The Undeniable Logic in God's Salvation Plan

When Jesus died on the cross, not many of the world's population saw it or even heard about it. The same is true concerning His Resurrection. Because of poor worldwide communications and the remoteness of Jerusalem, not many of the people in this world even knew that God's Son had entered into this life and then been so cruelly treated. Of course, while many did not know and many were completely oblivious to that whole series of events, there were still those who did either hear about or see that terrible, gruesome crucifixion. There were also those who either heard about or saw Him following His Resurrection. To see some of the personal accounts of those individuals who claimed to have seen the risen Christ, we consult the Bible. Scriptures offer several eyewitness accounts of His death and Resurrection, and those accounts are very appropriate and useful for amplifying a person's understanding of God's whole great salvation work. The first such account, which is shared below from the Book of Matthew, is the instance of the two Marys.

Later in this chapter, we will discuss in more detail the awful ordeal of death by crucifixion. For now, just realize that it was a cruel, very difficult way to die! Also realize that the Bible records how Jesus arose from that manner of death, returned to life, and was then seen by others. The above account was His first human contact after arising, and both Marys saw that He definitely was alive!

The Bible records another case, this one where Jesus joined up with two men who were walking to the nearby village of Emmaus. Of this encounter, the Physician Luke writes:

One should note from this incident three very interesting, physical characteristics which were evident in the risen Christ. First, Jesus had the ability to conceal His identity. I do not know how He disguised Himself, but the words of Luke are clear in reporting that these men did not immediately recognize Him. The second characteristic is that He possessed some normal, human faculties. For instance, He could walk, and He could communicate. Not only that, but the impression is given here and again in John 21:15 that He might also have been able to eat. So, this and the other accounts are definitely not about ghosts and goblins or smoke and mirrors! These people were really talking and interacting with Someone Whom they believed to be just like them. The third characteristic or property of the risen Christ which can be gleaned from this passage pertains to His ability to quickly disappear, suggesting that He might have just vanished right before their eyes. These men had been walking with the resurrected, risen Christ, and before He left, they knew it was He. Such a happening was not bad for One who had just been scourged and crucified three days earlier!

The final account given here from the Bible summarizes many of the encounters which others had had with the risen Lord. To that end, the Apostle Paul wrote:

This passage mentions several separate incidences where the risen Christ was seen and recognized by others! All of the Apostles saw Him. Of course, during the brief time that He walked the earth after His Resurrection, they saw Him more than just once or twice. They actually were in His presence on numerous occasions. The Apostle Peter saw Him. So did James. Most remarkable, though, is that five hundred of the brothers saw Him at one time, and each knew that it was He. This fact is incredible! But much more than the incredibleness of all of those sightings is the fact that all of this evidence put together clearly shows that Christ interacted freely with many after He arose from His death.

Each of the above accounts is clear concerning the literal Resurrection of Christ, and the Bible records even more, but there is a problem with all of these examples which cannot be overlooked! Each of the above instances of the Lord's appearing to others after His death has come from the Bible. Therefore, none of them is admissible at this time. The reason is simple! One cannot assume to be true that which one is trying to show as true. Hence, the Bible cannot be used as evidence even to verify the Resurrection of Jesus because the validity of the Bible, itself, has not yet been established. Once the Bible is validated, though, then each and every one of these eyewitness accounts will be credible and admissible, and they will add even more credence to an already incredible event!

Consequently, for the present time, another method will have to be employed to show that Jesus really did rise again. For that other method, we now turn to the secular historians. Even if one cannot yet rely on Scriptures, the accuracy and commitment to truth by secular historians should be accepted without question. After all, none of those non-Christian writers of history would have had any reason to lie or exaggerate about Christ or about His Resurrection, unless of course they were attempting to refute the event.

Therefore, with their credibility at least somewhat established, the first such secular, non-Christian reference comes from the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. In his work, The Antiquities Of The Jews, written about 93 or 94 A.D., he makes it clear that those inside as well as those outside of Christianity all knew about Christ and the Resurrection. He shares that many Gentiles and Jews had followed Jesus and that Jesus in turn had appeared to those followers on the third day after His death on the cross [8]. Thus, this author, for one, acknowledged and seemed to accept the fact of Christ's Resurrection.

But in speaking about the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, Josephus also verified the truthfulness of the Lord's second credential, that is of the credential cited earlier by Mr. McDowell concerning the fulfilled prophesy in His life. Josephus wrote about Christ's manner of death and about His glorious victory over that death. Then, he shared that both of those events had been prophesized by the "divine prophets," thus demonstrating the validity of that second credential. An additional observation is that Josephus also confirmed that the things of God were surviving, a point which takes us back to the first criterion which was presented in the last chapter for showing God's existence. This author indicated that in the time of his writing, which was during the late First Century, that the Christian movement was still around. It had not been stopped, and it had not been destroyed! The whole movement, in fact, had been growing immensely. So, from his perspective, the Church and Christianity, in general, had survived for about sixty years, and he thought even at that time that such a statistic was worthy of mention. Just imagine what he would say if he could see how long this whole thing has lasted!

In another secular work, The Outline Of History by Mr. H. G. Wells, this Historian also treats the Resurrection as a historical fact. In his writing and handling of this miraculous event, he does not express any doubt whatsoever about the Lord's rising from death [9]. He talks about the initial distress felt among the disciples immediately after Jesus had died. Then, he mentions how they were uplifted by the word of the empty tomb and how they had encouraged one another because of His appearing to so many. Suddenly, as he describes it, the disciples went from being desperate, defeated, and fearful to being victorious and ready to overcome. Their transition was not only remarkable, but from this Historian's point of view, worth recording for all time. Thus, this whole episode over that three day period, from Crucifixion to Resurrection to birth of the New Testament Church, was so significant that even secular historians have not been able to ignor it!

However, while openly acknowledging the historical fact of the Resurrection, these and other secular historians have also inadvertently made and recorded another significant observation concerning that event. Probably without their even intending to, they have shown the Roman Empire's direct assent to the fact of the Resurrection. According to Mr. E. Hermitage Day in On The Evidence For The Resurrection, the lack of opposition from Roman officials about the Resurrection also adds important credibility to the actual occurrence of the event [10]. Make no mistake! Rome did oppose Christianity. Yet, they did not deny or directly oppose the Resurrection! They persecuted all who refused to bow to Roman idols and in the process made martyrs of many from the early Christian Church. But nowhere in the records of that period is there any evidence to suggest that they did not believe the literal Resurrection to actually be true. One can read through Mr. Gibbons work on the history of Rome. Yet, this author does not record any Roman opposition to the Resurrection. The Government persecuted Christians and tried to destroy the Church. But they did not refute the validity or the actual historical accuracy of the Resurrection, even though as Mr. Gibbons also points out, the early Christians did accept it as true.

Thus, as Mr. Day has indicated, this lack of direct opposition to the Resurrection is significant. The author goes on to say in the above reference that the whole Church, hence Christianity in its entirety, could have been quickly destroyed from the start if only someone had been able to successfully argue against Christ's victory over death. But no one could! With the exception of a bogus theory about the Lord's body having been stolen, no one in those early days even tried to challenge the authenticity of Christ's Resurrection, obviously because they must have all believed it to be true. Therefore, this lack of direct opposition during those days against the actual occurrence of the Resurrection is important! Such positive evidence, or more appropriately lack of negative evidence, forms an even stronger basis for all generations to have complete confidence in the historical fact of Christ's Resurrection.

Based on the easily understood significance of the Resurrection, plus the writings of secular and non-secular historians and other analysts, Dr. Habermas of Liberty University has compiled a list of Resurrection facts which are readily accepted by nearly everyone [11]. In paraphrased form, these facts are as follows:

Interestingly enough, most critics, even those who do not profess a belief in Christ as Lord, accept the ten points just listed as historical fact. In considering that common acceptance by so many as his foundational argument, Dr. Habermas says that the historical fact of the Resurrection can be proven if one accepts only Facts One, Four, Five, and Six. This does not mean, of course, that all or even any of those listed occurrences actually happened, but one must realize that the research of so many Christian and non-Christian scholars, alike, does suggest that they probably did. As a result, even the most devoted, most stubborn nonbeliever must at some point acknowledge that the case for the actual occurrence of the Resurrection is pretty strong.

Despite so much evidence to support the fact of the Resurrection, however, new criticism has surfaced over the past several hundred years from the minds of a few philosophers. But before going into each of those specific criticisms, one should realize that all but one of these latter-day theories against the Resurrection are relatively new. With the exception of the last belief, these ideas were not generated long, long ago by non-believing Romans, disenchanted Jews, or even by other religious malcontents. These theories have only recently been developed by the philosophers of just a few generations ago, and while they do not challenge the historical happening of some sort of event, they do attack at the very heart of the Resurrection, itself. In this analysis, four of the most popular anti-Resurrection theories will be examined. They are:

The first of the four anti-Resurrection theories is called the Swoon theory. This theory simply suggests that Jesus faked His own death. Recall the earlier discussion from the essay, Of Miracles, by Mr. Hume! By way of review, remember that that philosopher, in opposing all miracles as phony, had believed that most so-called works of God were not really miracles, at all, but were actually events which could be explained by natural phenomenon. In the same sense, the Swoon theory is philosophy's attempt to explain away Christ's Resurrection as something natural, by merely implying that He never died! The theory presents the view that He either pretended to die or that He simply passed out from exhaustion, that He was placed in an empty tomb, and then a few days later, that He rolled away the stone in front of the tomb and came out for all to see.

The second theory which refutes the Resurrection is the Hallucination theory. This idea, too, is driven by one of Mr. Hume's beliefs about miracles. Recall that in addition to the comments stated above that this philosopher had also thought that miracles happened to and were generally reported by people of lesser intelligence! Hence, those individuals, in his opinion, would not have been able to accurately and scientifically relate to others what had really happened. In conforming to that mode of thinking, the Hallucination theory holds the view that people who reported seeing Christ after His Resurrection only thought that they saw Him! Since, according to this theory, those people would not have been as smart and as advanced as modern-day people, they would not have been able to report what they were really seeing. Instead, because they were hallucinating about His return, they only thought that they were witnessing the risen Lord!

The third refutation theory is called the Legend theory. Legends about key people or events sometime develop over time. The stories are regarded as historical in nature but not necessarily provable. For instance, legend has it that Adam and Eve had as many as fifty-six children, thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters [12]. Whether this story is true or false is probably not determinable because there is not any additional information to corroborate the report. But then, to go a step further, sometimes legends are not even considered to be true. They often fall into the category of folklore. For instance, in Roman mythology, legend has it that a mythical character named Romulus was raised by wolves. Whether this is true or false also is probably not determinable, though it is probably false. Concerning Christ and the Legend theory, some critics maintain that His Resurrection, for whatever reason, was actually fabricated sometime long after His death. Their conclusion is that He did not really rise from His ordeal of death by crucifixion. Instead, as the Legend theory proclaims, His miracle Resurrection is only a legend or myth which has been developed over time.

The final theory which opposes the Resurrection is the Stolen Body theory. This belief, which is actually recorded in Matthew 28:11-15, presents the idea that the disciples stole Jesus' dead body from His tomb so that His pre-death prophesies about His own Resurrection would appear to be true. The thinking behind this idea is that the disciples did such a thing because they wanted to advance their own cause. They knew that people would not follow a dead leader, but they felt more confident that fooled individuals might follow one whom they believed had come back to life. Thus, the Stolen Body theory tells us that the disciples stole Jesus' body to try to deceive the public and also to create their own brand of truth. Obviously, if this theory is correct, then the disciples would have been a very clever and very manipulative bunch, as well as big-time, ungodly liars and schemers!

So then, now that the above theories have been presented, let us back up and consider each one. After all, if the Resurrection is true, then each of these philosophic viewpoints should have holes or gaps in their logic. If Jesus really died, then the Swoon theory, for example, has probably ignored some critical piece of evidence which pertains to the Lord's actual death. Similarly, if Jesus really rose again, then evidence should probably exist which will cast doubt on the other three, as well. Therefore, to the end of finding where each of these anti-Resurrection refutations fails, the Swoon theory will be examined first, followed by the Hallucination, Legend, and Stolen Body theories, in that order.

1) The Swoon Theory

Earlier in this section, a reference was made to the awful ordeal of death by crucifixion. In countering the Swoon theory, an understanding, first of all, of Jesus' death is significant. In the book The Resurrection Narratives And Modern Criticism by Mr. T. J. Thorburn, a special summary is offered to show all that the Lord had to endure during His terrible death [13]. Some of the cruel elements of the harsh treatment which was inflicted against Him are listed below.

First, Jesus was beaten when He appeared before the High Priest. Matthew 26:67 indicates that they spit in His face and hit Him with their fists. But that was only the beginning! Next and still prior to His actual crucifixion, He was ordered by Pontius Pilate to be scourged! Many do not understand the cruel nature of a Roman scourging. However, because of its severity, this form of torture, itself, often killed the victim, and many times even before any other form of torture could be administered. Scourging consisted of whipping the person up to and sometimes more than forty times. Of course, as one might well imagine, the Roman guards were not especially concerned with having an accurate count, so the number of stripes could vary. Unlike what many may think, though, this unique form of whipping was not just an ordinary beating with an ordinary leather strap. To exact a more punishing and more cruel blow, the Roman whip had pieces of stone, broken glass, and other sharp objects actually woven into the strands. Then, as the whip would strike the victim's back, those sharp objects would literally pierce the skin, dig into the body, and inflict a far worse injury!

When the guard would pull back the whip, the victim's flesh would actually be ripped and torn from his body. After a few blows, the whip would begin to leave open wounds and sores. After a few more, the whip would begin to penetrate vital organs and literally start to pull the individual apart. Though this probably did not happen to Jesus, stories have been recorded about other scourging victims who were required to pick up their own organs which had fallen to the floor. Scourging was a very serious and very severe form of punishment. Often, as was just stated, scourging itself killed the person, and many times, it did so without that victim ever advancing to the point of the crucifixion.

After being scourged, it is highly likely that Jesus was beaten beyond recognition. Moreover, anyone who has ever suffered any kind of severe beating, such as in a fight or something similar, knows of the tremendous fatigue which overcomes the whole body. And what Jesus had to endure was far worse! Yet, despite the agony which He must have already been feeling, He then had to pick Himself up from that horrible whipping and carry His own cross to the site where He was to be hanged. Once there, His hands and feet were nailed, with real nails, to that cross! I often think that people, in general, speak quite casually and very much in a matter of fact manner about Christ's death on the cross, but this whole episode was real! He was beaten or scourged with a real whip! He was nailed to that cross with real nails! The blood which fell to the ground was real! And He really died! The Roman guards prided themselves on their precision and efficiency. The victim of their brand of punishment was not expected to walk away. So clearly, the intent of those Romans on that day with our Lord was to kill, but not until after they had first tortured!

After all of this, Jesus was then pinned to the cross for a period of six hours. His body would have been racked with pain. His blood would have just about streamed completely from His body because of all of the open wounds. And His ability to fight off death would have been almost totally diminished. Death by crucifixion was slow and agonizing, but the Romans intended it to be! However, just hanging on the cross, by itself, did not kill the individual. As the body hanged, the legs would become weary. Then, the body would begin to sag. In that state of midair suspension, the victim would be able to inhale, but he would not be able to exhale! As a result, he would have to muster up all of his strength just to push himself up to a more erect position so that he could expel the previously inhaled breath. Then, under the weight of his own exhausted body, plus the pain of the nails and the general deterioration which would have already set in over time, he would again sag and find himself back in the original dilemma, inhaled air which needed to be exhaled. Eventually, the victim would not be able to push himself up, and at that point, he would simply die of asphyxiation.

Occasionally, though, a sufferer would have the internal strength and fortitude to fight off death for some time. For example, an earlier account by Mr. Foxe shared the story of the Apostle Andrew, who was hanged for three days before his life finally left his body. In such instances, the body would continue to sag, but the individual would continue to push himself up to exhale the inhaled air. On such occasions when a crucifixion lingered too long, the Romans had a nice, efficient solution. They simply broke the legs of the victim! After that, the person obviously would not be able to push himself back up, and death would quickly follow! In Jesus' case, breaking His legs was not necessary because He had already died after the first six hours. But just to make sure that He was really dead, a Roman guard grabbed his spear, went over to where He hanged, and thrust it into His side. At that point, the guard not seeing any movement concluded that Jesus was dead, and considering all that He had been through, there was no reason for anyone else to reach any other conclusion.

Yet, according to the proponents of the Swoon theory, Jesus either: (1) faked being dead; or (2) He passed out from exhaustion and was then revived once inside the tomb. However, even if either of these two scenarios about Him not really being dead were true, the Swoon theory still would not be plausible. The reason is simple! In order for an average-sized person to get in and out of the tomb, the opening would have had to have been at least several feet high and several feet wide. Based on the actual size of the tomb where Jesus lay, plus various other estimates, Mr. Day reports that the stone which sealed His grave would have been exceedingly large [14]. Some estimates have, in fact, placed its weight at about three thousand pounds. Had Jesus been a mere mortal and had He really endured the rigors of a scourging and a Roman crucifixion, then no one can possibly believe that He would have been able to do all that would have been necessary to mislead others about His own death. He would have had to roll away that large, heavy stone. He would have had to fight off the Roman guards who were watching His tomb. Then, He would have had to have made Himself appear presentable for others. All of this, He would have had to have done in just three days. Such expectations of anyone, except God, are total ridiculous, meaning that this theory against a literal, bodily Resurrection cannot possibly be considered valid.

2) The Hallucination Theory

Next is the Hallucination theory. This theory, as well, does not follow rational thinking. First, Dr. Habermas tells us that hallucinations are not contagious and that they cannot be passed from one disciple to another, much less to hundreds of people at the same time [15]. Second, Mr. McDowell adds that hallucinations are usually linked in a person's subconscious by a particular past experience [16]. Given these facts, it is highly unlikely that any two people, much less the hundreds who were reported, could have had the same hallucination at the same time. Since Jesus was seen by many on several different occasions, this theory also is not reasonable.

3) The Legend Theory

The third Resurrection refutation theory is the Legend theory, and this theory, too, fails for three reasons. First, as Dr. Habermas points out, there were many eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after the Resurrection. Second, many of the people who had lived during those early days of the New Testament Church also readily recognized and accepted the Resurrection as truth [17]. And third, recall the earlier comments by Josephus! He wrote in the late First Century and was very much aware of the Resurrection. Not only was the fact of that event well accepted during his days, but it had been since the time of Christ's death. Therefore, in light of all of the information to the contrary, the suggestion that this event has somehow been added over time to spice up Christianity is just not logical! Because both the secular and non-secular historical evidence shows that the Resurrection was reported and accepted from the beginning, this anti-Resurrection theory, like the others, also cannot be taken seriously.

4) The Stolen Body Theory

The final theory which attempts to challenge the validity of the Resurrection is the Stolen Body theory. Ironically, this belief finds its origin in the Bible. The Apostle Matthew wrote:

Obviously, this Apostle did not reject the Resurrection of Christ, but he did report the attempt of others to distort the truth. As we shall see, though, this theory just like the other three fails when really put to the test.

According to Mr. A. B. Bruce in his book, The Expositors Greek New Testament, even the language of the chief priests' plan does not make sense. Those "sleeping" Roman guards in the above passage would not have known who, if anyone, had stolen the body [19]! Consequently, this whole scheme was obviously a hoax right from the start. Nevertheless, try to imagine such a scenario! The guards would have been highly trained and well-disciplined troops. Yet, someone is supposed to really believe that military personnel of that calibre could have or even would have actually slept while some or all of the disciples rolled away a three thousand pound stone, unwrapped Jesus' body, and then carried Him away. Even the biggest skeptic would have to chuckle at such a notion. Besides that, sleeping on duty under normal circumstances would have meant certain death for the guards. According to Mr. McDowell, those men would have been foolish to have committed such a crime and then even more foolish to have actually confessed to it [20]. Hence, right from the beginning, there is not much reason to seriously believe the Stolen Body theory.

In addition, more evidence exists which also counters this idea that Jesus' body was stolen, namely the condition of the empty tomb at the time that it was discovered. Things were not in disarray as one might expect following a robbery. To the contrary, the wrapping which had been placed on Christ's body and which had weighed approximately seventy-five pounds was neatly folded. As Mr. Merrill Tenney indicates in The Reality Of The Resurrection, what thief would have been so meticulous as to have carefully cleaned up after the job, especially under the obvious circumstances [21]? If the guards had been asleep and if the Stolen Body theory really were true, then one would think that the disciples would have tried to get in and get out as quickly as possible. That certainly makes sense! They would not have wanted to linger and risk getting caught because obviously they, too, would have been in jeopardy if apprehended in such an act.

Lastly, there is another piece of evidence which demonstrates the foolishness of this theory. In short, it was the evidence of Resurrection Fact Number Six which was stated above. According to Mr. James Rosscup, Dr. Habermas, and many others, the behavior of the Apostles changed dramatically following the discovery of Christ's Resurrection [22]. Just a few days earlier, after Jesus had been taken prisoner, the disciples had fled for their lives. They were scared to death, afraid that they would be next. They had gone into hiding. Now, for someone to suggest that those frightened men could have somehow pulled together the courage and nerve to charge out against a trained Roman guard to steal Christ's body is absurd enough! But then, if one traces their lives past the Resurrection, an entirely different picture is seen. Each Apostle, with the singular exception of the Apostle John, suffered persecution and a hard death because of his faith in the risen Lord. To believe that those once frightened, cowardly men could have somehow stolen the body and then would have been willing to play out the charade of a resurrected Christ right up until their own persecution and death is also not very sensible!

Any one of the Apostles might have been able to deliver himself from a hard death simply by admitting to the theft, but none of them ever did! Instead, they preached and faithfully served the Lord for the remainder of their days. Ultimately, each died for Jesus simply because of their personal faith and hope in Him. Thus, to believe that such faith and hope could have ever existed over a dead, defeated Master whose own body the disciples had stolen away is simply not logical. What does make sense, though, is that those men had been tucked away in hiding until the two Marys apprised them of Christ's Resurrection. Then, surprised like everyone else, they rushed to the tomb and saw for themselves that He was gone. Sometime after that, they saw Jesus in His resurrected, glorified body, and that experience, along with the subsequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit, changed them forever, just like Criteria Three and Four in the previous chapter indicated. Meanwhile, as those events were unfolding around the tomb and in the disciples' lives, the Chief Priests and the Roman guards, just as the passage from Matthew states, were cooking up a clever scheme of their own in an attempt to cover up what had really happened! Therefore, the Stolen Body theory, too, must be rejected because of better, more realistic and more rational thinking.

Before concluding this chapter, a final remark must be made about Christ's Resurrection. Trying to prove God's existence in a current setting is a somewhat reasonable endeavor. It at least makes sense because if He does not exist in the here and now, then not much else matters concerning His Word and the Biblical perspective. But why is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so critical to the context of all that is being discussed? Scientists frequently challenge the existence of God, but they almost never say a word about Jesus as Lord, about His death and Resurrection, or about His singular uniqueness to religion. Therefore, why is there so much concern here for Jesus and His Lordship? There are three reasons why His role as Lord is so important.

In the work referenced earlier, Mr. Sparrow-Simpson makes some observations which show two of the reasons why Christ and His Resurrection are so important. The first is very subtle but still necessary. When life was restored to Jesus' beaten, battered, and persecuted body, it signalled to the world a final, decisive stamp of approval on His life by God [23]. Had God not been totally pleased with His Son, then He would not have endorsed such a dramatic restoration of life. The Resurrection is a symbol of victory over death, and as we shall see in Part II of this text, that victory was and is important! But secondly, the Resurrection also proves the Lordship of Christ. This means that one can trust what Jesus said and did, and in the next chapter, when the validity of Scriptures will be considered, that ability to trust Jesus will be seen to be very critical to being able to accept the Bible. Mr. Sparrow-Simpson indicates that the uniqueness of Christ and His position before God, as were demonstrated through the Resurrection, gives each individual the needed confidence to accept the Lord's teachings and actions. Since having such confidence is important, Christ's inclusion in this part of the discussion has also been important.

The final reason why Jesus is important and why He must be considered in this discourse is that He reduces the set of valid theologies. No other religion in the world or in the history of time can boast of a risen Saviour! If the above two explanations for His importance are correct, then the implications of this third are dramatic and profound! If the Resurrection demonstrates the Lordship of Christ, then the lack of something similar in other religions shows in them an element which is missing. In Christianity, the empty tomb is vital! No other religion can produce the same, and no other religion can offer the hope to its followers which the empty tomb offers to Christians. Therefore, Christianity should not be treated as or confused with any of the various man-made religions of the world. It is unique, and it stands alone!

Thus, Christ's Resurrection is important, and history even confirms the accuracy of the event. To the world, the Resurrection of Jesus proves that He was and is whom He said He was. He is the Son of God! He is Lord! He claimed to be both, and God raised Him from the death of the cross to show the world that it is so. The Resurrection also forms the basis for Christianity. It shows to people like you and me that we can believe the words of Jesus, and it shows to all the world that Christianity is a divinely-made, not man-made religion. Thus, the statement made at the beginning of this chapter is true. Without the Resurrection, Christians have nothing, but with it and with Him, we have everything!

1. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume 1 (San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1986), page 179.

2. Habermas, pages 12, 14.

3. W. J. Sparrow-Simpson, The Resurrection And The Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968 (reprinted from 1911 edition of Langsmans Green, and Co., Published under the title, The Resurrection And Modern Thought), pages 287-288. [Note that this reference was taken from the book, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, by Mr. Josh McDowell (San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1986), page 181.]

4. Matthew 12:38-40.

5. Matthew 28:1-10.

6. Luke 24:13-16,28-31.

7. I Corinthians 15:3-8.

8. Flavius Josephus, "The Antiquities Of The Jews," Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3, Josephus Complete Works (London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1960), page 379.

9. Wells, page 429.

10. E. Hermitage Day, On The Evidence For The Resurrection (London: Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1906), pages 33-35. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 225.]

11. Habermas, pages 24-26.

12. Josephus, "The Antiquities Of The Jews," Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 3, page 27.

13. Thomas James Thorburn, The Resurrection Narratives And Modern Criticism (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1910), pages 183-185. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 233.]

14. Day, pages 48-49. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 236.]

15. Habermas, page 39.

16. McDowell, page 249.

17. Habermas, page 39.

18. Matthew 28:11-15.

19. Alexander Balmin Bruce, The Expositors Greek New Testament, Volume I - The Synoptic Gospels (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903), pages 337-338. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 241.]

20. McDowell, page 242.

21. Merrill C. Tenney, The Reality Of The Resurrection (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), page 119. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 243.]

22. James Rosscup, Class Notes (La Mirada, CA: Talbot Theological Seminary, 1969), page 4. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 245.]

23. Sparrow-Simpson, pages 287-288. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 181.]

CHAPTER 4. PROVING THE CORRECTNESS AND RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLE

Back To The Table Of Contents

Back To TLEE's Home Page

Send email to: tlee6040@aol.com