رونوشت 🔗
Heith Terry: Three men began investigating Christianity for very different reasons. One of them was an agnostic college student. He thought Christianity was intellectually worthless, and he set out to disprove it. legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. His wife became a Christian and he wanted to know what she'd gotten herself into. The third was an atheist and a Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective. Accustomed to examining witnesses, reconstructing events, and solving cold cases where there was no video recording existing and sometimes no physical evidence remained. Those three men are current Christian apologists: Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Jay Warner Wallace. none of them began their investigations trying to become Christians. According to their own accounts, they followed the evidence they originally expected to undermine Christianity, but then they reached a very different conclusion. But that raises a much bigger question. Can Christianity be investigated? Jesus lived two thousand years ago. The witnesses are dead. The original manuscripts are gone. We can't interview Pontius Pilate. But Christianity makes a more extraordinary claim. That one man was executed by Romans and came back from the dead. So exactly what are we supposed to do with a claim like that? Believe it because the Bible says so? Reject it because some say miracles can never happen? Or is there evidence that we can actually examine? Let's investigate. In classical apologetics, we began with the questions like why does the universe exist? Why is it fine-tuned? What grounds morality? classical apologists normally build a philosophical and logical case for God and then ask how that God has revealed Himself. Evidential apologetics is willing to start somewhere else. It says, give me the case files. An evidential apologist makes the claim that evidence has been left for us. Jesus existed. He was crucified. His followers claimed he appeared alive afterward. A biblical writer accurately described the particular historical setting. Prophecies predate those events and Christ fulfilled them. someone claims to have witnessed a miraculous event. With those claims in mind, the evidential apologist has to ask what evidence should exist if those claims are true? And then do we actually have access to that evidence? But the investigation can't stop there. It has to challenge what we think. the next step is to question what other explanations could account for all of these details. And finally, which explanation accounts for the evidence best? Now this approach is not foreign to the Bible. We see it when Luke begins his gospel almost like an historian explaining this specific method. In Luke 1, 1 through 4, he talks about prior accounts, eyewitness testimony, investigation, an orderly presentation, and certainty. He claims there are proofs when he speaks in Acts. In Acts 1 3, Jesus is said to have presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul doesn't simply say believe in a spiritual resurrection. He identifies the actual appearances to Peter, to the twelve disciples, to James, brother of Jesus, multiple groups, and finally to himself. Things that would have been able to be investigated at that time. And then we have Thomas. And Thomas may be the Bible's most famous skeptic. Jesus does something interesting. He doesn't rebuke Thomas for asking whether the events actually happened. He confronts him with the evidence that Thomas needed. And Peter, in Acts chapter two, appeals to the public events. He appeals to Scripture, also the resurrection, and testimony. Now, none of these passages means Christianity teaches that evidence regenerates somebody spiritually. The Holy Spirit does that. But it does mean that biblical faith is repeatedly connected to the claims about events that supposedly occurred in the real world. but the Christian just can't argue by saying, look at the evidence. We have to answer difficult questions. What counts as good evidence? When we're defining good evidence, we first have to ask what the exact claim is in which we're looking for evidence. We can't start with a big, broad approach like, is the Bible true? We need to narrow the scope down. Something like, Was Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate? Or how early can resurrection belief actually be documented? Or does this archaeological discovery corroborate this particular Bible detail? Make the question small enough to investigate. Then we have to separate the evidence from our foredrawn conclusion. The evidence that Paul changed from a persecutor of Christianity into a Christian missionary after his experience can be interpreted as an appearance of Jesus. But does that mean that actually Jesus appeared to Paul? We don't want to falsify our conclusion by forcing it into the question. We ask the question and then look for evidence that supports and demonstrates that in fact Jesus appeared to Paul. ask where the information comes from. Just like in a modern day approach, investigators have to use questions like How early is the source? How close was the source to the event? Does the source have access to witnesses? Are there multiple sources? Are they genuinely independent? Is the claim corroborated externally? What might the author have been trying to accomplish? The important point here is a biased source isn't automatically a false source, but almost everyone writing something important has a perspective. The question is whether the specific claim is adequately supported. we have to identify competing explanations. When we see that Paul transformed from a persecutor of Christianity into a Christian missionary, is there any other possible explanation that could account for that other than him seeing Jesus Christ Himself? Then we compare the explanations. It's what's called the explanatory scope. How much does each explanation really explain about the account? Then there is how much explanatory power do these
Load full transcript
evidences produce? How well does each explanation actually explain what happened? Then there's plausibility. Does it fit with everything else that we can actually know? And finally, We have to avoid ad hoc assumptions, basically meaning how many extra assumptions must we have to invent to save a particular theory that we are going with? Let's actually use this method. Evidence file one. Jesus' death. Before asking if someone rose from the dead, it's fairly important to answer the first question was he actually dead? There are multiple accounts that claim perhaps he didn't die, perhaps he was just wounded badly, perhaps someone took his place. but we do have some well established external historical evidence. That Jesus Christ Himself was actually crucified by the Romans. So there's very strong evidence for His death evidence file two, does the resurrection belief appear early? We talked in the past podcast about 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 an oral tradition passed down between one and five years after the death of Jesus Christ. Legends such as someone rising from the dead can appear and develop later on. But the closer a belief can be pushed towards the original event and the witnesses, the less room we have for a simple claim that somebody invented it centuries later. Now that doesn't necessarily prove the resurrection, but it does eliminate or at least seriously complicate the "created over time" or the legend explanation. And that's the important evidential reasoning we must use in all of this approach. Evidence file three. Did people genuinely believe they encountered Jesus alive? Peter, Paul, and James were our three strongest candidates. we have to approach these claims with great caution. Historical investigation can establish with great confidence that these people believe something happened, but it can't simply announce that therefore it must have been a miracle. Gary Habermas's evidential approach deliberately emphasizes historical supportable data that's shared across major disagreements before evaluating resurrection as an explanation. He demonstrates in his approach that we must look at all of the counterexamples to see which is the best explanation before jumping to any conclusion. evidence file four, the empty tomb. Now we're going to demonstrate intellectual fairness. This is where our evidence gets a little bit more debated. Many scholars defend the empty tomb historically. While it doesn't enjoy precisely the same level of consensus as the crucifixion or even the disciples' experience, we can still look back and see the tomb is empty and the body was never discovered. So different pieces of evidence have different levels of certainty, and we have to weigh those honestly along the way. What else could explain the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances? We now have a body of evidence we need suspects. Suspect number one, legend. Could the resurrection belief have developed gradually? Early resurrection material makes a centuries long development inadequate as a complete explanation. But we have to acknowledge that later traditions could still develop upon some truth. The legend idea or theory could explain some later embellishments, but the question is whether it explains the original resurrection belief. And in this case, it doesn't appear to. Suspect number two is Fraud. The disciples knowingly invented it. This can explain some of the proclamations. Perhaps there was fraud involved, but does it explain their actual sincerity? Suffering for any belief doesn't mean that that belief is true. People die for false beliefs all the time. But suffering is relevant to whether the person knows the claim was deliberately fabricated. suspect number three Visions or grief experiences. One of the most popular and precise explanations or naturalistic explanations of the resurrection appearances is what the disciples experienced. Perhaps they were hallucinations. They could have been grief visions or bereavement experiences. We know that grieving people sometimes report sensing the presence of someone who's died, even hearing their voice, or briefly seeing them. So this explanation should not be dismissed so quickly. The question needs to be asked. Whether this explanation adequately explains the full range of evidence. The first difficulty with this idea is the group appearances. So hallucinations are ordinarily private psychological experiences that occur within one individual's mind. Two people can certainly influence one another, they could misunderstand the same event or reinforce a common misinterpretation. But that is far different from multiple people independently experiencing the same detailed hallucination. In the earliest Christian sources, don't describe appearances to only isolated individuals. Jesus is reported to appearing to Peter, but he also appeared to all the twelve at one time, to different groups of the disciples at various times, according to First Corinthians 15, to more than 500 people on one occasion. Now a grief vision might Plausibly explain why one emotionally distressed follower believed he or she saw Jesus. but the hypothesis must explain repeated experiences to different individuals and groups of multiple sizes under all different extraordinary circumstances. The explanatory burden becomes considerably greater for the idea of grief or hallucination. We also must consider the disciple's state of mind. Modern-day bereavement experiences make the most sense when someone is longing for or psychologically prepared to experience a deceased person once again. People go to mediums or psychics all the time hoping to hear from a loved one. And sometimes they think they do because they're trying to prepare, or desiring to hear from that person. But the gospel accounts portray a different disciple's relationship completely. They're not waiting outside of the tomb. They're not saying Jesus told us he would arise any moment now. Here he comes. They were actually
frightened, scared, dispersed, disappointed, confused. The crucifixion appeared to them to be a catastrophic defeat. Even when Jesus' reports of resurrection came circulating around to them from the women, some of the disciples were very skeptical. Thomas famously refuted the belief in the testimony. Now that doesn't make hallucination psychologically impossible for the disciples, But it does mean they weren't obviously in a kind of expectant psychological condition, hoping that they would see him again. The hallucination experience was in someone's mind might be able to explain why Peter saw Jesus, but it can't explain itself why Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb. So the naturalistic explanation has become more complicated. Perhaps the disciples were having grief visions while something was happening to the body of the tomb, while another group is processing the experiences completely different. But at that point, we're no longer dealing with one simple explanation. These are ad hoc assumptions. They're assumptions that are trying to prove a theory so their theory isn't thrown out the window. They combine several independent hypotheses in order to account for all of the evidences. And while that's possible, It is highly unlikely. And that is the central problem with the hallucination or the grief experience theory. It may provide a possible explanation for one person believing they saw Jesus, but it doesn't explain the appearances to individuals, multiple groups, turning skeptical witnesses, how the disciples weren't even looking for a resurrection, and the claim of an empty tomb as one. So the question is not: can grieving people have visions? Of course they can. The better question is does they grieve? Vision adequately explained the particular experiences that produced the earliest Christian beliefs that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. And taken as a whole, the evidence makes that explanation much more difficult to sustain. Suspect 4 the resurrection. The Bible says Jesus rose from the dead. Case closed, right? Well, if God exists and he can act in history, Does the bodily resurrection account for the complete collection of evidence better than all the alternatives? That's our question. And this is where the evidences meet worldview. Our presuppositional worldview is very important here, because two people can agree about almost every historical fact in this case, but they still can disagree about what those facts lead them to, what conclusion they come up with. Is there evidence beyond the resurrection? Well we have manuscripts. Manuscript evidence can help us determine what the text said and what the original text most likely said. It doesn't automatically establish that everything the text says is true. We have to make sure we don't overstate that just because there are manuscripts, that proves our point. Honesty is an evidential apologist's most important tool. But with other evidences, along with manuscripts, we have archaeological discoveries. They can corroborate things like the locations, the rulers, the customs of the time, the political settings, architecture, historical background that someone later wouldn't have had access to. But then also we have to be honest and say that just because we found a biblical city, it doesn't But the corroboration is evidence. It's not unlimited evidence. But we have also fulfilled prophecy. So along with manuscripts, archaeological discoveries, we can look at prophecies, fulfilled prophecies specifically from the Old Testament. And as we look at these prophecies, we still investigate, we have to thoroughly examine when were those passages written that are allegedly fulfilled through Jesus Christ? What did the actual meaning of the original context give to its readers? How specific was that prediction? Could this fulfillment have been something that could have been arranged by Jesus or his disciples? Is the New Testament itself claiming prediction, typology, a pattern, or both? In those cases the prophecy is much stronger. So there are some prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament that aren't as strong as others because they they could have been made up. They could have been used and then manipulate people into thinking, the prophecy was fulfilled. but there are more that absolutely have no way to manufacture what could have possibly happened. Then we have miracles and testimonies. But we can't just say science cannot explain it. So therefore A miracle had to have occurred. We have to ask ourselves what actually was observed? How strong is that documentation? Are there independent witnesses? Were alternative diagnosis or natural explanations also considered? And what exactly is being claimed? Unexplained doesn't automatically mean supernatural, We still must play very cautiously. We make sure that we don't just jump to a supernatural event because something cannot be explained. That's not necessarily the case. But on the other side, the excuse of we don't currently have a natural explanation and one day we will doesn't logically conclude that therefore a supernatural explanation is impossible. Now we have to cross examine our own method. Objection one, evidence is never completely neutral. Christian and a naturalist can look at the same data differently. Evidence matters, but evidence is interpreted with larger beliefs and worldviews about reality. Objection number two, history gives probability, not mathematical proofs. We can't rerun the resurrection in the laboratory. But neither can you rerun Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Historical reasonings work with inference from surviving evidence. So the question is not about absolute certainty. The question is what explanation is most justified by the available evidence. Objection three. Apologists can exaggerate. They can say things like archaeology proves the Bible. Science has proven God. Every apostle died for refusing to deny the resurrection. And we have more
manuscripts, therefore, Christianity is true. Those statements may sound impressive, but they aren't carefully thought through. And we have to be very careful about over exaggerating any evidence that we can present. Objection four evidence can become the authority rather than the servant. So evidence matters because Christianity makes historical claims, but evidence serves the truth. It doesn't become the authority over God's revelation. We don't take it over God's word in the Bible. But it comes alongside. It helps us reinforce our faith. It helps us deepen our faith and understanding and belief in the truth and validity of the Bible, not just from a supernatural explanation, but also from a natural and historical setting. So evidence can remove intellectual objections, but we have to also consider and remember that it cannot regenerate a heart. Evidence must be a servant to the authoritative word of God. So with this, it seems like we're going back and forth between how good evidential apologetics are and all the objections to it. But what good is it at all? Let's recap what we've done so far. The evidential apologist has to take a claim, a simple, verifiable claim, define it very carefully, look at all the evidence for and against, separate strong evidence from weak evidence. We have to allow competing explanations to speak and address those. We have to identify on what all sides can actually agree upon. And then We have to ask the question which explanation best accounts for all of the evidence that is available for all of us. And that's where the strength of the evidential apologetics lies. It keeps Christianity connected to history. It gives Christians something more substantial than just believe for faith's sake. And it gives the non-Christian something more respectful than you would just agree with me if you weren't so rebellious. It creates genuine common ground. It says here's the evidence. What do you think best explains it? The three men we talked about at the beginning, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Jay Warner Wallace. They decided Christianity was a claim worth investigating. Their stories don't prove Christianity. Three people changing their minds does not establish the resurrection. But their stories demonstrate something very important about the evidential approach. Christianity is making claims about reality. And claims about reality can be investigated. Josh McDowell examined evidence intending to undermine Christianity. Lee Strobel investigated Christianity to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ and rescue his wife as she converted to Christianity. J. Warner Wallace approached the gospels using skills he developed investigating cold cases. All three say the evidence played a significant role in changing what they believed. You may examine the same evidence and disagree with their conclusions, but disagreement should come after investigation, not instead of it. So to the Christian, don't borrow someone else's confidence. Study the evidence yourself. Read Christian scholars, but also read critics too. Learn which claims are strong, which are disputed, and what information is sometimes exaggerated. We don't honor truth by protecting it from investigation. Rather, truth will be reinforced through that investigation. And for those who are listening who might be skeptics, non-Christians, atheists even, I challenge you the same way. Don't reject Christianity based on the weakest version you've heard. Investigate Christianity's central claims. Read the sources. Examine the evidence. Consider the strongest naturalistic explanations and the strongest Christian explanations. And then ask yourselves which one makes the best sense of what we actually know. Whatever your conclusion. Make sure it's a conclusion that you've actually investigated. I want to thank you for listening to Bear Apologetics. And if this episode reinforced your faith or helped you to understand the role of evidential apologetics, like, subscribe, and share it with someone who wants to investigate the evidence for themselves. Until next time, keep seeking truth with biblical evidence and reasoning.