NYA LI Chapter: 10 Questions Series- The Resurrection

All right, so welcome to our New York Apologetics 10 question series. I'm Tim, this is Anthony. As he noted, JD is not here tonight, but that's all right. He had something else came up. So we are in the middle of our 10 question series where we're answering 10 of the biggest questions that people have about Christianity, about the existence of God and whatnot.

So here's the list here. So why believe God exists? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Which is what we're gonna be talking about tonight. If God, why evil? Does science disprove religion? Why trust the Bible?

Does the Bible condone slavery? Is it intolerant to think Jesus is the only way? How can a loving God send anyone to hell? Is Jesus a rip off of pagan gods? And then number 10, are miracles possible? So this will take us through the end of the year.

We're here once a month. So anybody who's here for the first time, welcome. The last Tuesday of every month is when we meet. So we're doing one a month. So like I just said, it'll take us about a year to get through this.

Why God’s Existence Matters for the Rest of the Questions

So last week we talked about why believe God exists. Now really, this is the most important one. Because if God doesn't exist, well then who cares about any of the other questions? Nothing really matters if God doesn't exist.

So that's why we covered that last week. So we're gonna have a really quick recap. So I gave two strong arguments to show that we should trust that God does in fact exist. What were those two arguments that we had last week?

Anybody remember their names? I mean, it was only a month.

Kalam.

Okay, so there's the Kalam Cosmological Argument. That funny sounding word, right? What was the other one? Okay, so these were the two arguments that we talked about last week. Kalam Cosmological Argument, Moral Argument.

So for anybody who wasn't here or hasn't been attending our classes, typically when you hear the word argument, you think about people fighting, okay? That's not what this is about. An argument is simply presenting a case for something.

Okay, you're arguing for something. So it's not fighting, it's just you're trying to convince somebody of something. So we have the Kalam Cosmological Argument. So what was it? What were the three phrases, the three steps, the two premises and the conclusion?

Anybody remember what the Kalam Cosmological Argument actually is? Yes.

First, whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Okay, so that's step one, premise one, which is the second one. All right, so whatever begins to exist has a cause. That was the first one. So what's the second statement? The universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. And this is airtight. So long as premises one and two are true or at least more reasonably true than false, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

So that's why we like to follow logical syllogisms because they're focused, you know exactly what you're proving and also you're giving someone else a target to attack if they wanna disagree with you.

Okay, well, what here do you disagree with? Okay, so this is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause and really this cause, that is God.

Okay, so the cause, the best explanation for the universe coming into existence is a personal, all-powerful, immaterial God. All right, so we went from the cosmos, the big cosmological argument, and then we zoomed into the human heart, okay, to talk about the moral argument for God's existence.

So what were the two premises and the conclusion for that? What was the syllogism for the moral argument? That's why we're reviewing. So what is the moral argument? Okay, it starts with if.

The first word is if.

Okay.

If God does not exist, all right, I gave you the first few words. If God does not exist, then what else does not exist? Close, not objective truth, okay, good. So if God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.

If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. So then what's step two, premise two? Objective morality exists, okay? Therefore, what do we want to conclude? God exists, all right, very good.

We're all still Christians. All right, if God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. Objective morality does exist, therefore God exists. So we see how simple this argument is, okay? Both arguments, very simple.

Backed by, the kalam is backed by science. It's backed by logic and philosophy. Here, objective morality, this is based on everyday normal human experience. Our experience has certain things are right and wrong, okay, the moral code that God put on our hearts, okay?

So we have two powerful arguments to give us good reason to think that God does in fact exist. Okay, so that's what we did last week. Why believe God exists? So now we do have reason to do the rest of the questions.

Okay, so now we've got two through 10. So we do have good reason to believe that God does exist. Now, these questions do not exist in a vacuum. So like I said a minute ago, that if God doesn't exist, then none of the other questions even matter.

But now, if we do have good reason to think that God does exist, then this is gonna kind of shade our answers for the rest of the questions. So we're not answering them in a vacuum, all right? So we're not coming into this blind that I'm trying to prove that Jesus rose from the dead without presuming the existence of God.

You're not gonna do that, okay? So if we have good reason to believe God exists, well then, really jumping to our very last question, then of course miracles are possible, okay? Once we get to month 10, lesson 10, we're gonna have a much fuller discussion of that.

But if God exists, then yes, miracles are at least possible. And if miracles are possible, then it gives us greater reason to think that it's possible that Jesus could rise from the dead, okay? If we're working on the assumption that God doesn't exist, well then there goes all the impact of Jesus rising from the dead.

But if Jesus did in fact, I'm sorry, if God does exist, we have good reason to think God exists, then of course it's gonna make the resurrection much more likely. So that's gonna be our topic for tonight.

Why the Resurrection Matters for Christianity

So did Jesus really rise from the dead? So this is gonna be tonight's lesson, especially important being that this Friday is Good Friday, and then this Sunday is Easter Sunday, Resurrection Sunday. So by the end of the night, I want you to have even more confidence when you're singing your songs on Sunday, when you're hearing that sermon, you're gonna have an even stronger faith.

You're gonna be able to sing those songs with even much more confidence that Jesus is in fact alive. Because think about it, especially if you've grown up in church, whether you grew up in whatever church you're going to now, whether you grew up Protestant, Catholic, you've heard the stories, you've heard the Bible stories.

Jonah and the big fish, David and Goliath, they all become just stories, right? They're just figures that you color on a piece of paper. They're flannel graph stories. And kids kind of absorb them like they're fairy tales, okay?

They're not. Jesus really rose from the dead. It is a fact of history. And that's the point of what we're gonna talk about tonight. It's not just some story. This isn't some fairy story that we tell young Christian kids.

These are things that actually happened. But let me back up. Before we even talk about the facts about it, why does the resurrection even matter? Why are we here? Why are we talking about it? Why do we celebrate Easter Sunday?

And really every Sunday is a celebration of the resurrection. So why does it matter? So does it matter if Jesus really rose from the dead? What if the resurrection is just legendary or symbolic, as some people argue?

Is it Christianity just about loving your neighbor and being a good person? So what do we think? What does the resurrection actually matter to us? Can I still be a good person even if Jesus didn't really rise from the dead?

What if it was just legendary or symbolic? You know, Jesus symbolically rose from the dead and kind of brings our spirits back to life or something. What do we think about these questions? What does it matter?

What does it matter if Jesus really rose from the dead? Or if he didn't? Would it make a bit of a difference in your life the way that you live, the way that you act? Would you still go to church on Sunday, even if you really weren't sure if this Christianity thing was really true?

Yes.

Okay. Okay.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We have two choices, right? At the end, do we want to enjoy the front of the soccer leg.

Or do we want to go to New Jerusalem?

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. New Jerusalem requires that you believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Mm-hmm.

And ascended into heaven.

But according to self-determination,.

You can't be a heretic Christian.

Mm-hmm.

That'd be the whole thing.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, let's look at what our Bible actually says. Okay, the book that we use to follow for our salvation and our life, our religion. Okay, this is why it matters. 1 Corinthians 15. This is a very important chapter of an important book and we're gonna be coming back to this, okay?

So this is the resurrection chapter. So Paul saying this, okay? Paul, the guy who wrote most of the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 15, verse 14, he says, "'If Christ has not been raised, "'our preaching is useless, and so is your faith.'".

And verse 17 says, "'If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile. "'You are still in your sins.'". Okay, as someone mentioned a minute ago. "'If only for this life we have hope in Christ, "'we are of all people most to be pitied.'".

So if I could summarize this, if Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, then we're idiots. We're wasting our time. Why are we doing this? Why are we here? Why do we worship on Sundays? If Jesus did not rise from the dead, we're just wasting our time.

Okay, Paul says this. Okay, Paul himself says this. This isn't just me and my opinion. He's telling us that this is what matters, the fact that Christ did rise from the dead, okay? So why it matters theologically, there are so many Christian doctrines that hang on the resurrection, okay?

Jesus' deity, just proving that he is who he said he is. The Trinity, salvation, forgiveness of sins, eternal life. So many Christian doctrines hang on the resurrection, okay? So it's not just some little piece of Christianity, take it or leave it.

It is Christianity, it's the core of Christianity. Everything flows from the cross, from the resurrection. So now let's look at why it matters historically, okay? People talking about, well, where did Christianity come from?

How did it arise? Was it simply a legend? Is it just these men, Jesus' followers, who kind of created this religion? Well, this guy, his name is Bart Ehrman. Is anybody familiar with Bart Ehrman, know who he is?

So who is he? Is he a Christian?

No.

Okay, so he's a New Testament scholar, but he is not a Christian, okay? People can study the Bible, anybody can study it. It's not just Christians. So he is a non-Christian. Last I checked, he's agnostic.

He's open to the existence of God, but he's a non-Christian, okay? He's not a friendly, okay? A non-Christian, he's an agnostic New Testament scholar. This is what he has to say, and I'll read it for those of you who can't, who may not be able to read the whole thing.

He says, there can be no doubt historically that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he was raised from the dead. No doubt whatsoever, this is how Christianity started. Okay, this is a historian, a scholar saying this, non-Christian, okay?

There's no doubt that this is how Christianity started, that his followers believe that Jesus rose from the dead. So this is just getting rid of any legendary theories right off the bat, that the resurrection is just some legend that formed after dozens, hundreds of years, okay?

There goes that idea right there. He says, if no one had thought Jesus had been raised, he would have been lost in the mists of Jewish antiquity and would be known today only as another failed Jewish prophet.

He continues, but Jesus' followers, or at least some of them, came to believe that God had done a great miracle and restored Jesus to life. This was not a mere resuscitation, a kind of near-death experience.

For Jesus' disciples, Jesus was raised into an immortal body and exalted to heaven where he currently lives and reigns with God Almighty. All right, so I'm done with it all. But what he's saying is this is how Christianity started.

He's not saying that what the disciples saw was truly Jesus rose from the dead, but he's at least affirming that it was their belief. They honestly believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and that is how Christianity started.

Not just some game of telephone that he goes from being a really nice guy, you know, a prophet, a moral teacher, and then over the years, suddenly he morphs into the Messiah. No, immediate. His followers immediately believed that he did, in fact, rise from the dead, and that's how Christianity started, okay?

So in other words, if there is no resurrection, there also is no Christianity, period, okay? It's a non-negotiable Christianity, okay? So what I want to do now is I just want to look at some initial objections, some beliefs that people bring to the table before even talking about these kind of things, you know, just the kind of things that kind of prepare where we're going from here.

Objections to Miracles, Probability, and Historical Evidence

So the initial objection people might have to begin with is that miracles are simply impossible. They just deny that miracles are possible, therefore the resurrection must be impossible, okay? But this is simply a philosophical assumption, something that you have to decide upon before you even enter into the conversation, okay?

If you've already got your mind made up that miracles are impossible, then all right, then you're not going to listen to anything about a resurrection. But last month, we talked about the existence of God, and if it's possible that God exists, then it's certainly possible that miracles can happen, okay?

So if it's possible that God exists, miracles are certainly possible too, okay? So let's not rule it out off the bat before even looking at the evidence. All right, initial objection two, a miracle is the least probable explanation of any data, okay, a miracle is the least probable explanation of any data.

Well, yeah, that's what makes it a miracle, okay? Otherwise, it would just be called normal common day occurrence. That's what makes it a miracle, okay? But, I mean, improbable things do happen all the time, okay, they do happen.

Someone wins the lotto, you know, for that person, it's highly improbable, or there are plenty other instances, improbable things do happen, okay? It's not an impossibility, it's simply improbable. But now, if you rule out any natural explanations of the data, then the only possible explanation must be supernatural.

Again, think back to last month, when we talked about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Well, what could bring into existence all things natural? It would have to be supernatural, right? If something caused all space, time, matter, and energy, everything natural to come into existence, this cause would have to be supernatural, okay?

So let's look at Mr. Sherlock Holmes, okay? He's got a great quote. He says, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Okay, it's a great quote, okay?

So, if you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. We're gonna come back to this later. Hopefully we can use this again later. All right, so one more objection.

History can't prove miracles, okay? That's not the historical method. History is not in the business of proving miracles. It only deals with natural events and whatnot. Well, none of the facts we're going to examine are miraculous, but the best explanation of the facts can be a miracle, okay?

So none of the facts we're going to examine are miraculous, but the best explanation of the facts can be a miracle, okay? So looking at these three objections, all that I'm asking, anybody here, I don't know who's a Christian, who's a seeker, I don't know where everybody is at, but all that I'm going to ask tonight is that you simply examine the evidence honestly and with an open mind and don't rule anything out until after you have examined the evidence, okay?

Just keep an open mind and don't rule anything out until after you've examined the evidence. Does this sound reasonable?

Can we do this?

Okay, all right, so let's talk about the scientific method versus the historical method, but because before we can discuss anything, we need to understand what we're working with, what branch of knowledge we're dealing with.

We need to understand the methods that we're using to come to truth, what tools that we can use to determine the truth. So what's the difference between the scientific method and the historical method?

What's the difference between the two? Okay, repeatable, good. Historical method, how do we do history? Is history repeatable? I mean, by definition, it's history. It's in the past. So this is a main difference, okay?

The scientific method is all about observation and repeatability. Well, we can't observe history. That's the whole point of history. It's not there anymore, it doesn't exist. So how do we do history? How does history work?

How do we know what happened in the past? What do we rely on?

Okay, that they passed on.

Okay, documentation.

What else?

Okay, so how do we know about the deaths though?

How would we know that they happened? What kind of things, excuse me?

It was observed.

Right, and what past.

It was observed immediately.

Right, so what were these observations though? How do we have that information today? Because I'm just simply talking about history. I'm not denying it. I'm simply saying like, how do we know? Trying to understand the historical method.

Okay.

Okay, wow.

Wow. Crazy.

Yeah, so if we go back even farther though, because this is something that's recent history. Okay, there are news reports and whatnot. But if we're going even back before then, how do we know anything about ancient history?

Where?

What else?

If there's nothing written, what else are we, what are archeologists finding? Artifacts, scrolls, artifacts. So that's basically what we have to do. Historians are kind of like detectives. They have to kind of put bits and pieces together because again, it's not something that you can just go out and observe.

Yeah, you get what you get. Like you can't be picky when it comes to history. You know, if you get an arrowhead or something, you know, if you get a pot or something like that, that's how history works.

It's not like science where you can create your own experiment in a lab or whatnot, and you could set the conditions. That's not how history works. And we can't expect that for history. Okay, so you get the artifacts that you get, and then you make your case off of that, okay?

Luckily, we're dealing with more than that. Okay, so now let's talk about the primary sources. Whenever we're dealing with history, you always hear about primary sources. So what's the primary source of information about the life of Jesus of Nazareth?

What's the primary source of information about Jesus? Okay, the New Testament. And this is where people say, oh, the Bible. You're using the Bible to prove the Bible. So there it all goes. But the thing is, what we need to understand is that the Bible is still a source of historical information, okay?

We're going to use the Bible, but we're not going to give it any special religious treatment, okay? While, of course, all of the Christians here do believe it's God's very word, as far as what we're going to do tonight, we're not going to use it as such.

We're just going to be viewing it as a source of information, like any historian, like any scholar would do, okay? An archeologist or whatnot. Simply using it as a source of history. But we're also not going to be unnecessarily skeptical.

So skeptics can be very fundamentalist, too. They could be just as fundamentalist as any religious person, that they'll just view the Bible and say, all right, well, if it's in the Bible, it's garbage, okay?

But that simply isn't true. This is not what scholars and historians do, okay? They might not accept all of the miracles, but they can figure out using their methods, all right, this is what I'm going to say is solid history, and this is what is debatable and whatnot.

Nobody, no serious scholar, no serious historian treats the Bible the way that some kind of, atheist skeptic on the internet is going to deal with it. They just toss it all away, okay? It contains true information, okay?

That's how Bart Ehrman earlier came to his conclusion, okay? The Bible does contain truth and it contains history, okay? To us, it means more to us, but it still is solid history. So the next question is, what is the New Testament?

Because this is what we're going to be leaning on. Well, it's a collection of letters and writings circulated throughout the church, and then later it was compiled into the Bible along with the Old Testament.

Again, it's not simply religious, it is history. It gives us history, true historical accounts of things that happened, okay? So what I'm going to be leaning on tonight is what's commonly called the Resurrection Creed.

So there are a lot of different approaches that people take when they want to provide evidence for the resurrection, show the truthfulness, the historicity of the resurrection. This is just the way that I like to go.

I like to focus on what's called the Resurrection Creed, okay? So let me read it to you. So this is 1 Corinthians 15, verses three through eight. So this says, for what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas.

And then the 12, I don't know if I pronounced that right, but whatever. After that, he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, he appeared to me also as to one abnormally born, okay? So this is 1 Corinthians 15, three through eight. So we're going to look at this Resurrection Creed.

We're going to look at the validity of it, okay? When was this written, okay? Well, it was written in about 5455 AD, okay? Jesus died around 30. So this means that this was written within 25 years of Jesus's death.

Now, we need to understand how ancient documents work. So there's no Twitter, there's no YouTube back then, there's no media, there's nothing. So for ancient documents, this is really good. This is not like nowadays where if something happens, you know about it immediately.

So this is very close to the time. If you think about other ancient documents, other things that were written, much, much, much, much later, okay? The farther back you go in time, the larger the gap you're going to get.

So this is very, very good, okay? So to us nowadays, 25 years seems like, well, wait a minute, writing about something 25 years later, but this is still a good timeframe for this. But now the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 was formed even earlier than that, because as Paul's saying, for what I received, I passed on to you.

Scholars date this within five years of the crucifixion. Some scholars even date it within months. That this creed is something that maybe Christians, new Christians, you know, repeated, or they taught to the new believers the same way that, you know, there might be creeds or whatnot, or catechisms that we may go through nowadays, okay?

The apostles' creed or something like that. This may have been something, because the structure, the rhythm of it, it seems like it could be something that was used to catechize new Christians, to teach them the Christian story.

So again, this is way too soon to be legendary, okay? As once again, Mr. Ehrman, you know, told us that it was actually a belief in a physical resurrection that what led Christianity to come about. This here, if this rose within five years, maybe even months, this could not just be some legend that formed over years, okay?

But now let's talk a little bit more about the dating of this resurrection creed. So Mike Lacona, he is a New Testament scholar. He kind of focuses on the resurrection, specializes in the resurrection.

He says this, virtually all critical scholars who have written on the subject, including rather skeptical ones, maintain that in 1 Corinthians 15, three through seven, Paul has provided traditions about Jesus that he did not form, but rather received from others as he claims.

There is likewise widespread agreement that it was composed very early and may very well be the oldest extant tradition, extant meaning existing tradition, pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus. So this might be the original creed that Christians were teaching brand new Christians.

Okay, so this is very, very early. This is very, very early. Not something that is legendary or formed over time. So now let's look at the highlights of this resurrection creed. So there are four key parts that we're going to look at tonight.

So the first part is that Christ died. Second is that he was buried, he was raised, and then he appeared. So those are the four things that we're going to examine tonight, that Christ died, he was buried, he was raised, and he appeared, okay?

Christ Died: Crucifixion and Historical Testimony

So the first thing that we're going to look at, the fact that Christ did in fact die. All right, so the biblical references of the crucifixion, it's in all four gospels, and many times it's referred to in Paul's writings.

But of course, people always want to know, well, are there any references outside of the Bible, or is it just in the Bible? Well, the Bible should be enough, but there is still support outside of the Bible.

There's at least five references to the crucifixion outside of the Bible, okay? The first two are generally the most important ones. Okay, Josephus, Josephus, yikes, a Jewish historian, and then we have Tacitus, who's a Roman senator and historian.

So here we have a Jew and we have a Roman, two completely different people. Neither of them are going to be sympathetic to Christianity. Okay, that's very important, okay? So we have Josephus, and then we have Tacitus.

So now, let's suppose that Jesus didn't die. Well, what are the objections that people have? Well, the objection is that no, he didn't die on the cross. The other options are that maybe another person was crucified instead, or that Jesus didn't actually die, he recovered.

So this is known as the swoon theory, or the apparent death hypothesis, or what I like to call the walking Jesus, okay? So for the first one, another person crucified,.

Really?

Like, nobody realized that that guy there isn't Jesus. The people who were with him, his mother was at the foot of the cross. His mother didn't realize that wasn't him being crucified. And there's no historical evidence for this.

What's important to know, whether we're dealing with the resurrection or anything else, whether we're talking about science, whether we're talking about philosophy, an alternate explanation is not a refutation.

If someone's like, oh, well, I could explain that. No, no, no, no, no, you need evidence. An alternate explanation is not a refutation for anything. All right? You need arguments and you need evidence.

There is zero evidence that another person was crucified instead of Jesus, okay? Zero evidence. And we're gonna see this coming up over and over again. If you have a theory, cool, where's your evidence?

This is the evidence that we have, okay? We're not going off of hearsay or just making up alternate theories. There's no evidence for this. So the next theory is again, what I call the walking Jesus theory, or swoon theory, or the apparent death hypothesis.

So let's look at what this theory says. So Jesus is crucified, okay? This is what happened. He's placed in a tomb. This dude recovers in three days from that. Okay, this is a scene from the Passion of the Christ, but this is what Jesus would have looked like, okay?

Or someone who suffered crucifixion. He recovers in three days, rolls away the stone, and then convinces everyone he was a resurrected in a glorified heavenly body.

Him.

I think that's gonna leave a mark. I think a lot, even three days later, a lot of that's still gonna be showing.

Him.

He rolled away the stone on his own, okay? I think we can see how ridiculous this theory is, okay? But that's not even all of it, because a lot more happened before he was even put on the cross. Why does he look like this?

What happened?

Well, before a criminal would even make it, I don't even like calling Jesus a criminal, but the victim, the prisoner, was placed on the cross, well, the punishment began with scourging. So the person is whipped with thongs of leather, which ends in iron balls or sheep bones.

This is meant to tear the person down to the bone. I'm saying like ripping away meat and skin and muscle and tendon, okay? Just ripping away chunks of flesh. The point is to bring the victim near to death.

Once this is done, then they have to carry the cross, or at least the cross beam, to where they're going. Basically, they're humiliated, okay? It's like when grandma tells you to go get a switch that she's gonna whip you with, but a lot worse, okay?

Nails driven through his wrists and his feet, and then dies from asphyxiation, okay? So he's basically suffocated. When someone was on a cross, they're hanging and they can't breathe. That's what kills them.

And then the verification is that Jesus' side was pierced by a spear, just to make sure that he was in fact dead. And we're talking about Roman soldiers here. They were very good at what they did. If they wanted you dead, you were dead, okay?

There's no getting around this. I mean, Jesus died. Let's go back to our good buddy, Bart Ehrman. The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life. One of the most secure facts that we have, that he was in fact crucified by the Romans, okay?

Oh yeah, and forget about the fact of Jesus himself being a legend, okay? That's just dumb. No historian believes that. And we're gonna talk about that in lesson nine. So now let's look at another scholar, John Dominic Crossan.

He's the co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. Has anybody heard of the Jesus Seminar? So they take a very, very liberal view of the Bible, okay? They're not, Orthodox or conservative by any means. But he's still saying that he, meaning Jesus, was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.

That's a strong statement. Since both Josephus and Tacitus agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact. All right, Jesus died on the cross. It's a done deal. It's a historical fact. It is a fact of history.

Again, this isn't a story. This isn't just some story, some coloring pages that we did in Sunday school. This is history, okay? So the crucifixion is a true fact of history that Jesus did in fact die.

Jesus Was Buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s Tomb

So the next fact that we're going to look at, okay, that Jesus was buried, okay? So out of all the facts, this one is one that, you know, might have the least support to it, historical support, but I mean, that's what happens when someone dies, you're buried.

Okay, his burial was in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. It's given in all four gospel accounts. Well, if he wasn't buried, then what else would have happened with the body? So common Roman practice was to just leave them there on the cross to be eaten by animals or just throw them in a shallow pit or something like that.

Okay, but that's Roman practice. Who were the ones who really wanted Jesus dead? The Jewish leaders, okay? The Romans simply carried out a Jewish execution. The Romans were the weapon, okay? But the Jewish leaders are the ones who really wanted it done.

Now, who were the Pharisees? They were like the religious leaders. They were the original virtue signalers, right? They wanted everybody to know how good and holy they were. They followed that law, okay?

They prided themselves in following the law, all right? And they weren't gonna let anything go by. They wanted to rush Jesus's crucifixion to make sure it was done, you know, in the right time so they didn't violate the Sabbath or whatever, right?