The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most debated issues throughout history. Christians place their trust in a resurrected Christ for salvation and a promise of eternal life. If the resurrection never happened, Christianity is a lie and people have been mislead for generations. On the other hand if the resurrection is true, Christianity is true also. This issue is of extreme importance because one’s soul is at stake. If all the claims that Christians make for the resurrection are true, the evidence for these claims must be examined. Equally important, are the claims against the resurrection; they too need to be looked at with careful consideration. Because so much is at stake, the question must be answered: Is the …show more content…
Gary Habermas in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus calls this the minimal facts approach. “The minimal facts approach considers only the data that meets two criteria: 1. The data are strongly evidenced 2. The data are granted by virtually all scholars on the subject, even the skeptical ones.” On the basis of this approach, four different arguments will be examined for the resurrection of Christ in this paper.
The Empty Tomb Only a few explanations can explain the empty tomb: A stolen body, an earthquake, or the actual resurrection. Some believe that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This is recorded in the book a Matthew. A claim that the Jews made in an attempt to explain the resurrection. If this were true there entire faith would have been a lie. All of Jesus Disciples died for what they believed in which includes the resurrection. This would mean that the disciples died for something they made up In Matthew 28:2 there is a recording of an earthquake when an angel of the Lord roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb. Some will argue that the earthquake buried the body of Jesus under the rubble, thus having an appearance of an empty tomb. This claim does not explain Jesus appearing to Mary right after this event. Also, if the body of Jesus was just buried under rubble it could still be available for examination. After exulting
It is possible to write on the life of Jesus from the information gathered from the bible. I will be dividing my essay into three parts. In the first part of the paper, I will talk about the nature of the gospels, John’s views vs. the Synoptic, discuss if the authors of the gospels are eyewitnesses and how they used written sources. Also I will talk about the Q source. Then I will elaborate on the topic of how Matthew and Luke were similar. Then I will continue on by discussing how the Old Testament uses Moses, Samuel and Elijah to interpret Jesus, and finally whether or not the Sermon on the Mount happened. In the second part of my paper, I will talk about Jesus’s birth and childhood, his miracles, his resurrection, and what Jesus did to cure people, spirits and how they are interpreted to the prophet, magician and the mad man compared to Saul and Elijah. The final part of the paper I will talk about what Jesus talked about as regards to the Kingdom of God vs. the Kingdom of the Romans and what he intended by speaking of the end of the world. I will also speak of the reasons behind the Romans executing him. My sources for this paper will be the New Jerusalem Bible Readers edition as my primary source and lecture notes from Professor Trumbach.
Some scholars argue that evidence of Jesus of Nazareth 's existence can only be found within the writings of the New Testament. They believe that the New Testament is a biased and unreliable source for the existence of Jesus. They therefore claim that Jesus did not exist. The historical existence of Jesus is necessary to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. While Christian scholars do not discount the reliability of the New Testament as a historical document, they are also able to point to other historical documents and consider non-Christian writings which support the existence of Jesus. In this paper I will argue that Jesus the Nazarene was an actual, historical person and that this can be demonstrated through extra-Biblical resources.
The most rebutted aspect of the work done by the scholars was their idiosyncrasy to equate “unverifiable” with “unauthentic.” Most scholars who study the elements attribute to the life of Jesus stand on common ground when it comes to the realization that many of the sayings and deeds associated to Jesus in the Gospels lack sufficient evidence to establish authenticity. However, to many scholars insufficient evidence means an element cannot be verified, and therefore should not be deemed as historical. In contrast, the Jesus Seminar went beyond this scope and maintained that Jesus did not say or did not do things that cannot be authenticated by evidence. For example, it is widely accepted that there is very little evidence to support whether or not Jesus was born from his virgin mother, Mary. As a result, this element of his life has just been something that one would believe on the foundation of religious faith rather than historical science. However, the Jesus Seminar applied a post-Enlightenment historical scientific view to this element in order to determine authenticity. Under this assessment, they determined not only what is confirmable but what also is scientifically possible. Therefore, the scholars deemed the virgin birth as non-historical, concluding that Jesus had been conceived through normal sexual intercourse between a male and female because it fit the paradigm known today. This stance held by the Jesus Seminar “turn[s] a corner in the traditional understanding of the relationship that faith and philosophy bear to science and history” (Powell, 115). For this reason, I reject the integrity of their work. I believe faith and philosophy should be kept separate of science and history, unless the two aim to support one another. Rescinding concepts of faith simply because they do fall within current scientific boundaries is illegitimate. The major flaw of the Jesus Seminar is their
Prior to the twentieth century, theologians limited their discussion of Christ to the views set forth in their respective denominational or confessional traditions.” But, doubt that Christ in tradition was different from the actual Christ created a shift from metaphysical to historical Christology. This sparked the search for the historical Jesus in which two approaches, “Christology from Above” and “Christology from Below arose.
R. Gundry's compelling work on NT human sciences has a part dedicated to the vitally essential subject of Paul's concurrence with the gospel creators on Jesus' resurrection body. N. Geisler's treatise on contemporary basic difficulties to the confidence in supernatural occurrences serves as a phenomenal synopsis of at times known, however persuasive, protests to these events.50 Numerous other evangelicals have additionally distributed safeguards of the substantial bodily ressurection of
He was perhaps the greatest of men to walk this Earth, but how much history is really known about this man who has been subject of a millennia-long debate of who he was before the beginning of Christianity. One scholar, Albert Nolan, analyzes the man himself while disregarding any religious factors and examines the historical Jesus and provides context for the times in which Jesus lived and how he spread and taught His message. Interestingly, Nolan intentionally down plays Jesus’ supernatural acts and even his sanctity in a way that he puts greater emphasis on the radicalness of the way He taught his people. One argument that is commonly tossed around when talking about Jesus is that we cannot scientifically prove his existence. Along with the stories of his
Robert Greg Cavin, a Philosophy and Religion lecturer at Cypress College, asserts that, “our only sources of potential evidence, the New Testament Easter traditions, fall far short of providing the kind of information necessary for establishing the resurrection hypothesis.”
The same argument can be applied to other areas of traditional apologetics. Consider for a moment the important issues related to the resurrection of Christ. While the historical and biblical aspects are imperative in validating the authenticity of the event, one must never ignore how that miraculous event transforms the individual expressions of a Christian’s daily life.
it would have been impossible to maintain that Jesus was alive if his tomb still had his body in it, particularly as the disciples first claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead in Jerusalem - the very place where Jesus had died and been buried, so it would have been easy to disprove if the tomb was not indeed empty. The earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity at the time tried to suggest that the disciples stole the body (despite the fact that no eyewitnesses attest to this) - neither Jewish nor Roman accounts at the time dispute that the tomb was empty, which would surely have been the best argument to start with if it was - see Roman lawyer Tertullian in De Spectaculis Chapter XXX, or Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho. If you want recent academic opinion on this, see Austrian scholar Jacob Kremer 's book Die Osterevangelien: Geschichten um Geschichte, in which he cites 28 scholars who support his claim that the biblical statements on the tomb being empty are historically accurate.
Beyond the seeming discrepancies of the accounts that follow, each Gospel relates of how Christ appeared to his poignant, wistful, and bewildered disciples and followers and convinced them of his Resurrection. Every account agrees that the risen Lord was no phantom or hallucination. He was real to his disciples as they were to each other. The Jesus of Nazareth who died on the Cross was in truth the Christ who rose again. In going through these accounts, we learn of three imperatives that spring from the Resurrection of the Christ. Firstly, Jesus Christ assured his disciples and followers of his power. Surely nothing was outside the power of him who had died and conquered death. Now these faithful were the servants of a Master whose
In another way to explain a believer in the resurrection of a body without their full understanding, according to Klawans Josephus write, “a Maccabean martyr looked at his hands and spoke”, “I hope to get these hands back again” (pg.108 Josephus Theologies), meaning when he dies he wanted to return in the same body in which he had his faith in. At that moment, the martyr could have begun to believe in Christ’s words, explained that the resurrected body is not like the first, Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build
Introduction: I came across an article on BBC news written on April 9,2017 that stated, A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. To take the resurrection out of Christianity is like taking the heat out of fire, the darkness out of the night, all the blood out of a man. Simply put, you cannot separate the resurrection from Christianity. The resurrection of Christ is the hinge on which Christianity hangs. It is the foundation of our faith. Yet there are many who try to refute this momentous history of the church. Josh McDowell said, “The resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human
The purpose of this paper is to compare the teaching on the resurrection of Jesus Christ as it is noted in Paul's letter to the Corinthians and Thessalonian letters. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the primary doctrines of study in the Bible because it reveals the victory that believers have over death, hell and the grave. However, the belief in a bodily resurrection has been the central focus of controversy since the death of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28.1 says that only Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary approached the tomb, however it does not mention the purpose of the visit. In Luke 24.1, we find out that "they" are taking spices to the tomb. We do not find out the identities of "they" in Luke 24 until verse 10. This suggests that Mark and Matthew want the visitors to the tomb to be known immediately, while Luke chooses to emphasize the purpose of the visit. Mark and Luke reveal the purpose of the visit, although slightly different, Matthew does not discuss the reason for the outing. The discussion of the stone's removal is also a point of much variance.
LADD, G.L. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (1975). The work of G. L. Ladd provides a strong historical argument for the bodily resurrection of Jesus in a brief but informative manner. His work focuses on the interaction between historical evidence and faith and proposes the use of inductive historical method rather than the “scientific” historical-critical method. Thus, he stated, “We must first appreciate the importance of the doctrine of the resurrection. We must make clear the problem of faith and history that so much colors the contemporary discussion. Then our primary aim is to try to explain the rise of the resurrection faith.”