For
Introduction (to Chapter 9)
In a manner that epitomizes the
psychology behind the Trilemma (Lord, Liar or Lunatic), Josh McDowell
begins this chapter with the following statement:
“After
more than seven hundred hours of studying this subject and thoroughly
investigating its foundation, I have come to the conclusion that the
resurrection of Christ is one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes
ever foisted upon the minds of men, OR it is the most fantastic fact of
history” (JM, NETDAV, pg 203)
Here the author presents the
readers with a false dilemma and commits a logical fallacy of bifurcation
by providing the readers with an artificial range of possibilities while
leaving out other possibilities, for instance, the resurrection could simply
have been a myth (especially considering its stark similarity with the Homeric
Epics - Iliad and Odyssey); or it could be a story that is not
meant to be interpreted literally, but has a symbolic/ figurative meaning; or
it could even have just been an honest but false belief like that of the Maji-Maji
rebels in Tanzania (1905-07) who believed that magic water from river Rufiji
could liquefy German bullets.
The author then writes that a student once asked him
“Professor McDowell, why can’t you refute Christianity?” whereupon he
(McDowell) answered: “For a very simple reason: I am not able to explain away
an event in history – The resurrection of Jesus”.
In the first place, the fact that an event appears in
history does not mean it was factual in nature (e.g. The Salem Witch trials)
and the fact that one cannot explain away an event in history is not enough to
prove that the event did indeed take place. If history tells us that tombs
opened and the dead walked in the streets, we have every reason to disbelieve them
because we must consider naturalistic plausibility, witness credibility (bias
and gullibility), human fallibility factor and most importantly, resistance to
falsification in assessing such extraordinary claims.
The author’s statement is
essentially an argument from ignorance. The fact that something has not been
proven false does not in itself prove that it is true. For example, inability
to prove that ghosts do not exist does not mean that ghosts do exist.
In summary, lack of proof is not
proof.
The rest of the introductory section is a collection of
verses from the Bible and does not merit my attention because the author does
not explain his purpose in providing them.
1.
The
Importance of the Physical Resurrection
From the title of this section, the author is sidetracking
and is foraying to irrelevant areas. The importance of the issue in question
should be clear to all and dedicating five pages to explain the importance of
the resurrection is quite outrageous; it is comparable to a defense attorney
explaining the importance of what he will prove, instead of making his case.
But let’s take a look at this section anyway.
The
author asserts that Jesus himself pointed to the physical nature of his
resurrected body and that the truth of Christianity is dependent on the bodily
resurrection of Christ. He does not bother to specify whether Jesus did so
pre-resurrection (thus a prophecy) or post-resurrection and this ambiguity
makes it impossible to weigh the impact and relevance of Jesus having mentioned
that. In addition, Jesus did not specifically say that he would bodily
resurrect.
In fact,
contrary to what McDowell says, Jesus taught that the resurrected body was not
physical. When asked by the Sadducees about who will be the husband after
resurrection of the widow who married seven brothers in sequence as they died,
Jesus answered them in Mat 22:30: “For
in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in
marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” This meant
there would be no physical resurrection and the resurrected being would be
pneumatic (spiritual) like angels. Mark 12:25: “when the dead rise, they will
neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in
heaven”. Luke 20:36: “and they can
no longer die; for they are like angels”.
Even Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15: 50 says: “Now this
I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption”. But an apologist will object to
this and say that the body will be transformed and then for support, quote 1 Corinthians 15:51-53:
“51 Behold,
I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed.53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality.”
But this argument fails because
a transformed body is similar in all respects to a living body. For example Lazarus
(in John 11) and Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:35-43) both resurrected and after
that, led normal lives. We have no reason to believe; for example, that Jairus’
daughter did not lead a normal life after resurrecting: get married and have
children etc. We find that all the accounts of the resurrection show that the
person rose physically in the same body. Numerous times they were told to eat
proving it was a physical resurrection and that the body needed immediate
nourishment. For example, immediately after raising Jairus’ daughter, in Mark
5:43: “He (Jesus) gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and
told them to give her something to eat”. So the “transformation” is not
observable and cannot therefore stand as an argument. This Biblical contradiction
and similar ones are addressed later in this critique.
He then
quotes Dr. Norman Geisler:
“…The resurrection cannot verify Jesus’ claim to be God
unless he was resurrected in the body in which he was crucified…Unless Jesus
rose from a material body, there is no way to verify his resurrection. It loses
its historically persuasive value”
This quote is a form of special pleading: that we should accept Jesus’ bodily resurrection because it’s the only way the resurrection cannot be verified. Special pleadings have no place in rigorous examinations of evidence.
Send your comments to jaliet_2000@yahoo.com
