http://cluelesschristian.classicalanglican.net/?p=118



Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Filed under: General - clueless @ 8:19 pm

Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Filed under: General - clueless @ 8:19 pm

Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

http://cluelesschristian.classicalanglican.net/?p=118



Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Filed under: General - clueless @ 8:19 pm

(Reprinted from my essay 3 years ago).


Evidence and Encounter in the Easter Events

http://cluelesschristian.classicalanglican.net/?p=118



Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Filed under: General - clueless @ 8:19 pm

(Reprinted from my essay 3 years ago).


Evidence and Encounter in the Easter Events

The Easter stories have caused controversy since the crucifixion. Some

http://cluelesschristian.classicalanglican.net/?p=118



Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Filed under: General - clueless @ 8:19 pm

(Reprinted from my essay 3 years ago).


Evidence and Encounter in the Easter Events

http://cluelesschristian.classicalanglican.net/?p=118



Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

http://cluelesschristian.classicalanglican.net/?p=118

Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Filed under: General - clueless @ 8:19 pm

http://cluelesschristian.classicalanglican.net/?p=118

Why I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Filed under: General - clueless @ 8:19 pm

(Reprinted from my essay 3 years ago).


Evidence and Encounter in the Easter Events

The Easter stories have caused controversy since the crucifixion. Some
scholars insist that a physical resurrection is not only unlikely, but
irrelevant. As Borg states, "My argument is not that we know the tomb
was not empty or that nothing happened to his body, but simply that it
doesn't matter" {1}. These writers claim that little regarding
Jesus' actual teachings and life can be verified, and that the Easter
stories are merely metaphors suggesting that "the risen Christ comes
to his followers again and again" {2}. By contrast, other writers
insist that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the heart of
Christianity, and prove that Jesus was and is Messiah and divine Son.
The resurrection, they feel, imprints Jesus' teachings with divine
approval. Scholars such as these insist that the Gospels are indeed
eyewitness accounts, and should be accepted as such.

The Easter story states that Jesus' body was taken from the cross,
and was interred in a rock grave. Three days later, the story
continues, Jesus' body disappeared, and the risen Jesus appeared to
numerous of his followers, individually and in groups, for a period of
forty days. After this period, the appearances of the risen Christ, to
a large extent, ceased.

These gospel accounts have been challenged on numerous levels. First,
there are inconsistencies between the various accounts. For example,
though the "women who followed Jesus" had seen the tomb {Lk. 23:
55}, they failed to arrange for removal of the rock. We are told that
seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes were used on the first evening
by Joseph and Nicodemus {Jn 19:39}. Why then did these impoverished
women propose to repeat the embalming? Seventy- five pounds of spices
would be a very large and expensive amount, suitable for a royal burial
{2Ch 16:14}.

A second inconsistency has to do with the timing of the resurrection.
We are told that two angels reminded the women of Jesus' prediction
that he would "be crucified and on the third day be raised
again"{Lk. 9:22}. However if Jesus had been crucified on Friday, then
only a day and a half passed between the crucifixion and the
resurrection. Finally, there are other inconsistencies between the
Gospels. How many women were there? Mathew reports only Mary Magdalene
and the "other Mary" {Mat. 28: 1}. Mark reports both Marys and
Salome {Mk. 16: 1}. Luke reports "many women" {Luk 24 1}, John
speaks only of Mary Magdalene {Jn. 20: 1}. What time of day was it?
Mathew reports that the first day of the week was "dawning" {Mat.
28:1} , Mark notes that it was "early in the morning" {Mk. 16: 2},
Luke says "early dawn" {Lk 24: 1} while John notes that "it was
still dark" {Jn. 20: 1}. Was there an earthquake? Were there soldiers
posted? Mathew reports these {Mat. 28: 2-4} the other Gospels do not.
How many angels were there? Mathew and Mark report a single angel {Mat.
28: 2-3; Mk. 16: 5} while Luke and John report two angels {Lk 24: 4;
Jn. 20: 12}. These inconsistencies have led some writers to denounce
Christianity as a fraud. As Till puts it "If [the gospel writers] had
really been guided and directed by an omniscient, omnipotent deity
... there would be no maze of inconsistencies."{3}.

Some historians have also cast doubt on the resurrection. Was Jesus
even buried, let alone resurrected? The Romans did not usually bury
crucified criminals {4}. Skeptics suggest that Jesus' body was either
left to rot on the cross, was eaten by dogs and crows, or was buried in
a common grave. They point out that the chances that a member of the
Sanhedrin, however sympathetic to Jesus, would bury a man condemned by
his own council for blasphemy, in the family tomb are non-existent.

Because the Gospels are inconsistent, and the historical record,
muddied, some Christian scholars suggest that the physical resurrection
was a metaphor, and that the importance of the resurrection lies simply
in encountering Christ in the life of each individual. Borg ridicules
the divinity of Christ asking "What would we think of a person who
solemnly said about himself, "I am the light of the world" or
"Whoever has seen me has seen God?. . . As self statements these are
highly problematic. Indeed, we have categories of psychological
diagnosis for people who talk like this about themselves" {5}. He and
other scholars feel that Jesus never made these claims, and instead lay
stress upon the Tropoi, the ways and works of Jesus, as a corrective to
the exclusive emphasis upon the Words of Jesus, separated from his
deeds and life-style. Crossan stresses the Eucharist as a
"share-meal" suggesting that communion was never meant to be a
symbol of divinity or
sacrifice, but was instead "table fellowship" between Jesus and his
followers, "the community sharing together whatever food it had
available, which both symbolized and ritualized but also actualized and
materialized the equal justice of the Jewish God." {6}. Crossan
suggests that the most useful expression to formulate the teachings of
Jesus is not apocalyptic, but "ethical eschatology" {7}. Under such
an ethical eschatology, the resurrection encounter involves the
individual accepting the teachings of Jesus and attempting to respond
to that offer in ethical commitment to "negate the world by actively
protesting and nonviolently resisting a system judged to be evil,
unjust, and violent."

By contrast, other writers insist that the Gospel accounts are no more
and no less than what could be expected of a historical record.
Scholars such as Wright insist that all the evidence indicates that
Jesus was conscious of his role as divine Son and Messiah, sent to
redeem the world by dying vicariously for fallen mankind {8}. It is
therefore precisely the death and resurrection of Jesus that is of
importance, not simply his life and teaching. Further, by insisting
that Jesus is the divine Son of God, these authors affirm that Jesus'
teachings are more than legend or metaphor, but are divine instruction,
worthy of all the attention that God might expect of his creatures.

For scholars such as Wright, the Gospels are vindicated as historical
record. They point out that all evidence suggests that the first gospel
(Mark) was written about the year AD 70, which would have been only 40
years after Jesus' death, and would have been built on a strong oral
tradition that began in AD 30, immediately after the resurrection. The
other gospels were apparently written about 15-20 years after Mark's
Gospel, with the Gospel of John composed about AD 100 {9}. As such, the
Gospels were written too early to be legends. There would still have
been people who remembered the actual events alive at the time of
writing. Paul, who is confirmed by both his letter and by the early
church fathers as writing the earliest resurrection account in AD 55, a
mere 25 years after the crucifixion, {10} makes this point: "Christ
died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, . . . he was buried, .
. .he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and . .
.he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that he appeared
to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of
whom are still living." {1Cor. 15: 3-8}.

Christian scholars argue that the very fact that there are
inconsistencies between the Gospels is more consistent with eye-witness
accounts than if there were no inconsistencies. {11}. Eye-witness
accounts are never exactly the same. They are however similar. In all
accounts women were the first to find the empty tomb. In all accounts
it was early in the morning either just before dawn, at dawn or just
after. In all accounts the tomb was empty and the witnesses experienced
an angelic manifestation. Had the accounts been fabricated, then those
wishing to perpetrate this hoax would have reconciled the accounts
rather than immortalizing the various differences. In addition, had the
intention of the Gospel writers been to ensure credibility, more
reliable witnesses than women (who were not respected in Jewish
society) {12} let alone Mary Magdalene (who had recently been
exorcised) would have been selected.

Similar explanations may be made for the other Gospel inconsistencies:
The fact that Jesus was "dead" for only a day and one half versus
three days according to the Gospels, can be explained by the way both
Romans and Jews reckon a "day". Neither invokes a 24 hour cycle
{13}. Roman practice reckons a "day" as midnight to midnight.
Jewish practice reckons a "day" as sunset to sunset. Since Jesus
died just before sunset on Friday (day one) , and was dead through
sunset on Saturday (day two) he would have been raised on the morning
of the 3rd day under both definitions.

As to Crossan's suggestions that Jesus' body was left to the crows
and the dogs, and a member of the Sanhedrin would never have buried
Jesus, this too can be explained: Although it was indeed the practice
of Romans to leave the bodies of crucified criminals to rot, leaving a
body unburied on the Sabbath would have defiled the land according to
Jewish law {Deut. 21:22-23; Jn. 19:31.} It is therefore not implausible
that the Sanhedrin wished to have Jesus (and the other two thieves)
buried. Jewish law required that Jews bury criminals in a common grave
{14}. The fact that even the Jewish accounts of the "empty tomb"
indicate that Jesus was buried, but claim that his disciples spirited
the body away {Matt. 28: 11-15}, makes a never buried Jesus unlikely.
Despite the fact that the Jews of the times were "hostile
witnesses", none of the Jewish polemics claim that Jesus was never
buried. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings
acknowledges that the tomb was empty and instead attempts to explain it
away. {15} Paul, who is thought to have been born in 10 AD and
persecuted Christians in Jerusalem as a young man, shortly after the
crucifixion, wrote that Christ died and "was buried" {16} {1 Cor.
15: 3-4}. Thus, the burial of Jesus' body, at least in a mass grave,
seems more likely than not.

The evidence in favor of a buried Jesus is overwhelming. However, is it
reasonable to suppose a member of the Sanhedrin buried Jesus in kingly
fashion? Yet, if Joseph of Arimathea did not bury Jesus, why didn't
he say so? Surely Joseph would have faced discipline had it been widely
known that he had buried a blasphemer and criminal in royal fashion,
whether or not Jesus was later resurrected. Lowder {17} suggests that
Joseph of Arimathea, as a pious Jew, had simply temporarily buried
Jesus in his family grave, in order to "beat the Sabbath". If
Joseph was forced to bury three bodies quickly, before the Sabbath, and
if his tomb was nearby, Joseph may well have been forced to bury at
least one body in his own tomb as a matter of practical necessity. The
Second Temple period attests to the practice of temporary burial of
individuals in this fashion {18, 19}. Had Joseph of Arimathea planned
to move the body of Jesus to a common grave after the Sabbath, this
would explain why the women followed Joseph "at a distance" to mark
Jesus's grave. Such women would have been reluctant to speak to
members of the Sanhedrin directly, but would have wanted to know what
was done with the body of their Lord. It would also explain why the
women planned to anoint Jesus' body with spices, as the Sanhedrin,
would have been unlikely to have done so, the account of John to the
contrary {John 19: 39}. The hypothesis of a "temporary burial" by
Joseph of Arimathea would also explain why there is no record that
Joseph of Arimathea ever denied burying Jesus' body. Finally, New
Testament scholars point out that the resurrection was preached in the
same city where Jesus had been buried only days earlier, to the alarm
of both Jewish and Roman authorities. Had the body been available to
display, those same authorities would surely have paraded it through
the streets. Thus, the historical record in support of at least an
"empty tomb" is extremely strong.

The weight of the evidence suggests that Jesus died and was buried. But
was Jesus resurrected, and does it matter? Both history and theology
hinge on the resurrection appearances. As has been suggested above, the
nature of the gospel accounts are exactly what one might expect of
eyewitness accounts, however this does not mean that the women at the
tomb, and the disciples on the Emmaus road and elsewhere truly
encountered the risen Christ: There are three possibilities: The
disciples could have lied. They could have been mistaken. Or they could
have actually seen the risen Christ. Which of these possibilities is
most likely, and what consequences come with that possibility?

First, the hypothesis that the disciples knowingly lied is absurd. A
king whose kingdom is "not of this world" is the weakest of
"pretenders". Supporting a "pretender" with no secular kingdom
to gain, merely puts the followers of such a "king" at risk for
incurring the penalties of treason against the current authorities,
without giving them any secular protection from their "king" nor
any hope of any tangible secular benefit. Yet, 10 of the 11 original
disciples willingly died as martyrs for their belief in the
resurrection. While people might die for a lie that they believe is the
truth, in this case, if Jesus did not rise, the disciples (having
spirited away his body) must have known it. Yet, none recanted, even
under torture.

Could the disciples have been mistaken? The idea that more than 500
people in different times and places made an honest mistake about an
individual that they had known and loved for years, and with whom they
had worked closely, when faced at close hand with an imposter, who had
no apparent motivation for his "joke", is a priori unreasonable.

Could the disciples simply have deluded themselves? Could they have
been hallucinating? Here I must leave theology and history and rely on
my background as a neurologist. First, while mass delusions and
hysteria and well described, the encounters with Jesus are not
characteristic of these disorders. In mass hysteria a group of people
become convinced of some incorrect but terrifying or elevating concept,
and hold to this despite all attempts to reassure or educate them. Had
the entire gospel account simply described large crowds, becoming
convinced that the kingdom of God was at hand and insisting on engaging
in behavior that made sense only in this context, this would be
consistent with mass hysteria. Similar incidents have taken place
numerous times throughout history. However what Scripture records is
not (simply) a syndrome of mass hysteria with individuals having highly
specific delusions and hallucinations, such as speaking in tongues,
seeing visions etc. Mass hysteria, with a few individuals having focal
hallucinations are well reported in a variety of religious settings,
embracing every faith.

However, such "encounters" are not the heart of the Easter events.
The Easter encounters do not fall not under the heading of hysteria or
delusion (which are disorders of thinking, but which can be seen in
excitable but otherwise normal people). The Easter encounters are not
disorders of thinking. The disciples were not looking to find Jesus,
they knew all too well that the dead do not rise. The disciples had to
be convinced by having the Lord repeat his miracle of showering fish
into empty nets, and to cook fish in their presence {Jn. 21; 5-13}.
Others were persuaded in extensive theological discourse face to face
with Jesus, as well as by the way he broke bread {Lk 24; 27-32}. Others
needed to see his wounds {Jn. 20} and to watch him eat fish {Lk. 24;
38-43}. Thomas had to actually feel the wounds in order to believe that
Jesus was real {Jn. 25-28}. Mary, when she found
the tomb empty, manifested no evidence of thought disorder. She did not
leap to the conclusion that Jesus had been resurrected. Instead she
leapt to the far more logical conclusion that Jesus was still dead but
his body had been taken elsewhere {Jn. 20: 1-2, 13-16}. Thus, the
Easter encounters, if medical, fall under the heading of hallucination,
which are disorders of perception, and are invariably pathological in
all settings other than dreams. There are numerous types of
hallucinations, however, the nature of the described manifestations are
not characteristic of any medical hallucination. Instead they fall in a
category all by themselves.

Patients may have many different types of hallucinations, including
visual, auditory, olfactory, and even tactile phenomena. Visual
hallucinations are common in patients taking certain medications and
those with occipital lobe injuries. They can be formed (e.g. images of
people) or unformed (e.g. flashes of light). Auditory hallucinations
may occur in patients with psychosis, and consist of the perception of
sounds, usually voices, though these may involve simple tones, or
buzzing noises, especially in patients with seizures that involve the
auditory cortex. Patients with seizures may also have olfactory
hallucinations (usually unpleasant smells due to lesions of the uncus
in the temporal lobe), and those with alcohol intoxication may have
both hallucinations such as the perception of insects crawling on their
skin or otherwise a sensation of being touched (usually unpleasantly).
Some psychotic patients even describe somatic sensations (usually
electric feelings inside their bodies). However, in almost all cases,
patients have a single type of hallucination at any one time,
reflecting the portion of the brain involved. Rarely they will have two
types of sensory hallucinations, however three at the same time would
be difficult. There is a physiological reason for this: It is
impossible to generalize abnormal activity to multiple areas of the
brain simultaneously, without crossing central structures, and if
abnormal electrical activity involves the central area of the brain,
the patient loses consciousness. This is why dreams are stable,
fluid and detailed, while hallucinations are not. It is because a
dreamer is unconscious, while a hallucinater is awake. That is why
patients with temporal lobe seizures may begin with a funny smell, (due
to initiation of a seizure in the uncus) continue on to ringing or
buzzing noises (due to spread of the seizure to the temporal lobe in
which the uncus resides), and then very, very rarely see the briefest
flash of light (suggesting extension of the seizure to the occipital
lobe) as they lose consciousness (central structures becoming involved
at that point). In all cases, hallucinations tend to be brief, lasting
seconds (rarely minutes), are usually effervescent (the image flickers
and blurs), and are highly individual. While a patient with
schizophrenia may have both auditory hallucinations and visual
hallucinations, they will almost never be at precisely the same time,
though they could follow, one after the other. Thus, a psychotic
patient might "see" their dead uncle Harry briefly, and then, later
that day, "hear" their dead uncle whispering to them. They
wouldn't see and hear their dead uncle talking to them at the same
time.

By contrast, what is described in Scripture are fixed, stable,
phenomena that involve all the senses simultaneously. There is a visual
manifestation: Jesus is seen close at hand, and very clearly. There is
an auditory manifestation: Jesus, while visible, speaks persuasively,
subtly, and at length "opening the Scriptures" {Lk. 24; 27}. There
is a tactile component: He touches his disciples and lets Thomas
examine his wounds {Jn. 20; 26-28}. Some of the manifestations include
an olfactory component: Jesus cooks and eats fish and shares meals {Lk.
24; 42, Jn. 21; 9-13}. All phenomena last a prolonged period of time
and are seen by multiple persons simultaneously, none of whom manifest
any evidence of hallucinations either before or after the events. The
appearances begin abruptly 3 days after the crucifixion, and end
abruptly 40 days later. To claim that these appearances are
hallucinations are to suggest that multiple people had multiple areas
of their brains simultaneously affected without loss of consciousness
at discrete intervals over a month's time, with no evidence of
illness before or afterwards. Further, this highly aberrant
neurological state is proposed to have continued for hours on end, at
multiple times and places, and was absolutely identical to all persons
present at the same encounter, but was different in different
encounters. This simply is not consistent with what we understand about
neurophysiology. The idea that the disciples lied is more persuasive
than is the idea of mass hallucination of the peculiar kind reported.

This leaves us with the last of the three possibilities: History
supports, at the very least, an empty tomb. If the disciples did not
lie, and did not hallucinate, could they actually have encountered the
risen Lord? Unbelievable as this may seem, I think it the least
unlikely of the three possibilities. With this suggestion, we leave the
field of evidence and the contributions that history, medicine, and
physiology might make to the analysis of evidence, and enter the field
of encounter alone. If the disciples did "encounter" the Lord, did
they come away from the encounter any different than before? After all,
others have claimed to encounter ghosts, Elvis, or UFOs and lived to
tell the tale. However, to my knowledge, nobody who reported being
abducted by aliens returned to earth showing signs of any new powers.
Most such tales die out after a few years.

Are the Easter encounters any different? Yes. They are remarkably
different. Those who encountered Elvis or UFOs returned to their lives
no different from before. By contrast, the disciples are transformed.
Immediately after the crucifixion these are frightened, demoralized men
who (all but John) deny Jesus, and flee. Three days later they are
courageous, invigorated, ebullient heroes who (all but John) will die,
confessing their faith. Sixty years later the disciples of Christ are
an unbeatable force who, in peaceful fashion, and despite relentless
and increasing persecution, grow large enough to damage Roman economy
and society, emptying Roman temples, {20} and eventually, well before
they are handed the keys of the State machinery, transform the Roman
Empire. There is nothing in history that is remotely similar.

The Easter Encounters have major consequences. They leave their mark
indelibly on history, as "evidence" of their "reality". If we
accept that the disciples did indeed see the risen Lord, what does that
mean? It means that Jesus was justified as having been innocent of any
crime. What was Jesus convicted of? He was condemned to the cross for
blasphemy, for saying that he was the Son of God. If Jesus is risen, as
Paul says in Romans 1.4., he is validated as Messiah. If indeed God was
raised in Jesus Christ, then it is precisely his teachings and
sacrifice that are of importance, and those who lay stress upon the
image of a humble carpenter, who instituted a communal system of
"share-meals" and "table-fellowship", are greatly in error. It
was not a metaphor who said "I am the bread of life; unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you." It was a historical figure who lived 2000 years ago, who died
horribly for making "blasphemous" comments just like the above, and
yet who, contrary to any reasonable expectation, God raised from the
dead. Both evidence and encounter proclaim Jesus, Messiah, and divine
Son of God. That is the truth and significance of the Easter stories.

References:
1. Borg, Marcus "The Truth of Easter" In Marcus Borg, and N.T.
Wright: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions , Harper-San Francisco, 1989
p131
2. Borg, p. 135.
3. Farrell Till "The Resurrection Maze" _The Skeptical Review:
1992; No. 2 at
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/2/2maze92.html
4. Crossan, John Dominic: The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What
Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus San
Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998, p. 542.
5. Borg, Marcus "Jesus and God" in Marcus Borg, and N.T. Wright:
The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, Harper 1989 San Francisco, p149
6. Crossan, p. 424.
7. Crossan, p. 284.
8. Wright, N.T.: Who Was Jesus .William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1992
Grand Rapids, p. 101.
9. Achtemeier, Paul Ed. HarperCollins Bible Dictionary Harper 1996
SanFrancisco, p. 386.
10. Barker, Kenneth Ed. The NIV Study Bible Zondervan Publishing House,
1995 Grand Rapids, USA p. 2248.
11. Chang, Curtis: "JFK and Jesus: Historical Records and Reason"
at http://regions.ivcf.org/eevangelism/311}
12. Kamm, Anthony: The Israelites, an Introduction. Routledgte, 1999
London &New York p.161.
13. Achtemeier, pp. 1151-1152.
14. Thomas Sheehan: The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became
Christianity" Random House, 1986 , p. 254-55.
15. Matt Perman, "Evidence for the Resurrection"
http://www.geocities.com/~mperman/res3.html .
16. Achtemeier, p. 814-815.
17. Jeffery Lowder, Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story; A
Reply to William Craig -
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html
18. Amos Kloner, "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?"
Biblical Archeaology Review 25:5, Sept/Oct1999, p. 29 at
http://www.bib-arch.org/barso99/roll1.html
19. Semahot 13.5, 10.8, translations by Dov Zlotnik, The Tractate
"Mourning", Yale Judaica Series 18 [New York and London, 1966], p.
84, 74
20. Radice, Betty, trans. 1963 The Letters of the Younger Pliny Penguin
Books. . Baltimore, MD: 10
p.96.