Jesus for the win!

Dear Friends,

Though it’s not a real counter-argument, it’s still an excuse to talk about evidence for the Resurrection. So help me God, I’m in! 

.

Trying to go out with a bang

This is my 34th and final post about The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.

Lately, we’ve been going through Part 4, which addresses additional objections to the Christian resurrection story. Today, we address one last objection mentioned in Part 4:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

In the below analysis, I might make numerous references to previous posts in this series of mine on the Resurrection. For example, if I refer to “post #10”, you can simply scroll to the top of this post, open the “series outline”, and then click the link for post #10.

More naturalistic arguments against the Resurrection

• “If atheism is true, then Jesus did not rise”
• “The Resurrection doesn’t prove God’s existence”
• “Jesus never died, so there was no resurrection”
• “Reports of Jesus’ appearances differ little from the reports of the angel’s appearance to Joseph Smith”
• “Reports of the Resurrection are no more believable than today’s reports of Elvis and alien sightings”
• “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

Beware of position statements disguised as arguments.

That seems to be the case here; unlike other naturalistic alternatives we’ve considered, such as hallucination theory, today’s objection seems to boil down to the simple statement, “I’m not convinced by your Resurrection argument.” This is merely a statement of opinion, not a logical argument (it might also be a variation of “There is a huge mountain of probability against an event ever being an act of God”, which I covered in post #23), which is why it makes me want to use atheist Christopher Hitchens’s famous rejoinder:

“…I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.”

I.E., since it’s not an argument, it doesn’t warrant an argument in response.

But, since there’s no other material I wanted to blog about from this book, let’s use this post as an excuse to summarize the (very extraordinary!) evidence that was presented, shall we?

The Minimal Facts Approach

The authors called their approach the “minimal facts” approach, which “considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones”. So, yes, this approach includes some parts of the New Testament, but only those parts that are widely considered by scholars to be authentic.

When these minimal facts are assembled together, the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ emerges as the most reasonable way to explain them. See post #3 for more.

Minimal Fact #1: Jesus died by crucifixion

I’ve been surprised several times while blogging my way through this book and wandering various related corners of the internet, and one of those surprises was learning how pervasive Christ myth theory is (Intro post #2). In contrast to that fanciful theory that Jesus never existed, mainstream scholars are almost unanimous in their position that Jesus WAS a historical figure who WAS actually crucified. See post #10 for more on this fact.

Minimal Fact #2: Jesus’s disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

Again, this fact is generally agreed upon by mainstream scholars (see post #18)…which brings me to another surprise I encountered on my journey. Namely, I was surprised to hear quotes like this one from Dr. Bart Ehrman, the Princeton-trained, atheist New Testament scholar:

“To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.” (see post #22)

In turn, to show that the disciples actually did make claims of resurrection sightings, the authors cite the 4 gospels, as well as oral traditions, the writings of Paul, and the writings of other apostolic fathers (see posts #11-15).

To show that the disciples were sincere in their claims, the authors point to the disciples’ willingness to suffer, as attested by the Acts of the Apostles and various early church fathers (posts #16-17).

Minimal Fact #3: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed

In I Corinthians, a letter that almost all scholars regard as a genuine Pauline epistle, we saw pro-resurrection testimony that was:

1. Provided by someone (Paul) who at the time of the event in question was hostile to the benefiting parties (Christians)
2. Embarrassing and dangerous to the person (Paul) providing it
3. Eyewitness rather than secondhand.

In other words, this is Grade A historical testimony (see post #9 for their History 101 section) in favor of the Resurrection.

Any naturalistic attempt to explain away the resurrection needs to confront Paul’s testimony, not just that of the supposedly giddy inner circle. See post #19 for more.

Minimal Fact #4: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed

Speaking of the non-giddy, we next moved on to James, the half-brother of Jesus. To the best of Britannica’s knowledge, he was a skeptic during Jesus’s ministry, but later became a leader of the Jerusalem Christians. Ultimately, he was executed by the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem.  So, what dramatic event could have caused such a radical change of James’s mind? Again in I Corinthians (chapter 15), Paul provides the answer: an appearance of the risen Jesus.

The data on James create another problem for naturalistic accounts of the aftermath of Jesus’s crucifixion; if James suspected his half-brother was a fraud/maniac during his life and ministry, then wouldn’t a humiliating execution simply seal the deal? See post #20 for more.

The Supermajority Fact: The empty tomb

The authors didn’t call this one a minimal fact since only 75% of scholars accepted it, whereas the “minimal” facts had broader support. So, I looked up some terminology and discovered that 75% is often labeled a “supermajority”. This helps me understand why the authors still employ this fact in their argument; 75% is still a significant consensus! See post #21 for more.

The empty tomb creates yet another problem for naturalistic dismissals of resurrection theory. For example, you may argue that the disciples hallucinated, but that doesn’t explain how the tomb came to be empty. So, you end up stitching more and more independent theories together, exponentially reducing the overall credibility of your explanation (see post #23 and search for “A combination of theories can explain the Resurrection.”).

People Who Don’t Believe In The Resurrection Strike Back

I spent posts #23-33 addressing naturalistic and heterodox objections to the resurrection story. Some of them were really wild (Jesus was an alien!), but others seemed worthy of a longer response. I thought hallucination theory was the most serious one; see my rebuttal in post #23 (search for “Hallucination explains the accounts.”).

An extraordinary claim backed by extraordinary evidence

Yes, it’s extraordinary for someone to rise from the dead, but our historical evidence about Jesus’s life is extraordinary too. A great example of this is a simple face-off between Caesar and Jesus (mentioned in post #23, search for “A risen Jesus would have made a greater impact.”):

• Tiberius Caesar was a contemporary of Jesus and reigned as Roman emperor for 23 years; only 10 extant sources mention him within 150 years of his death
• Jesus scores 42 mentions within 150 years of his death, and nine of those sources are secular

Jesus has 320% more extant, early mentions than a Roman emperor; I would say that’s pretty extraordinary!

Moving right along!

Reading The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus has taught me that the resurrection is much harder to dismiss than people (including many atheists) realize. But, in order to give the other side a fair hearing, I am now planning to read How Jesus Became God, by Bart Ehrman, to get an atheist scholar’s perspective.

But whom say ye that I am?

What about you, dear friend?

If you reject the Biblical resurrection narrative, I would love to know why.

If you are undecided, I beseech you not to sit on the fence for the rest of your life. This is important enough to actually come to a conclusion on, not because of heaven and hell (see my essay-style or press-conference-style rebuttals to mainstream teaching on John 3:16), but because of the impact it has on your life right now. Not only is Christianity the best foundation to build your life upon, but the moments in my life that I look back on with greatest satisfaction are the ones where I dared to trust in God’s providence. He is faithful.

If you are a Christian, you may say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” as you finish this post. But what will we say tomorrow? Next week? When a hostile world is watching us? Let us all move beyond our past denials and emulate the converted Peter, who said to his persecutors, “…We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom YE SLEW AND HANGED ON A TREE.”

Merry Christmas! He is Risen!