<\/p>\n
\nTim Chaffey, AiG\u2013US, critiques three alternate explanations for the resurrection that make little effort, if any, to deal with the texts of Scripture or the \u201cminimal facts.\u201d<\/p>\n
We have previously addressed the \u201cinfallible proofs\u201d and other evidences, including the \u201cminimal facts,\u201d for the resurrection of Jesus. As we have seen, if Jesus rose from the dead, then he is precisely who he claimed to be: the Son of God and the only way to the Father (Matthew 16:16\u201317; John 14:6).<\/p>\n
We have also seen that the teaching of the resurrection was so central to the early church\u2019s message that the Christian faith truly stands or falls with the resurrection. As such, critics and skeptics have relentlessly attacked this event. They have developed scores of alternate theories in their efforts to explain away the facts, since believing God raised Jesus from the dead is unacceptable to them. The most popular of these theories will be examined in forthcoming articles. Presently, we will critique three alternate explanations for the resurrection that make little effort, if any, to deal with the texts of Scripture or the \u201cminimal facts.\u201d<\/p>\n
One of the more popular arguments against the resurrection of Jesus<\/span>, particularly in Islamic circles, is derived from the Quran, which states the following:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n That they said (in boast), \u201cWe killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah\u201d\u2014but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not\u2014nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (Quran, 4:157\u2013158, Yusuf Ali)1<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n In other words, the Quran teaches that Jesus<\/span> did not even die on the cross. Instead, Muslims believe that at or around the time of his arrest, Jesus<\/span> was taken to heaven while one of his disciples, probably Judas, was transformed to look just like him. So this disciple was arrested, beaten, and crucified in his place.<\/p>\n There are multiple problems with this statement in the Quran. First, this passage refers to Jews who rejected \u201cChrist Jesus\u201d and claimed to have crucified him. Many people today assume that Christ is part of the name of Jesus, and it seems that Muhammad believed this too, but it is actually the Greek word for Messiah (Hebrew mashiyach). So rather than being a first name (or a last name), Christ is a title identifying Jesus<\/span> as the Jewish Messiah, and non-Christian<\/span> Jews would never identify Jesus<\/span> as the Messiah. And if they did think of him that way, they never would have boasted about crucifying him. Second, these same Jews would not have used the phrase \u201cmessenger of Allah.\u201d Allah is not the same as Yahweh, the God<\/span> of the Bible, and these Jews did not believe Jesus<\/span> was \u201cthe Messenger of Allah.\u201d Third, this passage poses a theological problem for Muslims because it shows Allah as a deceiver who tricked people into thinking they had crucified Jesus<\/span>. If Allah is a deceiver, how could anything in the Quran be trusted as being true? Finally, this passage denies that Jesus<\/span> died by crucifixion, yet this is the first of the five key evidences accepted by the vast majority of scholars. The biblical writers affirm Jesus<\/span> was crucified, as did several non-Christian<\/span> writers in the first century after his death, including the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. Bear in mind that the Quran was not written until the seventh century AD.<\/p>\n Further support for this case of mistaken identity is also drawn from a book known as the Gospel of Barnabas (GoB), not to be confused with the Epistle of Barnabas (late first century). According to the GoB, Jesus<\/span> was taken to the third heaven by angels just before the soldiers and Judas arrived to arrest him, and then the following event took place:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. And as he was saying this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus. (Gospel of Barnabas, 216)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n As with the Quran, there are several problems with this passage. It is readily apparent that the book is not an ancient document composed by the Apostle Barnabas. Instead, it is a sixteenth century forgery and was drafted to promote Islamic claims about the Bible and Jesus. For example, the book repeatedly attempts to show that Muhammad is superior to Jesus, and it reflects an Islamic understanding of Jesus. Ironically, the introduction of the book states that \u201cthe great and wonderful God hath during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ<\/em> in great mercy .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d (emphasis added). Yet in chapter 42 of this forgery, Jesus, echoing lines from John the Baptist in the Bible, specifically denies being the Messiah, which anyone with an elementary understanding of Hebrew and Greek would immediately recognize as a denial of being the Christ, since as mentioned earlier, the terms Messiah and Christ are synonymous.2<\/p>\n Every quotation of the Old and New Testament in the GoB is from the Latin Vulgate (c. AD 400), and it even contains quotations of the Italian poet Dante (c. 1265\u20131321). The book also contains numerous historical and geographical errors, such as the claim that Jesus sailed on the Sea of Galilee to Nazareth (GoB, 20), but Nazareth is about 15 miles away from that body of water and cannot be reached via water. This forgery also states that Jesus was born while Pilate was governor (GoB, 3), but he actually became governor around AD 26 or 27, about the time Jesus began his ministry. It refers to Barnabas as one of the original 12 disciples and even has Jesus, during his ministry, address him as Barnabas. But Barnabas was not one of the original 12 disciples. And even if he had been one of them, he would have been known at that time by his birth name, Joseph, since he wasn\u2019t nicknamed Barnabas, which means \u201cson of encouragement,\u201d until he sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles (Acts 4:37).<\/p>\n The mistaken identity view has zero textual support from any early writers and contradicts the first key evidence\u2014Jesus died by crucifixion.<\/p>\n The mistaken identity view has zero textual support from any early writers and contradicts the first key evidence\u2014Jesus<\/span> died by crucifixion. It requires an act of deception by the god<\/span> who supposedly performed the miraculous transformation of the disciple to look like Jesus<\/span>, so the deity who allegedly wrought this miracle would be a deceitful being and, therefore, certainly not worthy of anyone\u2019s trust.<\/p>\n In our second article in this series, it was mentioned that some skeptics and critics claim that the beliefs about Christ\u2019s resurrection were simply legends that developed over decades as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire. Dan Barker, a former pastor, well-known skeptic, and copresident of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is one of those who has touted the legend view.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n There have been many reasons for doubting [Jesus<\/span> rose bodily from the grave], but the consensus among critical scholars today appears to be that the story is a \u201clegend.\u201d During the 60\u201370 years it took for the Gospels to be composed, the original story went through a growth period that began with the unadorned idea that Jesus<\/span>, like Grandma, had \u201cdied and gone to heaven\u201d and ended with a fantastic narrative produced by a later generation of believers that included earthquakes, angels, an eclipse, a resuscitated corpse, and a spectacular bodily ascension into the clouds.<\/p>\n
The earliest Christians believed in the \u201cspiritual\u201d resurrection of Jesus. The story later evolved over time into a \u201cbodily\u201d resurrection.3<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Barker attempts to support his proposal by listing the number of \u201cExtraordinary Events\u201d described by the various biblical writers in their respective resurrection narratives\u2014he also throws into the mix the noncanonical and sometimes bizarre work called the Gospel of Peter. He counts the number of events he considers to be extraordinary with a date he assigns to each of the writings and claims that the number of these events increases as time passes, showing that the legend grew as time went on.<\/p>\n There are multiple problems with Barker\u2019s claims and the legend view in general. Barker, like other proponents of this view, does not even attempt to account for the evidence described in our previous article. While these people may accept that Jesus<\/span> died on a cross, they deny that the disciples, Paul, and James believed that Jesus<\/span> appeared to them, and they reject the empty tomb. So those who cling to the legend view are at odds with practically all historians. Let\u2019s take a look at some of Barker\u2019s specific errors. Here is a chart illustrating his claims.<\/p>\n
First, the dates Barker assigns to each of the writings other than 1 Corinthians are highly unlikely. Of course, he opts for dates consistent with the critical theologians who have sought to \u201cdemythologize\u201d4 the Scriptures. But there are excellent reasons for rejecting these dates. For example, Luke wrote his Gospel prior to writing Acts, and there are strong indications that Acts was penned several years before Paul\u2019s execution (c. AD 66).5 In fact, most orthodox, Bible<\/span>-believing scholars have assigned a date prior to AD 70 to all of these writings except the Gospel<\/span> of John and the Gospel<\/span> of Peter.<\/p>\n Second, even if we grant the unlikely dates used by Barker, his methodology contains serious mistakes. He ignores the various reasons why the authors wrote what they did and presumes that each of the authors attempted to provide an exhaustive account of post-crucifixion events. This is clearly not the case, since in 1 Corinthians 15:3\u20137, Paul recited an earlier creedal statement dating to within a few years of the resurrection. Creeds are not meant to provide every detail available. Instead, they are designed to be succinct summaries of essential points. Using Barker\u2019s logic, we should conclude that the drafters of the Nicene Creed did not believe that Jesus<\/span> performed miracles, although they clearly did, but that was not the point of the creed. In the 1 Corinthians creed, Paul specifically mentioned the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus<\/span> before spending much of the chapter explaining the physical, albeit transformed, resurrection body. Also, each Gospel<\/span> writer reported certain details that fit his respective purpose.<\/p>\n Barker engages in some peculiar counting to make the number of extraordinary events line up in the order he desires. For example, he does not count Paul\u2019s description of Christ\u2019s appearances in 1 Corinthians 15, but he does count such appearances as extraordinary in Luke and John. This is because Barker sets himself up as the one who gets to determine what qualifies as extraordinary. Further, he counts the appearance of two angels described in Luke and John as two separate events, even though the appearance of these angels is clearly one event.<\/p>\n Third, Barker\u2019s methodology backfires when we examine other aspects of the accounts to see if there are any signs of legendary development. Consider the amount of eyewitnesses of the risen Christ described in each of these accounts. Mark has an angel telling the women that Jesus was about to appear to the 11 disciples (Mark 16:7). John describes Jesus<\/span> appearing to 12 people. Matthew reports that Jesus<\/span> appeared to at least 13 people. Luke mentioned Jesus<\/span> being seen by at least 15 people. Paul mentions more than 500 eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians 15.<\/p>\n So if we were to apply Barker\u2019s methodology to the number of eyewitnesses (and use his dates for the sake of argument), then we would have to conclude that the list in 1 Corinthians 15 is by far the most legendary of these works. And since this passage in 1 Corinthians 15 is part of an early creedal statement dating to within five years of Christ\u2019s death, we should conclude that each of the resurrection accounts was written earlier\u2014within five years of the events described.6 No scholar would accept such early dates, and these books weren\u2019t written this early; however, this exercise illustrates the obtuseness of Barker\u2019s thinking on the subject.<\/p>\n The legend view fails to make sense of numerous details found in the Scriptures. For example, one of the evidences for the authenticity of the resurrection accounts is the role played by the women in discovering the empty tomb and being the first witnesses of the risen Savior. If later authors were inventing legendary details to incorporate into the story, they would have never positioned women in such an important role. Josephus, writing at about the same time as the Gospel writers, stated the following concerning the admissibility of women as witnesses: \u201cBut let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.\u201d7 This does not reflect biblical teaching but was likely taught by the scribes and Pharisees. Wright correctly describes the presence of women in the text.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n We do not know (despite repeated scholarly assertions) exactly when the evangelists first put pen to paper. But we must affirm that the story they tell is one which goes back behind Paul, back to the very early period, before anyone had time to think, \u201cIt would be good to tell stories about Jesus rising from the dead; what will best serve our apologetic needs?\u201d It is far, far easier to assume that the women were there at the beginning, just as, three days earlier, they had been there at the end.8<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n The legend view provides a great example of how the various alternatives to the resurrection might be able to account for certain details in the texts, but they fail miserably when compared to all the data.<\/p>\n The legend view provides a great example of how the various alternatives to the resurrection might be able to account for certain details in the texts, but they fail miserably when compared to all the data. As such, proponents of these views tend to pick and choose the verses that can be twisted into their scenarios and ignore all of the details that contradict their views.<\/p>\n In recent years, a rather novel view has been promoted through a handful of movies and by some of the \u201cnew atheists\u201d and \u201cJesus mythers.\u201d The copycat proposal is similar to the legend view in that it does not even attempt to account for the historical data, so many of the critiques of the legend view are relevant here. Essentially, this idea states that Jesus<\/span> never really lived but was invented by the early church who based their ideas about him on myths of pagan gods from various cultures.<\/p>\n While popularized in movies like The God Who Wasn\u2019t There, Zeitgeist, and Religulous, the copycat view has practically no support among scholars, whether critical or skeptical.9 Historians are virtually unanimous in their belief that Jesus<\/span> of Nazareth truly lived in the first century AD and is the historical figure behind Christianity.<\/p>\n These arguments were earlier promoted by a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto. In his book The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur garnered his ideas from nineteenth and twentieth century writers Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Godfrey Higgins, and Gerald Massey, who had pushed the idea that virtually all of the main ideas of Christianity and Judaism came from Egyptian religion.<\/p>\n W. Ward Gasque\u2019s research on these men sheds light on the type of \u201cscholarship\u201d we are dealing with here. Consider the fact that Harpur identified Kuhn as an \u201cEgyptologist\u201d who is \u201cone of the single greatest geniuses of the twentieth century\u201d and a man who \u201ctowers above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world\u2019s religions.\u201d In reality, Kuhn was a high school language teacher, and neither Kuhn, Higgins, nor Massey appears in Who Was Who in Egyptology or in Pratt\u2019s exhaustive bibliography on Ancient Egypt.10 Simply put, these men are not in any way recognized as experts on ancient Egypt, yet their ideas are being promoted by atheists who are intent on pushing the copycat Messiah myth.<\/p>\n If true, these claims would deal a significant blow to the Christian<\/span> faith as they would call into serious question the historicity of the life and ministry of Jesus<\/span>. More importantly, at least as far as this study is concerned, if early Christians simply copied their ideas about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus<\/span> from pagan beliefs, then the gospel<\/span> message would be undermined and we would still be in our sins. Nevertheless, there simply is no warrant for the copycat scenarios.<\/p>\n There is no shortage of misinformation from mythers on this subject. An entire book could be written to counter the false teachings that compare Jesus to other ancient figures. These so-called \u201csaviors\u201d were rarely, if ever, considered to be saviors, although many were considered to be gods, while others were thought to have been miracle workers or magicians. Let\u2019s examine one of these individuals to see if there is any merit in the assertions of the Zeitgeist film. There is little need to offer an additional critique for Religulous since Bill Maher simply copied his claims from Zeitgeist. Also, examining all of the claims would become incredibly redundant since many of the assertions are regurgitated for each \u201csavior\u201d figure.<\/p>\n The following claims are made about the Egyptian god Horus in Zeitgeist:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n<\/ul>\n Is there any solid evidence for these claims? Absolutely not! In fact, there are good reasons to reject every single point either because it is patently false or because, in many cases even if the claim were true, it would not impact Christianity in any way because the idea is not even found in Scripture.<\/p>\n First, there is no record of Horus being born on December 25. Instead, the only reference that gives a date for his birth places it on day 31 of Khoiak, which roughly corresponds to our month of November. Even if Horus was born on December 25, this would be irrelevant since the Bible never says that this is the date of the birth of Christ.11<\/p>\n Second, no ancient record exists where Isis is called Mary, nor is she ever portrayed as a virgin at the time of the birth of Horus. There is not any record of a star rising in the east at his birth, nor do any ancient records show him being admired by three kings. Once again, we see a listing of irrelevant details, which shows that the originators of these falsehoods about connections to Horus have not carefully read the Bible. Even if three kings did visit the infant Horus, it would be irrelevant. The Bible states that magi, not kings, visited Jesus a while after his birth, and it does not tell us how many made the journey.12<\/p>\n Third, no Egyptian records mention Horus being a teacher at age 12, and there certainly is no record of anyone named Anup the Baptizer who later lost his head. In fact, there is never any mention of baptism for Horus. While he did have some followers, there is no indication that he had a select group of 12.<\/p>\n Fourth, Horus was never called \u201cLamb of God\u201d or \u201cthe Light.\u201d However, he did have some titles, such as Great God, Chief of the Powers, Master of Heaven, and Avenger of His Father.13<\/p>\n Finally, Horus certainly was not crucified. This would have been difficult since the first writings about him are from well over a thousand years before crucifixion was even invented. Just as he was not crucified, Horus certainly was never resurrected from the dead as Jesus<\/span> was.<\/p>\n Mythers have raised similar arguments about many other gods or \u201csaviors,\u201d including Mithra, Zoroaster, Buddha, Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus, and Attus. Yet despite their best efforts, the ancient records of these individuals have very little in common with Jesus<\/span>, and in some cases, the few similarities in details only arose after the influence of Christian<\/span> missionaries.<\/p>\n The fact is that the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus did not borrow from any group of people.<\/p>\n The fact is that the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus did not borrow from any group of people. In many of these \u201ccopycat\u201d claims, the common pagan belief regarding an annual dying and rising god symbolizing the changing seasons is absurdly touted as a parallel to the physical<\/em> death and physical<\/em> resurrection of Jesus. As Wright sarcastically noted, \u201cWhen Paul preached in Athens, nobody said, \u2018Ah, yes, a new version of Osiris and such like.\u2019\u201d14<\/p>\n The biblical teaching did not borrow from the Greeks. The notion of bodily resurrection was abhorrent to these people since they viewed the material world as evil. As such, why would anyone desire to undergo physical resurrection?15 This is one of the reasons Paul spent so much time explaining the physical nature of the general resurrection to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15). Finally, the Christian belief in Christ\u2019s resurrection did not even borrow from popular Jewish beliefs of the day, which taught a future bodily resurrection of all people (Daniel 12:2), as indicated by Martha\u2019s response to Jesus in John 11:24.16<\/p>\n So far, we have looked at three of the skeptical attempts to explain away the resurrection of Jesus<\/span>. We have seen that each of these positions in their various forms fail miserably in accounting for the details surrounding Christ\u2019s death, burial, and resurrection. For the most part, these three views (mistaken identity, legend, and copycat) do not even attempt to interact with the New Testament and other historical data. Instead, their proponents have made outlandish claims without any supporting evidence. And yet, it is often these same proponents who accuse Christians of having blind faith.<\/p>\n Ironically, it is the skeptic who blindly trusts in wild assertions to escape the one thing their belief system fears most: the risen Lord and Savior Jesus<\/span> Christ. Sadly, instead of humbling themselves and being reconciled to God<\/span> through faith in Christ, these skeptics mock their Creator and the only means of salvation. If you are one of these skeptics, I urge you to stop trying to justify your unbelief by clinging to these bizarre and unsubstantiated beliefs, repent of your sins, and call upon the risen Lord to save you from your sins.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Tim Chaffey, AiG\u2013US, critiques three alternate explanations for the resurrection that make little effort, if any, to deal with the texts of Scripture or the \u201cminimal facts.\u201d We have previously addressed the \u201cinfallible proofs\u201d and other evidences, including the \u201cminimal facts,\u201d for the resurrection of Jesus. As we have seen, if Jesus rose from the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":27579,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[232,736,481,7851,480,9116],"class_list":{"0":"post-27578","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-jesus","8":"tag-christ","9":"tag-identity","10":"tag-jesus","11":"tag-mistaken","12":"tag-resurrection","13":"tag-stolen"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27578","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=27578"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27578\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/27579"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=27578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=27578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=27578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Legend<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\tSkeptic Dan Barker\u2019s List of Extraordinary Events in the Resurrection Accounts
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\tWriter
\n\t\t\tDate
\n\t\t\tResurrection Passage
\n\t\t\tExtraordinary Events
\n\t\t
\n\t
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\tPaul
\n\t\t\t50\u201355
\n\t\t\t1 Corinthians 15:3\u20138
\n\t\t\t0
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\tMark
\n\t\t\t70
\n\t\t\tMark 16
\n\t\t\t1
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\tMatthew
\n\t\t\t80
\n\t\t\tMatthew 28
\n\t\t\t4
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\tLuke
\n\t\t\t85
\n\t\t\tLuke 24
\n\t\t\t5
\n\t\t
\n\t\tPeter
\n\t\t\t85\u201390
\n\t\t\tGospel of Peter fragment
\n\t\t\t6
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\tJohn
\n\t\t\t95
\n\t\t\tJohn 20\u201321
\n\t\t\t8+
\n\t\t
\n\t
<\/p>\nCopycat<\/h2>\n
Pagan Christs<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n