How can one prove the resurrection?
Well, “there has to be witnesses,” you say. Yes, of course, and there were. Several people claim to have witnessed Jesus’ literal physical bodily death AND also claim to have witnessed him alive again after he truly died—he was resurrected!
“Well,” you say, “their testimony would have to be a matter of record; that is, somehow documented.” Yes, of course, and that is what we have in the Gospel records. There is documentation that these witnesses saw what they saw, knew what they saw, and vowed veracity and authenticity in their witness. They claimed to have seen and experienced that Jesus truly died and then he was alive again, resurrected from the dead.
Take for example Luke’s narrative account: “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” (Luke 1:1-4.)
Luke gives a rather long winded introduction to his Gospel account, but what is he saying?
First, there are many sources for the same event asserting, among other things, that Jesus really died and then later was really raised from the dead. Note how Luke says, “Since many have undertaken” to set down an account of the events surrounding Jesus. This says that Luke is drawing from several sources. And he draws from these accounts in a way to bring order and comprehension to them.
Secondly, these many sources that Luke refers to are traced back to actual eyewitness accounts. He is not writing from hearsay. He is writing about actual events born witness by actual people. Luke says, “…they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses….”
Thirdly, these witnessed accounts were examined and cross examined; that is, they were verified and validated as literally true. Notice how Luke says: “I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first …so that you may know the truth concerning [these] things….” Luke intends for his account about Jesus to be taken as true. He is not writing fiction, myth, or fairytales. He is writing about actual events, which took place in an actual historical timeline and within an actual geographical place as verified by real personal eyewitnesses.
Finally, Luke is writing to a real person in order to elicit an affirmative response of belief, trust, and acceptance; as Luke puts it: “…to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” In other words, Luke is saying, you can trust what you have been told about this Jesus of Nazareth: He IS Risen!
Luke was educated. He was a medical doctor. He knew how to examine cases, how to study and verify, and draw conclusions. Hence, Luke presents himself as a trustworthy source. And his motives are clear. He is not receiving anything for what he writes. On the contrary, he is risking his own honor and self-respect, i.e., his good reputation, should he write things that can otherwise be shown as false. Thus, Luke has nothing to gain for telling these things about Jesus and everything to lose if his account about Jesus is full of falsehood—especially when it comes to the part about Jesus being raised from the dead.
Effectively, there can be no “scientific” proof of an historical account of this nature. It is relational, personal, social, and historical truth we speak of here. Are these witnesses trustworthy? Can we believe their claims? Are there several sources, several witnesses that can be or have been cross-checked to validate their testimonies? As to Luke’s account about the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, the answer is yes! Yes!! And YES!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment