For the past couple of weeks I’ve been engaged in an exercise in Classical Apologetics (as opposed to Evidentialist Apologetics, Reformed Apologetics or Fideist Apologetics).

We’ve boiled it all down to two big options:

• Either the Disciples told the biggest lie in human history.
• Or they were telling the truth.

I believe they were telling the truth, and there are several reasons why I believe this. We could talk about the change we observe in their lives after they claim to have seen Jesus back from the dead. We could talk about the internal consistency of the four Gospels and how many of the stories contained therein would never have been included in a fraudulent document. But I want to focus on something else.

I want to talk about the price these early followers were willing to pay.

Of the original 12, Judas killed himself. John died an old man in exile. The other 10 were martyred — some in extremely horrendous ways. Church tradition says that Thomas was stabbed with a sword, Andrew was crucified on an X-Shaped cross, Peter was crucified upside-down, Bartholomew was flayed alive with a whip and then crucified.

Other early followers faced similar deaths. Paul was beheaded. Luke was hanged. Mark was dragged to death through the streets of Alexandria.

Now, people may be willing to die like that for something they believe to be true but is, in fact, false. But people will not suffer like that for something they know to be a lie.

Thomas Aquinas pointed out something further about their deaths: They died alone.

I can understand if these early followers of Jesus had been embarrassed after the death of their leader. It would be easy to imagine them gathering together and trying to come up with a cover story — some way of saving face among the people. We can conceive of them creating the story and going over it and over it until they have all their details straight. And as long as they stick together, peer pressure might keep any one of them from being the first to rat the others out.

Suppose Daron and Ben and Chad make up a story like this. As long as they all stick together, no one wants to let the others down.

But put Daron in India, Ben in Alexandria and Chad in Rome.

If you knew you were telling a lie, and you knew neither of your two partners in crime would ever find out that you recanted your story…and you were being threatened with a horrible, painful death…all you’ve go to do to get out of it is say, “It’s a lie.” You could say it and leave…head to, say, France and live to a ripe old age.

If you ever ran into one of the other two, you could lie to them! You could say, “The folks in Rome wanted me to say it was all a lie, but I wouldn’t. So, they ran me out of town.”

No one will ever know.

Aquinas said it’s just inconceivable that these early followers, separated from each other, faced with certain and painful death…that no one would recant. There’s not a shred of evidence anywhere that any of these early eyewitnesses ever wavered in their telling of this story.

I can be accused of a great many things. I may not be the easiest person to get along with. I may be mechanically inept. I sometimes avoid people, and I have been known to spin stories that put me in a more positive light. I have many faults, but I hope I cannot be accused of being naive or unwilling to examine the historical record. I hope to have demonstrated that Christianity does not require its adherents to put their brains in park and accept myth as history, opinion as fact or lies as truth.

As someone once said: My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.

The blood shed for me on the Cross nearly 2,000 years ago today.

The righteousness vindicated by the emptiness of the grave.

This is my story. This is my song. Praising my Savior all the day long.

Yesterday we listed eight possible theories people have put forward about Jesus’ Resurrection. In addition, someone once suggested to me that Jesus may have had a stunt double like in the movie Vantage Point.

Sorry if that spoils a major plot point for anyone out there.

There are a few variations of that theme. One put forth by one of the Gnostic Gospels is that at the last second, Jesus switched places with Judas.

Let’s think through these theories, because on the surface they sound reasonable. Upon closer inspection, however, we’ll see how implausible each theory actually is.

Before we dive in, I should mention this: What we’re about to do is hardly objective. Objectivity on this topic is literally impossible. Some would say that objectivity on any topic is impossible. See, knowledge of any kind forces an opinion; exposure to facts removes neutrality. Once you learn something you immediately form an opinion.

The earliest theory is that the disciples stole Jesus’ body. The Jewish leaders actually cooked this idea up, but this would mean that the disciples lied (which is Theory #7). We’ll deal with this more later.

What about the Jewish leaders stealing the body? Well, this theory doesn’t make a lot of sense. They had so much at stake (see Assumption #6 from Tuesday’s post) that it would have been in their best interests to disprove the resurrection. They could have done that easily by producing the corpse. Besides that, the Disciples didn’t just claim that the body was gone; they claimed to have seen Jesus alive and walking around. So, even if the Jewish leaders stole the body, the Disciples still embellished the story a lot.

And what’s really at stake here is whether the Disciples told the truth or lied, right?

What about the Roman leaders? Did they take the body (theory #3). It’s pretty clear that many of the Jewish leaders were in cahoots with the Roman leaders. If the Jewish leaders knew where the body was, they would have said something. And if the Romans had the body, the guards would not have made up a story about falling asleep. Besides, that still wouldn’t explain the Disciples’ story about seeing and talking with Jesus.

Maybe the women went to the wrong tomb (though a female friend on facebook contends that it’s driving that gives most women trouble — not walking). We established that the tomb was easily accessible and well-known. If the Jewish leaders knew where the tomb was and could get to it, they would do so to disprove the claims that Jesus was alive and well.

Maybe it was all a mass hallucination (theory #5). Well, if so there still would have been a corpse in the tomb. You’d have to add this theory to one of the first three because the body went somewhere — either it left the tomb on its own or someone took it.

Maybe Jesus wasn’t really dead. Maybe he was just unconscious for a while, and when he came to he got up and in his weakened condition (weakened from the beatings and the loss of blood and having been in a three-day coma) pushed a giant stone out of the way, overpowered several Roman guards and left. Okay, that might explain the empty tomb, but the Disciples also claimed to watch him as he ascended into heaven. So, they’re still lying.

If you assume the eight things we talked about on Tuesday (which are much easier to demonstrate than the actual Resurrection), there are only two options:

1. The Disciples lied.
2. The Disciples told the truth.

The whole Christian faith comes down to these two possibilities. And we have to think about whether or not these Disciples were honest men telling the truth about what they saw and experienced.

Tomorrow I’ll give you my reasons for why I believe they were telling the truth. For today I want to consider this:

Why does any of this matter? Why does it matter to you personally that Jesus’ Resurrection actually happened?

Hopefully, if you know me or my teaching style at all, you know that I like being honest about the questions we all have but may not say out loud. So, let me be really honest about this whole resurrection business: At first glance, a story about a wandering preacher who was executed by the government but came back to life before ascending into heaven seems a little hard to swallow.

Still, the fact remains: The Resurrection of Jesus won’t go away.

We could perhaps understand if a few of his closest associates had missed him so much they imagined seeing him again. Or perhaps they had some other more nefarious reason for spreading their story about a resurrection. But we’d expect such a story to die down rather quickly.

And yet…the Resurrection of Jesus is widely believed today…and by some rather intelligent people.

Clearly, there is more afoot here than is apparent to the eye! Clearly, there must be reasons why a person would believe in such an exceptional story — good, solid, historical reasons.

There are several theories that have surfaced over the nearly 2,000 years since the actual events transpired — theories meant to explain the Resurrection away. Here are the most common:

1. The Disciples stole the body.
2. The Jewish leaders stole the body.
3. The Roman leaders stole the body.
4. The women on Easter Sunday went to the wrong tomb.
5. This was all a mass hallucination.
6. Jesus wasn’t really dead; he was unconscious and later revived.
7. The Disciples intentionally lied about the whole thing — just made it up.

Are there any popular theories you know of that aren’t included here?

Oh, and if we can pick these apart historically or psychologically or just logically, then we’ll deal with this startlingly alternative theory:

8. It just might be all true.

1. Jesus actually lived. Obviously, you have to start here. There’s no resurrection of a person who never lived.
2. Jesus actually died. Some people believe that Jesus just passed out and later recovered — giving the impression of having come back from the dead. But people back then knew what dead was, and they knew Jesus was dead. They ran a sword through his side to check before they took his body down from the cross and put it in the tomb. He actually died.
3. Jesus’ death was caused by a crucifixion that was instigated by Jewish leaders in Jerusalem and carried out by Roman authorities. Again, the Romans were professional killers; they knew what they were doing. Oh, and it wasn’t all the Jewish people who bore the blame for this event; it was certain Jewish leaders.
4. Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb that was both easily accessible and well known. Those Jewish leaders and those Roman authorities all knew where the tomb was and had access to it.
5. The disciples went around later and began to say that Jesus was alive. I’m not saying he actually was alive; I’m just saying that they thought he was. The disciples claimed that the tomb was empty and that Jesus not only rose from the dead but ascended into heaven. They said it early, and they said it often. They said it in the city where he died to people who had been there the whole time.
6. The Jewish leaders who instigated this whole thing had a lot more at stake in this matter than we do. Their reputations were on the line here. They wanted to disprove the resurrection way more than anyone alive today would. If they accused him of blasphemy and had him killed, and then he came back to life from the dead…well…they would have some ‘splainin’ to do.
7. The disciples who preached the Resurrection came under intense persecution. And their persecution came about as a direct result of their message about the Resurrection. Furthermore, if they had stopped talking about it, the persecution would have relented.
8. The tomb was empty. The Jewish leaders, having a lot riding on this, knowing where the tomb was located and having access to it, could have gone immediately to discover the body. But that didn’t happen. Why? Because they knew it would be pointless since there was no body in the tomb.

Before we ever get to talking about the Resurrection of Jesus, we must be clear on all of the above. What we’ve talked about thus far is a matter of historical record. This is relatively easy to verify.

And the reason I’m doing this is because Christians are often portrayed as people who have checked their brains at the door — people who haven’t really thought about stuff deeply.

The sad truth is that many Christians have done just that: they’ve failed to think through why they believe what they believe.

But if the Resurrection is true, then it is the single most important event in all of human history. A person would have to be a fool to go through life and never spend more than a few moments contemplating whether or not it actually took place. Some of the smartest people who ever lived have examined the evidence and come away convinced that it happened.

This is too important to be dismissed by a wave of some skeptic’s hand. This calls for some intelligent analysis.

Tomorrow we’ll examine some of the theories people have put forth to explain the Resurrection away. For today, I have two questions:

Why do you think so many people have put their brains in park about the Resurrection?

What do you think might be some of the negative consequences of doing that?

The linchpin of Christianity is the Resurrection of Jesus. That’s the core. That’s the hub of it all. That’s the foundation. There is nothing more central to Christianity than the belief that Jesus came back to life after having been killed in a horrifically gruesome manner.

So, it would behoove us to examine our thinking about this most central historical event.

The people I’ve encountered who reject this event tend to do so out of hand — without really doing any research. They simply say, “Dead people stay dead, so there is no possibility of a resurrection.” That kind of thinking will do us no good; what is required here is some research, and that research must begin with an examination of our presuppositions.

Suppose you asked me, “John, did you really preach for an hour at New Vintage Church in San Diego, CA, a couple of months ago?”

There are several presuppositions built into that question. First, you’re assuming that I was in San Diego that Sunday instead of Sulphur Springs. Second, you’re assuming that I did the preaching instead of Tim Spivey (who normally preaches at New Vintage). Third, you’re assuming that New Vintage Church exists.

These things are taken for granted in your question and must be agreed upon by both of us before we get around to the discussion on the length of my sermon that weekend.

If someone walks up in the middle of our conversation and says, “I don’t believe John was in California, and I think Tim preached if there even is such a place as New Vintage Church” — well…we’ll have difficulty proving that I was only on the platform for about 35 or 40 minutes.

Now, it’s a lot easier to prove that I was speaking in San Diego at New Vintage than it is to prove how long I spoke. Some of the time I was speaking, I was actually praying. Does that count? But to prove whether or not I was there at all…well…that’s a bit easier.

We must approach the Resurrection the same way: There are certain presuppositions that we all carry into our investigation of the most significant event of human history.

For example, we must assume that there was an actual person called Jesus of Nazareth. There’s no potential for resurrecting a person who never lived in the first place!

What else? What other things must we assume if we’re going to meaningfully discuss the possibility of Jesus’ Resurrection as an actual historical event?

Sometimes people attempt to dump Jesus in the category of “Wise and Moral Teacher”. In doing so, they often point to other religious leaders as being in the same category, attempting to set Jesus alongside Buddha or Mohamed or Confucius. But a cursory examination of Jesus’ life and times reveals that he refuses to be put alongside them.

Buddha, for example, never claimed perfection. He was concerned with “tanya” — the corrupt desire that produces sin. It was a personal struggle for him, and he spent a lot of time trying to figure out how he could personally be delivered from it. He tried indulgence. He tried denial. He tried living a hedonistic life for a while. Then he tried being living an ascetic life. Neither extreme worked.

He came up with the eight-fold path that would bring him to a trance-like state where he surrendered his conscious identity and achieved nirvana. When he snapped out of that trance, he looked around and said to his followers, “You should try this. It worked wonders for me. Maybe it’ll work for you, too.”

He never claimed to have authority or to be the center of the universe. He told his followers (and this is part of their sacred writings) that he wasn’t worthy to lead them. He just claimed to be a guy who found something that worked for him and might work for others as well.

Mohamed never claimed perfection either. He claimed to be Allah’s prophet. He claimed to have had impressive visions of eternity, but he never claimed to have been there to see it all firsthand. Any authority he had came simply from the claim that Allah had chosen to reveal certain things to him. In other words, his religious experience was what supposedly gave him authority.

Confucius never even claimed a religious experience. He did a logical analysis of society and pointed to that study as his authority.

None of these other religious leaders claimed to have authority resident within them. None of them claimed perfection. None of them offered to die in the place of others.

Jesus is categorically different from the others. He is what C.S. Lewis called the “shocking alternative”. Either he actually thought he was telling the truth but was too naive or foolish to know how ridiculous his claims were (thus eliminating him from being called “wise”) or he knew what he was saying wasn’t true (thus eliminating him from being called “moral”). Here are Lewis’ words:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 55-56)

Jesus said he had more authority than anyone else. He talked as if he were the center of the universe. He spoke about what went on in heaven as if he knew. He said the world was so broken that it needed someone perfect to die as a “ransom”.

Now, our frame of reference for the word “ransom” is usually something you pay to buy someone back — usually someone who has been kidnapped. That’s really the only time we use the word anymore. But Jesus’ first listeners would have understood it a little differently.

Back then a ransom was what you paid when someone foolishly squandered their inheritance. Such a person would have been subject to ridicule, scorned, ostracized, cut off from the rest of the community and, eventually, left to die alone because of the error of their ways. The only way for that foolish person to be restored to the community was by somehow raising enough money or finding a kind benefactor to pay the ransom.

Jesus said the whole world was foolish and had lost its inheritance. He said he would pay the ransom, though, and restore them.

That’s…uh…a bold thing to say.

But, without a doubt, the craziest thing Jesus ever said — and the thing that finally rules out the possibility of Jesus being simply a wise and moral teacher — is that he would come back from the dead.

Be honest with me: If you had actually lived during his lifetime and had somehow managed to be in a place to hear him in person, how would you have responded when you heard his problematic claims? Would you have concluded that he was simply a wise and moral teacher? Would you have thought him dangerous? Would you have followed him?

Maybe a more pressing question is this: What would it have taken to convince you that he was both wise AND moral?

I want to pick back up on this thread I started yesterday — the stuff about Jesus being considered a wise and moral teacher but nothing more. My assertion is that if you remove the deity from Jesus he cannot be both wise AND moral; he can only be one or the other.

In order to be moral, you have to tell the truth. You can be crazy and honestly believe something that completely false and still be a moral person, but then you’re not wise. To be wise, you have to be right; to be moral, you have to be honest. A cursory examination of the things Jesus said and did reveal that we can say many things about him, but we cannot claim that he is merely a wise and moral teacher. He didn’t leave that option open for us. He projected a self-image that rules it out.

When Jesus speaks of himself you’ll find that he believed he was perfect. I’m not saying he was (though I believe he was); I’m simply saying here that he thought he was. Now, if you knew someone who claimed perfection, how would you respond? Either that person is among the least self-aware people on the planet (and thus could not be considered wise), or they are being deceitful (and thus cannot be considered moral).

Nobody’s perfect. Chesterton said that the depravity of mankind was the one part of Christian theology that could be empirically verified by simply looking around.

The Bible itself is very realistic about this. In fact, it could be said that the first thing humans must do in order to be accepted by God is acknowledge their imperfection. Throughout the Bible, the only category of people who receive grace are the humble. No humility? No grace.

But Jesus thinks he’s perfect.

Jesus passes judgment on those who were considered the most righteous people of his generation. Ironically, he passes judgment on people while telling us that we shouldn’t do the same.

Jesus elevates himself above the Law. In fact, he went so far as to claim to be the fulfillment of the Law.

One time a guy came to Jesus and called him, “Good Teacher.”

Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? Only God can be considered ‘good’, right?”

In other words, Jesus was asking the young man to consider whether or not Jesus might be God.

Now, again, I ask you to think about this. What would you do with a person who claimed to be perfect? Who passed judgment on others but told you that you’re not allowed to? Who claimed to be above the Law? Who actually claimed equality in status with God?

You might think he is wise but immoral. Or you might think he is moral but unwise. Regardless, it would be extremely difficult to buy into his claims of perfection — unless, say, you followed him around for a while — or, maybe, conducted a thorough investigation where you interviewed a bunch of people who knew him really well (his mother, his brothers and sisters, his best friends, his financial supporters, etc.) and published your findings while they were all still alive.

Does all this prove anything? Well, no, but what I’m hoping to do here is make it impossible for us to simply dismiss Jesus as a “wise and moral” teacher.

We’ll talk more about this tomorrow, but I’ve been trying to be more intentional about asking questions here. So, your question today is this:

In your mind, what’s the hardest thing about Jesus? Believing the miracles? Believing his outrageous claims? Do tell.