Did Jesus Christ Really Rise from the Dead?
NASHVILLE – Each spring Christians around the world gather to celebrate Easter, commemorating the resurrection of Jesus Christ and His victory over sin and death. The Bible provides convincing evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, yet even Scripture records that some people in Jesus’ day doubted His return from the grave.
Today, skeptics echo these sentiments. Some even provide alternative explanations for Jesus’ 40 days on earth following His crucifixion. So the question remains: Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
Yes, says Jeremy Howard, managing acquisitions editor of Bibles, reference books and commentaries for B&H Publishing Group and author of such books as “The Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding Jesus.”
During a recent “Inside LifeWay” podcast, Howard said there are many good reasons to believe that Jesus died, was buried and rose on the third day.
“One thing everyone agrees on is that Jesus’ tomb was empty on the Sunday morning after His crucifixion,” said Howard, arguing that the best explanation is that Jesus in fact rose from the dead. Even though doubters raise alternative theories – someone stole Jesus’ body, for example, or the disciples went to the wrong tomb – Howard said the evidence for Christ’s resurrection is solid.
“The resurrection matters,” said Howard. “If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity is untrue, the Bible bears false witness and humanity is left searching for answers. But since He did rise from the dead, we have a word from God, by faith we have forgiveness from God, and we’re left neither in our skepticism nor our sins.”
To listen to the complete podcast, visit LifeWay.com/InsideLifeWay.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Jesus has come in the flesh. He was crucified. On the third day, he rose from the grave.
I Think we Should View Christ/Trinity esoterically as it Was meant to Be. He is indeed Risen. However the Risen Lord is Legend. Not Myth but Legend. Reality Paradox i.e Legend.
Camelot is part of The esoteric Mystery of Iesous Christos.
I Know for a the Entire Greek Bible is esoteric.
And the facts are that the Trinity is Understood by
old Hellenistic Apostolic Catechism. Gnostics tried to Do what the Protestants seek to Do these days,
Learn Greek then read the Bible out loud in Greek then they denounce the Trinity as A result crying shame really.
Make no mistake the Kingdom Hall bible is the Most honest Translation ever.
But as I stated before the
Holy Greek Bible
is one hundred and ten percent
esoteric and non-Literal. Without catechism Trinity is miss understood.
But I maintain Christ like his Champion
Arthur is not Myth or Reality.
Iesous Christos is Legand.
Legend is more Real than Reality.
All Myths are forgotten.
And Reality is flawed for it is unexplainable without reviewing Mysticism.
So is he Risen?
He is Risen indeed.
However this was not Reality it was Legend.
We'll never know if jesus ever existed because none of his adversaries, no one who objectively didn't care one way or another, or any unbiased government official reported about his existence during his life. None of the "apostles" ever knew him. The oldest fragment of any of the 4 gospels dates to around the middle of the second century, easily 100 years after his alleged death .
In those days, it was common for people to claim that they were send by god (which one?), common to (as the Glenn Becks of this world still do) to claim that the world will end if people don't follow their believes.
Come on. Let's stop making stuff up.
This is the 21st century. We should have left this story thousands of years ago for what it is: just a story
Hear hear
I'm replying to Stuibhart here because space limitations above have caused my response has been kicked to a supplementary page.
Brian: Ultimately "proof" is not what's at issue here. Claims are made about past events. You either believe the evidences and testimonies adequately support the claims or you do not. No one can "prove" past events, whether they be biblical or secular events. Proof in the sense you're speaking of is reserved for the laboratory, where scientists make a hypothesis and then test it rigorously. Well, even then scientists speak of repeated outcomes and eventually laws . Strictly speaking, only mathematics is able to "prove" anything. Past events cannot be proven in this way. Even such solid facts as the place and time of your birth cannot be strictly proven. You've a birth certificate and testimonies, and observers will either believe or disbelieve these based on their perceived merits. And so your challenge to me, namely that I should prove all of the historical claims made in the Bible, is based on a misunderstanding of how we're to judge claims about history .
You say I've trashed a respected theologian. In reality, I've pointed out a widely known fact in my profession: K. Armstrong is a sensationalist and has no real presence in the scholarly journals and symposiums. Since you are not in my profession, it is excusable that you've mistaken her television appearances and the popularity of her trade books for evidence that she's highly respected.
Regarding 6-day creation, that is not a Christian doctrine. To be sure, many Christians happen to believe it. But I'm not one of them. In fact the greater portion of Christians who are actually in science , theology, or biblical studies do not hold to a 6-day creation.
Our dialogue has revealed that your unbelief is founded on poorly supported argumentation and unawareness of several important issues. I would challenge you to back up and start afresh, as many of us have done at some point in life. The Bible purports to tell of a holy Creator God from whom humanity has become estranged. The story of Jesus is good news because the Father sent His Son to die on our behalf, paying the penalty that was due to us. By following Christ in faith we are forgiven. I cannot prove any of this to be true in the scientific or mathematical sense. At best I can examine the testimonies and accept by informed faith what cannot be proven by investigation : the testimonies are reliable, true, and Jesus really is the risen Son of God.
Thanks for your response and rational approach.
First in defence of Armstrong: i am not aware of her TV interviews/presentations. I have studied several of her books and agree with her philosophy and promotion of The Golden Rule. But then Wikepedia reflects that:
Armstrong was honoured by the New York Open Center in 2004 for her "profound understanding of religious traditions and their relation to the divine
In February 2008, Armstrong called for a council of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders to draw up a Charter for Compassion which would identify shared moral priorities in order to foster global understanding in the spirit of the Golden Rule. The Charter was unveiled in Washington, D.C., in November 2009. Its signatories include Prince Hassan of Jordan, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Sir Richard Branson.
e."[6]
In 2008 Armstrong was one of three winners who were awarded $100,000 each by the TED Conference's TED Prize.[7] Her TED Prize "wish" was to initiate an international Charter for Compassion – to help restore the Golden Rule as central to religious practice and daily life throughout the world.[8][9]
In May 2008 she was awarded the Freedom of Worship award by the Roosevelt Institute, one of four medals presented each year to men and women whose achievements have demonstrated a commitment to the Four Freedoms proclaimed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941 as essential to democracy : freedom of speech and of worship, freedom from want and from fear. The institute stated that Armstrong had become "a significant voice, seeking mutual understanding in times of turbulence, confrontation and violence among religious groups ." It cited "her personal dedication to the ideal that peace can be found in religious understanding, for her teachings on compassion, and her appreciation for the positive sources of spirituality." [10]
Not bad for a person 'without real presence', but I guess it depends who you speak/debate with.
I am fully aware that religionsists are unable to 'prove' the issues I have raised that's why I chose to repeat them again....the real issue is one of faith and faith is dependent on the veracity of the basis of such faith....where certainty exists, faith is not required. ( e.g. i believe it may rain tomorrow, but I know the sun will rise )
However, when the 'facts' rest on supposition, interpretation, allegory, metaphore, legend and hearsay....it is only faith that will pull you through and unfortunately i'm the type of person who can only 'believe' real facts.
I won't belabor this point further except to note that not one thing you've just said about Armstrong's awards indicates that she is considered a top-rate theologian by the academic world. In fact she would be singularly unlikely to win any of the commendations you name if she were in fact a bonafide academician. So carry on putting stock in her if you wish, but you won't find trained theologians standing alongside you, whatever their theological perspective.
You state that "when the 'facts' rest on supposition, interpretation, allegory, metaphore, legend and hearsay . . . it is only faith that will pull you through and unfortunately I'm the type of person who can only 'believe' real facts."
1) You have yet to establish via defensible argumentation that the NT testimonies rest on such things as these. You've ASSERTED, yes. Established, no.
2) There is no such thing in this universe and an uninterpreted fact, so let's just strike that from your list.
3) It would be interesting to take an inventory of everything you "believe" or "know," Mr. Stuibhart. I'm certain you exercise faith far more often than you have realized. And from what I'm reading in your comments it seems you have a very naive epistemology. Something like the old positivist view that crashed to earth decades ago but lives on in pop-level scientism and atheism .
I wasn't aware that academics have exclusivity to theology...neither am I an apologist for Armstrong...indeed your silence re Prof Paula Frederiksen as a commentator is deafening. Now here's my problem: I have no idea who I'm debating with, so I'll have to believe you're a trained academic theologian and that your cred is above board. As there's no certainty, 'belief' in what you say is all I have to go on.
Your whole argument also rests on assertions without any defensible proof etc.etc. Of course I exercise faith but NOT in an imaginary God...I leave it to you to work that out!
I said in another reply above, to MrBook perhaps, that I am the person who is interviewed on the podcast referenced in the article to which this discussion is attached. Learn more at jeremyroyalhoward.com if you care to take a look. I've a master's and Ph.D. in the relevant fields of study, and have had the privilege of authoring and editing numerous books.
Sorry to deafen you by not speaking of Paula Fredriksen. It didn't seem necessary. Fredriksen is prominent as a scholar in the "historical Jesus" studies. There are many other prominent scholars in this area of study who reject her conclusions. I am thinking, for instance, of Craig Evans (e.g., "Authenticating the Words of Jesus") and Larry Hurtado ("How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God"). I am convinced that their methods of historiography are more careful and balanced that Fredriksen's.
I hope you'll find the time and interest to engage some scholarly writings on my side of the spectrum. I imagine we're much alike insomuch as we're critical thinkers. My B.S. is in microbiology, and if not for a sense of calling to my current field I'd be a practicing scientist today. You'll find that many Christian scholars are avid fans of science and that we bring scientific rigor to our religious studies. Far from going in for easy-believism, we set high standards for belief.
If as you say above what you require as proof for the existence of a historical figure is that his adversaries, whom you call objective (does this mean only adversaries are objective when evaluating someone? If that's the case I'll never trust any of your friends or family members when I attempt to learn about your character; I'll only ask those who despise you), then you will be required to deny the existence of virtually all historical figures from ancient times. This includes Alexander the Great, for whom we have much less reliable evidence than Jesus. It's a good bet that you believe Alexander the Great lived. Please be consistent when evaluating evidence for historical figures.