Grace & Truth Bible Church
  • Home
  • Location
  • About Us
  • Our Beliefs
  • Messages
  • Ministries
    • 2BFree
    • Children's Ministries
    • Nursing Home Ministry
    • Youth Group
  • Camp
    • Camp Music
  • Pastor Millers Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Members
  • Sermons
  • Blog

Why the Resurrection is Important

4/16/2017

4 Comments

 
​Why the Resurrection is Important
You seek Jesus… He is not here; for He is risen
 
During the French Revolution, somebody said to Talleyrand, bishop of Autun: “The Christian religion—what is it? It would be easy to start a religion like that.” “Oh, yes,” Talleyrand replied. “One would only have to get crucified and rise again the third day.
 
The resurrection of Christ is the most confirmed event in ancient human history. We know more about His trial, death, and burial than any other person, and we also have numerous eyewitness accounts of His resurrection. There are four detailed gospel accounts of the life of Christ. The message of the apostles was that Jesus whom they had crucified, God had raised from the dead. Add to this the testimony of Paul, the chief persecutor of Christians, who became the resurrection’s most ardent defender.
 
Furthermore, we have the empty tomb which had been sealed and guarded by Roman soldiers; the marked change in the disciples’ actions before and after the resurrection; the willingness of the early Christians to die for their faith, and the transformed lives of people up to this very hour. All these things and many more give ample reason to trust in the truthfulness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
 
In what ways is Christ’s resurrection important?
 
Without it, Christianity would not exist - 1Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
 
Do you remember David Koresh? He predicted that he would rise from the dead. How many Koreshians exist today?
 
William Lane Craig: “Without the belief in the resurrection the Christian faith could not have come into being. The disciples would have remained crushed and defeated men. Even had they continued to remember Jesus as their beloved teacher, his crucifixion would have forever silenced any hopes of his being the Messiah. The cross would have remained the sad and shameful end of his career. The origin of Christianity therefore hinges on the belief of the early disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead.”
 
Without it, Christ’s claims are unreliable
 
He lied when He claimed that He would rise from the dead. Jesus always mentioned His resurrection when predicting His death. For example: Matthew 16:21   Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.                      
 
He lied about His ability to give eternal life.  John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. And at the tomb of Lazarus (whom He raised from the dead) Jesus said this: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.”
 
He lied about who He was. In John 8:51-59 Jesus claimed to be God, claimed to be able to give life, and said He would rise from the grave three days after He was crucified. Everything He said hinged on His resurrection.
           
 
John Ankerberg and Dillon Burroughs: “Jesus claimed to be God; God doesn't lie, and Jesus said that He would rise from the dead on the third day.  If there was no resurrection of his literal, physical body from the tomb in which he was buried, then he is a liar and not God, and Christianity is false.  However, if Jesus did rise from the dead, then He proved his claim to be God, and Christianity is true.  It would indicate we should listen to him and not to some other. After all, no other religious leader has come back from the grave, but Jesus.”
 
Without it, we have no lasting hope.  1Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
 
No hope of the forgiveness of our sins. In Ephesians 1:7 Paul declared: In whom… we have the forgiveness of sins. But he also said: if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  The good news of the gospel is that Jesus died and arose for the forgiveness of our sins. The resurrection proves God accepted His payment on our behalf.
 
No hope of eternal life. In John 10:28, Jesus said this: I give them eternal life and they will never perish. And the most beloved verse in the Bible makes the same claim: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. But a dead Savior can save no one nor can He give eternal life.
 
But if Christ did indeed rise from the dead as attested by the evidence of history and the testimony of countless people who have placed their faith in Him, then the resurrection is an event with enormous implications.
 
Jesus is the only way to God. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
 
Michael Green: “If Jesus is, as the resurrection asserts, God Himself who has come to our rescue, then to reject Him, or even neglect Him, is sheer folly. That is why Jesus is not, never has been, and never can be just one among the religious leaders of mankind.”
 
By faith in Jesus, one can have assurance of a home in heaven and eternal life. John 14: 3 I go to prepare a place for you… that where I am, there you may be also. 1John 5:13 Believe…  that you may know that you have eternal life.
 
Wayne A. Lamb: In the midst of a storm, a little bird was clinging to the limb of a tree, seemingly calm and unafraid.  As the wind tore at the limbs of the tree, the bird continued to look the storm in the face, as if to say, "Shake me off; I still have wings."
 
Because of Christ's resurrection, each Christian can look the experience of death in the face and confidently say, "Shake me off; I still have wings.  I'll live anyway."


4 Comments
gary
1/19/2018 12:51:13 pm

The Christian argument for the bodily resurrection of Jesus would be a little stronger if the majority of NT scholars believed that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, but they do not. Only a small minority of mostly evangelical Christian NT scholars (with an agenda—biblical inerrancy—) hold this view.

But even if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, or even if we could be certain that the four resurrection stories in the Gospels were originally told by eyewitnesses, who today would believe the eyewitness testimony of a bunch of mostly uneducated, rural peasants claiming that they had just eaten a broiled-fish lunch with their recently executed former fishing buddy???

It is a silly story, folks. Modern, educated people should not believe that it was a literal historical event.

Eyewitness testimony may be sufficient evidence for car accidents and murder trials, but it is not sufficient evidence to believe claims of sea monsters in Scottish lochs, alien abductions, or zombie sightings. If twelve guys told you that they had all eaten lunch with Big Foot on a recent hunting trip would you believe them? No. So why believe a second-hand report that eleven fishermen (and one tax collector), two thousand years ago, ate a broiled fish lunch with a walking/talking dead guy (zombie)?

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/eyewitness-testimony-is-sufficient-for-car-accidents-and-murder-trials-it-is-not-sufficient-for-alien-abductions-or-zombie-sightings/


Reply
Ben
10/5/2018 05:46:50 am

Gary, I appreciate your honest objections here, and I wish to respond in a helpful way.

You object that the resurrection claim would be stronger if NT scholars believed the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I do not agree. In fact, it seems to me a historical case for the resurrection need not rest on an a priori commitment to the gospels being written by eyewitnesses or by and a priori commitment to Biblical inerrancy (although, as a Christian, I do happen to believe those propositions). Let me explain.

To develop a good historical case for any claim about the past, one must take into account the relevant data surrounding that claim, then hypothesize as to what the best explanation of that data is. This is classical inductive logic. So, what are the historical data surrounding the death of Jesus?

Most scholars (evangelical, liberal, secular, and skeptical) agree to these three facts surrounding the death of Jesus:
(1) The tomb was found empty by a group of women followers on the Sunday after Jesus’ death (the empty tomb).
(2) Jesus’ disciples had experiences of a living Jesus after that Sunday (the post-mortem appearances).
(3) The original disciples genuinely believed that God rose Jesus from the dead (the origination of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection).

For an explanation of each of these, check out the book I reference at the end of this reply. Notice that I began with the empty tomb and not Jesus’ death. This is because all professional NT scholars (that I am aware of) accept that Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. The only groups that I am aware of denying this fact are fanciful popular-level conspirators (Dan Brown) and Muslims. Muslims only do because of an a priori commitment to their own holy writ, the Qur’an (see Surah 4:157-158).

Behan McCullagh , in his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, describes six criteria by which a hypothesis must be weighed.
(1) It must have better explanatory scope than the other hypotheses
(2) It must have better explanatory power than the other hypotheses
(3) It must be more plausible than the other hypotheses
(4) It must be less contrived than the other hypotheses
(5) It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs
(6) It must meet conditions 1-5 far better than the others, so that there is little chance one of the other hypotheses after further study will do better in meeting these criteria.

The hypothesis that best fits these criteria should be thought true. This admittedly only leads one to a probability and not a certainty, for inductive reasoning only sets out to accomplish such. But notice how well the hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” fits these facts and criteria. Although not the bases of a Christian’s faith (it is and always will be a personal real-time belief in the living Jesus), you can see that the Christian is actually quite comfortable in regard to the historical facts (that most NT scholars agree on) surrounding the resurrection claim of the disciples. It is the secularist who must explain these facts by another data-encompassing hypothesis. The resurrection claim encompasses the facts quite nicely. Hope this helps!

For more, check out The Son Rises by William Lane Craig. I have largely summarized the outline of his argument here. Here are some others: Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, Hank Hanegraaff, The Third Day, Lee Strobel, The Case for Easter, William Craig, On Guard or Reasonable Faith.

C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 19.

Reply
gary
10/5/2018 06:11:59 pm

1. An empty tomb.
2. After the tomb is found empty, friends and family members of the deceased believe that they experience "appearances" of him.
3. Members of a new, tiny religious sect, who had been preaching that the End is Near and that the resurrection of the dead would soon occur, believe that the empty tomb and the alleged appearances are proof that the resurrection has begun, with Jesus as the "first fruits".

Do you seriously believe that most intelligent, rational, modern people (who are not already a member of this religion) would come to the conclusion, using inductive reason, that the most obvious explanations for these events is the action of the ancient middle eastern deity, Yahweh???

Don't you think that most people would find many, many more plausible and more rational explanations than this?

Ben
10/23/2018 06:12:26 am

In response to your first question, Gary, as I said, I do not necessarily think one will come to believe in God due to an inference from the resurrection. The reason for this, I think, is that everyone seems to approach facts with a bias, or presuppositions. Thus, if (in your words) intelligent, rational, modern people come to the historical facts surrounding the death of Jesus from the presupposition that God does not exist and that miracles are thus impossible, they they would obviously rule out the resurrection hypothesis a priori. If, however, other intelligent, rational, modern people believe in God (if you can conceive of such people existing) already because of other reasons (direct experience, philosophical consideration, etc.), then the resurrection hypothesis does not at all seem impossible, nor improbable, but actually a powerful explanation of the historical facts surrounding Jesus' death.

In response to your second question, this is really a good point for you to answer! One would think it to be the case that numerous other hypotheses would fit the historical facts surrounding Jesus' death nicely. But this simply is not the case. Check out the scholarship on this and you will see what I mean. Most modern skeptical scholars do not have alternative options for explaining away the facts, but rather, they simply acknowledge agnosticism about those facts and conclude that they do not know what happened. This is not to say that other hypotheses have not been put forward (like the swoon theory, the wrong tomb theory, the hallucinations theory, etc.), but all of these have been devastated by modern critiques. Even if any one of these theories seems plausible, non of them have the explanatory scope or power as the resurrection hypothesis. That is why modern skeptical scholars are basically agnostic about the historical facts, rather than trying to explain them by an alternative hypothesis. Remember that the original hypothesis of Jesus' disciples was that he had been raised from the dead.

Again, the Christian thinks he has a very plausible explanation of the historical facts and certainly the most powerful one put forward to date. Thus, it is not the Christian who is on the historical hot seat.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Author

    This is a blog reiterating Pastor Dan's: Letters to the Editor, Newspaper Articles, and etc... 

    Archives

    March 2020
    July 2019
    August 2018
    April 2017
    November 2016
    December 2015
    March 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    July 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012

    Categories

    All
    Alcohol
    Christmas
    Gospel
    Repentance
    Social Drinking
    Warning

    RSS Feed

About Us

Location 
Contact Us 
​Church Services
Beliefs & Policies

Visit Us!

601 12th Street North
Virginia, MN 55792





Social

Picture