Just another WordPress.com site

When I first came back to Jesus, I read a book by Josh McDowell that helped understand many things about the Gospels. It is called Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Great book. Pick it up if you can. This is a condensed chapter from that book. – God bless – Gerry

Evidence for the Resurrection

by Josh McDowell

For centuries many of the world’s distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can’t be discounted.

A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can’t you refute Christianity?"

"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history–the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?

After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings–or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.

The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."

Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.

A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb’s entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.

But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ’s tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:


    As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus’ disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.

    As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

    Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."

    Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God’s doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ’s body.

    Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."

    On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.

    There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

    Clark Pinnock
    Mcmaster University

    Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus’ body, how could they have done that without the guards’ awareness?

    The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors’ wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one wand be punished with death for the guard unit’s failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."

    In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty–because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty–like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar’s cocoon. That’s enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes–undisturbed in form and position.


    Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.

Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ’s post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ’s appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience’s knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, ‘If you do not believe me, you can ask them.’ Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let’s take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.

Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ’s appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ’s followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

The argument that Christ’s appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."

Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.

The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.

A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women’s statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus’ body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!

If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.

Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn’t it produced?

Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn’t die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss–certainly no believer in the resurrection–gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."

Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.

The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ’s body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn’t they explain: "Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn’t rise from the grave"?

And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn’t they explain exactly where Jesus’ body lay? If this failed, why didn’t they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity–not in the cradle, but in the womb!

Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."


But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts–prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits–we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."

As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.

How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ’s empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?

When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ’s resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: "What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!’ The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted–Thomas. Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).

On the basis of all the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.

You can trust God right now by faith through prayer. Prayer is talking with God. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. If you have never trusted Christ, you can do so right now.

The prayer I prayed is: "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and trust You as my Savior. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Thank You that I can trust You."


Comments on: "Who Is Jesus? – Part 6 – The Resurrection" (18)

  1. G\’morning, Gerry!!!Have a great day today!!Kim

  2. låŭrå° said:

    Hey my name is L and ive just turned 14, i was wondering if i could ask you questions since I was too embarrest to ask my religion teacher (I go to a Catholic School)because I thought he would be mad at me I guess for not being baptised. Well anyways, I was wondering if I can get to heaven without being baptised. I know about Baptism of Blood and Desire, but I don\’t know If i want to be baptised. Can I just lead a good life? I know people at school who will throw their Bibles and not be nice to anyone, and I think to myself that there\’s noway that they can get to Heaven and I cant just because I\’m not baptised… so I\’m a bit confused, because I\’m nice to everyone, I pray, and I am careful not to offend God so is God really so harsh not to let me into Heaven with my friends?

  3. Hi lI have never heard of the baptisim of blood and desire. I will have to look that up.I know I am going to get some of my Christian brothers and sisters angry at me for this, but you don\’t need to be baptised in order to be saved. When Chrsit was dying on the cross there were 2 thieves being crucified with him. One of them repented and asked Jesus if He would remember him. Jesus told him that he would be with him in paradise that very day. The man was never baptised.Baptisim is a confession of your faith. It is a testimony. You are telling the world you are willing to follow in the fotsteps of Jesus. It is symbolic of your death to yourself and being raised in newness with Christ. The catholic church baptisies people as infants. I don\’t believe in that. It is a concious decision to follow Him that can only be made by someone who has reached the age of understanding.Being good doesn\’t save you L. What saves you is recognizing you are a sinner. The bible says that all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. Because of that it says that the wages of sin is death. There is a penalty that needs to be paid for your sins. Here\’s the good news. Jesus paid that penalty for you. What He asks is for you to forsake your sins, believe in Him that He died for you. Ask Him to be your Lord and let Him direct your life. I can\’t promise you that your life will be a rose garden because Jesus said that because the world hated Him, it will hate you as well. If you make a stand for Jesus it will cost you.Even though being baptisied doesn\’t save you L, I still recommend it. It\’s nothing to be frightened about. Your just showing Jesus you are willing to follow his steps.

  4. låŭrå° said:

    thanks Gerry

  5. Hi Gerry,I am going through Luke 15:11-32..It\’s Awesome!! Thanks for your support Brother.Darren

  6. Miranda said:

    OK….you feel that it is your right as a preist (paster whatever) to preach right, ok, us catholics belive in Baptising our children when there are infants, I know cause I just recently got my daughter bapited when she was 4 months old. Now you do have the right to belive in whatever it is you belive in, but my question for you in, do think it is wrong of us to do things differenlty as yourself? Catholics are just as christian as Baptist, Prespaterian, untied, jewish, Jahova Whitness for petes sake. Every single religeon has there own beliefs. And another thing, being good is a big part of saving our butts, reconizing our sins does as well, but who are you to say what god is thinking????? That just my opinion, I belive in god, and I know that he died for me, but I don\’t feel pasters like yourself should be saying whats right or wrong.

  7. Having your child baptised doesn\’t mean they are saved when they are older. There is only one way to be saved and that is through what Jesus did on the cross. If you have gone that route than indeed you are my sister.Jesus is also the only mediator. No amount of praying or calling upon the saints will help you. When it comes to worshipping icons and placing Mary in the same place as Jesus. That is where we part. There is only one God, only one mediator. Only one who hears our prayers. Anything else is idolitry.I do have the right as a pastor to point out what is right and what is wrong. It is all laid out for you in the Bible.Jesus loves you. Read the bible see the truth for yourself.

  8. The way I see things…and this is obviously from a non-religious standpoint…is that, when it comes to the graves of anyone who was once a great leader or social monarch (or son of God in this case), is that their tombs are usually defiled. In most instances they are defiled by the people who put them there…hence the Romans, who probably wanted to destroy all evidence of this so-called "savior" but in doing so only strengthened the faith of those who truly believed. The absence of the guards can be explained by orders coming from higher-ups who decided that removing the corpse would convice worshippers that there was nothing left to worship, that this "holy" place was no longer holy, but as human nature would have it, anyone who truly believes in something whether it be political, sociological, or theological won\’t let anything stand in their way…Humans are incredibly stubborn when it comes to their unshakable belief…in fact, when you read this, if you say that it cannot be true, then you have just supported this theory. It is your unshakable belief that this cannot be true so you cannot even allow yourself to consider that it is as possible as your own theories. Some humans will even go to such lengths as to create stories of witnessing "miracles" in order to strengthen the faith of others and to justify their own faith to unbelievers. Yes this is a form of Pride, but all humans, save the most Pious, suffer from it. If such stories are successful and believable, as they catch on within a populace, even those unbelievers may jump on the bandwagon and begin to "witness" miracles as well in order to fit in with their neighbors. This is the way society has always been. Now, when you read this you will probably wonder why the Romans didn\’t just inform the public that they had moved the body. They obviously couldn\’t have reported the fact that they had moved the body or else they too would have been crucified by their own laws. Every government, in all of history has had an organization that beleived so much in what they were doing however, that they were willing to break even the most integral law of their own society in order to protect it. The Romans had the Praetorian Guard. It is in fact quite easy for me to think that someone in command decided that the removal of the body was a good idea and sent the Praetorian Guard to deal with it. No soldier would have dared to question that order. Human pride would have caused these soldiers, these regular men, to have to admit to some kind of extenuating circumstances in order to justify their absence from their post, seeing as they could not implicate their commander or the Guard which only strengthend the belief that something supernatural or deific had occurred. As for the ultimate testament of their faith…the early christians who preached and were killed for it, they are no different than the Taliban of today…or The Samurai of Ancient Japan…they are a minority religious group that are willing to die for their faith. In fact, by martyring themselves, they believe that they will be rewarded just like those early followers believed. In fact…at the time…it would not suprise me to think that the Romans probably considered the early preachers to be social terrorists. People who would willingly and with no thought for their own safety, go about disrupting the social order. As for the "500 witnesses"? Ask yourself…after the crisis of 911…how many people swear they saw Bin Laden whether it be overseas or right in their favorite supermarket? Thousands. Traumatic events do cause people to see things that they want to see. If Jesus truly did appear…then why didn\’t he stick around or answer questions…why didn\’t ANYONE get him to write down ANYTHING detailing his disappearance/ressurection? As for the 50 hours of testimony in a courtroom of today? That is nothing more than heresay and conjecture. In a modern court it wouldn\’t mean a thing. I can say I saw him…but if I have no proof…then I have NO PROOF. Now I would like to remind you that I\’m not looking for a debate, but I\’m just stating an opinion, nor am I tearing down or insulting your faith…I merely have a different way of looking at things. World religions has always been a favored topic and I too have studied not only Christianity but other religions as well from a social and political standpoint in addition to a Theological one. I posess a great respect for people who have faith but I do worry about that faith becoming unshakable. Once an Idea can never change then it becomes dangerous to those who would have a different opinion. The Crusades of old are a good example of this…as is the Terrorist attacks since 911. Both factions truly believed that what they were doing is right and nothing would or will stop them. Only violence can result from these kinds of beliefs…I hope that you look upon my opinion with the wisdom that you appear to posess and I hope that you leave it up so that others might see through anothers eyes. In closing, I would like to say that you speak of the ressurection as either a hoax, or a miracle. I prefer to see it as a mystery that we can all take our own beliefs from, no matter what they are, without being branded as "wrong". After all, He spoke of tolerance and understanding. I can understand your opinion…can you understand mine?Thank you for reading this…

  9. Great discussion.Ok, where do I start.. This is in response to Xaosbreaker\’s comments. As a great philosopher once said, "Why?" Why did he ask why? Do we not all ask why? I have asked why and how and how and every question in that came into my mind. After you live a life full of 9 to 5 you will suddenly discouver what an interesting thing it is to be alive. It\’s like winning the lottery. But much better, much better indeed. Experience that for the first time is an incredible shock. After you live a day like this with no greif, guilt, pain, lonlieness, anxiety come back and ask more questions.. Because all of that will come back. It is the situation we are in. We are productes of sin, and it deterieroates us because of our ancestors. To me it is perfectly clear. I hope you find the answers you are looking for. Come to my blog and ask these questions I love to think about thinking, Got to go teach a banjo lesson.. Bye God bless.Darren

  10. Interesting points, but my question is why would anyone care to defile a tomb with absolutely nothing but a body in it? You are thinking that the Romans actually cared about Jesus when in fact they weren\’t, and history supports this. At the time of Pontius Pilate the Roman Ceasar had decreed that one more outbreak of civil disorder, the Jews were always a handful, and Pilate was going to be marshalled. The Romans were worried about the state rather than a body. As for your proof, then by all means I do believe that Socrates never lived and never taught anyone. Of those who said they saw Osama, how many walked up touched the person and asked him to show his ID? As for the believers or followers of Christ wanting to defile the tomb or steal the body, why would it be recorded they were going to grieve at the tomb? You have interesting ideas but like you say it lacks the proof.

  11. Scarlet said:

    a have a general question about your faith: i consider myself a good person. i obey the laws, practise honesty, uphold justice, help others when they are in need, etc. i am far from perfect, sure, but overall i consider myself a good person. however, because i am not christain, nor do i intend to convert, am i doomed to hell based on your faith? thank you, and take care.

  12. Hmm my last question about why the followers of Christ would defile the body was a contextual mistake and for that I apologize. The rest stands and further comments about my post and Xaos response could be viewed on my own.

  13. Baron S. Cameron said:

    The resurrection, or lack thereof, has less to do with the Romans than it does the Greeks. Look to the myth of Heracles (Hercules, to the Romans). Here is a man who is born the son of a god (Zeus), spends his life accomplishing great and wonderful tasks, then at his death he is made into a god and his body is burned on a pyre. When the fire is out, only his armour remains (eg: his bones, his mortal remains have gone). The story of Jesus has all the hallmarks of ancient myth, the only real difference being that many consider the story of Jesus to be true.

  14. There is more evidence for the ressurection than there is against. It is no myth. Although all of hell would like to have you believe it\’s so. Jesus is real. How do I know He\’s living in me.

  15. Baron S. Cameron said:

    The only evidence for the ressurection is in the Bible, a wonderful but self-contradictory piece of literature. How many versions are there of "The Sermon on the Mount"? How many differing acounts of the Passion and cruxifiction of Christ? Of his upbringing? Of his birth? History, and interpretation thereof (ie. the "white" Jesus), have turned an amazing, wise, and foreward thinking man into the son of a god. I wouldn\’t have so many problems with Christianity were it not for the attempt to combine the Old and New Testaments as an ongoing story. Jesus, as it is written, was a charismatic leader of his people who believed in love, peace, fraternity, and equality. Having read both books (and the Quaran which speaks favourably of Jesus) extensively, both as a curious individual and a student of world literature (B.A. 2000, M.A. 2002, UBC), I cannot, and will not believe that a peaceful man like Jesus could ever be the son of the spiteful, petty, and vengeful god, Jehovah, as depicted in the Old Testament.

  16. To bad you have never met Jesus like other Christians and I have. He lives in use and through us. He is real all rightThe four accounts of the gospels are different because they are an account from different witnesses of the same event. If there was a car crash near your house and you were to go out and ask people what happened. No 2 of them would give the same answer. It all depends on where they were standing. That\’s how it is with the gospels.Degrees and education gets you no where with God. Just ask the apostle Paul.You can argue all you want and say that Jesus was just a man. You can deny that he is not God incarnate til you are blue in the face. It won\’t change a thing. You can also go before a tree and tell it doesn\’t exist a million times but it won\’t change a thing. God is more real than that tree but some of us are too blind because we can\’t see the forest because of the trees.When you stand before Him in judgement what are you going to say. Sorry will be to late then. Now is the day of salvation.Many sceptics haved delved deeply into finding out if Christ was who He says He was and have come out believers. I suggest you dig deeper.

  17. Baron S. Cameron said:

    I would never tell a tree that it didn\’t exist and your example borders on being assinine. The deeper you dig into something that doesn\’t exist, the deeper the hole, the greater the darkness. I fear no judgement, for everyday is judgement day. Decisions we make on a daily basis are that upon which we are judged. And please, don\’t deem yourself so worthy as to tell me that I am damned, it is patronizing and ignorant. If your god does exist, then it is only he that can make those decisions and you may qoute and preach "the word of god" all you wish but it is a proud man indeed that feels he can speak on god\’s behalf. You use the phantom of god\’s love and greatness to exercise power over others and that is all it has ever been about, and that is very sad.

  18. The tree was a metaphore. How come you couldn\’t see that. I could have used a rock as an example. You could stand in front of God and say He doesn\’t exist a million times but it won\’t change a thing. He will still exist.These are some skeptics who decided to dig further. They didn\’t stop at saying God didn\’t exist. They wanted to prove that He didn\’t. What they found changed their lives. I challange you to read each of their stories and then do your own investagation.http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/docs_files/birth_files/02birth.htmhttp://www.ex-atheist.com/6.htmlhttp://www.entourages.com/barbs/RevBob.htmhttp://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/josh/josh2.htmlhttp://www.rationalchristianity.net/testimonies/If you are a sincere seeker of the truth then you will take the time to read otherwise don\’t waste peoples time.God sent His son Jesus Christ to die for you. Jesus is alive today and miracles do happen. I am one of them. He loves you and directed you to this space to find the truth.What you do with it is up to you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s