presentation. apologia for the resurrection of our lord jesus christ. adult ii sunday school class....

Apologia For The Historical Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Adult II Sunday School Lesson. Park Central Baptist Church (Dallas, TX.)

December 19th, 2010 A.D. *Paul E. Little’s Know Why You Believe.

Instructor: Joseph David Rhodes, M.A.


“Easter is not primarily a comfort, but a challenge. Its message is either the supreme fact in history or else a gigantic hoax. This seems to have been realized in the days of the early Church. On the one side there was a little company of men and women who turned the world upside down by their passionate proclamation of that miracle which had transformed their lives: on the other, those who vehemently denounced the whole story as arrant blasphemy.”1

11J.N.D. Anderson, J.N.D. Anderson, The Evidence for the ResurrectionThe Evidence for the Resurrection (7 (7thth Edition; London: Edition; London: Intervarsity Fellowship, 1962), p.1. Sir James Norman D. Anderson (1908-Intervarsity Fellowship, 1962), p.1. Sir James Norman D. Anderson (1908-1994), B.A., LL.B., O.B.E., Q.C., was an English missionary and a learned 1994), B.A., LL.B., O.B.E., Q.C., was an English missionary and a learned Arabist Scholar who lectured at Cambridge (1944-47); Prof. of Oriental Laws, Arabist Scholar who lectured at Cambridge (1944-47); Prof. of Oriental Laws, University of London (1947-1953); Head of the School of Oriental Studies University of London (1947-1953); Head of the School of Oriental Studies (1954-1971); Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the (1954-1971); Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London 1959-76. University of London 1959-76.


I. The Fact of the Empty TombI. The Fact of the Empty Tomb

Dr. William L. Craig (Professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and University of Louvain) suggests eight supportive lines of evidence here.22

22These lines of corroborative evidence are explicitly detailed in his These lines of corroborative evidence are explicitly detailed in his Reasonable Faith: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics Christian Truth and Apologetics (Revised Edition; Wheaton, ILL.: Crossway Books, Good (Revised Edition; Wheaton, ILL.: Crossway Books, Good News Publishers, 1994), Ch. 8, pp. 272-298. News Publishers, 1994), Ch. 8, pp. 272-298.


- Eight Lines of Substantiated Historical Evidence:

1. The Historical Reliability of the Story of Jesus’ Honorable Burial Supports the Empty Tomb. 2. Paul’s Testimony Implies the Fact of the Empty Tomb. 3. The Empty Tomb Story Is Part of MARK’s Source Material and Therefore Very Old (30 – 40 A.D.). 4. The Phrase “First Day of the Week” is very Ancient Christian Testimony or Tradition [* April 5, 33 A.D. !!!!!!!!].

[ Continued on Slide 5 > ]


Eight Lines of Substantiated Historical Evidence:

5. The Resurrection Story Is Very Simple and Lacks Legendary Accretions and Embellishments. 6. The Tomb was Probably Discovered by Women. 7. An Occupied Tomb Would Have Kept the Disciples from Preaching the Resurrection in Jerusalem. 8. The Earliest Anti-Christian Jewish Propaganda Absolutely Presupposes An Empty Tomb.

(We will endeavor to flesh out these facts in our class discussion this morning).


1. Jewish 11. Jewish 1stst Century disciples could not have believed that Jesus Century disciples could not have believed that Jesus was resurrected if his physical body was in the tomb.was resurrected if his physical body was in the tomb.

2. If the body of Jesus was available, the Jewish authorities could easily have put an end to apostolic preaching by publicly producing it.

3. Nearly all N.T. scholars agree that Jesus’ burial is one the best- established facts about Jesus (both Jewish and Christian testimony to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin).


* The most important testimony and earliest evidence of Jesus’ honorable burial and the empty tomb is found in 1

Corinthians 15:3-5 and is given by Paul, who was formerly a Jewish rabbi (now a Christian apostle, writing ca. 54 A.D.). Yet, this testimony is to “that which” Paul had himself “re-ceived” (earlier Christian witness or tradition ca. 36-37 A.D. from Peter, James, and John – Cf. Galatians 1:18ff.). Thus, this Good News testimony or proclamation goes back to 3-5 years of Jesus’ resurrection. This is an authentic historical report, not a legend and certainly not a myth !!!


Quote from the late Professor E.E. Ellis (Prof., Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas):

“ It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, ‘grave-emptying’ resurrection. To them anastasis (resurrection) without an empty grave would been about as

meaningful as a square circle.”33

33The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible Commentary (London: Thomas J. Nelson Publishers, 1966), p. 273.


The Gospel writer, Mark, writing his Passion account is using an earlier source (a “pre-Markan” source according to some scholars.)

(Note – this “source” may have been Peter and James ! JR). Now, this source apparently ends with the discovery of the empty tomb. Dr. Bill Craig, Ph.D., quotes the German Lutheran scholar Rudolf Pesch as stating that Mark’s empty tomb source is the background to Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians 11. Thus it is very old –from the late 30s to 40s A.D. Since this same source never refers to the current High Priest (Joseph Caiaphas, AD. 18-37) by name, it appears that readers were to assume he was in view. This means that Mark’s latest source in the Gospel dates within four to seven years of the crucifixion of Jesus. (Reasonable Faith, p. 275)


As has been stated, the phrase, “the first day of the week” is as ancient as the Early Church itself. Paul’s statement about the Gospel testimony about Jesus’ rising on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-5) has been observed. The respected

Catholic scholar, E.L Bode, has argued that if the empty tomb story were a late legend (av lav certain modern liberal critics), then it would have certainly been formulated in terms on the “third day” motif. This tradition thus precedes St. Paul. Although this phrase (“ the first day of the week”) is awkward in N T Greek, it flows very naturally when translated back into Aramaic, the original language of Jesus and His disciples.44

44Cf.Cf.The First Easter Morning. The First Easter Morning. Analecta Biblia 45Analecta Biblia 45 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970),

cited by William L. Craig, cited by William L. Craig, Reasonable Faith,Reasonable Faith, p. 275. p. 275. Many scholars have noted how the Many scholars have noted how the Sabbath/Sunday difference is an important distinction between 1Sabbath/Sunday difference is an important distinction between 1stst century Judaism and century Judaism and Christianity. Christianity.


See Supporting Reasons # 6 and # 7 : [ The Ironic Nature of Women’s Witness in 1st Century Judaism and How Jewish Authorities Could Have Most Easily “Nipped in the Bud” the Early Christian Movement. – The Vississitudes of History ].


*Final Supporting Evidence for the Empty Tomb.

- Matthew 28:11-15 is the earliest Christian attempt to refute Jewish propaganda against the Christian proclamation of the resurrection. - Ironically, the Jewish propaganda itself (that the disciples “stole” the body) presupposes that the body was in fact missing). - Since this crucial admission comes from the original enemies of the Christian faith (e.g., hostile witnesses), it is valuable historical evidence (Cf. Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 277).


According to D.H.Van Daalen, “It is extremely dif-ficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds. Those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.”55 There are many reputable scholars who accept that the tomb was empty.

55The Real Resurrection The Real Resurrection (London, U.K.: Collins Publishers, 1972), p. (London, U.K.: Collins Publishers, 1972), p. 41, cited in William L. Craig, 41, cited in William L. Craig, Reasonable FaithReasonable Faith, , IbidIbid..


* How Then to Explain the Empty Tomb ?

Down throughout history, various critics of Christianity have endeavor- ed to use convincing alternative explanations (we would say – “explain away ’’ !) how and why the tomb was empty. Essentially, however, these can be reduced to three basic critical objections. We see too, that each of these can be logically reduced to historical, moral, psychological and physical implausibility. [ See the Next Slide ]


Three Theories Attempting To Explain Away The Empty Tomb:

1.1. The Conspiracy Theory – The Disciples “Faked It.”The Conspiracy Theory – The Disciples “Faked It.”

2.2. The Apparent Death Theory ( The “Swoon” Theory).The Apparent Death Theory ( The “Swoon” Theory).

3.3. The Wrong Tomb Theory.The Wrong Tomb Theory.


1. The Conspiracy Theory – The Disciples “Faked It.”1. The Conspiracy Theory – The Disciples “Faked It.”

This one was popular with the Deists in the 18This one was popular with the Deists in the 18thth Century. Century.

It is still an old “standby” for hardcore rationalistsIt is still an old “standby” for hardcore rationalists and humanists. and humanists. Yet, even most of responsible critical and liberal scholarshipYet, even most of responsible critical and liberal scholarship has rejected this blatant and baldfaced attack on the earlyhas rejected this blatant and baldfaced attack on the early disciples’ personal integrity.disciples’ personal integrity. (Sounds like old style Soviet(Sounds like old style Soviet propaganda in the days of the “ Iron Curtain”).propaganda in the days of the “ Iron Curtain”).


2. The Apparent Death Theory (The “Swoon” Theory).2. The Apparent Death Theory (The “Swoon” Theory). This was a favorite of the early 19This was a favorite of the early 19thth century critics such as Heinrich Paul- century critics such as Heinrich Paul- us, German rationalist (Jena, Wurzburg, and Heidelberg U.) and Friedrichus, German rationalist (Jena, Wurzburg, and Heidelberg U.) and Friedrich Schleirmacher (Prof. at Halle and Berlin). Both seriously defended the Schleirmacher (Prof. at Halle and Berlin). Both seriously defended the notion that Jesus was not completely dead when he was taken down fromnotion that Jesus was not completely dead when he was taken down from the cross and later revived in the tomb. the cross and later revived in the tomb.

Most people, including most later scholars, have wondered just how muchMost people, including most later scholars, have wondered just how much such a “recovery” would have convinced anyone – especially the gravelysuch a “recovery” would have convinced anyone – especially the gravely disheartened disciples - that a supernatural resurrection had occurred ?disheartened disciples - that a supernatural resurrection had occurred ?

(W. Craig: It is physically impossible, religiously implausible, and biographically in-(W. Craig: It is physically impossible, religiously implausible, and biographically in- credible – Cf. credible – Cf. Reasonable FaithReasonable Faith, p. 279). See also the refutations of this view in the, p. 279). See also the refutations of this view in the works of Josh McDowell and Dr. John W. Montgomery. works of Josh McDowell and Dr. John W. Montgomery.


3.3. The Wrong Tomb Theory. The Wrong Tomb Theory.

Elements of this theory may have existed in older critics, butElements of this theory may have existed in older critics, but the full theory was first proposed by Professor Kirsopp Lake, athe full theory was first proposed by Professor Kirsopp Lake, a British NT and Patristics scholar in 1907. Dr. Lake taught at the British NT and Patristics scholar in 1907. Dr. Lake taught at the Leiden University (1904-1913) and then at Harvard (1914-1938).Leiden University (1904-1913) and then at Harvard (1914-1938). Professor Lake was a liberal who believed in a “spiritual” formProfessor Lake was a liberal who believed in a “spiritual” form of Jesus’ resurrection, but of Jesus’ resurrection, but notnot a literal, historical one. a literal, historical one.

(The excited hysterical women went to the wrong burial location and then fled when a caretaker told them Jesus was not “there.”)


3. [Continued]:3. [Continued]: The Wrong Tomb Theory (20The Wrong Tomb Theory (20thth Century). Century).

** Refutation of the Theory : Refutation of the Theory :

1. The theory treats the Bible evidence in a highly arbitrary andselective way: (Cf. Mark 15:47 and 16:1).

2. The most decisive point, however, is that anyone’s later check would have promptly revealed the women’s error. (The Sanhedrin’s officers, for example).

3. Scarcely any modern skeptical historian or critical biblical scholar would hold to this theory (or the previous ones).


** “ If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we “ If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable mystery.”are left with an inexplicable mystery.”66

66William L. Craig, William L. Craig, Reasonable FaithReasonable Faith, p. 280. See also the classic work , p. 280. See also the classic work by noted British lawyer and journalist, Frank Morison, by noted British lawyer and journalist, Frank Morison, Who Moved Who Moved The Stone ? The Stone ? (Downers Grove, ILL.: Intervarsity Press, 1969), pp. 94ff. (Downers Grove, ILL.: Intervarsity Press, 1969), pp. 94ff.


II. Fact of Christ’s Resurrection AppearancesII. Fact of Christ’s Resurrection Appearances

The Key Texts: The Key Texts: MatthewMatthew 28:1-17; 28:1-17; MarkMark 16:1-14; 16:1-14; Luke Luke 24:24: 1-42;1-42; JohnJohn 20:1-29 & 21:1-24.20:1-29 & 21:1-24. Summary: I Summary: I CorinthiansCorinthians

15:3-8.

First, we confirm the facts and, secondly, we look for an explanation of what we find.


II. Fact of Christ’s Resurrection Appearances.II. Fact of Christ’s Resurrection Appearances.

1. Paul’s Testimony Proves the Disciples Saw Jesus Alive Again.1. Paul’s Testimony Proves the Disciples Saw Jesus Alive Again.

a. a. The Appearance to PeterThe Appearance to Peter (The Gospel only mentions it in(The Gospel only mentions it in LukeLuke 24:34 ). 24:34 ). GalatiansGalatians 1:18 explains the connection – Paul 1:18 explains the connection – Paul received this tradition from Peter and James in a two week received this tradition from Peter and James in a two week stay in Jerusalem three years after his own Damascus Roadstay in Jerusalem three years after his own Damascus Road experience.experience.

a11. Even most the skeptical NT critics agree Peter saw Christ.



1. Paul’s Testimony Proves the Disciples Saw Jesus Alive1. Paul’s Testimony Proves the Disciples Saw Jesus Alive Again.Again.

b.b. Appearance to the Twelve: Independent Accounts in Appearance to the Twelve: Independent Accounts in Luke 24:36-42 Luke 24:36-42 and and JohnJohn 20:19-20. 20:19-20.



c. c. The Appearance to Five Hundred Brethen At Once. The Appearance to Five Hundred Brethen At Once.

** Quote from C.H. Dodd, imminent Cambridge Bible Scholar:Quote from C.H. Dodd, imminent Cambridge Bible Scholar:

““ There can hardly be any purpose in mentioning the fact that most of the 500 are still alive, unless Paul is saying, if effect, ‘ The wit-

nesses are there to be questioned. ’ ” 77

77” The Appearances of the Risen Christ: A study in the form criticism of the Gospels,” ” The Appearances of the Risen Christ: A study in the form criticism of the Gospels,”

In More New Testament StudiesIn More New Testament Studies (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1968), p. 128. These appearances probably occurred in Galilee ( Craig, Op. Cit., p 282).



dd. Appearance to His brother, James.. Appearance to His brother, James.

This is a dramatic event because during his lifetime, neither JamesThis is a dramatic event because during his lifetime, neither James nor any of Jesus’ younger brothers believed he was the Messiah, nor any of Jesus’ younger brothers believed he was the Messiah, or a prophet, or absolutely special (Cf. or a prophet, or absolutely special (Cf. MarkMark 3:21,31-35; 3:21,31-35; John John 7:1-7:1- 10.) Yet, soon after Jesus’ resurrection, all of Jesus’ brothers turn10.) Yet, soon after Jesus’ resurrection, all of Jesus’ brothers turn up with the Christian fellowship in the upper room at Jerusalem up with the Christian fellowship in the upper room at Jerusalem (Acts 1:14). They are mentioned again in Acts 12:17.



dd. Appearance to His brother, James. [Continued]:. Appearance to His brother, James. [Continued]:

**Further important N.T. references substantiate James’ conversionFurther important N.T. references substantiate James’ conversion and his vital role in the New Testament Church (and his vital role in the New Testament Church (GalatiansGalatians 1:19; 1:19; 2:9). Indeed, according to 2:9). Indeed, according to ActsActs 21:18, James is the head elder of 21:18, James is the head elder of the Jerusalem church and its council. Apart from the Jerusalem church and its council. Apart from JamesJames 1:1 (and 1:1 (and the indirect reference in 1 the indirect reference in 1 Corinthians Corinthians 9:5), we hear little of him. 9:5), we hear little of him. Yet, F. Josephus, the Jewish historian, reports on his death as a Yet, F. Josephus, the Jewish historian, reports on his death as a martyr by stoning ca. 60 A.D. (martyr by stoning ca. 60 A.D. (Antiquities of the JewsAntiquities of the Jews, 20.200). , 20.200).



e.e. Jesus’ Appearance to “ All the Apostles. ” Jesus’ Appearance to “ All the Apostles. ”

This is the group of the early Church which included the original twelveThis is the group of the early Church which included the original twelve (minus Judas) and several others from Galilee and Judea.(minus Judas) and several others from Galilee and Judea. Cf. Cf. ActsActs 1:21-22. 1:21-22.

f. Appearance to Saul of Tarsusf. Appearance to Saul of Tarsus ( (Acts Acts 9:1-99:1-9; ; 11Corinthians Corinthians 9:1). “ Then9:1). “ Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle,I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. “ 1 because I persecuted the church of God. “ 1 Corinthians Corinthians 15:8-9 (15:8-9 (NKJVNKJV). ).



2. The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection Appearance Are 2. The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection Appearance Are Historically Reliable (They are not Historically Reliable (They are not legendslegends or or mythsmyths).).

While absolute historical “proof” is not available for any event inWhile absolute historical “proof” is not available for any event in the past, historians do speak of historical credibility and reliabilitythe past, historians do speak of historical credibility and reliability of the sources or documentation of information.of the sources or documentation of information. We have good We have good and sound reasons for trusting in the Bible’s testimony here.and sound reasons for trusting in the Bible’s testimony here.



2. The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection Appearance Are 2. The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection Appearance Are Historically Reliable (They are not Historically Reliable (They are not legendslegends or or mythsmyths):):

a.a. Relatively short interval of time between Jesus’ crucifixion andRelatively short interval of time between Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection and the composition of the Gospel narratives.resurrection and the composition of the Gospel narratives.

b. b. Folk legends and even contemporary “urban legends” seldom Folk legends and even contemporary “urban legends” seldom concernconcern verifiable historical events and personages as do the Gospels.verifiable historical events and personages as do the Gospels.

cc.. Unlike modern fiction writers and sensationalistic journalists, theUnlike modern fiction writers and sensationalistic journalists, the Jewish disciples of Jesus lived in day when oral recollection and Jewish disciples of Jesus lived in day when oral recollection and accurate public testimony was a strong cultural tradition.accurate public testimony was a strong cultural tradition.



2. The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection Appearance Are 2. The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection Appearance Are Historically Reliable (They are not Historically Reliable (They are not legendslegends or or mythsmyths):):

d. d. The crucial factors of the presence of actual living witnesses and theThe crucial factors of the presence of actual living witnesses and the

apostolicapostolic control of the story of Jesus acted as a restraint on embel-control of the story of Jesus acted as a restraint on embel-

lishmentlishment during the mid to late first century. (See Craig, pp.283-284).during the mid to late first century. (See Craig, pp.283-284).

e. The demonstrated archaeological & historical accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts where external confirmation is possible firmly under- girds the historical reliability of the resurrection narratives.



*Quote from Dr. Julius Mueller : (Cf. Craig, p. 285). *Quote from Prof. A.N. Sherwin-White, British Classicist Scholar:

According to Sherwin-White, if the Gospels were legends, the rate

legendary accumulation would have to be “unbelievable”.88

88On Mueller quote see J. Mueller, On Mueller quote see J. Mueller, The Theory of MythsThe Theory of Myths, , in Its Application toin Its Application to the Gospel History the Gospel History (London: John Chapman, 1844), p. 26. For A.N. Sherwin-(London: John Chapman, 1844), p. 26. For A.N. Sherwin- White, see White, see Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 188-191. The Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 188-191.



3.3. The Resurrection Appearances Were Bodily, Corporeal,The Resurrection Appearances Were Bodily, Corporeal,Physical Phenomena [Not Psychic or “Spiritualized”]Physical Phenomena [Not Psychic or “Spiritualized”]

a.a. Paul implies the appearances were physical (two ways): Cf. Paul implies the appearances were physical (two ways): Cf. 1 1 Corinthians Corinthians 15:42-44 and 1 15:42-44 and 1 CorinthiansCorinthians 2:14-15 [Difference 2:14-15 [Difference between thebetween the earthly “soulish” body and the future immortalearthly “soulish” body and the future immortal

resurrection (“spiritual”) body]. resurrection (“spiritual”) body]. YYucikovnucikovn and and PveumatikovnPveumatikovn..

b. Secondly, Paul and the NT generally make a clear distinction conceptually between an appearance of Jesus and a vision of Jesus (Cf. Acts 7 and Acts 9). The accounts emphasis the

physical.


II. Fact of Christ’s Resurrection Appearances.II. Fact of Christ’s Resurrection Appearances. How Do We Explain the Resurrection Appearances ?

One perennially popular explanation is the psychological theory – the disciples merely hallucinated the appearances of Christ.

But this is mere rationalistic reductionism and the theory faces insuperable problems of its own, formidable problems which we shall list next: [ Continued ]:



Explaining Away Won’t Work: Problems of the HallucinationExplaining Away Won’t Work: Problems of the Hallucination Theories of the Resurrection. (See Craig, Theories of the Resurrection. (See Craig, Reasonable FaithReasonable Faith,, pp. 287-289)pp. 287-289)

1.1. First, the theory cannot adequately handle the physicality of First, the theory cannot adequately handle the physicality of the appearances of Christthe appearances of Christ

2.2. Second, the theory cannot plausibly account for the sheerSecond, the theory cannot plausibly account for the sheernumber and various circumstances of the appearances. number and various circumstances of the appearances.

3. Third, the theory in no way accounts for the disciples’ un-3. Third, the theory in no way accounts for the disciples’ un- wavering faith in Jesus’ resurrection (They died for it !).wavering faith in Jesus’ resurrection (They died for it !).


II. Fact of Christ’s Resurrection Appearances.II. Fact of Christ’s Resurrection Appearances. Problems With Hallucination Theories [Cont’d]: Problems With Hallucination Theories [Cont’d]:

4.4. Every Hallucination Theory in some aspect distorts the full Every Hallucination Theory in some aspect distorts the full scope of the documentary, historical evidence for a scope of the documentary, historical evidence for a preference.preference.

** The resurrection itself is a simpler and more natural explantion The resurrection itself is a simpler and more natural explantion than all of the strainedthan all of the strained naturalistic reductions ! If we reject thenaturalistic reductions ! If we reject the New Testament’s own account, we are left with an inexplicableNew Testament’s own account, we are left with an inexplicable mystery. mystery.


III. The Origin of the Christian Church & FaithIII. The Origin of the Christian Church & Faith

A. Fact # 1.: A. Fact # 1.: Messianic OriginMessianic Origin of the Christian Faith. of the Christian Faith.

** “ Even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest “ Even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest

disciples disciples believed believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead.”that Jesus had been raised from the dead.”99

Indeed, they staked their eternal future and very lives on this assurance !!!!!!!!

99 William L Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 288.William L Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 288.




Corollaries of Fact #1:Corollaries of Fact #1:

1.1. Ignoring Isaiah 53, the idea of a dying Messiah was anIgnoring Isaiah 53, the idea of a dying Messiah was an utterly foreign concept to most Jews of the 1utterly foreign concept to most Jews of the 1stst century. century.

2. It was belief in the Jesus’ resurrection that reversed the2. It was belief in the Jesus’ resurrection that reversed the catastrophic event of the crucifixion (Cf. catastrophic event of the crucifixion (Cf. ActsActs 2:23,36). 2:23,36).

3. Only the resurrection can explain the phenomena of 3. Only the resurrection can explain the phenomena of thethe

Christian church and its faith in Jesus the Savior.Christian church and its faith in Jesus the Savior.




B.B. The Skeptical Inability to Explain Away “ X ” :The Skeptical Inability to Explain Away “ X ” :

Quote: “ Even the most skeptical critic must posit some mysteri-Quote: “ Even the most skeptical critic must posit some mysteri-

ous X to get the movement going. But what was that X ? “ous X to get the movement going. But what was that X ? “1010

1010R.H. Fuller, R.H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection NarrativesThe Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (London: (London: SPCK, 1972), p. 72 quoted by William L. Craig in SPCK, 1972), p. 72 quoted by William L. Craig in Reasonable Faith,Reasonable Faith, p.p. 289. 289.



B.B. The Skeptical Inability to Explain Away “ X ” :The Skeptical Inability to Explain Away “ X ” :

**1. Not from Christian Influences (This would be 1. Not from Christian Influences (This would be petitio principiapetitio principia).). 2. Not from Pagan Influences (contrary to 192. Not from Pagan Influences (contrary to 19thth century critics !). century critics !). 3. Not from Jewish Influences ( Please let me explain . . .) 3. Not from Jewish Influences ( Please let me explain . . .)



3. Not from Jewish Influences [Continued]:3. Not from Jewish Influences [Continued]:

a. The Jewish belief in the resurrection was limited and totally related to the distant future (i.e. eschatological). b. Explicitly mentioned only in Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37, and Daniel 12:2 [ Became more focused in the Intertestamental Period , 450 to 50 B.C. ]. In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees believed in this, but it was vehemently denied by the Sadduceans.




c.c. The Jewish view of the resurrection differs from the Christian The Jewish view of the resurrection differs from the Christian belief in two respects: (i): The Resurrection occurred after thebelief in two respects: (i): The Resurrection occurred after the end of the world – at the end of history (for N.T. Evidence: seeend of the world – at the end of history (for N.T. Evidence: see JohnJohn 11:23-24 and 11:23-24 and MarkMark 9:9-11. The O.T. and later Jews ex- 9:9-11. The O.T. and later Jews ex- pected Elijah to come before the great Day of the LORD.)pected Elijah to come before the great Day of the LORD.)


III. The Origin of the Christian Church & FaithIII. The Origin of the Christian Church & Faith 3. Not from Jewish Influences [Continued]:3. Not from Jewish Influences [Continued]:

QuoteQuote from Professor Joachim Jeremias: “ Ancient Judaism did not from Professor Joachim Jeremias: “ Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhereknow of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to resurrectiondoes one find in the literature anything comparable to resurrection of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but theseof Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but these always concerned resuscitations, the return to earthly life. In noalways concerned resuscitations, the return to earthly life. In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to

doxa doxa [ glory ] as an event of history.”[ glory ] as an event of history.”1111

11”11”Die alteste Schicht der Osterubelieferung.” in Die alteste Schicht der Osterubelieferung.” in ResurrexitResurrexit, Edouard Dhanis, Edouard Dhanis

(Rome: Editrice Liberia Vaticana, 1974), p. 131, cited by William L. Craig,(Rome: Editrice Liberia Vaticana, 1974), p. 131, cited by William L. Craig, Op. CitOp. Cit., p. 290.., p. 290.



c.c. (ii). A second point is that the Jewish expection of the (ii). A second point is that the Jewish expection of the the resurrection was the resurrection was notnot individual (solitary), but individual (solitary), but corporate and national – all the righteous people at corporate and national – all the righteous people at once.once.

[See the Next Slide : ][See the Next Slide : ]



c. (ii) Quote from Dr. Ulrich Wilkens, prominent NT critic:c. (ii) Quote from Dr. Ulrich Wilkens, prominent NT critic:

“ For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of the individual which occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end time and is differiented and separated from it; nowhere does the participation of the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who was raised in advance as “ First of those raised by God” (I Cor. 15:20). “1212

1212Ulrich Wilkens, Ulrich Wilkens, Resurrection. Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Resurrection. Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation. Historical Examination and Explanation. E.T., A.M. Stewart (Atlanta, GA.: John E.T., A.M. Stewart (Atlanta, GA.: John Knox Press, 1978), cf. 125-126. Quote from German ed., p. 131, Craig., p.291. Knox Press, 1978), cf. 125-126. Quote from German ed., p. 131, Craig., p.291.



d. Left to themselves, Jesus’ disciples would never have come upd. Left to themselves, Jesus’ disciples would never have come up with the conviction that the resurrection had already occurred.with the conviction that the resurrection had already occurred. On the next slide the celebrated Professor of New TestamentOn the next slide the celebrated Professor of New Testament and Greek at Cambridge University, Dr. C.F.D. Moule explains and Greek at Cambridge University, Dr. C.F.D. Moule explains why this is the case:why this is the case:

[ See the next Slide > ][ See the next Slide > ]


IV.IV. The Conclusion: Miracle of the Church:The Conclusion: Miracle of the Church:

If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomena undeni-If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomena undeni-ably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, aably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a

hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secularhole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secularhistorian purpose to stop it up with ? . . . the historian purpose to stop it up with ? . . . the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church . . . remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.1313

1313The Phenomenon of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Theology, 2/1The Phenomenon of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Theology, 2/1 (London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 3, 13, cited by William L. Craig, (London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 3, 13, cited by William L. Craig, Reasonable Reasonable Faith , p. 292. Faith , p. 292.


Bibliography for Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection.Bibliography for Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection.

1. Anderson, J.N.D. 1. Anderson, J.N.D. The Evidence for the Resurrection.The Evidence for the Resurrection. 7 7thth Edition; Edition; London: Intervarsity Fellowship, 1962. London: Intervarsity Fellowship, 1962.

2.2. Barrett, Paul W. Barrett, Paul W. Behind the Scenes of the New Testament. Behind the Scenes of the New Testament. Foreward by Michael Green. Downers Grove, ILL.: Intervarsity Foreward by Michael Green. Downers Grove, ILL.: Intervarsity Press, 1990, ch. 5, “ Why Jesus Was Remembered,” pp. 108-129.Press, 1990, ch. 5, “ Why Jesus Was Remembered,” pp. 108-129.

3. _____________. 3. _____________. Jesus and the Rise of Early ChristianityJesus and the Rise of Early Christianity:: A History A History of New Testament Times. of New Testament Times. Downers Grove, ILL.: Inter-varsity Downers Grove, ILL.: Inter-varsity Press, 1999, Ch. 9, pp. 180 – 194.Press, 1999, Ch. 9, pp. 180 – 194.

4. 4. Bode, Edward L. Bode, Edward L. The First Easter Morning. The First Easter Morning. Analecta Biblica 45.Analecta Biblica 45. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970.Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970.



5. Craig, William L.5. Craig, William L. Assessing New Testament of the Evidence Assessing New Testament of the Evidence for the Resurrection. for the Resurrection. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 16.16.

Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellon Publishers, 1989.Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellon Publishers, 1989.

6. _____________. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 6. _____________. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Revised EditionRevised Edition. . Wheaton, ILL.: Crossway Books, Good News Wheaton, ILL.: Crossway Books, Good News Publishers, 1994. Publishers, 1994.

7. Dodd, C.H. “ The Appearances of the Risen Christ: A Study in 7. Dodd, C.H. “ The Appearances of the Risen Christ: A Study in Form Criticism of the Gospels.” In Form Criticism of the Gospels.” In More New Testament Studies.More New Testament Studies.

Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1968, pp. 102-Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1968, pp. 102-33.33.



8.8. Ellis, E. Earle. Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of LukeThe Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible Comment- . New Century Bible Comment- ary series. London: Thomas J. Nelson Publishers, 1966.ary series. London: Thomas J. Nelson Publishers, 1966.

9. Evans, Craig. 9. Evans, Craig. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars DistortFabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels.the Gospels. Downers Grove, ILL.: Intervarsity Press, 2006. Downers Grove, ILL.: Intervarsity Press, 2006.

10. __________. 10. __________. Jesus, The Final Days: What Really HappenedJesus, The Final Days: What Really Happened. . London and Philadelphia: John Knox Press, 2009. London and Philadelphia: John Knox Press, 2009.

1111. . Fuller, Daniel P. Fuller, Daniel P. Easter Faith and HistoryEaster Faith and History. London: The Tyndale. London: The TyndalePress, 1968.Press, 1968.



12. Fuller, Daniel P.12. Fuller, Daniel P. The Formation of the Resurrection The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives.Narratives.

London: SPCK, 1972.London: SPCK, 1972.

13. Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 13. Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough FaithI Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. to Be an Atheist. Foreward by David Limbaugh. Wheaton, ILL.:Foreward by David Limbaugh. Wheaton, ILL.: Crossway Books, Good News Publishers, 2004.Crossway Books, Good News Publishers, 2004.

14. Grass, Hans. 14. Grass, Hans. Ostergeshehen und Osterberichte.Ostergeshehen und Osterberichte. 4 4thth Edition. Edition. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Reprecht, 1974. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Reprecht, 1974.

15. Gundry, Robert. 15. Gundry, Robert. Soma in Biblical Theology. Soma in Biblical Theology. Cambridge: The Cambridge: The CambridgeCambridge University Press,University Press, 19761976. .



16. Habermas, Gary. “ Resurrection Research from 1975 to the 16. Habermas, Gary. “ Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present : What Are the Critical Scholars Saying. ” Present : What Are the Critical Scholars Saying. ” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3.2 (2005), pp. 135-153 .

17. _____________. The Verdict of History. 2nd Edition. Nashville, TN.: Thomas J. Nelson Publishers, 1988.

18. Jeremias, Joachim. “Die alsteste Schicht der Osteruberliefung.” In Edward Dhanis (ed.), Resurrexit. Rome: Editrice Libreria Vaticana, 1974. 19. ______________. The Central Message of the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1965.



20. Lewis, C.S. “ Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism.” In Rev.20. Lewis, C.S. “ Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism.” In Rev. Walter Hooper, (ed.). Walter Hooper, (ed.). Christian Reflections. Christian Reflections. 22ndnd Revised Ed. Revised Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing House, 1995, ch. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing House, 1995, ch. 14, pp. 152-166. 14, pp. 152-166.

21. Licona, Michael. 21. Licona, Michael. The Resurrection of JesusThe Resurrection of Jesus:: A New Historical A New Historical Approach. Approach. Downers Grove, ILL.: Intervarsity Press AcademicDowners Grove, ILL.: Intervarsity Press Academic Books, 2010. Books, 2010.

22. Maier, Paul L. 22. Maier, Paul L. First EasterFirst Easter. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.


Bibliography for Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection.

22. __________. (Trans.) 22. __________. (Trans.) Josephus: The Essential Writings. Josephus: The Essential Writings. GrandGrand Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications, 1988.Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications, 1988.

23. __________. 23. __________. In The Fullness of TimeIn The Fullness of Time:: A Historian Looks at A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church. Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church. Revised and Updated Revised and Updated Edition.Edition. Grand Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications, 1998. Grand Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications, 1998.

24. McDowell, Josh and Sean McDowell. 24. McDowell, Josh and Sean McDowell. Evidence For theEvidence For the Resur- Resur- rectionrection::What It Means for Your Relationship with God. What It Means for Your Relationship with God. Ventura,Ventura, California: Regal Gospel Light, 2009.California: Regal Gospel Light, 2009.

25. McDowell, Josh. 25. McDowell, Josh. New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Nash- Nash- ville, TN.: Thomas J. Nelson Publishers, 1999. ville, TN.: Thomas J. Nelson Publishers, 1999.



26. Montgomery, John Warwick (Ed.) 26. Montgomery, John Warwick (Ed.) Evidence For Faith: Deciding Evidence For Faith: Deciding The God Question. The God Question.

27. ______________________. 27. ______________________. Faith Founded On FactFaith Founded On Fact. Nashville, . Nashville, TN.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1978.TN.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1978.

28. ______________________. 28. ______________________. History and Christianity. History and Christianity. Minne-Minne- apolis, MN.: Bethany Fellowship, 1969.apolis, MN.: Bethany Fellowship, 1969.

28. ______________________. 28. ______________________. Where Is History GoingWhere Is History Going:: Essays On Essays On Christian Historiography. Christian Historiography. Minneapolis, MN.: Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis, MN.: Bethany Fellowship, 1972. 1972.

Apologia For The HistoricaResurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.


29. Morison, Frank. 29. Morison, Frank. Who Moved the Stone ? Who Moved the Stone ? London: Faber &London: Faber &

Faber, 1944.Faber, 1944.

30. Moule, C.F.D. 30. Moule, C.F.D. The Phenomenon of the New Testament. Studies The Phenomenon of the New Testament. Studies

In Biblical Theology, 2/1. In Biblical Theology, 2/1. London: SCM Press, 1967.London: SCM Press, 1967.

31. Perrin, Norman. 31. Perrin, Norman. The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark,The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark,

and Luke. and Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

32. Ramsay, Richard B. 32. Ramsay, Richard B. The Certainty of Faith. The Certainty of Faith. Phillipsburg: P&RPhillipsburg: P&R

Publishing, 2007. Publishing, 2007.



33. Sherwin-White, A.N. 33. Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in theRoman Society and Roman Law in the

New Testament. New Testament. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1963.Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1963.

34. Stewart, Robert B. ed. 34. Stewart, Robert B. ed. The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic

Crossan and N.T. Wright in DialogueCrossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue. Minneapolis: Fortress. Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 2006. Press, 2006.

35. Swinburne, Richard. 35. Swinburne, Richard. The Resurrection of God IncarnateThe Resurrection of God Incarnate. Oxford,. Oxford,

U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2003. U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2003.

36. Tenney, Merrill C. 36. Tenney, Merrill C. The Reality of the Resurrection. The Reality of the Resurrection. New York: New York:

Harper and Row, 1963. Harper and Row, 1963.

Apologia For The Historical Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Bibliography for Historicity of Jesus’ ResurrectionBibliography for Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection..

37. Van Daalen, D.H. 37. Van Daalen, D.H. The Real ResurrectionThe Real Resurrection. London: Collins, 1972.. London: Collins, 1972.

38. Wilckens, Ulrich. 38. Wilckens, Ulrich. Resurrection. Biblical Testimony to the Resur-Resurrection. Biblical Testimony to the Resur- rectionrection: : An Historical Examination and ExplanationAn Historical Examination and Explanation. Atlanta:. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978. German Edition, John Knox Press, 1978. German Edition, Auferstehung. Auferstehung. ThemenThemen der Theologie 4. Stuttgart: Krenz–Verlag, 1970.der Theologie 4. Stuttgart: Krenz–Verlag, 1970.

39. Wright, N.T. 39. Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis:Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003Fortress Press, 2003.

40. 40. Yamauchi. Edwin M. “Easter--Myth, Hallucination, or History?

Parts 1 & 2. Parts 1 & 2. Christianity TodayChristianity Today (March 15 & 29, 1974): pp. 4-7; (March 15 & 29, 1974): pp. 4-7; 12-16. 12-16.

presentation. apologia for the resurrection of our lord jesus christ. adult ii sunday school class....

Spiritual

historical resurrection

lord jesus christ

years of jesus resurrection

resurrection story

jesus burial

body of jesus

tomb source

anastasis resurrection