Short Answer: The Resurrection

Dear Apologist, How do I defend the historicity of Christ's resurrection?


Every Sunday when we recite the Creed we profess our belief that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose from the dead.  This is not just a quaint idea, but a historical assertion in the same vein as Washington being the first president.  Without the reality of the resurrection, the Christian faith would be false and a waste of time.  Saint Paul said:

 "If Christ is not risen, our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain." [1Cor 15:14]

Many people fall into the trap of trying to defend the inerrancy of Scripture when asserting the Resurrection. That inevitably gets bogged down explaining minor details in the Resurrection accounts.  One need not do this.  Rather, you should start with the bare minimum historical facts surrounding the resurrection.

1) Jesus of Nazareth was killed by crucifixion on April 3rd, 33AD.

2) He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.  

3) This tomb was found empty 36 hours later by some of His female followers. 

4) The disciples came to the sincere belief that they had encountered the risen Christ.   

5) Saint Paul, an enemy of the Christians, likewise experienced such an encounter and became a Christian.  

These five minimum facts are acknowledged by the majority of historical scholars today.  You don't need to rely on the New Testament as an inerrant, inspired document to put forward those five things.

Now, it isn't enough for a person to deny the Resurrection - something must be put in its place.  But the attempt to explain these five facts in a way that doesn't involve a resurrection typically involves something even more bizarre.

Perhaps the Apostles stole the body.  Then how does one account for their apparent sincerity?  Why would they willingly die for something they know to be false?

 Maybe they all hallucinated Jesus?  Then why would they all hallucinate the same bizarre thing - a man who was completely physical, and yet could pass through walls.  Also, these appearances happened when they weren't even expecting them.  Plus, that wouldn't explain why the body was missing and why Paul converted.

OK, maybe someone else moved the body and THEN they all hallucinated.  The only advantage here over the previous theory is that you have explained the missing body.  But then you've added the weakness that the fella who moved the body can just tell everyone where he put it.  So the preaching in Jerusalem would not have been successful. 

 Maybe Jesus didn't die!  Right, and when the emaciated, partially paralyzed Jesus shambles out of the tomb (somehow) he manages to convince his followers that he is the immortal conqueror of death.   

Thus, the way to defend the Resurrection is to present these fives facts and reason with your interlocutor toward an explanation.  What you’ll soon find is the best explanation is that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Happy Easter.  Christus resurrexit!