No one really disputes whether the proclaimed authors of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, actually wrote their books. Therefore, it is safe to say that all the authors of the Gospels were either witnesses to Jesus' life, or were close associates of Jesus' disciples. (Matthew and John were disciples, Luke was a pupil of Paul, and Mark was a pupil of Peter). It is safe to say that if anyone knew about Jesus and his life, it would be these people. It is also safe to say that these men, who were at most one generation behind Jesus, wrote the Gospels within a few decades of his death. Some estimates place the writing of all the Gospels before 80 AD, just 50 years after his death. Why is this important? For a long time, many scholars have maintained that the Gospels were written too long after Jesus to be historically accurate; they claim that legend and myth would have crept into the Gospels in that span of time and distorted the truth about Jesus' life. The fact that all the Gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus' death--and in all probability sooner--tramples that belief; 50 years is far too short a time span for any myths or legends to appear in any literature. Consider also, that if these authors had written something about Jesus that had not actually happened, there were plenty of Jews who had lived at the time of Jesus who would have immediately declared the inaccuracy of the writings and thus destroyed their claims of veracity.
Another aspect of a piece of literature that historians look into for its accuracy is the degree to which the places and events in the literature coincide with places and events archeologically confirmed to be true. Basically, the more stuff in a writing that is archeologically confirmed, the more trust you gain in the accuracy of that writing. As for the Gospels, though many questions have been raised about the people and places mentioned in them, every single one has been answered by archeology. For many years, people considered Luke's Gospel to be untrustworthy because they thought it disagreed so much with archeological findings. However, now 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands mentioned in his book have been confirmed as existing as Luke described them. This definitely bolsters the confidence we can have in Luke's testimony. The same applies for Matthew Mark and John as well. Questions about the census in John, the slaughter of babies in Bethlehem, the Pool of Siloam, Jacob's Well, the Pool of Bethesda, and even the existence of Nazareth have all been answered by archeology, so that now, not even one passage in the Gospels cannot be adequately explained.
Another area of archeology to look into when determining the reliability of the Gospels is corroborating sources, or sources outside the Bible that support the events described in the Gospels. The writings of Josephus, a prominent ancient historian, mention Jesus and James. Another author, Papias, mentions Mark and Peter; Irenaeous talks about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul; Tacitus and Pliny the younger both mention Jesus in their writings; Thallus provides historical support for the darkness that covers the Earth when Jesus dies; and both the Talmud and the Koran mention Jesus, and support many facts about his life. Gary Habermas has documented 39 sources that directly mention the life of Jesus. In The Case for Christ, scholar Edwin Yamauchi states that even without the Bible, the corroborating sources would provide an outline for the life of Jesus. He says, "We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified...; sixth, despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine to that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and seventh, all kinds of people...worshiped him as God." Overall, simple logic, and archeological findings show that the Gospels are indeed a historically trustworthy source.
2. How do we know what was originally written in the Gospels is what we have today?
None of the original manuscripts of the Gospels have been discovered today, so there is no way to be absolutely certain that what was written down originally is exactly what we have now. However, given the number of ancient manuscripts containing clips from the Gospels, and the degree of similarity between them, we can reasonably conclude that what was written originally is what we have now. The writings of Thucydides, which no historian claims to be different from the original, exist in a total of 8 ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which dates to 1300 years after he actually put his thoughts down on paper. Aristotle's works exist in 5 manuscripts, 1400 years after his work was completed. The works of Josephus are contained in 9 manuscripts, dating from some 10 centuries after their composition. The oldest copies of Tacitus' writings are from about 730 years after they were written. Even the first biography of Muhammad wasn't written until 134 years after his death, the first of Buddha 700 years after his death. All of these works are accepted as being exactly what was originally written. The number of ancient clips from the Gospels is actually embarrassing compared to these numbers. There are over 24,000 pieces of the New Testament that have been discovered throughout history, the earliest of which dates to less than 50 years after the final book of the New Testament was written. The runner up is still dwarfed by the New Testament--Homer's Iliad, in second place, exists in 643 different ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which dates over 1000 years after it was originally written. The fact that all these other manuscripts are accepted as authentic should more than imply that the New Testament is authentic. As Josh McDowell puts it, "If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity."
Now with this many different copies of the Bible, one would naturally assume there to be a great deal of variations and inconsistencies between the copies, but this is not the case. It has been established that based on all the ancient manuscripts we have found, the Bible we have now is 99.5% the same as what was originally written. The remaining .5% are mainly differences involving word use or spelling, and are usually included as footnotes in most Bibles. The important thing to realize, more important than spelling and grammar, is that not one doctrinal view or belief in the Bible has been found to be in jeopardy when different sources are compared.
Another remarkable fact is the variety of geographical areas in which these documents were found. That is, if copies of the same document are found in many different areas, but still say the same thing, that bolsters the reliability in what is written down. In the New Testament's case, pieces of it are found from Egypt to Greece and all around the Mediterranean, and they still hold that high degree of similarity.
Also keep in mind that when scribes were making copies of manuscripts which were regarded as the word of God, they would undoubtedly try their hardest not to alter anything, knowing that the wrath of God would fall on them if they changed anything (Revelation 22:18-19). Partner that with the fact that whoever supervised the copying of the Bible would indubitably take special note of anything that seemed altered from the original manuscript and immediately order it corrected, and you've got quite a case based solely on that. Taking all this into account, it would be nearly impossible to say with conviction that what we now have in the Bible is not what was originally written.
Now that we have established that we can trust what is written in our Bibles, we can assume that the events in the Gospels really did happen, and the quotes in the Bible were actually said. So, now, finally we can move on to Jesus.
3. Did Jesus ever actually claim to be God?
To believe that Jesus did not claim to be God, you would have to not believe in truth of the Bible, as the Jesus blatantly claims to be God on many occasions in the Bible. Having already shown that trustworthiness of the Bible, we must accept the fact that Jesus actually did claim to be God. Some of these claims are listed here:
John 17:21-23- "21that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."
John 18:37- "'You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify the truth.'"
John 8:58- "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" --surely a simple Prophet wouldn't claim to have existed before Abraham, who was over 2000 years in the past.
John 1:1-2- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
Luke 20:44- "'David calls him "Lord." How then can he be his son?'" -Jesus here is referring to a passage in Psalm 110 where David refers to the chosen one as Lord. Jesus says that a father can not call his son Lord. Obviously Jesus is the son of God, not David.
Luke 23:3- "So Pilate asked Jesus, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied."
John 6:54- "'Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.'"
John 10:30- "'I and the Father are one."
Matthew 27:43- "...he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"
Mark 14:61-62- "61Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 62'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'"
Further, many times people told him directly that they thought he was God. If he did not claim to be God, he would've corrected them, but he did not.
Matthew 16:16- "Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'"
John 11:27- "'Yes, Lord,' she told him, 'I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.'"
John 1:49- "Then Nathanael declared, 'Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.'"
John 20:29- "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
Each time, Jesus calmly acknowledged that they were correct and told them how proud he was of them. He never corrected them, saying "You are mistaken, I am just a teacher of morals." In fact, on the contrary, Jesus demands worship as God in John 5:23- "that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him."
Further, many times Jesus reveals his deistic qualities:
John 14:6- "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life.'" This shows his self-existent nature.
Matthew 28:20- "'...And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'" This shows his omnipresence (all present).
John 6:64- "'Yet there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him." This shows his omniscience (all knowing).
Matthew 8:27- "The men were amazed and asked, 'What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!'" This shows his omnipotence (all powerful).
No ordinary man or prophet would claim to have all of these characteristics that only God can have.
Finally, perhaps the most convincing way to tell that Jesus believed that he was God is that he forgave sins. Jesus many times forgave people for their sins (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:48-50). Sure you could tell me "I can forgive someone for insulting me and that doesn't make me God." But you have to realize that Jesus didn't just forgive people who offend against him; he forgave people for their sins against God. No one can forgive sins against God except God himself. This practice is forbidden to humans by Jewish law, in Isaiah 43:25.
Another thing that I just thought of: If Jesus never claimed to be God, then what was he crucified for? Surely if it were just a big misunderstanding, if he had never claimed to be God, he would have cleared it up at his trial, and made the statement once and for all that he did not believe that he was God. However, the fact that he was crucified at all shows that others thought that Jesus claimed to be God, and that Jesus did not correct them, even when his life was on the line. Considering the Biblical record of Jesus, there is no way a rational person could believe that Jesus never claimed to be God.
Now that we have established the fact that Jesus claimed to be God, we have three choices, Jesus was a liar (he knew he wasn't God but he claimed that he was anyway), a lunatic (he thought he was God, but wasn't really), or he really was telling the truth and is God. So what was he, a liar, a lunatic or the lamb of God? Most skeptics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc. would answer none of these. They would say that Jesus was just a good man who taught good morals; however, we know that he did in fact claim to be God, so it is not possible that he is just a great moral teacher. We only have three choices: liar, lunatic, or lamb of God.
4. Was Jesus lying when he claimed to be God?
If Jesus were a liar, he would've definitely been the best liar in the history of the world. The fact that from the beginning of his life to the end he was without sin (I know it says this in Hebrews or Romans, sorry I can't find the verse right now, it's really late) shows that his morals were outstanding. He never gives into the pressure of the moment in tough or tempting situations and gives in to sin. The stability of his message and the sermons he gave would definitely have varied from time to time based on his feelings at the moment and thus his ideas about life would have varied from time to time. He would have slipped up when answering questions and contradicted a previous statement he had made. We see no evidence of any of this in the solid, pure messages of Jesus. If Jesus were a liar, he would also have to be a hypocrite, as he taught against lying. If he were a liar, he certainly wouldn't have held to his lie until his death, as he would've known there would be no gain in dying for the lie. He certainly wouldn't have traveled to Jerusalem, where he knew people would not accept him; he would've traveled to Egypt or Greece to gather a following, where the people believed in different manifestations of gods.
Another thing you must realize is that the people of that time did not expect the Messiah to be a poor carpenter from a small town, they expected him to be a great military hero who would save Israel from persecution. An imposter, trying to get people to believe he is the Messiah, would stick to this popular belief in hopes that more people would follow him. He definitely would not have shown himself as a poor man with no political power. Overall, the way Jesus acts in no way resembles the way a pathological liar would act.
5. Was Jesus insane when he claimed to be God?
Many people down at the local insane asylum would claim to be God. What makes Jesus different in character than any of them? This, the other of the two possibilities for an anti-deistic Jesus is just as absurd as the first. Mental patients who suffer from delusions of grandeur, like Jesus would have had to be for this to be true, are usually quick to anger, and are always very anxious and irrational. Their speech is usually random and incoherent and rarely has any relevance to what is really happening in their life. Jesus shows none of these signs. When asked very tough questions about God, he never loses his composure or gets angry as an insane person would most definitely do. Jesus is always calm and stable in the Gospels. If he had acted the way a schizophrenic suffering from delusions of grandeur would act, his disciples would definitely had considered him as possessed by a demon and either tried to cast it out or run away. They definitely would not have begun to worship him. Further, Jesus possesses the ability to weave deep symbolic meanings about life into ordinary short anecdotes. A person who is insane would not have the mental capacity or the patience to construct parables half as beautiful and meaningful as Jesus. Also, Jesus always knew where he was, where he was going, what his plans were; he always seemed to be the leader of his men. An insane person would in no way be able to lead a band of disciples on purposeful journeys like Jesus does. Jesus' crystal clear intellect shows absolutely no signs of insanity. To claim that Jesus was insane would be ridiculous.
As one final thought, I would like to say that if any liar or lunatic were capable of maintaining the clear-minded, calm, composed, brilliant, moral, perfect, wise personality of Jesus without faltering once throughout his or her entire life, that person deserves to be worshiped.
Now, the only choice left is that Jesus is in fact Lord and God. Many people are reluctant to admit this, but there really are only this many choices. Using simple logic, we can conclude that if Jesus was not a lunatic or a liar, he had to be Lord. But, I'll keep going. Now I'm going to move on to his death, Resurrection, and the subsequent events.
There are certain facts about the Resurrection that no one can dispute: Jesus, a Jewish prophet and teacher, was crucified and thought to be dead. His followers were crushed because of this event, and proceeded to hide in shame and mourning; however, in a few days, they suddenly began proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead with fierce tenacity. Many people have offered many explanations for the reports of the Resurrection, but no explanation works as well, and fills in as many holes, as the fact that Jesus was in fact Resurrected and gave life and hope to his distraught band of followers. I will go over some of the arguments against the Resurrection now.
6. Did Jesus really die on the cross?
This "swoon theory" states that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but merely fainted from exhaustion or thirst. After being placed in the tomb, he simply sneaked out and appeared to the disciples, either telling them or giving them the impression that he had been Resurrected. This theory crumbles in the face of what we know now about crucifixion.
Before I get started, I want to refer to one passage of scripture, Luke 22:44. It reads, "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." A casual reader would pass over this and assume it just to be a symbolic passage, possibly even detracting from the trust we can have in the authenticity of the Gospels. However, there is an actual medical condition called hematidrosis, in which tiny capillaries in the sweat glands break down and release droplets of blood through the pores. Thus, in effect, Jesus was actually sweating blood. And, surprise surprise, today it is known to happen only when a patient is in extreme psychological stress. This shows that not only was Jesus truly being tormented by the thought of dying (i.e. he was not insane, or without any idea of what was going on) but also that he did in fact know he was going to die. Remember, he hadn't been sentenced or even arrested at this point, but somehow, he was certain he was going to die. Why does all this really matter though? Besides strengthening our trust in the Gospels, it also tells us that Jesus' skin would be extremely sensitive the next day, and thus he would lose a great amount of blood more quickly than the average person.
Now, I will continue with my rebuttal of "swoon theory." Jesus' crucifixion includes six steps of torture and injury, any one of which could have easily killed a normal man. First, in accordance with Roman custom, Jesus was flogged at least 39 times, the minimum number of times a criminal could be flogged. Often, it was more depending on the executioners' moods. They flogged Jesus with a whip made of braided leather with marble sized metal balls and sharp bone woven into the leather. This whip would immediately rip deep into the skin and before long tear into actual muscle tissue. It was not uncommon for a criminal's spine, muscles, bones, and internal organs to actually be exposed during the flogging. They flogged him all the way from his shoulders to the backs of his legs, inflicted the same amount of damage to each place. Many people would in fact die from the floggings alone. At this point, Jesus was experiencing hypovolemic shock--a state of shock caused by low amounts of blood. The symptoms of hypovolemic shock are thirst, fainting, collapsing, and general signs of weakness, all of which Jesus show in the Gospels.
The second step of crucifixion was the carrying of the horizontal beam of the cross. Jesus had to carry this heavy piece of wood a very long distance, collapsing many times due to hypovolemic shock.
Third, once he got to the site of his crucifixion, he was laid down on the wooden beam and a 5 to 7 inch nail was driven into each of his wrists. You may have seen pictures of Jesus with holes in his palms; however, historically criminals had nails driven through their wrists. If they driven the nails through the hands, the weight of the body would rip the nail through the palm and the person would fall off the cross. The wrist was much more strong and sturdy. Does this bring up any contradictions or problems, because the place of the nail was not accurately transmitted through history? No, it doesn't, once you realize that in the language of the time, the wrist and the palm were both considered part of the same organ, and thus by saying "hand" you could be referring to the palm or the wrist, equally truthfully. So, once the nails were driven into his wrists, through the median nerve, Jesus had lost all use of his hands. This also would have caused an extreme amount of pain, thousands of times stronger than when you hit your elbow wrong. They did the same thing with his feet, so he would have definitely lost the use of his feet.
Once he was nailed onto the cross, the fourth step in his torture immediately happened: the weight of his body pulled down on his wrists and forced his shoulders to become dislocated.
The fifth step in the process is the step which kills the criminal. In the position that a person is on the cross, they are stuck in an inhaling position. In order to exhale, they must push off the nails driven through their feet, pull up on the nails driven through their hands, scrape their already mangled back on the coarse wood of the cross, to release that breath. Eventually, as fatigue sets in and the pain becomes unbearable, the person finally loses the ability to push up to exhale and suffocates.
In Jesus' case, the sixth step of the process takes place, and just too make sure Jesus is dead, an executioner stabs him in the side. This puncture is reported in John 19:34 as releasing a flow of blood and water. This again sounds like a symbolic statement, yet modern medicine has confirmed this event as truthful. The hypovolemic shock which I talked about earlier would have caused heart failure. This failure would have filled the membranes around the heart and lungs with a clear fluid resembling water. (This is called a pericardial effusion and a pleural effusion, respectively.) Thus, when John reports that water and blood poured from his side, it is completely reasonable and accepted that he was talking about the clear fluid that came out with the blood.
Keeping all of this in mind, there is no way to claim that Jesus could have possibly survived this torment. Again, anyone who could live through all of that possesses superhuman strength and should be worshiped anyway. Also consider that it was the executioners' jobs to kill people; they knew how to do it. They knew how to tell when a person was dead. And you can be sure that they would be sure that the person was dead too, because if one of their criminals somehow escaped, the punishment for the executioner was death.
The Gospels tell us that Jesus was taken down from the cross, wrapped in linens, and put in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. Over 100 pounds of spices were put in the tomb with him. Many people claim that even if somehow Jesus had actually done the impossible and survived the crucifixion (which I again state, is IMPOSSIBLE), the fumes from the spices would have caused him to die, especially in his weakened state. After he was put in the tomb, a huge stone was rolled in front of it, a stone that would require at least four strong adult men to move. Also, the Roman seal was placed on the tomb, in order to deter vandalism. (The penalty for breaking the seal was death.) Finally, a unit of guards was stationed at the tomb to guard it from any possible problems.
The "swoon theory" is completely absurd when all this is taken into account. First off, as I have said again and again, there is no possible way a man could survive all that Jesus went through. But let's assume the impossible, let's assume something even harder than assuming that there is a God, let's assume he did survive. As many believe, the fumes from the spices would have still killed him in the confines of the tomb. In his weakened, injured, tired state, he would have required immediate food, water, nourishment, bandages, and countless other things he could not receive locked in a tomb for three days. Remember too that Jesus had lost the use of his arms and legs, so there is no conceivable way he could have rolled away the stone that required four men to move. There is also no way he could have walked around all over the city appearing to many people on useless feet. Also, you still have the problem of him getting past the guards (who would have been sentenced to death if Jesus escaped). And remember, Jesus' disciples started an entire movement based on Jesus' appearance to them. If Jesus had just survived the crucifixion, he would've been in the most haggardly, weakened state possible, and by no means could have convinced his disciples that he was Prince over death. On the contrary, they probably would have just felt sorry for him and tried to nurse him back to health. One final thing you have to remember: The fact that the disciples did not even consider the fact that he had survived and immediately claimed that the had been resurrected shows that they had no doubt that he had died; to them, believing in the Resurrection was easier that believing he had survived. And for skeptics who didn't even believe Jesus was God, like Thomas and James, they would have much rather believed he had survived than believe that he is God. There really is no way to believe the "swoon theory."
7. Did the disciples suffer a hallucination when they claimed to see Jesus?
Once you learn about the nature of hallucinations, you can dismiss this theory as well. Generally hallucinations only happen when people are expecting them to happen. However, in the disciples' case, none of them were expecting to see Jesus cam back, especially skeptics like Thomas and James. Also, hallucinations are individual to each person; therefore, there is no way all of the disciples could have had the same hallucination at the same time. And that probability that they could all have the same hallucination is completely wiped out when you consider the 500 people that Jesus appeared to, which is documented in 1 Corinthians 15:6. There is no way all 500 of those people could have had the same hallucination. Also consider that hallucinations are usually drug induced, or the result of extreme bodily deprivation; otherwise, they are extremely rare. The disciples showed no signs of drug use or bodily deprivation, and certainly all 500 people that Jesus appeared to could not have been in an altered state of consciousness. Another problem is that this still doesn't account for the empty tomb. If the sightings of Jesus were just hallucinations, the body of Jesus would still be in the tomb, where Jewish authorities could retrieve it and prove Christianity a lie.
8. Did the disciples collude with each other to claim that Jesus had been resurrected?
This theory can easily be dismissed just like the last. There is no way all 11 of the remaining disciples would have gone along with this stunt, considering the values they taught and demonstrated throughout their subsequent ministries. Much fame is given to Peter and Paul and their ministries, but a lot of times I wondered what happened to the rest of the disciples. I figured, it is probably possible to convince two people to waste their lives and die for a lie. I knew this wasn't very probable, as it would be very hard to convince me to spend the rest of my life teaching and testifying and eventually dying for what I knew to be false. However, I thought it might be possible. But then I learned that 11/12 disciples (after Judas was replaced) died martyr's deaths preaching about Jesus. The 12th, John, remained a devout Christian until his death, writing epistles all his life. So we know that all 12 of the disciples held on to their faith until the very end of their lives, and 11 of them died for it. There is not even a speck of a chance that all 12 of these men knew they were teaching a lie and continued teaching it until their deaths. Even if they had all decided to pretend that Jesus had been resurrected, which does not coincide with their known moral standards and their faith in Jesus at the time, there is no way all of them would have held that agreement until the end. They had absolutely no possible gain from lying their whole lives about Jesus. Who would chose to go along with that? Eventually at least one would have given in and admitted to the agreement if it had all been a cover-up. Yet this did not happen. Further, again, this is one of those theories that still does not account for the empty tomb.
Also, consider the fact that the disciples did not believe that Jesus would die. They had been taught that the Messiah would not suffer death (Matthew 16:22), yet this is exactly what Jesus did. All their faith in him being the Messiah would have been gone. They could not have made an agreement to lie about something they didn't even believe in the first place.
One final thought on this: All during Jesus' ministry the disciples had seen his miracles and still were timid and afraid about supporting him. However, days after the crucifixion, when every ounce of hope and strength should have been lost, they suddenly found the dauntless courage to proclaim the truth about Jesus. They would've been sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that what they claimed was true, considering their timidity about previous miracles. In order to account for their change in behavior, they had to have THOUGHT that Jesus was alive.
9. Did the disciples go to the wrong tomb?
Another theory is that the women simply went to the wrong tomb when searching for Jesus' body. This is just as weak as the last theory. Remember that the disciples verified that his body was gone, so they would've had to have gone to the wrong tomb as well. Also note that in Jerusalem at that time, there were very few people who actually believed in Jesus, yet there were tons of Jews who were rabidly trying to squelch Christianity. If the disciples had all gone to the wrong tomb, all the Jewish authorities would have had to do is go to the right tomb, grab Jesus' body, and parade it through the streets of Jerusalem, thus destroying Christianity. No one in the name of reason can claim that this happened. And still this theory does not account for the appearance of Jesus to the disciples. After the crucifixion, the disciples were crushed, afraid to even leave their room for fear of persecution, yet within a few days, they were facing those very men who wanted to end their lives, proudly pronouncing the glory of the risen Jesus in the streets of Jerusalem. Something big had to have happened to change their attitudes so drastically in such a short amount of time. They had to have definitely thought they saw the risen Jesus to have a change in character of that magnitude.
Now, after reviewing all of these theories so far, we know for a fact that the tomb was in fact empty, otherwise the Jewish authorities would have immediately produced the body of Jesus if they had known the tomb to still contain the corpse. Several explanations have also emerged about this, which I will cover now.
10. Was Jesus' body stolen from the tomb?
Another theory is the stolen body theory. This theory says that the disciples went out and stole the body of Jesus because they didn't want to be proven wrong. However, remember that the disciples were extremely timid in defending Jesus while he was with them; Peter disowned him three times. There is no way that they would have mustered up the courage to sneak past Roman guards (which would be an amazing task in itself), break the Roman seal (remember, risking death), roll back the stone, and take the body. And also remember that this could not possibly account for their changes in attitudes after the Crucifixion. Consider Thomas and James, who didn't believe in Jesus during his earthly life. However, both changed their minds a few days after Jesus was crucified and eventually died martyrs deaths preaching the word of Jesus. If they had stolen the body, they would have known for the rest of their lives that they were preaching and dying for a lie. The stolen body theory can not account for the radically changed lives of the disciples, not to mention the changed life of Saul, which I will cover later.
11. Was Jesus' body consumed by wild dogs?
However ridiculous this theory may sound, it has been offered and is worthy of coverage. This theory states that Jesus was never put in the tomb, that he was thrown into a mass grave and his body was then consumed by wild dogs. If this is true, then the gospel writers all would have also been liars. They would have lied about the entire burial of Jesus and the empty tomb. They would have had no way of really knowing that Jesus had been Resurrected if they had not found the empty tomb; therefore, there would be nothing to account for the radical changes in their behavior in the days following the crucifixion. Something still had to give the disciples the idea that Jesus had been resurrected, and given them the strength to go to their deaths proclaiming that. And not only that, they would have known that they had lied about the empty tomb, and thus, they would have ended up dying for a lie. And also, when the Gospels were written, many people who had been around in the time of Jesus, both Jewish and Christian, were still living. If the Gospels had contained such a blatant lie, many people would have come forward and disputed these claims, and thus destroyed the belief in the empty tomb. However, no disputes were raised, so obviously the Gospels coincided with what people who had lived when Jesus was executed believed.
Those are the major explanations of Jesus' Resurrection; however, none of them stand up to scrutiny as well as actually believing in the Resurrection. It may be hard to believe, but in 2000 years, those are the best non-divine explanations of the Resurrection that skeptics can come up with. If you do not believe in the Resurrection, you must come up with an alternate explanation in order to be considered a reasonable person. However, no one yet has come close. Now, there are two more topics that I will go over which should completely wind up this huge article.
12. How important is Paul?
In a word, very. To many people, the life of Paul has been the final convincing argument of Christianity. To understand fully, you must know Paul's background. Paul was born named "Saul of Tarsus." He grew up in a strictly Jewish household, and studied theology under Gamaliel, the most prestigious rabbi of the time. Saul was a Pharisee, one of the many Jewish authorities who opposed Christianity vehemently. Being a very strict Jew, he though Christians were blaspheming God by claiming that Jesus was his son. Saul not only condoned the slaughter of Christians, but went out of his way to bring Christians in to be punished. One day, Saul was on his way to Damascus to deliver some papers that would allow him to bring Christians back to Jerusalem in bondage for trial and possibly execution. Along the road to Damascus, a brilliant light appeared and knocked Saul off his feet. Suddenly a voice came from the light and Saul conversed with it. This conversation is recorded in Acts 9:4-6, as well as several other places: "4Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' 5And he said, 'Who are You, Lord?' Then the Lord said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 6So he, trembling and astonished, said, 'Lord, what do You want me to do?' Then the Lord said to him, 'Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.'" Immediately Paul arose and went into Damascus, changed his name to Paul, and soon became perhaps the greatest Christian missionary in history. What could account for a change this drastic in Paul's life? There is no way you could say that he had been considering becoming a Christian for a long time, then finally gave in, because he was actually on a journey to persecute Christians when his conversion happened. What other explanation besides a divine one is there for this transformation of every single area of Paul's life? Paul became one of the very people he had hated and persecuted so much beforehand. And this was no fleeting change, Paul went through hardships every step of the way through the next 25 years of his life, until his martyrdom, and he never once expressed doubt in Jesus. He never falters or fears anyone who wants to persecute him for his beliefs. In More than a Carpenter, Elias Andrews is quoted as saying, "Many have found in the radical transformation of this 'Pharisee of the Pharisees' the most convincing evidence of the truth and the power of the religion to which he was converted, as well as the ultimate worth and place of the Person of Christ."
13. What about the prophecies?
If anyone can still have reasonable doubt that Christianity is real based on this evidence, the prophecies about the Messiah written hundreds of centuries before Jesus was born should eliminate that doubt. All in all, in the Old Testament, there are over 48 major predictions and 300 references to Jesus' life, all of which he fulfilled. Anything from Jesus' ancestry, to his birthplace, to his time of birth, to the nature of his birth (virgin mother), to his betrayal, to his accusation, his place of death, even down to the specifics such as John the Baptist, the 30 pieces of silver for which Judas betrayed Jesus, to the fact that none of Jesus' bones were broken. Perhaps the coolest prediction is in a Psalm, where David makes the prediction that Jesus' hands and feet will be pierced. The interesting part about this is that in 1012 B.C., when this prophecy was written, crucifixion hadn't been invented yet. In fact it wouldn't be invented for about 800 years. Using probability we can find out the likelihood of any man randomly fulfilling these prophecies by chance. Keep in mind that Jesus fulfilled over 48 specific predictions in all. The probability that he would fulfill just 8 of those (and the method by which this probability was calculated has been reviewed and approved by skeptics) is 1/10^17, or 1/100000000000000000. This is already an outrageous number. To demonstrate the size of this number, we can use a simple analogy. If we were to take enough silver dollars to cover the state of Texas two feet deep in coins, then if we were to take one of those silver dollars and paint it red, then we were to blindfold someone and tell them to walk as far as they wanted and then bend down and pick up the red coin, they would have the same probability of finding the coin as any normal man would have in fulfilling just 8 of the Messianic prophecies. In order for that to happen by chance, the number of people who have ever walked the face of the earth would have to be multiplied by millions. But that's only 8. The probability that anyone would by chance fulfill 48 of the prophecies has been calculated as 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. We can't even comprehend a number that big. That number is the same as the number of atoms in a trillion trillion trillion trillion billion universes the size of our own. Scientifically, the it is impossible for one man by chance to fulfill all 48 prophecies (1/10^80 is considered impossible) yet Jesus did. The only explanation is divine intervention. There of course, as always, have been some attempts to explain away the prophecies, which I will go over now.
14. Were certain facts about Jesus' life altered to fit prophecies?
I'll have to admit, this is possible, but not probable. Given the moral standards of the writers of the Gospels, we would not expect them to lie to make Jesus seem greater than he actually was. Further, they would've known that they were lying about the prophecies, and thus they would have gone to their deaths defending what they knew to be false, which as I've said before is highly unlikely. And since many times they include statements either about Jesus or about the apostles that would be embarrassing or degrading (i.e. Jesus asking God why he would forsake him, Peter disowning Jesus, Thomas and James not believing that Jesus is God) we can trust that they would most likely stick to the truth, however painful, in order to accurately tell the story of their Lord. Also, remember that many people who lived when all the events in the Gospels took place were still alive when they were written. If something had appeared in the Gospels that they knew was not true, they would have immediately made it known and corrected the mistake. Again, this is possible, but improbable in the highest degree.
15. Could Jesus have molded his life to fulfill some of the prophecies?
Again, I will concede he could have altered a few things to fit prophecies, as he even told his disciples that everything in his life had to fit in with what was said in the Law of Moses, the prophecies, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). However, most of the prophecies he could not have controlled: his place of birth, his time of birth, his ancestry, his type of death, what type of drink he would be fed on the cross, and many others. But seriously, what would you expect? Would you expect the Messiah to go out of his way to avoid fulfilling some of the prophecies? It only makes since that a true Messiah would try to fulfill some prophecies. In the end, you may be able to attribute a couple prophecies to this, but the vast, vast majority were far beyond Jesus' control.
16. Could Jesus have coincidentally fulfilled the prophecies?
As I've already covered, the probabilities of these events coincidentally happening actually eliminates any scientific possibility that they did in fact happen as coincidence. There's just no way. If you claim that it is possible for a man to coincidentally fulfill that many prophecies, you must also claim that a person can make their way all the way from kindergarten through medical school millions of times without making a single error, by taking tests without even looking at them, without studying, etc. etc. etc.
17. Could the Old Testament have been altered over the years to coincide with what happened in Jesus' life?
Seems possible, but again, upon closer investigation this theory can also be eliminated. First off, like always, you have the problem that if people all of a sudden began changing what was written in the Bible, many Jews and Christians would object and force them to fix the error. Also, think about this: the Old Testament we have today is in complete harmony with all the ancient pieces of it we have found all around the globe. If the scribes back in the days when the Old Testament was hand copied were prone to changing whatever verses they wanted to fit in with what they wanted to be true, we would have found much more variations in the ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament. However, all the old documents we have found correspond nicely with what we have now in the Old Testament. One more fact that blows this theory out of the water: the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, was translated around 150-200 B.C., and has remained unchanged since then. That's a full 150 years before Jesus was born that these prophecies were written down, and they still say the same thing as what we think they say. There is no way the words of the Old Testament could have been molded to fit the life of Jesus, and us not know about it.
And that is that; that is the undeniable evidence that led me to the point where I decided it was a very wise decision to trust Jesus. In fact, as Lee Strobel puts it, it would require much more faith to be an atheist than to believe in Jesus. I found that all this evidence points to one fact: Jesus is God. There really is no other way to interpret all this stuff. Therefore, I would expect everyone else who reads this to come to the same conclusion. If you have an alternate explanation, I would love to hear it. But, for the most part, anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting the deity of Jesus, yet still refuses to believe, refuses on an anti-deistic bias. They find it too unimaginable that a God exists, that their mind simply doesn't accept the evidence. Its like the proponents of evolution who openly state, "We don't know how it happened; in fact we know it's impossible, but we know it did happen." Many modern judges attest that they have seen plenty of criminals sentenced to prison or death based on much, MUCH less evidence than that evidence which supports the deity of Jesus. I pray that every person who has taken the time to read and study this information will take this decision seriously and chose what path to follow based on the direction God moves their hearts, and I pray that that path leads to a life centered on Jesus.