Did Christ Rise From the Dead or is Faith Folly?
Posted: Monday, February 23, 2009
by Denny Smith
Paul, in answer to the question proposed, would say faith is but folly if Christ did not rise from the dead. "For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor. 15:16-17 NKJV) If Christ did not rise from the dead what hope do we have as we grow old and face the inevitable? Are we but animals?
However, while they speak of absurdity that there be a God in heaven the reality is they know it is absurd to believe that life came from non-life, just kind of popped out on its own from dead matter, dead matter evolving, now there is a scholarly concept for you but that is the position of the professors of science in our schools today. They proclaim that position as being the scientific, the reasonable, and the intellectual one. Save us from the scholars if that is the way one defines reason.
The atheist, the evolutionist, all non-believers have staked their eternal well being on their thesis that Christ did not rise from the dead. Thus the faith of the non-believers and the faith of those who do believe both revolve around the matter of the resurrection (did it or did it not occur). If it occurred there is a God in heaven and Jesus is his Son, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world.
The Bible itself teaches this very thing. Speaking of Jesus the Bible says that he was, "declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (
One does not need scientific proof to resolve this question. In fact, it is one of the easiest questions to resolve of any that has ever come before man. There is too much historical evidence apart from the Bible for any who have looked into the matter to deny that Jesus lived on earth approximately 2,000 years ago. None deny he was crucified. All we have to resolve then is this one question of the resurrection. How do we do it?
The first issue we need to look at is whether or not the body of Jesus was stolen for that was the claim made by the chief priests and Pharisees. They feared this very thing so went to Pilate and requested a guard be placed at the tomb.
Speaking to Pilate they said, "'Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead.' So the last deception will be worse than the first.' Pilate said to them, ‘You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.' So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard.'" (Matt. 27:63-66 NKJV)
I am sure you remember the story of the cover up how some of the guard went into the city and reported to the chief priests those things that had happened and then were given a sum of money to tell the lie that the body of Jesus was stolen while they slept. A promise was made them that the chief priests would appease the governor if worse came to worse. (Matt. 28:11-14)
What is wrong with that story? You name it, you got it. First, it was not only a violation of duty to fall asleep on guard duty, as it also is today, but the punishment in the Roman army was death if the matter was pursued. You do not fall asleep on guard duty.
Secondly, it was not a matter of one man alone on the job for then we could imagine one man might fall asleep. We cannot know how many men had guard duty that night but we know there were at least a few for only "some of the guard" (Matt. 28:11) go to report the happenings to the priests. Some is plural and also the some who did not go was likely more than just one individual as well. Did they all sleep at the same time that night without fear of death if caught?
Thirdly, the stone by which the tomb was sealed was very large (Mark 16:4) and the women who went to the tomb that morning of the resurrection were very concerned about how they were going to move it before arriving on scene. This meant it would not be moved easily and would take the efforts of more than one man to move. Were the guards not only asleep but in a drunken sleep so sound that all the noise would not awaken them – not awaken even one of them?
In the fourth place if the body was stolen about everyone knew who would have been in on it. Why not track down the apostles and arrest them, beat the truth out of them? Why was it not done? Were the Romans, the chief priests, the Pharisees above doing that sort of thing? What did they do to Christ?
In the fifth place why did the soldiers lie about it? Was it just the money? It could have been but it's very doubtful. Without help from the chief priests their lives are in danger for they have done the unthinkable and allowed the body to be stolen on their watch. Without some one in their corner helping them out they are in danger of losing their own lives.
And, then, if they tell the truth about it where is their proof? Who will believe them and if they are not believed what will become of them? From their vantage point things look pretty hopeless no matter what they do. Taking the money and lying seems the better way out for who will believe them if they tell the truth and if the governor does not believe them what will become of them?
So, was the body stolen? You do not believe that if you are a rational person. The next argument is in my opinion so strong as to completely close the case on the side of the resurrection without another word being spoken about the matter.
After Jesus was resurrected even his closest disciples did not believe it when it was reported to them. "Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen." (Mark
And, yet, shortly thereafter they are ready and willing to die for him. How does one explain that? Do you sacrifice all for one you know to be dead? What was there to be gained by such a thing?
Stephen was martyred, then James. We know Peter was later for Jesus said to him, "'Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.'" This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "'Follow Me.'" (John
How does one explain this? What gets men to go to the extremes they were willing to go to? There was no money in it (being a Christian), there was no power to be had in it, there was only hardship and sacrifice, danger and death.
Paul said, "Are they ministers of Christ?--I speak as a fool--I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness." (2 Cor. 11:23-27 NKJV)
Why would a man like Paul was before his conversion with all the advantages he had in the religious system he was in (Judaism) become a Christian and place upon himself all these things he endured if he had no certain proof that Jesus had risen from the dead? What was his advantage in doing so?
All reason, all common sense, tells us Christ arose from the grave, was resurrected, and that the only reason men do not believe it today is they are willingly blind and desire to remain so for personal reasons that most are not willing to admit.
Are men not afraid of God? Paul quotes the Psalmist and says, "'There is no fear of God before their eyes.'" (Rom.
"Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2 NKJV)
This Article has been viewed 157 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)You may not believe it, but such things as atheists do exist. I am one, on many.I don't believe in God, but I do believe in leading a moral life. I don't "desire" that God should not exist, it just seems to be the case that he doesn't. If he does, I hope he judges me by my actions, by the life I have lived and by my acceptance of the evidence he himself must have placed in the world.As to the "absurdity" of life coming from non-life, the Bible agrees with science on that - both suggest life came from non-living material (earth, dust, primordial soup). The difference is in the process by which this non-living material became living - naturalistic processes (science) or supernatural divine magic (religion).You regularly and wrongly seem to equate "atheist" and "evolutionist". A large number, probably a majority, of evolutionists are religious (the Pope and head of the Church of England as two well known examples).You say a rational person would not believe that the body was stolen...yet rationally, we know that bodies are stolen. We know of many examples where it has demonstrably happened, and the possibility requires no violations of physics or biology. So it is perfectly plausible.Yet later you say reason and common sense tell us that a man was resurrected from the dead. Common sense tells us otherwise - people die every day, yet who of us has seen anyone come back from the dead?Living a good life because you are afraid of divine punishment or seeking divine reward is morally unsound. Living a good life for the sake of the people you interact with is morally sound.You say you do believe in leading a moral life even though you do not believe in God’s existence. If God does not exist how do you know what is moral and what is not? If God does not exist every man decides for himself and one man’s judgment cannot be proven better than another man’s. The consensus of men will not work for that has brought tragedy throughout history. So, how do you decide?Atheism makes each man his own God. He alone gets to decide right from wrong, the moral from the immoral. Each man becomes his own God – the judge and the decider. Self is exalted as the ultimate authority. Now I suspect you personally do not feel that way but I am trying to be objective setting emotions aside. I am simply saying this is where atheism logically leads.
Your comment regarding life coming from non-living matter is a little misleading. God is life and thus when he gives life it is not life coming from what is not already living. Your naturalistic processes are non-living thus you have life coming from death.
Since Christianity is a faith based religion I need not try and prove scientifically that God gave life. However, since atheism is supposedly based on science (the reality is that it also is a faith) the atheist is under obligation to prove that there are naturalistic processes that can convert the non-living into life.
One cannot be an atheist without being an evolutionist. There are only two options – creation or evolution. If you are an atheist you do not believe in creationism.
It is true there are some who hold to what is called theistic evolution. However, I know little about it other than to say that if they believe man descended from some kind of sea creature that crawled up on land and that then descended into an ape that eventually evolved into a man you can call them religious if you want to but I will not call them Christians.
If the body of Jesus was stolen what was it that converted the apostles into believers of the resurrection? The New Testament is clear they did not believe he was resurrected when told. Jesus even rebuked them for their disbelief of the fact. It took more than someone just coming to them and telling them he had risen for them to believe it and without proof they were not about to head out into a life of sacrifice and deprivation.
Do you think Thomas was ready to head out and go to work when he heard there was no body to be found in the tomb?
You say it is not reason nor common sense to believe that man could rise from the dead. Why not? If God exists why is that thought to be incredible? (see Acts 26:8) What is incredible is to believe the apostles went out and sacrificed life itself without purpose, without anything to gain, without certain proof that Christ had risen from the dead.
Your last two sentences confirm what I said earlier about atheism. It allows the individual to become his own God and determine what is morally sound and unsound based only on his own say so.
"If God does not exist how do you know what is moral and what is not? "
The same way as everyone else - through reasoning and thought. Much of morality stems from the "do unto others" sentiment, the "Golden Rule".
Even if God does exist, does he come along and tell every individual what is moral? Many religious people claim to take the morality from books rather than from God directly. In the case of the Bible, they ignore certain parts (usually the particularly repugnant parts by today's standards) - and this fact shows that they themselves have an innate morality by which they select which parts of the Bible to take inspiration from.
"Atheism makes each man his own God"
Not at all, atheism doesn't involve gods at all...by definition! Morality comes from the relationships between people, how we behave to others and how they behave towards us.
Each man is not judge and decider, and not the ultimate authority. Rather than being subject to a suggested god in a speculatory afterlife, atheists accept that they are subject to authorities we know exist - other people, and the structures put in place by them as a group (society). This is where the logic leads - immediate accountability to society, to one's "fellow man".
Perhaps this goes some way to explaining the fact that atheists are massively under-represented in the prison population, a fact that doesn't fit with your suggestion that atheists are less moral.
It is the belief that God is the moral authority that has lead many extremists to perform immoral acts here on Earth, thinking they will be rewarded in the afterlife and that any punishment met out here on Earth will be fleeting compared to that eternity in paradise or heaven.
Lack of belief in a god is not, as you suggest, a ticket to living a life of indulgent self interest - unless you also don't believe in other people or society (and its ability to punish and reward).
God isn't life, if he was he would reproduce and he would die. If he exists, he must be something else, beyond life and death.
Atheism is not based on science, it is simply lack of belief in theistic gods. Having said that, many atheists come to their atheism through a wider rationalist perspective which includes acceptance that the scientific method is the only demonstrably effective way to learn about the universe we live in. That doesn't oblige anyone to prove anything - science (and atheists in general) can freely admit not knowing something - they have no prescribed "truths" to cling to.
At the moment we do not know how life got started, but there are several plausible naturalistic explanations being considered. We already know that life is made up of the same non-living material as everything else (the chemical elements), so whatever life is, it is emergent from complex arrangements of matter.
It is not "common sense" to believe that people come back from the dead because commonly they do not. If an all powerful god exists then common sense is of no use, because quite literally anything can happen, and it will not be the common laws of nature that determine it but rather the will of that god.
While we all (atheist and theist alike) as a matter of fact do form our own moral judgements on things, only the insane consider themselves to be the ultimate moral authority.
For most atheists (who are humanists), morality (along with punishment and reward) comes in this life, from society. We treat others well and they will be more likely to treat us well, so we are likely to benefit, and so are they.
For most theists, morality comes from god and is punished or rewarded not here but in the next life, and based on this some extremists commit attrocities here in the expectation of reward in the afterlife.Ben, one thing I have learned after about a year of writing articles is that if one allows it he can be led around like a dog on a leash by those who oppose what he has written. You write an article, there is then opposition, you feel under some obligation to respond. One response leads to another and then to another and so on and it can become a never ending task robbing you of your time and taking you away from the goals you want to achieve.My job is to teach the truth and not to convert the world. God gives the increase. Paul said he “planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.” (1 Cor. 3:6) In the parable of the soils it is taught that not all soil will produce when seed is sown. I have done my job in this article. I am content to let what I have written to lie in the hands of God and also to let others who read as you have read make their own decision.
While there is a strong urge to respond to your most recent comments I am going to refrain and only say I must leave you to be your own God and that is my last comment on this subject.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.