The Evidence for the Deity and Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Evidence for the Deity and Resurrection of Jesus Christ:
The evidence for the life and death of Jesus is very good, despite some prominent YouTube atheist/ sceptics attempts to tell you otherwise E.g. Aron Ra and Matt Dillahaunty, Aron Ra believing Jesus never existed [1]and Dillahaunty being essentially unsure [2]. I will endeavour to try and bring out the best evidence I think there is to show that:
1. Jesus existed and died by crucifixion on the order of Pontius Pilate.
2. Jesus believed himself to be the son of God and not a late embellishment.
3. The disciples and a certain number of the women followers believed they saw Jesus after his crucifixion, despite every reason to the contrary.
4. Hostile witnesses – James the brother of Jesus and Paul (Saul). James thought Jesus was crazy and is an eyewitness. Saul, had a promising career in the Sanhedrin, claimed to see Jesus’s resurrected body, and spoke with at least some of the disciples.
It seems necessary before we delve into this rewarding
study, to face head-on the prominent view the Bible is somehow suspect and
unreliable. The idea being that the Bible isn’t a source of reliable
information, as; 1. There are too many inconsistencies. 2. The authors are
biased and likely compared notes. 3. The Bible is self referencing, meaning it
is like arguing in a circle. 4. The authors wrote decades after the event. 5.
The authors of the Bible didn’t write historically accurately.
Do any of these objections carry any weight?
The simple answer is no!
But, before I continue, I do not wish to make this a
dissertation, so I will try and make this as short as possible, referencing
where possible and allowing the reader to do some research themselves, if they
are dubious of the claims.
The burden of proof demanded on the Bible by atheists and sceptics
a like would require that all ancient documents be destined to the scrapheap.
For example, if we take the best comparison, Homers Iliad, we have under 650
known copies approximately 95% accurate, written 500 years after the original
copy, the New Testament (NT) we have approximately 5,800 Greek, 10,000 Latin and
9,300 in various other languages, with the earliest Greek manuscripts being around
100 years after the event (from authors 1st writtings), being 99.5%
accurate [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Even with these 100 years or so after
the event, with the sheer number and the high fidelity of the copies, it is
possible to get back to what the original would have said. What about other sources,
are they any better? Pliny the younger,
contemporary with some of the disciples, has 7 known copies with the earliest
being 750 years after the event.[3]
J.P. Moreland a professor at Talbot school of Theology at
Biola University writes “apologists have often appealed to three general
tests for historicity: the bibliographical test, the internal test, and the
external test. The internal test asks whether the document itself claims to be
actual history written by eyewitnesses...The external test asks whether
material external to the document (in this case, archaeology or the writings of
the early church fathers) confirms the reliability of the document. It is beyond
the scope of this chapter to delve into the external test. But it should be
pointed out that the New Testament has been remarkably confirmed time and again
by external evidence. This is not to say there are no problems; but to the
unbiased observer, little doubt can be cast on the statement that archaeology
has confirmed the historical reliability of the New Testament”. [3][9][10]
The bibliographical test we have briefly looked at in the way of comparison
with the amount of manuscript evidence and copies we have, in terms of sheer
copies and accuracy, makes the NT very favourable. Moreland continues “Too
much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the
trustworthiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we
currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament
documents. Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works
on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New
Testament.
In this regard, the following statement about the New
Testament by R. Joseph Hoffmann is naive: "What we possess are copies
of copies, so far removed from anything that might be called a 'primary'
account that it is useless to speculate about what an original version of the
gospel would have included."
As I have shown, the copies of the New Testament are not
far removed from the originals. Furthermore, Hoffmann is using the wrong sense
of the term original as it is employed in historical investigation. As Louis Gottschalk
points out, [A primary source] does not, however, need to be original in the
legal sense of the word original – that is, the very document (usually the
first written draft) whose contents are the subject of discussion – for quite
often a later copy or a printed edition will do just as well; and in the case
of the Greek and Roman classics seldom are any but later copies available.”[3]
This point is critical to the understanding of the topic, it
isn’t necessarily the case we need the very original document written to
establish its reliability and authenticity, as no ancient document has this
provenance, and it would be ridiculous to demand so, especially when critics
only apply it to the NT! A bit of consistency would be nice.
I think, therefore we have good grounds to allow the NT some
credibility and grant it at least as “historical”.
Other work, which establishes the historicity of the NT are:
· Why are there differences in the gospels? : what we can learn from ancient biography by Michael R. Licona – Showing that the NT writers used the Greco-Roman style of accounting history and that ‘Spotlighting’ among others is used when describing events.
· Evidence that demands a Verdict – life changing truths for a skeptical world by Josh and Sean McDowell – a treaties on the evidence as a whole.
· The Resurrection of Jesus – A new historiographical approach by Michael R. Licona – Licona goes through in great detail what we can know historically about Jesus’s life, death and resurrection, great refutations to some of the leading sceptics in the discipline and detailed research on each of the books in the NT.
· The Historical Jesus – Ancient Evidence for The Life of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas – In depth evidence for the historicity, good refutation on the Jesus seminar hypotheses, invaluable insights on the creeds and primary sources.
· The case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona – A shorter book giving excellent evidence for the historicity of the Bible and examining worldviews.
· Evidence for the Historical Jesus – Is the Jesus of History the Christ of Faith? By Gary R. Habermas – Goes through his famous “minimal facts" argument.
Why is the Bible only 99.5% accurate? By this they mean, if
the Bible is written by God, shouldn’t it be error free? It is important to
define terms carefully, when a Christian says the Bible is ‘inspired’ or
‘written’ by God, we don’t literally mean God wrote it. We mean, God used mankind
to deliver His word to the people, using language that they would have
understood at the time. “Inerrancy is qualified as a characteristic of all that
the Bible affirms, in all of its teachings. Many people, Christian
and not, seem to think that inerrancy means that anything they read in the
Bible must be free of error, according to what it appears to say, at first
glance.”[11] So, we as ‘moderns’ need to remember the Bible is old,
written by different authors, in a culture
and language that is alien to us, it is therefore, important to understand the context it was written
in, who it was for, why it was written and the understanding of their days. For
example, when you watch the weather report, and the weather presenter says “sunrise
at 07:55” or whatever, they don’t literally think the sun rises, it is an
apparent observation, so we shouldn’t think the Bible is teaching us the sun
literally rises to the earth.
There are errors in the Bible, but they are like what we
call typos or spelling mistakes [12], the errors make no difference
to any key doctrine of faith, as Bart Ehrman writes “Bruce Metzger is one of
the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he
was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who
trained me in the field. And even though we may disagree on important religious
questions—he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not—we are in complete
agreement on a number of very important historical and textual
questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a
consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament
probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement—maybe
one or two dozen places out of many thousands.
The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually
stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian
beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the
New Testament.” [13]
So, what about the internal evidence?
Before we look specifically at the Bible, I think it
necessary to show some of the evidence that the Bible is of Greco-Roman style
of history, as this isn’t what sceptics will typically allow or believe. On page 20 of Michael Licona's work “Why are
there differences in the gospels” he refers to some of the literary devices Plutarch
would use in writing historical events, “Transferal: When an author knowingly
attributes words or deeds to a person that actually belonged to another person,
the author has transferred the words or deeds.
Displacement: When an author
knowingly uproots an event from its original context and transplants it in
another, the author has displaced the event. Displacement has some similarities
with telescoping, which is the presentation of an event as having occurred either
earlier or more recently than it actually occurred. Plutarch displaces events
and even occasionally informs us he has done so. In Cat. Min. 25.5, having told
the story of Hortensius’s request of Cato that he be allowed to marry Cato’s
wife, Marcia, Plutarch adds, “All this happened later, but as I had
mentioned the women of Cato’s family it seemed sensible to include it here.”
Conflation: When an author combines
elements from two or more events or people and narrates them as one, the author
has conflated them. Accordingly, some displacement and/or transferal will
always occur in the conflation of stories.
Compression: When an author knowingly
portrays events over a shorter period of time than the actual time it took for
those events to occur, the author has compressed the story.
Spotlighting: When an author focuses
attention on a person so that the person’s involvement in a scene is clearly
described, whereas mention of others who were likewise involved is neglected,
the author has shined his literary spotlight on that person. Think of a
theatrical performance. During an act in which several are simultaneously on
the stage, the lights go out and a spotlight shines on a particular actor.
Others are present but are unseen. In literary spotlighting, the author only
mentions one of the people present but knows of the others.
Simplification: When an author adapts
material by omitting or altering details that may complicate the overall
narrative, the author has simplified the story. Expansion of Narrative
Details: A well-written biography
would inform, teach, and be beautifully composed. If minor details were
unknown, they could be invented to improve the narrative while maintaining
historical verisimilitude. In many instances, the added details reflect
plausible circumstances. This has been called “creative reconstruction” and “free
composition.”
Paraphrasing: Plutarch often
paraphrased using many of the techniques described in the compositional
textbooks.”[14] (citations removed)
Additionally, from page 119 -220 Licona, painstakingly goes
through verses in the Bible that have apparent contradictions and showing that
it parallels well within the Greco-Roman style of accounting history. Licona
writes in the ending summary “We observed three types of chronology in the
Gospels: floating, implied, and explicit. Lucian taught that the proper method
for writing history is not to provide a collection of stories in a disjointed
manner but instead to connect the stories like links of a chain, using
overlapping material when possible. We observed Matthew doing this more than
the other evangelists and Luke doing it least often, at least if we are
thinking of linking events in a chronological manner. Luke may have instead
preferred to link events thematically. On occasion, the explicit chronology
presented in one Gospel appears in tension with the strongly implied or even
explicit chronology presented in another Gospel. In most of these instances, it
appears that one of the evangelists altered the chronology of an event. In some
of these, the reasons for doing so can be plausibly surmised to produce a
smooth-flowing narrative, highlight a point the evangelist desired to make,
provide a contextual home for an orphaned story, or for reasons not apparent to
us” he concludes “By the beginning of the twenty-first century, a
paradigm shift had occurred. No longer viewing the Gospels as sui generis
(i.e., of a unique genre), the majority of New Testament scholars had embraced
the view of Richard Burridge and others before him that the Gospels belong to
the genre of Greco-Roman biography, as noted in our introduction. This genre
permitted a degree of elasticity in how stories were reported... During the age
when the Gospels were written, the finest historians and biographers did not
practice writing with the same commitment to precision as us moderns. They
wanted to tell a story in a manner that entertained, provided moral guidance,
emphasized points they regarded as important, and paint a portrait of important
people. If they had to adapt some details on occasion, it was permissible. Such
adapting was not intended to distort the truth but to communicate it more
effectively. Modern itinerate speakers, teachers, preachers, and even
professors often do this in their lectures and homilies for emphasis or to make
a point more clearly. In fact, most of us have done it for similar reasons when
telling a personal story... One does not need to be a student of the late
Roman Republic or the early Christian church to recognize that the two
centuries spanning from 100 BCE through 100 CE must be regarded as two of the
most interesting and world-changing centuries in all of human history. It is
during this period that Jesus of Nazareth lived. His life could be said to have
impacted world history in a manner that has been far more reaching than the
life of Julius Caesar or any other person who lived during those years and
perhaps at any other time. Our best sources about Jesus are found in the New
Testament. The most comprehensive of those sources are the four Gospels. In
them we learn how Jesus was remembered by many of his early followers.”[15]
Given this evidence so far then, it seems that the NT at least should be
considered history, as other ancient documents have been afforded historical, or
we must condemn most, if not all ancient history to no more than myth and folklore
status! As most ancient documents do not have as favourable evidence.
The evidence accepted by the majority of scholars.
1 Corinthians 15 – Is multiply attested by the majority of
scholars for multiple reasons [16]. And due to largely sceptical scholarly
research the writings of Paul can be derived (arguably) to within a few years of Christ’s death and
resurrection. As Gary Habermas writes “Critical
scholars usually agree that this tradition introduced by Paul had a remarkably
early origin. Joachim Jeremias calls it “the earliest tradition of all.” Ulrich
Wilckens declares that the material “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase
of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” Walter Kasper even states,
“We have here therefore an ancient text, perhaps in use by the end of A.D. 30.”
Most scholars who provide a date think that Paul received this creedal
tradition between two and eight years after Jesus’s death, or from
approximately A.D. 32 to 38. Even skeptics frequently agree. Gerd Ludemann
thinks that “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two
years after the crucifixion of Jesus . . . not later than three years after the
death of Jesus. . . . [T]he formation of
the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between
30 and 33 CE.” Michael Goulder states that Paul’s testimony about Jesus’s
resurrection appearances “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he
was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.” Thomas Sheehan agrees
that Paul’s formula “probably goes back to at least 32-34 c.E., that is, to
within two to four years of the crucifixion.” Such skeptical agreement is not
rare. Those who comment generally think that Paul received this very early
testimony either in Damascus or Jerusalem. While placing the event in Damascus
would make it even earlier, the majority prefer the scenario that Paul received
this material in Jerusalem. The main reason for this preference is Paul’s trip
there, dated about three years after his conversion, when he went to visit
Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:18-19). Both of these apostles
appear in the list of Jesus’s appearances (1 Cor 15:5, 7). At a minimum, a
number of scholars specify that wherever Paul received the material, the
substance is Palestinian in origin. In an intriguing comment, C. H. Dodd proclaims,
“At that time he stayed with Peter for a fortnight, and we may presume they did
not spend all the time talking about the weather.”...in Galatians 1:18,
indicating that his visit with Peter may have constituted an investigative
inquiry. William Farmer argues that Paul’s choice of this term signifies that
he acted as an examiner or observer of Peter. In an older but still very
helpful study that reaches similar conclusions, G. D. Kilpatrick translates
this term in Galatians 1:18 as Paul's attempt “to get information from Cephas.”
Paul Bamett helpfully points out that the same word is used by ancient Greek
writers like Herodotus, Polybius, and Plutarch, for whom it means “to enquire.””[17](
citations removed)
Let’s look at the scripture in question and see why they can
make such a remarkable claim; (all scripture quoted is NIV)
1 Cor 15:1 – Now, brothers, I want to remind you of
the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken
your stand. Paul is saying here, I preached to you before and you guys
believed.
1 Cor 15:2 – By this gospel you are saved, if you hold
firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. What
he preached was the gospel message, by it you are saved, believing anything
else, you do so in vain.
1 Cor 15:3a – For what I received I passed on to you
as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures. Paul is passing on the message he received, which is of the
upmost importance! When did Paul receive this message? Common consensus is that Paul meet with Peter
(Cephas) and James the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:18) approximately around A.D 35
or 5 years after Jesus’s death and resurrection. How do they the get this date?
Gary Habermas states “The common consensus of recent critical New Testament
scholars provides the following data: Paul most likely received this material
when he visited Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem about 35
AD. How do they arrive at this year? Well, if the crucifixion was about 30,
then scholars place Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus at just about one
to three years later. He said in Galatians 1:18 (again, another of Paul’s
authentic epistles), that he went away for three years and that, afterwards, he
went to Jerusalem. That’s an average of two years before his conversion, plus
another three years afterwards, which totals five years (2 + 3 = 5 years) later
for this visit.
Now if Paul’s experiences came only one year afterwards,
as some think, then that’s one + three = four years after the crucifixion. But
35 AD is a nice round figure. So you’ve got the cross at about 30, 1
Corinthians written about 55, and Paul’s oral teaching in Corinth about 51. He
attested that he went to Jerusalem in approximately 35 and he explained that he
spent 15 days talking with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus [Gal. 1:18].”[18][20]
Mike Licona says similar stating within “four to six years of Jesus’
crucifixion”[19] or A.D 34-36.
1 Cor 15:3b-4 – that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was
raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, So, we can see that
Christ death and resurrection is a very early teaching, which, scholars think
can be sourced back to 30A.D, [17] this point is key! Paul is
preaching what was preached from the eyewitnesses, namely the disciples and
James the brother of Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 15: 3-8 is one of the pre-Pauline creeds
or formulas that gives, even critical scholars confidence to claim such early
dates. Licona writes “Emerging from his three-year sabbatical in Arabia, we
can imagine Paul wanting to complete his task by interviewing one or more of
the people who had traveled with Jesus. There were no better sources for Paul
than the Jerusalem apostles. There he would talk with Peter and learn about
Jesus’ teachings. He would ask him what it was like to travel with Jesus. He
would have the heavy theological discussions he so much valued during which he
would share and hone his findings... If this is the occasion when Paul received
the tradition, we may place the tradition within four to six years of Jesus’
crucifixion and, even more importantly, it comes from the purported
eyewitnesses themselves”. [20] That he was raised implies
physical resurrection, especially in light of what was written 7 verses later “12But
if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of
you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If
there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been
raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our
preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than
that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified
about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in
fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not
raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if
Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”
1 Cor 15:5-8 – and that he appeared to Peter, and then
to the Twelve. 6 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. 7 Then he appeared to James, then
to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me
also, as to one abnormally born. Some sceptics want to object and
quibble about who the 12 were and the more than 500 brothers, but few deny that
Peter and James claimed to have seen Jesus after the resurrection. The point
being, we aren’t explicitly told who the 12 or who the more than 500 are. But this
is mistaken, the creed by its very nature isn’t meant to be a complete list of
people’s names, the creeds were there precisely because those 1st
century Jews weren’t literate and the creeds were formulated to be memorable,
short and give core beliefs/information to the first followers, that can easily
be past on. The fact is, it’s implausible that a creedal statement will have
500 plus individuals listed that can be easily remembered and retained. Nor would
it be proof even if it were the case they wrote every eyewitnesses name in
writing, how would that prove they actually saw anything? The sceptic would
just claim this list is obviously added later. C. H. Dodd writes, “There can
hardly be any purpose in mentioning the fact that most of the 500 are still
alive, unless Paul is saying, in effect, ‘The witnesses are there to be
questioned.”[24] which implies that they weren’t made up and could
be spoken to by the first followers. Again, verses 14-15 make it a falsifiable claim,
if Jesus hadn’t be raised from the dead, had the first followers lied about 500
plus individuals seeing Jesus alive, it would have been easily disproven.
1 Cor 15: 9-11 – 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. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his
grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet
not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it
was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
Confirmation that both Paul and the apostles taught the same message, moreover,
this is what they believed! That Jesus,
died, rose again and appeared to a number of eyewitnesses afterwards.
1 Cor 15:12-21 – But if it is preached that Christ has
been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no
resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead,
then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been
raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than
that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified
about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in
fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then
Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been
raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then
those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for
this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the
dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since
death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a
man. Confirmation of what was preached and explicitly mentions that if
Christ didn’t rise from the dead, we are liars, our faith is in vain, we are to
be pitied more than all men! But Jesus did die and rose again. But Christ did
rise and is what was preached by the first disciples and by Paul.
Objections:
Few sceptics are willing to give a robust defence of a naturalistic
explanation for the resurrection, it normally amounts to hand waving and ‘just-so’
stories which in no normal circumstance anyone should believe is plausible.
Liars:
A common claim sceptics would make in the past is that they simply
lied, but no one seriously takes that as a good explanation for obvious reasons,
liars make poor martyrs! Think about it, if you started a known lie of your creation,
you aren’t going to die for a lie you made up.
(1) Paul. Emperor Nero beheaded Paul in Rome in ~AD 67.[25]
He also endured serious suffering and torture (1 Cor. 4:9-13; 2 Cor. 11:23-28).
(2) Peter. Emperor Nero crucified Peter in Rome in ~AD 67.[26]
(3) James—the half-brother of Jesus. The Roman historian
Josephus records that the Sanhedrin had James stoned to death.[27] Later
Christian authors add that James was “thrown from the pinnacle of the temple”
and “beaten to death with a club.”[28]
To be clear, their martyrdom doesn’t prove the resurrection is
fact, but it proves they believed what they were saying was true. [29]
Therefore, it isn’t plausible to assume the first disciples lied.
Hallucinations:
Hallucinations is often the most common objection sceptics make
in response to the resurrection. Depending on your source hallucinations are fairly
common; in one study of 466 individuals with a mean age of 21, roughly 80% of the
general public experiencing some kind of visual anomalous experience in their lifetime
who are healthy, with approximately 17-37% of these experiencing something that
could qualify as an hallucination[30]. However, larger studies show differing
results; in one study of 7,406 individuals of varying ages, showed that 11-24% of
individuals with mental disorders and Borderline Personality Disorders (BPD) had
hallucinations, with approximately 13.7% individuals with BPD experiencing hallucinations
and approximately 12.6% of individuals with (non-psychotic) mental disorders experienced
hallucinations [31]. But, in other studies hallucinations in different
modes of healthy individuals differed depending on mode of hallucination and depending
on age [32], another article in the Medical News Today discovered similar
findings with 4% of healthy individuals experiencing a visual or auditory hallucination,
and based on 2,533 individuals 7.3% experienced an auditory verbal hallucination
[33]. Yet other studies show other results; Dr Michael Laconia showed
“...Approximately 15 percent of the general population will experience
one or more hallucinations during their lifetime. Females are more likely to
experience a hallucination than males. Some personalities are more
hallucination-prone than others. And the older one grows, the more likely he or
she is to experience a hallucination. Thus it should be of no surprise to learn
that senior adults who are grieving the loss of a loved one are among those
most likely to experience a hallucination: roughly 50 percent. Yet only 14
percent of these (or seven percent of all bereaved senior adults surveyed) are
visual in nature.”[34].
So if we take it that around 15% will or have had some kind of
hallucination in their lifetime, is this a good explanation for the disciples belief?
No, even if some did hallucinate, it isn’t going to conceive them Jesus was alive,
because:
1. They weren’t stupid, they knew that dead people didn’t
come back to life.
2. They had no expectation of an individual being resurrected,
other than the general one at the end of the world.
If they saw a hallucination of what they thought was of Jesus, they would have seen it as such, just as normal
people do today! No normal individual believes when they hallucinated their loved
one, believes they were resurrected. Just because this happened 2,000 years ago,
doesn’t mean they were stupid, gullible or any reason to diminish their humanity!
Just because they weren’t as well educated,
doesn’t mean they were stupid.
And even granting that the hypothesis works (it doesn’t), it
does nothing to explain the empty tomb nor James and Paul’s sudden conversions.
Stolen Body:
Some want to claim, maybe
the first disciples stole the body? Well, that has the same issues as they lied.
They had experiences they believed were of the risen Jesus and
they were willing to die for that.
Later Legend:
A other common claim is the Gospels in particular show signs
of later embellishment, which is meant to show the earliest belief were more modest
in Matthew and as we get to John, Jesus is clearly portrayed as God’s son and doing
miracles.
The issue here is that it’s shredded by the facts, the 1 Corinthians
is written no later than 55 A.D, so about +22 years after the event, people can
still remember vividly memorable events back then[35]. The 1 Corinthians
15:3-8 and Galatians 1 arguably mentions events from within months of the event and certainly within 3-5 years afterwards. Paul
(Saul) was obviously angry about something being said or he wouldn’t be persecuting
the church, arguably the only crime that could be raised is that they were calling
Jesus God’s son. E.g. Acts
6-7.
This then becomes irrelevant, whether or not the Gospels were
written later or that they have signs of embellishment is up for debate and highly
debated, but it does nothing to disprove the earliest Christology was the
highest Christology. As Andrew Loke wrote Some ‘Early High Christology’
proponents scholars argue that this “high Christology” may go back to Jesus
himself. [36] And a majority of scholars argue that this “high
Christology” existed already before the writings of Paul.[37]
The sceptic will need to show why we should reject all this very
early data in favour of this outdated myth Jesus was never believed to be God or
that Jesus never claimed to be God.
Analysis.
I think, I have successfully shown that Jesus did in fact
die, and therefore lived, that we have eyewitness accounts of the purported
resurrection. Paul, himself believed and saw the eyewitnesses and spoke with
them. That Paul was in fact a hostile witness and persecuted the church! Paul
claimed to have a post resurrection appearance and this can all be dated to within
5 years of the resurrection and plausibly the apostles taught this much earlier
to the same year of the resurrection. Additionally, and possibly more importantly,
we can do this with evidence critics will allow.
This, therefore, allows us to boost any claim from the
gospel narratives, as; 1. The writings of Paul, teach a bodily resurrection,
which was taught from the beginning by the Apostles. 2. We have eyewitness
accounts from Peter and James that Paul heard and believed. 3. We have seen
that ancient biography in the Greco-Roman era used liberties in reporting
historic events, and the gospels are in the Greco-Roman style.
So, we need good reasons why the Gospels shouldn’t be a valuable
source?
The Gospels.
The gospels are our best source for the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus. As I have attempted to show, we have good evidence that earliest
teachings of Jesus, is that he died, rose again and appeared to many of his
followers. Moreover, we can show that this is based on eyewitness testimonies of
key apostles and that Paul himself claimed he saw Jesus afterwards.
So, it seems that at least, certain claims that are written
in the gospels can be given the status of reliable, even if a sceptic cannot
accept the supernatural claims, as yet, they can at least agree the disciples
believed they saw something.
So, what can be known?
As I have tried to show is the gospels are at least to be considered ‘history’ as other ancient documents have historical status. As a result, we have a list of claims about Jesus’s life, showing Jesus’s life, ministry in some detail but the ones I wish to focus on, are the ones regarding Jesus’s claims to be God’s son, as these are the most pertinent to the issue at hand.
Mt 11:2-6 – When John heard in prison what Christ was
doing, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the
one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?”
4 Jesus replied, “Go back and report to
John what you hear and see: 5 The blind receive sight, the
lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are
raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. 6 Blessed
is the man who does not fall away on account of me.”
Mt 26:63-67 – But Jesus remained silent. The high
priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you
are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64 “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus
replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of
Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of
heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and
said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now
you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered. 67 Then
they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him.
Mk 2:1-12 – A few days later, when Jesus again
entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 So
many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he
preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to
him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4 Since they
could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the
roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed
man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to
the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting
there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow
talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that
this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to
them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is
easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, ‘Get up,
take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the
Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins....” He said to the
paralytic, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go
home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full
view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have
never seen anything like this!”
Mk 14:60-62 – Then the high priest stood up before
them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that
these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained
silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of
the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you
will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming
on the clouds of heaven.”
Lk 22:67-70 – If you are the Christ,” they said, “tell
us.”
Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe
me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But
from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty
God.”
70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of
God?”
He replied, “You are right in saying I am.”
Jn 4:25-26 – The woman said, “I know that Messiah”
(called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26 Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to
you am he.”
Jn 10:24-39 – The Jews gathered around him, saying,
“How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us
plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but
you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but
you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My
sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I
give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out
of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is
greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I
and the Father are one.”
31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone
him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you
many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any of
these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to
be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not
written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods'? 35 If he
called them ‘gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be
broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as
his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy
because I said, ‘I am God's Son'? 37 Do not believe me
unless I do what my Father does. 38 But if I do it, even
though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and
understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again
they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
Final points
It can be seen, we have good evidence that Jesus did, in
deed, believing himself to be God’s son. We have good evidence, that Jesus told
the Pharisees that he was the son of God, and claiming to be the Messiah on
different occasions. So, we have little
evidence to claim Jesus never claimed to be God, nor, can it be claimed the
gospel message is a later rendition of the apostles, due to the critically
ascertained early date of Paul meeting the apostles and the gospel message being
based on the resurrection, to as early as 30A.D.
A sceptic, may conclude on some grounds of methodological
naturalism, that miracles are impossible on some kind of Humean argument. That miracles
should be rejected out of hand as they would violate the natural laws or the
suspension of the natural laws. However, this is mistaken, as it is universally
understood that the laws only describe what normally happens not what cannot
happen, or what is impossible to happen. We should judge the weight of the
evidence and let the evidence lead where it may!
What then can we conclude?
Jesus, existed, died
by crucifixion, by the hand of Pontius Pilate, he was buried in a tomb, 3 days later,
the apostles and a number of followers claim to see Jesus alive, individually
and in groups. The apostles were radically transformed and as a result the
known world was changed, by the gospel message.
What best explains this evidence? Is it just an elaborate lie?
Did they all have group hallucinations? Or, is it, the narrative the apostles
gave 2000 years ago?
Is it coherent to claim that 11 men, were able to
orchestrate such an elaborate hoax? Steal a body, without anyone noticing, why
claim women saw the empty tomb and the resurrected Jesus, when women’s
testimonies weren’t acceptable in Jewish court, surely if it was a lie, they
would make it as less complicated as possible? If they stole the body and then
lied about the whole thing, why would they be willing to die for a known lie?
Just ask yourself! Would you be willing to die for a fabrication of your making?
Furthermore, why then make it a matter of faith? And why in Jerusalem a busy
town! Surely it would make sense to do
it in the middle of nowhere, where people couldn’t easily check it out. As
William Lane Craig writes “This explanation characterized the earliest Jewish
anti-Christian polemic and was revived in the form of the conspiracy theory of
eighteenth century Deism. The theory has been universally rejected by critical
scholars and survives only in the popular press. To name only two
considerations decisive against it: (i) it
is morally impossible to indict the disciples of Jesus with such a crime.
Whatever their imperfections, they were certainly good, earnest men and women,
not impostors. No one who reads the New Testament unprejudicially can doubt the
evident sincerity of these early believers. (ii) It is psychologically impossible to
attribute to the disciples the cunning and dering- do requisite for such a
ruse. At the time of the crucifixion, the disciples were confused,
disorganized, fearful, doubting, and burdened with mourning-not mentally
motivated or equipped to engineer such a wild hoax. Hence, to explain the empty
tomb and resurrection appearances by a conspiracy theory seems out of the
question.”[23]
As for hallucinations, how many times have you hallucinated?
And how many times have you seen the exact same hallucination as the person
next to you, at the same time? And only in a 40-day time frame? Moreover, it
isn’t supported by scientific evidence, nor do any scholars hold to such a
scenario. “Hallucinations are subjective experiences emanating from individual
minds. As a result of their private nature, these occurrences are not
collective or contagious. Since these private events cannot be shared, the same
hallucination would not have been experienced by more than one disciple at the
same time. Clinical psychologist and author Gary Collins summarizes this first
problem: “Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only
one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly are not
something which can be seen by a group of people...Since an hallucination
exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others
cannot witness it.”(21)(22) William Lane Craig writes in regards to
this “The hallucination
theory became popular during the nineteenth century and carried over into the
first half of the twentieth century as well. Again, however, there are good
grounds for rejecting this hypothesis: (i) it
is psychologically implausible to posit such a chain of hallucinations.
Hallucinations are usually associated with mental illness or drugs; but in the
disciples' case the prior psycho-biological preparation appears to be wanting.
The disciples had no anticipation of seeing Jesus alive again; all they could
do was wait to be reunited with him in the Kingdom of God. There were no
grounds leading them to hallucinate him alive from the dead. Moreover, the
frequency and variety of circumstances belie the hallucination theory: Jesus
was seen not once, but many times; not by one person, but by several; not only
by individuals, but also by groups; not at one locale and circumstance but at
many; not by believers only, but by skeptics and unbelievers as well. The
hallucination theory cannot be plausibly stretched to accommodate such
diversity. (ii) Hallucinations
would not in any case have led to belief in Jesus' resurrection. As projections
of one's own mind, hallucinations cannot contain anything not already in the
mind. But we have seen that Jesus' resurrection differed from the Jewish
conception in two fundamental ways. Given their Jewish frame of thought, the
disciples, were they to hallucinate, would have projected visions of Jesus
glorified in Abraham's bosom, where Israel's righteous dead abode until the
eschatological resurrection. Thus, hallucinations would not have elicited
belief in Jesus' resurrection, an idea that ran solidly against the Jewish mode
of thought. (iii) Nor can
hallucinations account for the full scope of the evidence. They are offered as
an explanation of the resurrection appearances, but leave the empty tomb
unexplained, and therefore fail as a complete and satisfying answer. Hence, it
seems that the hallucination hypothesis is not more successful than its defunct
forebears in providing a plausible counter-explanation of the data surrounding
Christ's resurrection.”(23)
What is the best fit for the evidence? Could it be that the
disciples actually did see Jesus after 3 days alive? It is beyond dispute that
Jesus died by crucifixion, the Roman soldiers were expert killers. It is clear that
the disciples saw something 3 days after his burial! Was it the actual bodily
resurrection of Jesus, or just a vision?
As Josh McDowell states, it is ‘evidence that demands a
Verdict’! What do you choose?
References
(1) https://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2015/11/03/jesus-never-existed/
(2) https://youtu.be/apS_679ru50
(3) https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament
(4) https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/11/25000-new-testament-manuscripts-big-deal/
(5) https://biblequestions.info/2019/12/07/how-many-new-testament-manuscripts-exist/
(7) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
(8) https://carm.org/about-the-bible/can-we-trust-the-new-testament-as-a-historical-document/1
(9) THE ARCHEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT – The Mediterranean World of the Early Christian Apostles. Jack Finegan. Westview Press. 1981
(10)The Historical Jesus – Ancient Evidence for The Life of Jesus Christ. Gary. R. Habermas. College Press Publishing Company. 1996. P171-186
(12)https://youtu.be/DB18or8bJ10
(13)https://christianapologetics.org/the-elusive-bart-ehrman-quote/
(14)Why are there differences in the gospels? : what we can learn from ancient biography. Michael R. Licona. Oxford University Press. 2017. P20
(15)Why are there differences in the gospels? : what we can learn from ancient biography. Michael R. Licona. Oxford University Press. 2017. P196-202
(16)“Why do scholars take this text so seriously? First of all, it’s from an epistle that is unanimously thought to be written by the Apostle Paul. Why is that? Well, as one scholar attested, we don’t even need to discuss Pauline authorship here because both the internal and external evidence for this epistle are so strong. Like what? Well, just prior to 100 AD, Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthians (about 95 AD). Then, just after 100 AD, Ignatius wrote seven brief epistles around 107 AD, and Polycarp wrote another one about 110 AD. These three men, writing nine short epistles, quote, cite, or refer to the book of 1 Corinthians approximately some 30 times, and do so just about a decade after the traditional close of the New Testament. That is an incredible amount of attestation from sources outside of Paul, all asserting Paul’s authority. These are just some of the many reasons that cause even skeptics to admit that Paul the apostle wrote this epistle.So when Paul presented the report here that he received from others, namely, that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day and appeared . . . .” [1 Cor. 15:3-4], he must be taken seriously. And scholars do indeed take him that way, too. Further, it is admitted virtually unanimously that Paul at least believed that he saw the risen Jesus himself, and that makes all the difference in the world.” “Evidence for the Historical Jesus: Is the Jesus of History the Christ of Faith?” Gary R. Habermas. 2015. www.garyhabermas.com/evidence
(17)The risen Jesus & future hope. Gary R. Habermas. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. 2003. P17-18.
(18)“Evidence for the Historical Jesus: Is the Jesus of History the Christ of Faith?” Gary R. Habermas. 2015. www.garyhabermas.com/evidence
(19) The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Michael R. Licona. InterVarsity Press. 2010. P223-235
(20)The Historical Jesus – Ancient Evidence for The Life of Jesus. Gary R. Habermas. College Press Publishing Company. 1996. P152-162
(21)The risen Jesus & future hope. Gary R. Habermas. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. 2003. P10-11.
(22)Gary Collins, letter to the author, 21 February 1977.
(23)https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/jesus-resurrection/
(24)C. H. Dodd, “The Appearances of the Risen Christ: A study in the form criticism of the Gospels,” in More New Testament Studies (Manchester: U. Of Manchester Press, 1968), p. 128.
(25)See 1 Clement 5:4-5; Tertullian, Ecclesiastical History, 2:25.5; Caius & Dionysius of Corinth, 2:25.8. Origen, third volume of his Commentary on Genesis, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.1.2.
(26)See 1 Clement 5:4-5; Tertullian, Ecclesiastical History, 2:25.5; Caius & Dionysius of Corinth, 2:25.8. Origen (AD 250) is where we first read about the spurious account that Peter was crucified upside down: “Having come to Rome, [Peter] was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way” Origen’s third volume of his Commentary on Genesis, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.1.2. Later traditions repeat this claim, but this is its origination.
(27)Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20:197-203.
(28)Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.
(29)https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magazine/2013/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f
(31)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28153929/
(32)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5500657/
(34)Michael R. Licona, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach”, pp. 483-484
(35)https://www.thesciencebreaker.org/breaks/psychology/how-accurate-is-our-memory
(36)Loke, Andrew Ter Ern (2017), The Origin of Divine Christology, vol. 169, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-108-19142-5
(37)Ehrman, Bart (2014), How Jesus became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Harper Collins
Comments
Post a Comment