|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
15 Logical Reasons To Believe The Resurrection
« Back to club forum| From | Message |
|---|---|
|
coram_deo 05-Jul-21, 13:13 |
 15 Logical Reasons To Believe The Resurrection15 Logical Reasons to Believe in the Resurrection by MARK HART Many people will tell you that “based on human logic” the Resurrection makes no sense. The first thing we need to remember is that “human logic” is not omnipotence. God makes it very clear that “(His) ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). What is illogical is to think that “man” is the center of the universe. The truth is that Christianity is far more logical than many people give it credit for, certainly more logical than atheism or agnosticism. The second thing we should remind people is that any conversation about God is going to necessitate a degree of faith. If people are not willing to humbly admit that they don’t have all the answers than the conversation will go nowhere. God’s truth and human pride do not co-exist in the same space; that is the nature of sin. Humility and grace go hand-in-hand, as do pride and sin. So, let’s remember that any conversation about the existence of God or the truth about Christ’s resurrection necessitates a humble admission that “it is possible that God exists” and that “we are not God.” When it comes to Easter Sunday, however, and the glorious truth about the Resurrection, to say that there is no logical truth to this belief, is not only ignorant, it is absurd. Here are 15 very quick facts that point to the truth of the Resurrection. These are not exhaustive or highly detailed; they are quick points that further strengthen what humble-hearted believers take on faith: 1. There was an empty Tomb The founders of other “faiths” are buried in tombs or had their ashes sprinkled over foreign lands. Not Jesus. Modern scholars and directors can claim what they want on their cable specials . . . the truth is that the tomb was empty. 2. The Tomb had a Roman seal Clay was affixed to a rope (stretched across a rock) and to the tomb, itself. The Roman seal was pressed into the clay. Break the seal, you break the law; break the law – you die. 3. The Tomb had a Roman guard stationed there The “guard” was at least four men, possibly more, of highly trained soldiers. These soldiers were experts in torture and in combat, not easily frightened off by a band of fishermen and tax collectors. Had they fallen asleep or left their post they would have violated the law, resulting in their own execution. 4. The Tomb had a stone in front of it Most scholars put the weight of the stone at about 2 tons (4000 pounds), probably at least seven or eight feet high. This was definitely a “team lift” or “team roll,” not movable by just one or two men. 5. There were post-resurrection appearances, to hundreds Over a span of six weeks, He appeared to a variety of groups of various sizes in different locations. He appeared to over 500 at one point – a huge number to be an outright fabrication. Not to mention, the people whom He appeared to didn’t just see Him, but ate with Him, walked with Him, touched Him. Jesus even made breakfast (John 21:9) at one point. 6. The martyrdom of witnesses offers proof Would people leave their businesses, careers, homes and families, go to the ends of the earth, die horribly gruesome and painful deaths and forsake their previous religious beliefs about salvation all to protect a lie? Not one of them, while being beheaded, fed to lions, boiled in oil, crucified upside down or burned alive changed their story. Instead, they sang hymns of trust and praise, knowing that the Lord who defeated death would raise them up, too. 7. There is still a Church If the Resurrection were a lie it would have died off centuries ago. The Christian Church is the largest institution of any kind in the history of humanity. This Church began with the apostles following Pentecost, the year Christ rose. It has conquered empires, withstood attacks (inside and out) and grown in spite of the sinfulness of its members, because it was founded by Christ, Himself, and is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. The Church, like Christ, is both human and divine. 8. Jesus prophesied that it was going to happen Jesus told people that it was going to happen. It didn’t take Him by surprise. And He didn’t just say “I’m going to be killed” (which others might have seen coming) but also that “I’m going to rise on the third day.” Those details aren’t ironic, coincidental or fortune-telling — they’re called prophecy and true prophecy comes from God, Himself. 9. It was prophesied in the Old Testament It was foretold centuries before Christ, Himself, was born or lived it out. Hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah, what He would say, do, live like and how He would die… they were offered centuries apart by people God selected (most of whom never met one another, by the way). Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Hosea, and Micah (just to name a few) all pointed to Christ’s death and resurrection hundreds of years before they occurred. 10. The day of worship changed Following the Resurrection, tens of thousands of Jews (almost overnight) abandoned the centuries old tradition of celebrating the Sabbath on the last day of the week and began worshipping on the first day of the week the day on which the Lord, the Christ, beat death sealing the new and final covenant with God. 11. The practices of sacrifice changed Jews were always taught (and taught their children… Deuteronomy 6) that they needed to offer an animal sacrifice once a year, to atone for their sins. After the Resurrection, the Jewish converts of the time, throngs of them, stopped offering animal sacrifices to God. 12. It is unique among other world religions No other religious leader of any consequence ever actually claimed to be God, except Jesus. No other religious leader ever did the things Christ did. No other religious leader ever backed up their “religious voice” with Resurrection. Confucius died. Lao-tse died. Buddha died. Mohammed died. Joseph Smith died. Christ rose from the dead. 13. The message is self-authenticating This proof goes back to the original point, namely, that a humble heart is enlightened and illuminated by far more than logic or reason. A true believer doesn’t need all the facts to believe in the Resurrection, because the Holy Spirit reveals Christ to us, intimately and powerfully. St. Paul talks about this in 2 Corinthians 4. Blind and hardened hearts will never see God, not until they acknowledge that they are not Him. 14. The miraculous ending fits a miraculous life You want logic? Christ healed the blind, the deaf and the dumb. He fed the masses, cured the lepers, and forgave the sinners. He made the lame walk and brought others back to life. He multiplied food, walked on water, and calmed storms with His mere voice. The miracle of Good Friday is that He didn’t call on a miracle. He died. The miracle of Easter Sunday is that He rose from the dead – a miraculous “end” to a miraculous life. What else should we expect? 15. (and the only answer we really need) . . . Jesus is still the answer The world cannot offer any cure for suffering. The world can ignore it, berate it, debate it, bomb it, and medicate it . . . but there is no cure or point to suffering separated from Jesus Christ. In Christ, our suffering has a point and it has worth. Apart from Christ, suffering is pointless and fruitless. There is no fountain of youth. There is no miracle drug. There is no cure for death except Jesus Christ. What is illogical is to think that the God of life would not want us to live eternally. The only reason to think the Resurrection is illogical is if you believe this life is your only one. This blog is not intended to begin debates or tear people apart. This is a very quick reminder to all of us Christians who might get too “logical” from time to time (myself included) that the resurrection is not illogical. That being said, all of us who do tend to be too logical might want to take a deep breath in contemplative prayer this weekend and really lean back in to the beautiful truth and reality of the crucifixion and Resurrection. ”How can some among you say there is no Resurrection? If Christ has not been raised, then empty is our preaching; empty, too, your faith; if Christ has not been raised than your faith is in vain; you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:12-18) Brothers and Sisters, because of what happened in that Upper Room, on that cross, and in that tomb 2000 years ago, we know God the Father intimately, we walk with Christ daily, and we are guided by the Holy Spirit eternally. That’s the truth, and what a beautiful truth it is. (John 8:32) lifeteen.com |
|
coram_deo 14-Jul-21, 10:07 |
“The Case For Christ OK, if I'm a lawyer, and I'm viewing the case for Christ through legal goggles, what am I missing? Anything...? Surely, other analytical legal minds have weighed the evidence in "the case for Christ"... Again, I was truly stunned to find that great legal minds had already done this... Check these guys out... Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...” www.allaboutthejourney.org |
|
coram_deo 27-Jul-21, 06:22 |
Flavius Josephus, a respected historian, referenced Jesus twice: “Josephus is best known however, among Christians for his referral to Jesus in The Antiquities of the Jews, one of the earliest pieces of historical evidence for Jesus outside the New Testament. Below is the paragraph from The Antiquities of the Jews (18:63–64), with what is commonly believed to be additions by a later Christian translator in brackets: ‘At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to refer to him as a man]. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah-Christ.] And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [For on the third day he appeared to them again alive, just as the divine prophets had spoken about these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.’ ” www.gotquestions.org What’s interesting about the alleged additions by a later Christian translator is that in another part of Josephus’ writings, he refers to Jesus as the “Messiah Christ” and this is not believed to be an addition: “ “But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent. . . . He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Messiah-Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned.’ “ www.gotquestions.org From Wikipedia: “Authenticity of the James passage Chilton and Evans state that the general acceptance of the authenticity of the James passage lends support to the partial authenticity of the Testimonium in that the brief reference to ‘Jesus, who was called Christ’ in Antiquities XX, 9, 1 ‘clearly implies a prior reference’ and that ‘in all probability the Testimonium is that prior reference’.Paul L. Maier concurs with the analysis of Chilton and Evans and states that Josephus' first reference was the Testimonium. Geza Vermes also considers the ‘who was called Christ’ reference in the James passage as the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities and states that the first reference is likely to be the Testimonium.” en.m.wikipedia.org I also find very interesting that Josephus’ reference to Jesus (in the first passage) as “a doer of startling deeds” is not believed to be an addition. Could these “startling deeds” be the miracles cited in the Gospels? Also not in dispute, as far as I know, is Josephus’ writing that Jesus was “a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure.” Considering that Jesus spent nearly all of His earthly ministry talking about the Kingdom of God, His message must have been quite positive for people to have “received the truth with pleasure.” And Gospel means “good news!” 👍👍 |
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 12:19 |
Because this is a long article, I’m not posting it all at once, but in three excerpts. Here is the first: A Dozen Evidences for the Resurrection of Jesus by Kenneth Samples March 27, 2018 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 a dozen 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 Gospels, 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. It should also be recognized that the first alternative naturalistic explanation for the resurrection presupposed the truth of the vacated tomb. The Jewish authorities insisted that the tomb was empty because they planned to tell people that Jesus’s followers had come in the night and stolen the body (Matthew 28:13). 2. Jesus’s Postmortem Appearances According to the apostle Paul’s letters 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 touched) and not purely spiritual or ghostlike. The resurrection appearances were also diverse and varied in that Jesus appeared to men and women, to friends and enemies, to single individuals as well as to 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 makes 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. 3. Short Time Frame between Actual Events and Eyewitness Claims Support for the factual nature of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead comes from eyewitness testimonies that were reported soon after the events happened. The apostle Paul claims both that he saw the resurrected Christ (Acts 9:1–19; 22:6–16; 26:12–23) and that others witnessed the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3) prior to his personal encounter. Paul asserts in his writings that he received the firsthand testimony from Jesus’s original apostles who were witnesses of Jesus’s resurrection even before him. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he employs a creedal statement about the resurrection that dates to the earliest period of Christianity. This creed is believed, even by critical scholars (those who doubt the supernatural), to be part of the original Christian kerygma (“proclamation”—representing the earliest preaching and teaching message of Christianity). This early statement of faith that Paul relays mentions by name two of Jesus’s apostles who said they had seen the resurrected Christ. These two apostles are Peter (one of the original 12 apostles and principal spokesperson of primitive Christianity) and James (the brother of Jesus who was also an early apostolic leader). Here is that early creedal statement as the apostle Paul wove it into his first Corinthian epistle: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. –1 Corinthians 15:3–7 Paul’s statement gives us a fourfold formula of the primitive Christian proclamation as it relates to Jesus’s death and resurrection: Christ died. He was buried. He was raised. He appeared. This time frame evidenced in the early creed places the original proclamation by the first apostles about Jesus’s resurrection very near to the time of Jesus’s death and resurrection. This development has led even critical New Testament scholars to be amazed at the early and reliable testimony evident in Paul’s writings. In fact, distinguished New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn states, “This tradition [of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances], we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” Therefore, given the short interval of time between the early eyewitness testimonies about Jesus’s resurrection and the actual event itself (a mere matter of months), these accounts must be considered historically credible. There was clearly no time for myth, legend, or embellishment to accrue around the initial resurrection reports. 4. Extraordinary Transformation of the Apostles Today’s skeptics of Jesus’s resurrection sometimes state that religious people are too quick to accept reports about miracles. Those who doubt the miraculous often insist that miracle claims aren’t usually sufficiently questioned. But was this the case among Jesus’s apostles concerning the resurrection? The New Testament describes a remarkable and enduring transformation of 11 of Jesus’s disciples. These frightened, defeated cowards after Jesus’s crucifixion soon became bold preachers and, in some cases, martyrs. They grew courageous enough to stand against hostile Jews and Romans, even in the face of torture and martyrdom. Such amazing transformation deserves an adequate explanation, for human character and conduct does not change easily or often. Because the apostles fled and denied knowing Jesus after he was arrested, their courage in the face of persecution seems even more astonishing. The disciples attributed the strength of their newfound character to their direct, personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus. In Jesus Christ’s resurrection, the apostles found their existential reason to live—and die. According to the earliest reports concerning Jesus’s resurrection, three of the men Jesus appeared to were either initially highly skeptical of the truth of the resurrection or adamantly opposed to Jesus’s claims of being the Messiah. Those three were Thomas, James, and Saul (who would become Paul), all of whom were predisposed to dismiss the truth of the resurrection. Since Paul’s conversion will be addressed later, let’s consider the stunning impact Jesus’s resurrection had on Thomas and James. Thomas the Doubter While Thomas was one of the original 12 apostles, he was not among the first of Jesus’s followers to see the risen Christ. Upon hearing the report from his fellow disciples concerning Jesus’s bodily resurrection, he doubted its truth. The Gospel of John conveys Thomas’s skepticism: “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). Though a follower of Jesus, Thomas was highly skeptical and needed direct, empirical evidence of Jesus’s actual bodily resurrection before he would believe the claim of his fellow disciples. Thomas demanded evidence of a concrete, empirical nature. He demonstrated tough-mindedness when it came to claims of the miraculous, even when the testimony came from his close friends and associates. Yet according to John’s Gospel, Thomas soon had an encounter with the resurrected Jesus that more than satisfied his doubts: A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” –John 20:26–28 If the resurrection was merely a concocted mythical story, it is highly unlikely that it would include the claim that one of the original 12 disciples seriously questioned Jesus’s resurrection. James the Family Skeptic The Gospels convey that prior to the resurrection, Jesus’s brothers were highly dismissive of his messianic claims (see Mark 6:3–4 and John 7:5). In fact, Jesus’s family viewed him as suffering from mental delusion (Mark 3:21, 31–35). Yet the early creed that Paul had been given by the apostles (which included James) reported that Jesus had appeared to his brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7). James then became one of the critical leaders of the early Christian church, even holding unique authority at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:12–21). Sources in church history convey that James was later martyred for his belief in Jesus Christ. What accounts for James’s amazing change of heart from undoubtedly being deeply embarrassed by his brother’s claims to becoming a distinguished leader in the early church, and finally to even undergoing martyrdom? The resurrection seems to best account for this radical transformation in James’s understanding and perspective. James claimed to have seen his brother alive after his public execution, and that event changed everything. So it appears that Thomas and James seriously questioned the actual truth of Jesus’s resurrection, the way skeptics demand. reasons.org |
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 13:39 |
5. The Greatest Religious Conversion Ever Some people have had dramatic religious conversions. In fact, my three favorite Christian thinkers outside of the biblical authors—St. Augustine, Blaise Pascal, and C. S. Lewis—all experienced amazing life-changing conversions to Christianity. But there is one person whose conversion to the Christian faith changed the world forever. That individual said that his spiritual transformation was due to encountering the resurrected Jesus Christ. Saul of Tarsus was a respected, first-century Hebrew scholar of the Torah (the Law), a member of the Jewish party of the Pharisees, and a Roman citizen (Acts 21:37–22:3). Fervent in his devotion to God and in his intent to protect ancient Judaism from what he perceived as false and heretical teaching, he became the central adversary of the primitive Christian church. Saul expressed his impassioned hostility toward Christians by having them arrested and inciting physical persecution and execution of believers, including Stephen (Acts 7:54–8:3; Galatians 1:13–14). Traveling on the road to Damascus to further persecute the church (ca. AD 31–33), Saul underwent an extraordinary life-changing experience. According to his claim, Saul saw and spoke with the resurrected Jesus (Acts 9:1–30; 22:5–13). Following his dramatic conversion to the movement he once hated, he took on the Gentile name “Paul” and became the greatest advocate of the newfound Christian faith. After Jesus Christ himself, many scholars view the apostle Paul as the second most important figure in the history of Christianity. Paul went on to become the faith’s greatest missionary, theologian, and apologist as well as the inspired author of 13 New Testament books. What caused Paul’s conversion—arguably the greatest religious conversion ever? To understand the true impact of this conversion, let’s consider what may be the modern equivalent of Paul’s first-century conversion to Christianity. Imagine the British prime minister and statesman Winston Churchill becoming a member of the Nazi party. Or the American president Ronald Reagan embracing Soviet communism. Or German Führer Adolf Hitler converting to the religion of Judaism. Whatever equivalent one rightly accepts, Paul’s conversion to Christianity was an absolutely astounding event. But how is this extraordinary change of allegiance to be explained? According to Paul himself, the incredible transformation of one of Western civilization’s most influential religious leaders and thinkers was due to the appearance of the resurrected Christ. The conversion of the apostle Paul, not to mention his life and accomplishments, seems truly inexplicable apart from the fact of the resurrection. It seems the only thing that could have possibly changed Saul’s incredibly negative opinion about primitive Christianity was for him to encounter its leader, Jesus of Nazareth, raised from the dead. 6. Emergence of the Historic Christian Church Does every historic movement emerge from a specific cause? If so, what caused the Christian religion to come into being? What initiated this religious movement that within 300 years dominated the entire Roman Empire and over the course of two millennia dominated all of Western civilization? In a very short time span, Christianity developed a distinct cultural and theological identity apart from that of traditional Judaism. According to the New Testament, the unique religion of Christianity came into being directly because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The extraordinary historical emergence of the Christian church needs an adequate explanation. According to the Christian Scriptures, the apostles turned the world upside down with the truth of the resurrection, and the historic church emerged. This is why many have called the historic Christian church “the community of the resurrection.” But if the resurrection didn’t cause the emergence of Christianity, what did? There seems to be no other adequate natural explanation. Thus, the heart of historic Christianity is found in the remarkable happenings of Easter Sunday. 7. Emergence of Sunday as a Day of Worship The Hebrew people worshiped on the Sabbath, which is the seventh day of the week (measured from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). Nevertheless, the early Christian church (which was viewed initially as a sect of Judaism) gradually changed the day of their worship from the seventh to the first day of the week (see Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; “the Lord’s Day,” Revelation 1:10). For the early Christian church, Sunday uniquely commemorated Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. Sustained reflection on Christ’s resurrection to immortal life transformed Christian worship, uniquely influencing the formulation of the sacraments of the early church (baptism and communion), and thus it distinguished the Christian faith in its theology and practice from traditional Judaism. Apart from the resurrection, no reason existed for early Christians (as a sect of Judaism) to view Sunday (the first day of the week) as having any enduring theological or ceremonial significance. The resurrection of Jesus therefore set historic Christianity apart from the Judaism of its day. That same truth of resurrected life sets the faith apart from all other religions through the centuries. So the happening of Easter Sunday—Jesus’s resurrection—explains two things well: (1) why the Christian religion emerged as a historical movement and (2) why Christians worship on a different day of the week than the Jews. And, in turn, both of these historical elements support the factual nature of Jesus’s resurrection. 8. Plentiful Early References to Jesus’s Resurrection in the Apostle Paul’s Letters Some critics of Christianity have asserted that the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) appear too long after the events of Jesus’s life to carry credible testimony. There is also the concern that there are too few claims of Jesus’s resurrection made by the early eyewitnesses. While I addressed the short time span between the events of Jesus’s life and the eyewitnesses’ claims in my third point of evidence, a little more explanation is helpful here. First, the four Gospels are much closer in time to Jesus’s life than are other ancient testimonies to both religious figures (Gautama Buddha, Confucius) and secular figures (Socrates, Caesar). Second, not only are Paul’s references to the resurrection early (considerably earlier than the four Gospel accounts), but they are abundant in nature. Paul’s epistles contain numerous references to and descriptions of Jesus’s resurrection. Third, some of Paul’s statements about the resurrection reflect primitive Christian creeds and hymns (see Philippians 2 and Colossians 1) that date much earlier than even his earliest written letters. For example, Paul’s earliest epistles were written about 20 years after Jesus’s resurrection. But the creeds and hymns that he wove into his writings were being recited and sung by Jewish Christians back to within a few months or years of Jesus’s resurrection. reasons.org |
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 18:33 |
9. The New Testament Accounts of Jesus’s Resurrection Do Not Resemble Later Apocryphal Stories The accounts of Jesus’s resurrection came from eyewitnesses and close associates of eyewitnesses. The recollections of these witnesses involve descriptions of historical, factual events. And the narrative of Jesus’s resurrection involves his physical body being raised and empirically examined, not merely rising as a spirit as in later apocryphal stories of subjective religious visions. The apostolic reports of Jesus’s resurrection are early, plentiful, and very different than other so-called resurrection accounts. 10. No Tomb Was Ever Venerated as the Burial Place of Jesus The burial places of famous people were often venerated in the ancient world. However, Jesus Christ is arguably the most famous person in all of history, and yet no grave or tomb was ever said to have permanently contained his body. According to his apostles, Jesus’s tomb is empty for his body has been raised. The unique Christian truth-claim is that the one-of-a-kind Jesus, the very Son of God, conquered death. 11. A Crucified Messiah Would Have Been Viewed by All Jewish Christians as Cursed by God If Jesus had been merely crucified with no resurrection to follow, then he would have been viewed by all Jews as a false prophet who was obviously cursed by the Lord God Yahweh. Yet the viability of Christianity as a true faith was buttressed by Jesus’s resurrection. In other words, Jesus’s glorious resurrection from the dead made sense of his ignominious death. The resurrection that followed turned Jesus’s crucifixion into a divine atonement. 12. All the Alternative Naturalistic Explanations for the Resurrection of Jesus Prove False If the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus didn’t involve the supernatural, then there should be a viable natural explanation to account for the data. Yet none of the many naturalistic alternative theories hold water. On careful inspection, all of them prove false or inadequate. So the fact that all of the natural explanations fail serves as one more evidence of the truth of Jesus’s resurrection. I invite you to read through and study these 12 brief evidences for Jesus’s resurrection multiple times. Consult the scholarly resources listed below for more information and context. Grow in your knowledge of the resurrection. Consider sharing this list with other Christians who have doubts, and be ready to talk about this evidence with nonbelievers and skeptics. If Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead—and there is plenty of good evidence that he did—then all of his followers who know him as Lord and Savior will also rise to eternal life on the last day. If Jesus actually conquered death, then there is no news that is more important for all human beings to hear and to reflect upon. Easter really matters. reasons.org |
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 03:53 |
Christ’s resurrection: strongest evidence cited Did Jesus really rise from the dead? It’s a question asked and answered each Easter in news reports, television documentaries and personal conversations. This year, two Southern Baptists who train others to defend the faith have offered their thoughts on the best way to answer. Rob Phillips, who leads apologetics for the Missouri Baptist Convention, pointed to the “minimal facts argument,” which defends the resurrection using only evidence “considered virtually undeniable,” even by skeptics. Stephen Wellum, a theology professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said evidence for the resurrection always must be coupled with an explanation of the resurrection’s significance within the Christian worldview. Phillips told Baptist Press the minimal facts argument is “a compelling case for the resurrection” in the 21st century because “there appears to be such a high level of skepticism today about the Bible in general and about its recorded miracles in particular.” Citing Liberty University apologist Gary Habermas, Phillips noted two requirements for a “minimal fact”: “First, each fact must be confirmed by several strong and independent arguments, typically 10 or more historical confirmations. Second, the vast majority of scholars — even liberal Christian scholars, non-Christian scholars and atheists — must recognize the occurrence’s historical nature.” Phillips identified six such “minimal facts” that support a belief in Christ rising from the dead bodily: — “Jesus died by crucifixion; — “Very soon after His death, His followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus; — “Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message; — “These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion; — “James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience with whom he believed to be the resurrected Christ; — “The Christian persecutor Paul … became a believer after a similar experience.” Phillips concluded, “These ‘minimal facts’ come not only from multiple eyewitnesses as recorded in Scripture, but from numerous non-biblical sources — even sources hostile to Christianity. While there is overwhelming evidence to support these historic events, our goal as followers of Jesus is not necessarily to win a debate or to get in the last word. “Rather, it is to offer a winsome testimony of the resurrected Christ with whom we have an unbreakable relationship, and to encourage our listeners to trust Him for everlasting life,” Phillips said in written comments. Houston Baptist University apologetics professor Lee Strobel explained in his book “The Case for Christ” why the facts Phillips cited are virtually indisputable. In February, Strobel presented some of his research for an HBU apologetics simulcast. In “The Case for Christ,” Strobel reviewed the medical evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross with physician and research scientist Alexander Metherell, who concluded the idea that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross is “a fanciful theory without any possible basis in fact.” Strobel also noted a “staggering” amount of first-century testimony from people who claimed to have seen the risen Christ — too much testimony for it to have been hallucination. “If you were to call each one of the witnesses to a court of law to be cross-examined for just fifteen minutes,” Strobel wrote, “and you went around the clock without a break, it would take you from breakfast on Monday until dinner on Friday to hear them all. After listening to 129 straight hours of eyewitness testimony, who could possibly walk away unconvinced?” After also noting circumstantial evidence for the resurrection and evidence that Christ’s tomb was empty on Easter morning, Strobel concluded Jesus truly did rise from the dead. “If my conclusion in the case for Christ is correct,” he wrote in the book, “your future and your eternity hinge on how you respond to Christ.” Wellum, professor of Christian theology at Southern, said “the evidence for the resurrection is well known and it consists of three interlocking pieces: 1) the fact of the empty tomb, 2) the resurrection appearances of Christ and 3) the transformation of the disciples and the establishment of the church. This data is interlocking since one piece of the data without the others would not provide a good case.” However, Wellum told BP in written comments, “it is not the mere fact of the resurrection alone that is important but the meaning.” “The skeptic can still always admit that Christ may have been risen from the dead without thinking that His resurrection has universal significance,” Wellum said. “Maybe Christ’s resurrection is one of those strange events that occur from time to time in history. After all, given the non-Christian’s worldview, they will look at even the ‘fact’ of the resurrection within their overall worldview.” Within the Christian worldview, Wellum said, Christ’s resurrection “demonstrates at least three truths”: — “By Christ’s death and resurrection, death has been destroyed because as the Lord and Messiah, He has come to reverse the effects of sin, death and destruction (e.g., Hebrews 2:14-18).” — “Christ’s resurrection demonstrates that salvation has been accomplished … that sin[‘s penalty] has been paid and thus the power of death has been broken.” — “Christ’s resurrection demonstrates that judgment has come and will come to this world (Acts 17:31). Because of the resurrection, all humanity will be judged by Jesus Christ.” Christians must show that their explanation of the resurrection makes more sense than alternative explanations, Wellum said. “The significance of the resurrection of Jesus cannot be properly understood as simply an isolated phenomenon of brute power, or a freak accident of nature which belongs to Ripley’s Believe It or Not. The resurrection is not a strange or isolated event which has no intelligible links to the past and no relationship to the future,” Wellum said. “Rather, the significance of the resurrection and the context in which to understand the death and resurrection of Jesus is the Old Testament Scriptures,” he said. “For Jesus’ Messianic death and resurrection is the fulfillment of the plan of God to bring about both redemption and judgment. It is not an accident of nature, but the result of God’s plan, purposes and intention.” www.baptistpress.com |
|
coram_deo 11-Aug-21, 10:04 |
Scientific Evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection “I believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical reality. The resurrection is on solid historical grounds, independently of what I am about to talk about. Jesus appeared to His disciples---the original skeptics of the resurrection---over a period of 40 days, offering them ‘many infallible proofs.’ They in turn went out and turned the Roman Empire upside down with the message of the cross and resurrection. In addition to the massive historical evidence for the resurrection, I believe there is scientific evidence for the resurrection, and it is to be found in the Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth 14 feet by 3 feet, that purports to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The Man in the Shroud was badly scourged, was crucified, wore a crown of thorns, and was stabbed in the chest with a Roman spear. Here's what the late Dr. D. James Kennedy once remarked when he first heard about the Shroud: ‘I should confess that when I first heard about the so-called Shroud of Turin my attitude was one of great skepticism. I have never been impressed with relics. There are enough pieces of the 'genuine' cross of Christ to build the ark, and there are at least forty other shrouds which are claimed to be the Shroud of Christ. Was this thought to be any different? I must confess that I, for one, did not think so at all. But it should be required of every honest person-certainly of every Christian-to have an open mind and to examine the evidence. Christianity is based upon evidence. What does the evidence say?’ As Dr. Kennedy studied the evidence, he became convinced that the Shroud really was the burial cloth of Jesus. One of the great experts on the Shroud in our day is Dr. Alan Whanger, a retired professor from Duke Medical Center who has spent his life studying medicine. Since the late 1970s, he has studied intensely the Shroud of Turin. Although the Shroud was dismissed by some as a fake because of the carbon-dating in 1988 of a single specimen (divided into three tiny parts) that was said to date from 1260 to 1390 A.D., Dr. Whanger says that test was not valid. He and his wife Mary (co-authors of the book The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery, Franklin, Tenn.: Providence House Publishers, 1998) say that the problem was not with the dating per se. It was with the sample. It was from the very corner of the cloth, from a part rewoven in the Middle Ages. And so he concludes, ‘the carbon dating was totally invalid and has no scientific merit to it at all.’ Furthermore, Dr. Whanger notes, ‘The Shroud is the most intensely studied single object in existence. There are probably 67 different fields of scientific and academic interests that have looked into the Shroud in one way in another. So, there's been a huge amount of research gone in on it. It is our conviction that the Shroud is, indeed, the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. And we feel that we can date it to the spring of 30 A.D. in the Middle East, and that what we see on the Shroud with the various wounds that this is entirely consistent with the scriptural account of the crucifixion of Jesus. And traditionally, this has been known as the image of Jesus.’ In other words, observes Dr. Whanger, what we think Jesus looked like is based on the Shroud of Turin and not vice versa. We know where the Shroud has been since 1357, when it showed up in Lirey, France in the home of a French crusader. Knowing it dates from 1357 or earlier, consider all these details: •The human anatomy represented on the Shroud is 100% correct. Knowledge about anatomy on the Shroud includes details that weren't known until the 20th century. In contrast, 14th century knowledge of anatomy was quite limited. If the cloth were the work of a medieval forger, he knew things that weren't to be known until centuries later. •The Shroud was photographed for the first time in 1898, and it was discovered to be a photographic negative---hundreds of years before photography was invented. •The faint image on the Shroud was not painted on. It was lightly burned on. It's as if at the moment of the resurrection, Christ's body let off a burst of radiation, as His body changed from mortal to immortal. The image on the Shroud is created by some sort of scorching process. Yet it is only lightly scorched. The image is only 5/1000's of an inch thick. Although there are a few traces of pigment on the Shroud (because as a holy relic, they put paintings in contact with it, presumably to receive a blessing or the like), the image is not comprised of pigment or paint. •The blood on the Shroud is real human blood---with all the wounds corresponding with the passion of Jesus in the Gospels. The blood did not see decay (He was sandwiched inside that cloth for less than 72 hours). Yet the blood was undisturbed, which means He somehow went through the cloth; it was not yanked off Him. •What we think Jesus looked like is based on the Shroud of Turin. People have a universal picture of how they think Jesus looked. That image is based on the Shroud. •While leading evangelicals are often silent about the Shroud, and I respect that, I still think people should look into it for themselves because the evidence is there, on yet another front, declaring the Easter message: Jesus is risen. •In the Middle Ages (and even sometimes today) artistic representations of the crucifixion place the nails in the palms. Yet the Shroud of Turin places the nails in the wrists. It has now been medically proven that nails in the palms would not suffice to hold a crucified man. (The Greek word for "hand" can also mean wrist.) •The image of the Shroud is three-dimensional. When ordinary photos or paintings are studied through a specific NASA, space-age machine (a "VP 8 Image Analyzer"), the image always becomes distorted. However, the Shroud has been proven to have three-dimensional properties. It could not have been a painting. •The theories of skeptics put forward to explain away the Shroud pay indirect homage to its awesome properties. For example, one recent book proposed that no less a genius than Leonardo de Vinci produced the Shroud-and that he had to secretly crucify a man in the process. However, Leonardo lived a hundred years after the Shroud appeared. So there goes another theory. Everyone that studies the Shroud of Turin agrees that this is a mystery not easily explained away. If it's a hoax, this is no ordinary hoax. The greater evidence argues for its authenticity. As some scientists put it, the Shroud is, if you will, a ‘snapshot of the resurrection.’ At the very moment Christ rose from the dead, something happened-a burst of radiation perhaps-that left a permanent mark on the front and back of the burial cloth that sandwiched the Man who wouldn't stay buried for long. In short, the best theory is that the Shroud of Turin provides scientific evidence for the resurrection of Christ.” www.christianpost.com |
|
coram_deo 11-Aug-21, 10:18 |
Includes interview with a member of the original Shroud research term whose findings in 2005 were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. youtu.be |
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 12:10 |
The Reality of the Empty Tomb This is an important question because if the tomb was indeed empty, those who deny Jesus Christ’s Resurrection have to explain what happened to His body in order for their position to be credible. Here’s the article from the Deseret News: The challenge of the empty tomb No known ancient source denies that Jesus Christ's tomb was empty shortly after his burial. That simple fact represents a major stride toward the full Christian message of Easter. Written most likely A.D. mid-50s — that is, about two decades after the death of Jesus — Paul's first letter to the saints in Corinth contains a stirring testimony of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-11), including the implicit claim that the tomb in which Jesus' body was placed was soon found to be empty: Specifically, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 explicitly says that Jesus died and was buried, but that, on the third day, "he rose again." Many modern scholars believe that Paul is citing a very early Christian creed, a text that may have been familiar to his audience and that in any case, if they are correct, is necessarily older than the epistle that quotes it. Moreover, Paul expressly says that he's reiterating to the Corinthians what he had taught them several years before, when he was personally teaching in Corinth among them. Thus, it seems difficult to deny that the idea arose very early that the tomb of Jesus was unoccupied three days after his burial. Furthermore, this idea had spread far beyond Palestine within just a few years of the claimed event. Written somewhat later than Paul's letter to the Corinthians, all four New Testament Gospels agree in relating that, on the Sunday morning following Christ's crucifixion, the tomb in which the dead body of Jesus had been placed on Friday was empty. (See Matthew 28:1-8, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-6, John 20:1-10.) Uniquely among the four gospels, Matthew 27:62-66 tells of guards being placed at the tomb. According to Matthew, this was done at the initiative of "the chief priests and Pharisees" and with the approval of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. "Sir," Matthew 27:63-64 quotes them as saying to Pilate, "we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise.' Therefore, order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last fraud will be worse than the first." Matthew continues with his account of the guards during the event of the resurrection, which, he says, paralyzed them with fear and left them temporarily "like dead men" (Matthew 28:4). When they had recovered their wits, though, "some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, 'Tell people, "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep." And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.' So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (Matthew 28:11-15). Thus, according to the gospel of Matthew, both believers and unbelievers agreed that Jesus' body was absent from the tomb, however differently they might explain that fact. St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165), a pagan philosopher who was born in Palestine and converted to Christianity as an adult, was familiar with a Jewish accusation that the disciples had stolen Christ's body from the tomb. He mentions it in his "Dialogue with Trypho," 108. Likewise, Tertullian, writing around A.D. 200 in what is today Tunisia, on the northern coast of Africa, knows of the Jewish claim. "This is he," Tertullian's "De spectaculis" ("On the Games") quotes Jewish skeptics as saying about Jesus, "whom his disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said he had risen again." The medieval Jewish anti-Christian work known as the "Sefer Toledot Yeshu" ("The Book of the Generations of Jesus") offers a variant of the accusation, suggesting that it was a gardener (compare John 20:15) who originally stole the body of Jesus and then later sold it to the Jewish leadership. This story makes little sense, of course, because the most decisive rebuttal that the ancient Jewish leadership could have made to claims of Christ's resurrection would, obviously, have been to have publicly produced and displayed his still-dead body. If they had had it in their possession, they would have triumphantly done so — and Christianity would have died in its cradle. But that, plainly, was something that they could not do. Which is among the reasons why, still today, believing Christians joyously proclaim that Christ is risen. northofboston.wickedlocal.com |
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 14:05 |
From the BBC: “The story of Joseph of Arimathea is told in all four gospels. Joseph was a wealthy man who came from Arimathea in Judea. He was a good and righteous man who managed to be both a member of the Council (the Sanhedrin) and a secret supporter of Jesus - which is why he did not join in the Council's actions against Jesus. After the death of Jesus, Joseph asked Pilate for permission to take Jesus' body and bury it properly. Permission was granted and the body was taken down. Joseph, helped by Nicodemus, wrapped the body in cloth with the addition of myrrh and aloes. They buried Jesus in an unused tomb that Joseph may have intended for himself, where it was protected by a heavy stone rolled against the opening.” www.bbc.co.uk Here is one of the Gospel accounts of where Jesus was buried: “When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.” (Matthew 27:57-60) Other people knew where Jesus Christ was buried, so if anyone wanted to dispute the claim that the tomb was empty, they would know where to go. In fact, the Pharisees had Jesus’ tomb guarded out of fear His disciples would steal His body and claim He was Resurrected: “Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.“ (Matthew 27:62-66) Note in that passage (and in several other passages) that Jesus Christ Himself said He would rise on the third day. The empty tomb has been accepted to such an extent that skeptics of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection have postulated naturalistic reasons for why the tomb was empty. I’ll post those postulated reasons and their rebuttals next. |
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 16:54 |
From josh.org: Let’s look at just three of these alternate theories: the Apparent Death (Swoon) Theory, the Theft (Conspiracy) Theory, and the Hallucination Theory, to determine if they explain away the resurrection. ~ Apparent Death Theory ~ This theory, which emerged in the late 1700s and evolved through various liberal German theologians, posits that Jesus did not die on the cross, but only appeared to die. A modern version of this theory was popularized in The Passover Plot, a 1960s book by Hugh Schonfield. Details of the Theory This theory states that Jesus merely fainted on the cross, from pain, shock, and loss of blood. He was removed from the cross, alive but unconscious, and placed in the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish leadership. Jesus supposedly revived at some point, in part because of the coolness of the tomb. Despite not having access to desperately needed medical care and nourishment, Jesus then supposedly managed to unwrap His dressings by Himself and then, in the total darkness of the tomb, locate and roll away the mammoth stone that sealed the tomb entrance. And then, still unnoticed by the guards, Jesus supposedly walked a significant distance, on feet punctured by the cross nails, to rejoin His disciples and declare Himself the risen Lord. Response Serious scholars don’t support this theory because it fails to account for the known facts. Evidence, both historical and medical, argues against the possibility of survival. We have at least ten reasons to be confident that Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross: The nature of His injuries. He was brutally whipped, beaten, and crowned with deep thorns, all of which resulted in enormous blood loss and tissue damage. He collapsed while carrying His cross beam (approximate weight to be believed around 100 pounds) to the crucifixion site. The nature of crucifixion virtually guarantees death from asphyxiation. In an attempt to bolster their view, skeptics cite the historian Josephus, who describes an extremely rare case in which one person survived crucifixion, overlooking the fact that his account describes three crucifixion victims who were alive when taken down, but two of which died shortly thereafter, despite receiving excellent Roman medical care. The piercing of Jesus’ side, from which came “blood and water” (John 19:34), indicating serum separated from clotted blood, gives medical evidence that Jesus had already died. Jesus said He was in the act of dying while on the cross: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). The Roman soldiers, well trained executioners, were charged with making sure He was dead before taken off the cross. When they went to break Jesus’ legs, to hasten His death, they found Him already dead. Pilate summoned the centurion to make sure Jesus was, indeed, dead before surrendering the body to Joseph for burial. Jesus’ body was wrapped in about a hundred pounds of cloth and spices, and placed in a tomb that was sealed with a massive stone. From inside the tomb, Jesus would have had no way to leverage the stone to roll it away, let alone push it back enough to slip past it. Medical experts who have studied the circumstances surrounding the end of Jesus’ life have concluded that He did actually die on the cross, most likely from a combination of factors: hypovolemic shock, exhaustion asphyxia, and even acute heart failure. Non-Christian historians from the 1st and 2nd centuries, such as Tacitus and Josephus, recorded Jesus’s death in their writings. The earliest Christian writers after the time of Christ, such as Polycarp and Ignatius, verify that Jesus died on the cross. In his article, A Lawyer Examines The Swoon Theory, Texas attorney Joseph “Rick” Reinckens satirically unpacks this theory. Just a snippet: “Jesus has been whipped, beaten and stabbed, is hemorrhaging, and hasn’t had any food or drink for at least three days. Does He just push the stone open enough to squeeze through? No, He pushes the stone door COMPLETELY out of the way!!!” The theory asserts that Jesus got past the guards undetected — and then somehow traveled seven miles to Emmaus, to rejoin His disciples. Again, let’s look at Jesus’ physical condition, to decide if this sounds feasible: Jesus would have had nothing to eat or drink for more than two days, as it has been over 48 hours since the Passover meal. Jesus would have been severely dehydrated from losing massive amount of blood and fluids. Jesus’ entire body would have been a pulpy mess, because of the severe beatings and scourging by the Roman guards. The gaping wound in His side, from being pierced by the Roman guard’s sword, would have likely perforated a lung and/or Jesus’ heart. Jesus crumpled under the weight of the crossbeam as He made His way to the crucifixion site. Yet now He manages to roll aside a tomb stone that scholars estimate weighed more than 400 pounds? If Jesus had managed to get Himself to His disciples, are we to believe that they viewed Him, in His near-death state, to be their triumphant, risen Lord? And consider this: if Jesus had survived the crucifixion, why would His disciples create the idea of His resurrection? Would they not have thumbed their noses at Rome more by simply stating that Rome’s best efforts at torture were no limit to Jesus, the man and Messiah from Galilee? If it crossed your mind that Jesus could have healed Himself in the tomb — as historical records tell us that He healed so many others — ask yourself why He would do so. If He didn’t die, His own predictions about Himself were untrue. If He didn’t die, His promises to us are, as Paul states, worthless. Would any of us follow Jesus if we thought Him a liar and fake? I certainly wouldn’t. www.josh.org |
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 17:31 |
From josh.org: ~ Theft Theory ~ The oldest of the naturalistic alternative theories, this theory comes in different forms. The first form is that the disciples stole the body from the sealed and guarded tomb, and conspired to teach that Jesus had resurrected. The second form is that grave robbers stole the body, and when Jesus’ disciples discovered the theft, they decided to tell everyone that He resurrected. The great historian Eusebius (A.D. 314-318) was the first to argue that it is inconceivable that such a well-planned and thought-out conspiracy could succeed. Eusebius satirically imagined how the disciples might have motivated each other to take this route: Let us band together to invent all the miracles and resurrection appearances which we never saw and let us carry the sham even to death! Why not die for nothing? Why dislike torture and whipping inflicted for no good reason? Let us go out to all the nations and overthrow their institutions and denounce their gods! And even if we don’t convince anybody, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of drawing down on ourselves the punishment for our own deceit. Details of the Theory This theory originates back to the time of the resurrection itself. It was first recorded by Matthew (28:11-55), when the chief priests told the Roman guards to concoct the story that Jesus’ disciples had stolen His body while they slept. (Hmm….how would they know that, if they were asleep?) Justin Martyr also recorded this early theory in his writings around AD 165, as does Tertullian, who was born in AD 150. One of the leading proponents of this theory today is mythicist Richard Carrier, who believes the resurrection to be an invention later adopted as church doctrine. Richard Carrier’s Empty Tomb Hypothesis Theory #1: Growth of a Later Legend Carrier believes the most probable and plausible cause of the empty tomb story presented in the Gospels is that over time a legend grew that Jesus did, in fact, physically rise, not just spiritually. Carrier himself believes that Jesus was raised bodily, but that His earthly body continued to rot in its tomb. He also believes that Mark created the idea of the empty tomb, which Luke and Matthew then copied in their Gospels. Mark, he asserts, viewed the empty tomb as symbolic, not historic. He further asserts that several parallels exist between Mark’s gospel and Orphic doctrines, and that “Mark’s empty tomb story mimics the secret salvation narratives of the Orphic mysteries, substituting Jewish-Messianic eschatology for the pagan elements.” Carrier also suggests that Mark employs a “Reversal of Expectation” motif. This is the idea that what the reader is expecting to happen in the narrative is suddenly reversed by the author in order to surprise and confound the audience. Carrier states: The parables of Jesus are also full of the reversal of expectation theme, and Mark appears to agree with the program of concealing the truth behind parables. And so, the empty tomb is probably itself a parable, which accordingly employs a reversal of expectation as its theme. … This program leads him to “create” thematic events that thwart the reader’s expectation, and an empty tomb is exactly the sort of thing an author would invent to serve that aim. Carrier adds: What I have presented so far is an articulation of my theory as to the origins of the empty tomb story, first as a metaphor in Mark, then as an inspiring element in the development of a Christian heresy that took the empty tomb as literal, using it to bolster their own doctrine of resurrection of the flesh. That this heresy became the eventual orthodoxy is simply an accident of history and politics. Response First, the idea that the empty tomb is a late invention layered over the Christian system one or two generations later completely ignores the evidence that the church, from its inception, preached the risen Jesus. And this teaching took place in Jerusalem, the very site of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Theory #2: Theft Carrier puts forth this second theory: that Jesus was put in the tomb on Friday, but that the Roman guards weren’t posted until Saturday morning, giving robbers or disciples plenty of time to steal Jesus’ body. He also suggests that the Roman guards quite possibly took two bribes — one from the robbers, and one from the Jewish leaders — after the guards reported the empty tomb. Asserts Carrier: There is simply nothing improbable in an empty tomb being the result of theft, which then is linked with or even inspires (by leaving the suggestion of an ascension or escape in people’s minds), independent reports of appearances, especially appearances of a visionary kind, such as that which converted Paul. Response If you will remember, the disciples were so terrified when Jesus was arrested, they scattered and went into hiding. Even Peter, who swore he would die with Jesus, if necessary, denied knowing Jesus three times. The theory that Jesus’ disciples (or someone else) stole the body fails, when we consider that the disciples were doing all they could to go radio silent. Should we believe that they suddenly found the courage to not only steal Jesus’ body, but to then boldly go around telling their contemporaries that Jesus had resurrected? Though Jesus had told His disciples repeatedly that He must die and rise, a bodily resurrection was an entirely new concept for their Jewish thinking. They didn’t “get” it until the risen Jesus appeared and spent the next 40 days with them. Only then were they emboldened to grab their megaphones and lustily shout the good news — whatever the consequences. Peter wasn’t convinced by the empty tomb. Neither was Mary, the first to reach it. She simply assumed His body had been moved. And we all know what it took to turn doubting Thomas into believing Thomas: placing his own hands on Jesus’ wounds. The Jewish leaders tacitly acknowledged that the tomb was empty. Why else would they have paid the Roman guards to make up the story about Jesus’ body being stolen? And let’s not forget yet another clue that grave robbers didn’t take Jesus’ body: the left-behind grave cloths. Supposed body snatchers — whether disciples or unknown persons — would hardly have taken the time to unwrap Jesus’s body to leave the burial linens behind. Myrrh, one of the spices placed within the burial cloths, would have made removing the cloth extremely slow and tedious, as it would have cleaved to both the linens and Jesus’ body. What robber has time for that? Certainly not timid disciples! Jesus left the linens behind as a big, bold statement: I have resurrected! www.josh.org |
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 18:40 |
Remember, there is broad consensus among skeptics of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection that He lived and was crucified. This is confirmed not only in the Gospels and epistles from Paul but in secular, non-Biblical sources. So if He lived and was crucified and His body was placed in a specific tomb that is identified in the Gospels, how did His body go missing if He wasn’t Resurrected? From josh.org ~ Hallucination Theory ~ Is it possible that people just thought they saw Jesus? Science has proved that hallucinations are entirely subjective, as they occur within individuals, not among groups of people. So how do we account for hundreds of people simultaneously seeing Jesus, and the 11 disciples interacting with Him as a group? We can definitely eliminate hallucination. Says Peter Kreeft: “Hallucinations usually happen only once, except to the insane. This one returned many times, to ordinary people. Five hundred separate Elvis sightings may be dismissed, but if five hundred simple fishermen in Maine saw, touched, and talked with him at once, in the same town, that would be a different matter.” Details of the Theory The Hallucination Theory asserts that the many people who saw Jesus in His resurrected body just imagined doing so. Atheist and New Testament theologian Gerd Ludemann asserts that Peter’s vision was psychologically prompted. Peter, he says, saw a vision of Jesus because of his suffocating feelings of guilt, and his intense desire to have Jesus back and leading the disciples. As a result, states Ludemann, Peter “saw” Jesus and thus made it possible for the other disciples to “see” Jesus as well. He adds that Paul, feeling remorse for so viciously attacking the church, converted to Christianity with the same zeal after seeing an hallucination of Jesus. “Paul’s vision of seeing Christ was merely a dream,” says Ludemann, which, “reinforced by enthusiasm, was contagious and led to many more visions, until we have an ‘appearance’ to more than five hundred people.” Response This theory, arguably the most widely held naturalistic theory for the resurrection, lacks the most evidence support for its case. Hallucinations are a poor explanation. Hallucinations do occur, but only to individuals. Because hallucinations are entirely subjective, multiple people do not simultaneously experience them. And persons experiencing a hallucination do not feel they have direct or voluntary control over the experience. We know from historical sources that the people who saw Jesus were in total control of their reaction to Him. Philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli offer these reasons why the Hallucination Theory cannot be considered a reliable naturalistic explanation for the resurrection: There were too many witnesses who saw Jesus — and at the time of Paul’s writing, he asserted that most of the 500 who saw Jesus were still alive, and could be questioned as to what they experienced. If untrue, Paul’s enemies would have called him out on this. These witnesses are qualified sources. They had firsthand knowledge of the facts. The 500 saw Christ together, at the same time and place. This is way more remarkable than 500 private “hallucinations” at different times and places. Hallucinations last typically for a few seconds or minutes. This “hallucination” (Jesus) hung around for 40 days! This “hallucination” (Jesus) returned many times, to ordinary people. As we previously stated, hallucinations happen to individuals. They are not a shared experience. When Jesus first appeared to His disciples, they thought He was a ghost. He had to eat something to prove He was not. The resurrected Christ ate with His disciples on at least two occasions. Jesus allowed His disciples to touch him. Doing so helped the disciples to believe He was real, and not a “vision.” His disciples saw the empty tomb for themselves. If Jesus’ body would have still been there, they would not have believed Him risen. To suggest that early followers of Christ were duped into believing Jesus lived because of mass hysteria is what’s really insane. People might get emotionally invested for a period, but to stick with a belief, they really have to believe it. Christianity has flourished because a real relationship with Christ produces just that: an ongoing connection that devoted Christians savor too much to forfeit. ~ Our Conclusion: Jesus Lives! ~ While a single alternate theory might be capable of explaining just one piece of evidence, none of the alternate theories can account for all the historical evidence that points to the truth of the resurrection. And simply stitching together various alternate theories fails to give skeptics what they want: a purely naturalistic explanation of the effects and facts. Given all that we know about the resurrection as a historical event, we can have confidence that it also was a supernatural event that shook the very gates of hell. Skeptics can, and likely will, argue otherwise until they reach their last breath. But to anyone who has personally experienced Jesus, and chosen to accept Him as Lord, their arguments fall flat. Christianity requires faith — but not blind faith. As we’ve shown you in the 21 blog posts we’ve posted so far in this year-long series, we can base our faith on the avalanche of historical evidence that serves to validate the claims of Christ, the church, and the Bible! Your to-do, as you prepare to celebrate Easter: Read Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? Jesus lives! |
|
coram_deo 20-Aug-21, 10:53 |
From jesusonline.com “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? According to eyewitnesses, a man named Jesus Christ demonstrated his power over death. They tell us that after he died on a cross and was buried, Jesus suddenly appeared to them alive on the third day. Then he was seen by other followers, including 500 people on a single occasion. Soon word spread everywhere that Jesus had risen from the dead. But could Jesus’ resurrection simply be a 2000 year old legend? Or is it based upon verifiable historical evidence? If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then the foundation for the Christian Faith would forever be destroyed. Jesus Predicts His Own Death and Resurrection Seven hundred years before Christ, the prophet Isaiah had written about a future Messiah, who would suffer and die for our sins, but later be restored to life. Echoing the prophecy in Isaiah 53, Jesus claimed that he was the Messiah who would be betrayed, arrested, condemned, spit upon, scourged, and killed. But then three days later he would come back to life. (See Mark 10:33). Everything Jesus taught and claimed depended on his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus didn’t rise as he promised, his message of forgiveness and hope for eternal life would be meaningless. Jesus was putting his words to the ultimate test of truth. Bible scholar Wilbur Smith explains, ‘When he said He would rise again from the dead, the third day after He was crucified, He said something that only a fool would dare say if He expected the devotion of any disciples – unless He was sure He was going to rise.’ A Horrific Death And Then . . . ? Exactly as Jesus predicted, eyewitnesses report he was betrayed by one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot. Then in a mock trial under the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, he was condemned, scourged, kicked, spat upon, brutally whipped, and finally crucified on a wooden cross. Jesus suffered on the cross for approximately six hours. Then, at 3:00 in the afternoon Jesus cried out, ‘It is finished’ and died. Suddenly the sky went dark and an earthquake shook the land. Pilate wanted to verify that Jesus was dead before allowing his crucified body to be buried. So a Roman guard thrust a spear into Jesus’ side. The mixture of blood and water that flowed out, according to eyewitnesses, was a clear indication that Jesus was dead. Once his death was certified, Jesus’ body was taken down from the cross, tightly wrapped in linen and buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. Roman guards then sealed the tomb with a large stone and were under strict orders to watch the tomb 24 hours a day. Jesus’ disciples were so utterly devastated by his death on the cross that they fled for their lives, fearing they too would be captured and killed. But then something happened . . .” jesusonline.com |
|
coram_deo 20-Aug-21, 11:55 |
I realize some of the evidence presented in this article appears earlier in this thread, but, unless I’m mistaken, this is the first article in this thread to address the claim that Jesus’ Resurrection was a legend or myth. From jesusonline.com “Something Happened According to a New York Times article, ‘Shortly after Jesus was executed, his followers were suddenly galvanized from a baffled and cowering group into people whose message about a living Jesus and a coming kingdom, preached at the risk of their lives, eventually changed an empire. Something happened … But exactly what?’ Morison Examines the Evidence Morison wanted to know what actually happened that changed Jesus’ followers and started a movement that has made such a profound impact on our world. He realized there were five possible explanations: • Jesus didn’t really die on the cross • Jesus’ body was stolen • The disciples were hallucinating • The account is legendary. Or, • It really happened Morison began examining the facts patiently and impartially to see where they would lead him. 1. Was Jesus Dead? Morison first wanted verification that Jesus was really dead when placed in the tomb. He learned that Jesus’ death was considered factual for nearly 1800 years. Then about 200 years ago, a few skeptics postulated that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, but merely lost consciousness, and was revived by the cool, damp air of the tomb. This became known as the ‘swoon theory.’ Morison wondered if Jesus could have survived the cross. He researched both Jewish and Roman contemporary history and discovered the following facts supporting Jesus’ death: • All the accounts affirm he died • Pilate verified he died • During the lifetime of the eyewitnesses no one disputes his death • Secular and contemporary historians, Lucian, Josephus, and Tacitus cite his death as factual Morison became convinced that Jesus was truly dead, a fact almost universally accepted as true by trusted scholars and historians. Morison concludes, ‘That Jesus Christ died on the cross, in the full physical sense of the term…seems to me to be one of the certainties of history.’ 2. Was Jesus’ body stolen? Morison wondered if the disciples faked the resurrection story by stealing Jesus’ body, and then claiming he was alive. That might be plausible if the tomb was in an obscure area where no one would see them. However, the tomb belonged to a well-known member of the Sanhedrin Council, Joseph of Arimathea. Since Joseph’s tomb was at a well-known location and easily identifiable, any thoughts of Jesus being ‘lost in the graveyard’ would need to be dismissed. Not only was the location well known, but the Romans had assigned guards to watch the tomb 24 hours a day. This was a trained guard unit comprised of four to 16 soldiers. Josh McDowell notes, ‘The Roman Guard unit was committed to discipline and they feared failure in any way.’ It would have been impossible for anyone to have slipped by the guards unnoticed and then move the stone. Yet the stone was rolled away, making it possible for eyewitnesses to enter the tomb. And when they did, the body of Jesus was missing. If Jesus’ body was anywhere to be found, his enemies would have quickly exposed the resurrection as a fraud. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, summarizes the strength of this argument: ‘With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body? … The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection.’ So, with no body of evidence, and with a known tomb clearly empty, Morison accepted that Jesus’ body had somehow disappeared from the tomb. 3. Were the Disciples Hallucinating? Morison wondered if the disciples might have been so emotionally distraught that they hallucinated and imagined Jesus’ resurrection. Psychologist Gary Collins, former president of the American Association of Christian Counselors, explains that, ‘Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature, only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a group of people.’ Hallucination is not even a remote possibility, according to psychologist Thomas J. Thorburn. ‘It is absolutely inconceivable that … five hundred persons, of average soundness of mind … should experience all kinds of sensuous impressions – visual, auditory, tactual – and that all these … experiences should rest entirely upon … hallucination.’ The hallucination theory, then, appears to be another dead end. What else could explain away the resurrection? 4. Is it just a Legend? Some unconvinced skeptics attribute the resurrection story to a legend that began with one or more persons lying or thinking they saw the resurrected Jesus. Over time, the legend would have grown and been embellished as it was passed on. But there are three major problems with that theory: A. Legends simply don’t develop while multiple eyewitnesses are alive to refute them. One historian of ancient Rome and Greece, A. N. Sherwin-White, argued that the resurrection news spread too soon and too quickly for it to have been a legend. Even skeptical scholars admit that Christian hymns and creeds were recited in early churches within two to three years of Jesus’ crucifixion. B. Legends develop by oral tradition and are not supported with contemporary historical documents. Yet the Gospels were written within three decades of the resurrection. C. The legend theory doesn’t adequately explain either the empty tomb or the fervent conviction of the apostles that Jesus was alive. Morison’s original assumption that the resurrection account was mythical or legendary didn’t coincide with the facts.” jesusonline.com |
|
coram_deo 20-Aug-21, 13:35 |
“5. Did the resurrection really happen? Having eliminated the main arguments against Jesus’ resurrection due to their inconsistency with the facts, Morison began asking himself, ‘did it really happen?’ Instead of looking for evidence against Jesus’ resurrection, he wondered how strong the case was for its actual occurrence. Several facts stood out. Women First Each eyewitness account reports that Jesus suddenly appeared bodily to his followers, the women first. Morison wondered why conspirators would make women central to the plot. In the first century, women had virtually no rights, personhood, or status. Morison reasoned that conspirators would have portrayed men, not women, as the first to see Jesus alive. And yet we read that women touched him, spoke with him, and were the first to find the empty tomb. Multiple Eyewitnesses The disciples claim they saw Jesus on more than ten separate occasions. They say he showed them his hands and feet and told them to touch him. He ate with them and later, on one occasion, appeared alive to more than 500 followers. In Caesarea, Peter told a crowd why he and the other disciples were so convinced Jesus was alive. ‘We apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Israel and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by crucifying him, but God raised him to life three days later … We were those who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.’ Morison realized that these early sightings of a risen Jesus by so many of his followers would have been virtually impossible to fake. Consistent to the End As Morison continued his investigation, he began to examine the motives of Jesus’ followers. He reasoned that something extraordinary must have happened, because the followers of Jesus ceased mourning, ceased hiding, and began fearlessly proclaiming that they had seen Jesus alive. As if the eyewitness reports were not enough to challenge Morison’s skepticism, he was also baffled by the disciples’ behavior. These eleven former cowards were suddenly willing to suffer humiliation, torture, and death. All but one of Jesus’ disciples were slain as martyrs. If they had taken the body, would they have sacrificed so much for a lie? Something happened that changed everything for these men and women. It was this significant fact that persuaded Morison the resurrection must have really happened. He acknowledged, ‘Whoever comes to this problem has sooner or later to confront a fact that cannot be explained away … This fact is that … a profound conviction came to the little group of people – a change that attests to the fact that Jesus had risen from the grave.’ Professor J. N. D. Anderson and author of ‘Evidence for the Resurrection’ concurs, ‘Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence – and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication … That simply wouldn’t make sense.’ Why Did it Win? Finally, Morison was bewildered by the fact that ‘a tiny insignificant movement was able to prevail over the cunning grip of the Jewish establishment, as well as the might of Rome. He explains, ‘Within twenty years, the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish church… In less than fifty years it had begun to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire. When we have said everything that can be said… we stand confronted with the greatest mystery of all. Why did it win?’ By all rights, if there were no resurrection, Christianity should have died out at the cross when the disciples fled for their lives. But the apostles went on to establish a growing Christian movement. Whatever one believes about the validity of Jesus’ resurrection, clearly ‘something happened’ after his death that has made a lasting impact on our world. When world historian H. G. Wells was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, the non-Christian scholar replied, ‘By this test Jesus stands first.’ What is that legacy? Let’s look at just some of Jesus’ impact: • Time is marked by his birth, B.C.– before Christ; A.D. – in the year of our Lord • More books have been written about Jesus than about any other person • About 100 great universities were established to spread his teaching — including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Oxford • Jesus’ teaching that all people are created equal laid the bedrock for human rights and democracy in more than 100 countries • The high value Jesus placed on each person regardless of sex or race led his followers to promote the rights of women as well as abolish slavery • Humanitarian works such as the Red Cross, World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse, Mercy Ships and the Salvation Army were founded by his followers A Surprise Conclusion In the book he finally wrote, Who Moved the Stone, Morison documents the evidence that led him to a belief in the resurrection. Morison is not alone. Numerous other skeptics who examined the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, also became convinced and accepted it as the most astounding fact in all of human history. Oxford professor and former skeptic C. S. Lewis, who had once doubted Jesus’ very existence, was also persuaded by the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He writes, ‘Something perfectly new in the history of the Universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door which had always been locked had for the very first time been forced open.’ But there is even more. . . Jesus on Trial Dr. Simon Greenleaf decided to put Jesus’ resurrection on trial by examining the evidence. Greenleaf helped Harvard Law School gain widespread credibility. He also wrote the three-volume legal masterpiece A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which has been called the ‘greatest single authority in the entire literature of legal procedure.’ The U.S. judicial system today still relies on rules of evidence established by Greenleaf. Greenleaf wondered if Jesus’ resurrection would hold up in a court of law. Focusing his brilliant legal mind on the facts of history, Greenleaf began applying his rules of evidence to the case of Jesus’ resurrection. The more Greenleaf investigated the record of history, the more evidence he discovered supporting the claim that Jesus had indeed risen from the tomb. He documents his case for Jesus’ resurrection in his book, Testimony of the Evangelists. So, what was that evidence? Greenleaf observed several dramatic changes that took place shortly after Jesus died, the most baffling being the behavior of the disciples. He argues, ‘it would have been impossible for the disciples to persist with their conviction that Jesus had risen if they hadn’t actually seen the risen Christ.’ Applying his own rules of evidence to the facts, he accepted the resurrection as the best explanation for the events that took place immediately following Jesus’ crucifixion. Many other legal experts, including former Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, agree with Greenleaf’s verdict on the case for Jesus’ resurrection. Darling writes, ‘There exists such overwhelming evidence…factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.’ So what does Jesus’ resurrection mean to you and me? Prior to his crucifixion, Jesus explained why his resurrection is so important to us. He told one of his followers, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying.’ If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, his words wouldn’t have any meaning to our lives. But if his resurrection really happened, then Jesus is the only one who can answer life’s most important questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going after I die? Did Jesus Say What Happens After We Die? If Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he alone must know what is on the other side. What did Jesus say about the meaning of life and our future? Are there many ways to God or did Jesus claim to be the only way? Read the startling answers in ‘Why Jesus?’ jesusonline.com |
|
coram_deo 02-Sep-21, 12:05 |
The article asserts that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ can be demonstrated to be true based on three facts that are not in dispute among Biblical scholars. This first excerpt from the article includes the introduction and first fact. From desiringgod.org: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 Historical Evidence for the Resurrection Article by Matt Perman Guest Contributor The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good. Scholars such as William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, and others have done an especially good job of detailing that evidence. It is the aim of this article to offer a sort of synthesis of some of their key points and show the strength of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it. When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even come close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, we do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, we are going to focus here on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these three truths are so strong that they are accepted by serious historians of all stripes. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data. The three truths are: The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew. Virtually all scholars who deal with the resurrection, whatever their school of thought, assent to these three truths. We will see that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for each of them individually. But then we will see, even more significantly, that when these facts are taken together we have an even more powerful case for the resurrection--because the skeptic will not have to explain away just one historical fact, but three. These three truths create a strongly woven, three cord rope that cannot be broken. The Empty Tomb To begin, what is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion? First, the resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, but instead began preaching in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned." Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, and attempts to explain it away. Further, we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, in which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb. Why is this important? Remember that the Jewish leaders were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, they were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine." Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating." For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events," as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary. Fourth, the empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as frauds. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have. But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, if the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, if the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, it would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, or insane at best. Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there. Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter! Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb." Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, most recent scholars do not deny it. D.H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." Jacob Kremer, who has specialized in the study of the resurrection and is a NT critic, has said "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb" and he lists twenty-eight scholars to back up his fantastic claim. I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars. In fact, they have been considered dead and refuted for almost a hundred years. For example, the Jews or Romans had no motive to steal the body--they wanted to suppress Christianity, not encourage it by providing it with an empty tomb. The disciples would have had no motive, either. Because of their preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would they go through all of this for a deliberate lie? No serious scholars hold to any of these theories today. What explanation, then, do the critics offer, you may ask? Craig tells us that "they are self-confessedly without any explanation to offer. There is simply no plausible natural explanation today to account for Jesus' tomb being empty. If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable mystery." The resurrection of Jesus is not just the best explanation for the empty tomb, it is the only explanation in town! www.desiringgod.org |
|
coram_deo 03-Sep-21, 10:40 |
From desiringgod.org “The Resurrection Appearances Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels to believe this. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it: ‘For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...’ It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul received this creed from Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Now, Peter and James are listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ. Since they are the ones who gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own testimony. As the Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide has said, this creed ‘may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses.’ Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't automatically mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives: They were lying They hallucinated They really saw the risen Christ Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? On this view, the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing events such as Watergate, can we reasonably believe that the disciples could have covered up such a lie? Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Perhaps the disciples were wrong and had been deceived by a hallucination? The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to you, ‘wasn't that a great dream I had last night?’ Hallucinations, like dreams, generally don't transfer like that. Further, the hallucination theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb. Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus. So, the resurrection appearances alone demonstrate the resurrection. Thus, if we reject the resurrection, we are left with a second inexplicable mystery--first the empty tomb and now the appearances.” www.desiringgod.org |
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 20:07 |
Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? The article is entitled, “Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?” and the first part of the article is entitled, “On What Basis Would a Scientist Accept the Resurrection?” while the second part of the article is entitled, “Is Belief in the Resurrection Unscientific?” Here’s the first part. From biologists.org: On What Basis Would a Scientist Accept the Resurrection? As a scientist, you are trained to be skeptical about extraordinary claims—and the Resurrection is definitely an extraordinary claim. On what basis do you accept this claim as true? Jeff Hardin, chair of the department of zoology, University of Wisconsin (BioLogos Board Chair) First I’d like to make a small correction. Scientists are taught to evaluate data. “Being skeptical” might mean that extraordinary claims need impressive evidence to back them up. That’s reasonable. But if it’s shorthand for “no matter what the evidence, I won’t believe it!”, then this is a disposition based on a prior commitment. While a unique historical event isn’t subject to scientific reproducibility, an open-minded person will find impressive historical evidence consistent with the Resurrection. This includes: • The reality of Jesus’s life: Virtually all historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person in 1st Century Palestine; • The finality of Jesus’s execution: The detailed accounts of the crucifixion ring true based on Roman and Jewish practices of the period, archaeological finds, and human physiology. These attest to the brutality of such executions, which were preceded by a savage flogging, followed by progressive asphyxiation. Jesus really was dead. • The unaccountability of Jesus’s body: The quickest way to discredit the new Jesus movement would have been to produce physical evidence that Jesus had indeed remained dead. No one did this. This does not show that Jesus rose from the dead, but the stubborn fact of the empty tomb needs to be accounted for. The accounts make it extremely unlikely that the body was stolen, based on Roman practice regarding posted guards at burial sites, etc. • The inexplicability of Jesus’s followers’ transformation: The first reported sightings of Jesus after his resurrection were by women, a massively counter-cultural detail that is a mark of authenticity. Then there is the incredible transformation of a group of weak, dispirited followers into the courageous core of the new Jesus movement, not to mention those with strong reasons to remain skeptics –Thomas the “doubting” empiricist, Jesus’s half-brother James, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, and Saul of Tarsus, a one-time ardent persecutor of the new movement. These dramatic transformations are well explained if these people actually encountered the risen Jesus. • Christians have affirmed such evidence—sometimes at the cost of their lives—for almost two millennia. Will such evidence satisfy refractory skeptics? No. But for those who are open, such evidence provides a reasonable basis for belief, so that, as the Gospel of John says, “believing, you may have life in His [Jesus’s] name” (John 20:31). Denis Alexander, Emeritus Director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St. Edmund’s College In science we face extraordinary claims all the time: for example, that our universe began with a Big Bang, or that anatomically modern humans are a result of a long period of evolution stretching back some 3.8 billion years. Such events are non-reproducible in any kind of experimental manner. So we scientists believe such historical events or processes by a philosophical mode of reasoning known as the ”inference to the best explanation.” The various bits of relevant data only make sense if the purported events actually happened. History shares with science the inference to the best explanation way of thinking. But a major difference in the case of history is that all historical events, by definition, are unique. However much of a creature of habit you may be, what you personally did last Friday is a non-repeatable non-reproducible event – there will never be another day quite like it with all its many details in place. So history is more like the historical sciences (like geology and evolutionary biology) than it is like the biomedical sciences. History is also like science in that both enterprises are thoroughly committed to the vital importance of evidence. The claim that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead is firstly a historical claim. The evidence for it having happened is strong. The tomb was empty, despite being guarded by Roman soldiers. The risen Jesus was seen by many different eye-witnesses on different occasions, who touched him and ate a meal with him. This was no ghost. Had the body been stolen, it would have been relatively easy to locate the body, but that never happened. Unlike other great religious leaders in history, today there is no tomb of Jesus to which his followers make pilgrimage. The early disciples experienced the risen Jesus for themselves and were transformed from a cowardly bunch who ran away at the crucifixion to a group of people who boldly proclaimed his Resurrection, even when threatened with imprisonment by the authorities (Acts 4). Today millions of Christians around the world experience the risen Christ in their lives on a daily basis. So I myself accept the Resurrection because it is supported by good evidence. It provides the inference to the best explanation for the available data, and although we do not have the same potential data that were available to the early disciples, we can share in the empirical reasoning processes of the early followers of Jesus, such as Paul, as they invoked the possibility of it being otherwise—the implications of it being falsified (as in 1 Corinthians 15:14 17). In addition, I have myself experienced the reality of the living Christ in my own life for the past 60 years. Sarah Bodbyl Roels, research associate/senior scientist specializing in evolutionary biology and education, Michigan State University (member of BioLogos Voices) The Resurrection is certainly an extraordinary claim. However—although extremely unlikely based on our experience so far—the probability of such an event also cannot be demonstrated to be zero. Regarding the Resurrection of Jesus, no evidence to the contrary—such as an identified body—exists. As a supernatural, one-off, historical phenomena, we cannot expect the Resurrection to be definitively confirmed or denied by any specific scientific test. This does not, however, negate other evidence that supports the plausibility of the Resurrection as a real event embedded within a true gospel story. This evidence includes but is not limited to: records of eyewitness accounts, peculiarities of the Bible compared to other historical or religious texts, and of course personal experience. When considered individually, this evidence is not overwhelmingly compelling but cumulatively converges upon plausibility. Personally, I choose to believe that not all things worth knowing can be examined through the scientific lens, which makes faith entirely reasonable. The entire gospel story is preposterous; a radical and even offensive story of love that is unlike anything else—and I want to be a part of that story. Dennis Venema, professor of biology, Trinity Western University (member of BioLogos Voices) One of the reasons I find the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection plausible is that a crucified messiah is absolutely not what the Israelites of the time were hoping and longing for. We’re used to hearing “messiah” as some sort of spiritual term, but it merely means the human ruler anointed by God that the Israelites were expecting to rise up, remove foreign rule, and restore the golden age of the Davidic kingdom. Crucifixion by the Romans was emphatically not part of that picture! It’s not without reason that Paul says that a crucified messiah is “foolishness to Gentiles” and a “stumbling block to Jews.” In the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, we see most of Jesus’s disciples desert him when he is arrested—Peter denies him publically, and the other men flee. Only the women and John, who is probably too young to be seen as a threat, stay faithful to him, likely not because they see him as messiah any longer, but because of their love for him. There were other messianic claimants that we know of from around that time period, and several of them met similar fates at the hands of Rome. Predictably, their followers disbanded in defeat at the death of their leader. What we see in early Christianity, however, is very different from these failed messianic movements. Early on, we see women and men who were disciples of Jesus claiming that he was, in fact, alive again. The apostle Paul, in his letters, references eye-witnesses of a resurrected Jesus—in one case, 500 people who saw him at one time. Paul notes that most of these witnesses were still alive at the time of his writing. We also see the formerly demoralized and disbanded disciples publically and boldly proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior—political terms that should be reserved for Caesar alone—at great risk to themselves. In other words, they proclaimed that the crucified Jesus was not a failed messiah, but rather the true emperor of the entire world. That’s some serious chutzpah. None of this makes sense to me unless the disciples genuinely believed that they had seen Jesus in the flesh after his crucifixion. From there, it becomes a choice whether one accepts that their testimony is reliable—reliable enough to name Jesus as the true emperor and give him my allegiance. In my own experience—which I recognize is subjective, and not well suited to scientific investigation—I have found that when I do follow Jesus’s way I am at my best and most fully human. Loving God, loving others as myself, forgiving those who do me wrong, not returning evil for evil, and so on—these things do not come naturally to me. When I practice these counterintuitive practices, however, I experience such life and joy that I am convinced that they are sourced in a power that is not of this world. biologos.org |
|
coram_deo 09-Sep-21, 10:13 |
From biologos:org: Is belief in the Resurrection unscientific? What would you say to someone who challenges your scientific credentials because you believe that a dead man walked out of the grave? Gregg Davidson, professor of geology, University of Mississippi (member of BioLogos Voices) There is a considerable irony in the claim that belief in the Resurrection, or indeed any miracle at all, is unscientific. A good scientist is trained not to draw conclusions that go beyond the available data, or to make pronouncements about a phenomenon for which no objective measurements have been made. The tools of science, being confined within the bounds of time and space, are well equipped for measurements within the natural realm, but are inadequate for measuring or probing phenomena that are not equally constrained. To employ these tools to draw conclusions rejecting the existence or action of God, requires a presuppositional belief that the natural realm is a closed system, and that scientific tools are sufficient to measure all materials, forces, or energy that may act upon or within that system. Adherence to such a position is the antithesis of science, for it goes far beyond the data. It relies on the untested (and untestable) assumption that all that is real is testable by natural means, therefore science can be used to determine that only that which is deemed natural is real. This is dogma, not science. Kathryn Applegate, Resources Editor, BioLogos (member of BioLogos Voices) Yes, belief in the Resurrection is unscientific. Or, to be more precise, I don’t accept or reject the Resurrection on the basis of science. I accept it on the basis of eyewitness accounts of historical events, and the interpretation of those events, as recorded in the Bible. Is it a problem that I don’t have a scientific defense of how a person could be raised from the dead? I don’t think so. Each of us believes many things that are not grounded in science. I can’t empirically prove that I exist, or that my husband loves me, or that it is morally wrong to torture animals. I sincerely believe all of these are true statements, though they take faith to affirm. It’s the same with the Resurrection. The claim is reasonable, but it takes faith to affirm. The Bible reveals a God who created an orderly world, where most things happen in regular ways that don’t violate normal cause and effect relationships. But a God powerful enough to make such an orderly world is not bound by time and natural law. Such a God might, for a good reason—like, say, redeeming a people by his own sacrificial death—choose to operate in extraordinary, highly irregular ways. Those irregularities, what we call miracles, were getting people’s attention long before science became the supposed artibiter of what is possible or not. Denis Alexander, Emeritus Director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St. Edmund’s College People knew in first century Palestine as well as we know today that dead people don’t come back to life again. You don’t need to be a scientist to know that. In fact they knew that better than we do, because in the culture of the time it was customary for the family to prepare the dead body for burial. They knew all about dead bodies. Which is just the point. The philosopher David Hume famously argued that miracles do not happen because certain events invariably happen together and no-one has ever seen them not happening together. For example, death is invariably followed by a dead body rotting in the grave. The problem with that argument, is that this is not how science works. The mere accumulation of further instances that things generally happen in the same way is no guarantee that they will not happen differently in the future under different circumstances and in a different context. One convincing well-attested counter-example, can bring crashing to the ground a scientific theory built, until that moment, on an impressive edifice of “uniform human experience.” Scientists—of all people—should be open to evidence. The scientist should be both cautious and skeptical concerning miraculous claims, but keep an open mind about such matters and examine the evidence on its own merits, not eliminate it by appeals to prior metaphysical presuppositions. There should be an openness to the way the world actually is, rather than an attitude which already knows the answer before the investigation has even begun. biologos.org |
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 07:43 |
youtu.be This video is 6:23 long. |
|
coram_deo 12-Sep-21, 21:01 |
youtu.be This video is 8:05 long. |
|
coram_deo 14-Sep-21, 11:13 |
From gotquestions.org: Why should I believe in Christ’s resurrection? It is a fairly well-established fact that Jesus Christ was publicly executed in Judea in the 1st Century A.D., under Pontius Pilate, by means of crucifixion, at the behest of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The non-Christian historical accounts of Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Maimonides and even the Jewish Sanhedrin corroborate the early Christian eyewitness accounts of these important historical aspects of the death of Jesus Christ. As for His resurrection, there are several lines of evidence which make for a compelling case. The late jurisprudential prodigy and international statesman Sir Lionel Luckhoo (of The Guinness Book of World Records fame for his unprecedented 245 consecutive defense murder trial acquittals) epitomized Christian enthusiasm and confidence in the strength of the case for the resurrection when he wrote, “I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” The secular community’s response to the same evidence has been predictably apathetic in accordance with their steadfast commitment to methodological naturalism. For those unfamiliar with the term, methodological naturalism is the human endeavor of explaining everything in terms of natural causes and natural causes only. If an alleged historical event defies natural explanation (e.g., a miraculous resurrection), secular scholars generally treat it with overwhelming skepticism, regardless of the evidence, no matter how favorable and compelling it may be. In our view, such an unwavering allegiance to natural causes regardless of substantive evidence to the contrary is not conducive to an impartial (and therefore adequate) investigation of the evidence. We agree with Dr. Wernher von Braun and numerous others who still believe that forcing a popular philosophical predisposition upon the evidence hinders objectivity. Or in the words of Dr. von Braun, “To be forced to believe only one conclusion… would violate the very objectivity of science itself.” Having said that, let us now examine several lines of evidence for Christ’s resurrection. The First Line of Evidence for Christ’s resurrection To begin with, we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Many of these eyewitnesses willfully and resolutely endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony. This fact attests to their sincerity, ruling out deception on their part. According to the historical record (The Book of Acts 4:1-17; Pliny’s Letters to Trajan X, 97, etc) most Christians could end their suffering simply by renouncing the faith. Instead, it seems that most opted to endure the suffering and proclaim Christ’s resurrection unto death. Granted, while martyrdom is remarkable, it is not necessarily compelling. It does not validate a belief so much as it authenticates a believer (by demonstrating his or her sincerity in a tangible way). What makes the earliest Christian martyrs remarkable is that they knew whether or not what they were professing was true. They either saw Jesus Christ alive-and-well after His death or they did not. This is extraordinary. If it was all just a lie, why would so many perpetuate it given their circumstances? Why would they all knowingly cling to such an unprofitable lie in the face of persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death? While the September 11, 2001, suicide hijackers undoubtedly believed what they professed (as evidenced by their willingness to die for it), they could not and did not know if it was true. They put their faith in traditions passed down to them over many generations. In contrast, the early Christian martyrs were the first generation. Either they saw what they claimed to see, or they did not. Among the most illustrious of the professed eyewitnesses were the Apostles. They collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives. The Second Line of Evidence for Christ’s resurrection A second line of evidence concerns the conversion of certain key skeptics, most notably Paul and James. Paul was of his own admission a violent persecutor of the early Church. After what he described as an encounter with the resurrected Christ, Paul underwent an immediate and drastic change from a vicious persecutor of the Church to one of its most prolific and selfless defenders. Like many early Christians, Paul suffered impoverishment, persecution, beatings, imprisonment, and execution for his steadfast commitment to Christ’s resurrection. James was skeptical, though not as hostile as Paul. A purported post-resurrection encounter with Christ turned him into an inimitable believer, a leader of the Church in Jerusalem. We still have what scholars generally accept to be one of his letters to the early Church. Like Paul, James willingly suffered and died for his testimony, a fact which attests to the sincerity of his belief (see The Book of Acts and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews XX, ix, 1). The Third and Fourth Lines of Evidence for Christ’s resurrection A third line and fourth line of evidence concern enemy attestation to the empty tomb and the fact that faith in the resurrection took root in Jerusalem. Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem. It would have been impossible for faith in His resurrection to take root in Jerusalem while His body was still in the tomb where the Sanhedrin could exhume it, put it on public display, and thereby expose the hoax. Instead, the Sanhedrin accused the disciples of stealing the body, apparently in an effort to explain its disappearance (and therefore an empty tomb). How do we explain the fact of the empty tomb? Here are the three most common explanations: First, the disciples stole the body. If this were the case, they would have known the resurrection was a hoax. They would not therefore have been so willing to suffer and die for it. (See the first line of evidence concerning demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony.) All of the professed eyewitnesses would have known that they hadn’t really seen Christ and were therefore lying. With so many conspirators, surely someone would have confessed, if not to end his own suffering then at least to end the suffering of his friends and family. The first generation of Christians were absolutely brutalized, especially following the conflagration in Rome in A.D. 64 (a fire which Nero allegedly ordered to make room for the expansion of his palace, but which he blamed on the Christians in Rome in an effort to exculpate himself). As the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recounted in his Annals of Imperial Rome (published just a generation after the fire): “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” (Annals, XV, 44) Nero illuminated his garden parties with Christians whom he burnt alive. Surely someone would have confessed the truth under the threat of such terrible pain. The fact is, however, we have no record of any early Christian denouncing the faith to end his suffering. Instead, we have multiple accounts of post-resurrection appearances and hundreds of eyewitnesses willing to suffer and die for it. If the disciples didn’t steal the body, how else do we explain the empty tomb? Some have suggested that Christ faked His death and later escaped from the tomb. This is patently absurd. According to the eyewitness testimony, Christ was beaten, tortured, lacerated, and stabbed. He suffered internal damage, massive blood loss, asphyxiation, and a spear through His heart. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus Christ (or any other man for that matter) could survive such an ordeal, fake His death, sit in a tomb for three days and nights without medical attention, food or water, remove the massive stone which sealed His tomb, escape undetected (without leaving behind a trail of blood), convince hundreds of eyewitnesses that He was resurrected from the death and in good health, and then disappear without a trace. Such a notion is ridiculous. The Fifth Line of Evidence for Christ’s resurrection Finally, a fifth line of evidence concerns a peculiarity of the eyewitness testimony. In all of the major resurrection narratives, women are credited as the first and primary eyewitnesses. This would be an odd invention since in both the ancient Jewish and Roman cultures women were severely disesteemed. Their testimony was regarded as insubstantial and dismissible. Given this fact, it is highly unlikely that any perpetrators of a hoax in 1st Century Judea would elect women to be their primary witnesses. Of all the male disciples who claimed to see Jesus resurrected, if they all were lying and the resurrection was a scam, why did they pick the most ill-perceived, distrusted witnesses they could find? Dr. William Lane Craig explains, “When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what’s really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Israel. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women’s testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren’t even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it’s absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women... Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status." (Dr. William Lane Craig, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 293) In Summary These lines of evidence: the demonstrable sincerity of the eyewitnesses (and in the Apostles’ case, compelling, inexplicable change), the conversion and demonstrable sincerity of key antagonists- and skeptics-turned-martyrs, the fact of the empty tomb, enemy attestation to the empty tomb, the fact that all of this took place in Jerusalem where faith in the resurrection began and thrived, the testimony of the women, the significance of such testimony given the historical context; all of these strongly attest to the historicity of the resurrection. We encourage our readers to thoughtfully consider these evidences. What do they suggest to you? Having pondered them ourselves, we resolutely affirm Sir Lionel’s declaration: “The evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” www.gotquestions.org |