WHAT WOULD YOU SAY: The Resurrection Was Faked by Jesus’ Disciples
So you are in a conversation with somebody when the discussion heads in a spiritual direction. You mention that you are a follower of Jesus Christ who you know to be God because He was resurrected from the tomb three days after His crucifixion. Just as He said He would be.
Screenshot from YouTube.
But your conversation partner scowls and informs you that “all that stuff about a resurrection and an empty tomb, that was just a fable made by the disciples who conspired together to fool everybody into thinking Jesus had been resurrected. It was nothing more than that, a conspiracy to deceive.”
What would you say?
What J. Warner Wallace of Cold-Case Christianity would say, based on his extraordinary career as an expert at evaluating evidence and solving murders that had for decades defied solution, includes three hugely important facts. You can hear and ponder them in the latest “What Would You Say” video from the Colson Center:
The problem is that there are more than two possibilities – that is, conspiracy or resurrection. It is quite possible the body in the tomb was removed for some reason, and those who saw the body was missing honestly believed Jesus was resurrected. The fact that there was no conspiracy doesn’t prove the resurrection, however.
Similarly, for instance, with the virgin birth: some say Mary was covering up being unfaithful or perhaps a rape. That never made sense to me. Being already married, she would have not the slightest motivation to invent such a fanciful story, which would hardly be likely to be believed by a suspicious husband in any case. She would just have to say nothing.
No, Mary could very well have honestly believed that she had a visitation by an angel saying she will have God’s child, and not have had any sexual relations with anyone except Joseph. But the fact that she was honest (and faithful) doesn’t mean she was actually visited by an angel, or carried God’s child.
The New Testament accounts of the Resurrection and its immediate aftermath are blatantly inconsistent. That could be explained by the six-decade gap between the Gospels and the events they purportedly describe. But the detective’s premise is that they are scrupulously consistent.
That there are “contradictions” in the Gospels is a familiar claim, but what critics often cite as contradictions are actually simply different aspects of the same event. So perhaps you can share with us three examples of what you view as contradictions. Also, it is a familiar claim among skeptics that a great amount of time elapsed between the events of the Gospels, especially the resurrection, and when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote their books. In fact, as Professor Gary Habermas comprehensively demonstrates, the time between the events and the writing was much less than critics claim.
(1) OK. Did the dead of Jerusalem arise from their graves and walk around at the moment christ died? Did apostles go to Galilee after Christ died to meet him , or did they stay in Jerusalem? Did he ascend into heaven after meeting with the apostles that day, or did he stay another 40 days? Surely you’re aware of these, and many more. You shouldn’t have to ask me fro them. But I politely respond to your request.
(2) Leave me out of the argument between your two experts. The above contradictions, and many more, could be explained by the gap of several decades between the events purportedly described in the New Testament and their transcription by the non-witnesses Mark, Luke, etc. Many Christian apologists argue just that. But Detective Wallace relies on that time gap to prove the consistency of those stories over time, while Professor Habermas “conclusively demonstrates” that the detective’s reliance is misplaced. You can’t have it both ways.
So you are suggesting that in order for any group of two or more accounts of an event every detail must be reported exactly the same way by all of the accounts in order for any of them to be credible?
No, that’s what Detective Wallace is suggesting. You know, all that stuff about separating the witnesses and questioning each of them away from the others, looking for “small” discrepancies that you can exploit to prove that they’re all lying. That’s what he’s talking about, not me.
My argument flows from the suggestion that the discrepancies are not mere details. They are legends, which grow more easily if not grounded in fact.
And now we see your controlling, previously unstated assumption – that the Gospels are based on legends. That’s really a stale one, Jim. And you are not accurately describing Wallace’s point about varying accounts by witnesses – his point is precisely that they don’t all tell the same exact story and if they did, it’s a sign they coordinated beforehand.
It’s stale and therefore false. Ya got me.
That’s exactly backwards, Jim, it’s false and therefore stale.