Kevin Landers, LUTCF
Liberty University
Dr. Forrest - PHIL 240
December 2021
Christian Evidences: Jesus and the Resurrection
1. Describe the “minimal” facts approach to the resurrection question. Be sure in your
answer, to provide a general description and outline of this approach when applied to
the resurrection of Christ. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?
Using the least number of facts regarding the resurrection where most of the facts are
generally accepted by scholars, is the minimal facts approach toward the debate for the
resurrection of Jesus. This approach only argues for the resurrection alone, not for anything else
outside of the resurrection. This approach does not apply to the reliability of God’s Word, or the
inerrancy of the Bible. There is an intentional focus and effort using only facts regarding the
resurrection where most are validated and accepted as truth among critics and scholars. As
minimal facts are applied, the resurrection becomes irrefutable in all aspects.
There are several truths and identifiable facts, again where most and even the most
skeptic scholars accept, that make up the foundation of the minimal facts approach. Being
accounted by all the gospels in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the first fact is Jesus died by
way of crucifixion. Outside of the gospels, there are historical and secular scholars who have
agreed Jesus was sent to die by crucifixion; namely, Tacitus, Talmud, and Lucian. This is reliable
and would not make much impact if another secular scholar would try to discredit or make
statements against what others have stated are true, where Christians and secular critics agree,
there would be no gain in doing so.
Another fact in minimal nature is that the disciples believed Jesus was raised from the
dead so much that they spread the news, they preached it. They also told of Jesus appearing to
them after his death. The disciples could have made up these powerful statements and teachings,
to try to keep the belief and story alive and well, but the consequences they faced for telling such
powerful stories and remaining firm in what they believed, were harsh and enduring punishment,
pain, and death. There are many testimonies, including Paul’s, that have been forwarded to new
and future generations of the early church and then provided through texts of the early church
and as we know it today. An example, 1 Corinthians 15 and the early creed that gives us Paul's
testimony the oral tradition of the creed and then the written work to the Corinthians. It wasn’t
just a claim that the disciples made about Jesus’ resurrection, but it was also something they
firmly believed – something they were willing to suffer and die for indeed. It is hard to imagine
that many would believe a made-up story to the point of torture and death. It would have been
simple to reject the lie and live, however, there is not one account of a disciple recanting, but
rather to be willing to die for such a radical belief and mission to pass along absolute truths. In
addition, the disciples included various attributes of their character and ways of living prior to
Jesus’ resurrection. Peter denying Christ is a good example of this.
Leaders being placed within the church, who were once Jews and not easily converted to
Christianity, were in fact converted after being face to face with the resurrected Jesus. Paul
(Saul) and James (the brother of Jesus), have tremendous evidence and fruit in their lives and in
their teachings while spreading the gospel news, that in fact their skepticism had been converted
when facing Jesus, after His death. One being an enemy of the church, killing Christians, and one
being a major skeptic, have testimony that secular critics have agreed is confirmed, specifically
that Paul and James both were killed for their faith in Jesus, the resurrected Jesus.
The tomb of Jesus was empty. This has been accepted by most critics, though not as
prominent as the other facts, but there is evidence Jesus’ tomb was empty. Eyewitnesses, namely
a group of women who first noticed the tomb was empty, who in the time of Jesus, did not have
much credibility, and who would generally not be considered as prominent. If men had
confirmed the tomb was empty, the early church writers would have been mostly hesitant to
admit this had it not been true, and this part of history could have been re-written or omitted. In
addition, Romans would have enjoyed proving this to be false, providing a body of Jesus and
giving some form of evidence that the tomb was not empty or that there was no resurrected
Christ, but the Romans did not provide anything to cause confusion or prove the witness
accounts wrong.
I agree with the use of the minimal facts approach, and how it stands by the truth of the
resurrected Jesus. Using only facts, that the early church, disciples, and secular critics agree with
altogether, provides the foundation and basics to progress in discussions and other truths of
God’s Word. This approach provides a bridge between skeptics and believers.
2. Can one “prove” that Jesus was raised from the dead? Why or why not? Can evidence
from the case for the resurrection be used to further any other apologetic inquiries or
arguments? If so, which ones?
There are dependents of proving Jesus was raised from death to life, such as how a critic or
scholar may approach historical events and the certainties surrounding them. In apologetics of
the Christian faith, there are numerous written records and science that create a case worth
firming up the proof of the resurrection, not just evidence. Evidence can solidify and justify the
consequences of an absolute fact, such as gravity or even day and night throughout the Earth
each given day. Newton’s apple falling to the ground is evidence of gravity, but it is not proof.
Having a standard for proof is important in any topic being debated, or any surveys taken of
customers, and of grading rubrics for that matter. One cannot redefine a standard unless a
community, of the collective group of scholars, critics, and in this case, followers of Christ,
holistically agree of updating the long-standing standard. For instance, one staple attribute of
proof in the case of the New Testament includes approximately twenty-four thousand
manuscripts, which outnumbers all other ancient pieces in existence from history. The Bible’s
teachings are proven and suggests the resurrection stories and beliefs are notably trusted.
There is a firm stance on the evidence during debates among critics and those who make
arguments, where those who believe and those who are educated enough to engage in debate
have a substantial amount of evidence to show favor of the truth of the resurrection. The
evidence continues to grow in amount, reliability, and sustainability regularly as technology
improves and as scientific methods improve. In conjunction with the minimal facts approach,
these evidences provide certainty of the resurrected Christ.
Being a centralized doctrine and founding attribute of Christianity, the resurrection serves
as fantastic groundwork to share with others the core beliefs and testimonies many have to share,
especially to those who do not believe or are not sure what to believe. This gives opportunity to
emulate Christ, sharing the good news of the gospel, just as Christ did after His resurrection.
3. Why is it so important to deal with the question of “legend” as it pertains to the
resurrection? What is the relationship between the early dating of New Testament
documents and the dispelling of accusations that the resurrection story developed as a
legend? Why is it so important that resurrection testimony be dated back to the years
immediately following the crucifixion of Christ? Why is the recognition of “creeds” so
important in establishing an argument refuting the “legendary development” objection to
the resurrection?
A noteworthy gospel, Mark, is considered to have been written within thirty years of
Christ’s crucifixion; having been written around the year sixty. Generally, anything within
four hundred years is easily accepted in historical documents. This profoundly suggests that
the early church writings are credible of the crucifixion and resurrection, as well as the
origination of the first Christian church. It seems any embellishment of Jesus’ resurrection is
easily connected back to the eyewitness accounts and experiences of the disciples and many
others where Jesus’ showed himself and spoke with others after he was raised from the dead.
As noted in 1 Corinthians, written approximately in the year fifty-five, Jesus died and
was raised from the dead, and was seen by many witnesses, hundreds in fact. Noting the
approximate time 1 Corinthians was written this does not give a lot of time to exaggerate a
story or legend based on historical legends and the timelines they have. There was no time to
embellish what hundreds of people and the disciples witnessed and immediately testified to
experiencing with the risen Jesus. One theory attempted is the use of mythology, where
examples of risen gods and mythical creatures were used to develop Jesus’ resurrection. These
have been debunked due to the fact that mythological parallels only come within one-hundred
years AFTER that of the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is no myth.
It seems there is substantial evidence to call fraud or to dismantle any legend ideology
behind the resurrection. When the eyewitness accounts are taken into consideration, primary
and secondary testimonies included, and specifically taking a look at the roles and
responsibilities many of the eyewitnesses played in society at the time such as a doctor, there
is a great deal of respect toward the words and accounts of these witnesses from the general
culture and community members, as it is today; it might be suggested just as many respect the
words of doctors and lead health officials today with the ongoing pandemic of our current
world.
Paul is an absolute example substantial evidence as well, where his conversion and his
life’s work after his conversion, has paved the way for thousands of missionaries spreading
the gospel news today. There are profound and honorable acts, teachings, and doctrines that
rely on the truth and reliability of Paul’s letters to churches, where the historical point of view
takes resounding precedence over any mythical story.
