To A Moral Certainty (2022) Movie Script
1
All rise.
Thank you everyone.
You may be seated.
Over the last few days,
you've heard closing arguments
from representatives
of various faiths.
You have also heard
from people who believe
that there is no such
thing as eternity,
as well as those who say
we cannot possibly know
what happens next.
Today we will hear from
our last representative,
a man of the Christian faith,
and I know that this has been
a long and complex process
but I would ask that you
give him the same attention
and consideration
that you have granted
our other representatives.
Counsel, the floor is yours.
Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen.
Good morning.
First, I wanna
start by thanking you
for the attention
that you have paid
to the evidence
throughout this week.
I know that all of you are busy.
Many of you are missing important
jobs, but I would submit
to you that the evidence that
you have listened to this week
and deliberations that you
will enter into shortly
and the decisions that you
will come to as a group
will end up being the
most important decision
of your lifetime.
I appreciate that you have
listened to the arguments
which have been made by my
brother and sister in the law
in terms of the other two
positions that have been presented
that are held by members
of the faith of Judaism,
the faith of Islam,
those who are agnostic,
those who are atheist...
and I now ask you to listen
to my closing argument,
as I present to you, our
view of what we believe
the evidence has shown.
This case starts in Bethlehem,
where this man Jesus was born.
His life here on earth
ends at Golgotha,
the place of the cross.
But the question mark that
you will have to decide
is what happened in that tomb
and how that body
got out of that tomb.
Let me start by
explaining what the three
of us all agree on.
First of all,
there's no question
about whether Jesus was
an historical figure.
There are many
secular historians
who have spent their lives
researching the time period
of Jesus of Nazareth.
Also, there's no question
that Jesus was crucified.
There were many, many
witnesses to the crucifixion
including not the least
of which, a Roman Centurion
and a Roman guard.
And third... that from the
time that he left the cross,
and was put into the tomb,
that just two days after he
left the cross, was empty.
The body was not there.
How did that happen?
Well, you have heard
the three options.
Option number one is
that Jesus got out
of that tomb on his own,
which would mean he
didn't die on the cross.
He may have been suffering,
but he somehow recovered
inside the tomb and
somehow got out on his own.
Second, is that somebody,
friend or foe stole the body,
dead or alive.
And option number three,
is that as Jesus predicted
he was resurrected from death.
From that witness stand,
you have heard historical
experts who are secular
who simply told
you about the time.
We've heard from
medical experts.
We've heard from eye witnesses,
to the passion and the
crucifixion that occurred.
And we have heard from
the written testimony
from back at that time. From
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
what are commonly referred
to as the Four Gospels;
who wrote both what
they saw as well
as what they collected in
terms of testimony from others.
But in this courtroom, you
are to take that testimony
from that stand that
was given to you
from those Four Gospels
as sworn depositions
of those individuals, because
indeed it is testimony
that those four men protected
and shared with the world.
Now let's talk about
the historical evidence.
Matthew testified
about the tomb.
He explained, first of all
that there was a
rock that was placed
in front of the
entrance to the tomb.
Second, he explained
that the tomb was sealed,
and third, Matthew explained
that a guard was set
in front of the tomb.
Now, why would the
Romans go to such trouble
in guarding a dead body?
Well, first it was a precaution
against the very thing
that the Jewish authorities
were concerned about,
and that is that body being
stolen, because they wanted
to protect against any
talk of a resurrection.
You can go to Israel today and
see tombs just like the one
that Jesus was put in.
You've essentially got
a cave that is dug out
and then there'll be an opening.
And then there's
going to be a closure
of the opening by a stone.
What we know about Jesus'
tomb is this... Mark wrote
as you heard from
the witness stand
in a fourth century manuscript
that the stone that was
placed in front of Jesus' tomb
was so large that even
20 men could not move it
once it was set in place.
Is it possible?
Like my opponents say that
in the middle of the night,
the followers of Jesus came
maybe with some special tools
or something like
that and were able
to get that big stone moved.
Yeah, that's possible.
Is it likely?
No.
If you remember A.T Robinson,
the New Testament scholar,
explained that the sealing of
the tomb was done by a cord
that would be stretched
across the tomb
and then both ends of the cord
would be stamped with
the Imperial Seal.
Why do that?
What's that all about?
Well, that seal
was of the Romans,
the people who occupied
Israel at that time.
You break that cord,
you break that seal
and the full power of
Roman law and authority
comes down on you.
Let's also remember
this, Jesus at that time
was the most notorious
criminal in all of Jerusalem.
The Romans and
the Jewish leaders
didn't wanna take any
chances, the Roman guard
was at the tomb around
the clock at all hours.
And remember the testimony
of professor Daniel Whedon,
who's a Professor
of Ancient Languages
at Wesleyan University,
who explained
that a guard is not one person,
but instead 16 soldiers.
We know that Roman guards
took their jobs seriously.
And why is that?
Because of the punishment
that was inflicted on you
in the event that
you did not do so.
If you abdicated your duties,
if you fell asleep on the
job, if you walked away
from being on watch, your
punishment was death.
They literally threw
you off a cliff.
And all the guards knew that.
So you can rest assured that
that guard stayed vigilant
throughout the time
that they were there.
And remember something
about this guard.
On the very day they
took their post,
members of that same group
of soldiers flogged Jesus
within an inch of his life.
And what does that mean?
It means taking the leather
straps that are loaded down
with rocks and have glass put
in them and sharpened bones
and taking them to the
man's front and his back,
and whipping him 39 times tearing
the flesh off of his body.
And then they took that man
and they had him
carry his own cross
and they nailed him with
railroad spikes to a cross.
And then they sat there
and with their Centurion
who was in charge, they
watched for six hours
while the man died,
while he slowly suffocated
from his own body weight.
No, the position
of the Roman guards
and their feelings about Jesus
of Nazareth is crystal clear.
Their allegiance was to Rome.
And that's where it stayed.
Well, think about
this hypothetical.
Let's take what we said
before and just add to it,
which is, maybe in the
middle of the night
you got the 11 apostles
or however many
followers were needed.
And they come in with specialized
tools and they come in
with a counterfeit stamp
and they pry the thing open,
get Jesus' body out, put
the cord back over it
and use the counterfeit
stamp and seal it up again.
And everything's good.
Is that possible?
Yeah, it's possible.
But in your life experience
and common sense,
does that make any
sense to you whatsoever?
No. It's doubtful.
Now opposing counsel
would have you believe
that Jesus was just
an historical figure,
barely charismatic,
because he had a following
by just some guy from the sticks
and that this whole thing
about the resurrection,
is a hoax, clever, make
believe a performance.
And they would have you
look at Jesus as being
a well-spoken controversial,
radical troublemaker. But
let's remember the teaching
of Occam's razor, which
is the theory that
oftentimes the simplest
explanation is the correct one.
Well, you know, there are
some people who believe
that Jesus did not
die on the cross,
that he was merely
tortured, fell unconscious,
body put into the tomb,
gets out of tomb on its own
but it comes back to,
did he die on the cross?
What do we know?
There were two things
that are important to know
other than that Romans
know how to kill.
And that is at the
end of the six hours,
as was explained
from the gospel,
a Roman guard took a spear
and thrust it into the side
of Jesus and both blood and a
clear fluid, water, came out.
Well, we know from
medical science today
that from the blood
loss that Jesus had,
that he would have
developed probably either
or both pleural effusion
which is water on the lungs
or pericardial effusion
which is water
surrounding the heart.
And if there was enough
water in Jesus' chest
so that when he was pierced
with a spear into the heart
or into the lung, so
that water came out
so that the Romans can see it,
you know one thing. You know
that that man is in a state
of hypovolemic shock. And
most of us in this courtroom
would have a difficult
time surviving
under those circumstances,
even with today's
modern medicine.
We also know that there's
another test here.
Its because it was Passover,
you couldn't continue
with a crucifixion
once it became dark.
Because it would
violate Jewish law
and this was the Passover.
So these people had to be dead.
So they broke the legs.
The Roman guards broke the
legs of the other two men
who were on either side of
Jesus, who were being crucified.
Now why do that?
Well, it means you
can't push up anymore.
So you're like this
and you suffocate
from your own body weight,
but they didn't do
that with Jesus.
They didn't break his legs.
Why is that?
They certainly didn't have
any problem torturing him.
It's not like they
felt for the guy.
Its because they knew
he was already dead.
Again, John, the eyewitness
knew he was dead.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Jesus died on that cross.
The idea that he
didn't is foolishness.
Now you might
wonder how the idea
of Occam's razor explains
what is truly a miracle?
I mean, a resurrection
is a miracle.
In this instance,
there was no question
that Jesus had already
performed miracles.
He turned the water into wine
at the wedding in Canaan
was his first miracle.
He went through
systematically healing people
who were either
blind or had leprosy
or had other diseases
or problems since birth.
He had fed 5,000 people with
a few loaves and a few fish.
And that was reported by every
one of the gospel writers,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, all four of them.
Christ himself had even raised
other people from the dead.
The testimony was that he had
done so on three occasions,
one of them being
Lazarus, his friend
who had been in the
tomb for four days,
but you know even the
Jewish leaders at the time
they didn't challenge whether
the miracles occurred.
They couldn't, there were
too many witnesses to them.
No, instead they
challenged him to his face,
on more than one
occasion asking,
"By whose authority are you
performing these miracles?"
That's what they wanted to know.
So the idea of there
being a miracle
that's not really in dispute.
These were not shows.
Now there are
differences in testimony.
A lot of people point that out.
They say that well, you
know, when we listened
to these guys, explain
what happened at the tomb.
All their stories are
a little bit different,
that ladies and gentlemen
is common in trials.
You can have one of the
most straightforward cases,
a bank robbery, okay?
And you're gonna have
several witnesses, tellers,
and customers, and whoever
else is in the bank.
And there's gonna be
differences in their testimony
about what the robber looked
like, how tall the robber was,
what the chronology
of events were,
what the gun looked like,
what the robber said.
In fact, what you find
is that if everybody says
the exact same thing, that
testimony is not credible,
because that just tells you
that everybody has
gotten together.
It's the most normal
thing for people to do.
And quote, unquote, gotten
their stories straight.
They're singing
the company song.
That is not credible testimony.
So how do you figure
out what to do
when you've got circumstances
where you've got differences
in the testimony?
Is you look to see what is
important about what occurred?
Let's look to see what
happened in this case.
All four of the gospel writers
say that Mary from Magdala
known as Mary Magdalene
went to the tomb,
all of the writers, explain
that that tomb was open
and that it was empty.
There are many
other similarities
that you heard the
testimony about,
but three of the gospels told us
that there was a man on
the inside wearing white,
possibly an angel who said
that, "Jesus is not here.
He is risen."
You have a lot of other
similarities in the testimony.
But the most important is
that after that tomb is empty,
Jesus himself appeared
to dozens of people,
including all 11 of
the remaining apostles.
And that he picked up to
some extent where he left off
that is he went up to Galilee
where he picked his apostles
from and he ate with them.
And he walked with them.
Unafraid, out in the open,
even offered his wounds
of his hands and his
side for others to see
including most notably,
the apostle whom I
share a first name with
that being Thomas.
You know him probably
as the doubting Thomas,
who did not believe
that Jesus had arisen, even
though his other apostles said
that he had, that
he would not believe
until he put his hands
into Jesus' wounds.
So what did Jesus do?
He appeared to
Thomas and he said,
"Go ahead, put your
hands into my wounds."
And Thomas on seeing this, he
sees this man he's traveled
with for three years who now
is alive and in front of him.
And he recognizes what happens.
And he drops to his knees
and he looks right up
in the face of the man.
He knows his friend to be Jesus.
And he says, "My Lord, my God."
Why?
Because he knew right then and
there that Jesus was Christ,
he was the Messiah, he was
the son of the living God.
Well, the feat of what
happened was so staggering,
was so convincing,
was so important.
These men left everything
they had and their homes
and went to all four
corners of the known world,
and went ahead and preached
the gospel of Jesus Christ
and think of what kind
of men these were.
These weren't some kind of nuts.
They were fishermen
for the most part.
Working class, they
lived comfortably enough.
They were relatively safe.
They were up in Galilee.
They went down in Jerusalem
where all the Romans were.
They left the safety of their
homes and their occupations.
And these guys traveled
through the wilderness,
the completely unknown parts
of the world preaching
the gospel of Jesus Christ
that he was the Son of God,
preaching the resurrection,
preaching eternal life.
And where did they go?
Think about it, North
Africa, Greece, India,
modern day Russia, all
to preach the gospel.
Now they committed the rest
of their lives to this.
And they ended up giving the
rest of their lives to this.
These men who preached about
Jesus did so at a cost.
And they knew what the cost was.
Very first one who
died was Stephen.
He was stoned to death.
Thomas was killed with a spear.
Bartholomew was flayed
alive with a knife
and then was crucified.
And this happened to one,
after another, after another
after another.
And these reports of the
death of the apostles,
they don't come from
the New Testament.
They come from
secular historians.
You can believe it.
You don't have to believe
in the New Testament
to believe the way
that these men died.
I'll tell you one thing,
is that those guys were
not about to do that
if they thought that Jesus
had pulled a fast one on them,
no, they believed in a simple
truth that the resurrection
had occurred just as
Jesus said, it would,
the apostles understood the
resurrection to be a simple fact
and a true miracle.
And I think you may
believe that as well.
Now, the judge is
going to instruct you
on how to consider the evidence.
You have two kinds of evidence.
You have direct evidence, okay?
Where someone sees,
hears, smells,
whatever through their senses,
their personal
witnesses to something.
And eye witness being
the easiest example.
There's also circumstantial
evidence but what's that?
Well say that, it's the evening
it's winter time
and you go to sleep
and there's no
snow on the ground.
Next morning, you wake up
and there's an inch
of snow on the ground.
You conclude based upon that,
based on your deduction that,
well it must have
snowed last night.
That's circumstantial evidence.
Now, the judge is
going to explain to you
that the law makes
no distinction
between direct evidence and
circumstantial evidence.
You're going to be instructed
that you are to make deductions
and reach conclusions
which reason and common
sense would lead you to make
and that you should not be
concerned, whether that's based
on the evidence being
direct or circumstantial.
Is it realistic that Jesus
did not die on that cross
and recovered in the tomb
and walked out on his own?
Is it realistic that his
followers got through the guard
and the cord that sealed it
and the stone in order
to steal his body?
Or is it realistic that
Jesus did for himself
what he had done for others,
and that is, the resurrection.
And that's how the body
got out of that tomb.
In some instances, people use
an erroneous standard to try
and judge these kinds of things.
They say, well, you know,
I'm not 100% convinced.
Well, in the law,
in this courtroom,
there is no such standard, cause
in matters of human affairs
there's rarely a
situation where any of us
would be 100% convinced.
What we use in courts of law
like this is the standard
of reasonable doubt and belief
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, what is a reasonable doubt?
It's that level of doubt that
would cause you to hesitate
in the most important
of your affairs.
Our entire United States justice
system on the criminal side
is based upon that
concept of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt,
but not based upon a 100%,
'cause there's always some
level of doubt in anything.
I would submit to you
that is the standard
that you should use.
And it's a high standard, that
you look at the three options
the only possible three options
and decide which one
meets that standard.
Because if the
resurrection occurred,
it means that Jesus
indeed was the Son of God
and that he defeated death.
And that what John said
was true, which is that,
"God so loved the world
that he gave to us his son,
his only son, so that all
who would believe in him
would not perish, but would
have everlasting life."
Which means if you believe
that the resurrection occurred
that you will have
everlasting life.
So when you're deliberating
and when you're thinking
about the evidence in this case
and the importance of this
decision, it's not just this case
that you're deciding,
no ladies and gentlemen
it is your own life
that you are deciding.
It is your future,
that you are deciding;
both your life here
and your life eternal.
The judge is going
to explain to you
that when you go
into that jury room
there will be a verdict
form for you to fill out
at the end of your
deliberations.
And I'm going to read it to you
exactly what that form says.
You are going to
select one choice.
It says as follows quote, "I
believe that to get Jesus' body
out of the tomb, one,
his body was stolen,
or two, he did not
die on the cross,
but instead he passed
out and fell unconscious.
And while in the tomb, he
revived and got out on his own,
or three, Jesus
was resurrected."
There's the only
three possibilities.
You are to sign
your name and date,
the date of your verdict.
And as you deliberate,
the question that you really
have to ask yourself is this,
who moved that stone?
Ladies and gentlemen thank
you for your attention
during my closing argument,
and my explanation
of what we, the Christian
Church, believe occurred
in that tomb.
I ask you as you go
for your deliberations
that you will listen
to one another.
Use your mind, use your heart,
use your soul, use
your conscience,
and you consider everything
that you've heard
during this past week.
And you render a verdict which
is fair and speaks the truth.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you counselor.
Jury, you have now
heard the full arguments
from members of each
faith presented here.
After I dismiss you,
please go directly
to the deliberation room
and elect a foreperson.
All the evidence will be
with you in the jury room,
you may ask any question
or review any evidence necessary
but you must reach a verdict.
You are now released
to begin deliberation.
I understand you've
reached a conclusion.
Foreperson, what
is your verdict?
Foreperson: Your honor,
we, the jury believe...
All rise.
Thank you everyone.
You may be seated.
Over the last few days,
you've heard closing arguments
from representatives
of various faiths.
You have also heard
from people who believe
that there is no such
thing as eternity,
as well as those who say
we cannot possibly know
what happens next.
Today we will hear from
our last representative,
a man of the Christian faith,
and I know that this has been
a long and complex process
but I would ask that you
give him the same attention
and consideration
that you have granted
our other representatives.
Counsel, the floor is yours.
Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen.
Good morning.
First, I wanna
start by thanking you
for the attention
that you have paid
to the evidence
throughout this week.
I know that all of you are busy.
Many of you are missing important
jobs, but I would submit
to you that the evidence that
you have listened to this week
and deliberations that you
will enter into shortly
and the decisions that you
will come to as a group
will end up being the
most important decision
of your lifetime.
I appreciate that you have
listened to the arguments
which have been made by my
brother and sister in the law
in terms of the other two
positions that have been presented
that are held by members
of the faith of Judaism,
the faith of Islam,
those who are agnostic,
those who are atheist...
and I now ask you to listen
to my closing argument,
as I present to you, our
view of what we believe
the evidence has shown.
This case starts in Bethlehem,
where this man Jesus was born.
His life here on earth
ends at Golgotha,
the place of the cross.
But the question mark that
you will have to decide
is what happened in that tomb
and how that body
got out of that tomb.
Let me start by
explaining what the three
of us all agree on.
First of all,
there's no question
about whether Jesus was
an historical figure.
There are many
secular historians
who have spent their lives
researching the time period
of Jesus of Nazareth.
Also, there's no question
that Jesus was crucified.
There were many, many
witnesses to the crucifixion
including not the least
of which, a Roman Centurion
and a Roman guard.
And third... that from the
time that he left the cross,
and was put into the tomb,
that just two days after he
left the cross, was empty.
The body was not there.
How did that happen?
Well, you have heard
the three options.
Option number one is
that Jesus got out
of that tomb on his own,
which would mean he
didn't die on the cross.
He may have been suffering,
but he somehow recovered
inside the tomb and
somehow got out on his own.
Second, is that somebody,
friend or foe stole the body,
dead or alive.
And option number three,
is that as Jesus predicted
he was resurrected from death.
From that witness stand,
you have heard historical
experts who are secular
who simply told
you about the time.
We've heard from
medical experts.
We've heard from eye witnesses,
to the passion and the
crucifixion that occurred.
And we have heard from
the written testimony
from back at that time. From
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
what are commonly referred
to as the Four Gospels;
who wrote both what
they saw as well
as what they collected in
terms of testimony from others.
But in this courtroom, you
are to take that testimony
from that stand that
was given to you
from those Four Gospels
as sworn depositions
of those individuals, because
indeed it is testimony
that those four men protected
and shared with the world.
Now let's talk about
the historical evidence.
Matthew testified
about the tomb.
He explained, first of all
that there was a
rock that was placed
in front of the
entrance to the tomb.
Second, he explained
that the tomb was sealed,
and third, Matthew explained
that a guard was set
in front of the tomb.
Now, why would the
Romans go to such trouble
in guarding a dead body?
Well, first it was a precaution
against the very thing
that the Jewish authorities
were concerned about,
and that is that body being
stolen, because they wanted
to protect against any
talk of a resurrection.
You can go to Israel today and
see tombs just like the one
that Jesus was put in.
You've essentially got
a cave that is dug out
and then there'll be an opening.
And then there's
going to be a closure
of the opening by a stone.
What we know about Jesus'
tomb is this... Mark wrote
as you heard from
the witness stand
in a fourth century manuscript
that the stone that was
placed in front of Jesus' tomb
was so large that even
20 men could not move it
once it was set in place.
Is it possible?
Like my opponents say that
in the middle of the night,
the followers of Jesus came
maybe with some special tools
or something like
that and were able
to get that big stone moved.
Yeah, that's possible.
Is it likely?
No.
If you remember A.T Robinson,
the New Testament scholar,
explained that the sealing of
the tomb was done by a cord
that would be stretched
across the tomb
and then both ends of the cord
would be stamped with
the Imperial Seal.
Why do that?
What's that all about?
Well, that seal
was of the Romans,
the people who occupied
Israel at that time.
You break that cord,
you break that seal
and the full power of
Roman law and authority
comes down on you.
Let's also remember
this, Jesus at that time
was the most notorious
criminal in all of Jerusalem.
The Romans and
the Jewish leaders
didn't wanna take any
chances, the Roman guard
was at the tomb around
the clock at all hours.
And remember the testimony
of professor Daniel Whedon,
who's a Professor
of Ancient Languages
at Wesleyan University,
who explained
that a guard is not one person,
but instead 16 soldiers.
We know that Roman guards
took their jobs seriously.
And why is that?
Because of the punishment
that was inflicted on you
in the event that
you did not do so.
If you abdicated your duties,
if you fell asleep on the
job, if you walked away
from being on watch, your
punishment was death.
They literally threw
you off a cliff.
And all the guards knew that.
So you can rest assured that
that guard stayed vigilant
throughout the time
that they were there.
And remember something
about this guard.
On the very day they
took their post,
members of that same group
of soldiers flogged Jesus
within an inch of his life.
And what does that mean?
It means taking the leather
straps that are loaded down
with rocks and have glass put
in them and sharpened bones
and taking them to the
man's front and his back,
and whipping him 39 times tearing
the flesh off of his body.
And then they took that man
and they had him
carry his own cross
and they nailed him with
railroad spikes to a cross.
And then they sat there
and with their Centurion
who was in charge, they
watched for six hours
while the man died,
while he slowly suffocated
from his own body weight.
No, the position
of the Roman guards
and their feelings about Jesus
of Nazareth is crystal clear.
Their allegiance was to Rome.
And that's where it stayed.
Well, think about
this hypothetical.
Let's take what we said
before and just add to it,
which is, maybe in the
middle of the night
you got the 11 apostles
or however many
followers were needed.
And they come in with specialized
tools and they come in
with a counterfeit stamp
and they pry the thing open,
get Jesus' body out, put
the cord back over it
and use the counterfeit
stamp and seal it up again.
And everything's good.
Is that possible?
Yeah, it's possible.
But in your life experience
and common sense,
does that make any
sense to you whatsoever?
No. It's doubtful.
Now opposing counsel
would have you believe
that Jesus was just
an historical figure,
barely charismatic,
because he had a following
by just some guy from the sticks
and that this whole thing
about the resurrection,
is a hoax, clever, make
believe a performance.
And they would have you
look at Jesus as being
a well-spoken controversial,
radical troublemaker. But
let's remember the teaching
of Occam's razor, which
is the theory that
oftentimes the simplest
explanation is the correct one.
Well, you know, there are
some people who believe
that Jesus did not
die on the cross,
that he was merely
tortured, fell unconscious,
body put into the tomb,
gets out of tomb on its own
but it comes back to,
did he die on the cross?
What do we know?
There were two things
that are important to know
other than that Romans
know how to kill.
And that is at the
end of the six hours,
as was explained
from the gospel,
a Roman guard took a spear
and thrust it into the side
of Jesus and both blood and a
clear fluid, water, came out.
Well, we know from
medical science today
that from the blood
loss that Jesus had,
that he would have
developed probably either
or both pleural effusion
which is water on the lungs
or pericardial effusion
which is water
surrounding the heart.
And if there was enough
water in Jesus' chest
so that when he was pierced
with a spear into the heart
or into the lung, so
that water came out
so that the Romans can see it,
you know one thing. You know
that that man is in a state
of hypovolemic shock. And
most of us in this courtroom
would have a difficult
time surviving
under those circumstances,
even with today's
modern medicine.
We also know that there's
another test here.
Its because it was Passover,
you couldn't continue
with a crucifixion
once it became dark.
Because it would
violate Jewish law
and this was the Passover.
So these people had to be dead.
So they broke the legs.
The Roman guards broke the
legs of the other two men
who were on either side of
Jesus, who were being crucified.
Now why do that?
Well, it means you
can't push up anymore.
So you're like this
and you suffocate
from your own body weight,
but they didn't do
that with Jesus.
They didn't break his legs.
Why is that?
They certainly didn't have
any problem torturing him.
It's not like they
felt for the guy.
Its because they knew
he was already dead.
Again, John, the eyewitness
knew he was dead.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Jesus died on that cross.
The idea that he
didn't is foolishness.
Now you might
wonder how the idea
of Occam's razor explains
what is truly a miracle?
I mean, a resurrection
is a miracle.
In this instance,
there was no question
that Jesus had already
performed miracles.
He turned the water into wine
at the wedding in Canaan
was his first miracle.
He went through
systematically healing people
who were either
blind or had leprosy
or had other diseases
or problems since birth.
He had fed 5,000 people with
a few loaves and a few fish.
And that was reported by every
one of the gospel writers,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, all four of them.
Christ himself had even raised
other people from the dead.
The testimony was that he had
done so on three occasions,
one of them being
Lazarus, his friend
who had been in the
tomb for four days,
but you know even the
Jewish leaders at the time
they didn't challenge whether
the miracles occurred.
They couldn't, there were
too many witnesses to them.
No, instead they
challenged him to his face,
on more than one
occasion asking,
"By whose authority are you
performing these miracles?"
That's what they wanted to know.
So the idea of there
being a miracle
that's not really in dispute.
These were not shows.
Now there are
differences in testimony.
A lot of people point that out.
They say that well, you
know, when we listened
to these guys, explain
what happened at the tomb.
All their stories are
a little bit different,
that ladies and gentlemen
is common in trials.
You can have one of the
most straightforward cases,
a bank robbery, okay?
And you're gonna have
several witnesses, tellers,
and customers, and whoever
else is in the bank.
And there's gonna be
differences in their testimony
about what the robber looked
like, how tall the robber was,
what the chronology
of events were,
what the gun looked like,
what the robber said.
In fact, what you find
is that if everybody says
the exact same thing, that
testimony is not credible,
because that just tells you
that everybody has
gotten together.
It's the most normal
thing for people to do.
And quote, unquote, gotten
their stories straight.
They're singing
the company song.
That is not credible testimony.
So how do you figure
out what to do
when you've got circumstances
where you've got differences
in the testimony?
Is you look to see what is
important about what occurred?
Let's look to see what
happened in this case.
All four of the gospel writers
say that Mary from Magdala
known as Mary Magdalene
went to the tomb,
all of the writers, explain
that that tomb was open
and that it was empty.
There are many
other similarities
that you heard the
testimony about,
but three of the gospels told us
that there was a man on
the inside wearing white,
possibly an angel who said
that, "Jesus is not here.
He is risen."
You have a lot of other
similarities in the testimony.
But the most important is
that after that tomb is empty,
Jesus himself appeared
to dozens of people,
including all 11 of
the remaining apostles.
And that he picked up to
some extent where he left off
that is he went up to Galilee
where he picked his apostles
from and he ate with them.
And he walked with them.
Unafraid, out in the open,
even offered his wounds
of his hands and his
side for others to see
including most notably,
the apostle whom I
share a first name with
that being Thomas.
You know him probably
as the doubting Thomas,
who did not believe
that Jesus had arisen, even
though his other apostles said
that he had, that
he would not believe
until he put his hands
into Jesus' wounds.
So what did Jesus do?
He appeared to
Thomas and he said,
"Go ahead, put your
hands into my wounds."
And Thomas on seeing this, he
sees this man he's traveled
with for three years who now
is alive and in front of him.
And he recognizes what happens.
And he drops to his knees
and he looks right up
in the face of the man.
He knows his friend to be Jesus.
And he says, "My Lord, my God."
Why?
Because he knew right then and
there that Jesus was Christ,
he was the Messiah, he was
the son of the living God.
Well, the feat of what
happened was so staggering,
was so convincing,
was so important.
These men left everything
they had and their homes
and went to all four
corners of the known world,
and went ahead and preached
the gospel of Jesus Christ
and think of what kind
of men these were.
These weren't some kind of nuts.
They were fishermen
for the most part.
Working class, they
lived comfortably enough.
They were relatively safe.
They were up in Galilee.
They went down in Jerusalem
where all the Romans were.
They left the safety of their
homes and their occupations.
And these guys traveled
through the wilderness,
the completely unknown parts
of the world preaching
the gospel of Jesus Christ
that he was the Son of God,
preaching the resurrection,
preaching eternal life.
And where did they go?
Think about it, North
Africa, Greece, India,
modern day Russia, all
to preach the gospel.
Now they committed the rest
of their lives to this.
And they ended up giving the
rest of their lives to this.
These men who preached about
Jesus did so at a cost.
And they knew what the cost was.
Very first one who
died was Stephen.
He was stoned to death.
Thomas was killed with a spear.
Bartholomew was flayed
alive with a knife
and then was crucified.
And this happened to one,
after another, after another
after another.
And these reports of the
death of the apostles,
they don't come from
the New Testament.
They come from
secular historians.
You can believe it.
You don't have to believe
in the New Testament
to believe the way
that these men died.
I'll tell you one thing,
is that those guys were
not about to do that
if they thought that Jesus
had pulled a fast one on them,
no, they believed in a simple
truth that the resurrection
had occurred just as
Jesus said, it would,
the apostles understood the
resurrection to be a simple fact
and a true miracle.
And I think you may
believe that as well.
Now, the judge is
going to instruct you
on how to consider the evidence.
You have two kinds of evidence.
You have direct evidence, okay?
Where someone sees,
hears, smells,
whatever through their senses,
their personal
witnesses to something.
And eye witness being
the easiest example.
There's also circumstantial
evidence but what's that?
Well say that, it's the evening
it's winter time
and you go to sleep
and there's no
snow on the ground.
Next morning, you wake up
and there's an inch
of snow on the ground.
You conclude based upon that,
based on your deduction that,
well it must have
snowed last night.
That's circumstantial evidence.
Now, the judge is
going to explain to you
that the law makes
no distinction
between direct evidence and
circumstantial evidence.
You're going to be instructed
that you are to make deductions
and reach conclusions
which reason and common
sense would lead you to make
and that you should not be
concerned, whether that's based
on the evidence being
direct or circumstantial.
Is it realistic that Jesus
did not die on that cross
and recovered in the tomb
and walked out on his own?
Is it realistic that his
followers got through the guard
and the cord that sealed it
and the stone in order
to steal his body?
Or is it realistic that
Jesus did for himself
what he had done for others,
and that is, the resurrection.
And that's how the body
got out of that tomb.
In some instances, people use
an erroneous standard to try
and judge these kinds of things.
They say, well, you know,
I'm not 100% convinced.
Well, in the law,
in this courtroom,
there is no such standard, cause
in matters of human affairs
there's rarely a
situation where any of us
would be 100% convinced.
What we use in courts of law
like this is the standard
of reasonable doubt and belief
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, what is a reasonable doubt?
It's that level of doubt that
would cause you to hesitate
in the most important
of your affairs.
Our entire United States justice
system on the criminal side
is based upon that
concept of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt,
but not based upon a 100%,
'cause there's always some
level of doubt in anything.
I would submit to you
that is the standard
that you should use.
And it's a high standard, that
you look at the three options
the only possible three options
and decide which one
meets that standard.
Because if the
resurrection occurred,
it means that Jesus
indeed was the Son of God
and that he defeated death.
And that what John said
was true, which is that,
"God so loved the world
that he gave to us his son,
his only son, so that all
who would believe in him
would not perish, but would
have everlasting life."
Which means if you believe
that the resurrection occurred
that you will have
everlasting life.
So when you're deliberating
and when you're thinking
about the evidence in this case
and the importance of this
decision, it's not just this case
that you're deciding,
no ladies and gentlemen
it is your own life
that you are deciding.
It is your future,
that you are deciding;
both your life here
and your life eternal.
The judge is going
to explain to you
that when you go
into that jury room
there will be a verdict
form for you to fill out
at the end of your
deliberations.
And I'm going to read it to you
exactly what that form says.
You are going to
select one choice.
It says as follows quote, "I
believe that to get Jesus' body
out of the tomb, one,
his body was stolen,
or two, he did not
die on the cross,
but instead he passed
out and fell unconscious.
And while in the tomb, he
revived and got out on his own,
or three, Jesus
was resurrected."
There's the only
three possibilities.
You are to sign
your name and date,
the date of your verdict.
And as you deliberate,
the question that you really
have to ask yourself is this,
who moved that stone?
Ladies and gentlemen thank
you for your attention
during my closing argument,
and my explanation
of what we, the Christian
Church, believe occurred
in that tomb.
I ask you as you go
for your deliberations
that you will listen
to one another.
Use your mind, use your heart,
use your soul, use
your conscience,
and you consider everything
that you've heard
during this past week.
And you render a verdict which
is fair and speaks the truth.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you counselor.
Jury, you have now
heard the full arguments
from members of each
faith presented here.
After I dismiss you,
please go directly
to the deliberation room
and elect a foreperson.
All the evidence will be
with you in the jury room,
you may ask any question
or review any evidence necessary
but you must reach a verdict.
You are now released
to begin deliberation.
I understand you've
reached a conclusion.
Foreperson, what
is your verdict?
Foreperson: Your honor,
we, the jury believe...