The Broken Bride: The Fall of the Church

The late 1800's:

  There's a ton of debate on where and when the church fell behind.  When we look back, evangelical culture was so dominant in the late 1800's that the church was the scale on which business and entertainment were judged.  Before a product hit the shelves of a store or before a book hit the editor's desk, the question was always asked; "How will Christians respond?" Products failed or succeeded based solely on how the church would drive the market.  Politicians won elections, not by their faith alone, but rather by their denominational affiliation. Their faith in Christ was a given.  In present day culture we're all jumping to vote for a Mormon simply because we feel like he's closer to being a Christian than his opponent. During this time in history the church missed on one key demographic, the elite universities, and this proved to be a critical problem.

  Around the time that the church lost footing in higher education, something else happened, technology arrived.  Churches controlled newspapers, books and businesses, but the key players in the development of newer technology would turn out to be the alumni of the better universities in the world.  Evangelical Christianity developed the notion that technological change wasn't to be embraced.  The church took the stance that they needed to be able to find this technology in the Bible, or deny it's usage.  The old phrase "if God wanted man to fly He would have given us wings" is not a joke, it was the literal line of thinking that Christians used towards technological advancement.  By the time the church finally did allow technology to creep in, she was already too far behind.  The industries had become institutionalized and the barrier to entry was far too great.  In turn we completely missed our opportunity to take control of advanced media, like movies and television.  Given the culture shift that was coming, missing this window set us back tremendously. 

What culture shift?

  Obviously here I'm talking about the changes that our society has undergone in direct relation to television and movies.  Let me set the record straight, I love TV.  This is not me demonizing television.  I have a really big, nice 3D one right in the middle of my living room and I'm hardly covering it up with a sheet when people come over.  However, this technology did come with a price.  We now live in a culture where critical thinking, reading and studying a subject outside of the bounds of school are unheard of.  This is where Christianity cannot compete.  We can't fix this with more Kirk Cameron movies.  I'm saying that this is an area that we simply can't take back.  This is due to the inherent love of the written word that most Christians share. Christianity is very much a written culture and yet we live in a world that's glued to the TV for 3 hours a day.

  I love to read.  This is going to be nerdy, but reading is literally my favorite thing to do.  I can't remember the last time I wasn't actively reading a book.  It's become even better since I purchased a Kindle.  I can now read tons of old theology and church history books for almost no cost.  Some of these books were rare, if even in print at all, but now they're on my Kindle for a whopping 99 cents.  Calvin's commentaries, lectures by J.I. Packer, sermons by Spurgeon, my list could go on for days.  None of these things were a real option before, but now I have them all.  I can't even begin to relay how much growth these soundly written pieces of theological history have changed my understanding of God's word, much less how much these works have done for the church as a whole.

  What preceded might have sounded like a one paragraph Kindle commercial or even me trying to brag about the books I enjoy.  In reality, it's an opportunity for Christians to connect technology back with our written culture in a way that we couldn't before.  I'm not saying that Kindles are going to save the church.  What I'm saying is that we live in a time when some of the best collections of theological work in the history of mankind sit only a few clicks away.  Books that were once preserved only as showpieces for some one's private library are now available to anyone.  Atheists have a difficult time dealing with Christians that know sound doctrine, philosophy and apologetics.  This has always been the case.  If we have any shot at winning back the culture that we once dominated, it's now.  We lost control by losing intellectual believers, and educating ourselves is a great way to get this back into gear.

  I can promise you we're not going to take it back with emotional music on Sunday mornings. The seeker sensitive church model has been taking root for the last 15-20 years and it's clearly a failure.  What worked before can work again, but we have to embrace our written heritage and stop trying to plug Christianity into holes where it doesn't fit.  Churches need to promote doctrinal education amongst their congregations. Not put theology on a shelf while plugging in an emotional substitute.  Doctrine is what separates the Southern Baptist from the Westboro Baptist, Presbyterians from Pentecostals, and the Mormons from the Methodist.  We all read scripture, but it's the lenses of doctrine through which you're able to discern false teaching from the Word of God.  Your Christian heritage came from men that spent their entire lives slaving over scripture to bring forth teaching that will last forever.  It's a shame to see these men moved from center stage in the life of the church in favor of the latest Christian self help writer being pushed by Life Way.   

  Now none of this matters if we don't actually read the books.  Just having them on hand isn't enough.  Once we take back the intellectual realm, we can put ourselves into position to take our culture back.  I don't want to pretend that I've just cured the disease here, but I can't help but think this is a good start.  The change has to start with each individual believer and penetrate the church long before it will penetrate the culture.  If you're in a church where doctrine isn't considered important or even taught then you need to wonder why.  Paul certainly thought it was a big deal.  His letters to Timothy and Titus were written to give instruction to his two proteges.  In those three small books alone he uses the word "doctrine" 8 times, and all of the verses are instructions for them to teach sound doctrine to churches.  He uses the word "teaching" an additional 12 times.  I guess I just can't see Paul standing in the pulpit saying "today, we're starting a 5 week series on money management."  Although, we can't be entirely shocked by the teachings of our churches.  Paul warned Timothy of this mentality in 2 Timothy 4:3 when he said, "The time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine; but, having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions."  Maybe it's time we stop scratching ears and start teaching sound doctrine.  Or maybe we'll let another 100 years go by and the church will be completely irrelevant to it's own, and all in the name of trying to stay relevant to the world. 

The Broken Bride: The Tragedy of the Dumb Church

I’m Defending, not Ranting:

   I might as well get this series underway with a bang.  The information I post in this series is almost certain to upset some people, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be read.  If it makes you angry, then it's probably what you need to hear.  The truth isn't always fun, but that hardly makes it false.  Before I write this series, I need to relay how it applies to apologetics and why I feel like it might be the most important series I write.  It's difficult to rationally defend Christianity in a world full of skeptics, but you need to know that it's not that skeptics have gotten more advanced, it's the church that's digressed. Culture sees Christians like Homer Simpson saw Ned Flanders.  They think we all walk around throwing out fortune cookie Bible verses while hiding from the truth behind our blind faith.  Let’s be honest, it would be hard to engage in intellectual discourse with Ned.   We can’t proclaim the truth if we aren’t taught the truth.  We can’t engage the world intellectually if we aren’t being taught intellectually.  You can’t plug the hole in this ship with your feelings.

 Before I get into the course material I wanted to share part of a blog post from another site that highlights a major problem in the church today.  The link to the full article will be at the bottom, but this is the meat of the post.  I want to point out that this is not a cheap shot at any particular church or denomination. I'd also like to say that I'm not a fan of the writer's use of the word "dumb" in the original post.  I think they could have possibly taken a higher road here but I also realize that it was intended to grab attention, and it worked.  Regardless of doctrinal differences or preference in music style, we are all the church.  We’re in this thing together.  We are all part of the bride, and the bride is broken.  

The Age of the Dumb Church

Dr. R. C. Sproul has said many times that he believes we are living in the most un-intellectual period in the history of Western civilization. Over 30 years ago, former Lebanese ambassador to the United States, Charles Malik, said the following in his speech at the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois: “I must be frank with you: the greatest danger confronting American evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism. The mind in its greatest and deepest reaches is not cared for enough.”

Such statements made by Sproul, Malik, and others were not always heard in the Church. The fact is, the Church dominated intellectual thought and discourse for hundreds of years, producing such thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, and others. Such men had their opponents (the Church always will), but their detractors never ridiculed their brainpower because the Churchman’s intellectual prowess left no room for it.

But shortly after the era of Edwards, something changed. Gospel preachers like Charles Finney arose and replaced the intelligent presentation of the Gospel, which was backed by meaty Biblical exposition and solid philosophical rationale, with emotional appeals, questionable theology, personal anecdotes with humor, a celebrity-style leader, and engineered publicity.

Sound familiar? Unfortunately, in many seeker friendly or liberal churches today, the characteristics of Finney and his followers are played out each Lord’s Day with the end result being a church body unable to intellectually defend the faith they espouse.

Characteristics of the Dumb Church

How can you tell if your church exhibits traits that characterize a dumb church? Although not exhaustive, I offer these criteria that I believe help contribute to a church becoming ‘dumb’:

Where the church leadership is concerned:

• Preaching is always topical and never expository. Selective topical series allow tough and deep theological subjects, as well as ‘controversial’ passages of Scripture, to be avoided with ease.
• Although the church leaders offer strong external facing statements as to how they are a “Bible believing church”, the Bible is actually used and referenced very little in the sermons. Few quotations from Scripture are heard in a message, with the vast majority of all sermons consisting of personal rhetoric, humor, videos, and personal stories.
• When the Bible is quoted, most often paraphrase versions are used, or at best a dynamic equivalence is utilized vs. a literal-formal translation such as the ESV or NASB.
• Biblical terms such as justification, reconciliation, sanctification, propitiation, etc., are avoided like the plague.
• There is little to no instruction for new (or existing) believers on the core doctrines of the Christian faith, and no requirement for new believers to attend such instruction.
• There is no continuous offering of apologetic training classes that are designed to train Christians in the evidences and defense of the faith, and little to no interest of the pastors in the subject area.
• There is no easy way for the congregation to have tough questions answered by the lead pastors; such a thing is quietly ignored, discouraged or not practiced regularly.
• Deep Bible study programs are either absent or deliberately pushed out in favor of more ‘relevant’ classes that deal with softer subject matters (e.g. money management).
• Adult and children’s Bible studies before/after the main church service are either omitted or are second class citizens to “Community Groups” that seek to have members meet in each other’s homes during the week, where no oversight is given as to what is done or taught. These groups, where teaching is concerned, are run “hands off” by the church leadership.
• There is a huge emphasis on relationship building and serving in areas of the church, but no similar importance placed on growing more Biblically and theologically literate.
• The youth department has an unmistakable concentration on entertainment, games, social interaction, etc., vs. actual teaching of Christian doctrines.
• The church either has no library or one that is not kept up to date.
• There is either no staff member assigned specifically to church education, or it is assigned to an already overburdened associate pastor.
• Doctrinal statements of the church are missing or are not prominently made available. If they exist, they do not address any controversial theological topics or make very vague statements concerning them.

Where the congregation is concerned:

• The term “Christian apologetics” is completely unfamiliar to the vast majority of the members.
• Most of the congregation has no knowledge of church history with the names of Polycarp, Martyr, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, Whitefield, Tyndale, and others being completely foreign to them.
• Attendance of offered classes are very low compared to overall church attendance.

A Warning to the Dumb Church

God warns us in His Word about cultivating a dumb church. For example, chastising his readers, the writer of Hebrews offers this admonition against fostering a dumb church environment: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:12-14).

When you have a dumb church, the writer of Hebrews says the outcome is a body of believers that is incapable of properly discerning good and evil. Slowly but surely, error and heresy creep in with no one being the wiser.

Going Forward:

 As I continue I will address how the lack of church teaching has lead us to where we are today in regard to how society views believers.  This issue doesn’t stop with how people form opinions of Christians, it spills over into how we have lost control over many of the areas that Christianity once dominated.  This includes media, politics and our youth.  

 

The Tragedy of the Dumb Church Link

Elaborating on Evil: The Evidential Version

The Evidential Version (It's improbable):

  Here we get into a version of the argument that requires far less proof from the atheist.  Their claim in this version is that it's highly improbable that God could have good reasons for allowing suffering and evil in the world, therefore God does not exist.  Their line of thinking is that if there were a God, then surely He could have created a good world that doesn't require suffering on our part.  Here you have a much more modest claim from the atheist, and that puts less of the burden of proof on their shoulders.  There are basically three claims that you are logically able to use to refute this statement.

Human Limitations:

  Given that our scope is finite since we are creations and not the creator, then we certainly aren't in any position to say that God lacks good reasons for permitting suffering in the world.  We might be able to agree with them that on the surface that most suffering looks unjustified.  We sometimes see neither it's point nor it's necessity.  So the key to the atheist's argument depends on whether we consider ourselves qualified to infer that just because suffering looks unjustified that it actually is unjustified.  As believers we recognize God's sovereignty and His ability to order the past, present and future providentially.  In order to achieve His purposes God may have to allow a great deal of suffering and evil to exist along the way.  Our ability to recognize how it's beneficial is governed by our limited ability to see only what we can see. 

  Even confined to our own small vantage point, we have all certainly seen where suffering has gone on to produce good.  Just one small and very recent example would be texting and driving.  In 2008 Heather Hurd was killed by a truck driver that was texting and driving.  Her father went on to aggressively promote laws for states to ban texting while driving.  It is now illegal in 6 countries and the number of lives saved is unable to be calculated.  Her suffering produced visible good in just a few short years.  I won't even waste time going back in history to detail the horrific events that have resulted in advancement for the entire human race.  Only an all knowing God could begin to grasp the complexities we're trying to explain.  If anything this would be an argument in favor of God and His sovereignty, and a poor argument against it. 

Full Scope of the Evidence:

  When given the full scope of the evidence, God's existence is probable.  All probabilities are relative to some background information.  Let's use Joe College Student as an example here.  If someone told you that 90% of all college students drank beer, and that Joe was a college student, then relative to only that information it's highly probable that Joe drinks beer.  Now what if I told you that Joe was a student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and that 95% of their students don't drink beer.  Relative to the new information, it now becomes highly probable that Joe does not drink beer.  So again, probabilities are all relative to background information.

  So here we have an atheist saying that God's existence is improbable.  Immediately you should ask, "Improbable relative to what?  What kind of background information are you using to support this claim?  Are you basing it off of the suffering in the world?"  Because if that's all of the background information they have, then it's no wonder God's existence looks improbable relative to that.  On a superficial level suffering can call God's existence into question, on a deeper level it can also be used to prove His existence.  This really goes back into my posts on relativism, but in short, suffering cannot be considered bad from a moral standpoint since morals are all relative.  If we are all byproducts of evolutionary chance, then good and bad, suffering and evil, are all relative to your own personal opinion.  The very fact that the atheist will concede that there is such a thing as universal suffering, that is to say something that's universally considered evil or bad, just goes on to validate that we are given moral standards from an intelligent designer. 

Christian Doctrine Explains Suffering:

  Stepping out of the basic concept of a creator and into the God explained in Christianity increases the possibility that God and suffering can coexist.  Certain Christian doctrines increase the probability of suffering, but I'll just mention a few.

1.  The chief purpose of life is not our happiness, but rather the knowledge of God.  People naturally assume that if God does exist, then His purpose for humans life is happiness in this world.  They believe that if God does exist then His role is to provide a soft, comfortable environment for His human pets.  If you're a Christian then you know that this is false.  We are not God's pets and the goal of our existence is not happiness.  It's the knowledge of God that leads to our fulfillment.  So much of the suffering we experience would be completely pointless if happiness were our goal, but it would not be pointless in producing a deeper knowledge of God.

  It's here that the "prosperity," the "health and wealth," or the Gospel sometimes referred to as the "Gospel of positive thinking " have created problems for believers and created a false belief system for even the atheist.  With "pastors" like Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar occupying television networks that reach millions of people per week, various denominations have gone on to teach a milder form of this in the name of church growth.  Scripture has been reduced to a milky self help book so it's not too intimidating to non-believers.  These churches teach it and believers read it in an effort to fix problems in their lives, but rarely to gain knowledge of God.  In this process we have set the atheist up to think that suffering cannot coexist with the God of the Bible, when in fact we are promised to suffer in this life. 

2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God.  This is sometimes taught as The Doctrine of Total Depravity, which states that man is born into sin and a state of depravity.  Rather than being born into a state of goodness, humans are born to sin.  As a result, innocent people suffer from our sinfulness in varying degrees.  Not all of our sinfulness or rebellion could directly be classified as evil on a universal level, but for some people their sinful behavior causes suffering for others.  It isn't until we are saved by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can begin to love God.  This is why Christians aren't surprised by the evil in the world, we expect it. 

3. God's purpose isn't limited to this life, it spills over into eternity.  Christian's understand that this life is just a small door that opens up into a glorious eternity.  We see a great example of this in the life of the Apostle Paul.  Paul lived a life that was filled with hardship, beatings, imprisonment and yet he lived it all with an eternal purpose.  Paul called the sufferings in this life "a slight momentary affliction." 

  The simple use of these three basic Christian doctrines greatly decreases the probability that God and suffering cannot coexist.  Of course the atheist would naturally respond by saying that there's no proof that these doctrines are true.  Then he's trying to shift the burden of proof back to you, but that's a cheap shot in a debate that centers around logic.  He might need to take his debate to a prosperity believer at this point, for we have already shown that the Christian God is completely compatible with suffering and evil by virtue of our own doctrine.  He might make the statement that he would never worship the Christian God since suffering is at the very heart of our salvation and spills over into our beliefs, but then he's decided to get out of the intellectual argument and back into the emotional argument.  At that point all you've done is proved that it's not impossible for God and suffering to coexist, the rest of the real work has to be done by the Holy Spirit. 

Going Forward:

  It looks like I will be studying the problem of pop culture and Christianity.  I plan on spending a lot of time here.  Some of it will focus on how Christians are portrayed in our culture, but a lot of it will focus on why.  In my preliminary scanning of the material, it appears that some of it is focused on where the church went wrong.  There was a time when Christians dominated the intellectual landscape through the teaching of sound doctrine and apologetics in the church.  It appears that the church culture in the last century has taken a turn for the worse as solid Biblical teaching has given way to watered down Sunday morning messages.  Church growth now means going wide and seldom going deep.  Christianity can use popular culture to it's advantage, but it might mean making church culture less popular. 

Elaborating on Evil: The Logical Version

Quick Recap:

  Just to backtrack for a moment, we are trying to defend the common atheists' argument that a loving God and suffering cannot coexist.  We have determined that you will not be able to build a rational defense if their position is based on their feelings.  This is why my poorly constructed diagram goes no further on the on the emotional problem of suffering, you simply cannot, nor should you really attempt to dive any further when their problem is based on feelings.  This person has likely experienced real suffering and they need to be shown compassion.  It's the intellectual problem of suffering that we're going to dive into. 
 
  The two different versions of the argument are important to grasp as you will structure your defense differently.  As I mentioned before, you can determine which route to use by simply asking a simple question like this one; "So are you saying that it's impossible for God and the suffering in the world to coexist, or are you merely saying that it's improbable?"  Their response to that question will let you know how to proceed. 

The Logical Version: (It's impossible)

  In their head the argument goes something like this.  If God exists then suffering cannot.  Since we all know that suffering exists, then it follows that God does not exist.  The atheist is claiming that the following two statements are logically inconsistent:

1. An all-loving, all powerful God exists.
2. Suffering exists.

Now the obvious question becomes, why think that these two statements are logically inconsistent?  Remember, we're not dealing with feelings or emotions anymore, we're strictly adhering to the rules of logic.  There's no explicit contradiction between those two statements, meaning one is not the logical opposite of the other.  So if logic doesn't make these two statements an obvious contradiction, then the atheist must be making some hidden assumptions that serve to bring out the contradiction and make it explicit. The two obvious hidden assumptions are:

3. If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants.
4. If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.

So then their statement becomes that God can and wants to create a world without suffering, and as they have pointed out in premise 2 suffering exists, so therefore God must not exist.  In order for this argument to show a logical inconsistency between statements 1 and 2, both of the hidden assumptions in 3 and 4 have to be necessarily true.  But are they?

Premise 3: (If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants.)

 Is this necessarily true?  It's only a true statement if it's impossible for people to have free will. God's being all powerful doesn't mean that He can bring about the logically impossible, to be clear there's no such thing as the logically impossible.  It's a completely inconsistent combination of words.  However, if the atheist is insistent that an all-powerful God CAN do the logically impossible, then the conversation is over.  At this point they've committed themselves to the stance that God and suffering can both coexist, since He can do the logically impossible, negating your need to go any further.

Since it turns out it's possible for people to have free will, then it follows that premise 3 is not necessarily true.  If people can have free will then they have the ability to refuse to do what a loving God desires, which still makes Him a loving God as described in the Bible, but illustrates the evil that does exist in a fallen world.  This eliminates one of the assumptions that the atheist needs to be true for their logical argument to succeed.  Remember, they need both to be true.

A Moment on Free Will:

  This argument is based on the use of Libertarian Free Will. In my post it is strictly used as a possibility, though not a Biblically sound view for a believer.  I don't hold a libertarian view of free will, nor do the professors that are teaching the subject. It paints a picture of a reactionary God that's unsure of our choices and then must react accordingly once we chose to do something.  I am strictly using this as a method to dismiss the possibility for the atheist and nothing more.  As believers we all share one common belief, that our scope is limited. The atheist, unfortunately, believes that they have a better grasp on reality and therefore an unlimited vantage point. With no creator, there is no one that sees things from a divine perspective, therefore putting them at the apex of reasoning.  We aren't trying to fully explain God in this argument, we are simply trying to remove the idea that it's impossible for God and suffering to coexist.  So plugging in possibilities is an acceptable method of reasoning here, even if it's not in line with sound theology.

Premise 4: (If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.)

  Is this necessarily true?  We all know instances where we permit suffering for the greater good.  Think about taking your child to the dentist.  You allow your child to suffer a little bit (at least this is suffering in their eyes), but it's all for their own good.  The atheist might insist that an all-powerful being wouldn't be so limited.  That God could bring about greater good directly, without any suffering involved.  Again this is where the possibility of free will is involved.  Some goods can only be achieved through suffering.  Some people consider things like exercise to be a form of suffering to produce a better result.  If we induce small amounts of suffering upon ourselves for the greater good, then simply increasing the scale on which you suffer fails to invalidate that good can come from it.  If you can point out ways in which they use suffering on a small scale to create a better result, then you can dismiss premise 4.  If there is any possibility that suffering on any level can be used for good, then it alone cannot be used to explain away God.

Since the atheist has taken on the burden of proof in this argument, it's clear that it's too heavy for them to carry.  Their only way out is to somehow prove that free will doesn't exist in any capacity.  Then to fully finish it off, they must explain how it's impossible that a world without suffering is better than a world with suffering. 

Suffering is in the Eyes of the Beholder:

  At this point you should be done with your argument when using the logical version, but here's a little something extra in case the conversation ventures off into the obscure.  Suffering cannot be a valid argument against God simply because suffering is relative.  The very things that cause me to suffer might be enjoyable to others. Many of the things that we do in America are considered evil in other parts of the world. Worshiping Christ is one of them.  In the US, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of criminals.  In China you are executed for embezzlement.  Suffering and evil are not standard units of measurement, they are personal opinion.  Yes, there are things that are almost universally considered evil.  The Holocaust is one of them and a very common example. It's certainly not something I wish to marginalize to make a point.  However, I must point out that it wasn't considered evil in the eyes of Hitler or his followers.  While this doesn't mean that their actions weren't evil, it just serves to point out that evil is still a relative term. 

Going Forward:

  After centuries of debate, you should know that the logical version of the problem of suffering has been put to bed.  Not here in this blog, but rather by Christian philosophers and atheistic scholarship in general.  Chances are that you're not going to be having this discussion with a philosopher, so it's still useful in an everyday conversation.  Like I've mentioned in previous posts, you are dealing with entry level atheists, so it's still a useful method of debate. 

  Next we will look at the Evidential Version of the argument.  That is to say that it's improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting suffering.

Elaborating on Evil: Play Calling

Prove It:

  When laying this series out I seem to have forgotten to begin with this section, but better late than never.  I should have started this post by making it clear that evil and suffering are not something we use to prove God's existence, but rather what the atheist will try to use to dismiss it.  Unlike proving the resurrection we don't have the burden of proof here.  It's up to the atheist to use evil and suffering to prove God doesn't exist, and believe me they will try.  Too often believers allow non-believers to pass that burden, but not this time.

  The conversation often unfolds in a statement like "tell me why your God permits suffering if he's loving."  Then they sit back and play the role of skeptic while you explain something they have no intention of trying to absorb.  While this is a great strategy on the part of the atheist, it's a philosophically illegitimate and intellectually dishonest way to debate.  Don't allow them to dodge their mental responsibility here.  They are saying that an omnipotent, loving God and the concept of suffering can't coexist so make them prove it.  Demand premises and support for their argument.  Then it's your turn to sit back and play the skeptic.  Chances are they don't have any support, just an emotionally driven "feeling" that God wouldn't allow suffering.  This is why the chart I've listed below (and in the previous post) doesn't go any further on the emotional problem of suffering.  If you're engaged in an argument based on emotions then asking someone to really prove their point doesn't proceed beyond their feelings.  Feelings won't have premises or support.

Play Calling:

  Before you get too deep into the argument you need to find out which version of it you're about to participate in so you're in the right formation.  I'd go with a question like "are you saying that it's impossible for God and the suffering in the world to coexist, or are you suggesting that it's merely improbable?"  For starters, most atheist aren't expecting you to be prepared for an actual debate.  This person has probably used their little attack several times in the past with no one around to properly call them out on it.  They're expecting to ruffle your feathers a bit, and at best, they expect you to give them a Bible verse.  If they're like most atheists then they've never really thought about what they blurted out.  Be gracious and help them clarify what they believe if necessary.  Their explanation of what they believe will determine which version of the argument you're about to be in.  While you want to show them the fallacy in their argument, you still want to do so with care.  There's a good chance they're using suffering and evil as an assault on God because they've suffered themselves.  Make sure you don't just see them as an opponent, but rather an opponent with a soul. 

Going Forward:

  

  Again, I'm sorry for the confusion.  This really should have been my first post in the series, but I needed to get it in so it's right in the middle instead.  I hope you can see how important it is to get this right.  There isn't a day that goes by where evil and suffering aren't on full display in a fallen world.  On a daily basis we see death, natural disasters and heinous evil everywhere.  It presents an unlimited number of opportunities for an atheist to evangelize.  For the rest of the series I will go deeper into the two different versions of the intellectual problem of suffering.  Once you make someone realize that an emotional argument won't hold water then they have to get off the field or call an audible and get into the intellectual argument.  From there your questions will help you determine if you need to go with the logical version or the evidential version.  

  The one thing that all of the topics I've covered to this point have in common is that none of them have the ability to save people.  God and God alone saves people, but that doesn't negate our responsibility as believers to defend our faith. If we're going to defend it, I see no problem in doing it well and having a game plan. Not only is evil and suffering a point of debate between atheists and believers, but if you're a parent then it's something you'll have to explain to your children.  While I wouldn't suggest that you demand a set of premises from your kids when the topic comes up, I still feel like this will help you explain why suffering happens so it doesn't become a stumbling block.

  

Elaborating on Evil: The Problem

Evil, Suffering and a Loving God:

  I've had a tough time studying this material and I probably won't spend too much time on it.  For starters it's not a tangible subject, like proving the resurrection historically. My biggest problem is trying to put all of it into words when it really soaked in more like a flow chart in my mind.  In addition to the difficulty of relaying the information, it's been challenging for me spiritually.  Evil is real.  People do suffer.  God is loving.  I separated those on purpose because that's what the atheist does.  They struggle to reconcile a loving God back to the evil they see when you turn on the TV and watch two men plant bombs at the feet of children during a marathon.  They want answers and believers often struggle to respond.  Most people think that science drives people away from God, but most of the atheists I've studied are unable to see evil and suffering compatible with a loving God and therefore see holes in theology.

  To be clear, I'm not going to attempt to explain away evil or try to tell you why God allows people to suffer.  This is really more focused on how we as believers respond when challenged with the problem of evil by a non-believer.  I hope it can be of some use because this really might be one of the most challenging areas of apologetics.  I've heard non-believers say things like "either your God is too weak to stop suffering or he lets bad things happen to good people."  It's this line of thinking that I hope to address.  I also want to say that I'm sure there are people reading this that have experienced evil and suffering on a very deep level. So I want to be clear that I'm not trying to marginalize your life experiences into something that can make them sound pretty.  Suffering isn't pretty, it hurts, but rest in the knowledge that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance character, and character hope. (Romans 5:3-5) When thinking about evil and God you must do so from a philosophical standpoint.  Philosophers don't feel a certain way on a topic, philosophers are called to think a certain way.  Let's proceed as philosophers.

Versions of the Problem of Suffering:

  We need to start by separating the problem so that we can think clearly.  Suffering produces two different problems, the intellectual problem and the emotional problem.  To briefly summarize, the intellectual problem concerns whether it's logical to think that God and suffering can coexist.  The emotional problem deals with a person's dislike of a God who would permit suffering to happen.  This is where the chart above can help you keep the two problems separate.  The importance of separating these is vital.  The answer to the intellectual problem will come off as cold and uncaring if you're talking to someone that's struggling with the emotional problem.  The answer to the emotional problem will seem weak and a bit fake if you're engaged in an intellectual discussion with someone that's using suffering and evil as an abstract issue.  I think if you're having this discussion on the ground level then you're likely dealing with someone that's struggling emotionally with suffering.  It's these people that want nothing to do with a God that would allow people to suffer.  However, if you're going to address the emotional aspect then you have to go in depth with the intellectual problem to prove that evil and suffering fail as proof of atheism.

Going Forward:

    My next post will dive deeper into the logical and evidential versions of the intellectual problem of suffering.  I hope I don't lose you here because evil and suffering are so common in our society that this conversation can literally come up on any day.  You need to be prepared to defend your worldview in the face of this monumental problem.  I also want to apologize for the terrible flow chart.  I claim to be an apologist, not an artist.  It was the best I could do with Microsoft Paint and three minutes.

Faith in Facts: The Mathematical Messiah

Secondary Apologetics:

  I'll start by saying that I made up the phrase "secondary apologetics."  I'm not aware of anyone that uses that term on an academic level.  When I decided I wanted to pursue a degree in apologetics I saw two different applications of the subject.  The primary goal of apologetics is to defend your faith with reason, facts and logic.  If you're going to play defense, you need an opposing offense.  That offense represents the skeptics, atheists, agnostics and the lost world in general.  However I saw a secondary purpose for apologetics, and that purpose is to build up or encourage the rest of your defensive teammates.  To this point most of my posts have been written like a good blitz package on 3rd and long.  They were written so that you can actively engage non-believers with facts about our faith.  I'm well aware that facts don't draw people to Christ.  The Holy Spirit draws people to Christ.  So with my disclaimer firmly in place I will proceed by trying to help you fortify your walls a bit. In every area of life, the more convinced you are that you have the truth, the more prone you are to be bold in it's proclamation. Throwing out prophecy to the non-believer will seldom yield results, but I hope it's helpful to you personally. This is written by a defender, to the defenders.

Improbable Prophesy:

  There are hundreds of Old Testament prophesies about the coming Messiah and I'm simply not educated enough to list them all (nor am I arrogant enough to think you'd read my blog for that long).  Most of them are fairly vague if I'm forced to be honest here.  You can see Christ in them, but it's a stretch for most people.  Old Testament prophecy simply isn't my strong suit, but I'm working on it.  Part of me wanted to leave this out due to my own ignorance, but I've quickly learned that any apologist worthy of the title has to grow in this area. I'm also not educated enough to give you all of the date ranges of the predictions, but I know that some of the most accurate date back as far as 800 years before the birth of Christ. I will list a hand full of the most compelling predictions.

   Micah 5:2 says that Christ will be born in Bethlehem.  Isaiah 53:3 says He will be despised and rejected. Isaiah 53:5 says He will be beaten and we will be healed.  Isaiah 53:6 says that His punishment is for the iniquity of us all.  In Psalm 22:16 it is written that they will pierce His hands and His feet, which is astounding when you consider how long it would be before crucifixion would be invented. Jesus fulfilled at least 50 more that are equally as strong as the list I assembled. These are just a few, but I strongly encourage you to grow in you understanding of prophesy.

  I studied the testimony of a man named Louis Lapides, a little known Jewish scholar.  He was presented the prophecy contained in Isaiah 53 by a Christian friend.  Naturally Lapides assumed that the Christian Bible contained a forged account of the Old Testament, so he quickly turned to his Jewish version only to discover that it was exactly the same.  By this Lapides was convinced that Isaiah was writing about Jesus.  Through this application of apologetics he became a Christian and went on to become the president of a network of 15 different Messianic congregations.  Information is not salvation, but facts can produce conviction. So don't stop defending what you believe.  Facts are the advantage in Christianity, especially when it comes to debating other world religions.

Let's Do Some Math:

   While pursuing my Bachelor's degree I spent 5 years majoring in everything from Mid-Evil Literature to Textiles.  I finally sat down with my guidance counselor and said "What can I major in that requires little to no math?  I have to get out of this place eventually."  His response, "Marketing."  Needless to say, after nearly 7 years of undergraduate study, I left The University of Montevallo with a marketing degree that I now display on my wall as if I were born to develop product placement plans and advertising campaigns.  The reality is that I just earned it by being a poor mathematician.  So in order for us to grasp the mathematical impossibility of anyone but Jesus fulfilling the prophecy provided in the Old Testament, I pulled the research of a man that was gifted in an area where I was born deficient.

  Peter Stoner was the chairman of the mathematics department at Westmont College from 1953-1957.  He was gifted with a brilliant mathematical mind and a heart for Christian apologetics. He produced some fantastic work in combining both fields.  Stoner once had 600 math students come up with the odds that one person could even fulfill 8 of the Old Testament prophesies.  The result was a number that I can only express alphanumerically.  The students came back with the odds set at 1 in a hundred million billion.  He went on to express this in a more visual sense by using tiles.  If you were to take this number in one inch square tiles you could cover the entire Earth, both water and land.  Now imagine you placed a gold star on the bottom of one tile.  Your next assignment is simple, you are to walk the Earth and you are only given the opportunity to pick up one tile to see if it has the star on the bottom.  The chances of you picking the correct tile with only one shot are the same as Jesus fulfilling only 8 of the Old Testament predictions.

  Why stop at 8?  Now what are the chances that one man fulfilled 48 Old Testament prophesies?  I'll skip the number and go straight for the visual here.  It would be like taking one atom (keep in mind that one hair is the width of 1 million atoms) and spray painting it red.  Then you can release the atom into one of one trillion trillion trillion billion completely different universes.  Now you have to get in a spaceship and fly through all of these different universes stopping only once to collect a sample so that you can then examine the atoms it contains.  The chances of you finding the red one are the same as the chances that any human could meet those odds.  I could go on, but needless to say were going to have to start to exceed the limits of the human mind to conceptualize odds that great.

  I hope that somewhere in this series you've seen that the resurrection of Jesus is not only historical fact, but it's mathematically sound as well.  Having history and math on your side is a pretty powerful combination.

Going Forward:

  This completes the series on the historical resurrection of Jesus.  I pray that you found some of it useful.  It looks like my coursework will take me into explaining the problem of evil in the world.  I expect it to be challenging for me personally and I hope I can relay it properly.  When I studied atheism I found that a lot of atheists encountered events in their lives that could only be explained by evil. In turn they couldn't reconcile this back to the loving God described in the Bible and therefore shut Him out as an option.  Evil is a difficult subject and we are surrounded by it every day.  My only comfort is knowing that evil itself is still bound by God's sovereignty, but is an inevitable byproduct of living in a fallen world.  I also take comfort in knowing that one day I will walk in a place were all the devastation of sin is absent.  Until that day we will live in a world where evil and sin exist and we need to prepare to explain it.

Faith in Facts: You Decide

The Layout:

  Let me start by saying that this will be a long post, it has to be.  It's a ton of information that's ineffective if separated.  So before you start this be sure you have some time.  It's not only ineffective for me to deliver it in sections, it's ineffective for you to digest it in sections.

  There was a time when apologetics was a simple endeavor.  People generally accepted that the Bible was an historical document of sorts, they just didn't all submit to scripture nor did they all accept that it was the word of God.  Josh McDowell wrote a great book for this time period and it really wasn't all that long ago.  In his book Evidence That Demands a Verdict, published in 1972, McDowell used the Bible as a starting point for his historical defense of the resurrection.  When doing so he forced the skeptics to disprove evidence like the movement of the stone from the tomb, or the fact that the Roman guards couldn't have lied for fear of death.

  Fast Forward 41 years and you have skeptics that don't generally believe that anything in the Bible is either historical nor inspired by God.  It's just an urban legend to most skeptics at this point.  So as skeptics have become more advanced (although a good argument could be made that this is more of a digression from intellect than actual advancement) so have apologetics.  William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas set out to find neutral ground on which to defend the resurrection. Below I will give you 12 historical facts about the resurrection of Christ that were gathered in their research.  It's noteworthy to say that these facts are accepted by atheistic scholars, pastors, New Testament scholars and any skeptical believer or just plan skeptic.  Everyone with a working brain and knowledge of history on the subject will acknowledge these facts.  Following the facts, I will give you 12 theories that represent the best attempts by modern scholarship to refute these facts to counter the historicity of the resurrection.  Then you decide which theory best fits the accepted facts about Jesus and the resurrection.

The Facts:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus was buried
3. Jesus' death caused disciples to despair and lost hope, for they believed his life was over
4. Jesus' tomb was found empty just a few days later
5. Disciples had experiences they actually believed to be literal appearances of the risen Jesus
6. Disciples were transformed from doubters, afraid to identify with Jesus, to bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection
7. This message was central to the preaching of the early church
8. It was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus recently died and was buried just a short time before (see my previous post for more)
9.  As a result of the preaching, the church was born and it grew
10. Sunday became the primary day of worship, this is powerful considering all of the early believers were Jewish
11. James, formerly a skeptic, was converted to faith when he also saw what he believed to be the resurrected Jesus
12. A few years later, Paul was also converted by what he believed to be an appearance of the resurrected Jesus.

The Theories:

The numerical value that I assigned to the facts will need to be referenced so I can show you which facts that each theory explains, so you might need to look to those again.  I think it's important to put yourself in that time period when examining these theories. While some explain various facts as points of data, they make no common sense.

The Unknown Tomb Theory - Jesus' body wasn't put in a tomb, it was thrown into a common "pit-grave" that was an unknown location, so the disciples then created the resurrection.
Explains facts 1, 2 and 3.

The Wrong Tomb Theory - The women that discovered the empty tomb simply went to the wrong place.
Explains fact 4.

The Legend Theory - The resurrection was simply fabricated and then evolved over time to vindicate a religious leader that was dead.
Explains facts 1 and 2.

The Twin Theory - Jesus died and was buried, but soon after his long lost identical twin brother emerged on the scene and was worshiped as the risen Christ.
As absurd as this is, it actually answers all facts except for #11, but you need to put yourself back in that time and place.  Wouldn't they then go back and check on the empty tomb to see if there was a twin body there?  Wouldn't James know Jesus had a twin brother?  Think of the large scale scope of the conspiracy that would have to be in place.  Did no one think to ask Mary (still alive) if she delivered two babies in a manger?

The Hallucination Theory - That everyone hallucinated when they saw the resurrected Christ?
Hits on facts 5, 11 and 12.  However you need to include what modern science says about hallucinations.  That people don't generally hallucinate the same thing and that even if they somehow did, the fact that they weren't all in the same place (like Paul for example) makes this one nearly impossible.

The Existential or Spiritual Resurrection Theory - That Jesus didn't arise in physical form, but rather in our hearts only.
Explains facts 1 and 2.

The Disciples Stole the Body Theory - The theory that says the disciples stole the body of Christ.
Misses on all facts except for #4.

The Authorities Stole the Body Theory - This one states that the authorities stole the body of Christ.
Misses on all facts except for #4.

The Swoon Theory - Jesus only fainted during his executing and then the cold air and spices in the tomb resuscitated him.  After he revives he then unwraps himself, sits up, moves the stone and then he either slips out past the guards or overpowers them.
This misses on fact # 1, which is crucial.  It then offers no explanation for the remainder of his life on Earth.  Again, put yourself back in that time period.  Where did he go for medical treatment after his severe torture?  The scars from the beating and those left by the crown of thorns would have been tough to hide.   He couldn't have traveled far, given their limited ability to move around, so why did no one else see him as he lived out the rest of his life?

The Passover Plot Theory - This one's a jewel.  Jesus originally planned to fulfill Old Testament prophecy through a mock death and resurrection, along with co-conspirators Joseph of Arimathea and a mysterious young man.  The plan went horribly awry when the Roman soldier speared him in the side, actually killing him.  Later the mysterious young man walked the Earth pretending to be the risen Christ.
This misses on fact 5, 6, 11 and any logic.  It's hard to imagine that the disciples and even James were led to believe that this impostor was Jesus.  It's also worth pointing out that if 5, 6 and 11 can't be proven, then 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 wouldn't have happened either. 

The Alien Theory - This is to say that Jesus was an alien.
This one nails all 12 facts, so you have to consider it based on the acceptance of the data.  If Jesus was an extra-terrestrial then all 12 facts could be explained by this theory.

The Resurrection Theory - This is the theory that the Biblical accounts of the death and resurrection were true and that Jesus rose from the dead.
This theory also explains all 12 facts.


Now You Decide:

  Based on the accepted facts surrounding the resurrection of Christ it appears that there are several theories that hit the data points on the facts themselves, but have little logic to support them.  The two that fit all 12 facts are the last two, so either Jesus was an alien or Jesus arose from the dead, it's up to you to decide now.  I've always personally found the response of the disciples to be extremely compelling.  What would it take for these men, as cowardly as some of them were, to then go out boldly to proclaim the gospel with the fear of death in their path?  What changed?  What did those that knew Jesus best see that emboldened them so much that they died for His very name?  Nearly all of them were executed for proclaiming the gospel at the hands of the authorities, some of them died by crucifixion. Why?  What did they see?  This has always been all of the evidence that I needed to historically explain the resurrection, but hopefully some of the other facts that theories will help you out if you run into a non-believer that needs more proof.

Going Forward:

  This post was really intended to be the last in the series.  It was sort of the climax of my studying on the subject.  However, I might be welcoming a new child into my family soon and I wanted to get this out before Easter.  I wasn't sure how much time I'd have to study and write in the weeks to come, so I will continue with the historical resurrection series going forward.  I really hope that this information can be worked into a conversation with non-believers around the upcoming holiday.  I love Christmas, but for me, the celebration of the resurrection is the apex of worship in our home.  Celebrate our risen Savior as He deserves to be celebrated, and do so with confidence.  You are not celebrating that you believe He defeated death, you are celebrating the fact that He did.  When Christ rose God did not merely create a system of salvation that you are allowed to participate in, if you so choose.  God saved you personally.  There is nothing more humbling to the believer than to come to terms with the fact that they were personally chosen for salvation.

  My next post will probably focus on the improbability of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy completed in Jesus' work on the cross, but if I'm honest, that's a hard sell to the non-believer.  Nevertheless, it's important to relay just how impossible it is, numerically speaking, that anyone could have fulfilled all of these prophecies.  Easter is a time to celebrate that the impossible was made possible, or rather, factual.

Faith in Facts: Home Field Advantage

Location, Location, Location:

  This won't be a lengthy entry, but I thought it was worth throwing into the mix before proceeding.  One of the arguments you'll run in to is based on the length of time that passed between the death of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.  Let me start by saying that this isn't a bad point. It's a legitimate concern to the non-believer.  The problem is that they don't often have the facts.  Most of the time frames you'll hear from them are greatly exaggerated, but that isn't their fault, it's ours.  We aren't able to counter these arguments with accuracy and those that can often leave off  important factors.  First off you need to know the actual time frames in which the New Testament accounts were roughly written.  Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written within about 50 years of the crucifixion, Paul's letters within 20 years.  1 Corinthians 15: 3-7 is Paul's deliverance of the creed of the early church to the people in Corinth and it spells out the very core of Christianity.  This creed includes eyewitnesses and testimony. It has been dated by scholars to have been written as early as 2 years after Jesus was killed.

  It's important to provide the skeptic with time frames, but the location is the real qualifier in my opinion.  How could Christianity take root in the very city where Jesus died and rose again if the information were false?  If the disciples were lying or had false information then wouldn't they take it elsewhere?  If I wanted to falsely present the winner of the last BCS national championship then I'd travel to Canada or Bangladesh to convince people that Notre Dame handily beat Alabama.  I certainly wouldn't open up shop in Tuscaloosa.  If the disciples were wrong or lying then the movement would have ended as quickly as it began.  Christianity would have died along with Jesus in Jerusalem.

  In his book New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Bible scholar F.F. Bruce wrote: "If there was any tendency by the disciples to depart from material facts in any way, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would serve as a corrective." This is a great observation to say the least.  Scripture also records that the disciples appealed to the common knowledge of Jesus held by their audience.  In Acts, chapter 2, Peter says "You know what He did, you know who He was and you know He rose from the dead. You are all eyewitnesses!" (paraphrasing there of course) There sat over 3,000 people that could have stoned him or at least walked out.  Here we have a crucial moment and a real test of the historical account of the resurrection.  These were people that could have possibly witnessed the crucifixion, seen the resurrected Jesus or know of people that saw one or both events.  Their reaction, given their location, was monumental.  Their response was "He's right, we've killed the Messiah. What do we do now?" (again, your ESV is going to be a little different) Acts 2:41 says that "there were added that day about three thousand souls." Clearly the people of Jerusalem realized that Christ was resurrected.  So why do people in our culture, 3,600 miles away and 2,100 years later, have a problem with it?  We would have to steer away from apologetics and into a far more theological discussion for me to answer that, but our response is simply to share this information and hope that the Holy Spirit can open their eyes as ours were opened.

  The simple fact that Christianity began in the very city where Christ was executed would be nearly impossible if there were no resurrection. Someone would have stood up and said "Wait, he's buried right over there beside Billy's tomb, come on, I'll show you." Or maybe "Jesus never died, he lives in a tent over by my cousin." Mentioning location along with accurate time frames on the writing of the New Testament should help overcome some of the skepticism that the non-believer wrestles with concerning the authenticity of the books.

Going Forward:

  I will continue to do my best to provide information that validates the historical account of the resurrection and I hope to do so before we celebrate the event as believers.  Given that this is the single most important event in the history of mankind, it might take a little while, so hang in there.  There are several different angles from which to approach this topic, and I'd like to get to all of them.  I hope that this information can strengthen your faith by knowing that the facts are on your side. Remember that this holiday is also a reason for the secular world to throw a few weak sucker punches at our worldview.  I'm already waiting with childlike anticipation for all of the Discovery Channel and History Channel shows that offer alternative explanations on the resurrection.  I live for poorly assembled theories by the usual cast of "scholars" that come out of the woodwork once a year to offer their opinion, disguised as research, all in the name of selling a few books that otherwise wouldn't find shelf space in a Dollar General.  Hopefully some of this information will arm you to protect your family from this barrage of ignorance.

  More than that, this is also to help you reach out to the lost as we celebrate.  A religious holiday always opens doors to conversation with non-believers, so look for opportunities.  Find a way to share the reasons you celebrate Easter with your skeptical friends to get the ball rolling.  Once you open those doors, it's not always best to share why Christianity is "right."  Sometimes it's just best to show them that, unlike any other religion, Christianity is testable.  Show them that your faith has evidence that you can bring to the table and let them test it to determine it's accuracy.  Once they see that Christianity is an intelligent and intellectually sound way to seek the truth, and not just a leap of blind faith, then they will likely be more receptive to the Gospel.

Faith in Facts: In Vain

1 Corinthians 15:17 :

  There might not be a more direct statement in all of literary history than the one Paul gave to the people of Corinth.  "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."  This is Paul saying that every Christian is pushing all of his chips to the middle of the table and gambling their eternal soul on one fact; That Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead.  Without the physical and literal resurrection of Christ we have absolutely nothing that will save us from our sins.  Nothing.  This is where Christianity takes a left where every other religion on Earth has taken a right.  I've said this before and I will say it a thousand more times, our faith is not blind.  The resurrection completely takes blind faith off the table and replaces it with historically accurate, objective and verifiable facts.  This series might take some time, but I think it's obvious that it's time well spent.  All believers in Christ acknowledge that He rose from the dead, but if you want to defend this claim then you need the facts.  I will do my best to relay those facts in a way that leaves you with no doubt in your mind that such an event occurred.  I really hope to have this finished by Easter, not that anything I write will make Easter any more glorious, but rather that it will add evidence that can only serve to enhance your celebration of our risen Lord.

Historical Records:

  It would be simple to fill this series with scripture on the New Testament accounts of the ministry and death of Christ, but it's my blog and I hate simple.  We will step outside of the Bible and see what historians of the time said about Jesus.  There was a time when non-believers would simply deny the existence of Jesus all together. Then privileged historical information became available to everyone that was literate.  The work of non-Christian historians blew this little boat right out of the water forcing those same people to acknowledge that the New Testament was, in fact, an historical account of the events surrounding Jesus and the early church.  Now we're at a point where even the most hardened atheist has to admit that scripture is a reliable historical document that accurately describes the execution of Christ and the growth of His church.  What's ensued are theories that range from childish to downright idiotic, but I'll debunk those later.  For now I just wanted to give you a few of the historical accounts of Jesus taken from outside of scripture.  Keep in mind that these men were not followers of Christ, they were simply historians that researched and documented everything that went on during this time period.  Their work was not intended to prove or disprove anything related to Jesus and it encapsulated everything from wars to culture to government.  These are just sections I pulled out that mentioned Jesus.  This is going to go long, so bear with me.  I won't begin to touch them all, but I want to drive home the FACT that Jesus existed and was crucified. More importantly, I want to prove that the crucifixion was not just recorded in the Bible.

Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian that lived from 37AD - 101AD): Antiquities, book 18, ch. 3
  "Now there was at this time a man named Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Tacitus (Roman historian that lived from 55AD - 117AD): Annals 15.44
  "Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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 hand of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, 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."

The Talmud (This is a 6,200 page book with contributions from thousands of Jewish rabbis that was started around 70AD.  The exact date and authorship of this passage is uncertain)
  "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged.  For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.  Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

Lucian (Greek historian that lived around 120AD-180AD)
  "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.  All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them as merely common property."

There are many, many more, but for the sake of time I pulled a small sample. Now it's clear that none of this proves that Jesus defeated death, but it's now clear that Jesus did live and he did die by crucifixion at the hands of Pilate.  That much can never be denied by anyone.  These accounts also go on to prove the accuracy of the New Testament as a reliable source of information since it also states that Jesus lived and died in the same manner.

Going Forward:
  
  I apologize for the length, again I wanted to set the table by proving that literally everything happened the way that the New Testament says it did. For the rest of the series I will provide us with some facts that I will then compare to all of the resurrection theories that modern scholarship has gifted us with. With the data in hand, I think anyone would struggle to find a better explanation than resurrection. Not just from the standpoint that we, as believers, need it to be true, but rather that the only logical explanation for the historical events surrounding the death of Jesus and the growth of the early church leaves us with resurrection as the only real option.  I will prove this event both historically and, believe it or not, mathematically.  If I can help you erase the doubt of a non-believer then this might make their Easter weekend become far more meaningful than hiding eggs.  Remember, the world isn't expecting us to come at them with facts.  They're prepared to shut down your declaration of the Gospel by dismissing it as blind faith.  It's nothing short of fun to blow up someone's stereotype of the Christian faith with well executed apologetics.