He never ...

[squirt]

why does Craig believe Jesus' tomb was unoccupied? he gives his top reasons that the empty tomb is a historical fact ...

first, the empty tomb is definitely implicit in the early tradition that is passed along by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, which is a very old and reliable source of historical information about Jesus, second, the site of Jesus' tomb was known to Christian and Jew alike, so if it weren't empty, it would be impossible for a movement founded on belief in the Resurrection to have come into existence in the same city where this man had been publicly executed and buried, third, we can tell from the language, grammar and style that Mark got his empty tomb story - actually, his whole passion narrative - from an earlier source, in fact, there's evidence it was written before A.D. 37, which is much too early for legend to have seriously corrupted it, A. N. Sherwin-White, the respected Greco-Roman classical historian from Oxford University, said it would have been without precedent anywhere in history for legend to have grown up that fast and significantly distorted the gospels, fourth, there's the simplicity of the empty tomb story in Mark, fictional apocryphal accounts from the 2nd century contain all kinds of flowery narratives, in which Jesus comes out of the tomb in glory and power, with everybody seeing him, including the priests, Jewish authorities and Roman guards, those are the way legends read, but these don't come out until generations after the events, which is after eyewitnesses have died off, by contrast, Mark's account of the story of the empty tomb is stark in it's simplicity and unadorned by theological reflection, fifth, the unanimous testimony that the empty tomb was discovered by women argues for the authenticity of the story, because this would have been embarrassing for the disciples to admit and most certainly would have been covered up if this were a legend

[squirt]

Kirsopp Lake suggested in 1907 that the women merely went to the wrong tomb, he says they got lost and a caretaker at an unoccupied tomb told them, "You're looking for Jesus of Nazareth. He is not here." and they ran away, afraid, isn't that a plausible explanation? Lake didn't generate any following with this, the reason is that the site of Jesus' tomb was known to the Jewish authorities, even if the women had made this mistake, the authorities would've been only too happy to point out the tomb and correct the disciples' error when they began to proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead, there is nobody known who holds to Lake's theory today, frankly, no other options sound very likely either, obviously the disciples had no motive to steal the body and then die for a lie, and certainly the Jewish authorities wouldn't have removed the body, we're left with the theory that the empty tomb was a later legend and that by the time it developed, people were unable to disprove it, because the location of the tomb had been forgotten, that has been the issue ever since 1835, when David Strauss claimed these stories are legendary, and that's why we've focused so much on this legendary hypothesis by showing that the empty tomb story goes back to within a few years of the events themselves, this renders the legend theory worthless, even if there are some legendary elements in the secondary details of the story, the historical core of the story remains securely established, yes, there are answers for these alternative explanations, upon analysis, every theory seems to crumble under the weight of evidence and logic, but the only remaining option is to believe that the crucified Jesus returned to life - a conclusion some people find too extraordinary to swallow, even though these alternative theories admittedly have holes in them, aren't they more plausible than the absolutely incredible idea that Jesus was the Son of God incarnate who was raised from the dead? this is the issue, people who push these alternative theories would admit, "Yes, our theories are implausible, but they're not as improbable as the idea that this spectacular miracle occurred." however, at this point the matter is no longer a historical issue; instead, it's a philosophical question about whether miracles are possible, and what does Craig say to that? he would argue that the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead is not at all improbable, in fact, based on the evidence, it's the best explanation for what happened, what is improbable is the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, that is outlandish, any hypothesis would be more probable than saying the corpse of Jesus spontaneously came back to life, but the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead doesn't contradict science or any known facts of experience, all it requires is the hypothesis that God exists, and there are good independent reasons for believing that He does, as long as the existance of God is even possible, it's possible that He acted in history by raising Jesus from the dead

[squirt]

the evidence is convincing: the empty tomb - admittedly, a miracle of staggering proportions - did make sense in light of this evidence, and it was only part of the case for the Resurrection, now we go on to the evidence for the appearances of the resurrected Jesus, in face of the facts, the best Resurrection critics in the world have been impotent to put Jesus' body back into the tomb, they flounder, they struggle, they snatch at straws, they contradict themselves, they pursue desperate and extraoridnary theories to try to account for the evidence, yet each time, in the end, the tomb remains vacant, in the assessment by one of the towering legal intellects of all time, the Cambridge-educated Sir Norman Anderson, who lectured at Princeton University, was offered a professorship for life at Harvard University and served as the dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of London, he concluded after a lifetime of analyzing this issue from a legal perspective, was summed up in one sentence: "The empty tomb, then, forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the resurrection dash themselves in vain."

[squirt]

in 1963, the body of 14 year old Addie Mae Collins, one of 4 african-american girls tragically murdered in an infamous church bombing by white racists, was buried in Birmingham, Alabama, for years family members kept returning to the grave to pray and leave flowers, in 1998, they made the decision to disinter the deceased for reburial at another cemetery, when workers were sent to dig up the body, however, they returned with a shocking discovery: the grave was empty, understandably, family members were terribly distraught, hampered by poorly kept records, cemetery officials scrambled to figure out what had happened, several possibilities were raised, the primary one being that her tombstone had been erected in the wrong place, yet in the midst of determing what happened, one explanation was never proposed: nobody suggested that young Addie Mae had been resurrected to walk the earth again, why? because by itself an empty grave does not a resurrection make, we've already seen powerful evidence that the tomb of Jesus was empty the Sunday after his crucifixion, while we know that this is important and necessary evidence for his resurrection, we also are aware that a missing body is not conclusive proof by itself, more facts will be needed to establish that Jesus really did return from the dead, in a book by Michael Martin, the Boston University professor who has sought to discredit Christianity these words are found: "Perhaps the most sophisticated defense of the resurrection to date has been produced by Gary Habermas."

[squirt]

isn't it true that there are absolutely no eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection? that's exactly right - there's no descriptive account of the Resurrection, C.S. Lewis, in one of his books, wrote that the New Testament says nothing about the Resurrection, what he was saying was that there was nobody sitting inside the tomb and saw the body start to vibrate, stand up, take the linen wrappings off, fold them, roll back the stone, wow the guards and leave, doesn't this hurt the efforts to establish that the Resurrection is a historical event? no, it doesn't hurt the case one iota, because science is all about causes and effects, we don't see dinosaurs; we study fossils, we may not know how a disease originates, but we study it's symptoms, maybe nobody witnesses a crime, but police piece together the evidence after the fact, so, here's how Habermas looks at the evidence for the Resurrection: first, did Jesus die on the cross? and second, did he appear later to people? if you can establish those 2 things, you've made your case, because dead people don't normally do that, historians agree there's plenty of evidence that Jesus was crucified, and Dr Alexander Methrell demonstrated that Jesus could not have survived the rigors of that execution, that leaves the second part of the issue: did Jesus really appear later? what evidence is there that people saw him? we'll start with evidence that virtually all critical scholars will admit, nobody questions that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and we have him affirming in 2 places that he personally encountered the resurrected Christ, he says in 1 Corinthians 9:1, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" and he says in 1 Corinthians 15:8, "Last of all he appeared to me also." as William Lane Craig indicated, the first part of the creed (verses 3-4) refers to Jesus' execution, burial and resurrection, the final part of the creed (verses 5-8) deals with his post=Resurrection appearances: "[Christ] appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he apppeared to more than five hundred of the brothers 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." in the next verse, Paul adds, "And last of all he appeared to me, as to one abnormally born." on the face of it, this is incredibly influential testimony that Jesus did appear live after his death, here were names of specific individuals and groups of people who saw him, written at a time when people could still check them out if they wanted confirmation, since the creed is pivotal in establishing the Resurrection, we're going to subject it to greater scrutiny: why are historians convinced it's a creed? how trustworthy is it? how far back does it go?

Gary Habermas, PH.D, D.D.

[squirt]

why are so many, Habermas, Craig, Blomberg and others, convinced tha this passage is a creed of the early church and not just the words of Paul, who wrote the letter to the Corinthian church in which it's contained? there are several solid reasons, first, Paul introduces it with the words received and delivered [or passed on in the NIV], which are technical rabbinic terms indicating he's passing along a holy tradition, second, the text's parallelism and stylized content indicate it's a creed, third, the original text uses Cephas for Peter, which is his Aramaic name, in fact, the Aramaic itself could indicate a very early origin, fourth, the creed uses several other primitive phrases that Paul would not customarily use, like "the Twelve", "the third day", "he was raised" and others, fifth, the use of certain words is similar to Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew means of narration, should we go on? it's not just conservative Christians who are convinced, this is an assessment that's shared by a wide range of scholars from across a broad theological spectrum, the eminent scholar Joachim Jeremias refers to this creed as "the earliest tradition of all" and Ulrich Wilckens says it "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity, this raises the question of how primitive the creed is, how far back can it be dated? we know that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians between A.D. 55 and 57, he indicates in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that he has already passed on this creed to the church at Corinth, which would mean it must predate his visit there in A.D. 51, therefore the creed was being used within 20 years of the Resurrection, which is quite early, however, Habermas agrees with the various scholars who trace it back even further, to within 2 to 8 years of the Resurrection, or from about A.D. 32 to 38, when Paul received it in either Damascus or Jerusalem, so this is incredibly early material - primitive, unadorned testimony to the fact that Jesus appeared alive to skeptics like Paul and James, as well as to Peter and the rest of the disciples, but it's not really a firsthand account, Paul is providing the list second- or thirdhand, doesn't that diminish it's value as evidence? not to Habermas, keep in mind that Paul personally affirms that Jesus appeared to him as well, so this provides firsthand testimony, and Paul didn't just pick up this list from strangers on the street, the leading view is that he got it directly from the eyewitnesses Peter and James themselves, and he took great pains to confirm it's accuracy, how do we know that? Habermas would concur with the scholars who believe Paul received this material 3 years after his conversion, when he took a trip to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James, Paul describes that trip in Galatians 1:18-19, where he uses a very interesting Greek word - historeo, why is that significant? because this word indicates that he didn't just casually shoot the breeze when he met with them, it shows this was an investigative inquiry, Paul was playing the role of an examiner, someone who was carefully checking this out, so the fact that Paul personally confirmed matters with 2 eyewitnesses who are specifically mentioned in the creed - Peter and James - gives this extra weight, one of the very few Jewish New Testament scholars, Pinchas Lapide, says the evidence in support of the creed is so strong that it "may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses", and later, in 1 Corinthians 15:11, Paul emphasizes that the other apostles agreed in preaching the same gospel, this same message about the Resurrection, this means that what the eyewitness Paul is saying is the exact same thing as what the eyewitnesses Peter and James are saying, all this sounds pretty convincing, still there are some reservations about the creed and we'll probe further

[squirt]

the creed in 1 Corinthians is the only place in ancient literature where it is claimed that Jesus appeared to five hundred people at once, the gospels don't corroborate it, no secular historian mentions is and that seems to raise a yellow flag, if this really happened, why doesn't anyone else talk about it? you'd think the apostles would cite this as evidence wherever they went, as the atheist Michael Martin says, "One must conclude that it is extremely unlikely that this incident really occurred" and that this therefore "indirectly casts doubt on Paul as a reliable source", well, it's just plain silliness to say this casts doubt on Paul, first, even though it's only reported in one source, it just so happens to be the earliest and best-authenticated passage of all! that counts for something, second, Paul apparently had some proximity to these people, he says, "most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep", Paul either knew some of these people or was told by someone who knew them that they were still walking around and willing to be interviewed, now, stop and think about it: you would never include this phrase unless you were absolutely confident that these folks would confirm that they really did see Jesus alive, Paul was virtually inviting people to check it out for themselves! he wouldn't have said this if he didn't know they'd back him up, third, when you have only one source, you can ask, "Why aren't there more?" but you can't say, "This one source is crummy on the grounds that someone else didn't pick up on it, you can't downgrade this one source that way, so this doesn't cast doubt on Paul at all - Martin would love to do that, but he can't do it legitimately, this is an example of how some critics want it both ways, generally, they denigrate the gospel Resurrection accounts in favor of Paul, since he is taken to be the chief authority, but on this issue, they're questioning Paul for the sake of texts that they don't trust as much in the first place! what does this say about their methodology? where would this encounter with five hundred people have taken place? well, the Galilean countryside, if Jesus could feed five thousand, he could preach to five hundred, and Matthew does say Jesus appeared on a hillside; maybe more than just the eleven disciples were there, wouldn't it be likely that the historian Josephus would have mentioned something of that magnitude? no, that's not necessarily true, Josephus was writing sixty years afterward, how long do local stories circulate before they start to die out? so either Josephus didn't know about it, which is possible, or he chose not to mention it, which would make sense because we know Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, you can't expect Josephus to start building a case for him, we'd love to have five sources for this, we don't, but we do have one excellent source - a creed that's so good that German hsitorian Hans von Campenhausen says, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such at text." besides, you don't need to rely on the reference to the five hundred to make the case for the Resurrection, usually Habermas doesn't even use it, still, there is another aspect of the creed: it says Jesus appeared first to Peter, whereas John said he appeared first to Mary Magdelene, in fact, the creed doesn't mention any women, even though they're prominently featured in the gospel accounts, don't these contradictions hurt it's credibility? no, first of all, look at the creed carefully, it doesn't say that Jesus appeared first to Peter, all it does is put Peter's name first on the list, and since women wre not considered competent was witnesses in the first century Jewish culture, it's not surprising that they're not mentioned here, in the first century scheme of things, their testimony wouldn't carry any weight, so placing Peter first could indicate logical priority rather than temporal priority, again, the creed's credibility remains intact, we've raised some questions, but would we concede that they don't undermine the persuasive evidence that the creed is early, that it's free from legendary contamination, that it's unambiguous and specific, and that it's ultimately rooted in eyewitness accounts? all in all, we must agree that this is right, the weight of the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the creed as being powerful evidence for Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances, so powerful that William Lane Craig said that Wolfhart Pannenberg, perhaps the greatest living systematic theologian in the world, "has rocked modern, skeptical German theology by building his entire theology precisely on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as supplied by Paul's list of appearances." having satisfied the essential reliability of the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, it's time to begin looking at the four gospels, which recount the various appearances by the resurrected Jesus in more detail

[squirt]

we'll start this line of testimony by describing the post-Resurrection appearances in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, there are several different appearances to a lot of different people in the gospels and Acts - some individually, some in groups, sometimes indoors, sometimes outdoors, to softhearted people like John and skeptical people like Thomas, at times they touched Jesus or ate with him, with the texts teaching that he was physically present, the appearances occurred over several weeks, and there are good reasons to trust these accounts - for example, they're lacking in many typical mythical tendencies, we will enumerate these appearances, Jesus appeared:

* to Mary Magdelene in John 20:10-18
* to the other women, in Matthew 28:8-10
* to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24:13-32
* to eleven disciples and others, in Luke 24:33-49
* to ten apostles and others, with Thomas absent, in John 20:19-23
* to Thomas and the other apostles, in John 20:26-30
* to seven apostles, in John 21:1-14
* to the disciples, in Matthew 28:16-20
* and he was with the apostles at the Mount of Olives before his ascension, in Luke 24:50-52 and Acts 1:4-9

it's particularly interesting that C. H. Dodd, the Cambridge University scholar, has carefully analyzed these appearances and concluded that several of them are based on especially early material, including Jesus' encounter with the women, in Matthew 28:8-10; his meeting with the eleven apostles, in which he gave them the Great Commission, in Matthew 28:16-20; and his meeting with the disciples, in John 20:19-23, in which he showed them his hands and side, again, here was a wealth of sightings of Jesus, this was not merely a fleeting observance of a shadowy figure by one or two people, there were multiple appearances to numerous people, several of the appearances being confirmed in more than one gospel or by the 1 Corinthians creed, is there any further corroboration? just look at Acts, the New Testament book that records the launch of the church, not only are Jesus' appearances mentioned regularly, but details are provided, and the theme of the disciples being a witness of these things is found in almost every context, the key is that a number of the accounts in Acts 1-5, 10 and 13 also include some creeds that, like the one in 1 Corinthians 15, report some very early data concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus, the conclusion of John Drane:

The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles ... there can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts it's author has preserved material from very early sources.

indeed, Acts is littered with references to Jesus' appearances, the apostle Peter was especially adamant about it, he says in Acts 2:32, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact." in Acts 3:15 he repeats, "You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this." he confirms to Cornelius in Acts 10:41 that he and others "ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead", not to be outdone, Paul said in a speech recorded in Acts 13:31, "For many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people." the Resurrection was undoubtedly the central proclamation of the early church from the very beginning, the earliest Christians didn't just endorse Jesus' teachings; they were convinced they had seen him alive after his crucifixion, that's what changed their lives and started the church, certainly, since this was their centermost conviction, they would have made absolutely sure that it was true, all of the gospel and Acts evidence - incident after incident, witness after witness, detail after detail, corroboration on top of corroboration - is extremely impressive, surely there is not any more thoroughly attested to event in ancient history, however, there is another question that needs to be raised, this one concerning the gospel that most scholars believe was the first account of Jesus to be written

[squirt]

found in the margin of a bible: the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20, in other words, most scholars believe that the gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, with the women discovering the tomb empty but without Jesus having appeared alive to anyone at all, this seems perplexing, isn't it bothersome that the earliest gospel doesn't even report any post-Resurrection appearances? on the contrary, sure, it would be nice if he had included a list of appearances, but here are some things to think about: even if Mark does end there, which not everyone believes, you still have him reporting that the tomb is empty, and a young man proclaiming, "He is risen!" and telling the women that there will be appearances, so you have, first, a proclamation that the Resurrection has occurred, and second, a prediction that appearances will follow, you can close your favorite novel and say, "I can't believe the author's not telling me the next episode" but you can't close the book and say, "The writer doesn't believe in the next episode", Mark definitely does, he obviously believed the Resurrection had taken place, he ends with the women being told that Jesus will appear in Galilee, and then others later confirm that he did, according to church tradition, Mark was a companion of the eyewitness Peter, isn't it odd that Mark wouldn't mention that Jesus appeared to Peter, if he really had? Mark doesn't mention any appearances, so it wouldn't be peculiar that Peter's isn't listed, however, note that Mark does single out Peter, Mark 16:7 says, "But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you into Gallilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." this agrees with 1 Corinthians 15:5, which confirms that Jesus did appear to Peter, and Luke 24:34, another early creed, which says, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon," or Peter, so what Mark predicts about Peter is reported to have been fulfilled, in two early and very reliable creeds of the church - as well by Peter himself in Acts

[squirt]

without question, the amount of testimony and corroboration of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances is staggering, to put it into perspective, if you were to call each one of the witnesses to a court of law to be cross-examined for just fifteen minutes each, and you went around the clock without a break, it would take you from breakfast on Monday till dinner on Friday to hear them all, after listening to 129 straight hours of eyewitness testimony, who could possibly walk away unconvinced? we have to agree with the assessment of Sir Edward Clarke, a British High Court judge who conducted a thorough legal analysis of the first Easter Day: "To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. As a lawyer I accept the gospel evidence unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate." however, could there be any plausible alternatives that could explain away these encounters with the risen Jesus? could these accounts be legendary in nature? or might the witnesses have experienced hallucinations?

Possibility 1: The Appearances Are Legendary
if it's true that the gospel of Mark originally ended before any appearances were reported, it could be argued that there's evolutionary development in the gospels: Mark records no appearances, Matthew has some, Luke has more and John has the most, doesn't that demonstrate that the appearances are merely legends that grew up over time? for a lot of reasons, no, it doesn't, first, not everybody believes Mark is the earliest gospel, there are scholars, admittedly in the minority, who believe Matthew was first written, second, even if we accept this thesis as true, it only proves that legends grew up over time, it doesn't explain away the original belief that Jesus was risen from the dead, something happened that prompted the apostles to make the Resurrection the central proclamation of the earliest church, legend can't explain those initial eyewitness accounts, in other words, legend can tell you how a story got bigger; it can't tell you how it originated when the participants are both eyewitnesses and reported the events early, third, that forgets that the 1 Corinthians 15 creed predates any of the gospels, and it makes huge claims about the appearances, in fact, the claim involving the biggest number - that he was seen alive by five hundred people at once - goes back to this earliest source! that creates problems for the legendary-development theory, the best reasons for rejecting the legend theory come from the early creedal accounts in 1 Corinthians 15 and Acts, both of which predate the gospel material, and fourth, what about the empty tomb? if the Resurrection were merely a legend, the tomb would be filled, however it was empty on Easter Morning, that demands an additional hypothesis

Possiblity 2: The Appearances Were Hallucinations

maybe the witnesses were sincere in believing they saw Jesus, perhaps they accurately recorded what took place, but could they have been seeing an hallucination that convinced them they were encountering Jesus when they really weren't? Gary Collins, already spoken of here before, a qualified psychologist, a doctorate, a professor for 20 years, the author of dozens of books on psychological issues, president of a national association of psychologists, this is his professional opinion:

Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren't something which can be seen by a group of people. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce an hallucination in somebody else. Since an hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it's obvious that others cannot witness it.

that is a big problem for the hallucination theory, since there are repeated accounts of Jesus appearing to multiple people who reported the same thing, and there are several other arguments why hallucinations can't explain away his appearances, the disciples were fearful, doubtful and in despair after the Crucifixion, whereas people who hallucinate need a fertile mind of expectancy or anticipation, Peter was hardheaded, for goodness' sake; James was a skeptic - certainly not good candidates for hallucinations, also, hallucinations are comparably rare, they're usually caused by drugs or bodily deprivation, chances are, you don't know anybody who's ever had a hallucination not caused by one of those two things, yet we're supposed to believe that over a course of many weeks, people from all sorts of backgrounds, all kinds of temperaments, in various places, all experienced hallucinations? that strains the hypothesis quite a bit, doesn't it? besides, if we establish the gospel accounts as being reliable, how do you account for the disciples eating with Jesus and touching him? how does he walk along with two of them on the road to Emmaus? and what about the empty tomb? if people only thought they saw Jesus, he body would still be in his grave, ok, if it wasn't an hallucination, maybe it was something more subtle, could this have been an example of groupthink, in which people talk each other into seeing something that doesn't exist? as Michael Martin observed, "A person full of religious zeal may see what he or she wants to see, not what is really there." one of the atheists Habermas debated, Antony Flew, told him he doesn't like it when other atheists use that argument, because it cuts both ways, as Flew said, "Christians believe because they want to, but atheists don't believe because they don't want to!" actually, there are several reasons why the disciples couldn't have talked each other into this, as the center of their faith, there was too much at stake; they went to their deaths defending it, wouldn't some of them rethink the groupthink at a later date and recant or just quietly fall away? and what about James, who didn't believe in Jesus, and Paul, who was a perscutor of Christians - how did they get talked into seeing something? further, what about the empty tomb? and on top of that, this view doesn't account for the forthright language of sight in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed and other passages, the eyewitnesses were at least convinced that they had seen Jesus alive, and groupthink doesn't explain this aspect very well, we'll cap this argument with a quote from prominent theologian and historian Carl Braaten: "Even the more skeptical historians agree that for primitive Christianity ... the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a real event in history, the very foundation of faith, and not a mythical idea arising out of the creative imagination of believers." sometimes, people just grasp at straws trying to account for the appearances, but nothing fits all the evidence better than the explanation that Jesus was alive