It seems a little silly to even attempt to refute the claims of an even sillier movie maker, but for those who need a good understanding of the apologetic basis for belief in the resurrection of Christ, one needs to turn no further than our own 18th century Baptist theologian extraordinaire, the brilliant Dr. John Gill.
In Gill's A Body of Doctrinal Divinity Gill devotes a chapter to The Resurrection of Christ From the Dead. In that chapter Dr. Gill beautifully and clearly defends the bodily resurrrection of Christ and closes his cogent defense by pointing out four personal and experiential effects of the resurrection of Christ upon each and every believer . . .
The blessings of the covenant of grace in general are enjoyed by the saints in virtue of it; for though reconciliation, and other blessings of grace, are by the death of Christ; yet the application and enjoyment of them are through his interceding life, in consequence of his resurrection from the dead; to which life the whole of salvation is ascribed (Rom. 5:10; Heb. 7:25).
Justification, in particular, is observed as one special end and effect of Christ’s resurrection; "he was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification"; and the triumph of faith, in the view of that blessing of grace, is rather, and more principally founded on Christ’s resurrection, than on his sufferings and death (Rom. 4:25; 8:33,34).
Regeneration is another effect of Christ’s resurrection; as the elect of God were "quickened with him", and in him, as their head and representative, when he was quickened and raised from the dead; hence said to be "raised up together" (Eph. 2:5,6), so they are quickened in regeneration, in consequence and virtue of his resurrection, to which it is ascribed (1 Pet. 1:3).
The resurrection of the saints at the last day is the fruit and effect of Christ’s resurrection, and which is ensured by it. Christ’s glorious body is the exemplar, according to which the bodies of the saints will then be formed; and his resurrection is the earnest and pledge of theirs; he is "the firstfruits of them that slept", that is, of the dead: the firstfruits are the sample, and what ensure a following harvest; so the resurrection of Christ is the sample, and gives assurance of the resurrection of the saints in time to come: so that Christ’s resurrection being certain, the resurrection of the saints is also (1 Cor. 15:20,23; 1 Thess. 4:14).
Why the Alleged Discovery of Jesus' Bones Means Nothing
Dr. Gill points out that it is the resurrection of Christ that brings to every believer in Jesus Christ all the blessings of grace, including complete forgiveness, perfect righteousness, unconditional acceptance, and eternal life. We believe, as did the Apostle Paul, that those without faith in Christ will bear the wrath of God for eternity (Colossians 3:6). This wrath, which is holy and righteous, is what the Bible describes as the eternal hell - a complete and absolute separation from the mercy and love of God, and a total individual and personal immersion into the holy anger and wrath of a righteous God. As the prophets of old were prone to say, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
There are many who do not believe the above paragraph to be true. It is ludricous to the atheist, unknowable to the agostic, and otherwise denied by all others who are not believers in Jesus Christ and the sacred word of God. But in closing this post I would like to posit a hypothetical and use simple logic to show why the ONLY people who should be worried about whether or not to believe Jesus' bones have been found are those without faith in Christ.
There are only two options regarding what happened to Christ after He died. He either was placed in a tomb and his bones decayed and returned to the earth's cycle of life (as naturalists call it), or He actually rose from the tomb, ascended to heaven, and now intercedes on behalf of all who trust Him as the Bible states. Since nobody on earth at this current time of history has personally and visually seen either the resurrected body of Jesus Christ or the bones of the decayed body and bones of Christ, both options require a measure of faith.
Now suppose, for the sake of logic, that Jesus Christ did not rise from the tomb by the power of God. If that is the case He is not God. He is a mere man. We are all products of evolution. There is no Creator. There is no accountability to any Supreme Being. We live. We die. We cease to exist. This is what James Cameron believes. It requires as much faith to believe that Jesus did not rise from the grave as it does to believe He did.
Now suppose, using simple logic again, that Jesus Christ did actually rise from the dead. We who trust in Him are accepted by God's grace. We are given the gifts of grace. Our sins are remembered no more. We receive the gift of perfect righteousness that comes from heaven. We are accepted without reservation by the One who created us. We have eternal life and will never bear the wrath of God - ever.
Both views require faith.
If our faith in Christ has no effect, for He is dead, then what difference does it make that we have faith in Christ? When we die, there is simply nothing. But if our faith in Christ is valid, and Christ did rise from the dead, then all the gifts of grace are ours -- we rest in Him, and the state of our eternity is secure. We are at peace with the God who calls us home to Him.
Who has more to lose based on their beliefs? It should be obvious to all - the James Camerons of this world have everything to lose and nothing to gain. There is no greater gamble than that of rejecting the historic Christian understanding of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. One's soul is at stake.
Again, the future state of your existence very well may depend whether or not you have faith and trust Christ's person and work on behalf of sinners, including His bodily resurrection - and that is a logical statement, not one of faith.
In His Grace,