Mark Twain once said, "faith is believing what you know ain't so". Truly this reflects the perception many we know have of Christianity. The renowned atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins once suggested the same debating with Christian apologist and professor John Lennox. Dawkins said, "We only need to use the term faith when there isn't any evidence". So, is it true then, as many so ardently believe, that the Christian faith is founded in superstition, myth, legends, and make belief? Is the account of Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews, a man whose birth was prophesied and traced through human history, simply the greatest hoax of all time? And one contrived by first-century fishermen and sympathisers?

My thesis tonight is simply that the best explanation of the evidence concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the same message we find in the new testament, that "God raised Him from the dead." What I hope to achieve is a brief introduction to the historical arguments undergirding the Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth was seen and interacted with alive that first Easter morning.

Obviously, for those here who are believers, we usually presuppose Jesus' death and resurrection in our gatherings and seldom revisit the subject from a historical perspective. However, from time to time, I think it is immensely beneficial in settings such as this to suspend our presuppositions and come to consider Jesus in an investigative type manner. The apostle Paul himself, for instance, once went as a new believer to Jerusalem on a fact-finding mission to inquire of the other apostles. To find the details and discover for himself what was going on! While in-depth knowledge is not necessary to exercise faith in Christ, a robust sense of Christianity's origins will indeed serve that faith well.

Allow me briefly to summarise three points that are important to the discussion but which fall outside the scope of inquiry here.

Outside Our Inquiry

First, we will not be considering the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in any depth despite the importance of what we might call socio/religious continuity. In other words, Jesus did not just appear in a vacuum out of nowhere. Instead, there is a profoundly rich history that weighs in on His person and coming but remains outside our scope.

The second point, outside our purpose here, is on the semantics of "resurrection". New Testament scholar N.T Wright can help us on this one, "Everybody knew about ghosts, spirits, visions, hallucinations and so on. Most people in the ancient world believed in some such things. They were quite clear that that was not what they meant by 'resurrection. When Herod is reported to have thought Jesus might have been John the Baptist raised from the dead, he did not think he was a ghost. Resurrection meant bodies. We cannot emphasise this too strongly, not least because much modern writing continues, most misleadingly, to use the word 'resurrection as a virtual synonym for 'life after death in the popular sense." What Wright points out is that when the ancients spoke of resurrection, they did not think of it as simply "life after death" or "entrance into the afterlife". Those concepts existed, but they did not mean resurrection by them. Instead, to speak of resurrection meant that somebody dead had taken up earthly bodily life once again. Understandably, this is an important point but again is outside our interests tonight.

The third point we will not be discussing is that of naturalism or materialism as it relates to the resurrection of Jesus. The naturalist argument might go a little something like this: Premise one, nature, and matter are all there is. Premise two, resurrection is a supernatural event. In conclusion, resurrection is an impossibility. For example, not dependent on whether Erhman is a naturalist or not, he argues along these lines. Whatever the disciples thought occurred that first Easter cannot have actually been a resurrection because resurrection is the least likely explanation. And how so in Erhman's thinking? For the reason that resurrections don't happen! Okay, with introductory comments aside, we can move along under various headings, which I think will present some compelling, albeit introductory, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Death By Crucifixion

The first point I want to expand on is the death of Jesus by Roman crucifixion.

Now you say, wait, I thought we were talking about resurrection! Well, in fact, that Jesus died is the first fact we must demonstrate as true or we have little ground upon which to claim He was later seen alive. So, we can start with the four canonical gospels, the best early eyewitness compilation and testimony we have of the life of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as four independent sources, all record the crucifixion of Jesus under the fifth governor over the Roman province of Judea Pontius Pilate. Pilate served under the supreme authority of Emperor Tiberius Caesar. While the testimony of the gospels alone can meet necessary criteria for such a historical claim, we also have access to Jesus' death through extra-biblical sources, some of which come through hostile sources which add substantial weight to the evidence. In fact, what we end up with when we put together the data for Jesus' crucifixion is one of the most well-attested historical facts in the ancient world!

However, one of the slight ironies is the difficulty we have in precisely dating the crucifixion of Jesus. The most likely dates scholars have come up with are A.D 30 or A.D 33. Nevertheless, critics like to jump on our dating issues. Now keep in mind that sources from this period, while substantial, are still relatively scarce and not many first-century documents have survived, comparatively speaking. We do know that relevant material to help in dating Jesus' crucifixion existed. This would include archived records such as the 'Commentarii Principis', which contained documentation from the provinces to the Emperor. If we still had access to this source, Pilates governance of Judea would bear testimony with greater detail. To demonstrate this, I'll turn your attention to this quote by the early Christian convert, who we know by the name of Justin Martyr. Justin was born at around the turn of the second century, and "Martyr" comes from the manner of his death. He paid the ultimate price for following Jesus and was beheaded around A.D. 165. This quotation comes from a text in which Justin wrote to Emperor Antoninus Pius and his sons in the First Apology, referring to his defence or 'apologetic' of the Christian faith.

Justin was attempting to explain that Christianity was the fulfilment of an ancient Jewish prophecy and that Jesus' crucifixion had been foretold. So here he is explaining Psalm 22 from the Hebrew old testament to the Emperor. He says, "And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."

Now notice this last phrase here. Justin says you will find these things, that is, details concerning Jesus' crucifixion, in the "Acts of Pontius Pilate". Now, how effective do you think this letter would be, to the Emperor himself, if the Acts of Pontius Pilate were a wholly fabricated claim? Indeed, this record of Pontius Pilate existed, which is why Justin included it as part of his defence. Access to this document would undoubtedly provide other valuable details in dating the crucifixion. Nonetheless, Justin still shows us he had no difficulty in convincing anyone that Jesus died. The prophetic/ supernatural nature of Jesus was the real question.

Given the immense weight of evidence for Jesus' crucifixion, New Testament scholar Gary Habermas includes it in what he calls the minimal facts approach on the resurrection of Jesus. Now, what does this mean? To quote Gary Habermas, "This approach considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather sceptical ones." So, what are some of these other sources that bear such testimony? Other than Justin Martyr mentioned already; we might consider the Roman orator Tacitus (56 – 117 AD), who wrote in a Roman history called the "Annals". Speaking of Nero blaming the Christians for the infamous fires of Rome, Tacitus wrote, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, [Christ] from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [referring to crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil but even in Rome."

Tacitus' knowledge of Jesus and His disciples would have come from ready access to political records such as the 'Commentarii Principas', other legal channels, and first-hand information. He gives us strong, early, hostile testimony and powerfully witnesses the historical reliability of the gospel writer's claims concerning Jesus' crucifixion.

To name another, Lucian of Samosata, the Greek satirist known for ridiculing religious practices, writes, "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account." Mara Bar-Serapion, probably a pagan, writing to his son from prison sometime perhaps in the late first-century comments, "Or what advantage came to the Jews by the murder of their wise king, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?" Although Mara does not mention crucifixion as the means of his execution, he says that he was murdered. The Jewish Talmud also reports that "on the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged." 'Yeshu" is "Joshua" in Hebrew, the equivalent in Greek being "Ἰησοῦς" or as we translate it "Jesus". Further, to be hung on a tree is one way of describing crucifixion and connects us to the old testament scriptures in Deuteronomy, "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree". This was, of course, one of the main stumbling blocks to the Jews accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah! Yet gives the essence of the Christian message in that the Messiah's destiny was to bear God's curse to pay the penalty of human sin.

Clearly, we have some solid early evidence from a variety of sources, more remain. But in the summary statement of sceptical scholar, John Dominic Crosson, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be."

Now that's all I want to say about the crucifixion, for now, so let's take the next step forward, because the story of how Christianity first emerged really begins after the crucifixion, for many other false Messianic claims had ended in crucifixion before Jesus time.

The Empty Tomb

So, what made Jesus so different? Well, here we come to the matter of the empty tomb.

The canonical gospels claim that a group of women found Jesus' tomb empty early on the third day following Jesus' crucifixion. Now while the empty tomb argument does not meet the criteria for a minimum facts argument. Nevertheless, Habermas has calculated that since 1975 roughly 2/3 of scholars writing on the empty tomb believe that the resurrection itself, or at least the possibility thereof, remains the best explanation of why Jesus' tomb was discovered open and his body missing. Scholars find that alternative theories cannot account for the data. More astonishing, this figure does not include some big-name critical scholars like Bart Erhman. Erhman grants the historicity of the empty tomb narrative but posits alternative theories on how this came to be so.

However, with the empty tomb, we begin, in fact, with the burial of Jesus. As scholar John Barclay summarises, "the historicity of the empty tomb account is to a large extent the historicity of the burial story." The earliest gospel tradition we have that Jesus was buried following his crucifixion is found in Mark 15:43, there we find, "When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead. And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock, and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Joses, were looking on to see where He was laid." (Mark 15:42–47).

This testimony, recorded in all four gospels, some with additional details, is remarkable for several reasons. The first point is what we call the Jerusalem factor. The enemies of Jesus, of which there were many, could have paraded the body of Jesus around Jerusalem and quelled the movement instantly. The fact then this empty tomb account originated from Jerusalem is extraordinary evidence. As 20th-century scholar Paul Althaus exclaims, "the idea of an individual rising from the dead and being proclaimed as the Messiah victorious over the grave", he says "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

The second point I want to make is that if the place of Jesus' burial were publicly accessible knowledge, it would be impossible to convince a Jew that Jesus' tomb was empty. This is where Joseph of Arimathea comes into the picture. The gospel writers all include Joseph of Arimathea as a primary eyewitness to Jesus' burial. If this were a lie, it would be detrimental to their message, given the claim that Joseph was a prominent member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and thus a known figure. In Johns's gospel, we gain further insight that Joseph was a believer in Jesus initially in secret for "fear of the Jews". It would be highly improbable then that Christians would claim that a member of the sect who had crucified Jesus had now, in fact, buried Jesus! This would destroy their message immediately, given he was undoubtedly an accessible public figure. Moreover, given Mary Magdalene and the other women who accompanied him (and Nicodemus according to John) to learn the whereabouts of the tomb for later application of herbs and spices to the body, we have a convincing, well-attested early case that the tomb of Jesus in the 1st-century context was a verifiable claim.

The third point here is that Jesus' burial is an incredibly early tradition recorded here by Mark. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a passage we will look at in detail later, the apostle Paul writes a letter predating the gospel compilations and records what is now widely accepted as an early Christian creed traceable to within five years of the events. There we find, "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, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." (1 Corinthians 15:3–7).

More on the creed later, but notice how the tradition includes, "and he was buried", meaning here in the early Christian creed is presupposed a burial account. While outside the scope of this address, with several different strands of evidence we can reliably claim that Mark composed his gospel account between A.D 50 -70 most likely during the '50s. One reason for this is the non-existence of legendary development you would expect to see in a later, second-generation Christian fan fiction tale. The development we see say in the pseudo work 'The gospel according to Peter' among others. Instead, Mark's passion narrative, including the burial flows as a single account of bare bone details.

So, we have the Jerusalem factor, Joseph of Arimathea, early testimony of burial, and a fourth point on the empty tomb is that of the Jewish leader's own confirmation of the empty tomb! They did not deny the empty tomb; rather, they claimed that Jesus' body had been stolen by the disciples, giving us hostile positive testimony. In Matthew's account, we read, "Now while they were on their way, some of the guards came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.' "And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." And they took the money and did as they had been instructed, and this story was widely spread among the Jews and is to this day." (Matthew 28:9–15).

Notice the author presumes upon the knowledge of this story among his readers, "and this story was widely spread among the Jews". Here we have early hostile testimony confirming that even the enemies of Jesus were forced to contrive an alternative theory of why the tomb was now empty. Further, we find this hypothesis circulating in several different places outside the new testament documents. In the writings of Justyn Martyr, who we encountered earlier, we find him in dialogue with non-believing Trypho and presumes upon knowledge of this theft hypothesis. He writes, "Yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven."

We also have, though slightly later, a quotation from the Christian convert and prolific writer Tertullian. Here Tertullian paraphrases the words of his mocking contemporaries who rested upon the story Jewish leaders claim the disciples stole the body saying, "This, I shall say, this is that carpenter's or hireling's son, that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and devil-possessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! This is He whom you struck with reed and fist, whom you contemptuously spat upon, to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink! This is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants! What quæstor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favour of seeing and exulting in such things as these?"

The fifth and final fact concerning the empty tomb of Jesus is that all four gospels report that the primary witnesses were women. In fact, Mary Magdalene rushed off immediately upon seeing the grave was empty, saying to Peter and the other disciples, "they have taken him", thus thinking that someone had stolen Jesus' body as many Jewish leaders claimed! (John 20: 2). Grave robbing was not unheard of after all. Easily missed by modern readers, it is quite remarkable that the gospel writers record women as primary eye-witnesses. The judicial testimony of women in the 1st-century context was essentially worthless, a well-documented fact. As scholar Mike Licona notes, commenting on the research of Richard Bauckham, "in the Greco-Roman world educated men regarded women as "gullible in religious matters and especially prone to superstitious fantasy and excessive in religious practices."

In a way, not all too unlike the inclusion of Joseph of Arimathea, identifying women as the primary witnesses would make the story a laughingstock of credibility to any Jew hearing it in oral circulation. This testimony is best explained by that it was recorded this way because this is what happened. Indeed, a later, legendary, fictitious account would have the tomb discovered by men, by Peter and John, for example, or have the woman play a secondary role in the discovery. Thus, a reason which gave the story a lack of credibility in the first century, from our position becomes a strong reason for its reliability.

The third heading I want to draw to your attention to now moves us beyond the crucifixion, beyond His burial and the empty tomb onto another aspect, that once more fits Habermas' minimal facts criteria.

The Disciples Experience

Shortly after Jesus' death, his close disciples had experiences that led them to believe and thus proclaim that Jesus was resurrected and had appeared to them.

The importance of the origin of the disciple's belief to the argument for the resurrection cannot be overstated. Virtually no one writing on the origin of belief doubts that the disciples at least sincerely believed that Jesus had risen and appeared to them. The source of their conviction must be accounted for by the sceptic if, in fact, they were lying, and Jesus did not rise again. There are many reasons why it would literally take a resurrection itself to occur even for this belief to emerge in the Jewish context it did. At the same time, the idea of resurrection blossomed in Jewish writings during what we call the intertestamental period before the ministry of John the Baptist, the typical understanding of resurrection was simply what we find say in John 11. We read, "Martha then said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. "Even now, I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." " (John 11:21–24). Thus, demonstrating that Jesus' followers held a typical Jewish view of resurrection.

A significant mutation appeared in the Christian declaration of Jesus' resurrection. Jewish belief always concerned an eschatological resurrection, not within redemptive history (differs from a resuscitation). It was always a general universal resurrection and not an isolated individual. And yet, the disciple's Jewish worldview radically changed and immediately began to proclaim that an isolated resurrection had occurred, and He was the long-awaited Messiah, risen, never to die again. So, the origin of the disciple's belief and early Jewish Christians must be explained, given it was distinctively an un-Jewish thing to believe.

There remains scholarly debate on what proportion of this creedal formula here goes back to early tradition. Yet, scholars argue much of what we have recorded here are not words original with Paul. Particularly beginning from "that Christ died" through to "all of the apostles". Rather, the evidence suggests that we have here an early creed used by believers to confess and share the faith. In the days before hard drives, tape recorders and even common writing and reading skills, creeds were how one memorised and accurately passed on information. We can reliably date the origins of this creed cited by Paul to within 5 years of the actual events as another has said, "This is the sort of data that historians of antiquity drool over."

Now how can we know this is a creed, to begin with? A few brief reasons. 1) This term here, "delivered", is a rabbinic term used to portray the idea of passing on a tradition as one who had "received" that tradition and narrated to others, a precise term in every sense. 2) Upon careful inspection of Paul's Greek, the content is stylised with parallelisms. A point which sound's rather uninteresting, but scholar Joachim Jeremias who first identified the creed, used this fact to advance its non-Hellenistic origins, and successfully defended the creedal formula from those saying it could not have come from Semitic Hebrew origins (non-Hellenistic), that being the disciples themselves in Jerusalem. A technical but important point. 3) Non-typical Pauline terms and styles are used within, such as "the twelve", "the third day", "he was raised" in the Greek forms. 4) Paul calls Peter "Cephas" here, the Aramaic name of Peter, despite Paul's writing in Greek. Even Atheist critic Gerd Lüdemann made this comment on the formula, "I do insist, however, that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional formulations is one of the great achievements of recent New Testament scholarship."