Why I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus

As a Christian I see no good reason to reverse my assessment of the general reliability of the Gospel's when it comes to the narratives regarding supernatural events. And this applies also to their Resurrection accounts. If someone is going to deny the reliability of these accounts, then the burden of proof is on him to say why. But this, I think, is very difficult to do. So for you out there who say, "Well your the one who believes in this resurrection, what's your proof it DID happen?" I say hold on to your hat!

The evidence for the histerocity of the Resurrection is, in my estimation, stronger than any other event in Jesus' life - and stronger than the evidence for the histerocity of many other historical events we take for granted.

Here are 8 reasons why I believe the Resurrection did occur:

1. The Resurrection event is testified to by five independent sources. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul who also refer to numerous other sources as well, such as Peter and James (in 1 Cor. 15). This plurality of sources greatly enhances the credibility of each. One might hold that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark here as they did in some of their other material. But what's interesting is that their individual narratives of the resurrection completely differ from Mark and from each other. In fact, each of the testimonies has more unique material than it has material in common with each other. This creates a problem with harmonizing the accounts. But that problem is nothing compared to the problem of explaining how each independently testifies to the Resurrection in the first place - if, in fact, the Resurrection never occurred.

2. The location of Jesus' tomb was well known by all, so if Jesus had not risen from the dead, if His body were yet in the tomb, this could have been easily checked out. Both Jesus' followers (who would suffer persecution for their faith) and the opponents of Jesus (who would want to falsify the Christian claim) would have a motive for checking this out. But, all agreed, the tomb WAS empty. How is this agreement explained?

3. Related to #2, no one disputes the Christian church began in Jerusalem just a few weeks after Jesus' crucifixtion. It exploded in growth. And the content of the message that caused this explosion was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lord of all, as was evidenced by His miracles and resurrection from the dead (see Acts 2:16ff). They do not present to their audience some unknown figure in the distant past. They are talking about their audiences contemporaries! How is this growth to be explained?

4. There is no way of accounting for the transformation of the disciples except on the basis of the Resurrection, the very basis themselves give. If you compare the disciples before the death of Jesus with the disciples after the Resurrection appearances, you will see a world of difference. One day they are fearful and hiding; the next day they are facing hostile audiences preaching (what else?) the Resurrection!

5. The Resurrection narratives lack the characteristics common to late legendary narratives, and embody many of the characteristics common to early eyewitness-based reports. There is, for example, much detail, much of it being irrelevant to the story line. To give one illustration, Mark mentions the name of a well known member of the Sanhedrin (a Jewish councilman) who donated a tomb for Jesus - Joseph of Arimathea. Now if one is going to fabricate an account, one doesn't create this sort of detail. One certainly doesn't drop names of such prominent people, people who can easily be cross examined.

There is also a great deal of counter-productive material. Legends lack this. The role of women in the story, for example, could, in the first century context, do nothing but damage the testimony of the authors. Women were, as I said in first century context, regarded as being incurable liars. Why would the authors add the testimony of women if it could only hurt them unless they were just giving a truthful account of the events?

6. The conversion of Paul is unexplainable except on the basis he himself gives. He confronted the risen Lord (see Acts 9 and 1 Cor. 15). Here was a man who was at the onset dead set against Christianity, even overseeing the stoning of one of its preachers, and then in one moment he's converted. Similarly James, the brother of Jesus, was also a nonbeliever in Jesus until the Lord appeared to him (1 Cor. 5:7). What explains this conversion if not the actual resurrection.

7. Paul gives us an early list of the resurrection appearances. It's found in 1 Corinthians 15, written 15-20 years after the resurrection. he is attempting to convince some Corinthians the the Resurrection of Jesus did in fact occur, and to do this he lists Christ's appearance to the apostles, and to James, and "to more than 500 at the same time, most of whom are still living" (1Cor. 15:6). The thrust of noting the large number of living people who saw Christ resurrected is to say "if you don't believe me, the evidence is still around. Go and ask those who saw it." By the standards of any law court, this must be taken as strong evidence.

8. Finally, there is no motive for the disciples to fabricate this story. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Nor is there anything to lead us to believe that they were disposed to fabricate such a story, or had the sort of characters which would be capable of such an incredible fabrication. Nor is there anything to suggest that they could have successfully pulled such an incredible fabrication off, even if they had wanted to.

In short, the denial of the Resurrection has nothing to recommend itself as a historical hypothesis, while the admittance of the Resurrection has everything to recommend itself as a historical hypothesis.