The Resurrection of Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)I'm so happy to tell everyone who believes in Christ that our faith is unique and far more better than other religions because we are following a founder who has risen from the dead. The founder of our Christian faith is unique from among other religions for one important thing, His tomb is empty because He has risen from the dead. While the founder of other religions have died and never risen.
This reading will really help you a lot to appreciate your faith and become more dedicated to spreading the Gospel.
The Resurrection of Jesus (CCC 638-358)
Virtually all Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus – it should be all Christians, but there are some people who self-identify as Christians who do not actually believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. Obviously, such people are not actually Christians – the physical resurrection of Christ is of paramount importance in Christianity. As Saint Paul says, if Christ was not resurrected our faith is in vain (I Corinthians 15:14) – if Christ did not actually die and was not physically raised from the dead, how can our sins be forgiven by the death of Christ?
To many non-Christians, the teaching of the resurrection is one of the hardest to accept – especially as various popular and sensationalist books, movies and other products of the secular media have advanced the notion that Jesus was never resurrected. The idea that someone could come back from the dead seems to be a strange and utterly implausible belief.
However, it is not – this article is designed to show that the resurrection of Jesus is a historically verifiable fact and should be believed in; despite the fact it seems difficult to believe!
This article should not be considered the definitive work on the subject – it is, by necessity, merely an overview of what is a very complex subject. However, it should equip the Catholic apologist with enough knowledge to answer most objections – especially objections which are made by someone genuinely interested in learning the truth, rather than someone who has an ax to grind.
A note on fact and evidence
Many people today (this will most likely include the audience of the Catholic apologist) do not have a real notion of what “proving” something means, nor what the term “impossible” means. When people say “That's impossible!” they generally mean “It is unlikely and I wouldn't like to believe it”. This reason for disbelief (the “cost” of believing) is discussed in the articles refuting atheism.
It is impossible to “prove” anything – all that can be done is offer sufficient evidence to convince someone that that is the most likely conclusion. Although scientists speak of “proof” what they mean is evidence which cannot be easily ignored and which means that the most likely scenario is a particular one.
The fictional detective Sherlock Holmes often said “When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” This is an excellent maxim when discussing the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus is certainly possible – anything is possible – but it is very unlikely and seems highly improbable to most people. In order to “prove” (remember, this means simply offer evidence which is enough to convince people) that Jesus was resurrected, it is necessary to show that all other possibilities are impossible (or, at least, exceptionally unlikely).
Historical reliability of the Gospels
It may seem unusual to suggest that the beginning of this argument rests on the historical reliability of the Gospels – surely if the Gospels are historically accurate Jesus must have resurrected because they say so very clearly! But this is not the sort of historical accuracy that is being discussed – supernatural events referenced in the Gospels could (although they are not) merely be symbolic of something else. Atheists will never agree – at first – that the Bible could be accurate when it comes to supernatural events – such as the resurrection.
However, most educated atheists will agree that the history of the Bible points to it being broadly historically accurate. Archeology and secular history has also shown that the Bible is broadly historically accurate.
In brief, it is known that the Gospels are historically accurate because they were written within living memory of the events they describe and because a tradition of oral storytelling existed within the first century Jewish culture. If the Gospels were inaccurate someone would have pointed this out – but there is no record of this happening. The current versions of the Gospels are – when compared to the earliest copies which archeology has discovered – extremely accurate; this shows that they have been reliably preserved.
The point of this is that when the Gospels say that something happened to Jesus which is normal and common (such as Him being crucified, which happened to many Jews of the period) the Gospels are telling the truth. These events can then be used to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.
What to say to those who reject the Bible as a reliable source
A number of people will say that the Bible cannot be used because “it says that Jesus is resurrected and that is therefore inadmissible evidence”. This sounds very good on the surface – but it's not. What the person is actually saying is “I won't allow any evidence which says that Jesus was resurrected”. So, that means that the Christian has to prove that Jesus was resurrected without ever being allowed to use a source which says that! This is totally unfair, and simply ridiculous.
Jesus' death
In order for Jesus to be resurrected He must first have been killed. This is a key point, and one which many Christian apologists overlook. A man who was never dead being seen afterwards is not a miracle! It is this point that many non-Christians attack – they claim that Jesus did not die on the cross and that He merely swooned. As evidence for this they offer the fact that, according to the Gospels, Pilate was surprised that Jesus had succumbed to crucifixion so soon (Mark 15:44), the fact Jesus' legs were not broken (John 19:31-33, 36) (and therefore He would not have suffocated) and the fact that Jesus is given a drink shortly before He dies (Matthew 27:34, John 19:29-30) (the theory is that this was an anesthetic which would have made Him appear to have died).
There is a very important point to note about all of these passages – none of them is proof that Jesus was alive on the cross. In fact, none of them say that at all! It is entirely possible that Jesus would have died that quickly – bear in mind He had been severely flogged prior to this and beaten and brutalized by both the Romans and the Jews (Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 27:30, Mark 14:65, 15:15, 15:19, Luke 22:63, 23:11, John 18:22, 19:1, 19:3). Historical evidence shows that Roman floggings were especially brutal and used whips containing metal shards and fragments of bone. Extreme blood loss was common, often leading to a condition known as hypovolemic shock where the blood level falls dangerously – and sometimes fatally – low.
The entirety of the argument that Jesus did not die on the cross hinges not only on the fact that it would be possible to escape the cross alive, but that the person would be in a fit state afterwards. When Jesus appears afterwards He seems to be fit, hale and hearty. He is not in the sorry state that one would expect from someone who has been crucified would be. Not only would He have lost massive amounts of blood but He would have shattered wrists and ankles (making Him unable to walk) and a massive wound to His chest (John 19:34). This wound was made to ensure that Jesus was dead – so even if He had been alive when that wound was made, that would have killed Him for certain.
A number of people claim that the Roman soldiers who were responsible for crucifixion were not medical experts and could not tell if someone were dead or merely unconscious. But this is ludicrous – the Roman legions were expert soldiers. They killed people for a living. While it may be difficult to determine if someone in a coma is alive or dead it is not hard to make sure that someone is dead, which is what they did. The Roman soldiers were employed to ensure that Jesus Christ was dead when He was taken down from the cross – which is just what they did with a spear.
Did the Christians believe Jesus was physically resurrected?
If Jesus Christ was resurrected as Christians claim, then the tomb in which He was buried would have to be empty on Easter Sunday morning. A number of people who deny the resurrection maintain that Jesus' body was thrown into a common grave – the stories of the empty tomb are simply legends. They say that it was unlikely that Jesus was buried in a tomb as most crucified criminals weren't.
But “most” does not mean “all” - these people have to prove that Jesus was not buried. The Gospels say that He was (Matthew 27:59-60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:52-53, John 19:38-42). The evidence for this lies with Joseph of Aramathea.
Joseph was the man who gave his tomb to Jesus. He was a member of the Sanhedrin Council, but did not vote to condemn Jesus (Luke 23:50-53). There are two important facts to point out here. Firstly, there are no competing stories of what happened to Jesus' body. There are simply no other stories which circulate – if this were simply made up, would there not likely be other stories all purporting to be true?
Secondly, if a story were made up, would the chief protagonist in this story be a member of a prominent council who could be checked up on? Remember, the Gospels were written within living memory of the events described – it would be a foolish person who would make up something so easily checked!
The fact that Jesus was buried does not prove He was resurrected – the tomb would have to be empty for that. The resurrection accounts of the Gospels clearly say this was the case – but can they be relied upon? Some people claim that Jesus's resurrection was a simply spiritual one, and not physical. His body remained in the tomb.
This is easily refuted by the fact that the early Christian Church (which was primarily made up of Jewish converts) taught the resurrection. In I Corinthians 15:3-7 we have the example of what is probably the earliest statement about the resurrection of Christ (remember, many of the letters of Paul were written before the Gospels). Additionally, this statement is not something that Paul himself has formulated – it looks and sounds like a creed which he has received from an earlier source. In I Corinthians 15:3 he says that he received it. The language used is unlike Paul's language elsewhere, and uses phrases such as “the Twelve” which are uncommon is his work. This passage is most likely an early creed which was passed onto Paul during his instruction in Damascus and elsewhere.
This means that the early Christians were attesting to the resurrection of Jesus – and they would have been doing so with a very Jewish mindset. The Jewish concept of resurrection was physical – as is shown in II Maccabees 7:1-23 (the verse which most clearly shows this is 7:11). The Christians would not be preaching a resurrection unless it was a physical resurrection.
Were they just lying?
It is clear that the Christians then believed that Jesus rose from the dead – the same as Christians believe today! But were they right? There are three possibilities – they either did not know but believed He rose from the dead, or they knew He did not and were lying about it, or they knew He did and were telling the truth. This places the early Christians in a position which modern Christians are not in – we cannot know via empirical evidence that Jesus was resurrected. But they could.
Christians such as Peter, James and John knew Jesus Christ very well – they had traveled with Him for three years. They ate with Him and were His closest friends. Given the fact that He was certainly killed on Good Friday, when they saw Him on Easter Sunday and afterwards (as attested to in the I Corinthians 15:3-7 creed and elsewhere) they would be able to tell if He was the same person, or not! And if they did not see Him, they would know this too!
While many people are willing to die for something which they believe is true (for example, Muslim suicide bombers are happy to kill themselves because they think they will get eternal life) no-one is prepared to die for something which they know to be false. A modern Christian might be willing to die rather than renounce Jesus' resurrection, but he does not know in the same way as the apostles did if if is true. He has not seen the living Jesus in the flesh after His death.
But the apostles did – they were in a unique position. History tells us that they – and many other of the early Christians – went to their deaths willingly rather than recant their testimony that Jesus was raised from the dead. Why would these people do this? Why would they die a horrible death in order to declare something that they knew was a lie? They had nothing to gain from it – there was no benefit to being a Christian in the first century when all the apostles were martyred. Christians were brutally persecuted by the pagans.
One or two of them might be completely insane and be willing to die for something they knew was a lie, or might have come to believe it, but not all of them. The fact that there is no record of any apostle recanting his faith is the strongest evidence that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead. These people were in a position to know.
Just scratching the surface
This article only covers some of the evidence for the resurrection of Christ – more evidence can be found in excellent books such as Lee Strobel's “The Case For Christ” (Harper Collins / Zondervan). Although not he is a Catholic and it is therefore not a reliable source of doctrine, this book of Strobel's is well-researched and presents many of the arguments for Christ's resurrection in a very clear manner.
