20/20: Was Jesus Really Resurrected?
This Friday, May 20, at 10:00 pm EST (that's 9:00 pm Central, and sometime after that for those of you on the other half of the country), ABC's program, 20/20, will be considering the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ--probably the most central tenet of the Christian faith.
Apparently Vargas will be talking to "experts" about the resurrection from Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig, to Bishop John Shelby Spong (my personal favorite), to Daniel Schwartz.
If you want my opinion, I think they should've just gotten John Dominic Crossan (former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar) and Robert H Stein (former SBTS Professor and all-around Gospel Stud) to debate the issue.
Buy on to the issue at hand.
I personally doubt that ABC is going to hold up to FOX's claims of being "fair and balanced", but they will probably conclude by saying something like, "The evidence is inconclusive, and so it all comes down to faith." I'd suggest watching it, but only for the purpose of finding out what people will be asking in work on Monday.
ABC's choice of scholarly experts is no real surprise. People like Strobel are well known for evangelical apologetics works, Spong is known for his liberal lack of concern for any historicity--people like him are only concerned with the moral Jesus, and and Schwartz is a Hebrew scholar who is going to give the modern Jewish perspective (he is quoted as saying, "So the people who wanted very much to believe that Jesus was the coming redeemer of Israel, saw something perhaps as minimal as an empty tomb and it fit into what they wanted to believe. And when people want to believe things, they believe it. Beyond that, I have no idea. There are lots of mysteries in this world.")
NowI'm going to take a radical turn from all of this (I could not come up with any way of shifting topics without being dramatic) and examine the veracity of the resurrection and the liberal perspective.
First let's look at the Liberal perspective.
Spong is quoted as saying:
Kathleen Corley is quoted as saying:
1. Jesus was not physically resurrected, and that doesn't matter (it's just myth).
2. The women went to the wrong tomb.
3. People just had visions.
Other theories not mentioned include:
4. Someone stole the body.
5. Jesus really wasn't dead.
6. The resurrection was just made up at a later date (thank you Mr. Bultmann).
Now, before I look at apologetical evidence, let's consider the weight/issue with what has been said.
Probably the weightiest measure hanging upon the historical resurrection of Jesus is what it means to Christianity. Every meaningful doctrine of Christianity depends upon the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus (Why the Resurrection?) If Jesus was not resurrected, He is clearly not God (for a number of reasons, one being that Jesus promised He would rise again on the third day, and if He was not resurrected, He lied, and God cannot lie (cf. Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18), there is no resurrection from the dead, and there is no forgiveness of sin (for example).
Another issue is that most who deny the resurrection are really denying the miraculous. Thus, to deny the resurrection, one is also denying that Jesus is the Word incarnate--i.e. the Christ. Even if a person does claim that Jesus is the Christ and yet denies the resurrection, that person does not really believe Jesus is the Christ--this person is contradicting him/herself (see my point above).
Yet John, in 1 John, says that they physically heard, touched, looked upon, and saw "What was from the beginning," the Word of God come in the flesh (1 John 1:1-2, 4:14). They are denying that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Christ has come in the flesh. In denying this many things occur:
1. Liberals fall out of fellowship with the true Church and God Himself (1 John 1:3, 2:23).
2. They are liars and yes, antichrists (and children of the devil) (1 John 2:22, 3:10, 4:2-3).
3. They are claiming God to be a liar (1 John 5:10).
4. They do not have eternal life (1 John 5:11-12)
Thus, in a selfish attempt to save Christianity, Liberals are actually seeking to destroy Christ and true Christianity. They have become enemies of the cross.
(I do not say this lightly. In fact, I honestly do not like making statements like this, because it appears that I do not love these people. However, this is an extremely serious matter, and so I must speak as the Bible speaks. I believe that I have represented the Liberal views fairly, and so I must also give their implications fair/full treatment from the Scriptures in a Scriptural manner.)
Now, to give some support for the historicity of the resurrection.
Objection 1. The women went to the wrong tomb.
A. Could they seriously have forgotten where the tomb was in only 36-48 hours? Kathleen Corley, who proposed this above, is a woman. I would assume that she would give these women more credit than this. Women of this social status back then may not have been well educated, but they certainly were not idiots.*
B. According to Biblical narratives, the body was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. He was obviously well known, and so people could have either asked Joseph himself or his close acquintences if he had buried the body of Jesus of Nazareth (if no such man existed, surely this would have been brought up by the Jewish leaders as evidence that Christians were liars--yet it never was). His tomb was not a public burial place. We have no reason to believe that there were even other tombs in the area that could have been mistaken as the tomb in which Jesus was buried.*
C. Matthew 26:62 tells us that there were soldiers placed at the tomb. Seriously, how many tombs would have had soldiers guarding them?*
D. There is no doubt that, because of the growing of Christianity, the opponents of Jesus would have checked out the tomb to see if the tomb really was empty. They certainly would have known where Jesus was buried. If they find the body, Christianity is immediately stamped-out!*
E. These people can't even agree on their theories as to what happend to the body. Crossan says Jesus was eaten by dogs and never placed in a tomb; Corley says he was placed in a criminals tomb. Which one was it!? The fact is that, as noted in point B. above, anybody could have asked Joseph of Arimetha or people who knew him if he had buried the body. The most reliable texts we have (the New Testament Gospels) all claim Jesus was buried. And besides, wouldn't the women have known this?
Objection 2: Jesus wasn't really dead.
A. Crucifixion kills people. Now we have to say that Roman soldiers, trained killers, could not tell the difference between someone who is wounded and someone who is dead. Yet they were so confident that Jesus was dead that they did not even break His legs.*
B. It is physically impossible to go through the beatings and crucifixion and live (see Mel Gibson's the passion for a descently accurate portrayal of what this would have been like).
C. If Jesus was able to roll away the stone, walk past the guards, and somehow make it to the disciples, they would have pitied Him and given Him medical attention, not gotten the impression that this Man had conquered death and was the Lord of all. This would incite sorrow, not worship and enthusiasm. Truly this would not have given them the confidence they had to stand before Roman and Jewish courts, to be beaten and killed, and yet to go on themselves, or those who remained with the confidence to proclaim the gospel. Why die for something you know is a lie? Especially when the disciples could easily have gone back to being fisherman, tax collectors, etc. All they had to do was repent, sacrifice in the Temple, and rejoin the Jewish community from which they had come.*
Objection 3: Someone stole the body.
-Joseph of Arimathea (There is no historical evidence for this--in fact, not even Jesus' opponents came up with this one).*
A. Why would Joseph do this? Jesus had been buried in a noble fashion, worthy of a good rabbi. To steal the body would be to dishonor it.*
B. The guards were stationed at the tomb to make sure nobody took the body. Why didn't the guards just report to the leaders that Joseph had taken the body? This would have been a very logical and realistic explanation. Yet they didn't, and so this argument is ridiculous.*
-The disciples stole it. (This is the oldest theory, and it is located in Matthew 28:11).
A. If the guards were sleeping, how did they know the disciples had stolen the body? And come on, who could sleep through the noise of a stone being rolled away? And if the soldiers were asleep, the penalty was death (which is why those who stationed them at the tomb promised to help the soldiers, if they kept to this story and kept it quiet).*
B. Why would the disciples steal the body? It received a noble burial--more than they could have afforded. And they certainly would have still held some kind of hope that Jesus would be resurrected on the last day.*
C. Why would they have stolen the body? Did they want to make up some kind of myth? These men weren't deceivers--in fact, from the Gospel narratives, they seem to hardly believe in the resurrection themselves. What is the point of making up this myth anyway? Why die for something that you know is a lie?*
D. Where did they get this courage all of a sudden? The narratives report them as hiding and frightened. Only an encounter with the risen Christ gives them any real courage.*
Objection 4: Those who saw Jesus were just having visions. (I think this one is probably the most popular today--it seems like almost everyone with whom I speak about the resurrection (unbelievers that is) bring this one up.
A. The conditions for visionary experiences were not present. Neither the disciples nor the women were expecting the resurrection (the women went to annoint Jesus for burial, the disciples were hiding away, scared to death). They were not in a highly anticipatory mood of expectation at all. If they would have heard sounds they would have been frightened, not induced into a trance-like state.*
B. Visions are generally individual experiences. Yet Paul claims that 500 saw Jesus at one time--and if people wanted to find out if this report was true, most of the people were still alive while Paul was writing (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:6). Also, Matthew, Mark, Luke (and Acts), and John all record incidences of Jesus' appearances (11 in all).*
C. Thomas was skeptical; as were probably most of the disciples. This skepticism demanded objective, physical proof. *
Objection 5: The Resurrection was just made up by later Christians.
A. The story is found in at least three strata of the Gospel narratives (Mark, M, John), and in all four Gospels.*
B. Preaching could not have occurred in Jerusalem if there was not an empty tomb. Yet the Jews did not question the empty tomb.*
C. The stories are semitic--so Jews were their authors.*
D. The early Christian tradition of worshiping on the first day of the week was tied to the empty tomb/day Jesus was resurrected, not to the resurrection appearances.*
E. The fact that women were the first witnesses. Women were not respected as witnesses to the degree men were at this time.*
Objection 6: This is just myth/Jesus was not physically resurrected (it doesn't really matter anyway).
A. The word "resurrection" implies physicality.*
B. Paul was ridiculed on Mars Hill by the Greeks because he preached the physical resurrection from the dead. Greeks believed in the eternality of the soul, so this clearly was not what Paul was preaching.*
C. Again, the disciples were not deceivers. They would not have died for a craftily developed lie. After all, myths were seen as immoral by early Christians (cf. 2 Peter 1:16).
D. As I have pointed out and written about, the physical resurrection of Jesus is absolutely essential to key doctrines of the Christian faith.
*Denotes that the argument has been adapted from Dr. R H Stein's class notes.
So, was Jesus physically resurrected from the grave? Look at the evidence--you be the judge. I have handled all the objections of which I know, and they all fall short when one honestly looks at the evidence.
-A word to my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Pray for such people as these mentioned who deny the resurrection. As I have pointed out, they are deceived and under the influence of the evil one. May God grant them faith in Christ, the risen and reigning Lord of all.
If you want my opinion, I think they should've just gotten John Dominic Crossan (former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar) and Robert H Stein (former SBTS Professor and all-around Gospel Stud) to debate the issue.
Buy on to the issue at hand.
I personally doubt that ABC is going to hold up to FOX's claims of being "fair and balanced", but they will probably conclude by saying something like, "The evidence is inconclusive, and so it all comes down to faith." I'd suggest watching it, but only for the purpose of finding out what people will be asking in work on Monday.
ABC's choice of scholarly experts is no real surprise. People like Strobel are well known for evangelical apologetics works, Spong is known for his liberal lack of concern for any historicity--people like him are only concerned with the moral Jesus, and and Schwartz is a Hebrew scholar who is going to give the modern Jewish perspective (he is quoted as saying, "So the people who wanted very much to believe that Jesus was the coming redeemer of Israel, saw something perhaps as minimal as an empty tomb and it fit into what they wanted to believe. And when people want to believe things, they believe it. Beyond that, I have no idea. There are lots of mysteries in this world.")
NowI'm going to take a radical turn from all of this (I could not come up with any way of shifting topics without being dramatic) and examine the veracity of the resurrection and the liberal perspective.
First let's look at the Liberal perspective.
Spong is quoted as saying:
"I don't think that most of the Resurrection narratives in the New Testament are historical at all. But I don't think there would have been a New Testament or a Jesus movement had there not been some astonishing experience of power. That caused these people to see Jesus in a way they had never seen him before."To see why such a view is absolutely problematic to Biblical/historical Christianity, check out my post: Why the Resurrection?
Kathleen Corley is quoted as saying:
"I think that his women followers would have looked for his body to give him burial rites as much as they possibly could. I think they were unsuccessful in finding his — the location of his body because I think Jesus was probably buried in a criminal's grave that would have been a large pit for a large number of people."Arthur Dewey says:
Luke Johnson says:
"As a historian, one could say, that there was no Resurrection as a fact. What we can say is that, people claim to have visions. People claim to, uh, have as it was — sightings — post-mortem sightings, of Jesus."
"I must respectfully suggest that those who are obsessed about the physicality of the resurrection don't really understand what they're talking about. Because if they really get a purely physical resurrection, then all they have is a resuscitation, and that's not good news."So the claims made, in summary, are:
1. Jesus was not physically resurrected, and that doesn't matter (it's just myth).
2. The women went to the wrong tomb.
3. People just had visions.
Other theories not mentioned include:
4. Someone stole the body.
5. Jesus really wasn't dead.
6. The resurrection was just made up at a later date (thank you Mr. Bultmann).
Now, before I look at apologetical evidence, let's consider the weight/issue with what has been said.
Probably the weightiest measure hanging upon the historical resurrection of Jesus is what it means to Christianity. Every meaningful doctrine of Christianity depends upon the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus (Why the Resurrection?) If Jesus was not resurrected, He is clearly not God (for a number of reasons, one being that Jesus promised He would rise again on the third day, and if He was not resurrected, He lied, and God cannot lie (cf. Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18), there is no resurrection from the dead, and there is no forgiveness of sin (for example).
Another issue is that most who deny the resurrection are really denying the miraculous. Thus, to deny the resurrection, one is also denying that Jesus is the Word incarnate--i.e. the Christ. Even if a person does claim that Jesus is the Christ and yet denies the resurrection, that person does not really believe Jesus is the Christ--this person is contradicting him/herself (see my point above).
Yet John, in 1 John, says that they physically heard, touched, looked upon, and saw "What was from the beginning," the Word of God come in the flesh (1 John 1:1-2, 4:14). They are denying that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Christ has come in the flesh. In denying this many things occur:
1. Liberals fall out of fellowship with the true Church and God Himself (1 John 1:3, 2:23).
2. They are liars and yes, antichrists (and children of the devil) (1 John 2:22, 3:10, 4:2-3).
3. They are claiming God to be a liar (1 John 5:10).
4. They do not have eternal life (1 John 5:11-12)
Thus, in a selfish attempt to save Christianity, Liberals are actually seeking to destroy Christ and true Christianity. They have become enemies of the cross.
(I do not say this lightly. In fact, I honestly do not like making statements like this, because it appears that I do not love these people. However, this is an extremely serious matter, and so I must speak as the Bible speaks. I believe that I have represented the Liberal views fairly, and so I must also give their implications fair/full treatment from the Scriptures in a Scriptural manner.)
Now, to give some support for the historicity of the resurrection.
Objection 1. The women went to the wrong tomb.
A. Could they seriously have forgotten where the tomb was in only 36-48 hours? Kathleen Corley, who proposed this above, is a woman. I would assume that she would give these women more credit than this. Women of this social status back then may not have been well educated, but they certainly were not idiots.*
B. According to Biblical narratives, the body was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. He was obviously well known, and so people could have either asked Joseph himself or his close acquintences if he had buried the body of Jesus of Nazareth (if no such man existed, surely this would have been brought up by the Jewish leaders as evidence that Christians were liars--yet it never was). His tomb was not a public burial place. We have no reason to believe that there were even other tombs in the area that could have been mistaken as the tomb in which Jesus was buried.*
C. Matthew 26:62 tells us that there were soldiers placed at the tomb. Seriously, how many tombs would have had soldiers guarding them?*
D. There is no doubt that, because of the growing of Christianity, the opponents of Jesus would have checked out the tomb to see if the tomb really was empty. They certainly would have known where Jesus was buried. If they find the body, Christianity is immediately stamped-out!*
E. These people can't even agree on their theories as to what happend to the body. Crossan says Jesus was eaten by dogs and never placed in a tomb; Corley says he was placed in a criminals tomb. Which one was it!? The fact is that, as noted in point B. above, anybody could have asked Joseph of Arimetha or people who knew him if he had buried the body. The most reliable texts we have (the New Testament Gospels) all claim Jesus was buried. And besides, wouldn't the women have known this?
Objection 2: Jesus wasn't really dead.
A. Crucifixion kills people. Now we have to say that Roman soldiers, trained killers, could not tell the difference between someone who is wounded and someone who is dead. Yet they were so confident that Jesus was dead that they did not even break His legs.*
B. It is physically impossible to go through the beatings and crucifixion and live (see Mel Gibson's the passion for a descently accurate portrayal of what this would have been like).
C. If Jesus was able to roll away the stone, walk past the guards, and somehow make it to the disciples, they would have pitied Him and given Him medical attention, not gotten the impression that this Man had conquered death and was the Lord of all. This would incite sorrow, not worship and enthusiasm. Truly this would not have given them the confidence they had to stand before Roman and Jewish courts, to be beaten and killed, and yet to go on themselves, or those who remained with the confidence to proclaim the gospel. Why die for something you know is a lie? Especially when the disciples could easily have gone back to being fisherman, tax collectors, etc. All they had to do was repent, sacrifice in the Temple, and rejoin the Jewish community from which they had come.*
Objection 3: Someone stole the body.
-Joseph of Arimathea (There is no historical evidence for this--in fact, not even Jesus' opponents came up with this one).*
A. Why would Joseph do this? Jesus had been buried in a noble fashion, worthy of a good rabbi. To steal the body would be to dishonor it.*
B. The guards were stationed at the tomb to make sure nobody took the body. Why didn't the guards just report to the leaders that Joseph had taken the body? This would have been a very logical and realistic explanation. Yet they didn't, and so this argument is ridiculous.*
-The disciples stole it. (This is the oldest theory, and it is located in Matthew 28:11).
A. If the guards were sleeping, how did they know the disciples had stolen the body? And come on, who could sleep through the noise of a stone being rolled away? And if the soldiers were asleep, the penalty was death (which is why those who stationed them at the tomb promised to help the soldiers, if they kept to this story and kept it quiet).*
B. Why would the disciples steal the body? It received a noble burial--more than they could have afforded. And they certainly would have still held some kind of hope that Jesus would be resurrected on the last day.*
C. Why would they have stolen the body? Did they want to make up some kind of myth? These men weren't deceivers--in fact, from the Gospel narratives, they seem to hardly believe in the resurrection themselves. What is the point of making up this myth anyway? Why die for something that you know is a lie?*
D. Where did they get this courage all of a sudden? The narratives report them as hiding and frightened. Only an encounter with the risen Christ gives them any real courage.*
Objection 4: Those who saw Jesus were just having visions. (I think this one is probably the most popular today--it seems like almost everyone with whom I speak about the resurrection (unbelievers that is) bring this one up.
A. The conditions for visionary experiences were not present. Neither the disciples nor the women were expecting the resurrection (the women went to annoint Jesus for burial, the disciples were hiding away, scared to death). They were not in a highly anticipatory mood of expectation at all. If they would have heard sounds they would have been frightened, not induced into a trance-like state.*
B. Visions are generally individual experiences. Yet Paul claims that 500 saw Jesus at one time--and if people wanted to find out if this report was true, most of the people were still alive while Paul was writing (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:6). Also, Matthew, Mark, Luke (and Acts), and John all record incidences of Jesus' appearances (11 in all).*
C. Thomas was skeptical; as were probably most of the disciples. This skepticism demanded objective, physical proof. *
Objection 5: The Resurrection was just made up by later Christians.
A. The story is found in at least three strata of the Gospel narratives (Mark, M, John), and in all four Gospels.*
B. Preaching could not have occurred in Jerusalem if there was not an empty tomb. Yet the Jews did not question the empty tomb.*
C. The stories are semitic--so Jews were their authors.*
D. The early Christian tradition of worshiping on the first day of the week was tied to the empty tomb/day Jesus was resurrected, not to the resurrection appearances.*
E. The fact that women were the first witnesses. Women were not respected as witnesses to the degree men were at this time.*
Objection 6: This is just myth/Jesus was not physically resurrected (it doesn't really matter anyway).
A. The word "resurrection" implies physicality.*
B. Paul was ridiculed on Mars Hill by the Greeks because he preached the physical resurrection from the dead. Greeks believed in the eternality of the soul, so this clearly was not what Paul was preaching.*
C. Again, the disciples were not deceivers. They would not have died for a craftily developed lie. After all, myths were seen as immoral by early Christians (cf. 2 Peter 1:16).
D. As I have pointed out and written about, the physical resurrection of Jesus is absolutely essential to key doctrines of the Christian faith.
*Denotes that the argument has been adapted from Dr. R H Stein's class notes.
So, was Jesus physically resurrected from the grave? Look at the evidence--you be the judge. I have handled all the objections of which I know, and they all fall short when one honestly looks at the evidence.
-A word to my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Pray for such people as these mentioned who deny the resurrection. As I have pointed out, they are deceived and under the influence of the evil one. May God grant them faith in Christ, the risen and reigning Lord of all.
posted by Lenny @ 10:00 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home