If Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain according to the Apostle Paul. The resurrection is the Rock of Gibraltar of Christianity, the linchpin and crux of the matter you might say because it all depends on this one event to verify Christ's claim and to give us reason to believe in an afterlife at all. All of Christianity depends on this truth and will come tumbling down without it. The resurrection attests to the deity of Christ as the Son of God or God manifested in the flesh, becoming man and that He won the battle that we were in.
The historicity of Christ is not questioned by any reputable historian; even atheist secular historian H. G. Wells admits the New Testament gospels were written between ca. AD 50 and AD 75--within a generation of the events and within the time-frame of there being witnesses still alive to verify the written record. Secular Humanist historian Will Durant vouches for the historicity of Jesus and dismisses the possibility of it being legend or myth, for example. Many men of learning have tried to disprove this historic event and no one has ever succeeded--some have even converted after examining the evidence that demands a verdict. Many theories have been debunked and it all ends up showing the reliability of the record.
History by its very nature is nonrepeatable and you cannot use the scientific method to verify an event. The substantial historicity of the resurrection is more variously proved than any other event in antiquity. What you have to examine is the credibility and reliability or veracity of the witnesses and the dependability or accuracy of the written record not being corrupt, but preserved intact as written, The eye-witnesses were putting their lives on the line by standing up for Jesus and proclaiming His resurrection--they often were fed to the lions or burned at the stake, stoned, or crucified if they didn't recant that Jesus is Lord and admit Caesar is Lord.
Note: The test of the veracity of these apostles was their willingness to die for the faith and men usually tell the truth on the deathbed. It is hard to keep a lie going among several men (as Watergate proved in 1973 when the most powerful 12 men in our nation couldn't keep a lie going for 3 weeks, according to Chuck Colson, Nixon's dirty-tricks man), but note that there are no inconsistencies in their testimonies--the eye-witnesses, without collusion, do not contradict each other and still tell it their own way.
The greatest sign and miracle that proves the resurrection is the way it turned a bunch of cowardly and timid, disbanded, demoralized men into roaring lions of the faith and willing to die for it as they were no longer afraid of death (why? they believed in the resurrection!). The authorities could tell that "these men had been with Jesus."
There are many questions that the skeptic needs to answer: Who moved the stone? Where was the body? What about the numerous appearances over a period of forty days? What about the changing of the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day in tribute? What about the way the world was turned upside down or topsy-turvy? What about the way the faith spread like wildfire in forming the church, which soon became a worldwide outreach and phenomenon? What about the guards? What about the undisturbed grave clothes? And what about the historical record left by eyewitnesses? Finally, how did so many believers come about?
It is because of the resurrection that we believe in an afterlife that is glorious and superior to this one and not just a spiritual existence. It proves the Father was satisfied with the passion of Christ. You must realize that before this most Jews were unsure whether there was a resurrection or afterlife at all!
Either this event was one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind, or it is the most wonderful fact of history--in fact, its climax or turning point (paraphrased from acclaimed apologist Josh McDowell). It was no idle tale perpetrated by deliberate liars--the gospels are not the rantings and ravings of madmen or deluded diehards. Would you risk your life for a lie? Do you know how difficult it is to perpetuate a plot and keep a lie going without a smoking gun getting out to show its falsity? You cannot rule it out by saying you don't believe in dead people coming back to life--the opposite of Christ's resurrection is that He didn't rise that people don't rise in general (He is God and not just "people").
Saying you don't believe in the resurrection does not constitute evidence in a court of law, for you are not a qualified witness of what transpired that day--and your testimony is irrelevant. Evidence by definition is a fact that is allowable in a court of law as bona fide datum either for or against the allegation. It has been said by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the former Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, and one of the world's leading experts on evidence said that any unbiased courtroom would declare the resurrection to be a historical fact (note that facts can be ascertained and verified by other than just the scientific method, including testimony by credible witnesses).
No matter what stand you take, it takes a leap of faith and one is believing something he cannot prove either way scientifically--the question ultimately rides on the philosophical issue of whether there is a God, and knowing that God can do whatever He desires and with Him nothing is impossible. Another factor to consider: There is a difference between a fanatic dying for what he believes and an eye-witness dying for what he knows and is in a position to know whether it is true or not--he will not willingly die for a lie.
In the final analysis, there have been multiple theories put forth such as the disciples stealing the body, or they had hallucinations, or that Christ didn't really die, but fainted or swooned, or that the authorities stole the body; however, the record makes it clear that none of these arguments hold water and are easily dismissed--in a court of law the verdict would have to be rendered, without prejudice, that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Soli Deo Gloria!
The historicity of Christ is not questioned by any reputable historian; even atheist secular historian H. G. Wells admits the New Testament gospels were written between ca. AD 50 and AD 75--within a generation of the events and within the time-frame of there being witnesses still alive to verify the written record. Secular Humanist historian Will Durant vouches for the historicity of Jesus and dismisses the possibility of it being legend or myth, for example. Many men of learning have tried to disprove this historic event and no one has ever succeeded--some have even converted after examining the evidence that demands a verdict. Many theories have been debunked and it all ends up showing the reliability of the record.
History by its very nature is nonrepeatable and you cannot use the scientific method to verify an event. The substantial historicity of the resurrection is more variously proved than any other event in antiquity. What you have to examine is the credibility and reliability or veracity of the witnesses and the dependability or accuracy of the written record not being corrupt, but preserved intact as written, The eye-witnesses were putting their lives on the line by standing up for Jesus and proclaiming His resurrection--they often were fed to the lions or burned at the stake, stoned, or crucified if they didn't recant that Jesus is Lord and admit Caesar is Lord.
Note: The test of the veracity of these apostles was their willingness to die for the faith and men usually tell the truth on the deathbed. It is hard to keep a lie going among several men (as Watergate proved in 1973 when the most powerful 12 men in our nation couldn't keep a lie going for 3 weeks, according to Chuck Colson, Nixon's dirty-tricks man), but note that there are no inconsistencies in their testimonies--the eye-witnesses, without collusion, do not contradict each other and still tell it their own way.
The greatest sign and miracle that proves the resurrection is the way it turned a bunch of cowardly and timid, disbanded, demoralized men into roaring lions of the faith and willing to die for it as they were no longer afraid of death (why? they believed in the resurrection!). The authorities could tell that "these men had been with Jesus."
There are many questions that the skeptic needs to answer: Who moved the stone? Where was the body? What about the numerous appearances over a period of forty days? What about the changing of the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day in tribute? What about the way the world was turned upside down or topsy-turvy? What about the way the faith spread like wildfire in forming the church, which soon became a worldwide outreach and phenomenon? What about the guards? What about the undisturbed grave clothes? And what about the historical record left by eyewitnesses? Finally, how did so many believers come about?
It is because of the resurrection that we believe in an afterlife that is glorious and superior to this one and not just a spiritual existence. It proves the Father was satisfied with the passion of Christ. You must realize that before this most Jews were unsure whether there was a resurrection or afterlife at all!
Either this event was one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind, or it is the most wonderful fact of history--in fact, its climax or turning point (paraphrased from acclaimed apologist Josh McDowell). It was no idle tale perpetrated by deliberate liars--the gospels are not the rantings and ravings of madmen or deluded diehards. Would you risk your life for a lie? Do you know how difficult it is to perpetuate a plot and keep a lie going without a smoking gun getting out to show its falsity? You cannot rule it out by saying you don't believe in dead people coming back to life--the opposite of Christ's resurrection is that He didn't rise that people don't rise in general (He is God and not just "people").
Saying you don't believe in the resurrection does not constitute evidence in a court of law, for you are not a qualified witness of what transpired that day--and your testimony is irrelevant. Evidence by definition is a fact that is allowable in a court of law as bona fide datum either for or against the allegation. It has been said by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the former Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, and one of the world's leading experts on evidence said that any unbiased courtroom would declare the resurrection to be a historical fact (note that facts can be ascertained and verified by other than just the scientific method, including testimony by credible witnesses).
No matter what stand you take, it takes a leap of faith and one is believing something he cannot prove either way scientifically--the question ultimately rides on the philosophical issue of whether there is a God, and knowing that God can do whatever He desires and with Him nothing is impossible. Another factor to consider: There is a difference between a fanatic dying for what he believes and an eye-witness dying for what he knows and is in a position to know whether it is true or not--he will not willingly die for a lie.
In the final analysis, there have been multiple theories put forth such as the disciples stealing the body, or they had hallucinations, or that Christ didn't really die, but fainted or swooned, or that the authorities stole the body; however, the record makes it clear that none of these arguments hold water and are easily dismissed--in a court of law the verdict would have to be rendered, without prejudice, that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment