Some Final Issues

(-` ome skeptics object that Jesus' resurrection does not prove God's existence. ► 'Jesus' resurrection is often used as an argument for the existence of God. "However," the skeptic responds, "even if Jesus rose from the dead, this does not prove that God exists. A very powerful being about whom we know nothing may have raised Jesus. Perhaps a natural occurence for which no scientific explanation yet exists (i.e., an anomaly) brought Jesus back to life. Therefore, God's existence is not proved by Jesus' resurrection, even if it occurred."

"The Resurrection doesn't prove God's existence."

When such a complaint is raised as a rebuttal, it means that the skeptic has become frustrated in the lack of a good opposing theory. After all, this objection does nothing to disprove Jesus' resurrection. Rather, it questions who raised Jesus or how he was raised, not whether he was raised.

Are there any strong reasons to believe that someone other than God raised Jesus from the dead? No one else has claimed responsibility, and there is no evidence that someone else did it. Yet we do have Jesus' claim that his resurrection would be evidence that he had divine authority.' We do have the claims of alleged eyewitnesses who were taught by the risen Jesus and claimed that God raised him.' These individuals, especially Jesus were certainly in the best posi tion to identify the cause of his resurrection. Unless the skeptic can produce stronger data in support of another cause, the most rational explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Another way of looking at this is to say that the cause of Jesus' resurrection was either natural or supernatural. From what we know today from science, a natural cause is not a viable option. The decomposing cells of a deceased person are not going to regenerate themselves back to any sort of life. Thus, just as it is unlikely that science will someday overturn the law of gravity, it seems even more improbable that a natural cause will someday explain Jesus' return to life. Therefore, given that Jesus claimed to be divine and that those who saw him after his resurrection claimed that God raised him from the dead, a supernatural God as the cause of Jesus' resurrection is the most plausible explanation for it.

Can the historian establish that it was God who raised Jesus? The historian can conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. But the historian cannot conclude from historical inquiry alone that God raised Jesus from the dead. This is not to say that we are unjustified in concluding that God raised Jesus. It is simply to admit that historical inquiry alone cannot answer the question of the cause of Jesus' resurrection. It can only address whether the event occurred.' Nevertheless, after looking at the data for the existence of God, Jesus' claims about himself, his prediction of the resurrection, his miracles and fulfilled prophecy, the limits of historical inquiry do not keep us from concluding that God raised Jesus from the dead. This interpretation of the facts is a far better option than to subscribe to another theory that lacks any credible data.

So we might summarize our case:

Due to Jesus' own teachings, his listeners concluded that his resurrection was an act that only God was capable of performing. Why? Jesus had the best perspective from which to interpret the significance of this event. Jesus made various, amazing claims to divinity. He performed miracles and predicted future events. He lived an exemplary life. Further, we can read into his words the expectation that the Resurrection would be his chief miracle. It would be an extraordinary act performed by the God of the universe to approve and establish the truth of his entire person and message.

This combination of an extraordinary life, extraordinary claims, and an extraordinary event composed the earliest Christian proclamation. The Resurrection confirmed the Christian message about God.

Jesus' own claims, especially regarding his divinity would have been heresy unless they were true. But then Jesus was raised from the dead! What did such an event mean, especially in a Jewish context? Since dead men have no such power to act, it would certainly be reasonable to conclude that God was involved. After all, God wouldn't have raised a heretic. Yet, the only time that an evidenced resurrection has ever happened,' it occurred to the very person who made these amazing, unique claims regarding himself and his part in salvation.

So the verdict is in: Jesus' resurrection justified both his life and his claims.5

"Jesus never died, so there was no Resurrection."

Muslims, like the gnostics who preceded them by 500 years, object that Jesus never died. If he never died, he did not rise from the dead. The Muslim accounts are highly problematic in defending this proposition. Two sources, the Qur'anb and the Gospel of Barnabas,' state that when the mob came for Jesus, God made someone else, perhaps Judas, look like him. The mob arrested the look-alike and crucified him instead.

This view is plagued by two major problems: First, since we can establish that Jesus' disciples sincerely believed he had risen from the dead and had appeared to them, what caused their beliefs if Jesus was never crucified? The Qur'an claims that God raised Jesus up to himself, apparently at the time of the rescue.' So who or what did the disciples see three days later? We have observed that opposing theories cannot account for the appearances. Second, most scholars regard the Gospel of Barnabas as a Muslim forgery composed no earlier than the fifteenth century. Our earliest manuscript is from that era, nor is there any earlier mention of such a book.' If Muslims were aware of such a supportive account, they certainly would have appealed to it in their frequent interactions with Christians. If the book was really written by Barnabas, it would have been cited by the early church Fathers. None do. The book also contains a striking contradiction that would rule out Barnabas as its true author. It refers to Jesus as "Christ" on at least two occasions in the beginning, only to later deny that he is the Messiah.10 This demonstrates an ignorance of the original languages, since Christ is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew/Aramaic word Messiah. This is not a mistake that Barnabas as a first-century Jew would have made, since he would have been well acquainted with both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Several anachronisms also occur in the book, indicating a late composition. One indication of its date is that the Gospel of Barnabas mentions the year of Jubilee as occurring every hundred years." Yet, the year was celebrated every fifty years until a papal decree by the Catholic Church in 1343.12 Barnabas also mentions systems of medieval feudalism," a medieval court procedure," and wooden wine casks. Wineskins were used in first-century Palestine. 15

While the Qur'an is much earlier, it is a seventh-century composition, that still dates it over five full centuries after all of the New Testament sources, plus at least five full centuries from our best secular references to Jesus' death on the cross. If the Muslim objects that the Qur'an is inspired, we might respond that we are making no such assumptions in our use of the New Testament concerning Jesus' resurrection in our minimal facts approach, and we will not make them with the Qur'an. The Muslim references that deny the death of Jesus are far from being credible sources in this matter.

"Reports of Jesus' appearances differ little from the reports of the angel's appearance to Joseph Smith."

What's the difference between Mormonism's founder Joseph Smith and his eleven witnesses to the golden plates and Jesus' disciples experiencing the appearances? Joseph Smith claimed that an angel appeared to him and directed him to golden plates, which he showed to eleven others. 16 Smith claimed to have translated these plates and the translation was called The Book of Mormon.

Like Jesus' apostles, Smith willingly suffered and died for his beliefs. Thus, if I am going to claim that a person's willingness to suffer for his beliefs indicates that he sincerely regarded those beliefs as true, why not accept the testimony of Joseph and his eleven witnesses?

A few factors distinguish the case of Jesus' disciples from that of Joseph Smith.

While all of the apostles were willing to suffer and die for their beliefs, six of the eleven witnesses to the gold plates left the Mormon Church. Imagine what we would think about the credibility of the testimonies of Jesus' resurrection if Peter, Paul, James, John, and two other disciples had left Christianity within a few years. However, they clung to their faith to the very end of their lives.

Even ifseveral persons did see gold plates, this says absolutely nothingabout the viability of their content. The issue is not whether there actually were eyewitnesses to the plates, but whether the plates contained revealed truth from God. Of that, we really have no evidence at all.

There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. For example, no specific archaeological findings have been linked to events and places described in The Book of Mormon. There is considerable evidence outside of the testimony of the disciples to support the claim of Jesus' resurrection. Here we have stressed the empty tomb and the conversion of the skeptics Paul and James.

There is, however, evidence that the Mormon documents are not true, including the lack of archaeological evidence where it should be and problems with the Book of Abraham."

"Reports of the Resurrection are no more believable than today's reports of Elvis and alien sightings."

Why believe the eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus while rejecting numerous reports of encounters with Elvis Presley and aliens?

↑ Back to top