you be the jury

8/9/2019 You Be The Jury

1/29

You Be The Jury

This document is part of an ongoing debate between a Muslim and a Christianwhich first started in a conservative discussion forum on FaceBook. It has now

taken the form of a quasi-trial. The Man on trial is Jesus. Was He or was He

not God incarnate? For the prosecution is the Muslim; for the defense is the

Christian. You are the jury.

The page is on behalf of the Defense:

Why are the facts of the Resurrection so important? Because without the

Resurrection, Jesus is a fraud and Christianity is the biggest hoax the world has

ever encountered. But, with the Resurrection, it proves Jesus was who Heclaimed to be...God incarnate. Ludicrous? You bet your eternity it is. Why

should anyone believe it? Well, heres why....

Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus, The Christ

Ill begin my argument with New Testament biblical statements

reportedly made by or about Jesus, before moving on to historical evidence. It

is necessary to look into the background of the Man on trial to get a glimpse of

who He was, who He claimed to be, before we can recognize Him. We need toknow the things He reportedly said and did, and then prove or disprove them.

The Prosecution will argue that biblical quotes lack credibility because

controversies exist as to dates and authors, and he will point out what he thinks

are inconsistencies. But, keep in mind, it doesnt matter who wrote these

claims or when or from whose perspective, if they prove true at the end of this

trial. Let us not forget, that much of what was said and done was first orally

communicated and written in personal letters even before the establishment of

the first Christian church, and a wealth of information can be found recorded in

the historical archives of many lands, all before the compilation of the NewTestament. As with the Kennedy assassination, we know more of what

occurred today, nearly fifty years later, than we did when it first happened. The

same is true of the Resurrection. History has a way of revealing facts unknown

at the time of the event. So, I caution you to not let the Prosecutions argument

that portions of the Bible were written anonymously or were written years after


2/29

the event distract or sidetrack you from the fact that if this man Jesus actually

did what was claimed, then He was who He and others professed Him to be.

Let me also say in these opening remarks, that no matter what you think

you've done wrong in your life, it doesn't matter. Christianity is not about

actinggood, despite what youve been told. Im not handing you evidence ofthe Resurrection to show you a "do it my way or else" kind of god, a god with a

whip in one hand and a lamb in the other. But rather to prove to you just the

opposite, that God is not against us, no matter what we may think of ourselves

or what others may think of us. We have a solid path to Heaven for the asking,

because Christ died for the ungodly (Ro 5:6),1 and Ill provide you with proof

to believe Him, whether youre approaching this from a logical or religious

perspective.

To understand what He meant, we need to understand what is "sin." Theword sin in the Greek isHamartia. It does not mean depraved or evil

deeds, but simply that we are incapable of hitting the target [Heaven], whetherwere off by only a degree or miss it by a mile.2 Its a description of what we

are, not what we do, though we sin in thought or in act all the time. We are not

sinners because we sin; we sin because were sinners. We were born sinners

(Ro 5:12-21), which is a state of existence that has an end.

This state of existence is a type of decay, a corruption of life, as in aging

or a disease, and its why we age or become ill and die. We cannot avoid

sinning any more than we can avoid death. We can only ward off disease andprolong the appearance of aging, but ultimately life ends. We can try not

sinning, but inevitably we do because were sinners. Measles, for example, is

not caused by small red spots, but instead the spots are characteristic of the

infection. Similarly, we sin by nature (Eph 2:1-3). Its what we are, and

because of what we are, its what we do. There is nothing, absolutely nothing,

we can do to change our state of being except one thing: According to the

claims Jesus made, if we believe in His power to transform us, totally and

completely, into beingworthy of Heaven, we will enter into a life without deathand be saved from this infection.

Right about now youre probably saying, Rubbish! No one can prove

life after death, or that Heaven exists, let alone the means to get there. Hold

on a minute. If I prove the Resurrection is true, that this man Jesus in fact rose

from the dead, then it certainly establishes the existence of life after death a

different substance perhaps, maybe a different form, but nevertheless life. And

if theres life after death, would it not logically follow theres some sort of


3/29

dwelling wherein these forms survive? Call it what you want; outer space, the

cosmos, whatever. Jesus called it Heaven and said He was the way. Merely

because it appears inconceivable now, common sense alone would urge you to

take at least a half-hour of your time on earth to examine something that could

possibly affect how you spend your eternity, would it not? Youve got nothing

to lose. So, lets move on...

This man Jesus also claimed we do not have to deserve deliverance

from the pain of death to be saved from it (Ro 3:24, 25; Ac 15:11). To deserve

salvation would require us to fulfill the law perfectly, from our birth to our

death, which is impossible for us (Ro 3:20). We mortals barely obey the laws

of the land permitting us to remain in our own communities. Surely, the laws

governing entrance into a dimension of space and time again, call it what you

want none of us could ever completely know, let alone fulfill, because were

speaking ofalllaws, physical, spiritual, natural, celestial, and laws we arenteven aware of yet. As a result, none of us can or ever will deserve salvationor meet whatever criterion that allows us to pass from one state of existence to

another.

But Jesus claimed He did (Mat 5:17; Jn 17:4; 19:30). He claimed to

have fulfilled the law with absolute perfection, and that His performance

counted for us too (Ro 5:19; 1 Cor 5:21). He claimed He sacrificed Himself in

our place on the Cross, putting these laws that bind us to death, to pay for our

release from this state of existence, as a ransom of sort, and that His payment

was acceptable. He claimed that when we recognize Him for Who He is andbelieve in Him, His substance is turned loose in us, like carrying radioactive

material around with us, we are transformed, changed, we are made good (1

Cor. 15:10) We are blameless, made worthy by Him if we believe... some

pretty far-out claims, dont you think?

Without the Resurrection, Jesus is just another founder of religion.

Whether we understand what happened scientifically or not, if its true, the

Resurrection proves He was telling the truth about Himself and what He did for

us. Jesus foretold His death and Resurrection repeatedly, even describing how

He would die and giving a timetable as to when he would rise again for the solepurpose of proving His words true.3 And if it did happen as He said, if He did

rise from the dead, then the Resurrection proves we can believe Him. It

validates His word. And if His word is true, consider some of the other

statements He made.


4/29

He said by His grace we are saved and He gives us His grace for the

asking; it's unmerited favor, unearned (Jn 6:27; Eph 2:8; Ro 3:24; 12:6). He

said we need only to believe in the sufficiency and adequacy of what He did

and to ask Him to personally save us; He will do the rest (2 Cor 3:5). He will

stand in our place before God as He stood in our place on the Cross.

From a non-religious perspective, such terminologies are problematic,

puzzling. Because of the religious emphasis, we may not understand how it

works, or what He was talking about, but fortunately its not required. We

dont need to understand gravity for it to work before getting out of bed in the

morning. All we need know is it does, else wed be strapping ourselves down.

The same is true about what Jesus did. All we need know is His performance

counted toward something that spares us from eternal death. Whatever that

criterion was, He claimed to have fulfilled it, allowing us to pass from this life

into one without end. If the Resurrection is true, then there isn't any better

starting point than that to get to Heaven, to life ever after.

Let me also convey to the jury, put your brains in gear for this one. The

problem with religion is that most people don't believe they need to approach it

intellectually. But the fact is theres no other way of approaching it. If you

don't apply the same intellectual discipline to the study of the Resurrection as

you do with history or science, why would you accept Jesus rose from the dead

as He predicted He would? If you don't accept the historic evidence that Julius

Caesar existed, or who Napoleon was, then these men and the events

surrounding them would appear unreal to you also. The Resurrection must begiven the same intellectual courtesy as any other subject. There is no such

thing as historic certainty about anything. But when you expose yourself to the

evidence, a psychological change occurs. The weight of evidence forces a

decision. You cannot avoid a psychological reaction to the evidence; thats

what the jury system is based on. It forces an opinion.

Christianity starts with the Resurrection. There is no such thing as

Christianity apart from the Resurrection of Jesus. If theres no Resurrection,

theres no Christianity. Most Christians say they believe in the Resurrection,

but they really don't. They hope it's true, but they don't know it to be a fact.Paul tells us if our faith is not solidly based on the Resurrection of Jesus the

Christ then our faith is in vain (I Cor 15:14). It counts for nothing. We are

wasting our time if we think we can make it into Heaven by following a list of

rules instead of taking the time to learn the fact of the Resurrection and what it

means.


5/29

The Disciples first brought the evidence of the Resurrection of Christ to

the people, not their own experiences. They didn't go around telling people

what had happened to them the day of Pentecost (Ac 2:1-4) or how they got

saved or how they could speak in tongues. They pointed first to Jesus. They

spoke of how God raised up His Son from the grave as the Father had

promised. They first gave the people the fact of the Resurrection. That's where

faith begins. And thats where I will begin

Jesus said He was God (Jn 8:24; Jn 8:58; Jn 13:19; Mar 14:62).4(See

endnote: Wherever one encounters Jesus using the term I AM, He is

declaring Himself God.) When the people clamored for a sign from Jesus to

prove He was the Messiah, He gave them only one. That one sign was to be so

phenomenal that it would prove without doubt throughout time who He was

and is, but too many Christians have been looking for other signs ever since.

Using the story of Jonas as a means to understand, He told them in Mat 12:40,

"...so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the

earth."

That one sign was the Resurrection. Without it, Jesus is a fraud. If He

didn't die on that tree, if He didn't rise from the dead, then this whole Christian

thing is nothing but a hoax and you and I need not bother with it ever again.

But if He did rise from the dead, if He did come back to life and ascended into

Heaven, then He is who He said He was. God incarnate walked this earth

among us for a while. And if He is the substance of God, then the Resurrection

event is the most important subject on earth, and Jesus is the most importantperson to be found anywhere on the stage of history. We need to know the

facts before we gamble our eternity on the accuracy of another view. So here

we go...

The Prosecution will argue: Jesus was merely a good and wise teacher, but

not God.

The Defense responds: Thats utter nonsense. People who deny Jesus as the

Messiah usually refer to Him as a good and wise teacher. But when asked to

name the source for this conclusion, oddly they point to the Gospels. It's oddbecause anyone with only a thimble full of knowledge about the Gospels knows

that Jesus went around making claims about Himself that precludes anyone

from calling Him good or wise, unless He is who He said He was. Jesus said

things about Himself that make Him look like a demented fool or a fraud not

good or wise if He isn't who He said He was. No matter what the source,


6/29

wherever you confront Jesus, He's making claims about Himself that are utterly

ridiculous or down right lies, unless He is God. You cant have it both ways.

What would you think of me if I were to say to you, "Before Abraham

was, I am," (Jn 8:58)? What if I said, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from

heaven," (Lk 10:18)? Would you think me wise? In the Gospels of John and

Luke, Jesus claimed He existed before the creation of man! Then says to His

followers that He will prepare a mansion for them in Heaven when He goes

back! He claimed in John 11:25 that He was the One who raises the dead! Is

that the conduct of a wise man or someone ready for a mental ward?

And how do you feel towards people who think theyre perfect? Ever

meet someone who was never wrong? Do you like know-it-alls? Chances are

if you know someone like that, you hate to be around them. But Jesus

considered Himself morally flawless. He went around telling everybody thatHe was the way, the truth, and the life, that only through Him would they enter

Heaven (Jn 14:6). Jesus set Himself above everyone. He said, "All authority in

Heaven and on earth has been given to me," (Mat 28:18). He went around

forgiving sins in place of God, believing He had the right and power to do so,

(Mat 9:1-7). Do you think that a smart move for an intelligent man?

The number of off-beat claims Jesus made about Himself are so

numerous throughout the Gospels that the only way anyone could call Him

good or wise while denying He was God incarnate, would be if that person

totally lacked reading comprehension skills, making his opinion worthless. Nota single claim Jesus made commands respect as statements coming from a good

and wise man, if He wasn't God. A man who talked and acted that way today

would be institutionalized, because a good and wise man would know he was

saying the impossible about himself.

If Jesus was wise, but truly not God, then He was wise enough to know

the claims He made about Himself were not possible, making Him a liar not

good. If He was good, but truly not God, but only thought Himself to be God,

then He lacked the sense of a simpleton and cannot be considered wise.

The universal world-view peddled about Jesus (that He was merely a

good and wise teacher) is an effort to evade a sincere look at Him. It politely

excuses those who have never bothered to look closely at the evidence from

ever having to do so before giving their opinion. It is impossible to reconcile

the things Jesus said about Himself with someone who was intelligent and

morally right unless one also believed that Jesus was telling the truth about


7/29

Himself. Jesus Himself would not let anyone call Him good unless they also

recognized who He was. In Mark 10:18 He said, "Why callest thou me good?

There is none good but one, that is, God."

The Prosecution will argue: Jesus is no different than other founders of

religion.

The Defense responds: Wrong again! The world loves to group Jesus with

other religious leaders or founders of religion in history. They love to say that

Jesus was no more than a great man or a prophet like Abraham, Buddha,

Mohammed or Confucius. But again, such opinions are only held by those who

haven't bothered or were too busy to sift through the evidence to make an

honest comparison. There are unmistakably major and distinct differences

between ALL other religious founders and Jesus:

(1) There is abundant evidence throughout the Gospels pointing to the fact

that Jesus felt no sense of moral imperfection, no sense of moral shortcomings

before God or God's laws. In Matthew 5:17, He says, "Think not that I am

come to destroy the law...I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill..." He claimed

to have fulfilled the law, perfectly, as no others. All other religious founders

throughout history began their spiritual journey because of an explicit sense of

moral inadequacy.

(a) The Hebrew leader Abraham, founder of Judaism, never believed he

was perfect and acted as such his faith was counted as righteousness, not his

deeds. (b) Gautama Buddha never thought he was perfect. In the Majjhima

Nikya,5 the Buddha himself describes, "By all these bitter and difficultausterities, I shall not attain to excellence, worthy of supreme knowledge and

insight, transcending those of human states. Might there be another path for

Enlightenment!" He sought the way of the sensual release; he sought the way

of the aesthetic yogi, and neither one worked. He came to the eight-fold path

that brought him into a trance-like state where he lost conscious identity with

this life, called Nirvana.

(c) Mohammed never thought he was perfect or that he was God. It was

from a deep sense of inadequacy he searched for rightness, half the timequestioning if he was in the presence of a good or an evil entity.

(d) Same with Confucius: he explored a logical analysis of society's

needs because of knowledge of his own deficiency as a member of mankind.

Not once did any founder of religion claimed to be perfect or sinless.

Only Jesus did. Carlyle says the greatest of all sins is to be conscious of none.6


8/29

There's nothing as despicable as a person who thinks he's never made a

mistake. That conscious, self-righteous, perfectionist image is not something

we respond to, because the wisdom of mankind combines in the knowledge that

nobody's perfect. But Jesus, and only Jesus, said He was.

(2) Jesus pointed to Himself and preached that He was the answer to the

worlds problems. He placed Himself in the center of the religious universe.

His sayings repeatedly indicate this self-centered focus on Himself. In

Matthew 10:37 He says, "He that loveth father and mother more than me, is not

worthy of me." In Mark 8:35 He says, "Whosoever shall lose his life for my

sake... shall save it." Again, Matthew 11:29, "Take my yoke upon you, and

learn from me." Again, in John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath

everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life." He then

severely warns that if they do not believe in Him the wrath of God will remain

on them. Time and time again, Jesus preached of Himself.

(a) Abraham pointed to God as the answer, not himself.

(b) Buddha had an eight-fold path, and by it could obtain Nirvana, a state

of ultimate reality, bypassing karma. He pointed to the "path," not himself as

the answer.

(c) Mohammed taught the "Way" revealed to him in a vision, written

down in the Quran. He pointed to it, not himself, as the answer.

(d) Confucius presented a pattern of social behavior designed to solve

man's problems, not to himself.

(e) In the case of Hinduism, people found their own suitable paths

through the wisdom of one or more philosophers.

In every respected religion, not one founder or group of founders ever

pointed to themselves as the answer. Only Jesus did.

(3) Only Jesus placed Himself in the divine position of God. He pointed to

Himself as the seat of all authority. In John 3:35, "The Father loves the Son

and has placed everything under the Son's hand." Jesus went around forgiving

sin (Mat 9:2-6). He interpreted the Jewish law. In Matthew 5 and 6, He

corrects the people on the "true" meanings of the law and changes the

traditional views. And when questioned for breaking the law of God by actingon the Sabbath, Jesus says, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

(Mat 12:8)

None of the other religious founders ever positioned themselves as

having divinity or the authority of God. None of them forgave sins. They all


9/29

pointed to a higher law, to a vision, or to something other than themselves.

Only Jesus pointed to Himself as The Authority.

(4) Jesus viewed His death as providing deliverance for all mankind. He

claimed something was wrong with the world and only His death and sacrifice

could make it right again. He claimed our salvation through His death was the

will of God (Jn 6:39-40).

(a) Abraham never claimed his death would save mankind.

(b) Gautama Buddha's own sermons say in essence, "My death means

nothing. All I leave to you is the path I found."

(c) Mohammed's death was never construed by him or his followers as a

means of setting mankind right with God. He left them the "Way."

(d) And when Confucius was asked about eternal life, he answered

basically, "I can't solve the problems of this life, so don't ask me about the

next."7

No other religious leader or founder ever carried illusions about their

deaths as a means of delivering mankind from eternal damnation or as having

significance on or to the world. Only Jesus said His death would save us.

(5) Jesus, and only Jesus, claimed He would rise from the dead within a

specific time frame. He claimed He would rise three days after His death. The

very nature of this claim sets Him totally apart from all other leaders respected

as religious founders.

None of this so far proves Jesus' divinity. But it does establish that the

world's view of Jesus is one that does not accurately describe Him. The Jesus

known to history cannot be considered a good and wise man, unless He is who

He said He was. Nor can we group Him with other respected religious leaders

because the claims He made about Himself and the position of authority He

took set Him far apart all others.

Without the Resurrection, Jesus could be dismissed as a super nut or a

convincing super fake. But if He died and rose again, came back to life and

blew away that stone as He foretold, we cannot ignore all the other things Hesaid as impossible, because that event is proof that His word is true. And if His

word is true, then we can trust Him to keep His word. He said we need only

believe in Him to be saved (Jn 6:40). He said you don't have to deserve

Heaven, it was His gift to you, called grace (Ro 3:24, 25; Ac 15:11). He said

the penalties for violating the law will remain on you unless you believe in


10/29

what His sacrifice accomplished, that through His performance we are made

worthy, that through Him we can enter Heaven (Jn 3:36).

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, if He didn't conquer death, so what.

But if He did, then it means that His death did pay the price for our souls. He

did buy up the whole Potter's field of broken vessels like you and me (Mat

27:3-10). His death did make us worthy to enter Heaven (Ro 5:19). We are

forgiven of all sins, once and for all (Heb 10:10-14). He has in fact prepared a

place for us and will come back for you and me (Jn 14: 2-3). He won't judge us

guilty for violating a law that He Himself put to death on the Cross if we

believe in Him (Jn 12:47-48; Ro 8:1; Gal 3:13).

To receive all this, we need only to believe He did it (Jn 11:25-26) and

we can only begin to believe He did it if our faith is solidly based on His

Resurrection as Paul said. Whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, therefore,

ought to be the first order of business for those considering Christianity. If you

cannot settle that fact in your mind, you're only fooling yourself being or

becoming a Christian. Because it is by faith in His performance, faith in what

He did and accomplished for us, that we are saved. If He rose from the dead

and came out of that tomb, are you ready to worship Him?

The Prosecution will argue: You cant prove Jesus actually died on the cross.

The Defense responds: If a valid Resurrection is proven true, then such

micro-disputes become irrelevant, and will only serve to sidetrack the jury intomeaningless debates, which I believe is the Prosecutors intent. So, let us start

with these disputes as our Frame of Reference. Bring them out into the open

for all to see. Ill list them all and deal with them right here, right now.

With any historical problem you start with a frame of reference. For

instance, to discuss the Civil War in the United States, one presupposes that a

United States existed, and that a certain conflict called the Civil War occurred.

That's your frame of reference for discussion. Otherwise, why discuss the

issue? The same is true with the Resurrection. To discuss it intelligently we

must assume certain facts: Eight to be exact, as follows:

1. JESUS LIVED. No need to discuss whether or not Jesus rose from the dead

if you don't believe He lived. It's a whole lot simpler to prove Jesus lived than

to prove the Resurrection. Even Tacitus, the heathen historian, affirms Jesus

lived.8


11/29

2. JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED. We must also accept Jesus was crucified if we

are going to discuss his death. Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the

instigation of a few Jewish leaders. It may be interesting to note that in recent

years a Jewish legal scholar tried to reopen the trial of Jesus in modern Israeli

Courts but was turned down by the Israeli Supreme Court. His assertion was

that a possible miscarriage of justice needed to be reexamined. The Jewish

high courts insisted that the matter belonged in Rome since it was a Roman

court that delivered the verdict.

3. JESUS WAS CONSIDERED DEAD. Again, no sense can be had in

discussing the Resurrection from the dead if you do not believe He died, or at

least was considered dead. A study of Roman crucifixions would eliminate

most doubt. But there cannot be a valid Resurrection unless there is a valid

death. If the Resurrection is proven valid, then it logically follows that death

had to occur.

4. JESUS WAS BURIED IN A KNOWN AND ACCESSIBLE TOMB. All

records are in agreement: The tomb was available and the location known by

those living in the city of Jerusalem at the time of His death. The tomb

belonged to Joseph of Arimathea (Lk 23:50-53).

5. JESUS WAS PREACHED RAISED AND ASCENDED. The fullness of the

message preached by the New Testament Christians included both theResurrection andthe Ascension into Heaven of Jesus. The Apostles and

Disciples not only claimed He rose from the dead, they also claimed theywitnessed Jesus appear and disappear several times, that they walked, talked

and ate with Him, and watched as He was lifted up into the sky. They told of

both occurrences, the Resurrection andthe Ascension, and claimed both to be

true.

6. JEWISH LEADERS WERE MOTIVATED TO DISPROVE. This is a

conclusion based on the facts and known circumstances of the time, but the

Jewish leaders at Jerusalem were more concerned to disprove the preaching of

a Resurrection than we are two-thousand years later. They had more at stake.

The preaching of the message at that time created riots and could have cost theJewish leaders their reputations, their positions, their economic livelihoods and

even their lives.

Even in todays civilized world, just drawing a picture of certain

religious founders can incur death; now consider civilization two-thousand

years ago. What would happen to you if you were believed responsible for the


12/29

death of someone worshiped as God? Disproving the preaching that Jesus rose

from the dead was a matter of great importance to them. So much so, that:

7. DISCIPLES WERE PERSECUTED. All records indicate that the early

Apostles and Disciples were imprisoned, tortured, and suffered greatly simply

for saying Jesus rose from the dead andascended into Heaven. The Jewish

leaders being more concerned, more involved, and with more at stake,

persecuted the New Testament preachers for spreading that message.

8. THE TOMB WAS EMPTY. The tomb had to be empty, because if Jesus

was buried in a known accessible tomb, and if the Jewish leaders were more

concerned to disprove the preaching than you or I are today, they would have

checked the tomb. If a body was there, they would not have had to persecute

the preachers. They could have proven the preachers liars by simply displaying

the body.

Another reason to assume the tomb was empty is because no one knows

for sure where it is today. You can find ancient Old Testament characters with

certainty. But nobody for centuries even wondered about Jesus' tomb, so it was

forgotten and the exact site was lost in history. Why? Because who cared

about an empty tomb back then? The people of the day followed a risen

Savior, not a dead one.

Sure, hypothetical explanations as to what happened to the body

abound. But such stories only reinforce the supposition the tomb was empty,

and thats the point.

Any one of these eight facts is far easier to prove true than the

Resurrection itself, and if the Resurrection is proven true, wed only be wasting

time covering these other topics. Now, assume these eight facts as our frame of

reference and we can begin to discuss the Resurrection.

The Prosecution will argue: There are nine theories offered as explanations

regarding Jesus alleged resurrection from the dead. They are outlined as

followed:

1. THE DISCIPLES STOLE THE BODY. The Disciples themselves stole thebody from the tomb then began falsely preaching His Resurrection.

2. THE ROMANS TOOK THE BODY. The Roman authorities took the body

from the tomb, and the Disciples discovering an empty tomb began preaching

the Resurrection.


13/29

3. THE JEWISH LEADERS STOLE THE BODY. Same thing. The Jewish

leaders took the body and the Disciples mistakenly thought Jesus had risen.

4. WRONG TOMB. The women went to the wrong tomb. They got lost or

confused, went to the wrong tomb, found it empty, and honestly reported the

information back to His followers. And without checking themselves, the

Disciples started to preach a risen Savior.

5. RESUSCITATION. Jesus was considered dead, but in the coolness of the

tomb, regained consciousness. It wasn't a true resurrection but a recovery from

near death.

6. THE DISCIPLES HALLUCINATED. They thought they saw a

Resurrection and Ascension, but it really didn't happen.

7. SUBSTITUTION. The Disciples switched persons and a substitute who

looked like Jesus was nailed to the tree instead, or another man pretended to be

Jesus after he was crucified and buried.

8. LEGEND. The whole Resurrection story developed over time.

9. DISCIPLES LIED. The Disciples made-up the whole story to save face.

They were telling lies and knew they were lying.

The Defense responds: The Prosecution overlooked one more theory!

10. DISCIPLES TOLD THE TRUTH. The Disciples honestly reported what

they saw, exactly how they saw it, and truly experienced the things they

preached.

Now, let's examine these TEN (not nine) theories.

THEORY 1. The Disciples Stole The Body. If the Disciples stole the body,

then they were liars. Everything they said about a Resurrection and Ascension

was made-up. The Disciples either lied or told the truth.Meaning, the truth is either theory 9 or theory 10.

THEORY 2. The Romans Took The Body. The theory lacks credibility. The

relationship between the Jewish leaders and the Roman authorities was such

that it produced the crucifixion in the first place. They shared equally in

putting an innocent man to death. The Romans would have been just as eager


14/29

to quash the inciting rumors. Given their relationship with the Jewish leaders,

coupled with an equal concern to disprove the Resurrection preaching, if they

had taken the body, they would have produced either the body or certification

that they indeed had removed it for safe keeping. There was rioting,

persecution, chaos over the stories. There was no need to keep their deed a

secret, and far more reasons to promptly make it known.

But, assuming for the moment this theory has an ounce of validity, it

would again point to the Disciples lied about witnessing the Resurrection and

Ascension.

Again, it's eithertheory 9 and 10. Disciples either lied or told the truth.

THEORY 3. The Jewish Leaders Stole The Body. If the Jewish leaders had

taken the body, it amounts to the same thing. Their dire concern over the

preaching, a concern validated by the persecution of the Disciples, and theirurgent need to stop the preaching would have forced them to produce the body

had they taken it.

But again, if theres any validity in this theory, we would again be

brought to theories 9 and 10. Disciples either lied or told the truth.

THEORY 4. Wrong Tomb. If the women went to the wrong tomb, all anyone

had to do was go to the right one to silence the preaching simple. And if for

the sake of perpetrating a hoax, the Disciples chose to confuse the tombs, then

theyre liars.

So again, its either theory 9 or 10. Disciples either lied or told thetruth.

THEORY 5. Resuscitation. The Disciples did not preach a shroud-wrapped,

emaciated, recovering, wounded, and near-dead Christ. They preached a fully

healed, new-bodied Christ, who walked, talked and ate with them, who made

several appearances and disappearances. But, assuming Jesus did fully recover

from the flogging and beating, from being nailed to a tree and a spear wound in

His side, it would make the rest of the story of His Ascension told by the

Disciples totally false. They were either lying about His state of health and

what they witnessed, or they were telling the truth.Again, its either theory 9 or 10. Disciples either lied or told the truth.

THEORY 6. The Disciples Hallucinated. At first, hallucination may seem

probable. But a closer look reveals this theory is seriously flawed. Psychiatric

evidence indicates that a certain pre-positioning of the mind is necessary for

one to have hallucinations. Notably, one must first expect and believe. All


15/29

records available about the Disciples confirm that each and all were in frames

of mind exactly opposite to that which would bring on such hallucinations.

Records tell us the Disciples were shocked by His Resurrection because of their

own disbelief and lack of expectation.

Furthermore, if all they were doing was hallucinating, thus affording

them honesty, then the body would still have been in the tomb. The

accessibility of the tomb and the dire concerns of the Jewish leaders and

Roman authorities to produce the body shatter the hallucination theory.

The statistical probability that both the body would disappear without

fraud involved and that all of the Disciples were hallucinating, individually and

in groups, without fraud involved, is too astronomical to be viable. Even the

Holy Blood, Holy Grail theory requires that the Disciples be liars and involved

in a conspiracy in order for both occurrences to transpire during the same time

period.

Again, we are brought back to theories 9 or 10. Disciples either lied or

told the truth.

THEORY 7. Substitution. This, as with the other theories, would demand

cooperation of some or all of the Disciples, not to mention at least one willing

participant whose face and body could stand-in for Jesus and who didn't mind

dying in such a manner to manufacture a hoax on society. Or, if a dead

ringer took Jesus place afterJesus was crucified and buried, then the

Disciples lied about witnessing appearances and disappearances into thin air

and the Ascension into Heaven. A substitute could not have ascended in the

manner described by the Disciples without the cooperation or involvement ofthe Disciples themselves, making them conspirators.

We are back to theory 9 or 10. Disciples either lied or told the truth.

THEORY 8. Legend. Perhaps the Legend Theory is the most popular today

with the anti-Resurrection crowd, but like the other theories, it doesnt

compute. Legends take time to develop, whereas the first reports and testimony

of the Resurrection date back to the original occurrence. First-hand testimony

of Peter and James is recited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-8 as the first creed.9

But, assuming it is myth, it would again indicate the Disciples were lying.

So, again, we are at theories 9 and 10. The Disciples either lied or toldthe truth.

Thus the fundamental issue of the Resurrection boils down to the

veracity of the reporters. There are no other tenable explanations. All the

theories explaining the Resurrection are embodied in one of two possibilities: It

is either theory 9 or theory 10. The Disciples either lied or they told the truth.


16/29

The Prosecution will argue: It's theory 9. The Disciples lied, or others liedmaking up the story about what the Disciples reported. No mere mortal has

ever risen from the dead.

The Defense responds: Lets take a look at liars.

To make an honest determination as to the Disciples veracity or

duplicity, we are obliged to earnestly examine the evidence and the quality of

character of those involved. The evidence is grouped into four points. But, I

issue a warning: After a sincere look at these four points, your philosophy or

any uncertainty will change. Are you ready?

POINT 1. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Internal evidence is the interlocking of

details, the meshing of certain facts. These facts are seldom, if ever, found instories told by liars. We begin with a few insignificant details, where liars are

exposed or truthful men are established. Liars, especially in groups, need to

worry about minute details but rarely are able to pay attention to all of them.

Whereas, a truthful person will be supported by details of which they are not

even aware.

(a) For instance, most all scholars agree that Mark wrote his Gospel for the

Gentile readers, meaning non-Jews. There is some debate whether the focus

was to Egyptian or to the Roman readers, but in any event the anticipated

readers were to be Gentile. It is also well known that the purpose of Mark'sGospel was to demonstrate to the Gentiles that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet,

Mark, in his Gospel, has Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man more

than any other writer.

Now, if you're lying, and you're trying to convince people Jesus is the

Son of God, why would you have Him referring to Himself as the Son of Man?

It doesn't make sense if you're telling a lie. So why do it?

Because that's what Jesus called Himself. But if Mark is a liar, and it

hurts his position to have Jesus call Himself the Son of Man, why not change

it? Why not have Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of God? The answer is

simple: Mark is reporting accurately. A truthful reporter will tell the trutheven though it hurts his position. A liar won't.

To the Hebrew reader, familiar with the Old Testament (particularly the

book of Daniel and the apocryphal book of Enoch) the phrase "Son of Man"

was a messianic term used by the Jews to depict the coming of the Messiah.

"Son of Man" to the Hebrew reader carried divine connotations and


17/29

supernatural meaning. But to the Gentile reader it suggested humanity not

divinity.

If Mark was part of a plot to deceive, if he was deliberately lying, isn't it

more reasonable to assume he was smart enough to embellish his story a little

better than that? Don't you think he would have changed it? What liar can

stand looking like one? Mark sounds more like an honest reporter of what

Jesus really said than a liar.

There are several other instances of Marks truthfulness, such as his

graphic portrayal of Peter's failures and weaknesses. Mark was not only Peters

student, they were very close. Yet, despite their friendship, Mark tells it like it

was. If Mark had no regard for the truth, he could have painted a better picture

of his good friend. After all, arent people who follow Jesus supposed to act

like saints? Again, Mark comes through as an honest reporter.

(b) Another example of internal evidence of honesty relates to the seven-

week delay in broadcasting the Resurrection.10 Some critics of the Resurrection

point to this as a weakness in the record. They hint that the seven week delay

was necessary to give the Disciples time to make-up the story and get their

facts straight.

If the Disciples were smart enough to pull something like this off, given

that such a feat would require advance planning, don't you think at the allotted

time, three days and three nights after Jesus' death, they would have been

prepared to start shouting, He's risen! Halleluiah! See, we told you. Ha

hah!

They're smart enough to plot a Resurrection hoax, but not smart enoughto tell anyone about it until it hurts their credibility seven weeks later? The

conduct of a liar is to explain immediately even if the explanation doesn't

necessarily jell with the facts and circumstances. Liars count on confusion and

depend on it to help persuade. A liar's worst enemy is a clear-headed calm

thinker who has had time to go over the incident with a fine-tooth comb.

The Jewish leaders and the Roman authorities knew of Jesus' claim to

rise again. Guards were posted at the tomb because of it. It would have been

in the Disciples' best interest, if they were lying, not to give the leaders and

authorities time to think, but to proclaim a risen Savior immediately to the on-

looking world. Instead, the New Testament says that the Disciples werecrushed by the crucifixion, and then surprised by the Resurrection. They

themselves didn't believe Jesus would rise. They themselves were caught off-

guard. 11 (Lk 24:9-11)

Shocked by the Resurrection, the New Testament says the Disciples did

what they were told by a Resurrected Christ. He told them to wait at Jerusalem

for the Holy Spirit (Ac 1:4). If this was true, wouldn't you have acted the same


18/29

way? Wouldn't you have gone to Jerusalem and waited for instructions too?

Or would you have stood there and argued with someone who has just risen

from the dead and proven to you He was God, and said, "Well, look now, this

is goin' to make me look like a liar if I wait. I need to let everyone know now"?

The New Testament testifies that immediately following the visit of the

Holy Spirit, seven weeks later as promised by Jesus, the Disciples began

preaching the Resurrection andthe Ascension (Ac 2:1-47). It sounds likesimple, honest men, who experienced something so out of the ordinary, so

bizarre and so overwhelming that they never gave a thought as to whether the

seven week delay would help or hurt their story. They just trusted and did what

Christ said.

(c) Then there are the micro-minute details interwoven throughout the New

Testament evidencing honest reporting that no liar would even begin to think

are important. For example, there was the time when Jesus faced the multitude

needing food as told by John and Luke. Though the issue was faith and not

food, Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread, as recorded in John 6:5.

Why ask Philip? Only by going over the record and to other Gospels

will you learn why. In Luke 9:10 we find that Jesus asked Philip about bread

near a place called Bethsaida. Then, by going back to another part of John (Jn

1:44) we learn that Philip came from Bethsaida. It takes three different sections

of the Gospel to reveal a simple fact: Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread

while near Bethsaida because Philip had lived there and knew the town. But

the point is, liars don't pay attention to this kind of detail. In fact, this is the

very type of detail that normally exposes them as liars.

The Gospel records have withstood an onslaught of critics for centuries

and still they convey sincerity and honest reporting by the writers.12 If they

were honest reporters on little things, even when it hurt their position, could

they be telling the truth about the Resurrection?

POINT 2. CATACLYSMIC CHANGE. Another reason to believe they were

not conspirators involved in a deceptive plot to perpetrate a hoax, that they

were in fact telling the truth about what they witnessed is because, not only

have the Disciples demonstrated honesty in their reporting, they demonstratedpositive change, simultaneously. Each and every Disciple changed after the

Resurrection, from different kinds of failures to far better men than what they

ever were before the event. Lies can change people, but seldom for the good or

better.


19/29

(a) Take for instance, Peter. Before the Resurrection, he is unstable in

nature: He swears one moment that he will die for his Lord (Jn 13:37) then

denies him three times (Jn 18:15-18). He's weak, a coward: At the judgment

of Jesus, he can't look a little girl in the face and admit that he was one of Jesus'

Disciples (Mk 14:66-72). He lacks discernment and understanding: He refuses

to let Jesus wash his feet. Then, when Jesus says to Peter that he won't enter

the Kingdom unless he allows Jesus to serve him, Peter cries in essence, "Wash

me all over!" (John 13:5-20) He lacks commitment: Jesus took His Disciples

up on the Mount of Transfiguration in a moment of crisis to share the future

about His crucifixion. They climb the hill and Peter goes to sleep (Lk 9:28-

36). He lacks insight and intelligence: Peter had been with Jesus for three

years and still didn't know why Jesus was going to Calvary (Mk 8:31-33).

When Jesus told him, Peter said, "Be it far from thee." Jesus had to rebuke him

and say "Get behind me Satan, you speak as a man."

Repeatedly, if you study the personality of this man Peter, he is the mostunpredictable, the most unstable of all the Disciples. But something changes

him...

On the day of Pentecost, after the Holy Spirit appeared in the upper room

at Jerusalem, a mocking crowd gathered at the bottom of the building on the

street. Peter stood and faced them. The one who couldn't face a little girl now

stands with defiant strength and faces a mocking crowd and accuses them! In

Acts 2:22-24, 32, he tells them how they by wicked hands have killed Christ

but that God has raised Him up! He faces priests and Jewish leaders and

refuses to stop preaching the Resurrection, saying "Shall we obey God or

man?" (Ac 5:29) Because of his preaching, three thousand are born into theKingdom in one day. (Ac 2:41) He continues to preach like that, never

wavering, to his death.

To scattered saints all across mid-Asia, Peter emphasizes in his epistles:

You are citizens of a heavenly land. You are children of a heavenly Father.

You are pilgrims on a journey to an ultimate destination. Act like citizens in an

alien land. Let no persecution or problem cower you, but let the world see by

your living testimony (of the Resurrection) that you are a citizen of a heavenly

country and nothing can change you, nothing can cower you, nothing can break

you down.

That's a changed man talking. From instability to stability, from non-commitment to commitment, from no insight to complete understanding of who

Jesus was, from cowardice to ultimate courage. So much courage that the one

who ran from a little girl says to his executioners when they go to crucify him,

"Turn me upside-down. I'm not worthy to be crucified in the position of my

Lord." Then he laid down in place and stretched out his arms to be nailed. 13

(Jn 21:1819) Lies can change people, but like that?


20/29

(b) Then there's John. Before the Resurrection, John was selfish, bad-

tempered. He wasn't the sweet, loving Apostle everyone now knows him to be.

The same is true of James. James and John were nicknamed "Son's of

Thunder." A Samaritan village wouldnt let Jesus enter one day, and they

wanted to call down fire and kill them all (Lk 9:51-56). They were constantly

bickering, causing trouble. They wanted the best seats in Jesus' Kingdom and

lacked the character to ask for it themselves; they sent their mother to ask (Mat

20:20). Yet, who of all the Apostles becomes the epitome of love?

You don't find any progression in it, just a sharp change from what

John was to what he became. He was selfish, high-tempered, trouble-making,

then all of a sudden, on the other side of the Resurrection, John becomes love

incarnate, gentle, patient, understanding, and sweet-natured. His writings

above all the writings in the New Testament become expressions of love.

Again, that's a changed man. It's a change for the better, something that lies donot produce.

(c) Look at Thomas. Thomas was always a doubter. On one occasion

Jesus faced a dangerous journey. Thomas says to the other Disciples, "Let's go

with Him to die also." (Jn 11:8-16) We admire his love and courage, but he

was a hard-headed humanist. He expectedJesus to be killed on that journey,

not believing all the things Jesus had told him about Calvary; that He would lay

down His life there for the world.

In John 14, Jesus tells the Disciples that He is going to leave. You don't

have to be super spiritual to understand that statement. Jesus claimed He wasgoing to prepare mansions for them, and said, "And whither I go ye know, and

the way ye know." But Thomas, not believing, jumps up and says, "Lord, we

know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" That's the voice

of a skeptic!

Everywhere we meet Thomas in Scripture, he's a doubter. Who doubts

at the crucifixion? When the Resurrection report comes, who disbelieves? He

says, Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the

print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. (John

20:24) Then the day came when Jesus appeared and said, "...behold my hands;

and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side..." Thomas fell to hisknees and cried, "My Lord and My God."

All records support he was changed thereafter, never doubting again. He

took the message into the Himalayas, the most difficult areas to penetrate. It is

Thomas who went into India, into the heart of Buddhism, and never faulted in

his faith ever again. Again, that's a change... and for the better.


21/29

Study the record for yourself. Follow the history of the witnesses. 14You

cant find even one Disciple who did not simultaneously change after the

Resurrection from the wretched failure he was before it to the complete

opposite after it. As a group they fail Jesus miserably, abandoning Him at the

crucifixion, lacking the courage even to say His name out loud. Then all of a

sudden, they're changed. All records bear testimony: Those who witnessed

and preached the Resurrection and Ascension cataclysmically changed for the

better! And because of the quality of change, it's difficult to believe it was

produced by a lie.

POINT 3. THE PRICE THEY PAID. Another reason to believe they were

telling the truth is you don't pay the price they paidfor a lie. You don't suffer

what they sufferedfor a lie. Some will point to todays suicide bombers andsuggest the Disciples were of the same mindset, but theres no comparison.

Todays suicide bombers are not dying for what they know is a lie which theythemselves invented. If the Disciples made-up the story, if they didnt

personally witness the appearances and disappearances of Jesus as they

claimed, if they did not personally witness Him being lifted into thin air and

fading into the sky, then they knew they were lying. Liars lie because they lack

the courage to speak the truth, let alone the courage to face the gruesome

sufferings these men did. Again, to those who look, the records are concrete.

All of them died a horrible martyr's death, except John, the beloved Apostle.

John was persecuted and tortured, some reports say boiled in oil, but not unto

death.

Here is a list of a few eye-witness martyrs, collected from several non-biblical sources and compared with Foxes Christian Martyrs of the World:

(a) Bartholomew. Having translated the Gospel of Matthew into the

language of India, he propagated it in that country. He was skinned alive; his

flesh peeled from his body as he hung suspended upside down on a post-type

cross, and then at the command of King Astyages was finally beheaded in

Armenia. He could have avoided the cruelty and saved his life had he stopped

preaching he witnessed the Resurrection andAscension. If he had been lying,why wouldnt he have stopped?

(b) Thomas. Most reliable reports have it that he was speared to death with

a Brahmin sword on "Big Hill" near Madras, India, refusing to be silent about

witnessing the Resurrection andAscension. He could have simply left the area,

and after reaching a safer location, resumed lying, if he was lying. So, why

didnt he?


22/29

(c) Simon the Zealot. The tradition of the Golden Legend states he was

hacked to death by pagan priests for preaching the message in Persia. He could

have stopped preaching that he had witnessed the Resurrection andAscensionto save his life. There is some confusion historically as to another Simon

crucified, in AD 74, in Britain for preaching the Gospel. In either event,

death came because of the message being preached.15

(d) Peter. As stated before, he was crucified upside-down in Rome. He

could have walked away had he stopped proclaiming a risen Savior who

ascended into Heaven before his very eyes. But instead, he turns around and

willingly gives up his life, for a lie?

(e) Philip. Martyred at Heliopolis in Phrygia under Emperor Domitian, he

was scourged, thrown into prison, and then crucified, also upside-down. Had

he said the Resurrection andAscension was all a hoax, that he really didn'twitness it himself, he could have saved his life. Instead, he chooses to die.

(f) Andrew. Preached the Gospel throughout Asia, and was crucified at

Patras (or Edessa) Greece, on an X shape (saltire) cross. Gregory of Tours

described Andrew as being bound, not nailed. 16 If accurate, Andrew died a

horrendously long and painful death, with plenty of time to have renounced the

message as a lie to save his life. He could have said he had not witnessed the

Resurrection andAscension. So, why didnt he?

(g) Mark. He was dragged to pieces in Alexandria by the people at thesolemnity of Serapis, their idol. All he had to do to save his life was to stop

preaching that he had witnessed the Resurrection and Ascension of his Lord.

He chooses death over silence. Why?

(h) Jude. Hes reported as the brother of James, and was called Thaddeus.

Jude was also crucified at Edessa, AD 72. Like the others, all he had to do was

to say it really didn't happen; that it was all a lie. And like the others, he

claimed he witnessed the Resurrection and Ascension, and willingly goes to his

death instead. For what reason?

The price they paid was beyond human belief... for a lie? How could so

many twelve apostles plus seventy disciples agree together to suffer so

horribly to maintain a lie, all for a dead man whom they deserted when He was

alive?17 (Eusebius)


23/29

POINT 4. THEY DIED ALONE. Dying for a lie might be considered

possible by some, but what Thomas of Aquinas calls the great proof of the

Resurrection is, all the Disciples died alone. It might be possible to believe that

group pressure forced them to stick to their story in the beginning. But

separated, alone, facing death, and they still claimed it was true?

Picture this: A group of us get together and we make-up this lie. Now

before telling this lie, as a group we are not worth a hill of beans. But we

decide not to admit that Jesus was a fraud and are determined to carry-out this

hoax. For a moment, imagine you are Bartholomew. You are in Armenia,

alone. It's taken you months to travel there, considering the transportation of

the day. Youre without means of communication no television, telegram,

telephone, satellite, not even mail service. You have a friend, Peter, he's up in

Rome. I'm another friend, Thomas, over in India, but you're not sure where.

You are preaching this lie about the Resurrection and Ascension of

Jesus, like we all agreed. They tie you to a post upside down and begin to skin

you alive. The pain is more than you can bear. They're going to kill you if you

do not stop preaching this message. All you have to do to save your life, to

stop the pain, is say we made-up this lie. I wouldn't know you recanted. I'm

over in India. Peter wouldn't know, he's up in Rome. Next time we meet, you

can act as if nothing happened, you're still telling the story the way we all

agreed, and not a single conspirator would know any different except you. So,

why won't you do it?

It is psychologically inconceivable that every single one of these men,standing alone, separated from the rest of the group, facing death because of the

message they're preaching, would choose to die such horrible deaths instead of

renouncing their testimony... that is, if they were lying about what they had

witnessed.

We have the historic perspective of two-thousand years. We can

examine the record of history. You will not find one shred of evidence in

history where one of these men, proven weaklings before the Resurrection,

proven selfish, thinking only of themselves, proven unstable, proven cowards,

leaving Jesus to die alone the day of the Crucifixion, ever renounced orweakened on their story of the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. Not a one.

No matter where you search, not one of these men can be found ever

renouncing or recanting the message to save his life. Not one would deny that

they walked, talked and ate with Jesus after His death. Not one would deny

that they had witnessed His appearances and disappearances, that they saw Him


24/29

lifted into clouds and ascend into the heavens. They refused to spare their own

lives... for a lie?

Humanly impossible! In the history of mankind, no one has everchosen

to be unbearably tortured, mutilated, and suffer deathfor a lie which they

themselves invented, particularly a group of conspirators, separated from eachother and scattered across the globe, without one of them recanting. Yet,

according to atheists, skeptics, followers of other religions, and the Prosecutor,

we are to accept their premise that twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples did?

We are to believe that which is humanlyimpossible because they refuse toacknowledge thepossible; that theres more to our existence than we can

humanly know; that we are spiritual beings as much as we are physical? Whocan prove that Jesus was not God incarnate in the same manner that Jesus and

these men proved that He was? I say, let them try!

No. People don't suffer the way they suffered for a lie. There can be

only one explanation why these men acted the way they did under the pressure

they endured, especially men who were once weak, unstable and cowards.

They acted that way because these men had witnessed something so

astounding, so overwhelming, that they couldn't deny it, even when their lives

depended on it. They knew the truth. They knew Jesus was who He said He

was, and they would rather feel the pain of this world than lose their life in the

next. There is no other intelligent, credible and sound explanation than the

witnesses were telling the truth and proved their veracity with their lives. Jesus

died, rose from the dead, blew away that stone, came out of that tomb, had anew body, made several appearances and disappearances and He ascended into

Heaven, all before their very eyes.

The Prosecution will argue: Theres got to be another explanation then.

The Defense responds: Ah, now thats where I got em. There isnt another

explanation. If there was, at least one of our critics would have found it in

2000 years. These witnesses have withstood the test of time and the scrutiny of

scholars throughout history. Sure, there have been those who, like the

Prosecution, would like you to focus on these micro-disputes and triflinginconsistencies to steer you away from looking at the entire argument, because

when you do see the whole picture, the end conclusion is clear. Jesus is who

He said He was. The Prosecution was right about one thing though No mere

mortal has ever risen from the dead. Jesus was God incarnate.

The Defense to the Jury: Where do we go from here?


25/29

As Luke says, by looking at the evidence we "may know the certainty of

the things we have been taught" (Luke 1:4).

We may not know all that Jesus did, or how or why, but His

Resurrection and Ascension proves that another reality unknown to this world

does in fact exist, and the Disciples witnessed it. We may not understand all

that Jesus said, or what the Bible really means, and we may not know Him as

well as we ought, but we know with certainty He spoke the truth. He was God

incarnate, or for you science buffs, a substance or entity yet unknown to you

which we reference as God became human, and He, Jesus, proved it.

Yes its difficult to comprehend, because we are mortals, we are in this

world, but that does not mean we are ofthis world, it does not mean there isnt

something more to us and our universe, because Jesus proved there was theres much more. We do have a spiritual side. And whatever that criterion isthat saves us from eternal death, He fulfilled it for us. We know by His

performance, not our own, that we are saved, because He told us so, and we

know His Word can be trusted. We know by His Resurrection that He can do

what He said He would do.

And He said He came to save the world, not to judge it (Jn 12:47); that

His sacrifice and goodness was sufficient enough to pay forallof our

transgressions, past, present and future (Heb 10:10-14); that we are made

worthy by Him. He willingly put to death the law that condemns us. It has noauthority over us anymore; we are bound to Him instead, if we choose Him (Ro

7:4-6). The law can never again judge us guilty, broken, or somehow out-of-

order with His universe, and neither will He, if we believe in Him.

His blood covers us. God sees us through Him, beautiful, perfect and

worthy of Heaven. He said He will come again and lead us home to be with

Him in exchange for our simple trust and belief in Him its our spiritual

connection to Him, our Lifeline. We need only to recognize the glory of our

salvation is His, not ours, and place ourselves completely in His hands, look up

and cry, My Lord and My God, My Redeemer and Savior, You are myMaster, in You I place my trust.


26/29

A Note From the Publisher

People ask how we know Jesus lives. As a Christian, our answer should

be because of the evidence and we should stand prepared to deliver it, as Peter

instructed, especially in today's world. In 1 Pe 3:15, all Christians are

commanded to be ready to make a "defense" for the reason of their faith in

Christ. How do we bear true witness of Christ? We point to Him. We are all

in the process of conforming into His image (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10),

but none of us are yet there. We can only bear true witness by exalting Him.

We do not point to ourselves as examples, to others, to miracles, or to signs

and wonders, but only to Him (Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20, 2:6; Col 3:1). We are to

give first the fact of the Resurrection, where faith in Him begins, then trust the

One who possesses the power to rise from the dead to do the transforming and

saving. Trust Him.

I sign off as A Solitary Soldier. In todays world, your eyes must

always focus on the message, not the messenger. Do not follow a name ortitle. Follow only Him.Now dont just sit there. Get out there and defend

your faith. We got a trail to blaze, Pilgrim.

God bless, and God speed...

A Solitary Soldier


27/29

1The New King James Version is used throughout

2Sin. Gr.Hamartia to miss the mark. (Enhanced Strongs Lexicon 266)

3Jesus repeatedly predicted His death andResurrection. He made them early in His ministry to the end.

See John 2:18-22; Matt. 16:21, 22; 17:22, 23; 26:31, 32; Mark 9:9, 10 (and parallel accounts). Also inMatthew 20:18, 19, note the details: He would be betrayedto theJewish leaders but would be killed by

the Gentiles (Romans). They wouldscourge Him and crucify Him but He would rise again the thirdday.

4Wherever one encounters Jesus using the term I AM, He is declaring Himself God. I AM has

absolute usage meaning and immense theological significance in the OT. Jesus declared Himself to beYahweh, i.e., the Lord of the OT. Basic to the expression are such passages as Ex. 3:14; Deut. 32:39;

Is. 41:4; 43:10 where God declared Himself to be the eternally pre-existent God who revealed Himself

in the OT to the Jews. MacArthur, J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (Electronic ed.)

Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

5The Majjhima Nikaya (-nikya; "Collection of Middle-length Discourses") is a Buddhist scripture, the

second of the five nikayas, or collections, in the Sutta Pitaka, which is one of the "three baskets" thatcompose the Pali Tipitaka of Theravada Buddhism.

6Thomas Carlyle (1795-12-04 1881-02-05) On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History.Lecture II, The Hero As Prophet. Mahomet [Mohammad]: Islam. (8 May 1840)

7The Analects noted that Confucius rarelydiscussed spiritual matters. Zigong said, "We can hearourmaster on culture and its manifestation, but we cannothear his views on human nature and the Way of

Heaven."An. 5:12.

8Tacitus' History of Rome (115 A.D.) Cornelius Tacitus (senator under the reign of Vespasian and

governor of Asia from 112-113 A.D.),Annals (116 A.D.), volume 15, p.44.

9In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection

appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sinsaccording to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day

according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He

appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...

It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul received this creed from Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Peter and James are listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ.

Since they are the ones who gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own

testimony. As the Jewish Scholar, Pinchahs Lapide, has said, this creed "may be considered the

statement of eyewitnesses."

10Pentecost means fiftieth and refers to the Feast of Weeks (Ex. 34:22, 23) or Harvest (Lev. 23:16),which was celebrated 50 days after Passover.

11 Disciples and Apostles shocked by the Resurrection.(1) Mary Magdalene - John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9-11 (note the other disciples did not believe her)

(2) Other women - Matthew 28:9, 10 - They saw, touched, and heard Him.

(3) Two disciples on the road to Emmaus - Luke 24:13-35; Mark 16:12,13 - They saw and heard Him


28/29

for a prolonged period. Again, the others did not believe them.

(4) Peter - Luke 24:34 (1 Cor. 15:5)

(5) All the apostles - He appeared to them on several occasions: Luke 24:36-43 - note that they saw,

heard, and touched Him for prolonged periods; He ate in their presence. Again, they were skepticaland demanded proof. Mark 16:14-18; Matt. 28:16,17; John 20:19-23; 21:1-25; Acts 1:3-8; 10:39,41; 1

Cor. 15:5,7.

(6) Thomas with the apostles - John 20:24-29 - He was skeptical till He saw, heard, and touched Jesus,including the wounds.

(7) Saul of Tarsus - Acts 9:1-9; 22:4-15; 26:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:8, 9 - He was an enemy and persecutor.

(8) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 - A summary list that adds James and an appearance to over 500 at one time,most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote.

(9) Jesus then ascended to heaven in the presence of the apostles - Acts 1:9-11; Luke 24:50-53; Mark

16:19, 20.

The apostles preached repeatedly that they were eyewitnesses of these events - Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15;4:33; 10:39-41; 13:30-32; 22:14,15; 26:16; 1 Cor. 15:3-8,15. All were persecuted and most gave their

lives for this testimony, but none ever withdrew it, denied it, or retracted it.

12This document advocates the truth of Jesus and not any particular organized religion, but there is an

excellent article by Michael Morrison, The Resurrection of Jesus: A History of Interpretation, on the

Worldwide Church of God website, listing the many scholars and critics and their conclusions.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/hist-res.htm

13The tradition that Peter was crucified on an inverted cross is first found in Eusebius'EcclesiasticalHistory 2.25.5-8. Further, the ancient historian Josephus describes how Roman soldiers would amusethemselves by crucifying criminals in different positions. Additionally, Jerome records the tradition

that this was Peter's request (viz. so as to leave our Lord's death distinctive from his). The biblical

record is Johns testimony of Jesus words to Peter, which describes how Peter would be martyred

(Jn.21:18-19). Given Eusebius account, Josephus description, Jeromes commentary, and the veracityof the biblical record, the position attributed to Peter's crucifixion would be assumed true by most

juries.

14John Foxe wrote the classicFoxe's Book of Martyrs, describing in detail Christian suffering from the

deaths of 1st Century Christians to the persecutions during the reign of Queen "Bloody" Mary inEngland.

15The GoldenLegend(Latin:LegendaAurea) by Jacobus de Voragine (Jacopo da Varagine) is a

collection of hagiographies, lives of the saints, that became a late medieval bestseller, probablycompiled around 1260. The book sought to gather traditional lore about all of the saints venerated at

the time of its completion.Voragine writes that Simon the Zealot was hewed, chopped up, and later states, some say

verily that it was not this Simon that suffered the martyrdom of the cross, but it was another, the son of

Cleophas, brother of Joseph, and Eusebius, bishop of Csarea, witnesseth it in his chronicle.

16Monumenta Germaniae Historica II, cols. 821-847, translated in M.R. James, The Apocryphal NewTestament(Oxford) reprinted 1963:369.

17William Lane Craig, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist

Controversy (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1985), 47, citing Demonstratio Evangelica 3.5. Quote is


29/29

paraphrased.

you be the jury

Documents