You Be The Jury

This document is part of an ongoing debate between a Muslim and a Christian

which 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 He
claimed to be...God incarnate. Ludicrous? You bet your eternity it is. Why
should anyone believe it? Well, here’s why....

Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus, The Christ

I’ll 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 to
know 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 doesn’t 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 New
Testament. 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 Prosecution’s argument
that portions of the Bible were written anonymously or were written years after
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
acting good, despite what you’ve been told. I’m not handing you evidence of
the 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 I’ll provide you with proof
to believe Him, whether you’re approaching this from a logical or religious
perspective.

To understand what He meant, we need to understand what is "sin." The

word “sin” in the Greek is Hamartia. It does not mean “depraved” or evil
deeds, but simply that we are incapable of hitting the target [Heaven], whether
we’re off by only a degree or miss it by a mile.2 It’s 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 we’re 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 it’s 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 and
prolong the appearance of aging, but ultimately life ends. We can try not
sinning, but inevitably we do because we’re 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). It’s what we are, and
because of what we are, it’s 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 being worthy of Heaven, we will enter into a life without death
and be saved from this infection.

Right about now you’re 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 there’s life after death, would it not logically follow there’s some sort of
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? You’ve got nothing
to lose. So, let’s 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 we’re
speaking of all laws, physical, spiritual, natural, celestial, and laws we aren’t
even aware of yet. As a result, none of us can or ever will “deserve” salvation
or 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 and
believe 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, don’t you think?

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

Whether we understand what happened scientifically or not, if it’s 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 sole
purpose 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.
 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 it’s not required. We
don’t need to understand gravity for it to work before getting out of bed in the
morning. All we need know is it does, else we’d 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 there’s 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 be
given 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; that’s
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 there’s no Resurrection,
there’s 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.
 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 that’s 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 important
person 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: That’s 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 odd
because 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,
wherever you confront Jesus, He's making claims about Himself that are utterly
ridiculous or down right lies, unless He is God. You can’t 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 they’re 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 that
He 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. Not
a 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
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
Nikāya,5 the Buddha himself describes, "By all these bitter and difficult
austerities, 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 time
questioning 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
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
world’s 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 acting
on 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
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 He
said 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
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 can’t 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 into
meaningless debates, which I believe is the Prosecutor’s intent. So, let us start
with these disputes as our “Frame of Reference.” Bring them out into the open
for all to see. I’ll 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
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 the
Resurrection and the Ascension into Heaven of Jesus. The Apostles and
Disciples not only claimed He rose from the dead, they also claimed they
witnessed 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 and the 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 the
Jewish leaders their reputations, their positions, their economic livelihoods and
even their lives.
Even in today’s 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
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 and ascended 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 that’s 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, we’d 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 the
body 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.
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
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 either theory 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 their
urgent need to stop the preaching would have forced them to produce the body
had they taken it.
But again, if there’s 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
they’re liars.
So again, it’s either theory 9 or 10. Disciples either lied or told the
truth.

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, it’s 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
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 after Jesus 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 of
the 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 doesn’t
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 told
the 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.
The Prosecution will argue: It's theory 9. The Disciples lied, or others lied
making up the story about what the Disciples reported. No mere mortal has
ever risen from the dead.

The Defense responds: Let’s take a look at liars.

To make an honest determination as to the Disciple’s 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 in
stories 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's
Gospel 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 truth
even 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
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 Mark’s truthfulness, such as his
graphic portrayal of Peter's failures and weaknesses. Mark was not only Peter’s
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, aren’t 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 enough
to 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 were
crushed 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
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 and the Ascension (Ac 2:1-47). It sounds like
simple, 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 demonstrated
positive 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.
(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 most
unpredictable, 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 the
Kingdom 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 21:18–19) Lies can change people, but like that?
(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 wouldn’t 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 do
not 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 expected Jesus 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 was
going 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 his
knees 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.
 Study the record for yourself. Follow the history of the witnesses. 14 You
can’t 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 paid for a lie. You don't suffer
what they suffered for a lie. Some will point to today’s suicide bombers and
suggest the Disciples were of the same mindset, but there’s no comparison.
Today’s suicide bombers are not dying for what they know is a lie which they
themselves invented. If the Disciples made-up the story, if they didn’t
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 and Ascension. If he had been lying,
why wouldn’t 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 and Ascension. He could have simply left the area,
and after reaching a safer location, resumed lying, if he was lying. So, why
didn’t he?
(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 and Ascension
to 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 and Ascension was all a hoax, that he really didn't
witness 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 and Ascension. So, why didn’t he?

(g) Mark. He was dragged to pieces in Alexandria by the people at the

solemnity 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. He’s 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)
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. You’re 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 or
weakened 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
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 ever chosen

to be unbearably tortured, mutilated, and suffer death for a lie which they
themselves invented, particularly a group of conspirators, separated from each
other 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 humanly impossible because they refuse to
acknowledge the possible; that there’s more to our existence than we can
humanly know; that we are spiritual beings as much as we are physical? Who
can 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 a
new body, made several appearances and disappearances and He ascended into
Heaven, all before their very eyes.

The Prosecution will argue: There’s got to be another explanation then.

The Defense responds: Ah, now that’s where I got ‘em. There isn’t 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 trifling
inconsistencies 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?

 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 it’s difficult to comprehend, because we are mortals, we are in this

world, but that does not mean we are of this world, it does not mean there isn’t
something more to us and our universe, because Jesus proved there was –
there’s much more. We do have a spiritual side. And whatever that criterion is
that 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 for all of 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 no
authority 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 – it’s 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 my
Master, in You I place my trust.”
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 today’s world, your eyes must

always focus on the message, not the messenger. Do not follow a name or
title. Follow only Him. Now don’t 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
1
The New King James Version is used throughout
2
Sin. Gr. Hamartia to miss the mark. (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon 266)
3
Jesus repeatedly predicted His death and Resurrection. 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 in
Matthew 20:18, 19, note the details: He would be betrayed to the Jewish leaders but would be killed by
the Gentiles (Romans). They would scourge Him and crucify Him but He would rise again the third
day.
4
Wherever 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 be
Yahweh, 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.
5
The Majjhima Nikaya (-nikāya; "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" that
compose the Pali Tipitaka of Theravada Buddhism.
6
Thomas 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)
7
The Analects noted that Confucius rarely discussed spiritual matters. Zigong said, "We can hear our
master on culture and its manifestation, but we cannot hear his views on human nature and the Way of
Heaven." An. 5:12.
8
Tacitus' 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.
9
In 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 sins
according 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."

“Pentecost” means “fiftieth” and refers to the Feast of Weeks (Ex. 34:22, 23) or Harvest (Lev. 23:16),
10

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
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 skeptical
and 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.

12
This 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
13
The tradition that Peter was crucified on an inverted cross is first found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
History 2.25.5-8. Further, the ancient historian Josephus describes how Roman soldiers would amuse
themselves 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 John’s testimony of Jesus’ words to Peter, which describes how Peter would be martyred
(Jn.21:18-19). Given Eusebius’ account, Josephus’ description, Jerome’s commentary, and the veracity
of the biblical record, the position attributed to Peter's crucifixion would be assumed true by most
juries.

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

deaths of 1st Century Christians to the persecutions during the reign of Queen "Bloody" Mary in
England.
15
The Golden Legend (Latin: Legenda Aurea) by Jacobus de Voragine (Jacopo da Varagine) is a
collection of hagiographies, lives of the saints, that became a late medieval bestseller, probably
compiled 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 Cæsarea, witnesseth it in his chronicle.”

Monumenta Germaniae Historica II, cols. 821-847, translated in M.R. James, The Apocryphal New
16

Testament (Oxford) reprinted 1963:369.

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

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