An integral part of loving is suffering. We, therefore, also have to suffer, uniting our crosses to Christ’s cross, serving Him in all things, without condition. If we ignore the call to redemptive suffering, we all too easily fall into the fallacy that Jesus just wanted to spread peace and love, and that after His death, His followers distorted His message for their benefit.
We often hear, and perhaps even experience, accusations that the first Christians claimed that Christ rose from the dead because they sought fame, money, pleasure, or perhaps just wanted to save their skin. These objections to the authenticity of Christianity, boil down to objections against the authenticity of the Resurrection, which is the central dogma of Christianity. “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” (1 Cor 15:17-18).
We know from multiple religious and secular sources alike that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived about 2000 years ago, preaching throughout Palestine, that He died at the hands of the Romans, and the Jewish authorities, who crucified Him, and that His disciples claimed He rose from the dead on the third day.
With only the extra-biblical historical evidence that we have, we can only reasonably conclude that Jesus Christ was not only a real person who lived about two millennia ago, but that the Jewish authorities handed him over to the Romans, and that the Romans crucified Him. But while this is deductible even from a rationalistic perspective, belief in the resurrection requires faith, because no one can naturally raise himself from the dead. Therefore, something supernatural must have been at play in Jesus Christ. Nobody can bring something dead to life except God. If Christ’s followers claimed that He rose from the dead, then they were claiming that He was God.
Why would early disciples preach this teaching unless they really believed it? This would not help them escape punishment from the authorities. The authorities were trying to kill them. Preaching this message would gain them no fame, for the majority of people looked upon them as idiots, even blasphemers and evildoers. There were no earthly riches to be gained from such a mission. Christ’s followers did not preach what they did because they wanted any earthly benefits, but because they believed that Jesus was the Son of God, Who had become man to save us from our sins.
The early disciples did not preach about Christ Risen so as to deal with the trauma of losing such a close friend as Jesus. Grief’s fuel runs out quickly if exposed to the refining fire. They toiled from land to land, suffered imprisonment, calumny, mockery, torcher, and even death for Christ’s sake. How many martyrs does Zeus have? Where are Baal’s servants who died for him? There are none, for no one believed enough to give up their lives for these false gods. But millions of Christians have given their lives over the centuries for Christ. Christ, is “something greater” than all false gods (Mt 12:6, 41). Eleven of the Twelve apostles were martyred. Clearly, then, the early Christians believed with their whole being that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day after His Passion and Death.
However, one could still say that they were wrong. Perhaps they believed with all their heart and soul that Christ died and rose, but were still wrong. For example, Islam also has martyrs. Thus, the claim could be made that Islam is the true religion. These martyrs die for Allah, yes, but pursue the promise of an earthly paradise, for carnal pleasure. Mohammed relied on his brute force and simple promises of carnal pleasure to convince men to follow him, and these men likewise sought carnal rewards for their labors, and so convincing them to follow him was not a difficult task. Mohammed also forbade his followers from reading both Old and New Testaments, if not for the sole reason of keeping them ignorant of truth and obedient to the flesh and its fleeting pleasures (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4). But Christian martyrs did not die for carnal pleasure. They died not for an earthly, but a heavenly paradise – a face to face union with God which is outside of time or creation, a place, or rather a state which “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived” (1 Cor 2:9). They subjugated natural desires for supernatural ones, and so died not for themselves, “but unto him who died for them, and rose again” (2 Cor 5:15). In other words, Christian martyrs have died for those things which do not naturally appeal to the flesh, but the spirit.
However, this evidence alone is not enough to sufficiently prove the resurrection, because the martyrs theoretically could still have wholeheartedly believed a falsity. But first, we must ask ourselves why the resurrection cannot be true. Based on the evidence we have recounted, the resurrection seems to be true. Most objections to the resurrection stem from a belief that miracles, especially one rising from the dead, are impossible.
But to assume miracles are impossible a priori (as a first principle) is just as outlandish as assuming the resurrection a priori: there is no basis for making either of these assumptions. We have already shown how God is Existence Itself. Since He is “to be,” God is omnipotent – nothing escapes His grasp because He immediately knows everything. Therefore, of course He has the power to work miracles, even raising Himself from the dead.
When addressing the Gospel accounts of the resurrection, those critical of their authenticity will often claim that the four Gospels contain irreconcilable details. Firstly, however, biblical authors meant to convey the substance of certain events, not the word for word (or instance for instance) recounting of them. For example, when the three synoptic gospels recount the words of institution of the Most Holy Eucahrist, they use slightly different words, but all convey the exact same meaning – Jesus turns bread and wine into His own Body and Blood and commissions His twelve apostles, the first priests, to perpetuate this sacrifice until the end of time. The accounts of the resurrection do not contradict each other, even though they include or leave out certain details which the other Gospels incorporate.
When the women come to the tomb on Easter Sunday, the Gospel of Matthew says that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” first saw Jesus resurrected (Mt 28:1). St. Luke says that the women went to the tomb and two angels told them Christ has risen, though the first people whom Luke recounts seeing Jesus risen are two disciples on the road to Emmaus. St. Mark’s Gospel reads that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Salome saw an angel tell them that Christ had risen, and Mary Magdalene was the first to see Christ risen. St. John says that Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene first.
St. Matthew and St. Luke’s accounts of the resurrection do not contradict each other, for St. Luke could not have recounted the two women seeing Christ, even though He recounted them going to the tomb. Even though he recounts the disciples on the road to Emmaus as the first to see Jesus after His resurrection, he could have simply left the women seeing Christ first out of his gospel. St. Mark recounts three women coming to the tomb, instead of St. Matthew’s two. But St. Matthew does not say that only two women came to the tomb (he does not exclude the possibility of three) (St. Paul Center). Thus, for reasons similar to these, St. John’s gospel does not contradict the other gospels.
But why would the gospel writers leave out certain details? They likely left details out which would not appeal to their audiences, or perhaps go over their heads. St. Matthew wrote his gospel for Jewish Christians, St. Luke and St. Mark for Gentile converts, and St. John wrote to emphasize Christ’s Godhead in a more blatant manner than the synoptic gospels. Thus, seemingly missing details in one gospel may be purposeful, as the sacred authors wrote so that their contemporary audiences could understand, not for us two-thousand years later. As St.Thomas says, “If [the resurrection] is miraculous, you have what you asked for, a visible fact; if it is not, then there could not be a greater miracle than that the whole world should have been converted without miracles” (On the Apostles Creed, Prologue).