Evidence for the Resurrection
For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted. Christianity stands or falls on one historical event--the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [i]
Indeed
the New Testament makes the assertion that the truth of Christianity
stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul put it this
way,
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. [15] More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. [19] If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Corinthians 15:14-19)
What
are the arguments used to explain away the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted
for by any natural cause?
A Question of History
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious,
heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most
remarkable fact of history. Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection:
Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in
the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was
crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb
found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised
Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending
into heaven. From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire
and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.
Living
Witnesses
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated
within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those
people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.
The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.
F. F. Bruce, Rylands
professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester,
says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had
there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the
possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a
further corrective."
Is the New Testament Reliable?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information
on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability
of these biblical documents.
By the end of the 19th
century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the
New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between
the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries,
an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New
Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke
wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William
Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian,
and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke
is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with
the very greatest of historians. "
“I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history.” E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics Auckland University
“There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.” Clark Pinnock, Mcmaster University
“If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” F. F. Bruce, Manchester University
“For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” A. N. Sherwin-White, Classical Roman Historian
Fact
1: Jesus Died on the Cross
The New Testament witnesses were fully aware
of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus,
in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100
pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied
to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid
rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb.
Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of
levers) against a tomb entrance.
A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.
But
three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen
from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days,
showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle
recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the
majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So
many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment,
sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics
to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these
facts:
Fact 2: The Roman Seal was Broken
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood
for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking
the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called
into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended,
it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking
of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves.
Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.
Fact
3: The Tomb was Empty
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact
after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go
off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather,
they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching
was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious
to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have
not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness
of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."
Both
Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range
from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth
Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile
source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means
that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."
Gamaliel,
who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion
that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done
that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts
of Christ's body.
Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."
Fact
4: The Stone was Rolled Away
On that Sunday morning the first thing that
impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one
and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All
the Gospel writers mention it.
Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus' body, how could they have done that without the guards' awareness?
Fact
5: The Roman Guard had Deserted
The Roman guards fled. They left their
place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military
discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses
that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility
of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their
jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and
then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent
which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one wand
be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit
would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George
Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment
"produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."
Fact
6: The Grave Clothes were Found
In a literal sense, against all statements
to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty--because of an amazing phenomenon.
John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had
lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved
in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough
to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing
that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the
empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position.
Fact
7: Jesus Appeared to His Disciples
Christ appeared alive on several occasions
after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in
history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or
eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published.
To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published
report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded
as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later
police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute
it.
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned.
Dr.
Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford,
Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses)
as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being
still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.'
Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of
the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something
that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500
witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a
courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for
only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours
of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and
you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.
Fact
8: Jesus Appeared to Hostile Witnesses
Another factor crucial
to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were
hostile or unconvinced.
Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
The argument that
Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from
silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that
all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts
can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."
Christians
believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural
power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent
in unbelief present even greater difficulties.
Fact
9: The Existence of the Church
But the most telling testimony of all
must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused
them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ? Had there been
any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased
social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for
their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen
Christ ."
Christianity
requires an historic cause. It did not exist until about A.D. 30, when it suddenly
burst to life, spread like wildfire, and changed the world. What could have started
this if not the resurrection, as the early Christians claimed? The Church was
founded on the resurrection, and disproving it would have destroyed the whole
Christian movement. However, instead of any such disproof, through the 1st century,
Christians were threatened, beaten, flogged and killed because of their faith."
It would have been much simpler to silence Christianity by putting forth evidence
disproving the resurrection, but this could not be done.
As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking. Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.
So convincing and life changing was the resurrection, that the first Jewish disciples began meeting to worship God together on the first day of the week, the Sunday, and not the traditional Jewish Sabbath, the Saturday.
The
Empty Tomb : Natural Explanations
The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.
1.
The Wrong Tomb?
A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the
women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong
tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement
must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish
authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent
Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location.
Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!
If
the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish
authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb,
thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.
2.
Hallucinations?
Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances
of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported
by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this
theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was
the actual body, and why wasn't it produced?
3. The
Swoon Theory
Popularized by Venturini several centuries
ago and often quoted today, the swoon theory says that Jesus didn’t really die;
he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought him dead,
but later he was resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection.
The skeptic David Friedrich Strauss – himself no believer in the resurrection
– gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus merely revived from a swoon: “It
is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who
crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening
and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given
the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave,
the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry.
Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made
upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac
voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm,
have elevated their reverence into worship.”
4.
The Disciples Stole the Body
Another theory maintains
that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept (Matthew 28:1-15).
The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument
against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of
soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything
like that.
J.N.D. Anderson has been dean of the faculty of law and director
of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London. Commenting
on the proposition that the disciples stole Christ’s body, he says: “This would
run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality
of their lives, their steadfastness in suffering and persecution. Nor would it
begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists
into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle.”
Dr.
John Warwick Montgomery comments: “It passes the bounds of credibility that the
early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among
those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus.”
5.
The Authorities Removed the Body
The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ’s
body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the
disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it
was, why didn’t they just produce the body when the disciples began preaching
the resurrection in Jerusalem? Why didn’t they recover the corpse, put it on a
cart, and wheel it through the centre of Jerusalem? Such an action would certainly
have destroyed Christianity.
Conclusions: The Resurrection
is Factual History
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster
of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair
of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in
determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used
for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh
the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in
the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every
sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath
given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott,
an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too
much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported
than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it
must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."
Where
do you stand?
How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence?
What is your decision about the fact of Christ's empty tomb? What do you think
of Christ? When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ's resurrection,
I had to ask the logical question: "What difference does all this evidence
make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose
again and died on the cross for my sins!' The answer is put best by something
Jesus said to a man who doubted--Thomas. Jesus told him: "I am the way, and
the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John
14:6).
On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.
If I Had Faked the
Resurrection by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler
"And if
Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins...If
only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men"
1 Corinthians 15:17,19.
I set out as a young
man to debunk Christianity. I met a young Christian woman who challenged me to
intellectually examine the evidence for Christianity, and I accepted her challenge.
I aimed to show her-and everyone-that Christianity was nonsense. I thought it
would be easy. I thought a careful investigation of the facts would expose Christianity
as a lie and its followers as dupes.
But then a funny
thing happened. As I began investigating the claims of Christianity, I kept running
up against the evidence. Time after time, I was surprised to discover the factual
basis for the seemingly outlandish things Christians believe. And one of the most
convincing categories of evidence I confronted was this: The resurrection accounts
found in the Gospels are not the stuff of fable, forgery or fabrication.
I had assumed that someone, or several someones, had invented the stories of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. But as I examined those accounts, I had to face the fact that any sensible mythmaker would do things much differently from the way Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did in recording the news of the resurrection. 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:
I would wait a prudent period
after the events before "publishing" my account.
Few historians
dispute the fact that the disciples of Jesus began preaching the news of His resurrection
soon after the event itself; in fact, Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) occurred
within 50 days of the Resurrection. And textual research indicates that the written
accounts of the Resurrection, especially the creedal statement of 1 Corinthians
15:3-8, are astoundingly early in origin, possibly within two years of the event.
Such early origins argue against any notion that the Resurrection accounts are
legendary.
I would publish my account far from the
venue where it supposedly happened.
Dr. William Lane Craig writes, "One
of the most amazing facts about the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection
was that it originated in the very city where Jesus was crucified. The Christian
faith did not come to exist in some distant city, far from eyewitnesses who knew
of Jesus' death and burial. No, it came into being in the very city where Jesus
had been publicly crucified, under the very eyes of its enemies."
I
would select my "witnesses" very carefully.
I would avoid,
as much as possible, using any names at all in my account, and I would certainly
avoid citing prominent personalities as witnesses. Yet at least 16 individuals
are mentioned by name as witnesses in the various accounts, and the mention of
Joseph of Arimathea as the man who buried Jesus would have been terribly dangerous
if the gospel accounts had been faked or embellished. As a member of the Sanhedrin,
a Jewish "Supreme Court," he would have been well-known. J. P. Moreland
writes, "No one could have invented such a person who did not exist and say
he was on the Sanhedrin if such were not the case."
His involvement in the burial of Jesus could have been easily confirmed or refuted. Perhaps most important, I would avoid citing disreputable witnesses, which makes significant the record of Jesus' first appearances-to women-since in that time and culture women were considered invalid witnesses in a court of law. If the accounts were fabrications, the women would never have been included in the story, at least not as first witnesses.
I would surround
the event with impressive supernatural displays and omens.
As Jewish
scholar Pinchas Lapide writes, "We do not read in the first testimonies [of
the Resurrection] of an apocalyptic 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 precisely because none of the evangelists dared to 'improve
upon' or embellish this unseen resurrection, the total picture of the gospels
also gains in trustworthiness."
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 befuddling differences and apparent contradictions in the Resurrection
accounts. But these are actually convincing evidences of their authenticity; they
display an ingenuous lack of collusion, agreeing and (apparently) diverging much
as eyewitness accounts of any event do.
I would
portray myself and any co-conspirators sympathetically, even heroically.
Yet the Gospel writers present strikingly unflattering portraits of Jesus' followers
(such as Peter and Thomas) and their often skeptical reactions (Mark 16:11, 13;
Luke 24:11, 37; John 20:19, 25, 21:4). Such portrayals are very unlike the popular
myths and legends of that (or any) time.
I would
disguise the location of the tomb or spectacularly destroy it in my account.
If I were creating a resurrection legend, I would keep the tomb's location
a secret to prevent any chance that someone might discover Jesus' body, or I would
record in my account that the angels sealed it or carried it off into heaven after
the Resurrection. Or I might have taken the easiest course of all and simply made
my fictional resurrection a "spiritual" one, which would have made it
impossible to refute even if a body were eventually discovered. But, of course,
the Gospel accounts describe the owner of the tomb (Joseph of Arimathea) and its
location ("At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and
in the garden a new tomb," John 19:41), and identify Jesus' resurrection
as a bodily one (John 20:27).
I would try to squelch
inquiry or investigation.
I might pronounce a curse on anyone attempting
to substantiate my claims, or attach a stigma to anyone so shallow as to require
evidence. Yet note the frequent appeal of Jesus' disciples, to the easily confirmed-or
discredited-nature of the evidence, as though inviting investigation (Acts 2:32,
3:15, 13:31; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6). This was done within a few years of the events
themselves; if the tomb were not empty or the Resurrection appearances were fiction,
the early Christians' opponents could have conclusively debunked the new religion.
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.
Lee Strobel has written, "People will die for their religious
beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their
religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.
"While
most people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, the disciples were
in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had risen from the
dead. They claimed that they saw him, talked with him, and ate with him. If they
weren't absolutely certain, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be tortured
to death for proclaiming that the resurrection had happened."
The facts remain. Confucius' tomb, Buddha's tomb, Mohammed's tomb, and Lenin's tomb are all occupied. But Jesus Christ's tomb is EMPTY!
"I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death." -- Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:18 NKJ)
Recommended Further Reading
Josh McDowell: The New Evidence
That Demands A Verdict (Thomas Nelson, 1999)
Josh McDowell: The Resurrection Factor, (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1981).
Frank Morrison: Who Moved the Stone? (Operation Mobilisation, 1994)
Lee Strobel, The Case for Easter (Zondervan, 2003)
Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998)