Posted on 04/16/2003 6:36:15 PM PDT by Remedy
I set out as a young man to debunk Christianity. I met a young Christian woman who challenged me to intellectually examine the evidence for Christianity, and I accepted her challenge. I aimed to show her-and everyone-that Christianity was nonsense. I thought it would be easy. I thought a careful investigation of the facts would expose Christianity as a lie and its followers as dupes.
But then a funny thing happened. As I began investigating the claims of Christianity, I kept running up against the evidence. Time after time, I was surprised to discover the factual basis for the seemingly outlandish things Christians believe. And one of the most convincing categories of evidence I confronted was this: The resurrection accounts found in the Gospels are not the stuff of fable, forgery or fabrication.
I had assumed that someone, or several someones, had invented the stories of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. But as I examined those accounts, I had to face the fact that any sensible mythmaker would do things much differently from the way Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did in recording the news of the resurrection. As much as I hated to, I had to admit that if I had been some first-century propagandist trying to fake the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would have done a number of things differently: I would wait a prudent period after the events before "publishing" my account.
Few historians dispute the fact that the disciples of Jesus began preaching the news of His resurrection soon after the event itself; in fact, Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) occurred within 50 days of the Resurrection. And textual research indicates that the written accounts of the Resurrection, especially the creedal statement of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, are astoundingly early in origin, possibly within two years of the event. Such early origins argue against any notion that the Resurrection accounts are legendary. I would publish my account far from the venue where it supposedly happened.
Dr. William Lane Craig writes, "One of the most amazing facts about the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was that it originated in the very city where Jesus was crucified. The Christian faith did not come to exist in some distant city, far from eyewitnesses who knew of Jesus' death and burial. No, it came into being in the very city where Jesus had been publicly crucified, under the very eyes of its enemies." I would select my "witnesses" very carefully.
I would avoid, as much as possible, using any names at all in my account, and I would certainly avoid citing prominent personalities as witnesses. Yet at least 16 individuals are mentioned by name as witnesses in the various accounts, and the mention of Joseph of Arimathea as the man who buried Jesus would have been terribly dangerous if the gospel accounts had been faked or embellished. As a member of the Sanhedrin, a Jewish "Supreme Court," he would have been well-known. J. P. Moreland writes, "No one could have invented such a person who did not exist and say he was on the Sanhedrin if such were not the case."
His involvement in the burial of Jesus could have been easily confirmed or refuted. Perhaps most important, I would avoid citing disreputable witnesses, which makes significant the record of Jesus' first appearances-to women-since in that time and culture women were considered invalid witnesses in a court of law. If the accounts were fabrications, the women would never have been included in the story, at least not as first witnesses. I would surround the event with impressive supernatural displays and omens.
As Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide writes, "We do not read in the first testimonies [of the Resurrection] of an apocalyptic spectacle, exorbitant sensations, or of the transforming impact of a cosmic event. . . . According to all New Testament reports, no human eye saw the resurrection itself, no human being was present, and none of the disciples asserted to have apprehended, let alone understood, its manner and nature. How easy it would have been for them or their immediate successors to supplement this scandalous hole in the concatenation of events by fanciful embellishments! But precisely because none of the evangelists dared to 'improve upon' or embellish this unseen resurrection, the total picture of the gospels also gains in trustworthiness." I would painstakingly correlate my account with others I knew, embellishing the legend only where I could be confident of not being contradicted.
Many critics have pointed out the befuddling differences and apparent contradictions in the Resurrection accounts. But these are actually convincing evidences of their authenticity; they display an ingenuous lack of collusion, agreeing and (apparently) diverging much as eyewitness accounts of any event do. I would portray myself and any co-conspirators sympathetically, even heroically.
Yet the Gospel writers present strikingly unflattering portraits of Jesus' followers (such as Peter and Thomas) and their often skeptical reactions (Mark 16:11, 13; Luke 24:11, 37; John 20:19, 25, 21:4). Such portrayals are very unlike the popular myths and legends of that (or any) time. I would disguise the location of the tomb or spectacularly destroy it in my account.
If I were creating a resurrection legend, I would keep the tomb's location a secret to prevent any chance that someone might discover Jesus' body, or I would record in my account that the angels sealed it or carried it off into heaven after the Resurrection. Or I might have taken the easiest course of all and simply made my fictional resurrection a "spiritual" one, which would have made it impossible to refute even if a body were eventually discovered. But, of course, the Gospel accounts describe the owner of the tomb (Joseph of Arimathea) and its location ("At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb," John 19:41), and identify Jesus' resurrection as a bodily one (John 20:27). I would try to squelch inquiry or investigation.
I might pronounce a curse on anyone attempting to substantiate my claims, or attach a stigma to anyone so shallow as to require evidence. Yet note the frequent appeal of Jesus' disciples, to the easily confirmed-or discredited-nature of the evidence, as though inviting investigation (Acts 2:32, 3:15, 13:31; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6). This was done within a few years of the events themselves; if the tomb were not empty or the Resurrection appearances were fiction, the early Christians' opponents could have conclusively debunked the new religion.
As Dr. Edwin Yamauchi says of the citation of the resurrected Christ appearing to more than 500 people in 1 Corinthians 15, "What gives special authority to the list [of witnesses] as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' " I would not preach a message of repentance in light of the Resurrection.
No one in his right mind would have chosen to create a fictional message that would invite opposition and persecution from both civil and religious authorities of those days. How much easier and wiser it would have been to preach a less controversial gospel- concentrating on Jesus' teachings about love, perhaps-thus saving myself and the adherents of my new religion a lot of trouble. I would stop short of dying for my lie.
Lee Strobel has written, "People will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.
"While most people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, the disciples were in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. They claimed that they saw him, talked with him, and ate with him. If they weren't absolutely certain, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be tortured to death for proclaiming that the resurrection had happened."
•••
These are not the only reasons I believe in the truth of the Bible and the reality of the Resurrection. But these were among the "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3) that I encountered in my attempts to prove Christianity wrong, which eventually led me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be and that He really did rise from the dead. It didn't happen immediately, but eventually I gave in to the truth, and on Dec. 19, 1959, the Risen Christ radically changed my life. I've seen Him do the same for countless others, and I pray, if you haven't done so already, you will let Him do the same for you.
Josh McDowell is a speaker, author, and traveling representative for Campus Crusade for Christ. His books include Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Than a Carpenter, and The New Tolerance. He was assisted in writing this article by Bob Hostetler, an award-winning writer who lives in Hamilton, Ohio.
This article appeared in Focus on the Family magazine.
Copyright © 2000 Josh McDowell.
All rights reserved.
I won't blame them for Isaiah 7:14, because the translation error was in the Septuagint (which rendered the Hebrew almah, which means "young woman" into the Greek parthenos, or "virgin"). But I have to think that most of these were deliberate. Here is a prime example (cut-and-pasted from an old post of mine on a different thread):
Psalm 22 is a great example of trying to find something that isn't there. Let me offer a Christian translation first:
[12] Many bulls encompass me,The key here is the translation of verse 16. Christians maintain that the Hebrew word ka-'ari should be translated as 'pierced'. They do so on the claim that the root is krh, "to dig". The problem with this is that it does not account for the 'aleph. Karah consists only of the Hebrew letters kaph, resh, and he, whereas the word in the Hebrew text, ka-'ari, consists of kaph, 'aleph, resh, and yod. Further, the verb krh, "to dig," does not have the meaning "to pierce." Karah generally refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh. A better word would have been nakar, used in 2 Kings 18:21 ("Behold, you are relying now on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who rely on him.")
strong bulls of Bashan surround me;
[13] they open wide their mouths at me,
like a ravening and roaring lion.
[16] Yea, dogs are round about me;
a company of evildoers encircle me;
they have pierced my hands and feet --
[20] Deliver my soul from the sword,
my life from the power of the dog!
[21] Save me from the mouth of the lion,
my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen!
The correct translation of verse 16 is:
[16] For dogs have surrounded me;Which, as you can see, perfectly matches the imagery of the preceding and following verses.
a company of evildoers have encircled me;
like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.
This is one of many such psalms which David wrote about being beset and suffering at the hands of enemies. It is not prophecy, and it is not a messianic passage.
Instead, I have asked for independent verification of nominally historical events described in Luke, which should be easily available if they actually exist.
And I responded with the testimony of acknowledged experts in their respective disciplines that the accuracy of Luke has been verified over and over again. The question is, on what grounds or by what principle do you justify your assertion that "unverified references are false until proved otherwise"? Are you actually saying that events didn't happen if we can't verify them? Upon what principle of literary/historical examination should the accuracy of an ancient writer who has been proven correct over and over again be questioned in those cases of historical minutia where the very specified, independent evidence after two milenia may not be preserved?
I have chastised your use of apologetics sites, which are the least objective sources available.
I understand your discomfit with certain web sites, some of which I share. But if the site is documenting its source material, then I should expect that it is the source material or writings that should be substantively addressed and criticized if need be.
I have refused to accept your arguments from authority, including the "30 years in the desert" argument.
I really haven't argued from authority yet, except in the sense of expert witness testimony. If I were arguing from authority I would just tell you that the real reason you reject the accuracy of Luke and the Word of God is that you have set yourself up as the final arbitrer of truth, and that because you want to remain independent and autonomous from God your Creator. The issue we are dicussing here though, is the justification for rejecting the veracity of an ancient writer whose accuracy concerning minute historical details has independently been verified time and time again.
That's a carefully parsed sentence. If only ONE of his 1000 references is "verifiable", then he is batting .1000, right? That is what you are saying, isn't it?
I don't understand your challenge here. Why do you say 'ONE'? Listed above are NUMEROUS examples of his accuracy in the minutia of historical detail, not just ONE. If he were right one time and wrong 999 times I wouldn't trust his veracity either. But EVERY place where his accuracy has so far been able to be independently checked, he has been proven correct EVERY time. I don't mind conjecture or speculations, but I view them as just that. If you wish to falsify (at least in a historical sense) something Luke referenced, please show me the archeological or documentary evidence.
Cordially,
It is, huh? There are, of course, some which survived (I cited the psuedo-Clementine literature yesterday) by being secreted away for centuries. But, if you are correct, why are most of these works only found as quotes in the writings of their church opponents? Can you locate for me, for example, even a fragment of ’alethès lógos by Celsus, other than in the work of Origen?
It is not even necessary to postulate that much. There is nothing unique to Christianity in referring to God as "Father". I have no doubt Jesus referred to God in this way, and he would have been in line with Judaism in doing so.
You, O YHWH, are our Father;
From of old, Your name is ‘Our Redeemer.’ (Isaiah 63:16)
And Deuteronomy refers to Israel as sons of God:
You are the sons of the LORD your God... (Deuteronomy 14:1)
It is possible that Jesus referred to himself as "son of God" in a spiritual sense, and this later came to be understood literally by those whose background was more grounded in hellenistic religion (and particularly mystery religion) than in Judaism.
Even though pagans stand condemned by it?
An opinion without support remanins nothing more than an opinion.
Duelling web sites?
Messianic prophecies that Jesus failed to fulfill
Things we didn't find out in Sunday school
There are plenty more, if you are interested.
Sorry. Bad finger. John 4:26.
Jn3:13, Jn8:58, and Jn5:18 do not exclude the possibility that Yeshua was mistaken about his divinity, and fulfillment of the messianic prophecies (my original point, if you read back). In fact, I postulated that Yeshua had been taught by his mother, Miryam, that his "real father" was Yahveh, so it is reasonable that he had said as much in public as an adult (which does not make him insane, but merely mistaken.)
Your position is a curious one. It assumes so many things. Perhaps you could list a credible source that supports your speculation? In order for your thesis to be true, you would have to explain away his miracles (even the Jews didn't try that. Instead they credited the devil.) and his resurrection. You'd have to explain why the Christian church even exists, let alone why there are more Christians than any other faith. You don't deny the existence of Christ-- why? The resurrection of Christ is as well-established as his existence.
The same can be said of your opinion of what Jews consider messianic. But, if you want a source, I can oblige you.
Biblical Passages Referring to the Moshiach The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:
- Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
- Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
- Ezekiel 38:16
- Hosea 3:4-3:5
- Micah 4
- Zephaniah 3:9
- Zechariah 14:9
- Daniel 10:14
Two things of note here:
1) Diamond knows his stuff. He doesn't need to refer to apologetics sites. It is for your benefit that he does. Apparently you are not interested in evidence.
2) I assume you have some intellectual basis for claiming that apologetic sites are the "least objective?" How would you know that? Are pagan sites the least objective? Or are only sites that try to discredit Christ objective? And what does that say about your objectivity?
The only evidence you have for the miracles, and for the supposed Jewish response, is what the gospel accounts report. You believe the gospels are divinely inspired, and so you need no further proof that these miracles actually occurred. Since I do not consider them so inspired, I have no need to prove or disprove anything about what they report.
There is much lost history. As I mentioned before, the NT was the only source for the existence of Pilate until recently. Many biased and close minded critics of the NT said Pilate did not exist and that the writers of the NT just made it up. They suffered from a similar symptom illustrated by your quote: If there is an absence of secondary sources and the Bible is the primary source, the primary source is mistaken. IOW, the Bible is always wrong until proven right. Shall we apply that standard to paganism? If you had to prove paganism right, a match book cover might be too much space to write what's left.
By what authority do you assume missing gnostic writings are missing because Christians destroyed them? Christianity is not fragile. Every attempt to discredit it or exterminate Christians has not only failed, but sometimes caused it to grow. It is now the fastest growing religion on the planet. To think that it cannot stand up to scrutiny or criticism after 2000 years of scrutiny and criticism is a bit short-sighted.
There is no need to destroy works by critics. Yes there is a need to refute them but no need to destroy them.
The Gospels are primary source evidence, but there is also Praxis, another source I suspect you have not read. There is external evidence as well. There are events that cannot be explained if the resurrection of Christ is a myth:
Why did 11 of the Apostles die as martyrs instead of recanting?
Why were the first believers primarily Jewish?
Why did Christianity grow so quickly that Nero could blame the burning of Rome on Christians only 30 years after Christ died?
How could the resurrection legend develop while eyewitnesses who knew it was false were still alive?
They burned the library in Alexandria. Do you think this was an isolated incident? When pagan temples were converted to churches, do you think they preserved pagan documents?
It is now the fastest growing religion on the planet.
Source? Sadly, I believe that title belongs to Islam.
You are referencing two different passages here. And there are reasons that Jews do not consider these messianic. The context of the entire book of Isaiah makes clear the identity of the suffering servant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.