What Jesus Said About Resurrection (Re-Airing)

What Jesus Said About Resurrection (Re-Airing)

Day of Discovery has a 2-part series entitled, “What Jesus Said About Resurrection.” I was interviewed mainly for my research of the pagan myths as you
will hear in the video. For more in-depth details about the pagan myth argument, please see my chapter in the new book: “Come Let Us Reason” -editors William Lane Craig and Paul Copan.  The Day of Discovery episodes will be re-airing on Sunday, April 1st (Part 1) and Sunday, April 8th (Part 2) on ION TV.  
Following is a brief description of the program:

Travel
to Israel with Mart DeHaan and hear from scholars and authorities in
the field of New Testament studies as they explore Jesus’ claims and
examine the evidence for his resurrection. In this 2-part DVD, you’ll
see Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified and buried, and Bethany where,
according to the Gospels, he was last seen on earth. Decide for yourself
whether or not the resurrection of Jesus is the single most important
event in history.

As a reminder Day of
Discovery
can be seen on Ion TV Sundays at 7:30 a.m. Eastern and Pacific, and 6:30
a.m. Central and Mountain time. A
listing of local station air times can be found by visiting the Web site at www.dod.org
and following the
“Where to Watch” link in the left column. Additionally, the program is available to view at no cost via their Web site.

Come Let Us Reason

Come Let Us Reason

Come Let Us Reason is the third book in a series on modern Christian apologetics that began with the popular Passionate Conviction and Contending with Christianity’s Critics. The nineteen essays here raise classical philosophical questions in fresh ways, address contemporary challenges for the church, and will deepen the thinking of the next generation of apologists. Packed with dynamic topical discussions and informed by the latest scholarship, the book’s major sections are:

• Apologetics, Culture, and the Kingdom of God
• The God Question • The Gospels and the Historical Jesus
• Ancient Israel and Other Religions
• Christian Uniqueness and the World’s Religions
Contributors include J. P. Moreland (“Four Degrees of Postmodernism”), William Lane Craig (“Objections So Bad That I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up”), Gary R. Habermas (“How to Respond When God Gives You the Silent Treatment”), Craig Keener (“Gospel Truth: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels”), and Paul Copan (“Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?”). Also included will be my essay (“Does the Story of Jesus Mimic Pagan Mysteries Stories?”). You can PREORDER this book due for publication April 2012!

MJ

What Jesus Said About Resurrection

What Jesus Said About Resurrection

Day of Discovery recently completed a 2-part series entitled, “What Jesus Said About Resurrection.” I was interviewed mainly for my research of the pagan myths as you will hear in the video. Others giving perspectives include Gary Habermas, Darrell Bock, Michael Licona, and many more. You can catch Part 1 in its entirety on the Day of Discovery website. Part 2 will be available beginning tomorrow, April 22nd. You can receive a DVD copy via the website with a donation of any amount. It is a great resource to have available!

ETS/EPS Annual Meeting and Apologetics Conference

ETS/EPS Annual Meeting and Apologetics Conference

I just returned from the annual Evangelical Theological Society and Evangelical Philosophical Society conference in Atlanta. I attended papers by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, JP Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, and Angus Menuge. I heard arguments against naturalism and materialism, saw the latest research on the Shroud of Turin, and heard a response to Graham Oppy on the argument from consciousness. I also attended a session at the Society of Biblical Literature on “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” This discussion was outstanding. It included New Zealander, Matthew Flannagan, Canadian, Randal Rauser, also, Paul Copan and Richard Hess. Paul’s new book, “Is God a Moral Monster?” on this subject will be released December 1, 2010, but can be pre-ordered at Amazon.com.

While I was attending the annual meeting for ETS/EPS, I also gave a presentation at the 9th annual EPS apologetics conference,

“Set Forth Your Case,” at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church. Johnson Ferry’s pastor, Bryant Wright, is the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is so exciting to see the new president of the SBC hosting an apologetics conference!

This event was well-attended with at least 1000 to 1100 participants. My session, “The Redefining of ‘Faith’ and How Christians Can Respond,” was also very well-attended. The chapel was packed full of people who were ready to interact with the material! One very interesting comment came when I asked “Who cares if our society redefines faith as a lack of critical thinking or as opposed to evidence and reason? And why does it matter?”

Several folks responded with answers, but a lady in the front row said something I had not heard from an audience member before: it was offensive to her as a medical doctor–as a professional–for people to denigrate her reasoning skills in this manner. Usually, the audience members discuss how it can stifle conversations before they even get started or they discuss the impact on the Church. I responded, in agreement with the doctor’s statement, that this is ad hominem. I further discussed how ad hominem attacks seek to divide rather than to thoughtfully consider the issue.
One sweet moment came after my session when a gentleman brought his family back to meet my husband and me. He wanted his son to ask me some particular questions he’d been struggling through. Roger and I talked with the family for a while and interacted with both of their sons’ questions. It was a great reminder of why we do these conferences: to touch lives.
Finally, after all the ETS/EPS activities had wrapped up, I had the privilege of speaking at Roswell Street Baptist Church to their youth and college group on “Asking the Right Questions.” They asked me some hard questions on the problem of evil, on science and religion, on talking to people who believe in “fate,” and on talking to people

who don’t seem to care about the question of God.
After our session, Roger and I worshiped with their “Connections” service. They had a phone number on the big screen during worship that congregates could use to text questions concerning the sermon. At the end of the service, about four text questions were answered and then the rest were answered in the Q&A room. What a great idea! Our thanks go out to Roswell Street for hosting us on Sunday. We had a great experience there.
It was a wonderful week of learning, seeing old friends, making new friends, and encouraging the life of the mind! I hope to see even more of you in San Francisco at the annual conference next year.
MJ
Apologetics Conference 2010

Apologetics Conference 2010

Marietta, Georgia
November 18th – 20th

“Set Forth Your Case: Equipping Christians for Discipleship and Evangelism”

Experience seasoned teaching by Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Greg Koukl, Randy Newman, Frank Beckwith, Craig Evans, Craig Blomberg, Mike Licona and over twenty other influencers in Christian apologetics as they equip you about the issues facing contemporary Christian witness.

I will be presenting “The Redefining of ‘Faith’ and how Christians can Respond” on Friday Night, November 19th from 8:35 – 9:30. Come find me and feel free to ask questions. Are you planning on going? Here is a link for more info: EPS

MJ

ETS-EPS National Conference

ETS-EPS National Conference

I recently returned from Rhode Island where I read a paper at the Evangelical Theological and Philosophical Society National Conference. My paper was a comparison of the pagan mystery stories of Osiris, Horus, and Mithras with the Christian story of Jesus. The paper was well attended with some special guests: a couple of atheist Facebook friends, Darrin Rasberry and John Loftus, and a few prominent Christian apologists. John and Darrin also attended the Earnestly Contending Apologetics Conference. John posted about his experience on his blog, Debunking Christianity. Although my interaction with these guys was limited (partly due to my nerves over presenting my first paper at the national conference), the time I did share with them was rewarding. I found John and Darrin to be gracious and thoughtful.

On Saturday, after the apologetics conference, Paul Copan invited the gentlemen to the presenters’ room to speak with William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, James Sinclair, and himself. Wow! What an opportunity! What impressed me the most was the manner of exchange between the two “sides.” From reading John’s account and from what Darrin has told me—whether or not anyone was convinced of any argument—the experience was enjoyable for all. This kind of argumentation and dialogue is exactly what I hope to continue to promote here at Confident Christianity and on our Two Chix Apologetics Facebook group.Once in awhile, people ask me why I feel it is necessary to discuss these issues and why I do not “just leave people alone.”

My reply: 1) I actually do care about the people who interact with me, and 2) If there is a God, then the search for truth is the most important subject to address. This past weekend reminded me that while arguments are important, so are the people who hold to the arguments. Concern and love for people must take center stage in all of our lives.Thank you to all who made this past weekend such a wonderful time of discussion and fellowship.
MJ

Minimal Facts Approach – Testing Hypotheses

Minimal Facts Approach – Testing Hypotheses

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Various Hypotheses Concerning the Resurrection

After establishing the four minimal facts surrounding the event of resurrection, I will now put to the test a few of the numerous hypotheses given as an explanation for these facts. The answer at the end of each fact demonstrates whether or not the theory in question can account for that particular fact.*

Swoon TheoryJesus did not die on the cross; he fainted or swooned, and was eventually revived

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Hallucination TheoryThe disciples had grief-induced or other type hallucinations, which explain the appearances of Jesus.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – YES
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – YES/STRAIN

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Legend TheoryJesus was most likely a man who led a small religious cult in first century Palestine, but legend about him developed over the years after his death in an effort to convert people to Christianity.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO/STRAIN
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Myth TheoryThe story of Jesus Christ is a myth that developed much like the myths of other ancient near east religions.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Jesus was resurrected – Jesus died by Roman crucifixion, was buried, and subsequently appeared to his disciples and others in bodily form.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – YES
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – YES
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – YES
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – YES

This hypothesis accounts for all of the facts.

The inference suggested by historically exploring the evidence around the events of Jesus’ life is that a resurrected Jesus is the best explanation for the historical facts. What are the implications of a resurrected Jesus?

Mary Jo

Main Sources:

Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel: 2004.

*Licona, Mike. Resurrection of Jesus. Lecture. McLean Bible Church Apologetics Conference, “Loving God With All Your Mind.” November, 2006. Format for checking hypotheses from Licona’s lecture.

For further reading:Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories – Gary HabermasThe Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection – Gary HabermasContemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ – William Lane CraigDid Jesus Really Exist? – Paul L. Maier
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #4

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #4

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #4 – Jesus’ tomb was empty

1) The Jerusalem Factor
2) Enemy attestation
3) The testimony of women

The Jerusalem Factor

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. His empty tomb and his resurrection were proclaimed there first. If Jesus’ body had still been in the tomb, why did no one go get the body and drag it through the streets of the city to shut down the Christian movement that so angered the Jewish officials? This would not be an easy task but it would be worth getting rid of a blasphemous group of rebels. Furthermore, an occupied tomb would at least have dissuaded enough of the believers to merit some apologetic attention on this matter. However, no apologetic work can be found on an occupied tomb by any of the apostles or even second or third century Christian writers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Origen (to name a few). There is a strong possibility they would have reasoned a defense for an empty tomb, as demonstrated in their reasoning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, if they had needed to do so. In addition, no work on the tomb from early Christian opposition can be found, such as Celsus, the second century Christian critic.[i]

Enemy Attestation

If testimony about an event or person is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message or cause that benefits from the affirmation, then there is reason to believe the testimony’s authenticity. The empty tomb can be found either implicitly or explicitly stated in the works of Josephus, Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” Tertullian’s “On Spectacles,” and in the Jewish Toledoth (a derogatory version of Jesus’ life in Jewish tradition).

In the Jewish Toledoth:
“On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.[ii]

In Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:

You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.” [iii]

Even to imply that Jesus was raised or that his tomb was empty is certainly damaging to the case against the resurrection if reasoning from the offensive.

Testimony of Women

If I had an intention of creating a story to make myself (or my story) look good, I would most likely not include information that would be damaging or embarrassing to the credibility of my story. By that standard, it would be an odd invention to have the women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb. In the accounts of the empty tomb, the women are exactly that, the first witnesses, in all four gospel accounts. This report would most likely be damaging to the case for the empty tomb when taken in context of the first century socio-cultural norms. The testimony of a woman was not regarded as highly as the testimony of a man. Habermas and Licona quote a few Jewish writings on this matter:

Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women. (Talmud, Sotah 19a)
But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex…..; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Joshephus, Antiquities 4.8.15)

Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman. (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)[iv]
Why would the gospel writers include women as the number one witnesses to the empty tomb when it would behoove their cause to use men instead? The reason would be because they were reporting the truth; embarrassing as that may be.

These three factors contribute to the case for an empty tomb. Though the empty tomb is conceded by 75%[v] of scholars who write on the Resurrection (versus 95% or better on the other 3 facts), this is still an impressive number for the empty tomb case. Again, the empty tomb is a historically probable event that needs to be explained when discussing the evidences surrounding the Resurrection.

MJ

[i] Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg. 71.

[ii] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html. Accessed December 1, 2006.

[iii] The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians: Addressed to the Roman Senate. The Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/justin-apology2.html. Accessed December 2, 2006.

[iv] Habermas. Licona. pg. 72. All three quotes were taken from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

[v] Ibid. pg. 70.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #3

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #3

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #3 – Jesus appeared to foes

Evidences:
1) Paul – Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee
2) James – Jesus’ brother

– Both were unbelievers before the resurrection of Jesus
– Both became believers after an experience of the risen Jesus, following Jesus’ crucifixion
– Neither had motive to convert
– James: principle of embarrassment
– Paul: earliest N.T. writings, very reliable material

Paul was an unlikely convert to Christianity. He had been a known persecutor of Christianity and yet his conversion was based on what he perceived to be an experience of the risen Jesus. His conversion was based on primary evidence (what he experienced for himself), not secondary evidence (such as believing what others told him about Jesus). This testimony carries no little weight. Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 15 are considered some of the earliest writings from the New Testament and are therefore closest to the events themselves. Due to the early nature of these writings, scholars grant much of what Paul reports to be historically probable events. What can be shown from this material is 1) an ardent enemy of Christianity converted to Christianity based on an experience he believed to be the risen Jesus 2) the convert’s name was Paul and he recorded these experiences himself (a primary source) and 3) He testified to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Paul also wrote about another foe Jesus appeared[i] to, which was James, Jesus’ brother.

“Then he appeared[ii] to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared[iii] to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
1 Corinthians 15:7-8The information regarding James’ status as an “enemy” of Christ comes from the reports in the Gospels (Mark and John). This material would not be seen as favorable to the cause of Christ by including it in these books. In fact, Jesus’ own brother’s disbelief in him is rather embarrassing testimony to the faith. Later on, however, James was identified as the leader of the church in Jerusalem after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. He eventually was martyred for his commitment to the Christianity as reported by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria.[iv] Paul gives an account (above) of the appearance of Jesus to James as part of an early creedal statement in making a defense of the resurrection.

These two men, with nothing to gain materially or politically, with seemingly no logical reason to understand Jesus as a part of their monotheistic God, began to follow Jesus due to experiences they had of Him after His death and subsequent resurrection. This fact needs to be explained and accounted for, not with mere speculation, but with hypotheses supported by first century evidence.

Skeptics must provide more than alternative theories to the Resurrection; they must provide first-century evidence for those theories.”[v]
– Dr. Gary Habermas
Mary Jo


[i] optanomai – “to look at, behold” from the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon available from http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?search=3700&version=kjv&type=str&submit=Find

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] The material of Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria is preserved in the writings of Eusebius, which is where this material is found.

[v] Geisler, Norman. Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Quote by Gary Habermas. Wheaton, Crossway Books: 2004. pg. 299.

Main Source:
Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

The Minimal Facts Approach, Fact #2

The Minimal Facts Approach, Fact #2

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #2 – Jesus’ appearance to the disciples

Evidences:

1) The disciples believed the risen Jesus appeared to them

2) The disciples’ transformation from frightened, hiding individuals to bold witnesses of the resurrection

The disciples’ belief that Jesus appeared to them post-crucifixion, is a fact that needs to be explained. The disciples wrote down their eyewitness testimonies to these appearances in the gospels. Plus, Paul discusses these appearances in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that 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, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Critics claim Paul’s writing in the previous passages as some of the earliest New Testament writings.[i] Paul quotes a creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance…” Though Paul penned these words around twenty years after the crucifixion, he had this knowledge prior to writing these words. This very same knowledge of the appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples is also found in the writings of the early church fathers; for example, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius.[ii]

The disciples had an unusual transformation from individuals who were afraid and hiding to bold witnesses of the resurrection. Why would I call this transformation unusual? Let’s look at the circumstances surrounding their transformation.

First of all, the transformation of the disciples is one of the reasons virtually all scholars who study this material concede this point.[iii] The skeptical scholars try to offer explanations for what caused this transformation; they do not discern the disciples’ accounts as mythology, but instead offer explanations for what these men believed they saw.[iv] In the course of explaining this transformation, we have to take into account that the disciples were willing to suffer persecution and, eventually, martyrdom for the man that they knew personally (including their knowledge of Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God and his prediction of his own death and resurrection.[v]) If they knew Jesus’ resurrection was a fraud, they would be insane, at best, to die for him, because there was nothing to gain from following him: no political power and no future hope of resurrection for themselves. The disciples looked forward to immense suffering, outcast status in their culture, and death for the cause of that which they knew personally to be an untruth (since Jesus claimed to be God and predicted his own death and resurrection, if he was not raised from the dead, the disciples would know he was not raised and they would know he was a false prophet.) Yet, they were willing to bear all this. The best explanation of their unusual behavior after Jesus’ crucifixion was that they believed they literally experienced the risen Jesus.

Now we must account for the experiences of the disciples due to the facts that they believed they saw the risen Jesus and these appearances did transform their lives.

Mary Jo

[i] “Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written Gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Most critical scholars think that Paul’s reception of at least the material on which this early creedal statement is based is dated to the 30s AD.”
Gary Habermas. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels. Available from: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm. Accessed December 1, 2006.

[ii] Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pgs.53-59.

[iii] Ibid. pgs.56-60

[iv] An example is found in the work of Jack Kent in The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth. Kent attempts to explain the post-crucifixion appearances as grief-induced hallucinations on the part of the disciples.

[v] Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, his prediction of his death and resurrection, and the evidence surrounding his subsequent death and resurrection set Jesus and His followers apart from other messianic claims and religions. If God raised a man from the dead, this would signify His approval of that man’s message. This is especially important considering that Jesus claimed to be God.
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007