resurrection, that’s a bunch of random bs…
Posted on: April 4, 201026 comments so far (is that a lot?)
share your thoughts on why the resurrection was a true occurrence or why it’s a bunch of bs…
and…why does it matter anyway?
26 comments so far (is that a lot?)
March 27th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
While there are many reasons to affirm the historicity of the resurrection it may be the testimony of the Apostle Paul that I find most convincing. In his letter to the Philippians he wrote that he was “circumzied on the eight day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as regards the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal persecuting the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (3.4-6). He follows this by confessing that “whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ” (v. 7). In other words, his conversion/call to Christianity came with no obvious perks. He had an experience that shook him causing him to shift from persecuting the church to becoming her foremost apostle.
The author of the Book of Acts tells the story of Paul being on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians there when he encountered the resurrected Jesus (9.1-19; 22.1-21; 26.1-20). In fact, in the last two of these accounts Paul gives a testimony that sounds just like the one noted above. He appeals to his Jewish ancestory and his desire to get rid of the Christian sect. It was the appearance of Christ that turned him into a follower of ‘the Way’.
At the end of his first letter to the Corinthians (15.1-58) he spends a lot of time reminding the church there that (1) he was one of the witnesses of the resurrected Christ, (2)that he preached the resurrection as one of the core elements of his message, and (3) if the resurrection did not occur this whole thing is a big waste of his time as well as their life. The resurrection of Christ and our eventual resurrection is central to the gospel. If there was no resurrection Christianity is a horrible lie.
For Paul, a man who has no reason to become a Christian, and who in fact hated Christianity, to dedicate his whole life to telling everyone that “God has fixed a day when he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17.31), which led to him being dismissed by the brilliant philosophers of his day (v. 32), while not the end of the argument ought to, at the very least, make even the most hardened skeptic curious as to why! For Paul the doctrine of resurrection was more than merely a neat story–all history depended upon it. He said that we wait along with creation for our redemption (Roman 8.19-23). It is when the children of God are resurrected that the whole created order will be restored.
If Jesus did not rise from the dead we are still in our sins, we will not rise from the dead, the created order will not be restored, and there is no reason for hope. This is Paul’s belief. For a man who was comfortable as a religious leader of his people to suddenly become an itinerate prophet, being beated and rejected by many, so that he could proclaim such an absurd message says something. In my opinion it says Paul did see Jesus, resurrected and alive, and it shook his world.
I believe in the resurrection, in part, because I believe Paul had no reason to lie.
March 27th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
[...] I agreed. I wrote on why I find the resurrection likely because of the testimony of Paul (see here). I will reproduce it here in order to clarify (fill out) what I asserted a few days ago. Here is [...]
March 29th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead. I enjoy reading some of Jesus words like loving one another and helping the poor. But all great leaders saythings of this nature so I don’t see him as being any different from anyone else. I think that if there is a God and he started all this mess then he owes it to us to get is out of this mess. Whether Jesus rose or not is beside the point. I wasn’t there and neither were you! I’m here right now I need something now not 2000 years ago! All you christians are the same you just want to force your stories on us. We need something more. Why not rise from the dead and fix it all? Why wait 2000 years. That makes no sense! The longer this God of yours waits he more dead babies and suffering masses come into existnence.
March 30th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Hello, Brad! Yours are good questions. I completely identify with some of your frustrations as well.
The belief in Jesus Christ’s resurrection is fundamentally important to the larger story of confirming who he said he was. Is Jesus who he said he was? As one song writer put it, “He is either a crazed lunatic, or he was the Son of God.” There really is no in-between.
The witnesses of his resurrection, chronicles of the story are all proofs for his resurrection. However, the ultimate proof, is one that I know personally. In a sense, He has certainly fixed it all, though we are awaiting the day of our future glory when things are complete. Things are not perfect yet (obviously). Those that are followers of Him, have His peace and resurrection life in them, but we still live in a world that is sleeping in the bed it made — made by sin. There is an escape and there is an out, and that’s the compassion of His story. We’ve made our own bed and are deserving of death, but He made a way of escape for us. The more active this God becomes in those who follow Him, the less evil and the more light. The beauty of this light, is the capacity to give hope to those (like yourself) that understand the confounding ugliness of darkness.
I invite you to hear the Story sometime. You will find the Story is not merely historical, but has a present meaning. The 2,000 years ago, the ageless, is something accessible in the present! And please, continue interacting with us, Brad!
March 30th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Brad,
The resurrection is the beginning of the end of evil. Yes, Jesus raising from the dead over two millennium ago can seem irrelevant. Nevertheless, we must ask what the resurrection would have meant to people in Jesus’ day and what it then means to us today.
In Jesus’ day the resurrection was to occur at the end of the age. It signified the final vindication of God against evil. It would be the time when those who had remained faithful to God would be justified before the eyes of all those who had oppressed humanity.
Jesus being raised from the dead in the “middle” of history says “This has begun”. It may be hard to see, and at times it appears as if nothing has changed, but if Jesus did raise from the dead we can assume, as the early Christians did, that God has already begun righting the very wrongs you mentioned.
What will God do with all the suffering in the world? What will God do with our deteriorated existence? It is impossible to say what it will appear when it is all said and done but we can trust that if God was good enough to raise Jesus from the dead he will be faithful to finish what he started. For the Apostle Paul this includes not only the redemption of our bodies but all of the cosmos (Romans 8.19-22). In Christ we find God not only entering the human predicament but the predicament of all the created order. In Christ God is redeeming the cosmos and the people in it. Evil will be judged; righteousness will prevail. The resurrection of Christ is our preview.
April 1st, 2010 at 7:57 pm
I recall a class with one of my NT teachers, Helmut Koester, in which we talked about the issue of the reality of the resurrection. Koester is a giant of historical criticism, but the resurrection was the one place that he really seemed to want to preserve something of the miraculous.
Koester would only go so far as to tell us that he believed that “something” happened–too many witnesses claimed to have saw it, and it had too big an impact. He wouldn’t come out and say that he believed in a historical resurrection, but he would agree that something happened.
All of this is not to say that Koester didn’t believe in “the resurrection.” For Koester, the resurrected Christ was present as a kind of inter-personal reality in the community–a shared, collective experience (or, this is my somewhat stale recollection of what I understood to be his view).
As for myself, I’m content to wear two hats. As a scholar, any explanation for or description of past events that involves divine intervention is out-of-bounds from the start. Those are the rules of the game that I was trained to play professionally, and I’m comfortable playing that game by those rules because I think those rules yield much better results (and a better game) than the rules that, say, DTS students are trained to play by (i.e. Providential explanations are admissable).
But the fact that I believe that sound scholarship greatly constrains the kinds of historical explanations that I can contribute doesn’t therefore prevent me from also believing in the resurrection as an actual historical event.
Let me give an analogy for how and why this works.
Let’s say that someone murders an abortion doctor, and when he appears before the court, he claims, “God spoke to me directly and told me to do it.” As a matter of law and widely supported custom, we as a society are bound to act as if this person is mistaken or lying or mad–we just won’t admit “God told me to do it” as a rationale for murder, regardless of whether or not we believe that God ever tells people to kill each other. Even a fundamentalist, stridently anti-abortion jurist believes that God sometimes tells one person to kill another, that person typically also understands that if we were to run our courts this way, we’d have anarchy. Everyone would reach for this explanation when it suited them.
Similarly, if scholars admit divine explanations for historical events, then we get a lesser grade of scholarship as a result. Scholars don’t get to reach for divine explanations under any circumstances, regardless of what they personally believe about the past. As products of scholarly labor, such explanations aren’t accepted by the guild, and that’s a good thing.
April 1st, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Jon,
It seems to me that you are limiting the definition of scholarship. I say this because I need qualification. What about individuals such as Wolfhart Pannenberg of the University of Munich; N.T. Wright who has been as Oxford and Cambridge; Simon Gathercole of Cambridge; Richard Bauckham of the the University of St. Andrews; James D.G. Dunn, Francis Watson, and John Barclay of Durham fame; Richard Hayes and Stan Hauwerwaus at Duke; Bruce Longenecker at Baylor; David Aune at Notre Dame and on and on and on. If your definition stands than none of these brilliant minds can be considered legitimate scholars because all allow for something more than merely “something” happening; all of these scholars affirm a bodily resurrection (Dunn may be an exception; his scholarship is too fluid to keep track).
Likewise, none of these schools are restricted to a confession like DTS, TEDS, Wheaton, or even Fuller. That being said, I would never say that Dan Wallace; D.A. Carson; Kevin J. Vanhoozer; and J.R. Daniel Kirk are not “scholars”. All these people are respected in their field and I would venture to say can stand toe-to-toe with anyone from UNC, Harvard, Yale, UC Berkely, et cetera.
April 1st, 2010 at 9:42 pm
[...] Does “Scholarship” Exclude the Possibility of Resurrection? April 1, 2010 tags: Resurrection, scholarship by Brian LePort A friend of mine recently wrote the following: [...]
April 1st, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Brian,
You’re right–I should’ve been more specific. Substitute “history” for “scholarship” in the above post. Of course theology counts as a branch of scholarship, and theologians who appeal to providence to explain historical events count as scholars.
As for the work of people like Wright and Bauckham, historians (in non-confessional circles) will pick and choose, ignoring the confessional parts and generally using their work with some care. Or, rather, some historians will do this. Others ignore anyone who mixes theology with their history pretty studiously (actually, unless it’s feminist theology, which gets a pass for various reasons).
April 1st, 2010 at 10:44 pm
PS. It’s funny how old habits of speech get ingrained. When you’re writing for fellow historians, you say “scholarship” but what you mean is “my little corner of the scholarly world.” It’s the same with classical musicians, who say “music” but mean “the narrow canon that I play.” (I once read a newspaper report of a conversation between a U of C dean and the director of the CSO had an extended public dialogue about “music” and the fact that “no one listens to music anymore.” They were wondering how to get young people interested in “music,” and lamenting the fact that “music” is totally ignored in the popular culture.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Note that I’m also willing to affirm that the way that I was trained to do history–i.e., by never considering a role for God as an actor in history–obviously isn’t the only worthwhile way to do history. It’s not even normative for most of the population. It has its gaps and blind spots, but I think it’s the best way to do history, by far. So while I wouldn’t characterize confessional historians as “illegitimate” (by whose standards?), I do believe that their methods are inferior.
April 2nd, 2010 at 2:51 am
The historical evidence of the resurrection is there — though circumstantial in some aspects, but we have eye witness testimony in others. That is still a historical level testimony. I agree, though, that the divine explanation, of if we “believe” in the resurrection is certainly out of the realm of historians. It’s not in their job description.
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:55 am
It seems to me that the problem with this approach is it is a de facto denial of the resurrection at the very time it discusses the possibility of a resurrection. So we ask, “Did Jesus rise again from the dead?” but one of the rules to the game is to say, “Historically, people do not rise from the dead”. Well, we have our answer now don’t we?!
It would be like me trying to introduce basketball to a bunch of baseball players. If I am not even allowed to bring a hoop into the arena we probably won’t get very far.
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:20 pm
[...] nevertheless, here I am with this post. From what began as a recent discussion on the Resurrection (here), Brian LePort posted this statement by Jon Stokes, which I have reproduced [...]
April 3rd, 2010 at 2:06 am
Great article relevant to this discussion in the Washington Post yesterday:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/04/investigating_easter.html
April 4th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Resurrection: Please show me a source that isn’t from a religious context that states “jesus resurrected”. I read that article in the link, and the guy only stated there were 5 sources outside of the bible claiming the crucifixion (nothing about the resurrection). Then he states that “without the empty tomb, it would have been impossible for the movement on the resurrection to explode into existence”, followed by “no one had a reason for stealing the body” (if someone wanted to get the movement going, stealing the body might have been a good idea). Then he claims 9 sources, all which are in some religious texts. So i ask you good people, what is a source that claims his resurrection that’s not in the bible, gospels, etc…
Why is it there is only one book with all the sources of his resurrection?
@James: Do you read history? I think there’s a high % of wars caused by religion (i lump all religion in this because I think it’d be unfair to only include christianity). Deep down I don’t think religion creates more good, I don’t even know how you could measure this, it seems like it’s fair to say that it’s a 50/50 (creates good/evil). How much evil has been carried out, all in the name of christianity(crusades just right off the top of my mind)? Can you really say that following jesus/god has created more good then evil?
It seems to be that when people truly take the message of each “religion” they cause more problems. IE – Westboro baptist church, the whole country of iran, etc… (where governments are more pro-theology based). Of course this own church/religion website, seems to leave room for questioning, so I guess there is some hope for religion in itself. If religion is so good, why does it cause so much oppression for those who aren’t following it?
@Brad: I don’t see how the resurrection is the beginning of the end of evil. Have you ever considered the possibility that it just restructured what society considered good/evil?
I don’t understand how any good can come from the persecution of one crowd (those who are unbelievers), over another. I’ve heard the bible read to me throughout the course of my going to church during my younger days, and I don’t ever remember anything that jesus would say specifically that “persecutes” anyone (including gays, theives, etc…). I might be wrong on this, so if there is a passage where jesus persecutes someone, i’d definitely be interested in hearing about it. (i say what jesus was quoted because, I think religion is messed up, at the same time, i do like what the J-man had to say).
I wonder if god will right any wrongs, have you ever considered that it might be up to us to right the wrongs instead of some mystical being?
And good analogy to teaching basketball, I think it’d be unfair to say that “hey it didn’t happen” out right. I also think that jon makes a good point with his “god told me to do it analogy”. I agree with both sides that being open minded is important.
April 5th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Greengodzilla,
I find it hard to believe that if someone believed that the resurrection of Jesus has happened that they would provide a “non-religious source”. Isn’t this a bit circular? To believe the resurrection you would have us provide you with the testimony of someone who denies the resurrection? Can there be someone who would say, “Yes, Jesus rose from the dead, but I am not religious and don’t care”? I imagine that would be hard to find!
You say that it might be up to us to right the wrongs instead of God. Isn’t this the story of human history? Isn’t this often the source of injustice. You moved from a fair complaint that the majority often persecutes the minority to a suggestion that we need to take matters into our own hands. Isn’t this exactly what happens when the majority sees “right” and “wrong” and decides to act?
April 5th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Brian,
(flip the coin around and you get the same “hard for me to believe” the resurrection happened with only one documented source).
I don’t think they have to deny the resurrection, to make note of it. There’s plenty of other faiths around as well as writers. I don’t understand why there is only 1 source of his resurrection (maybe there’s more then 1 source? this is what I’m looking for, other sources). I don’t doubt that you find it hard to believe either
I think parts of it could be the story of humankind. At the same time, there’s plenty of evil acts carried out in the name of “higher power”. There were also plenty of men throughout history who did wonderful things to help advance humankind, not through theological work (Galileo, Ghandi, etc….).
I didn’t say that majority persecutes the minority, I asked the question “What good comes from a religion that persecutes the unbelievers”. There’s a big difference in the two statements. There are religions who are more open to non-believers (bhuddism).
And your last statement “Majority sees right and wrong”, is i think exactly, part of the problem. Religion thinks that it knows what’s good for people, what’s “right” and “wrong”. I don’t think life is as simple as that. How many soldiers have been forced to kill someone? How many people have had an abortion forced on them? How many people have had to steal to feed others? Life isn’t so black and white.
I asked if it was up to us, because the hammer of god does not physically come down from the sky and hurt the sinners. Instead it’s the people who hurt other people, through slurs and plenty of other hateful messages, and violence.
For example, if a kid steals a loaf of bread for whatever reason. God’s hand does not come from the sky and take the bread from the kid, no, it’s the store owner who grab’s the kids hand (at this point the store owner could choose to punish the kid, or let him go). That’s the point I was trying to make. That we are the ones who make the decisions. The decisions we make and what we base them on is an entirely different topic.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Greengodzilla,
We do have people who mention Christ and Christians with scorn. Josephus refers to the crucifixion in his ‘Antiquities’ (18.3.3) and he seems neutral to Jesus. Pliny the Younger mocks Christians and Christ in his Letter to Trajan (10.96-97). Tacitus speaks of Christianity as a “superstition” in Annals 15.44. There are a handful of additional sources, but since none of these people thought highly of Christianity none of these people seem to have given the resurrection any thought. Each writer seems to see the Christian sect as bothersome as best, evil at worst.
On the other hand we have dozens of early church fathers who affirm that story of the resurrection including some apostolic fathers who claimed to have known the apostles themselves. All we can gather here is that there were some who heard the story and believed and there were others who heard it and dismissed it.
The gospel narratives and the Apostle Paul appear to present the resurrection as something that was witnesses by mostly believers and only a few critics. Paul himself and James the brother of Jesus may be included as some of those critics. We have their story and we are left with whether we believe it to be true or not. If Paul and James can be dismissed what makes you think that more references to the resurrection would be any more helpful?
As far as the story being the story of humanity here we partially agree. In Romans 8.19-22 the Apostle Paul says that the resurrection foreshadows the renewal of the entire cosmos. The difference is Paul believed the resurrection actually happened and it was not simply a fairy tale with a nice principle. In your opinion what is the value of a story about ‘resurrection’ if in fact it never happened. Doesn’t that damper the ‘moral’ of the story?
When we speak of ‘advancing humankind’ where is it going? It seems to me that advancement ought to have some objective goal in mind. What is that goal?
I do not deny that if a kid steals a loaf of bread that humans must correct humans. What I do deny is that this is a sufficient final word on the matter. If we press your analogy who is to say that the kid was not with his friend who tried to steal the bread and when he noticed the store owner was on to him he tossed into his friend’s hand just as the store owner arrived. Now we have an innocent victum being framed for a crime he did not commit. This is in part the story of human justice. In God we have a judge who cannot get it wrong and so we wait for the final sentence of humanity.
April 7th, 2010 at 2:27 am
I think it would be more helpful if it was from a different source. The reason why is, because it just seems more believable if there was a different source.
have you ever been to a multi-level marketing meeting? Everyone in the group thinks that they’ll be the next millionaire and that this “business” (whatever MLM business it is), will get them there. It only makes sense that everyone in the “in” group, will promote that idea. So that’s why I’d like to see a different source. Is there anything done today that can be called “reliable” when only one test has been done? (that last statement is a bit of a stretch, I hope you can see the idea I’m trying to point out).
I don’t know what “renewal of the entire cosmos” actually means. So if you could explain a bit further.
Maybe advance was a wrong word to use, influenced human actions. Galileo with his discoveries influenced the way we study the stars, Ghandi influenced a nation to throw the British out. Jesus with his resurrection influenced religion. If i knew a good goal, i’d call myself a prophet
The part where the kid gets framed, is exactly what I was saying. With religion though, it seems as though if causes people to forget that they are the judge (such as when you state, god is the judge)
So is the bible really the only viable source that claims his resurrection?
April 8th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I do not believe I have seen this described in such a way before. You really have made this so much clearer for me. Thanks!
April 8th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I should have retyped the 2nd to last statment.
“The part where the kid gets framed, is exactly what I was saying. With religion though, it seems as though it causes people to forget that they are not the judge (such as when you state, god is the judge)”
April 10th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Some of my thoughts on the Resurrection below:
http://evidentialfaith.blogspot.com/search/label/Resurrection
April 12th, 2010 at 3:02 am
@Greengodzilla and others
I am just going to babble a little here on some thoughts that I have in reading this discussion. I agree with you 100% that religion is a problem. I believe that “religion” is not good and in fact this is what Jesus came here to solve. See, Jesus did not come here to influence a religion He came here to fulfill the laws of the kingdom He brought with Him, which He is the King of. The problem is we still to this day try to put the King of a very functional kingdom in the center of religious discussions. Its amazing to find that not even Jesus Himself had debates with the religious leaders of His day, because they wanted to talk religion to Jesus, and He came to exercise the Kingdom of God which can not fit into any religion including the christian religion. My point is you can always argue with a religion, but you cannot argue with a kingdom. What makes the resurrection of Jesus Christ so amazing is that it put man back in a state where we have the reconnection to this functional kingdom and the grace to fulfill the laws that God put in place to protect us.
Now while religion certainly doesn’t know whats right or wrong, could we agree that the God of the Bible/creation(which is not a “religious” book but more equatable to a Constitution filled with concepts and statutes to a kingdom)knows whats right and wrong? And could we also agree that the 10 commandments/ first set of laws given from God are good laws to protect man and community? If you can say Yes to this than you can really appreciate what Jesus came to do when He fulfilled these laws, and now we can talk kingdom, and focus more on trying to understand in great lengths more of who Jesus is first and the importance of learning more about the significance of why a King? and not a religious person or a some type of president or prime minister figure. It really takes knowing that to bring any importance and significance to His Death and Resurrection.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
@jking316
Exactly what do you mean by “kingdom”? It seems “kingdom” and “religion” are two interchangeable words. What is the difference?
I don’t think the 10 commandments are always “good”.
“thou shall not steal”
You ever been to a 3rd world country, with starving people? What would your solution for them be? (say NK for example, where people are forced to eat dirt, and stealing is probably one of the few means of survival they have)
“always honor your father and mother”
I can’t imagine how many news reports i’ve read about parents selling their children out for money. I don’t think all parents know what “good parenting” is. And will put their children in harms way. What would you tell a child who’s parents beat them constantly just to alleviate some stress/anger issues?
These laws we’re spoken some 2000+ years ago. Do you think the world is still the same? and can abide by those laws?
I ask this because, god is “infallible”, so if there are holes, it just seems weird….
I do agree that when you take jesus out of a religious context he spoke a lot of cool stuff. I like most of what he says actually.
And again, i’d like to know what your definition of a kingdom is
May 16th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Wonderful journey and experience!