Have You Heard?

 Have You Heard?

 Do you believe rumors, tall tales, or what some call old wives' tales?  The Bible is not place for myth, fable, or fiction but  separates the wheat from the chaff.  We all tend to have so-called confirmation bias and  believe that which already agrees with our worldview and tend to  believe the party line whatever that may be to us. "Is is hard to kick against the goads," as Paul found out on the road to Damascus, to fight God's will and go our own way. 

God cannot lie nor break a promise (Heb. 6:18) and it was not only prophesied that Christ would die and rise but it happened just as they said and as Jesus had foretold several times. We must not half-believe but with our whole heart and let God change it from the inside out! We realize we only come to a knowledge of the truth by grace (Acts 18:27) when God grants it and it is not by speculation or conjecture but by revelation. It had been so-called hearsay according to some disciples until they saw the risen Lord in person. "But we were eyewitnesses of His majesty..."   (2 Pet. 1:16).  Jesus had taught them all the prophets had foretold that had to be fulfilled. Jesus didn't just make a truth claim that He is God but proved it by rising from the dead (Acts 17:31; Romans 1:4).   He didn't cheat death, nor escape death, but defeated death by rising from it in His own power and authority granted of the Father. 

Some claim they are ignorant and haven't heard the gospel and ignorance is an excuse with God or even bliss! Where have they been living? Haven't they heard of the most important historical figure of Western Civilization and the biggest revolutionist of all time? Clearly the dominate figure of history!  Practically everyone has heard something about Jesus and His resurrection, even if they don't believe it. God judges one according to the God they do know and reject, their own conscience bearing witness against them. 

Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and "those who belong to the truth hear [Him]."  He is the very incarnation of Truth with a capital T. We know this because a few brave disciples risked their lives to spread the good word or the biblical evangel or gospel.  We don't have to be eyewitnesses because Jesus had eyewitnesses, and they were not consummate liars and deluded madmen but saw the Lord and were willing to be martyrs for it. These  testimonies are not the rantings and ravings of madmen.  

It is a fact that He rose from the dead is history and is "arguably the most attested fact in antiquity." (Dr. D. James Kennedy). It is either the biggest and cruelest hoax perpetrated on humanity or the best news ever known. It proves the deity of Christ and gives us hope of a resurrection. Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe! We need to believe in our hearts and let Christ rise in them for salvation, it must mean something to us and be personal, for the demons believe and tremble.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence for it but no "smoking gun" evidence for evidence isn't always compelling, certain, convincing, or conclusive. We cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt because God desires faith (trusting in what we have good reason to believe). Only faith and not reason or works please God unto salvation,. Everyone must take the leap of faith into the light.     

In sum, the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are sons of God (Rom. 8:16) and our hearts burn within us as the truth resonates.    Soli Deo Gloria!                                       

Job says, "I Know That My Redeemer Lives"

Job made this confession in my title (cf. Job 19:25) and showed his ultimate faith in God that in his flesh he shall see God. Yes, the resurrection was even fact in the OT: Psalm 49:15, "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave...."  Also, in Hosea 13:14, "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death."  As it says in 1 Cor. 15:55, "O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?"  Death is finally defeated and we need not fear it!    Martha told Jesus that she shall see Lazarus at the resurrection! (cf. John 11:24).   ".... I kill and I make alive..." (cf. Deut. 32:39). 

But the doctrine was not fully realized nor fulfilled, or did it have a good reason to be believed, till Jesus conquered the grave by rising from the dead as the definitive proof of His deity (cf. Romans 1:4; Acts 17:31).  It was the skeptical Sadducees that denied the resurrection.  Paul truly said that if there is no resurrection we are a people most to be pitted and are still in our sins!  (cf. 1 Cor. 15:19). 

But the resurrection is a known historical fact with much compelling, though circumstantial evidence to verify it. It is said that the resurrection is more variously proved than any even in antiquity with many types of evidence that is.  Dr. Luke says that there were "many infallible proofs," (cf. Acts 1:3).  History rarely has direct evidence.  We have documents, records, testimony, and the witness of present believers as evidence.  But just believing it is history, not salvation.  As Josh MacDowell said, "Either the resurrection is the most wonderful event in history or its cruelest, biggest hoax." 

The resurrection is not only the point of Christianity but its focus and fulcrum, without it, we disembowel the faith and make it just another religion.  Denying the facts makes you out to be living in denial!  We must not only accept it as a historical fact but we must receive the living Lord into our hearts; i.e., believe it in our hearts!  Christ must not only be risen historically but personally. The resurrection is indeed the central fact of history and its hope. 

I confess and admit it takes faith to believe this for faith is what pleases God (cf. Heb 11:6). Now there is never enough evidence to convince a person who doesn't want to believe. Israel rejected the LORD and Moses though there were many miracles (cf. Psalm 78:32). Jesus said in John 7:17 that anyone willing to do His will shall know; there's the rub! Jesus had observed in John 12:37 that even though the stubborn Pharisees had seen many signs or miracles, they "would not believe," not that they could not believe; for the heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart--where was their heart if they even had one still?  

The resurrection becomes a reality to believers because Jesus takes up residence in our hearts upon accepting this and we become transformed persons becoming renewed in Christ's image.  The transformation that took place in the apostles after they saw the Lord is the strongest evidence for His resurrection. You must want it to be true though!  But the good news is that we can taste that Jesus is good (cf.1 Pet. 2:3) and as Psalm 34:8 says, "Taste and see that the LORD is good."  We are then becoming satisfied customers or happy campers in the Lord.    Soli Deo Gloria! 

Christ Is Risen--That's History!

"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"But when the fullness of time had come..." (Gal. 4:4, ESV).

To celebrate Resurrection Sunday, known as Easter:  
The typical greeting:  "Christ is risen!" followed by:  "He is risen, indeed!"
But is He risen in you?

"Philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the point is, however, to change it."--Karl Marx  

It's a fact of history that Christ rose from the dead, and rose Himself at that.  To dispute, this is to be in a state of denial!  Any unbiased jury would render this verdict, given the compelling, circumstantial, historical evidence.  In fact, it is arguably the best-attested fact in antiquity.  Some may feel that secular historians are not as biased as theologians and Bible scholars (everyone is biased for there is no such thing as perfect objectivity), but there were more than 500 eyewitnesses to this event and every type of evidence that would be required in a court of law to be valid--the jury is still out all right, but on the skeptics as to their foolishness, not the wisdom of the believers who have nothing to fear from new revelation or the facts.

They say that to believe in the resurrection is mere history and even the demons believe and tremble (cf. James 2:19), but to take it to heart is salvation!  One must have more than story-book belief or head knowledge to get saved but must believe with all one's heart.  In other words, one must not only be a seeker of the truth but a lover of it or have the right attitude.  Romans 10:10 says that one believes with one's heart and is saved, as the GOOD NEWS TO PREACH!  Christians don't just know the truth, they live it and love it (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10); the unbeliever rejects it (cf. Rom. 2:8) and is ignorant.

We are true historians when we can interpret history and have a reference viewpoint and can put things in perspective, as to how they fit into the big picture or grand scheme of things.  History had a beginning point, a direction because it's going somewhere, and a climax, culmination, ending point, or conclusion.  History is not cyclical, i.e., not repetitive nor repeating.  The resurrection is either the biggest hoax and cruelest April Fool's Day joke ever perpetrated on mankind, or it's the most wonderful news that must be propagated at all costs.  Indeed, if Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain according to Paul and we are most to be pitied most among peoples (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14, 17).

We must believe the resurrection enough for it to make a difference in our lives and to desire to live it out and to share the good news about Jesus. WE MUST OWN IT AND PERSONALIZE IT SO THAT IT REGISTERS IN OUR HEARTS!  Thus, we say the pursuit of historical knowledge ought to be teleological or aimed at some purpose!  It is sheer history that Christ is risen for sure and even an unbeliever can do this, but to take the step of faith and allow this risen Lord to rule over you and to have ownership of your life is quite another ballgame.  We don't want to just be historians but witnesses to the truth--yes, we can be living witnesses with a personal testimony about the wonderful things Jesus has done for us accomplished via His resurrection, which secured eternal life in us as a Done Deal.

As true historians, we see purpose and meaning in the Resurrection and what was accomplished.  Were you there?  We have the living Spirit of God abiding in us, bearing witness with our spirit to give us the experience as if we had been one of the privileged few who saw the risen Lord that first Easter.  In fact, we are better off because we have the full revelation of God in His Word and the resident Holy Spirit to illumine us so that we know all things because of the anointing we received.

We all need to venture out of our comfort zones and make this fact real and live it out, not allowing it to be just another fact of history, but a transforming truth. The truth is what sets us free according to Jesus (cf. John 8:32).  There are many implications of believing this with our heart and stepping out in faith to witness about it:  people will stereotype us and persecute us; they will misunderstand and judge us; they will avoid and shun us; they will betray us and will even doubt our sanity and whether we are in our right mind (cf. 2 Cor. 5:13).  Be prepared to be ostracized, labeled, branded, and even stigmatized for the sake of the Name!  We will be tested to find out just how much we really do believe and if we are willing to bet our life on this fact, or is it just some convenient truth that seems to suit the time and situation, having no risk involved.

Our witness hits home and has weight and cannot be discounted, for our testimony cannot be argued anymore than a blind man saying, "I was blind, but now I see!"  What's to argue?  The difference between our witness and that of a Muslim is that ours is based on historical fact and verifiable experience, coupled with the Word of God itself--this implies both subjective and objective evidence--it's not mystical.  We also have the witness of the Holy Spirit which bears witness with our spirit per Rom. 8:16!  Yes, We can experience God and have a genuine, authentic encounter with Him to substantiate our faith--the proofs ring true, can be verified, and hold water in a court of law according to the laws of evidence.

The whole point of believing this, though, is to do something about it and to disseminate this truth in order to change lives and transform the world by consequence one person at a time.  It is historical, Scriptural fact that the resurrection of Christ changed the world, starting with the Jews in Jerusalem and ultimately the Roman empire, and Christianity had become legalized by the Edict of Milan in AD 313 by the Roman emperor Constantine.  The world was never the same and Jesus is still in the resurrection business!  There's no challenge He's not up to!

History is a bona fide Christian academic discipline with biblical roots and Jesus is the key to history; therefore, it's not demeaning to be given the moniker of the historian as long as it's one with a Christian worldview and sees history, not as bunk with no meaning having no purpose or application, but as God's unfolding narrative of redemption in real-time with the resurrection as its climax or turning point.  The true believer is potentially a bona fide economist, historian, ethicist, counselor, legal advocate or lawyer, politico, scientist, psychologist, biologist, philosopher, theologian, and even sociologist by virtue of his worldview.

Note that our faith is a historical faith, based on fact, or it's nothing but balderdash and poppycock! We not only posit history as having meaning in general but that the resurrection has real-time applications and is about how Christ can resurrect our spirit through salvation. The man of faith has naught to fear from the facts.   History has rightly been called HIS STORY! George Santayana said rightly that those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it!

Let's hope that the maxim, just like Georg W. F. Hegel said, "What history and experience teach is this--that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."  We don't learn from history!  Hopefully, this doesn't become self-fulfilling and the story of our own lives, but we can see the real meaning of God's intervention into history, stepping into time in the person of Christ via His incarnation and resurrection.

It is the secular historians who are the revisionists, rewriting the past, ex-post-facto, not Christians who postulate the true fact of the resurrection of Christ as His triumph over death and our hope of resurrection.   As believers, we say that God orchestrates history and the fact it has a direction is evidence of His existence and therefore is denied by secularists.  Christian history and worldview are based on, and revolving around, the reliability, fidelity, veracity, and competence of Scripture as its foundation stone.   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Gibraltar Of Christianity

"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God"  (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep"  (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).  

This is apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny).   God is no spectator or passive observer of humanity.  A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events.   As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men."  Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty Creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.

One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction.  It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility.  Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).

"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God"  (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep"  (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).

This is an apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny).  A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events.   As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men."  Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.

One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction.  It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility.  Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).

The crux of the Christian faith is its dependence on the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation and inception.  You must accept this fact or the whole faith is disemboweled.  The resurrection is the final proof that Christ's sacrifice was accepted, that there is a heaven to hope for and that Christ is the one and only Son of God.  This is the most crucial and vital fact of history--the most astonishing and fantastic fact, or it is the biggest and cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, according to Josh McDowell.  There is no middle ground; it is not a legend since there was not the time for it to develop until the gospels were written (probably before AD 70).  The historicity of Christ is beyond dispute by any reputable modern historian because it is vouched for by many secular forces as well as the internal testimony of the Word.

How do we know this as historical fact, though?  History, by its very nature, cannot be proved in a scientific manner (it's out of the realm of science because it's nonrepeatable).  How do we know that Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth?  There are no witnesses alive today to verify it, but we do have documentation that is credible, and trustworthy.  We must assess the veracity of the records and the dependability of the eye-witnesses--consummate, inveterate liars, and lunatics or madmen are not reliable witnesses, no matter the number.

However, in the case of Scripture, we have four noblemen who lived in the times of skepticism and persecution for their faith, and they have the character that one could believe. We can believe the records written because they give no evidence of rantings and ravings of madmen.  Simon Greenleaf, a prof at Harvard, and one of the world's foremost authorities on legal evidence became a believer in Christ by examining the evidence and announced that, if an unbiased jury were to hear it, they would proclaim the resurrection as historical fact.  There certainly isn't a lack of evidence to support it, one must have preconceived ideas or prejudices to deny it.  The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart, and people feign intellectual problems as smokescreens to hide their moral rebellion and unwillingness to do God's will.

There is no way you can disprove it:  The opposite of the resurrection is not that people don't rise from the dead, but that God cannot raise the dead, specifically, that He cannot rise from the dead Himself.  All science can say is that people don't normally rise from the dead, all things being equal. There is no law that says so, it has just been observed that men normally die and conclusions were drawn.

Jesus predicted His resurrection and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to verify it: The appearances of Christ to doubting apostles, who had to be convinced against their better judgment (Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he could put his hand in Christ's side) and they had become disillusioned, reverting to their former way of life, such as fishing; the many eyewitnesses that were alive when the gospels were written that could've dispelled the belief--it would be like someone saying that FDR claimed to be the Son of God today; one famous lawyer (Frank Morrison) asked the pivotal question, who moved the stone--it was guarded and heavy; one must account for the empty tomb and everyone knew where it was and could've checked it out; how do you explain the rise of the church that taught the resurrection, the martyrdom of thousands for the faith, when all they had to do to save their hide was deny this fact; the day of worship was changed from the Sabbath day to the Lord's day (and Jews practically had a fetish about this command); the grave clothes were undisturbed and this made an instant believer out of John, showing supernatural exit; and most convincing is the dramatic change in the lives of the apostles, going from timid and frightened to roaring lions for the faith.

The only way to dismantle Christianity is to disprove this historical fact and this has never been done, and cannot be done--it would raise more issues and questions than it solved--there's no legitimate evidence against it; only a preconceived notion that it's untrue brings doubt.

Note that the burden of proof falls on the party making the challenge that a document is not authentic or bogus (Socrates' dictum):  Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"  (Professor, an expert on law and evidence, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard).  He also states:  "[That] the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in a y court of law." 

All the above are compelling, circumstantial evidence, and this kind of evidence is admissible in a court of law; however, no evidence can be conclusive in itself, but one must weigh it and go with the preponderance of the evidence--all the popular theories about how Christ didn't rise from the dead have been refuted and aren't believed seriously anymore by scholars (like that the disciples merely stole the body, and no one should believe the testimony of guards while they were asleep--this is not admissible evidence, and this tale circulated and the Jews believed it).

What is so compelling about the evidence and makes the gospel writers so credible?  They were willing to die for it and were in a position to know whether it was true--unlike radical Muslims dying for what they think is true--and people will gladly die for what they believe, but not for a known lie.  Finally, the integrity of the Scriptures is well-established and its reliability, authenticity, and faithful reproduction with utmost fidelity leaves no doubt that they have survived without being corrupted, as Islam claims.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Proof For The Resurrection?

As John Stott so appropriately said, "We cannot pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity."

"God promised this Good News long ago through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.  The Good News is about his Son.  In his earthly life he was born into King David's family line, and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit"  (Romans 1:2-4, NLT).  

The skeptic may be surprised that there is abundant, cumulative, circumstantial, and historical evidence to support the resurrection (let it make its total impact!), unless one has already made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused with the facts.  The Pharisees had  closed their minds already:  "This impostor said He would rise again!"  Jesus even predicted the event at least five times.   This is like the eggheads on Mars Hill in Acts 17:32, ESV:  "Now when they heard of  the resurrection of the dead, some mocked..."  Whether there is a resurrection, or whether Christ rose, is a matter of faith; out of the realm of public opinion, science, or philosophy.

The event in question is more variously supported by direct and indirect evidence than any other event in antiquity.  There is so much evidence that it demands a verdict!  Too many questions can't be answered by the skeptic.  There is never enough evidence for them--they don't want to believe and think it would upset their lifestyle or security.  Seekers and believers need to study the facts as any legitimate court of law would pronounce:  Jesus did indeed rise from the dead!  The historicity is well-established both circumstantially and in documents as written evidence.  You must realize that Christianity is the only faith-based on history and facts!

I invite you to venture out of your comfort zone and pay attention to the facts of the case point by point.  You are not required to have blind faith at all (not having reasons for it), but only to make a leap of faith based on the preponderance of the evidence and where it's going.  "Taste and see that the Lord is good!"  I hope you will see that you are not committing intellectual suicide by believing--but either way you decide, it takes faith (God is only pleased with faith per Heb. 11:6, NIV, which says, "And  without faith it is impossible to please God..."), but it takes more faith to deny it than to accept it!  I personally, don't have, enough faith to deny it!  I am glad that "his cruel death was not the end of Him," as John Stott has said.  He does live in my heart but that is highly subjective and based on my personal experience, and not hard objective evidence, but only personal testimony (which is still admissible in a court of law). 

The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against it, and one must decide on one's own. This is the paramount question:  Have you considered the evidence?  God is no man's' debtor and will authenticate Himself if you consider the evidence.  The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against this, and one must decide on one's own.  God is no man's debtor and will authenticate Himself if you consider the evidence.  This is the paramount question:  Have you considered the evidence?  The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against this, and one must personally decide on one's own. 

If someone ever challenges you to prove the resurrection, you can cite manifold evidence that is well known: like the several alleged appearances of Christ over a period of 40 days (this cannot be explained by hallucinations, which are highly subjective and individualized); the change of behavior in the apostles (who had become disbanded, demoralized, and suddenly went from being cowards to roaring lions of the faith); the undisturbed grave clothes which show the body wasn't hastily stolen and Christ must have "passed" through them as John believed the moment he saw it and put two and two together, realizing no one would steel a body naked; the guarded tomb which was as secure as they knew how, because they were aware that He claimed to rise again on the third day (who moved the stone and the sepulcher was sealed and had a guard;  the early rise of the faith; why they changed the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day;  how they turned the world upside-down; and most vital of all: the test of the veracity of the witness is that the were all martyred except John (one usually tells the truth and confesses on his deathbed)--they were all willing to go to their deaths rather than admit a conspiracy.  Lying would not be consistent with their character and witness, nor worthy of their Lord.  This was no idle tale" told by "consummate liars and deluded madmen" but supported by "many infallible ["convincing" in NIV] proofs" according to Luke cited in Acts 1:3, KJV.  

The resurrection is the Rock of Gibraltar or the crux of Christianity:  You must disprove it to make Christianity tumble, "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is futile..." says 1 Cor. 15:17.  The event doesn't prove Christ's deity, but is consistent or congruous with it, and only what we'd expect of a supernatural person who also had a supernatural entrance into the world via a virgin birth.  If the resurrection is true, it is the "most sensational event" in history, and if it is a conspiracy of deluded followers, it is the "biggest hoax" ever perpetrated on mankind, according to apologist Josh MacDowell.  The most challenging evidence is that the body was gone and the authorities and Jews could not produce it to nip the new faith in the bud.  The Jews believed that the disciples stole the body while the guards were asleep.  [There is no precedent in jurisprudence that allows the testimony of what transpired s during one's sleep!]  In spreading this rumor it both showed their ignorance and proved the fact that the body was gone! 

Now, this is the clincher:  the evidence against the resurrection is hard to come by:  there is none!  What evidence is there that He didn't rise from the dead--did anyone see the dead body?  There are no conflicting testimonies!  Only the presupposition that one cannot rise from the dead and bias in the first place would prevent belief.  Just saying, "I don't believe one can rise from the dead (not even God?)" is not evidence per se.  Science can say that in the normal activity of man this doesn't happen, but science cannot "forbid" this miracle or any other miracle or unusual event caused by God--this would be personifying science and going beyond its turf.  This is really "scientism," not science!  This is outside the scope or parameters of the scientific method and empiricism:  science relies upon the repetition of events and laboratory conditions with controls and variables to experiment with and measure and observe results to hypothesize and theorize.  History, by its very nature, is unrepeatable and it is a matter of the reliability of the documents.  If this happened normally we'd call them "regulars!'  Don't people often say, "There's a first time for everything?"

If Christ was God, it is no surprise that He rose from the dead--anyone with His character and credentials and made the claims He did is either a lunatic, a deliberate liar (and the disciples would've figured this out), or He was who He claimed to be--the Lord--The Resurrection and the Life in the flesh!  If someone lived like Jesus did and said what He said and claimed deity, I am inclined to believe it--or who did say those things?  NO psychiatrist would label Him unstable, but His claims would not escape the attention of the authorities either.  It is obvious, for instance, that His teachings are not the rantings and ravings of a madman either!  Lord Byron said,:  "If ever a man were God or God-man, Jesus Christ was both."

It is a matter of philosophy and history, not science or opinion: "For nothing is impossible with God [and one must decide whether he admits to there being a God in the first place] (cf. Luke 1:37, NIV)."  In order to be the judge and jury, in this case, you must weigh the evidence pro and con and go in the direction the evidence is leading:  Where does the preponderance of the evidence point to?  You don't need to know all the answers to decide, juries rarely have all the evidence or facts, but only sufficient evidence to render a verdict up or down.  To the hardened skeptic, there is never enough evidence, but to the willing believer who wants to believe and is willing to do God 's will there is ample evidence;  one cannot say he has an excuse due to lack of evidence.  He may have reason to doubt, but no excuse!  The skeptic has more questions to answer than the believer!

It is not a matter of the intellect because it is a moral matter and only those willing to obey God can believe (John 7:17, NIV, says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God...").  It doesn't take brains to figure it out, because a child can believe; the heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart.  Your conclusion shows more what kind of person you are, not what kind of person Christ is. 

Let me conclude:  It is not a matter of the intellect because it is a moral matter and only those willing to obey God can believe (cf. John 7:1 says, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God...").  It doesn't take brains to figure it out, because a child can believe.  The big question is where one's heart is and if it's in the right place.  You cannot disprove the resurrection by merely citing people fact that people don't normally rise from the dead; Jesus is not your typical person, but the Son of God with all the necessary credentials and witnesses. Every theory posited to explain it away has been proved beyond credence and unacceptable, because God can raise the dead: for with God, all things are possible, by definition (cf. Matt. 19:26; Luke 1:37; Gen. 18:14).  

Note and remember this point in fact:  science can not make value judgments or judgments of historical nature, because they are not observable, measurable, nor repeatable--have you ever seen five pounds of love or three feet of faith?    Soli Deo Gloria!

Who Moved The Stone?

"For he 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 dead"  (Acts 17:31, NLT).  

A huge stone was rolled in front of the tomb and soldiers were set to guard it till the third day, for the Pharisees knew Christ had foretold his resurrection and they were given permission to make it as secure as they knew how.  This stone would've required several men to move it and couldn't have been done in the middle of the night secretly without waking the guards if they were sleeping--but they would be in trouble for sleeping on duty--punishment could be death.  The soldiers testified that someone stole the body while they were asleep!  Never in the history of jurisprudence has the testimony of someone been accepted from while they were asleep.

There is much circumstantial evidence that Christ rose from the dead:  the graveclothes were undisturbed as if Christ had passed through them in spirit (who would steal a body without clothes?);  the most convincing proof is that the body was gone--how does one explain that?  Everyone knew where the tomb was and could've verified this fact--Christ was missing in action!  If you could produce a body the movement of Christianity would be stopped!  Look at all the martyrs as witnesses, and the record of the apostles, as eyewitnesses:  People will die for what they believe is true, but not for a known lie!

Note that Christ was seen by eyewitnesses who went to their deaths testifying of their veracity and truth--they could've saved their own skins by admitting a hoax--one usually tells the truth when facing death!  Note that they were in a position to know the truth, and not just fanatics convinced by some tall tale, myth or fable!   But the biggest miracle of all is the transformation of the lives of the apostles from demoralized followers to bold witnesses not afraid of death anymore.

Other circumstantial evidence is amazing and cannot be explained away so easily:  the changing of the worship day to Sunday or the Lord's Day; the rise of the church; the way the disciples turned the world upside down; the miracle of the New Testament and its historical proofs and accuracy.  Many theories have been advanced that attempt to explain away the resurrection:  the swoon theory that Christ didn't actually die (this is debunked by the fact that no one could have survived in a cold tomb half-dead and then convince the followers that he conquered death and give them hope of eternal life); the wrong tomb theory is debunked because everyone knew where it was and could've verified or debunked the testimony of the apostles; the theory that the apostle or even the authorities stole the body is not worth refuting because they had no motive!  The authorities and the Jews were trying to quash the rumors and refute their spirited preaching!

Paul preached the resurrection at Mars Hill in Athens where intellectuals gathered and it was the philosophical capital of the known world and they scoffed at the idea of a resurrection, but some believed!   People were skeptical back then just as they are today!  Luke opens his book of Acts saying that there are "many infallible proofs" of the resurrection!  Thomas Arnold, a famous historian, said that no fact in history is better attested than the resurrection.  Finally, you can "taste and see that the Lord is good" and find out for yourself:  I don't have to prove it to you because you can experience Christ personally and find out for yourself!

God is no man's debtor and will authenticate Himself to any honest seeker of truth who doesn't close his mind and searches out the evidence.  In fact, according to evidence experts from jurisprudence, if the facts of the resurrection were presented to any objective jury in the world, it would conclude and render the verdict that Christ actually did rise from the dead--there's no evidence to the contrary!  If you examine the evidence with an open mind you will be convinced, even against your will because it cannot be denied as fact.

The only way to deny without committing intellectual suicide is to have the presupposition that Christ couldn't have risen from the dead and that the historical records are thus inaccurate and unreliable. The question of whether God can raise the dead is philosophical, not scientific, and it ultimately depends upon the veracity of the witnesses and the credibility of the records presented as evidence. Just because men don't generally rise from the dead doesn't prove that God can't do it!  All science can posit is that people don't usually rise from the dead; miracles are unusual events caused by God.

This Gibraltar of the faith is either the biggest and cruelest hoax perpetrated on mankind, or it's the most wonderful, blessed newsworthy gospel message ever heard or disseminated.   It's not a matter of faith versus reason, but which set of presuppositions you commence within your reasoning. The resurrection, according to Dr. D. James Kennedy, is arguably the best-attested fact of antiquity. "Indeed, taking all the evidence together ... 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 of the proof of it" (Canon B. F. Westcott, a scholar at Cambridge).  One-time historical events are not subject to scientific verification or scrutiny! Indeed,  His cruel death was not the end of Him!   Soli Deo Gloria!  

The Gibraltar Of Christianity

"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God"  (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep"  (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).  

This is an apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny).  A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events.   As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men."  Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty Creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.

One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction.  It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility.  Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).

The crux of the Christian faith is its dependence on the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation and inception.  You must accept this fact or the whole faith is disemboweled.  The resurrection is the final proof that Christ's sacrifice was accepted, that there is a heaven to hope for and that Christ is the one and only Son of God.  This is the most crucial and vital fact of history--the most astonishing and fantastic fact--or it is the biggest and cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.  There is no middle ground; it is not a legend since there was not the time for it to develop till the gospels were written (probably before AD 70).  The historicity of Christ is beyond dispute by any reputable modern historian because it is vouched for by many secular forces as well as the internal testimony of the Word.

How do we know this as historical fact, though?  History, by its very nature, cannot be proved in a scientific manner (it's out of the realm of science because it's nonrepeatable).  How do we know that Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth?  There are no witnesses alive today to verify it, but we do have documentation that is credible, and trustworthy.  We must assess the veracity of the records and the dependability of the eye-witnesses--consummate, inveterate liars, and lunatics or madmen are not reliable witnesses, no matter the number.

However, in the case of Scripture, we have four noblemen who lived in the times of skepticism and persecution for their faith, and they have the character that one could believe. We can believe the records written because they give no evidence of rantings and ravings of madmen.  Simon Greenleaf, a prof at Harvard, and one of the world's foremost authorities on legal evidence became a believer in Christ by examining the evidence and announced that, if an unbiased jury were to hear it, they would proclaim the resurrection as historical fact.  There certainly isn't a lack of evidence to support it, one must have preconceived ideas or prejudices to deny it.  The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart, and people feign intellectual problems as smokescreens to hide their moral rebellion and unwillingness to do God's will.

There is no way you can disprove it:  The opposite of the resurrection is not that people don't rise from the dead, but that God cannot raise the dead, specifically, that He cannot rise from the dead Himself.  All science can say is that people don't normally rise from the dead, all things being equal. There is no law that says so, it has just been observed that men normally die and conclusions were drawn.  Jesus predicted His resurrection and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to verify it: The appearances of Christ to doubting apostles, who had to be convinced against their better judgment (Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he could put his hand in Christ's side) and they had become disillusioned, reverting to their former way of life, such as fishing; the many eyewitnesses that were alive when the gospels were written that could've dispelled the belief--it would be like someone saying that FDR claimed to be the Son of God today; one famous lawyer (Frank Morrison, asked that pivotal question and wrote Who Moved the Stone? --it was guarded and heavy; one must account for the empty tomb and everyone knew where it was and could've checked it out; how do you explain the rise of the church that taught the resurrection, the martyrdom of thousands for the faith, when all they had to do to save their hide was deny this fact; the day of worship was changed from the Sabbath day to the Lord's day (and Jews practically had a fetish about this command); the grave clothes were undisturbed and this made an instant believer out of John, showing supernatural exit; and most convincing is the dramatic change in the lives of the apostles, going from timid and frightened to roaring lions for the faith.

The only way to dismantle Christianity is to disprove this historical fact and this has never been done, and cannot be done--it would raise more issues and questions than it solved--there's no legitimate evidence against it; only a preconceived notion that it's untrue brings doubt.

Note that the burden of proof falls on the party making the challenge that a document is not authentic or bogus:  Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"  (Professor, an expert on law and evidence, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard).  He also states:  "[That] the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in a  court of law." 

All the above are compelling, circumstantial evidence, and this kind of evidence is admissible in a court of law; however, no evidence can be conclusive in itself, but one must weigh it and go with the preponderance of the evidence--all the popular theories about how Christ didn't rise from the dead have been refuted and aren't believed seriously anymore by scholars (like that the disciples merely stole the body, and no one should believe the testimony of guards while they were asleep--this is not admissible evidence, and this tale circulated and the Jews believed it).  What is so compelling about the evidence and makes the gospel writers so credible?  They were willing to die for it and were in a position to know whether it was true--unlike radical Muslims dying for what they think is true--and people will gladly die for what they believe, but not for a known lie.

Finally, the integrity of the Scriptures is well-established and its reliability, authenticity, and faithful reproduction with utmost fidelity leaves no doubt that they have survived without being corrupted, as Islam claims.  Soli Deo Gloria!

History's Climax

It was Josh McDowell who said that the resurrection is either the greatest fact of history and to be reckoned with, or the biggest and cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.  Paul really did say that if Christ isn't risen our faith is in vain.  He also said that Christ "was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead..." (Rom. 1:4, ESV).  Because He lives we can be sure that we, too, will live with Him in eternity.  

The Jews had no clear cut-and-dried theology on the afterlife, and Jesus' resurrection transformed the disciples from cowards unwilling to stand up for Jesus to being fearless in the face of persecution.  Now they had reason to believe and had evidence to boot. Jesus also did say that blessed is the one who believes and hasn't seen after Thomas' doubts.

We don't need to see Jesus in order to believe because we have the Holy Spirit resident in us and it bears witness with us.  We have it better in this arrangement with God than if Jesus were just walking around the earth still teaching.  We have the complete canon of Scripture and the filling of the Spirit which is a superior blessing than to have been there and sat under His teaching! We are more blessed than they were! Jesus changed the disciples and He is still in the business of changing lives--you might say He is still in the resurrection line and business!

The resurrection has profound theological significance because it proves the Father accepted His blood atonement and it proclaimed His final victory over Satan and over death.  It gives us a rationale to believe in the afterlife and heaven.  We don't just have philosophical or theological reasons to believe in the resurrection, but a historical and experiential one--we can experience the power of the resurrection too.  It is historical fact supported and proved more variously by circumstantial evidence than any in antiquity.

Jesus is with us today in Spirit because He said that wherever two or three are gathered in His name, there He is (cf. Matt. 18:20). His victory is now ours and Satan is a defeated foe who has no power over us. Jesus proclaimed His salvation as a done deal and we are to tell the wonderful news concerning Him was known as the gospel.

We have a sound reason to believe, not based on myth or cleverly devised story, as Peter said. Dr. Luke said, there were "many infallible proofs," Acts 1:3    Believing Christ lived, died, and rose to live is really just history; believing and realizing His resurrection in you and that He lives in you is salvation.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Consequences Of The Resurrection...

If Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain according to the Apostle Paul.  The resurrection is the Rock of Gibraltar of Christianity, the linchpin and crux of the matter you might say because it all depends on this one event to verify Christ's claim and to give us reason to believe in an afterlife at all.  All of Christianity depends on this truth and will come tumbling down without it.  The resurrection attests to the deity of Christ as the Son of God or God manifested in the flesh, becoming man and that He won the battle that we were in.

The historicity of Christ is not questioned by any reputable historian; even atheist secular historian H. G. Wells admits the New Testament gospels were written between ca. AD 50 and AD 75--within a generation of the events and within the time-frame of there being witnesses still alive to verify the written record. Secular Humanist historian Will Durant vouches for the historicity of Jesus and dismisses the possibility of it being legend or myth, for example. Many men of learning have tried to disprove this historic event and no one has ever succeeded--some have even converted after examining the evidence that demands a verdict.  Many theories have been debunked and it all ends up showing the reliability of the record.

History by its very nature is nonrepeatable and you cannot use the scientific method to verify an event.  The substantial historicity of the resurrection is more variously proved than any other event in antiquity.  What you have to examine is the credibility and reliability or veracity of the witnesses and the dependability or accuracy of the written record not being corrupt, but preserved intact as written, The eye-witnesses were putting their lives on the line by standing up for Jesus and proclaiming His resurrection--they often were fed to the lions or burned at the stake, stoned, or crucified if they didn't recant that Jesus is Lord and admit Caesar is Lord.

Note: The test of the veracity of these apostles was their willingness to die for the faith and men usually tell the truth on the deathbed.  It is hard to keep a lie going among several men (as Watergate proved in 1973 when the most powerful 12 men in our nation couldn't keep a lie going for 3 weeks, according to Chuck Colson, Nixon's dirty-tricks man), but note that there are no inconsistencies in their testimonies--the eye-witnesses, without collusion, do not contradict each other and still tell it their own way.

The greatest sign and miracle that proves the resurrection is the way it turned a bunch of cowardly and timid, disbanded, demoralized men into roaring lions of the faith and willing to die for it as they were no longer afraid of death (why?  they believed in the resurrection!).  The authorities could tell that "these men had been with Jesus."

There are many questions that the skeptic needs to answer:  Who moved the stone?  Where was the body?  What about the numerous appearances over a period of forty days?  What about the changing of the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day in tribute? What about the way the world was turned upside down or topsy-turvy? What about the way the faith spread like wildfire in forming the church, which soon became a worldwide outreach and phenomenon?  What about the guards? What about the undisturbed grave clothes?  And what about the historical record left by eyewitnesses? Finally, how did so many believers come about?

It is because of the resurrection that we believe in an afterlife that is glorious and superior to this one and not just a spiritual existence.  It proves the Father was satisfied with the passion of Christ.  You must realize that before this most Jews were unsure whether there was a resurrection or afterlife at all!

Either this event was one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind, or it is the most wonderful fact of history--in fact, its climax or turning point (paraphrased from acclaimed apologist Josh McDowell).  It was no idle tale perpetrated by deliberate liars--the gospels are not the rantings and ravings of madmen or deluded diehards.  Would you risk your life for a lie? Do you know how difficult it is to perpetuate a plot and keep a lie going without a smoking gun getting out to show its falsity? You cannot rule it out by saying you don't believe in dead people coming back to life--the opposite of Christ's resurrection is that He didn't rise that people don't rise in general (He is God and not just "people").

Saying you don't believe in the resurrection does not constitute evidence in a court of law, for you are not a qualified witness of what transpired that day--and your testimony is irrelevant.  Evidence by definition is a fact that is allowable in a court of law as bona fide datum either for or against the allegation.  It has been said by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the former Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, and one of the world's leading experts on evidence said that any unbiased courtroom would declare the resurrection to be a historical fact (note that facts can be ascertained and verified by other than just the scientific method, including testimony by credible witnesses).

No matter what stand you take, it takes a leap of faith and one is believing something he cannot prove either way scientifically--the question ultimately rides on the philosophical issue of whether there is a God, and knowing that God can do whatever He desires and with Him nothing is impossible. Another factor to consider:  There is a difference between a fanatic dying for what he believes and an eye-witness dying for what he knows and is in a position to know whether it is true or not--he will not willingly die for a lie.

In the final analysis, there have been multiple theories put forth such as the disciples stealing the body, or they had hallucinations, or that Christ didn't really die, but fainted or swooned, or that the authorities stole the body; however, the record makes it clear that none of these arguments hold water and are easily dismissed--in a court of law the verdict would have to be rendered, without prejudice, that Christ did indeed rise from the dead.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Then Our Faith Is Futile...

If Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain, according to the Apostle Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14).  Christianity is Christ and if you take Christ out of it you disembowel it; however, you can take Buddha out of Buddhism and Mohammad out of Islam and the religions remain intact somewhat for it is mainly a philosophy without God in the equation.  Our faith is not in a creed or set of rules to heed, but in a person, and getting to know Him personally.  If He is still dead, then how can we fellowship with Him and how can we overcome our sins?

A person can have a subjective experience like believing in superstition and you might not be able to convince him otherwise, but our faith is based on objective, historical fact--and even the most variously proved one in antiquity.  Any unbiased jury would be forced to admit He rose from the dead, based on circumstantial and eyewitness evidence.  The point is that you cannot prove history scientifically--by its very nature, it is nonrepeatable.  The only verification one can have is the veracity of the witnesses and circumstantial evidence. Are these Christian witnesses credible or deliberate liars and perpetrators of a deliberate hoax?  Usually, people tell the truth on their deathbed, and they were in the position to know the truth, not being just fanatics aroused by the spirit of the times.

Proof of the resurrection by circumstantial evidence, such as the change of the Sabbath as a day of worship to the Lord's Day or Sunday, the growth of the church, so fast so as to turn the world topsy-turvy in such a short period, the veracity of the eyewitnesses who died as martyrs and could've admitted to lying rather than die, the alleged appearances of Christ, and of course the empty tomb, which wasn't in doubt at the time. Do you think they were just deliberate liars and madmen? If the body was stolen, who moved the stone (it would've been nearly impossible with the guards and how heavy it was).  But the biggest evidence is the dramatically changed lives of the disciples, from being timid and afraid to take a stand for Christ to be roaring lions for the faith unafraid of death and undaunted by the authorities.

The purpose of the resurrection appearances was for our sake, to give us hope of a resurrection (some Jews believed in this but the teaching was unclear until Christ came back from the dead as the convincing conqueror of death, the last enemy).  The resurrection showed us that the Father had accepted Jesus' sacrifice and that He was victorious over Satan and that His work was a done deal!   No other religion has a resurrection story to believe in but they are all pie in the sky and offer little assurance, but only fear without knowing for sure whether they are saved.  We can still experience the power of the resurrection ourselves (cf. Phil 3:10), for Christ is still in the resurrection business! 

The resurrection was not a continuation of this life and merely an improved body of flesh and bone, but a spiritual body of a whole new nature--a new creation!  Jesus had to prove he wasn't a ghost or a spirit!  He could walk through walls, defy gravity, and even eat and feel--this is a whole new existence of another notion and kind.  The Greeks could be convinced of some kind of spiritual afterlife in spirit only, but they scoffed at our bodies being brought back to life.  

In sum, Our faith in Christ is unique and something worth living for, not just dying for.; if it were for this life only, we are the most to be pitied, says Paul, you might say:  "If you only believe Jesus lived, and isn't living, you don't believe in the same Jesus:  The resurrection is the crux of Christianity-- its "Rock of Gibraltar."    Soli Deo Gloria!

Resurrection Perspectives

This is either the biggest hoax in history or the most sensational event--either way its history, but history, by its very nature, is unrepeatable, and it takes faith because it cannot be proved without laboratory conditions or controls and variables to repeat and measure scientifically. It has been well said, "Christian faith goes beyond reason, but not against it."  Our experience in Christ is real, though subjective because it is verifiable by the objective, external, historical fact of the resurrection that would meet the standards of any honest jury deciding the case according to Professor Simon Greenleaf, professor of Royal Law at Harvard University.

The resurrection doctrine is most vital and it is what establishes the deity of Christ and positive proof according to Paul in Romans 1:4 where He declared Himself the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead.  The other declaration that it makes is that the Father was satisfied with the atonement and that we can live in victory believing in Christ.

If you could disprove the resurrection, the Gibraltar of our faith, it would be dismissed as myth, legend, wishful thinking, or pie in the sky. "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Cor. 15:17).  This is the linchpin of Christianity--it is like taking Christ out of Christianity--there is nothing left to believe; however, on the contrary, you can take Buddha out of Buddhism, or Mohammad out of Islam, and you can have the essential religion still intact.  The risen Christ shows us that He conquered death and this is vital because then we can know that we will live eternally.

It is not enough to believe He died for a good cause, or set a good example; and not just a martyr, one must realize He died for you (not just died) and rose again on your behalf.   Dead martyrs don't change lives though they inspire or teach us religious beliefs or convictions--one must also acknowledge that He was victorious over death itself, the final enemy.  Believing not only that He died for you, but He is alive for you all on your behalf.  Accepting the historical fact that He died (and many extra-biblical sources even confirm this) does not save--that's history, but knowing He died and rose for you will save you, that is more than just history--it's a revelation!

If you want to disprove Christianity, attack the resurrection evidence and come up with an alternate explanation, other than that He rose from the dead.  Where is the body, for example?  It was never reproduced and doing so would have nipped the new so-called sect called "the Way" in the bud and nix its influence and outreach.   There were over 500 eyewitnesses to His post-resurrection appearances and this constitutes historical evidence, which much relies on the veracity (these were not your liar types who had the motive to make up stories or myths or lies).  Veracity is the test of a witness--you don't put much credence in a consummate liar, do you?  Satan is the father of liars--don't believe anything he tells you.  The apostles were all (with the exception of John) subjected to a martyr's death and a person will usually tell the truth at death--so this is another test of their credibility. It has been said that one doesn't knowingly die for a lie.  Indeed, He is risen, just like He said at least 5 times.  And the Pharisees knew this in addition and posted guards to make it as secure a tomb as they knew how.

One famous lawyer, Frank Morrison, resolved to disprove the resurrection.  He wrote a book Who Moved the Stone? and the first chapter was entitled, "The Book that Refused to be Written."  He had unwillingly, against his better intentions, become a believer after objectively examining the evidence.  Simon Greenleaf, Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was told to "examine the evidence" before commenting on the resurrection:  He became a believer and wrote a book, The Testimony of the Apostles.  Gen. Lew Wallace (encouraged by Robert Ingersoll, the Great Agnostic) wrote Ben-Hur:  A Tale of The Christ, originally intending to disprove Christianity!

Not everyone who heard of the resurrection believed; we aren't forced to believe!   Of course, Judas never lived to see it and who knows if he would have, but some people only hardened their hearts and became more set in their evil ways.  The idea is that if you meet Jesus and have an encounter with Him, you will never be the same--it is life-changing!  The real proof of the resurrection is how the lives of the apostles were changed--from moping cowards who had lost all hope to daring, brave, positive witnesses for Christ.  The changed lives were immediate and dramatic and not explainable by anything else but a supernatural occurrence of some kind.  What made them into such roaring lions of the faith? These timid, clueless men were transformed suddenly, upon seeing the risen Lord,  into bold preachers and proclaimers of the gospel of Jesus!  Who turned the known world upside-down?  A group of deluded madmen?  No collusion could possibly have been sustained to explain such a revelation that took place in society spiritually and morally. How do we account for the sudden authorship of the New Testament and its acceptance by the new Church all in a relatively short time span? The answer is a dramatic encounter that we all can have when we come to know Christ personally and make the leap of saving faith to trust Him as Savior and submit to Him as the Lord of our lives.

There are other circumstantial pieces of evidence that cannot be explained otherwise:  the switching to the day of worship from the Sabbath Day to the Lord's Day on the first day of the week was an early sign or tribute to the first believers' faith and testimony to Jewry; the growth of the church to eventually take over the Roman Empire; and the changes effected upon the morals and standards of society, such as the ending of gladiator fights.  There are serious issues or questions to raise: To look at the relevancy, why is it that today millions would die for Him, and conquer not with fear nor bloodshed, but with love.  He is the emperor of love and His kingdom is in the love in our hearts.  Why do we remember and still worship Him as God and no one respects or names their children after Tiberius, Pilate, nor Herod to this day?  His kingdom has outlasted Rome's and Christianity is the predominant religion of the world?       Soli Deo Gloria!