index

Many theories have been used to try to explain away the resurrection of Christ. There’s the “swoon theory” that claims that Jesus never died but passed out and was later revived.

There's the “replacement theory” that says someone else who looked like Jesus was crucified instead.

Still others say that everyone who saw, talked, walked, and ate with Jesus after his death suffered from a mass hallucination. The list goes on, but for the sake of space I will go over the most common.

Jesus survived the crucifixion: Many claim that Jesus actually survived the crucifixion, which was how He was able to appear to the disciples later. Investigative reporter Lee Strobel, in his book The Case for Christ, asks Alexander Methrell, M.D., PH.D if this would have been possible. Methrell replies:

“Once a person is hanging from the vertical position, crucifixion is essentially an agonizing slow death by asphyxiation… in order to exhale, the individual must

push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment. In doing so, the nail would tear through the foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones.

"After managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in. Again he’d have to push himself up to exhale, scraping his bloodied back against the course wood of the cross. This would go on until complete exhaustion would take over, and the person wouldn’t be able to push up and breathe anymore."

“Even before he died-and this is important too- 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 pleural effusion” “Why is that significant?"

(Lee Strobal)

“Because of what happened when the Roman soldier came around and, being fairly certain Jesus was dead, confirmed it by thrusting a spear through his right side…

“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 the eyewitness John described in his gospel.” 1

The Romans knew what they were doing. They were highly skilled at toture, implicating crucifixion, and taking lives.

If Jesus survived the Crucifixion, considering the trauma his body took, it would have been impossible for him to move the massive boulder that blocked the tomb’s entrance. Also, He would have to have done so without the armed Roman guards seeing it. If the soldiers did witness a badly beaten Jesus moving the stone He would have to have escaped the guards by

1) Fighting off all of the armed guards successfully and/or

2) Fleeing faster than the guards could run, even in his weakened condition.

This is illogical. However, let’s say for the sake of argument that Christ did do all of this. If Jesus did survive the beatings, torture, stab wound, and crucifixion, remove the massive stone, escape armed guards, and later appeared to the disciples, imagine how his appearance would have been.

He would have been weak, beat up, bloody, and in such poor shape, who would consider Him a risen God? Is this the type of man that the disciples would have gone around preaching about?

The Romans knew exactly what they were doing when they crucified Jesus Christ. They were professional killers.

Somebody else was crucified in Jesus’ place: This is typically the Islamic theory. The

Koran says that someone else who looked like Jesus was crucified instead and Jesus was

raised up to God;

“They did not kill him (Jesus), nor did they crucify him, but they thought

they did.1 --- 1 Or, literally, ‘he was made to resemble another for them” (Sura 4: 157).

This writing comes more than 600 years after the life of Jesus yet claims to be more

accurate than eyewitness and historical testimony.

This is saying that the Jews, Romans, disciples and everybody else who saw the

crucifixion were mistaken about the identity of who was hung on the cross. It is the Romans

especially who know who it is that their killing.

Besides the fact that there is not one ounce of evidence, this theory still doesn’t explain

the empty tomb. Must we suppose that the man that was killed instead of Jesus rose from the dead? Did this substitute appear to the disciples after his resurrection?

The theory also is in contrast to non-biblical testimony of Jesus’ crucifixion and claims that historians, the Jews, and everybody else in the first century made a great mistake.

The Koran says,

“They declare: ‘None shall enter Paradise but Jews and Christians.’ Such are their wishful fancies. Say: ‘Let us have your proof, if what you say be true.” (Sura 2:111).

Should not the Koran bring forth proof for what it says is true as well? Muhammad was not there in the first century and came around 600 years after the fact. He says God revealed to him that Jesus’ was not crucified but an imposter was.

Anybody can say "God told me so".

Claiming God said something is true is one thing, bringing forth evidence is another. This claim has no basis in facts.

The disciples stole the body: Even the Jewish priests couldn’t deny the empty tomb and bribed the soldiers to report that the body was stolen (Matt.28:11-15).

The disciples would receive no gain if had they stole the body. No fortune, no power. All they received was persecution. If they had lied about the resurrection, why would they have traveled far and wide to preach a lie only to suffer for it? Peter Kreeft asserts:

“Why would the apostles lie?... If they lied, what was the motive, and what did they get out of it? What they got out of it was misunderstanding, rejection, persecution, torture, and martyrdom. Hardly a list of perks!”2

Later most of the disciples were murdered for what they were preaching. Would anyone really care so much for pushing a religion that they knew was false that they would die for it?

The Romans or Jews stole the body: The Romans had no reason. If they stole the body, they would have caused agitation of the Jews and the disciples. The Romans’ job was to keep the peace, and this would have just given them a bigger headache.

Same for the Jews; if they had stole the body they would have caused themselves more pain by giving a helping start to this new Christian religion. The Romans or the Jewish leaders had no motive to steal the body.

Furthermore, they would have publically presented the body to prove the new Christians wrong when the disciples preached the resurrection. No such body was ever produced.

The witnesses went to the wrong tomb: If the witnesses would have went to the wrong tomb and proclaimed the resurrection, the Jewish authorities would have went to the correct tomb and brought forth the body to prove them wrong. The Jewish authorities knew where the tomb was because it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin.

The Romans knew where the tomb was because they put their guards there. If the disciples did go to the wrong tomb, the theory still wouldn’t explain the appearances of a risen Christ. Even the empty tomb didn’t convince some of the disciples at first; they had to see Jesus risen to believe it.

Resurrection Evidences:

Jesus Himself, predicted that He would die and be raised again, (Mark: 8:31, Matt: 12:39, John 2:19). There is more evidence that supports the resurrection then against it.

Eye Witness Testimony: Before the apostles of Christ actually saw Him risen, they didn’t believe the women who first told them about it,

“It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles. And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:10-11).

The apostles had to see Jesus raised from the tomb for themselves to believe it. The doubting Thomas said that he would not believe unless he first put his fingers in the holes in Jesus’ hands and side. He later saw Jesus and did just that (John 20:24-29).

Jesus also appeared to unbelievers as well; a Jewish Pharisee by the name of Saul. He persecuted the Christians until he saw Christ on the road to Damascus. Afterward his name was changed to Paul and wrote much of the New Testament.

There were multiple eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The gospels were written by different individuals who did. Personal testimonies are given as to what had happened. Peter the disciple wrote:

“For we did not cunningly devise fables when we made known to you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).

The Gospel writers also wrote that women were witnesses to see that Jesus had risen. This was during a period when women’s testimonies were not even considered in court. Why would someone in this time period fabricate a story, using women as key witnesses to confirm it if he knew that the women’s testimony might not even be considered? This supports the idea that it did not matter to the writers of the New Testament who saw the risen Jesus, they were simply writing what happened.

Paul writes to the Corinthians and states that over 500 people saw that Jesus had risen, though some had passed away, most were still alive,(1 Corin. 15:1-8) Paul knew that there were that eyewitnesses that were still living and would be able to testify to what they saw if asked.

Christ’s Disciples died for their belief in the resurrection: None of the disciples received any type of material gain or benefit for preaching the gospel and the resurrection of Christ. What they did receive was persecution and martyrdom.

They came from a Jewish culture and went to hostile countries to preach about the resurrected son of God which their very leaders denied. Believing that they strayed far from their tradition and way of life for a religion they knew was a lie, which led to torture and death is not realistic.

Of the twelve original apostles only two were not killed for a faith in Christ. The apostle Judas was not martyred because he committed suicide. John was they only apostle who died of natural causes, yet he was exiled to the island of Pathmos for his faith in a resurrected Jesus.

The following are descriptions of the deaths of the remaining ten original disciples and few who were not of the original twelve, for preaching about the resurrection of Christ.3

Mark: Mark had spoken against the idol Serapis in Alexandria and preached the resurrection. For this reason he was torn to pieces as he was dragged to death.

James, son of Alphaeus: This James was also called “James the Less”. After traveling to preach the Gospel James returned to Jerusalem where he was stoned to death by the Jews for preaching the resurrection there.

Thomas: In India, the one time doubting Thomas was murdered by a Hindu sect that was angry at his missionary success. While Thomas prayed in a cave on Mt. Antenodur, the Brahmins found him, beat him, and stabbed him in the side with a spear. He was then left there to die. Thomas went from doubt to faith so strong he was killed for it.

Peter: Apostle Peter died in 67 during the time Emperor Nero persecuted Christians in Rome. He was thrown into prison and tortured for nine months in filthy conditions until he was executed in Nero’s circus. Peter requested to be crucified upside down as he felt he was not worthy to die the same way Christ did.

Philip: Philip traveled to Hierapolis in Phrygia to preach of the resurrection of Christ. Pagan priests in the area crucified Philip to a cross upside down by piercing him through his thighs. He was then stoned to death.

James, brother of John: The apostle James was dragged through the streets to his execution site by Roman Soldiers as his mother watched. Once at the place of execution, a soldier asked James for forgiveness and how to receive heaven. James told him to believe on Jesus Christ and he would be saved. He was then beheaded.

Jude Thaddaeus: Jude was a missionary with Bartholomew and Thomas at one point. Later, on Mount Ararat he was bombarded to death by arrows.

Simon the Zealot: Simon traveled to Persia where he was sawn in two for preaching about the resurrection.

Andrew: In A.D. 69, the governor of Patras, Greece crucified a naked Andrew to an “X” shaped cross. He was tied so that he would live longer as he suffered. He hung for two days publicly and was tortured until he died.

Matthew: Some writings say that the Sanhedrin condemned him death while others say he was pinned down to the ground and then beheaded. Regardless of how he was killed tradition holds that was martyred for his faith in Jesus.

Bartholomew (Nathaniel): Bartholomew was murdered in Albana, which is present day Derbend, Russia in 68. Local pagans arrested him, beat him, and then crucified him.

Paul: Apostle Paul was not of the original twelve disciples. He persecuted Christians and was formerly a member of the Sanhedrin. After seeing the risen Jesus and conversion to Christianity, Paul was often thrown into prison for preaching of the resurrection. Emperor Nero finally had Paul beheaded in 66. Paul’s conversion, giving up his life as a Pharisee, and martyrdom is amazing testimony of his belief in Jesus Christ.

James, brother of Jesus: Josephus the historian writes about James being stoned to death by the Sanhedrin for what he believed, “James was stoned to death illegally by the Sanhedrin sometime after A.D. 60 for his faith in Christ.” 4

Some of these men were the very same disciples that fled when Jesus was arrested; Peter denied he even knew Jesus three times. To go from fleeing from the Roman Soldiers to martyrdom for their faith is a powerful testament to the resurrection. If Christ had not risen and the disciples were lying, would it not be logical that at least one of the disciples would have denied the resurrection to save his life? Would you willingly die for what you knew was a lie?

Legal Criteria: Apologist Dan Story in his book, Defending Your Faith, goes over three specific evidential rules of legal criteria that John Warwick Montgomery suggests about the “law of evidence” as used in our legal system and how it can be used in Christianity’s defense of the resurrection:

“First, the factuality of an event is determined by the probability of the evidence

supporting it. Thus, Christians are ‘precisely on the right track when they defend their

position in terms of the weight of the factual evidence for Christ’s deity’… ‘the non-

Christian will be prevented from arguing against Christ’s resurrection on the ground

that the regular events in general [e.g., natural laws] make a particular miracle [such

as the resurrection] too “improbable” to consider.’ In other words, just because no

one has witnessed a person rise from the dead, since Jesus does not lessen the

factuality of Christ’s resurrection, so long as the evidence supporting it is sufficient,

which it is.

Second, evidence must be derived from the “most reliable sources of information.”

This means the statements from eyewitnesses are the most trustworthy and carry the

most weight. The New Testament is “primary source” information because it was written

by those who personally knew Jesus or who were close associates of His apostles. The

resurrection of Jesus was recorded in the Bible by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ post-resurrec-

tion appearances. Moreover, because the Bible is primary source information, the

burden of proof of any attempt to disqualify the authenticity of the resurrection rests

on the critic.

Third, in cases where no direct eyewitnesses are available, the law allows circumstantial evidences to determinative. In the case of the resurrection, no one was actually there the moment Jesus arose from the dead. However, as Montgomery explains, eyewitnesses testified that Jesus was put to death by crucifixion, placed in a tomb, disappeared from the tomb unaided, and later made numerous post resurrection appearances over a forty-day period. This is more than enough circumstantial evidence to establish the authenticity of His resurrection.

In summary, then, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was observed by eyewitnesses to the event, recorded by them in a document of proven historical reliability (the Bible), and no shred of historical, archaeological, scientific, or contrary circumstantial evidence has ever been presented to disprove it” 5 .

Not one rebuttal: Even more evidence to support the resurrection is the fact that during the time after the disciples claimed to see a risen Christ, no one wrote any documentation that denied that this had not been the case. Not one. Isn’t it strange that if Jesus had never rose from the grave and the disciples went about preaching lies, that we do not have a single rebuttal written during or around the same time to contradict their claims?

All of the rebuttals were usually written years afterward, and this was usually just to promote another religious agenda. On the other hand we do have many writings, Biblical and non-Biblical, that testify to the resurrection of Christ.

Similarly, when George Washington became the first president of the United States, there were many documents written at the time to support that fact. No one person wrote a single document denying that Washington was President.

The empty tomb: Where is Jesus’ body? No where to be found. The many

theories of the missing body are just not feasible, not to mention the fact that there is no

evidence to support them.

Jesus is the only religious founder ever who claimed he would die and later be raised

from the dead. Every other religious founder could never make such incredible claims

because it could never be done. To this day, all of those founders are still dead

in their tombs. The fact remains that Jesus is not in His.

But isn't the resurrection story a copy from earlier pagan religions? More info here.