The historicity of Christ, including his death by crucifixion, is a fact that about as well attested as any in the ancient world. The evidence for Christ's existence is much stronger than that for Socrates, Alexander the Great, and numerous figures of ancient times whose historicity no one doubts. Historians are unanimous that Christ was born, that he developed a following, that he antagonized the Jewish and Roman authorities, and that he was put to death. But what about the resurrection?
"If Christ had not been raised," Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:17, "our preaching is useless and so is your faith." The resurrection is the most important event in Christianity. (For this reason, Easter is actually a more important holiday for Christians than Christmas.) Other religions such as Judaism and Islam may feature miracles but miracles are not central to their theology. Christianity, by contrast, is based on the miracle of the resurrection.
Since the nineteenth century, some biblical scholars have refused to accept the biblical account of the Resurrection because it was produced by people obviously biased in Christ's favor. Interestingly Christ's followers, by their own admission, did not expect the resurrection. Arriving three days after his death, the women brought spices to his tomb to anoint and preserve his body. Only then did they observe that the stone had been rolled away and the tomb was empty.
The fact of the empty tomb was admitted by the Roman guards and also by the Jewish magistrates, who told the Roman authorities that Christ's followers must have stolen the body. In Jewish polemic against Christianity, this has been the standard explanation for the empty tomb. Yet it is prima facie implausible, since how could a handful of female disciples have subdued Roman guards and moved the stone blocking access to the tomb?
The apostles were deeply skeptical about reports of a resurrection, and Christ had to appear to them several times before these doubts were dispelled. Paul writes that Christ "appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, although some have passed away." Paul here appeals to direct empirical evidence: the testimony of multiple witnesses who actually saw Jesus alive after his execution. Of this group, Paul says that many are still alive, which means they are in a position to refute him if what he is claiming is wrong. In the history of hallucinations, is there a single instance in which five hundred people all saw the same person--a figure known to them--and were all equally mistaken?
But is the testimony of the early Christians reliable? Well, let us see. The disciples became so convinced of what they had seen that their dirges of lamentation were replaced with cries of joy. Proclaiming Christ crucified and Christ risen, they launched the greatest wave of religious conversion in history. Historians tell us that the number of Christians increased from around 100 at the time of Christ's death to around 30 million by the early fourth century, when the Roman emperor himself converted to Christianity.
These conversions occurred in the teeth of fierce political opposition and the persecution of the greatest empire in the ancient world, the empire of Rome. The early Christians did not hesitate to identify themselves with a man who had been branded a traitor and a criminal. They endured imprisonment, torture, exile, and death rather than renounce their commitment to a resurrected Christ.
Imagine a disputed event in court where numerous eyewitnesses gave evidence of the same fact and stood by their testimony so firmly that they would be willing to endure life imprisonment or even the death penalty rather than say the contrary. Would any jury doubt that such people, who would have little to gain and everything to lose, were telling the truth?
"Yes," an atheist friend of mine conceded. "But aren't the radical Muslims also willing to die in order to get the virgins in heaven?" Perhaps so, but the two cases are not comparable. The radical Muslims are taking on faith that their actions will take them to an Elysian place where the virgins will be waiting. By contrast, the Christians who went to their deaths at the hands of the Romans did so because they refused to renounce an event in their own experience. Why would someone be willing to die for something that he knew to be a lie?
Even from a secular point of view, the evidence for Christ's resurrection is surprisingly strong. It might even be sufficient to convince an impartial jury in a court of law. The big question surrounding Good Friday and Easter is not: did all this happen? It did. The big question is whether we will let Christ into our hearts, so that he can raise us up on the day of judgment.
This Easter reflection is adapted from my book What's So Great About Christianity.
Reader Comments ( Page 55 of 56)
811. Tiny Tim says, "Science also cannot 'prove' that the sun will rise tomorrow..."
Science, (Eratosthenes) proved that Earth is a sphere by measuring its circumference about 200 BCE.
http://www.celator.com/cws/marotta.html
The Sun is appearing to rise somewhere on this planet every second of every day, and physics can prove how this is happening and why it is practically impossible to stop it.
Physicists can tell you how much energy it would take to stop the Earth rotating(you could probably calculate that yourself Tim).
So, in all my 'factual wrongness', I'd say that science can prove to any reasonable person that, barring some unforseen, practically unimaginable*, 'life-on-Earth-ending' catastrophe, the Sun will continue to appear to rise in the East for the majority of people on this planet.
I'm guessing that Tiny Tim is about to claim 'victory' by claiming because he feels that he personally is the majority of the people on this planet, and he is moving to the North Pole.
*and unimaginably flukey, stopping the Earth's rotation without making it rotate the other way so the Sun would just start 'rising' in the other direction.
not-pboyfloyd at 3:03PM on Mar 29th 2008
812. not-pboyfloyd; I think what Tim was saying was that you can't prove the sun won't blow up before it rises tomorrow.
I'm not sure why that's relevant to the argument.
Ryan Anderson at 3:15PM on Mar 29th 2008
813. Tiny Tim,
... are you at least willing to admit that at the dawn of civilization the gods were simply a pragmatic way to explain our surroundings!?
Answers to, what makes it rain, where does the wind come from, what is lightning, what's the deal with the stars etc. etc.
Seems to me that your version of religion, your evolution of God has retreated into this stubborn philosophical wordplay of yours.
This is all very well by me. How you justify your need to munch a cracker and sip some wine 'on occasion'(and the rest of your 'ritual') is YOUR business.
"Live and let live."
But D'Souza is NOT doing that now, is he?
Not only is D'Souza NOT doing that but his books and this blog are exhorting everyone to NOT do that, and THAT is wrong now, isn't it Tim?
not-pboyfloyd at 3:37PM on Mar 29th 2008
814. Ryan...
Perhaps a line from the 'show', "Annie(the science version)...
"The Sun won't blow up, Tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar, the Su-un won't blow up....."
(I 'kill' myself sometimes..rotflmao!)
not-pboyfloyd at 3:47PM on Mar 29th 2008
815. “Try this: "My belief in Christianity is due to the resurrection." You ask, "What evidence do you have that the resurrection occurred?" I respond with, "Oh, I don't have to answer that: I never said it was due only or entirely to the resurrection." This is the essence of your position here, and it's so obviously confused, and so obviously point-missing, that I'm beginning to suspect that you're just playing around.”
“Fractal wrongness” is an appropriate term for YOUR position. Besides attacking a strawman, you’ve ignored context and emphasis, and you’re pretended that I said “science” when I said “intellect and science”. And when I try to explain how mistaken you are, I just get drawn into more BS from you. You DID NOT ask what evidence I have for the nonexistence of God, you asked what “indefeasible” evidence I had. I have pointed this out, over and over again, and you still pretend otherwise. Your hypothetical is completely irrelevant, as it is nothing like what happened.
“I didn't change "lack of belief" into "ironclad disproof of"; rather, I attempted to clarify "due to," and read it as the premise of your argument, which is clearly was, as you wrote it.”
“Indefeasible” means “ironclad”.
“But, as I said, I now know that you agree with me on this issue, i.e. that there is no indefeasible scientific evidence for atheism.”
More precisely, there is no argument simple enough to be presented in the comments section of a blog, especially given a reader who is clearly not interested in approaching opposing points of view with honesty.
“In other words, theists can be rational too.”
You are hardly providing an example. Nor does D’Souza, the other theists in this thread, or any other Christian apologist I have ever read.
“See, when you say, "Our lack of belief is due to science and intellect" you at least prima facie imply that my belief belies science, and defies intellect.”
That just shows how poor your reading comprehension is. If I say “My CAR is blue”, that implies that I have other possessions that are not blue. If I say “MY car is blue”, that implies that are other people whose cars are not blue. When I type a word in caps, it’s not because my finger got stuck on the shift key. It’s because I’m communicating shades of meaning through emphasis. Or, more precisely, I am making shades of meaning available to those who understand English enough to comprehend such things.
“Indeed, but what you're missing is the fact that any argument contains, by definition, more than one claim. Some premises will necessarily be left undefended, and these claims can justifiably be challenged independently of the main argument.”
You made up a strawman, and then declared that I wouldn’t be able to defend it because my position was “ridiculous”. This is typical Christian apologist tactics: harp on every single detail, and when your opponents gives up on trying to defend every little thing, declare that it proves you right.
“Second, you seem to be confused about the meaning of "redundant." "Factual fact" would be redundant; "wrong wrongness" would be redundant. "Factual wrongness" isn't redundant; I think you're confusing "redundant" with "contradictory."”
YOU seem to be confusing redundancy with repetitiveness. Redundancy is when one concept is expressed more than once, possibly with different terms. For instance, “wet water”, “fiery combustion”, “logic-challenged Creationist”, etc. Since “wrong” refers to factual content, “factual wrongness” is redundant.
“No, but this riposte only makes sense if you've concluded that every book in the bible was written by the same person.”
No, it doesn’t. The Warren Report is only one source, even though it had more than one writer.
.
“I'm going to suppose that you feel pretty certain that the battle at Thermopylae actually occured (whatever the details), or that Rome had a regal period.”
I certainly am not certain enough about those claims to based my entire worldview on them. Furthermore, with the battle at Thermopylae, the issue isn’t whether there are such things as battle, or whether there is such a place as Thermopylae, but rather whether battles and Thermopylae came together a certain way. With the Resurrection, what is in doubt is not merely whether Jesus was resurrected, but whether Jesus or resurrections exist. Also, since I am not a history scholar, I have only your word that there is evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Given your conduct, your word hardly counts for much.
“Yet check the sources for these claims: they cannot even come close to matching, in terms of proximity to the event, quantity of available manuscripts, multiple attestation, etc. the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.”
And there are other metrics under which the Resurrection is inferior to such claims as that Elvis is alive. What’s so important about the number of Bibles that have been printed up? And what do you mean by “multiple attestation”? Are you counting the different Gospels as different attestations, when the later ones were quite likely simply rewritten versions of the earlier ones?
“So I ask again, are you going to apply your strict standards consistently, and virtually wipe out the entire fields of ancient and classical studies? And don't say, "They're not my standards, they're yours."”
But they’re not my standards. I have never said that I base my beliefs solely on “of proximity to the event, quantity of available manuscripts, multiple attestation, etc” You have made up the scoring system, declared the Bible the winner, then pretended that I am being inconsistent in not agreeing with you.
“I hold the same standards, but judge the evidence to be stronger for some claims than it is for others.”
You just contradicted yourself. By judging the evidence to be stronger, you are declaring that there are standards which are satisfied in one case but not the other.
“I believe that the battle at Thermopylae took place even though the only source is Herodotus.”
The only source was Herodotus? What about the movie 300? What about the graphic novel on which it is based? Or The 300 Spartans?
atheistsarepeopletoo at 4:10PM on Mar 30th 2008
816. not pboyfloyd... I am getting the feeling that you don't have a lot of love for Dinesh? I have never really heard of him before in Christian circles... but he does provide a place where people of opposing views can "discuss" or whatever you call this...
atheistsarepeopletoo... my first question, where are the spaces? Just curious...
My second question, do you think atheists aren't considered people?
Shannie at 4:35PM on Mar 30th 2008
817. A sampling of D'Souza's views on atheists:
Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of moral escapism. (xvii)
This is not a religious war but a war over religion, and it has been declared by leading Western atheists who have commenced hostilities.(21)
Christianity has also produced many great figures, from Vincent de Paul to Mother Teresa, who have dedicated their lives to the service of the poor and the sick. Nowhere else -–not in other religions nor in secular society—-do we find anything like this.(65)
Christians have always believed that God places infinite value on each human life He creates and that He loves each person equally.(68)
There is no secular basis for the values, and when secular writers argue for them they always employ unrecognized Christian assumptions.(78)
In sum, the death of Christianity must also mean the gradual extinction of values such as human dignity, the right against torture, and the rights of equal treatment (78)
Dawkins seems to have deluded himself into thinking that these horrors were not produced on atheism’s behalf. But can anyone deny that communism was an atheist ideology?(215)
He proposes that be judged by its consequences… But then by this very same criterion the millions of murders committed by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao—not to mention those of a range of lesser tyrants are all atheism’s responsibility.(216)
The second reason for the horrors of atheist regimes is that they operated without any of the moral restraints that are the product of religion.(220)
Unbelief, especially when it comes in the belligerent form of a Russel, Dawkin, or Hitchens, is not merely a function of following the evidence where it leads.(241)
When atheism gives elaborate justifications for why God does not exist and any traditional morality is an illusion, he is very likely thinking with his sex organs.(269)
Atheists don’t find God invisible so much as objectionable.(272)
atheistsarepeopletoo at 6:13PM on Mar 30th 2008
818. Another major difference between Herodotus and the gospels is that Herodotus was relating accounts which the witnesses were qualified to testify about. A battle? Anyone can see that there's a battle. But how does one testify to the Resurrection? First, one would have to personally witness the death of Jesus, and have the medical expertise to determine that he was in fact dead (something which no one back then had). Next, one would have to see the Resurrected Jesus, and know with certainty that that was the same person. As fingerprints, DNA, etc., hadn't been discovered by then, that also would be impossible. So not only do we not have any proof that anyone claimed to have been a witness to the Resurrection, but even if someone did, their testimony would be invalid, because no one back then could be certain that someone is dead (barring beheading or the like), nor could anyone be sure that two people are the same. While other explanations, such as identical twins, may seem far-fetched, it is only the ideological indoctrination of Christians that allows them to think that it more far-fetched than someone rising from the dead.
atheistsarepeopletoo at 7:59PM on Mar 30th 2008
819. "Why would somebody die for something he knew to be a lie?"
Whole lot of Nazi's died in WWII.
Strados at 11:23AM on Mar 31st 2008
820. atheistsarepeopletoo "While other explanations, such as identical twins, may seem far-fetched, it is only the ideological indoctrination of Christians that allows them to think that it more far-fetched than someone rising from the dead."
Very good point. Or it could be faternal twins, or just a brother, or just someone else.
In 1st centruy Judea, they obviously didn't have TV and Newspaper. If you hadn't actually seen someone, you had no idea what they looked like.
Ryan Anderson at 12:40PM on Mar 31st 2008
821. atheistsarepeople... I am not sure I am getting your point with all the quotes... care to use your own words?
strados... the nazis had no choice but to serve in the armed forces... and some truly did serve Hilter due to their belief in him as a type of savior for the German people .. so the comparison doesn't really work there.
Shannie at 2:51PM on Mar 31st 2008
822. ... and some truly did serve Hilter due to their belief in him as a type of savior for the German people .. so the comparison doesn't really work there.
Shannie at 2:51PM on Mar 31st 2008
sure it does. The point is they were right, or so they thought. Same as the early christians.
mac at 4:46PM on Mar 31st 2008
823. The unhistoric Christ
The historicity of Christ (or a lack thereof)…is a fact that about as well attested as any in the ancient world. (So why should we believe this presumed “fact” since other presumed facts are wrong elsewhere from the ancient world)? The evidence… is much stronger than that for Socrates, (What did Christ write?), …numerous figures of ancient times whose historicity no one doubts.
Historians (Indiana Jones?) are unanimous that Christ was born that he developed a following, that he antagonized the Jewish and Roman authorities, and that he was put to death. (Hardly! Wishful thinking is distinct from fact. Even presumed historicity does not equate to divinity, a matter of faith both then and now) But what about the resurrection? (Product of faith)
"If Christ had not been raised," Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:17, "our preaching is useless and so is your faith." The resurrection is the most important event in Christianity. (I am right because I said I am right. Where do we get such gems of proof? Why of course the Bible) …. Christianity, by contrast, is based on the miracle of the resurrection. (It needs a miracle to believe this story!)
Since the nineteenth century, some biblical scholars have refused to accept the biblical account of the Resurrection because it was produced by people obviously biased in Christ's favor (Really? You don’t say!). Interestingly Christ's followers, by their own admission, did not expect (Or think of it for that matter. It takes time to come up with crap that the illiterate goat headers will swallow: maybe three days since they had to work all of their collective neurons with amounted to 12) the resurrection. Arriving three days after his death, the women brought spices to his tomb to anoint and preserve his body. Only then did they observe that the stone had been rolled away and the tomb was empty (Aliens, stargate, tractor beam?. Presuming the stone was unable to be moved, If such were the case then other Jews would also need divine intervention to move their stones for their loved ones’ body to be able to receive preservatives).
The fact of the empty tomb was admitted by the Roman guards and also by the Jewish magistrates, who told the Roman authorities that Christ's followers must have stolen the body. In Jewish (also could be common sense without resorting to the traditional antisemitism) polemic against Christianity, this has been the standard explanation for the empty tomb. Yet it is prima facie implausible, since how could a handful of female disciples have subdued Roman guards and moved the stone blocking access to the tomb? (Excuse the verbosity but it begins with P and ends with Y. Ever heard of it?)
The apostles were deeply skeptical about reports of a resurrection, and Christ had to appear to them several times before these doubts were dispelled (Oh really. I guess that settles it then because it says so in the bible). Paul writes that Christ "appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, although some have passed away." … Of this group, Paul says that many are still alive, which means they are in a position to refute him if what he is claiming is wrong (Well this needs to be believed since Paul is right in all other things that he wrote also. Perhaps the disciples told 500 of the brothers what the story is. It happens daily on the FOX news and their believing brothers in the millions. One would hardly classify that as a miracle). In the history of hallucinations, is there a single instance in which five hundred people all saw the same person--a figure known to them--and were all equally mistaken? (Jonestown?)
But is the testimony of the early Christians reliable (most definitely. Even law enforcement today tells how reliable eye witness testimony is)? Well, let us see. The disciples became so convinced of what they had seen that their dirges of lamentation were replaced with cries of joy (Yes! This story might really work! Happy happy joy joy!). Proclaiming Christ crucified and Christ risen, they launched the greatest wave of religious conversion (Yeah look what they converted... goat herders, camel jockeys, barbarians… the greats in thought and reason as are their current day descendents in the Middle east and Europe) in history. Historians tell us that the number of Christians increased from around 100 at the time of Christ's death to around 30 million by the early fourth century, when the Roman emperor himself converted (A deathbed conversion is hardly a consequence of faith. Politicians then were obviously known to do things because they are right. Pandering is only a current day Democratic Party phenomenon) to Christianity.
…The early Christians did not hesitate to identify themselves with a man who had been branded a traitor and a criminal (Really? Not even one denied him? Hmmm maybe I am wrong about someone then. Jeez I hope I won’t have problems at the gates of Heaven now). They endured imprisonment, torture, exile, and death rather than renounce their commitment to a resurrected Christ. (Shouldn’t the population then have gone down because of all, these early killings since there were only a 100 or so to start off with?)
Imagine a … than say the contrary. Would any jury doubt that such people, who would have little to gain (they have heaven to gain with or without virgins) and everything to lose, were telling the truth?
"Yes," an atheist friend… "But aren't the radical Muslims also willing to die in order to get the virgins in heaven?" Perhaps so, but the two cases are not comparable (wrong, very comparable. Muslims will die for virgins and goat herders for the promise of heaven). The radical Muslims ... By contrast, the Christians who went to their deaths at the hands of the Romans did so because they refused to renounce an event in their own experience (this is from first hand sources obviously). Why would someone be willing to die for something that he knew to be a lie? (Nice try, but they died for something they “believed” in, however erroneous that belief was. That is hardly unheard of)
Even from a secular point of view, the evidence for Christ's resurrection is surprisingly strong (really? And which peer reviewed journal would that evidence be in?). It might even be sufficient to convince an impartial jury in a court of law (wishful thinking bordering on fantasy. There is a better chance of winning the lottery). The big question surrounding Good Friday and Easter is not: did all this happen? It did (Well obviously! How can one say otherwise? I am convinced now! How could I stay unconvinced with so much proof? Augustine would have been proud of your high level of apologetics. Maybe now the Vatican should archive your works for exegetical analysis). The big question is whether we will let Christ into our hearts, so that he can raise us up on the day of judgment. (The bigger question is when will you ask for a refund from your college?)
This Easter reflection is adapted from my book What's So Great About Christianity (Nothing! It is no greater or lesser than any other religious BELIEF.
S
Sean at 6:31PM on Mar 31st 2008
824. Much of western Christianity today hinges its entire existence on the belief that Jesus resurrected. We are taught much the same arguments you propose, but we often forget that those who teach us are more concerned with theology, not history.
1)That it is a well recorded fact. False. Very little exists within the first century outside of "Christian" sources, and nothing exists from the time it actually happened. The Christian story of crucifixion then burial runs counter to everything we have on it. Thousands were crucified, yet we only have one body (a man of means whose family was able to procure his removal from the cross through bribes.) Roman crucifixion was designed to deny burial. We have nothing that is independently verifiable regarding Jesus. Roman record of his life, death, and burial do not exist, and Tacitus and Josephus did not write until a minimum of 50 years after the fact (both being later edited by Eusibius).
2)Everyone agreed on what the resurrection actually was. False. IMO any Christian who truly wishes to understand the phenomen known as "Jesus" should read everything that the earliest believers wrote. Jesus touched many different people from many diverse cultures. Each culture saw him differently, wrote their impression, and argued amongst themselves. Some said Jesus' body resurrected; some said Jesus' spirit resurrected; some said Jesus never was flesh, therefore did not really die. Consider it much like what we see in this nation today . . . Red and Blue states. While theologically mutually exclusive, THIS IS the impetus that would confirm an actual historical figure, the points they converge being a clue to what Jesus was really about.
3)The resurrection is what made Christianity as big as it is. False. People forget a key factor in Jesus' ministry, who he preached to. Virtually every religion has within it a notion of elitism. "Many are called, but few are chosen" is a prime example of the idea. Jesus' success was that he preached to those who were NOT chosen by those who claimed to be God's representatives on earth. He came for sinners, a foundation of his ministry, and if you know anything about the time, roughly that would automatically equate to more than 3/4 of the population, from slave through peasant classes. He could also reach many in the artisan class, also socially and spiritually disinfranchized by the nature of their work. Bottom line, when you look at all the people who in one way or another is denied complete spiritual connection with God, you end up with roughly 95% of all of civilization, the ruling and priestly castes being the only ones who would not benefit from Jesus.
I respect that you believe Jesus rose. I would defend your belief to my last breath, but when you try to pass faith off as fact, you diminish both. Stop trying to analyze this and just believe.
mrbline at 7:59AM on Apr 1st 2008
825. "My generation at Oxford had a funny outlook. Aldous Huxley was one of our great heroes. We were absolutely determined that no one should tell us what to do. But we used our brains to tell our conscience and our heart that what we wanted was right. We succeeded. And some of us did something even more far-reaching. We got important jobs and used our Oxford-trained intelligence to kill the conscience of the nation in order to make the nation more comfortable for us to live in. I think that was pretty good dictatorship. But, of course, we did it in the name of liberty. Then Huxley grew older. This is what he said some years later in Ends and Means: 'I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially a matter of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously a liberation from a certain kind of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom' ".
Peter Howard, former reporter for the Beaverbrook Press in London
True then, true now...
Greg at 5:34PM on Apr 2nd 2008