Christianity is one global religion marred with doubtful questions yet strong and immense beliefs from the millions that follow its doctrines. As a faith, Christianity places its vital concepts around the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that is the son of God who dies as a human but rises as a Supreme all in a bid to save the human race from its sin. Evidence about this claim is necessary because it offers the chance to understand and interpret the bases of the faith (Astika, 2012). The following paper will argue out the evidence that the character Jesus Christ died and resurrected according to the dictates of the Christian Faith.
Jesus Crucifixion and Resurrection
As earlier pointed out, the death and resurrection of Jesus is at the centre of the Christian faith with no form of early Christianity lacking the affirmation that God raised Jesus to life again after his shameful death. The affirmation acts as the consistent response of the early Christianity to some of the principal questions concerning Jesus raised by the serious historians of the first century. The primary questions entail what relationship Jesus had to Judaism, what his aims were, why Jesus died and lastly why Christianity rose and took up the shape it did after the foregoing transpired (Astika, 2012). All Christians provide the same answer to the question and that is that Jesus was raised from the dead prompting crucial investigations into the spectrum of the faith. Many philosophers and historians have challenged the idea but Tom Wright gives a different opinion insisting that indeed the resurrection of the Christian Messiah took place and provides evidence-based arguments to the effect of that argument.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Wright (2003) argues in favour of the Christian faith by insisting that indeed the resurrection of Jesus took place. In his argument, Wright contends that the traditional presentation of the Christian gospel does little to tell about the famous epistle. The gospel becomes shredded into minion pieces of Jesus bearing the wrath of God for the sake of people to go to heaven after they die. However, evangelicals have further to moralize the problem but fail to put them into proper context. Wright (2003), basically insists that the resurrection of Jesus could not be a mythical invention in the early Christian fraternity because the notion of the death of dying and resurrection of a messiah in that bold form to eternity was hardly expected in the theology of the Jews and thus could not have been fabricated. People stay dead when they die according to Judaism.
The most extreme envision of them coming back is in the form of apparitions or resuscitation back to life but only for a short period before dying once again later. Never was there the bold resurrection to eternity of an individual and more so the Messiah prior to the usual and common resurrection of all that died in righteousness on the day of judgement. In his case of the resurrection, Wright provides three primary cases: First, the theological beliefs of the Jewish people in relation to the Christian community went through seen mutations that stand as inexplicable from the resurrection in bodily form of Jesus, the empty tomb and lastly the post-mortem appearances of the Messiah to certain individuals, friends, foes and groups. According to Wright (2003), the events observed at Easter were a reflection of the transformations and mutations the Jewish hope had undergone in early Christianity that is correctly plotted in the first two centuries. The mutations are significantly striking in the human experience that has societies tending to act very conservatively forcing the historians to ask why they occurred.
The mutations took place in a Jewish context that is extremely strict. Early Christians were firmly held in a similar manner as the Jewish contemporaries in a two-step belief concerning the future. First, the death and all that can lie closely beyond and second the new existence in bodily form in a world that is newly remade. Resurrection is hardly a fancy word for life after death because it denotes life after the life after death. The seven mutations that took place in the faith entail the Judaism views from which the afterlife mutates to the single view of resurrection that is in Christianity (Astika, 2012). The soul of one goes to wait in Sheol when one dies and the righteous dead get new bodies of resurrection that are similar to that of Jesus on the Day of Judgment. Secondly, the importance of the resurrection doctrine changes from being peripheral in the sense of Judaism to one that is central that is Christianity.
Thirdly, the idea the seeming notion of resurrection would seem to be transcends from multiple views of Judaism to a single one that is incorruptible and oriented around spirituality composed of the material of a previously corruptible body of Christianity. On the fourth account, the timing of the resurrection transforms from the Day of Judgment that is Judaism to a split that is between the resurrection of Jesus at the current time and the resurrection of all others that are righteous on the Day of Judgment according to Christianity (Astika, 2012). The fifth transformation insists the new observance of the eschatology that acts as collaboration with God to transforming the world. The new concept in metaphoric aspect of resurrection is called born-again and lastly the new association of the resurrection concept to the Messiah.
Jesus rose from the dead and so is truthful as held by the hymn writer of Easter who says Jesus lives in his heart and that is how he knows that he rose from the dead. The answer is suitable and most appropriate at the individual level but becomes extremely important to engage an objective evidence to support the belief when expressing the same sentiments to the rest of the public (Lane, 2017). Otherwise, the assertions by Christians fail to hold any water just like everyone else claiming to have personal encounters with the Almighty God.
The most fortunate thing with Christianity is that it enjoys a deep rooting in history and hence can be investigated in the historical context. Perhaps the writings in the New Testament are approached as uninspired scripture texts but rather a collection of documents by the Greeks coming down the public of the first century holding no assumption of their reliability other than the normal way in which people regard other sources of ancient history (Hindson, 2008). It could end up surprisingly to learn of the many critics of the New Testament that have investigated the book accept central facts that undergrad the resurrection of Jesus the son of God that was sent down from heaven to come and rescue the lost masses.
Most of the New Testament critics have come to bow down to the apparent truth in the writings. The number one fact entails Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus in a tomb just after he was crucified insisting that the Jews were aware of the burial site of Jesus unlike what many critics argue out. In this regards, it was impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem if the tomb was not empty (Lane, 2017). Researchers of the New Testament observe the aforementioned fact on grounds of evidence as suggested by Paul in 1 st Corinthians chapter 15 verse three to five. Paul does not use the typical rabbinical terms such as received or delivered in regards to the information that he passes onto the Corinthians but rather has stylized four-line formula that is filled with the characteristics of a non-Pauline.
The above has convince all scholars that Paul quotes from an old tradition that he himself receive after he became a Christian. The tradition traces back to the fact-finding of Paul in visiting Jerusalem AD 36 where he engage with Cephas and James for two weeks the above thus dates to approximately five years after the death of Jesus with the span of time being so short that such personal contact makes it significantly idle to talk of the legend in that case (Lane, 2017). Secondly, it is unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea be a Christian invention being a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus (Lane, 2017). A strong resentment against the leadership of the Jews exist in light of the role they played in condemning Jesus making it highly improbable that the Christians invented a member of the court that saw to the condemnation of Jesu. The member further honours Jesus and gives him a proper burial rather than see him dispatched as a common criminal.
The above is further emphasized by the lack of another fictitious burial by Joseph because if another did exist, then it would be expected that some historical trace of what really happened to Jesus be found by some competing legends. However, all sources remain unanimous on the honourable interment of Jesus by Joseph (Hindson, 2008). Most of those that criticise the New Testament agree with the reasons above and confirm that Jesus was indeed buried in the tomb and was done so by Joseph of Arimathea further proving the faith of Christianity.
The second fact to the resurrection of Jesus as conferred by Wright in his acclamations is the discovery of an empty tomb by a group of women Jesus followers on the Sunday after the crucifixion. The story of the empty tomb makes part of the old passion source by Saint Mark and one that failed to end in death and defeat standing as one with a grammatical piece of the burial story (Wright, 2003). Secondly, Paul cites the old tradition in 1 st Corinthians chapter 15 verse three to five making implication of the empty tomb fact. Saying that one was buried and raised implies a vacant grave was left behind for any Jew of the first century. Furthermore, the expression give for day three comes about from the visit of the tomb by women on the third day in what was a Jewish reckoning just after the crucifixion (Hindson, 2008). Paul cites a four-line tradition that sums up the gospel accounts and the early preaching of apostles as observed in Acts 13 verse 28 to 31 where the third line of the tradition is in correspondence to the story of the empty tomb.
It is well to agree that the story is quite simple because it does not consist of the legendary embellishment. All that one must do is compare the account of Mark with the wild stories of legends in the second apocryphal century gospels where Jesus is seen with his head out of the clouds in accompaniment with a talking cross (Lane, 2017). Furthermore, the Palestine stands with the role of the women in the realization of that empty tomb in as much as it is factual that the testimonies of women were discounted in the first century. Josephus insists that the testimony of women was considered worthless to the point of being admissible to any court of the Jews. In addition, the earliest allegation by the Jews that the disciples stole the body of Jesus implies that indeed the body was missing from the tomb. In regards to the same, the earliest response of the Jews to the proclamation of the disciples that he is risen was hardly to the occupancy of the tomb and laugh off as a fanatical but claim that indeed the body of Jesus was taken away (Lane, 2017). Therefore, it is evidenced that the empty tomb form the opponents of the early Christians.
The third fact is that many people from different divides experienced appearances of an alive Jesus from the dead on numerous occasions and under different circumstances. Paul in 1 st Corinthians chapter 15 verse 5 to 7 enlists the eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus guarantees that indeed these appearances took place (Lane, 2017). The appearance of traditions in the gospels offer numerous independent affirmations of these appearances with this one in particular marking historicity. The appearance of the Messiah to Peter is attested in an independent way by Saint Luke as well as the appearance to the twelve by John and Luke. There are also other independent witnesses to the appearances in Galilee as seen by Mark, John and Mathew as well as the Women that saw the same with Mathew and John.
Certain appearances comprise of historicity earmarks. For instance, there is good and sufficient evidence coming from gospel messages that not James nor the younger brothers of Jesus failed to believe in him in his lifetime. As such, it is impossible fathom a church in the early days would approach to generate such fictitious stories in relation to the unbelief of the family of Jesus Christ if at all they were faithful’s all along (Lane, 2017). However, it highly indisputable to see that James and his brothers became active believers of the Christian faith following the death of Jesus. James was an apostle that eventually rose to the leadership position in Jerusalem Church.
Conclusion
The Christian faith is truthful based on the arguments and evidence that exists in support of its doctrine. Many scholars and historians have argued against and for it giving different views on the standpoints of their arguments. However, evidence is truthful that indeed the Christian faith holds as factual. The affirmation acts as the consistent response of the early Christianity to some of the principal questions concerning Jesus raised by the serious historians of the first century. The primary questions entail what relationship Jesus had to Judaism, what his aims were, why Jesus died and lastly why Christianity rose and took up the shape it did after the foregoing transpired.
The theological beliefs of the Jewish people in relation to the Christian community went through seen mutations that stand as inexplicable from resurrection of Jesus from the tomb and lastly the appearances in post-term of the Messiah to certain individuals, friends, foes and groups. It is well to agree that the story is quite simple because it does not consist of the legendary embellishment. All that one must do is compare the account of Mark with the wild stories of legends in the second apocryphal century gospels where Jesus is observed emanating from the tomb with heads in the clouds in accompaniment with a talking cross. In regards to the above truths and observed evidences, it is clear that indeed the Christian faith holds water on grounds of the death and resurrection of the central Character of the religion that is Jesus Christ.
References
Astika, M. (2012). Historicity of the Resurrection: A Theological Approach of Evidence of The Resurrection of Christ In The New Testament. Jurnal Jaffray, 10(1), 1-21. doi: 10.25278/jj.v10i1.058.1-21
Hindson, E., & Caner, E. (2008). The Popular Encyclopaedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. Harvest House Publishers.
Lane Craig, W. (2017). The Resurrection of Jesus Reasonable Faith. Retrieved from https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/
Wright, N. T. (2003). The resurrection of the Son of God (Vol. 3): Fortress Press.
