"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).
This is apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny). God is no spectator or passive observer of humanity. A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events. As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men." Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty Creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.
One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction. It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility. Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).
"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).
This is an apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny). A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events. As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men." Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.
One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction. It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility. Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).
The crux of the Christian faith is its dependence on the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation and inception. You must accept this fact or the whole faith is disemboweled. The resurrection is the final proof that Christ's sacrifice was accepted, that there is a heaven to hope for and that Christ is the one and only Son of God. This is the most crucial and vital fact of history--the most astonishing and fantastic fact, or it is the biggest and cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, according to Josh McDowell. There is no middle ground; it is not a legend since there was not the time for it to develop until the gospels were written (probably before AD 70). The historicity of Christ is beyond dispute by any reputable modern historian because it is vouched for by many secular forces as well as the internal testimony of the Word.
How do we know this as historical fact, though? History, by its very nature, cannot be proved in a scientific manner (it's out of the realm of science because it's nonrepeatable). How do we know that Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth? There are no witnesses alive today to verify it, but we do have documentation that is credible, and trustworthy. We must assess the veracity of the records and the dependability of the eye-witnesses--consummate, inveterate liars, and lunatics or madmen are not reliable witnesses, no matter the number.
However, in the case of Scripture, we have four noblemen who lived in the times of skepticism and persecution for their faith, and they have the character that one could believe. We can believe the records written because they give no evidence of rantings and ravings of madmen. Simon Greenleaf, a prof at Harvard, and one of the world's foremost authorities on legal evidence became a believer in Christ by examining the evidence and announced that, if an unbiased jury were to hear it, they would proclaim the resurrection as historical fact. There certainly isn't a lack of evidence to support it, one must have preconceived ideas or prejudices to deny it. The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart, and people feign intellectual problems as smokescreens to hide their moral rebellion and unwillingness to do God's will.
There is no way you can disprove it: The opposite of the resurrection is not that people don't rise from the dead, but that God cannot raise the dead, specifically, that He cannot rise from the dead Himself. All science can say is that people don't normally rise from the dead, all things being equal. There is no law that says so, it has just been observed that men normally die and conclusions were drawn.
Jesus predicted His resurrection and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to verify it: The appearances of Christ to doubting apostles, who had to be convinced against their better judgment (Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he could put his hand in Christ's side) and they had become disillusioned, reverting to their former way of life, such as fishing; the many eyewitnesses that were alive when the gospels were written that could've dispelled the belief--it would be like someone saying that FDR claimed to be the Son of God today; one famous lawyer (Frank Morrison) asked the pivotal question, who moved the stone--it was guarded and heavy; one must account for the empty tomb and everyone knew where it was and could've checked it out; how do you explain the rise of the church that taught the resurrection, the martyrdom of thousands for the faith, when all they had to do to save their hide was deny this fact; the day of worship was changed from the Sabbath day to the Lord's day (and Jews practically had a fetish about this command); the grave clothes were undisturbed and this made an instant believer out of John, showing supernatural exit; and most convincing is the dramatic change in the lives of the apostles, going from timid and frightened to roaring lions for the faith.
The only way to dismantle Christianity is to disprove this historical fact and this has never been done, and cannot be done--it would raise more issues and questions than it solved--there's no legitimate evidence against it; only a preconceived notion that it's untrue brings doubt.
Note that the burden of proof falls on the party making the challenge that a document is not authentic or bogus (Socrates' dictum): Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise" (Professor, an expert on law and evidence, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard). He also states: "[That] the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in a y court of law."
All the above are compelling, circumstantial evidence, and this kind of evidence is admissible in a court of law; however, no evidence can be conclusive in itself, but one must weigh it and go with the preponderance of the evidence--all the popular theories about how Christ didn't rise from the dead have been refuted and aren't believed seriously anymore by scholars (like that the disciples merely stole the body, and no one should believe the testimony of guards while they were asleep--this is not admissible evidence, and this tale circulated and the Jews believed it).
What is so compelling about the evidence and makes the gospel writers so credible? They were willing to die for it and were in a position to know whether it was true--unlike radical Muslims dying for what they think is true--and people will gladly die for what they believe, but not for a known lie. Finally, the integrity of the Scriptures is well-established and its reliability, authenticity, and faithful reproduction with utmost fidelity leaves no doubt that they have survived without being corrupted, as Islam claims. Soli Deo Gloria!
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).
This is apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny). God is no spectator or passive observer of humanity. A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events. As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men." Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty Creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.
One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction. It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility. Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).
"To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3, ESV).
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers a one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15:6, ESV).
This is an apologetic for the resurrection of Christ and is included with worldview posts because acceptance or rejection affects one's interpretation of history, and whether he believes God intervenes in it or plays an active part (as Deists deny). A so-called uniformitarian view holds that God if there is one, doesn't intervene in human affairs, nor cause any cataclysmic events. As Ben Franklin said, "I have lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God governs in the affairs of men." Believing in a supernatural God, and that with God nothing is impossible, settles the issue, for this is merely child's play for the almighty creator of the universe and the one who holds all things together in His hands.
One's approach to interpreting history is affected because his philosophy biases him for or against the supernatural and how we can "know" historical events and verify them to our satisfaction. It is not the denial of the miracle of the resurrection that is at stake, but the whole concept of their existence and possibility. Denying the fact of miracles leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which cannot be proved (logicians know you cannot prove a universal negative!).
The crux of the Christian faith is its dependence on the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation and inception. You must accept this fact or the whole faith is disemboweled. The resurrection is the final proof that Christ's sacrifice was accepted, that there is a heaven to hope for and that Christ is the one and only Son of God. This is the most crucial and vital fact of history--the most astonishing and fantastic fact, or it is the biggest and cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, according to Josh McDowell. There is no middle ground; it is not a legend since there was not the time for it to develop until the gospels were written (probably before AD 70). The historicity of Christ is beyond dispute by any reputable modern historian because it is vouched for by many secular forces as well as the internal testimony of the Word.
How do we know this as historical fact, though? History, by its very nature, cannot be proved in a scientific manner (it's out of the realm of science because it's nonrepeatable). How do we know that Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth? There are no witnesses alive today to verify it, but we do have documentation that is credible, and trustworthy. We must assess the veracity of the records and the dependability of the eye-witnesses--consummate, inveterate liars, and lunatics or madmen are not reliable witnesses, no matter the number.
However, in the case of Scripture, we have four noblemen who lived in the times of skepticism and persecution for their faith, and they have the character that one could believe. We can believe the records written because they give no evidence of rantings and ravings of madmen. Simon Greenleaf, a prof at Harvard, and one of the world's foremost authorities on legal evidence became a believer in Christ by examining the evidence and announced that, if an unbiased jury were to hear it, they would proclaim the resurrection as historical fact. There certainly isn't a lack of evidence to support it, one must have preconceived ideas or prejudices to deny it. The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart, and people feign intellectual problems as smokescreens to hide their moral rebellion and unwillingness to do God's will.
There is no way you can disprove it: The opposite of the resurrection is not that people don't rise from the dead, but that God cannot raise the dead, specifically, that He cannot rise from the dead Himself. All science can say is that people don't normally rise from the dead, all things being equal. There is no law that says so, it has just been observed that men normally die and conclusions were drawn.
Jesus predicted His resurrection and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to verify it: The appearances of Christ to doubting apostles, who had to be convinced against their better judgment (Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he could put his hand in Christ's side) and they had become disillusioned, reverting to their former way of life, such as fishing; the many eyewitnesses that were alive when the gospels were written that could've dispelled the belief--it would be like someone saying that FDR claimed to be the Son of God today; one famous lawyer (Frank Morrison) asked the pivotal question, who moved the stone--it was guarded and heavy; one must account for the empty tomb and everyone knew where it was and could've checked it out; how do you explain the rise of the church that taught the resurrection, the martyrdom of thousands for the faith, when all they had to do to save their hide was deny this fact; the day of worship was changed from the Sabbath day to the Lord's day (and Jews practically had a fetish about this command); the grave clothes were undisturbed and this made an instant believer out of John, showing supernatural exit; and most convincing is the dramatic change in the lives of the apostles, going from timid and frightened to roaring lions for the faith.
The only way to dismantle Christianity is to disprove this historical fact and this has never been done, and cannot be done--it would raise more issues and questions than it solved--there's no legitimate evidence against it; only a preconceived notion that it's untrue brings doubt.
Note that the burden of proof falls on the party making the challenge that a document is not authentic or bogus (Socrates' dictum): Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise" (Professor, an expert on law and evidence, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard). He also states: "[That] the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in a y court of law."
All the above are compelling, circumstantial evidence, and this kind of evidence is admissible in a court of law; however, no evidence can be conclusive in itself, but one must weigh it and go with the preponderance of the evidence--all the popular theories about how Christ didn't rise from the dead have been refuted and aren't believed seriously anymore by scholars (like that the disciples merely stole the body, and no one should believe the testimony of guards while they were asleep--this is not admissible evidence, and this tale circulated and the Jews believed it).
What is so compelling about the evidence and makes the gospel writers so credible? They were willing to die for it and were in a position to know whether it was true--unlike radical Muslims dying for what they think is true--and people will gladly die for what they believe, but not for a known lie. Finally, the integrity of the Scriptures is well-established and its reliability, authenticity, and faithful reproduction with utmost fidelity leaves no doubt that they have survived without being corrupted, as Islam claims. Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment