Science has taken us to the moon, allowed us to see DNA, and show us that people who are assuredly dead do not return to life by natural causes. Since the apostle Paul wrote that Christianity is a false religion if Jesus was not resurrected (1 Co 15:17), has science disproved Christianity? Is there any good evidence that Jesus' resurrection actually occurred? Despite the hesitation of skeptics concerning the four Gospels, nearly all Bible scholars are confident that there are at least three sure facts concerning what happened to Jesus.
1. Jesus was crucified on the orders of the Roman governor and died as a result.
2. Jesus' disciples honestly believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them beginning on Sunday morning.
3. A sworn enemy of the Christians named Saul (later called Paul) had an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus, prompting him to become a Christian. This would be similar to Jesus appearing to a Muslim who then leaves Islam and becomes the next Billy Graham! Saul become the opposite of what he'd been because of the risen Jesus (see Ac 9).
Unbelieving scholars form theories that attempt to explain away the above facts. Some used to claim that Jesus' disciples lied about the resurrection appearances or that the reports of Jesus' resurrection were legends that developed over time. But once the second fact above was admitted, that Jesus' original disciples sincerely believed He had risen and appeared to them shortly after His death, the legend and fraud theories fell apart. Today they have been largely abandoned.
Now the theory most commonly held by non-Christian scholars is that the appearances of the risen Jesus were hallucinations resulting from the disciples grief over Jesus' death. But this theory does not explain the third fact (Saul's conversion experience) since, rather than grieving over Jesus' death, he hated Jesus so much that he arrested and killed Christians. And while a hallucination could conceivably explain an appearance of Jesus to an individual like Peter (Lk 24:34; 1 Co 15:5), it does not explain the appearances to Jesus to groups, such as the Twelve, more than 500 at one time, and to all of the apostles when they were together (1 Co 15:5-7). Why not? Hallucinations are like dreams. Just as a friend cannot actually join you in one of your dreams, friends cannot join others in their hallucinations.
In contrast to the theories of skeptics, Jesus' genuine resurrection from death explains how Jesus' devastated disciples and, later on, one of the his best-know enemies, came to devote their lives to proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. By far, this is the best explanation of the three commonly accepted facts listed above.
So, while science has proved that the dead do not return to life by natural causes, historical investigation suggests that Jesus rose supernaturally three days after His execution. Since there are many religions competing for your devotion, Jesus' resurrection verifies that His promises are words upon which you can bet your life and soul.
For more of Mike Licona's work, see here.
For more of Mike Licona's work, see here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad A. Gross
Comments
Regarding Paul, maybe he was almost convinced by the Christians arguments, felt bad about his persecutions, got caught up in messianic fervor, and was a little nutty in the head.
These don't seem like unreasonable explanations at all. What do you think?
Thank you for visiting the blog and taking the time to comment.
Maybe the disciples had hallucinations and dreams that had other disciples in them.
This simply doesn’t fit what we know about hallucinations. Hallucinations are understood to be private, subjective, and individual mental experiences (or projections) that most times do not correspond to objective reality.
As Licona points out in the article- And while a hallucination could conceivably explain an appearance of Jesus to an individual like Peter (Lk 24:34; 1 Co 15:5), it does not explain the appearances to Jesus to groups, such as the Twelve, more than 500 at one time, and to all of the apostles when they were together (1 Co 15:5-7). Why not? Hallucinations are like dreams. Just as a friend cannot actually join you in one of your dreams, friends cannot join others in their hallucinations.
It seems to believe that each of the disciples, at different times, in different settings, had hallucinations that included each other of the risen Jesus contradicts the available data and what we know about hallucinations themselves.
You can find a great article by Dr. Gary Habermas dealing with halluncinations here.
Regarding Paul, maybe he was almost convinced by the Christians arguments, felt bad about his persecutions, got caught up in messianic fervor, and was a little nutty in the head.
This is an interesting theory, but nothing more than conjecture. This is similar to something skeptic Richard Carrier has asserted in the past and while interesting, there is 0 first century evidence to support it. If I am mistaken, I’d love to hear some.
The claim about the appearance to the five hundred is not one of the "sure facts" but he speaks as if it is.
No; but the appearance to the 500 is one of the reasons the above facts are believed by the majority of both skeptical and non-skeptical scholars. The appearance to the 500 is included in the creedal material that was believed to be received by Paul just 5 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
For more on this see here.
Respectfully
I also want to express my appreciation for your visit to the blog. I hope you find the resources here helpful.
I have only one thing to add to Chad's comment. It is regarding the theory you presented to explain Paul's conversion.
Not only is there zero first century evidence to support it (which is enough by itself), but Paul, to quote him, was "a Hebrew of Hebrews" and a Pharisee.
All the evidence we have of first century Jewish expectations of the Messiah and how He would come means something dramatic had to have happened for Paul (and all of the disciples for that matter, they were all Jews) to give up thousands of years of tradition, culture, and belief he was grounded in to proclaim Jesus as the resurrected Messiah.
It is far fetched to believe that Paul lost his mind let alone the other disciples as well.
The "Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is" by N.T. Wright discusses first century Jewish expectations of the Messiah in detail.
God bless
RE: hallucination theory objections
I don't follow because the hallucination theory is meant to generally explain Licona's point number 2, not each of the biblical claims of appearances and their details, because they're not “sure facts.” Because they're not sure facts, not each of them needs to be explained by separate hallucinations that included all of the details (each disciple, each of different times, each of different settings, etc). Rather, the idea is a few hallucinations that included Jesus and a few real, familiar people caused point number 2.
These ideas serve to explain point 3 in a circumstantial way.
However, by Licona's own arguement, it is not itself a sure fact. Thus Licona is jumping the gun by retorting "hallucinations don't explain the appearance to the 500." Indeed, they're not intended to. Rather they're intended to explain point 2 generally.
RE: 1st century Jewish expectations of the messiah
Yes, there's evidence Jews believed a suffering Messiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Targum Jonathan interpret the Isaiah 52-53 passages as being about the Messiah. The Dead SeaScrolls link them to Daniel 9, as well. Daniel 9-12 speaks of a dying messiah and the end of the world, and Josephus tells us that Jews thought Daniel's prophecies were coming to pass and influenced Jews to fight. Also Psalm 89 talks about the messiah and God's servant in terms of suffering.
Therefore, it's not that surprising that the Christian message "worked" on Jews.
BTW, Daniel 9, by Licona's criteria for “sure fact,” is a forgery from the 160s BCE.
Also, re: “give up thousands of years of tradition, etc.” This is over-blown. Paul didn't give up all of Judaism. Rather, he switched to a different flavor of it. There were several to choose from.
My main contention is this: For a first century Jew to claim that someone rose bodily from the dead was strange.
N.T. Wright states in the book I referenced to you in my previous post:
“Resurrection meant embodiment and implied that the new age had dawned. If, therefore, you had said to a first-century Jew ‘the resurrection has occurred,’ you would have received the puzzled response that it obviously had not, since the patriarchs, prophets and martyrs were not walking around alive again and since the restoration spoken of by Ezekiel 37 had clearly not occurred either.”
To Jews the phrase “resurrection from the dead” only made sense in correlation with the end of the world. Yet Paul and the early Christians were teaching and proclaiming “in Jesus the resurrection from the dead” had occurred in the present world (Acts 4:2, 1 Corinthians 15:21). The best explanation for this drastic shift in their thinking is the bodily resurrection of Jesus occurring in this present world. Again, you can find out more about this in detail in N.T. Wright’s book.
Finally, you also posted:
"Also, re: 'give up thousands of years of tradition, etc' This is over-blown. Paul didn't give up all of Judaism. Rather, he switched to a different flavor of it. There were several to choose from."
Here are the shifts that occurred in Paul’s beliefs after he experienced the risen Jesus (All of the early Christian fathers were former followers of Judaism as well):
- The animal sacrifice system is replaced forever by the one perfect sacrifice of Christ
- The binding supremacy of the Law of Moses is now powerless because of the sinless life of Christ
- Strict monotheism is replaced with the trinity (three persons in one divine essence and considered by most followers of Judaism as polytheism then and now)
- The Sabbath is no longer observed even though breaking it was punishable by death (Exodus 31:14)
-Belief in a conquering Messiah replaced with belief in a the Messiah as a sacrificial lamb
J.P. Moreland states in response to these shifts in belief as follows:
“[The Jewish people] believed that these institutions were entrusted to them by God. They believed that to abandon these institutions would be to risk their souls being damned to hell after death.”
I think we can say that Christianity is far from a “different flavor” of Judaism. Again, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for these dramatic shifts in beliefs.
Please present another explanation for these dramatic shifts in thinking and belief that has first century evidence to back it up.
God bless
Yes, the early Christians believed the resurrection of the dead had begun, with Christ being the "first fruits" of it, and that soon he'd come back and herald the end of the world. This is based in Jewish thought, e.g. Daniel 9-11. Mark and others thought Daniel's prophecies were being fulfilled, thus they preached that the end was near. It was not.
Regarding changes in Paul's beliefs:
Licona's third "sure fact" has suddenly transformed into a half-dozen. Unfortunately, that Paul experienced these changes is not a "sure fact." Later Christians surely adopted those changes, however not the earliest Christians.
Animal sacrifices: See Acts 21, Paul and some apostles devise to show their devotion to the Torah by asking Paul to make several animal sacrifices.
Powerless Law: They believed Christ atoned for sins, but not annulled the Law itself. Debates over the Law were often about the role and requirement of gentiles or the correct interpretation of the Law and application of traditions. (galatians, romans, acts 15)
The trinity: that Paul was a trinitarian is very weak. I'd be surprised if it was anything more than a minority opinion within modern biblical scholarship. Therefore, this is not a "sure fact." To call the Messiah a Son of God is not that surprising, see 2 Sam. 7:14.
The sabbath: there's little evidence Paul thought the sabbath was annulled, so this is not a "sure fact." In Acts, Paul taught nothing against the law (Acts 25:8), and he taught in synagogues on the sabbath like a good Rabbi should, not just to proselytize.
Conquering Messiah: For Paul and the first Christians, belief in a sacrificial messiah didn't replace belief in a conquering one. Paul taught that Jesus was coming back to do the rest. (1 thess. 5)
Ultimately, none of the changes you described are "sure facts," so they don't need explanation like the true "sure facts" do. Thus, my circumstantial case against Licona's point 3 stands.
Early christianity, not later christianity with the beliefs you've described, was a different flavor of judaism. I would say this is almost a "sure fact."
Talk about waiting in the wings!
Kind of like the desperation of the multiverse theory, writ small -- "see, if we have enough Jesuses, one of them is bound to be still alive".
The principal reasons that Paul's claim about 500 witnesses is taken seriously are
(1) that it was written early, and
(2) that it was written to an audience that included people hostile to Paul who would have been only too happy to call his bluff if he said something that was not widely known to be true.
As for the absence of further details, Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15 is not "There were such-and-such witnesses; therefore, you should change your mind and agree with me that Jesus rose from the dead." Rather, it is, "You already know that Jesus rose from the dead -- remember your catechetical creed? So you should not listen to those who claim that there is no resurrection for the rest of us: Jesus' resurrection is a foretaste of what will happen to us all."
If you would like more detailed argument in defense of the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection, just ask!
First, I just want to say thanks for the respectful dialogue!
You posted:
“Yes, the early Christians believed the resurrection of the dead had begun, with Christ being the ‘first fruits’ of it, and that soon he'd come back and herald the end of the world. This is based in Jewish thought, e.g. Daniel 9-11. Mark and others thought Daniel's prophecies were being fulfilled, thus they preached that the end was near. It was not.”
Thus the reason it was strange for former followers of Judaism (the early Christians) to proclaim this to followers of Judaism. Why would they proclaim the occurrence of the resurrection from the dead when the Jews could look and see that the Roman authority had not been defeated, the Temple had not been rebuilt, and they had not regained their land? It seems foolish to do so unless it actually had occurred in a way the Jews were not expecting, through the resurrection of Jesus.
You posted:
“Early Christianity…was a different flavor of judaism.”
For being just a “different flavor” of Judaism, Paul and the twelve sure did receive much punishment from the Jews for it (Ex. Acts 5:17-42, 7:54-60, 9:23-25, 14:9).
You may have the last word if you like as I feel we have reached an impasse. I have enjoyed the discussion.
God bless
I wanted to ask a few questions to better understand your position:
Rather, the idea is a few hallucinations that included Jesus and a few real, familiar people
Which of the appearances do you believe are best explained by hallucinations?
2. Do you accept the Book of Acts as reliable source material?
Respectfully
Thanks so much for visiting the blog and your comment is well put!
Godspeed
Godspeed
—John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 145
1. I don't have an specific accounts in mind, rather just Licona's fact #2, which doesn't necessitate that any of the accounts we have today are accurate.
2. I don't know enough about Acts and whether there's any scholarly consensus about its historicity in whole or (probably more likely) in part, to say that I accept it as historical.
My quotes of the book of Acts I intended only to serve as examples of early Christian ideas that may support a position different from that which Chase or N.T. Wright hold about the time period. Whether or not those ideas are true is a different question.
Want to know why the 500 post-resurrection eyewitnesses are terrible evidence? Because the gospel authors said so! If they thought it was valid and useful, they would've put it in. If they never heard the claim, all the more reason to not put it in.
Another weakness is that the resurrection theory creates additional difficulties. I.e., if Jesus rose from the dead, where is he now? He is not present. This is another sure fact. And for the believer this difficulty is explained by yet another miracle, i.e. the ascension. But this does not address the sure fact that it's extremely unlikely that people ascend to heaven. (Not to mention, the ascension presumes the existence of heaven, which is yet another difficulty needing explanation by the resurrection theory). Again, a believer does not see this as a problem, but to a skeptic this is a weakness of the theory. Any time additional miracles must be invoked to explain the implications of the theory, the theory weakens. And as a result, the deeper you go into the resurrection theory, the more miracles are needed to keep it afloat.
But for a non-believer, the sure fact that Jesus is not present is explained very simply - all dead people are no longer present. We know this to be true, just as surely as we know our dead friends and relatives will not rise and meet with us today.
My last observation is regarding your #3, i.e. "this would be similar to Jesus appearing to a Muslim who then leaves Islam and becomes the next Billy Graham!" The fact a rabbinic Jew (Saul) had a change of heart is actually not too surprising because Christianity is a direct descendant of rabbinic Judaism, from which Saul came. Christianity, at the time, was another sect of Judaism, i.e. a specific form of messianic Judaism. The fact that Saul converted from one sect of Judaism to Christianity actually makes sense in light of the birth of Christianity out of Judaism. It flows quite naturally, especially since they share the same foundational Hebrew scriptures. Therefore, #3 is not a sure fact that is best explained by the resurrection. It it's explained more simply by the fact that Christianity stemmed from Judaism, and that in the 1st Century practitioners of the latter became that of the former.
Ultimately, the sure facts that people do not rise from the dead and that people do not ascend into heaven are stronger facts than any of the sure facts cited by Licona. And the resurrection theory does not fit with these facts well.
I'm not sure where the confusion is. The US Constitution prohibits a test for public office, and the First Amendment both creates a space for religion and prohibits it from affecting government (and vice versa).
That.
“Bob, you have not replied as to why this is an issue for you.”
I did, in my May 6 comment. Separation of church and state protects me (and the Christian, but that never seems to get the traction it deserves). Christians attacking it is a problem for society.
“there is no such thing as a "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, you are dealing with the Establishment Clause indeed, "Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion."”
Uh, yes, I’m aware of that. The establishment clause is part of the First Amendment, which in turn is part of the Constitution.
“"separation of church and state" is a phrase from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists”
Yes, it’s an important bulwark for Christians.
“issues such as prayers in schools, at the start of a city council meeting, "In God We Trust" as a motto, attempts to get Creationism or ID taught in public schools, Jesus manger scene on public property at Christmas, are historically non-issues since that is not tantamount to the government establishing a state religion.”
Government preferencing one religion over another sure sounds like establishing religion to me. Or are you quibbling over the word “establish”?
Tell me: how would you react to all these kinds of insults except in favor of Islam or Satanism rather than Christianity. Make it “Allahu Akhbar” in Arabic script or a Satanic prayer in public school.
“It is only in more modern times that militant Atheist activists . . .”
“militant atheist activists”? What does that mean? Examples?
“ . . . have relied upon biased judges to censor displays of religiosity on gov property.”
More examples needed. A manger scene on government property (by itself, with no alternative supernatural views allowed) strikes me as a problem. And tell me more about the biased judges.
Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists may be “an important bulwark for Christians” because we, if I may speak broadly, cherish the concept of a separation of church and state.
But, I am glad to learn that you are Constitutional conservative.
I will note that you ignore the historical facts about Jeffersons’ attendance of church services on gov property and yes, I will assume that he knew a little bit more about the Constitution, its meaning, its application, etc., etc., etc., than you do.
Also, you are speaking subjectively such as “sounds like establishing religion TO ME” but what it sounds like to you is a non-issue, a non-standard and likewise with “strikes ME as a problem.”
It would not be to quibble to deal with the term “establish” as there never has been a government approved, endorsed, and enforced religion in the US (even if many foundational documents make it clear that our rights come from “our Creator…nature’s God”). However, I will note that when the Christian ethic was accepted or at least heeded nationally, again speaking broadly, the worse behavioral problems in school were running in the hall and chewing gum during class—pray tell, what are they now?
I am unaware to what you are referring by “these kinds of insults”?
As to “militant atheist activists” how long a list do you want? Take the Freedom From Religion Foundation for one (which ironically was founded in a country premised on the concept of freedom of religious expression): if one single Atheist in an entire state subjectively feels that they do not like something, the FFRF launches threats of lawsuits. A fascinating case is when they sued the town of “Las Cruces” for having their official city emblem feature three crosses—apparently the FFRF does not know enough Spanish to know that the name of their town means “Three Crosses”: or, will they now sue to that that censored as well?
You really just need to reevaluate since you premised your initial comments on the “separation of church and state” but now solidified that it is not Constitutional so you have to re-think your assertions rather than keep pushing them regardless of verifiable facts.
BTW no, in your May 6 comment you state nothing of why this is an issue for you such as that it “protects me” you just listed some things and hung them on an implication so, I was asking what that implication was, what is the hidden assumption?
Lastly, may I ask if you believe that we humans are temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms?
«if you are aware that there is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution then stop writing in terms of that “Separation of church and state protects me.”»
And there is no “Trinity” in the Bible. Nevertheless, Christians have found the concept there.
Not much common ground here, is there? Thanks for your time.
Lastly, may I ask again if you believe that we humans are temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms?
"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but separation of church and state is.
If I've misdefined "separation of church and state," then help me out. Where's the error? What separation of church and state do you see in the Constitution?
Yet, it was known and understood that daring to have people living in a country premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression--yes, even on gov property--exercising their freedom of religious expression--yes, even on gov property--did not violate the Constitution.
I mean, on your view it would be violating the Constitution to display the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact, and other foundational documents on gov property because they mention God.
Now, again, do you believe that we humans are temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms?