Chapter 8,
The Resurrection
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
resurrection is not a vision for visions are subjective and secret forces of
the mind can cause them but Jesus was able to eat and drink after the
resurrection so he was not a mere vision.
Reason Says
You
stress this point. True you are right
to but the problem is that the gospels do not emphasise Jesus eating and
drinking. Matthew devotes just a few
paragraphs to the resurrection appearances and seems to want to say as little
about it as possible which is impossible to explain. Why is he embarrassed? He must be.
It is like somebody who writes a lot in their diary every day and
writes a few lines only about the visit of the queen to him. Mark said nothing about the resurrection
and mentioned men in white at the tomb who he significantly never said were
angels. The rules of interpretation
say we must assume they were men. Did
they take the body? Luke mentions
Jesus eating in passing. He doesn’t
make a big deal of it at all. The
problem with Luke is that the Jews law tells us to dismiss the testimony of
one witness and he is the only one testifying that this happened or that he
was told it. John doesn’t mention very
much about the resurrection appearances either. That the gospels failed to attach any
importance to the evidence against the apparitions being mere visions shows
that their evidence is made impotent.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
idea that Jesus survived the cross by natural means is wrong for :
The
Romans made sure their victims were dead – they had to or they were put to
death. Jesus’ legs were not broken on
the cross to kill him for they were sure he was dead.
Reason Says:
Doctors
make sure their diagnoses are right but still make mistakes. Roman law executed only those who knowingly
let capital punishment victims survive
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
An
eyewitness saw blood and water come from the pierced side of Jesus
Reason replies:
But we only have the anonymous gospel attributed to John saying that an eyewitness saw the blood. It doesn’t give us a clue as to who the eyewitness was. Christians are the ones that tell us to ignore anonymous testimony and then they accept this! Since when did a gospel that had Jesus producing wine to give to a drunk wedding party be believable?
Nothing is said in the gospel as to this blood and water having anything to do with showing Jesus died on the cross.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The body was wrapped up in cloths and buried in a tomb
Reason says:
The
gospels say this happened but give no eyewitness testimony that the body was
seen being put in the tomb. We are
told that the place where he was laid was witnessed but that isn’t enough. Since when did being wrapped up and buried
mean you were necessarily dead?
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
A half dead survivor could never convince the apostles that he rose from the dead miraculously
Reason says:
True – unless he told them he was an apparition and that God only made him appear as sick to impress upon them the suffering of the cross and that he wasn't really sick.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Did
Jesus or unnamed disciples overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding the
tomb so he could escape?
Reason replies:
But
you know the flaming gospel says that after the stone rolled back the
soldiers were gone. The stone might
have been moved by some trick or by an earthquake but it was left for anybody
to take the body.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The Jews got the Roman soldiers to say Jesus was stolen as they slept which is crazy for they would be put to death for that
Reason replies:
Matthew
alone tells us this but why not believe that he made this up? The Jews would not have asked the soldiers
to say something like that. Why not
tell them to say the Devil appeared and took the body? After all the Jews claimed Jesus was in
league with Satan.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
If
Jesus did survive then why is there no record of his life after the fake
resurrection?
Reason says:
If
Jesus lived and was popular why is there no record from his being found in
the temple at 9 to his appearance before John the Baptist for baptism at
30? Jesus could have retired from
ministry and went into anonymity had he survived the crucifixion.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
apostles told the truth and didn’t make up the story about the resurrection
because it only brought them torment and not even persecution made
any Christian admit that the resurrection was just a fable
There
is no evidence that the apostles’ lives were that bad. Its just a Christian lie and they know it
for don’t soldiers put their lives at risk for causes they don’t believe
in? Maybe the apostles believed their
own lies. It is just like a battered
wife being convinced that her husband is a good man. They found Jesus to be a very captivating
person so he might have had incredible influence over them. We believe the lies today of politicians
and public hospitals and risk our lives for it when we have the money to go
private and be safe from the superbugs that thrive in and incompetence
surrounding many public hospitals.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The apostles told the truth and didn’t make up the story about the resurrection for if they made up the story they were better than Shakespeare or Dante or Tolkien. They were only simple men so their story was true.
Reason replies:
The
gospel stories aren’t that great. And
they were written down long after the event so there was plenty of time to
improve and embellishing the story.
There is not a shred of evidence that the apostles were as good at
telling stories as these gospel writing people were. The gospellers were editors and you know
that.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The apostles told the truth and didn’t make up the story about the
resurrection for they lived holy lives and never told lies.
Reason replies:
We
don’t know much about them. And not
all in the early Church considered them good men. Peter was condemned for betraying the
gospel by Paul and Paul was accused of hypocrisy and deceit
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The apostles told the truth and didn’t make up the story about the
resurrection for they
had no motive to lie
Pious fraud is a human reality. It involves trying to get people to believe something to make them better people. We know that the apostles did handle and control vast amounts of money from converts.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The apostles told the truth and didn’t make up the story about the
resurrection for if the resurrection were a lie the Jews would have produced
the corpse of Jesus
This
argument is a trick. How do the
authors know that the Jews could have got the body?
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The apostles told the truth and didn’t make up the story about the resurrection for the disciples couldn’t proclaim the resurrection among people in a time and place full of eyewitness of Christ unless it really happened.
Reason replies:
Joseph
Smith despite his bad reputation was able to start a world religion among the
people who knew him
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The apostles told the truth and didn’t make up the story about the resurrection for the adversaries of Jesus would have found out that the
apostles were lying if they were
Nonsense. People today get away with crimes because they lie in court. And today people are cross-examined better than the Jews ever could have done it.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be
refuted by the fact that there
were too many people having these visions
Reason replies:
We
don’t know how they saw their visions.
Visions can be spiritual or God can use the imagination to give
visions. Maybe nobody saw anything and
Satan came along a month after Jesus died to change people’s memories so that
they thought the tomb was empty and that the body of Jesus in it was somebody
else’s or that Jesus appeared. We have
no evidence that Satan didn’t do this so we have no evidence for the
resurrection. (We have evidence that Satan
did do it for a miracle of changing memories is an easier on than raising a
man from the dead. Miracles are so
strange that if a simpler miracle can explain something it will suffice and
should be believed in, in preference to a more complicated one.) Once you believe in miracles you cannot
consistently believe that evidence has any value. Christians lie that they believe in the
testimony of the Bible to the resurrection.
They do not. What they believe
in is the testimony that the witnesses that they MAY have witnessed the
appearance of a man who came back from the dead. The testimony that John may be having an
affair with Claire is useless and so is this especially when people are
called on to stake their salvation on it, the most important thing possible.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be
refuted by the fact that the
witnesses were reliable and qualified and honest
Reason Says
We
know nothing about the witnesses.
Peter wasn’t honest when he unnecessarily exposed himself to questions
about Jesus and he replied swearing lies.
We have very little information about the witnesses. When Jesus cast out a demon the Jews said
that Jesus was using the Devil’s power.
Jesus said that if Satan was doing that then Satan was breaking up his
own kingdom as if Satan who he said was very powerful needed to possess loads
of people to run a kingdom. Not only
was this a lie for Satan would be happy enough to tempt people to sin but if
possession is so necessary then clearly anybody could be possessed. Jesus was asking us to accept people as
witnesses when the Devil could be influencing them. We must question the honesty of men who followed
a man who defended himself telling lies and by saying silly things.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be
refuted by the fact that five
hundred plus saw Jesus at the one time
Paul said that but the gospels though written later never mentioned this event and they were desperate for evidence and didn’t mention the best evidence of the lot. Paul’s mention of it is too cursory for us to take it seriously. After all it could have been a mistaken identity or something or mass hysteria? Or maybe an early scribe made an alteration and the number was actually smaller. That Paul didn’t give the Corinthians a proper defence of the resurrection when they were reporting visions that contradicted his gospel shows he hadn’t much choice. The evidence wasn’t very good and Paul was insecure about it for he was reduced to arguing, “If Jesus didn’t rise then the dead are lost and we are still in our sins and we are to be pitied above all people”. He knew fine well that if Jesus wasn’t the rising saviour somebody else could come to save us. He wasn’t interested in verifying the resurrection appearances or in saying too much about them out of shame.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be refuted by the fact that hallucinations last a very short time up to a few minutes. But Jesus was seen for forty days. The witnesses see the vision only once unless they are insane but these sane people saw Jesus over several weeks
The idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be refuted by the fact that hallucinations don’t do unusual and surprising things like the risen Jesus did
The
idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be
refuted by the fact that nobody
expected the resurrection visions so they were not hallucinations
The idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be refuted by the fact that
Hallucinations
do not eat
Hallucinations
cannot be touched
It
could be argued that when Paul wrote to the Corinthians to persuade them that
Jesus rose from the dead for they were denying it that Jesus’s apparitions
were so short that he couldn’t even think about verifying them in detail.
Psychologists
believe in veridical hallucinations which are different from the kind of
hallucinations these authors are banging on about. The apostles and disciples could have had
veridical hallucinations of Jesus which could explain all the gospel data.
Sane
people do have hallucinations especially when they have been bereaved. Sometimes their imagination simply gets so
strong they see and touch and speak with the dead person. Mediums have loads of visions and are sane
and yet we know from the trickery they use at other times and from what the
visions tell them that no psychic force is at work. They touch the visions and see them eating.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be
refuted by the fact that you
cannot have a conversation with a hallucination
There
was not a lot of conversation with the Jesus apparitions. Now, near Emmaus two disciples walked with
a man who they later decided was Jesus.
That proves nothing. The man
vanished quickly but we are not told he was seen dissolving into thin air. This may have been an assumption on their
part. We do not know if they were
witnesses of the best calibre.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be
refuted by the fact that if
Jesus was still in the tomb the visions would not have convinced the apostles
even if they saw them themselves
Reason replies:
Jesus
being in the tomb would not have stopped the apostles believing in the
resurrection. Once Jesus appeared to
them they wanted to believe it and people do believe what they want to
believe at the end of the day.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be refuted by the fact that the Jews would have produced the body to refute the hallucinations
Reason replies:
Christians
turn their backs on the rules for a fair investigation when it comes to the
resurrection. They know that the
apostles and the disciples didn’t mention the resurrection to outsiders until
beyond the time the body of Jesus would have been identifiable.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be
refuted by the fact that a
hallucination wouldn’t explain the empty tomb of Jesus
A hallucination wouldn’t explain the empty tomb of Jesus but are we expected to believe that just because the tomb was empty that it meant that the appearances were not hallucinations?
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
idea that the resurrection visions of Jesus were hallucinations can be
refuted by the fact that if
the empty tomb was a lie, then why did the gospels have women who were not
regarded as reliable witnesses finding the tomb empty?
Reason replies:
The gospels were written by Christians who had no problem with women being witnesses and besides men backed up the women so even if the women were useless witnesses in the eyes of the people the people had to accept them for men supported the veracity of their testimony. The story of the women may have been necessary because the gospellers couldn’t say the disciples went to the tomb and found it empty for they were widely suspected of having stolen the body.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
chapter is confident that no objection to the resurrection of Jesus is could
be correct. On page 171 the authors
boast that no reason for condemning anything in the Christian faith has ever
worked!
Reason replies:
As
if they could have heard all the reasons!
Where in their book have they refuted the idea that an earthquake
moved the rock of Jesus’ tomb and the women stole the body? Their belief is founded on arrogance and
insulting those who disagree with them.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
The
Handbook says there is no reason to doubt miracles.
Reason replies:
We
all see that people die and stay dead.
For those who disagree to say that Jesus didn’t stay dead, the burden
of proof therefore is on them. It is
up to them to prove the resurrection.
(Because of the burden of proof they have to prove every miracle of
Jesus and every other one they say happened individually.) They answer that the burden of proof is on
those who deny the resurrection to disprove the resurrection! It is not.
It can’t be on both sides. If
one and one is usually two and somebody says there is an exception then the
burden of proof is on that person. Not
every miracle of Jesus can be proven believable or proven taken on its own so
clearly Jesus violated the rule that each individual miracle has to be
verified and didn’t understand it so we can consider his miracles to be
superstitious legendary nonsense. If
you assert that a miracle has happened then the burden of proof is on you no
matter who else has proved it to themselves.
To say, “I saw the Blessed Virgin in an apparition,” is just as
serious as somebody saying, “My friend saw the Blessed Virgin in an apparition.” One is just as outrageous as the other. So the burden of proof is on the first to
prove that he really sees the Virgin and separately on the second to prove
that he or she is right to hold that the friend saw the Virgin. It is bigotry to believe in a miracle
claim without proving it to yourself.
It is not enough for the Church to prove it – you have to see the
complete evidence and examine it for yourself. You stand alone in considering claims like
that. If God wants us to believe in
miracles then he must want us to go through all this! It is ridiculous to think that he
does. A better belief is that miracles
are mistakes or frauds and God had nothing to do with them. To say that a reported miracle by Jesus or
anybody else may have happened or was possible is simply to say we should be
gullible. Nobody teaches that one must
verify miracles to oneself for it is such hard work and there are so many
miracles reported.
If
we say it is unlikely for a man to rise from the dead the believers are
forced to answer that we don’t know what is unlikely or not. This answer shows the immorality and
wickedness of declaring miracles to have happened or possible. Why?
If we say that the dead are dead we have no right to say that if we
believe that people can come back from the dead for how do you in Sweden know
that it isn’t possible or unlikely for all the dead in Australia to rise this
moment? How can you say the dead are
dead or that the dead don’t return?
Because of the consequences of miracles, they deny the uniformity of life
never mind nature, the burden of proof is on the believers. And the burden doesn’t get lighter with
“small” miracles. Why? Because if we can’t say the dead are dead
because of our respect for miracles then how can we say that people need to
study if God miraculously inspires a schoolboy or schoolgirl regarding the
correct answer to a small question in an examination paper?
The
person who says they got a revelation from God that the world is to end next
week and the person seeing the Blessed Virgin and getting a harmless message
to repent from her, demand the same level of evidence. Why?
Doesn’t the first person have a more important message than the
second? Yes the content is more
serious but that is not the point. The
method by which both messages came is equal in that it is supernatural. The two messages equally need to be proved
reliable and supernatural because they claim to be supernatural. The point is not the importance of the
messages but the medium of the message – that is, how the message was
given. The content messages can have
no importance at all unless the supernatural nature of the message can be
proven and the supernatural can be proven reliable. Think of it this way, we can’t listen to
the world end message or the other one just because of what it says. The supernatural has to be proven to exist
and be reliable before we can heed such a message. Therefore small miracles need to be treated
as scientifically or sceptically as big ones.
If 1 plus 1 is 3 in a village in Spain that
calls for as much attention and examination as 1 plus 1 being 3 in the whole
of Europe would be. A miracle
challenges the way things happen in the same way that that would challenge
mathematics. For example, if 1 + 1 = 3 is true anywhere it is true everywhere. It’s a universal law. If somebody can instantly cure the
incurable that means the diseases cured are no longer incurable and this
becomes a universal law too.
Imagine that when two natural laws are
brought together they result in a specific result that we will call result
X. You could say that law 1 plus law 2
is equal to result X. If a miracle
interferes with this then the two laws bring about a different result. It’s the same scenario as 1 and 1 = 2 being
changed to 1 and 1 = 3. Believers say
that this is wrong. Its law 1 plus
law 2 plus miracle law 3 = a different result from X.
It’s
a matter of worldwide concern when any miracle takes place – though the world
wouldn’t be concerned it ought to be.
The view that the bigger the miracle the greater the evidence is a
mistake. True, you need almost
unattainable evidence for a big miracle for its big but you are no better off
with smaller ones. Why? The manifestation may differ but the nature
of the event is the same, it defies what we know of nature. This evidence is so difficult and
time-consuming to verify that clearly all believers in miracles are inferring
that evidence isn’t so important and if so, then we should believe crackpots
who claim revelations about the end of the world!