Essay Set 2

Michael Wright PHIL240_D02_201230 August 15, 2012

The Minimal Facts Approach At times using Apologetics in everyday evangelism can be cumbersome at best. One is required to remember so many facts, only a small percentage of which might actually be used in the course of the conversation. This is the strength of the minimal facts approach developed by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. As Paul stated, And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. (1 Corinthians 15:14) The most important fact of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The power of the minimal facts approach is that even if historicity cant be completely established, its refutation can be significantly challenged. The minimal facts approach involves the discussion of five important supporting factors. According to Habermas these facts follow two important criteria; they are supported by strong evidence and they are agreed upon by nearly every scholar, skeptic or otherwise. 1 These are also focused in such a way to avoid any deviation from the topic, such as challenging the integrity of the Bible. This can be valuable in conversation as often one of the most common red herring distractions is the claim that the Bible is not a trustworthy record. Jesus Died By Crucifixion The first element of this approach is to present that Jesus did in fact die, more specifically that he died by crucifixion. It may seem silly at first considering Muhammad and many other religious founders also died, but that many who claim Jesus is a myth do not realize is that often the details of the myth they claim Christianity borrowed from claim that the founder in fact never died. Second, establishing the manner in which Christ died adds a great deal of literal credence to

Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), Location 334.

the account. Forensic medical evidence described by Luke establishes that under no uncertain terms, Jesus died on the cross.2 You dont need the Bible to establish Jesus died on the cross. Flavius Josephus, in his book Antiquities of the Jews, wrote, And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.3 There is of course some controversy about this passage having been doctored by Christians, but one can quickly point out the one report out of this passage virtually all scholars agree upon is that Josephus here originally reported that Christ died by crucifixion at the hands of Pilate.4 If there is any doubt, one can bring up Josephus account of the death of James, brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.5 This passage is regarded by all scholars as authentic because the phrase is neutral, used only to distinguish him from other men named Jesus that Josephus wrote about.6

This is just a bit of fun on my part, having been a former Jehovahs Witness. There is a site on the net where you can get old publications from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. If you go here: http://watchtowerbooksstore.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=109 and order Creation by Judge Rutherford, one of the fathers of the movement whenever a Witness denies that Jesus died on a cross, ask if that was always the case; when they say yes, take out this book and turn to page 205. Well it really speaks for itself. http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/sixscreens/SCAN0013.jpg Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3. Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus : A New Historiographical Approach, Kindle ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), Location 2391.
4 5 3

Josephus, Antiquities 20.2000.

6 Licona, Location 2356. Thats probably the wrong circumflex diacritic, but its hard for me to see if thats even the correct accent.

But if you think a Galilean Jew turned Roman isnt enough of a hostile witness for you, there is the greatest Roman historian Tacitus. In his work The Annals, he reports Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called "Christians," hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christus, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome.7 Of course Tacitus is speaking of a man named Christus and it doesnt say how he died nor does it mention that Christus and Chrestus were two common derogatory terms for Christ in the day. Then there are the actual Jews who wrote about him in the Talmud; It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days [proclaiming], "He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him." But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover.8 Of course the Talmud is clear on so many things, it claims Mary was a hairdresser, Jesus had six disciples and Matthew was executed by divine imperative, and later they established a curse upon anyone who rose themselves from the dead in Gods name. Hey, they said it. Aside from evidence from external literature, there is the matter of forensic science. As the hour grew late the Jews asked that the crucifixion be hurried so the Romans broke the legs of the other two men, but seeing Jesus was dead, But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a

Tacitus, Annals. 15.44. translation by S. Meier (1991), 89-90.

8 Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament : An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Studying the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000), 113.

spear, and immediately blood and water came out. (John 19:34) It has been suggested by modern medicine, and backed by the Roman historian Quintilian that this act likely breached the pericardial sac, releasing the fluid that protects the heart.9 Interestingly Craig Keener has suggested that those witnessing the event may have seen it prophetically, looking back to Jesus earlier claim, If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.' (John 7:37-38)10 They Believed He Appeared To Them The next point of discussion in the minimal facts approach is that the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead. There is tremendous consensus on this point from scholars that the disciples not only claimed to have seen his post-resurrection body, but that afterwards they went from fearful and scattered to a bold movement willing to die for their beliefs. Even if you are an individual concerned of the late date of the writing of said Gospel testimony, we have an early witness in Paul who was once an enemy of Christianity. Scholars have identified this passage of scripture as an early creed of Christianity; For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) A creed is typically a common saying of affirmation used in the church as a

Habermas and Licona, Location 936.

10 Craig Keener, The Ivp Bible Background Commentary: The New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 283.

statement of belief, and if one traces this to the beginning of the Corinthian church in A.D. 49.11 That would pace this creed a mere 17-19 years removed from the crucifixion. But to take the matter further, recall what Paul said preceding the creed; Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. (1 Corinthians 15:1) This creed is part of the original Gospel Paul has been teaching through his ministry journeys. What can we say about its fidelity and origin? I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ . . . Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:11-19) Paul wrote this in A.D. 49.12 He is roughly saying that three years after his conversion experience he confirmed his Gospel testimony with James and Peter, who added nothing to my message. (Galatians 2:6) As we can see in a very short period of time the elements of the Creed Paul mentions in 1st Corinthians are established as elements of the Gospel message. 13

11 This date has numerous attestations. The first is Acts 18:1-4; After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. This event of the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius is backed by Suetonius in The Life of Claudius. Josephus and Cassius Dio appear to present competing theories, but given that both report these events as happening at the beginning of the reign of Cladius in 42 A.D., one must conclude that Luke/Suetonius and Josephus/Dio are speaking of separate events.

Frank Viola, The Untold Story of the New Testament Church (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 2004), 84-85. I cannot in all good conscience agree that Paul was converted in 33 A.D. It is entirely possible that Luke records it out of sequence, but this seems so unlikely as the reason given for the dispersion of Christians from Jerusalem is the stoning of Stephen, which Saul presided over. The next section talks of Phillips missionary journey to the Samaritans, which may have been an event leading to Josephus recording of Pontius Pilates actions against them. It was for this reason Pilate was removed from Judea, and by historical account this happened in 37 A.D.
13

12

The Conversion of an Enemy This of course brings us to the third point of discussion in the minimal facts case, that Saul of Tarsus, persecutor of the Christian Church was transformed radically into Paul, the greatest supporter of Christianity. Saul is said to have been born in 5 A.D., the son of Galilean refugees who fled to Tarsus during the early Roman devastations of Palestine.14 He was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5) and trained at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Paul was considered advanced in his education, zealous for the traditions of his forefathers (Gal. 1:14).15 While Acts notes Sauls approval of the death of Stephan (Acts 8:1) and Pauls own letters acknowledge his intense persecution of the church (Gal. 1:13) another strange thing is noted in Acts 9:11-31. After Saul is blinded on the road to Damascus, a Christian there named Ananias has a vision of Jesus in which he is told to heal Sauls sight, and Ananias protests for the reports he has already heard of this mans persecutions against the church. But doing as the Lord says, Sauls sight is restored and within days he baffles the Jews by proclaiming Christ in the synagogues! This question demands an answer; what sort of thing could have made such a radical change in a man such as Paul? I might compare the conversion of Josephus, but consider the differences Josephus was the leader of a Galilean garrison who was cut off in a cave by Vespasians army during the First Jewish-Roman War. Hes taken prisoner, and whether authentic or not claims to have a vision that Vespasian will become emperor. This pleases the man and when he does become emperor makes Josephus a Roman citizen and allows him to
Pauls conversion is recorded after this. I admit there is no certainty in the dating, but the evidence seems to weigh heavily on the later date. Still, whether it is three or ten years after the Resurrection, its still a short period of time.
14 15

J. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford University Press, USA, 1998), 37,38. Keener, 51. As Keener notes, zealous in the sense of the Macabees who destroyed those who defiled the

temple.

return to Judea.16 Can these accounts be compared? Paul claims to have met Jesus on the road, clearly a superior force. Josephus is captured by the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem, no doubt a superior force. Paul becomes a Christian, Josephus a Roman. Whats the difference? By all accounts even after being granted Roman citizenship Josephus did not forsake his Jewish lifestyle. 17 By contrast, Paul actually rebukes Peter for forsaking fellowship with Gentiles, a Jewish practice Peter himself had earlier abandoned! (Gal. 2:11-21) One difficult comparison to make is that of their deaths That of Josephus is not recorded, all record of him stops with the reign of Domitian, so it is assumed he died sometime after. And that the Jews considered him a traitor certainly doesnt help his cause, but perhaps that none in the Jewish or Roman authority noted his death does say something. Pauls martyrdom at the hands of Nero is attested by Caius, Eusebius, Ignatius, Tertullian, Jerome Now, Saul killed Christians, Josephus killed Romans. But Josephus killed Romans because he was drafted; before this he met with Nero to negotiate the release of Jewish priests, and later benefited from his conversion with Roman citizenship, an arranged marriage, children and a prosperous life. Saul killed Christians because he thought them the ultimate perversion of Judaism. That he converted, by some accounts lost his wife, was arrested and beaten many times, and ultimately killed on order of the Emperor for his beliefs to claim any similarity between these men makes absolutely no sense. The Conversion of a Skeptic The fourth point of the discussion is that of the conversion of the skeptical brother of Jesus, James. While nearly all scholars are in agreement about this, I admit I find myself
16 17

Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus S.L. Harris, Understanding the Bible: A Reader's Guide and Reference (Mayfield Pub. Co., 1980), 192.

confused by it. Not that the facts seem contradictory, but that they seem to imply things they never make any claim of. 18 But here is what we do know; Jesus had four brothers to his mother Mary and adopted father Joseph, the elder James (eventually called the Just), Joseph, Judas (possibly also known as Jude or Judah), Simon and several sisters who are unnamed (Mark 6:3). We are told in John 7:5 that Jesus brothers did not believe in him, and in Mark 3:21 we learn they actually thought he was crazy and sought out to stop him! The next mentioning of James is really from the creed mentioned by Paul in 1 st Corinthians 15, in that Jesus appeared to him after the resurrection. Then Paul mentions some followers of his in Galatians, after which we should assume James wrote his Epistle and then the Jerusalem Council is brought together in Acts 15. James is the one who renders a verdict and writes the letter to be sent to the Gentile churches. After this James greets Paul in Jerusalem just before his arrest in Acts 21:17-18. We can assume that the next event would be the martyrdom of James as reported by Josephus. Eusebius held that James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and while no scripture refutes that, they do on the face seem to support it. The accounts given by Hegesippus are so elaborate and full of legendary embellishment that it is difficult to take any of it in consideration its said that James visited the Holy of Holies, implying he was a high priest if this were true and James were so pious a Jew he most certainly would have had Jesus arrested at the beginning of his ministry. But the Gospel of John

The main issue I have is that the nature of James skepticism is never really explained. I may be committing a historical fallacy but we all have the crazy uncle. If James opposed Jesus out of concern for the implications of what Jesus was saying, then his conversion seems less impactful. If James did so out of Jewish piety then perhaps there is more impact, but this is an idea that comes out of tradition. If on the other hand we take the account of men sent by James to persuade Peter not to sit with Gentiles to mean that James himself had disciples it is entirely possible that the brothers may have even held opposing ministries until the post-resurrection appearance, after which James group would have absorbed into the Christian community but even after as Bishop of Jerusalem I can see how he wouldnt have strayed far from Judaism, and then all the issues with Paul and Gentile churches make sense. But this is all assumption.

18

clearly refutes Hegesippus claims about James in that drank no wine nor strong drink, since John 2:1-12 shows that Jesus mother and brothers were present at the wedding in Cana, where not only wine was served, Jesus himself served it. It seems odd that the man who wrote My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism should consider himself holier than Christ as His servant. The Empty Tomb As Habermas has calculated, roughly 75% of all scholars are in agreement about the point of the Empty Tomb. 19 And certainly this has to be the lynchpin of the entire argument; either the body of Jesus is there or it isnt. This is not to say we have a literal empty cave with no body that we can point to as the place where it certainly happened; what we have is a claim that simply cant be substantiated in any other way but that Jesus was buried there and rose from the dead. This point of discussion simply goes as such; Jesus died, therefore he was buried. Then the disciples, starting with women which was embarrassing because they were considered unreliable at the time claimed that Jesus was appearing all over the place. The Jewish leaders, the Romans could have easily settled this superstition, and by all accounts they really wanted to stop this from spreading. From the Roman end it made them look incompetent since they were supposed to guard it, and their supposedly dead captive escaped. For the Jews it looked bad because Jesus had just told them He was the Son of God and would be raised on the third day. So when people went about claiming Hes been raised! why didnt they just produce the body?

19

Habermas and Licona, Location 616.

10

Well, you know, the people claimed he was a prophet, it would be disrespectful didnt stop the English from displaying William Wallace at the four corners of the kingdom. And the Romans were in the habit of putting dead bodies on display, thats why they adopted crucifixion to begin with.20 The Jews didnt exactly seem to be in a place to stop them. But what do they do instead? They pay the guards and say Tell everyone the disciples stole the body. Which we are told is what they did. But if that is in fact what the disciples did, it sure backfired on them; they all died for that belief! It is one thing to say that someone will die for something they believe in, just look at 9/11. They were believers, but they were also deceived this claim says the disciples KNEW Jesus was dead. Not many will die for a belief they know to be a lie.21 What if a few did it and didnt tell anyone else? Still, it doesnt account for the radical transformations of Paul and James, neither of which had any benefit in becoming Christian. What if a third party stole the body, like what if Darren Aronofsky was to go back in time and steal the body? I dont know, thats like the Chewbacca defense of this whole argument Darren Aronofsky does not make sense, therefore you must acquit. Conclusion I really like the minimal facts approach, I think when it comes to one on one apologetics we need a method that helps us engage people on the fly and this does just that. And with the most important fact of Christianity no less. The points are easy to remember, you dont have to recall a great deal of background material, and if youre caught in conversation on a train without
H.L. Drumwright, "Crucifixion," in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and Moiss Silva (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009), 1107. 21 I want to say Hitler, Koresh, Jones but is it that they died for what they believed, or that they killed themselves because they knew they were caught?
20

11

a Bible you dont really need it. In a less formal setting Im sure all of this would be paraphrase anyway. Last night as I was thinking about this, in conjunction with Greg Koukls Columbo method Im so fond of, I ought to take this and write a new class book for our church called Spiritual Detectives. I could cover that, this I could call The Joe Friday Method (Just the Facts Maam). Then since Im such a huge Law and Order fan I came up with the Jack McCoy principal. We are under no obligation to share with the defense any detail that may only be deemed potentially exculpatory unless it actually comes up in the course of trial. In other words, dont give your opponent more ammunition to argue with. Also the Dexter principle; Dont kill anyone unless youre sure theyre guilty. That is to say dont argue over trivial details unless you know the individual holds a worldview expressly contrary to the Christian one. Oh and then we have the Mulder and Scully. Its like Good Cop/Bad Cop except you and a friend play believer and willing to believe if the evidence is there to a third party you wish to witness to. Lastly Im still working up the Munch. Something to do with conspiracy theories and someone playing the uncommitted Christian I dunno. The weakest part of the argument, something Id actually look to replace is the transformation of James. And maybe its just my own experience but I dont find it convincing. And considering I already believe in the resurrection, what is the unbeliever going to say? Im actually surprised Habermas even brought up Hegesippus granted I know the account still fits the definition of a martyr, but what he essentially says is that they trick him into giving testimony of Christ on the roof of the temple and then push him off. But he didnt die right away so they

12

stoned him. 22 Ephitaph: Here lies James ben Yoseph, brother of Jesus. We pushed him off the same roof Satan told his brother to jump off of.

22 R. McL. Wilson, "James," in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and Moiss Silva (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009), 454.

13

LEGEN wait for it Its only fair really that some people regard the resurrection as legend it seems. After all, Christians did invent the term. Legend or the Latin legenda means that which is worth reading, and came about in the Middle Ages to distinguish the stories surrounding the saints martyred, which by that time had surely become legendary. The exploits of the Apostles were mixed with tales of miracles and battling wizards and dragon slaying Then Thomas Ogden came along to claim John Mark was from Alexandria and that Africa is the secret to how Christianity saved civilization, and that it brings with it a Christ totally free of Constantine.23 Indeed Christianity goes well with legend Early in church history, if indeed a founder can be found (some say Eusebius of Caesarea, others Jerome) in turning the accounts of martyrs into more than mere calendar lists and festivals, but accounts that would come to be canonized by the Catholic Church a practice Protestants briefly carried and then abandoned. And truth be told, even though these accounts took hundreds of years to make it to paper, theyre hardly the sort of thing we call legend today. To me, for something to become truly legendary, is for its story to exist in such a form that no matter how damning the evidence is against its existence, one still cannot help but wonder if somehow, some way there is truth to the tale. Every lie has a bit of truth right? Philos Atlantis for example. How many billions of dollars have been spent in the last hundreds of years searching for an entire continent that 2,362 years ago the great poet told sank into the ocean overnight, in just a few paragraphs. How haunting of a tale! A lost civilization, just past the pillars of Heracles some people of the day believed, but most knew it was fiction. Strangely as

Thomas C. Oden, How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind : Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Books, 2007)

23

14

time passed people became more convinced of its reality. Psychic Edgar Cayce made quite a fortune spinning Atlantis as a most advanced lost civilization sadly the Nazis thought it was proof of an Aryan master race. Theorists have put it all over the map. My favorite place for it was on the Sci-Fi Channel. 24 Of course not every historical legend takes a great deal of time to develop. The ballads of the 16th and 17th centuries dedicated to the man Robin Hood, they read like the early Christian creeds. In fact I dare say theyre so accurate that Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman made an excellent historical portrayal of the man in the 1991 film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. And Ridley Scott made an excellent prequel just recently with Russell Crowe, who took away Carey Elwes claim of being the only Robin Hood actor to have a true British accent. And we cant talk Legend without getting into King Arthur. The Historia Brittonum makes clear mention of him in ten battles, one of which he killed some 940 men. They even found the stone in Cornwall where Arthur pulled out Excalibur. There are even claims that he was once considered a Celtic deity. Now Romania theres a place for legends and myths to grow. And what better source material than the evil Vlad epe, a man so cruel he is said to have impaled over 100,000 people. Never mind that it happened during the Crusades, or that he did take on his fathers name of Vlad Dracul (not a stretch to Dracula), or that he was king of a really tiny poor country called Wallachia, or spent most of his life in a Turkish prison, or that he was paid by the Pope to fight

Though if one were ever to give such things any serious consideration I believe 1st Kings 10:22 and Jonah 1:3 speak of a land called Tarshish, which is Tartessus in Greek. It is said that Solomon obtained Ivory, apes and peacocks there, though the mines also produced silver, iron, lead, and tin. It may have been Phoenician, though it appears to have been buried by shifting wetlands. Its located on the Spanish Iberian Peninsula and fits Platos description, so if ever such a city existed, that would be my guess.

24

15

Ottomans The guy could turn into a bat or a wolf, he would sneak into the bedrooms of virgins and suck the blood from their necks As I said, Romanians are immediately superstitious of anything, so that it took 432 years for this to come out doesnt entirely surprise me. I feel like I live in a world where words are amoral. The lines between fiction and nonfiction are practically non-existent. I once performed an experiment after I saw a listing for a house, five bedrooms and two baths on two acres for $50,000. Way too good to be true, and it was, we drove out there and the whole second floor had caved due to water damage. The place was over 200 years old. I took pictures of it and showed off to my class, which at the time was architecture we all agreed it would be a bad investment. Then I get home and Im possessed with this stupid idea. I take a really lousy shot of Kelly Clarkson in concert and Photoshop it into one of the windows. I make it like a light green smudge, just barely recognizable as a person, and for realism there was a tree in the foreground so I made sure it looked like this apparent apparition was in the window. I print it out and show it to my wife, and shes seriously freaked out, shes utterly convinced I took a picture of a ghost (and she went with me to the house!). I show it to my class, I show it to everyone at work, my landlord now understand, Im going to ITT Tech, they KNOW Im good with computers and especially digital artwork. NOBODY questioned this picture. Not even my Catholic Grandmother, and she doesnt even believe in God. In fact it got to the point where people described to me seeing a woman wearing a Victorian era dress, and after about two weeks they found a second face in another window, which I hadnt even done. 25 Which brings me to my last myth common sense. Of all the things I mentioned, there is more physical evidence for all of those things than there is for this concept. Perceptual
25

GODS. HONEST. TRUTH.

16

discriminants I will grant, but there are two definitions of common sense and I reject both for the same reason. Sound judgment or practical knowledge, these are so subjective to apply the term common is laughable at best. The thing is, if youre going to treat the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as legend, youve got a number of problems with that. First the creed Paul quotes in 1st Corinthians 15. Now what is a creed, as I said Robin Hood had quite a few of them No Robin Hood had a collection of ballads, which are stories, told to song for the purpose of entertainment. See theres this thing called context. And as far as the historicity of Robin Hood is concerned the best history has been able to come up with was that it may have been a term multiple outlaws used in the 16th and 17th Centuries. A creed is a summary of the beliefs of a person or group, often a denomination. 26 A creed is a formal or confessional statement of faith usually drawn from the cultic/religious life of believing communities.27 A creed is an authoritative statement of the principle affirmations of the Christian faith. It is generally brief and concise, free of definition, proof, or explanation. It is at once personal, social, and historical in its impact. Insofar as possible, a creed attempts to witness to the universal church rather than to set forth those points of doctrine that would describe variance within that church. Thus creeds give testimony to those universal beliefs that bind the whole church, not only in the day in which they were written but throughout history.28

Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, Rev. ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 44. Arthur G. Patzia and Anthony J. Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 29.
28 A.H. Leitch, "Creed," in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and Moiss Silva (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009), 1087. 27

26

17

A creed is, at its most basic form, a statement, and a direct one at that. There is no prose, there is no music, and there is no intent to entertain. There is intent for one to state what he or she believes. And as previously established in the former essay, whether it is a few months or a few years afterward, the disciples formulated a creed that stated they believed that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and raised on the third day, then appearing to the disciples. This is what they believed. Now, does that belief equate to historical fact? Well as I said, people believe in Atlantis, and Im not so sure Plato himself was talking about a real place. Theyre pretty sure Robin Hood is based on a real guy, but cant figure out who started that one. People are positive that King Arthur existed, and yet by all accounts our best literature on the subject is highly questionable. People believe so much in vampires that they dress like them, they watch TV and read books about them, and theyre obsessed with Twilight which only proves how stupid these people are becoming. And if I cover myself with a sheet and take a picture of myself, dang thats a ghost! But the huge stinking pile of a question lying on top of this garbage heap is, what does it matter that people believe in any of these things?

IT DOES NOT MATTER

Except It does matter in the case of Jesus Christ. And why is that, why is Jesus so much more special than any of those other things I mentioned? Because none of those other things ever made
18

any sort of claim about themselves. You see Jesus Christ was the only person ever to say on multiple occasions Look, Im going to die. And its going to be ugly. Theyre going to hand me over to the chief priests to be beaten, flogged, humiliated and spit upon and then theyre gonna nail me to a cross. And Im going to die. But then in three days in three days Im going to be raised from the dead. In three days all your sorrow will be turned to joy. That is, in a nutshell, what Jesus Christ said about himself. And the disciples, they didnt seem to believe that at first. But then something happened so profound they felt they had to go and make a creed about it to back it up. And I would submit to you the possibility that had Christ not risen from the dead, sure this might have shown up in scripture. But it would have never been taken seriously, it would be the object of scorn and resentment and embarrassment. They could have written the creed after hiding the body, hoping to save themselves the shame only to die for what they knew was wrong? And what about Paul and James, they had nothing to gain by joining this band. And Paul was the one who brought us the creed he may have persecuted the church but it seems he was the first to write about it. It seems only logical that something in there happened that necessitated the creation of this creed, and the conversion of Paul and James, and that nobody ever solved the mystery of the empty tomb. Sure legends happen, they even happen in Christianity. But what I would submit to you is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was simply not interesting enough to embellish into a legend. Why, do you ask? Legends entertain. Occasionally yes they may even speak into your life. But the resurrection affirmed absolutely everything Jesus Christ ever said and did. And all of those things have such direct, immediate, and crucial impact upon your life in the here and now, and to everyones lives in history, that quite frankly the story is just not the kind of thing you get
19

wrong. The message of Jesus is one of hope, joy, and encouragement. Its a warning of whats coming, whats on the other side of this life, that we have an eternal status, that there is a God up above us that hates what we have become but loves us so much that He came down in the form of His son and submitted himself to a corrupt authority that viciously maimed and killed Him. And three days later He arose, and He put a celestial exclamation point on every single word He ever said. Jesus is not a man we read about for entertainment. Jesus is life altering important. Frankly I dont know what genre you put that in they call it a Gospel, which means Good News. Sounds good to me.

20

Proof of Life Can you conclusively prove that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead? Yes, I believe it is possible. Am I insane? Medically speaking yeah but Im on medication, still I do believe its possible, and there are a number of methods. The first method is quite simply to die. Death removes all doubt of everything. Of course youd have to stay dead, since NDEs are always considered too subjective to be evidenced. And if youre trying to prove it to someone else, that would involve murder, and I certainly dont recommend that. The second method would be to simply come to know Christ. Of course that will generally predispose you to believe it even when you pray and ask Him to prove it to you it is sort of counter-intuitive to go about it like that. A third method might involve investigating the claims of this David Jong guy, the Korean ex-Sun Yung Moon teacher who now apparently has a following that claims he is the second coming of Christ. He just bought the Glorieta Conference Center, so I imagine well be hearing more from him in the future.29 But you know this might just be my own personal bias, but if I remember correctly Francis Chan is at least half Korean, if not full Korean. And I spent a good year evaluating his exegetical practices its terrible. And hes not even a Moonie. Im not saying a Korean cant be good with Christ, but it seems to me the odds of Jesus coming back Asian are about the same as his odds of coming back American, African, Latino... But hey looks arent everything. Logic is a big obstacle though.

29

Ted; Smith Olsen, Ken, "The Second Coming Christ Controversy," Christianity Today, 8/16/2012 2012.

21

Then theres my fourth method which gave my wife a headache when I explained it to her this morning, so Im forewarning you to have a bottle of pain killers ready for this one. Because this, believe it or not, is not only absolutely theoretically possible, its in development. One could create a satellite with a macroscopic DSLR telephoto lens enhanced with a gravitational and W.M. Keck lens (with filters to overcome the inevitable Cherenkov radiation emitted by the vehicle itself30), transmitting via an Ansible (which was coined by Science Fiction writer Orson Scott Card in Enders Game31, but with the discoveries made in quantum entanglement in the last decade, we are getting close. In fact Dr. John Kramer of the University of Washington is working on such a device as we speak.32). The spacecraft would have to exceed the Light Speed barrier. Now this is a problem because theorists have long speculated the amount of energy needed to reach near light speed velocities is near infinite, which is not at all helpful. Even at the speed of light were traveling too slowly. We need to be able to capture in picture or on video light emitted from Palestine in 30 or 33 A.D. and sent that back to 2012 (or some date) in real time (which is theoretically possible due to Relativity). What is interesting here is that God has given us many examples in the nature of the universe which lead us to believe achieving faster than light speeds are not only possible, but happen. The expansion of the universe itself for instance has been measured at 1020 or 1030 power. This is thought to be caused by a field particle called the inflaton, which if properly

Cherenkov radiation appears as a blue light and is cast off by particles traveling faster than the speed of light. There are pictures of nuclear reactors emitting this radiation, it is actually quite beautiful. The concept of the Ansible was to split a particle in half and send it to another location in space, and any communications sent through the interactions of the two halves would be received in real time. Quantum Entanglement is a similar process, where the interactions of two like particles exhibit spooky action at a distance. When one separates the particles, regardless of distance the interaction remains the same. Currently Bells theorem is seen as an obstacle to actual communication, but this of course is not stopping anyone from trying anyway.
32 Tom Paulson, "Going for a Blast into the Real Past," SeattlePI (2006). http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Going-for-a-blast-into-the-real-past-1219821.php (accessed 8/16/2012). 31

30

22

harnessed could be used to macroscopically inflate a cosmic string, opening a stable wormhole. 33 Another working theory is that of the Alcubierre drive, which operates in a similar manner to Star Treks warp drive in that the ship generates a warp bubble where space in front of the ship is expanded while space in the back is contracted, allowing the ship to travel at FTL speeds. This theory, while being supported and worked on by a multitude of scientists, still faces a number of issues. 34 On July 4th, 2012 the teams at the Large Hadron Collector in Geneva, Switzerland confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson, a particle believed to interact with the electro-weak force of atomic structure, allowing it to interact with gravity and thereby giving everything in the universe mass. This field is known as the Higgs Field and once understood could unlock a new age of particle physics; one application being that the manipulation of said field could lower the inertial mass of a vehicle and allow it to achieve FTL speeds using conventional propulsion. Now assuming we could (and likely will) create such a craft, in what way could this prove the resurrection? If the telescope had the proper resolution to capture images of Earths past from deep space, what might we look for? I imagine it would take years of research just to find the right investigatory approach. Most likely wed want to monitor the site at Golgotha itself and compare images of any crucifixion events that match the Gospel accounts wed monitor assumed tomb sites to see if any open on their own or other strange phenomena. We could look for disciples running to the area on the day of the resurrection.

Baylor University, "Traveling Faster Than the Speed of Light: A New Idea That Could Make It Happen," (2008). http://newswise.com/articles/view/543391/ (accessed 8/16/2012).
34 Brendan; Lewis McMonigal, Geraint; O'Byrne, Phillip, "The Alcubierre Warp Drive: On the Matter of Matter," (2012) (accessed 8/16/2012).

33

23

That wouldnt give us much. We can only monitor the transmission of light due to Relativity, it doesnt work for sound. Still Im sure I could just Photoshop said images, make the claim that such an effort took place and start an internet conspiracy. It would be a whole lot less trouble, and Id just be a modern day Joseph Smith. But all of this kind of highlights a point even if we had the technology to open a wormhole to that exact day and time to watch Jesus crucified, and then leave the tomb conclusively prove once and for all this happened. How exactly would that matter? All we would become is more witnesses, wed simply come back and give more testimony that we likely already knew. Witnesses have already testified they saw the Risen Lord, that they happen to be temporally distant from us is an entirely different matter. It has nothing to do with whether or not the event really took place. Its like the old metaphysical joke, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, did it really fall? That Jesus rose from the dead is evidence that everything Jesus claimed about himself and taught to others is true the witness of that fact falls under a different category that scientists might be well familiar with. Its called Peer Review. The Scientific Method will never prove the resurrection for two reasons, 1) it is not reproducible, nor was it intended to be, and 2) the entire event is the culminating conclusion of the life of Jesus Christ and what it was He came here to do. The job of the witnesses was to evaluate the evidence of Christ and determine for themselves if what they witnessed was truth. And what people often dont realize is that every witness, hostile or otherwise, was in all points essential an impartial witness. How can that be exactly? Jesus had followers and he had enemies, he didnt have neutral bias observers documenting every move he made. None of that matters, as neither friend nor foe

24

knew that the claims Jesus made about his resurrection from the dead would actually come to pass. Other than the people Jesus brought back to life they hadnt even considered the possibility, and that a dead person could bring themselves back The reaction of both parties is evidence of their neutrality to the event. In the instance of the resurrection, they are completely impartial. So what does that say about us? For one it means we can no more prove the resurrection than we can prove gravity. Not because it isnt testable, but because its already been sufficiently proven for us. What it is for us is to review all documentation and render a verdict for ourselves, accepting that reality or rejecting it to our folly. Granted the conclusion may not be as clear as the effects of Gravity. But there are effects of the resurrection. These effects happen to have precedence on an eternal level, which is a train of thought, a plane of existence that is for the time being hidden from us. As to why that is happens to be an entirely different issue. As to whether or not this evidence can be used to further other apologetic arguments, I would say yes, all of them. The resurrection is the lynchpin of everything Christ said and taught without it nothing in Christianity would be trustworthy.

25

Bibliography Drumwright, H.L. "Crucifixion." In The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, edited by Merrill C. Tenney and Moiss Silva, 1, 1107. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009. Erickson, Millard J. The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology. Rev. ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001 Habermas, Gary R., and Licona, Mike. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004 Harris, S.L. Understanding the Bible: A Reader's Guide and Reference: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1980 Keener, Craig. The Ivp Bible Background Commentary: The New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993 Leitch, A.H. "Creed." In The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, edited by Merrill C. Tenney and Moiss Silva, 1, 1107. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009. Licona, Mike. The Resurrection of Jesus : A New Historiographical Approach. Kindle ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010 McMonigal, Brendan; Lewis, Geraint; O'Byrne, Phillip. "The Alcubierre Warp Drive: On the Matter of Matter." (2012). [accessed 8/16/2012]. Murphy-O'Connor, J. Paul: A Critical Life: Oxford University Press, USA, 1998 Oden, Thomas C. How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind : Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Books, 2007 Olsen, Ted; Smith, Ken. "The Second Coming Christ Controversy." Christianity Today, 8/16/2012 2012. Patzia, Arthur G., and Petrotta, Anthony J. Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002 Paulson, Tom. "Going for a Blast into the Real Past." SeattlePI (2006). http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Going-for-a-blast-into-the-real-past-1219821.php [accessed 8/16/2012]. University, Baylor. "Traveling Faster Than the Speed of Light: A New Idea That Could Make It Happen." (2008). http://newswise.com/articles/view/543391/ [accessed 8/16/2012]. Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament : An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Studying the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000 Viola, Frank. The Untold Story of the New Testament Church. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image Publishers, Inc., 2004 Wilson, R. McL. "James." In The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, edited by Merrill C. Tenney and Moiss Silva, 3, 1107. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009.

26

27