Jesus’s resurrection is at the very heart of historic Christianity. In fact, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is both a central doctrinal belief of the faith and the primary evidence for the truth of the religion itself. Given the importance of Easter for Christians, it is appropriate for us to consider 12 evidences for the resurrection of Jesus. For greater depth on these points, see the recommended resources at the end of the article.

1. Jesus’s Empty Tomb

According to the Gospels¹, after Jesus succumbed to death through crucifixion some of his followers prepared his lifeless body for burial and placed it in Joseph of Arimathea‘s tomb. Three days later the tomb was discovered empty, for Jesus’s body had vanished. The empty tomb is a critical part of the resurrection account, for if Jesus’s body had been recovered then Christianity would have been falsified right as it had just begun. Since Jesus predicted his resurrection (Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22), if he didn’t rise from the dead he would be a false prophet.

The report of Jesus’s empty tomb rings true, for the account emerges very early from a number of sources and there is no good reason to doubt any of the people mentioned in the story. Furthermore, the tomb was owned by a particular person so there is no good reason to think that Jesus’s followers had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. Also, the Jewish and Roman authorities had the resources to search thoroughly for the actual burial place had the empty tomb been a mere problem of mistaken identity.

2. Jesus’s Postmortem Appearances

According to the apostle Paul’s letters² as well as the four Gospel accounts, Jesus appeared alive after his death on numerous occasions. These appearances of Jesus were reported to be both physical and bodily in nature (he was seen, heard, and touched³) and not purely spiritual or ghost-like. The resurrection appearances were also diverse and varied in that Jesus appeared to men and women, friends and enemies, to single individuals as well as small and large groups of people, to some persons on a single occasion and to others more than once, during the day and the night, as well as indoors and outdoors.

It is this diverse and varied nature of the appearances that make it extremely improbable, if not impossible, to account for these encounters in terms of hallucinations. It may have been possible that the women who first encountered Jesus at the tomb succumbed to immense grief and experienced some kind of purely subjective and thus false vision of Jesus. But a purely psychological explanation is extremely implausible in the case of James the brother of Jesus who was highly suspicious of his brother’s claims and even thought that Jesus suffered from mental delusion. And in the case of Saul of Tarsus the hallucination theory is flatly impossible. Saul was an enemy of primitive Christianity and sought to imprison and even have Christians executed. Acting in a dismissive and violent manner against the early Christians and their beliefs, there is no way that Saul was susceptible to a false psychological experience.

It is also important to note that if one rejects the miraculous explanation of Jesus’s appearances, then two naturalistic alternative explanations are required—one to explain the empty tomb and another to explain the numerous appearances. But the more complex these alternative theories are, the less likely they are to be true and viable.

Stay tuned for the next article in this series as we continue briefly considering 12 evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Reflections: Your Turn

Why is the resurrection of Jesus so critically important to the truth of Christianity? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

1. I address the resurrection of Jesus in two of my books, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (see chapter 10) and 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (see chapters 1 and 2).
2. I also recommend The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona and Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection: Our Response to the Empty Tomb by William Lane Craig.

Endnotes

Subjects: Apologetics, Jesus Christ, Resurrection

Proving the reliability of general relativity to precisely describe the dynamics (movements) of massive bodies in the universe is fundamental to establishing the space-time theorems.¹ These theorems prove the beginning (creation) of space and time. The creation of space and time implies the existence of a Creator beyond space and time, which uniquely describes the God of the Bible.

It is the theological significance of general relativity that has prompted astronomers and physicists to subject general relativity to exhaustive testing. However, one test of general relativity has proven to be elusive—namely, the Lense-Thirring effect.

Josef Lense and Hans Thirring were Austrian physicists who, in dialogue with Albert Einstein, showed in 1918 that general relativity predicts that a massive rotating body will cause the space-time fabric in its vicinity to drag. This dragging effect will cause a small-mass body orbiting a high-mass body to precess (change its rotational axis orientation).

The dragging effect, however, is extremely tiny—only a few parts per billion for a body as massive and dense as Earth (weak field case). For example, general relativity predicts that in one satellite orbit about the Earth (around 25,000 miles), the space-time fabric in the vicinity of the satellite would be dragged by only about one inch. General relativity, however, predicts more dramatic effects for bodies as massive and dense as black holes and neutron stars (strong field case).

Even though the Lense-Thirring effect was one of the first predicted distinctives of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, it was the last to be put to a set of accurate tests. It remained elusive for nearly 100 years because of how extraordinarily difficult the tests are to perform. Only within the past 15 months have astronomers and physicists finally achieved exhaustive confirmation (for both the weak and strong gravitational field cases) that the general relativistic predictions of the Lense-Thirring effect are correct.

Weak Field Confirmations
For solar system bodies, the predicted Lense-Thirring effect is extremely small. However, three laser-ranged, Earth-orbiting satellites—LAGEOS I, LAGEOS II, and LARES—have the necessary sensitivity to detect the tiny effect. Using 3.5 years of observations from LARES and several more years of observations from LAGEOS I and II, a team of a dozen astronomers established that Earth’s dragging of inertial space-time frames matched the value predicted by the Lense-Thirring effect to within 0.6 percent.²

The Gravity Probe B mission, an Earth-orbiting satellite with four precision gyroscopes on board, measured a geodetic drift rate of -6,601.8 ± 18.3 milliarcseconds per year and a frame-dragging of -37.2 ± 7.2 milliarcseconds per year.³ General relativity predicted -6,606.1 milliarcseconds per year and -39.2 milliarcseconds per year, respectively.

Strong Field Confirmations
In 2016, a team of four Polish astronomers derived jet energetics and timescales for the two pairs of extended and misaligned lobes emanating from the radio galaxy 3C 293. Their analysis demonstrated that Lense-Thirring precession generated by the supermassive black hole in 3C 293’s nucleus (black hole’s mass exceeds several tens of millions of solar masses⁴) caused the observed jet dynamics.⁵

In the same year, an international team of eight astronomers reported on their observations of the iron emission line in the X-ray spectrum of the stellar mass black hole binary H1743-322. They showed that the quasiperiodic oscillations in the iron line centroid energy are produced by Lense-Thirring precession.⁶ One month earlier, a team of five Chinese astronomers showed that the quasiperiodic oscillations in the X-ray spectra of the black hole X-ray binary SWIFT J1842.5-1124 are consistent with the Lense-Thirring effect.⁷ Four months earlier, three astronomers in the Netherlands showed that the quasiperiodic oscillations in the X-ray flux from the stellar mass black hole binary GRS 1915+105 are caused by different radii in the inner accretion flow of the black hole experiencing Lense-Thirring precession at different frequencies.⁸ Ten months earlier, five European and Canadian astronomers’ observations of the black hole binary SWIFT J1753.5-0127 likewise showed quasiperiodic oscillations due to the Lense-Thirring effect.⁹

So What?
Today, it can be said that no theory of physics has ever been tested in so many different contexts and so rigorously and exhaustively as general relativity. The fact that Einstein’s theory has withstood all these tests so remarkably well implies that no basis remains for doubting any of the theological and philosophical conclusions dependent upon it. Since general relativity accurately describes the dynamics of the universe in all contexts, the space-time theorems can be trusted. Time really does have a beginning. There really is a God who transcendently created all the space-time dimensions of our universe.

Featured image credit: Mach principle.com

Endnotes

1. I discuss the space-time theorems in my book Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. In the forthcoming reprint of my book The Creator and the Cosmos, I demonstrate why the space-time theorems are valid both for classical general relativity and also for the extremely early moment in cosmic history where general relativity is modified by quantum mechanics (the quantum gravity era).
2. Richard Matzner et al., “LARES Satellite Thermal Forces and a Test of General Relativity,” preprint, submitted September 23, 2016, arXiv:1607.08787v2; Ignazio Ciufolini et al., “A Test of General Relativity Using the LARES and LAGEOS Satellites and a GRACE Earth Gravity Model: Measurement of Earth’s Dragging of Inertial Frames,” European Physical Journal C 76 (March 2016): 120, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3961-8.
3. C. W. F. Everitt et al., “The Gravity Probe B Test of General Relativity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (November 2015): 224001, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/22/224001.
4. R. J. Beswick et al., “High-Resolution Imaging of the Radio Continuum and Neutral Gas in the Inner Kiloparsec of the Radio Galaxy 3C 293,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 352 (July 2004): 49–60, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07892.x; E. K. Mahony et al., “The Location and Impact of Jet-Driven Outflows of Cold Gas: The Case of 3C 293,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters 435 (October 2013): L58–L62, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt094.
5. J. Machalski et al., “Dynamical Analysis of the Complex Radio Structure in 3C 293: Clues on a Rapid Jet Realignment in X-shaped Radio Galaxies,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 595 (November 2016): A46, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629249.
6. Adam Ingram et al., “A Quasi-periodic Modulation of the Iron Line Centroid Energy in the Black Hole Binary H1743-322,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 461 (September 2016): 1967–80, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1245.
7. H.-H. Zhao et al., “The X-ray View of Black-Hole Candidate Swift J1842.5-1124 during Its 2008 Outburst,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 593 (September 2016): A23, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628647.
8. Jakob van den Eijnden, Adam Ingram, and Phil Uttley, “Probing the Origin of Quasi-periodic Oscillations: The Short-Time-Scale Evolution of Phase Lags in GRS 1915+105,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 458 (June 2016): 3655–66, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw610.
9. Alexandra Veledina et al., “Discovery of Correlated Optical/X-ray Quasi-periodic Oscillations in Black Hole Binary SWIFT J1753.5–0127,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 454 (December 2015): 2855–62, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2201.

Subjects: Creation, Einstein, God’s Existence, Origin of the Universe

Have you ever wondered if human cloning might be a real possibility? And if so, how close we might be to seeing mini-me’s walking about? I think about this periodically. And I have to admit, I’ve met very few people that I think would be clone-worthy. I’m certainly not one of them!

Even though almost all of my cells contain the genetic blueprints to make a replica of baby AJ, it’s not enough just to replace the DNA in a fertilized egg with my adult DNA. One of the major hurdles in producing human clones, if it’s possible, is the reprogramming of the human genome that’s necessary to erase most modifications that have been made in order to sequester or expose segments of DNA, thereby silencing or turning-on different genes during development and differentiation of various cells for different tissues.

These accrued modifications are epigenetic changes, meaning they’re not changes to my primary DNA sequences. Epigenetic changes are dynamic and reversible and involve chemical modifications to DNA and to proteins bound to the DNA (histones) that affect its structure and accessibility. These changes affect how my DNA is read or expressed in different cells and which RNAs (both coding and noncoding) and proteins are made. And that, of course, affects how different cells differentiate and function.

DNA chains are double-stranded, anti-parallel, complementary strings of nucleotides, abbreviated A, C, G, and T. The ordered sequence of nucleotides specifies genes, regulatory sequences, and other elements necessary for coordinated development and differentiation of cells and organisms. A frequent epigenetic modification of DNA nucleotides involves addition of a methyl group (-CH3) to cytosine bases (Cs). Methylation tends to silence DNA, which means the sequence cannot be read (or transcribed) by polymerase complexes.

Recent identification of enzymes that make similar modifications to adenine bases (As) in messenger RNAs and in DNA are adding layers of complexity to the array of epigenetic signals that control development, differentiation, and adaptive changes of highly complex and dynamic cellular systems.[1, 2] As we discover more epigenetic marks and learn more about how various epigenetic changes affect our transcriptomes the level of complexity is staggering.

Epigenetics and embryogenesis

The complexity at a cellular level in embryogenesis (formation and development of an embryo) and human development is mind-boggling. So much can go wrong even in the transition from insemination to the earliest multicellular blastula stage that it is no exaggeration to think of each pregnancy, let alone a successful birth, as truly miraculous. In fact, transitioning through the steps from insemination to birth is a string of wondrous events, only a few of which are well characterized molecularly. The overwhelming majority of triggers and signals and coordinating factors that alter epigenetic modifications—erasing some, preserving others, timing and coordinating thousands upon thousands of such events during embryogenesis—are yet to be teased out.

During fertilization, the mother and father each provide one set of human chromosomes for the miracle-to-be offspring (baby). Each set of chromosomes comes from a fully differentiated cell: one an egg, the other a sperm. The genetic material in each cell was programmed, through epigenetic modifications, to be an egg or a sperm. But when the two come together in fertilization they produce a zygote, the first stage of embryogenesis. The zygote’s DNA must be reprogrammed to a totipotent state—one where all potential outcomes are possible—in order to eventually produce roughly 200 hundred different cell types, through countless cell divisions, en route to becoming a fully developed human being. Reprogramming to totipotency may occur in a single cell cycle from oocyte to zygote. However, additional demethylation and further epigenetic reprogramming may occur in the early blastocyst stage. [3]

During zygote formation, the egg and sperm are not just providing chromosomes but additional cellular components.  No doubt the oocyte (egg) provides the bulk of these as it provides thousands of other RNAs, biomolecules, and nanomachines in addition to a set of chromosomes. Therefore, many epigenetic modifications passed on to offspring are most likely passed on from the mother. However, scientists know that the father too can pass on epigenetic modifications. Both maternal and paternal DNA are highly methylated (hypermethylated), reflecting the number of genes and regulatory signals that needed to be silenced in terminal differentiation of the gametes (eggs and sperm). Whether maternal or paternal, most epigenetic modifications need to be reset or erased for the embryo to develop properly.

Demethylation, removing the modifications, is absolutely essential for zygotic reprogramming. De novo demethylation occurs in the paternal genome shortly after fertilization. Passive demethylation also occurs as DNA is replicated and cells undergo subsequent divisions. Maternal demethylation occurs after paternal demethylation and by varying mechanisms. Removing epigenetic modifications during de novo demethylation actually damages the DNA when modified bases are cut out.

The mechanisms by which zygotic reprogramming occur are poorly understood, but a recent article in the journal Cell sheds some light on how DNA is repaired after removal of some modifications.[4] Although the triggers for demethylation of the paternal genome are not understood, it appears that an enzyme (Tet3), responsible for base modification, and other proteins involved in DNA repair are provided by the oocyte. The researchers show that reprogramming of paternal DNA occurs at different times and through shared and unique pathways in comparison to reprogramming maternal DNA. Numerous factors, including two different repair pathways (involving base excision repair machinery and cohesin), provide critical functions necessary to restore and protect integrity of reprogrammed DNA. Remarkably, checkpoints exist within the cellular milieu that prevent zygotes from undergoing cell division if the DNA is not properly repaired during reprogramming.

Another recent review article in Reproduction [5] highlights roles for additional oocyte factors in paternal DNA reprogramming. The extreme compaction of the transcriptionally silent (quiescent) paternal genome in the sperm involves strong binding to protamines and formation of disulphide bridges within the paternal DNA. This helps sperm motility and provides protection for the paternal genome. But the paternal genome must undergo biochemical remodeling and decondensation through replacement of protamines with new histones once fertilization takes place. The oocyte provides the endogenous resources needed to accomplish these tasks too. Sperm also carry and deliver small regulatory RNAs essential for early (pre-implantation) embryogenesis.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Complex

As I read through these articles, I began to marvel at how complex early stages of human development are. I wonder if we will discover that the human being is more finely tuned for life at a molecular level than the universe and earth are for supporting life. I couldn’t help but think of the Scripture where Jeremiah refers to being knit together in his mother’s womb as I read about the DNA repair mechanisms replacing excised bases with unmodified bases coupled with checkpoints. The checkpoints ensure that persistent DNA lesions (where bases have been cut out) aren’t like dropped stitches, ultimately ruining the final masterpiece. Scientists are just beginning to understand some factors in an amazingly complex and extensive reprogramming of paternal genomes to produce a zygote ready to grow and develop. Demethylation of the maternal genome occurs later but is just as critical for embryogenesis. It too uses de novo and passive mechanisms to reprogram epigenetic changes.

How long will it take us to unravel the mysteries of human development, and when will we cross the threshold to the revelation that we are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made! Some of us have been hurled over the threshold already. Others will follow. But will we ever be able to clone a human being? Certainly not before we master the intricacies and complexities of zygotic reprogramming.

Making a mini-me?

Even if we were able to take my adult DNA and reprogram it back to a developmentally naive state that would allow successful transition through embryogenesis again, all—or the vast majority—of controlling and contributing epigenetic factors would be different. If a human life were to come from such an endeavor, she too would be fearfully and wonderfully made, having been knit together in her mother’s womb. But she would be more unlike me than I would have been from an identical twin had my mother birthed twins.

We are each fearfully and wonderfully made and uniquely different. Each made in the image of God. Each God-breathed, living and moving and being in the One who creates and sustains all things. Everywhere we look—to the stars overhead or the overwhelming complexity of a single cell or into orchestrated flurries of cellular activities of embryogenesis—since the beginning of creation and now in the modern molecular biological era, it is evident from all that we see that God exists, is all powerful, so wise, truly good, utterly magnificent, and worthy of praise. And our souls know it full well.

Endnotes

1. Yue, Y., J. Liu, and C. He. 2015. “RNA N6-methyladenosine methylation in post-transcriptional gene expression regulation.”  Genes Dev 29 (13):1343-55. doi: 10.1101/gad.262766.115
2. Pfeifer, Gerd P. 2016. “Epigenetics: An elusive DNA base in mammals.”  Nature 532 (7599):319-320. doi: 10.1038/nature17315
3. Messerschmidt, D. M., B. B. Knowles, and D. Solter. 2014. “DNA methylation dynamics during epigenetic reprogramming in the germline and preimplantation embryos.”  Genes Dev 28 (8):812-28. doi: 10.1101/gad.234294.113
4. Ladstätter, Sabrina, and Kikuë Tachibana-Konwalski. “A Surveillance Mechanism Ensures Repair of DNA Lesions during Zygotic Reprogramming.”  Cell 167 (7):1774-1787.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.009
5. Fraser, R., and C. J. Lin. 2016. “Epigenetic reprogramming of the zygote in mice and men: on your marks, get set, go!”  Reproduction 152 (6):R211-r222. doi: 10.1530/rep-16-0376

See also:  “Sins of the Father” and “Sins of the Father Revisited” by Fazale Rana

Subjects: Design, Fine-Tuning, Genetic Variation, Human Uniqueness, Life