Christianity

In my closing argument, I would like to summarize the case I made for Christianity and answer a few final questions. Con posed the challenge that someone prove Christianity is true. Because Christianity is rooted in the historical events of the life of Jesus, I have taken on the challenge of providing historical evidence for his chief miracle, the Resurrection. While I can’t provide absolute proof (that kind of proof is only possible in mathematics) I think I can provide evidence to make Christian belief rational, or warranted by evidence. In the religio-social context of first century Palestine, Jesus’ resurrection vindicated his claims to being divine and showed Christianity is true. Con wondered where in Scripture Jesus claims to be God. That would be a topic for another debate, but one example I can offer would be that after Jesus’ resurrection he allows the apostle Thomas to call him “My Lord and My God” and doesn’t bother to correct him on the point (John 20:28). I have used what many apologists consider to be a “minimal facts approach” to the Resurrection. I propose that Christ rising from the dead explains the existence of facts that themselves are fairly uncontroversial, but still require an explanation. I am NOT claiming that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore the Resurrection happened because it is in the Bible. Even people who are skeptical of the miracle claims in the New Testament, just as they are skeptical for miracles in other ancient works, can weigh the strength of the Resurrection hypothesis in light of these five facts that I think are best explained by it. I don’t see how it’s fair to say at the outset, “miracles are impossible” because how could someone know they are in fact impossible? Fact 1: Death by Crucifixion. Con has consistently denied the testimony of Tacitus but I feel that I provided adequate justification for the veracity of this ancient history. Furthermore, I cited radical critic John Dominic Crossan, someone who denies the Resurrection, but says we have very good grounds in believing that Jesus was crucified. If Con trusts Crossan’s theories on the burial (which he cites in his last rebuttal), then why not trust Crossan on the crucifixion? This does not mean that I agree with Crossan’s account of the burial of Jesus, but that at least Con has no firm grounds for denying the crucifixion itself. Fact 2: Jesus’ Honorable Burial and Empty Tomb: I showed that the burial by Joseph of Arimathea comes from early material in Mark’s Gospel that is unlikely to be totally corrupted by legend. Further, if Jesus’ tomb was not empty, then the apostles or the Roman/Jewish authorities could have falsified Christianity by producing Jesus’ body. Con claims that Crossan provides another account of Jesus’ burial, but what I meant was another ancient account. Given that no other Gospel, speech in Acts, or Pauline letter, refers to Jesus being thrown into a common grave, and that it would be unlikely that Mark would invent a fictional member of the Sanhedrin helping Jesus (on par with writing about a fictional member of George Bush’s cabinet burying Sadaam Hussein), I see no reason to accept Crossan’s account over the standard account of Jesus’ honorable burial and empty tomb. On the point of legends and JFK – yes rumors can grow quickly, but in just a few years the historical core of an event cannot be wiped out. For example, legends about JFK involve unfalsifiable details about conspiracies and multiple shooters. Jesus’ burial and empty tomb is simple and was the first standard account of the end of his life that could be checked by the Apostles and other people. Further, the legends that grew from the event (like the accusations from Jewish authorities that the body was stolen) presuppose the earlier account that the body was no longer there. Fact 3: The post –Resurrection Appearances: Almost all critics agree that the Disciple’s saw something that made them believe Jesus was alive again. While many people do have grief-induced hallucinations, very few actually go to the cemetery to see if their loved one has risen from the dead. They simply admit that they are having visions that aren’t real. Furthermore, the corpse in the tomb would quickly bring them back to reality. But Jesus’ missing body validates the authenticity of these appearances which are hard to explain away as “group hallucinations” (remember my earlier point on the unlikeliness of “group dreams” being similar to group “hallucinations”). Fact 4: The Origin of the Disciple’s Belief: Even if the disciple’s believed Jesus was “raised,” the traditional Jewish belief was that the resurrection would not occur until the end of time, and that dead Jewish heroes lived in the afterlife until that time. For Christians to reject this core Jewish belief and change their worship from the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday, would take a life-altering event. I pointed out there were many other failed messiah’s in Jesus’ day, but their followers did not preach that they had risen from the dead. Something must be different in the case of Jesus. In addition, If Christ had physically risen then that would inspire them to endure horrendous martyrdom (such as being eaten alive by lions). Yes, Con is right people die for many things, but the Apostles were in a position (unlike the 9/11 hijackers or other such martyrs) to know that what they believed was a lie. So the proverbial question remains, “Who would painfully die for a lie?” Fact 5: The Conversion of Skeptics: Con claims that people convert to religions all the time, but I am talking about full-blown enemies of the religions converting. I’m also not talking about converting to a different philosophy or way of thinking, but of accepting the belief that a dead man had risen and that you talked to him. Grief induced hallucinations could help Con explain away the disciple’s beliefs (though I showed even that’s unlikely), but what explains the “hallucinations” of Paul and James? Even if they did eat some “bad mushrooms,” wouldn’t it be more plausible that they thought they were simply crazy, and not that a man (from their perspective) who had been cursed by God had risen from the dead? However, if Jesus really did physically appear these skeptics, then that would naturally explain their sudden and unexpected change of beliefs and attitude. Con said in his last rebuttal that the supernatural “defies rationality.” But in a world where we boldly explore esoteric concepts like M-Theory, String theory, Brane Theory, Up and Down Quarks, and other unobservable fantastic concepts, what is so irrational about the existence of a mind that simply created those things and everything else? And if a being had the power to create all of that, wouldn’t it be child’s play for him to bring someone back from the dead? In closing, I’d like to thank my opponent for an engaging debate on an important issue. While many Christians have done the cause of Christ a disservice when arguing for him, I hope that I have simply submitted good reasons for those who are open to truth to consider and evaluate. For those of you who think Christians take everything on blind faith, I close with this verse from the First letter of Peter, “Always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within you, but do so with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15-16)