The Southern Baptists of Texas (SBTC) is committed to proclaiming the certainty of forgiveness and life in Christ in an age of unbelief. We are excited to be working with the apologetics ministry of Confident Christianity, Biola University, NAMB, and FBC Euless to bring you the Confident Christianity Conference. The goal of the conference is to strengthen and equip Christians so that they will be better able to evangelize those who have no faith or are of another faith. In order to accomplish this, we have brought together an impressive team of expert speakers and workshop leaders who will present compelling evidence for the truths of Christianity in a way that is Biblically grounded and culturally relevant.
FBC Euless is under 2 hours from most of North Texas and Southern Oklahoma! Calendar this much needed equipping event and load up a few vans, cars or even a bus!
What a great opportunity to share Christ with those we encounter on a daily basis! Each year, Easter brings families and friends together to enjoy each other, buy a new dress or tie, and, of course, eat lots of food! As you sit around talking, would you like to be able to clearly articulate the evidences available for the resurrection?
There is strong evidence for the resurrection. We hear and see this every year during sermons or church musicals, but are we prepared to give a defense when the opportunity presents itself? Spend some time becoming familiar with these arguments and be prepared.
Speaking of church musicals, my husband, who is a Pastor of Worship, recently presented “Bow The Knee” with our home church, Nassau Bay Baptist Church. He took a quick video of the Tomb Scene. @2:00 For The Win!
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.
de•bate di-ˈbāt, dē- noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as
a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure
b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
Whether you are an avid fan of public debates or you don’t think they do any good or you’ve just never thought about debates, I propose that it is time for a fresh look at this aspect of communication. Whenever I mention the word, “debate,” I imagine the person talking with me as conjuring up images of two red-faced politicians yelling at each other, but still saying nothing of substance. I brace myself for the “Those kind of things aren’t productive; people just talk past each other,” comment. Unfortunately, I think this stigmatized view is becoming more and more ingrained in people; and it is not usually a conclusion based in experience.
My own experience with Christian debate has been almost entirely contrary to this disparaged view of debate. However, my experience is limited, having only two of my own debates thus far. So I decided to speak with an experienced Christian debater for some insights: Dr. Michael Licona. Licona is the founder of Risen Jesus Ministries and is a New Testament historian, author, Associate Professor at Houston Baptist University and Christian apologist. He has participated in twelve formal, public debates with two more debates set for next month.
What do debates accomplish?
Most people I have spoken with who have an aversion to debates dislike them because they see the primary focus of debate as centered on the debaters’ ability to “win” or on the possibility to “lose.” Some even see debate as an obstacle to spiritual maturity or as having lesser value than other kingdom work. In contrast, Licona believes in debating specifically because of the spiritual benefits. He outlined six of the benefits of debate:
1) Inform seekers
At a debate, people who are seeking to know more about God are able to hear both viewpoints by persons who are studied in each side of the topic. They will get succinct presentations on those views as well as rebuttals to each view. So they will get to explore both sides throughout the debate to further inform themselves on their beliefs.
2) Inoculates saved
I (MJ) have been asked, why would I expose any believer to the opposite viewpoint on belief in God? They might doubt their belief due to hearing a case against God…right?
First, I hope the church understands that doubting God in some way is prevalent in the body of Christ. In fact, Dr. Gary Habermas states that doubt is possibly “the single most common problem among Christians.”[1] Throughout his years of ministry, Dr. Habermas, of Liberty University, has written extensively on treating doubt about God; some of which can be found online at www.garyhabermas.com.
Second, most believers are going to hear, at the very least, some sound-bytes about faith that are not well-conceived, but can still erode their beliefs. Plus, the more secular our society becomes, the more we will face arguments against belief in God (even feasible arguments). The church can provide opportunities to learn about these or let believers encounter the arguments entirely on their own. I choose the church as the setting to introduce these arguments. Churches should also be training up the body of Christ in the history and essentials of Christianity.
Third, belief in God must be based in truth. If a person does not really believe God exists, then she is delusional in acting as though God does exist. The apostle Paul states that if Jesus did not resurrect from the dead then our faith is useless and we are bearing a false testimony about God (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). Belief in God is either based in truth or falsehood: this is an area in which we must be intellectually honest.
Licona gave a couple of examples to illustrate his second point on how his debates have affected others’ belief in God. After his debate with Richard Carrier at Washburn University, a student approached him saying, “I just want to let you know that you have reignited my faith and I want to get involved with Bible study at my school. I had doubted what I believe, but this debate has turned me around.” At Appalachian State University, a student told Mike she was troubled about her faith after attending a class in which the professor assigned a Bart Ehrman book to read. The debate between Licona and Ehrman answered many of her questions and her spiritual life was invigorated by her attendance.
By addressing the issues that are raised concerning the existence of God, we are building up the body of Christ to defend their individual belief in God. We should take Paul’s admonition to the Colossians to heart: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8)
3) Improved substance
“Debates improve the substance of our apologetic.” Licona explained that Christian debaters, to anticipate the counter-arguments, study how non-Christians have responded to the existing Christian arguments. Next, they think through their strategy: what arguments do I use? Are some arguments better than others? He stated that some people are not using convincing arguments for Christianity. Either they haven’t seen the rebuttals to those arguments or they have never used the arguments outside of a group that already agrees with their point-of-view. This makes for poor argumentation.
In debates, the various views are hopefully well-researched and the counter arguments well-prepared. This makes for good argumentation and thoughtful interaction. I (MJ) think it also delineates between a reasonable position and dogmatism. Licona specifically debates certain people who are highly respected in their fields to put his arguments to the test. If his material is not solid, he hopes he will receive useful criticism from the opponent to challenge him. The result of his labor is stronger, more succinct arguments. In turn, his work helps the body of Christ put our best foot forward and do so persuasively.
Let me add a quick note: This is not “just rhetoric.” This is about giving your best in your field (in this case, debate) to the Lord God. Why would anyone go into a debate on the subject of God without giving their absolute best arguments and preparation? That is not glorifying to God. However, a new argument has emerged against the Christian debaters: the Christians are too good at debating (see William Lane Craig’s response to this accusation here). I guess this would be a problem if the Christian debaters were using empty rhetoric in place of arguments. But they are not. So praise God for those who train themselves well in presenting arguments to the public for examination and persuasion!
Check back soon for the last three of Dr. Michael Licona’s points on the merits of debate. Plus, we’ll discuss the negatives and positives of formal debates and share a few more of Licona’s debate experiences.
Mary Jo will be presenting “Is the Story of Christ a Copy of the Pagan Mystery Stories?” Saturday, November 21st at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (Sellers Recital Hall) from 10:50 – 11:45am. Come to the earlier session (9:45-10:40) and catch Mike Licona of the North American Mission Board or Sean McDowell for the Youth Track. Come at 8:30 and catch Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason Ministries.
The EPS/ETS and EPS Apologetics Conference has been packed with great knowledge and concern for the lost. The connection between Apologetics & Evangelism is striking. Make plans to attend next year’s conference in Atlanta!
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 Theory – Jesus 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
XThis hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.
Hallucination Theory – The 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 Theory – Jesus 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 Theory – The 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?
*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.
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.
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
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.
Over the course of the next few posts, I will be presenting evidences for the Resurrection based on the research of Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University and Mike Licona of the North American Mission Board. This material can be found in their book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.”
In the “Minimal Facts Approach,” I will only be using ‘facts’ from the New Testament that can satisfy the following two criteria: 1) they are strongly evidenced and 2) they must be acknowledged by a vast majority of scholars (atheist through conservative).1 By strongly evidenced, I mean that they satisfy some or all of the criteria used in textual criticism to establish historical probability.
Examples of these criteria are:
1) multiple, independent sources
2) enemy attestation
3) principle of embarrassment
4) eyewitness testimony
5) early testimony2
What I am not saying is that these facts prove the resurrection of Jesus historically. What I am saying is that the best explanation of these facts, when combined, is a resurrection of Jesus.
Fact #1 – Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion
1) Jesus’ crucifixion was recorded in all four Gospel accounts
2) Jesus’ crucifixion was recorded in non-Christian sources
3) Jesus’ death on a cross is one of the most well-attested events of ancient history
“That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” – Skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan, “Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography” pg.145; to read, type in “that he was crucified” in search box
Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion is a historical event.
Mary Jo
1 Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg.47.
2 Ibid. pgs. 36-40.
