As John Stott so appropriately said, "We cannot pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity."
"God promised this Good News long ago through his prophets in the holy Scriptures. The Good News is about his Son. In his earthly life he was born into King David's family line, and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Romans 1:2-4, NLT).
The skeptic may be surprised that there is abundant, cumulative, circumstantial, and historical evidence to support the resurrection (let it make its total impact!), unless one has already made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused with the facts. The Pharisees had closed their minds already: "This impostor said He would rise again!" Jesus even predicted the event at least five times. This is like the eggheads on Mars Hill in Acts 17:32, ESV: "Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked..." Whether there is a resurrection, or whether Christ rose, is a matter of faith; out of the realm of public opinion, science, or philosophy.
The event in question is more variously supported by direct and indirect evidence than any other event in antiquity. There is so much evidence that it demands a verdict! Too many questions can't be answered by the skeptic. There is never enough evidence for them--they don't want to believe and think it would upset their lifestyle or security. Seekers and believers need to study the facts as any legitimate court of law would pronounce: Jesus did indeed rise from the dead! The historicity is well-established both circumstantially and in documents as written evidence. You must realize that Christianity is the only faith-based on history and facts!
I invite you to venture out of your comfort zone and pay attention to the facts of the case point by point. You are not required to have blind faith at all (not having reasons for it), but only to make a leap of faith based on the preponderance of the evidence and where it's going. "Taste and see that the Lord is good!" I hope you will see that you are not committing intellectual suicide by believing--but either way you decide, it takes faith (God is only pleased with faith per Heb. 11:6, NIV, which says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God..."), but it takes more faith to deny it than to accept it! I personally, don't have, enough faith to deny it! I am glad that "his cruel death was not the end of Him," as John Stott has said. He does live in my heart but that is highly subjective and based on my personal experience, and not hard objective evidence, but only personal testimony (which is still admissible in a court of law).
The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against it, and one must decide on one's own. This is the paramount question: Have you considered the evidence? God is no man's' debtor and will authenticate Himself if you consider the evidence. The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against this, and one must decide on one's own. God is no man's debtor and will authenticate Himself if you consider the evidence. This is the paramount question: Have you considered the evidence? The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against this, and one must personally decide on one's own.
If someone ever challenges you to prove the resurrection, you can cite manifold evidence that is well known: like the several alleged appearances of Christ over a period of 40 days (this cannot be explained by hallucinations, which are highly subjective and individualized); the change of behavior in the apostles (who had become disbanded, demoralized, and suddenly went from being cowards to roaring lions of the faith); the undisturbed grave clothes which show the body wasn't hastily stolen and Christ must have "passed" through them as John believed the moment he saw it and put two and two together, realizing no one would steel a body naked; the guarded tomb which was as secure as they knew how, because they were aware that He claimed to rise again on the third day (who moved the stone and the sepulcher was sealed and had a guard; the early rise of the faith; why they changed the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day; how they turned the world upside-down; and most vital of all: the test of the veracity of the witness is that the were all martyred except John (one usually tells the truth and confesses on his deathbed)--they were all willing to go to their deaths rather than admit a conspiracy. Lying would not be consistent with their character and witness, nor worthy of their Lord. This was no idle tale" told by "consummate liars and deluded madmen" but supported by "many infallible ["convincing" in NIV] proofs" according to Luke cited in Acts 1:3, KJV.
The resurrection is the Rock of Gibraltar or the crux of Christianity: You must disprove it to make Christianity tumble, "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is futile..." says 1 Cor. 15:17. The event doesn't prove Christ's deity, but is consistent or congruous with it, and only what we'd expect of a supernatural person who also had a supernatural entrance into the world via a virgin birth. If the resurrection is true, it is the "most sensational event" in history, and if it is a conspiracy of deluded followers, it is the "biggest hoax" ever perpetrated on mankind, according to apologist Josh MacDowell. The most challenging evidence is that the body was gone and the authorities and Jews could not produce it to nip the new faith in the bud. The Jews believed that the disciples stole the body while the guards were asleep. [There is no precedent in jurisprudence that allows the testimony of what transpired s during one's sleep!] In spreading this rumor it both showed their ignorance and proved the fact that the body was gone!
Now, this is the clincher: the evidence against the resurrection is hard to come by: there is none! What evidence is there that He didn't rise from the dead--did anyone see the dead body? There are no conflicting testimonies! Only the presupposition that one cannot rise from the dead and bias in the first place would prevent belief. Just saying, "I don't believe one can rise from the dead (not even God?)" is not evidence per se. Science can say that in the normal activity of man this doesn't happen, but science cannot "forbid" this miracle or any other miracle or unusual event caused by God--this would be personifying science and going beyond its turf. This is really "scientism," not science! This is outside the scope or parameters of the scientific method and empiricism: science relies upon the repetition of events and laboratory conditions with controls and variables to experiment with and measure and observe results to hypothesize and theorize. History, by its very nature, is unrepeatable and it is a matter of the reliability of the documents. If this happened normally we'd call them "regulars!' Don't people often say, "There's a first time for everything?"
If Christ was God, it is no surprise that He rose from the dead--anyone with His character and credentials and made the claims He did is either a lunatic, a deliberate liar (and the disciples would've figured this out), or He was who He claimed to be--the Lord--The Resurrection and the Life in the flesh! If someone lived like Jesus did and said what He said and claimed deity, I am inclined to believe it--or who did say those things? NO psychiatrist would label Him unstable, but His claims would not escape the attention of the authorities either. It is obvious, for instance, that His teachings are not the rantings and ravings of a madman either! Lord Byron said,: "If ever a man were God or God-man, Jesus Christ was both."
It is a matter of philosophy and history, not science or opinion: "For nothing is impossible with God [and one must decide whether he admits to there being a God in the first place] (cf. Luke 1:37, NIV)." In order to be the judge and jury, in this case, you must weigh the evidence pro and con and go in the direction the evidence is leading: Where does the preponderance of the evidence point to? You don't need to know all the answers to decide, juries rarely have all the evidence or facts, but only sufficient evidence to render a verdict up or down. To the hardened skeptic, there is never enough evidence, but to the willing believer who wants to believe and is willing to do God 's will there is ample evidence; one cannot say he has an excuse due to lack of evidence. He may have reason to doubt, but no excuse! The skeptic has more questions to answer than the believer!
It is not a matter of the intellect because it is a moral matter and only those willing to obey God can believe (John 7:17, NIV, says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God..."). It doesn't take brains to figure it out, because a child can believe; the heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart. Your conclusion shows more what kind of person you are, not what kind of person Christ is.
Let me conclude: It is not a matter of the intellect because it is a moral matter and only those willing to obey God can believe (cf. John 7:1 says, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God..."). It doesn't take brains to figure it out, because a child can believe. The big question is where one's heart is and if it's in the right place. You cannot disprove the resurrection by merely citing people fact that people don't normally rise from the dead; Jesus is not your typical person, but the Son of God with all the necessary credentials and witnesses. Every theory posited to explain it away has been proved beyond credence and unacceptable, because God can raise the dead: for with God, all things are possible, by definition (cf. Matt. 19:26; Luke 1:37; Gen. 18:14).
"God promised this Good News long ago through his prophets in the holy Scriptures. The Good News is about his Son. In his earthly life he was born into King David's family line, and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Romans 1:2-4, NLT).
The skeptic may be surprised that there is abundant, cumulative, circumstantial, and historical evidence to support the resurrection (let it make its total impact!), unless one has already made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused with the facts. The Pharisees had closed their minds already: "This impostor said He would rise again!" Jesus even predicted the event at least five times. This is like the eggheads on Mars Hill in Acts 17:32, ESV: "Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked..." Whether there is a resurrection, or whether Christ rose, is a matter of faith; out of the realm of public opinion, science, or philosophy.
The event in question is more variously supported by direct and indirect evidence than any other event in antiquity. There is so much evidence that it demands a verdict! Too many questions can't be answered by the skeptic. There is never enough evidence for them--they don't want to believe and think it would upset their lifestyle or security. Seekers and believers need to study the facts as any legitimate court of law would pronounce: Jesus did indeed rise from the dead! The historicity is well-established both circumstantially and in documents as written evidence. You must realize that Christianity is the only faith-based on history and facts!
I invite you to venture out of your comfort zone and pay attention to the facts of the case point by point. You are not required to have blind faith at all (not having reasons for it), but only to make a leap of faith based on the preponderance of the evidence and where it's going. "Taste and see that the Lord is good!" I hope you will see that you are not committing intellectual suicide by believing--but either way you decide, it takes faith (God is only pleased with faith per Heb. 11:6, NIV, which says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God..."), but it takes more faith to deny it than to accept it! I personally, don't have, enough faith to deny it! I am glad that "his cruel death was not the end of Him," as John Stott has said. He does live in my heart but that is highly subjective and based on my personal experience, and not hard objective evidence, but only personal testimony (which is still admissible in a court of law).
The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against it, and one must decide on one's own. This is the paramount question: Have you considered the evidence? God is no man's' debtor and will authenticate Himself if you consider the evidence. The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against this, and one must decide on one's own. God is no man's debtor and will authenticate Himself if you consider the evidence. This is the paramount question: Have you considered the evidence? The evidence is most compelling but no one fact is conclusive--it must be taken cumulatively, and there are answers to all the skeptics' questions, except where there is a God--there's no smoking-gun evidence either for or against this, and one must personally decide on one's own.
If someone ever challenges you to prove the resurrection, you can cite manifold evidence that is well known: like the several alleged appearances of Christ over a period of 40 days (this cannot be explained by hallucinations, which are highly subjective and individualized); the change of behavior in the apostles (who had become disbanded, demoralized, and suddenly went from being cowards to roaring lions of the faith); the undisturbed grave clothes which show the body wasn't hastily stolen and Christ must have "passed" through them as John believed the moment he saw it and put two and two together, realizing no one would steel a body naked; the guarded tomb which was as secure as they knew how, because they were aware that He claimed to rise again on the third day (who moved the stone and the sepulcher was sealed and had a guard; the early rise of the faith; why they changed the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day; how they turned the world upside-down; and most vital of all: the test of the veracity of the witness is that the were all martyred except John (one usually tells the truth and confesses on his deathbed)--they were all willing to go to their deaths rather than admit a conspiracy. Lying would not be consistent with their character and witness, nor worthy of their Lord. This was no idle tale" told by "consummate liars and deluded madmen" but supported by "many infallible ["convincing" in NIV] proofs" according to Luke cited in Acts 1:3, KJV.
The resurrection is the Rock of Gibraltar or the crux of Christianity: You must disprove it to make Christianity tumble, "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is futile..." says 1 Cor. 15:17. The event doesn't prove Christ's deity, but is consistent or congruous with it, and only what we'd expect of a supernatural person who also had a supernatural entrance into the world via a virgin birth. If the resurrection is true, it is the "most sensational event" in history, and if it is a conspiracy of deluded followers, it is the "biggest hoax" ever perpetrated on mankind, according to apologist Josh MacDowell. The most challenging evidence is that the body was gone and the authorities and Jews could not produce it to nip the new faith in the bud. The Jews believed that the disciples stole the body while the guards were asleep. [There is no precedent in jurisprudence that allows the testimony of what transpired s during one's sleep!] In spreading this rumor it both showed their ignorance and proved the fact that the body was gone!
Now, this is the clincher: the evidence against the resurrection is hard to come by: there is none! What evidence is there that He didn't rise from the dead--did anyone see the dead body? There are no conflicting testimonies! Only the presupposition that one cannot rise from the dead and bias in the first place would prevent belief. Just saying, "I don't believe one can rise from the dead (not even God?)" is not evidence per se. Science can say that in the normal activity of man this doesn't happen, but science cannot "forbid" this miracle or any other miracle or unusual event caused by God--this would be personifying science and going beyond its turf. This is really "scientism," not science! This is outside the scope or parameters of the scientific method and empiricism: science relies upon the repetition of events and laboratory conditions with controls and variables to experiment with and measure and observe results to hypothesize and theorize. History, by its very nature, is unrepeatable and it is a matter of the reliability of the documents. If this happened normally we'd call them "regulars!' Don't people often say, "There's a first time for everything?"
If Christ was God, it is no surprise that He rose from the dead--anyone with His character and credentials and made the claims He did is either a lunatic, a deliberate liar (and the disciples would've figured this out), or He was who He claimed to be--the Lord--The Resurrection and the Life in the flesh! If someone lived like Jesus did and said what He said and claimed deity, I am inclined to believe it--or who did say those things? NO psychiatrist would label Him unstable, but His claims would not escape the attention of the authorities either. It is obvious, for instance, that His teachings are not the rantings and ravings of a madman either! Lord Byron said,: "If ever a man were God or God-man, Jesus Christ was both."
It is a matter of philosophy and history, not science or opinion: "For nothing is impossible with God [and one must decide whether he admits to there being a God in the first place] (cf. Luke 1:37, NIV)." In order to be the judge and jury, in this case, you must weigh the evidence pro and con and go in the direction the evidence is leading: Where does the preponderance of the evidence point to? You don't need to know all the answers to decide, juries rarely have all the evidence or facts, but only sufficient evidence to render a verdict up or down. To the hardened skeptic, there is never enough evidence, but to the willing believer who wants to believe and is willing to do God 's will there is ample evidence; one cannot say he has an excuse due to lack of evidence. He may have reason to doubt, but no excuse! The skeptic has more questions to answer than the believer!
It is not a matter of the intellect because it is a moral matter and only those willing to obey God can believe (John 7:17, NIV, says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God..."). It doesn't take brains to figure it out, because a child can believe; the heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart. Your conclusion shows more what kind of person you are, not what kind of person Christ is.
Let me conclude: It is not a matter of the intellect because it is a moral matter and only those willing to obey God can believe (cf. John 7:1 says, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God..."). It doesn't take brains to figure it out, because a child can believe. The big question is where one's heart is and if it's in the right place. You cannot disprove the resurrection by merely citing people fact that people don't normally rise from the dead; Jesus is not your typical person, but the Son of God with all the necessary credentials and witnesses. Every theory posited to explain it away has been proved beyond credence and unacceptable, because God can raise the dead: for with God, all things are possible, by definition (cf. Matt. 19:26; Luke 1:37; Gen. 18:14).
Note and remember this point in fact: science can not make value judgments or judgments of historical nature, because they are not observable, measurable, nor repeatable--have you ever seen five pounds of love or three feet of faith? Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment