Now I am just going to address the idea of minimal evidence. As many people know I came to faith in Jesus based on the evidence of resurrection. I would love to do a longer blog about the entire cumulative case and I will soon. But for now I will stick to what I talked about today at the gym.
I said to him that the consensus of critical scholarship agrees with 3 historical facts.
1. The tomb of Jesus was discovered empty by a group of his women followers on the Sunday following his crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with someone whom they believed to be the risen Christ Jesus
3. As a result of these experiences the disciples who held the resurrection (that they saw him touched him, spoke with him) at the centre of their belief formed the early church in the very city that these events happened in Jerusalem and then grew from there.
What will shock many atheists about these 3 facts is that these are not questionable facts. From atheist to christian scholar they agree. they are not questionable facts. If you want to check it out for yourself go online or even ask local history professors. Ive done it, when I was 16 I didn't have google and a computer so I went to UBC and asked. I asked my high school teachers, I asked my friends high school teachers. I went to Langara and asked. So just ask.
The question is, what do we do with these facts? First we have to decide on the data to be considered, and it is these 3 facts. Next we have to decide what is the most likely explanation of these facts? First I can tell you there is no conceivable naturalistic explanation to these facts. You will hear many explanations but none will hold up. So why don't people accept that it is possible that Jesus rose from the dead? Even people like Bart Ehrman (who is a very liberal atheist scholar) agree with the 3 facts. It is because they are philosophical naturalists. They have a antisupernatural bias going into the question. So a resurrection is not a possible explanation.
So I leave it to you. What do you do to explain these 3 facts? It is a huge question and anyone who says it is meaningless is plain wrong. If a carpenter was walking around saying he was God, was crucified for saying that and then rose from the dead that changes everything. EVERYTHING. When I was first interested in Christianity I said to myself, what if this is true? It would mean that there is a creator and author of the universe and my life, how do I relate with him? It would mean that I have incredible value, and worth that no one could ever take away from me. So it was worth looking into.
Let me also say that as a Christian the primary way that I know the resurrection is true is because I feel the presence of God and the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true. This is how most people know the resurrection to be true around the world. But I was led there by the evidence, and anyone who says that there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is plain wrong and literally the weight of the worlds historians is against them. When they say this they are showing their own bias.
Robin
What shocks me is that you would claim that none of your three facts is questionable. (1) There is no consensus on the empty tomb story. Many scholars think that the story may have been a later invention. (2) Jesus' disciples may have had experiences that they understood to be appearances of the risen Christ, however, many scholars would not agree that they were " real experiences with someone" as opposed to hallucinations. (3) The appearances may have occurred in Galilee as indicated in Mark and Matthew rather than in Jerusalem.
ReplyDeleteactually that is the point of the 3 facts that they are agreed upon by the consensus of scholarship. The explaination of the facts is open to debate and question of course. 1. But I have never heard of a scholar who questioned that the tomb of Jesus was not empty after the crucifixion. If it wasnt, either the romans or Jewish council would have dragged Jesus's body through the streets since the resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
ReplyDelete2. of course the explaination of the experience is up for debate but the fact that the disciples had experiences with someone who they thought to be the risen Christ is fact.
3. Jesus appeared in more places than Jerusalam
thanks for engaging on the topic :) do you know of any scholars who dispute these facts? I would like to investigate further, I have yet to find any at all. But I assure you it is the consensus of scholarship
If you “have never heard of a scholar who questioned that the tomb of Jesus was not empty after the crucifixion,” I would recommend that you start with Bart Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. On page 230 he writes: And so even though we can’t say with any assurance that Jesus was raised from the dead, when speaking as historians rather than believers or unbelievers, or that his disciples immediately claimed that he was, or that they could point to an empty tomb as proof (Paul interestingly, never speaks of the evidence of the tomb), we can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that (a) women from their group went to anoint Jesus’ body for burial and found It missing, and (b) he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead. I wouldn’t call that a ringing endorsement of your three facts. Note that Ehrman declines to affirm even that these disciples had “real” experiences, merely that they insisted that they had.
ReplyDeleteIm very happy you cited Bart Ehrman, because HE AGREES with the 3 facts as FACT! Please youtube his debate with William Lane Craig. 1. He agrees that Jesus' tomb was empty 2. He does agree that the disciples had experiences with someone they believed to be the risen Jesus, and 3. He does agree that the origin of Christianity is in the belief of the resurrection.
ReplyDeleteLike I was saying, Bart Ehrman's conclusion based on the facts is of course not that Jesus rose from the dead because he is biased before he observes the facts. He is a philosophical naturalistm he cannot be open to the possibility of the supernatural.
Im pretty familliar with bart Ehrman, I enjoy his work. I think he is quite sensationalistic in his points but I do appreciate that he has changed his stance on certain issues he had with the Bible and that he defends the idea publically that it is a fact that Jesus was a real person. Even though most of his fans wish he wouldnt.
I have read the transcript of that debate and I understand now why you are confused. The way you determine a scholar's position is by the scholar's own words, not by the words of his opponent in a debate. It doesn't matter how many times Craig claims that Ehrman changed his position, by reading Ehrman's own words, it is possible to determine that he didn't.
ReplyDeletewhat does that have to do with the topic?
ReplyDeleteIn the debate, Craig accused Ehrman of changing his position on the historicity of the empty tomb and Ehrman denied doing so.
ReplyDeleteI know that many scholars, including Ehrman, question the three facts which you say are unquestionable because I have read the work of those scholars. You, on the other hand, seem to be relying on a Christian apologist to tell you what Ehrman and others think even if it is contrary to what they write.
which one of the 3 facts does bart Ehrman question?
DeleteHe definitely questions the first.
DeleteAs to the second, I think he might express reasonable certainty that some of the disciples had some experience that they understood to be appearances of the risen Christ, but he would say that they could have been completely within the disciples own minds rather than experiences with someone or something outside themselves.
As to the third, I don’t think he considers the evidence sufficient to determine what details of the appearances were part of earliest proclamation. The stories about talking to, eating with, and touching Jesus after the resurrection could have been later additions. I also don’t think he considers the evidence sufficient to determine the time or place of the earliest proclamation. The appearances might have taken place in Galilee and not proclaimed in Jerusalem for a considerable period of time.
I think you are confusing the fact with the explaination of the facts.
ReplyDeleteBart Ehrman does not question that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty 3 days later. Its a fact. Watch his debate with William Lane Craig, its on youtube.
Same goes with the other 2 facts. Ive read Ehrmans last 2 popular level books I am familliar with what he presents.
You bring up the idea that there may have been a considerable period of time before people proclaimed Jesus after his resurrection. That is solved by the creed in 1Cor 15:3 this creed is dated back to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion.
You must be watching a different debate because according to the transcript of the one I saw, Ehrman said, "I have, in fact, disputed the four facts that he continually refers to. The burial by Joseph of Arimathea I've argued could well be a later invention. The empty tomb also could be a later invention. We don't have a reference to it in Paul; you only have it later in the Gospels. The appearances of Jesus may just as well have been visions of Jesus as they were physical appearances of Jesus because people did and do have visions all the time."
ReplyDeletewhat is the problem of a fact only being reported in 4 gospels and not by Paul?
ReplyDeleteThe problem is with your understanding of Ehrman's position. If you were as familiar with his work as you say, you would know what he sees as the problem.
Delete