Newest Team Blogs - 4/22/2011

Below are the latest blog entries from the CAA Team.  Please check them out!

Apologia
Destruction of the Alexandrian Library

Apologetics 315
Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (04/15 - 04/22)
Fallacy Friday: Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)

Bringing Back the Tao
TheResurrection - Quick Defense

Cold and Lonely Truth
Top 8 Reasons to Trust the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Faith Equation
On Easter

Faithful Thinkers
Video: Natural Evil and Free Will

Hard-Core Christianity
Resurrection Hope

Hieropraxis
Christ's Love and the Blessing of Holy Saturday

Ichthus77
Evidence for Easter

Possible Worlds
Significance of the Resurrection

Say Hello to my Little Friend
Women as First Witnesses to the Empty Tomb

The Poached Egg Apologetics
Evil and the Cross
Our Certificates of Debt
Daily Quote: Jesus
Good Friday: Remembering His Passion

Thinking Christian
Death Defeated

Wintery Knight
William Lane Craig vs. John Shelby Spong on the resurrection of Jesus

Check back soon for more updates from the CAA Team!

New Blogger Joins the CAA Team - The Apologetic Front

Please welcome the newst blogger to join the CAA Team.  Mike Felker is the author of the blog known as The Apologetic Front.  Below is the information on this new blog that you'll definitely want to add to your list of blogs to follow regularly:

The Apologetic Front

This blog contains information on a wide variety of subjects related to a defense of the Christian faith.  The description listed for his blog is short, elegant, and says all we need to know about his purpose in writing.  It says "Teaching, Equipping, Defending".  We could all do with a good dose of each of these in our daily lives.

Latest Post (April 16, 2011): Richard Dawkins Interviews/Debates Wendy Wright

Please consider adding this blog to the list that you follow, and welcome Mike to the CAA Team!

New CAA Blog - Who Made God?

I want to announce the newest CAA team blog.  It's author is Edgar Andrews, author of an excellent apologetics book entitled "Who Made God?".  It's appropriate that his blog bears the same name.

Who Made God?

Welcome to ‘Who made God?’, a website dedicated to Professor Edgar Andrews’ book of that name and also seeking to answer unanswerable questions about God, science and the Bible.

Latest Blog Update (March 16, 2011): Evolution and the fossils

Please welcome Edgar and the Who Made God? blog to the CAA team!

New Blogs for the CAA Team - The Faith Equation

Today, I want to welcome Dr. Marvin Bittinger and his blog "The Faith Equation" to our CAA team of bloggers.  Dr. Bittinger's blog is focused on the evidence for God from the principles of mathematics.  Here is the purpose of the blog in Dr. Bittinger's own words:

The Faith Equation
The main focus of this blog will be centered around the topic of my book, “The Faith Equation.” The book presents a defense, or evidence, for the Christian faith within a framework of mathematics.

Latest Relevant Blog Entry (4/21/11): On Easter

Please welcome Dr. Bittinger and "The Faith Equation" to the CAA Team!

Newest Team Blogs - 4/21/2011

Here are the newest team blogs for Thursday, April 21st:

Apologetics 315
Critical Thinking Online Training

Faith Interface
The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus
The Garden of Gethsemane

Hieropraxis
Lada Gaga Loves Judas - What About Jesus?

MandM
Fallacy Friday Podcast on Apologetics 315: False Cause & Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Possible Worlds
Was Jesus Crucified on a Friday?

TALITHA, KOUM!
Are There Unicorns in the Bible?

The Poached Egg Apologetics
Daily Quote: William Lane Craig
The Resurrection: More Objections Answered
How Unbelief Can Survive the Miraculous
Jesus the Shame Bearer

Wintery Knight
Angus Menuge explains the ontological argument from reason
William Lane Craig explains why moral choices are impossible on atheism
Mike Licona debates Bart Ehrman on the Unbelievable radio show

Check back soon for more blog entries from the CAA Team blogs!

Newest Team Blogs - 4/20/2011

Here are the newest team blogs for Wednesday, April 20th:

Apologetics 315
European Leadership Workshops and Seminars Audio

Apologetics Guy
Rocklin Apologetics Event Schedule

Come Reason
Are the books of Moses forgeries?

Faith Interface
The Gospel of John - The Last Supper

Faithful Thinkers
Article: Do Big Changes Mean Bad Science?

Hieropraxis
Literary Apologetics 101 (Podcast)

Ichthus77
Christian Carnival #376

Possible Worlds
Unlikely Story of the Women

The Poached Egg Apologetics
Daily Quote: G.K. Chesterton
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Porn Stars Are Abused and are Human Trafficking Victims
Jesus Tomb is Empty!
Earth Day Won't Save Us
God Still Uses Boring Testimonies

Think Christianly
Is Your Jesus Big Enough to Explain Easter?

Thinking Matters
New Atheist Scientists: "Lane Craig is a fool, you can get an ought from an is, up is down, arguments be damned"

Wintery Knight
Heroic Christian woman sacrifices her life to save her unborn child
Paul Copan on whether the Bible endorses slavery
Republicans move to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level

Check back soon for more blog entries from the CAA Team blogs!

Newest Team Blogs - 4/19/2011

Here are the newest blog entries from the CAA Team members on April 19:

Always Have a Reason
"Extraordinary claims need..." What, exactly?

Apologetics 315
Terminology Tuesday: Pluralism

Faith Interface
Recommended Reading - "Alone in the Universe?" (David Wilkinson)

Ichthus77
The Golden Rule (self=Other) and God

Possible Worlds
The Crowd

TALITHA, KOUM!
Denied Valedictorian Receives Her Honor, 75 Years Late

The Poached Egg Apologetics
John Lennox, Oxford Math Professor, Shares the Biggest Thing in his Life
Daily Quote: J.P. Moreland
Proof: How it Differs in Math, Science, and Life
Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery? An Overview
Throwing the Bible Under the Bus
The Ascension: Did Jesus Pass Saturn on His Way Up?

Thinking Christian
Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery? An Overview
Resurrection Hope!

Thinking Matters
Scientist talks morality, slips on banana peel

Wintery Knight
If you are looking for a good charity, try the Alliance Defense Fund
Republicans hire top lawyer to defend traditional marriage against Democrats

Check back soon for more blog posts by the CAA Team!

Thoughts on Jesus and the Resurrection - Conclusion

Two Kinds of Skeptics

Summary

In summary, let me just say that there are some people who have such a deeply ingrained commitment to their own belief systems that no amount of evidence could ever convince them of the veracity of Jesus’ resurrection.  I do not believe the problem is lack of evidence or, in most cases, intellectual hurdles.  I am firmly convinced that the issue in many cases is, instead, one of the will.  I’ve copied a story below from here that nicely sums this point up:

Two Kinds of Skeptics

Open-minded skeptics are willing to look carefully at the evidence, meditate on it, and maybe pray, “God, I’m not sure if You are hearing this or not. But if you are, I’m willing for you to help me see that You are real and that I can trust the Bible.” An Open-minded skeptic might be willing to try reading a chapter of John each day, and pray, “God, if this is your Word, help me understand it.”

On the other hand, it is important to recognize that some skeptics cannot be convinced regardless of the evidence.  They are like the man who thought he was dead. His family tried mightily to convince him that he was not dead, but he would not be persuaded. Finally, in desperation, they took him to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist tried various tactics, but nothing worked. Finally he decided, "If I can convince him of one fact that contradicts his belief that he is dead, that should cure him." So he decided to use the simple truth that dead men do not bleed. He gave the man some medical texts to read, had him observe some autopsies, talk with embalmers, etc. Finally, after several weeks, the man said "O.K.!, O.K.!, You've convinced me! Dead men do not bleed!" Immediately the psychiatrist stuck him in the arm with a needle, and the blood flowed. The man looked down at his arm with a shocked look on his face and said


"Good grief!… Dead men DO bleed after all!" Some have simply made up their minds that they will not be convinced regardless of the evidence!

I’ll end with this point...the question has been raised again and again as to why God doesn’t do more spectacular things to show people He really exists.  The point in response to this is that God is not primarily interested in belief.  His interest, instead, is in people entering into a loving relationship with Him.  He has provided sufficient evidence for this.  Anyone who rejects it is free to do so. 

Yes, God could force belief through amazing and phenomenal acts that are completely indisputable (in fact, Antony Flew felt that God has done exactly that, which is why his understanding of the Fine Tuning in the universe has caused him to move from Atheism to Deism).  But belief that is forced through irrefutable proofs doesn’t equal love or relationship.  At best, God could only hope for grumbling acceptance that he exists.  This isn’t his interest.

Thoughts on Jesus and the Resurrection - Part 8

The Jesus Seminar and the Question of Legendary Development

The Westar Institute (or The Jesus Seminar)

I thought I’d just provide some references for you to do a bit more research on the Jesus Seminar.  These guys are, at best, Biblical scholars that exist at the extreme fringe of their discipline and that do not at all represent the mainstream of scholarship, though they are admittedly very vocal.  They approach their evaluation of the Gospels with a very skewed picture before they ever do any analysis.  For example, anything that points to Jesus claims of divinity MUST be wrong because they presuppose that he didn’t believe he was divine (no scholarship, no evidence, just a naked presupposition without support).  They make similar unsupported presuppositions in regards to miracles, Jesus’ resurrection, etc.  Thus, merely on grounds of intellectual honesty, this group has been widely discredited by genuine Biblical scholars.  Below is a list of resource material that you might want to consider before quoting or using any information from the Jesus Seminar:

1.       Jesus Under Fire by Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland

2.       The Real Jesus by Luke Timothy Johnson

3.       Dethroning Jesus by Daniel Wallace and Darrell Bock

4.       The Jesus Seminar (a collection of article references)

5.       Beware of the Jesus Seminar (rejoicetube.com)

6.       What is the Jesus Seminar? (Youtube.com)

7.       How Seriously Do Scholars Take the Jesus Seminar? (Youtube.com)

Add to this the fact that Paul Verhoeven (the director of “Basic Instinct”) is a member of this “elite” group of “scholars” (Paul Verhoeven is the director of the movie “Showgirls”).  His acceptance into their group should cast immediate doubt onto their credibility.

Legendary Development

I had a much longer answer in mind for this section, but based on the excellent response already offered by Joseph, I think I’ll just quote him on this section.  Per his email:

I don’t think that is accurate since the “legendary hypothesis” has been soundly refuted here and it does not explain the aforementioned historical facts.  As is pointed out in good detail here there was not enough time for the development of legends to erase the historical facts:

One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by sceptical critics, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen. This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.{2} Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history.

Furthermore, as is pointed out here the story is simple and lacks the traits of legendary stories:

The story is simple and lacks legendary development. The empty tomb story is uncolored by the theological and apologetical motifs that would be characteristic of a later legendary account. Perhaps the most forceful way to appreciate this point is to compare it with the accounts of the empty tomb found in apocryphal gospels of the second century. For example, in the gospel of Peter a voice rings out from heaven during the night, the stone rolls back of itself from the door of the tomb, and two men descend from Heaven and enter the tomb. Then three men are seen coming out of the tomb, the two supporting the third. The heads of the two men stretch up to the clouds, but the head of the third man overpasses the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice asks, "Hast thou preached to them that sleep?"

In addition to his first response, he offered the additional information in a later email (in response to one of your points to him):

Ø  Regarding the lack of time for a legend to grow

Your examples serve to buttress that claim that there was not enough time for the development of legends to erase the historical facts.  The interval of time between the events in your examples and the recording of them is too short to have allowed the memory of what happened to be erased.  Hence we actually know what occurred in your examples.  This point is elaborated here:

There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. No modern scholar thinks of the gospels as bald-faced lies, the result of a massive conspiracy. The only place you find such conspiracy theories of history is in sensationalist, popular literature or former propaganda from behind the Iron Curtain. When you read the pages of the New Testament, there’s no doubt that these people sincerely believed in the truth of what they proclaimed. Rather ever since the time of D. F. Strauss, sceptical scholars have explained away the gospels as legends. Like the child’s game of telephone, as the stories about Jesus were passed on over the decades, they got muddled and exaggerated and mythologized until the original facts were all but lost. The Jewish peasant sage was transformed into the divine Son of God.

One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by sceptical critics, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this [i.e., the erasure of the historical facts] to happen. This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.2 Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.

In fact, adding a time gap of two generations to Jesus’s death lands you in the second century, just when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. These do contain all sorts of fabulous stories about Jesus, trying to fill in the years between his boyhood and his starting his ministry, for example. These are the obvious legends sought by the critics, not the biblical gospels.

This point becomes even more devastating for skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. For example, the story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.3

Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases.

I think this is definitely enough information to quash any claims to legendary development.  If you’d like to discuss this point further, I suggest reading The Jesus Legend by Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd.

Thoughts on Jesus and the Resurrection - Part 7

Alleged Biblical Discrepancies

Internal Discrepancies of the Gospel

The first thing that we need to cover in this section is the idea of Biblical Inerrancy.  From your list, it seems that you might have a misunderstanding of this concept.  Unlike the Koran, the Christian Bible has never said that every single word (every choice of “a”, “an” and “the”, for example) has to be in the exact place and take the exact form it does or it destroys biblical inerrancy.  Men wrote the Bible and their personalities, literary styles, cultures, and areas of mission (Paul, for example, was a missionary to the Gentiles) are evident in their writings.  With that in mind, not having a “word-for-word” retelling of every exact event in the Gospels is not surprising.  In fact, if you compare the testimony of the Gospel authors with witnesses in a court trial, the differences we find between their writings are actually considered to be stamps of authenticity rather than problems for the text.  If the 4 authors had agreed exactly, then the argument undoubtedly would be made that they just got together and cooked the story up (like a lawyer would throw out the testimony of 4 witnesses who agreed on every single detail because he would know it had been rehearsed and made up).  So the differences are, in a sense, good things in that they speak to the authentic witnesses of the 4 Gospel writers.

Before we go further, let me address some mistakes I believe you’ve made in your analysis of the resurrection.  These are seemingly implied assumptions, though you don’t state them directly (incidentally, I took this list from a larger list of mistakes outlined in Norm Geisler’s book Systematic Theology - Volume 1 (pages in case you’d like to read up on it).

1.       Mistake #1: Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent - a basic rule of human communication is to assume that the thing being communicated is true unless there are obvious reasons to disbelieve it.  Here, I don’t mean that archeologists uncovering an ancient piece of parchment must immediately believe that it’s authentic before they analyze it, date it, etc.  Instead, I mean that if an ancient document purports to be related to something historical, that document is believed until there is definite reason to disbelieve.  With other ancient documents, this presumption of innocence is in play, but with the Bible it seems the same presumption of innocence is not granted.

2.       Mistake #2: Failure to understand the context of a passage - a good example of this would be the insistence that Genesis 1 can only be referencing 24-hour days even though the context of the chapter and the ancient Hebrew used for the original writing clearly don’t require this.

3.       Mistake #3: Assuming that a partial report is a false report - The four gospels relate the same story in different ways to different groups of people and sometimes even quote the same saying with different words.  For example, if you find John describing only Mary Magdalene at Jesus tomb on Sunday morning, this doesn’t mean that the other women mentioned in the synoptic gospels weren’t also there.  Just like if I said “I saw Bill at the mall” when you were, in fact there with Pete, that wouldn’t mean that Pete wasn’t there.  If someone else said “I saw Bill and Pete at the mall” that would not be a contradiction with my statement just because I didn’t mention Pete.

4.       Mistake #4: Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones - Critics also err in assuming that because two or more accounts of the same event differ, they are mutually exclusive.  For example, Matthew says there was one angel at the tomb after the Resurrection, whereas John informs us there were two...Matthew did not say there was only one angel.  To believe this, you have to add the word “only” to the text.

Based on this partial list of the mistakes from Geisler’s book, we can already see that some of your alleged problems surrounding the resurrection carry no weight.

As to the alleged discrepancies, here are the questions you provided:

Question 1) – What time did the women visit the tomb?

• This is a victim of Mistake #4.  Here are the 4 verses in question:
• Matthew 28:1: 'At dawn...went to look at the tomb'.
• Mark 16:2 'Very early...just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb'.
• Luke 24:1: 'Very early in the morning...went to the tomb'.
• John 20:1: 'Early...while it was still dark...went to the tomb'.
• There is no discrepancy with the idea that the women set out while it was still dark and that dawn arrived while they were on their way.  All 4 texts agree that very early in the morning, the women followers of Jesus went to the tomb.

Question 2) – Who were the women?

• This has already been answered in Mistake #3 above, but the point should be reiterated.  Just because all of the women weren’t mentioned in each of the gospels does not mean all of the women weren’t there.  This is a non-issue.

Question 3) – What was their purpose?

• From above, this alleged discrepancy is answered by Mistakes #3 and #4.  From John, there is no doubt that Joseph and Nicodemus applied spices to Jesus body, but why would this mean that the women couldn’t also do this in order to pay personal respects? 
• Also, even if Matthew says the women came to “look at the tomb” how does this do anything to state or imply that they couldn’t have seen it before?  Have you ever met a grieving mother or friend who goes back to a tomb a second time after they’ve seen it?  Clearly, there is no discrepancy in this account at all

Question 4) Was the tomb opened when they arrived?

• This is, once again, a non-issue.  The earthquake and the account of the rolling back of the tomb are not explicitly said to occur in the presence of the women.  In fact, the only ones explicitly present are the guards.  Matthew is entirely consistent with the other gospels.  The women set out for the tomb, the tomb got rolled back, and they went inside when they arrived to find angelic beings who heralded Christ’s resurrection

Question 5) Who was at the tomb when they arrived:

• Once again, a non-issue per Mistake #3 and #4 above.  Just because two angels aren’t mentioned in all 4 gospels does not mean that two were not present.

Question 6)  After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

• The Gospels don’t appear to be focused on the order in which these things happened, but instead on describing THAT they happened.  In many cases, things are mentioned simply as summaries and in others they are drawn out more explicitly.
• The emphasis on “when” is simply grasping at straws and, at best, indicates that the authors got the order of events wrong.  Nothing is offered to prove that these events didn’t happen.  So the very most that can be demonstrated is that the order of things is confused (factor in the lack of concern in ancient writings like this for strict chronology and even that possibility evaporates)
• For example, after Paul sees Jesus on the road to Damascus, he tells us that he went to Jerusalem immediately after being in Damascus (Acts 9).  But in Galatians 1, we see Paul describe how he went to Arabia for 3 years before going to Jerusalem.  Is this a discrepancy?  No, it simply represents how people wrote in those times.  In Acts, the 3 years in Arabia wasn’t crucial to the story and the author didn’t mention it.  Note, of course, that he didn’t say how long it took between Damascus and Jerusalem, but when we read and see “he went up to Jerusalem” we assume he went STRAIGHT to Jerusalem.  This isn’t a problem in the text, but is instead our 21^st century minds expecting to read things the way we’d write them today.  But we can’t do that because these books were written 2000 years ago.

Question 7) – Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?

• The contradictions here are, once again, a non-issue.  Just because one of the gospels doesn’t mention a specific # of days does not mean that things were done in a single day.  There is no doubt that some of the events (such as those in Mark 16) are told in very brief summary fashion.  There is nothing that explicitly states “this happened all in one day” and the ancient authors didn’t tell stories as with that sort of “what exact day did this happen?” type of mentality.
• But, granting for a moment that there might be contradictions, let’s look first at the reference in Mark you made (16:14 compared specifically with John 20:19)
• You claim that Mark 16 and John 20 come together to demonstrate that things happened in a single day.  But in John 20, if you read just a bit further, you get the story of Thomas who was not present when Jesus first appeared.  John 20:26 shows that Thomas didn’t get his answer until a week later.  So I fail to see how comparing John 20:19 and Mark 16:14 somehow validate that Jesus was only around for 1 day
• Just because Mark doesn’t specifically mention 8 days doesn’t mean that Mark believed things were done in 1 day.  Mistakes #3 and #4 would come into play here.
• In fact, none of the accounts state or require that things must have occurred in a single day (or even 8 days).  This is a non-issue

Question 8) – Where did the ascension take place?

• First, as to the “no ascension” element in certain of the gospels, this commits Mistake #3 and #4.  Just because the ascension is not mentioned in a particular gospel does not mean that the writer of that gospel didn’t believe there had been one.  Just like mentioning 1 angel doesn’t mean there weren’t other unmentioned angels present.
• As to the other 3 accounts (Mark, Luke and Acts), there is very solid agreement on where the ascension took place.  It took place in or near Jerusalem at a place called Bethany on the Mount of Olives.  If this appears to be a contradiction, consider the following passage from Mark:
• Mark 11:1 - As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples...
• Clearly there is no contradiction here and any claims to contradiction are simply uninformed of the geography of ancient Jerusalem and its surroundings

I think the best way to close out this section is to note the degree of effort people are willing to go through in order to discredit the Gospels.  Instead of reading them and seeing if there is anything valuable in them, it appears that the effort is simply being made to discredit them at any possible cost, even if the supposed problem is not really a problem.  Once again, this seems to be more a matter of the will and an attempt to ‘explain away’ Jesus’ resurrection than anything resembling an honest evaluation of the scriptures.

Thoughts on Jesus and the Resurrection - Part 6

Explaining the Facts of the Resurrection

Now that we have the essential facts agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars outlined above, let’s make a list of your hypotheses and consider each of them briefly:

1.        Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, he just passed out and woke up later…a.k.a. the “swoon theory”

2.       Disciples hallucinated the risen Jesus along with 500 other people – Just like the 1981 legend of the Virgin Mary appearance at Medjugore spread across Yugoslavia within two days, confirmed by repeated corroborative testimony of real witnesses who are still alive.

3.       Mary went to the wrong tomb, found it empty, and mistook the young man for an angel

4.       The body was stolen – an idea that boasts a hint of biblical support in that the only eye-witnesses (the Roman soldiers) said that was exactly what happened (Matthew 28:11-15)

5.       Jesus’ body was only temporarily stored in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and was later reburied in a common grave, such was the usual fate of executed criminals.

6.       Someone else (Thomas) was crucified in Jesus’ place.

The Swoon Theory

ž  According to this theory, Jesus only appeared to die. 

ž  How does this hypothesis fare?

•          Explanatory Scope – This hypothesis does not explain the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, or the origin of peoples’ belief in Jesus.

•          Explanatory Power – This hypothesis suffers the same problems as the Conspiracy hypothesis.  It also has problems explaining how Jesus (a man barely alive after his torture and crucifixion) managed to remove the stone from his tomb.  Further, a half-dead Jesus appearing to his disciples wouldn’t cause them to believe that he had risen from the dead.  It would cause them to get him immediate medical attention.  Further, it would not cause them to believe in resurrection

•          Degree of Plausibility – The Romans were very good at their jobs, thus it is highly implausible that Jesus would have ever survived the scourging and crucifixion

•          Is it Ad Hoc? – To believe this hypothesis leads to beliefs in secret societies, falsified New Testament documents, potions given to simulate death, etc.  Thus, it is very ad hoc.

ž  Conclusion: This hypothesis fails to explain the facts surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection

The Hallucination Theory

ž  According to this hypothesis, people did see Jesus after his death.  But instead of these being post-resurrection appearances they were instead hallucinations

ž  First, let me make a comment as someone who has spent many years working in the mental health field and who has personally witnessed many people having hallucinations.  I can say absolutely that there is no real-world correlation to the types of events experienced in the 1^st century and hallucinations.  First, people can only hallucinate what is already present in their mind and the Jews did not have a belief in a rising messiah (no one was believed to rise from the dead until the end of time).  Second, the various ways the hallucinations occurred (to multiple people in multiple places under multiple conditions, etc) eliminates hallucinations as a hypothesis.  Further, Richard Carrier said in a debate that these hallucinations were consistent with Schizotypal personality disorder.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact is that the variety and quality of Jesus’ appearances rules out the possibility of hallucinations as the source.  Richard Carrier is just expressing his ignorance of the subject matter when he says this.

ž  So how does this hypothesis fare?

•          Explanatory Scope – This hypothesis does not address the empty tomb

•          Explanatory Power –  The Jewish mindset, expecting a resurrection only at the end of time, makes it more likely that hallucinations would not result in a conclusion that Jesus had raised to life (in fact, it would more likely tell them that Jesus was, indeed, dead!)

•          Degree of Plausibility – The diversity of post-mortem appearances, plus the need to assume certain things about the mental state of those seeing Jesus make this hypothesis implausible

•          Is it Ad Hoc? – This hypothesis requires several additional things such as Peter’s obsession leading to a vision, Paul’s guilt over persecuting Christians, etc.  None of these assumptions is supported by any evidence.

ž  Conclusion: This hypothesis fails to explain the facts surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection

Wrong Tomb Hypothesis

ž  Mark 16:4-8 - But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.  "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.  But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

ž  According to this hypothesis, the women went to the wrong tomb on Sunday morning and saw the caretaker.   He is the one who spoke to them, but he only meant “you’ve got the wrong tomb”

ž  Instead of asking him any further questions, they fled in fear and the rumor of the empty tomb spread

ž  How does this hypothesis fare?

ž  Explanatory Scope – This hypothesis inadequately explains the empty tomb, and it doesn’t explain the post-mortem appearances or the origin of peoples’ belief in Jesus

ž  Explanatory Power – This hypothesis has very limited power.  Why, for example, wouldn’t the enemies of Christianity point out that the women merely went to the wrong tomb?  How would simply finding the wrong tomb account for the belief of the disciples, the conversion of Paul/James, or the spread of Christianity?

ž  Degree of Plausibility – Since the location of the tomb was widely known, this hypothesis is not plausible since others would have simply pointed out the error of the women

ž  Is it Ad Hoc? – This hypothesis is entirely ad-hoc.  Why, for example, accept the passages saying that the women went to the tomb, but ignore passages that show they knew which the correct tomb was? (Mark 15:47)

ž  Conclusion: This hypothesis fails to explain the facts surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection

The Conspiracy Hypothesis

Here, let me start by clearing up a point that you made regarding Matthew 28:11-15.  In fact, the guards did not say that the disciples stole Jesus’ body.  Instead, the Jewish council paid the guards off and concocted the story themselves.  The guards were told to say this story.  They were also told to say that they were asleep at the time, which carried a death sentence (Roman guards sleeping on duty were executed).  Now on to the hypothesis itself...

ž  This hypothesis takes two forms:

•          The disciples stole the body

•          Someone other than the disciples stole the body

ž  The Jewish leadership spread the rumor that the disciples had stolen the body (thus, faking the resurrection)

•          Matthew 28:11-15 - While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." ¹⁵So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

ž  What does this verse confirm to us?  The Jewish leaders recognized that Jesus’ body was missing!

ž  How does this hypothesis fare when analyzed using the categories described above?

•          Explanatory Scope – This hypothesis does not explain the post-mortem appearances, the conversions of Paul and James, or the belief of the disciples

•          Explanatory Power – This hypothesis does not explain

ž  If the Disciples did it: why they would invent stories about women at the tomb, or why they wouldn’t write more grandiose stories about the resurrection

ž  If someone else did it: why would they not come forth and produce a body when the disciples started their ministry?  What would be their motive to steal the body?

•          Degree of Plausibility – A conspiracy is incredibly hard to put together and pull off successfully (just look at Watergate).  Also, since the idea of a dying and rising Christ was foreign to the Jewish mindset, where did they get the idea?

•          Is it Ad Hoc? – This theory imagines additional motives and thoughts by the conspirators for which there is no evidence

ž  Conclusion: This hypothesis fails to explain the facts surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection

The Displaced Body Hypothesis (or “Someone moved the body!”)

ž  According to this hypothesis, Joseph of Arimathea did place Jesus in his tomb temporarily, but later came to move his body

ž  How does this hypothesis fare?

•          Explanatory Scope – This hypothesis doesn’t explain the post-mortem appearances or the origin of peoples’ belief in Jesus

•          Explanatory Power – This hypothesis doesn’t explain why Joseph and his followers wouldn’t come forward to clarify that they had moved the body

•          Degree of Plausibility – To be true, this hypothesis would require Joseph to move Jesus’ body before the women found the tomb empty.  Why would he have such a sense of urgency to move it prior to sunrise on Sunday morning?  Further, why would he not have used the criminals’ graveyard from the beginning (it was only 50 – 600 yards from the crucifixion site)?

•          Is it Ad Hoc? – This theory ascribes motives and activities to Joseph for which there is no supporting evidence.  Thus it is somewhat ad hoc.

ž  Conclusion: This hypothesis fails to explain the facts surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection

The Wrong Person Was Crucified Hypothesis

ž  According to this hypothesis, someone other than Jesus was crucified

ž  How does this hypothesis fare?

•          Explanatory Scope – This suffers all of the problems of the Conspiracy Theory, because someone would have had to agreed to let someone stand in for Jesus (including Judas, who identified Jesus and later died of remorse over it).  This theory also does not explain the empty tomb.

•          Explanatory Power – This hypothesis doesn’t explain how such a grand conspiracy could be put together in such a way that the Jewish Sanhedrin (who certainly knew and had sparred with Jesus on a regular basis) would believe they really had Jesus in captivity.  If the theory is that Jesus was swapped out after his scourging and interrogation, then it’s necessary to explain how this could possibly have happened in public under such heavy Roman guard (and why a previously scourged Jesus would suddenly not have any marks from the scourging).

•          Degree of Plausibility – Extremely implausible.  The Mission Impossible team would have difficulty pulling this one off

•          Is it Ad Hoc? – This theory ascribes motives and activities to Jesus, the disciples, and potentially the Jewish Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate for which there is no supporting evidence.  Thus it is extremely ad hoc.

ž  Conclusion: This hypothesis fails to explain the facts surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection

Based on this, we see that all of these “alternative” hypotheses fail.  So how does the Resurrection Hypothesis hold up?  Consider:

ž  We’ve seen that each of the “alternative theories” fail when trying to explain the facts agreed upon by scholars.  How does the Resurrection Hypothesis fare?

•          Explanatory Scope – This hypothesis meets or exceeds all other hypotheses by addressing all of the facts agreed upon by NT Scholars

•          Explanatory Power – This hypothesis convincingly explains all of the agreed-upon facts (the empty tomb, the disciples’ belief, the post-mortem appearances, etc.)

•          Degree of Plausibility – This hypothesis rests on the background of Jesus’ life and teachings.  Once philosophical prejudices against miracles are removed, this hypothesis is at least as plausible as any others offered.

•          Is it Ad Hoc? – At best, this hypothesis only requires one additional hypothesis…that God exists.  But even this is not necessary if someone already believes in God’s existence.

ž  Conclusion: The facts under consideration are best explained by the statement “God raised Jesus from the dead”

Thus, the Resurrection Hypothesis is once again demonstrated to be the most probable.

Two other important points that I want to emphasize before moving on are the following:

Christianity Got Its Start in Jerusalem

ž  What is the significance of having Peter preach the first Gospel sermon in Jerusalem?

ž  Peter literally preached within walking distance of Jesus’ tomb.  If Jesus were still in the tomb, people could have verified this.  In fact, he virtually encouraged them to check it out for themselves (Acts 2:29-32)

ž  The Jews and Romans, both interested in stopping the spread of Christianity, could have easily produced a body if there were still one in the tomb.  Or, if the body had been moved (and dumped in the common grave for criminals, for instance), the Romans and/or Jews would certainly have at least produced witnesses who could testify that they did this.

ž  It is highly interesting that even the Jewish leadership admitted the body was missing (Matt. 28:12-15)

The Significance of the Christian Persecution

ž  Acts 5:40b–41 - “They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.  The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.  Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.”

ž  The persecution of the disciples is significant because:

1.       Prior to Jesus’ death, they had abandoned Jesus in fear for their own lives

2.       Something happened to radically change their behavior so that they were no longer afraid to be tortured or even killed for their faith

3.       Even in the face of ostracism, torture, imprisonment and death, not a single one of them ever recanted their belief

These facts, representing additional data to be considered when seeking the best explanation for Jesus’ resurrection, provide additional support for the conclusion that Jesus did, indeed, rise from the dead.