Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus

(Lets establish first what do Christians claim happen then talk about whether its true or not)

Exposition:

Read

1. Who were the first eyewitnesses on the scene?

- Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother James and others (vs 1, 10).

2. What did they see or didn't see?

- stone in front of the tomb was rolled away - implies the soldiers were also gone (vs 2) - the tomb was empty, Jesus' body was gone (vs 3) - two angels reminding that Jesus had predicted His death and resurrection

3. Who did the first eyewitnesses share this with?

- To the eleven apostles and others (vs 9).

4. How did they respond to the eyewitnesses?

- They didn't believe. It sounded like nonsense to them (vs 11) - Peter went to check it out and wondered (vs 12)

Read

5. Compare with above. What are the significant differences between John's account and Luke's account?

- Only mentions Mary as the first eyewitness on the scene (vs 1) - The other disciple (John) is mentioned as following Peter to the tomb - Mary encounters the two angels, and Jesus, after she tells Peter and John (and followed them to the tomb)

6. Are these contradictions? Why or why not?

- differences aren't necessarily contradictions if you can harmonize them - John didn't specify that Mary was the only one there. - Mary could of encountered the angels twice - Bonus: in Matthew the women encounter Jesus enroute to the disciples. Its possible Mary had run ahead.

Read

7. Before Jesus appeared, what were the apostles talking about?

- that Peter had encountered Jesus and so did Clopas and the other disciple

8. What was their initial reaction to Jesus appearing among them?

- they were scared because they thought He was a ghost

9. How did Jesus convince them?

- told them to touch His flesh - ate fish

The definition of Evidence

1. How do we know whether something is historically true?

- even photo and video evidence is disputed today. Holocaust is denied by some. In other words, if you don't want to believe something then you can find all kind of reasons to question its truth - we believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon because he said so and we don't good reasons to doubt it. History is not science - its not repeatable/re-observable - so its all about whether we have reason to doubt their testimony

Common objections:

i) the apostles/eyewitnesses were deceived/self-deceived

a) They were hallucinating (possibly due to extreme sadness) - multiple eyewitnesses over time and in groups (Jesus appeared to > 500 ppl ) b) Wishful thinking - Its a common misconception to think that it was easier for ancient people to believe in miracles whereas due to our understanding in science we're more sceptical - but the resurrection (or virgin birth) was not more believable then than it is now. - the apostles weren't gullible or naïve. In fact they were slow to believe and took them much convincing - most Jews did believe in a resurrection but only at the end of history with everybody - the surrounding Greek culture didn't even want a resurrection (they thought the material world inferior and to be discarded) - It would be far easier and more natural for the apostles to just wish that Jesus was spiritually alive and that they saw his ghost but its clear to them that Jesus wasn't a ghost. -  Something radical had to take place for them to change their whole worldview and claim something as outrageous as this

ii) the apostles/eyewitnesses deceived everyone else

They stole his body and made the whole thing up? a) - If they made it up why list women as first witnesses? - women were not regarded as credible eyewitnesses So not only were they making unbeliever claims, but they chose unbelievable witnesses the only reasonable explanation is its because tats what happened! b) - Why 4 differing (but non-contradictory) accounts?  Why didn't they release just one official 'story'. Or if not why didn't they make sure that all their stories perfectly match? In any big car accident or terrorist bombing of a crowded public space they eyewitnesses will differ on details. Partly because they weren't prepared for it, it caught them by surprise and didn't have the full picture of what happened and are merely retelling it from their unique perspective. The differences (when non-contradictory) actually adds to the credibility that they are independent eyewitnesses accounts. So important was this historical event they wanted independent eyewitness testimony on it. Whatever the differences they all agree that Jesus rose from the dead!

c) Nobody who wanted to invent a religion would worship a crucified criminal as their God d) If they were deceiving- why portray the future leaders (apostles) as such embarrassingly slow and faithless? Even abit cowardly? Why not invent heroic stories of themselves? e) Motive- why deceive at all? People deceive to acquire wealth or power or escape pain and death. It was the reverse for these disciples. - Conspiracy usually you want fewer the people the better, but they were spreading it - they were willing be tortured and killed for this. - Nothing else can better explain how these disciples went from being in hiding to life-risking world changers all of a sudden. e.g can you seriously imagine them thinking "Jesus is gone, but lets make up a story that he rose from the dead and lets go and die for it".

Bonus: How is this different from radical Islamic suicide bombers willing to die for their faith? - the apostles know for a fact whether they met the resurrected Lord or not. The Jihadists are dying for what they believe based on what they have read/told

Final Note: I) The final straw argument: Jesus can't be risen from the dead because we know thats impossible. But how do we know thats impossible? History is not science in the sense that its often about unrepeatable events. Just because nobody can conquer the known world before the age of 30 now doesn't mean Alexander the Great didn't do it. Just because nobody else can run 100m in 9.5 seconds doesn't mean Ursain Bolt didn't. ii) appeal to your friends that though should want to believe its true

“Each year at Easter I get to preach on the Resurrection. In my sermon I always say to my skeptical, secular friends, that even if they can’t believe in the resurrection, they should want it to be true. Most of them care deeply about justice for the poor, alleviating hunger and disease, and caring for the environment. Yet, many of them believe that the material world was caused by accident and that the world and everything in it will eventually simply burn up in the death of the sun. They find it discouraging that so few people care about justice without realizing that their own worldview undermines any motivation to make the world a better place. Why sacrifice for the needs of others if in the end nothing we do will make any difference? If the resurrection of Jesus happened, however, that means there’s infinite hope and reason to pour ourselves out for the needs of the world” (Reason for God, 220).