If I were to fake the resurrection
Years ago well known author and speaker Josh McDowell set about to try and debunk Christianity. He figured he'd investigate the resurrection by examining the evidence and poke holes into what he believed to be a lie.
He said "as much as I hated to, I had to admit that if I had been some first century propagandist trying to fake the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would have done a number of things differently."
He said.......If I were to fake the resurrection...........
"I would wait a prudent period after the events before "publishing" my account."
It's well known and accepted that the followers of Christ began preaching the news of his resurrection soon ater the event itself. Peter's well known first sermon was exactly 50 days after the resurrection(Acts 2).
"I would publish my account far from the venue where it supposedly happened BR>
One amazing fact is that Christianity originated in the very city which Jesus was crucified. This did not happen in some distant city far away from eyewitness accounts. No. Christianity began in the very city where he was publicly crucified and in the very presence of his enemies.
"I would select my "witnesses" very carefully. "
Names would not have been used or at least avoided at all cost. But when you look at the account at least 16 names were mentioned including two prominent men, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. This Joseph, a rich man and a member of the Sanhedrin, would have been well known. His involvement could have been easily refuted or confirmed by those living at the time these gospels were written.
"Perhaps most important I would avoid citing disruputable witnesses, which makes significant the record of Jesus' first appearances to women since in that time and culture woman were considered invalid witnesses in a court of law."
If this resurrection was indeed fabricated, women would have had no part in any way as witnesses last of all the first witnesses as recorded in the gospels. Even the men it says in scripture did not believe their account and thought they spoke fables.
"I would surround the event with impressive supernatural displays and omens.".
Jewish Scholar Pinchas Lapide said...."We do not read in the first testimonies of an apocalypic spectacle, exorbitant sensations or of the transforming impact of a cosmic event....According to all New Testament reports, no human eye saw the resurrection itself, no human being was present, and none of the disciples asserted to have apprehended, let alone understood its manner and nature. How easy it would have been for them or their immediate successors to supplement this scandalous hole in the concatenation of events by fanciful embellishments! But precisly because none of the evangelists dared to "improve upon" or embellish this unseen resurrection, the total picture of the gospels also gains in trustworthliness."
"I would painstakingly correlate my account with others I knew, embellishing the legend only where I could be confident of not being contradicted."
Many critics have pointed out the apparent contradictions in the gospel accounts. Had they been without their differences one may think collusion instead. Instead what we are left with are 4 different but complimentary eyewitness accounts.
"I would portray myself and any co-conspirators sympathetically, even heroically."
The gospel accounts instead offer unflattering pictures of the disciples. Peter and Thomas especially the leaders of the New Church denied and doubted their Lord they followed for more than three years. We also see many skeptical responses by these same men.
"I would disguise the location of the tomb or spectacularly destroy it in my account."
If a legend is to be perpetuated the tomb would be kept a secret in case the body were to be discovered. But remember the Gospel named the owner of the tomb, the same rich Joseph of Arimathea and its location.
"I would try to squelch inquiry or investigation. "
Paul speaks of the 500 witnesses who were there at the time, many of which were still alive, and he basically said "If you do not believe me, you can ask them." 1 Cor 15. If this were fake anyone trying to substantiate these claims would have been stopped.
"I would not preach a message of repentance in light of the Resurrection."
"No one in his right mind would have chosen to create a fictional message that would invite opposition and persecution from both civil and religious authorities of those days. How much easier and wiser it would have been to preach a less controversial gospel-concentrating on Jesus' teachings about love, perhaps thus saving myself and the adherents of my new religion a lot of trouble."
"I would stop short of dying for my lie."
While some will live for a lie, not many will die for one. All the disciples that had earlier fled for their lives pre crucifixion with the exception of John were martyred for preaching a resurrected Christ. If they were not absolutely certain, would they have allowed themselves to be tortured for this belief?
Real or Fake? You decide.
"To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them 40 days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Acts 1:3.""