The resurrection is a fabricated myth used for religious propanda, only effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children. “…after the crucifixion Jesus’ corpose was prbably laid in a shallow grave, barely covered with dirt, and subsequently eaten by wild dogs; the story of Jesus’ entombment and resurrection was the result of ‘wishful thinking.’” – John Dominic Crossan1

Introduction:

- the resurrection of Jesus Christ is perhaps the most frequently and violently attacked belief of the Christianity. yet the resurrection is the “crowning proof” of the Christian faith.
- of all the religions of the world, Christianity is the best one to start investigating because Christianity places its whole foundation on the one miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and says that if it did not happen then Christianity is false (1 Cor 15:14). therefore, all one has to do is disprove this one miracle and they can go on to investigate the next religion.
- “the resurrection of Jesus 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.”
- in order to best respond to the challenges regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, this outline will give three primary proofs for His resurrection and then respond to three main objections.

I. the facts of the empty tomb

(1) Jesus was buried in a tomb
a. this was the Jewish custom for Jewish holy men.
b. no other burial story exists in either written or oral tradition.
(2) the disciples began to preach Christ had risen from the tomb
(3) it would have been foolish for the disciples to preach that Christ had risen if His body really was in the tomb.
(4) no one would have believed them if they knew the body was in the tomb, yet thousands did just shortly afterward in the same city Jesus was crucified (Acts 1-2)
(5) if the body was in the tomb anyone could have pointed to the tomb or exhumed the body to prove that Jesus had not been raised
(6) the disciples were filled with discouragement and timidity after Christ’s death (Jn 20:19). They would not have had courage or purpose to preach a false resurrection if it weren’t really true.

II. the resurrection appearances
(1) women were the first to see Him resurrected (Lk 24:1-11). a women’s testimony in first century Judaism was “virtuously worthless.” they were generally not even considered credible enough to give a testimony in court. if Gospel writers were attempting to present false history they would not have recorded this.
(2) Peter, James, and Paul are all specifically named as eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:5,7,8). All the twelve saw Him resurrected and on one occasion over and then five-hundred people saw Him at the same time (1 Cor 15:3-8 ).

a. five-hundred people testifying in a courtroom would be overwhelming proof that something happened. how many of those five-hundred people would have to take the stand and testify of what they saw before any judge or jury would be convinced?
b. at the time when the apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he says that many of those five-hundred people “are still alive (1 Cor 15:6).” this was a way of saying, “if you don’t believe me go ask them!”

(3) one of Jesus’ disciples, Thomas, heard reports that Jesus had risen but doubted them until he too saw and touched Jesus and was convinced (Jn 20:24-29).

III. a historical resurrection is the origin of the Christian faith
(1) all the preaching of the early church was based on the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23,26; 1 Cor 15).
(2) there is no parallel in pagan religion to a physical bodily resurrection. the dying and rising gods were symbols for processes of nature but never considered as actual people.
(3) the number of converts on Pentecost, three-thousand people (Acts 2:41), was likely because everyone there in Jerusalem knew and heard about the empty tomb and the numerous resurrection appearances.
(4) no one challenged or argued with apostles over the historical facts of the resurrection in the 1st century. but instead argued with them about whether He really was the Messiah.

IV. three objections/explanations of the resurrection
A. the “resurrection” was a conspiracy or hoax devised by the disciples who stole Jesus body as the soldiers claim Matthew 28:12-159

response #1: Matthew 28:12-15 describes how the chief priest paid the soldiers off to say the disciples stole the body.
response #2: Matthew 28:13 tells how the soldiers were to say they were asleep when the body was stolen. if they were asleep how could they have known the body was stolen, or known anything that happened.
response #3: in 1879 a roman edict was found stating that it was illegal under penalty of death to rob a tomb or to move a body from one place to another. disciples knew they would be guilty of death.
response #4: if the disciples stole the body they would not have taken time to fold up the grave clothes (Jn 20:5-7).
response #5: if the disciples stole the body they would not have died for what they knew was a lie.

B. the “resurrection” was merely a resuscitation from an apparent death. “Jesus was not completely dead when He was taken down from the cross. He revived in the tomb and escaped to convince His disciples that He had risen from the dead.”

response #1: physically impossible. considering the extent of Jesus’ tortures. a modern medical examination of the Gospels determines that Jesus suffered from hematidrosis, hypovolemic shock, respiratory acidosis, pericardial and pleural effusion, and finally died of cardiac arrest.
response #2: religiously impossible. a half dead Jesus appearing to disciples would not evoke their worship to Him as Lord.
response #3: biographically impossible. goes against all we know of Jesus character.

C. it was not a bodily resurrection but spiritual/psychological resurrection
response #1: Jesus called His body “flesh and bones” (Lk 24:39)
response #2: Jesus offered His body for physical inspection (Jn 20:27)
response #3: Jesus ate food (Lk 24:41-43)
response #3: one person could have had a hallucination or delusion but not 500 people all at the same time (1 Cor 15:6).

For further study of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ some great resources include:
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. Wheaton, ILL: Crossway Books, 1984.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Geisler, Norman L. and Brooks, Ronald M. When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972.
Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids, MI: 1987.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences, Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.
Wilkins, Michael J. and Moreland, J.P. Jesus Under Fire. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.

Tico was killed by a coyote last week. Even as I type this I have to hold back the tears of a pet remembered. When I explain to my friends that my cat was killed; the words don’t capture the depth of pain and love I have for that particular cat named Tico. I want to find that perfect explanation to convey just what type of cat Tico was and why I miss him so. Ultimately the explanation is in the experience and not in the word. But I will try to explicate the experience. What follows is a cathartic reminiscing of black on white to help you understand that Tico was an original, not easily duplicated; and maybe, glean some theological, metaphysical and anthropological significance along the way.

Tico was not an outdoor cat, his idiosyncrasies would not allow that. An 11-13 lb. Himalayan who was occasionally confused for a raccoon in dim light. He couldn’t run fast or far, he had a high jump of 4.2 feet. He had no interest in objects that crawl, slither or scurry, and if you placed him among the bears on my bed you’d be hard pressed to distinguish between fabricated and factual. I would tell Cathy that we could leave him at the San Diego Zoo, placard an exotic feline name for him on his enclosure, and he would pass as one of those rare cats found somewhere in the Amazonian jungle. When Tico would jump that 4.2 vertical feet he wouldn’t arch his body up and over the obstacle and land like a butterfly lighting on a twig. He would first hit the side of the object, front two paws grasping at the edge desperately trying to sustain his sizable girth from plummeting off the edge, and use his popeye forearms to haul himself, rear paws scrambling forth, up and over the edge of said obstacle. IF he made it he would then have to rest a moment to continue on wherever he thought he should be. There was a time when we were over at my parent’s home when Tico executed this maneuver onto a low antique hutch. The resulting crash against the hutch effected a rush of adrenaline within my father causing him to bolt out of his semi-slumber in a hurried rush to get to the door because surely the house must be collapsing.

Tico was amenable. You could place him in a tub, wash him, clip his nails and brush his hair with no fear of being scratched or bitten and hardly a peep of objection apart from one or two throaty, warbly, blue eyed meows. Unbelievably, you could tell him to stay in the tub when you needed to get something and he would stay. And … he was fearless, which may have been what did him in. Nothing scared him, dogs, other cats, people. He would just saunter through circumstances, disinterest evident in his eyes and his posture, like a king being carried above his people. He didn’t like milk, he didn’t like tuna, he didn’t like chicken, he didn’t like wet food at all; he liked IAMS small chunk for less active cats. For the most part he didn’t cuddle except when we went on car trips, which was frequent. On trips his preferred spot was on the driver’s lap away from the riff-raff in the back otherwise known as dogs. Oh yeah, he would also walk on a leash with one of our parrots perched on his back although he didn’t like that either. He didn’t like toys except a 6 inch rubber strip affectionately named “Mr. Thingie”. He did like “Mr. Thingie” but most of all he liked to sit and watch stuff. The world go by, that is what Tico liked, “the world go by.” He was an observer not a participant.

car.jpgThat same week I purchased a new-used car. A Scion Xb , “the box”, “the toaster”, “the microwave” named “Nanobus”. He’s a swell little car, leather interior, cool lights, sunroof, shiny wheels, DVD player, and I’d like to think a “chick magnet” if I wasn’t married. Maybe not a chick magnet but I do get noticed in it. Maybe a “chick curiosity”. And that’s about it. Nanobus has no real personality, he has no idiosyncrasies that a replacement part couldn’t fix, he has no desires, no needs, no interests, no concerns, no personality apart from what I anthropomorphize. In fact he is not a he at all. He is an it. And it cost a lot more than Tico did. Nanobus neither observes nor participates, it just is.

Nanobus could be cloned. He’s fairly extra-ordinary, but not one of a kind unique. If I had the money I could purchase an exact replica of Nanobus right down to the scratch in his left rear door-well. Therefore we would have Nanobus 1 and Nanobus 2.

Tico could also be cloned through Genetic Savings and Clone based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The details are not of interest yet but suffice it to say in both our cases we could have a clone either of a cat or a car, but what would the difference be in the nature of the two? I think it could be agreed upon by most that if Tico was cloned the resulting cat is not Tico, he has a twin and a twin is not a Tico as Nanobus 2 is not Nanobus 1. But what is the difference?

If you answered “Life”, I would then ask, “What is life?”, since this answer still leaves the question to be begged. To help think about this a bit more clearly we can ask ourselves another question. What is required for a thing to be an observer, or rather more accurately, what is required for a thing to have awareness? I am interested in your answers before I offer my answer; so here is where I take advantage of the interactive nature of this medium called the Internet. Please email your responses to tom AT kaleochurch DOT com. (Remove the AT and DOT and replace both with an @ and a period, respectively.)

Please limit your answers to a few sentences, no more than a paragraph long, and include what you think your presuppositions or bias’ are in answering the question. Address the subject line as “Tico”. I will post and comment on those answers that I think may be helpful or add clarity, including those I disagree with. My responses and answer will be posted next month.

The answer to this question will help explain why it can be right and proper to cry for an animal and why it is cracked and fatuous to weep at the loss of a car.