Did Jesus rise from the dead? (Part 6)

This is the sixth and final part of my series based on the booklet Verdict On The Empty Tomb by Val Grieve.

Click here for part 1.

Click here for part 2.

Click here for part 3.

Click here for part 4.

Click here for part 5.

Chapter 6: Real Evidence

The direct evidence of the disciples that they saw Christ, coupled with the strong chain of circumstantial evidence we have just examined, amount to extremely strong evidence in favour of the miracle of the Resurrection.

As we have seen in previous chapters, this statement is clearly false. The “evidence” offered is extremely unreliable at best, so there is no good reason to accept it. Despite the author’s repeated assertions to the contrary, no unbiased jury in the land would consider this as sufficient evidence to prove the resurrection of Jesus beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, it would not even be sufficient evidence to make the claim of a miracle even slightly plausible.

But to this evidence we can also add what lawyers call real evidence. In a court of law real evidence is evidence which can be produced for the inspection of the court. Goods which have been stolen or a gun which has been found in the possession of the accused is real evidence. What, then, is the real evidence for the Resurrection of Christ? The answer is that the real evidence is Christ himself. If Christ rose from the dead, this means he is living today and that we can experience his power in our lives. To my mind this is the greatest proof of all.

If real evidence is something tangible and physical that can be produced for inspection, where is the tangible and physical person of Jesus for us to inspect? Of all the claims the author makes in the booklet, this one is the most obviously laughable. Of course we cannot see, hear or touch Jesus, because he is not actually here for us to see, hear or touch. So if Jesus is not here physically then how can he be described as evidence for his own resurrection? The very idea is ridiculous. Of course, the Christian has a ready-made excuse for this: he or she will claim that after his resurrection, Jesus ascended bodily into heaven. This suggests that heaven is a place somewhere in the sky where physical, flesh-and-blood humans can live. Where is it? Conveniently, nobody knows. What proof is there of its existence? None.

The elephant in the room, which we have considered previously but to which the author never alludes, is that there is no real evidence anywhere that anyone who has been dead (by which I mean real, brain-stem death) has ever come back to life. In effect, Christians are guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading when they claim that Jesus came back to life two days after he died. There are no other examples of dead people coming back to life, so why should it be assumed that such a thing is even possible, let alone likely? Every single person who has ever died is evidence against the idea that dead people come back to life, as none of them are now alive.

Even if we were to allow, against all reason and evidence, that the “evidence” asserted by the author was actually reliable, we would still run up against this brick wall: dead people do not rise again, and there is no good reason to insist on an exception to this rule for one man from Nazareth who lived in the first century.

A walk through any cemetery will confirm the fact that is most inconvenient for Christians, and that forms the obvious conclusion to this whole discussion: dead people stay dead. There is no reason at all to insist that Jesus of Nazareth was any different.

Chapter 7: Your verdict

This final chapter is nothing more than an exhortation to people to believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and is alive today, and to accept him as their Lord and Saviour. Given that there is clearly no evidence at all for the resurrection of Jesus, to do so would clearly be ridiculous for anyone who has a grasp of the facts at hand.

I am under no illusion that my criticism of the alleged evidence that Jesus rose from the dead will sway the opinion of hard-core Christian believers. No argument or logic could do that, however true and sound, because their beliefs are not based on argument and logic in the first place. Rather, they are based on a combination of childhood indoctrination, emotion and unquestioned cultural norms.

However, it may be that some more open-minded Christians who read this short series of blog posts on the subject are willing to examine their beliefs from the perspective of an outsider and to look at them as objectively as possible. Of such people I would simply ask that they apply the same rigorous standards of evidence and objectivity to their own beliefs as they would apply to those of another religion. I have no doubt that if this is indeed done objectively, people will begin to see that their own religious beliefs are no less ridiculous and bear no more relation to reality than those of others.