Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ

There is perhaps no other fact more important to the Christian faith than the resurrection of Christ. Indeed, Paul writes, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor. 15:14).

This is a topic that has been given a thorough treatment by theologians and apologists. Ashby Camp has written a concise point by point treatise on the matter, The Historical Case for the Resurrection of Christ. If you have not read other similar works, this paper is concise and thorough. I recommend it.

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. I was fascinated by the portion of this essay that deals with our modern inability to distinguish what most, not all, of us can’t sense, and that is the spiritual realm. If, as this writer puts it, Christ’s death and resurrection caused God (according to His will and plan) to intertwine the heavens and the earth more closely, then we (believers) should expect to see, and others also, that evidence in our (their) lives, as the apostles had (Christ’s resurrection and appearances).

    What I’m saying is this, if man can imagine, or fantasize, about (“dark”) matter, energy and other universes, which he cannot experience, within his limited senses/intellectual-abilities and yet believes, then why is it so hard for him to believe in a supernatural being and the effects of that being around him? The reason for this, in my estimation, has nothing to do with man’s “reasoning” or his “enlightenment” (which are gifts from God). It, instead, has to do with his rebellion against God’s authority and the subsequent blindness, willful ignorance and denial that ultimately comes upon man. We see the results of this here and other places every day!

    “There are none so blind as those who will not see!”

  2. I think that one would have to take for granted a pretty bare-bones skeptical empiricism (concerning that “which one cannot experience”) in order to put physics and theology on an epistemological par, so DB’s point is only a good one if there are good reasons for accepting skeptical empiricism as a epistemological starting point. But I don’t think there are.

  3. Regarding your points Carl, please see Everybody Believes Something Unbelievable by Roddy Bullock at ARN.

  4. Thanks for the link to the Bullock article, Country Shrink. I think he makes some good points, but I’d make them quite differently, and those differences count for a lot.

    I think that when it comes down to ‘world-views’ (not a term I love, but a useful one), one always goes beyond (‘transcends’) one’s limited range of experiences. This is because a world-view is an embodiment, through various media such as discourse, ritual, song, dance, theory etc., of one’s desire to comprehend the whole, the wholeness, of the real. And yet as finite beings we catch the real only in glimpses. We assemble these glimpses into a picture of the whole, like reconstructing a sculpture from photographs. This is, again, part of what it is to have a world-view at all, and so in that regard, we’re all in the same boat. I suspect that Bullock would agree with this, though I’m not sure.

    If we can we imagine someone who had no world-view at all — whose beliefs, if she had any at all, were tied directly to her immediate experience — if such a person is even possible! — that sort of person would find herself equally skeptical of both dark matter and an afterlife. Skepticism of this sort is brilliantly and passionately defended by David Hume in his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, but like most readers of Hume, I fear he tosses out the baby with the bathwater.

    However, just because all world-views are equal in that sense, it doesn’t follow that all world-views are equal in all senses. For nothing there stands in the way of seeing some world-views as better than others, where ‘better’ could be assessed in all sorts of ways: how conducive a world-view is to human flourishing, for example, or whether it contains the resources for self-criticism in light of new evidence.

    [For my purposes here, neither ‘Darwinism’ nor ‘atheism’ count as world-views, though they might have implications for world-views: ‘Darwinism’ is a name for a family of scientific theories loosely inspired by Darwin’s work, and ‘atheism’ is a response to a specific metaphysical question, namely, ‘how many gods are there?’ with the answer, ‘none’. But I would accept ‘naturalism’ as a term for a world-view which usually, though not always, includes Darwinism and atheism as components.]

  5. Shrink,

    Carl said,

    I think that one would have to take for granted a pretty bare-bones skeptical empiricism (concerning that “which one cannot experience”) in order to put physics and theology on an epistemological par, so DB’s point is only a good one if there are good reasons for accepting skeptical empiricism as a epistemological starting point. But I don’t think there are.

    Carl thinks that he doesn’t “think there are”… fill in the blank! But what Carl doesn’t know is that his thoughts are merely beliefs, wrapped up in intellectual meanderings, that never come to a set conclusion on anything or ever really make a valid point to anyone. I sometimes believe that this is his whole reason for existence? He uses a word above that so accurately describes him: SKEPTICAL!

  6. Also, I guess Carl is claiming that he has experienced dark matter and energy and been to other universes? I’m not surprised!

  7. Shrink,

    Note how, once again, the topic of your post has been lost, and I am as guilty as anyone. My first comment was a legitimate attempt to remain on the subject of the evidence for Christ’s resurrection. Since then, I have allowed myself to be distracted!

    Anyway, I believe there is ample evidence for the resurrection, but, as you know, man’s evidence of God and His Christ are simply inadequate. As the Apostle Paul said, “It is by faith alone… that no man should boast.”

  8. Actually, my only point was to voice an objection against skeptical empiricism itself. My apologies for having derailed the conversation thread.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: