Why I Believe

[ER]

Why I Believe

I was going to post this essay of mine on Good Friday, but in uncertain times, I thought I'd fling this tiny exercise in Christian apologetics out now instead. If you want to read my thoughts here, then thank you in advance, and if not, then no hard feelings whatsoever. Your time is your own.

Faith seems to me a sort of mystery. After all, to believe in something without evidence is not logical, is it? Yet in the Bible faith is defined as:

"... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...."

And that I can get behind, since hope is a very powerful thing (in its ability to nourish life it may be even mightier than love) and as for the "evidence of things not seen" that is where, a decade ago, I found my reasons for believing in Jesus after a lifetime of agnosticism, since there is not only evidence for Jesus' life and miracles and resurrection, these reasons come circumstantially with the force of logical argument behind them.

Rather than make a case for Jesus' life and works, let me briefly touch on three common critical challenges to the single cornerstone event in Christianity, the resurrection, and note why I find its historicity compelling.


Critics have said:

Jesus did not truly die on the cross.
Jesus' body was stolen by his followers.
Jesus' body was disposed of by the Roman or by his Jewish enemies.


While I did endure thirteen years of Catholic school, I am no theological expert, and others have replied to these charges with more eloquence than me, but here are some thoughts I have had on each of these positions.


Jesus did not die on the cross:
To me this is the weakest of all challenges, since while evidence does exist that at least one person in ancient times appears to have survived crucifixion, there seems no reason to think Jesus did, since having been condemned by no less than a provincial governor of Rome, his executioners knew that the penalty for a failure to carry out this order would have meant their own deaths. That's motivating!

Dying as Jesus did before a gathering that included many enemies, under what circumstances could this man have been removed from his cross while still alive? Wouldn't his enemies have protested? Wouldn't the Roman soldiers undertaking the deed (probably not novices in the art of killing) have been certain of his death, if only for their own self-preservation?

Who could remain still as a spear was thrust into his side, as was done to Jesus' clearly lifeless body?

After having been beaten and crucified across the course of most of a day, just how survivable does a critic of the Gospel account imagine this degree of torture to have been? And had Jesus have come down from the cross alive, in what state would he have been? Probably not lucid, and likely not in a condition to inspire awe among his traumatized followers. Would he have ever been able to walk again? Would a scarred and disfigured person have motivated many who gazed with horror on his ruined physique?

A criminal who endured such punishment would not likely have been one to set aflame the hearts and spirits of man and go on to found the world's greatest religion, based almost solely upon a claim that its central figure rose from the dead.

Actually, after predicting his own death and resurrection, having survived condemnation rather than dying and returning, his followers would have seen Jesus as a liar and not the Messiah, and surely few would have been inspired to follow him after that.

Would you follow a liar to your death?


Jesus' body was stolen by his followers.
Okay, to what end? To fake the fulfillment of Jesus' resurrection? Yes, perhaps, but let me ask a second time, would you die for a fraud? All but one of Jesus' disciples who survived to see his resurrection went on to die violent deaths as martyrs, and was it their participation in some great con that motivated them to do so?

One might perpetuate a fraud about a rebirth for financial gain and for the acquisition of women, as most cult leaders have done, but why would you die for a known lie? And why would you be willing to live out the remainder of your life as a social outcast, shunned by the Jewish community that once nurtured you, where you had family and friends? Why give up your livelihood and exchange it for a wandering life in which you'd be beaten, persecuted, ultimately killed? Can you really see someone doing that for a lie about a resurrection that they helped orchestrate?

So at the very least we might logically assume the disciples of Jesus believed their master rose from the dead on the third day, as he foretold he would, and why else would they believe this were they not convinced it was true?

And how could they be fooled were it not Jesus who came to stand before them post-crucifixion? They recognized him, they saw the holes in his hands and feet, they saw the scars of the crown of thorns, and so to them it was no act of faith to believe, it was the proof of their senses as eye-witnesses, and that is a powerful truth argument there.

Remember, as Jesus stood trial the disciples scattered in fear, at least one openly denied him, yet some mysterious, powerful event changed these men from terrified figures acting on instincts of self-preservation into faithful evangelists willing to die for this man they called Lord....and ultimately in all but one case they did die for him.

Again, if they were lying, why would they do this?



Jesus' body was disposed of by the Romans or by his Jewish enemies.

Some challenge the resurrection story by tossing out a claim that after he was taken down from the cross, the Romans threw Jesus' body into the valley of defilement, as locals termed the garbage heaps outside Jerusalem, and dogs and rats and vultures ate him, so as an unintended side effect the tale of the resurrection couldn't be disproven by the Jewish leaders or the Romans, and that explanation wraps up Jesus' rebirth account right there.

Yes, but there are some things wrong with this. Firstly, as I wrote about above, if he disciples knew Jesus had been thrown among trash and eaten by scavengers, that ending would pretty well have put paid to the idea that Jesus was messiah. He did not keep his promises, he was a fake. They could call the last three years wasted and go home, like the bitter campaign staff of a politician who loses his election. He lied to us! It would have been a disillusioning moment of sobering horror.

But the disciples didn't go home, something occurred to inspire them to become men of resolute devotion to the cause, and likely this was not their lord rotting while dogs ate his corpse.

Plus the scriptural accounts written soon after the crucifixion tell of Jesus being buried in a tomb, and even name the owner of the tomb who donated it so Jesus could be buried there. The location of the tomb was known at the time and remains almost certainly known to us today. Witnesses were listed by name in the Biblical record, witnesses presumably known to contemporaries hearing of the event. The earliest of known written accounts were composed within living memory of Jesus' life and ministry, more recent to the Gospel authors than the assassination of John Kennedy is to us.

And let's think about that time factor. If someone today began claiming Kennedy came back from the dead, or that he was never buried in Arlington, he was tossed into a trash pile, people living so recently to the event would simply discount those claims and know the truth was otherwise, as presumably the residents of Jerusalem would have disbelieved the claims about Jesus if they'd been alive to see things unfold otherwise.

But instead the nascent Christian religion took off like wildfire in and around Jerusalem immediately after Jesus' death and throughout the next thirty years before the Roman sack of the city (which Jesus prophesied) and those people, who would have either been witnesses to Jesus' death or surely known others who were (Jerusalem was not a huge place), did not denounce the claims of the early church or the writers of the Gospels, instead thousands quickly stepped up to join the Christian movement, which was not discredited, only criticized, since even Jesus' foes did not deny his works, only attributed them to the devil.

As I said, others have and can and will take on these objections better than I have done but in essence, I do find that the claims about the crucifixion and resurrection (without which there is no Christianity) made in Gospel account to be credible, and those are some reasons why.

[indianasmith]

A great summation of the strongest points in defense of the Resurrection!

[Allhallowsday]

I rate loyalty higher even than love or hope. 
Nonetheless, your good argument is contrived.  The argument is obfuscating. 

[RCMerchant]

So, where in all that shows proof that Jesus rose from the dead?
I'm not faulting your belief. I'm just curious of how a dead man walks.
And please don't say "Because the Bible tells me so."

[indianasmith]

I've literally  spent my entire adult life researching this.  Maybe this will explain it:

There is simply no doubt that the followers of Jesus who wrote the New Testament believed that He rose from the dead.
Paul, writing in 54 AD - only 21 years after the Crucifixion - said that "if Christ is not raise, we are of all men most to be pitied."
He also furnished a lengthy list of people who saw the risen Jesus.
It's almost impossible to account for the rise of Christianity, originating in the very city where Jesus was crucified, UNLESS the disciples believed, 100%, in the Resurrection.

Which posits the question:  Where did that belief come from?
These men were certainly in a position to know if it was true or not.
And they risked - and in most cases, gave - their lives for that truth.

So, if Jesus did not come back, where did they get the idea that He did?

[Alex]

Many people believe they witnessed a great many things.

This is not however proof. I could equally posit that they were scam artists and that would be just as legitimate a reason, the L Ron Hubbard's of their day. I am not saying they were, just that it is as equally valid a reason as those given above, but people have risked everything for less than the reasons given.

Equally, when you ask about the rise of Christianity, take a look around. Some people will believe anything, even when it comes to putting their own lives at risk. Alas, it is part of the human condition that people will look for evidence that backs up their own preconceptions and ignore that which challenges it. Other religions have risen up to become major players in the world. Should we then believe their claims too under the same given criteria for Christianity? Did the followers of Muhammad, Gautama or Nanak Dev claim to have witnessed miracles? For myself, I require a higher standard of proof than someone said, no matter how much they put at risk for it.

For what it's worth I believe the Jesus mentioned in the bible was a real person, (or even possibly a composite of several people in much the way as Robin Hood is believed to have been). Wither he was the son of a god, rose from the dead, just another prophet or whatever I leave up to each person to decide for themselves. If your religion gives you strength or comfort, then more power to you.

[indianasmith]

What's interesting in the cases you mention - Muhammad performed no miracles that are testified to in the Quran, or in the earliest of the Hadith (the stories of his life compiled after his death).  Some of the later Hadith, composed 200-400 years after his death, credit him with miracles, but the authors of those stories could not have witnessed them.  As for Gautama, the stories about him that we have today were all composed long after his death. 

The three Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - were most like completed by 70 AD.  Based on the internal evidence, I think you can make a compelling argument that all three were finished in their current form by 60 AD or thereabouts.    That puts them within 27 years of the crucifixion and well within the lifetime of the surviving apostles.  At the very least, I'd say they have a higher degree of reliability than the miracle stories about Muhammad and Buddha.  I'm not familiar with Nanak Dev, so I can't comment there.

People do tend to believe whatever confirms their biases.  But - did the disciples act like Jesus was going to triumph over death? They fled like scared rabbits when He was arrested, Peter denied knowing him three times, and on the morning of the Resurrection, by their own testimony, they were cowering behind locked doors "for fear of the Jews."

Six weeks later they were boldly claiming the Resurrection on the steps of the Temple, in the playground of the High Priest who engineered Jesus' crucifixion. Something changed those men from rabbits to lions in a very short time.

I think it was a miracle.

[Alex]

At a conference of policemen, during a speech, a man walks in. He hands the speaker a note and walks out.

After the speech, the attendees are asked to describe the man who walked in. The man who walked in was described thusly. He was black, white, Asian, female, tall, short, underweight, overweight, average, dark-haired, fair-haired, bald, wore glasses and didn't wear glasses... And so on.

The point of that story is that accounts written the same day are not always accurate, never mind those written months, years or decades later. The years change our memories as do our own perceptions and individual people will remember the same thing as happening differently. Accounts from religions are even less trustworthy* are they often colour events to suit their own narrative deliberately. I can accept the gospels as proof that a man existed, but accepting things beyond that gets more and more shakey. Certainly, if I was on trial, I would not like to be in court with this level of evidence to say I was innocent or be a lawyer trying to prosecute someone with an equivalent level of proof, which is where I kind of set my benchmark.

*You should read(or perhaps you already have) some of the accounts of ancient battles where the populations of small nations apparently clashed. Hmm, I wonder if this was monks following on from the Roman tradition of how they reported battles with enemies? Anyway, I digress.

[lester1/2jr]

Yeah I don't know. re the last section The whole point of crucifixion was that it was humiliating painful and didn't afford the person a proper burial. so the body being disposed of either by being eaten by dogs or in a mass grave of some sort was PART of he process.

Pontius Pilate wasn't known as being a nice guy, that he would let followers collect the body is not super likely.

the end of Mark is pretty bleak. everyone abandons him. even God himself


Assuming he did though, what about the other guys? the "saints" who were also resurrected? did they just go home?

I think the SPIRIT of Jesus remained alive unexpectedly and the movement continued



"The earliest of known written accounts were composed within living memory of Jesus' life and ministry," Mark , said to be taken from Peters observations, is the only one with an actual direct connection to Jesus and the original ending did not have the resurrection.

[indianasmith]

Actually, the bones of a crucified man WERE found in an ossuary in Jerusalem in modern times, showing that sometimes the remains could be given a decent burial.  Especially if a powerful person intervened to claim them, as Joseph did.

Pilate didn't let followers take the body, he let a member of the Sanhedrin do it.  And the Gospel accounts all agree on his reluctance to crucify Jesus; he may well have done so as a sop to his troubled conscience.

Actually, the last words on the agreed text of Mark (not verses 9-16, which were probably added later) include the phrase: "He is not here, He is risen."

Only Matthew records the Resurrection of the righteous at the moment of Jesus' death; given the lack of comment elsewhere, I think they were probably taken up when Jesus was.

Paul and the Gospels make it clear there was more than a SPIRITUAL resurrection. Jesus' own brothers, who had been skeptical and dismissive of His claims and His ministry, suddenly became preachers of His Gospel.  What would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God?

[indianasmith]

At a conference of policemen, during a speech, a man walks in. He hands the speaker a note and walks out.

After the speech, the attendees are asked to describe the man who walked in. The man who walked in was described thusly. He was black, white, Asian, female, tall, short, underweight, overweight, average, dark-haired, fair-haired, bald, wore glasses and didn't wear glasses... And so on.

The point of that story is that accounts written the same day are not always accurate, never mind those written months, years or decades later. The years change our memories as do our own perceptions and individual people will remember the same thing as happening differently. Accounts from religions are even less trustworthy* are they often colour events to suit their own narrative deliberately. I can accept the gospels as proof that a man existed, but accepting things beyond that gets more and more shakey. Certainly, if I was on trial, I would not like to be in court with this level of evidence to say I was innocent or be a lawyer trying to prosecute someone with an equivalent level of proof, which is where I kind of set my benchmark.

*You should read(or perhaps you already have) some of the accounts of ancient battles where the populations of small nations apparently clashed. Hmm, I wonder if this was monks following on from the Roman tradition of how they reported battles with enemies? Anyway, I digress.

People may disagree on the appearance of a total stranger whom they saw for a matter of a few seconds when they were focused on something else.
But on a man whom they KNEW, whom they walked with and talked with daily for three years?
It's not a very apt comparison.

Then there is the matter I pointed out above of Jesus' brothers.  They frankly didn't like Him; they tried to shut Him up or drag Him home or even get him arrested on more than one occasion.  And yet, suddenly, after His death, they begin preaching the Gospel and proclaiming that He was the Son of God.

So again, I pose a question - what would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God?

[lester1/2jr]

"And the Gospel accounts all agree on his reluctance to crucify Jesus; he may well have done so as a sop to his troubled conscience."

the gospel authors could not possibly have known what pilate was thinking. Pilate was a brutal man who frequently had people put to death. He wasn't Jewish and couldn't possibly have understood the dispute

the point of these sections was to demonize Jews, who by 80 AD when the later gospels were written were the main enemy of the Christian sect.

"So again, I pose a question - what would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God"

faith

"Actually, the bones of a crucified man WERE found in an ossuary in Jerusalem in modern times, showing that sometimes the remains could be given a decent burial.  Especially if a powerful person intervened to claim them, as Joseph did."

Jesus followers were peasants its fanciful to think any powerful person would support him. If he did how powerful could he be? and the point stands that generally speaking bodies were disposed of indecently

[Allhallowsday]

Actually, the bones of a crucified man WERE found in an ossuary in Jerusalem in modern times, showing that sometimes the remains could be given a decent burial.  Especially if a powerful person intervened to claim them, as Joseph did.
...

The Roman crucifixion nail had been driven through the heel bone, the bones were collected in an ossuary, one ancient Jewish form of respectful "second" burial.

[indianasmith]

Correct, AHD.  I saw the ossuary and a cast of the actual bones in Jerusalem (the remains have been reburied, as Israeli law requires).

Now, Lester, let me give my take on your remarks:

"And the Gospel accounts all agree on his reluctance to crucify Jesus; he may well have done so as a sop to his troubled conscience."

the gospel authors could not possibly have known what pilate was thinking. Pilate was a brutal man who frequently had people put to death. He wasn't Jewish and couldn't possibly have understood the dispute

Maybe not what he was thinking, but they certainly could have known what he SAID.  Frankly, I did a ton of research about this man in the course of writing two books about him.  The primary sources we have are Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and the Gospels.  Josephus was writing sixty years later; he never knew Pilate and was repeating things he'd heart second and third hand.  Frankly, NO Roman governor was going to be popular with the Jews who hated Rome, but Pilate was left in that job for ten years - the longest serving prefect of Judea, so he couldn't have been totally incompetent.  As for Philo, he was complaining about Pilate and trying to get him fired on purpose, so of course he's going to exaggerate every negative story he heard about Pilate - even though, being from Alexandria, he didn't witness any of it.  Of the Gospel writers, Matthew and John were there in Jerusalem that Passover weekend, and Mark was probably present at Jesus' arrest in the garden.  Luke gathered his testimony from "those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word," so he probably spoke to everyone still alive at the time of his writing who was there.  So I put more credence in the Gospel accounts than I do Josephus or Philo.

the point of these sections was to demonize Jews, who by 80 AD when the later gospels were written were the main enemy of the Christian sect.
The only Gospel I would date that late is John.  I can make a strong argument from internal evidence that the other three were completed by 60 AD. (And I know Bart Ehrman disagrees, but let's be honest, he's a bitter ex-Christian out to sell books and make a name for himself as America's favorite atheist!)  And frankly, by 80 AD the Romans were a far more deadly foe to Christianity than the Jews were.  The main opposition from the Jews was early on, during the time of Jesus and Paul, not after the destruction of Jerusalem and the murder and enslavement of the Jewish nation.

"So again, I pose a question - what would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God"

faith  And where would that come from?  When you opposed Him every step of the way, rejected all His claims and saw Him die?  NOW suddenly you're proclaiming Him to be the resurrected Son of God?  There had to be a cathartic, transforming experience there.

"Actually, the bones of a crucified man WERE found in an ossuary in Jerusalem in modern times, showing that sometimes the remains could be given a decent burial.  Especially if a powerful person intervened to claim them, as Joseph did."

Jesus followers were peasants its fanciful to think any powerful person would support him. If he did how powerful could he be? and the point stands that generally speaking bodies were disposed of indecently  Again, all four Gospels, and the Book of Acts, which are the earliest and most reliable writings about Jesus that we have, agree that several members of the Sanhedrin were secret followers of Jesus - as were some members of Herod's household.  The man drew crowds into the thousands, and was a guest of wealthy men on more than one occasion.  Even Roman soldiers came to him at least once.  So you're making a snobbish assumption there that flies in the face of the primary sources.

At any rate, you raise some good points there, even if mine are better!  And I do appreciate that this is a place where we can discuss such things without getting mad and flaming each other.

[Alex]

At a conference of policemen, during a speech, a man walks in. He hands the speaker a note and walks out.

After the speech, the attendees are asked to describe the man who walked in. The man who walked in was described thusly. He was black, white, Asian, female, tall, short, underweight, overweight, average, dark-haired, fair-haired, bald, wore glasses and didn't wear glasses... And so on.

The point of that story is that accounts written the same day are not always accurate, never mind those written months, years or decades later. The years change our memories as do our own perceptions and individual people will remember the same thing as happening differently. Accounts from religions are even less trustworthy* are they often colour events to suit their own narrative deliberately. I can accept the gospels as proof that a man existed, but accepting things beyond that gets more and more shakey. Certainly, if I was on trial, I would not like to be in court with this level of evidence to say I was innocent or be a lawyer trying to prosecute someone with an equivalent level of proof, which is where I kind of set my benchmark.

*You should read(or perhaps you already have) some of the accounts of ancient battles where the populations of small nations apparently clashed. Hmm, I wonder if this was monks following on from the Roman tradition of how they reported battles with enemies? Anyway, I digress.

People may disagree on the appearance of a total stranger whom they saw for a matter of a few seconds when they were focused on something else.
But on a man whom they KNEW, whom they walked with and talked with daily for three years?
It's not a very apt comparison.

Then there is the matter I pointed out above of Jesus' brothers.  They frankly didn't like Him; they tried to shut Him up or drag Him home or even get him arrested on more than one occasion.  And yet, suddenly, after His death, they begin preaching the Gospel and proclaiming that He was the Son of God.

So again, I pose a question - what would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God?

Actually the example of the man at the conference is also true for longer exposures. Regardless of the scenario, people will report different things of the same event. Indeed everyone reporting the one thing would be regarded as a sign of collusion. If you were to go ask a bunch of people you'd spent time with 20 years ago, people you knew well you may well be surprised at just how much people's narratives would vary. It's a much more apt comparison than you realise. Have a look at the different versions of events around the deaths of Jimi Hendrix or Bon Scott for good examples of this. All the stories simply can't be true, times don't match up and so on.

To convince me my brother was the son of god would be very simple. The same way we prove parentage on a daily basis. I'd want a DNA test. I am sure that would bring up some unique results that would match no other living human. After that I'd consider evidence of miracles and so on.

History is replete with examples where someone was considered a pain in the butt for whatever reason by people, but when it has suited the needs of a group they have then lionized that person following their death. This is hardly something unique here. Heroes have been made out of villains before and doubtless will again.

EDIT: I'd just like to point out that even if it was proved that Jesus was the son of God, that God existed and so on I would not worship him. I disagree fundamentally too much with several of their tenants including the whole original sin concept.