Shalom! I have a question to post, and it deals with the resurrection of Jesus:
Many books of Christian apologetics are written with the theme of a case that would be brought before a court, to see if the evidence would prove a case. Below we shall explore this in depth.
Testimony One -- The Auto Wreck According to John Doe #1
"Bob and George had just walked out of the convenience store when a red colored van sped around the corner and collided with the lamp post. The lamp post fell and crashed into a mail truck that swerved and crashed into a stretch limo, resulting in a crumpling of both vehicles. The driver of the limo emerged from his seat, completely unharmed, and opened the door of the mail truck, and offered his hand to help the driver of the truck to the ground. The mailman grasped the limo driver's hand and limps away from the accident with the limo driver. This is the story that was told to me, and I'm sure it's the truth."
Testimony Two -- The Auto Wreck According to John Doe #2
"My friend George was walking along by himself when a green colored van sped around the corner and collided with the fire hydrant. The hydrant exploded, spraying water everywhere. A mail truck swerved and crashed into a town car, resulting in a crumpling of both vehicles. The driver of the town car emerged from his seat, blood streaming down his forehead, and opened the door of the mail truck, and offered his hand to help the driver of the truck to the ground. The mailman slapped away the limo driver's hand and limps away from the accident, ignoring the limo driver. This is the story that was told to me, and I'm sure it's the truth."
These two stories are a perfect example of the problems with the resurrection narratives in the Gospels. They are exclusive of one another, and cannot possibly both be true. Such is the case with the Gospels. While in a court of law, some leeway is often given because people are inperfect and would remember things differently and from different perspectives. This cannot be given in the case of the Gospels, because the landmark claim of Divine inspiration is being made, and something Divinely inspired would not contain contradictions or errors.
Further injury to the claim in the examples above is that the witnesses both admit that they aren't actually witnesses! This plays a large part in how the reader should answer the following question:
It is known that Christians often defend apparent inconsistencies in the four resurrection narratives by explaining it as if it were a car-wreck -- four witnesses who saw the same event will tell the story over differently, from their own perspective, as given in the example above. How can one honestly appeal to this point of view when the New Testament by its own admission tells us that the authors of the Gospels did not witness the events themselves?
Testimony Regarding the Amazing Flying Man
"Folks, I want you all to know, that a few years ago, a man named John Doe, whom no one had seen for years, showed himself in public. He glowed a light blue, and levitated to a height of twenty meters, at which point he turned into a bird and joined a group of birds flying above, never to be seen again. Not only did I witness this, but there were five hundred other witnesses, but I don't know where those witnesses are, and they haven't seemed to find this event interesting enough to tell anyone about it."
This case introduces us with a new difficulty. Can we trust the claims of something that defies nature in a case where witnesses are claimed to exist, but we never hear from those witnesses, so that not only is the miraculous claim questionable, but also we have questions regarding the existence of witnesses??
The reader should now apply this principle to the following questions:
1) Christians point to Paul's claim that 500 people saw a resurrected Jesus all at once in order to bolster his claim of Christianity's validity. Why didn't he tell us who the witnesses were or where they lived?
2) Why didn't the 500 witnesses ever come forward to give testimony? Doesn't that mean that Christianity can't prove that there were witnesses?
3) When one evaluates a claim, doesn't he need to hear the witnesses' testimony to make his ruling, not just be told that witnesses exist? I could tell you that I once was able to fly under my own power, and that 500 people witnessed me do it, but where does that leave my claim if you don't know who the 500, where they lived, or what they had to say about it, especially if you never heard of it from an outside source?
Didn't You See The Sign?
"I know you guys didn't trust our boss when he said he would reappear after being missing for a week and triumphantly return to breath fire as a sign he'd been changed by aliens, but we saw it happen before our very eyes. It was supposed to be a sign for you to see, but we testify that it happened!"
The problem with this claim is obvious. The same problem exists in the following question:
Jesus, when asked by the Pharisees to give them a sign, replied he would give them the sign of Jonah -- just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so too would Jesus die and be resurrected on the third day. However, after the supposed resurrection, Jesus didn't appear to the Pharisees. He only appeared to those who had already believed in him. How is this a sign to the Pharisees. If I gave you a sign that defied nature, but disappeared and then my friends, whom you never trusted in the first place, came to you and told you the sign had come to pass, how would you react? What good is a sign if you never see it?
Aren't we all, Jew or gentile, seeking truth???
Be Well,
Yehudi
Show Posts