Case For Christ Questions

Describe the events mentioned concerning the apparition to others post-resurrection.

Christ appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 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. In the next verse, Paul adds, " 'And last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.' "

Who is Sir Lionel Luckhoo and what does he say in regards to the resurrection of Christ?

He is an attorney whose name is mentioned in The Guinness Book Of World Records as the world's most successful lawyer. He says, "I say unequivocally that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt."

What happened when Jesus arrived at the site of the Crucifixion?

He would have been laid down, and his hands would have been nailed in the outstretched position to the horizontal beam. This crossbar was called the patibulum, and at this stage it was separate from the vertical beam, which was permanently set in the ground.

The author discusses a customary practice that when a criminal was crucified and were left on the cross there was an additional way of punishment, what is it? What was Graig's Response?

History tells us that as a rule, crucified criminals were left on the cross to be devoured by birds or were thrown into a common grave. This has prompted John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar to conclude that Jesus's body probably was dug up and consumed by wild dogs. Craig responded saying "if all you looked at was customary practice, yes, I'd agree...But that would ignore the specific evidence in this case.

What is hypovolemic shock and the evidence the Gospels provided for such a condition?

Hypo means 'low', vol refers to volume, and emic means 'blood', so hypovolemic shock means the person is suffering the effects of losing a large amount of blood..This does four things. First, the heart races to try to pump blood that isn't there, second, the blood pressure drops, causing fainting or collapse, third, the kidneys stop producing urine to maintain what volume is left, and fourth, the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the lost blood volume. Jesus was in hypovolemic shock as he staggered up the road to the execution site at Calvary, carrying the horizontal beam of the cross. Finally Jesus collapsed, and the Roman soldier ordered Simon to carry the cross for him. Later we read that Jesus said, "I thirst," at which point a sip of vinegar was offered to him.

Strobel brings up a story from the Old Testaments that will fulfil a prophecy for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, recite the verse, explain how it may contradict with what happened, and lastly could we really counter that claim?

Jesus said in Matthew 12:40, 'For as Jonah was three days and three.' Most scholars recognize that according to early Jewish time reckoning, any part of the day counted as a full day. Jesus was in the tomb Friday afternoon, all day Saturday, and on Sunday morning-under the way the Jews conceptualized time back then, this would have counted as three days. nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth.' However, the gospels report that Jesus was really in the tomb one full day, two full nights, and part of two days.

Is there any further corroboration to the post-resurrection appearances?

Just look at Acts referring to 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.

Why isn't it a good argument to say that the women went to the wrong tomb?

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. The sight of Jesus's tomb was known to the Jewish authorities. Even if the women had made this mistake, the authorities would have 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.

How did Habermas answer when asked about the importance of the resurrection, and what did he say?

Losing his wife was the most painful experience he'd ever had to face, but if the resurrection could get me through that, it can get him through anything. It was good for 30 AD, it's good for 1995, it's good for 1998, and it's good for beyond that. He said quietly, "I believe that with all my heart. If there's a resurrection, there;s a heaven. If Jesus was raised, Debbie will be raised. And I will be someday, too.

Does it seem odd that St. Mark does not mention St. Peter as an eyewitness? Why or why not?

Mark doesn't mention any appearances, so it wouldn't be peculiar the 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 Galilee. 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 he 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 as by Peter himself in Acts.

How does Moreland respond to the statement, "isn't it dangerous to base a decision on subjective experiences?"

Moreland says: "Let me make two things clear, First, I'm not saying, 'Just trust your experience.' I'm saying, 'Use your mind calmly and weigh the evidence, and then let experience be a confirming piece of evidence.' Second, if what this evidence points to is true- that is, if all these lines of evidence really do point to the resurrection of Jesus- the evidence itself begs for an experiential test.

Explain the story of Timothy McVeigh at the beginning of chapter 14.

No witnesses watched Timothy Mcveigh load two tons of fertilizer based explosives into a Ryder rental truck. Nobody saw him drive the vehicle to the front of the federal building in Oklahoma City and detonate the bomb, killing 168 people. No video camera captured an iage of him fleeing the scene. Yet a jury was able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that McVeigh was guilty of the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. Why? Because fact by fact, exhibit by exhibit, witness by witness, prosecutors used circumstantial evidence to build an airtight case against him. While none of the 137 people called to the witness stand had seen Mcveigh commit the crime, their testimony did provide indirect evidence of his guilt: A businessman said Mcveigh rented a Ryder truck, a friend said McVeigh talked about bombing the building out of anger against the government, and a scientist said McVeigh's clothes contained a residue of explosives when he was arrested. Prosecutors buttressed this with more than 700 exhibits, ranging from motel and taxi receipts to telephone records to a truck key to a bill from a Chinese restaurant. Over 18 days, they skillfully wove a convincing web of evidence from which McVeigh was woefully unable to extricate himself.

Was there evidence that people saw Christ? If yes, what is it? If no, what's the argument against it? (cite Biblical verses)

Nobody questions that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and we have him affirming in two 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."

What did Jesus's Tomb look like?

There was a slanted groove that led down to a low entrance, and a large disk-shaped stone was rolled down this groove and lodged into place across the door. A smaller stone was then used to secure the disk. Although it would be easy to roll this big disk down the groove, it would take several men to roll the stone back up in order to reopen the tomb. In that sense it was quite secure."

How far can we date the 1 Corinthians 15 creed?

We know that Paul wrote I 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 twenty years of the Resurrection, which is quite early. However, I'd agree with the various scholars who trace it back even further, to within two to eight 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.

Can you highlight some of the post-resurrection appearances?

-to Mary Magdalene 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, 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

Why did the Jews place soldiers at the tomb?

Maybe they placed the guards there to prevent any sort of tomb robbery or other disturbances from happening during passover. We don't know.

Could the Resurrection be only spiritual in Nature and Jesus's Body still in the Tomb?

"The creed definitely implies the empty tomb," Craig countered. the Jews had a physical concept of resurrection. For them, the primary object of the resurrection was the bones of the deceased-not even the flesh, which was thought to be perishable. After the flesh rotted away, the Jews would gather the bones of their deceased and put them in boxes to be preserved until the resurrection at the end of the world, when God would raise the righteous dead of Israel and they would come together in the final kingdom of God. In light of this, it would have been simply a contradiction of terms for an early jew to say that someone was raised from the dead but his body still was left in the tomb. So when this early Christian creed says Jesus was buried and then raised on the third day, it's saying implicitly but quite clearly: An empty tomb was left behind.

In section "What about the Contradictions," skeptic Charles Templeton said the four descriptions of events are different and cannot be reconciled. Then Michael Martin talked about these events. What are the events that he was talking about? What was Craig's response?

-In Matthew, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn they find the stone had already been rolled back. In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tomb and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In luke, two men are inside. In Matthew, the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In Mark, the women present at the tomb are the two marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb. In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus. Martin points out that John conflicts with much of the other three gospels. In sum, the accounts of what happened at the tomb are either inconsistent or can only be made consistent with the aid or implausible interpretations. Craig said, "Micheal Martin is a philosopher, not a historian, and I don't think he understands the historian's craft. For a philosopher, if something is inconsistent, the law of contradiction says,"This cannot be true, throw it out!" However, the historian looks at these narratives and says, "I see some inconsistencies, but I notice something about them: They're all in the secondary details

What were the five circumstantial evidences that can only be explained through the Resurrection?

-the willingness of the disciples to suffer and even die for what they experienced -the revolutionized lives of skeptics like James and Saul -the radical changes in social structures cherished by Jews for centuries; -the sudden appearance of Communion and baptism; -and the amazing emergence and growth of the church

In the chapter "The Final Argument," Strobel asks, "is there any possible way that Jesus could have survived through the torture and crucifixion?" What does Metherel reply with and his reasoning?

Absolutely not..Remember that he was already in hypovolemic shock from the massive blood loss even before the crucifixion started. He couldn't possibly have faked his death, because you can't fake the inability to breathe for long. Besides, the spear thrust into his heart would have settled the issue once and for all. And the Romans weren't about to risk their own death by allowing him to walk away alive.

How do we know that these sacraments weren't merely adapted from the so-called mysterious religions?

First, there's No hard evidence that any mystery religion believed in gods dying and rising, until after the New Testament period. so if there was any borrowing, they borrowed from Christianity. Second, the Practice of baptism came from Jewish customs and Jews were very much against allowing Gentile or Greek ideas to affect their worship. And third, these 2 sacraments can be dated back to the very earliest Christian community - too early for the influence of any other religions to creep into their understanding of what Jesus' death meant

How are Jesus's appearances not groupthink?

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. 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 persecutor 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 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.

What if Jesus was still alive after all of this, what kind of condition would He be in when talking to his disciples?

Again, there's just no way he could have survived the cross. But if he had, how could he walk around after nails had been driven through his feet? How could he have appeared on the road to Emmaus just a short time later, strolling for long distances? How could he have used his arms after they were stretched and pulled from their joints? Remember, he also had massive wounds on his back and a spear wound to his chest. Metherell's closing point was an argument that nobody has been able to refute ever since it was first advanced by German theologian David Strauss in 1835, Metherell said, "A person in that kind of pathetic condition would never have inspired his disciples to go out and proclaim that he's the Lord of life who had triumphed over the grave. ...After suffering that horrible abuse, with all the catastrophic blood loss and trauma, he would have looked so pitiful that the disciples would never have hailed him as a victorious conqueror of death; they would have felt sorry for him and tried to nurse him back to health. So it's preposterous to think that if he had appeared to them in that awful state, his followers would have been prompted to start a worldwide movement based on the hope that someday they too would have a resurrection body like his. There's just no way.

Describe the debate between Gary Habermas with Anthony Flew, the conclusion, and the discerning judge's contemplation.

Antony Flew, one of the leading philosophical atheists in the world, found that out when he tangled with Habermas in a major debate on the topic "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" The results were decidedly one sided. Of the five independent philosophers from various colleges and universities who served as judges of the debate's content, four concluded that Habermas had won. One called the contest a draw. None cast a ballot for Flew. Commented one judge, "I was surprised(shocked might be a more accurate word) to see how weal Flew's own approach was...I was left with this conclusion: Since the case against the resurrection was no stronger than presented by Antony Flew, I would think it was time I began to take the resurrection seriously. One of five other professional debate judges who evaluated the contestants' argumentation techniques (again Havermas was the victor) felt compelled to write, 'I conclude that the historical evidence, though flawed, is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to conclude that Christ did indeed rise from the dead....Habermas does end up providing 'highly probably evidence' for the historicity of the resurrection with 'no plausible naturalistic evidence against it.' Habermas therefore in my opinion wins the debate.

Are there any credible pieces of evidence that support the claim that Saul has been a skeptic of Jesus?

As a pharisee, he hated anything that disrupted the traditions of the Jewish people. To him, this new counter movement called Christianity would have been the height of disloyalty. In fact, he worked out his frustration by executing Christians when he had a chance," Suddenly he doesn't just ease off Christians but joins their movement! How did this happen? Well, everyone agrees Paul wrote Galatians, and he tells us himself in that letter what caused him to take a 180-degree turn and become the chief proponent of the Christian faith. By his own pen, he saw the risen Christ and heard Christ appoint him to be one of his followers.

What is the main reason why Christians became sure of the resurrection in the earliest days?

As prominent British Theologian Micheal Green said, "the appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity...There can be no rational doubt that they occurred, and that the main reason why Christians became sure of the resurrection in the earliest days was just this. They could say with assurance, 'We have seen the lord.' They knew it was he.

Describe why there was water and blood coming out of Jesus's side. Why do the skeptics bring up John's description as a discrepancy between science and the Bible?

As the person slows down his breathing, he goes into what is called respiratory acidosis-the carbon dioxide in the blood is dissolved as carbonic acid, causing the acidity of the blood to increase. This eventually leads to an irregular heartbeat. In fact, with his heart beating erratically, Jesus would have known that he was at the moment of death, which is when he was able to say, "Lord, into your hands I commit my spirit." And then he died of cardiac arrest. Even before he died, the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called pleural effusion."The Roman Soldier came around and, being fairly certain that Jesus was dead, confirmed it by thrusting a spear into his right side. The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid-the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion-came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel." When you carefully read what John said in John 19:34, he saw 'blood and water' come out; he intentionally put the words in that order. But according to Alexander Metherell, the clear fluid would have come out first, so there's a significant discrepancy here. Metherell replied that according to people who are greek scholars, the order of words in ancient Greek was determined not necessarily by sequence but by prominence. This means that since there was a lot more blood than water, it would have made sense for John to mention the blood first."

Explain the scene of the crucifixion as described by Dr. Metherell? What old testament prophecy does this description fulfill?

At this point Jesus was hoisted as the crossbar was attached to the vertical stake, and then nails were driven through Jesus's feet. Again, the nerves in his feet would have been crushed, and there would have been a similar type of pain. "First of all, his arms would have immediately been stretched, probably about six inches in length, and both shoulders would have become dislocated-you can determine this with simple mathematical equations. This fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy in Psalm 22, which foretold the crucifixion hundreds of years before it took place and says, "My bones are out of joint."

Why didn't the Jews lose their national identity?

Because the things that made the Jews, Jews-the social structures that gave them their national identity-were unbelievably important to them. The jews would pass these structures down to their children, celebrate them in synagogue meetings every Sabbath, and reinforce them with their rituals, because they knew if they didn't, there soon would be no Jews left. They would be assimilated into the cultures that captured them. They believed these institutions were entrusted to them by God. They believed that to abandon these institutions would be to risk their souls being damned to hell after death.

Who is Helen Vorhees Brach? Explain her story and identify the difference between her death and the death of Jesus Christ.

Candy heiress Helen Vorhees Brach flew into the world's busiest airport on a crisp autumn afternoon, stepped into a crowd, and promptly disappeared without a trace. For decades the mystery of what happened to this red-haired, animal-loving philanthropist has baffled police and journalists alike. While investigators are convinced she was murdered, they haven't been able to determine the specific circumstances, largely because they've never found her body. Police have floated some speculation, leaked tantalizing possibilities to the press, and even got a judge to declare that a con man was responsible for her disappearance. But absent a corpse, her murder officially remains unsolved. Nobody has ever been charged with her slaying. Occasionally bodies turn up missing in pulp fiction and in real life, but rarely do you encounter an empty tomb. Unlike the case of Helen Brach, the issue with Jesus isn't that he was nowhere to be seen. It's that he was seen, alive; he was seen, dead; and he was seen, alive once more. If we believe the gospel accounts, this isn't a matter of a missing body. No, it's a matter of Jesus still being alive, even to this day, even after publicly succumbing to the horrors of crucifixion so graphically depicted in the preceding chapter.

Women back then were treated harshly and not being respected like men were, doesn't that make their story unreliable?

Certainly these women were friends of Jesus. But when you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what's really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. In light of this, it's absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women who were friends of Jesus. Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb-peter or john, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that-like it or not- they were the discoverers of the empty tomb!This shows that the gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status.

Why did the soldiers break the legs of those who were crucified?

If they wanted to speed up death-and with the Sabbath and Passover coming, the Jewish leaders certainly wanted to get this over before sundown-the Romans would use the steel shaft of a short Roman spear to shatter the victim's lower bones. This would prevent him from pushing up with his legs so he could breathe, and death by asphyxiation would result in a matter of minutes.

Strobel debates how the gospels say Jesus's corpse was turned over to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the council that voted to condemn Jesus, which is unusual, what is Craig's response to this?

Craig responded, "No, not when you look at all the evidence for the burial...so let me go through it." For one thing, the burial is mentioned by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, where he passes on a very early creed of the church. Since Craig was going to be referring to the creed, the author opened the Bible in his lap and quickly reviewed the passage, "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..." The creed then goes on to list several appearances of the resurrected Jesus." This creed is incredibly early and therefore trustworthy material. This creed is actually a summary that corresponds line by line with what the gospels teach...when we turn to the gospels, we find multiple, independent attestation of this burial story, and Joseph of Arimathea is specifically named in all four accounts. On top of that, the burial story in Mark is so extremely early that it's simply not possible for it to have been subject to legendary corruption.

What is the four line formula in the Creed?

Essentially, it's a four line formula. The first line refers to the crucifixion, the second to the burial, the third to the resurrection, and the fourth to Jesus' appearances.

Creed contradicts the gospels. Creed mentions Christ appeared first to Peter while gospels mention Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which hurt the creed's credibility. How can this argument be disputed?

First of all, look at the creed carefully: it doesn't say Jesus appeared first to Peter. All it does is put Peter's name first on the list. And since women were not considered competent as witnesses in 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.

What do verses 3-4 of the Creed refer to? (first part of the Creed).

First part of the Creed (verses 3-4) refers to Jesus' execution, burial, and resurrection.

Why is 1 Corinthians 15 considering a creed of the early church?

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 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. 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 Wilkens says it indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.

Strobel asks Craig to give him his top six reasons that the Resurrection is real, what were they?

First, he said, "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 AD 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 second 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 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 its 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.

What are the five social structures and explain how the followers of Jesus had changed or abandoned them?

First, he said, they had been taught ever since the time of Abraham and Moses that they needed to offer an animal sacrifice on a yearly basis to atone for their sins. God would transfer their sins to that animal, and their sins would be forgiven so they could be in right standing with him. But all of a sudden, after the death of this Nazarene Carpenter, these Jewish people no longer offer sacrifices. Second, jews emphasized obeying the laws that God had entrusted to them through Moses. In their view, this is what separated them from pagan nations. Yet within a short time after Jesus's death, Jews were beginning to say that you don't become an upstanding member of their community merely by keeping Moses' law. Third, jews scrupulously kept the Sabbath by not doing anything except religious devotion every Saturday. This is how they would earn right standing with God, guarantee the salvation of their family, and be in right standing with the nation. However, after the death of this Nazarene carpenter, this fifteen hundred year tradition is abruptly changed. These Christians worship on Sunday-why? Because that's when Jesus rose from the dead. Fourth, they believed in monotheism-only one god. While Christians teach a form of monotheism, they say that the Father, Son, and Holy spirit are one God. This is radically different from what the Jews believed. They would have considered it the height of heresy to say someone could be God and man at the same time. Yet Jews begin to worship Jesus as God within the first decade of the Christian religion. And fifth, these Christians pictured the Messiah as someone who suffered and died or the sins of the world, whereas Jews had been trained to believe that the Messiah was going to be a political leader who would destroy the Roman armies.

Convince me that Jesus's appearances are not legendary.

First, not everyone believes Mark is the earliest gospel. There are scholars admittedly in the minority, who believe Matthew was written first. Second, even if it is true, it only proves that legends grew up over time-it can'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, you're forgetting 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 500 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 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.

What could possibly have motivated a person to go through all of this pain?

Frankly, a typical person could not have done it...But Jesus knew what was coming, and he was willing to go through it, because this was the only way he could redeem us-by serving as our substitute and paying the death penalty that we deserve because of our rebellion against God. That was his whole mission in coming to Earth. So when you ask what motivated him..well I suppose the answer can be summed up in one word-and that would be love.

How are Jesus's appearances not hallucinations?

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 hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it. And there are several other arguments why hallucinations can't explain away his appearances," he continued. 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 hard headed 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, his body would still be in his grave.

What are four different variations of the swoon theory?

In 1929, D.H. Lawrence wove this theme into a short story in which he suggested that Jesus had fled to Egypt, where he fell in love with the priestess Isis. In 1965, The Passover Plot alleged that it was only the unanticipated stabbing of Jesus by the Roman soldier that foiled his complicated scheme to escape the cross alive. The swoon hypothesis popped up again in Donovan's Joyce's 1972 book The Jesus Scroll, which "contains an even more incredible string of improbabilities than Schonfield's," according to resurrection expert Gary Habermas. In 1982, Holy Blood, Holy Grail added the twist that Pontius Pilate had been bribed to allow Jesus to be taken down from the cross before he was dead. Even so, the authors confessed, "We are not-and still cannot- prove the accuracy of our conclusion."

What is the theory of Addie Mae Collins? How Did the author relate it to Christ's resurrection?

In 1963 the body of 14 year old Addie Mae Collins, one of four 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 determining 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.

Describe the encounter Moreland had with Jesus in his life.

In 1968 I was a cynical chemistry major at the University of Missouri, when I was confronted with the fact that if I examined the claims of Jesus christ critically but with an open mind, there was more than enough evidence for me to believe it. So I took a step of faith in the same direction the evidence was pointing, by receiving Jesus as my forgiver and leader, and I began to relate to him-to the resurrected christ-in a very real and ongoing way. In 3 decades I've had hundreds of specific answers to prayers. I've had things happen that simply cannot be explained by natural explanations, and I have experienced a changed life beyond anything I could have imagined.

How do we know for sure that the Romans used nails on the feet of those who were crucified and not ropes?

In 1968 archaeologists in Jerusalem found the remains of about three dozen Jews who had died during the uprising against Rome around AD 70. One victim, whose name was apparently Yohanan, had been crucified. And sure enough, they found a seven inch nail still driven into his feet, with small pieces of olive wood from the cross still attached. This was excellent archaeological confirmation of a key detail in the gospel's description of the crucifixion.

Explain the extent of Jesus's Psychological distress the night before crucifixion at the garden of Gethsemane. Explain the symptoms Jesus showed, and their effects on His body?

It began after the last supper. Jesus went with his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane. And there, if you remember, he prayed all night. Now, during that process he was anticipating the coming events of the next day. Since he knew the amount of suffering he was going to have to endure, he was quite naturally experiencing a great deal of psychological stress... This is a known medical condition called Hematidrosis. It's not very common, but it is associated with a high degree of psychological stress. What happens is that severe anxiety causes the release of chemicals that break down the capillaries in the sweat glands. As a result, there's a small amount of bleeding into those glands, and the sweat comes out tinged with blood. We're not talking about a lot of blood; it's just a very, very small amount. What this did was set up the skin to be extremely fragile so that when Jesus was flogged by the Roman soldier the next day, his skin would be very, very sensitive.

What was the "final confirmation proof" of the Resurrection?

It's the ongoing encounter with the resurrected Christ that happens all over the world, in every culture, to people from all kinds of backgrounds and personalities-well educated and not, rich and poor, thinkers and feelers, men and women, he said, they all will testify that more than any single thing in their lives, Jesus Christ has changed them. To me, this provides the final evidence-not the only evidence but the final confirming proof-that the message of Jesus can open the door to a direct encounter with the risen Christ.

Saint Paul does not provide a firsthand account, providing the list second- or third- hand, which diminishes the value of the creed as evidence, how can this argument be disputed?

Keep in mind that Paul personally affirms that Jesus appeared to him as well, so this provides first hand 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 its accuracy I would concur with the scholars who believe that 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-histerio. This is significant because this word indicates that he didn't 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 two eyewitnesses who are specifically mentioned in the creed-Peter and James-gives this extra weight. One of the few Jewish New Testament Scholars, Pinchas Lipade, said the evidence in support of the creed is so strong that it "may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses." Richard Bauckham, senior scholars at Ridley Hall in Cambridge, said: "There can be no doubt that...Paul is citing the eyewitness testimony of those who were recipients of resurrection appearances. 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."

Since every member condemned Jesus, that means Joseph of Arimathea did too, so isn't it weird that he went to his Burial?

Luke may have felt this same discomfort," Craig said, "which would explain why he added one important detail-Joseph of Arimathea wasn't present when the official vote was taken. So that would explain things. But the significant point about Joseph of Arimathea is that he would not be the sort of person who would have been invented by Christian Legend or Christian Authors. It's highly improbable that they would have invented one who did the right thing by giving Jesus an honorable burial-especially while all of Jesus's disciples deserted him! Besides, they wouldn't make up a specific member of a specific group, whom people could check out for themselves and ask about this. So Joseph is undoubtedly a historical figure. If this burial by Joseph were a legend that developed later, you'd expect to find other competing burial traditions about what happened to Jesus's body. However, you don't find these at all. John A.T. Robinson, the late Cambridge University New Testament scholar, said the honorable burial of Jesus is one of the earliest and best-attested facts that we have about the historical Jesus.

What is the difference in between the Islam belief and the Christian belief?

Muslims might be willing to die for their belief that Allah revealed himself to Muhammed, but this revelation was not done in a publicly observable way.So they could be wrong about it. They may sincerely think it's true, but they can't know for a fact, because they didn't witness it themselves. However the apostles were willing to die for something they had seen with their own eyes and touched with their own hands. They were in a unique position not to just believe Jesus rose from the dead but to know for sure. And when you've got 11 credible people with no ulterior motives, with nothing to gain and a lot to lose, who all agree they observed something with their own eyes-now you've got some difficulty explaining that away. 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.

What do verses 5-8 of the Creed refer to? (the final part of the Creed).

The Final part of the Creed (verses 5-8) deals with his post-resurrection appearance.

What is Eusabius's historical description of Roman floggings? Description of floggings?

Roman floggings were known to be terribly brutal. They usually consisted of 39 lashes but frequently were a lot more than that, depending on the mood of the soldier applying the blows. The soldier would use a whip of braided leather thongs with metal balls woven into them. When the whip would strike the flesh, these balls would cause deep bruises or contusions, which would break open with further blows. And the whip had pieces of sharp bone as well, which would cut the flesh severely. The back would be so shredded that part of the spine was sometimes exposed by the deep, deep cuts. The whipping would have gone all the way from the shoulders down to the back, the buttocks, and the back of the legs. It was just terrible. Eusebius described flogging by saying, "The sufferer's veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure.'

Why did the women visit the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus Christ, if they already knew about the tomb being securely sealed?

Scholars who have not known the love and devotion that these women felt for Jesus have no right to pronounce cool judgments upon the feasibility of what they wanted to do. Maybe they thought there would be men around who could move the stone. If there were guards, maybe they thought they would. I don't know. Certainly the notion of visiting a tomb to pour oils over a body is a historical Jewish practice; the only question is the feasibility of who would move the stone for them. And I don't think we're in the right position to pronounce judgment on whether or not they should have simply stayed at home.

What is science all about and how did they compare it to the study of fossils? How does this relate to the Case for Christ that Strobel was trying to make?

Science is all about causes and effects. We don't see dinosaurs; we study the fossils. We may not know how a disease originates, but we study its symptoms. Maybe nobody witnesses a crime, but police piece together the evidence after the fact. To find the evidence for the resurrection, there's two questions to ask: did Jesus die on the cross? And did he appear later to people? If both these things are true, 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 Metherell demonstrated in an earlier chapter that Jesus could not have survived the rigors of that execution. That leaves the second part of the issue: Did Jesus appear later?

Define an "experimental test" and describe the analogy they use to define it.

The experiential test is, 'He's Still alive, and I can find out by relating to him.' if you were on a jury and heard enough evidence to convince you of someone's guilt, it wouldn't make sense to stop short of the final step of convicting him. And for people to accept the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and not take the final step of testing it experientially would be to miss where the evidence is ultimately pointing.

Where were the spikes/nails driven through (in Jesus' Body)? And why did the Romans execute criminals in that manner?

The Romans used spikes that were five to seven inches long and tapered to a sharp point. They were driven through the wrists....Metherel said, pointing about an inch or so below his left palm.This was a solid position that would lock the hand; if the nails had been driven through the palms, his weight would have caused the skin to tear and he would have fallen off the cross.And it's important to understand that the nail would go through the place where the median nerve runs. This is the largest nerve going out to the hand, and it would be crushed by the nail that was being pounded in. The pain was absolutely unbearable...In fact, it was literally beyond words to describe, they had to invent a new word: excruciating. Literally, excruciating means out of the cross.Think of that: They needed to create a new word, because there was nothing in the language that could describe the intense anguish caused during the crucifixion.

After Craig responds to Michael Martin's claims, he shows how these events should be really interpreted. How did Craig say we should interpret these events?

The core of the story is the same: Joseph of Arimathea takes the body of Jesus, puts it in the tomb, the tomb is visited by a small group of women followers of Jesus early on Sunday morning following his crucifixion, and they find that the tomb is empty. they see a vision of angels saying that Jesus is risen. The careful historian, unlike the philosopher, doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. He says, 'This suggests that there is a historical core to the story that is reliable and can be depended upon, however conflicting the secondary details might be.' "So we can have great confidence in the core that's common to the narratives and that would be agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars today, even if there are some differences concerning the names of the woman, the exact time of the morning, the number of the Angels, and so forth. Those kinds of secondary discrepancies wouldn't bother a historian."

How does baptism prove anything about the Resurrection?

The early church adopted a form of baptism from their Jewish upbringing, called proselyte baptism. When Gentiles wanted to take upon themselves the laws of Moses, the Jews would baptize those Gentiles in the authority of the God of Israel. But in the New Testament, people were baptized in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit--which meant they had elevated Jesus to the full status of God. Not only that, but baptism was a celebration of the death of Jesus, just as Communion was. By going under the water, you're celebrating his death, and by being brought out of the water, you're celebrating the fact that Jesus was raised to newness of life.

What is the response that these claims are legends not real stories?

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. 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." I would argue that the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead is not at all improbable. In fact, based on evidence, it's the best explanation for what happened. What is improbable is the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That, I would agree, 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 then I think there are good independent reasons for believing that he does.

What does the empty tomb represent? Recite the verse that the apostle Paul said about the reservation and explain what theologian O' Collins says about Christianity.

The empty tomb, as an enduring symbol of the resurrection, is the ultimate representation of Jesus' claim to being God. The apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:17 that the resurrection is the very linchpin of the Christian faith:"if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." Theologian Gerald O'Collins put it this way, "In a profound sense, Christianity without the resurrection is not simply Christianity without its final chapter. It is not Christianity at all." The resurrection is the supreme vindication of Jesus' divine identity and his inspired teaching. It's the proof of his triumph over sin and death. It's the foreshadowing of the resurrection of his followers. It's the basis of christian hope. It's the miracle of all miracles.

Are there any credible pieces of evidence that support the claim that James has been a skeptic of Jesus?

The gospels tell us Jesus' family, including James, were embarrassed by what he was claiming to be. They didn't believe in him; they confronted him. In ancient Judaism it was highly embarrassing for a rabbi's family not to accept him. Therefore the gospel writers would have no motive for fabricating this skepticism if it weren't true. Later the historian Josephus tells us that James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church, was stoned to death because of his belief in his brother. Why did James' life change? Paul tells us: The resurrected Jesus appeared to him. There's no other explanation.

What is the swoon theory?

The idea that Jesus never really died on the cross can be found in the Qur'an. Which was written in the seventh century-in fact, Ahmadiyya Muslims contend that Jesus actually fled to India. To this day, there's a shrine that supposedly marks his real burial place in Srinagar, Kashmir. As the nineteenth century dawned, Karl Bahrdt, Karl Venturini, and others tried to explain away the resurrection by suggesting that Jesus only fainted from exhaustion on the cross, or he had been given a drug that made him appear to die, and that he had later been revived by the cool, damp air of the tomb. Conspiracy theorists bolstered this hypothesis by pointing out that Jesus had been given some liquid on a sponge while on the cross(Mark 15:36) and that Pilate seemed surprised at how quickly Jesus had succumbed(Mark 15:44). Consequently, they said, Jesus' appearance wasn't a miraculous resurrection but merely a fortuitous resuscitation, and his tomb was empty because he continued to live.

Strobel was still interested about the guard's story, so he asked about it once again as well as asking for any evidence. What did Craig say?

The initial Christian proclamation was, "Jesus is risen." The jews responded, "the disciples stole his body." To this Christains said, "Ah but the guards at the tomb would have prevented such a theft.' The jews responded,"Oh, but the guards at the tomb fell asleep. To that the Christians replied, "No, the Jews bribed the guards to say they fell asleep. Now, if there had not been any guards, the exchange would have gone like this: In response to the claim that Jesus is risen, the Hews would say, No the disciples stole his body. Christians would reply, but the guards would have prevented the theft. Then the Jewish response would have been, What guards? You're crazy! There were no guards! Yet history tells us that's not what Jews said. This suggests the guards really were historical and that the Jews knew it, which is why they had to invent the absurd story about the guards having been asleep while the disciples took the body.

Where do some scholars believe that St. Mark's gospel ends, and where does it really end? Does the difference between where scholars believe the Gospel of St Mark ends vs. when it really ends, affect the case for Christ's appearances? Why or why not?

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. That seemed perplexing. 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. 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 he did.

Summarize the process of breathing Jesus was forced to endure (no need for medical terms).

The reason is that the stresses on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest into the inhaled position; basically, in order to exhale, the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment. In doing so, the nail would tear through the foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones. After managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in. Again he'd have to push himself up to exhale, scraping his bloodied back against the coarse wood of the cross. This would go on and on until complete exhaustion would take over, and the person wouldn't be able to push up and breathe anymore."

Why was an entire community of Jews willing to give up the five key practices that had served them sociologically and theologically for so many centuries?

They were very content with the old traditions. They gave them up because they had seen miracles that they could not explain and that forced them to see the world another way. They lived in a period of time in which the older something was, the better. In fact, for them, the farther back they could trace an idea, the more likely it was to be true. These changes to the Jewish social structures were not just minor adjustments that were casually made-they were absolutely monumental. This was nothing short of a social earthquake! And earthquakes don't happen without a cause.

If we were to interview the eyewitnesses, 15 mins each, how long would it take for all the interviews to be conducted?

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 15 minutes each, and you went around the clock without a break,It would take you from breakfast on Monday until dinner on Friday to hear them all. After listening to 129 straight hours of eyewitness testimony, who could possibly walk away unconvinced?

How does communion prove anything about the Resurrection?

What's odd is that these early followers of Jesus didn't get together to celebrate his teachings or how wonderful he was. They came together regularly to have a celebration meal for one reason: to remember that Jesus had been publicly slaughtered in a grotesque and humiliating way. Think about this in modern terms. If a group of people loved John F. Kennedy, they might meet regularly to remember his confrontation with Russia, his promotion of civil rights, and his charismatic personality. But they're not going to celebrate the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered him! they realized that Jesus's slaying was a necessary step to a much greater victory. His murder wasn't the last word--the last word was that he had conquered death for all of us by rising from the dead. They celebrated his execution because they were they convinced that they had seen him alive from the tomb.

Describe how Jesus's followers reacted when Jesus was crucified, buried, resurrected, and later, appeared to them.

When Jesus was crucified, his followers were discouraged and depressed. They no longer had confidence that Jesus had been sent by God, because they believed anyone crucified was accursed by God. They also had been taught that God would not let his Messiah suffer death. So they dispersed. The Jesus movement was all but stopped in its tracks. Then, after a short period of time, we see them abandoning their occupations, regathering, and committing themselves to spreading a very specific message-that Jesus Christ was the Messiah of God who died on a cross, returned to life, and was seen alive by them. They faced a life of hardship. They often went without food, slept exposed to the elements, were ridiculed,beaten, imprisoned. And finally, most of them were executed in tortuous ways. For what? For good intentions? No, because they were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had seen Jesus Christ alive from the dead. What you can't explain is how this particular group of men came up with this particular belief without having had an experience of the resurrected Christ. There's no other adequate explanation

Strobel argues that there are discrepancies in the book of Mark compared to the other gospels. What is Craig's response?

When you look at Mark's theology, he loves to emphasize awe and fright and terror and worship in the presence of the divine. So this reaction of the women-of fleeing with fear and trembling, and saying nothing to anyone because they were afraid-is all part of Mark's literary and theological style. It could well be that this was a temporary silence, and then the women went back and told the others what had happened, it had to be a temporary silence, otherwise Mark couldn't be telling the story about it!

Are there any other early creeds in the new testament?

a number of the accounts in Acts 1-5, 10, ad 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 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 its author has preserved material from very early sources. Indeed Acts is littered with references to Jesus' apparences. 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 it." 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."

Were there eyewitnesses to Jesus's resurrection? What did C.S. Lewis write about the New Testament and Resurrection?

there's no descriptive account of the resurrection...Habermas replied..."when I was young I was reading a book by C.S. Lewis, who wrote that the New Testament says nothing about the resurrection. I wrote a real big 'No!' in the margin. Then I realized what he was saying: Nobody was 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."