Monday, May 14, 2012

Did the disciples hallucinate the resurrected Jesus?

In the last three posts, we established three things. First, we established that Jesus was crucified, buried, and died. Second, I showed that the disciples claimed that Jesus was raised from the dead and that he had appeared to them. Third, I showed powerful evidences for why the vast majority of NT scholarship rejects the idea that the disciples lied about the resurrection.

The Visions/Hallucinations Theory

In this post, I will address an issue that is more controversial among scholars (indeed, if everything I said was non-controversial, then all scholars would be Christians!). The issue I will address is whether or not the appearances of Jesus are attributable to "visions" or hallucinations that the disciples of Jesus had after his death. After all, lots of people hallucinate dead loved ones during the grieving process. Perhaps this is a good explanation for the "appearances" of the resurrected Jesus? What is more, lots of religious people have "visions" where they see religious things, such as God or angels giving them messages. Perhaps the disciples just had a bunch of visions of Jesus which they mistakenly took to be a living human?

For scholars who reject resurrection, the two dominant trends are a agnosticism about the resurrection and the "visions" hypothesis with respect to the appearances. (1) Outspoken skeptical scholars seem to favor the visions theory.

The visions hypothesis isn't just one theory. Indeed, there are multiple ways of construing the visions/hallucination theory. One way is to say that the disciples experienced a mass hallucination, where the entire group had a hallucination/vision of Jesus on multiple occasions. This is posited because all of the principle texts on the appearances include group appearances. Some scholars, such as atheist historian Gerd Lüdemann, suggest a chain reaction of visionary experiences that were caused by grieving disciples. (1) He proposes that Peter had a hallucination/vision, which caused some of the other disciples to have visions as well. Others propose an "objective vision," where the vision of Jesus originates with God, but is not a physical or tangible person. (7) The evidences below provide good reasons against many of these theories.

1) Unfalsifiability 

Collective hallucinations are unfalsifiable. (1) Allowing for the possibility of collective hallucinations would cause us to question all visual reality, especially if we have less witnesses to something than the disciples had for the resurrected Jesus. (For example, if you and another friend go visit someone you know far away, how do you know that it is really that person and not a hallucination or "vision" of them?) No one actually believes in group hallucinations, except when discussing the resurrection of Jesus or other religious phenomena.

2) Lack of Psychological Evidence 

Collective hallucinations are rare or non-existent in psychological literature. Nevertheless, my friend and I did find a message board where someone reported a group hallucination with their friends while on drugs. However, it was a very simple hallucination (a bubble in the middle of the room) and they recognized it to be a group hallucination, instead of coming to believe the bubble existed.

Mike Licona, leading resurrection scholar, quotes a psychologist at Liberty University who is interested in learning about group hallucinations. He states:

 "I have surveyed the professional literature (peer-reviewed journal articles and books) written by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other relevant healthcare professionals during the past two decades and have yet to find a single documented case of a group hallucination, that is, an event for which more than one person purportedly shared in a visual or other sensory perception where there was clearly no external referent ([Mike Licona's] personal correspondence with this author on 3.10.09)." - Gary Sibcy, PhD


Gary Habermas also cited a psychological work by Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones that explored group hallucinations. (1) (5) The notable thing about this study was that the authors did not apply what they learned to Jesus' resurrection, which shows a lack of bias. They used citings of the virgin Mary by crowds as examples of group hallucinations. They determined that "expectation" and "emotional excitement" are "a prerequisite for collective hallucinations." Furthermore, they later stated at the end of their analysis, that group hallucinations have "dubious status" because they weren't even sure that more than one person in the crowd was actually hallucinating. (1)

3) Disciples Not in Right Mindset to Hallucinate

It must be noted that "expectation" and "emotional excitement" are not the state of mind people are when their friend has just died. (1) The disciples would have been grieved at the loss of their best friend and discouraged that he was not the person to restore Israel. The Messiah was supposed to be a worldwide political ruler who defeated Israel's enemies. This is impossible to do if one is dead. Hence, it makes sense that the disciples would have been particularly disappointed after his death. This shows that even if group hallucinations are possible, the disciples are very unlikely candidates due to their lack of emotional expectation for his resurrection.


4) Hallucinations are by Definition Subjective

Since hallucinations are subjective, there are no true "group hallucinations," but only each person in a group coincidentally having the same subjective experience. (1)

"Hallucinations are individual occurrences.  By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time.  They certainly aren't something which can be seen by a group of people.  Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce an hallucination in somebody else.  Since an hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it."

-Gary Collins, PhD Psychology. (8)

5) Demographics and Types of Hallucinations

Grief hallucinations occur in 50% of grieving senior adults. 39% of this 50% (which is 20% of all grieving seniors) only experience a feeling that the other person is in the room with them. 14% of the original 50% have visual hallucinations. Since its 14% of the original 50%, only 7% of the total population of grieving seniors has had a visual hallucination. (3) (cf. 9)

Furthermore, hallucinations are most likely to occur in women and senior citizens. However, the disciples were all younger males, further decreasing the probability of them experiencing hallucinations. (3) (cf. 9)


6) Grief hallucinations do not cause belief in resurrection.

Visual hallucinations do not cause grieving seniors to come to believe that their loved one has been raised from the dead! This is even true in cultures like the U.S. where the acceptance of the possibility of resurrection is common (given their belief in a raised Jesus). Visual hallucinations of dead loved ones may reinforce a persons belief in afterlife, but it does not cause a person to believe they have been raised from the dead. (6)

7) Hallucinations and Afterlife Visions

NT Wright argues that without the empty tomb, just seeing Jesus alive would not have convinced the disciples of Jesus that he had been raised. (4) Jewish beliefs about afterlife allowed for the possibility of having a vision of them in the afterlife prior to their resurrection of the dead at the end of time. This point is illustrated very strongly by the passage in Acts about Peter's miraculous escape from prison. When he arrived at the house church, the members of the prayer group did not even believe it was Peter at the door, but only "his angel." This shows quite poignantly that the idea of seeing someone in a vision in the afterlife was quite possible.

8) Differentiating Visions and Physical Experiences

People who have religious visions usually realize they are having a vision, and can differentiate these kinds of experiences from physical ones. The founders of certain religions, such as Islam and Mormonism, claim to have had visions and realize they are visions. The members of the early church (including Peter and Paul) were able to differentiate visionary experiences from physical ones. However, the disciples and Paul always treated the appearances as unique physical experiences and never referred to them as visions. (10)

9) The Gospel and the Risen Lord

The disciples of Jesus and Paul had strong agreement that the gospel was that Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead. Belief in this message was what one had to do in order to obtain salvation. However, the only place in the gospels where we find this message is the risen Lord comissioning the disciples to say something very similar at the end of Luke. If one were to read the synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke), this message doesn't at all seem to feature strongly in Jesus' preaching before his death.  Since the disciples all agreed on the early proclamation very early on, it is likely they "heard" it from Jesus. If they all "heard" it from Jesus, it would make the risen Lord a collective, visual and auditory hallucination with the same content.

10) Hallucinations Unlikely for James

Over 90% of New Testament historians accept that skeptical family member of Jesus (James) converted to Christianity due to what he believed was an appearance of the risen Lord. As an unbeliever, James would not be susceptible to a conversion caused by hallucinations, nor would he be in the frame of mind to hallucinate his dead brother as resurrected. (7)

11) Hallucinations Unlikely for Paul

Over 95% of New Testament historians accept that Paul, who previously persecuted Christians, had an experience which he believed to be an appearance of Jesus. He differentiates this experience from visions he has. In this resurrection appearance, the glorified Jesus blinds Paul, causing him to fall to the ground, and scaring the group he was with. Paul is an unlikely candidate for hallucinations of this nature, due to his persecuting the church. (7)

12) Hallucinations and the Empty Tomb

75% of scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb, largely because of its discovery by women and the meaning of the word "resurrection" as a physical event in that cultural context. If one concedes the empty tomb, then hallucinations would not explain the resurrection. In that case, hallucinations would not be a very encompassing theory because it would not explain the empty tomb. (7)

13) Hallucinations Usually Occur in One Mode

 There are different types of hallucinations. People have hallucinations relating to sight, sound, hearing, taste, touch, and being in motion. People who have hallucinations usually only have them in one mode, unless they are taking drugs. However, all of the sources on the appearances provide visual hallucinations. Furthermore, all 3 gospel sources for the appearances provide visual and auditory hallucinations, making them much more unlikely. In the book of Acts, Luke quotes Peter talking about having had a meal with Jesus. People who have meals together usually talk, so this is also further evidence that it is both visual and auditory. (3) (cf. 9)

14) Repeated Hallucinations

On top of the issue with the modes, demographics, and likelihood of hallucinations, the early material report multiple group hallucination of Jesus, making hallucinations even more an unlikely hypothesis. (1)

15) The Desire to Touch

 If you saw your friend walking around after he had died, you would most certainly try and touch him to make sure it was really him, before concluding that he had raised from the dead. Many of the sources report doubting on the part of the disciples. This further supports the idea that the disciples would have tried to touch Jesus. (1) In fact, in some of the gospel sources, the disciples either touch Jesus or are given a strong invitation to touch him.

 16) Variations in People and Environments

In Gary Habermas' and Mike Licona's book "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," they point out that there are several personal variations among those who saw the appearances of Jesus and the situations they were in. The reported appearances are both indoors and outdoors, apply to men (the disciples) and women. Furthermore, each of these people probably varies in age and disposition to doubt. The number of personal variations decreases the probability that every single one of them had a hallucination of Jesus at the same time. (7)

17) People Are "Talked Out Of" Hallucinations

Gary Habermas cites unpublished research which showed that it is easy to get talked out of hallucinations. For example, if a person thinks they are seeing a dead loved one, all it takes is for another person to tell them that the deceased person is not present, and the hallucinator usually realizes it. (1)

A Helpful Comparison

No one actually believes in group hallucinations of a persons bodily presence. This is especially the case if a skeptic were invited to see the resurrected Jesus for themselves. This is one of the "thousand concessions" that inspired this blog. As critical as some opponents of Christianity may become, one would think there isn't much evidence at all for our position. However, believe it or not, most historians who actively oppose belief in the resurrection propose that the disciples actually "saw" Jesus after his death!

An example will illustrate the force of this point. Imagine if the evidence against a defendant in court was so strong that the defending attorney proposed hallucinations as the most likely possibility for why the defendant did not commit the crime. Imagine if they even became dogmatic about this. If I was the prosecution, I would feel perfectly safe in my position. So, the fact that the visions/hallucination theory is the leading theory against the resurrection of Jesus among scholars just reinforces my confidence in the resurrection and the historical evidence used to support it.

Furthermore, one should realize that every one of these hallucination theories could be used to disprove the theory that someone had met me on several occasions. We can devise extremely creative theories of how someone could have possibly hallucinated me. Nevertheless, this certainly doesn't prove that they did and its still extremely likely that they didn't.

But perhaps the disciples meant something altogether different when discussing the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps by the word "resurrection" they really were only referring to a vision of Jesus exalted in heaven. Or, perhaps they only meant it to mean they had a warm religious experience of Jesus which provided them closure after his death? Or worse, perhaps they intended the entire message as allegorical? To these options we now turn in the final post on the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Interesting Appendix and Update: I had a visual hallucination!!

I have come back to update this post because I had a visual hallucination the other day when I was at work. I was very sleep deprived. I write parking tickets and was walking near a car. I though two girls were going to get out of the car and go to class. Then I realized that no one was there.

I don't know what kinds of visual hallucinations other people have, and I'm not going to discount there experience if it is different form mine.

However, the hallucination I had was quite unconvincing!!!! 

 I did believe the people were there but it only took a couple seconds to realize they were not there.










Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Did the disciples lie about the Resurrection??

In the first post, we established that it is historically certain that Jesus was crucified, died and buried. In the second, we showed very good evidence that the disciples claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that he had appeared to them after his death.

I wanted to do a post on the meaning of "resurrection" and "risen from the dead" for the disciples, but I am going to do that last, since I want to spend more time researching it. However, in this post I will discuss whether or not the disciples lied about Jesus resurrection. Sure, Jesus was crucified, and sure they claimed they had seen him after his death. But what if they lied about all of it?

The dilemma that 19th Century critics of Christianity faced is that the disciples of Jesus were either deceivers or deceived in their claim that Jesus rose from the dead. (5) In this post, we will address the charge that the disciples were deceivers.

Deception: What Critical Historians Believe

I will begin by saying that over 99% of New Testament historians since 1975 think that the disciples believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. (1) Now, this shows that the scholarly majority is nearly unanimous in rejecting deception as a plausible explanation for the early proclamation of Jesus' resurrection. However, arguments are more important than consensus, so I will elucidate some good reasons why the early preaching was not the result of a conspiracy constructed by the disciples.

The Truth of the Tired Old Apologists Saying

It's been repeated over and over again rather tirelessly, but the pithy saying of apologists remains true: "Why would the disciples allow themselves to die for something they knew to be false?" If Jesus was dead, then the disciples knew it. So, to proclaim him raised from the dead, and to proclaim that he had made appearances to them would be an outright lie. However, at least some of these same disciples were martyred for their belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead, since the resurrection of Jesus was central to the Christian message (click here to see my justification for this). Being martyred for something does not at all prove that one's beliefs are true. People die for their beliefs all the time. However, they almost never die or suffer for claims that they know or believe are false. Hence, the disciples did not lie about the resurrection or the appearance, but sincerely believed they had happened.

For example, Muslim terrorists will crash airplanes into buildings because of their belief that it would result in a Paradise with 72 virgins. However, no one would do such an act if they believed that Islam was false. For example, no one tries to say that the terrorists who crashed themselves into airplanes on 9/11 were actually atheists or Christians. On the contrary, their association with a radically Muslim organization + their willing to suffer for those values proves that they actually believed them. It is taken for granted that those who suffer for their claims actually believe them. Only believers willingly suffer martyrs deaths. However, people who are lying do not believe what they are claiming. And hence, they would not willingly suffer martyrs deaths for those beliefs.

Another way to frame this is that people usually lie in order to gain some advantage. However, the disciples of Jesus had no advantage to gain by lying about the resurrection.

Evidences that the Disciples Were Telling the Truth

One can make a very powerful multifaceted case against deception using this general line of reasoning. Here  are some good reasons why the disciples did not lie:


  1. As orthodox Jews, the disciples would have faced excommunication from the synagogue for following a religious leader (Jesus) whom the Jewish leaders handed over to the Romans to be condemned to death. In addition, if the leader (Jesus) was killed, the disciples shouldn't expect any better treatment for following him.
  2. The Neronian persecution (60's A.D.) involved the crucifixion of many Christians. This would be a great time for the disciples to give in and "fess up" if they were lying, since by continuing their lie they would face political pressure and severe persecution. 
  3. It is accepted that the disciples engaged in lots of early preaching in favor of Jesus being raised from the dead. People who engage in any sort of active advocacy generally believe what they are saying.
  4. The early Christian proclamation "Jesus is Lord" was politically subversive and stood in stark contrast to the Roman cult of the day where Caesar was regarded as "Lord." (2) (3) People who spread a politically subversive message usually believe that message themselves because of the danger it entails.
  5. Their are early sources for the martyrdom of Peter, James (half-brother of Jesus), and Paul. (4) If all three of these guys got killed for their gospel, surely they had at least experienced political and social pressure for their beliefs prior to this, since executions don't come out of nowhere. They would have had ample opportunity to recant their beliefs and avoid getting themselves in a situation where they would be executed. 
  6. The book of Acts (traditional authorship = Luke), reports that the disciples (and Paul) inadvertently caused riots because of their preaching. Furthermore, they often got beat up, run out of town, and sometimes imprisoned for their beliefs. If any of the reports in Acts are true, then advocating the gospel was certainly a rough job, and certainly not a  message one would advocate if they did not believe it!
  7. In his undisputed letters, Paul regularly makes reference to his repeated persecutions. If they were characteristic for Paul, it was likely they were characteristic for the original disciples of Jesus as well, since they preached the same message. His persecutions were very severe, and often correspond to what is recorded in Acts. This passage from 2 Corinthians is particularly telling:
    1. "Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches." (2 Corinthians 11:24-28)
  8. Paul's mentioning of the Jews as having beaten him shows that the other disciples didn't have any easier experience, since they agreed that Paul would preach to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. (Galatians 2)
  9. In 1 Thessalonians (50's A.D.), one purpose of Paul's writing is to encourage the believers to withstand persecution- a persecution whose origin corresponds well with the book of Acts. If persecution was taking place in Greece as well as Jerusalem, it shows that hostility towards Christianity was particularly strong in a wide variety of areas. 
Clearly, being a disciples of Jesus and proclaiming his resurrection was a task fraught with extreme difficulty, physical pain, and heartache. Their suffering clearly shows they believed the message of the resurrection that they were proclaiming. And since they believed it, it shows they were not lying, since liars do not believe the message they are trying to spread. 

A Noteworthy Comparison 

If the above evidences are unconvincing, a comparison should demonstrate my point. Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation and faced political and religious pressure for his views. He had to seek protection from those who sought his life. However, he never actually was killed for his views. Nevertheless, would anyone seriously challenge the notion that Luther believed in justification by faith? Hardly. Furthermore, when people get in heated discussions about controversial subjects, we very quickly concede that the person arguing their point actually believes it, especially if they face any sort of insults because of their stance on something. Furthermore, most people concede that the author of blog posts (such as myself!) generally believe what they are writing, even if they are not faced with insults. 

We quickly concede that someone believes something when faced even with very minor pressure. The examples above show how quickly we concede that someone actually believes someone without forcing them to suffer for it. So if we concede that someone believes something even under very minor pressure, how much more should we agree that the disciples believed in what they preached, due to the fact that they suffered very severely for those beliefs. 

Summary

Since I could come up with so many different reasons for the sincerity of the disciple's beliefs, it shows why the critical scholars have no problem conceding that the disciples were not liars. The disciples very sincere belief that Jesus had raised from the dead, and that they had seen him alive, demand an explanation. If I sincerely believe I have seen my friend Mike on repeated occasions, I am either telling the truth, experiencing very strong hallucinations, or seeing his identical twin. To these final options we turn in the next post. 



Posted by at No comments:

Monday, May 7, 2012

Did Jesus' friends claim they met with him after he died? (Note #2)

 (As I said in the last post, this is the series of Facebook notes I started during Easter Weekend. The homework started to pile on, so I didn't get to finish the series during Easter. Here, I post the Facebook notes as I posted them back then in order. The only difference is, I will actually continue the series now lol.)

 ************

In accordance with the Easter weekend, I continue the investigation into the resurrection of Jesus. In the previous note, we saw that Jesus died by crucifixion. After all, if Jesus wasn't dead, then he can't raise from the dead. However, in this post, we will see that after Jesus died, his followers actively proclaimed the message of his resurrection.

This is actually the most accepted fact regarding the events surrounding the death of Jesus. Indeed, after counting 2,000 publications on the historical Jesus in French, German, and English, Dr. Gary Habermas discovered that over 99% of New Testament historians claim that "the disciples had experiences which they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus." This includes the majority of skeptical scholars. (1) In this post, I want to simply establish that they claimed Jesus was alive and that they met with him. (I will address whether or not they actually told the truth in another post.)

Sources for the Proclamation of the Resurrection and Appearances

Using comparison to the sources supporting Caesar's assassination, which we saw in the previous post, the claim to the appearances by the disciples is a very strongly evidenced historical fact. Below, I will list all of the sources for the appearances, and put the most liberal dates next to them. (2)

1) Matthew (traditionally considered to be eyewitness)
2) Luke (claims to have consulted "eyewitnesses") -
3) Acts (written by Luke; documents public speeches where disciples proclaim Jesus alive) - (speeches earlier than Acts, which is 30-50) (Mike Licona's dating for Kerygma in a debate, usually concedes late dating for stuff in debates)
4) John (claims to be an eyewitness) - < 100 A.D.
5) Paul (claims to have spoken with Jesus disciples and Jesus brother) - 50's A.D.
6) Ancient Creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 - (35 A.D.)
7) Polycarp (knew one of the disciples) - 100's AD
8) Clement (knew one of the disciples) - 100's AD

The fact that the disciples at least claimed they had seen Jesus alive after he was dead is strongly supported as far as ancient history is concerned. In fact, compared to Caesar's assassination on the Senate floor in Rome, the disciples' claim to the appearances is very well evidenced. Furthermore, keep in mind that it doesn't matter if they contain contradictory details. Many eyewitness accounts do this. In addition, the records of Caesar's assassination themselves contain contradictions on the last words of Caesar, but are still regarded as a valuable source of historical information.

The Earliest Source in Ancient History 

Since the creed in 1 Corinthians is the earliest source in all of ancient history and so close to the event, it behooves us to take a look at what it said:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (Paul; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

The author of 1 Corinthians, Paul, implies he "received" this material from someone else. In another letter, Galatians, he talks about how he repeatedly met with the Jerusalem disciples who approved of his gospel message. He likely received the creed when talking to the disciples themselves. (2) In this creed we see:

1) 1 appearance to Peter
2) 2 appearances to the group of the disciples
3) 1 appearance to James
4) 1 appearance to 500 people
5) 1 unusual appearance to Paul (post glorification of Jesus)

Speeches about the Resurrection in Acts

Other early accounts of the resurrection appearances can be seen below:

 "He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead." (Peter to a Roman Centurion and his family - Acts 10:41)

 "This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him." (Peter to a crowd - sourced in Acts 2:23-24

 "Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." (Peter to a crowd - same speech as previous paragraph; sourced in Acts 2:29-32)

The Gospel Appearance Traditions

However, the most lengthy sources are in the gospels. You can read them here.
 Matthew
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028&version=NIV
Luke
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24&version=NIV

John
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020-21&version=NIV



Renowned New Testament scholar NT Wright notes several things about the gospel accounts (3):

1) They are largely free of Old Testament references, whereas the rest of the gospel narratives are usually full of them. This implies a lack of literary embellishment on the appearance traditions.
2) Unlike other Christian sources in the New Testament, they fail to mention the connection between the resurrection of Jesus and the believers resurrection at the end of time. This also implies a lack of literary or theological embellishment.
3) These narratives never show Jesus as "glowing" or "heavenly" looking. This shows that the narratives are in contrast to Jewish literature about afterlife, but really want to portray him as raised from the dead, without theological embellishment.
4) In the same account, the resurrection body of Jesus eats fish, but can move through closed doors. Such modifications to Jewish belief about resurrection require a very unique explanation.

Conclusion

It is without question that Jesus' own friends claimed that he had been raised from the dead. It is also evident that their main line of support for this is that they met with him after his death. All of these are very good reasons to accept that the disciples proclaimed the resurrection very early on. As mentioned before, this is the most widely accepted belief among critical historians.

But what is a "resurrection?" What does "raised from the dead" imply?  Does it really mean a guy got up out of his tomb and walked around? Or is it merely some kind of disembodied vision? Or just a warm religious experience of Jesus? To this historical question we shall turn next.....

1) http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm
2) Most of these found in "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona
3) http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Did Jesus Fake His Death??


(This is the series of Facebook notes I started during Easter Weekend. The homework started to pile on, so I didn't get to finish the series during Easter. Here, I post the Facebook notes as I posted them back then in order. The only difference is, I will actually continue the series now lol.)

***********************

In the spirit of the Easter weekend, I am going to do a series on why I believe the resurrection occurred. If we are to place our hope of eternal life in the resurrection, we certainly ought to know why we believe it happened. In the words of the apostle Paul "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Cor. 15:14) If Jesus has not been raised from the dead, I say without reservation that I would wholeheartedly reject Christianity!

Over 95% of New Testament historians, including the majority of non-Christian ones, accept the crucifixion, burial and death of Jesus. This implies that Jesus really existed. The fact that the scholars accept this does not make it true, but the reason it's so widely accepted is because the evidence is so powerful.

How Do We Know the Crucifixion Really Happened?

There are at least 5 non-Christian sources for the crucifixion of Jesus in the ancient world. These are: Tacitus, Suetonius, Bar Mara-Serapion, The Talmud, and Pliny the Younger.

However, Christian sources for the events should not be discounted at all, simply because they may be "biased". Indeed, if a reporter who likes the New York Giants reports that they won the super bowl, do we discount that reporter's testimony because they are "biased?" Indeed, we must use all of the source material we have.

There are 4 detailed accounts of the death of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Just on the basis of these, historians can conclude that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Indeed, these are better sources than for other monumental events in history. Julius Caesars assasination has only two primary sources in history: Suetonius and Plutarch. (1) However, as we mentioned above, there are at least 4 primary sources for the crucifixion. In addition, the sources for Julius Caesar's assasination were written over 100 years after the events. Nevertheless, even the most skeptical scholars accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written within 70 years of the event.

It doesn't matter if there are apparent contradictions in the gospels, because contradictions exist between Suetonius and Plutarch on Caesar's assasination. Indeed, they even disagree on his last words. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the sources weren't written by the people ascribed to them. An ancient source is an ancient source, and we have to factor it in to the total evidence.

Regarless of all of this, there is a creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 about the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus. This creed was developed by the early Christians within 2 years of the death of Jesus, according to atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann. Many people believe Paul received this creed from the disciples of Jesus themselves. Since it is only 2 years away from the events, it makes it the earliest source in ALL of ancient history. While it does not say Jesus was crucified, it says he died and was buried. If anything in ancient history is legend, it is definitely not the crucifixion, since the source material is so early. Indeed, it vastly overtakes other historical sources in the ancient world for other events.

Did Jesus fake his death and pretend to be resurrected? 

We have established that if we want to use a consistent standard for ancient history, we ought to wholeheartedly accept the crucifixion of Jesus. Indeed, some atheist and agnostic historians not only agree to this, but insist that it is a matter of history.

But what if Jesus faked his death? Christians believe that Jesus appeared to his followers after his death, ate and drank with them, and gave "many convincing proofs that he was alive." Acts 1:3. But what if Jesus only fainted on the cross, and then woke up later and tricked his disciples that he was the risen Lord?

While this notion was popular among 19th Century New Testament scholars, it has fallen into non-existence as a naturalistic theory for the resurrection. There are many good reasons to reject this idea.

1) The Romans and Execution

First, we must keep in mind that Jesus wasn't just killed, he was executed. The Romans were professionals at crucifixion, so to speak. This makes them a lot less likely to mess up. Indeed, there were big penalties for soldiers who let convicts escape, so there was big incentive not to make a mistake. (source: Acts 27:42; Acts 16:27.)

2) Journal of American Medical Association

Second, according to the Journal of American Medical Association, crucifixion is a death by suffocation. Essentially, the victim has to push upwards on the cross to take a breath, because hanging down is so constricting on the diaphragm. JAMA did an experiment where they had male volunteers get their arms tied on boards like in crucifixion. The only difference is that there feet were completely off the ground. Every one of them went unconscious within ten minutes. (Imagine if we duct taped your hands to monkey bars and didn't let you touch the ground.) The moral of the story is that it is not difficult to tell if Jesus is really dead. If he is not pushing up for several minutes, the guards can be certain he has finally suffocated and is no longer struggling.

3) Escaping His Burial

Third, the majority of scholars believe Jesus was buried in some fashion (not necessarily the tomb). After all, most people who have best friends that die go ahead and bury them. So there is no reason to doubt the burial. However, if Jesus really did faint on the cross, as unlikely as that is, he would have suffocated if buried in the ground. If you accept the tomb accounts, he was wrapped in linen strips. This would have certainly caused suffocation. Furthermore, he would then have to roll a very heave stone out of the way of the tomb entrance, all while in his extremely bad medical condition. But that isn't even the main reason the scholars reject apparent death theory.

4) Only Survived, Not Resurrected

Finally, the main reason scholars reject the apparent death theory is because even if Jesus did survive, he wouldn't have been able to convince the disciples he had been resurrected. He would be in terrible condition, and the disciples would assume he only survived. Early Christian belief claims that the believers resurrection body at the Second Coming of Christ is of the same nature as the resurrected body of Jesus. This beat-up body that Jesus would have had is nothing to hope for at all! Basically, the point can be illustrated as follows. If you saw a person who was recently executed walk up to you in terrible condition, you would not consider resurrection to be plausible. You would think they had merely survived the process, not that they had been raised from the dead.

Conclusion

Even the most passionately atheistic New Testament historians today reject the idea that Jesus survived his own crucifixion. Furthermore, we have seen that the sources of the crucifixion are superior than those used for establishing other important historical events. All of these are very good reasons to believe Jesus really died.

If Jesus really died, then that is the first half of establishing the resurrection. Tomorrow, I will post about what the disciples claimed happened on Sunday morning, and in further posts examine whether or not we should believe them.....


(Unless otherwise noted, the factual information provided in this note can be found in "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas.)

1) http://www.virgil.org/caesar/primary-sources.htm
Posted by at No comments:

What is "Christianity" in the First Place?

The Importance of Defining Christianity

So with all this talk by me of why "Christianity" is true, it's pretty important that we establish what I understand "Christianity" to be in the first place. I have a list of blog posts I want to make (which happens to be increasing in my mind as I think of more) but defining the Christian message was on the list. However, my friend Justin also suggested I define Christianity, so I figured it was high time to do a post on it.

I have actually researched this on my own long before I was studying philosophy or blogging about apologetics. I created a document during my freshman year in college as a response to some theological issues I was discussing with some friends. So, keep in mind as you look at the document, my purposes at the time were primarily  theological, and not historical. But I'm glad I did it, because it helped me to learn the essential components of early historical Christianity as well.

As far as my initial assumptions, I do not regard anything to be "Christianity" if it is not in accordance with something that the original disciples of Jesus taught. So, regardless of how early rival forms of Jesus-related belief were floating around in the first century, I dismiss any message of Christianity that is not directly tied to the followers of Jesus in some way. This would mean I disregard things such as Gnosticism or other rival beliefs since they aren't tied to the apostles. However, you will find I use Paul as a source a lot for finding out what the apostles of Jesus believed. I have good historical reason for doing so, which should become clear as this progresses.

Paul's Meeting with James (Jesus' Brother), Peter, and John

Galatians and 1 Corinthians are 2 of the 7 undisputed letters of Paul. In Galatians 2, Paul talks about how he preached the gospel to Gentile audiences long before conferring with any of Jesus' disciples. He went to Jerusalem to meet with those recognized as "pillars" of Christianity, for the specific purpose of making sure that his message was the same as theirs, so that he could be sure that he was not running his race "in vain." He actually conferred with them on 2-3 occasions, and they "added nothing to my message." Furthermore, James, Peter and John, granted him the "right hand of fellowship" when they recognized the grace given to him. So, this shows that what Paul thinks about the original message of Christianity is very important, since it agrees with what James, Peter and John think about it as well.

The Unanimous Message of the Apostles

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul cites a creed that he "received" and "passed on as of first importance." He says that the Corinthians obtain salvation if they "hold firmly" to this message. According to most New Testament historians, this creed was formulated as part of oral tradition within 5 years of the death of Jesus. According to atheist New Testament historian Gerd Ludemann, it was created even earlier, within 2 years of the death of Jesus. Paul notes that "whether it is or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." Paul seems to imply that the creed he quotes is the same message as the others who preach it, which is presumably the disciples' as well. Here it is:

 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

Here, we can see that the gospel is that Christ (Greek for "Messiah") died for their sins, was buried, and was resurrected, appearing to many witnesses. All of this takes place "according to the Scriptures," that is, in accordance to Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah.

The Commission of the Risen Lord and the Early Preaching of the Apostles

This bears a very striking resemblance to Luke's quote of the resurrected Jesus immediately prior to his ascension:

"He told them, 'This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.'"

They both have the Messiah die and rise from the dead. They both refer to witnesses for the resurrection. They both speak of the need for believing the message or "repentance" (Gr. metanoia means to change one's mind about something). They both mention its connection to Old Testament prophecy. Finally, they both talk about how what Jesus did was done to eradicate and provide forgiveness for sin.

(Keep in mind that the word "Messiah" refers to a future king frequently encountered in Old Testament prophecy who would bring world peace, defeat Israel's enemies, and rule the entire world.)

In fact, Luke's quote of Christ is so dramatically similar to the speeches in Acts (also written by Luke) that one can easily make a chart out of it. Click the link below and it leads right to one of the charged pages in the document I wrote:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5BQ5zG8ZYJR29BU0dBNUJDMms/edit

(Full document available at the bottom of the blog post)

These are all of the places where Paul's message in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (which he seems to say has the approval of the disciples) bears striking resemblance to Luke's quotation of the risen Lord, and the original preaching by the apostles. However, as we will see in a moment, this format is primarily used when preaching to those who are Jews or those familiar with Judaism. When preaching to Gentiles, the meaning of the word "Messiah" would be unknown to the listeners, and "forgiveness of sins" might be a confusing concept. Therefore, as apostle to the Gentiles (a designation agreed upon by James, John and Peter), Paul must translate this very Jewish sounding message into terms that Greeks, barbarians, and polytheists can understand.

Paul's Translation of the Gospel for non-Jews

We have seen above that the original message of Christianity that was used to gain converts, is that the Messiah died for sins and raised from the dead. However, in Romans (another undisputed letter of Paul), he defines his message in similar terms, but with very noticeable differences.

"But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-13)

 For those who are interested, I chart out what I call the "dissimilar" passages and explain how each of them is harmonious with the original message here:

 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5BQ5zG8ZYJdHpuRjdVaEdneGc/edit

A Note on Christ's Deity

The gospel is that the Messiah died for sins and rose from the dead. However, the word "Messiah" did not imply automatically that someone was God incarnate. However, given certain Old Testament passages (Isaiah 9:6; Zechariah 12-14; Daniel 7:13-14) it seems one could easily infuse divinity in the Messiah figure. This appears to be what the apostles did. Peter, in his first speech to those in Jerusalem, calls Christ "Lord" or "kurios" (the Greek Old Testament word for the name of God). Many of the Acts speeches apply titles to Christ that are only properly applicable to God. Furthermore, Paul and the other apostles, call Jesus God or "Lord" in their letters early on. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the early Christians worshiped Jesus as God very early on. More evidence for this can be found here:

http://resurrectionevidence.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-jesus-claim-to-be-yahweh.html

They seemed to place a very high significance on believing that Jesus is God. In fact, Paul says that if a person believes "Jesus is Lord" (in the Romans passage above) and they believe in the resurrection, they are saved. However, he uses the Old Testament as evidence for his salvation formula, saying that "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." It must be kept in mind that the phrase "the Lord" in Greek was what the Septuagint used instead of "Yahweh." So, when calling Jesus "Lord" in this passage, Paul is using exactly the same word that the Greek Old Testament at the time used for the very name of God. So it seems that even though the concept of divinity isn't inherent in the idea of Messiah, the early Christians very much intended it to be so in Jesus' case.

A Note on Secondary Doctrines

 Keep in mind that the apostles are coming from a Jewish background, and in no way intend to depart from their Jewish context. They would consider the message about the death and resurrection of the Messiah for forgiveness of sins to be the goal and culmination of Judaism. Considering this to be the case, they all regarded God as Creator of the entire world. They also believed in the Spirit of God, which is very prominently themed in early Christian preaching and letters. Eternal life through Jesus is also something they believed in, especially since they sided with the Pharisees and believed in a general resurrection at the end of time. The Second Coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead is a prominent component in preaching to Gentiles in the early church, since they had no built-in Jewish concept of a coming judgement day by God (Acts 10; Acts 17).

In fact, it is very easy to show that the apostles believed in the vast majority of what we refer to as the "Apostles Creed" today. Whether or not the apostles actually made the apostles creed doesn't matter, since it would be easy to show that they believed in most of the doctrines therein:





I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.


So that's Christianity. That's what I believe is true and what I want other people to believe too, because doing so secures their salvation.

(The full document can be found here. The formatting kind of sucks because Google doesn't know how to upload things, so bear with me).

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5BQ5zG8ZYJeGNJa1lhRVZLU28/edit

All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.

Apostle's Creed from Wikipedia

(IMPORTANT CORRECTION: the "James" I refer to above is not the James who was one of the disciples, but the half brother of Jesus. He was the leader of the Jerusalem church and converted due to an appearance of Jesus.)




Posted by at 9 comments:

Friday, May 4, 2012

The Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Debate Good

One important thing to learn when defending any position is to learn how to do it in an orderly, convincing, and coherent way. One's ability to do this often comes out in debate, or in their writing.

Love him or hate him, William Lane Craig is an excellent debater who wins most if not all of his debates on existence of God. That's why he is a great person to look at to learn how to debate, even if you passionately disagree with him. Here are some things I noticed when watching his debates and talking to other people about them (including atheists) that make him a really really really good debater.

1) Know your stuff, really really really well.

This kind of goes without saying, but its hugely important for winning debates and being persuasive.  As for William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument, he debates it in scholarly philosophical journals. However, many of the people who want to debate Craig in public underestimate how much he knows about his own argument, and are not philosophers themselves. So whenever they raise an objection, Craig already knows how to respond to it. This is a great skill to have no matter what position you are defending. In fact, Craig knows so much about his argument he is able to write an entire book and then a 100 page article on 3 sentences (his three premises). Agree with him or not, he certainly knows his argument, why he believes it, and what objections can be raised against it.

2) Have more than one argument for your position

William Lane Craig has been using the same opening speech in his existence of God debates for over 10 years. He usually has 5 or 6 different arguments to support his supposition that "God exists." These are set up as syllogistic arguments. Nevertheless, each premise in each of his 6 arguments itself has many supporting reasons. For example, one of the premises in the Kalam Cosmological argument is "The Universe began to exist." Craig has at least three sub-arguments for why that is true. He even sets up the sub-arguments in a syllogistic fashion. This way, the opponent has to tear down all 6 arguments for the contention "God exists" and has to tear down all of the sub-arguments for at least one of the premises in each argument. As I said before, love him or hate him, but a brilliant debate tactic. On the flip side, it is extremely important to not have your entire position depend on just one argument. This is what Stephen Law did in his debate with Craig, and I think it was a really bad idea.

This also works when responding to objections. If possible, always provide more than one reason why the objection is wrong.

A caution here. You have to be careful how many arguments you use in a debate, or its considered rude. For example, if Craig just listed off 40 syllogisms and expected the opponent to tear them all down, that would be rude and unproductive, especially when trying to persuade an audience. You need more than one or two arguments, but less than so many that its distracting and disorganized when the opponent goes to respond.

3) Dismiss or Concede Irrelevant Objections

When debating his opponents, Craig often concedes things that do not relate to one of his objections. For example, in his debate with Antony Flew, Flew brought up that Craig's God is unjust, because he uses eternal punishment. Craig responded by saying that they were just debating the existence of a generic monotheistic God, not the Christian God. (However, Craig did respond to the objection, since he is a Christian theist.)

Same applies to things like evolution, or Biblical inerrancy, or anything else that sounds like a rough objection on the surface. In most debates about Christianity, things like evolution and Biblical inerrancy are irrelevant objections. What does evolution have to do with whether or not Christ rose from the dead, or that a God exists? What does inerrancy have to do with whether or not Christ rose from the dead, or that God exists? We trust historical sources all the time, even though they sometimes contradict each other. So inerrancy doesn't even matter when proving Christ rose from the dead. These are moot points in the overall picture of things. So, make sure you do not get bogged down in difficult or distracting objections that do not necessarily relate to the contention at hand. The objection may be a good question to ask, but don't get distracted to it when it doesn't relate to one of your arguments.

4) Be very clear when presenting your argument.

As I said before, Craig presents all his arguments in syllogistic form. This way, it makes it very clear where the opponent has to disagree and what Craig has to defend. One does not always have to use syllogisms to be a good debater or to be clear, but it is certainly a good idea for some things. Nevertheless, the overall idea of being clear in the presentation of your argument and laying all the relevant components of it out on the table is a very important lesson to be learned. Furthermore, your overall structure should be very orderly and  something one could easily turn into an outline or bullet points.

5) Use Clear Analogies to Illustrate the Force of Your Point

Analogies are not arguments in themselves. But they are a great way to drive home the force of a particular argument. Craig's "Hilbert's hotel" and library illustrations are great ways to illustrate why he thinks its impossible for an infinite number of things to exist in reality.  Having good analogies are a great way to help your point sink in with your audience, and to help them understand why your point is so powerful.

6) Use Facts that Are Agreed Upon by Scholars in the Relevant Fields


When debating the existence of God, Craig does not appeal to possible flaws in evolution for his design argument. Creationism is rejected in most of the scientific community. (Craig is himself undecided on common descent.) However, he does point to cosmic fine-tuning as evidence for design, since the scientific community accepts cosmic fine-tuning.In addition, when debating the resurrection, Craig does not appeal to the guard at the tomb or doubting Thomas to prove his point. He appeals to facts that are accepted by the majority of historical Jesus scholars. This is an easier way to debate and makes your argument stronger.

Summary

So we have seen why Craig is such a good debater. These skills are useful in defending any position, but particularly so in defending the Christian faith.


Posted by at 3 comments:

Thursday, May 3, 2012

More Miraculous Concessions: Famous Atheist New Testament Historian Thinks Jesus Healed a Deaf Man

Skeptical Historians Concede Specific Miracles


Sorry the font is so weird. I tried to fix it, but could not.


Recently I did a post about how the Jesus Seminar concedes so many miracles of Jesus that it makes no sense for them to continue being critical of traditional Christian beliefs. They concede 6 of his 36 miracles, but contend that they were the result of what we call "faith healing" today. However, the sicknesses Jesus was able to "faith heal" are so incredible impressive that it is an extreme long-shot to attribute them to faith healing alone. As I said in that post, it's like trying to say serial killer Ted Bundy is a good man but you only concede 6 of his 30-35 murders in your historical analysis. Concessions like these annihilate one's own position.


Atheist New Testament Historian Gerd Lüdemann


This time I would like to analyze famous New Testament historian and atheist Gerd Lüdemann, and the amount of concessions he makes with regards to the miracles of Jesus. He is very well known in the field of New Testament studies, and one of the leading advocates of the vision hypothesis (aka hallucination hypothesis) for the appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples. I happened upon a list of what he considers to be the authentic sayings and deeds of Jesus. It was in the first part of the book, and was available in the Amazon.com preview.


http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-After-2000-Years-Really/dp/1573928909/ref=pd_rhf_cr_shvl5

Although he is one of the member's of the Jesus Seminar, he operates on his own and his work is usually considered separate from the Seminar's. He is one of the fellows of the Jesus Seminar that is actually a scholar, which is a plus for him.

Lüdemann and the Miracles He Concedes

I found in this list that he accepts less miracles than the Jesus Seminar, but the one's he does accept are significant:


  1. Jesus healed Peter's mother-in law who had a fever ("very high degree of probability")
    1. Mark 1:29-31
  2. Jesus healed a deaf man ("relatively high degree of probability")
    1. Mark 7:32-35
  3. Jesus message to John the Baptist in prison, where he says: 
    1. "The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor." (Luke 7:22) ("very high degree of probability")
  4. Jesus performed what he thought were exorcisms ("very high degree of probability")
    1. Luke 11:20
Analysis 

Now, Lüdemann does not believe Jesus did any actual miracles, as in things he did through God's power. Rather, I assume he attributes these to "faith healing" or psychosomatic causes, or otherwise natural causes. In fact, I read once (at the beginning of one of his books) that it is part of his methodology that no miracles occurred. However, to say something came about through natural causes certainly doesn't make it so.

Per #1, I don't know of anyone who can cure someone laying in bed sick with a fever just by taking their hand, but I suppose someone somewhere might be able to. Per #2, healing a deaf person who can hardly talk seems far outside the reach of any faith healing. To those who think otherwise I would like them to find a person in the whole world who can heal a deaf man by doing what Jesus did to this man. Per #3, for Jesus to say that the "blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised" would sound rather stupid to the messengers if it wasn't true, since they were his contemporaries. Furthermore, it would not ease John the Baptist doubts about Jesus being the Messiah, since he was doubting that claim in the first place. Per #4, there were other exorcists during the time period, but one cannot dismiss Jesus capacity to do that just by saying that other people did it too. One needs a good naturalistic explanation for what an exorcism is, why it got Jesus contemporaries attention, and why other exorcists in the past weren't actually performing real exorcisms too.

What if we put all of these together? Some dude can heal a person with a fever, heal a deaf person, talks about his other miracles, and is recognized to exorcise demons. If I could heal deaf people I think I would stop blogging about apologetics and start healing deaf people, since it would help more people and probably win more debates. Granted, Jesus didn't like to do miracles for people who were highly skeptical. Nevertheless, healing deaf people would be a lot easier way to prove that my beliefs are true than by blogging. Furthermore, the idea that Jesus really was the Messiah explains all of the facts and is the simplest explanation, which is a mark of a good theory.

Implications

You don't have to believe what Gerd Lüdemann believes. You can deny Jesus existence altogether. That is one very costly way to be consistent, which I addressed in a previous post. But the moment one concedes his existence, some of the earliest and most well-attested material we have about him is that he did miracles. So if we know anything about the guy at all, it is that he was regarded as a miracle worker. This post and the post about the Jesus Seminar show how powerful the evidence is, since even skeptical scholars concede that Jesus had these capabilities















Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Denying the Existence of Jesus: A Very Costly Way to Be Consistent

Last post, I talked about how a very leftist historical Jesus project (headed by atheist and agnostic historians) ends up conceding six miracles of Jesus, even though they want to undermine the traditional picture of him as presented in the gospels. The miracles they concede are quite impressive, and I know of no one who can heal blind men, a paralytic, a leper, and a person with internal bleeding through "faith healing." That's absolutely incredible and impossible without God's help. Furthermore, I would say its very irrational to stay atheist/agnostic after conceding such a thing.

Denying the Existence of Jesus in Popular Circles


Some people obviously do not want to mess around with this kind of irrationality, which makes a lot of sense. If the people who want to completely undermine any concept of Jesus we hold to be true, and they still believe in miracles, this creates a very significant problem for those who do not believe. One way to avoid this evidential problem is by denying Jesus' existence altogether, which seems to be the preferred choice of many scientific and popular atheists, even though the historical scholarship is almost unanimously against it.

I used to think it was incredibly irrational to deny the existence of Jesus. I still think so, but now I realize why so many people go that route. It seems for some, its a great way to stay consistent, so it is not irrational in that sense at least. If you don't believe in miracles, and even the people who don't believe in miracles (the Jesus Seminar) feel compelled to believe in six of them, a really good way to be consistent is to deny the existence of Jesus altogether. This way, you don't have awkward miracles laying around that you have to do back-flips and historical gymnastics to rationalize away.

A Costly Route to Consistency 


I didn't realize this fully until the other day, but the connection between miracle denial and denial of Jesus existence seems logically more connected than I thought. Below I will illustrate the conundrum people face.

To say that there was a man named Jesus in 1st Century Palestine, but we don't know anything about him, is a very meaningless statement since Jesus is such a common name in the time period. In fact, saying such a thing is about as meaningless as saying there is a man named Joe who lived in 21st Century Missouri. It doesn't really tell us anything at all. So if a person says something like this, in my opinion, they are basically denying his existence, since they aren't telling us anything new.

But what about the people who want to say meaningful things about a historical Jesus, whoever he was? If we can provide any meaningful predicate to the man Jesus, the first thing we will learn is that he was crucified. Easy enough. However, the crucifixion is as well attested as his post-death appearances to his disciples, which makes the historical Jesus less easy to deal with. One has to come up with an explanation for why the disciples all of a sudden came to believe Jesus was raised from the dead and that they claimed they saw him.

The Two Facts about Jesus Life We Know

But we still haven't said anything about the life of Jesus. We have only discussed his death (and post-death appearances, which many people don't want to be the result of a resurrection). We haven't said anything about what this guy said, what he believed, what he hoped for, what he was trying to accomplish, what his contemporaries thought of him, and on and on it goes.

Here's the rub. The earliest material we have about Jesus life has a lot of miracles in it. The gospel of Mark, which many scholars concede is the earliest (liberal date - 70 A.D.) has a ton of miracles in it. In fact, you will see one or two miracles every chapter in some cases. Furthermore, the miracles are often multiply attested in different gospel sources (and sometimes independent sources). The miracles of Jesus are more corroborated than the death of Caesar. Even the liberal scholarship concedes that the sources we have about Jesus are earlier and more plentiful. The material for Caesar's assassination was written over 100 years after the events and there is only 2-3 sources for it. However, all of the gospel sources are within 70 years of the events and often report similar miracles. So if Jesus did anything at all, the most well supported fact about his deeds, historically speaking, is that he was regarded as a miracle worker by his contemporaries. (1)

As far as his words, if we know anything about him, we would know that he felt he was inaugurating some new phase of history with his arrival, something he called the "Kingdom of God." This is the unifying narrative feature of Jesus' teachings in the synoptic gospels.

These are two inconveniences that one faces if they concede the existence of Jesus. If we know anything about him at all, we know that he was regarded as a miracle worker and that he thought he was inaugurating the Kingdom of God. Though not an absolute proof, it is very inconvenient when the only two facts you have about a person is that he thought he was ushering in the Kingdom of God and everyone thought he could do miracles. Especially when the evidence for the miracles is so strong that people who don't believe in them end up conceding 6 of them. 36 miracles are a lot to dismiss or rationalize, especially when a lot of those miracles are more well supported than some other stuff we believe in ancient history.

So I understand now why people want to deny the existence of Jesus. Irrational and inconsistent? Yes, I would say so. Very much so. Especially if you believe in other ancient historical things, such as the assassination of Caesar. Is it ideologically inconsistent? No, it's a great way to stay consistent in that sense. But it is a high price to pay to be consistent. In fact, its one of the highest prices people pay in order to be consistent.

Imagine if your belief system depended on the fact that Caesar was not assassinated on the Senate floor in Rome? That's the situation those who deny the existence of Jesus are faced with.

1) http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196


Posted by at 1 comment:

Pure Irrationality: When Atheist Historians Think Jesus Healed Blind Men and a Paralytic

The Skepticism of the Jesus Seminar

The Jesus Seminar is a group of over 200 scholars and historians and other fellows whose aim is to figure out what Jesus really said and did. They do this by getting a big group of people together and voting using different colored beads. If a saying or deed is red, then it means that Jesus really said/did something. If it receives a "pink" vote then it is a close approximation of what Jesus did. Gray beads denote a "probably not," while black beads mean that Jesus definitely did not say/do the item in question.

The scholars at the head of this project are Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and Marcus Borg. From what I have heard, its founder, Robert Funk, is an atheist. John Dominic Crossan is what most people would call an atheist, even though he likes to associate himself with Christianity. In his debate with William Lane Craig, he said that whether or not God existed before there were humans to think about him as a "meaningless question." Marcus Borg is what we would call an agnostic and does not believe in the afterlife or miracles.

According to the Seminar, Jesus didn't say 82% of the sayings attributed to him. Furthermore, Jesus didn't die for anyone's sins or rise from the dead. He did not do any nature miracles nor did he feed 5000 people. The few cures Jesus did perform were psychosomatic and the result of what we consider to be "faith healing" today. 

As you can imagine, their 1993 book The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, unleashed a ton of controversy from Christian apologists and many New Testament historians. People would write many articles criticizing their presuppositions, their historical methodology, their ignoring Jesus eschatological mission, and a host of other criticisms.

Rejects Christianity but Concedes 6 Miracles

But these aren't my concerns in this post. In fact, for purposes of this post, I would like to agree with the Jesus Seminar. Keep in mind, these are on the left of historical Jesus scholarship, and is headed by atheists, and a group that denies any real miracles (if by miracle we mean act of God). What they don't believe is worthy of scholarly criticism. But what they DO believe is the most irrational and insane part of it all. 

Although they believe Jesus didn't do any miracles by God's power, nor do they accept the historicity of most of them, they will grant 6 miracles. These get a "pink" designation, as a close approximation of what Jesus said and did:

  1. Healing of Peter's sick mother and law 
  2. Healing of a leper
  3. Healing of the paralytic (whom four friends lowered through the roof).
  4. Healing of the blind man at Bethsaida 
  5. Healing of blind Bartimeaus 
  6. Healing of a woman with 18 years of internal bleeding

This is what is so severely irrational. The fact that an organization like this, which denies Christian theology (some would argue they actively seek to undermine it), would believe that Jesus healed a sick person, a leper, a paralytic, 2 blind men and a person with 18 years of internal bleeding.  If your methodology concedes that Jesus did these 6 miracles, and your goal is to get rid of the traditional picture of Jesus, I would say that you are highly unsuccessful. It's like trying to say that serial killer Ted Bundy was a good man, but in your analysis, you concede 6 of his 30 some odd murders. These kinds of concessions are the sorts of things that kill your own position. Granted you can say the miracles were "psychosomatic" or "faith healings," but calling something a "faith healing" doesn't make it so. I have never heard of any one person being able to do all of the miracles above by a faith healing. I mean seriously try it sometime. Try and "faith heal" a leper, a paralytic, and 2 blind men and tell me how it goes....  Pardon my condescension but I'm just trying to show the full force of the issue here.

Now many skeptics of Christianity, especially at the scientific and popular level, don't want to go the route that skeptical historians tend to go. They opt for a more consistent position that is actually worse off.... To this position we now turn, in the next blog post. 


*An important note. I have looked at articles and books that talk about the Jesus Seminar. But the information I got about their view of miracles is from a Wikipedia article. I don't imagine the author is lying about which miracles got which beads (since it seems they are attempting to cite the book I mention above). But be forewarned that I didn't get that information from their book, because I don't have it.

General Sources










Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)