I normally do not focus on things until they happen, or until I have a reasonable expectation that they might happen.  Because of this, it is obvious to me that the first element of proof for the resurrection of Jesus was that it is reported as an historical event.  It must be considered and discussed in that context because that is what it claims to be.  If I doubt the validity of an event (even though I doubt it because I think it should be impossible) I still have to prove that it did not happen based on the facts.  And if disproving the event is the real issue, somehow I have to factually undermine the evidence that says it did happen.

Many of the modern discussions I read that attempt to cast doubt on the resurrection of Jesus place the burden of proof on the event, demanding that it somehow justify itself against the argument of impossibility.  When I was studying the history of the Bible so I could evaluate the accuracy of the text, I read material  that took positions on both sides of the resurrection issue.  As previously stated, I found little or no argument that the text in the Bible had been changed from the original.  The argument and disagreement comes in the acceptance or challenge to the truth of what is written.

The Bible critics who challenge the truth of the Bible text universally begin their arguments by reasoning as follows:

1. Miracles are impossible.
2. Events that  require supernatural intervention are impossible.
3. Since supernatural events are impossible, one must look behind the written text and seek otherexplanations for what was written.

The critics then go on to produce all kinds of theories about what they suppose the text really means.  And none of the critics take on the issue or defend why they think supernatural events are impossible.  The critics simply accept impossibility as fact and treat it as the foundational truth of the debate, instantaneously requiring all of their theories to agree with their platform of impossibility.  Personally, I found this approach to be intellectually dishonest because history is not validated or disproved by merely introducing an assumptive opinion that the event in question is impossible.

History stands in the written and spoken record of events, which have completed themselves and have been witnessed.  Historical events either happened or they did not happen; a reported historical event cannot be honestly required to defend itself against a subjective presupposition or bias.

For example, history indicates George Washington was the first President of the United States, which will stand as a fact until someone accumulates the factual evidence to disprove it.  People saw him become the first President, talked to him when he was the first President, and wrote about him as the first President.  To merely say it was impossible for George Washington to have been the first President is not an argument.  To disprove  Washington was the first president, I would have to find  reports claiming someone else held the job first, and compile evidence that the people who claimed Washington was the first President were lying.

In our courts, a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant to the satisfaction of a jury.  If there is any doubt, the defendant is declared not guilty.  In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, the event and the people who claimed to be witnesses to the event are recorded in history and could be considered defendants.  If I want to prosecute them I must produce the evidence that would convict them and disprove their claims.  In two-thousand years no prosecutors have been able to prove the defendants guilty on the basis of conflicting evidence.  The last resort for conviction is the assertion of impossibility.

The decision each person makes about the truth of the resurrection of Jesus is a trial of sorts.  As I made my decision, I found myself sitting as prosecutor, judge and jury.  The decision I had to make was simple:  Would I convict the defendant (the alleged event and the people who reported the event) on the basis of evidence or on my own preconceived notions?  I found that the evidence to acquit the defendant goes far beyond reasonable doubt.  On a common sense basis alone I found the evidence to be overwhelming.

The Evidence

To me, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence is the two-thousand year existence of Christianity.  Without a literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus, it is unlikely that Christianity would exist today.  As I studied the history of Christianity it became clear that it began and grew as a result of personal testimony given by eye witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus.  This testimony originally came from the immediate followers of Jesus, his disciples.  The disciples must be examined in order to evaluate the history of the resurrection event.

Who Were These Guys Anyway?

Once I understood the magnitude of the political and emotional circumstances that surrounded the trial, execution, and death of Jesus it became very difficult for me to believe twelve simple men could have formulated the theology of the most successful religion in the history of the world in the three days following the  execution, and base the credibility of that religion on a literal bodily resurrection of a dead person.

Before the twelve disciples of Jesus became powerful witnesses of His resurrection, they had been reduced to a trembling group of cowards hiding behind a locked door.  The man they had followed for three years was dead and in their opinion he had failed in his mission.  They had expected him to take over the government and establish an earthly kingdom.

Even with this sobering realization in mind, their most immediate concern was their own safety.  The Jewish leaders who engineered the crucifixion of Jesus had demonstrated their antagonism against him, and Jesus’ disciples probably had good reason to suspect they might be the next to go.  It is probably too strong a word to call these men cowards.  They were merely being human and they had a legitimate reason to be afraid.  The human response to fear is to run and hide.  They did.  I am sure many of us would have run farther and faster.

Jesus had been their friend and spiritual mentor.  Their emotional state must have been a disaster.  All they had hoped and dreamed for in Jesus was gone.  If I had been in their position, I believe I would have been emotionally paralyzed, engulfed in depression and grief, feeling rather stupid, and very anxious to return home and get on with my life.  That seems to be what the Bible account of these men indicates they were in the process of doing.

Yet, something happened to these men that became Christianity.  They claimed that Jesus was no longer dead and was in fact alive.  All but one of these men were eventually executed, and they went to their deaths telling the same story.  They said they saw him.  They said they touched him.  They said they ate with him.  They said he was alive.  And when they started reporting these things people started to become Christians.  This caused much discomfort for the Jewish leaders who had caused Jesus to be executed.