Validating the Resurrection Against the Argument Keeping Me Up at Night

Yesterday, I explained that people have a tendency to spread comforting lies rather than listen to harsh truths.  Facebook is rife with examples of unexamined statements that are easy to verify as false, yet people spread with glee.

This could work against the Resurrection.  Wouldn’t people believe that Jesus rose from the dead and was thus vindicated by God as the Messiah rather than face the harsh reality that he died on the cross and is still in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea?  Isn’t that just like the rant misattributed to Bill Cosby that people keep spreading around the Internet uncritically because it supports their own beliefs perfectly and they would like to think that Bill Cosby agrees with them because Bill Cosby is supercool?

Maybe.  However, I think that there are two good reasons I will remain a steadfast Christian.  First, there are always natural skeptics who will hear something and not just spread it, but instead spend their time trying to inform others of the grievous error they are making by believing it.  Second, not everyone who believed in the Resurrection needed it as a “comforting lie.”  Paul, for example, was predisposed to believe otherwise, yet came away a believer.

While 90% or better of FB users read that article and believed it was from Bill Cosby, there were still exceptions to the rule.  People like me, skeptics by nature.  People who read those and feel something just isn’t right.  People who spent the five necessary minutes to confirm or deny that meme and then helpfully provide the links to the person who shared.

That spotlights the key difference between the Resurrection and the Bill Cosby meme: the presence of disconfirming information.  I can readily find that, from Bill Cosby’s own mouth.

If people are much the same 2000 years ago as today, then I have to assume that it played out then as it does now, minus Facebook, Snopes, and Google.  Bob walks up to Jim and said, “He is Risen!”  Jim, like 90%+ of Facebook believed him without question and started telling everyone he met.

But, there has to be a me somewhere.  Call him Roy.  Roy hears Bob and thinks, “People don’t rise from the dead 3 days after the fact.”  Without Snopes, Roy would have to do the legwork, and that would take more than 5 minutes.  He could ask the guards at the tomb, he could ask the other eyewitnesses that Paul mentions (remember: there are over 500 of them), he could talk to the Pharisees and the Sadducees (no friends of Jesus’ followers).  Try as he might, he just can’t find anything akin to Bill Cosby’s official denial letter.

The officials claimed someone stole the body.  The guards back that up.  But wait — isn’t the penalty for dereliction of duty death?  Why weren’t the guards put to death?

None of this means the Resurrection happened, but it does point in a favorable direction.  With all the enemies of Christ, you’d think there would be some disconfirming information out there and the enemies of Christ would make it really easy to find.  Not Snopes or Google easy, but 1st-century easy for those natural skeptics.  The Pharisees and the Sadducees would have a vested interest in making sure that the information was available.

What we do see are bully tactics.  It’s punishable by death to talk about it, preach it, or to disturb a corpse.  Not, “Here’s why Jesus’ Movement is Crap.”  Instead, “Don’t Talk About Jesus’ Movement or We’ll Kill You.”  The old I-can’t-answer-you-so-I’ll-punish-you-until-you-shut-up trick.

Again, doesn’t mean that a man rose from the dead three days after his burial, but it does seem to point favorably toward that conclusion.

The natural objection is that Christians obliterated such information when they came to power following Constantine’s conversion.  But that fails, because Christians were a heavily persecuted minority at the time in question.  If the authorities made disconfirming information easily available, then Christianity would never have gotten off the ground, there wouldn’t have been a conversion of the Roman Emperor 300 years later, and therefore no opportunity for those sneaky Christians to destroy all the evidence.

So I’ll keep going to church and praising the one who rose on third day in fulfillment of the Scriptures.

About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on May 1, 2013, in Apologetics. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. descriptivegrace

    The best argument against the resurrection is the Jewish argument. Its not really an argument against the resurrection at all but rather an argument that Sinai has a firmer foundation than the resurrection. It basically runs like this “God appeared on Sinai and audibly spoke the 10 commandments to a whole nation of like hundreds of thousands if not millions of people all at once The resurrection was only seen by like 12 guys.” Of course, according to Paul there were also the extra 500 brethren who saw some kind of vision of Jesus that’s not explained, and there are the women. That brings the resurrection’s witness list to at best 523 people, and none of them actually saw “the resurrection”: they just saw a vision of Jesus AFTER the resurrection. But on Sinai, the whole nation of Israel heard the voice of God audibly and saw the manifestation of the mountain being on fire, the lightning, and so on. Then after that the 70 elders of Israel with Moses and someone else, Aaron I think, went up the mountain and “they saw the God of Israel, and under his feet was as it were a pavement of sapphire stone.” The argument is basically, yeah maybe the resurrection did happen; but its not a public event like Sinai so excuse me if I don’t believe it to be as important as the giving of the Law. There’s not much that a Christian can say against this, other than “stupid Jew” which would not be very nice.

  2. I think the main problem for the resurrection is how to distinguish it from mythology (unprovable religious stories that contain a spiritual truth within them) and history.

    For instance, take the various creation accounts scattered throughout the Bible. Gen. 1, Gen. 2-3, Prov. 8, Is. 40-51, etc. They all have differences in them but they were not eyewitness accounts.

    Thus, to argue that the resurrection narratives were necessarily eyewitness accounts is a bit of a stretch as well. That, and the resurrection deplores an element of a miracle. There have been Christians all throughout who saw allegory in the miracles of Christ more than literal elements.

    Thus, the resurrection is a myth. Which does not necessarily mean it didn’t happen.

  3. When it comes to the resurrection and returning of Jesus to heaven these are my thoughts:

    Jesus dies. By dead we mean 100% dead. So he is as dead as someone who has had their head chopped off and you leave them there for two weeks to make sure. That’s what I mean by dead.

    But Jesus then comes back to life from the dead. This is the same as the head coming back on the beheaded body then coming back to life.

    Secondly he flew to heaven bodily like Superman.

    I’ve never seen any evidence that either of these things are possible so I don’t believe that they are likely to be true. What evidence can you present to show that either of these things are possible? If you say the bible how do you know that these claims weren’t made up?

  4. I should also add that as far as I’m aware it isn’t physically possible for humans to die and come back to life and to fly (say without wings.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: