Christianity

I contend that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the five facts I presented in my opening argument. If Con rejects the resurrection hypothesis, then he must demonstrate why it is not plausible and provide a naturalistic explanation of these facts. Con has challenged the validity of some of my facts which I will address in this rebuttal: Fact #1: Jesus’ Death by Crucifixion My primary ancient source for this fact is the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus. Con attempted to cast doubt on Tacitus’ account by claiming that Tacitus mistakenly referred to Pilate as a “procurator” (a financial official) when he was actually a “prefect” (a military official). However, the Jewish historian Josephus also refers to Pilate as a procurator, so it’s possible that in a small district like Judea he simply held both titles. [i] Even Richard Carrier, one of the web’s fiercest critics of the resurrection, sees no conflict here. He writes, “It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A. D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. ”[ii] Second, Con claims that Tacitus never says that the Christus was crucified, but only that he suffered an “extreme penalty,” like beheading. But this ignores the understanding in Roman society that crucifixion was generally understood as the “extreme penalty” one could suffer. For example, the Roman orator Cicero describes crucifixion as “the extreme penalty” (or in Latin the summo supplicio)[iii] and the Roman jurist Paulus listed crucifixion as the most severe punishment, even worse than burning or beheading. [iv] Con claims Tacitus’ writing about the crucifixion 80 years later makes the testimony susceptible to error. But in comparison to other ancient histories, this account fares much better. For example, historians generally consider the biographies of Alexander the Great to be reliable even though they were written nearly 400 years after Alexander’s death. I will reaffirm the uncontested fact that only the radical fringes of New Testament scholarship challenge the authenticity of the crucifixion of Jesus. Fact #2: Jesus' Honorable Burial and Empty Tomb Con asks what source the empty tomb tradition is derived from in Mark’s gospel. Commentators generally observe that Mark is a loose collection of sayings and stories about Jesus’ life. However, Mark’s passion event is a continuous narrative that appears to be drawn from an earlier source that is distinct from the “sayings traditions” used earlier in the Gospel. Gerd Theissen has undertaken a lengthy study of this in his book The Gospels in Context. He writes, “We can demonstrate tensions between tradition and redaction, agreements with the Johannine passion account, and a consistent narrative motif. All of this points to a precanonical passion story . . . ”[v] Furthermore, I cited Rudolf Pesch’s work describing Mark’s present tense references to “the high priest,” “the rebels” and other events that occurred before 45 A. D as evidence of the close proximity of his source to the events it describes. In regards to Joseph of Arimathea, I was noting that the description of his involvement makes it unlikely that the empty tomb was a fictional addition to Mark’s gospel, but rather an unusual, almost despised event, that was preserved in the pre-Markan source I described above. Con argues that because early Christianity held women in high regard, the detail of women discovering the empty tomb is not unusual. However, the New Testament also records Paul capitulating to the local custom of not allowing women to speak in the assembly. [vi] So even though Christianity originated with radical views of equality, it still had societal obstacles of gender prejudice to overcome, which would have discouraged a fabricated story of women discovering the empty tomb. Finally, Con seems willing to admit that the tomb was empty but writes, “No body. I agree that this helps prove that the authorities did not possess the body, but it proves little else. ” I disagree, this fact proves that Jesus’ body was missing from the tomb and any naturalistic claim must account for this fact. Gary Habermas, a long-time researcher of the resurrection, has surveyed 2,200 articles related to Jesus’ empty tomb. 75% of these scholars are either open to the empty tomb, or accept this fact entirely. [vii] Fact #3: The Post-Resurrection Appearances Con admits this fact but attempts to explain it away by appealing to grief-induced hallucinations. I will address the issue of hallucinations in my next rebuttal, but remember that hallucinations cannot explain the empty tomb. If you continually saw a dead friend, and did not think you had lost your mind, you would probably check their tomb to see if they were still there. If the apostles were seeing visions of Jesus, then they could have regained their sanity by checking if he was either rotting in his tomb or if he had been raised from the dead. Fact #4: The Origin of the Disciples’ Beliefs Fact #5: The Conversion of Skeptics like James and Paul In challenging facts 4 and 5, Con has confused the truthfulness of these people’s testimony with the cause of their testimony. Facts 4 and 5 merely show that a radical change took place in the disciples. Con thinks I am saying that eyewitnesses can always be trusted and tries to overturn that argument with counterexamples of untrustworthy eyewitnesses (like people who claim to be abducted by aliens). But what I argued is that it would take something extraordinary (like the resurrection) to motivate these Jews to worship a dead man who had claimed to be the messiah but was ultimately executed and considered to be a failure. Con also claims that skeptics do convert, but we must ask, “Why did Paul convert? ” Paul was not just a skeptic, but an enemy who killed Christians. I challenge Con to provide an example of a formidable critic of Scientology (his example), like Andreas Heldal-Lund, who openly converted to the religion he formerly opposed. The resurrection hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for Paul’s conversion -- that Paul saw the error of his ways when he encountered the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. In conclusion, Con has either explicitly or implicitly affirmed the truth of Jesus’ crucifixion, his empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, the radical change in the disciple’s behaviors, and the conversion of skeptics like Paul and James. I have provided a singular theory (Jesus’ resurrection) that explains all five facts without appealing to “ad-hoc” or unlikely contrivances to shore up the theory’s deficits. If Con affirms the truth of these five facts (or related versions of the facts) then he must show why the resurrection hypothesis does not adequately explain them. Then, I would ask that he propose a rival naturalistic hypothesis for us to consider. Until then, I think I have shouldered the burden of proof in providing evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. [i] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.6.5. . http://www.ccel.org...) [ii] . http://www.infidels.org... [iii] Cicero, In Verrem, 2.5.168. . http://www.thelatinlibrary.com...) [iv] Paulus. Sententiae 5.17.2 [v] Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context. (T&T Clark Publishers, London, 1999) 168. [vi]1 Corinthians 14:34-35 [vii] Gary Habermas, “Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” Dialog 45 (2006): 288–97)