The Resurrection

Why is the Resurrection important to Christians? Paul outlines this in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20. Before we look at the resurrection of Jesus, we need to establish that He actually died. If a cow is hit by a train and then staggers back up, there are two conclusions. Firstly, it died and ressurected, and secondly, it was merely stunned and got revived.

Did Jesus die on the cross?
Certain passages of scripture support the idea that Jesus might not have died. For example, He could have been drugged by something in the sponge and that fact that Pilate was surprised that Jesus died so quickly also supports this somewhat. So, let's look at the medical evidence. After the 39 lashes and the blood loss with that, Jesus would have had low blood pressure, a high heart rate and low levels of bodily fluids which are used up to replace the lost blood. Perhaps Jesus had just fainted on the cross.

The word excruciating comes from crucifixion. The death itself, is not, as most would think due to blood loss but it is by asphyxiation. When hanging on the cross, you would need to push up from your feet to take every breath. At the same time, your feet are slowly ripped by the nail and your back rubs against the rough surface of the wood. The lack of oxygen and the exhaustion leads to an erratic heartbeat and then cardiac arrest. All of this leads to a build up of clear fluid around the heart and lungs.

Now if Jesus did not die on the cross, surely He would die in the tomb? Or surely, if He did not die, and somehow managed to get out of the tomb, then surely He would not be able to convince His disciples to spread the word that He has resurrected...in that condition. The death of Christ is not a question, the fact that a resurrection story exists is testimony to this. Also, the medical evidence of Jesus dying is overwhelming.

Empty Tomb
This is not actually much of a contested issue, even skeptics to not question this because the early Christian leaders did not refer to it explicitly. Never once in Acts 2, for example, did Peter say..."Go look at the tomb yourself it's at xxxxxxx". In Matthew 28:11-15, the Jewish leaders bribe the guards to say what they are told. Never once did they claim that the tomb was not empty. Maybe you don't believe in the bible and think that it is inaccurate and that this did not happen. However, if this was so, no historical document would have survived scrutiny as long as the bible has.

Perhaps the disciples stole the body, as the guards claim in scripture. However, if you examine Luke 24:13-24 and John 20:19, we can see that the disciples were in no position to do this. If they had not lost all hope, then they were scared and locked themselves away. The actions of these men after Jesus appeared to them again completely changed, they were courageous and were willing to die for what they believed in. It must have taken a big event like the resurrection to cause this.

It is also out of the question whether some other group such as the Jews or the Romans stole the body. If they had, they would have just reproduced the body when the resurrection story was spreading and quickly dismantling the story.

Witnesses
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, Paul writes that there were 500 witnesses to Jesus after His resurrection. These documents were circulated and used as teaching material in the early Church, basically what Paul is doing here, is to INVITE others to ask these witnesses, to get the evidence form themselves. There is an argument that these 500 were merely hallucinating but this falls on so many levels. Firstly, hallucinations generally only happen when there is a stimulus such as a drug, secondly, they happen individually about different things, at different times. It is actually arguable that God making 500 people hallucinate the same thing at the same time a greater miracle than raising Jesus from the dead!

Another argument is that the resurrection was merely wishful thinking on the part of the disciples. However, this doesn't add up either because no one expected Jesus to rise again because no one understood it. All the Jews at the time were expecting the Messiah to be a great warrior to lead them out of foreign oppression, like a second exodus. In fact, even Peter thought this, He did not understand who Jesus was, and this is displayed in Mark 8:27-38. Another one is Paul, who, at the time did not even want Jesus to rise again. He went round persecuting the Christians, stoning them and throwing them in prison, yet even he went on to preach about it.

My Updates

Quick link to my update blogs!

Phat Camp - 09 Aug
Who's Kingdom? - 01 Mar
God on Mute 2 - 08 Feb
Broken - 21 Jan
It Is Well - 16 Jan
God on Mute - 01 Jan
Glorifying God - 29 Dec
Boast in Christ - 10 Dec
Pour Out my Heart - 06 Dec
Woo! Blogging! - 27 Nov

Woo! Blogging!

I am quite excited about this!...kinda sad really, but I think this will provide a nice break from all the law work I have to do!

I just got back in from CU and then having a drink with a few of my friends. CU was great, Romans 8...no condemnation in Christ, really reminded me that everyone is hurting inside. Even if they don't admit it, the world cries out to God and each person has something that they feel guilty about. Such hope we have in Christ that we are under no condemnation and are righteous before God!

This led nicely on to a chat I had with my friend at the pub about how much are we willing to suffer in light of this hope? He told me about two guys in Africa who were beaten up for not rescinding their faith in Christ, then had their legs broken, dragged as dogs on their knees and skulls smashed in. At any point, they could have escaped this by denying Christ. They ended up being burned to death singing God's praises. Such sacrifice, such assurance in their faith, really made me think of how little I actually offer up, how weak any suffering I receive is.

After walking back with my friend to halls, we bumped into a guy on her corridor and he was stumbling out of a taxi, completely smashed. Such a saddening sight, oh how much this world needs the Lord!

On a slightly lighter note...I'm well on track with my writing credit, gone through the relevant parts in two books this week already and two more are on the way!

So concludes my first ramble...I'll get onto updating the apologetics stuff now!

Looking at the Bible Historically

Recently there have been many questions about the historical accuracy of the bible as a whole as well as in singular books. So let's look at some of the books historically, to date them and to critically assess the authors and witnesses.

Luke and Acts
We can see from the style and vocabulary that these were written by the same author, Luke, who was a physician. He was writing for a king or ruler named Theophilus who had heard about Jesus and had told Luke to make a report about Him. The book of Acts does not mention the crucial historical event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, this suggests that it was written before that time. The prominence of the Sadducees suggest a time before 66AD when Roman and Jewish relations broke down. A less accurate indication would be the ommission of the cruxifiction of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in 62AD. Nevertheless, historical evidence suggests a time before 70AD at least. Luke would have been written before Acts as can be seen in Acts 1. Therefore, Luke would have been written about 30 years after Jesus' cruxifiction which by historical standards is very close to the events. It can also be seen in Luke 1:1-4 that Luke wrote His book in a historical way, by looking at sources available to him at the time as well as interviewing witnesses. This also means that records of Jesus before Luke was written, further adding weight to the historical evidence for the gospels. As we have established that historically Luke is sound and the picture it paints of Jesus are in line with the other gospels, it would not be unreasonable to assume they are sound as well.

Are the Words Accurate?
There are some arguments such as discrepencies between the gospels for example how many women were at the empty tomb. However, addressing this argument, none of the gospels mention how many women were present, but all agree that it is plural. It would also be historical malpractice to discredit historical documents on the basis of secondary matters. In fact, the slight differences actually enforce the validity of them. If witnesses were to make up a story in court, they would sit together and make sure that they get every single fact exactly right. Here, this is not the case because the authors just wrote the truth. This can be seen but the fact that they did not change their story from the beginning, if they did, there were many Jewish leaders ready to pounce.

Perhaps there is a question on whether the witnesses would have exaggerated or lied about Jesus, after all, they were close friends. However, if the context is examined, they preached about Jesus in a very hostile environment, under persecution from both the Jews and the Romans. It would be in their self interest not to exaggerate what Jesus did, but to not say anything at all. But yet they spread the word? why? the only reason would be if it was the truth, a truth so great they were willing to risk their lives for it.

Constantine and The Council of Nicea
There is a school of thought that Constantine and the Council of Nicea put together the biblical canon and that many documents were burned and also they decided the Jesus was divine. In fact, the bible as we know it was not put together until 60 years after Constantine died. The reason was that there was no need for a bible as such, the teachers knew which documents were correct and accurate. However, there were some books which some accepted but others didn't such as Hebrews, Jude and James. The gospels not included in the bible are called the gnostic gospels, an example is the gospel of Judas which was recently discovered and dated to 300-400AD by the National Geographic. At the time these gospels were known to be inaccurate, it would be like buying The Sun for good political analysis.

What WAS discussed at The Council of Nicea was to tackle the view of Arianism which was a school who thought that Jesus had been created. At the council, this was strongly opposed and unlike a certain Mr. Dan Brown claims, the doctrine of a divine Jesus already existed before Constantine.

Heaven and Hell

Heaven and Hell are very important, it is the reason why we spread the gospel so it is vital that we understand what they are.

Hell
Hell is the place of judgement, where God's wrath falls on those who have not accepted Him and so are cast away from Him. Hell must exist because God is just, there must be punishment for sin. There are many biblical descriptions for hell.;
Matthew 8:12 - Weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mark 9:43-49 - Fire.
Romans 2:7-9 - Wrath and anger.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 - Everlasting destruction.
Hell is an everlasting death, a spiritual death where you are detached from God.

Heaven
Heaven is to dwell with God, to be in the relationship with Him that He created us for, a good description is found in Revelation 21. Heaven is a spiritual place as can be seen in 2 Corinthians 12:1-3. The Jewish science at the time set the universe in three layers, the first heaven was the sky, the second heaven was the universe and the cosmos and the third heaven is the spiritual realm where God is. To get to hell you merely have to reject God (which we all have done already), to get to heaven, you must place your trust in Jesus Christ. Paul outlines this in Romans 4.

Is Jesus the Only Way?

Are all religions different paths up the same mountain? Or is there only one way? Is this way Jesus? There are so many religious views, so many different possible ways, which is the most convincing? Which one works?

Exclusive or Inclusive
In general, these are the two types of religious view, that either they are the only way, or all religions provide a way. One popular argument is that all religions are different parts up the same mountain. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this view because to know that this is truth, you have to not only have reached the top, but also see the whole of the mountain. In other words, you are claiming divinity. If we are to take an inclusive view, we would have to accept that religions such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity are true in their views, so, we end up at position of exclusivity.

Why Jesus?
The fundamental problem according to all exclusive religions is that of sin. To be with God, one must be righteous in His eyes. All have sinned so it is a problem which all mankind faces. The reason God cannot be with sin is because He is perfect and just, He cannot be with sin otherwise He would be denying His own nature. This is where Islam falls, there is salvation only in Allah but there is no remedy for sin, which demands punishment, death. This is where Jesus comes in, He lived a sinless life and gave up His life as a sacrifice for sin, once and for all. It is the same case with Judaism, the law was never supposed to be permanent. In fact, Abraham, the father of the Jews was accredited with righteousness not because He followed the law, but because He had FAITH in God. Therefore, by the same logic, we can only get to God through faith in God, that is, through Jesus Christ.

Paul sums up all the arguments very comprehensively in the book of Romans.

God and Science

Is there a place for both God and science? Richard Dawkins believes that scientific truth is the only truth. However, what is this view based on? It is surely not based on science, there is no evidence to this truth, in fact, it is a philosophical truth. Does a place for God mean no place for science? Again, I would have to say no, God uses science as a mechanism. This leaves us with one other option, the harmony of God and Science. Let's take a look at one of the most controversial and hot topics, Genesis and Evolution.

Evolution
This is a scientific theory. This means that it is a basis of scientific outlook, a starting point, one where new hypotheses are based on. It is not (as some say) 'just a theory' in that it is not proven. The mass of evidence about evolution comes from fossils which are carbon dated. This is a very accurate form of dating and the data can, on a whole be trusted. There are questions however, which do face evolution, such as the 'Cambrian Explosion'. A time where seemingly a lot of fossils appeared in a short space of time, however this could be due to the climate and conditions with just suited fossilization. Nevertheless, the evidence for evolution appears to be quite comprehensive but as any scientist will tell you, it does not deal with how life got here in the first place.

Genesis
To some, this is hard fact, take it word for word, God created the earth in six 24 hour days out of nothing. However, this argument seems to fall short because the notion of a 24 hour day did not exist until day 4, when the Sun was created. I believe that Genesis 1 is in fact, a poem. There are many poetic traits in it, such as the rhythm, how each day starts and how each day ends, it is a cycle. There is also structure in it, God separates in days 1, 2 and 3, God fills in days 4, 5 and 6. What God separates in day 1 He fills in 4, what He separates in day 2, He fills in 5 and what He separates in day 3, He fills in 6. It would be illogical to lecture the Israelites on microbiology and evolution, instead, God tells them what is important, that He created them.

Conclusion
This is only a brief summary of the debate but it can already be seen that there is a place for both God and science to work. Benjamin Warfield, one of the 'Princeton Theologians' said, "A theory of the method, of the divine providence". There was no tension then so why should there be now? Science does not and never will prove how we got here, the universe is so intricate so many levels and balances. You may argue that this is one of the 'God for the gaps' arguments but is it? The two are addressing very different things, on one hand science tells us how things work and on the other God tells us why they work.

Additional Resources:
Rob Bell - Everything is Spiritual
Francis Collins - the Language of God

A Few Questions of Belief

There are often many questions people have for not believing or trusting in God (whether genuine or not). Generally, these four always come up, so let's look at them!

Isn't the idea of God just wish fulfillment?
Often we have a sense of awe, when we look at a beautiful landscape or a huge cathedral dome, something that cannot be explained or described. Is this God or is it just our WANT to be God? Freud held onto the belief that a person's view or perception of God is no more than an exalted father. However, the biblical God is very different to this, He is constant, objective. Also, the bible tells us that we will suffer, there will be suffering for Christ, yet people still follow. There must be something greater than that to cause our continue strive towards God.

The argument can also be turned on its head. Just because you wish for something, it does not mean that it cannot happen, a farmer can wish for rain, a man can wish for a loving wife. Both are possible realities, C.S. Lewis sums this up well:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exist. A baby feels hunger, well there is such a thing as food...Men feel sexual desire, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

What about the harm done in the name of religion?
There has been a lot of harm done, the crusades, September 11...there seems to be a valid point here. However, the good is often omitted, what about Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, or William Wilberforce convincing Parliament to outlaw slavery or Martin Luther King? Look at the 20th century, it has been the bloodiest in all of history and at the same time, society is becoming more and more secular. There is much evidence to show that actually, religion has a positive effect.

Most people look at the church and see it's flaws, and there are many, because it is made up of broken people. It is not right to judge Christ through us, though we strive to be like Him, we cannot be. This is the same as judging the water inside by looking at the rusty can it is in. Or, a more biblical analogy would be to judge the treasure by looking at the jars of clay that hold it. To examine Christianity, one must look at Christ.

Why would a loving God allow suffering?
There are so many responses to this question. Most of the pain and suffering is caused by mankind because of our own actions through free will. It is our fault, so we shouldn't blame God for it. The other type is that of 'natural evil', things like earthquakes and tsunamis. Perhaps this is God's judgement, or perhaps God is working behind the scenes to save so many more people.

Whatever the response, however intellectually satisfying (or not) it may be...it doesn't solve the question. Suffering happens and no explaination will justify it within our hearts. We complain because we believe in ourselves that things should be better, if not, then why complain? Instead of shaking your fist at God, why not ask Him how He can remedy it, how He can comfort you. God has promised us so much concerning suffering. In our comfort, God whispers but in our suffering God is loud, ask yourself, do you learn more when things are smooth, or when you suffer? Would life be life without suffering?

Can a rational person believe in miracles?
In short, yes. A rational person must not write off anything, there is always a chance of anything happening however small it may be. The problem is that the word 'miracle' is used too much nowadays, it is something that science and nature cannot explain. Examples would be parting the red sea, the Sun standing still in Joshua, Jesus rising from the dead, miraculous instant healings or even the changing of a heart. Science cannot explain these things, they are miracles. Perhaps you will never see a miracle in your lifetime, God does not shake them about randomly but they happen at times of great spiritual importance. So yes, a rational person can believe in miracles, of course, look for other explainations first but it should never be ruled out, or you would be being irrational.

Introduction, what is it?

So what is apologetics? It can be simply put as two things. 1) Presenting the rational basis of Christian faith, 2) Defending the faith. It is important to know what you believe, to have some sort of foundation for your faith, be it through experience or logic. Apologetics is important because it is practiced in the bible (Acts 26:2) and we are also told to do it (1 Peter 3:15).

It is important to be clear and honest about what you believe in and know. As with all things, do it with humility because the aim is not to win the argument, but to break down some intellectual barriers which may be holding back people from coming to Christ. Often, it would be appreciated if you just said "errrm...I don't really know, but I will write it down and get back to you on that one" rather than forcing out an argument which you yourself may not find to be convincing or relevant.

One thing to keep in mind is to address the question. If someone asks you...WHY DID YOU BECOME A CHRISTIAN? It would be useless to tell them about how you met a nice guy, then went for coffee and joined a small group then after reading the bible you committed your life to Christ! Sure, that is a great thing but have you really answered the question? You told them HOW you became one, rather than WHY.

So why do you believe? Is it because of better answers, or morality, or ways of life? Address these questions. However, I believe that if you search within yourself, the answer is a sunday school one...JESUS. It is because of Jesus we believe, because of Jesus' sacrifice, because od Jesus changing our lives. But why Jesus? Because He was the only one who could do it. If you look at all the 'founders' of 'religions', for example Buddha, or Mohammad, they could have been replaced by anyone else in history, but Jesus can't! Without Jesus, we have no reason to believe.

So think logically, be gentle and above all pray about it, let God work!

Additional resources:
http://bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/

Apologetics

So here are the titles I have discussed so far. I will be updating them as I go along!

Introduction, what is it?
A Few Questions of Belief
God and Science
Is Jesus the Only Way?
Heaven and Hell
Looking at the Bible Historically
The Resurrection
The Gospel

Useful links:
www.bethinking.org