In this week's featured article, apologist Peter Kreeft presents a compelling case for the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Kreeft begins his case by presupposing only two things, both of which are empirical: 1) The existence of the New Testament texts as we have them 2) and the existence (but not necessarily the truth) of the Christian religion as we find it today.
Kreeft writes:
"We believe Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history. To prove this, we do not need to presuppose anything controversial (e.g. that miracles happen). But the skeptic must also not presuppose anything (e.g. that they do not). We do not need to presuppose that the New Testament is infallible, or divinely inspired or even true. We do not need to presuppose that there really was an empty tomb or post-resurrection appearances, as recorded...The question is this: Which theory about what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday can account for the data? There are five possible theories: Christianity, hallucination, myth, conspiracy and swoon." [1]
Click here to read Dr. Kreeft's article, Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ, in it's entirety.
I pray you are encouraged by this work.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad A. Gross
Reference:
Reference:
1. Peter Kreeft, Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ, http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm, 1994.
Comments
I found out about this blog just recently and I'm so glad I did. There's just a huge amount of resources here for people who want to learn more about apologetics. I find it very valuable, and I'm excited as I explore all the materials.
Please do keep on sustaining this site!
God bless you!
Hello and welcome to the blog! I'm so thankful that you found this article helpful. It's one of my favorites in regard to the resurrection.
Also, your feedback means a lot. The purpose of this blog is to educate those who desire to learn about apologetics and to also challenge those who don't know Him.
Hope to hear from you again and rest assured- I will be sustaining the site. I'm so glad you found it.
Thank you again for your encouraging comments.
Btw, I have been away for 3 days so I'm sorry it took awhile to respond.
Godspeed
Yup, I'll be exploring this site more. Honestly it's one of the best blogs on apologetics I have ever come across. I'm slowly learning apologetics and these materials are very helpful and encouraging.
God bless!
I'm so glad; I greatly appreciate your kind words.
Godspeed
Welcome! How extensively have you studied the historicity of the resurrection account?
Thank you
Your obvious pushiness and sarcasm is noted. I will answer when I get a chance and am under no obligation to respond, nor publish your comments. Further sarcastic comments or pushiness will result in your comments no longer being published.
Finally, the comment section on this blog is for answering sincere questions for those who want sincere, well thought out answers.
Please keep in mind that this blog is a church ministry. Debate boards can be found elsewhere.
When time allows, I will answer your assertions.
Thank you
For any misunderstanding on my part, you have my sincere apology.
First, regarding Dr. Kreeft, his background and works are available via his website for public view. You, on the other hand, have an anonymous profile so I do not have the benefit of knowing your background. So, my intention in asking how much you have, or have not, studied the historical resurrection account was to simply learn more about you. This seems completely reasonable, in my view.
Second, you seem to imply that Dr. Kreeft’s position, or motives, call his conclusions into question. I find this to be a fallacious assertion. All authors, regardless of background or worldview, have an agenda or motive. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be writing. If we are to apply your same reasoning to all non-theistic authors, one wouldn’t be able to trust anything anyone wrote. In short, everyone has a bias; the question is, “what is the right bias?”
Third, your statement regarding John is simply an assertion with no supporting evidence. Surely you don’t expect me to launch an entire defense of the book of John’s reliability?
If you are interested in more on the validity of John’s gospel, I would suggest checking out the works of Mark Roberts, Craig Blomberg, or Norman Geisler (Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics). Many have found them helpful.
Dr. Kreeft states in his article:
“We do not need to presuppose that the New Testament is infallible, or divinely inspired or even true. We do not need to presuppose that there really was an empty tomb or post-resurrection appearances, as recorded. We need to presuppose only two things, both of which are hard data, empirical data, which no one denies: The existence of the New Testament texts as we have them, and the existence (but not necessarily the truth) of the Christian religion as we find it today.”
So, with that in mind, your point regarding John’s gospel, is a non-point.
Fourth, your second point, regarding Pascal’s quote and the like, is merely speculation. An assertion without evidence is not an argument, respectfully. It’s not enough for one to simply offer alternative theories to the resurrection, but one must also be able to present first-century evidence to substantiate their proposed conclusion.
Fifth, you point regarding Peter actually speaks to the authenticity of the record we have. When one considers the principle of embarrassment, used by historians to evaluate a documents authenticity, the fact that the gospel writers include these facts at all speaks to their honesty. Further, does it follow that because Peter was a flawed human he therefore deserves to be labeled as “conniving or convicting?” One wonders what Peter and the other 11 (I include Judas’ replacement in that number) thought they would gain in making all this up. Also, it’s important not to ignore all of the positive character traits attributed to Peter in the gospels accounts as well.
Sixth, the fact of the empty tomb is one of the best attested facts we have regarding the historical passion narrative (See Craig and/or Habermas). I believe the point here, which you seem to agree with, is that the tomb was empty. If the body was in the tomb, the Jews could produce it. The body was not in the tomb; therefore, the Jews could not produce it. This argument is merely to support that the tomb was empty.
You and I share a love of study, research, and pursuit of truth. I’m sorry that you didn’t find Dr. Kreeft’s article helpful.
I encourage you to continue your study and research, as I plan to continue my own. The Bible even encourages us to “examine everything [carefully;] hold fast to that which is good;” (1 Th. 5:21; NASB).
I pray that your search for truth is rewarded.
Take care
I did not receive an email from you; strange. I will check my SPAM; sometimes emails get sent there for no reason.
Sorry about that. My email is djspidey67@yahoo.com
Take care
I received your email. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will reply as time allows.
Hope all is well with you.
Take care