Series: Evidence Pointing To Christ, Luke, Mark
- Answering Big Questions In Hopes That It Will Lead To Faith: Paul At Aeropagus (Acts 17:22-30)
- Reasons for Choosing to Believe the Bible
- The Bible: How Did We Get What We Have?
- Evidence for the Resurrection: Jesus Died By Crucifixion
- Evidence For The Resurrection: The Disciples Truly Believed That Jesus Rose From The Dead And That They Saw Him
- Evidence For The Resurrection: The Radical Change of Saul
- Evidence for the Resurrection: The Radical Change of James
- Evidence For The Resurrection: The Tomb Was Empty
Tonight we will look at our last line of evidence for the Resurrection of Christ. This is definitely not all the evidence that exists, but it is the last that we will look at in this series. The facts that we have looked at so far have been so attested to that there is no question from a historical standpoint as to whether or not they had happened. These facts are
- Jesus died on the cross in history.
- The Disciples truly believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
- Saul, the church persecutor was a standout Hebrew Pharisee, was changed by what he and others claimed to the Resurrected Jesus.
- The skeptic James, Jesus’s brother, though he did not believe at first did later in life.
Now, we come to the fifth fact. The fifth fact is not as widely attested to as the others. A recent study showed that historical critical scholars believe that the tomb was empty at a 3:1 ratio. That means that historical critical scholars, the folks that study these historical events all the time, believe that the tomb was empty at a 75% ratio.
I must emphasize that this does not mean that historical critical scholars believe in the Resurrection. It just means that the facts are such that they believe that the tomb that Jesus was placed in was empty three days later.
So, What is the Case for the Empty Tomb? Why do Historical Critical Scholars Believe it was Empty?
First, everything happened publicly in Jerusalem. It is not as if this was done in secret. It is much more difficult to hide things in a crowded town like Jerusalem when the town is cram packed for an event like Passover, and when everything discussed was done publicly anyway. Consider this. Jesus preached publicly in Jerusalem. Jesus did many things publicly in Jerusalem. Christianity would never have gotten off the ground had Jesus been in the tomb. And, it would be quite extraordinary for there to be total silence from the critics of Christianity if the tomb still had Jesus’s body in it.
This was a public act. It was also a very public claim. And, it could be proven wrong very publicly and easily had Jesus’ body still been in the tomb. It seems nearly impossible that the body would have actually been in the tomb. But, this is not the only reason scholars say that the tomb was empty.
Enemies of Christianity also said that the tomb was empty. It is one thing for your mother to speak well of you. It is quite another for someone who hates you to speak well of you. Yet, this is what we have concerning the Resurrection. Early critics of Christianity claimed that the Jesus’s Disciples stole the body of Christ (Matthew 28:12-13, Justin Martyer, Trypho 108, Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30). It is interesting that the Romans were having to make up stories about what happened to the body rather than taking people to see the full tomb. There is only one reason for this that makes sense: the tomb was empty.
There is also the testimony of women. In today’s day and time this seems strange, but women were not trusted then. If you were going to make up a story then you definitely would not have women as your eyewitnesses. You would most definitely make it up with men as the primary witnesses. But the Resurrection of Christ is not that way. Women were the first and main witnesses in the story. Here are a few excerpts to explain why that matters.
“Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt that delivered to women.” – Talmud, Sotah 19a
“The world cannot exist without males and without females-happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.” – Talmud, Kiddushin 82b
“But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain or fear of punishment.” – Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15
“Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid, also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman.” – Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8
I hope that you are trekking with what is being stated here. The attitude of the day toward women was such that women were not accounted as good witnesses. This actually helps us as we examine the account found in Scripture.
Quick question. If you were making up a story in that time period, that you wanted everyone to believe, would you have men or women as the primary witnesses? Of course it would be men. Women were not respected enough to be believable. Yet, it is women who are the primary witnesses in Scripture.
A Summary of the Tomb
- Everything happened publicly in Jerusalem.
- Enemies said that the tomb was empty, not just friends.
- Women, who were not at all respected, were the main witnesses.
This is why 75% of historical critical scholars believe that the tomb was empty. In fact, William Wand, a former Oxford University Church Historian said,
“All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on other ground than that of scientific history.”
It seems to me that though there is not as high a consensus on this fact as there is with the others, that this is a very strong line of evidence for the Resurrection of Christ.
The Facts as They Stand
- Uncontested Fact: Jesus Died on the Cross
- Uncontested Fact: The Disciples Believed that Jesus Rose from the Dead and Appeared to Them
- Uncontested Fact: Saul, Later Paul, was Transformed by what He and Others Claimed to be the Resurrection of Jesus
- Uncontested Fact: James, the Skeptic Brother of Jesus, was Transformed by what was Said to be the Resurrection of Jesus
- Contested by 25% of Historical Critical Scholars: Jesus’ Tomb was Empty
The case is getting rather strong for the Resurrection of Christ. Next week we will put all the facts together and see what makes the most sense. I will go ahead and tell you that I believe that the only logical explanation for all the facts is that Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead three days later.
I believe that what Scripture states is true and provable from history. Christ died in our place as our substitute on the cross. He rose from the dead three days later, it was God’s stamp of approval on our completed salvation. And if we trust in Him we can be in a good and right relationship with God. This is good news indeed. And I hope that you are beginning to say that this good news actually took place in history.
R. Dwain Minor
There are many naturalistic explanations for empty tombs that are much more probable than a supernatural resurrection.
I completely agree with you there. But that is not the only evidence presented. It was the only evidence presented on this week.
Do you believe that there are possible, plausible, naturalistic explanations for the early Christian resurrection belief?
No, I do not.
The writings came far too soon for it to have been anything that developed from a legend. Not to mention that portions of the New Testament were recited by the Early Church before they were written. It just does not seem to me that a plausible naturalistic explanation exists.
When I combine the reliability and earliness of the New Testament writings with the things mentioned in this series of articles, I just don’t see a plausible naturalistic explanation.
The struggle, however, is getting the naturalist to believe that something can happen that is unnatural. There is a leap that is difficult for someone in that worldview to make.
But if there were plausible naturalistic explanations would you understand why non-Christians would believe that these explanations are much more likely to be the explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief than a supernatural explanation?
But these people were eyewitnesses, a large number of them, along with early testimony of Christ’s resurrection from those eyewitnesses are the reason that they believed.
Paul, a man who was killing Christians is suddenly converted because he saw the risen Christ. The Disciples saw Jesus risen and were emboldened to even go to their own death because of their belief in Christ.
With that being said, I do not believe that there would have been a naturalistic explanation for their beliefs.
So, I guess I’d say that the naturalistic presuppositions that would cause a person to look for naturalistic explanations to the Resurrection look nonsensical when examining what we have.
Here is just one of many alternative, natural explanations for the early Christian belief that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and appeared to them. I challenge Christians to demonstrate that this explanation is not plausible (reasonable). You may believe that your supernatural explanation is more probable, but I do not believe that you can demonstrate that my alternative explanation is implausible. I am not obliged to provide evidence that this is what happened as this is NOT my objective. I am only attempting to demonstrate that plausible, alternative, naturalistic explanations for the early Christian resurrection belief exist:
Jesus is crucified. His dead body is placed in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb on Friday before sunset. On Saturday night, after sunset, the Sanhedrin comes to the tomb, with Pilate’s permission, and moves the body of Jesus to another unmarked grave, leaving Arimathea’s tomb empty. They had only placed Jesus’ body in Joseph’s tomb temporarily so as not to defile the Sabbath. They never intended to leave it there.
Sunday morning, the women come to the tomb, find it empty, and run to the disciples telling them that Jesus has risen just as he had promised. Emotional hysteria grips the disciples. Simon Peter is emotionally exhausted and hasn’t slept for days. He experiences an hallucination. In this hallucination, Jesus appears to him in the flesh and tells him that he has risen from the dead and that he will soon ascend to the Father. The general resurrection will soon follow. The Kingdom of God is at hand. Peter shares his appearance story with the other disciples. They are ecstatic. They believe him just as the Jews in Asia Minor will believe Paul’s appearance story a few years later. Soon other disciples are “seeing” Jesus. Some are experiencing vivid dreams of Jesus. Some are experiencing illusions of Jesus. Groups of disciples see bright lights that they perceive to be Jesus. It is these illusions/misperceptions of reality (not group sightings of a body) that lead to the claims of appearances of Jesus to groups in the Early Creed quoted in First Corinthians 15.
Then in circa 70 AD, non-eyewitnesses, writing in far away lands, write the Gospels based on oral legends about Jesus that have been circulating for forty years. The authors of the Gospels add their own literary embellishments to the story, embellishments which were perfectly acceptable in that genre of literature—Greco-Roman biographies. The authors did not add these fictional details to lie or deceive anyone; they never intended all of the pericopes to be understood literally. Their first century readers understood that.
So people in the first century knew that dead saints were not shaken out of their graves the moment of Jesus’ death to then walk the streets of Jerusalem. They knew this was literary/theological symbolism. And they knew the same about the story of Doubting Thomas sticking his fingers into Jesus’ wounds, and the story of the resurrected Jesus cooking a fish breakfast on the shores of the Sea of Tiberius. The authors never meant people to believe these stories as historical events. The Gospels were never meant to be history books in which every detail was to be understood as historical fact. They were written as documents of religious evangelization (propaganda): “these things are written that you might believe.” No, they are not works of pure fiction as some skeptics might suggest, but neither are they literal history books as some conservative Christians believe. It is the job of the good historian and scholar to tease out the historical facts from the literary fiction. In many cases, however, we must simply be honest and admit, we don’t know. Was there a real man named “Joseph of Arimathea”, for instance? We will probably never know.
What about James: We have no idea why and when James converted. Christians assume he converted due to an appearance by Jesus, making his appearance “an appearance to a skeptic”. However, it is possible that James had converted prior to Jesus’ death. The Gospels do not say when James believed.
What about Paul: For all we know, Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was episodes of mental illness which included delusions and hallucinations. Anyone who is unsure if he has or has not taken a space trip to a “third heaven” is most likely not of sound mind. Therefore, Paul’s “heavenly vision” may have been an hallucination or just a vivid dream.
This explanation is much more probable to be the explanation of the early Christian resurrection belief than the Christian supernatural claim.
So, you have a theory which has a group of people hiding a body that they would not want hidden. You also have multiple people having the same hallucination. You have to ignore Paul by calling him mentally ill. It’s not taken as a given that he is mentally ill. But because there is no category for a naturalist to explain a thing like a “third heaven” they have to grab something seemingly out of thin air to explain what Paul had done.
This seems to be going to great lengths to hold on to a naturalistic worldview. And no, I don’t find it to be plausible.
I never said that the Sanhedrin was hiding the body. In my scenario, they only put the body in Arimathea’s tomb for convenience. When the Sabbath was over, they put the body in a tomb for criminals.
I never once said that multiple people had the same hallucination. That is impossible. I suggested that ONE disciple had an hallucination of a resurrected Jesus and that the other disciples believed his story.
Regarding Paul: If someone today claimed to have recently taken a trip to a third heaven where he received secret transmissions that only he could access, every doctor on the planet would diagnose him as mentally ill.
I realize that you do not find my scenario plausible, but the question is, would the average, educated person find it plausible? I challenge you to find out. Present this scenario to several non-Christians and see what they say. Is it possible that it is your perspective that is implausible to everyone except yourself and other Christians?
You did say they took the body out of the tomb that it had already been placed in. I’m not sure what you’d call that, but it would be the very opposite of what they’d want to do. So, whatever name you want to give that activity, it’s not likely.
You had different people seeing the same person in their hallucination.
You also had to throw a mental illness in their tie in some loose ends.
1 unlikely thing happening is not made more plausible by putting a whole group of unlikely things in the same scenario.
But do you see the disconnect? You may view these groups of possible explanations as “unlikely” but they are still plausible. It is not as if I am suggesting that Martians took the body and that Paul’s mind was taken over by evil Gremlins. And as very unlikely as you may find this scenario, I would bet that the overwhelming majority of non-Christians would agree with me that this scenario is MUCH more probable as an explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief than that an ancient middle-eastern deity breathed life back into a three-day-dead corpse.
I suggest that the reason you disagree is because you have presumed the existence of your miracle-producing god, Yahweh, in this discussion. Your belief in the Resurrection is therefore not really based on evidence for the Resurrection, but your assumption of the existence of this ancient Hebrew deity.
Do you have evidence for HIS existence. (And I’m not asking for evidence for a generic Creator. Evidence for a generic Creator does not automatically translate to evidence for Yahweh.)
Yesterday I said, “This seems to be going to great lengths to hold on to a naturalistic worldview. And no, I don’t find it to be plausible.” And nothing you said changed that.
We could have a totally unrelated discussion but it would require leaving this one behind.
This is why I believe that skeptics and Christians will never agree on the evidence for the Resurrection. We must first agree on the evidence for the existence of Yahweh. Christians typical attempt to assert that evidence for a generic Creator is evidence for Yahweh but I believe that the evidence clearly says otherwise. If there is a Creator, he has ordained that the laws of nature are never broken, that is why no miracle has ever been documented by science. Yahweh claims to perform miracles right and left. I believe that Yahweh is make-believe. He only exists in your imagination. The still small voice you hear is really…you.
The only reason that I said we have to leave one topic to move to another is because it seems to be the only effective way to argue something. Otherwise you end up with a sort of scattergun approach where millions of things get said and nothing gets talked about.
I said a few times that there are worldview problems when looking at the evidence. You said the same thing about me later. I understand that as an issue but think that dialogue is possible between the two groups. I see it happen all the time. But, if you want to have a discussion about a different topic it will be more helpful to actually discuss a different topic than to scatter thoughts across this post without direction.
I do think I understand what you are saying. I’ve actually thought similar things in hearing some apologetic presentations.
I am, however, not an apologist per say. The reason for this topic was so that students could see why much of the History Channel’s discussion on the Resurrection is garbage. I do however want to talk here. I think this could be interesting.
How would you define a miracle? Would it be the breaking of the laws of nature? How would science be able to observe it? And, what makes you think Yahweh claims to do miracles right and left? Are there passages of Scripture you’re referencing?
Miracle: any act which violates the laws of nature attributed to a supernatural being.
I would consider the instantaneous reattachment of a severed arm or leg a miracle. I would have to witness it with my own to eyes to believe it or watch it happen on television in simulcast in front of a panel of respected medical experts who confirm it occurred.
Millions of Christians believe that their god answers their prayers daily (miracles).
You do realize that miracles are rare, not everyday occurrences right?
It’s not as if you can have a team of scientists waiting for the next miracle. The standards that you set forth could never be met, even by normal historical data.
Ok, skip the simulcast, the team of medical experts, and my personal witness of the event. Why has no amputee of a major limb ever been instantaneously healed by prayer? Everyone on planet earth (almost) has a cellphone with a camera. Where are the pictures of the amputated arm or leg miraculously being reattached?
Well, it’s not a given that they haven’t happened. It just hasn’t been caught on film for others to see in this day. A withered hand and a cut off ear were healed in Scripture. It is an incredibly well attested ancient document. And I’m partial.
Second, it’s not as if God did miracles frequently enough in Scripture even to think that we should see one today. Rather, they came in phases. The Scriptures were written over the course of 1500 years, yet miracles tended to be confined to four different time periods even within God’s Revelation of Himself. The time of the Exodus, Elijah, Elisha, and Jesus and the Apostles seem to be times where there were a lot of miracles, and the rest…not so much. God does work in the rest of the Scriptures but more through what would seem like normal activity.
I equate what your asking to be asking for a miracle in a time period where they are few and far between. That does not mean that God does not answer prayer in the meantime.
I have heard the testimony of people claiming to be healed from their cancer. Was it God or the doctors’ who healed this person. I would lean toward both because that’s how God often worked in the Scriptures. It’s like asking, “who killed Jesus?” The Scripture’s answer is Pilate, the Hebrews, The Sanhedrin, Judas, but ultimately God. God works, as a norm through what would seem to be normal means to accomplish His will.
I think you’re right in asserting that miracles are rare for they are rare even in the Scriptures. God decides the time and place for the miraculous, not us.
I’ve read Craig Keener’s “Miracles” Volume I, and all it is is a long list of anecdotal claims of miracles. Keener admits he did not spend even one dollar on research into the claims.
The problem with trying to use miracles as evidence for the existence of Yahweh is that Muslims, Mormons, Hindus and others have long lists of miracle claims attributed to their gods.
This may be evidence for a generic Creator, but if so, there is no evidence that this generic Creator performs resurrections, as even Christians will admit that no one has ever been resurrected (other than Jesus).
Christians need to prove the existence of Yahweh to strengthen the otherwise weak evidence for their very extraordinary claim of the resurrection of a three-day-brain-dead first century corpse. But Christians cannot use alleged miracles as evidence for Yahweh. One, they have not been able to prove that miracles exist, and, two, many other religions can attribute many miracles to their gods.
So what other evidence do you have for the existence of Yahweh?
1. I did not use miracles as proof for God’s existence. You went there. You can’t insert an argument yourself, defeat said argument, then act as if it is a victory over Christianity. I have not read the book. I do, however, think that miracles occur. But, they are rare.
2. The evidence is not weak….unless the unproven naturalistic worldview is taken as a given. But then the problem becomes making sense of the world that surrounds us. Naturalistic Materialism is not able to adequately explain how things are.
3. I’m not sure why miracles in other religions would disprove Christianity or why these things would matter much to Christians. Deuteronomy 32 seems to indicate that other “gods” are demonic. Not that there would be no miracles from other “gods”.
Hi Dwain,
Your comment was: “How would you define a miracle? Would it be the breaking of the laws of nature? How would science be able to observe it? And, what makes you think Yahweh claims to do miracles right and left? Are there passages of Scripture you’re referencing?”
We were originally talking about the evidence for the Resurrection. I then asserted that the evidence for the Resurrection is actually poor unless one presumes the existence of Yahweh. You then brought up the above comment. So I assumed you brought it up as evidence for Yahweh.
I don’t think we are going to agree on the topic of miracles as miracles are not proof of the existence of Yahweh as there are many miracle claims for other gods as well. So unless you have other evidence for the existence of Yahweh, we are left with very weak evidence for a never heard of before or since reanimation/resurrection of a dead first century corpse. There are just too many much more probable naturalistic explanations for the little evidence that exists for this alleged event before accepting the very extraordinary Christian explanation.
I never made the argument. I responded to this.
“Christians typical attempt to assert that evidence for a generic Creator is evidence for Yahweh but I believe that the evidence clearly says otherwise. If there is a Creator, he has ordained that the laws of nature are never broken, that is why no miracle has ever been documented by science. Yahweh claims to perform miracles right and left. I believe that Yahweh is make-believe. He only exists in your imagination. The still small voice you hear is really…you.”
I don’t argue miracles with a naturalistic materialist because their worldview can’t handle the thought of it. Nor are they able to handle the thought of it.
Many of us skeptics acknowledge the possible existence of evidence for a generic Creator. But we do not believe that this evidence automatically translates to evidence for Yahweh. To us, if there is a Creator, he/she/they/it have determined that the universe is to operate by inviolable laws that are NEVER violated. Yahweh claims to have repeatedly violated these laws. Since science has found no evidence of these violations, we believe that this is but one piece of evidence of Yahweh’s non-existence. And there is more evidence of his non-existence: The consensus of geologists is that Noah’s Flood is a myth. The consensus of archeologists is that the Exodus is a myth. The consensus of biologists is that the Creation story is a myth. The consensus of cosmologists is that the age of the earth as determined by the genealogies in the OT is a myth. In addition, Yahweh believes that a “firmament”, a dome or shell, exists above the earth. Scientists say no such entity exists. There is just too much evidence to believe that Yahweh exists. It is much more probable that he is the figment of the imagination of an ancient, scientifically ignorant people. And without presuming the existence of Yahweh, there are just too many much more probable explanations for the early Christian resurrection belief than a never heard of before or since reanimation of a three day brain dead corpse.
It is not as though the historical evidences read as you say that they do.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/september7/8ta044.html
The Scriptures attest to historical events. The argument has to be made from history.
Could you please be more specific? I am not saying that all historical claims in the Bible are false. Some are true, some are not. The good historian has to look at the evidence and determine which category each claim belongs to.
That’s just it. You are claiming a consensus of archaeologists or consensus of…. when you meant to say a consensus of naturalistic materialist archaeologists, etc.
Definition of consensus
1
a : general agreement : unanimity
the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead
2
: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Btw, there are a good number of Conservative Christian scholars in these fields which totally ruin your “consensus”.
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
The overwhelming majority of scientists (a consensus) say that:
-evolution is true
-the universe is billions of years old
-there is no evidence of a world wide flood
The overwhelming majority of archeologists (a consensus) say that:
-evidence does not support the biblical Exodus
-evidence does not support the biblical Conquest of Canaan.
Yes, there are a few, most evangelical Christian, scientists and archeologists who disagree, but they are a very, very small minority.
I think you are claiming consensus where there is none. More and more archaeologists and historians are finding that the events align with what happened in Scripture. I say align because of the naturalistic materialist’s need to not see Scripture as history. But, even events like the Exodus are not argued as much as they once were. Or rather, the argument is becoming how it occurred not if it occurred.
I would like to see some of what you’re reading because other than the age of the Earth I do not believe you have the consensus that you think you do.
The Age of the Earth is hotly debated among Christian pastors and teachers all the time. Many of the leading conservative Christian voices today would agree with you on the age of the Earth no problem. For my own part, I have not pondered it much but in reading what many of them have said see no reason why this would be a problem for a Christian to believe. And, in fact, I know a good number of Christians who hold this view. It’s not new. It’s been around for a while now. But, I haven’t given it much thought myself so I’m essentially speaking what I’ve heard or read elsewhere.
Here is the question I think each of us must ask ourselves, Dwain: Do I want to know the truth, no matter how painful the truth might be, or is my current belief system so important to me that the truth is of secondary importance?
If you really want to know the truth, I would encourage you to investigate each of my “consensus” claims from both sides. Take for instance the Exodus claim. I realize that some Christians are now saying that a smaller group of Hebrews left Egypt in the Exodus than what the Bible seems to infer. But archeologists say that even if a small group of Hebrews wandered in the Sinai for forty years, they would be able to find evidence of this. There is none. But don’t take my word for it. I encourage you to read both sides of the argument. Here are two books, one written by an evangelical Christian scholar who believes in the biblical Exodus as an historical fact, and one written by Israeli scholars who do not.
1. “Israel in Egypt” by James Hoffmeier
2. “The Bible Unearthed” by Finkelstein and Silberman
I will have to take a look at these. I am intrigued however that your argument is based on lack of evidence since a vehicle from 1973’s Yom Kippur War was found buried under 50 some odd feet of sand some 40 years later. It makes me laugh at the thought of making a claim like you have based on lack of evidence with that in mind.
I am more than willing to examine my own beliefs. I have on a number of occasions. I wasn’t always a Christian. I also spent a good amount of time hearing every theory about these things hot boxing with a group of friends.
I am also curious as to why you never wanted me to actually give you the reasons for my belief in Yahweh. I wonder why you avoided my mentions of the Scriptures being able to explain what surrounds us today. I am wondering why you didn’t seem to want to give an examination of our worldview a and why you kept pushing the conversation toward the conclusive evidence that seems not so conclusive to me.
“I am also curious as to why you never wanted me to actually give you the reasons for my belief in Yahweh.”
Go ahead. I’m listening.
I really am interested, as long as you don’t mind constructive criticism.
Sorry for the wait. I was at the Boys and Girls Club and different things for our kids this week so I just wasn’t able to get on here and post. When I’m busy it’s this that will fall to the wayside.
Anyway, I believe that Scripture is true in everything that it affirms. But I also believe that arguing about the historicity of Scripture with a naturalistic materialist is not likely to get very far for a few reasons.1) People don’t believe in Christ by nature. That comes about through a supernatural work of the Spirit. 2) The naturalistic worldview prohibits even the thought of outside interference. And I think this conversation has been exactly that.
Now, I do think it is beneficial to examine the worldview itself and look at how it explains the world that surrounds us. I believe that Christianity does this very well because it’s true.
The incredible complexity and beauty of life is explained by the incredibly creative and brilliant Creator. I understand the constructs of good and evil because of that same Creator having ingrained that within me at Creation. I was created in the Image of God. I was given a conscience by this Creator. Destruction from both people and nature is explained quite well with the entrance of sin into the world and the curse. A bend toward sin that’s evident from an early age is explained by what I see about man’ssinfulness in Scripture. This list could go on and on but Inthink you see the point.
C S Lewis pointed this out when he said,
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
Everything else makes sense because of Christianity.
I guess not.
If you ever decide you want to talk more, come over to my blog:
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com
Take care, Dwain.
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
—Sherlock Holmes
Yet, how many times have you heard a Christian apologist say one of the following:
—“It is implausible that any first century Jew would have moved the body of Jesus resulting in the Empty Tomb. The miracle of the Resurrection is much more probable than that a first century Jew would move a dead body.”
—“It is implausible that the Jews and Romans would not have brought out Jesus’ body to disprove the Christian claim of a Resurrection if they knew the whereabouts of his corpse. The Resurrection is much more probable than that the Jews and Romans had moved the body and did not care what a small band of religious fanatics were saying about their dead leader.”
—“It is implausible that the authors of the Gospels made up stories in their Gospels when so many eyewitnesses would still have been alive to challenge their false claims. The miracle of the Resurrection is much more probable than that the Empty Tomb and the Appearance Stories are literary fiction.”
—“It is implausible that the Jewish rabbi, Saul/Paul, would have converted to Christianity if he had only experienced a vivid dream or hallucination. The miracle of the Resurrection is much more probable than the conversion of a Christian-hating, devout, first century Jewish rabbi to Christianity.”
—“It is implausible that Paul did not know all or many of the five hundred eyewitnesses listed in the Early Creed of First Corinthians chapter 15. The miracle of the Resurrection is much more probable than that Paul was simply repeating something he had heard but not verified.”
—“It is implausible that Christianity would have grown so quickly under such difficult circumstances if the disciples had not really seen a resurrected body of flesh and blood. The miracle of the Resurrection is much more probable an explanation for the growth of Christianity than that this belief was based on hallucinations, illusions, or false sightings.”
—“It is implausible that so many disciples would have been willing to die for their belief in the Resurrection if their belief in this alleged event was based on a lie, hallucinations, or illusions. The miracle of the Resurrection is much more probable than human misperception.”
—“It is even more implausible (and practically impossible) that all these very implausible events, added together, explain the early Christian Resurrection Belief. The miracle of a once in history Resurrection is much more probable than these very implausible naturalistic explanations.”
Dear Christians: Even the extremely unlikely scenario that a group of disciples, at the same time and place, experienced simultaneous hallucinations in which they each believed they in some general sense saw a resurrected Jesus is still much more probable than a true resurrection of a dead corpse. The only reason Christians cannot see this is that they have presumed the existence of the Christian god, Yahweh, and his unlimited supernatural (magic) powers, before the debate on the probability of the Resurrection has even begun. We skeptics, on the other hand, are not claiming that a Resurrection is impossible, we are simply saying a Resurrection is much, much less plausible/probable in our cumulative human experience than any combination of very improbable naturalistic explanations. A miracle, by definition, is a very rare and very unusual event.
Lol…if believing in a Resurrection from the dead were easy then it wouldn’t require the work of the Holy Spirit to do it.
However, it is a historical event that we believe occurred and there is a lot of historical evidences out there that point to this being more probable than a mass hallucination or the other answers given by skeptics.
I could just as well say that the skeptic assumes the non-work of God, so I’m not sure what you intended to achieve there.