Resurrection is real
The case of Jesus Christ's resurrection is based on historical facts from numerous eyewitness accounts — the empty tomb and Jesus being seen alive after his death on the cross. This transformed his disciples into bold witnesses to the saving power and glory of Jesus, proving he is God in the flesh. He fulfilled all of the prophecies regarding the savior of mankind.
It's worth noting that the tombs of other religious icons such as Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna and Confucius remain occupied. Only Jesus' tomb is empty. As was written in Revelation: “I am he that lives and was dead and behold I am alive forevermore.”
There are two types of religion. One is man-centered, based on man's own ability and works to save man on Earth. The other is God-centered, premised on the finished work of Jesus on the cross and resurrection to save us. We are saved by grace alone, by scripture alone, for the glory of God alone. When we understand who Jesus is — God in the flesh – we understand the importance of his death and resurrection.
As New Testament expert Brooke Foss Westcott said, “Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic incident better or more variously supported than the Resurrection of Christ.”
Harvard professor Simon Greenleaf was the world's top expert on evidence, and he studied the evidence for the resurrection. He found the evidence true and became a Christian.
Upon weighing the powerful evidence, I say, “Case closed.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Watson in 33rd
- Gross in 45th
- Gun questions for mayor II
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Barbour sentence shameful
- ObamaCare solution
- Wolf is the right choice