Rational Belief In The Resurrection

History And Christianity

History is crucial to Christianity - it keeps the Christian faith from degenerating into mythology. Christianity, more than any other religion, has at its core a historical event that, if found to be false, means Christianity on the whole must be disbelieved. Judaism has its Laws. Islam has its 5 Pillars. Buddhism has its Four Noble Truths. None of these rise or fall on the truth claims of a historical event. But in Christianity, this one act of God – the Resurrection of Jesus – is itself a historical event; take it away and you take away its gift of salvation – what then would Christianity have left?

Why Is The Reality of the Resurrection Important?

If you were to remove the historicity of the resurrection, the whole basis of atonement and salvation is groundless. This is such an important point, that even Paul explicitly tells us this himself:

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith...And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins...If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."
-- 1 Corinthians 15:14,17,19

There would be no gospel, not one account, no letter in the New Testament, no faith, no Church, no worship, no prayer in Christendom to this day without the message of the resurrection of Christ.

But if the Resurrection is true, it would serve the purpose of substantiating all of the claims of Jesus – that he was the Messiah after all, he was the Son of God after all. Therefore, all of his teachings will have been validated by this one historical (albeit supernatural) event. Every thing Jesus said or taught must then be considered true.

How Do We Verify This Historical Event?

Historians and New Testament scholars look at the New Testament as a collection of ancient documents. That is, they see the individual books as being written in the first century, authored by several different men over a span of a few decades, and many authored independently from one another. To test for the viability of a particular event having actually occurred in history, these scholars use several criteria for determining the reliability of written documents describing the event (and this is true for any ancient document; not just biblical ones). Some of these criteria used by NT scholars are:

1. Multiple Attestation

• The event was described in multiple documents where those documents are considered independent from one another (that is, collusion between the authors is not suspected and they didn't use the same source material for their respective accounts)
• e.g. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God had arrived in several books of the NT

2. Dissimilarity

• A Jesus teaching or tradition that is dissimilar from the teachings or traditions from Judaism of the first century.
• e.g. Jesus' rejection of fasting when John The Baptist's followers and the Pharisees were fasting themselves, which was the tradition of Judaism at the time (Mark 2:18-20)

3. Embarrassment

• Teachings or actions that would have embarrassed the disciples or created difficulties for the early church
• e.g. the disciples ran away during the crucifixion and didn't even stay to bury Jesus' body (Matthew 26:56)

4. Frequency

• This considers the number of times that a teaching or literary form occurs in various sources – the higher the number, the more likely it is authentic.
• We find Jesus using parables all throughout the Gospels and is considered authentic as a way Jesus taught.

The Three Facts

There are three facts that, if established as authentic using criteria like those described above, would make the case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. As William Lane Craig argues, if these three facts can be established and no other plausible natural explanation can account for them as well or as fully as the resurrection hypothesis, then we can be justified, through reason alone, in inferring that the resurrection is the most plausible explanation and that it really happened. The three facts are:

1. The Empty Tomb
2. The Postmortem Appearances of Jesus
3. The Origin of the Christian Faith

Fact #1: The Empty Tomb

The Honorable Burial

There are very few (if any) reputable historians or theologians who doubt that Jesus actually existed and was crucified in the first century. There is also good historical evidence that Jesus was honorably buried in a tomb, as opposed to just being left on the cross or thrown in a common burial pit. The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) all independently attest to Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea (e.g. careful comparison of the texts of Mark and John indicate that neither of these Gospels is dependent on the other. Matthew and Luke appear to have sources other than Mark and thus parts can be considered independent of Mark). Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:4) mentions that Jesus was "buried" - and note that virtually all credible NT scholars do not doubt that Paul wrote this letter in the middle of the first century.

In addition, using the criteria of embarrassment, we can also help establish the truth of the burial claim. If the burial account itself is fake, it would have to mean the authors of the Gospels made up the story in which we infer the disciples were such cowards that they ran away and couldn't muster the courage to at least bury their friend and mentor after his death, which was the proper Jewish custom at the time. Not only that, they would have made up the story in which a Jewish leader from the Sanhedrin, the group largely responsible for the death of Jesus, was the one to honorably bury Jesus. It is hard to fathom why those two facts would be present if they were not true. We must either believe the burial account is true, or we must believe the gospels writers felt it best to make up a story by painting themselves as cowards who disregarded a sacred tradition and let a member of the group who essentially got Jesus killed to be the one to bury their friend and teacher. The strength of the criteria of embarrassment is such that even many critical, and even agnostic, scholars (like Bart Ehrman) agree that the burial of Jesus by a man named Joseph of Arimathea in all probability occurred.

Why is the burial account so important? For several reasons. First, if the account of Jesus' burial is accurate, that infers that both the Jews and the Christians alike knew where the body was buried. And if you know where the tomb is, you can investigate if there is a body in the tomb or not. Now, if you study first century Jewish beliefs around the term "resurrection", you will notice that it always meant a physical, bodily resurrection, never a spiritual resurrection. With that in mind, if you know where the tomb is, and a body lay in the tomb, the disciples, who were Jews, would not have believed in a resurrection.

Even if the disciples believed in and preached about the resurrection, who in the Jewish community would have believed them with a body sitting in the tomb? Early Christianity started in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus' public crucifixion was carried out. Few in the city would have believed such nonsense as Jesus being raised from the dead if they even thought the body was still in the tomb (because a "resurrection" to the Jews living in Jerusalem meant a physical resurrection of the body – if there was a body still in the tomb, there was no resurrection).

Suppose for the sake of argument that the disciples and many Jews in the city did believe in the resurrection. The Jewish authorities could have (and almost assuredly would have) exposed the whole lie by producing a body. In fact, any body would have sufficed and the body would not even have to be recognizable since at that point the burden of proof would have shifted to the disciples to show that the body produced was not that of Jesus. But no record anywhere indicates such a dispute arose.

The Bribery of the Guards

Let's look at what the record tells us about what arguments the Jewish authorities did bring forth. You will see the earliest Jewish polemic actually presupposed an empty tomb! Matthew 28:11-13 talks about the bribing of the guards:

"While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'"

What Matthew is doing here is refuting what he says is a widespread Jewish explanation of the empty tomb – that being, the disciples stole the body! Not that the disciples were drunk when spewing lies about a resurrection, and not that the body was still in the tomb. They did not deny the empty tomb. Just by reading Matthew's story alone, we can infer that the argument between the Christians and the Jews was going like this:

Christians: "The Lord has risen!"

Jews: "No that is not true, the disciples stole his body"

Christians: "The tomb was guarded and thus theft was impossible"

Jews: "The guards fell asleep and the disciples sneaked past them to take the body"

Christians: "That is not true, the chief priests bribed the guards to say they fell asleep"

How can we be sure that this is how the argument was going and what the Jewish leaders were saying?How can we be sure Matthew is telling the truth and the guards/bribery story is accurate? Let's pretend that we are writing Matthew's gospel and see how it would go. First, there would be no reason for Matthew to even fabricate the story of the tomb being guarded in the first place, unless, of course, the Jews were really saying the disciples stole the body! Whether Matthew was making up the story or not, he would have to introduce the guards to explain how the disciples could not have stolen the body. Therefore, skeptics could say that it is possible the guards was a Christian invention. However, at this stage, that's as far as Matthew would have to go to defend his story, even if he was just making this up. The guards would prevent the theft of the body and no further embellishment of the story is needed. Yet, as we see in Matthew 28:11-13, he continues on. He talks about how the guards were bribed by the Jews to say they fell asleep while on guard duty and that's how the Jews can say the disciples managed to steal the body. But where did this come from? If Matthew was making this whole thing up, why would he come up with two-step argument to claim the tomb was empty? The sleepy guards could only have been a Jewish development because it only furthered the Jewish polemic – it would not have benefited the Christian position to invent the sleepy guards. Matthew would not have made up the sleepy guard story because it forced him to come up with a second rebuttal (the bribery) – if he made it up, he would have been, in essence, arguing with himself! No, there was no need for this, unless, of course, the Jews were really saying "the guards fell asleep". It would make sense for Matthew to continue his story and mention the bribery only if the Jews were saying the guards fell asleep. Note here that we don't even need to confirm that the guards really were bribed. We have no reason not to believe that, but for the sake of argument, suppose we don't know if that is true or not. It doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, Matthew is arguing that the Jews bribed the guards to say they were asleep. And if you are arguing that the guards were bribed, you have to have guards in the first place. And why would you need a guard? To argue against the Jewish polemic that the disciples stole the body. And why would the Jews be saying the disciples stole the body? Because the tomb was empty.

Discovery of the Empty Tomb

If that wasn't enough, there's more. The discovery of the empty tomb is multiply attested in early independent sources, and thus lends credence to its truthfulness.

First, Paul quotes an old Christian tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, which he says he received from the original disciples. It says, in part, "that he [Jesus] was buried, that he was raised". Being buried and then raised would imply an empty tomb, based on the Jewish understanding of (bodily) resurrection. Paul probably received this tradition ("for what I received") no later than his visit to Jerusalem in about 36 AD ("Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.", Galatians 1:18). This, therefore, goes back to within the first few years after Jesus' death. And note that 1 Corinthians and Galatians are accepted by virtually all credible NT scholars as being written by Paul, and thus comes with a high degree of authenticity.

Second, since Matthew includes the story of the guard at the tomb, which is unique to his Gospel only, it can be said that he is using an independent source from the others. Luke has an independent source for he relates the story of the two disciples verifying the report of the women that the tomb was empty – this is not found in Mark's gospel. Luke can't have just created the empty tomb story on his own because it is independently attested by John and John is independent from Luke (unless you want to believe they made up virtually the same exact story without the other knowing). They are all saying basically the same things, but are independent from each other! Either they all made up the same stories without the others knowing and they happen to agree with each other, or they are independently relating a true story that they all knew about.

Third, the expression of "on the third day" (which is found in multiple Gospels) implies an empty tomb. Why? Realize that no one saw the actual feat of Jesus resurrecting. So, why didn't the gospel accounts just assume that he rose the next day or on the second day or any day for that matter? The most likely answer is – it was on the third day that the women went to his tomb and discovered it empty. So naturally the resurrection came to be dated on that day, since it was the first day the empty tomb was discovered. Without the discovery of the empty tomb, there is no reason why it came to be known he was raised on third day as opposed to the day after the crucifixion or any other day prior to his appearances.

Forth, in the sermons in the book of Acts, we again have indirect references to the empty tomb. For example, Peter draws the sharp contrast, "David died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day," but "God has raised this Jesus to life" (see Acts 2:29-32 and Acts 13:36-37).

Mark's Unembellished Account

The earliest Gospel account, found in Mark, is simple, straight-forward and unembellished. Not much found in Mark can be characterized as legendary or mythological. For example, the resurrection itself is not witnessed. There are no reflections on its theological implications (in other words, no mention of Jesus' triumph over sin and death, no quotations of fulfilled prophecy, etc). If you read the Gospel of Peter (which is a forged, 2^nd century document), you can clearly see what a legendary account looks like. In this fake Gospel (falsely attributed to one of Jesus' inner circle of disciples, coincidentally) you read that Romans, Jewish leaders and other spectators actually witness the resurrection and Jesus is so big his head is in the clouds. There is even a talking cross! Nothing like this appears in the earliest Gospel accounts, with Mark being the soberest of them all. The contrast is striking between the Gospel narratives and the later 2^nd century forgeries. This lends credence to the fact that the gospel writers wrote "matter-of-factly" with the goal of just stating what happened.

The Discovery By The Women

Historians are in agreement that a group of women probably were the first to discover the empty tomb. Why does the fact that women discovered the empty tomb make the empty tomb event itself more probable? Two things need to be said here up front. At the time, women were not admitted as legal witnesses in courts of justice. Josephus, in his "Antiquities of the Jews" (Book 4, Chapter 8.15), says, "But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex". No existing copies of the Pentateuch mention this restriction, however, it is very probable that this was the practice of the Jews in the days of Josephus. Second, women were considered of lower status within the Jewish community, compared to men. Consider these rabbical writings: "Happy is he whose children are male, but unhappy is he whose children are female!" (Kiddushin 82b); "Blessed are you, Lord our God, ruler of the universe, who has not created me a woman" (Berachos 60b – part of a prayer for Jewish men).

Now consider the fact that the disciples were trying to convince people of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus. To do this, they must proclaim the empty tomb as a fact to their Jewish brethren, most of whom would consider any witness accounts from women to be highly suspect. Yet here they are listed as the initial chief witnesses to the empty tomb! It seems highly unlikely that if this story was made up, the early Christians would fabricate the part where women are the ones validating the initial discovery of the empty tomb. It would be far more plausible to make up a story where the ones to discover the empty tomb were Jesus' "more important" disciples, men specifically, to help bolster their case. The only real explanation would be that the women really were the discoverers of the empty tomb (perhaps even to the consternation of some of the disciples themselves!).

Fact #2: The Postmortem Appearances

The second independent fact to help authenticate the historicity of the resurrection event is the claims of the early disciples to have seen postmortem appearances of Jesus. As with the empty tomb, there are several lines of evidences that can be examined to help authenticate these claims of appearances. Note that at this point, we only need to examine whether or not these people claimed to have believed they had seen Jesus after the crucifixion. In other words, we want to find out what the disciples probably said they saw a few days after the resurrection and what did they believe it meant? Anything more would be a bonus.

Paul's Reports

As mentioned earlier, 1 Corinthians being an authentic letter from Paul is indisputable and so we can say with confidence that this is what Paul actually said. What we see in this letter are reports from a man personally acquainted with the first disciples saying they actually saw Jesus after the crucifixion, as did Paul himself!

"and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also"

-- 1 Corinthians 15:5-8

This is a remarkable set of claims! Let's go through each one individually:

Appearance to Peter

We know Paul met with Peter for about two weeks (Galatians 1:18) three years after his conversion, which occurred prior to the writing of this letter to the Corinthians. Because Galatians is virtually agreed upon by credible NT scholars that it is authentic Paul, we can be assured this trip to meet Peter is authentic. Therefore, at the point in time when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, we can be assured that Paul would have personally known whether or not Peter claimed to have had such an experience as seeing Jesus after his was crucified.

Appearance to the Twelve

In addition to Paul claiming Jesus appeared to the Twelve, this claim is also independently attested in Luke (24:36-42) and John (20:19-20). Thus multiple attestation lends credence to the historical accuracy of this claim. Note that these Gospel appearance stories also feature physical demonstrations of Jesus such as Luke 24:39, "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.". This will become important later on in our discussion.

Appearance to the five hundred

Some may be skeptical of this claim since no where else is this mentioned in the NT or elsewhere and it involves such a large group of people. However, Paul apparently had personal contact with these people since he says he knew some were dead. Remember that Paul is trying to convince people that his message was true – he would not make a false claim about five hundred people seeing Jesus unless he was sure at least some were still alive and could confirm they really saw Jesus. Otherwise, people would call him out and say, "where are all these people? None are around to interview, you're just making this up". He would not have challenged people unless he was willing for people to interview some of those five hundred to verify Paul's claim. In fact, it could be said the very reason why he mentioned the five hundred was to challenge his listeners to go verify his claims. Would he issue this challenge if he knew this could not be verified?

Why is this not mentioned elsewhere in Gospel accounts? Consider that this appearance to the five hundred probably happened in Galilee (thousands of people once gathered there to listen to Jesus preach, so we know there is room to accommodate that many people). But the Gospels seem to draw most of their attention to Jesus' Jerusalem appearances. No mention of this large appearance actually lends itself to the belief that it did happened in Galilee.

Appearance to James

The Gospels of Mark and John (two independent documents) explicitly tell us that James and the rest of Jesus' younger brothers did not believe Jesus was the Messiah or anyone special during his lifetime. Mark 3:21 says, "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" John 7:5 says bluntly, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him. ". Based on criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment, this is probably true. After all, wouldn't you be embarrassed for it to be said you grew up the brother of God but rather than clearly seeing the obvious, you thought he was crazy the whole time? But notice that after the resurrection, Jesus' brothers show up in the Christian fellowship in the upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14). Then, in Acts 12:17, when Peter is delivered from prison by the angel he instructs, "Report this to James". In Galatians 1:19, Paul tells of his two week visit to Jerusalem and he says besides Peter he saw "none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother". Later in Galatians 2:9, Paul says there are three pillars of the Jerusalem church, "James, Peter and John". Paul is saying James is considered one of the apostles. Acts 21:18 implies James is the head of the Jerusalem church, or at least one of its elders. Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived in and wrote of the times, tells of the stoning death of James by the Sanhedrin sometime after AD 60. Take this all together and the picture you get makes it certain that James was a disbeliever during the lifetime of Jesus; but it also seems to be certain that James became a leader within the church movement soon after the crucifixion. What could have caused such a transformation? It must have occurred after the crucifixion because the crucifixion alone would have only reinforced James' belief that this crazy self-identification of the Messiah was a delusion on Jesus' part and only managed to get Jesus killed. A physical appearance of Jesus to James would provide a very plausible explanation for this transformation of James. And here in 1 Corinthians, Paul does indeed tell us that Jesus did appear to James after the crucifixion. Remember that Paul had personal interaction with James so Paul would have known what James was claiming and doing.

Appearance to all the apostles

For Paul to say Jesus appeared to all the apostles would not make sense unless Paul knew that this is what the apostles were claiming themselves and Paul's personal contact with the apostles would mean he would know whether or not the apostles claimed to have seen Jesus.

Appearance to Saul of Taursus/Paul

Luke describes the appearance of Jesus to Saul of Taurus (later called "Paul") in Acts 9:3-9. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and had personal contact with Paul thus would know what Paul was saying and the stories he was telling. In addition, Paul references Jesus' appearance to himself in his own letters, including this 1 Corinthians reference.

Paul was a Pharisee, a rabbi who would have been considered a respected Jewish leader. He was vested in Jewish culture, customs and religion. He was also responsible for the persecution of Christians as Luke tells us in Acts 9:1-2, "Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem". He hated this Christian heresy. Then, suddenly he gave everything up and joined this movement he persecuted. He admitted his aggression towards the very early Christians whom he had then joined (1 Corinthians 15:9, "For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" ). He entered a life of poverty and suffering. Was whipped, beaten, threatened with death and in constant danger. What would cause that kind of conversion? An appearance of Jesus to Paul would be a plausible explanation and it is this explanation that Paul gives in his writings.

Gospels Provide Multiple Independent Attestation of the Appearances

Aside from the well attested reports by the apostle Paul, we have additional, multiply attested reports from independent accounts found in the four Gospels. Just as you can prove Caesar crossed the Rubicon by examining the totality of events reported during that era, the totality of these appearance reports permits no reasonable doubt that Jesus did appear in the manner reported.

Here's a test - pick something that happened in ancient history and try to find how many independent attestations of the event you find within 30 to 50 years of the event. You will find the New Testament documents provide the historian with an embarrassment of riches, rarely found anywhere else about anything else in the times of antiquity. The following are examples that meet the criteria of multiple, independent attestation.

First, the appearance to Peter that was attested by Paul (as described earlier) is also independently attested by Luke (1 Corinthians 15:5; Luke 24:34).

Second, the appearance to the Twelve attested by Paul (as described earlier) is also independently attested by Luke and John (1 Corinthians 15:5; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-20)

Third, the appearance to the women disciples are independently attested by Matthew and John (Matthew 28:9-10; John 20:11-17). It is interesting to note that this is one appearance that Paul does not mention in 1 Corinthians 15. He mentions the appearance to Peter, the Twelve, the five hundred, James and all the apostles, but he never mentions the women. Could this be a reflection of some discomfort within Paul in citing female witnesses for reasons stated earlier, and therefore indirectly supporting the notion that the women discovering the empty tomb was in fact a true account?

Fourth, Jesus' appearance to the disciples in Galilee is independently attested by Mark, Matthew and John (Mark 16:7; Matthew 28:16-17; John 21:1-14). Some scholars believe it was about this time that the appearance to the five hundred also occurred, though the Gospels do not say so.

Put all of these reports together and it is undisputed that, at the very least, the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.

Physical, Bodily Appearances

All evidences up to now does not depend on the nature of the appearances – were they visionary, ghostly appearances? Or were they Jesus "in the flesh"?

Paul's Belief in The Physical Resurrection

First, Paul implies the appearances were physical. Everyone agrees that Paul does not teach the immortality of the soul alone but of the resurrection of the body. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 Paul describes the differences between the present earthly body and the future resurrection body:

"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. "

Here it is clear that when Paul talks about a "resurrection", he is referring to a physical, bodily resurrection, not a soul leaving a body behind.

Gospel Accounts Explicitly Talk About A Physical Resurrection

Second, the Gospel accounts show that the appearances were physical and bodily. For example, in Luke 24:39, Jesus showed his wounds and invited the disciples to physically touch him as proof it was the same Jesus who had been crucified:

"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

In the same narrative, Luke 24:42-43, Jesus eats with the disciples:

"They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence."

Independent of Luke, we see in John 20:17, that Mary embraces Jesus, "Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.'". In John 20:20, "he [Jesus] showed them his hands and side.". And in the famous Doubting Thomas account, John 20:27, we find, "Then he [Jesus] said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.'".

Jesus is giving them explicit evidence that he has risen physically and his resurrection body was some kind of a continuation of his earthly body. And these accounts are multiply, independently attested (Luke and John) thus they satisfy an important criteria that lends credence to their truthfulness.

Why Is a Physical, Bodily Resurrection Important?

At this point, you may ask, "why does it matter that the resurrection was physical and bodily and not ghostly or spiritual"?

First, if the appearances really weren't physical, we are at a loss to explain how these accounts made their way into the Gospel documents because it would be foolishness and thus unbelievable to the Gentiles (a criminal rising from the dead and walking among us after having been crucified?) as well as a stumbling block for the Jews (since, according to their Jewish beliefs, there is no bodily resurrection until the End Times). If you were to make something up, you wouldn't make it harder for people to understand and believe, you'd make it easier (such as, "his soul rose to heaven and we saw visions of Jesus"). Thus, showing that the resurrection of Jesus was physical and bodily in nature lends credence to the truthfulness of the claim.

Second, by showing these appearance had a physical element to them helps rule out some of the explanations critics like to counter with, such as these appearances were mass hallucinations or visions. Hallucinations and visions would not make sense if several people can attest that they ate with and even touched Jesus' resurrected body.

Fact #3: The Origin of the Christian Faith

Even skeptical historical scholars admit that, at the very least, it can be said the earliest disciples did believe in the resurrection of Jesus. This is indisputable and historically factual. But in addition to this belief, it can also be said that they had a drastic change in their disposition that transformed them into bold preachers, and this occurred in the same city where Jesus was crucified and buried.

With that said, Christianity is real – it lives on today when it did not exist prior to the first century. Everyone must ask the question – how does one explain the origin of Christianity in the first century? Some mysterious X caused this drastic change in the disciples outlook and got the Christian movement going. But what is this X?

X is either the resurrection itself (and the appearances that proved it to the early disciples) or it is something else.

Pagan Influences?

Could it have been pagan influences that caused the apostles to start up this new movement called Christianity? First, remember that the apostles were Jews themselves and it is against the backdrop of Judaism that they must be understood. It would be unthinkable that the apostles would have sincerely come to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead because they heard pagan myths and legends and projected Jesus onto those myths! Even more so, how could they expect to convince the Jewish community (in and around Jerusalem where the church started) of Jesus' resurrection if all they did was project pagan/Greek myths onto that event? Yes, the Old Testament is full of stories of Israel succumbing to pagan worship and customs, but it also documents God's wrath due to that heresy – lying by projecting pagan/Greek myths on Jesus would simply be rejected by the Jews of the first century because it goes against their Jewish faith, beliefs and customs. So even if the early disciples believed this, their Jewish brethren would have rejected it.

Finally, understand that the earliest narratives concerning the resurrection and appearances of Jesus originated much too early for legendary developments to occur and "stick". In addition, the relationship of any pagan god stories to the resurrection are spurious and some of these pagan god stories only appear starting in the second century, after Jesus (and, thus, some would say these pagan myths borrowed from Christianity, not the other way around!). Myths, therefore, cannot account for the disciples beginning to believe in the resurrection event – it cannot account for X.

Jewish Influences?

Could the apostles' Jewish background, culture and customs have contributed to the stories of Jesus' resurrection? Before we look into this, we must understand what the Jewish concept was with respect to resurrection. Belief in resurrection of the dead is explicitly mentioned in three places within the Old Testament – Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12:2. During the inter-testamental period, the belief in the resurrection became a widespread hope (as demonstrated by the Jewish custom of interring a deceased's bones in an ossuary). This belief was held by the Pharisees (but was actually denied by the Sadducees). Thus the notion of "resurrection" was actually a well-known belief in the first-century Jewish community, it was nothing new. Could this have been how the apostles came to believe Jesus rose? Wasn't this Jewish belief the basis for the story they concocted about Jesus? Not so fast. The concept of the Jewish resurrection differed in two fundamental ways from Jesus' resurrection.

First, in ancient Jewish thought, the resurrection was always an eschatological concept – that is, it was to occur in the End Times, at the end of the world. The Jews did not anticipate a resurrection as an event within history – but at the end of it. In fact, the disciples had this same belief. We can see an illustration of this in John 11:23-24, "Jesus said to her [Martha], 'Your brother [Lazarus] will rise again.' Martha said to him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.'" Jesus is telling Martha that Lazarus will rise again – and here you see she is unable to understand the implication of resurrection within history and what is about to happen to Lazarus (Jesus soon after raises him from the dead). It was a typical Jewish response that helps explain the Jewish belief of resurrection. It is for this same reason that the disciples had such a hard time understanding Jesus' prediction of his own resurrection. As in Martha's case, they thought Jesus was talking about resurrection at the end of the world – as evidenced by Mark 9:9-11. The disciples could not understand the idea of resurrection occurring within history prior to the end days. Jesus' prediction confused them. They thought he was discussing the resurrection at the end of the world.

The second fundamental difference between the Jewish concept of the resurrection and Jesus' resurrection was that the Jewish resurrection always involved all righteous people. There was no concept of the resurrection of an isolated individual. During the End Times, all those "asleep" would be resurrected at the same time.

What about the Messianic claims of Jesus that supposedly were confirmed by the resurrection event? It can be said that there was no other comparable claims of a resurrection of a "messianic" figure in the first or second century. There were many messianic movements in the day, but in no case (other than the Christians) do we hear any of them claim their executed leaders were risen from the dead and he really was the Messiah after all. None. This proves the point that no one in the Jewish community thought it was conceivable that a resurrection of an individual person would happen within history, let alone identify the Messiah.

The Jews had no conception of a Messiah who, instead of bringing victory to Israel over its enemies, would be shamefully humiliated and executed as a criminal (with help from the Jewish authorities themselves no less). No Jewish texts at that time or before speak of such a Messiah (other than the Old Testament, which as we know was not seen by the Jews as prophesying the Messiah in this way). The crucifixion of Jesus, understood from the point of view of any first century Jew (whether sympathetic to Jesus or not) would have been understood as a complete repudiation of any messianic pretensions his followers believed or hinted at. It is hard to overemphasize what a disaster the crucifixion was for the disciples faith – it marked the end for any hopes they had entertained that he was the Messiah.

Because of the two fundamental differences between the Jewish concept of resurrection and the Christian concept of resurrection and because of the Jewish understanding of the Messiah, it can be said that, left alone to themselves with only Jewish influences surrounding them, the disciples would never have come to the belief that Jesus' resurrection had already occurred, nor would anyone outside of their following comprehend or believe it too. You would have expected the disciples to, at most, make a shrine of Jesus' tomb, and only look forward to the end of days for Jesus' resurrection to occur along with the resurrection of the rest of the righteous. This also explains their despondency after the crucifixion – they didn't understand his resurrection was imminent. Thus, Jewish influences alone cannot fully explain how the disciples came to believe in the resurrection event – it cannot account for X.

The Most Plausible Explanation

What could have convinced the disciples that both their Jewish idea of a Messiah was wrong and their Jewish idea of resurrection was wrong? Remember, these beliefs were firmly held within their community for hundreds if not a thousand years or more. Just his death alone would not have done it. The only plausible explanation for X would be their belief that they saw, touched, talked and ate with Jesus after his crucifixion and thus the belief that he was resurrected in the flesh. This has to be the only way they could come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Short of seeing an appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion, what else could explain their declaration that Jesus had indeed been resurrected?

Conclusions

Based on the above three facts that have been established, what conclusions can be drawn?

Who Would Believe Them?

First, it would have been impossible for Christianity to come into being if Jesus' body was still in the tomb. Keeping in mind that the crucifixion and burial happened just outside the gates of Jerusalem itself, the Jewish authorities could have went to Jesus' burial site and produced the body (any body would do) and they would have been all too eager to do so. The empty tomb provides the explanation for why this did not occur. In addition, the disciples began spreading their message in a time and place so close to where the events took place, they could not have fabricated the events in the face of their enemies. With this starting just a few weeks after the resurrection, the risk of anyone there checking up on their facts was too great to try to spread lies.

Second, without the resurrection, what would make the Apostles even think they could convince anyone that their message was at all true? From the point of view of a Jewish observer, the notion of a Jewish Messiah getting crucified on the cross was contrary to all Jewish expectations. In addition, Christianity lowered the esteem of Jewish law, something that would have been hard to swallow for the Jews of the day. As to the Romans, the Christian message of the kingdom of God could have been understood in earthly terms only, thus it represented a possible rival (remember, Caesar was to be revered as a god but the Christian's claimed "Jesus was the only way"). As to the heathens, Christianity did not allow for any other pagan god – and the heathen religions were old and established, not easily abandoned by their followers. All of this tells us that the disciples had no "safe harbor", no group from which they could expect protection or a willingness to hear their message.

But let's concentrate on the Jewish community a bit more. Soon after the crucifixion, the disciples (and many others in Jerusalem) abandon many of their long-held and sacred beliefs and practices. Ask yourself, what would it take for you to give up your long-held/sacred beliefs? And consider these Jewish beliefs and practices they gave up were more than 1,500 years old:

• Animal sacrifice system
• The binding supremacy of the Law of Moses
• Strict monotheism (the Christians now believe in this mysterious "triune" nature of God and even worship Jesus as God despite the fact that man-worship had always been considered blasphemous punishable by death. The Sherma is considered an extremely important prayer (if not the most important) by the Jews, and it says very explicitly, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4))
• The Sabbath (even though the Law says that breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death (Exodus 31:14))
• Belief in a conquering Messiah (Jesus was the antithesis of this concept, a sacrificial lamb)

Not only did they give up these long held customs and beliefs, they created strange new ones:

• Sunday (a work day to them) as the new day of worship
• Baptism as a sign of the new covenant
• Communion as an act of remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. This is especially inexplicable unless the Resurrection is true. Why else would Jews make up a practice where they symbolically eat the body and drink the blood of their leader?

A Perfect Plan To Get Martyred

Documents written by ancient historians and early church fathers (e.g. Josephus, Juvenal, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius) tells us that, within years, violence against Christians had begun – they were dying for their faith with nothing to gain. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a speech given in 1996, made the point - "If one is to believe that the resurrection did not happen, you must believe that everything from Easter morning to the Ascension had to be made up by the groveling enthusiasts as part of their plan to get themselves martyred." Why did none of the apostles or many of their followers recant their story? Remember, Peter already demonstrated a cowardly willingness to abandon Jesus just to save his skin once before (in fact, three times). But he did not do so after the resurrection and appearances. What convinced them that Jesus was the Messiah? Some really convincing event must be the cause.

Other Possible Hypotheses?

What other possible hypothesis could explain the three main facts that have been established?

Some have proposed that the disciples hallucinated the appearances, and this would explain their genuine beliefs in the resurrection and all that followed. However, even if it is plausible to believe that a dozen disciples, the women, the five hundred, James and Paul all managed to hallucinate the same type of vision (a claim that seems impossible anyway – hallucinations are by definition a product of an individual's mind and therefore not shared among two or more people), it still would not explain the empty tomb and another hypothesis would be needed to explain that away.

Suppose it is plausible to believe the disciples really did steal Jesus' body from the tomb (above all objections to that argument that have been explained above). This would explain the empty tomb but you then are missing an explanation for the genuine belief among the disciples that Jesus appeared to them in the flesh nor does it explain the origin and spread of their Christian faith (after all, if they stole the body, they would have known the whole movement was a lie and it is hard to imagine they all went to their deaths for that lie) . You need another hypothesis to explain these away.

Suppose Jesus didn't really die on the cross and he somehow barely escaped alive (as some still argue to this day, against all evidence to the contrary). Again, this would only explain the empty tomb, and possibly the appearances. But it doesn't explain the burial accounts nor does it explain the origin and spread of the Christian faith that, at its core, involves the resurrection after Jesus' death (if he didn't really die, how could it be said that he had been raised from the dead?). And would the disciples really believe a beaten and bloodied Jesus (which he must have looked like after being nearly crucified to death) was the Son of God?

As you can see, it's like the game whack-a-mole. If you come up with a hypothesis that explains some of the facts, the other facts appear unexplained. If you answer some of those unexplained facts, the original facts pop back up unexplained! There is a term historians use that helps describe this situation and it is called "explanatory scope". Explanatory scope is a way to describe how well a hypothesis explains all the facts about a historical event. If one hypothesis can only explain a few facts about the event, but another hypothesis can explain most or all of the facts about the event, the latter hypothesis is said to have greater explanatory scope than the former. And the only hypotheses that legitimately can claim full explanatory scope across all of the three base facts described here is the Resurrection Hypothesis – in other words, you can reasonably assume that Jesus really was resurrected.

I Really Can Believe That What I Believe Is Really Real

In the end, this entire exercise had one purpose in mind. To come up with a rational explanation for the belief that Jesus "was crucified, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose". Historical analysis, reasonable and logical inferences and common sense dictate that the belief in Jesus' resurrection is not based on myth, doesn't require blind faith and is just as valid to believe as any other ancient historical event that we know of. And as stated in the introduction, if by examining all these facts you come to believe that Jesus was indeed resurrected, it follows that you can safely assume that the resurrection was a sign that tells us Jesus was who he says he was, and all things Jesus taught is true. It is hard to escape any other conclusion than that.

References and Acknowledgments

I would like to thank William Lane Craig for his vast knowledge and in depth analysis he demonstrates in his works, especially his book Reasonable Faith and the articles found on his website www.ReasonableFaith.org. I am indebted to him for bringing to me the world of apologetics and shoring up my faith with his books, articles and audio/video commentaries found on his website. The vast majority of this paper was culled from his works – if not paraphrased, then lifted cleanly word for word. As this is not being prepared for professional publication, I did not properly footnote every reference. I hope he doesn't mind. Below are references to other works that were used in preparing this paper.

Craig, William Lane, "Reasonable Faith", 2008, Crossway Books

--------, www.ReasonableFaith.org, miscellaneous articles

Geisler, Norman; Turek, Frank, "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", 2004, Crossway Books

Habermas, Gary, "The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry", Dissertation Submitted to Michigan State University, 1976

Why Aliens But Not God?

I have been doing a lot of research on the arguments for the existence of God. I've come to hold people like William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler in high regard for their intelligent and reasoned arguments. In my opinion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is very powerful and persuasive, as is the Teleological Argument. They are based on sound philosophical and cosmological grounds - with a little bit of physics thrown in (the two Laws of Thermodynamics come to mind). They seem to provide a reasonable answer to the question regarding the origin of life and the universe itself.

I was curious how an atheist would counter those arguments or at least know what their own pro-atheist views are vis-a-vis the creation of life and the universe. I was tired of the same old atheist comebacks like, "Theism is for those that need a crutch in life" or "God is a myth, a fantasy, a fictional make-believe invisible friend" (just read any online article that discusses anything remotely related to religion on CNN, MSNBC, HuffingtonPost, etc. and you are guaranteed to see readers' comments like these). I want to know why they think that? What are their arguments to refute those given by people like William Lane Craig?

I recently came across a clip from the "Exposed" documentary in which Ben Stein interviewed one of today's leading atheist apologists - Richard Dawkins - and they were discussing possibilities to how life originated on Earth. I wasn't that interested at first, because I figured Ben Stein's documentary had an agenda (in the same way Michael Moore's agendas color his documentaries) and I didn't want to get a skewed account of Richard Dawkins' answers. However, I found that in no way could Ben Stein twist Richard Dawkins words around, or take them out of context because Richard Dawkins literally was the man himself speaking in the interview in this documentary. So I listened to what Richard Dawkins had to say regarding what he thought was a plausible explanation for the origin of life on Earth:

Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved - by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology - and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. That is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility.

This simply blew me away when I first saw and heard this. Where to start?

First, I assume this isn't the best theory that Richard Dawkins can come up with. But if he had a better one, he should have used it in that interview. I grant him this - before he gave that answer, he said outright that he didn't know for sure how life originated on Earth (watch that entire clip if interested, the link above jumps you three minutes into it directly to the quote I mention). He was merely giving what he thinks is a plausible explanation and how Intelligent Design might be found to be true if it's true at all. Based on his atheist worldview, this is what he came up with. It sure sounds like he is OK with thinking that panspermia is rational and reasonable, but a belief in God is not.

I ask all of the people out there that lean towards the atheist viewpoint that like to denigrate theists as "irrational" and people that "believe in myths and fairy tales" - what do you think of this "aliens planted life on Earth" theory? Would you consider this a "fantasy", "myth", "make-believe"? Isn't this essentially the same theory espoused by Scientologists which is the same group that atheists love to laugh at and call lunatics? But yet this is a theory that one of today's leaders of the atheist movement calls "an intriguing possibility"!

Again, I am not claiming that Richard Dawkins believes panspermia is true - he didn't say that. But what he did say is it is "a possibility, an intriguing possibility". Now, take that and compare it with the theory that "God did it".

Tell me how the answer of "God did it" is more fanciful and mythological than "Aliens did it". What evidence or proof is there that tell us aliens from another planet even exist, let alone planted their seeds of life here. I contend that there are evidences that God exists - but even if you don't, you must admit that there is just as much evidence for God as there is for aliens! And since Richard Dawkins did say the aliens hypothesis is an "intriguing possibility", why can't it then be said that an equally intriguing possibility is that "God did it"? If you can admit that panspermia is possible but God is not - you have to ask yourself why you think that. Why is the possibility of aliens seeding Earth a reasonable and rational theory to ponder, but a belief in God creating life is unreasonable and irrational?

So I want to be clear - according to Richard Dawkins, it is possible that aliens from somewhere else in the universe seeded life on this planet, but it is not possible (and simply irrational to even think) that God created life. OK, I'm clear now.

Why Didn't All The Gospels Say The Same Things

One question that I ask myself and often hear being brought up as a point made by the skeptics is why do only some (or just one) of the Gospels (The Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) mention a particular fact or occurrence while the others omit them? Why do the Gospels have so many areas of silence among them? If something was so important for one to mention it, wouldn't all of them want to mention it? Don't these discrepancies between the books mean one or more of the authors made these stories up?

For example, John's lack of mention of the darkness at the crucifixion or Matthew's report of an earthquake. Even the miraculous Christmas story is missing from some of them! There are many other examples like this.

I recently came across an interesting article that sheds some light on at least one reason why this occurred, and it is one I never would have thought. The cost and size of paper. In short, that's what it boils down to.

Today, because paper is so cheap and plentiful, we don't think of it as something that would be hard to come by, or expensive to purchase. But back in the first century, this was not true.

Their "paper" was either papyrus or parchment and was provided not as individual, loose leaf, pages like today but as scrolls. In fact, the typical book format that we know of today (coined "codex") was not widely used until Christians began using that format almost exclusively as they copied the New Testament documents and bound them together (the birth of the Bible as we know it).

These scrolls were expensive because they were labor intensive to make. In fact, frugal scribes would often reuse parchment rather than make or purchase new parchment by erasing and writing over top existing ones - this was so common, that these documents have their own name - they are called palimpsests. However, it is more likely that the original New Testament documents were written on papyrus scrolls (which may be one reason why so little documents from the first century are extant - because papyrus degraded faster than parchment). That said, a papyrus scroll was still considered expensive (a roll of papyrus could cost the equivalent of one or two days' wages)

Scrolls were also limited in size. While technically you could have any length of scroll by simply adding on to the end of it, in practice "the length of a papyrus roll was limited by considerations of convenience in handling it; the normal Greek literary roll seldom exceeded 35 feet in length." ("The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", Metzger, pages 11-12). Papyrus sheets were roughly no more than 15 inches high by 9 inches wide, and a standard scroll consisted of 20 sheets pasted together (ibid, page 7). This amounts to roughly no more than 20 sheets of today's standard size loose leaf paper (single sided!).

Given those two limitations, the authors of the Gospels had to make very important decisions. What did they want to say in the limited space they had to say it? I'm sure they wanted to limit their writings to a single scroll if they could help it because the generations beyond that would want to preserve the work would have to buy as many scrolls as the original when they make copies. In these early times, if you wanted your work to disperse among many people, limiting the cost of reproduction was a wise move.

Notice one historical account that is mentioned in all four of the Gospels - the resurrection of Jesus! At the core of Christianity is the resurrection - without it, Christianity is nothing. As Paul says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14) Therefore, room had to be set aside on those scrolls for something so central to Christianity. If it meant something else had to be omitted, so be it.

So all four have the resurrection. But what to write on the rest of the scroll? The miracles? His parables and teachings? The Christmas story? Jesus' lineage? Each author had to decide what his theme to the narrative was going to be - what did he want to get across. It isn't surprising that they may have included common things but departed amongst each other in different ways. And they only had so much space on a scroll to do all of this, so they couldn't put down everything. In fact, John laments this fact at the end of his book, when he says "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

Thoughts on the Dating of the New Testament

When were the books of the New Testament originally written? One doubt many people have is the dating of the New Testament (at one time, I was one of those people). The people that are unaware of the facts and evidence typically think the books of the Bible were probably written many decades or even centuries after the life and times of Jesus, thus making it easy for them to disbelieve any book of the New Testament has any credibility or truth to them - surely these texts are nothing but myths and legends, made up by very imaginative (or deranged) people.

However, after I did some research, I found it amazing that most of the books of the New Testament have actually been dated by professional scholars and archaeologists very soon after the death of Jesus (there are many books on this subject, such as Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration"). There is a high degree of certainty that these books really are the words and testimony of actual eyewitnesses to the events they describe (or of those who interviewed those eyewitnesses).

There is such a wealth of information on this subject, I can't begin to summarize it all. However, I would like to talk about one specific issue that I think helps support the notion that most of the New Testament can be said to have been written earlier than 70 AD (at most a mere 40 years after Jesus was crucified).

First let's quickly discuss what happened in 70 AD. The Roman army, led by the future Emperor Titus, besieged and conquered the city of Jerusalem, destroying the city and its temple in 70 AD. It cannot be overstated what a disastrous event this was for the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem. As Norman Geisler puts it in his book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" (page 237):

"The center of [the Jews'] national, economic and religious life is Jerusalem, and especially the temple. It has been that way in ... almost every Jew's family for a thousand years - ever since Solomon built the first temple."

What is surprising (and something most non-Christians and those unfamiliar with the New Testament are not aware of) is that the Gospels tell us that Jesus actually predicted this destruction (though he did not say exactly when it would happen). See Mark 13:1-2 as one instance where this is documented - Luke and Matthew repeat this, something I will get to shortly).

Why is this important? One of my prior objections to this prediction of Jesus being proof of the dating of the New Testament went something like this: if I was writing a legendary story of a religious figure many decades/centuries after the fact, I would go through history, pick out a very important event that happened, and put words in the mouth of the mythical religious figure "predicting" that important event. Couldn't it be true that Mark (and Matthew and Luke) was written after 70 AD and they simply lied, saying that Jesus predicted it would happen - effectively post-dating this "prophesy"?

Here's the problem with that. Let's take a look at the Gospel of Matthew, specifically these verses:

• Matthew 1:22-23


• Matthew 2:14-15


• Matthew 2:17-18


• Matthew 2:23


• Matthew 3:3


• Matthew 4:13-14


• Matthew 8:16-17


• Matthew 12:15-17


• Matthew 13:13-14


• Matthew 13:34-35


• Matthew 21:2-5


• Matthew 27:6-10

Time after time after time, Matthew makes a point to always explicitly call out when the things he is documenting was predicted by previous prophesies. "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet", "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet", "Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled", "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah" and on and on. Now take a look at Matthew 24:1-2:

"Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. 'I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.'"

That's it. Just a straight matter-of-fact statement of what Jesus predicted. No "this was fulfilled" or "this has happened just as he said". Nothing. As a example of what I would be expecting, read Matthew 28:5-6:

"The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay."

Granted, that is Matthew quoting the angel, but the point here is that Matthew explicitly writes down that one of Jesus' prophesies happened "just as he said". You would think that Jesus being able to successfully predict such a massive and devastating event as the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of the temple would warrant some kind of mention in or around Matthew 24:1-2, but there is nothing. Not so much as a "just as he said". It is as if, at the time Matthew wrote those words, the destruction of Jerusalem hasn't happened yet!

Take a look at Matthew 28:15

"So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day"

Note the words I've emphasized here - "to this very day". Here you see Matthew is not averse to mentioning things happening as of the very moment he was writing the words. If that is true, why is there no place in his Gospel a discussion about the destruction of the Jews' "center of national, economic and religious life" (in the words of Norman Geisler)?

Now, keep in mind that most scholars agree that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke. So if Matthew can be said to have been written before 70 AD, then Mark must have been written prior to that date as well. Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke has the same 'problem' - it too mentions this prophesy of Jesus, but also never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. And in Luke's case, it is even more puzzling (for those who think he, too, wrote after 70 AD) because of all the authors of the New Testament documents, Luke is the one who does the most painstakingly detailed historical reporting. You would think if anyone, it would have been Luke to have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. But he doesn't.

I'll further quote Norman Geisler again from his book, because he makes a very good point:

"Question: if you and your fellow-followers write accounts of Jesus after the temple and city were destroyed in AD 70, aren't you going to at least mention that unprecedented national, human, economic and religious tragedy somewhere in your writings, especially since this risen Jesus had predicted it? Of course! Well, here's the problem for those who say the New Testament was written after 70 - there's absolutely no mention of the fulfilment of this predicted tragedy anywhere in the New Testament documents. This means most, if not all, of the documents must have been written prior to 70."

Again, this is just one aspect used to help date the New Testament documents. But it's one that I, myself, find very useful. Taken together with the rest of the arguments for the early dating of the New Testament (again, tons of books and articles have been published on this), I found it all very convincing.

Why Jesus Can Not Be Just a Good Man

Very few people today deny Jesus was an actual person who lived in the first century (and those that do are far outside the mainstream - there are many logical arguments and historical documents, both Biblical and non-Biblical, that point to the fact that Jesus did exist).

So the question becomes, was Jesus God?

Some people try to take the easy way out and say, "I don't believe Jesus was God, but I do believe Jesus was a good man of high morals and a good teacher".

But is that even a valid possibility for who Jesus could be? Could Jesus be just a good, moral teacher?

C.S. Lewis formalized his "trilemmia" this way:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

Being a "moral man" is not an option. Being a "good teacher" is not an option. Here's why.

First, contrary to some (arguably outside-the-mainstream) scholars, the New Testament (NT), as a historical document, is very reliable. Josh McDowell, Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce and others have amply documented the reasons why the NT can be considered a reliable historical document (note, this is not to say they have proven the NT is "the Word of God" - that is a faith claim, which is entirely different from being able to call the NT a reliable historical document). If you do not believe that the NT is historically accurate (that is, the NT was written truthfully by disciples and eyewitnesses of the time and whose core doctrinal messages come to us relatively unaltered over time), stop reading now - for if you do not see the NT documents as accurate, nothing you read about Christianity will ring convincing to you, and you could refute every Christian argument with "it's all a myth - legendary stories concocted centuries after the fact". I happen to believe those "myth" arguments can be debunked, but it is up to you to convince yourself either way.

Second, in the NT, Jesus clearly claims to be God. Some people argue that Jesus didn't actually claim to be God, but rather it was his disciples and later Christian followers that put that label onto Jesus, either mistakenly (they thought that's what he meant) or on purpose (they know he didn't claim to be God but labelled him God anyway). Of course, if that is the case, that immediately throws out the "Jesus was a good teacher" argument, because clearly, if he was such a good teacher, how could his disciples have gotten Jesus' message so wrong (or, if his followers did this knowing Jesus never claimed to be God, he still can't claimed to be a good teacher because they would clearly be going against Jesus' teachings - why lie to your neighbor that your teacher was God to get them to believe your message? That doesn't seem to be in line with Jesus' teachings) . But in any event, if Jesus never claimed to be God, you have to ask yourself why then did the Jewish Sanhedrin and a lot of the Jewish community in Jerusalem hate Jesus so much to want to put him to death? They apparently thought he claimed to be God. For further reading on this, and to get a good set of arguments on Jesus' claim of divinity, see "Contending with Christianity's Critics", Chapter 12, "Who Did Jesus Think He Was?".

Not only did Jesus claim to be God, he allowed his disciples to believe that he was God. He had his disciples believe in his message so deeply, all of them followed his instructions and evangelized his message throughout the region and most gave up their lives for him. By the mid-30s AD, all of his disciples were convinced that Jesus was God (the Gospels and Epistles clearly show this). If Jesus wasn't God, then how did his disciples get that message so wrong? Clearly, Jesus must not have been a very good teacher if such a core doctrine was so badly transferred from master to pupil!

If Jesus wasn't God and he knew he wasn't God, he was a flat out liar. He left his disciples to live a poor, humbling lifestyle, instructed them to leave their homes and families to deliver a false message to a public that was, at best, sceptical and, at worse, deadly violent to that message, and in the end sent them to their deaths for a lie. This is not the mark of a good or moral man, it is the sign of a cunning and evil man.

What if Jesus wasn't God but he thought he was God? In this case, Jesus was a mentally unstable man who managed to convince everyone close to him that he was God (note that there is no strong evidence of mental instability in Jesus found within the NT texts; on the contrary, he comes across as a calm, stable, intelligent and wise individual). Can someone who is so mentally unfit that he convinced himself and his followers to die for this lie, be a good man of high moral standing? Possibly. But, then again, "good" would be a relative term. This mentally unstable man did end up wrongly convincing his followers to die for his (false) cause - he may have been a proficient teacher to pull that off, but it is arguable that he could be considered good and moral for doing so. Put it into perspective - if someone as mentally unstable as this lived today - would you label him as a good moral man and a good teacher?

It is hard to claim that Jesus was merely a good, moral teacher if he also wasn't God. He could have been a cunning liar and deceiver or he could have been a highly motivated but mentally unstable man. But he couldn't be those things and be a good, moral man and teacher.

You must either deny Jesus' message entirely, or you must accept his claim as the Son of God. He can't have been just a good man. As C.S. Lewis puts it, "He has not left that open to us.".

Explain How Jesus Died For My Sins?

One of the Christian doctrines that I've had a hard time understanding is the answer to "how and why did Jesus die for my sins?" You always hear it - "Jesus died for your sins - by just believing in Jesus, your sins are forgiven". But that sounds too simple and easy. Why did Jesus die for my sins? How are my sins forgiven through the death of Jesus two thousand years ago? Why, by just believing in Jesus, are my sins forgiven?

Penal Substitution

I recently read a book, edited in part by William Lane Craig, titled "Contending with Christianity's Critics". It has an essay written by Steven L. Porter titled "Dostoyevsky, Woody Allen, and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution" - it addresses this through the doctrine of "penal substitution". It is actually the first thing that I've ever read that actually helps explain penal substitution in a way I understand.

In short, it goes like this (I will not do it justice, but here's my summary):

1) We have been given an incredible privilege - to live an earthly life as physical stewards over God's creation and, spiritually, in loving dependence on God. We have all, in our own ways, abused that privilege time and time again.

2) God's moral nature and holiness demands that punishment be exacted for those very serious sins against him - the punishment being to withdraw those very privileges given to us by God (i.e. take away our physical and spiritual life).

3) Wouldn't it be better, and more in keeping with God's merciful nature, for God to forgive human sin and continue to offer the privilege of physical and spiritual life even though we continue to abuse this opportunity and therefore do not deserve it?

4) But if God does continue to offer these privileges and waive punishment, this diminishes the human sinner's responsibility and trivializes the wrong done to God thus trivializing God Himself.

5) BUT! What if there was a way for God to do BOTH!? Exact a punishment in keeping with the seriousness of the "crime" (and thus not devaluing nor trivializing God) but yet mercifully forgive the human sinner and allow him to retain physical and spiritual life and therefore be given a second (and third and fourth...) chance?

Enter "the Lamb of God".

The suffering on the cross is the just penalty of human sin (i.e. the loss of life) - it demonstrates that sin against God is not a trivial matter and God takes human sin very seriously. Thus "justice is served" and the seriousness of sin is affirmed. However, God mercifully takes on this punishment we deserve via the incarnate Christ's voluntary submission to that suffering. Jesus was "without sin", so clearly He wasn't punished for his own sins (since He had none). He was the perfect sacrificial lamb - the "Lamb of God".

Thus God miraculously does both! He exacts the punishment for human sin as demanded by his moral nature and holiness, but yet mercifully let's the human sinner retain life!

Another Way To Atonement?

Thanks to "Catholic Nick" and his comments to the original version of this blog entry, I've come to question certain aspects of the notion of penal substitution (did God, the Father, pour out his wrath on his own Son, Jesus, as penalty for our sins?) I'm finding pretty good answers in another explanation. Indeed, after studying his arguments, Nick points out problems with penal substitution (both in his own blog and links to other documents - see the comments section for links to references, from which I will quote below) in part through the description of what it meant in the OT to offer "blood sacrifices" and how Jesus's suffering in the NT correlates to the OT notation of sacrifice and atonement of sins.

As mentioned earlier, God's merciful nature could forgive man's sin with amnesty, but because sin is so serious in God's eye, forgiveness must be more than a matter of ignoring it or forgetting it - that would diminish and trivialize God. But how then does that sin get forgiven?

First, for those unfamiliar with the Old Testament, let it be clear that God did not require the sacrifice of animals because He is bloodthirsty. God did not need man's sacrifices for his own sake; He was not pleased by animal sacrifices simply as such. God did not accept the life of an animal in lieu of human life, if that meant that having sacrificed an animal a man did not also need to offer his own spiritual life to God. Rather, God accepted the sacrificial offering of animal life as a visual expression of a man's spiritual self-offering (which was the true sacrifice that God wanted). In other words, a man parting with something of value (the sacrifice) was his outward expression of his desire to be closer to God (it is for this reason why the sacrificial animals were to be "perfect" and "without blemish" - for what good is a sacrifice if it isn't of any great value?). This explains the "expiatory power" in sacrificial blood (where the blood of the sacrifice represents the very life of the animal, a symbol of the human life whose sins are to be atoned for). To be clear, God wasn't punishing the animal, He was lovingly and mercifully extinguishing the guilt of the sinner due to the visible expression of the sinner's invisible offering of his own life to God.

Now let's move to the new covenant, ushered in by Jesus Christ. Yes, Christ stands in the place of sinners - but He is not guilty of the sin nor is He receiving punishment from God due to the sin, but rather He is atoning (i.e. making amends or reconciling) for the sin through His voluntary suffering on the cross. His bearing of our sins is expiatory, not penal - just as in the Old Testament the animal wasn't being punished in substitution. How do we benefit from Jesus' sacrifice? By putting our faith and trust in Him that He did this for us! We must provide ourselves (an invisible self-offering) to God and seek His forgiveness, through Jesus Christ - if we are sincere, God will freely forgive us for all our sins.

Conclusion

I have a feeling that it may not be possible to articulate a perfect theory of Atonement. The two theories above definitely do have different approaches, but underlying them both (and underlying most other theories) is Jesus Christ, the need to place our faith and trust in Him and that what He did, He did out of love for us. On that we Christians can all agree.

And to go further, I think I finally have some clarity to John 3:16 - it makes a whole lot more sense now. "For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son" (i.e. He so loved the world that He showered mercy on all human sinners by providing a way to atone for our sins through the suffering of His Son) "that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (i.e. if you believe Jesus suffered for you, that's all you need to receive the gift of God's eternal mercy).

Postscript

I'm just now in the process of reading C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and to my amazement he actually directly addresses my exact concerns and comes to the same conclusion I did (perhaps this is God working in his "mysterious" ways, perhaps it's just coincidence, but I find it interesting that so soon after I post this blog entry and fail to come to a satisfactory answer to my question "how and why did Jesus die for my sins?", that I start to read C.S. Lewis and find that he, himself, wondered the same thing and provides me confirmation of my own conclusions). Here's his thinking on the subject, from pages 54-56:

"The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. ... Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are. ... But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. ... In my view the theories are not themselves the thing you are asked to accept. ... A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works ... We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary."

I couldn't have said it better myself (though I did try my best earlier :)

Corroboration via Non-Christian Writings

Let's look at some early non-Christian writings to see if they confirm claims made within the New Testament. One can assume that if the New Testament writings were legendary or false, that you would not find confirmation of them within other historical documents written by non-Christian and/or hostile authors. However, there are references in external, non-Christian sources that confirm several things mentioned in the New Testament.

Josephus

Josephus (37AD – c. 100AD) was a first-century Jew who became a historian and Roman citizen. He wrote “Antiquities of the Jews”, completing it in about 93 AD. Within this tome, he wrote two passages of significance. In one (Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3) he describes a man named Jesus who was crucified by Pilate. Josephus further writes that Jesus' followers claimed Jesus had appeared to them after his crucifixion and they continued in Jesus' discipleship. It should be noted that some portions of this section have been doubted as authentic, but it is generally agreed upon that most of the text in this section is authentic. Read this interesting examination for more information.

In a second Josephus passage (Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1), he describes how James, the brother of Jesus, was conspired against and condemned to death.

As a side note, a third Josephus passage should also be mentioned - Book 18, Chapter 5, Section 2. While this section does not mention Jesus or the Christian movement, it does mention John the Baptist and his execution at the hands of Herod. Thus, this too provides corroboration of the Gospel texts.

Tacitus

Tacitus (56AD – 117AD) was a senator and a Roman historian. “Annals” was his final work, completed sometime in the very early second century. Many parts of this work have been lost; however, what does still exist include a passage (15.44) that talks about “Christus” (i.e. referring to Jesus) who suffered the “extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate”. This passage goes on to describe the movement that expanded since the execution of “Christus” and the persecution of the followers of that movement.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger (61AD – c. 112AD) was a Roman magistrate. He is known for his many letters which provide a great source of historical information for the period. One of his letters (see XCVII) is essentially a question he asks of Emperor Trajan as to how he should deal with Christians who refused to worship the Roman gods and the Emperor, but instead insisted on worshipping “Christ”.

Conclusion

Here we have at least three authors roughly contemporary to the time of the New Testament writings that are not only non-Christian but may even be considered “anti-Christian” (Pliny the Younger was persecuting the Christians). Yet their writings clearly indicate that, during the late first century and early second century, a Christian movement had sprouted and begun growing, even in the face of enormous persecution of its followers. What else can be gleaned from these writings? The following can be said, based on non-Christian writings of this early period:

• Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius
• He had a brother named James
• He was acclaimed to be the Jewish Messiah (aka “Christ”)
• He was crucified by Pontius Pilate
• His disciples believed he rose from the dead
• His followers died for their belief
• His followers worshipped Jesus as God (and denied the Roman gods)

All of these statements confirm what can also be found in many places within the New Testament, both in the gospels and the epistles.

While none of this can prove the claims of the New Testament as being “the Word of God”, it can provide parts of a very clear and convincing case that the New Testament writings were not falsified or legendary in nature.


References:
Strobel, Lee, "The Case for Christ"
Geisler, Norman L., "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist"