The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. If Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity is a vain faith (1 Corinthians 15:14). The entire Bible, including Genesis, is worthless. You might as well believe Evolution. But if Jesus did rise from the dead, that is a vindication of the entire Bible. If a man can not only conquer death, but predict His victory using the Scriptures, that is a powerful testimony to His reliability, and through that, to the reliability of the Scriptures.
So, did Jesus die and rise again, or is this just a silly fable? Is it an "overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic suppositions", or is it a genuine fact of history? In quote marks, I just gave you the words of Albert Henry Ross a.k.a. Frank Morrison (1). In the first chapter of "Who Moved The Stone?" Ross explained how he originally set out to write a book positing the idea that while Jesus was certainly a "supremely great Person", the miraculous attributes ascribed to Him, including the resurrection, were simply legends invented long after Jesus died. However, Ross was "compelled by the sheer force of circumstances" to never write such a book, instead writing a book that would spend the next few decades bringing many to Christ.
But this book was published in 1930! Sure, one advertising agent can write a somewhat compelling book, but is the resurrection still such a compelling narrative in 2021? I contend (obviously) that the answer is an emphatic yes.
At this point, I am not entirely sure where to begin. There are a number of facts I want to set forward in this article, and yet both ranking them in order of impressiveness, as well as linking them seamlessly, seems to me an impossible task. I suppose the place I will start is with what is called the "criterion of embarrassment". The criterion of embarrassment is the principle in which embarrassing details within an account are considered likely true because the author would have no reason to fabricate that which embarrassing to them. And yet, this is what we see throughout the entire Bible. We constantly see prominent figures, including the authors themselves, being embarrassed in ways they almost certainly wouldn't be if they made it up.
Referring specifically to the resurrection, it is significant that women were the first to discover the empty tomb. In today's world, this doesn't mean very much, but in Jesus' day, that was a huge no no. Women were not seen as very reliable in those days. The mere fact that you were a woman would have been enough to discredit virtually anything you said. In fact, we see that the discovery of the tomb by women did result in criticism. Greek philosopher Celsus, for example, asks "who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as ye state." (2). And yet, true to its countercultural nature, the Bible records women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb. Had the resurrection been mere fabrication, this would make little sense. The first witness would have been among the most reliable men among the disciples.
Further evidence for the historicity of the resurrection comes from the proximity of the Gospels to the events they described. History is full of weak sources. The lives of several historical figures, including other religious figures such as Muhammad, are known about mainly from sources written long after they had died, by people who did not know them. And yet, in the case of Jesus, this isn't so. The New Testament was written entirely by Jesus' contemporaries, including some of His closest friends. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, for example, contains these words: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:". These are the words of Paul (more on him shortly), who converted a mere 5 - 7 years after the resurrection. The creed he received, and delivered to the Corinthians before 1 Corinthians was written, is clearly not that much younger. And yet this went unchallenged. No one said to Paul "actually, He's still dead. We can take you to His tomb if you like." No one corrected him at all.
The fact that no one corrected him is quite strange, given the extravagant nature of his claims. He not only claimed Jesus rose again, and that the Scriptures said so, but that He was seen by over 500 witnesses at once, and most of them were still alive as he wrote this! (See verse 6). Paul wasn't messing around. He gave every chance for his first century readers to investigate his claims. If he was lying, he set himself up for the most humiliating refutation the world has ever seen. Yet, rather than denying that Jesus had risen, there was universal agreement within the Church that He had, and this testimony spread far and wide, even in an environment where carrying such a message could result in ostracization, imprisonment, and even death.
At this point we come to the first general objection sceptics give. People claimed to see Elvis alive, too. What makes Jesus different? Lots, as it turns out. For starters, Elvis' body didn't disappear, yet Jesus' body was missing. The Jews even paid the Roman guards to say the disciples stole His body while they slept. This is significant, because Romans did not tolerate failure from their soldiers. In fact, the word "decimation", while commonly used today to describe a crushing defeat, actually comes from the Roman practice of killing every 10th soldier as a punishment for fleeing from battle. Safe to say, two Roman guards being overpowered by a fisherman wasn't something they would readily admit to.
Another difference between Elvis and Jesus is that only people who wanted to see Elvis alive saw him alive, whereas even the most hardened sceptic, including Thomas, could not deny the resurrection. Another example is James, Jesus' half brother. Initially, Mary and Joseph seem to have been the only two of Jesus' family that believed Him, yet James clearly converted post-resurrection, as his own writings became Scripture.
Another hardened sceptic is much more impressive than any of these. If it was illegal, under threat of death, imprisonment or torture, to claim that Elvis was still alive, sightings of Elvis would be significantly less common. This was the case in the post-resurrection world. Paul, the aforementioned hardened sceptic, was not merely sceptical of the resurrection, he viciously opposed it. With the backing of the state, Paul brutally murdered many Christians, including Stephen the martyr, whose death he stood approvingly by. Paul was a highly respected Pharisee, who believed God would only bless Israel if he stomped out the Christian pestilence. Yet, on his way to once again terrorise Christians, he was confronted by the risen Lord Himself. Paul then went on to become a very prominent figure in the Church he once persecuted, suffering heavily for it. Question: What other explanation can one reasonably give for Paul's conversion?
Another excellent piece of evidence is the unity of the Apostles. Typically, a group of liars cannot keep a straight story for too long. A similar account exists to that of the Apostles: The witnesses to the Book of Mormon. At the front of the Book of Mormon are two testimonies, the testimony of the three, and the testimony of the 8. What the Book of Mormon won't tell you is that none of these "witnesses" maintained their story. To my knowledge, none of them stayed with the Mormon Church until the end. Under relatively safe circumstances, these men could not maintain the myth of the golden plates, and yet the Apostles, in the most hostile environment imaginable, went to their graves testifying of the resurrection. Not a single one, regardless of how they were tortured and/or killed, changed their story, or contradicted the other.
Which is the final point I am going to make. Liars make poor martyrs. To be clear, anyone can die for a lie. But no sane individual is going to die for what they know is a lie. We know that Peter, in particular, was initially spineless. Although he did not scarper with the other apostles, instead choosing to follow Jesus as He was lead by His capturers, Peter denied three times that he knew Jesus. He was not the kind of man who would willingly go to his death, not even for a friend whom he strongly loved. And yet, tradition holds that all but one of the Apostles, including Peter, eventually died as martyrs. There is varying strength to each death, so it's possible a few of them are erroneous, but it cannot be reasonably denied that the Apostles faced persecution, and many of them did ultimately die. This can only be reasonably explained by one thing: When they said they saw the risen Jesus, they genuinely believed it.
The evidence for the resurrection, of which I have just covered some of the basics, is so strong that sceptics have resorted to some of the silliest theories to explain it. The most common is swoon theory: The idea that Jesus didn't really die, He merely passed out and appeared to be dead. Swoon theory is, in the most polite way possible, utter nonsense. Surviving a full Roman crucifixion is impossible. The first reason for this is that a Roman crucifixion was preceded by a very brutal beating. The Romans would take a bony whip specifically designed to bring flesh back with it after hitting its target, and they would repeatedly whip the victim. The process was so brutal that many victims didn't even survive that. Sometimes, even the victim's organs would fall out. And the Romans were far more brutal than the Jews. The Jews had a law from God: If someone was judged to be deserving of a beating, he could be beaten a maximum of 40 times. The Jews, in an attempt to avoid miscounting, would only beat a man 39 times. The Romans, however, didn't care about the Jews. Out of spite, they would deliberately count to 40, and that's when they really started to enjoy beating their victims.
Obviously, Jesus was a little stronger than those who died in this manner. He survived the initial beating, and did indeed go to the cross. He was even able to carry it some of the way. And He was put on it, nails being hammered through the most painful parts of His wrists and His feet. Every breath He took after the cross was erected was very painful. In order to take a breath, He had to push Himself up, His now virtually skineless back rubbing against splintered wood. Even if He had been taken down at this point and given the best medical care of His time, there is only a 33% chance of His survival. We know this because Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote of a time he recognised three of his acquaintances being crucified. He convinced Emperor Titus to take them down, and they were given much medical attention. Only one of them survived. (3) But Jesus wasn't released, nor was He given any kind of medical care following His removal from the cross. He died faster than the other two men crucified either side of Him. To verify this, the Romans stabbed Him in the side with a spear!
After all of this, it is 100% guaranteed that Jesus was dead. No one is surviving that. Even if you believe that Jesus was the perfect warrior, in perfect physical condition until the beatings occurred, there is no way He survived. But even if we assume the blood loss, asphyxiation, damage to vital organs etc. did not kill Jesus, and He somehow survived 3 days in a tomb without food or water, let's just be honest about this: There is no way He would rise so victoriously! He isn't going to stand up, roll a giant stone out of the way, fight past two Roman guards, and stand before His friends with but a scratch on Him. And yet, He did. Rather than a severely crippled mess spending the rest of His short life in agonising pain, Jesus was able to stand before His contemporaries and astound them to the point where a whole new religion was formed around Him.
The evidence for the resurrection extends further than I have discussed in this article, as do the refutations to the silly stories sceptics come up with to attempt to explain the evidence away. But before I close, I want to leave you with one thing to stew on. Imagine a court case in which the defence lawyer officially stated "over the course of this trial I’ve thought a lot about this question, and have tried to explain on several occasions why this crime can never be shown, on legal grounds, to have happened — even if it did." What would be going through the mind of any jury who heard that? Behold, the words of sceptical New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman: "Over the years I’ve thought a lot about this question, and have tried to explain on several occasions why a “miracle” can never be shown, on historical grounds, to have happened — even if it did." (4)
In other words, in Ehrman's mind, none of the above matters. Ehrman, like many who doubt the resurrection, is so entrenched in his position that no amount of evidence can convince him of the resurrection. Today I have shown that even a handful of the evidence for the resurrection is compelling enough to convince many, maybe even enough to convince you if you came to this post as an agnostic. And yet, the standard of evidence for many skeptics is not "beyond reasonable doubt", but also beyond unreasonable doubt. You must not only prove that the resurrection is the best possible explanation for all the evidence, but also that there is a less than 0% chance of it not happening. The problem, therefore, is not the evidence, but a stubborn refusal to accept it. God could creep up behind Ehrman mid debate and tickle him under the armpits, Ehrman would remain a non-Christian.
My question to you, then, is this: What is your standard of evidence? If you want a reasonable faith that is backed by sufficient evidence and based on reason, Christianity is the only one worthy of consideration. Or, you can be like Ehrman, stubborn to the grave. But no further. A time will come when all of us stand before the judgement seat of God, and we will give account to Him for our entire lives. Every deed, every word, even every thought, must be dealt with. But we're all sinners, and in the eyes of God, that merits death. On the cross, Jesus received that punishment on our behalf, but that can only be received by faith. Only if you confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe He rose from the dead will He grant you forgiveness for your sins, and an inheritance in His Kingdom. Remain unreasonably sceptical, and there is only one place left for you. Please do not go there.
References
1. Morrison, Frank - Who Moved The Stone?, 1930
2. Celsus, cited in Origen - Contra Celsum, Book 2 (link)
3. Josephus, Flavius - The Life of Flavius Josephus, Chapter 75, circa 94-99 A.D.
4. Ehrman, Bart - Historians and the problem of miracle, Ehrman Blog, November 15 2013 (link)