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  People generally accepted that the Bible was an historical document of sorts, they just didn't all submit to scripture nor did they all accept that it was the word of God.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.


   

Is God Dead?: Side By Side

Filling in the Gaps:

  I think by now it's become painfully obvious that atheism is not a consistent, nor is it a logical worldview.  It's merely a worldview that rejects God and then appears to scramble around to fill in all that His absence leaves.  The more I study it, the more it makes the atheist look like a toddler caught in a lie.  When confronted with logic that they know is ridiculous, they retreat into child-like defense modes (like the Noble Lie option I discussed earlier).   So Biblical Christianity picks up precisely where atheism fails us.  Since the Bible explains creation in full we no longer need to guess about it.  The Bible assigns meaning to our Earthly life because our actions will be measured in eternity.  I need to point out that I'm not speaking of salvation by works here.  I'm just saying that you will stand before your creator one day and there is a level of responsibility that you will shoulder for the sum of your life.  This gives you meaning, it gives you values and it provides a logical explanation for those meaning and values.  Now none of this actually proves that God exists, it just proves that atheism is a horribly inconsistent worldview that offers no reward in your present life or death. 

Side by Side:

  Below I'm just going to summarize atheism and Christianity.  It's hard to do so with no bias, but I'll try to point out the oddness in both systems.  They might both come off as irrational, but I believe that the end result of each actually presents Christianity as the only logical conclusion.

Christianity is the belief that an unseen God created the universe and everything in it.  He is big enough to create everything we have seen or ever will see in the universe, yet He is personal enough to listen to prayers about your aunt's, neighbor's, hip surgery. He then laid out rules that we couldn't possibly follow.  Seeing how terrible we were in obedience He sent his only Son to die to absorb his wrath toward us.  Keep in mind that His son was fully man, yet fully God, yet still fully man.  So we killed him, buried him and He came back from the dead.  So now we're gladly waiting on this guy that WE KILLED to return on a white horse, covered in tattoos, wearing a robe dipped in blood and holding a sword.  All we have for evidence is a really old book that most of the world feels is filled with fairy tales and folklore. 

Atheism is the belief that something came from nothing, and the nothing that produced the something doesn't really need an explanation.  Over trillions of years the something that was created by the nothing started to mutate, but we're not sure why it would feel the need to change if it weren't guided by a predetermined intelligent process.  All of this beginningless matter evolved over an undetermined amount of time into another shape or form.  Somehow heat and cooling were involved, but we don't really know what created those either nor do atheist feel the need to explain that.  Over trillions of years of unguided fine tuning, by random heating, cooling, expansion and contraction,  we somehow get planets, starts, moons, etc.  On these planets the random adaption continues but at least it has a place and some parameters to guide it.  Within those parameters single celled organisms begin to develop and as more time elapses they become more complex.  Eventually, and totally unguided by the way, these complex organisms become beagles, bugs, bears, ponies, people and pine cones.  There is literally no tangible evidence that any of this happened, anywhere, ever. 

  Now if you were in a coma for your entire life and you were awakened with these two concepts you'd have to admit that both would sound a little odd.  When you were then presented with the fact that one of these promises eternal life with the God that created you and the other offers you eternal blackness at best, it's hard for me to imagine anyone that would chose atheism. 

Going Forward:

  I'm done with atheism from a philosophical standpoint.  I don't think you'll be able to find an atheist that can stand firmly when confronted with this line of thinking.  They will refute with more scientific claims, but unless they are a scientist then it all comes off as sort of silly to me.  At that point aren't they just stepping out on faith?  I'm not really sure what I'll go to next, but I think a good topic would be the historical evidence for the resurrection.  After studying the evidence, I'm as convinced that Christ rose from the dead as I am that Tiger Woods has played a round at Augusta.