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.