Sometimes people approach me and say "I really struggle with this aspect of Christian teaching. I like this part of Christian teaching. I like this part of Christian belief, but I don't think I can accept that part." I usually respond: "If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he has said?"
Most people think that when it comes to Jesus' resurrection, the burden of proof is on believers to give evidence that it happened. That is not completely the case. The resurrection also puts a burden of proof on its non-believers. It is not enough to simply believe Jesus did not rise from the dead. You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of the church. You have to provide some other plausible account for how things began.
Many people today argue that the resurrection was a hoax. It is argued that the two main features of the gospel accounts - the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses - were fabrications. That can't be true.
The first accounts of the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels, but in the letters of Paul, which every historian agrees were written just 15 to 20 years after the death of Jesus. Jesus did not only appear to individuals and small groups, but also to five hundred people at once, most of whom were still alive at the time of Paul's writings and could be consulted.
Moreover, the accounts of the resurrection in the Bible were too problematic to be fabrications. Each gospel states that the first eyewitnesses were women. Women's low social status at that time meant that their testimony was not admissible evidence in court. There was no possible advantage to the church to recount that all the first witnesses were women. Additionally, the very idea of an individual resurrection at the time would have been impossible to imagine for both Greeks and Jews.
(...)
After the death of Jesus the entire Christian community suddenly adopted a set of beliefs that were brand-new and until that point had been unthinkable. It is not enough for the sceptic to simply dismiss the Christian teaching about the resurrection of Jesus by saying, "It just couldn't have happened." He or she must face and answer all these historical questions:
- Why did Christianity emerge so rapidly, with such power?
- No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead - why did this group do so?
- No group of Jews ever worshipped a human being as God. What led them to do it?
- Jews did not believe in divine men or individual resurrections. What changed their world-view virtually overnight?
- How do you account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who lived on for decades and publicly maintained their testimony, eventually giving their lives for their belief?
I sympathise with the person who says, "So what if I can't think of an alternate explanation? The resurrection just couldn't happen." Let's not forget, however, that first-century people felt exactly the same way. They had just as much trouble with the claims of the resurrection as you, yet the evidence - both of eyewitnesses accounts and the changed lives of Christ's followers - was overwhelming.
Each year at Easter I get to preach on the resurrection. In my sermon I always say to my sceptical, secular friends that, even if they can't believe in the resurrection, they should want it to be true. Most of them care deeply about justice for the poor, alleviating hunger and disease, and caring for the environment. Yet many of them believe that the material world was caused by accident and that the world and everything in it will eventually simply burn up in the death of the sun. They find it discouraging that so few people care about justice without realising that their own world-view undermines any motivation to make the world a better place.
Why sacrifice for the needs of others if in the end nothing we do will make any difference? If the resurrection of Jesus happened, however, that means there's infinite hope and reason to pour ourselves out for the needs of the world.
Based on: Tim Keller (2008), The Reason for God, p.201-212
Keller has crowded his book with so much misinformation, one has to question his credibility.
ReplyDeleteIt is not enough to simply believe Joseph Smith was not visited by the angel Moroni. You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of Mormonism. (a religion that grew much faster than early Christianity).
It is not enough to simply believe Mohammad was not the prophet of Allah. You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of Islam.
"The first accounts of the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels, but in the letters of Paul"
False: Paul mentions that Jesus was "buried" (like the vast majority of humans on earth). He says nothing about an empty tomb.
Women are actually quite common witnesses in ancient mythologies. Whether in greek temples devoted entirely to female prophets, or in Jewish tales of female heroes such as Esther.
There are plenty of mythologies that do include deaths and resurrections.: Asclepius, Achilles, Alcmene, Apollonios, Aristeas, Memnon ... there are even a few in the Old Testament: both Elijah and Elisha perform resurrections on dead bodies.
Even early Christian sources were aware of competing resurrection myths:
Justin Martyr:
"when we say also that the Word, who is the first-born of God, was created without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing new from what you believe about those you consider sons of Zeus"