For a long time, scholars have debated the authenticity of the argument that Christ rose from the dead on the third day after his burial in Jerusalem. However, the fact that the debate has been ongoing for long does not imply that history cannot give evidence of the resurrection. This paper cites and elaborates two such evidences that appear to strengthen the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Precisely, the author references the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem.
Understanding a Miracle
In strict reasoning, an individual can only speak of a miracle, when the events that they experience or witness meet two criteria. First, the event in question must be one, which no known laws of metaphysics and explain, or one that appear to defy such laws—an anomaly in scientific reasoning (Sarot, 2014). Second, from the perspective of believers, such events can only be interpreted as intentional actions of God (Lake, 2012). Now, it ought to be reasoned that miracles exist only in the spiritual world. Conceptualize that, while one was taking a birth this morning, wine, and not water came out of the shower! In this scenario, the individual witnessing the event could have been scared. Conceptualize further that a critical investigation of the event did not provide solid explanation, and then in this sense, from the scientific standpoint, the persons would have experienced an anomaly. On the worst-case scenario, the person would say that they are haunted, especially when the event keeps recurring. Nevertheless, this was not the reaction when Christ turned water into wine in Cana, which is why everyone spoke of a miracle since the miracle was ascribed to the works of God through Christ.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Facts that are asserted in the Claim that Jesus Resurrected
It is important to understand the facts when Christ rose that would have been untrue if he had not done so. While referring to the narratives of the Gospel, it is important to ignore the details of such narratives and instead concentrate on what they assert when considered together. Consequently, it is important to interpret the stories of the Gospel in a conventional way. It is notable that no testimonies on the resurrection of Jesus have been handed down. In this case, the reasoning is that no man in history has ever seen the risen Christ. However, everyone agrees, at least to some level, to the argument that testimonies of an empty grave and apportions of The Risen One exist (Habermas & Licona, 2004). Conventional Christianity does not make any factual claims concerning the biological or technical sides of the resurrection or on the exact instance of its occurrence. However, that Christ rose, means the following four things:
Christ, who had been confirmed dead, had come back to life—one cannot speak of him as dead since he is alive (Revelations 1: 18, 2:8).
Christ’s tomb was empty after his had resurrected. Notably, all the four Gospels report the story of an empty tomb, and the first account, Mathew, offers the most comprehensive account. Mathew details the manner in which Pilate had guarded the grave and that the guards were struck with unconsciousness at Christ’s resurrection. One can inferred from the story of the empty grave that Jesus’ risen body was a creation of his mortal remains. The story of the dubious Thomas provides a continuity in the pre and post-resurrection bodies of Christ (Habermas & Licona, 2004). From this perspective, it can be understood that the risen body was material.
A transformation of his body shapes the resurrected body of the Lord because they is both continuity and discontinuity of the same. In fact, the continuity aspect results in the very idea of resurrection since the term infers something that transformed from one to the next.
He (Christ) appeared to many people after He had resurrected.
A Critical-Historical Interpretation
The principle idea in the aforementioned is the argument that Christ’s grave was empty, which significantly founds on the New Testament. The idea of the empty grave offers an empirical aspect concerning the miracle, which empirical research can scrutinize. One common argument against the evidence of the empty grave is the idea that a close reading of the New Testament does not give a historical reality since they are accounts of different people with contradicting reports. Nevertheless, one of the simplest arguments for the resurrection is the fact that the Gospel of his resurrection was preached in the same city in which Christ had died (Habermas & Geivett, 1997). Importantly, His disciples did not opt to go to another location in which none knew about Jesus to preach the information of his resurrection, but they started in Jerusalem—it would have been impossible for them to do so while the Lord was still in the tomb. As the latter literature argues, it could have been impossible to maintain the perspective of resurrection in the city for a single day if the empty tomb had not been witnessed.
The ‘stolen body’ argument is one of the earliest arguments that strive to refute the resurrection of Jesus—that His disciples must have stolen his body (Mathew 28: 11-15). The argument is critical for the fact that it justifies the argument that the Jews did not dismiss reports of an empty tomb. Regardless of any ideological perspectives of the same, evidence from Jewish writings, including the Toledoth Jesu provide evidence that the tomb must have been empty. In this case, God had raised Christ in ways that no one could explain.
After His resurrection, it is believed that Jesus appeared to many people. This perspective is not widely disputed today since testimonies from his disciples appear to suggest that they had interacted with Him after he rose. One does not need to believe in the reliability of the Gospel narratives. However, Paul provides a record of an ancient creed, which details the events, which is older than the letter he was writing to Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Some scholars consider that Paul must have obtained the creed from James and Peter some 3-5 years after his death. Now, James and Peter appear in the creed, testifying that they saw the risen Jesus, which is why it is a testimony of the Miracle. Three perspectives can be drawn from this claim (1) that the disciples were lying about their testimony of the risen Christ (2) they hallucinated, and (3) they actually saw Christ. The first two ideas dismiss the argument that He rose. Nevertheless, a question arises: why did ten of Christs disciples die as martyrs when they did not believe in the resurrection? Normally, one would die for a lie that they believed was true, but again, His disciples were with him to his death, and it is only unlikely that they would die for a lie to make everyone believe its legitimacy.
Conclusion
Understanding the evidence of Jesus’s resurrection without a biblical interpretation is cumbersome, yet specific evidence exists suggesting that Christ actually rose from the dead. As described from this essay, the story of the empty tomb appears to be the most important because none of the arguments against resurrection refutes the idea that the grave was empty. Secondly, that Christ appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem after his death reinforces the argument that He probably rose.
References
Habermas, G. R., & Geivett, R. D. (1997). In Defense of Miracles. Downers Grove: IVP .
Habermas, G. R., & Licona, M. R. (2004). The case for the resurrection of Jesus . Kregel Publications.
Lake, K. (1912). The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Vol. 21). Williams & Norgate.
Sarot, M. (2014). The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. HTS Theological Studies , 70 (1), 1-9.
