Part 1: The True Origins of Christianity

This is the first part in a series on Christianity. The first part of truly understanding Christianity is understanding its Jewish roots. So today's post is about the true origin of Christianity. 

The True Origin of Christianity

The most fundamental belief in early Christianity is that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. This is what is meant by the word "Christ" (Christos in Greek). The Jewish Messiah was a political and religious figure who was predicted throughout the Old Testament. His predicted roles were to: 1) defeat Israel's enemies, 2) lead the world to worship Yahweh, 3) bring world peace and, 4) rule the entire world. Furthermore, some Old Testament passages suggest that the Messiah might be God himself (Zechariah 12-14). 

As you may have noticed, such a figure is worthless if he is dead. You simply cannot be both dead and King of the world and militarily defeating Israel's enemies. This is why the death and crucifixion of Jesus was so initially disappointing to His disciples. Like all other Messiah claimants, he appeared to have simply come and gone, failing at his mission, dying at the hands of the Romans. 

But a radical and unexpected dis-confirmation of this disappointment occurred during Jesus' resurrection. Due to the 1) appearances and 2) empty tomb, the disciples came to believe that Jesus had once again risen to life. No long was all hope lost. Because of his resurrection, he really can fulfill all these Messianic perogatives in the end times. 

The fact that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, who was crucified and resurrected from the dead is the starting point for what Christianity really is. 

But if Christianity is so Jewish as I claim it is, why don't Christians follow the Old Testament? Why was Jesus subversive to the current Jewish leadership of his time? 

The answers to these questions are a key part in understanding Christianity, and will be explored in Part II. 

What did the first Christians mean by the word "resurrection?"

In my blog post on resurrection I got carried away with the post on the physical resurrection of Jesus (as opposed to some other kind of resurrection that isn't physical, even though that would seem to be an oxymoron). But here is the short summary of my blog post. For more details and back up for the stuff here go to the long post at:

Click Here to Get the Painfully Long Version of This Post

The apostles believed in bodily resurrection of Jesus for several reasons:

1) The empty tomb - if the scholarly majority (70%) is right about the empty tomb, then the disciples would have necessarily believed in bodily resurrection.

2) The meaning of "raised" in Greek is often the same word for to "stand up" or to "wake up" or to "arise" to a certain occasion. Greek for "resurrection" also has the root for "to stand up." The word itself corresponds with the traditional view of resurrection.

3) The Old Testament portrays resurrection as dead people waking up from the dust of the earth. Since the disciples frequently cite the Old Testament as such a high authority, one would think they would share the Old Testament view of resurrection.

4) Second Temple Jews had many sub-groups including Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Essenes. However, it was known that the Pharisees disagreed with the Sadducees, not on the nature of the resurrection, but on whether or not it actually happened. So Jews in 1st Century Palestine who affirmed resurrection were affirming a bodily notion. We shouldn't expect any different from a Pharisee like Paul or Jews like the disciples.

5) Greco-Roman revulsion at resurrection. Many pagan beliefs actually repeatedly repudiate the notion that a dead person can return to life. This is often due to their Platonic view of afterlife. So resurrection is a bodily notion for the Greeks as well. The only difference is that they disagree with it.

6) Proclaiming Jesus as raised from the dead is like shouting "fire" in a movie theater. The disciples would know how people would interpret the phrase "raised from the dead," but chose to use that phrase anyway, despite the negative (and positive) reactions.

7) "Resurrection" in New Testament writings other than Paul clearly affirm a bodily notion, especially because the Gospels report an empty tomb and Acts strongly implies one.

8) Resurrection and "raised from the dead" in Paul (outside Corinthians) very clearly enunciate the traditional Christian belief of bodily resurrection.

9) Resurrection and "raised from the dead" concepts in Paul (in 1 & 2 Corinthians) work strongly against alternate interpretations but work best with the traditional resurrection. Furthermore, only an anachronistic reading of these passages would lead us to believe in a non-bodily resurrection.

10) Resurrection belief in apostolic fathers is very consistent with the traditional Christian view of bodily resurrection. This is significant because many of these people are purported to have spoken with or learned under the apostles.

11) Most arguments against a non-bodily resurrection depend on the idea that every single one of the traditional authorships for the Gospels is false. However, in many cases good arguments can be made for traditional authorship. Furthermore, arguments against Paul believing in a non-bodily resurrection collapse with an early dating of Acts, which is very likely.

Did Paul Think Jesus Was God?

Here's a good video from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:

Here is the accompanying article that quotes the verses he is referring to:

http://carm.org/paul-think-jesus-was-god

This is significant because Paul is supposedly the earliest Christian writer, writing about 50 A.D. or so.

Why Did The Disciples of Jesus Come To Believe He Resurrected?

A Dead Messiah Is No Messiah

To summarize, at the very very minimum, the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ) predicted in the Old Testament. However, the Messiah was not a metaphorical concept in 1st Century Judaism.

There was controversy about his exact role. However, everyone seemed to agree that he was a human king who would 1) conquer Israel's enemies, 2) become king of the world, 3) lead the whole world to worship Yahweh. This was such a literal belief at the time that it caused a degree of political upheaval in 1st Century Palestine.

As you can see, it is pretty hard to vanquish Israel's enemies and rule the world when you are dead. This is why the concept of a "dead Messiah" is absolutely contradictory. It's about as contradictory as saying "Barack Obama is President but is also dead."

This is why Christianity didn't start when Jesus died. The death of Jesus was immensely disappointing to his followers, who believed he was the Messiah. It pretty much smashed all the hope they had of him rescuing their nation from Roman occupation, or anything else associated with being the Messiah.

Christianity didn't actually start until Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection of Jesus was a very unexpected surprise which reversed this disappointment.

Stop Right There...

Most people (including myself) don't appreciate the full weight of this fact I just said.

Let it sink in for a moment...

All of Jesus disciples were obviously hugely discouraged from the death of their best friend. Who wouldn't be?! Furthermore, he wasn't just their best friend, he was their king and rescuer. His death would be a pretty tough emotional blow to take.

But for some odd reason. All of this disappointment just vanished 3 days after he died. It reversed into absolute excitement that Jesus was now alive. This led to very enthusiastic preaching of his resurrection throughout the Roman world.

Let me ask you. What would it take to convince you that your best friend rose from the dead, after being depressed about it for a day and a half or so? What would it take to convince ten of your other friends of the same thing at the same time?

Quite a lot I might imagine. Which is what makes this situation so peculiar...and a strong evidence for the resurrection as well.

Second Coming Predictions: An Important Comparison

Lots and lots of Christians have become convinced that Jesus was going to come back within a certain time frame. When this prediction failed, extreme disappointment ensued. This resulted in them twisting the meaning of their predictions to fit the uneventful situation they were facing.

We do find them adjusting the meaning of the prophecy to fit their circumstances. However, we do not find them adjusting their circumstances to fit the prophecy. Meaning, they did not come to believe that Jesus actually descended from heaven in flaming fire to judge His enemies.

Extreme anticipation of the Second Coming of Jesus does not cause hallucinations of his descent from heaven, nor does it develop the belief that he actually did come back. It only causes them to readjust their interpretation of the prophecies.

This is analogous to the resurrection of Jesus. Even if the disciples had an extreme anticipation of his resurrection (they actually didn't), this would not be enough to convince them he actually did rise from the dead. You can't believe so hard you start seeing things like they are real.

This is why it's so unusual, and so powerful, that all the disciples came to believe Jesus rose from the dead after he had died.

Chabad Messianism

There is a group of Orthodox Jews who hold that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the Messiah. The problem is that Rabbi Schneerson died in 1994. However, orthodox Jews are keenly aware that he cannot actually perform the functions of the Messiah while dead. This is why many of them anticipate his future resurrection, in which he will be revealed as the Messiah.

The interesting thing is that their mere heartfelt anticipation did not engender a seismic change in belief 3 days after his death that he was somehow alive once again.

To Summarize...

The fact that the disciples came to believe Jesus was the Messiah who resurrected, despite their grieving, is strong evidence for the resurrection. While it's not a "knock down" argument, one needs an explanation for how 11 men suddenly came to believe that their best friend who had been executed by the Romans had conquered death itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism#Death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

33% of Mainline Pastors Deny the Resurrection of Jesus

33% of Mainline Pastors Deny the Resurrection of Jesus

A 2001 study shows that 33% of mainline Christian pastors deny the physical resurrection of Jesus. Here is the breakdown by denomination:

• American Lutherans: 13%
• Presbyterians: 30%
• American Baptists: 33%
• Episcopalians: 35%
• Methodists: 51%

http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec8.htm

The word "Christian" doesn't just mean whatever we want it to mean. Like the words "atheist" and "Hindu" the word "Christian" has clear boundaries. The fact that "Christian" pastors explicitly deny the resurrection of Jesus doesn't mean they are "open minded." It means they aren't Christians at all.

As I will demonstrate below, Christians have always believed Jesus is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. But I will quickly show that a "dead Messiah" is a blatantly contradictory concept. Furthermore, the idea has been rejected by thousands of years of Christian theologians. We will soon see that to call oneself a "Christian" but deny the resurrection is both dishonest and corrupt. 

Jesus is the Messiah...But What Is a Messiah?

At very absolute minimum, all Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament.

In 1st Century A.D. "Messiah" wasn't some metaphorical loose meaning for "Messiah in all of us" or "heaven in our hearts." It was a very concrete term that caused a degree of political upheaval in 1st Century Palestine. While there were disagreements on his exact role and identity, there was virtually unanimous agreement on these points:

1. he would be a human man who would defeat Israel's enemies
2. he would become king of the whole world
3. he would guide the world to worship Yahweh

This is why you couldn't say that a dead guy is the Messiah. It just doesn't work. You pretty much have to be living to vanquish Israel's enemies and become king of the world. Saying that someone is the Messiah but also dead is as ridiculous as saying that "Barack Obama is President but he's also currently dead." 

This is why Christianity absolutely did not start when Jesus died. The death of Jesus was obviously very discouraging to Jesus' followers. It pretty much ruined any possibility that Jesus would be the Messiah. 

There Are No Dead Messiahs 

Only after Jesus awoke from death did Christianity actually start. The resurrection of Jesus was a shocking and very unexpected surprise to Jesus' followers. It re-instated their belief that he was actually the Messiah. 

Without a very literal resurrection, Jesus is utterly disqualified from being the Messiah. Remember: Messiah is a very human king who is supposed to rule the world. So anything less than a real, live, tangible resurrection is not going to make the cut. 

Of course, just because he came back from death does not make him "off the hook" from fulfilling the end time prophecies about the Messiah. This is why early Christians had a very literal belief in the Second Coming of Jesus.  Again, a "spiritual second coming" is not going to cut it here, for reasons described above. 

For Thousands of Years...

This is why you have quote after quote of early Christian writings (inside and outside the New Testament) affirming all of these beliefs in very literal terms....very early on. Early writers made a special point to enumerate the literal nature of these teachings, and refute "heretics" who would distort these teachings. Verbally speaking, they weren't too polite about it either. 

The Bible is full of metaphors, but early Christians made quite clear that these beliefs were nothing of the sort. These were core beliefs that gave them the hope of eternal life that they had. Such a strong hope that they underwent lots of persecution because of it. 

These literal beliefs have been considered core beliefs of Christians for thousands of years. Historically, anyone who called themselves a Christian but distorted these beliefs was considered an impostor. Theologian after theologian affirm these beliefs up until the present day. Since the very earliest Christian apologists, Christians have painstakingly contrasted their views with those they consider to be heretical.

Don't get me wrong. The above 3 beliefs are not sufficient to become a Christian. But the first two are absolutely necessary to be one in any meaningful sense of the word. 

Wolves: 33%

Back to the 33% of pastors who deny the resurrection. 

My question is, why are they still "Christian" pastors?!?!?

Can we say they are just ignorant of Christian theology? No we cannot. Most pastors have seminary degrees!

Can we say they are just struggling with doubts like we all do? No we cannot. The survey seems to entail an explicit denial of the resurrection. And besides, if they changed their mind about the resurrection, they had plenty of time to quit seminary. 

Can we say they are being dishonest about their views? Yes, yes absolutely. Every Easter they go to church, read the empty tomb story, and talk about the resurrection in their liturgical presentation. Yet, it seems they don't clarify for the congregation that what they mean by resurrection is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than what everyone else means by it.

They also use the pulpit to advocate their agenda (whatever that may be). Whatever their "agenda" is, it seems pretty dependent on keeping a pretty important secret from us....their beliefs about Jesus resurrection.

It seems we have some "wolves" on our hands. 

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." - Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:15)

4 Good Reasons God Probably Exists

4 Good Reasons That God Is Real

This is a blog about miracles. "Miracles" apologetics are normally viewed as separate from "existence of God" apologetics. However, they are actually one and the same category. In both cases, you need to prove that an agent did something that 1) vastly exceeds human capabilities and 2) didn't happen by natural causes. These are the same criteria we use for miracles. 

Here is a list of the existence of God arguments that I consider to be relatively strong. 

#1 - Genetic Information

Biologists of all philosophical persuasions concede that DNA is "information." In fact, they use language-type terms to describe the process of copying DNA (transcription, translation, etc.). DNA actually has an enormous amount of information encased within it (about 3 Gigabytes) (1). This is not a small amount of information. Even 1 page of information we automatically conclude an "agent cause." Given this standard, we should definitely expect an agent to be the source of 3 gigabytes of data.

In fact, it might be circular for me to say that "all information is the product of an agent cause." It's hard for us to think of how the word "information" would even be meaningful if it didn't imply a mental origin. Therefore, the fact that biologists concede that DNA is a very large amount of information is very telling. 

#2 - First Cause  

With regard to the existence of the universe without God, we have two options. It either 1) burst into existence out of nothing or 2) the universe has always existed. Option 1 is very problematic. After all, if the universe can come into existence, for no reason, out of nothing, anything should be able to do this. In this case, we couldn't place preconditions on what "nothing" is allowed to produce in any given circumstance. For example, it would be no surprise for me to wake up and discover 400 machine guns sitting in my house, with no explanation. It seems option 1 is very far fetched.

Option 2 entails an infinite series of past events that lead up to the present circumstances. There are problems with this. First, an infinite succession of past events implies an eternal past. If past is eternal, it would have taken forever to arrive at the present moment. Furthermore, if we were to count all of the past events, we would find that all of the odd numbered events in the sequence would be the same amount as all of the events (because they are both infinite). In short, the entire set of past events would be equal to something that is clearly not the entire set of past events, which is a contradiction.

It seems to avoid these problems we need a First Event which was caused by something that has always been in existence.

#3 - Uniformity of Laws of Nature 

We consider the "laws" of the universe to be uniform throughout the universe. Even on the quantum level, the propensities of particles to behave in certain ways is considered uniform throughout the universe. This would be incredibly unusual if there was no rational force ordering the universe (i.e. God). If the universe was truly unguided by no intelligence whatsoever, we would expect it to be truly random. There would be no reason to expect matter and energy to behave based on uniform principles. Nor would we expect matter and energy to behave the same at different times and places. Matter would be have one way in one place, and another way in a different place.

#4 - Novelty in the Universe 

This is a bit more technical, but bear with me. Consider this simple illustration: When we combine blue paint and yellow paint, it yields a completely novel color called "green." "Green" is not merely the sum of its parts. Green is an entirely new experience (that we have a new name for) that comes, out of nothing, from the combination of blue and yellow. Furthermore, people have completely brand new emotions when encountering a new experience or combination of experiences.

To summarize, there must be a source for  everything that is new in the universe. If something hasn't existed before, then it simply cannot come to be out of nothing. There must be something that allows totally new things to come into existence, given certain conditions or combinations. God is the "reservoir" of ideas, concepts and experiences. (2) Given certain combinations of materials and feelings, he allows new experiences to come into being.*

A Very Good Supplement to the Resurrection

I think these are good reasons to believe in God. However, I left out my favorite evidence of God's existence. My favorite evidence of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. By proving the resurrection of Jesus you prove the Christian God (Jesus), not just any God. You can demonstrate the truth of the resurrection independently of any extra evidence for the existence of God. I attempt to do this here and here. 

However, in the words of Antony Flew:

"Certainly, given some beliefs about God, the resurrection becomes enormously more likely."

It is not necessary to know whether or not God exists in order to determine if Jesus rose from the dead. We can answer that question while being completely agnostic about His existence. However, if we do happen upon some evidence for the existence of God (such as what I have shown above), all that evidence for the resurrection becomes much stronger indeed. 

Citation

1. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml
2. My philosophy professor, Dr. Richard W. Field, used the word "reservoir" when describing the theory that God is the source of all novelty in the world.

*If you are not Platonist or conceptualist, you may not be sympathetic towards this last point. For example, Aristotelians may not be as sympathetic to this argument. 

The Resurrection of Jesus, Radioactive Boxes, and Ancient Aliens

Many critics of the resurrection of Jesus admit the shortcomings of alternative explanations. They believe he did not rise from the dead, but they still think that all the other theories are bad (i.e. the disciples lied, the disciples hallucinated, someone stole the body, etc.)

Now, this theory is more sophisticated than it looks on the surface. It's based on a philosophical objection to miracles, or at least our ability to know if they ever happen. I have addressed these objections in more detail here.

But I don't think they realize what they are really admitting when they say this. Let me use an illustration.

Ancient Aliens and Radioactive Boxes

The History Channel has an infamous show called "Ancient Aliens." There are some pretty wild things in that show. There is one episode that talks about how the Ark of the Covenant was radioactive, and that is the reason people died when they touched it. They also proposed that the radioactive material somehow acted as a food or energy source (i.e. manna).

Obviously, no one takes this silly idea very seriously. Hence, it doesn't feature very prominently in Christian-atheist debate.

But humor me for a second.....

Imagine THIS..

What if the ark of the covenant (with all the properties that the Bible ascribes to it) was a widely regarded fact of history? What if most scholarly people (Christian and atheist alike) agreed that the Ark of the Covenant was energized by something and killed everyone who touched it?

Suddenly, the "God-is-killing-people-who-touch-the-box theory" wouldn't look so bad by comparison (to the atheists). It wouldn't prove it. But it wouldn't look as bad.

Now, imagine one of the most significant arguments against the "God theory" is that it really was a radioactive  box they carried around that they used to get energy from. Now imagine, some Christian and non-Christian are in a debate. The Christian confronts the atheist, saying that their best alternative to the "God theory" is the "Ancient Aliens" theory. The Christian proceeds to go on a tirade about how bad the Ancient Aliens theory is.

Imagine that the atheist responds by saying: "It doesn't matter how bad the alternative theory is. Any of those theories are better than a miracle." The atheist then goes on a tirade about how silly it is to believe in God or miracles.

But think of what he is admitting here....

He would be tacitly admitting that the ridiculous "Ancient Aliens" theory is really the best the atheists can come up with...

Now, don't get me wrong. That would not make the Christian view the correct one.

....But its a horrible position to be in from a debate standpoint...

It's an especially bad position if your part of an ideological group (atheists) that has recently been known for mocking Christians for being unlogical and unrational.

It amounts to an admission that your own ideas would be considered very bad theories if applied to almost anything else.

Back to The Resurrection...

Here's the problem.  Sophisticated atheist debaters argue that any theory is more likely than the resurrection theory, because the resurrection is an extraordinarily unlikely violation of the laws of nature (they say).

Any theory is better than resurrection, they say... Then, they move to the prevailing theory as the best alternative.

But let's now look at the prevailing theory against the resurrection. It's the vision/hallucination theory.

Skeptics propose that, after Jesus died, the disciples had grief hallucinations of him. These hallucinations led them to believe he was really alive once again.

This sounds sophisticated, but it's really a pretty bad theory just on the face of it.

Imagine invoking multiple hallucination theory for anything else in history...or in life, for that matter.

Police Officers Have A "Group Hallucination" Of Your Meth Lab

Imagine the little child suggesting that Mommy and Daddy had a "group hallucination" of him reaching for the cookie jar. Or perhaps Julius Caesar wasn't really assassinated. The "witnesses" merely hallucinated the event.....because they had such a strong religious-type devotion to Caesar. Or perhaps lawyers should start using the "Hallucination defense" when 11 witnesses claim that their client committed murder.... Or perhaps you should suggest to the police officers who discover your meth lab that they are merely having "group hallucination".....

This theory has the audacity to say that Jesus' 12 best friends did not have the competence to distinguish their real living Jesus from a figment of their imagination...on multiple occasions....

...Which raises scary questions. If you meet someone for lunch just one time.....did you really meet them???? After all, you're only one witness. Do I really have a girlfriend right now??? Or is she the figment of my wishful thinking, constructed to ease my loneliness????? After all, I'm not 11 people.

Keep in mind.....this is the prevailing alternative theory to the resurrection currently on the market.......even among scholars

Is This Really The Best  Available Theory?

I understand that people have a higher tolerance for alternative theories...simply because it's a resurrection were talking about. Resurrections are less likely than most things. But atheists talk like God and miracles are so easy to debunk.

If miracles are so easy to debunk....SURELY non-believers can come up with a theory better than multiple hallucination!??!?! If the atheist movement of the last ten years is so keen on how rational they are...surely a better theory is in order?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It doesn't make Christians correct....it just doesn't make atheists look any better.

Many miracles ARE easy to debunk. The resurrection is not. Not even sort of easy. Therein lies the issue. The best alternative theory leads to absurd conclusions when applied to almost anything else in life or history.

And hallucination theory...is very similar to saying that the Ark of the Covenant is actually a radioactive box energized by radioactive materials. You're kind of forced to accept the theory if it's the best option you have. But it certainly doesn't make your position look good.

You Should Be Happy Though...

Think of this. Should we be happy or sad if Jesus really did rise from the dead? Happy of course, because there is a God who loves us and became a man and died for us and offers us eternal bliss. 

Imagine the alternative to this theory sounds like "Ancient Aliens." 

Should that make a person happy or sad? 

In my opinion, it should make them very happy......

Finally, we can accept God's offer of eternal friendship without fear of being swept away by wishful thinking.

A Guide To Winning Arguments: (Advice for Atheists and Christians)

We're All Bad At It.....But We Really Should Be Nice....

Some may call me a hypocrite  when they read this blog, but I really don't like it when people use forceful and harsh words to explain their position. I think its bad taste, unnecessary, and potentially alienating. (Feel free to apply these criticisms to me if I have ever done so. I'm pretty sure I have). For example, certain political videos I watch sometimes absolutely berate the author of a certain opinion piece, or even their own friend in a debate! I haven't been a fan of people who just beat each other up when arguing. It's like your taking a fun and interesting thing (mutual discussion), into a personal thing with hard feelings. It just seems like a bad idea to me. Obviously this is different than clearly stating your position. Here, what I am referring to is harshly stating your position.

How To Add Rhetorical Force to An Argument...The Easy Way

However, stating your position in a way that your opponent feels the rhetorical force of what you are saying is necessary at times. This is to make other people "feel" the weight of the argument, so that its not too abstract. I think atheists employ this technique a lot (not successfully in my opinion, but they still use it). It's a wise technique to use. Here, I am not advocating referring to "empty rhetoric" (i.e. yelling at someone and telling them they are a racist). I am advocating the translation of your argument into everyday terms that make people "feel" how untrue or absurd something is.

For Example....

For example, some people say that the disciples had visions/hallucinations of Jesus after he died. This in turn caused them to believe he had actually come back from the dead.

Now, I can point out all sorts of flaws of this theory based on psychological research on hallucinations, historical data that discounts the hallucination theory (i.e. the empty tomb). I can also tell you that group hallucinations are, in theory, unfalsifiable.

I should do those things, and I should do due diligence with the arguments.

....But those things will not ultimately be the most persuasive argument...

Translating A Scholarly Argument Into An Everyday Argument

The most persuasive thing I can say is to translate the idea into another situation so that the listeners can "feel" the weight of the objection I am making. Instead of listing all sorts of things about the psychology of hallucinations, I should just propose a "group hallucination defense." Imagine proposing to police officers that they merely hallucinated you breaking into someone's house. Or someone proposes a historical theory that the Roman senators merely hallucinated the assassination of Julius Caesar, but it didn't really happen.

Examples like this readily illustrate to the listener how absurd the argument is. It doesn't change the substance of the argument very much, it just translates it into a more rhetorically useful statement. For example, in this case, the "hallucination defense" example, it shows to the listener that in any other circumstance, they would consider group hallucination to be a ludricrous suggestion. It helps them "feel the weight" of the objection.

Now, in debate, good arguments with a good scholarly basis must be used. You cannot lie, or just make up a totally irrelevant analogy, just to slam an idea. However, good arguments must be translated into terms that help people feel the weight of the objection.

I recommend that every person who has a viewpoint on anything use this technique.

But we really should be nice when we do it.....

Jesus, Simultaneously God and Man: How Is It Possible?

Jesus: God and Man

Christians believe that Jesus was a human. This is because of the records of Jesus life, death, and resurrection, along with theological teachings and Bible verses.

However, because of several reasons, Christians believe Jesus is also somehow, mysteriously, God Himself. This is because of things Jesus has said that state He is God, and also Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, implying that he would be "the Lord." 

This is why the writings of the New Testament and early Church writings refer to Jesus as being God.

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." - Jesus (John 14:9b)

The Problem

However, it seems we have a problem here. God is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing), omnibenevolent (all-good), and omnipotent (all powerful.) As we know, no human possesses any of these qualities. Nor is it even possible for a mere human being to have some of these attributes (i.e. your brain cannot hold all knowledge). 

The Historical Solution: One Person, Two Natures

Seems like a tough problem. But Christians have historically addressed it in this way. The eternal God the Son is one Person with two natures. For our purposes a "person" is a center of consciousness with a mind, volition, and emotions. A nature is a "substance" or the set of characteristics that comprise a certain thing. 

YOU Are A Person with Two Natures

For example, I have both a "male" nature and a "human" nature. Maleness is not limited to humans. Furthermore, humanity is not limited to males. In addition, in order to be a person, I don't need to a male, nor do I need to be a human. Angels and aliens, whether or not one believes in them, are examples of persons which do not have a human nature. Indeed, to properly exist, angels and aliens might not even need a gender. A person (for our purposes) need only have three characteristics: a mind, will, and emotions. They don't even have to be human. They don't even have to have a body.

Which is good, because God had been a non-human Person for a long time. God had only a divine nature. A person with a divine nature has the characteristics of being 1) omnibenevolent, 2) omnipresent, 3) omniscient 4) omnipotent. The eternally existing person of the Logos has always had a divine nature. However, 2000 years ago, this person added a second nature: a human nature. Now, God has two natures, divine and human. 

...Which Brings Clarity To Some Tough Questions

So when Jesus died on the cross....did God die? 

On the cross, God's human nature died. But his divine nature did not "die," because it did not stop existing. Nor did it cease to have the attributes of God. 

Jesus is God. So if someone, (heaven forbid!) cut off Jesus' finger, is that finger a piece of God? 

No. The Person inside the body has a divine nature. The finger is part of the human nature, and is thus not itself divine. 

...But Wait A Second..

Even with this distinction between person and nature, this is still hard to wrap our minds around. We know a divine nature knows all things and has all power. However, a human nature does not have those things. Jesus was on person. How could he simultaneously have two natures that seem to contradict?

An Illustration: Video Game Avatars

Like all analogies, I am sure this one is imperfect. But bear with me. 

Many of you know that there is a popular video game out there called "Halo." It is played using an Xbox.  I do not enjoy this game at all. But I think it might be a good illustration. 

When people play this game, they are often connected to the internet. They speak through headphones to the other players. They then choose an environment in which two or more teams seeks to kill the members of the other team as many times as possible. Your character is basically a very tall sci-fi soldier.

Strangely enough, I believe this gives us a way forward in comprehending how Jesus can be God and man at the same time. 

The "God" (Creator) of the Halo Universe

Now imagine that the inventor and creator of the Halo game wants to play the game he has created. He can easily do this. He gets a copy of the game and begins playing the game as its primary character. Now, as creator of the game, he can reprogram any part of the game he likes. He can make it so that gravity stops working. He can make it so that he has unlimited ammunition. He can make it so that he can always fly. He can make it so that he has an unlimited number of tanks he can drive. He can make it so that he is aware of each and every movement of the computerized opponents. In fact, he could theoretically hack into the game and program it so that he instantaneously kills all his opponents without attacking them. He wouldn't even need to play as a character in the game to accomplish these objectives! In a sense, he is like "God" over the Halo world, because he created it. 

The Creator of the Halo Universe Plays The Game He Created

The creator of the Halo world has unlimited knowledge and power over the environment and game play experience. However, even though he is like the "God" of the Halo world, he can play as one of the characters he created. When he does this, he is very much subject to the same limitations as the other characters. He cannot jump an infinite distance. He runs out of ammunition. He does not know where everything is in the game at every given moment. He does not have an unlimited weapons selection. Indeed, he can be shot and killed within the game. 

Now imagine the creator of the Halo game is having a "LAN party" and is speaking on the headphones to other players over the internet, who are battling each other in teams in a particular environment. The creator of the Halo game does not use his real name. Like all other players, he has a username, say halowarrior164.  If someone shoots him in the game, he can yell into the headphones "who shot me!?"Indeed, his opponent didn't just shoot a character called "halowarrior164." The creator can say "who shot me." 

After he is shot, his video game character dies, falls over, and disappears. He can now truthfully yell into the headphones "I have just died!" But we know that his video game avatar died. The creator of the Halo game did not die. So he simultaneously died and did not die at the same time, in two different senses of the word. 

Also, if he is running by a fortress in the video game , someone might say through the headphones "who is that running by the fortress??" They can say his username, or his real name. In a sense it really IS the creator of the Halo video game that is running by the fortress. But in a sense, it is also just a set of pixels that is moving across the screen by the set of pixels that is the "fortress." 

God Becomes Man: Jesus As God's Video Game Avatar

I think the dual nature of Jesus is very similar to this. In a sense, Jesus is "God's video game character." As creator of the entire universe, God created the "game." He created all the laws of nature and the entire environment, and has perfect knowledge of it all. However, as creator of the game, he can also play the game. However, by playing the game, God subjects himself to all of the limitations of one of the human players.

God's name is "Yahweh." However, when he plays as a human actor, he has a "username," just like in the video game example. His username is Jesus.

 The physical body of Jesus is not "God," in the same way that people who play Halo aren't really just a set of moving pixels on a screen. When you play as a soldier in "Halo," we can say that it is really you that is engaging in battle with the other characters. Indeed, other players recognize this by yelling each others real names into the headphones, when they are killed by each other. However, when people say that Bill is "halowarrior164," they are not at all saying that his nature is confined to the set of pixels on the screen!

Same with God. When we say that "Jesus is God" we are not saying that the totality of God's nature is confined to a human brain and human skin. However, when we say "Jesus is God," it is a perfectly accurate statement, because the Person in the skin and bones and brain is actually God as a human actor with human limitations.

In a way, as a character in the Halo game, the set of pixels on the screen is a perfect unveiling of you in the Halo universe. The character with the username "halowarrior164" is the perfect revelation and unveiling of a human person in the Halo universe. 

Hold On...

I am sure my analogy has some theological imperfections. But hopefully it at least provides an easier way to understand it. 

Three Pieces to the Resurrection Puzzle

I am trying to mentally assemble the most persuasive/coherent argument for the resurrection I can come up with. Granted, by "most persuasive" it may only appear as such to me. 

This post will be a rehash of the last one, but will have some new material too.

I am going to speak straightforwardly for sake of clarity. 

The Bedrock Evidence

The resurrection of Jesus has more documentary support than many other ancient historical events we take for granted. 

This may sound controversial, but its very true. We certainly have more evidence for resurrection than other historical events in antiquity. The real controversial question is if that is enough evidence for a miracle. 

Nevertheless, the documentary evidence does, indeed, exceed the evidence for many other ancient events. 

There are about 4 primary sources for the assassination of Julius Caesar. All of them are written over 100 years after the event. 

However, there are about 4 primary sources for the resurrection, all of which are written within 70 years of the event. (70 years being an estimate made by most non-Christian scholars). 

Some attempt to rebut this by saying that the documents used for the resurrection are inherently less reliable than other Roman histories, because of the following reasons:

1) They contain contradictions between the sources
2) They contain miracle claims
3) They are written by a biased party

The problem with these rebuttals is that many Roman histories have exactly the same "problems." Different accounts of Roman events have contradictions between them. Some Roman histories contain miracle claims associated with Caesar. Furthermore, they are written by someone interested enough in the person (or Rome) to actually spend the money to write the history (it was very expensive back then).


It's pretty easy to show that the evidence is "better" than other events. This is demonstrated quite simply with a thought experiment. Just ask yourself:

"If we had the same amount of evidence for Jesus doing something not miraculous, would we believe it?" 

For most people, the answer is very much a "yes." The thing about the resurrection is that we have (more or less) the same amount of evidence for Jesus' death as we have for his resurrection. This is the case because you obviously have to die in order to resurrect. The following parties accept the death of Jesus:

1. Almost every single New Testament historian (based on a comprehensive survey of historical Jesus publications)
2. Encyclopedias accept the death of Jesus without controversy
3. Non-Christian ancient sources accept the death of Jesus 

The real question is not so much "is there evidence for the resurrection?" The real question is "is the evidence we have enough for a miracle?" 

I will address the miracle question in a moment. But we must first to alternative theories for resurrection. 

Alternative Theories: A Cure Worse Than The "Disease"

Sometimes, people propose alternative theories in place of the resurrection. Here are some of those theories:

1. Twin theory: Jesus twin brother came to Jerusalem to fake his brothers resurrection right after Jesus died
2. Hallucination theory: the disciples had grief hallucinations which made them think they saw Jesus alive after he was dead, when in reality he was still dead
3. Metaphor theory: The stories of Jesus' resurrection are not intended to be literal stories, but metaphors about the spiritual significance of Jesus to the hearts of the first Christians
4. Deception theory: the disciples lied about the resurrection 
5. Wrong Tomb Theory: The disciples went to the wrong tomb and mistakenly believed it to be empty
6. Stolen Body Theory: The disciples stole the body from the tomb to perpetuate rumors of his resurrection
7. Apparent Death Theory: Jesus didn't really die, but survived the cross and returned, claiming to be resurrected. 

These theories were created by very smart people and are very clever on the surface. Nevertheless, they are absolutely and thoroughly unbelievable when applied to almost anything in history. They are especially unbelievable when applied to events in our daily lives. 

....Now, you may say: "Yes, but isn't the resurrection just as absurdly crazy?" More on this question in the next section, but bear with me for a moment.....

It's easy to show that these theories, taken independently, make very bad explanations. Here's a few of them:

1) Hallucinations: Visual grief hallucinations happen among 7% of grieving adults. This amounts to literally millions of people. How many of them have claimed their loved one had a "resurrection" because of it?Furthermore, hallucinations do not serve as a good alternative theory for most things. Can I tell witnesses in a court of law that they merely hallucinated me shooting the victim?

2) Twin theory: using the twin theory, you could say that Julius Caesar wasn't really assassinated, but had a long lost brother who jumped in last minute to die in his brother's place. Furthermore, you could excuse yourself from almost all crimes if this was an acceptable theory. All you would have to do is postulate a twin brother/sister who committed the crime for you.

3) Metaphor theory: you could say that the accounts of other Roman biographies are mythological metaphors as well. In fact, you can turn almost any literal story into a mythology or metaphor about something.

4) Stolen body and wrong tomb theory: these only account for the empty tomb and none of the appearances, so they are bad theories to begin with

...and on and on it goes... Just sort of fill in that same type of reasoning with the other alternative theories...

What I'm basically saying, is this:

I understand the apprehension with choosing the resurrection instead of these theories. I am just saying that, by themselves, these make for very bad theories.

But back to the problem....

You may say: "Yes, but isn't the resurrection just as absurdly crazy?" Now we will actually get to this question:

How Crazy Is A Miracle?

The above ideas are rather straightforward. The resurrection has more evidence than many other events in ancient history. Furthermore, the alternative theories to the resurrection are extremely unlikely from a practical standpoint, especially when taken by themselves. These are two of the three pieces to the "resurrection puzzle."

Now to the third piece: 

The next idea is not as straightforward to understand, but I will do my best to make it clear. 

Some argue that the resurrection theory itself an unbelievable explanation. It would be, but only if Christians claimed Jesus rose from the dead all by himself without any help. Christians claim God raised Jesus, not that he just naturally rose on his own. On the contrary, skeptics of the resurrection postulate near impossible events (i.e. multiple group hallucination) as happening all by themselves.

Naturalistic theories suggest that extremely unlikely events took place without the intervention of a capable third party. I don't know of any non-believer who wants to claim that God caused the disciples to have mass group hallucinations. Or that God caused the disciples to go to the wrong tomb... 

This metaphor should help illustrate why the resurrection does not violate the laws of nature, and is thus not as "impossible" as it seems. 

The Deserted Island Metaphor 

1. Imagine I live in a house on a deserted island. A pile of books is laying on the floor next to a bookshelf inside my house. I leave my house at 9 AM. I return home at 2 PM, only to discover that all of the books that were on the floor are now in the bookshelf. 
2. It is impossible for books to pick themselves up and arrange themselves in a bookshelf. That would violate the laws of nature. Nevertheless, when this situation occurs, I do not simply refuse to believe that the books are really on the shelf. It's easy enough to know if books are on a shelf.
3. This situation is called an "agent gap." It requires that an agent with the 1) power and 2) knowledge of how to assemble books on a bookshelf, entered my house and did that when I was gone.
4. I do not need to first prove that someone came to the deserted island in order for me to prove that the books are really on the shelf. The very fact that the books are on the shelf in the first place, proves that I am not alone on the island. 
5. We don't know if God exists. However, if we find our friend who is dead, then we talk to them the next day, a very serious "agent gap" is created. This is impossible through natural means. It requires that an agent 1) powerful enough and 2) smart enough to reassemble and reactivate the cells in a persons body, has actually done so in this case. 
6. Like the bookshelf example, we do not need to prove the existence of God to prove the existence of a resurrected man. It's easy enough to tell if your friend is dead or alive. The very fact there is a resurrected man in the first place proves we are not alone in the universe. 

An Extension of the Deserted Island Metaphor

On this method, the initial probability of God's existence doesn't matter, as long as its not too close to zero. 

Here's why:

Imagine if I had a visitor on the island only 1 day out of 365 days. This means that the chances that someone is on the island with me is as low as 0.27% on any given day. However, if I come back to my house and discover books that had been on the floor are now assembled in a bookshelf, it simply proves that TODAY is the day that I have a visitor! 

I don't have to prove that the visitor is both on the island AND wants to assemble books in my bookshelf before proving that the books are "really" on the shelf. 

 Just seeing the books on the bookshelf makes the chances of a visitor who wants to put books on my shelf at 100%. 

This metaphor applies to God. We don't know if God exists, but as long as the probability of his existence isn't too extremely low, a well supported miracle brings the probability of his existence up to 100% (or close to it).

The Three Pieces to the Puzzle

So now we have the three pieces to the resurrection puzzle.

First, the resurrection has more evidence than many other events in ancient history. Second, the alternative theories to the resurrection are basically impossible from a practical standpoint, especially when taken by themselves. Third, the resurrection theory is much better than the alternative theories, because even the possible existence of a capable external agent massively raises the probability of it happening the way it seemed to (i.e. he really rose from the dead). 

The Probability of the Resurrection

A Fairly Easy Task....

It is a fairly mundane task to show that the resurrection has more evidence than other ancient historical events we take for granted.

This may sound like a bold claim, but it is a rather straightforward. 

The credibility of a historical event goes up when it has both 1) documentation early after the event and 2) multiple independent sources. Of course, the earlier the event is documented after it happens, the better. And of course, the more sources you have, the better. 

Here is an example of an event that has less evidence than the resurrection:

There are about 4 primary sources for the assassination of Julius Caesar. All of them are written over 100 years after the event. 

However, there are about 4 primary sources for the resurrection, all of which are written within 70 years of the event. (70 years being an estimate made by most non-Christian scholars). 

Some attempt to rebut this by saying that the documents used for the resurrection are inherently less reliable than other Roman histories, because of the following reasons:

1) They contain contradictions between the independent sources

2) They contain miracle claims 

3) They are written by a biased party

The problem with these rebuttals is that many Roman histories have exactly the same "problems." Independent accounts of Roman events have contradictions within them. Many Roman histories contain miracle claims associated with Caesar. Furthermore, they are written by someone interested enough in the person (or Rome) to actually spend the money to write the history (it was very expensive back then). 

In light of this, it seems quite unreasonable for critics to claim that there is "not a shred of evidence for God" or "not a shred of evidence for Jesus/resurrection, etc." 

However, I don't think most people who are skeptical of the resurrection want to go this route. The real question should be something like this: "Yes, we do have more evidence for the resurrection than for many other non-miraculous historical events in the ancient world. However, is this enough evidence to prove a miraculous event such as the resurrection?" 

Therein lies the rub...

Here is where everyone's presuppositions get brought to the table. 

Christians will say "See?!?!? The resurrection is a real slam dunk. After all it has more evidence than Caesar's death!" 

Atheists will say "No not at all! The very fact that someone is claiming a resurrection inherently reduces their credibility!" 

So basically, when we mentally guesstimate how much evidence there is for the resurrection, we bring with us a big assumption about the probability of miracles in general.

How much evidence do we need for a miracle?

Many Christians and atheists perceive miracles as a "violation" of the laws of nature. Christians say that God is allowed to violate his own laws to prove he is acting in the world. Atheists say that miracles are inherently more unlikely than almost any other explanation, because the likelihood of the violation of laws of nature is so much lower than someone making a mistake in their testimony of the event.

I think both of these ideas have an element of truth to them, but are fundamentally misguided. I think they both miss the point of what a miracle actually is supposed to be. Here I have copied in another blog post to demonstrate this concept: 

The Deserted Island Metaphor 

1. Imagine I live in a house on a deserted island. A pile of books is laying on the floor next to a bookshelf inside my house. I leave my house at 9 AM. I return home at 2 PM, only to discover that all of the books that were on the floor are now in the bookshelf. 
2. It is impossible for books to pick themselves up and arrange themselves in a bookshelf. That would violate the laws of nature. Nevertheless, when this situation occurs, I do not simply refuse to believe that the books are really on the shelf. It's easy enough to know if books are on a shelf.
3. This situation is called an "agent gap." It requires that an agent with the 1) power and 2) knowledge of how to assemble books on a bookshelf, entered my house and did that when I was gone.
4. I do not need to first prove that someone came to the deserted island in order for me to prove that the books are really on the shelf. The very fact that the books are on the shelf in the first place, proves that I am not alone on the island. 
5. We don't know if God exists. However, if we find our friend who is dead, then we talk to them the next day, a very serious "agent gap" is created. This is impossible through natural means. It requires that an agent 1) powerful enough and 2) smart enough to reassemble and reactivate the cells in a persons body, has actually done so in this case. 
6. Like the bookshelf example, we do not need to prove the existence of God to prove the existence of a resurrected man. It's easy enough to tell if your friend is dead or alive. The very fact there is a resurrected man in the first place proves we are not alone in the universe. 

An Extension of the Deserted Island Metaphor

On this method, the initial probability of God's existence doesn't matter, as long as its not too close to zero. 

Here's why:

Imagine if I had a visitor on the island only 1 day out of 365 days. This means that the chances that someone is on the island with me is as low as 0.27% on any given day. However, if I come back to my house and discover books that had been on the floor are now assembled in a bookshelf, it simply proves that TODAY is the day that I have a visitor! 

I don't have to prove that the visitor is both on the island AND wants to assemble books in my bookshelf before proving that the books are "really" on the shelf. 

 Just seeing the books on the bookshelf makes the chances of a visitor who wants to put books on my shelf at 100%. 

This metaphor applies to God. We don't know if God exists, but as long as the probability of his existence isn't too extremely low, a well supported miracle brings the probability of his existence up to 100% (or close to it).

But Wait A Minute....

According to this theory, we could lower the probability of God's existence very very low before we would stop believing in the resurrection.

However, this approach seems to have a weakness as well.

The real question is "What if I make a mistake?" What if the books aren't really on the shelf, and I just think they are? How do we factor in the "risk" of making a mistake in this situation? What if we aren't 100% sure that the books are on the shelf, but only 98% sure??? And what if we combine this ambiguity with the probability that someone is with us on the island??

Surely, if there is a 10% chance that someone is on the island with me, and there is a 98% chance that the books that were previously on the floor are now on the bookshelf, then we would believe that a person is on the island. 

What do we do if we lower the chances to 5% that someone is on the island, and only 90% that the books are on the shelf?

I am not sure what to do in this situation. If anyone knows....please tell me!!

Is it Baye's Theorem?

I will try to look into this more and update later...

FAQ #11: Why does a good and all powerful God allow suffering?

Question: Why does a good and all powerful God allow suffering?

Answer:

1. The ability to choose to love God must also come with a choice to not love God. Otherwise, we would not have a real choice. We would just be loveless robots. A large percentage of suffering in the world is the result of people choosing not to love God and harming other people. 
2. In a world without natural disasters and diseases, we would also have no real choice to love. A world without natural suffering would be a world full of immortal people with unlimited resources. No real sacrifice of love can be made to God or other people when we have nothing to lose by being loving.
3. The purpose of our current life is not happiness. The purpose of our life is to freely accept a loving relationship with God forever, which is the ultimate happiness. Since this is the ultimate good, God spares nothing in persuading us into a relationship with him, even if it means a temporary life of pain. When God lets evil run unchecked in this world, he is doing it so that people realize how unsatisfying sin really is, and turn to him instead for eternal life with Him. 
4. God makes sure our world is an environment where the entire interlocking chain of events in all of world history results in the most people accepting eternal life with God. However, the best historical chain of events could easily include a lot of painful events. 

(Back to Christian Evidence Frequently Asked Questions Page)

Citations:

1) Point #3: William Lane Craig

2) Points #1 and #2 mostly from Richard Swinburne 

VOTE on a future blog post!!!!! Vote for the question you want answered!!!

I want to know YOUR opinion about what I should blog about!!

VOTE for the question you want answered in 250 words or less:

1) Why does a good and all-powerful God let such awful suffering occur in the world?
2) Has the New Testament been significantly changed since it was originally written?
3) Why does a good and all powerful God allow people to go to hell?
4) Why does the God of the Old Testament seem so harsh?

If you are curious about what I have to say on any of these, vote in the comments with the corresponding number. (i.e. "blog on #4")

FAQ #10: Is there any compelling reason to worship Jesus as God?

Question: Is there any compelling reason to worship Jesus as God?

Answer:

1. In every source that describes the resurrected Jesus having conversation with people, he always accepts worship or some title of worship. In John, a disciple calls Jesus "my Lord and my God" and Jesus compliments him. In Matthew and Luke, it describes Jesus accepting worship, without showing resistance. (In Judaism, worship is strictly reserved for God alone.)
2. Of all the people God could resurrect, it would be very unusual for him to resurrect someone who would then go on to falsely claim to be God! God hates blasphemy, so the fact that Jesus accepts worship after a miracle of that magnitude is strong evidence that he actually is worthy of that worship. 
3. The things Jesus said and did in his ministry make the most sense when we realize he is acting as if he is God. (Unless otherwise mentioned, these examples are found throughout the gospels).
1. He revises Old Testament laws on his own authority. 
2. He commands demons out of people by his own authority.
3. He assigns a future role for himself that is reserved for God (i.e. judging the world). 
4. He says he is the only way to God.
5. By dying for our sins, He considers himself perfect and/or worthy enough for the sacrifice to cover the sins of everyone in the entire world.
6. Occasionally, publicly and privately, Jesus says He is God in very clear terms. (John 14:9, John 8:58)
7. He acted with extreme integrity, exemplifying love and truth everything he said and did. 

(Back to Christian Evidence Frequently Asked Questions Page)

FAQ #9: Does the resurrection of Jesus violate scientific laws of nature?

Question:  Does the resurrection of Jesus violate scientific laws of nature?

Answer: 

1. Imagine I live in a house on a deserted island. A pile of books is laying on the floor next to a bookshelf inside my house. I leave my house at 9 AM. I return home at 2 PM, only to discover that all of the books that were on the floor are now in the bookshelf. 
2. It is impossible for books to pick themselves up and arrange themselves in a bookshelf. That would violate the laws of nature. Nevertheless, when this situation occurs, I do not simply refuse to believe that the books are really on the shelf. It's easy enough to know if books are on a shelf.
3. This situation is called an "agent gap." It requires that an agent with the 1) power and 2) knowledge of how to assemble books on a bookshelf, entered my house and did that when I was gone.
4. I do not need to first prove that someone came to the deserted island in order for me to prove that the books are really on the shelf. The very fact that the books are on the shelf in the first place, proves that I am not alone on the island. 
5. We don't know if God exists. However, if we find our friend who is dead, then we talk to them the next day, a very serious "agent gap" is created. This is impossible through natural means. It requires that an agent 1) powerful enough and 2) smart enough to reassemble and reactivate the cells in a persons body, has actually done so in this case. 
6. Like the bookshelf example, we do not need to prove the existence of God to prove the existence of a resurrected man. It's easy enough to tell if your friend is dead or alive. The very fact there is a resurrected man in the first place proves we are not alone in the universe. 

(Back to Christian Evidence Frequently Asked Questions Page)

(Sorry. There was NO WAY I could do that in 250 words!) 

FAQ #8: Why should I believe the Bible if it is full of contradictions?

Question: Why should I believe the Bible (especially the four gospels) if they are full of contradictions?

Answer:

1. The existence of contradictions on secondary details does not invalidate the main story a source is trying to tell. For example, Roman histories are full of contradictions. The four accounts of Caesar's assassination are one example. Historians do not reject his assassination based on disagreements in the sources on details. In the same way, disagreement on the secondary details surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ does not invalidate his death and resurrection altogether. 
2. Disagreements on the details of an event are routine in our lives. News articles sometimes provide slightly different information than other news articles. Eyewitnesses of car accidents often report conflicting details. This is another reason that disagreements on minor details does not in any way cast doubt on the larger story that is being reported. 
3. Many supposed contradictions in the four Gospels are really not contradictions. They can be classified as differences between the accounts. Differences take place when there is no explicit disagreement between two sources, but one source omitted certain details that the other included. 
4. For the difficult passages, many attempts at harmonization have been made, with a great deal of success. Some apparent contradictions can be resolved with relatively simple explanations. 
5. Sometimes, existence of contradictions in secondary details actually serves to prove the larger story really happened. Contradictions in the details prove that the sources are somewhat independent, and are not conspiring to create false stories or rumors. 

(Back to Christian Evidence Frequently Asked Questions Page)