 |
Teen Apologetics |
 |
|
|
 |
||
|
|
|
 |
Offering a basic defence for the Christian Faith |
| The Resurrection of Jesus - Fact or Fable? | ||
|
One of my favourite ‘aspects’ of the Christian faith is that of a Risen Christ. Not because of the cute services, not because of chocolate (although that does help in the frivolities!), and not because of the school holidays (although, again, that does help). Instead, it is an event rich in Theology (note- I have included an ‘addendum’ to this article that will expand on 'Resurrection Theology'), sophisticated in its historical guise but more than this; it is the crux on which Christians can claim their faith to be ‘true'. Indeed, Christianity is the only religion in which its founder underwent such an enormously significant transformation. Islam claims a divinely revealed Holy Book, but such a claim has no crux of proof upon which Muslims can claim ‘higher truth’- apart from, that is, internal evidences. Judaism has fantastic scriptures, full of vibrant stories and life that emanates from the pages, but Moses, Abraham and Adam- no-one in the Old Testament ‘rose’ from the Dead in the same manner as Jesus. Option (2)- A Stolen Body |
|
| An Explanation of Resurrection Theology (Advanced) | ||
|
Point (1)- Honour and Shame Culture ------------------------- The purpose of this addendum is to make the enthusiastic reader aware of the theological context of both New Testament history, and New Testament Claims. Such values, such theologies, were and are integral to understanding properly and to a deeper level the Resurrection of Christ. Nathan P. |
|
| Jesus existed, but He was just a good teacher who taught good lessons about life. He wasn’t the Son of God. | ||
|
This assertion seems a bit strange, to me anyway, and rather simplistic considering the dynamic character of Jesus Christ. 'Good teacher'- hmm sounds nice and twee doesn't it? But has it any truth in it, that's the question. Of course, He was a 'good teacher'. But that's not what He spoke about Himself; He claimed to be something else entirely- the Son of God and the Son of Man, the Messiah. But the controversy around those claims constitutes another discussion altogether, the point here is to establish the possibility of Him being what He didn't claim to be. When writing about His character we have three choices (otherwise known as the 'Trilemma'). He was either a liar, a lunatic (or, in kinder words, deluded), or Lord God in flesh and the Saviour of mankind. Being a 'good teacher' has nothing to do with this, neither has Him being a mere 'prophet', or (as some cults have suggested) an alien from an outer planet! Given these factors, let's assess the first title of the Trilemma- Jesus was a liar. This is, in my opinion, the least respectable of the three. You have to ask yourself something here- why would Jesus, if indeed He was a liar and consciously knew that what He was saying was a lie, would He continue to say what He did and why would He allow Himself to go through the huge amount of suffering once He had been arrested (e.g. beating, torture, imprisonment, brutal and incredibly painful crucifixion). Why would He have put up with so much persecution prior to that if He knew that He could just stop it all with a few words (a quick example- 'I'm only joking, can't we just settle this over a cup of tea' Now that the first category can be dismissed, we are left with two options, and we'll move onto assess the idea that Jesus was merely deluded but He still sincerely believed that He was who He said He was. For this, I will repeat what I said in the above paragraph. How could Jesus have performed miracles that are documented by more than just the Bible, changed lives dramatically such as Matthews, a tax collector (these were hated). This guy probably was well off, but he dropped everything (just like the other disciples) and just followed Jesus (Matthew 9:9). Let's also take into consideration the fact that dozens of prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, far too many to mention on here, but here are a few- the Messiah will come from Bethlehem and come from the bloodline of King David (Hosea 5); the Messiah will be born of a Virgin (Isaiah 7:14); the Messiah would be rejected and despised by men (Isaiah 53:3); He would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12); the disciples of the Messiah would flee (Zechariah 13:7, fulfilled in Matthew 26:31); the Messiah's hands and feet will be pierced (Psalm 22:16). There are many more, take a gander at http://www.aic2001.com/messianic.htm. As you can see, the fulfilled prophecies seriously cast doubts on the 'lunatic' position, given that if it was true then there would be no evidence for His insane claims. He would be a 'voice in the wilderness', that crazy guy down Galilee lane (sorry for the religious pun there- the Christians will know what I'm on about!). However, it is not just religious foreknowledge that provide support for an anti-lunatic position. I remember reading an interview with Gary. R. Collins (PH.D.) in 'The Case for Christ'. This guy is a major psychologist, who has both a master's in general psychology and a doctorate in clinical psychology. He states that, "I just don't see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness...He was much healthier than anyone else I know- including me!" If you think about it, we can logically come to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed who He claimed to be- the Son of God, the Messiah, Lord and God in flesh. Some people dispute this, but as mentioned earlier that is not for this discussion. I may be posting something along these lines shortly, but for now let's focus on what we have tried to establish- Jesus cannot be a liar, and He cannot be a lunatic. It is obvious to most that what we are left with is incredibly important. This notion is perhaps best described by C.S. Lewis, the author of the 'Narnia' tales, who was an atheistic agnostic until he was converted with the help of J.R.R. Tolkien himself in the latter half of the 20th Century. This is what he says in his infamous apologetic book, 'Mere Christianity'- "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." Revised- 1st May, 2004. |
|
These things are not what He was recorded as saying.
)? It goes against human nature, and any psychologist will tell you that. We also have a spiritual aspect to this, as well. For example, if He was just a liar then how do you explain the miracles (which, by the way, were never denied by ancient witnesses, merely 'explained away'), the complete life changes that He brought about in people and also the dozens of prophecies that were fulfilled in Him and His life events? | Critique of BBC4's 'Did Jesus Die?' | ||
|
In Issue 5 of the Teen Apologetics Newsletter, I briefly mentioned a BBC4 programme entitled “Did Jesus Die?” Its whole premise was that Jesus didn’t die, the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles (the letters written by the early Church leaders) were either fabricated in part or in whole as a form of ‘cover up’. And what were they ‘covering up’? Simply that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that He ‘escaped’ to India where He had previously spent His adolescent years. Sound ridiculous? That’s because it is. I have to say; I was mildly shocked by the fact that a prestigious institution such as the BBC would allow their airtime to be invaded by such tripe. Don’t get me wrong, this is not new material- they haven’t just sat down in a board meeting and said, “Hey I know, why don’t we challenge a previously unchallenged belief with the most ludicrous assertion imaginable?” Indeed, this is an idea that has been around for a while, albeit in different forms. The idea that He didn’t die is something certainly not new. As I have already addressed elsewhere, this concept is known as the ‘Swoon Theory’- it’s something that initially sounds feasible but was abandoned quite a few decades ago by all who are not completely insane, for various reasons (see Issue 5 of the newsletter, or www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm). However, the notion that Jesus stayed in India at one time or another is relatively new. I say relatively, as it’s been around for quite a few decades now. There are (as far as I can see) three main variants of this idea- one is that Jesus travelled there in His ‘unrecorded years’ (i.e. between 12 and 30 approximately), the second is that He survived the cross and travelled to India, settled, married and settled in Kashmir, and the final variant is a combination of the two! Of course it doesn’t necessarily have to be India; why don’t you pick France? Some say that He left the Middle East and settled there with Mary Magdalene. Whilst we’re taking speculative hits, why not pick Stratford-upon-Avon, or ‘Staines Massive’? Perhaps Jesus did walk upon England’s ‘mountains green’. Or, perhaps far more sensibly, He didn’t. Anyway, I’m beginning to digress, let’s get focussed. The BBC4 Documentary is most definitely a collection of these ideas, many of which can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die.shtml and in the Interview with the Director (one Richard Denton), found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die-interview.shtml. It is these two sites that I am going to be addressing; particularly the latter- Denton makes some right corker comments! I’m sure, however, that he is a very intelligent guy, don’t get me wrong. I obviously don’t know him, this article isn’t an insult to him or his intelligence- we’re all entitled to our opinions and rightly so. However, ‘criticism where criticism is due’ I feel, and some of his comments in the aforementioned interview most definitely need addressing. The reason for my vigour? Well, you could say it is ‘personal’. When I first saw this programme I was a year younger- physically, intellectually and spiritually! I didn’t possess the knowledge or the analytical skills to defend myself and I was quite bothered by the feature. These ‘niggles’ didn’t disappear for about 6 months, and even then it was with the help of J.P. Holding, of Tektonics Apologetics Ministries (www.tektonics.org). Looking back in hindsight, I can’t believe I could have even considered this as a feasible alternative to traditional Christian teachings, but that’s how these things go. So, with no further ado…let’s get on with it. Remember, the quotes I am responding to are found at the aforementioned BBC website interview, and all of them are by Richard Denton himself unless otherwise stated. 1) “BBC Four: How do you think he might have survived crucifixion? How long a crucifixion took varied depending on what kind of treatment one had prior to being hung up there. The Gospels and the Epistles are pretty explicit in that Jesus took quite a beating, more than usual. They say He was beaten “again and again”, they say that He was flogged. Something worthy of note is found in Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ’. Alexander Metherell (M.D., PH.D.), a medical expert, is asked about the Crucifixion and specifically about the floggings. He noted how in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus portrayed signs of hematidrosis, a medical symptom that includes literal ‘sweating of blood’- i.e. the capillaries burst under the skin, mixing with the sweat glands. This would, Metherell says, cause the skin to be extremely fragile for His later scourging. He also talks about the severity of Roman floggings- “The back would be so shredded that part of the spine was sometimes exposed by the deep, deep cuts. The whipping would have gone all the way down to the back, the buttocks and the back of the legs…we know that many people would die from this kind of beating even before they were crucified. At the least, the victim would experience tremendous pain and go into Hypovolemic shock [extreme loss of blood]”. Aside from this, the Gospels also note how Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on His head. Medically speaking these would have pierced the skin and most likely have penetrated several nerves situated around the scalp. By doing this, Jesus would have been subject to even more pain that would ‘switch’ on and off - sometimes people could also die from this kind of pain alone! There are two main aspects to this treatment (and the subsequent events) that I would like to highlight. Firstly, the Gospels note that Simon of Cyrene had to carry Jesus’ cross for him as He couldn’t do it on his own, indicating that the torture He had been subjected to was unusually harsh. Furthermore, the Gospels also mention that whilst on the cross Jesus said, “I thirst”. This may sound insignificant at first, but it highlights a major issue surrounding the flogging He had previously endured that Metherell mentioned in the above quote. When one loses a lot of blood, we undergo something called ‘hypovolemic shock’, one symptom of which is indeed a lack of bodily fluids leading to a feeling of thirst. This tells us that the flogging, beatings etc. had been particularly harsh and Jesus had already lost a substantial amount of blood by the time He was put up on the cross. As you can see, how long you are up on the cross for is not necessarily an issue, as long as one had already been subject to harsh treatment prior to one being crucified. 2) “…Even if you read the gospels Pontius Pilate is clearly surprised that he's already dead and wants to be reassured by the centurion that he really is dead.” This is true, see Mark 15:44-45 for details. However, this verse alone does not silence the reams of other evidences for Jesus’ death. The issue here is this- just one man (Pilate) doubted Jesus’ death because he was not there at the time, and yes I will admit that people usually took longer to die. However, as stated above, one must take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the death before one can make any judgement. Besides, the many Roman soldiers who were around Jesus, and watched Him suffer, all came to the conclusion that He was dead. There’s no reason to think otherwise. We in this western culture are not that familiar with death, it has certainly become something that is sanitised and ‘behind closed doors’. However, in an age and culture where death was an everyday occurrence (and for the Roman Soldiers, part of the job they were qualified to carry out), do you really think those standing by Him could have made a mistake of such grand proportions? It’s possible, of course, but it is highly unlikely, infact I would say it is bordering on impossible, especially considering that in John 19 the soldiers actually pierced Jesus’ side. I’ve already explained the significance of this elsewhere, but for the record this almost ensured His death for two reasons- a) it would have pierced both His right lung and His heart, and b) the Gospel of John tells us that there was a flow of “blood and water”. This is also something I’ve explained before, but the Christian Medical Fellowship states that this signifies a separation of blood and water as a result of a death “associated by severe pain” and “the presence of circulating fibrinolysins” (http://www.cmf.org.uk/index.htm?nucleus/nucjan00/diff.htm). I also want to make note of an article written by J.P. Holding, which is a critique of an article written by a prominent sceptic he calls ‘Broken Vector’. In this, he refutes the objections not only surrounding Jesus’ death but also the relation of that death to His resurrection. I suggest you look at it here- http://www.tektonics.org/vector02.html. Overall, however, I think what this documentary does is to take a ‘pick and mix’ approach to the Gospel accounts. They’d rush to tell you that Pilate was surprised (surprised, but never doubtful may I add), but they won’t tell you that the records state again and again that Jesus actually was killed, and at the hands of qualified executioners. Hmm, I wonder why? Note- for more information on the death of Jesus, see · www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm, · http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/swoon.htm, · http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/death.html, and · http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/welcome.htm. Also note that the latter URL directs you to a professional medical investigation into the death of Jesus Christ, in which the conclusion states that any assumption that He didn’t die lies in opposition with scientific and medical knowledge. 3) “BBC Four: If he did survive why do you think it's not related in that way in the gospels? What Denton says here is just absolute tosh, an attempt (be it conscious or sub-conscious) to avoid labelling the entire Gospel writers and Disciples (most of whom were martyred FYI) as liars, but instead impose one’s speculative impressions on the rest of us. Let’s put it this way- I agree it wouldn’t be a “conspiracy theory or a lie” to think/write that Jesus was miraculously resurrected, if indeed He never actually said something of this ilk Himself. Problem being, of course, He did! Look at Luke 24:46 for example, “He [Jesus] told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day’”. See what I’m saying? Denton has a choice- say Jesus is a liar, say that the Disciples were liars; say that the Gospel writers were liars; or say that it was accurate. At least then he wouldn’t be dodging the issue in such an incorrect manner. And about ‘getting Him out of the way’, what better way than to be ascended huh? Don’t you hate it when you want to see someone only to have him or her ascend into the heavenly realm? If I had a pound for every time… 4) “The real question doesn't hang over the resurrection, which I think is explicable. The real question hangs over him ascending into heaven.” Well, I have to say; this is backwards logic at its worst. Think about what happened before the Ascension- Jesus was Resurrected, and before that? He died. For a programme that is called ‘Did Jesus Die?’ I find it incredibly odd for the director to place an emphasis on an event that occurred around 40 days after the subject matter! Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t see why the ‘real question’ hangs over the ascension when if Jesus actually expired this makes the whole programme moot! Even if He was just resurrected and didn’t ascend, it would still mean that He died and was raised to life again, just as Christian teaching suggests. Moreover, Denton says that the Resurrection is ‘explicable’, but then doesn’t proceed to provide that explanation. Many (including myself) would genuinely like to hear this dismissal of Christian belief, so why the silence? I’m not saying that Denton is deliberately not giving us the ‘beef’. Rather, I’m saying that he makes a statement that has massive implications and demands multiple programmes in itself, but he stops short- way short! 5) “BBC Four: You make the point that the Ascension isn't actually mentioned in the gospels. Here’s something that not all Christians actually know- when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, Denton is pretty much correct. The end of that particular account is doubted and infact dismissed by most scholars, and many modern Bibles actually have something like this written somewhere- “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20”. J.P.Holding (whom I actually contacted about this issue, see below) wrote a whole article about the ending of this Gospel here- http://www.tektonics.org/markend.html. As such, when it comes to Mark, there’s essentially no problem with what Denton has said. However, when it comes to Luke and Acts, Denton has made what Holding says is a “completely off the wall” comment. He also states that “the Ascension appears in all copies of Luke and Acts that we have and there is no proof that it was never there.” In other words, Denton has accused the descriptions of the ascension in ‘Luke’ and ‘Acts’ of forgery, when infact this is unsupported completely by evidence! It is just ‘pure speculation’. Well, since Denton seemingly likes this kind of approach, then perhaps I should speculate on matters myself? Perhaps Denton looked at the earliest manuscripts we have, noticed that the Ascension stories are not included (but are in copies after 300AD), and built a conclusion around those observations. However, if this is the case, then it is seriously missing the point. The earliest incomplete manuscripts we have are made from Papyrus (a material that quickly deteriorates) and are just that- incomplete! If you want to look at some of these, I suggest you go to http://www.british-israel.ca/manuscripts.htm and look at which portions of which Gospel have survived from each manuscript. The earliest complete New Testament manuscripts are found in ‘Codexes’, e.g. full book, and sure enough they are dated to 325-350AD (note that the Chester Beatty Papyri is dated to 200AD but it is relatively incomplete as a NT collection). Now, this is just speculation on my part, but could it be that Denton is drawing his conclusion from the fact that the early Gospel manuscripts have been subject to rot and deterioration (and therefore don’t include most stories including the ascension)? Not only this, but could it be that when he looked at the earliest reference to the ascension, it was contained in an aforementioned Codex, which happens to be dated to around 300AD? Maybe he jumped to the conclusion that the ascension story, given it doesn’t appear earlier (for reasons already given), was inserted into these later documents? Who knows? Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. However, what I do know is this- Denton’s comment about Mark’s ending is correct. His comments about Luke and Acts are not. 6) “That I think is the lie, the cover story to get him out of the country”. And I think that ‘Family Guy’ was cancelled because the government “just can’t handle the truth”. Doesn’t mean I’m right (but, for the record, I am :-P). Apart from the apparently incessant appeal of conspiracy theories, what is there that indicates the truthfulness of this statement? I can’t see that much, I must say. 7) “BBC Four: If Jesus was revived in this way where then did he go? I’m going to address the idea that Jesus settled in India after He supposedly ‘swooned’ on the cross later, but for now I’d like to analyse the view that He lived in India between the ages of 12 and 29. I’ll agree that these years are unrecorded, however one could put any old situation in there as long as we’re working on mere speculation and not hard evidence. Besides, to assume that He did something ‘dodgy’ during this time is just an argument from silence; it is not exactly scholar-studded material. However, I am partial to the odd dead-horse flogging, so I decided to root around the Internet and eventually I found a great article on the site ‘Stand to Reason’. It goes through several reasons why Jesus could not have gone to India at this time, e.g. the lack of documentary evidence, the fact that the Gospels strongly suggest He stayed in Israel, the troubles of the trip itself etc. You can find that article here- http://www.str.org/free/studies/india.htm. 8) “BBC Four: It was very interesting the parallel between the story of the three kings and the search for a reincarnated Lama… Some of you may be aware of the ‘Copycat thesis’. It states that there were many non-Christian religious leaders, gods, pagan figures etc who’s lives (and the stories surrounding them) are incredibly similar to Jesus’, therefore Jesus didn’t exist and instead He is a myth based around these other people/myths. For a thorough refutation of such a theory, I suggest you look at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html, http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04.html, and http://answering-islam.org/Pagan/. Well anyway, what Denton is saying here just whiffs of such an idea, except with a few alterations- Jesus did exist; the Gospels (up unto his death) are accurate; and instead any copying was actively carried out by Jesus Himself! I’ll give Denton his due- this certainly is one heck of an original pick-and-mix idea! I suggest if you have any doubts to take a look at http://www.tektonics.org/buddha01.html and http://www.tektonics.org/buddha02.html to see that the ‘miracles’ and ‘teachings’ are either not quite as they seem (i.e. exaggerated, misunderstood, made up [God forbid…!]) or they are just ‘normal’ characteristics of any religion. Think about it; a Religious Leader who doesn’t perform miracles and provide good teachings- do you really see that happening? 9) “BBC Four: What actually prompted you to start exploring this topic? I’ll ignore the fact that Denton makes one heck of a fallacy in the opening lines (i.e. a sweeping generalisation!) and for now I’ll sing his praises. The fact that he’s surprised that some of these Church members (usually Anglican) and theologians doubt the Resurrection is justified, in my opinion it’s disgraceful. However, emotion aside, one cannot say that “most” theologians/churchmen doubt the literal truth of the Resurrection just because one has interviewed some dissenters. Obviously, I don’t know how Denton got his sample, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was made up of ‘opportunity’ participants, i.e. those who were already doubtful were more likely to put themselves forward. However, I could be very wrong, so don’t quote me on this! Why doesn’t Denton go to other denominations and interview their ‘intelligent Churchmen’? He’ll find many more literalists there let me tell you. I also noticed a discrepancy between what Denton says here and what he says a few paragraphs up. Earlier he stated that the Resurrection accounts were just a “mistake”, i.e. not literal truth. However, he says here “if you’re saying something’s not literal truth then you are saying it’s a lie”. Need I say more? 10) “BBC Four: You say that the resurrection and the literal truth of the Gospel have in the past been the cornerstone of Christianity. For once, Mr. Denton, I fully agree with you. 11) “So what I was looking for was another version of the story that had the possibility of being historically true,” So, the Resurrection isn’t even possible? It sounds like Denton is repeating the mantras of the infamous sceptic David Hume, who unequivocally said that the miraculous is impossible. On the contrary, miracles are unlikely, but still possible. Indeed, to actually dismiss the absolute possibility of a miracle would require universal knowledge, which would be bordering on miraculous in itself! I think what many would find is that historically speaking; the Resurrection can be defended pretty well. Take a look at these- · www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm (plus Issue 4 of the newsletter). · http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/entombmentQuestion.htm. · http://www.bible.org/docs/pastor/seasonal/easter/evidence.htm. · http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/evidence.htm. · http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/resurrection-evidence.html. · http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html (scroll down to ‘Jesus’, look under ‘Resurrection’). 12) “BBC Four: And in the end have you found that the most credible account? Far be it from me to say that my interpretation of this paragraph is correct, but something hit me whilst reading it. Denton says that he isn’t the ‘kind of person’ that finds the Gospel accounts credible, and as such he believes in a different (far more radical) version. Now this may not be the case, but it strikes me that because of this ‘anti-Gospel’ bias Denton now believes in something separate from traditional Christian belief, in other words he already had a conclusion and he’s shifted and searched for ‘alternative’ (and in my opinion less credible) explanations to fit around it. I could be wrong, but there you go, but if I’m right then this is hardly the way to pursue the ‘truth’. Note- the following quotes are from the ‘Did Jesus Die?’ Homepage and as far as I am aware were not written by Denton himself. 13) “The film concludes that it was perfectly possible to survive crucifixion in the 1st Century - there are records of people who did.” The words ‘Perfectly Possible’ are a gross exaggeration. Let’s get the issue straight on this. Proponents of this belief (and the notion that Jesus died in Kashmir) can be found at the ‘Tomb of Jesus’ Website, and in it they cite an example of these ‘records’. It is no other than Flavius Josephus, a Jewish 2nd century historian. In ‘The Life of Flavius Josephus’, Section 75 (see http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm), it states that- “And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered”. So, yes it is possible to survive Crucifixion I will agree. This passage attests to that. However, there are a couple of things to note- 1) Two out of the Three captives died in spite of medical assistance, and 2) Jesus’ situation was completely different! Let’s pose a hypothetical; let’s say that Jesus (in spite of all the things I’ve said before) did survive against the odds. Now then, what do you think the chances of Him surviving are, given that a) He didn’t receive any medical assistance for at least 3 days, b) He had major life threatening wounds including a pierced lung and heart, and c) the other account of someone surviving a crucifixion includes 2 out of 3 people dying with medical attention! It’s hard to compare Josephus’ situation with that of Jesus’. Remember also, that one has to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding His death, you can’t just think it was the same for every victim! 14) “One of the most remarkable stories concerns the charismatic preacher Jus Asaf (Leader of the Healed) who arrived in Kashmir in around 30 AD. Just before he died at the age of 80, Jus Asaf claimed that he was in fact Jesus Christ and the programme shows his tomb, next to which are his carved footprints which bear the scars of crucifixion.” Here is where things get interesting. The aforementioned ‘Tomb of Jesus’ website lists evidence supporting the notion that ‘Yus Asaph’ travelled to India, and died in Kashmir, and not only that but it shows the footprints and all. To be honest, I’m not bothered at all by the ‘tomb’ of this character or by the carved footprints. The website doesn’t offer any date for when they were built, or indeed carved, infact the footprints are pretty ambiguous- yes there are marks on the foot, but it’s worth noting that even the Tomb of Jesus folk acknowledge that the marks are in the wrong place for crucifixion. So how do they reconcile this discrepancy? Well, they point to the dubious Shroud of Turin, figures huh? But as for this ‘Jus Asaf’ character, things get a little bit more confusing. One has to understand the origins of this theory, as it is linked strongly with a radical (but growing) Islamic fringe movement known as the ‘Ahmadiyyas’. They aren’t recognised officially by anyone in Orthodox Islam, and most Muslims view their theories as pretty extreme. When I e-mailed J.P. Holding about this theory, he kindly offered to help me out, and in doing so he contacted one of his associates who’s response Holding helpfully forwarded to myself. I hope neither of them mind, but I am going to quote some of that e-mail now. If by some chance either of them sees this article, then feel free to e-mail me at nathanpaylor@hotmail.com and I will quickly remove this, with my apologies included. Anyway, Holding’s associate (‘HA’ from here on) says that- “…most of the documents…are very late. Practically all of them date within the last 600 years. There is little chance that they would have any weight in supporting something about Jesus, who lived over one thousand years before…most of them are Muslim sources, and they do not equate this Yuz Asaf figure with Jesus, until after the 1890's, when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam, proclaimed that Jesus survived the crucifixion and went to India. He equated this Yuz Asaf guy, who was a Muslim saint, with Jesus Christ.” So here we have a problem, a big problem. If you look at the so-called ‘evidences’ they all refer to this Yus Asaf character, in one way or another (notice that the name can have various spellings). However, as HA has pointed out this guy was actually a Muslim saint who lived over 1000 years after Jesus, but the Ahmadiyya movement (and the Tomb of Jesus website) don’t tell you that. HA says that if you want to find out who the saint really was, then he suggests a book “titled "The Wisdom of Balahvar" by David Marshall Lang…you can easily borrow a copy through your public library system, or get them to put in for the book through interlibrary loan”. However, don’t assume that the theory is dead just yet. There’s one more document left, and this one is particularly interesting- it certainly left me stumped for a long time! It’s known as the ‘Bhavishya Purana’. HA notes that although those who follow the ‘Jesus in India’ theories maintain an early date and a specific author for this (e.g. 115AD), it was actually not written by anyone in particular and probably has been added to numerous times. It is sometimes attributed to an individual known as Vyasa who lived 5000 years ago, however “critical scholarship has shown that Vyasa probably did not write the Bhavishya”. As noted above, HA also states that “scholarship has…shown that the Bhavishya was one of the most tampered texts in all of Hinduism, receiving constant additions over the centuries”. Even more surprisingly, Jesus is not even the only Biblical Character to appear in the Bhavishya- Adam, Eve, Noah; Moses etc also appear in the text! If this doesn’t make you doubt about this document then I don’t think anything will. HA concludes “the passage in the Bhavishya probably does not carry any historical weight since it was probably composed only in the past couple of hundred years”. Several references and reading material ‘tips’ are also cited- · “"Historical and cultural data from the Bhavisya purana" by Raj Kumar Arora” · “See also the article by Giorgio Bonazzoli titled "Christ in the Bhavishya Purana" which appeared in English in the journal titled "Puranam" in February 1,1979 on pages 23-39. Bonazzoli actually is a Roman Catholic priest, but he is a Sanskrit scholar and his article is good”. Conclusion Looking back now, I can see why ‘Did Jesus Die?’ caused quite a fuss, among religious circles that is- it’s hardly ‘headline’ material! However, I know from personal experience that it can do more than this. It can inflict a relatively heavy blow to many a Christian’s faith, and this is something I directly found out. As I said earlier, the programme itself initially bothered me greatly, then it calmed down but upon viewing websites such as ‘The Tomb of Jesus’ it flamed up again. Perhaps to the non-religious viewer it may be hard to appreciate the suffering that is caused by a doubting soul, but it is pretty uncomfortable. Therefore, I now grieve at the fact that this programme wasn’t worth the bother, in any sense of the word! After all, what we have here is a case with dodgy documents, an argument with generalisations and ‘one rule for me and another for you’ fallacies, and a conclusion that could crumble if one could show the sheer improbability of Jesus surviving the cross. After all, if He actually died, then everything else in this case falls to pieces. I’m not going to impose my own conclusions upon you, but I do ask you to evaluate these arguments (both mine and Denton’s) and ask yourself ‘Which one is more feasible?’ Jesus Christ doesn’t adhere to such crazy claims; He isn’t changed or altered by absurd arguments! If you want to reject the idea that the Bible got it right, then fine, but at least preserve your dignity whilst doing so. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”(Hebrews 13:8). Nathan Paylor |
|
| Jesus is just a myth | ||
|
This is something of a 'touchy' issue among the world of historians, Christians and sceptics. There is a great deal of controversy over whether or not a man named Jesus lived, taught and died in 1st Century Palestine, with a new book being released what seems to be every few months trying to pull the issue either way. In response to criticism, many Christian Apologists have used quotes from 1st/2nd Century historians who 'appear' to mention Jesus, the group He founded or the beliefs associated with Him. Not only that, but many internal evidences have been put forward, i.e. using some New Testament texts which were written around 50-60AD, to prove Jesus' existence. In this area I will be focussing on the external evidence, e.g. the aforementioned historical sources. Something to note is that some of these I am aware aren't particularly reliable, but at the same time some are (very much so infact). I have attempted to list these in descending order, and in twos. For example, the most reliable two are at the top, the second most reliable couple follow and the least reliable are situated at the end. This is a very complex issue, one I am not qualified to discuss in much depth. It is for this reason I ask you to go to http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html , or another relevant website listed on my Home Page, to gain a better understanding of the controversy and see that whilst some sources are certainly not worth banking your money on, there are some that really are. For now, I hope you enjoy these.
As stated before, the New Testament writings themselves could well be seen as an argument for Jesus' existence, both for the reasons given above but also because there are over 4000 copies of them. It is worth noting that this is much more than any other ancient writing. Not only that, they have been shown to be accurate historically in many places. Also, if Jesus didn't exist, then why did the disciples allow themselves to be beaten, persecuted, jailed, tortured and finally executed for an apparent lie? They could have just avoided all of that if they had just taken everything back. But they didn't. Therefore, if the sceptic wishes to maintain that Jesus didn't exist, he has to dismiss all of these historic writings, and all other ancient documents that aren't 99.5% textually pure. To further punch the nail into the coffin, they then must proceed to dismiss as fable those other writings that have not got as many copies in existence as the New Testament does. So, still think Jesus is a myth? Revised- 3rd July, 2004. |
|
| Jesus didn’t die on the cross. | ||
|
[Note - This article contains details that are covered in greater depth and accuracy in the first few articles listed on this page. It is kept here for those who wish to bypass such long resources and get straight to an 'easy response'.] The people who make this claim, I feel, are justified in what they say. That doesn't mean that they are right, but in a very scientific and sceptical culture it is acceptable to dismiss stories of the supernatural. It is therefore far easier to say that Christ didn't die on the cross- that He was given something whilst He was hanging there, or that He just slipped into a coma and the people around Him (being a bit unintelligent...) assumed He was dead. Then three days later He got up out of His tomb and when the disciples saw Him they thought He had risen. This idea of Jesus not dying on the cross is also known as the 'Swoon Theory', but it may come as a surprise to some that it is rejected by a huge amount of scholars, scientists and historians. Why? They've simply looked at the evidence, and noticed that to assume that Jesus just passed out and appeared again is laughable. Let me go through a few points to illustrate this. 1) The Executioners Themselves- Roman soldiers were extremely skilful; perhaps some of the best the world has ever seen. Roman executioners also followed this trend, and they were trained to know when someone was dead. The theory assumes that they somehow made a mistake. But do you think that an entire squad of trained Roman Executioners can make this mistake? Now that's logic I don't want to subscribe to! 2) Jesus' Treatment on the Cross- Something that could be paramount in deciding whether or not Jesus was dead or not is what is described in John 19:33-34. Here are the verses- "But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water". There are two things to note here. Firstly, the stab itself, as it would ensure Jesus' death. If I remember correctly, the Roman soldier would have pierced Christ just below His left armpit, puncturing several organs including the lung. Secondly, however, is when John notes that there was "a sudden flow of blood and water". This signifies the separation of blood and plasma, which can only occur after death. The Christian Medical Fellowship (http://www.cmf.org.uk/index.htm?nucleus/nucjan00/diff.htm.) states that-"Post mortem clotting of the blood can be delayed by the presence of circulating fibrinolysins, especially if death is associated with severe pain. The effect is that the red cells can separate from the plasma within thirty minutes. ‘Blood and water’ would then emerge in sequence by gravity from a body cavity pierced by a sharp object. The only real possibilities for the source of the blood and the water are the pleural and pericardial cavities, because the heart itself contains too little. Haemothorax could well have resulted if ribs had been fractured during the flogging Jesus received in Pilate’s palace (Jn 19:1). Haemopericardium could have resulted from either cardiac rupture or, more probably, rupture at the junction of aorta and left ventricle." 3) Jesus' Exceptional Ordeal- Finally, if one reflects on the events leading up to Jesus' death one will clearly see the illogical position that the Swoon Theory maintains. Let's paint the picture-
Is anyone seriously going to tell me that after all that happened to Him Jesus just survived and 'woke up' 3 days later? Are you going to say that He then just got up and walked, even though He had wounds on His hands, feet and side, and serious flogging wounds and major blood loss? Even more bizarre is that for the Swoon theorists to be correct He would have had to push the incredibly heavy stone aside with all His injuries, sneak past the guards unnoticed, and then appear to the disciples and walk for miles whilst appearing perfectly fine. I'm sorry this is both medically and logically impossible. Can you see now why the Swoon Theory is discredited by so many? Revised- July 6th, 2004. |
|
| The 'Resurrection Game' | ||
|
[Note - This article contains details that are covered in greater depth and accuracy in the first few articles listed on this page. It is kept here for those who wish to bypass such long resources and get straight to an 'easy response'.] As mentioned in the above article, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is paramount to the Christian faith. Christianity, as both a faith structure and a religious institution, relies completely and utterly upon the Resurrection in order for its credibility to withstand. Christianity falls or rises (pardon the pun...) with it! If someone 'proves' it to be false, then Christianity is false. If someone proves it to be true, then Christianity is true. It was when I was reflecting on this that I came up with this 'game'- actually, it's not a game at all, it's more a form of conversation that I seem to engage so often in with sceptics my own age. It usually begins with the question, 'So if the Resurrection is false, what else could have happened?' Many people have different theories, and I'll try and address as many as possible here, and strangely (and, I have to assume, unknowingly) they seem to repeat it each other! It is for this reason that I have been able to construct this- an analysis of common 'alternatives' to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let's see if they stand up to scrutiny, and hopefully I'll remain on my own analytical legs as we go!
So as you can see, the list draws thin very quickly when it comes to alternative theories of the Resurrection of Christ. In my opinion, the only explanations that could possibly hold up are that a) the Bible isn't accurate and is made up, or b) there was a conspiracy that covered all of the Roman Empire, and all of their population was 'in on it'. Obviously, it is only the former that could have any foundation in truth but even then the evidence is weak at best. Therefore, we are left (by the process of elimination) with one option- Jesus Christ rose from the dead, however unlikely it seems, and Christianity has its roots in fact. Weird? Yes. Strange? Certainly. But ask yourself this- what fits the mould best? What the Bible says, or other sceptical assertions that seemingly have no basis in logic. Revised- 30th April, 2004. |
|
| Sponsors | ||
|
||
| It is absurd to think that Jesus was resurrected! | ||
|
[Note - This article contains details that are covered in greater depth and accuracy in the first few articles listed on this page. It is kept here for those who wish to bypass such long resources and get straight to an 'easy response'.] By far the most important claim in Christianity is that Christ was resurrected. Islam talks of Muhammad receiving the Qur'an via a miraculous encounter with the Angel Gabriel, Judaism has its many prophets and incredibly interesting stories as described in the Old Testament, and the other religions also have their charms, but none of their founders were believed to have a) been God, and b) been resurrected. In this sense, Christianity stands alone, and this stance is firmly placed on the foundation that is the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. This belief is echoed in 1 Corinthians 15: 14-15 + 17, "...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."..."And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins". I think we can now see how important (not to mention neccessary) the belief in Christ's resurrection actually is, but is it, like the title suggests, 'absurd' to believe that He was raised? Obviously we cannot have scientific, 100% proof of such and event. It occurred just under 2000 years ago in the now war-torn middle east, so this lack of scientific proof should come as no surprise, just like the lack of scientific proof surrounding Alexander the Great's conquering of the known world before he was 33 shouldn't, or Shakespeare's authorship of his plays. However, what makes us believe these things is because of a) the likelyhood of the event occurring given what happened before and after it, and b) the reliability of the documents testifying to such claims. The same applies in the case of the Resurrection, and as such I will now run through the evidences one by one, trying to cover these two factors as I go.
As you can see, there are good, logical grounds for believing that Jesus was resurrected. Indeed, if it were anything else in ancient history we would be saying 'case solved, this happened- fact'. Strange how there is one rule for religious history and another for normal history. No matter how unlikely it seems (and trust me it appears just as unlikely to myself) from a historical perspective, given the aforementioned facts (and many others that I have not mentioned), it should be our logical conclusion. Ignore your pre-suppositions, open your mind and pretend you're in a court case. Read through these points, look at the websites I give links for on the home page, and ask yourself 'Does the Resurrection fit the facts better than any other alternative I can give?' I hope that the glory and majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ appears as striking to you as it did to me, and perhaps then we can stop using the elaborate and undoubtedly 'preachy' language such as I have just used, and instead we can address Him simply as He wants us to- 'My Lord, my God, my Saviour, my friend'. Revised- 28th April, 2004. |
|
| E-mail me!- nathanpaylor@hotmail.com (I also use MSN Messenger) |
Create a free website at Webs.com
|