Tag: religion

Did Jesus Christ Rise From The Dead?

Leave a comment

At the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For nearly two millennia, believers have been proclaiming the risen Christ to the world, declaring Him to be the hope of salvation for all of mankind. But this message has not been met without serious – sometimes violent – opposition. While Christians argue that Christs’ resurrection is a historical fact, materialists argue that it’s a myth, and others simply don’t know or care what they believe about it. But to believers, it’s of monumental importance. St. Paul writes that if Christ is not raised then our faith is “futile…we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19.)

So today I want to dive into this deep, deep question: Is the Gospel true? Is Christ risen from the dead? I believe we have very good reason to say, yes. And I’m going to explain why below.

The Historicity of Jesus Christ and the Gospels

That Jesus Christ was a real person and was crucified by the Roman government is a fact well attested to in history. Not only do the Gospels record it, but numerous non-Christian sources confirm Jesus’ ministry and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate – even sources hostile to Christianity, such as Tacitus and Lucian of Samosata. In recent years, some have taken the “Jesus mythicist” approach and deny he existed altogether, but this is a fringe position that even secular historians don’t take seriously. For example, Bart Ehrman (hardly a conservative Christian) wrote a whole book on the subject titled, Did Jesus Exist?, concluding that he did.

So, with that in mind, how do we get an accurate assessment of Jesus’ life, of everything he did and taught? Well, we would go to the people who got the closest look at him – his disciples, the men who followed and recorded the events written in the Gospels. Some question the authorship of the Gospels, but there is general consensus that Mark and Luke were definitely the writers of the gospels that bear their name. Matthew is more debated, although as early as the second century we have attestations from church fathers like Papias and Origen of his authorship. The same can be said of the apostle John, whose authorship is attested to in Irenaeus’ writings (Against Heresies 3.1.1). Keep in mind that Irenaeus was a student of the church father Polycarp, who himself was taught by John. So suffice to say, we have good evidence that the authors of the Gospel accounts were indeed written by the men whose names they bear.

But does this mean that the Gospel accounts are true? After all, people can write anything and call it a true story. What if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John lied about what Jesus did – including his death and resurrection?

Well, the problem is that they have zero motive to do so. The apostles had nothing to gain, and everything to lose in proclaiming the risen Christ. Being first century Jews, these men were not unaware of the backlash they would receive from the Jewish Sanhedrin if they spread false stories of an allegedly resurrected Messiah – backlash that could very well result in getting stoned to death. None of the apostles gained anything from spreading the Gospel, be it money, power, or fame. In fact, with the exception of St. John (who was exiled to the island of Patmos, albeit later released) none of the apostles died of natural causes. They all died martyrs, believing in Christ’s death and resurrection to the very end. And again, considering the fact that they were first century Jews, raised in a tradition that greatly anticipated the coming Messiah and warned against false ones, it just doesn’t add up that they would lie about it.

On top of that, the Gospel accounts record moments that would be highly embarrassing for the apostles to lie about. Their own leader calling Peter “Satan” comes to mind (Mark 8:31-33), as is their general slowness in understanding Jesus’ parables (Mark 4:13, 7:18). It is recorded that they all abandoned Jesus when he was arrested (Mark 14:50). Another infamous example is Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus Christ (Luke 22:54-62, John 18:15-27, Mark 14:66–72, Matthew 26:69–75), something no one in their right mind would lie about if they didn’t want to look incredibly foolish. Even the atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann used the criteria of embarrassment when arguing for the historicity of Peter’s denial.  (The Resurrection of Christ, p 162).

The disciples were also slow on the uptake in recognizing Jesus’ mission as dying and rising again for the sin of mankind (Matthew 17:22-23, Luke 9:43b-45). Even worse, some doubted even when they saw Jesus standing before them after he died (Matthew 28:17).

Perhaps most embarrassing of all, the first people recorded to see Jesus after he had risen from the dead were not the apostles, but two women: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James. (Mark 16:1). This is an incredibly crucial detail, as the testimony of a woman in the first century Jewish context carried no weight, which probably contributed to the apostles thinking them foolish (Luke 24:11). Women were seen as second class citizens back then, and if early Christians wanted to fabricate a credible myth, there’s no way they would have included that detail. So if it was all a hoax, why say that women discovered the tomb? Occam’s razor: it wasn’t a hoax. The Gospel writers recorded what they honestly believed were historical events.

So, Jesus Christ certainly existed, certainly died on a cross, his disciples certainly believed that He rose from the dead, and the end result was the massive spreading of Christianity all over the world. But the question still remains, did it really happen? Can the events surrounding the aftermath of Jesus’s crucifixion be explained without any appeal to the miraculous?

Alternate Explanations to Christ’s Resurrection

Below I’m going to list the most popular naturalistic explanations for Jesus’ postmortem appearances. I’ll provide the argument as well as my rebuttal to it.

1.) Jesus’ postmortem appearances were grief-induced hallucinations. This is a common counter explanation used when discussing the resurrection. Atheists like Gerd Ludemann (mentioned above) argue that Christs’ postmortem appearances were all hallucinatory, induced by grief, guilt, and general distress. The argument is that bereaved individuals tend to “see” their loved ones after they passed away, and the disciples were certainly bereaved enough, as well as ridden with guilt over abandoning Christ, to be susceptible to these hallucinations.

But this explanation fails for three reasons. Number one, when people do experience grief-induced hallucinations of their loved ones, they don’t come to the conclusion that their loved ones have risen from the dead because of them. Number two, these hallucinations are typically brief and experienced on an individual basis, not prolonged as Christ’s postmortem appearances were and experienced by hundreds of people (1 Corinthians 15:6 – note that the claim here is falsifiable, since some of these witnesses were still living.) as well as by skeptics like James and Paul – the latter of whom most certainly wasn’t a grieving believer when he saw Christ (2 Corinthians 11:23-28). Number three, this explanation doesn’t account for Jesus’ empty tomb. It doesn’t explain what happened to His body.

2.) Jesus didn’t die but survived crucifixion, recovered from his wounds in his tomb, and escaped. This explanation, called the “Swoon Theory”, argues that Jesus survived the wounds he bore on the cross and then revived in the tomb, escaping to appear to his disciples. Proponents of this theory argue that sometimes (albeit in rare circumstances) victims of Roman crucifixion survived their wounds, and this would explain the empty tomb as well as Jesus’ postmortem appearances to his disciples being entirely physical, and not just hallucinatory.

But as with before, there are glaring problems here. First off, while a handful of people survived crucifixion, these were the vast minority and often involved immediate rescue and medical attention, unliked with Jesus Christ (e.g., Josephus’ Life 420-421.) The Roman soldiers were experts in execution who themselves would have faced death for their failures. On top of that, a half dead Jesus couldn’t escape a guarded tomb, roll a stone, or convince his disciples of divine resurrection. The idea that he could recover within three days to the point where his body wasn’t damaged enough to appear and talk to hundreds of individuals without requiring intense medical attention, is a claim more miraculous than the Resurrection itself. More than that, Jesus’ death on a cross is one of the most widely accepted historical facts about him. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that “The weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted.” (JAMA, March 21, 1986, Vol. 255, No. 11, pp. 1455-1463.)

3.) Jesus’s body was stolen or displaced. This counter explanation is actually mentioned in Scripture. (Matthew 28:11-15). The argument is that Jesus’s body was either stolen by his disciples to fake the resurrection, that the authorities moved it elsewhere, or that perhaps his body was discarded in a mass grave.

The problem with the first explanation has already been addressed above, as Jesus’s disciples certainly believed he rose from the dead. Why die for a known lie – one that, again, you have nothing to gain from? Furthermore, if the Roman authorities had Christ’s body in their possession, it stands to reason they would have produced it to quash rumors of the resurrection. They wouldn’t want rumors of a risen king to spread throughout the country, as that would suggest an authority much higher than Ceasar. As for the mass grave theory, in Roman occupied Judea crucified bodies were only placed in mass graves during times of war. During times of peace, crucified bodies were placed in honorable burials, such as Yehohanan’s buried remains. (Zias, Joseph, and Eliezer L. Sekeles. “The Crucified Man from Giv’at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal.” Israel Exploration Journal 35, no. 2–3 (1985): 118–126). There’s no reason to doubt that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, as recorded in the Gospels. This theory also doesn’t account for the postmortem appearances and mass conversions, particularly in hostile first century Jerusalem.

4.) The resurrection of Jesus Christ was copied off of pagan myths. This theory alleges that the Gospel was plagiarized from other ancient myths where gods allegedly came down from heaven to die and rise back from the dead. This theory gained significant traction from scholars like Gerald Massey in the late 19th and 20th centuries and is often repeated today as a reason to discount the New Testament. But the problems are numerous.

First of all, as stated several times by now, the Apostles had nothing to gain from fabricating a story about a dying and resurrected Savior that would have gotten them killed. Second, the similarities between Jesus and other pagan gods are superficial at best. For example, Horus is often mentioned in these discussions, but there’s no reference in Egyptian mythology to Horus being crucified and resurrected three days later, born of a virgin, or being baptized by a figure named “Anup the Baptizer” (as alleged by Massey.) The same can be said of Mithras. There are a plethora of other gods that Jesus is compared to, and it would be tedious to go over every single one of them. But if you want to read more in depth about this topic, I would check out this post by William Lane Craig.

All in all, the naturalistic counter explanations for the resurrection of Jesus Christ might sound reasonable on a surface level, but fail on closer examination.

Conclusion

I freely admit that some things in the Bible just need to be taken on faith. That, however, is absolutely not the case with Jesus Christ rising from the dead – it really did happen, and history shows it. All the evidence points to it – as the ex-skeptic, world famous attorney Sir Lionel Luckhoo famously said, “The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” The only reason one would have to deny the reality of Christ’s resurrection is if their worldview precludes them from accepting that miracles can happen. But if it was really all myth, then you would expect much better naturalistic explanations than the ones mentioned and addressed above. It shouldn’t take nearly two thousand years for someone to provide a logical counter explanation for the resurrection of Jesus Christ if the whole thing was some elaborate fairy tale.

Is rape only punishable by a fine in the Bible? (Reblog)

Leave a comment
So rape is only punishable by a fine?

Today I wanted to share a post made by another armchair loving friend of mine – the Armchair Theologian. He made a post a while ago responding to a claim made by some atheists that rape is only punishable by a fine in the Bible. I don’t have much to add to it, except that I share his frustrations that too often Bible verses are cherry picked or taken wildly out of context when the whole of Scripture is criticized as archaic lunacy.

Hope you enjoy!

Did Jesus Claim To Be God?

Leave a comment

One of the biggest objections to Christianity is that Jesus Christ allegedly never claimed to be God in any of the Gospel accounts. People who argue this say that the idea of Jesus’ divinity was a later accretion, by either an apostle or some other theologian in church history. So to put this accusation to rest I’ve compiled a list of passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that demonstrate that Jesus was God. This isn’t an exhaustive list, but I think what I’ve written here is enough to prove my argument. I’ll provide additional commentary as I see fit.

“Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’?  But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic,  “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”  Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” – Mark 2:7-12

“Seeing their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? “But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—He said to the paralytic—“I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home.” Immediately he got up before them, and picked up what he had been lying on, and went home glorifying God. They were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God; and they were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen remarkable things today.” – Luke 5:20-26

This instance clearly demonstrates that Jesus was God for two reasons.

First, when the Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy by claiming to be God, Jesus doesn’t deny the accusation. In fact, he affirms his authority to forgive sins, an authority every Jew both then and now understood to belong to God alone. If this was not a claim to be God, the Pharisees would never have accused him of blasphemy – and thus, would never have attempted to stone him or have him crucified.

Second, when Jesus heals the man, he doesn’t appeal to any authority other than himself. In the Old Testament when healings were performed, the healer had to rely on God’s power to accomplish it. Jesus uniquely does not require reliance on any power but his own to perform healings, which is further evidence of his divinity.

“ Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.” – Matthew 14:33.

“And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.” – Matthew 28:9

“When they [the disciples] saw Him, they worshiped Him, but some doubted.” – Matthew 28:17

Notice that Jesus accepted his disciples’ worship without correcting them, showing that he saw himself as equal with God. The Greek word used here for worship, proskuneo, is used when Jesus affirms that God alone is to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10), and when an angel rebukes the apostle John for almost worshipping him, saying that kind of reverence is for God alone. (Revelation 22:9.)

“The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.” – John 10:31-39.

“Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” – John 20:27-29.

As with before, note the lack of correction on Jesus’ part. He does not contradict Thomas when Thomas calls him “My God.”

“The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ “Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.” – John 8:52-59

The “I am” statement Jesus uses here are the same words God uses to describe Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14. In the Jewish culture of that day, such a statement would be interpreted as a claim to be God. Again, if Jesus didn’t mean that, the Pharisees would never have tried to stone him. 

Conclusion

Jesus Christ didn’t go around telling people, “I am God, second person of the Holy Trinity” during his years on Earth. But as demonstrated above, that wasn’t necessary at all for him to show that he was God incarnate. To deny that Jesus claimed to be God would be like saying a man who walked up to you and said, “You’re under arrest. Put your hands behind your back. You have the right to remain silent…” never claimed to be a police officer. Jesus’ words and actions (and in some cases, lack of action) showed that he saw himself as being equal to God, and this was understood by his apostles and by every Christian that’s ever lived since. 

Addressing Three Common Atheist Arguments

6 Comments

For those who don’t know, Alyssa Grenfell is a popular Youtuber who’s famous for her story of leaving the Mormon church. Much of her content is focused on critiquing LDS beliefs and practices, but occasionally she talks about how her worldview has changed and why she’s an atheist. I recommend you check out her channel. I think you’ll find her videos interesting, especially if you’re also an ex Mormon. 

Today though I wanted to address her reasons for being an atheist, since these are arguments I often see levied against Christians in atheist vs theist discussions. I’ll outline them below:

  1. “Most people are the religion of their parents.”

This is one of the most popular arguments against Christianity, and religion in general. Basically the idea is that all or most religious people only believe what they do because their parents taught it to them, and not for intellectually pure reasons. But there are two problems with this position.

First of all, even if it was true that the majority of religious people are only believers because of their parents’ upbringing, that wouldn’t prove their religion false. In Alyssa’s case she’s raising her children in a secular household, but if they grew up to be atheist because of their upbringing that wouldn’t prove atheism false. For another example, there are plenty of people out there who can’t defend their belief in the theory of evolution. They only believe it because it’s what they were taught in schools, but it would be absurd to say that’s proof that evolution is false. It’s actually a subtle form of ad hominem: Ad hominem circumstantial, where you attack the personal circumstances of someone making an argument rather than directly addressing the argument itself.

For a Christian, you need to prove that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead to show why their religion is false. Simply saying, “You believe it because your parents taught you” isn’t an argument.

Second, the idea that if one religion were true everyone would convert to it ignores factors like cultural conditioning, personal biases, and free will. In Christianity’s case, the fact that everyone has not converted to it doesn’t prove that it isn’t true or even isn’t obviously true. Many people simply haven’t had the opportunity to hear the Gospel, in which case God will judge them fairly based on the limited knowledge they have. Or they don’t believe simply because they don’t want to. Of course I’m not saying people CAN’T have good reasons for not believing, but I would argue that Christianity’s truth is evident enough to those with an open mind. Particularly since every secular explanation for the resurrection of Jesus Christ falls apart on closer inspection. (Although that’s a post for another time.)

But more than that, I can flip this argument around: If there obviously was no God and religion was obviously nonsense, why does 80 percent of the human population believe?

  1. “If God is good, why is there evil in the world?”

Alyssa doesn’t use this exact phrasing, but her argument stems from this line of thinking. She uses the example of God supposedly saving a baby from dying while other babies die in poverty as proof that if there was a God, he’d be a horrible person. 

To be fair, this is something a lot of believers wrestle with as well. The problem of evil has been a struggle for many people across many religions, and the unfairness of life is even addressed in Scripture (Psalm 73.) I don’t think you’ll find any serious Christian who denies this reality and hasn’t struggled with it. So I want to approach this topic with extra sensitivity. 

That being said, this too can be countered by another question, one that C.S. Lewis articulates perfectly: 

If there is no God, no transcendent value to anything, and what we call “good” or “evil” is just a chemical reaction in our brains shaped by millions of years of randomized, chaotic evolution…what real difference is there between a baby being saved and it dying? Someone asserting that the suffering we see in this world is consistent with a perfectly good God existing is no less objectively correct than Alyssa’s claim that it isn’t.

But even then, if Christianity is true, then death isn’t the end. We don’t “die”, per se, we just change locations. So even the baby who dies in poverty will experience the same eternal rest and consolation of the baby whose life was saved. Again I know this is a very sensitive topic and I don’t want to minimize the suffering of anyone who’s lost a child, but I’d ask that whoever poses this question at least seriously look at it through a theistic lens before dismissing religion as nonsense because of it. 

  1. “There is no evidence for God.”

This is probably the most common argument you’ll hear from atheists. If you are a theist debating an atheist, nine times out of ten you’ll hear them say God doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence for it. 

I don’t want to sound rude, but this is just a lazy assertion. The reason I say this is because whenever the point is made that there’s no evidence for God’s existence, there’s never a clear criteria given for what would qualify as evidence that God exists. Some people like CS Lewis converted because of the argument from morality. Others like Lee Strobel converted when they examined the historical evidence for Christs’ resurrection. Still others convert when they see the vast order and complexity of the universe, convinced that there’s a creative mind behind it. These people have a clear idea of what constitutes evidence that God exists, but if the atheist presenting this question can’t provide that, then there’s no discussion to be had. 

Alyssa then argues that when her believer friends talk about miracles happening in their lives, there’s always a more logical explanation than God or the supernatural. I’m not sure what miraculous stories she’s heard, but from what I’ve seen, stage 4 cancer being healed after prayer, convincing even the secular doctor taking care of the patient that something supernatural is going on isn’t something that can be explained in a lot of other ways. 

Conclusion

I don’t mean any offense to Alyssa in writing this post. Like I said I recommend you check out her channel, including her Youtube short that I linked above. The reason I’m responding to her arguments for atheism is because these are some of the most common arguments I hear atheists make, and I thought it was an easy opportunity for me to give my rebuttal to them. 

I hope you enjoyed reading, and if you’re an atheist, that this post at least gave you something to think about.