As we are reminded each year, what Paul wrote to the Romans - in Romans 5:10 - he said:

Romans 5:10 - We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled...  Paul says  ...we shall be saved by His life.

The Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread picture the death of God's Son and putting sin out of our lives just as we put leavening out of our homes.  But we also put unleavened bread into our lives during this season picturing us putting on the unleavened bread of righteousness.  And true righteousness is pictured by the sinless life that Jesus Christ lived and so, we make a point of eating unleavened bread – the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth – each day during the festival week.   

I always find it interesting that the apostle Paul wrote the first letter to the Corinthians during the Days of Unleavened Bread and he discusses putting leavening out of our lives as picturing sin (1 Corinthians 5) and you know the reasoning and the story.  But then as he finishes up the letter, Paul speaks of Jesus and our resurrection in the well-known resurrection chapter, 1 Corinthians 15.   So he ties together the unleavened bread theme, putting sin out, and then Jesus' resurrection and the resurrection chapter. 

In April of 2008, Terri and I actually spent the Passover and 1st Day of Unleavened Bread in Corinth, Greece as part of a Greece biblical education tour.  And it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread in the context of encouraging Christians to properly observe the feast, that the apostle Paul drew a direct link between Jesus' resurrection and leaving sin and he stated, “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.  You are still in your sins.”  (1Corinthians 15:17) 

So I have a question for you today.  How important is it that Jesus actually rose from the dead because there is a very strong movement in our country today to mitigate and destroy our Judeo Christian heritage and especially belief in the resurrection.  And included in this is the teaching and belief that Jesus Christ was just a man, just a teacher – a human teacher – and that He never was actually resurrected after His crucifixion.  But Christ must be risen for us to be free of sin as the scriptures tell us, He was raised from the dead during the Unleavened Bread festival. 

Coming out of sin has an element that requires that Jesus was resurrected and chapter 15 contains some of the most important understandings about Christ's resurrection in the entire New Testament.  Let's turn to 1 Corinthians 15 and note verse 12 to begin with.  Just like today where people are questioning the validity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the early church of God faced the same challenge.  You may recall that a major Jewish sect, the Sadducees, did not believe in the resurrection or even in heavenly beings and so the early church was challenged on this matter. 

1 Corinthians 15:12 - Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, why do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  V. 13 - Because if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.  V. 14 - And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.  V. 16 – For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.  V. 17 - And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

So during this letter that he wrote about the Days of Unleavened Bread, about putting sin out of our lives, Paul then ends up the letter saying if Christ isn't risen, you are still in your sins.  So the resurrection was a critical part of this.  Of course, as we know and as we teach, the truth of the matter is that our sins are forgiven and we are reconciled to God, the Father, through the death of His Son.  And beyond that, we are thankful that our faith is not empty, that Christ is risen and that we may be saved by His life.  And in many respects the ancient ceremony of the wave sheaf offering that took part during this Unleavened Bread festival is so meaning for our lives today because Christ was accepted by the Father and He was resurrected. 

In the sermon today we are going to take a look at the question, was Jesus really resurrected?  Our families and our children are challenged and bombarded by a very secular society that says it was just a myth.  How can we know if it really happened?  Can we know for sure?  I've titled the sermon today, 'Saved by His Life'.  Saved by His life.  And, of course, that's a direct quote from Romans 5:10.  Rom. 5:10 if you want to take a look at it with me.  Paul tells the Romans:

Romans 5:10 - For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.   So the resurrection is a critical part of our faith. 

In the sermon today we are going to take a look at a lot of evidence that verifies the accuracy of the New Testament, and the validity of Jesus' resurrection.  And as we approach the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread, it's very important to strengthen our understanding and knowledge and our faith in this critical understanding of His resurrection.  God has provided us with enough evidence of His existence in our life to convince anyone willing to believe.  He really has.  And there is ample evidence of Jesus Christ and His resurrection.  But in society today this is strongly challenged by secularists and humanists and atheists. 

So let's start with a big question:  Do we have an accurate copy of the Bible?  Do we have an accurate copy of the Bible?  And rather than a very lengthy, exhaustive answer to this, we are going to look at just four reasons why we believe that we have an accurate copy of the Bible.  Then once we have established that, I am going to go on to another point, but this is very important to first establish if we are to believe what the Bible actually says, that Jesus'  is alive and He was resurrected.  Can we believe that the Bible that we hold here on our lap today is an accurate copy of the original manuscripts – manuscripts that were penned by the apostles because the apostles made some very bold claims.  Look at one of them in 2 Peter 1:16.  2 Peter, chapter 1 and let's look at verse 16.  The apostle Peter writes:

2 Peter 1:16 - For we did not follow cunningly devised fables...  he says, “We didn't make this stuff up!”  ...we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.    “We were eyewitnesses!  We saw it!” 

Can we be assured of this eyewitness testimony?  Well, there are a number of reasons we can say yes, without a doubt.  And we'll look at just four here to begin with and you can easily research this yourself and come out with more than four reasons, but I've got four to begin with. 

One reason that we can establish that we have a accurate copy of the Bible is numerous manuscripts.  Numerous manuscripts.  I have a book here that I was reading that I found very helpful.  Its title is 'I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist' and they make a very compelling case in here.  On page 225 of their book – by the way, it's by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek – 'I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist', page 225 here is a quote about manuscripts – and numerous manuscripts.  They say, “At last count there are nearly 5,700 handwritten Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.  In addition, there are more than 9,000 manuscripts in other languages.  Some of the nearly 15,000 manuscripts are complete Bibles.  Others are books or pages and a few are just fragments.”  And they say, “There is nothing in the ancient world that even comes close in terms of manuscript support.  The next closest work is 'The Iliad' by Homer with 643 manuscripts.  Most other ancient works survive on fewer than a dozen manuscripts, yet few historians question the historicity of the events those works describe.”

So to begin, there are numerous manuscripts of the New Testament – thousands more than any other writings from the ancient world.  For example, people believe that Alexander the Great existed even though the historical record is very sparse.  Why not believe that Jesus existed considering there is so much evidence just in what was written. 

Now secondly, very early manuscripts.  Not only are there thousands of them, they are very early – very early manuscripts.  As Geisler and Turek explain on page 226, “Not only does the New Testament enjoy abundant manuscript support, but it also has manuscripts that were written soon after the originals.  The earliest undisputed manuscript is a segment from John 18 - scholars say that between A.D. 117 and A.D. 138, but some say it is even earlier.”  Now as you will find, there are even earlier dated fragments than that.  Some now date as early as A.D. 50 – 70.  Even the most conservative estimates on early New Testament copies of the Bible are dated within one hundred years of the original books being penned by the apostles.

So we have copies in libraries and museums that they say are copies of the Gospels and other books of the New Testament that were copied within a hundred years of the original books penned by the authors.  And, as pointed out in this book, 'I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist', on page 227:  “The time gap between the original and the first surviving copy of the New Testament is still vastly shorter than anything else in the ancient world.  'The Iliad' has the next shortest gap of about 500 years.  Most other works are 1,000 years or more from the original.  The New Testament gap is about 25 years and may even be less.”

So you see the New Testament manuscripts on file are copies made of the apostles' work very soon after the originals were written – just a couple of decades or so.  It would be like if you remember Challenger blowing up or if you remember the day JFK was assassinated and you wrote about it fairly soon after the events happened.  But for other ancient works, the earliest copies we have are usually a thousand years or more from the original.  So we begin to ask why would skeptics question the voracity of the story of Jesus Christ and the New Testament teachings when so many early manuscripts can verify the accuracy of what was written.  And yet, skeptics don't question Homer or Plato or Herodotus  or Caesar, they believe what they wrote and there are only a few scraps that can be found and the earliest copes of their works are upwards of 1,400 years from the originals and only a handful of manuscripts have actually been found.  Scholars have only found seven copies of Plato's work and only ten of Caesar if they are considered authoritative and accurate.  Remember, there are 15,000 manuscripts of New Testament writings. 

Christianity Today magazine reported on February 20th, just two weeks ago, about a very intriguing manuscript find.  Their article was titled, 'Earliest Manuscript of Gospel of Mark Reportedly Found'.  This is a really interesting story.  If this pans out as expected, this manuscript of the gospel of Mark would have been copied in the first century A.D., the same time as the eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.  Let me read a bit of it to you.  You can find article at in.christiantoday.com.  Here's a couple of quotes from it. 

“Dallas Theological Seminary professor Daniel B. Wallace has said that newly discovered fragments from the Gospel of Mark could be the oldest New Testament artifacts ever found and date from the first century A.D., or during the time of eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.

“Wallace announced his findings at UNC Chapel Hill on Feb. 1, 2012, during a debate in front of 1,000 people, where he unveiled that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered – six of them he said were probably from the second century, and one of them, the Gospel of Mark, probably from the first...

“The most remarkable aspect about this find, if it is indeed confirmed to be from the first century, is that it will be the first ever manuscript discovered dated within the lifetime of some of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, according to Wallace.”

Skipping further down, “Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, shared with The Christian Post that this find may indeed be of very great importance.”

And Evens says, "If authenticity and early date are confirmed, this fragment of the Gospel of Mark could be very significant and show how well preserved the text of the New Testament really is...”  He says,  “We all await its publication."

So just imagine if the resurrection never happened then the gospel of Mark would have been ridiculed by all those who read it.  Obviously it was believed to be true, not discredited.  And so copies of Mark's work were made very early on.  And this manuscript they have found may have been just shortly after Mark wrote his original version.  So many hundreds of people saw the resurrected Jesus that no sane author would write something like this gospel during the same time period that the eyewitnesses were alive if it wasn't true otherwise it could easily be discredited.  And a person would be silly, then, to copy such lies.  On the contrary, it was an accepted event that Jesus died and was resurrected.  Of course, the Church then believed that He was God.  So this may turn out to be a very significant find.  So that's our second point on the earliness of our manuscripts. 

Here's a third one, biblical manuscripts are abundantly supported by other early writers.  Biblical manuscripts are abundantly supported by other early writers.  These are people who are not biblical writers.  Early in the fourth century Roman Emperor Diocletian gave three separate orders requiring the Christians be persecuted and the church's books and manuscripts of the New Testament be destroyed.  He also called for the murdering of Christians.  He didn't succeed in totally wiping out all copies or all Christians, but even if he had been successful, if he had killed every Christian and if he had wiped out every New Testament manuscript from the face of the earth, there is enough written by other authors quoting the New Testament that almost the whole book could be reconstructed without the originals.   Geisler and Turek explain on page 228, “Hundreds, if not thousands, of manuscripts were destroyed across the Roman Empire during this persecution which lasted until A.D 311.  But even if  Diocletian had succeeded in wiping out every biblical manuscript off the face of the earth, he could not have destroyed our ability to reconstruct the New Testament.  Why?  Because the early church fathers, men of the second and third centuries under Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian and others quoted the New Testament so much (36,289 times, to be exact) that all but eleven verses of the New Testament can be reconstructed just from their quotations.  So we have not only thousands of manuscripts, but thousands of quotations from those manuscripts and this makes reconstruction of the original text virtually certain.”

And so, can we believe that the Bible that we hold on our lap here today is an accurate copy of the original manuscripts penned by the apostles?  Yes!  Amongst many other reasons, here's a start.  There are thousands of manuscripts, very very early manuscripts and enough quotes by other authors to even reconstruct almost the entire New Testament.  We are going to be looking at some evidence within the Bible here in a minute as well. 

And fourthly, but doesn't the New Testament contain errors?  Doesn't the New Testament contain errors?  Some scholars say that there are 200,000 errors in the New Testament manuscripts and technically they are correct.  But, first of all, these are not errors, but variant readings, the vast majority of which are strictly grammatical like a spelling mistake or some punctuation.  And because these variations are spread throughout more than 5,000 manuscripts, a variant spelling in just one word that is seen in 2,000 of them, they say that's 2,000 errors.  The actual differences are a whole lot less than the 200,000 some skeptics claim.  Textual scholars, those who study this for a living, estimate that only 1 in 60 variations is of any significance at all and only 50 of those 200,000 were of any real significance and that the New Testament can be relied upon to be 99.5% accurate.  It's an interesting study to research the conclusions of historians and textual experts regarding this, if you want to do it.  There are no new disclosures that have cast any doubt on the essential reliability of the New Testament.  Only about 1% of the manuscript variances affect the meaning of the text to any degree.  And not a single Christian doctrine is at stake.  None.  The variety and the multitude of New Testament manuscripts actually enhance the credibility of the Bible and its portrayal of Jesus, and not make us worry about errors.  They actually confirm the validity of it even more. 

And so this leads us to the next section of our sermon.  Even if we believe we have an accurate copy here of the original writings, which I believe we do, can we believe them?  Does the New Testament tell a truthful story about Jesus' life, death and resurrection?  Even if we have an accurate copy of what was written by the apostles, can we believe that what they wrote about Jesus, His crucifixion and His resurrection, was the truth?  Or did they just make it up? 

Go to 1 Thessalonians 2:13.  Read this bold claim made by Paul to the Thessalonians. 

1 Thessalonians 2:13 - For this reason...  he tells them  ...we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

So Paul says, what he told them, what he wrote here was the word of God.  He said this is the truth and this is actually then the basis of our faith.  This is what the upcoming Passover season is all about.  And Jesus was resurrected during the Days of Unleavened Bread. 

So can we believe what they wrote even if we have an accurate copy of what they wrote?  Well, thankfully there are a number of reasons to say yes, this is an accurate record of what took place, what actually happened.  I'll mention six of them here today.  You can certainly research and study more of them for yourself. 

But here's the first reason we can believe that what they wrote was true and really happened.  And that is eyewitness testimony.  Eyewitness testimony.  A major answer to this lies in the fact that some of the New Testament books were written in the 40's and 50's A.D. by eyewitnesses of these events.  But were these witnesses lying?  Skeptics say they were.  They conspired and made up the whole story.  But think about it.  How credible would this be by authors that didn't even live near each other?  And there was no Internet.  There were no telephones.  The eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection would still be around when these books were written – hundred of eyewitnesses, not just two or three, hundreds.  So if it didn't really happen, the New Testament writers would have been known to be fabricating a story and lying.  They couldn't have gotten away with it.  The historical record would show otherwise.  Both the Jews and the Romans could have easily discredited the resurrection story, but they didn't. 

Let's read part of an eyewitness testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.  1 Cor. 15 starting in verse 3.  And what we are about to read here is actually a very important passage as I'll explain in a moment, a very interesting historical passage.  In 1 Cor. 15:3 Paul tells the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 15:3  - For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received...  and here's what he is delivering  ...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures...  he's talking about the Old Testament.   V. 4 - that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,  V. 5 - and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.  V. 6 - After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present...  they are still alive  ...but some have fallen asleep.  V. 7 - After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.  V. 8 - Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time...  because Paul was called later.  But Paul says, “I even saw the resurrected Jesus.”

This passage, verses 3-8, is considered by most scholars – even liberal scholars – to be part of an early church creed or memorized saying that dates back to as close as 18 months from Christ's resurrection.  A number of church doctrines and beliefs were memorized by the brethren because they didn't have access to Bibles like we do today.  And this is one of them and it is found in lots of places, not just in 1 Corinthians.  It's found in other historical writings as one of the earliest church creeds or memorized sayings. 

When Paul was converted a few years after the resurrection, he was probably taught this creed by the Jerusalem pastors, Peter and James, because he went and visited them in Jerusalem three years after he was struck down by God and Jesus called him into the ministry.  Galatians 1:18 is one passage you can reference. 

Galatians 1:18 – Paul says, Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.    Scholars speculate that this was during the the time when this creed was mentioned to Paul. 

William Lillie  in his book 'The Empty Tomb and the Resurrection' says on page 125, “What gives special historical evidence to the list”...  and that's the list from his creed, the five hundred, and James and Peter and the other apostles and Paul.  Lillie says, “What gives special historical evidence to the list...”  as historical evidence  “...is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren still being alive.  St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.'”  Lillie continues,  “...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 of something that happened nearly two thousand years ago.” 

Think about it.  If the resurrection had not occurred, why would Paul give such a list to the eyewitnesses?  They were still alive and Paul would have been laughed to scorn.  He would have lost all credibility as an apostle of God.  He would have been caught in a blatant lie.  That was Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.  There are a number of other New Testament books that were written within 20 to 30 years of Christ's resurrection.  These include the gospel of Mark, of which we found an even earlier manuscript, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, which we just read a moment ago, and Romans.  In fact, since Paul was murdered soon after this, you know that all of Paul's letters were written during the lifetime of those who saw Jesus crucified and then resurrected.  So eyewitnesses is one reason that we can believe the story. 

Secondly, and here's one for you, women witnesses.  Women witnesses.  All four gospel writers tell us that women were the first visitors to the empty tomb and the first to learn of the resurrection.  In ancient times women were not considered  reliable witnesses in court.  What writer in his right mind would lie and say that women discovered the risen Christ?  It wouldn't hold water.  But they did this against all logic of the day.  It said that women found Him first.  Nobody could make this stuff up.  If this was a made up story, you know what the men would have done.  They would have gotten together and said, “Let's figure out these gospel works we are going to produce and lets say this:  yes, us manly men found the empty tomb and announced the glorious resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ to the whole world.”  But no, they said ladies found it first against all logic of the day.  And not only that, Mary Magdalene, who Luke admits had once being demon possessed, says she was one of the women.  Luke says in chapter 8, verse 2:

Luke 8:2 - Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons...   Let's use her as a witness. 

Like I said, you don't make this stuff up.  This is what really happened.  So what we have before us is a truthful story with all the embarrassing events included and it's the story of the life of Jesus and the early church of God. 

Thirdly, the conversion of some Pharisees.  The conversion of some Pharisees.  Luke records in the book of Acts that a controversy arose between new converts who were once leading Pharisees.  Many priests in Jerusalem became Christians and Luke has been shown historically to have written a very accurate record of events even down to the finest details of where cities were located on the maps, the depth of the ocean at various points in the Mediterranean and the correct names of towns that have long since been forgotten - all of which proves that Luke was along for the ride with the apostle Paul and others when he wrote the book of Acts.  And that's an interesting study in itself, the dozens and dozens of things that Luke writes about that have been verified historically accurate.  Why lie about the work of the church of God and yet be so accurate in other minor details?  Luke wouldn't.  The whole thing was true, not just the location of places and how deep the ocean was.  And you can do some very interesting research about the book of Acts and the gospel of Luke that includes a very long list of things Luke wrote about that could only have been penned by someone who was actually there. 

Acts 6:7.  Let's look at Acts 6, verse 7 under this point of conversion of some Pharisees. 

Acts 6:7 - Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.   A great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Acts 15:5 – But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

You heard all about this in the sermon last week.  And as you know from the sermon last week, this issue was resolved by the counsel in between Peter, Paul, James and the others.  The point we are making right now is that Luke would not have included these details if they were not true.  Otherwise everyone would have known that Luke was a fraud if there were not significant converts in the ranks of the Pharisees.  And the Pharisees would have known, too, and would have proclaimed it far and wide that they did not renounce Judaism and join the church of God. 

And so we have eyewitness testimony, we have women witnesses and we have Pharisees converted.  What else?  The fourth one I have listed is hush money for the empty tomb.  Hush money for the empty tomb.  We're going to turn to Matthew chapter 28, starting in verse 11 for the moment.  The tomb of Jesus really must have been empty because it became widely known in the region of Judea.  So that's what Matthew wrote in his gospel.  Mat. 28:11 – of course, this is right after Jesus was resurrected.

Matthew 28:11 - Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened.   So the Roman guards said, “He's gone.  We don't know what happened.”   V. 12 - When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,  V. 13 - saying, "Tell them, 'His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.'   V. 14 - And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure."  So the Romans were worried for their lives.  V. 15 - they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

So this was something that everybody knew about that the Romans were paid off.  It was commonly reported amongst the Jews until this day – not amongst the Christians, amongst the Jews.  So here we see that Matthew makes it very clear that his readers already knew the story.  It was commonly known about the empty tomb and the bribery that went on.  If Matthew were making up the empty tomb story, he would be providing an easy way for his contemporaries to discredit the whole story of the resurrection and the very foundation of our faith.  But no.  As everyone knew at the time, the tomb really was empty and Jesus had been resurrected and He exited the tomb supernaturally.  No physical being could have escaped like this because it was still sealed and it was closely guarded.  If the disciples really did steal the body of Jesus, then how did they get past the elite Roman guard to do so?  And no Roman guard would admit to the capital crime of sleeping on the job.  They didn't sleep.  Christ just disappeared out of there.  They were awake the whole time.  So perhaps that's why the Jewish authorities had to pay off the guards and promise to keep them from getting in trouble and executed. 

The empty tomb is reported or implied in extremely early sources.  Mark's gospel, one of the first written in the New Testament, and also that creed in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 talks about Jesus' resurrection.  And these date so close to the original event that they could not possibly have been the product of a legend.  This was no legend that grew over time.  This is something that was written about almost right away and people witnessed it.  They saw Jesus resurrected.  They believed the story.  The site of Jesus' tomb was known to Christians, to Jews and to the Romans so it could have easily been discredited by local skeptics.  But no one could deny the story.  There is no historical record of the story ever being denied.  In fact, not even the Roman authorities or Jewish leaders ever claimed that the tomb still had Jesus' body in it.  Nobody ever claimed that.  Instead they were forced to invent the absurd story that the disciples, despite having no motive or opportunity, had stolen the body.  “Here's some money.  Just tell them that story.”  The theory that not even the most skeptical critic believes today is that hush money for the empty tomb. 

Number five is historically confirmed people.  Historically confirmed people.  Not only does the New Testament contain historically accurate information and geographical markers, it also lists some famous people.  Let me quote from page 283 of Geisler and Turek again to make this point because they put it very well.  They say, “This is a critical point that bears repeating.  The New Testament documents cannot have been invented because they contain too many historically confirmed characters.  The New Testament writers would have blown their credibility with the contemporary audiences by implicating real people in a fictional story, especially people of great notoriety and power.  There is no way the New Testament writers could have gotten away with writing outright lies about Pilate, Caiaphas, Festus, Felix and the entire Herodian bloodline.  Somebody would have exposed them for falsely implicating these people in events that never occurred.  The New Testament writers knew this and would not have included so many prominent real people in a fictional story with the intent to deceive.  Again, the best explanation is that the New Testament writers actually recorded what they saw.” 

Let me give you some of the historical figures that are mentioned in the New Testament that are also found in non-Christian writings that verify the accuracy of the biblical account.  Here are some names of biblical people mentioned in the Bible that are found in other sources:  Jesus, Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Ananias, Annas, Aretas, Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Caesar Augustus, Caiaphas, Claudius, Drusilla, Erasius, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, Herod the Great, Herod Philip I, Herod Philip II, Herodias, Herodias’s daughter Salome, James, John the Baptist, Judas the Galilean, Lysanias, Pilate, Quirinius, Porcius Festus, Sergius Paulus and Tiberias Caesar.  These names of dozens of key important biblical characters are found in other non-Christian writings of the day – one more way of verifying the accuracy of what we have in our Bible before us. 

Number six, ten non-Christian confirming sources.   Ten non-Christian confirming sources.  There are ten known non-Christian writers who mention Jesus within 150 years of His life.  It's not like they are writing about Jesus today, but they were people that wrote about Him at that time, that were non-Christian writers.  These help confirm the biblical record and the story of Jesus' death and resurrection.  Here are the ten writers from that period: 

1.  Josephus, the Jewish historian for the Roman government.
2.  Tacitus, the Roman Historian.
3.  Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician.
4.  Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories.
5.  Thallus, a first-century historian.
6.  Seutonius, a Roman historian.
7.  Lucian, a Greek satirist.
8.  Celsus, a Roman philosopher.
9.  Mara Bar-Serapion, a private citizen who wrote to his son.
10.  The Jewish Talmud.

By contrast, over the same 150 years there are nine non-Christian sources who mention Tiberius Caesar, Roman emperor at the time that Jesus lived.  So discounting all the Christian sources, Jesus is mentioned by one more source than the Roman emperor.  If you include Christian sources, authors mentioning Jesus outnumber those mentioning Tiberius 43/10.  Here's a listing.  I got this from page 223 of  Geisler and Turek's book that outlines what can be pieced together from these ten non-Christian writers.  Here's a story you glean by putting together what other writers said and remember, some of these are decidedly anti-Christian and remember this list is not from the Bible.  Here's what we can piece together from those ten writers:

1. That Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar.  (Okay?)
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder worker – (of course, you would say that those were miracles). 
4. He had a brother named James. 
5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah. 
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. 
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover. 
8. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when He died. 
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief. 
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. And his disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God. 

That is what we can piece together from those other sources. 

Here's a quote from an anti-Christian author about Jesus' crucifixion.  This is the Roman historian,  Tacitus, who said,  “Jesus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius.”  The extreme penalty, of course, was crucifixion.  The Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote that Pilate condemned him to be crucified.   Lucian of Samosata, who was a Greek satirist, mentions the  crucifixion.  Mara Bar-Serapion, who was a pagan, confirms Jesus was executed.  Even the Jewish Talmud reports that Jeshua was hanged on a tree. 

You can read more about this actually in this book by Lee Strobel, 'The Case For The Real Jesus'.  This is more of a manuscript, textural criticism book going back through the manuscripts that we have today.  'The Case For The Real Jesus'.  But also from this book on page 272, Strobel says, “'We have better historical documentation for Jesus than the founder of any other ancient religion.' said Edward Yamauchi, of Miami University, a leading expert on ancient history.”  Yamauchi used to teach up at Miami University here in Ohio in Oxford, just north of Cincinnati.   Yamauchi said we have more historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion.  Strobel says, “Sources from outside the Bible corroborate that many people believed Jesus performed healings and was the Messiah, that he was crucified, and that despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed he was still alive, worshiped him as God.  One expert documented thirty-nine ancient sources that corroborate more than one hundred facts concerning Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. Seven secular sources and several early Christian creeds concern the deity of Jesus, a doctrine ‘definitely present in the earliest church.’ ”

So there are many non-Christian sources confirming the New Testament story.  We have just looked at six of them here today. 

Here are a couple of quotes from atheists and liberal scholars.  In the book, (The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave)in the chapter entitled 'The Spiritual Body of Christ (and the Legend of the Empty Tomb)' by Carrier on page 195, the atheist Lüdemann finally concedes because of so much evidence “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”  He's saying that he believes that they did experience these things in some way although Lüdemann tries to discount that it was through a resurrection. 

Here's a quote from Strobel again on page 266.  “Have new explanations refuted Jesus' resurrection?  No.  The truth is that a persuasive case for Jesus rising from the dead can be made by using five facts that are well evidenced of which the vast majority of today's scholars agree on the subject including the skeptical ones as truth.  Here they are: 

1.  Jesus' death by crucifixion.
2.  His disciples believed that he arose and appeared to them.
3.  The conversion of the church persecutor, Paul.
4.  The conversion of the skeptic, James, who was Jesus' half-brother.
5.  And Jesus' empty tomb.

Strobel says, “All the attempts by skeptics and Muslims to put Jesus back into his tomb utterly fail when subjected to serious analysis while the other blown and ill-supported claims of the Jesus tomb  documentary and book have been decimated by knowledgeable of scholars.”

And here's just one more quote from Strobel on page 119 where he quotes Paula Fredriksen , a very liberal scholar of Boston University, about what the disciples witnessed.  Here's what Paula Fredriksen  says, “I know in their own terms, what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that's what they saw.”  And she says, “I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know as an historian, that they must have seen something.”  In fact,  Paula Fredriksen has also said that “the disciples' conviction that they had seen the risen Christ... is [part of] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting.”   Everybody believes that the disciples believe they saw that.  Okay? 

Luke 1:1.  Let's look at what Luke, whose writings have been proven very historically and geographically accurate, claims. 

Luke 1:1 - Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us,   V. 2 - just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us,  V. 3 - it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,  V. 4 - that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

So Luke says lets look at the eyewitness story from the beginning and the certainty of those things that you have been taught – a very bold statement by Luke. 

Can we believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?  Without doubt the early Christians did and they witnessed it.  And now we have their story here that has been verified in so many ways. 

I'd like to close with a quote and then a scripture.  First a quote from 'A Case For The Real Jesus' by Strobel on page 276.  Here is his conclusion.  “The disciples were in a unique position to know whether the resurrection happened and they went to their deaths proclaiming it was true.  Nobody knowingly and willingly dies for a lie.  Second, apart from the resurrection there's no good reason why such skeptics as Paul and James would have been converted and would have died for their faith.  Third, within weeks of the crucifixion, thousands of Jews became convinced Jesus was the son of God and began following Him abandoning key social practices that had critical sociological and religious importance for centuries.  They believed they risked damnation if they were wrong.  Fourth, the early sacraments of the New Testament Passover and baptism affirm Jesus' resurrection and deity.  And fifth, miraculous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution rips a great hole in history.  The compelling evidence is that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be, the one and only true Son of God.”

Lets conclude with a passage by Luke in the book of Acts.  Acts 2:31.  Here Luke is quoting the apostle Peter and it's the resurrection story that we have been talking about during this sermon.  Let's start in verse 23 – no, let's go to verse 21.  Acts 2:21.  Let's get the whole flow of the story here in these couple of minutes left. 

Acts 2:21 - 'AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.'   This is a famous sermon or speech that Peter gave and you are familiar with it.  Just think about it in terms of the resurrection story, okay, and what these people had seen and witnessed actually happen.   V. 22 - "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—...  so he's talking to an audience here of what became thousands of people that are eventually converted.  He says, you all know this happened, the miracles, the wonders, the signs by this Jesus of Nazareth.  Everybody knew.   V.23 - Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death...  that was true.  Peter is not making anything up here and Luke's not making it up when he writes it.  This actually happened.   V. 24 - whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it...   Here's an interesting thought now from the Old Testament from Psalms.   V.25 -  For David says concerning Him: 'I FORESAW THE LORD ALWAYS BEFORE MY FACE, FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, THAT I MAY NOT BE SHAKEN.   
V. 26 - THEREFORE MY HEART REJOICED, AND MY TONGUE WAS GLAD; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL REST IN HOPE.   V. 27 - FOR YOU WILL NOT LEAVE MY SOUL IN HADES...  or you won't leave me in the grave  ...NOR WILL YOU ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO SEE CORRUPTION.   You see, that was a prophesy of Christ's resurrection.   V. 28 - YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF JOY IN YOUR PRESENCE.'  
V. 29 – Says Peter,  “Men and brethren...  so he has just finished the quote now from David.  ..."Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.   So Peter says this was not talking about David.  This was talking about the One who became Christ.   V. 30 - Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne...  ah, so this is the story from Psalms about Christ.   V. 31 - he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in the grave, nor did His flesh see corruption.   V. 32- This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.   V. 33 - Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.   V. 34 - "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,   And that is directly referring to the Father welcoming Christ back to the throne and sitting at His right hand.  
V. 35 - TILL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES YOUR FOOTSTOOL."   V. 36 - "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

So we thank our Father in heaven for the Passover and Holy Day season that lies directly ahead of us because we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.  (Romans 5:10)