews, and they still tell it today”’ (Matthew 28:11-15).

There are many, many problems with this theory; in fact, more than any other theory we will discuss. But, before we begin, let’s first take a brief overview of Jesus’ tomb. 

Not only were there highly-trained and heavily-armed guards, but there was also a 4,000 pound stone that was moved down a steep incline to be placed at the entrance of the tomb. Roman authorities at that time would take extra precaution to make sure no one tampered with burial stones. A cord would be stretched across the stone, with each end sealed either by clay or wax, and then stamped with the symbol of the governor. The guards knew that if this seal was broken, they consequently could be killed for allowing the tomb to be tampered with. Dr. George Currie, who has carefully studied Roman military discipline, confirms that the death penalty was required for such failures. These failures also include desertion, losing or disposing of one’s’ weapons, plotting with the enemy, refusing to protect fellow guards, and leaving a night watch position. We can safely add “falling asleep” to this list. If it was not clear which guards had failed in duty, the equivalent of today’s flipping a coin or rolling of dice would be done to see who would be punished.

First major problem: We’re to believe that either this small group of terrified disciples snuck by these eagle-eyed “sleeping” guards and removed the two-ton stone without them hearing a peep, or that they overpowered the guards and then removed the stone?

Second. Something much more significant than the disciples supposedly stealing Jesus’ body must have happened. This is undeniable as the guards raced to the Jewish authorities to tell them what happened at the tomb. But not only do we have the reaction from the guards to inform us that a significant event took place, but we also have the reaction from the Jewish leaders themselves. As you can recall, a large sum of money was given in order for the guards to lie. The money, though, was not the most important aspect of the bribe, but was the lie itself: "You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’” Logically, the opposite of what the leaders were saying was the truth. So the guards were doing their job to the tee, but now being bribed to lie and say they were foolishly and lazily asleep on the job. They would be killed for such an offense! The guards were comforted, though, in that things would be smoothed over with the Roman authorities. But what was in it for the Jewish leaders anyways? Why would they form a counsel to come up with an elaborate lie, and to present a large bribe, for the Roman guards if there wasn’t something in it for them? 

The answer is that they wanted to keep quiet the fact that something significant happened at the tomb. But what event could possibly have brought about such a worried and hurried response? Well, the Bible gives us some insight for what may have happened. Not only does it tells us that the giant stone at the entrance of the tomb was moved, but that it was moved to an eye-opening position. The disciple Mark uses the Greek preposition “ana” and verb “kulio”, making “anakulio”, indicating about the stone that it seemed to have been rolled up an incline. Luke uses “apokulio”, meaning that it was separated from the tomb, up an incline, to a great distance away. And John uses “airokulio”, stating that the stone seemed to have been picked up and carried up an incline. Dr. Bill White, who was formerly in charge of the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem, which many today believe to be the tomb in which Jesus was placed, states: “If the stone were simply rolled to one side of the tomb, as would be necessary to enter it, then they might be justified in accusing the men of sleeping at their posts, and in punishing them severely. But . . . there was some undeniable evidence which made it impossible for the chief [authorities] to bring any charge[s] against the guard[s]. The Jewish authorities must have visited the scene, examined the stone, and recognized its position, making it humanly impossible for [the guards to of] permitted its removal. No twist of human ingenuity could provide an adequate answer [or blame] . . . and so they were forced to bribe the [guards] and seek to hush things.”

Keep in mind that this location of the stone adds to the first problem. So not only are we to believe that the disciples stole the body, but now that they somehow moved the stone to such an impossible position while either the guards were sleeping or had been overtaken. Also, let’s read again the lie that the Jewish leaders told the guards to say. "You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’” Did you catch the glaring contradiction? How could the guards know who stole the body, or whatever happened, if they were fast asleep? The leading skeptical view of the day refutes itself!

Third. Why would the disciples even attempt such a feat? They hadn’t the slightest idea that Jesus was to rise from the dead (John 20:9). Just as any first-century Jew would have thought, Jesus was dead and was obviously not sent to lead them. The Messiah they were hoping for was to be military-minded and would help to overthrow the oppressive Roman authorities. But, at the cross, the disciples were terrified and immensely disappointed; it was game over. So why would they go to such great lengths to try stealing the body of a dead “man”?

Fourth. In first century Jewish culture, women were considered incompetent lower class citizens. This was especially true as legal witnesses. Except in rare circumstances, Jewish law even denied women from giving testimony in a court of law. If the disciples wanted to advance the message of the resurrection based on a hoax (them stealing Jesus’ body), why would they embarrassingly give women credit as being the first to have found the empty tomb?

Fifth. Multiple eyewitnesses claimed to have seen Jesus alive after His burial. When studying an event in history, it is important to investigate the number of eyewitnesses. A greater number of eyewitnesses help to refute any fabricated lies of a report. One of the earliest records which reports post-resurrection appearances by Jesus is by the Apostle Paul (Christianity’s most accepted source) in 1 Corinthians. Paul recalls to them that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred “brethren” at one time alone (meaning that, with women and children added to this number, it could well have been over a thousand people), with many more on separate occasions. He reminds them that the majority of those eyewitnesses were still alive. In other words, by giving this reminder, he is saying: “Go ask them!” And so, we’re to believe that the disciples somehow fabricated the post resurrection appearances.

Sixth. If the disciples were guilty of stealing the body of Jesus, why did they suddenly and sincerely become fearless Gospel preachers? If they knew their message was a sham, why would they be willing to endure continual persecution, imprisonment, and eventually martyrdom? Liars don’t make good martyrs. Some people may be willing to die for a lie, but only if they believe it to be true. However, as this theory requires us to believe, to think that a group of men would be willing to suffer and die for what they knew to be false is nothing short of nonsense.

Consider the Watergate scandal in the 1970’s. Its cover-up only lasted three weeks before the first conspirator broke and turned themselves in. After realizing that they could be punished, others soon turned themselves in. If the resurrection was a fabrication, the disciples, knowing that they could face horrendous persecution and death, could not have sustained such a lie. Charles Colson, arguably President Nixon’s lead Watergate conspirator, states: “Twelve men testified they had seen Jesus risen from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for forty years, never once denying it. Everyone was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren't true. Watergate embroiled twelve of the most powerful men in the world-and they couldn't keep a lie for three weeks. You're telling me twelve apostles could keep a lie for forty years? Absolutely impossible.”

Dr. Simon Greenleaf writes, “You cannot build a church on a dead Christ; and of all the proofs of the resurrection, I take it that there is none that is harder for an unbeliever to account for . . . than the simple fact that Christ’s disciples held together after He was dead, and presented a united front to the world.” Author, Paul Little once wrote: “Men will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie.” Lies produce cowards, not heroes. And the disciples never wavered in their commitment to the risen Christ.

One of the most noteworthy facts about the early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection was that it flourished in the very city where Jesus had been publicly crucified. The emboldened disciples did not go off to Athens, or Rome or to any other distant place to preach that He had been resurrected. In fact, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem where, if what they were claiming was false, their message would have easily been disproven by the many eyewitnesses mentioned by the Apostle Paul. The disciples did not go into hiding. As Dr. William Lane Craig observes: “The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred.” Dr. John Lennox states, “If (the Jewish and Roman leaders) had had the slightest evidence that the tomb was empty because the disciples had removed the body, they had the authority and the forces to hunt down the disciples, arrest them and charge them with tomb-robbing, which at the time was a very serious offense.”

For whatever reason, prior to the resurrection, James did not believe that his half brother Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, none of his brothers did (John 7:5), and even tried to prevent Him from speaking, thinking that He was out of His mind (Mark 3:20-21). However, just several weeks after the resurrection, they were counted among His followers (Acts 1:14). – What could compel a man who had grown up with Jesus to suddenly change his mind about his older brother? Upon telling his readers that Jesus appeared to over 500 brethren at once, Paul wrote: “After that, He was seen by James” (1 Corinthians 15:7). James would go on to became a key leader in the early church and was one of the very first martyrs of Christianity, as attested to by the ancient historians Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria.

The Apostle Paul is arguably the most influential Christian ever. But he was not always a devout follower of Christ. We are first introduced to him observing the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58). A few verses later we read that he “was going everywhere to destroy the church. He went from house to house, dragging out both men and women to throw them into prison” (Acts 8:3). He would later tell an angry crowd in Jerusalem that he persecuted Christians “to death” (Acts 22:4). “You have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it” (Galatians 1:13). What could possibly explain such a drastic change of heart? This was not a foolish man who could be swayed by argumentation, nor was he prone to changing his views based on shifting public opinion. He was a scholar and a well-respected Pharisee. But he was suddenly transformed into a fearless evangelist and church planter who suffered greatly for preaching the Gospel. The only reasonable explanation for this change of heart is precisely what Paul said it was: “Then last of all [Jesus] was seen by me also” (1 Corinthians 15:8). Paul was so committed to serving Christ that he was beheaded in Rome during Nero’s reign, according to the Roman historian Eusebius. His treaty on the absolute necessity of the Resurrection for the Christian faith in 1 Corinthians 15 demonstrates this former Pharisee’s undying commitment to the risen Christ.

Acts 2:41 states that over 3,000 Jews converted to Christianity after the Pentecost proclamation, made by Peter. Acts 4:4 says that this number grew to over 5,000. And Acts 6:7 says “then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly.” Christianity sprang into being midway through the first century AD, but that raises the obvious question: Why did it come into existence? Scholars agree that the Christian faith owes its origin to the earliest disciples' fervent belief that God raised Jesus from the grave.

Seventh. This theory breaks all four principles as one should follow in an historical investigation. Dr. William Lane Craig notes: “Today . . . this hypothesis has been completely abandoned by modern scholarship.”

The Hallucination Hypothesis

This theory would have us believe that the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ post resurrection appearances simply had a shared hallucination and only thought that they saw Him alive.

There are many problems with this theory.

First. This theory only attempts to explain the post resurrection appearances, and by no means tries to explain the empty tomb.

Second. While it is true that one person can have a hallucination, there’s no such thing as a shared hallucination. Clinical Psychologist Gary Collins explains: “By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time.” Dr. Michael Licona observes: “Hallucinations . . . are private occurrences. You could not share a hallucination with someone else any more than you could wake up your spouse in the middle of the night and ask them to join you in a dream.”

On top of that fact, Jesus supposedly (I say supposedly because, this theory never says that He didn’t do as He claimed) appeared to thousands of individuals, of different genders, different ages, different moods, different character, on multiple occasions, in multiple settings, in multiple locations of varied distances, frequently over a time period of forty days. So, all of these people had the exact same hallucination? The critics who came up with this theory do not believe in miracles. Yet, if all of these people shared the same hallucination, that event would arguably be much more of a miracle than the resurrection itself! How ironic.

Third. If the resurrection were simply a hallucination, what became of Jesus' body? If the Roman and Jewish authorities wanted to calm down the newly emboldened followers of Jesus, all they had to do was take a five-minute walk to the tomb and display His lifeless body. The disciples never could have proclaimed a risen Christ if the tomb was not empty.

Fourth. No one was expecting Jesus to be resurrected. So how could thousands of people share the exact same hallucination about an event that no one was expecting? This is especially true for Jesus’ half-brother James. Jesus’ death would only have confirmed James’ strong suspicion that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah. Yet, he became an emboldened disciple to the point of death. Also, a hallucination cannot make sense of the conversion of Paul.  At the time of his conversion to Christianity on the road to Damascus he was an enemy, “still breathing threats and murder against the disciples” and definitely was not grieving over the death of Jesus. And, just like James, Paul was tortured, imprisoned, and murdered for spreading the Gospel message.

Fifth. As with the Conspiracy Hypothesis, this theory breaks all four principles as one should follow in an historical investigation

It may be hard to believe, but this hypothesis is still held by some skeptics today.

The Apparent Death Hypothesis

This theory states that, after the beating and crucifixion, when Jesus was taken down from the cross, He wasn't really dead but was merely unconscious; Thus being buried alive. He then revived in the tomb and escaped to convince His disciples that He had risen from the dead. But rather than making a full recovery, Jesus died soon thereafter due to His numerous injuries. Some critics have even gone as far to say that Jesus planned to not die.

There are many problems with this theory.

 

First. Jesus’ death crushed any hopes the disciples had that He was the Messiah. Don’t you think that the disciples would have double and then triple-checked for the most obvious sign of life: Is the person still breathing? On top of this, three conditions become apparent in the bodies of dead people: Temperature loss, rigidity, and lividity. Dead people lose warmth until they eventually reach the temperature of their environment. In addition, chemical reactions begin to take place in the muscles after death occurs, resulting in rigidity known as rigor mortis. Finally, when the heart stops beating, blood begins to pool in the body, responding to the force of gravity. As a result, purple discoloration becomes apparent in those areas of the body that are closest to the ground. In essence, dead bodies look, feel, and respond differently than living, breathing humans do. Is it not reasonable to believe that those who removed Jesus from the cross, took possession of His body, carried Him to the grave, and spent time treating and wrapping His body for burial did not notice any of these conditions.

Second. Roman soldiers would have been more than qualified to determine whether or not Jesus was dead. Yet proponents of this theory must believe that the Roman centurion and other soldiers at the cross, who faced death if they allowed a prisoner to survive crucifixion, were too incompetent to determine whether or not Jesus was actually dead (Mark 15:44-45; John 19:33). Many first-century and early second-century unfriendly Roman sources (i.e., Thallus, Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Phlegon) and Jewish sources (i.e., Josephus and Talmud) affirmed and acknowledged that Jesus died on the cross.

To speed death along, crucifixion victims would sometimes have their legs broken with an iron club in an act known as “crucifragium”. On the day Jesus was crucified, the Jews requested this procedure so that the bodies would not remain on the crosses during the Sabbath (John 19:31). The soldiers broke the legs of the two thieves crucified next to Jesus, “but when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs” (John 19:33). Instead, one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear. After Jesus breathed His last, a soldier “pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out” (John 19:34). Medical examiner Dr. Alexander Metherell explains this eye-catching observation: “Even before He died . . . the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called a pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion. The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid—the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion—came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as John described. John probably had no idea why he saw both blood and a clear fluid come out—certainly that’s not what an untrained person would have anticipated. Yet John’s description is consistent with what modern medicine would expect.”

John apparently recognized the strangeness of his report. Immediately after mentioning the “blood and water,” John stopped his narration of events to stress to his readers that he really saw blood and water flow from Christ’s side. He wrote, “"And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe"” (John 19:35). It’s almost as though John was telling his readers, “I know this is really strange, but I’m not lying, I really saw blood and water flow.” While the Gospel writers would expect to see blood, their observation of the water is somewhat surprising. It is certainly consistent with the fact that Jesus was already dead when stabbed by the guard. And while perhaps unbeknownst to John, this verse provides modern medical doctors with evidence that demolishes this theory and any other position that claims Jesus did not die on the cross. Dozens of medical studied, as Dr. Gary Habermas states, “have shown how death by crucifixion really kills and how this would be recognized by those present.” The Persians invented the use of crucifixion because burning, drowning, and other forms of death were too fast. The Persians may have invented the use of crucifixion, but the Romans perfected it. There are good reasons why no one in the ancient world proposed that Jesus survived the Crucifixion. Simply put, the Romans were experts at executing people. They would beat their victims before a crucifixion to the point that you could see their internal muscles and organs. The pain on the cross was so intensely unbearable that it was beyond words to describe. That is why a new word had to be invented; “excruciating”, which literally means “out of the cross.” Additionally, the prevailing medical explanation of Jesus’ chest wound is that the presence of blood and water indicated He was stabbed through the heart, thereby ensuring His death.

Third. It was customary to wrap a body in roughly one hundred pounds of spices before it was placed in a tomb. If Jesus managed to somehow unravel Himself and not suffocate, He would then have to singlehandedly roll away the giant stone and defeat all of the heavily armed guards.

Fourth. This theory enjoyed popular support among liberals for several decades after being introduced in 1828. That all changed when another liberal theologian, David F. Strauss, delivered a fatal blow to the view in A New Life of Jesus (1865): “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 . . . could have given to his 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 resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made upon them in life and in death [and] could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm.” As Strauss points out, no sane person would mistake a barely-clinging-to-life Jesus as the mighty, death-conquering Son of God and then risk the rest of their life promoting Him as the long awaited resurrected Messiah. If anything, seeing their master in such a pitiful state as a result of his elaborate plan gone wrong, the disciples would reject Him outright as a fraud. Yet according to church history, every one of Christ’s apostles faced death or exile for their message.

Fifth. As with the Conspiracy Hypothesis and the Hallucination Hypothesis, this theory breaks all four principles as one should follow in an historical investigation.

The Apparent Death Hypothesis has virtually zero defenders today.

Other theories include Jesus having an unknown identical twin brother, aliens stealing His body, and His body spontaneously evaporating in the tomb. As Dr. Evil once said: “Throw me a frickin’ bone here.”

As we have done here, using skeptics’ own criteria, the most reasonable conclusion for the resurrection is the same: it actually happened. Among all possible explanations, the disciples having accurately reported Jesus' resurrection does not have any problems as the skeptical theories do. If we enter the investigation without any bias against miracles, this explanation accounts for all of the evidence that virtually all scholars (non-believing and believing alike) accept.

Many of the critics who developed or hold onto “alternative” explanations simply have an anti-miracle bias, or more accurately, and anti-Christian bias. Thus, they have developed absurd theories in efforts to try and “explain away” the only reasonable conclusion that can be derived from the facts. The only thing these theories tell us is simply that critical scholars know the truth and believe they can hide the fact. But they are actually doing a disservice to their cause, because they look absolutely foolish. In fact, as Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon state, “Every theory ever proposed to explain the empty tomb is considerably more difficult to believe than the resurrection itself.” One could simply just deny the resurrection and go on with their day, but their efforts show that there is something significant to hide from their own hearts. Ironically, their arguments have actually strengthened the Christians confidence in the truth of the Resurrection.

Whatever one believes about Christ and His resurrection, everyone has to agree that something significant happened on that Easter morning – significant enough to alter the course of history from that time forward. The fact that something happened in spite of the security precautions –crucifixion, spear through the heart, entombment, large stone, Roman Seal, and Roman guards – along with the subsequent following events – makes it very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ has not been resurrected. Anyone wishing to refute the case for Christianity must explain away the story of the resurrection; and, as has been shown, no alternative explanation even comes close! Today, the vast majority of Christians do not know this information, and have consequently lost their fervent passion and confidence once present in the early church. But it is true they can have complete confidence, as did those first Christians, that their faith is based, not on myth or legend, but on the solid historical fact of the empty tomb of the risen Christ.

It's one thing, though, to believe that Jesus rose from the grave, and another thing to trust in Him as your risen, personal Savior. In order to take a step from belief that to trust in, you must move from an examination of Jesus to an examination of yourself. Maybe that is where you are at this exact moment. As you examine the evidence for Christianity, ask yourself one question: "Am I rejecting this because there isn't enough evidence, or am I rejecting this because I don’t want there to be enough evidence?" Finding the truth can transform your life. The question for you personally is not merely whether the claims of Jesus are true, but how you are going to respond. Take this personal account from an atheist-turned- Christian, Marilyn Adamson: “I concluded that the evidence for God was so strong that it made more sense to believe in God than to believe He wasn’t there. Then I had to act on that conclusion. I knew that just intellectually concluding God existed, was way too light. It would be like deciding airplanes exist. Faith in an airplane means nothing. However . . . you have to decide to act and actually get on the plane. I needed to make the decision to actually talk to God. I needed to ask Him to come into my life.”

In studying history, it doesn’t take long to conclude that the truth or falsity of all world religions – and the ultimate meaning of life itself – come down to one key issue: did Jesus, or did He not, rise from the grave. The resurrection has profound implications for our lives. If true, then this event would confirm His teachings, and this is unacceptable for those who do not want to trust in Christ. Regardless of what any world religion may teach, Jesus is the One and only Son of God. And that changes everything. Author, C.S. Lewis wrote: “One must keep on pointing that Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

You may asking, "So what? How does the resurrection relate to me? What's the significance?" As Dr. William Lane Craig states: “The resurrection is tremendously significant because it means that Jesus holds the key that unlocks the door to eternal life. The threat of death and of non-being at the end of our days . . . puts a question mark behind everything in life, (such as) what is the meaning and significance of my life if no matter what I do is doomed to end in death. The resurrection of Jesus provides an answer to (these questions), because it says that death is not the end, that through faith in Christ we can have eternal life with Him. And that means that the things we do now in this life are filled with an eternal significance. Every day you wake up you know that 'the things that I do today matter for eternity, because the grave is not the end.'" Death is either a period or a comma. In Christianity, it is merely a comma. This is the message of the resurrection.

 “My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am” (John 14:2-3). And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He rose, two men stood by them in white apparel, saying: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing into heaven?  Jesus, has been taken up from you into heaven, will come back in the same way as you saw Him go” (Acts 1:9-11).

If Christ has been raised from the dead, He is alive at this very moment and we can know Him personally. He has broken the power of death and our sins can be forgiven if only we trust in Him as our one and only Savior. Christianity was born at the emptiness of the tomb. The world offers promise full of emptiness, but the tomb offers emptiness full of promise. And the promise of the resurrection is this: What happened to Christ can happen for us. Like Him, we will die; but death is not the end. Jesus blazed through death to eternal life. And He tells us that we can follow in His footsteps, with His scarred hands leading us home.