Did Jesus really rise from the dead or is it all one big fairy tale?

What If the Resurrection Actually Happened?

Most people have an opinion about the resurrection of Jesus. Some dismiss it outright. Others accept it without ever really examining it. Sharon Edmundson takes a different approach — she walks through the three most common objections to the resurrection and asks whether the evidence actually holds up when you look at it honestly. Not as a theologian, but like a jury weighing the case.

The answer might surprise you.

Objection One — The Gospel Accounts Contradict Each Other

This is one of the most frequently raised objections. Mark mentions three women going to the tomb. Matthew mentions two. Luke mentions a group of unknown number. John mentions one — Mary Magdalene.

On the surface, it looks like the writers cannot get their story straight. But Sharon digs deeper and shows that the accounts do not actually contradict each other — they highlight different details.

John, for example, only names Mary Magdalene. But in the very next verse, Mary says "we do not know where they have laid him." The "we" reveals that others were there — John simply chose to focus on Mary.

Sharon references J. Warner Wallace, a cold case homicide detective and former atheist who investigated the Gospels using the same skills he applies to murder cases. His conclusion? The differences between the accounts are exactly what you would expect from genuine eyewitnesses.

"Unless you stop each person and say, 'I noticed you mentioned so-and-so but not these others — were they not there?' you're only going to get a partial account," Wallace explains. "Without an investigative interviewer asking you to empty out everything, don't be surprised if you get small variations."

In fact, if all four Gospel writers told exactly the same story with no differences, it would suggest they had rehearsed it together. The variations are actually a mark of authenticity, not a problem.

Objection Two — Miracles Are Not Possible

Google defines a miracle as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." Many people dismiss miracles because they are committed to explaining everything through natural causes alone.

Sharon quotes the biologist Richard Lewontin, who said, "We are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes... moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." In other words, miracles are ruled out before the evidence is even examined — not because of what the evidence shows, but because of a prior commitment to materialism.

But John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford, points out that there are different levels of explanation. Why is a kettle boiling? You could explain the electrical current heating the element. Or you could say John Lennox wants a cup of tea. Both explanations are true. They operate on different levels and do not conflict with each other.

Sharon puts it simply — if God created the entire universe and everything in it, would it really be that hard for him to heal someone or raise someone from the dead?

She also quotes Pete Greig: "The laws of science are explanations of the ways in which God mostly chooses to act. But sometimes he exercises his right to go off piste." Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, and rose from the dead. These are not impossible if God exists — they are simply rare.

Objection Three — The Body Was Stolen

Two groups could theoretically have stolen the body — the disciples or the authorities.

The disciples are unlikely culprits. Nearly all of them went on to be killed for their faith. Many people will die for something they believe to be true, but very few will die for something they know is a lie. Under the kind of pressure they faced — torture, crucifixion — someone would have cracked and admitted they had stolen the body.

Peter, tradition records, was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. Why would he endure that if he knew the whole thing was a fabrication?

The authorities are an even less likely candidate. The early Christians' primary strategy was to talk about the resurrection. If the authorities had the body, the simplest way to stop Christianity in its tracks would have been to produce it. They never did.

The Jury Is Still Out — But the Evidence Points Somewhere

Sharon finishes with an analogy from the courtroom. In a jury trial, the evidence is laid out, witnesses are cross-examined, and both sides make their case using the same evidence. The jury then decides which interpretation best fits — not beyond all doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt.

Faith works the same way. There will always be unanswered questions. The more you study any subject, the more complex it becomes. But when Sharon looks at the evidence from both sides, she finds her faith strengthened, not weakened.

Her encouragement is direct. If you already follow Jesus, investigate this more for yourself so you can give solid reasons for what you believe. And if you do not yet follow Jesus, investigate it honestly. Because if this story is true — if there really is a God who created us with purpose, who loves us enough to suffer so we can be forgiven and have a relationship with him — then it is too good to miss.

Practical Steps This Week

• Read the resurrection accounts yourself. Mark 16, Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 20. Read them side by side and notice both the similarities and the differences. See if the "contradiction" objection holds up when you actually look at the text.

• Ask yourself what you have ruled out before examining. Are there conclusions you have dismissed not because of the evidence, but because of assumptions you started with? What would it mean to look at the evidence with genuinely open hands?

• Look up Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace. A former atheist detective examines the Gospels as eyewitness testimony. It is a fascinating read regardless of where you currently stand.

• Talk to someone about it. Not to argue — just to explore. Find someone who has thought about this and ask them what convinced them. Or tell them what holds you back. Honest conversation is one of the best ways to test what you believe.

Something to Sit With

The early Christians did not die for a philosophy or a set of moral principles. They died claiming they had seen a man alive after watching him die. Either they were telling the truth, or they collectively chose to suffer and die for something they knew was a lie.

Which explanation fits the evidence better?