Atheist Challenge: The Case for the Resurrection

In trials involving eye witness accounts, the credibility of the eye witness or witnesses is paramount in rendering a judgment. The prosecutor will try to discredit and the defense to determine that the witnesses are reliable. In this video/article I will outline the case for the eye-witness accounts of the resurrection of Christ. I ask you to examine the case as if you were a member of a jury and, if you wish, offer contrary evidence via comments. 

Point I. Background

We have four gospels which record the resurrection, and the Apostle Paul’s account in his letter to the Corinthians which is also relevant.

Firstly, what kind of men were the gospel writers and what was their mindset? We know that two were fisherman and one a former tax collector. These men were brought up under the Mosaic Law which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. The ninth commandment states that no one should bear false witness and this was considered a very serious crime against God and man.

For example, Exodus 23:1 warns ‘Do not spread a false report. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness’, and Proverbs 19:9, ‘A false witness will not go unpunished’. Considering the fact that they were very honest in admitting their mistakes and failures in the gospels, we have no evidence to suggest they did not take the commandment seriously.

Secondly, they were expecting a Messiah who would liberate them. Since the Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century BC, Israel and its capital Jerusalem were controlled by pagans and at this time by the Romans. Daniel had prophesied when the Messiah would be born and Jewish scholars estimated that time to be around 3-4BC by our calendar. The Jews believed the Messiah would be a conquering King like David, He would establish his throne in Jerusalem and throughout the world. 

The idea that their Messiah could be killed as a criminal was absolutely incredulous to the Jewish mindset, and we see this mindset whenever Jesus referred to his death in the gospels, even though many prophecies confirmed this. These prophecies were simply ignored by Israel’s leaders and teachers of this time, and still are today. 

There were Messianic pretenders at this time, men who gathered a following, refusing to pay Roman taxes such as Theudius and Judas Gallileas who lived and died violently just a few kilometers from where the gospel writers lived, as recorded in Acts 5:34-39. The mindset was, if such people were killed, they were obviously not the true Messiah and they should simply wait for the Anointed One. 

Point II. When were the gospels written?

Firstly, all of three of the gospels record Jesus’ specific prophecies about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). That event happened under the command of Titus in 70AD and is one of the most violent and significant in all of Jewish history. None of the gospels records this horrific event, including John, so it is safe to assume that they were all written prior to AD 70. 

However, it is also clear that they were not written immediately after the resurrection as the disciples, including Paul (1 Corinthians 7:29) believed that Christ would return within their life-times, so what purpose to leave a record? In Luke 21 we have a summary of Jesus prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem, but also the signs of His return at the end of the age. He stated that ‘this generation will not pass away until these things have happened’. A close examination of Jesus’ words offers two possibilities. 

Either he was referring to the destruction of the temple, or the generation who will be born and still alive when Israel finally takes control of the city of Jerusalem. That event happened in 1967, 2500 years after they lost control of the city in the 6th century BC. A person born in 1967 could live to 2037 or even 2047, so time will tell which of these was the correct interpretation. God has never revealed the exact date of the return of Christ, but has given specific signs to look out for.

The likely dates for the writing of the gospels are around 25-30 years after the resurrection. 

Point III. Do the gospels and Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8 contain discrepancies regarding the details of the resurrection? In this chart I have outlined the main discrepancies which skeptics claim prove the gospels contradict each other.

All of the gospels agree that Mary Magdalene was the 1st witness to the resurrection. Regarding the number of women, Matthew says 2, Mark 3, Luke several, and John 1. Some scholars suggest there were different groups of women, but there is no collaborating evidence to support this. Regarding the time of day the women went to the tomb, Matthew writes at dawn, Mark after sunrise, Luke, early, and John while it was still dark. Again, if there were various groups perhaps this can be reconciled, however, there is a lot of time between still dark and after sunrise so this appears to be a clear contradiction.

Regarding the number of angels we have one or two, and they are either inside the tomb or outside. Perhaps the angels moved about, but there is no consistency. As to the earthquake, Matthew is the only one to mention it.

It would appear that at least three, if not all of the disciples got some of the minor details wrong. Considering the fact that these accounts were written at least 20-30 years after the event, this is not surprising, if indeed true. The most important question to be asked brings us to point number 4.

Point IV. Did the disciples give honest and unprejudiced accounts of the resurrection according to their recollections? 

The events occurred in this order, although some of the details are also conflicting. On Sunday morning Mary Magdalene and several other women went to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body as per Jewish custom. When they arrived they saw that the large stone which had sealed the tomb, by Pilate’s command, had been removed. They saw an angelic young man who told them to report to the disciples. They went and reported, the disciples did not believe them and said they were talking nonsense. Peter and John went to the tomb with Mary Magdalene and, after finding it empty, left. After the two men left, Jesus appeared to Mary and told her to go and tell them he had risen. They refused to believe her.

Why did they not believe her? 

Firstly, two of the gospels record that before Mary initially met Jesus about two years earlier, she had been demon possessed and probably a prostitute. Were the disciples prejudiced towards her? Were they incredulous that Jesus would appear to such a person rather than to them?  

A deeper investigation and understanding of the cultural prejudice of the time reveals some powerful points. The apostle Paul had the task of preaching to Greeks and Gentiles throughout Asia Minor. In his first letter to the church at Corinth, written around 53AD, he writes an account of Jesus’ resurrection (Corinthians 15:3-8).  There is one glaring omission in this account. Women! 

Paul never mentions women to his Greek speaking audience, and for good reason. At this time, as in much of human history until recently, a women’s testimony was considered unreliable and almost worthless. The English word for ‘testify’ comes from the Latin ‘testes’ or ‘testis’, from which we take our English word for a man’s reproductive organs, ‘testicles’. The connection is simple. Without ‘testes’ you cannot ‘testify’. Even today, in some Muslim countries, one man’s testimony is considered equivalent to 3-4 women, a similar cultural perspective as in Paul’s time.

Most of Paul’s audience did not believe in the idea of a resurrection. If Paul had told them that the first witness of the resurrection was a woman they would have laughed at him. If he had added that she had previously been possessed by seven demons and had most likely earned her living as a prostitute, he would have been run out of town as a fool. 

Despite this cultural prejudice, the one detail all of the gospels agree on is that Mary Magdalene was the first witness of the resurrection of Christ. 

Here I would make several points.

1. If a group of dishonest 1st century Jewish men, who had no respect for the 9th commandment, decided to concoct a false story about a false Messiah, they would not use a reformed prostitute as their primary eye-witness. Prior to His death Jesus had raised Lazarus of Bethany from the dead before a crowd which included many Pharisees, some of who were secret disciples. If you want to invent a credible story for 1st century people, use one or two of Israel’s leaders, Joseph of Aramathea, or Nicodemus, not Mary Magdalene. In Paul’s account, the most respected people are mentioned by name, including the Lord’s brother James who was a public figure in Jerusalem. Paul’s was most likely the first account written, so why didn’t the disciples simply follow his example and leave potentially embarrassing details out altogether?

The answer is clear. They wrote their accounts as accurately as they remembered; they didn’t try to make the story more credible for their readers. Neither Paul nor the gospel writers invent anything; the gospel writers simply write what they recall, and Paul chooses to leave out potentially embarrassing details

2. The discrepancies in the gospels powerfully imply that these men did not sit down and write out a concocted story together to ensure they got the details straight. The evidence strongly suggests they recorded the events to the best of their recollections without consulting each other beforehand.

3. We can also state that they were very honest about their cowardice and unbelief through including their most embarrassing failures in their gospel records. They admit that they all fled after Jesus was arrested, they admit that they were hiding from the Jewish leaders, they admit they did not believe Mary Magdalene or the two men Jesus appeared to on the road, and that Jesus appeared to the group of eleven later and rebuked them for their unbelief.

Point V. What could they possibly gain from inventing a lie?

It is obvious that the disciples knew or at least anticipated the consequences of declaring Jesus had resurrected from the dead. He had warned them of persecution. They had witnessed His horrific death at the hands of the Romans and no doubt recognized an implied threat and fate to any who aligned themselves with Christ. Surely, it would be more plausible for them to deny His resurrection after His appearances to them out of a basic instinct for self-preservation. And if a concocted lie, how long would all of them keep to the lie after James was beheaded and Stephen stoned to death? They were flogged, imprisoned, beaten, tortured and murdered for their testimony and none recanted.  

And what of Paul who was previously known as Saul? By his own testimony he was one of the chief persecutors of Christians from the outset. He was a Pharisee who was convinced that the true Messiah could never be a convicted and crucified criminal, and under the authority of the Jewish leaders, he and his temple guards hunted, caught, tortured and murdered Christians.

After a report that the gospel had spread to Damascus he was given letters and authority to continue his mission to wipe out what he considered a dangerous heretical sect. On the road he and his companions were stopped by an incredibly bright light above them. Saul was thrown to the ground and heard a voice asking, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me’? He asked, ‘who are you Lord’ and the voice replied, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting’. 

Are we to believe that Paul invented this story, that he simply had a change of heart? He claimed to have been struck blind for three days as the Lord showed him all he would suffer for the gospel. He became the apostle to the Gentile nations and experienced incredible suffering throughout his ministry, and was also martyred for his testimony of meeting and following the risen Christ.

Point VI. Around 200 years ago the ‘swoon theory’ was put forward to claim that Jesus never actually died on the cross but was either simply unconscious or in a coma, and revived while in the tomb. This desperate attempt to deny the resurrection is flawed for at least three reasons.

1. The apostle John testified that when the Roman soldier went to break Jesus’ legs he found Jesus was already dead. To test this, he pierced Jesus with a spear, most likely under His ribs, rupturing the pericardial sack, and water and blood flowed from the wound. If He was not already dead as the separation of blood and water indicated, then the spear would most certainly have finished the job. John wrote this to show that the prophecy that none of His bones would be broken was fulfilled, but in his testimony confirmed Jesus’ death. 

2. The idea that Roman soldiers would neglect to ensure the crucified criminal was dead shows an ignorance of Roman military discipline. To fail in such circumstances, especially Pilate’s orders, would bring very severe punishment, and even death. 

3. Swoon theory cannot explain the apostle Paul’s encounter with Christ, or the millions who had had existential experiences of Christ over the past 2000 years.

One other equally desperate theory suggests mass-hallucination, that Jesus only appeared to appear. The idea that 4 different groups had the same hallucination over a period of 50 days would be as miraculous as the resurrection itself, and this theory is utterly groundless.

And finally there is Jesus’ step-brother James, a man who believed Jesus was performing miracles with demonic power and that Jesus had lost His mind. He became a disciple of Jesus Christ only after a personal appearance and was also martyred for his conviction.

I rest my case. I look forward to your comments and will respond as time allows.

God bless