Responding to Some Criticisms of the Resurrection
I was asked by someone to respond to a post titled My reply to “Five Reasons to Doubt the Resurrection by Matthew Hartke, Debunked.” So I am responding to a response that was a response to some original statement! Here I go.
I will not respond to everything in the post at turch is rong but I will pick out some statements that I think are worth responding to.
Hermeneutics of Suspicion
The author makes this statement:
I deny the Christian presupposition that we have some sort of “obligation” to believe whatever we read until we can prove it false. Absent such obligation, I’m not seeing how the skeptic’s complete apathy toward biblical evidence about apostle Paul breaks any rule of common sense, hermeneutics or historiography.
Are there Christians who argue that we have an obligation to believe whatever we read in the Bible? Of course. But this statement reveals something deeper than criticisms about Christians.
The focus for the author is about why we should not believe what Paul says about the resurrection. Outside of the resurrection, how are we supposed to read ancient texts? Do we start with the presupposition that the text is telling the truth or telling a lie?
What I am about to say has nothing to do with a doctrine of inerrancy or certain writings being included in Scripture. From my reading of how scholars of ancient history read texts, I have noticed that they tend to believe something unless there is a good reason to object. If Thucydides or Josephus say something, we take it seriously unless there is a reason not to.
I have not read any ancient historian claim that we should assume that the text is making a false statement as our starting point. And yet some skeptics want us to use this hermeneutic when it comes to the Bible.
Jesus and Hell
The author also talks about hell and his doubts of its existence. If there is no hell, there is no point in following Jesus. I will not comment on the biblical evidence for hell, although I agree with the author that the Sheol of the Old Testament has nothing to do with what many people consider to be hell.
I have my own doubts of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment. But none of that affects how I understand the resurrection of Jesus or the importance of following Jesus. I believe in the resurrection because I believe it is the best explanation for the evidence. I follow Jesus because I believe he teaches the truth.
Paul and the Resurrection
The author questions the usefulness of Paul’s encounter with Jesus as evidence of the resurrection. I address that in this video:
I don’t want to take too much time discussing Paul’s experience of Jesus because I believe there is better evidence for the resurrection. But I do want to comment on this:
The “room” we skeptics need to declare this experience as limited to Paul’s mind is created by the story itself, which has Jesus speaking audibly to Paul while Paul’s compansions cannot understand him. If somebody told you that while they walked along the road with friends, suddenly, they heard the voice of Jesus in English, but the companions heard the voice and couldn’t understanding, you probably wouldn’t spend a great deal of time pretending the account is the least bit serious or compelling.
To be honest, I have a strong skeptical streak in me. However, if someone claimed that this happened and then there was a change comparable to what happened with Paul, I would take it seriously.
Bodily Resurrection
Did the earliest Christians believe in a physical resurrection? The author states:
My theory is that the earliest resurrection belief was entirely spiritual in nature, and over time began to become more physical in order to make it less implausible.
Having studied early Judaism and the Greco-Roman traditions of the time, as well as early Christianity, I believe the exact opposite is true. Especially when it comes to the resurrection of the believer.
If you ask the average church-goer what happens when we die, it would be probably something like being freed from the body so that we can be a spirit in heaven. This, despite the fact that the New Testament claims that we will experience a bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).
Early Judaism, for the most part, believed in a bodily resurrection. When they do talk about becoming a spirit, they do not use resurrection language. Christianity, emerging out of Judaism initially believed in a bodily resurrection.
What eventually happened was a strong influence from Platonism, which saw matter as bad and spirit as good. If matter is bad, it would not make sense to have a body after death. We should be freed to be the spirit we were meant to be. Some took this so far to claim that Jesus did not have a real body even during his earthly ministry.
The author claims that the earliest Gospel, Mark, said nothing about the risen Christ. This is not true. Mark speaks about Jesus being risen, even if it does not actually narrate resurrection appearances. This is related to the question of Mark and the empty tomb, which I discuss in this video:
Concluding Thoughts
What should we make of this skeptical view of the resurrection? I have no desire to debate a skeptic on this, as debate rarely do anything positive.
But what about Christians who read such statements as found on turch is rong? Just because an author sounds confident and can dismiss Christian claims, does not make the person correct.
We need to look at the evidence for ourselves. For myself, I find the evidence for the resurrection to be compelling and I don’t need the inerrancy of the Bible to get me there. I share my reasons for believing in the resurrection in this video:
