Original subtitles

Well, it's wonderful to be here with you tonight, what an encouraging service this has already been this evening.

And I want to begin by saying, thank you to Grace, presbyterian.

For your rock solid support of our ministry since Nineteen eighty six, thirty years Now.

Faithfully every month, grace has been supporting our ministry, and we're so thankful for that.

But my roots and connection with Grace go back, actually, a lot further than that.

When I applied to Wheaton College as a student, I was interviewed by Bruce Done.

And that positive recommendation helped to get me into wheat and helped them to shape the direction that the Lord set me on.

And so I'm a Peoria boy. It's good to be back in town.

I must say, unexpectedly, though, being in familiar sights and familiar haunts.

Ah, made me miss my mom and dad.

Strange, just being back and not having them here. And that makes the subject.

Of this evening's talk, I think all the more poignant, the resurrection of Jesus, because it's only the resurrection that gives us hope.

For personally immortality beyond the grave and the hope of seeing our loved ones again. And so I want to.

Talk tonight about that event, because I believe that this is not just wishful thinking or pie in the sky, hope.

But is a hope that is firmly grounded in history.

Several years ago, I was speaking on a major Canadian university campus, on the existence of God.

And after my talk, one slightly irate student wrote on her comment card, I was with you.

Until you got to the stuff about Jesus, god is not the Christian God.

I find that this attitude is all too prevalent today.

Most people are happy to agree that God exists.

But in our pluralistic society, it's become politically incorrect.

To think that God has decisively revealed himself in Jesus.

What justification can Christians offer.

In contrast to Hindus, jews or Muslims for thinking that the Christian God is real.

Well, the answer of the New Testament to that question is clear, the resurrection of Jesus.

The Apostle Paul declared God will judge the world by the man he has appointed.

He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead at 17:31.

The resurrection is God's vindication of Jesus, radical personal claims to divine authority.

So how do we know that Jesus is risen from the dead?

The Easter him writer says, you ask me how I know he lives. He lives within my heart.

Now I think that this answer is perfectly appropriate on a personal level.

But when Christians engage on believers in the public square,

For examples, in letters to the editor of the local newspaper or in.

Call in programs on talk radio or even just in conversation with coworkers.

Then it's crucial that we be able to present objective evidence in support of our beliefs.

Otherwise, our claims have no more credibility.

Than the claims of anyone else who says that he has a private experience of God.

Fortunately, christianity as a religion, which is grounded in history.

Can an important measure be investigated historically?

Suppose then that we decide to approach the New Testament.

Not as inspired scripture as the word of God.

But merely as a collection of ancient Greek documents coming down to us out of the first century.

Without any assumption as to their reliability, other than the normal way that we would approach other sources of ancient history.

You might be surprised to learn that the majority of historians approaching the New Testament documents in this way.

Have come to accept.

The fundamental facts undergirding the resurrection of Jesus. And I want to emphasize that I'm not talking.

About conservative or evangelical scholars. Only.

But I am talking about the broad spectrum of New Testament critics, both Christian and non christian.

Who teach at secular universities and non evangelical seminaries. Incredible, as it may seem,

Most of them have come to regard as historical the basic facts which support the resurrection of Jesus.

These facts are four in number.

Fact number one.

After his crucifixion, jesus was buried in a tomb.

By a member of the Jewish sandedron named Joseph of Arimathea.

This fact is important because it means that the location of Jesus tomb was known in Jerusalem.

To both Jew and Christian alike.

New Testaments, scholars have established the historicity of this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following.

Number one, jesus burial is attested, multiplying and early independent sources.

This is one of the most important criteria that historians use for establishing historical facts.

If an event or a saying is a tested in.

Multiple sources which are independent of each other, and at least one of which is early.

Than it is much more probable to be historical rather than made up.

And the burial of Jesus is multiplely and independently tested in such early sources.

For example,

Jesus burial is mentioned in the very old tradition, which is quoted by Paul.

In his first letter to the church, in current, paul wrote.

For, I delivered to you as a first importance, what I also received.

And then he begins to quote this formula that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.

And that he was buried.

And that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.

And that he appeared to Kayfas or Peter, then to the twelve.

d

Paul here not only uses the typical Rabbinical technical terms received and delivered.

With regard to the tradition that he hands on.

But these verses are a highly stylized four line formula filled with non pauline characteristics.

This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, just, as he says, quoting.

From an old tradition which he himself received, and in turn passed on to his converts. In current.

This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul's fact finding visit to Jerusalem.

In A-D, thirty six when he spent two weeks with Peter Jesus, chief disciple.

And with James Jesus younger brother, according to Paul's letter to the Galians,

Now when you recall that Jesus was crucified in A-D, thirty, that means that this tradition goes back.

To within the first five years.

After Jesus death.

So short a time span, and such personal contact with the eyewitnesses make it idle to speak of legend.

In this case,

Not only that, but the burial story is also part.

A very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel.

When you read the gospels, you find that they tend to consist of brief snapshots of Jesus life.

Which are loosely connected and not always chronologically arranged.

But when we come to the story of Jesus Passion, that is to say the final week.

Of Jesus life is suffering and death. Then we do have one smooth, continuously running narrative.

This suggests that the passion story was one of Mark's sources that he used in writing as gospel.

Now most scholars think that Mark is already the earliest of the four Gospels.

And marks source for Jesus Passion, then is, of course, even older.

Comparison of the narratives of the four Gospels with one another.

Shows that their accounts do not diverge from one another until after the burial story.

That implies that the burial account was part of that pre marking passion story.

So we have independent at a station of the Burial of Jesus by Joseph of Aramethea.

From two of the earliest sources concerning Jesus of Nazareth,

The pre Pauline formula quoted in First Carinthians and the premarkan passion story behind the Gospel of Mark.

Number two,

As a member of the Jewish Sandedron, that is the Jewish court that condemned Jesus.

Joseph of Iramophia is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

There was a very strong resentment in the early Christian community.

Toward the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation.

Of Jesus in, in Christianized, they had basically engineered a judicial murder of Jesus.

And therefore, it's highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus.

Who then honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial, instead of allowing him to be dispatched like a common criminal.

Number three, no other competing burial story exists.

If the burial by Joseph of Aramathea were ficcuitious,

Then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus corpse.

Or at least some competing legends.

But all of our sources are unanimous on Jesus, honorable interment by Joseph.

For these and other reasons, the majority of New Testament scholars concurred that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact.

Buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

According to John A-T Robinson of Cambridge University,

The burial of Jesus in the tomb isn't, I quote, one of the earliest and best attested facts about Jesus.

Fact number two.

On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion,

Jesus tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following five points.

Number one, the historicity of the burial account supports the empty tomb.

Now you ask, how is it that the historicity of the burial account would show that the tomb was empty?

Well, very simply, if the burial site of Jesus were known in Jerusalem,

Then it would be impossible for a movement founded on belief in the resurrection of the dead Man.

To arise and flourish in Jerusalem in the face of a tomb containing his corpse.

By the time the Disciples began to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, that tomb had to have been empty.

Number two, the empty tomb story is also multiply attested in early, independent sources.

For example, the empty tomb story is also part of the pre marken passion source used by Mark.

The passion source used by Mark did not end.

In defeat and death. With the burial.

Rather, it ends with the empty tomb story, which is grammatically one piece, with the burial story. There really one story.

Moreover, the old tradition cited by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians implies the fact of the empty tomb.

For any first century Jew to say, as Paul does.

That he was buried and that he was raised would imply that a vacant grave was left behind.

Moreover, the expression on the third day he was raised, on the third day.

Probably derives from the women's visit to the tomb on the third day in Jewish reckoning after the crucifixion.

The fore line tradition that is cited, BI, paul summarizes both the gospel accounts. On the one hand.

And the preaching in the book of Acts, on the other.

And significantly, the third line of Paul's formula. He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.

Corresponds in both cases to the empty tomb.

Number three, mark's story of the empty tomb is simple.

And lax signs of legendary embellishment.

All you have to do to appreciate this point.

Is to compare marks, account.

With the wild, legendary stories found in the so called apocryful gospels.

These are forgeries which arose during the centuries following Jesus death, after the Apostles had died off.

For example, in the so called gospel, according to Peter,

Which arose in the second half of the second century after Christ.

The tomb is guarded not only by Roman soldiers, but also by all of the chief priests and pharisees.

As well as a large crowd from the surrounding countryside who have come to watch the tomb.

Suddenly during the night, a voice rings out from heaven, and the stone over the door of the tomb rolls back by itself.

Then two men are seen descending out of heaven and entering into the tomb.

Then two gigantic figures come forth from the tomb, their heads reaching to the clouds.

Then a third figure emerges from the tomb, even greater, his head over passing the clouds.

Then across comes out of the tomb, and a voice from heaven asks.

As thou preach to them that sleep and the cross answers, yea.

Now these are how real legends look.

They are colored by all sorts of theological and apologetical motifs.

Motifs which are conspicuously lacking.

From Marks account, which is stark in its simplicity. By comparison,

Number four, the fact that women's testimony was less trustworthy than men's in first century. Israel.

Counts in favor of the women's role in discovering the empty tomb.

According to the first century Jewish historian Josephus,

The testimony of women was regarded as so unreliable that it should not even be admitted.

Into a Jewish court of law.

How remarkable it is, then that it is women who are the discoverers and principal witnesses to the fact of Jesus empty tomb.

Any later legendary account.

Would certainly have made male disciples say, peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women.

Whose testimony was worthless, who are the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb.

Is best explained by the fact that they were the discoverers of the empty tomb. And the gospel writers faithfully record.

What for them, at least, was rather awkward and embarrassing. Fact,

Number five.

The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen.

Jesus body shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb.

What was the earliest Jewish response to the disciples proclamation He is risen from the dead.

That these men are full of new wine.

That Jesus Corps still lay in the tomb there in the garden.

No, they said the disciples came and stole away his body.

Now think about that for a minute, the disciples came and stole away his body.

The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the Resurrection.

Was itself an attempt to explain why the body was missing.

And thus, we have evidence for the empty tomb, which is absolutely top drawer, because it comes not from the early Christians.

But from the very opponents of the early Christian movement themselves, now I could go on, but I think enough has been said.

To indicate why, in the words of Yakob Kaber and Austrian specialist in the resurrection. And I quote.

By far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.

Fact number three.

On multiple occasions and under various circumstances.

Different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

This is a fact which, so far as I know, is universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today.

For the following three reasons.

Number one, the list of eye witnesses to Jesus resurrection appearance.

Which is quoted by Paul in First Corinthians guarantees that such appearances occurred.

These included appearances to Peter or Kefas.

To the twelve, to the 500 Brethren and to James Jesus, younger brother.

Number two, the appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple.

And independent at a station of these appearances.

For example, the appearance to Peter is independently attested by Luke.

And the appearance to the twelve by both Luke and John.

We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, matthew and John.

As well as to the women in Matthew and John.

Number three.

Certain appearances have earmarks of historicity.

For example, we have good evidence from the Gospels that neither James nor any of Jesus younger brothers.

Believed in him during his lifetime.

There's no reason.

To think that the early Church would generate fictitious stories about the unbelief of Jesus Family.

If they had been faithful followers of Jesus all along,

But it is indisputable that James and his brothers.

Did become active Christian believers following Jesus, deaf.

James was considered an apostle and eventually rose to the position of the sole leadership of the Jerusalem Church.

According to the first century historian Josephus,

James was martyred for his faith.

In the mid A-D sixtys during the lapse in the civil government, he was stoned to death.

Now most of us have brothers.

What would it take to convince you.

That your brother is the Lord, so that you would be willing to die for the truth of that belief.

Can there be any doubt that this remarkable transformation in Jesus, younger brother took place, because in Paul's words,

Then he appeared to James.

Even Gout Ludeman, who is the leading German New Testament critic of the resurrection, himself, admits, and I quote.

It may be taken as historically certain. Those are his words, not mine, historically certain.

That Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus death.

In which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.

Fact number four.

The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead.

Despite having every predisposition to the contrary,

Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus crucifixion. Number one, their leader was dead.

And Jews had no expectation of a defeated and dying Messiah.

Messiah, when he came, was supposed to throw off the yoke of Israel's enemies. And in this case, that meant Rome.

And re established David's throne in Jerusalem, where he would command the respect of Jew and gentile alike.

He was not supposed to suffer defeat at the hands of his enemies and die the ignominious death of a criminal.

To.

According to Jewish law,

Jesus execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic.

A man literally under the curse of God, according to Due Torontomy, twenty one, twenty three.

The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their beloved master was gone.

But rather that the crus of fiction.

Showed any effect that the Jewish leadership had been right.

All along that for three years, they had been following a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God.

Number three.

Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead to glory and immortality.

Before the general resurrection at the end of the world.

Confronted with Jesus crucifixion.

All the disciples could have done was simply to preserve their master's tomb as a shrine.

Where his bones could reside until that day when they and all of the righteous dead of Israel would be reunited by God.

In glory.

But despite every predisposition to the contrary,

The original disciples believed in and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus Resurrection.

Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar from Emory University, muses some sort.

Of powerful, transformative experiences required to generate the sort of movement. Earliest Christianity was.

And anti right, an eminent British scholar concludes.

That is why as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity.

Unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.

In summary, then there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars who have written on these subjects.

Which any adequate historical hypothesis must account for. Jesus. Honorable burial by Joseph of Aramethea.

The discovery of his empty tomb.

His post mortem appearances and the very origin of the disciples belief in his resurrection.

Now the question is, what is the best explanation of those four facts?

This is where the disagreement arises.

Most scholars probably choose to simply remain agnostic about this question.

But the Christian can maintain that the hypothesis that best explains these facts is the one that the original disciples gave.

God raised Jesus from the dead.

In his book Justifying historical descriptions.

The historian, C-B Mccullough.

Lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation.

For a given body of historical facts.

And the hypothesis.

God raised Jesus from the Dead. Passes all six of these tests.

Number one, it has great explanatory scope.

It explains why the tomb was found empty.

Why the disciples saw post mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

Two, it has great explanatory power.

It explains why the body of Jesus was gone.

Why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution. And so on.

Number three, it is plausible.

Given the historical context of Jesus own unparalleled life and claims.

The resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

Number four, it is not AD hawk or contrived.

It requires only one additional hypothesis that God exists.

And even that needn't be an additional hypothesis, if one already believes that God exists.

Five, it is in accord with accepted beliefs.

The hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead doesn't in any way conflict with the accepted belief.

That people don't rise naturally.

From the dead. The Christian accepts that belief.

As wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

And finally number six.

It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions one to five.

Down through history, various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered. For example, the conspiracy hypothesis.

The apparen't death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth.

Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected.

By contemporary scholarship.

None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting those five conditions.

As Well as the resurrection hypothesis.

Now this puts the skeptical critic in a rather awkward situation.

For example, I had a debate a few years ago with a professor at the University of California Irvine on the resurrection of Jesus.

Now this man had written his doctoral dissertation on the evidence for the resurrection.

And he was thoroughly familiar with the facts. He could not deny the facts of Jesus burial in the tomb.

The discovery of his empty tomb, his post mortem appearances, or the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection.

And so his only recourse was to come up with some alternative explanation of those four facts.

And so he argued.

That Jesus of Nazareth must have had an unknown, identical twin brother.

Who was separated from him just after birth.

Grew up independently, somewhere, came back to Jerusalem, just at the time of the crucifixion.

Stole his brother's body out of the tube and presented himself to the disciples, who mistakenly thought it was Jesus risen from the dead.

Now I'm not going to go into how I went about refuting this hypothesis, but I think that the example is instructive.

Because it shows to what desperate lengths Skepticism must go.

In order to explain away the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, in fact, did you know that one of the world's leading Jewish.

Theologians, jewish theologians, the late Pinkislapi, who taught at Hebrew University in Israel, declared himself convinced.

On the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead,

Now if this is right, then it has profound implications.

The significance of the resurrection of Jesus.

Lies in the fact that it's not just any old Joe Blow that has been raised from the dead, but it is Jesus of Nazareth.

Whose crucifixion was instigated by the Jewish leadership.

Because of his blasphemous claims to divine authority. If this man.

Has been raised from the dead.

Then God, whom he allegedly blasphemed.

Has clearly vindicated those claims. The resurrection of Jesus.

Is God's divine imprimontor on the claims of Jesus that he was who he claimed to be.

And thus, in an age of religious relativeism and pluralism,

The Resurrection of Jesus stands as a solid rock.

On which Christians can take their stand.

For God's decisive self revelation in Jesus, the rational man can now be hardly blamed, if he believes.

That on that first Easter morning, a divine miracle occurred.

Blind press, up.