Apologetics- An Asset to Christianity

It probably won’t come as a surprise to the vast majority of you, but I’m a student, and so far I have a good 5-8 years of student life under my belt. As I moved through the years (here in England we go from Secondary School to Sixth Form to University), I worked hard academically, and as with anyone else I moved in various social circles. Most of you, I hope, can say the same thing. However, in modern education there is something rather profound that has the potential to change so much in a pupil’s life. What is it? Quite simply, it is a religious belief, and in particular, a Christian religious belief.

In a western school, no matter what its ethos states be it secular or indeed Christian, we can’t deny the harsh reality that a) the majority of its students aren’t going to possess any specific belief system, and b) those who do are seen as ‘different’, and as is the way in youth culture, difference equals a threat, and a threat is often targeted/ridiculed/alienated. However, let me qualify here. I’m not saying that a Christian individual will actually be excluded or bullied, although I know first hand that that can happen albeit in a minority of cases, but rather that their belief in and of itself is alienated, made different, or manipulated into something that is to be ridiculed.

What am I telling you all this for, and what possible relevance does it have to the topic in hand? Quite simply because it is in their teenage years that a Christian is more likely to face his or her biggest doubts when it comes to their faith, and as such something needs to be done to combat this. I argue that we have an answer that, in spite of my focus on a young Christian population, can also appeal to Christendom at large. I propose that ‘Apologetics’ is needed in a Christian’s spiritual upbringing, in conjunction with a good knowledge of how to evangelise- they aren’t separate things! If indeed this is carried out successfully, then the humiliation and ridicule I spoke of above need not be an issue to the Christian; he or she will be able to at least fight back with powerful evangelism, and any doubts that are associated with this treatment would not arise for the simple reason that they are shot down at first sight. And, of course, being able to use Apologetics in and of itself is a useful skill to acquire! But, as always, I’m jumping ahead of myself. Let’s go through a few sub-categories first, before we can consider the need for Apologetics within modern Christianity.

1) What is Apologetics? - It’s a good question, and seemingly an obvious one to start with! ‘Apologetics’ is defined as- “a branch of theology devoted to the defence of the divine origin and authority of Christianity”. Wordy? I agree. Let’s bring it back down to its root levels, its biblical levels. 1 Peter 3:14-17 holds the key to understanding Apologetics as an academic discipline, and its relevance to the observant Christian-

“But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened " But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.” (NIV).

Now look specifically at 1 Peter 3:15, where it says- “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”. In particular, focus in on the word “answer”. This is of course an English NIV translation, but here’s a list of how other translations have decided to word it- “an account” (NASB), “explanation” (paraphrased, NLT), “logical defence” (AMP). The original Greek word is ‘apologia’. It simply means a “verbal defence, speech in defence…a reasoned statement or argument”. So then, what is ‘Apologetics’? Well, we can see that the Biblical line is clear, at least- it is a defence of the faith, not only that, but it isn’t just a simplistic defence; it is a “reasoned” and “logical” defence.

There we have it- a very long-winded response to a rather simple question! Trust me to go Biblical.

2) The History of Apologetics – this is one of those issues that are so wide-ranging and so complex that it would be difficult to fit into this one newsletter. However, we can still work our way through some basics. The first really noticeable display of Apologetics was indeed St.Peter in the Book of Acts, not surprising really given that he was the one who wrote the verse given above. The first attacks on the Christian faith were from three main fields of opposition- the Jews, the Romans and the Pagans. The first group were by far the most common in very early Christianity, and as I am sure you are aware the Christian faith was at first a purely Jewish one, with no Gentile (non-Jewish) members joining for about 20 years after Jesus. Remember in Acts 2:14, just after Pentecost, when Peter stood up and addressed the crowd? He was defending the faith against Jewish opposition, be it theological or otherwise, and it worked. Acts 2:41 states that about “three thousand souls” were added to the number of followers that day.

Amazing stuff, but the field of Apologetics in no way died off there and then. You can see it again in Acts, where Paul addresses the third source of opposition- the pagans, in Areopagus, on Mars’ Hill (Acts 17). The way Paul addressed the crowd is very significant, but again I appear to be getting ahead of myself. But needless to say, Paul’s approach to apologetics certainly was in keeping with his words to the Corinthians, “To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law” (1 Corinthians 9:21). All will be explained below!

Moving on from the Biblical accounts, the use of Apologetics can be seen throughout Christian history. The early Church Fathers were renown for using the discipline, with major players including Ignatius, Augustine, and Justin Martyr to name but a few. They usually defended Christianity from Pagans and the Gnostics, a relatively early Christian group who tended to emphasise Christ’s humanity to the detriment of His deity. From there on, Apologists increased in number, and by the middle ages we are able to pick out such great apologists as Anselm, John of Damascus and Thomas Aquinas. Continuing through the centuries, we can find Apologists such as Martin Luther and Calvin. When we get to the 20th Century we can name Apologists who are actually incredibly well known in the secular world along with the Christian one, e.g. C.S. Lewis.

And finally, we arrive in the 21st Century. Now that the Internet has made information more readily available and soapboxes are not just rentable, they’re just being given away for free; it should come as no real surprise that Apologetics has experienced an upsurge in interest. Today, we have Internet Apologists such as J.P. Holding, Glenn Miller, Ralph Dettwiler, and of course myself, although I am in no way comparable to those other scholarly individuals in terms of academic aptitude. Not yet, anyway :-P… There are also other, more accessible apologists available, albeit ones who do not take on a cyber-guise! These include J.P. Moreland, Ben Witherington III, N.T. Wright, Lee Strobel, Craig Blomberg, and Dr. Michael Brown etc.

There you have, in a very simplistic form, a short history of Apologetics. It’s as old as Christianity itself!

3) A Study of 1 Peter 3:14-17, and how it should be able to help us in conducting Apologetics properly-

As mentioned earlier, this particular verse in Peter’s Epistle is incredibly important. It is useful for every Christian to study this command to defend the faith, and in doing so enable themselves to carry out God’s work the way He wants it to be done. Apologetics is all about debating you know. Oh no- Christianity has a habit of making things confusing, you should know that by now!

Verses 14+15- But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened” But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

These are the most important verses in this whole passage. It both acknowledges that we as Christians suffer from our beliefs (a theme I put forth earlier), but later goes on to combat this persecution with two practical commands. First, we should “set apart Christ as Lord” in our hearts and second that we should “give an answer [or as we have seen, defence] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”. However, if we were thinking we could be absolutely scathingly brutal in such a defence we are corrected- “but do this with gentleness and respect”.

These two verses also highlight something that I have experienced in the past year or so. It is very easy for the Apologist to go as some put it, ‘heady’, i.e. your faith comes to be governed by what your head says rather than what your heart says. Don’t get me wrong, a Christian faith is not meant to be intellectually lacking, rather the basis and foundation of any Christians belief should be grounded in the fact that Christ has saved their souls and has entered their hearts. And this, naturally, is going to be focused almost entirely in our ‘hearts’. 1 Peter 3:14-15 clearly supports this- it first gives a command to separate (or agiazw) Christ in our hearts, i.e. acknowledge Christ as saviour, and only then proceeds to give the command to defend one’s faith. In summary- ‘be a Christian before a theologian’- facts won’t save you, books can’t cleanse your soul, only Christ can do such things! Get your priorities straight, and then defend Christianity with Jesus as your cornerstone.

Verses 16+17- …keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

Less to say about this bit, I’m afraid. Quite simply, it echoes what it said at the end of Verse 15- when debating, represent Christ by behaving in the best possible way you can. Let the beacon of God shine forth even in the most hostile situations.

So, what can we say in summary? What do these verses offer the Christian Apologist in terms of good conduct?
‘Be a Christian before a theologian’- don’t think before you believe, but that doesn’t mean you can’t believe without thinking!
Defend your faith whenever anyone asks you to explain your beliefs, and if you are persecuted for sticking to your guns, consider yourself “blessed”.
And finally, always represent Christ by behaving properly, with respect and love for those who ask of you.

4) Apologetics within a Christian Life-

We have now discussed the meaning, history and the advised good conduct of Apologetics, but let’s move on to discuss what it means to Christianity, and what it means to a Christian.

Within Christendom, there is a huge emphasis on the necessity of Evangelism, quite rightly too for such an emphasis is thoroughly Biblical. However, what of Apologetics? Is it right to shun it into an Evangelistic shadow? Is Evangelism more important, or visa versa? Is witnessing simply leading a Christ filled life? To put it simply, such questions are a bit misguided. In truth, Evangelism necessarily entails Apologetics. The word ‘evangelism’ itself is a very broad term used to describe an outreach to those not in the faith. This is, like I say, very much a Biblical concept, but can the same be said of Apologetics? Well, we have seen that it clearly is, but where does it stand in relation to Evangelism? Do you want a simple answer? It is to be included in it!

Look at 1 Peter 3:15 once again, and note how the command to give a ‘reason’ or a ‘logical defence’ is situated in an evangelistic context, i.e. talking with those not of the Faith and explaining to them the Cross of Christ, and what it means to us as Christians. The notion that Evangelism is separate to Apologetics, or indeed superior to it (and visa versa) is a myth, pure and simple. In truth, Apologetics is meant as a pre-cursor to an Evangelistic outreach, it is included in the ‘package’, and intended by the Disciples as a useful tool! This is incredibly important, for it has definite implications. No longer is Evangelism merely learning how to communicate and reach out to those not in the faith, it is also being ready (wearing the full armour of God) for any attack or objection questioners have prepared. I accept that this is not a common occurrence, but it is certainly becoming increasingly common in secular circles.

You ask any ‘average Joe’ on the street to name the 10 Commandments, very few of them can do so (infact some Christians cannot, myself not being entirely innocent
: -P), hence the need for evangelism and even one could say education. Equally, you ask the same person why they don’t accept Christ as their Saviour and they’ll come out with falsities such as “He didn’t die thus His Resurrection is False”, “The Bible is just Chinese Whispers”, or even worse, “I saw a programme [e.g. BBC 4’s ‘Did Jesus Die?’]/read a book [e.g. Dan Brown’s ‘The Da Vinci Code’] etc that has lead me to believe otherwise”. And I do hasten to add; hence the need for Apologetics! As you can see, the two fields are very much linked, and even complementary! Take this false dialogue for example, between a Christian Evangelist (Nick) and a non-believer (Mick)-

Nick (N): Warm day isn’t it?
Mick (M): Yes it is rather…
N: I’ve just come back from an event at the local Church, it’s on all week, family event and the like, you know…
M: Oh right, sounds nice. I need to look after a kid on Tuesday actually, and with this heat it would be good to have some shelter and something for her to do. I might take her to this thing you’re on about, you got any details handy?
N: Actually, I help out there, so I can tell you about it now if you like?
M: Oh alright then…*laughs*
N: Basically, the Church run this thing, we hold a few barbeques, a few child events, and now and again we have a few speakers give a talk every so often.
M: Speakers?
N: Yea, they talk about Church stuff, like God and Jesus, infact I’m into all that stuff myself actually. What about yourself?
M: Me? No way. I was brought up with it, you know, but I’ve sort of ‘grown out of it’, with all due respect and everything, you know. To me, though, all that Bible stuff, it’s all a load of rubbish.
N: Oh I’m sorry to hear that, to me however, Christ is the most important person in my life. I’m one of those ‘born again’ Christians, but don’t hold that against me! *Laughs* Seriously though, are you sure you don’t want to come along?
M: Nah it’s all right mate, like I say Jesus may be important to you but all I can see in the Bible is a pack of lies. That whole Resurrection stuff? No way, I don’t buy it. Sorry man, I don’t mean to be rude, but since I don’t believe for these reasons, I don’t think it would be very fair if I get your hopes up or anything.

So then, here we stop. It’s clear in this hypothetical situation that Nick started with an Evangelistic situation, but it clearly and quickly changed to one that entails Apologetics. Of course, he could keep it an Evangelistic situation without needing to use the Apologetic Method, but it would no doubt be less effective.

This situation, however fictional, nevertheless portrays something very real, and something is increasingly common, especially among young Christians. If we as Christians do not start equipping our ‘Utility Belt of Truth’ properly, then Evangelism could well begin to fall short if it does not fulfil its proper potential. Evangelism was never meant to be half-finished- it entails a lot of other things, Apologetics included, and we cannot afford to ignore these things.

Conclusion

What can we say in summary? Well, we can see that Apologetics is indeed Biblical and intended to be a logical defence of the faith when it is asked of us (in other words, don’t go steam-rolling into an Atheist chat room like a Spiritual Rambo!). We can also see that such a command has been fulfilled in the lives of many throughout Christianity’s history. Not only that, but we are to conduct it in a specific way, but also (most importantly)- it is to be used in conjunction with and in a way that complements Evangelism!

Christianity is facing its biggest trials in today’s world for a long time. If Evangelism is to succeed, we need to equip ourselves with the full armour of God, not half of it, not 75%, and if Apologetics is included in this, and if it can help the increasingly ‘persecuted’ Christian Youth of today, then I say we should bring it on, and prepare for battle…bring it on…

Critique of BBC4's 'Did Jesus Die?'

In Issue 5 of the Teen Apologetics Newsletter, I briefly mentioned a BBC4 programme entitled “Did Jesus Die?” Its whole premise was that Jesus didn’t die, the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles (the letters written by the early Church leaders) were either fabricated in part or in whole as a form of ‘cover up’. And what were they ‘covering up’? Simply that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that He ‘escaped’ to India where He had previously spent His adolescent years. Sound ridiculous? That’s because it is.

I have to say; I was mildly shocked by the fact that a prestigious institution such as the BBC would allow their airtime to be invaded by such tripe. Don’t get me wrong, this is not new material- they haven’t just sat down in a board meeting and said, “Hey I know, why don’t we challenge a previously unchallenged belief with the most ludicrous assertion imaginable?” Indeed, this is an idea that has been around for a while, albeit in different forms. The idea that He didn’t die is something certainly not new. As I have already addressed elsewhere, this concept is known as the ‘Swoon Theory’- it’s something that initially sounds feasible but was abandoned quite a few decades ago by all who are not completely insane, for various reasons (see Issue 5 of the newsletter, or www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm).

However, the notion that Jesus stayed in India at one time or another is relatively new. I say relatively, as it’s been around for quite a few decades now. There are (as far as I can see) three main variants of this idea- one is that Jesus travelled there in His ‘unrecorded years’ (i.e. between 12 and 30 approximately), the second is that He survived the cross and travelled to India, settled, married and settled in Kashmir, and the final variant is a combination of the two! Of course it doesn’t necessarily have to be India; why don’t you pick France? Some say that He left the Middle East and settled there with Mary Magdalene. Whilst we’re taking speculative hits, why not pick Stratford-upon-Avon, or ‘Staines Massive’? Perhaps Jesus did walk upon England’s ‘mountains green’. Or, perhaps far more sensibly, He didn’t.

Anyway, I’m beginning to digress, let’s get focussed. The BBC4 Documentary is most definitely a collection of these ideas, many of which can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die.shtml and in the Interview with the Director (one Richard Denton), found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die-interview.shtml. It is these two sites that I am going to be addressing; particularly the latter- Denton makes some right corker comments! I’m sure, however, that he is a very intelligent guy, don’t get me wrong. I obviously don’t know him, this article isn’t an insult to him or his intelligence- we’re all entitled to our opinions and rightly so. However, ‘criticism where criticism is due’ I feel, and some of his comments in the aforementioned interview most definitely need addressing.

The reason for my vigour? Well, you could say it is ‘personal’. When I first saw this programme I was a year younger- physically, intellectually and spiritually! I didn’t possess the knowledge or the analytical skills to defend myself and I was quite bothered by the feature. These ‘niggles’ didn’t disappear for about 6 months, and even then it was with the help of J.P. Holding, of Tektonics Apologetics Ministries (www.tektonics.org). Looking back in hindsight, I can’t believe I could have even considered this as a feasible alternative to traditional Christian teachings, but that’s how these things go.

So, with no further ado…let’s get on with it. Remember, the quotes I am responding to are found at the aforementioned BBC website interview, and all of them are by Richard Denton himself unless otherwise stated.

1) “BBC Four: How do you think he might have survived crucifixion?RD [Author’s note- Richard Denton]: Crucifixion took up to three days; the maximum he was on the cross for was nine hours, it might even have been six”.

How long a crucifixion took varied depending on what kind of treatment one had prior to being hung up there. The Gospels and the Epistles are pretty explicit in that Jesus took quite a beating, more than usual. They say He was beaten “again and again”, they say that He was flogged. Something worthy of note is found in Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ’. Alexander Metherell (M.D., PH.D.), a medical expert, is asked about the Crucifixion and specifically about the floggings. He noted how in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus portrayed signs of hematidrosis, a medical symptom that includes literal ‘sweating of blood’- i.e. the capillaries burst under the skin, mixing with the sweat glands. This would, Metherell says, cause the skin to be extremely fragile for His later scourging. He also talks about the severity of Roman floggings- “The back would be so shredded that part of the spine was sometimes exposed by the deep, deep cuts. The whipping would have gone all the way down to the back, the buttocks and the back of the legs…we know that many people would die from this kind of beating even before they were crucified. At the least, the victim would experience tremendous pain and go into Hypovolemic shock [extreme loss of blood]”.

Aside from this, the Gospels also note how Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on His head. Medically speaking these would have pierced the skin and most likely have penetrated several nerves situated around the scalp. By doing this, Jesus would have been subject to even more pain that would ‘switch’ on and off - sometimes people could also die from this kind of pain alone!

There are two main aspects to this treatment (and the subsequent events) that I would like to highlight. Firstly, the Gospels note that Simon of Cyrene had to carry Jesus’ cross for him as He couldn’t do it on his own, indicating that the torture He had been subjected to was unusually harsh. Furthermore, the Gospels also mention that whilst on the cross Jesus said, “I thirst”. This may sound insignificant at first, but it highlights a major issue surrounding the flogging He had previously endured that Metherell mentioned in the above quote. When one loses a lot of blood, we undergo something called ‘hypovolemic shock’, one symptom of which is indeed a lack of bodily fluids leading to a feeling of thirst. This tells us that the flogging, beatings etc. had been particularly harsh and Jesus had already lost a substantial amount of blood by the time He was put up on the cross.

As you can see, how long you are up on the cross for is not necessarily an issue, as long as one had already been subject to harsh treatment prior to one being crucified.


2) “…Even if you read the gospels Pontius Pilate is clearly surprised that he's already dead and wants to be reassured by the centurion that he really is dead.”

This is true, see Mark 15:44-45 for details. However, this verse alone does not silence the reams of other evidences for Jesus’ death. The issue here is this- just one man (Pilate) doubted Jesus’ death because he was not there at the time, and yes I will admit that people usually took longer to die. However, as stated above, one must take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the death before one can make any judgement. Besides, the many Roman soldiers who were around Jesus, and watched Him suffer, all came to the conclusion that He was dead. There’s no reason to think otherwise.

We in this western culture are not that familiar with death, it has certainly become something that is sanitised and ‘behind closed doors’. However, in an age and culture where death was an everyday occurrence (and for the Roman Soldiers, part of the job they were qualified to carry out), do you really think those standing by Him could have made a mistake of such grand proportions? It’s possible, of course, but it is highly unlikely, infact I would say it is bordering on impossible, especially considering that in John 19 the soldiers actually pierced Jesus’ side. I’ve already explained the significance of this elsewhere, but for the record this almost ensured His death for two reasons- a) it would have pierced both His right lung and His heart, and b) the Gospel of John tells us that there was a flow of “blood and water”. This is also something I’ve explained before, but the Christian Medical Fellowship states that this signifies a separation of blood and water as a result of a death “associated by severe pain” and “the presence of circulating fibrinolysins” (http://www.cmf.org.uk/index.htm?nucleus/nucjan00/diff.htm).

I also want to make note of an article written by J.P. Holding, which is a critique of an article written by a prominent sceptic he calls ‘Broken Vector’. In this, he refutes the objections not only surrounding Jesus’ death but also the relation of that death to His resurrection. I suggest you look at it here- http://www.tektonics.org/vector02.html.

Overall, however, I think what this documentary does is to take a ‘pick and mix’ approach to the Gospel accounts. They’d rush to tell you that Pilate was surprised (surprised, but never doubtful may I add), but they won’t tell you that the records state again and again that Jesus actually was killed, and at the hands of qualified executioners. Hmm, I wonder why?

Note- for more information on the death of Jesus, see

· www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm,
· http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/swoon.htm,
· http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/death.html, and
· http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/welcome.htm.

Also note that the latter URL directs you to a professional medical investigation into the death of Jesus Christ, in which the conclusion states that any assumption that He didn’t die lies in opposition with scientific and medical knowledge.

3) “BBC Four: If he did survive why do you think it's not related in that way in the gospels?RD: First of all, they would think it was a miraculous resurrection. You don't have to think of that as a conspiracy theory or a lie, it's just a mistake. What you then have to do is get him out of the way”.

What Denton says here is just absolute tosh, an attempt (be it conscious or sub-conscious) to avoid labelling the entire Gospel writers and Disciples (most of whom were martyred FYI) as liars, but instead impose one’s speculative impressions on the rest of us. Let’s put it this way- I agree it wouldn’t be a “conspiracy theory or a lie” to think/write that Jesus was miraculously resurrected, if indeed He never actually said something of this ilk Himself.

Problem being, of course, He did! Look at Luke 24:46 for example, “He [Jesus] told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day’”. See what I’m saying? Denton has a choice- say Jesus is a liar, say that the Disciples were liars; say that the Gospel writers were liars; or say that it was accurate. At least then he wouldn’t be dodging the issue in such an incorrect manner.

And about ‘getting Him out of the way’, what better way than to be ascended huh? Don’t you hate it when you want to see someone only to have him or her ascend into the heavenly realm? If I had a pound for every time…

4) “The real question doesn't hang over the resurrection, which I think is explicable. The real question hangs over him ascending into heaven.”

Well, I have to say; this is backwards logic at its worst. Think about what happened before the Ascension- Jesus was Resurrected, and before that? He died. For a programme that is called ‘Did Jesus Die?’ I find it incredibly odd for the director to place an emphasis on an event that occurred around 40 days after the subject matter! Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t see why the ‘real question’ hangs over the ascension when if Jesus actually expired this makes the whole programme moot! Even if He was just resurrected and didn’t ascend, it would still mean that He died and was raised to life again, just as Christian teaching suggests.

Moreover, Denton says that the Resurrection is ‘explicable’, but then doesn’t proceed to provide that explanation. Many (including myself) would genuinely like to hear this dismissal of Christian belief, so why the silence? I’m not saying that Denton is deliberately not giving us the ‘beef’. Rather, I’m saying that he makes a statement that has massive implications and demands multiple programmes in itself, but he stops short- way short!

5) “BBC Four: You make the point that the Ascension isn't actually mentioned in the gospels.
RD: It's not in any of the original versions of the gospels which is astonishing. It was in the last 16 verses of Mark, which were put in 300 years after and it's inserted, in a sentence, into some versions of Luke because he was assumed to have written the Acts and it's mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.”

Here’s something that not all Christians actually know- when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, Denton is pretty much correct. The end of that particular account is doubted and infact dismissed by most scholars, and many modern Bibles actually have something like this written somewhere- “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20”. J.P.Holding (whom I actually contacted about this issue, see below) wrote a whole article about the ending of this Gospel here- http://www.tektonics.org/markend.html. As such, when it comes to Mark, there’s essentially no problem with what Denton has said.

However, when it comes to Luke and Acts, Denton has made what Holding says is a “completely off the wall” comment. He also states that “the Ascension appears in all copies of Luke and Acts that we have and there is no proof that it was never there.” In other words, Denton has accused the descriptions of the ascension in ‘Luke’ and ‘Acts’ of forgery, when infact this is unsupported completely by evidence! It is just ‘pure speculation’.

Well, since Denton seemingly likes this kind of approach, then perhaps I should speculate on matters myself? Perhaps Denton looked at the earliest manuscripts we have, noticed that the Ascension stories are not included (but are in copies after 300AD), and built a conclusion around those observations. However, if this is the case, then it is seriously missing the point. The earliest incomplete manuscripts we have are made from Papyrus (a material that quickly deteriorates) and are just that- incomplete! If you want to look at some of these, I suggest you go to http://www.british-israel.ca/manuscripts.htm and look at which portions of which Gospel have survived from each manuscript. The earliest complete New Testament manuscripts are found in ‘Codexes’, e.g. full book, and sure enough they are dated to 325-350AD (note that the Chester Beatty Papyri is dated to 200AD but it is relatively incomplete as a NT collection). Now, this is just speculation on my part, but could it be that Denton is drawing his conclusion from the fact that the early Gospel manuscripts have been subject to rot and deterioration (and therefore don’t include most stories including the ascension)? Not only this, but could it be that when he looked at the earliest reference to the ascension, it was contained in an aforementioned Codex, which happens to be dated to around 300AD? Maybe he jumped to the conclusion that the ascension story, given it doesn’t appear earlier (for reasons already given), was inserted into these later documents? Who knows? Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t.
However, what I do know is this- Denton’s comment about Mark’s ending is correct. His comments about Luke and Acts are not.

6) “That I think is the lie, the cover story to get him out of the country”.

And I think that ‘Family Guy’ was cancelled because the government “just can’t handle the truth”. Doesn’t mean I’m right (but, for the record, I am :-P). Apart from the apparently incessant appeal of conspiracy theories, what is there that indicates the truthfulness of this statement? I can’t see that much, I must say.

7) “BBC Four: If Jesus was revived in this way where then did he go?RD: One story is that he gets out and goes to the South of France with Mary Magdalene, there is a certain amount of evidence that she went there. And the other is that he goes to India and there are a number of versions of this. One of which suggests that in fact he had already been to India during the missing years between 12 and 29.”

I’m going to address the idea that Jesus settled in India after He supposedly ‘swooned’ on the cross later, but for now I’d like to analyse the view that He lived in India between the ages of 12 and 29.

I’ll agree that these years are unrecorded, however one could put any old situation in there as long as we’re working on mere speculation and not hard evidence. Besides, to assume that He did something ‘dodgy’ during this time is just an argument from silence; it is not exactly scholar-studded material. However, I am partial to the odd dead-horse flogging, so I decided to root around the Internet and eventually I found a great article on the site ‘Stand to Reason’. It goes through several reasons why Jesus could not have gone to India at this time, e.g. the lack of documentary evidence, the fact that the Gospels strongly suggest He stayed in Israel, the troubles of the trip itself etc. You can find that article here- http://www.str.org/free/studies/india.htm.

8) “BBC Four: It was very interesting the parallel between the story of the three kings and the search for a reincarnated Lama…RD: Absolutely, we explore that and the similarities between the miracles and the teachings of the Buddha and Jesus in the programme. And of course Buddha pre-dates Jesus by about 500 years, so it's not unreasonable that he may have gone to India, learned Buddhist teaching and brought it back.”

Some of you may be aware of the ‘Copycat thesis’. It states that there were many non-Christian religious leaders, gods, pagan figures etc who’s lives (and the stories surrounding them) are incredibly similar to Jesus’, therefore Jesus didn’t exist and instead He is a myth based around these other people/myths. For a thorough refutation of such a theory, I suggest you look at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html, http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04.html, and http://answering-islam.org/Pagan/.

Well anyway, what Denton is saying here just whiffs of such an idea, except with a few alterations- Jesus did exist; the Gospels (up unto his death) are accurate; and instead any copying was actively carried out by Jesus Himself! I’ll give Denton his due- this certainly is one heck of an original pick-and-mix idea! I suggest if you have any doubts to take a look at http://www.tektonics.org/buddha01.html and http://www.tektonics.org/buddha02.html to see that the ‘miracles’ and ‘teachings’ are either not quite as they seem (i.e. exaggerated, misunderstood, made up [God forbid…!]) or they are just ‘normal’ characteristics of any religion. Think about it; a Religious Leader who doesn’t perform miracles and provide good teachings- do you really see that happening?

9) “BBC Four: What actually prompted you to start exploring this topic?RD: I was intrigued because most academic theologians and intelligent churchmen, or a very significant number of them, do not believe that the resurrection is the literal truth. It's a metaphor to tell us that there is hope. Whilst not saying that it's a literal truth they don't actually say it's a lie, but if you're saying something's not literal truth then you are saying it's a lie. I was shocked that none of the people we interviewed, with the exception of the Cannon of Westminster, believed it was true. Yet if they don't think it's true what on earth do they think is the motivation behind writing the story in the Bible?”

I’ll ignore the fact that Denton makes one heck of a fallacy in the opening lines (i.e. a sweeping generalisation!) and for now I’ll sing his praises. The fact that he’s surprised that some of these Church members (usually Anglican) and theologians doubt the Resurrection is justified, in my opinion it’s disgraceful. However, emotion aside, one cannot say that “most” theologians/churchmen doubt the literal truth of the Resurrection just because one has interviewed some dissenters. Obviously, I don’t know how Denton got his sample, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was made up of ‘opportunity’ participants, i.e. those who were already doubtful were more likely to put themselves forward. However, I could be very wrong, so don’t quote me on this! Why doesn’t Denton go to other denominations and interview their ‘intelligent Churchmen’? He’ll find many more literalists there let me tell you.
I also noticed a discrepancy between what Denton says here and what he says a few paragraphs up. Earlier he stated that the Resurrection accounts were just a “mistake”, i.e. not literal truth. However, he says here “if you’re saying something’s not literal truth then you are saying it’s a lie”. Need I say more?

10) “BBC Four: You say that the resurrection and the literal truth of the Gospel have in the past been the cornerstone of Christianity.
RD: Exactly. And the idea that you can go on preaching this to the ordinary stupid faithful while not believing it yourself seemed to me truly offensive.”

For once, Mr. Denton, I fully agree with you.

11) “So what I was looking for was another version of the story that had the possibility of being historically true,”

So, the Resurrection isn’t even possible? It sounds like Denton is repeating the mantras of the infamous sceptic David Hume, who unequivocally said that the miraculous is impossible. On the contrary, miracles are unlikely, but still possible. Indeed, to actually dismiss the absolute possibility of a miracle would require universal knowledge, which would be bordering on miraculous in itself! I think what many would find is that historically speaking; the Resurrection can be defended pretty well. Take a look at these-

· www.risenjesus.com.
· www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm (plus Issue 4 of the newsletter).
· http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/entombmentQuestion.htm.
· http://www.bible.org/docs/pastor/seasonal/easter/evidence.htm.
· http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/evidence.htm.
· http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/resurrection-evidence.html.
· http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html (scroll down to ‘Jesus’, look under ‘Resurrection’).

12) “BBC Four: And in the end have you found that the most credible account?RD:Yes, I think so. On the other hand I am a person who does not find the idea of rising from the dead and ascending into heaven credible. I'm faced with the choice, do I believe that the gospel writers were cunning liars or do I think they were simple men who misunderstood things and were amazed by this man.”

Far be it from me to say that my interpretation of this paragraph is correct, but something hit me whilst reading it. Denton says that he isn’t the ‘kind of person’ that finds the Gospel accounts credible, and as such he believes in a different (far more radical) version. Now this may not be the case, but it strikes me that because of this ‘anti-Gospel’ bias Denton now believes in something separate from traditional Christian belief, in other words he already had a conclusion and he’s shifted and searched for ‘alternative’ (and in my opinion less credible) explanations to fit around it. I could be wrong, but there you go, but if I’m right then this is hardly the way to pursue the ‘truth’.

Note- the following quotes are from the ‘Did Jesus Die?’ Homepage and as far as I am aware were not written by Denton himself.

13) “The film concludes that it was perfectly possible to survive crucifixion in the 1st Century - there are records of people who did.”

The words ‘Perfectly Possible’ are a gross exaggeration. Let’s get the issue straight on this. Proponents of this belief (and the notion that Jesus died in Kashmir) can be found at the ‘Tomb of Jesus’ Website, and in it they cite an example of these ‘records’. It is no other than Flavius Josephus, a Jewish 2nd century historian. In ‘The Life of Flavius Josephus’, Section 75 (see http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm), it states that-

“And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered”.

So, yes it is possible to survive Crucifixion I will agree. This passage attests to that. However, there are a couple of things to note- 1) Two out of the Three captives died in spite of medical assistance, and 2) Jesus’ situation was completely different! Let’s pose a hypothetical; let’s say that Jesus (in spite of all the things I’ve said before) did survive against the odds. Now then, what do you think the chances of Him surviving are, given that a) He didn’t receive any medical assistance for at least 3 days, b) He had major life threatening wounds including a pierced lung and heart, and c) the other account of someone surviving a crucifixion includes 2 out of 3 people dying with medical attention! It’s hard to compare Josephus’ situation with that of Jesus’. Remember also, that one has to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding His death, you can’t just think it was the same for every victim!

14) “One of the most remarkable stories concerns the charismatic preacher Jus Asaf (Leader of the Healed) who arrived in Kashmir in around 30 AD. Just before he died at the age of 80, Jus Asaf claimed that he was in fact Jesus Christ and the programme shows his tomb, next to which are his carved footprints which bear the scars of crucifixion.”

Here is where things get interesting. The aforementioned ‘Tomb of Jesus’ website lists evidence supporting the notion that ‘Yus Asaph’ travelled to India, and died in Kashmir, and not only that but it shows the footprints and all. To be honest, I’m not bothered at all by the ‘tomb’ of this character or by the carved footprints. The website doesn’t offer any date for when they were built, or indeed carved, infact the footprints are pretty ambiguous- yes there are marks on the foot, but it’s worth noting that even the Tomb of Jesus folk acknowledge that the marks are in the wrong place for crucifixion. So how do they reconcile this discrepancy? Well, they point to the dubious Shroud of Turin, figures huh?

But as for this ‘Jus Asaf’ character, things get a little bit more confusing. One has to understand the origins of this theory, as it is linked strongly with a radical (but growing) Islamic fringe movement known as the ‘Ahmadiyyas’. They aren’t recognised officially by anyone in Orthodox Islam, and most Muslims view their theories as pretty extreme. When I e-mailed J.P. Holding about this theory, he kindly offered to help me out, and in doing so he contacted one of his associates who’s response Holding helpfully forwarded to myself. I hope neither of them mind, but I am going to quote some of that e-mail now. If by some chance either of them sees this article, then feel free to e-mail me at nathanpaylor@hotmail.com and I will quickly remove this, with my apologies included.

Anyway, Holding’s associate (‘HA’ from here on) says that-
“…most of the documents…are very late. Practically all of them date within the last 600 years. There is little chance that they would have any weight in supporting something about Jesus, who lived over one thousand years before…most of them are Muslim sources, and they do not equate this Yuz Asaf figure with Jesus, until after the 1890's, when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam, proclaimed that Jesus survived the crucifixion and went to India. He equated this Yuz Asaf guy, who was a Muslim saint, with Jesus Christ.”
So here we have a problem, a big problem. If you look at the so-called ‘evidences’ they all refer to this Yus Asaf character, in one way or another (notice that the name can have various spellings). However, as HA has pointed out this guy was actually a Muslim saint who lived over 1000 years after Jesus, but the Ahmadiyya movement (and the Tomb of Jesus website) don’t tell you that. HA says that if you want to find out who the saint really was, then he suggests a book “titled "The Wisdom of Balahvar" by David Marshall Lang…you can easily borrow a copy through your public library system, or get them to put in for the book through interlibrary loan”.

However, don’t assume that the theory is dead just yet. There’s one more document left, and this one is particularly interesting- it certainly left me stumped for a long time! It’s known as the ‘Bhavishya Purana’. HA notes that although those who follow the ‘Jesus in India’ theories maintain an early date and a specific author for this (e.g. 115AD), it was actually not written by anyone in particular and probably has been added to numerous times. It is sometimes attributed to an individual known as Vyasa who lived 5000 years ago, however “critical scholarship has shown that Vyasa probably did not write the Bhavishya”. As noted above, HA also states that “scholarship has…shown that the Bhavishya was one of the most tampered texts in all of Hinduism, receiving constant additions over the centuries”. Even more surprisingly, Jesus is not even the only Biblical Character to appear in the Bhavishya- Adam, Eve, Noah; Moses etc also appear in the text! If this doesn’t make you doubt about this document then I don’t think anything will. HA concludes “the passage in the Bhavishya probably does not carry any historical weight since it was probably composed only in the past couple of hundred years”. Several references and reading material ‘tips’ are also cited-

· “"Historical and cultural data from the Bhavisya purana" by Raj Kumar Arora”

· “See also the article by Giorgio Bonazzoli titled "Christ in the Bhavishya Purana" which appeared in English in the journal titled "Puranam" in February 1,1979 on pages 23-39. Bonazzoli actually is a Roman Catholic priest, but he is a Sanskrit scholar and his article is good”.

Conclusion

Looking back now, I can see why ‘Did Jesus Die?’ caused quite a fuss, among religious circles that is- it’s hardly ‘headline’ material! However, I know from personal experience that it can do more than this. It can inflict a relatively heavy blow to many a Christian’s faith, and this is something I directly found out. As I said earlier, the programme itself initially bothered me greatly, then it calmed down but upon viewing websites such as ‘The Tomb of Jesus’ it flamed up again. Perhaps to the non-religious viewer it may be hard to appreciate the suffering that is caused by a doubting soul, but it is pretty uncomfortable.

Therefore, I now grieve at the fact that this programme wasn’t worth the bother, in any sense of the word! After all, what we have here is a case with dodgy documents, an argument with generalisations and ‘one rule for me and another for you’ fallacies, and a conclusion that could crumble if one could show the sheer improbability of Jesus surviving the cross. After all, if He actually died, then everything else in this case falls to pieces. I’m not going to impose my own conclusions upon you, but I do ask you to evaluate these arguments (both mine and Denton’s) and ask yourself ‘Which one is more feasible?’ Jesus Christ doesn’t adhere to such crazy claims; He isn’t changed or altered by absurd arguments! If you want to reject the idea that the Bible got it right, then fine, but at least preserve your dignity whilst doing so.

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”(Hebrews 13:8).

Nathan Paylor

A quick note

I've managed to publish my articles from my monthly newsletter now, and you may be able to spot the increase in writing ability from the first ot the last. I'm still developing in this area so if anything is gramatically incorrect or is just spelt badly, then I apologise.

Equally, as I read through my old articles some things I say are completely out of touch with scholarship so please bear with me before I can sort this out and hopefully present you with the most accurate defence of the faith as I can give you.

Nathan Paylor

'Including Exclusivism'

Over recent months, I have become increasingly aware of a particular response to the Christian message. It is a response that is characterised by high emotions, outrage or outright confusion. It is a response to particular claims within Christianity that are not necessarily set forth by the Church authorities but by Jesus Himself, which only adds to its spiritual potency.

The notion that I am referring to is something you are all no doubt familiar with- it is contained in Christian song lyrics, Christian creeds, heck you can even spot its effect on many a Christian’s lifestyle! Ever heard someone say, “Jesus is the Only Way”? Or perhaps, “If you don’t believe in Jesus then you are damned”? Most of us have, in one form or another. The concept that this kind of statement employs is known as ‘Religious Exclusivism’, i.e. a particular faith holds a monopoly of the truth. Many in our western culture look upon such a worldview with disgust, often believing that in a modern (and perhaps more sceptical) society one cannot possibly hope to believe in religious ‘truth’. Many prefer, therefore, to believe in ‘Religious Pluralism’- the notion that all faiths possess an equal facet of truth, and each of them leads the way to an ultimate ‘divine power’. The Bahá'í faith famously holds this doctrine, which in this author’s opinion is a major reason for its continuing growth among western circles.

But why is such an outlook so unpopular? Why is it that if you say something along the lines of, “All religions hold equal truth” then you are looked upon with a ‘pat-on-the-back’ smile, and a ‘how-tolerant-is -he?’ gaze, whilst if you say “My faith states that there is no other way” you are intellectually ran out of town? Well, I could give you an answer, but in fear of it turning into a rant I’m going to swerve from making this into a think-tank, but rather direct it back into the realms of Christian Apologetics. How would a Follower of Jesus, such as myself, view and respond to such well-formulated criticism? The way I see it, there are three particular ways in which this idea can be defended.

1) The Actual Concept of Truth.

There are many reasons why people reject Religious Exclusivism. One may be that they are a member of the aforementioned Bahá'í faith, or maybe their well-intended feelings for people not in the Exclusivist Religion in question have moulded their opinions. However, what one cannot avoid is that for some individuals a rejection of Religious Exclusivism is a result of a far more absurd worldview- the idea that “what is true for me is not necessarily true for you”. This bending, manipulation and the outright denial of the existence of an ‘absolute truth’ is a dangerous thing. We get into dangerous ground when discussing ‘moral absolutes’; we get into even more dangerous ground when discussing ‘truth absolutes’!

Of course, we must differentiate between preference and truth. The former is the equivalent of me saying, “‘The Muppets’ are the best thing since sliced bread”. Well, that is obviously true for me but not necessarily for you, and that is because it is a preference. For further examples I suggest you go onto any Popular Music discussion forum! However, to deny the existence of absolute truth is just a symptom of madness. There are several good questions one needs to put to those who hold such a position-

- If there are no absolute truths, then tell me what is the purpose of mathematics, science etc? Does not 2 + 2= 4? Is that not logically true at all times?

- If there were no absolute truths, perhaps you would like to be reminded of certain forms of suicide? After all, just because strapping someone to a concrete block with no air supplies, dropping them into an ocean and leaving them there for 24 hours kills most people, doesn’t mean that is true for you, now does it? Would you like to test that? Or have we discovered an absolute truth? Well Hallelujah…

- Finally, you say ‘there are no absolute truths’. Perhaps I should ask, is that statement true…? Gotcha…

As you can see, to deny the existence of absolute truth is just absurd, and philosophically vacuous. Now that this has been established, we shall move onto our next point.

2) The Conflicting Characteristics of Various Religions.

Obviously, some religions are going to compliment and support one another depending on their history, culture and statements of faith. For example, Christianity and Islam honour Jesus in one way or another, plus Christianity and Judaism share many doctrines concerning the nature of God. However, this is not what critics of Religious Exclusivism maintain. Some say that instead of being Exclusivist, more religious believers should try to be inclusivist, or indeed pluralistic. As mentioned earlier, followers of the Bahá'í faith try to live out such a belief. However, this sort of approach is completely and utterly flawed, although it is not without its appeal in such a divided world.

When one looks at what each Religion actually believes, and then lays out these beliefs into some form of grid, one gets the feeling that if they all held a facet of the truth then they’d be much more alike. Christianity and Islam may honour Jesus, yes, but Christianity sees Him as God in Human Flesh, whilst Muslims believe Him to be a mere prophet of Allah. Again, Christianity and Judaism may share many beliefs concerning the nature of God, but Christians maintain that He is a Trinity whilst Jews believe He is absolutely alone in every possible way. These kinds of differences outweigh the similarities, and although it is incredibly important to focus on similarities in fear of breeding intolerance, one cannot continue saying that all religions hold equal measures of truth in light of these discoveries. If indeed that were ‘true’, then truth would not contradict itself. To say ‘I don’t exist’ is a contradiction because I must exist in order to make such a statement, and therefore it is false. The statements, ‘I don’t exist’ and ‘I do exist’ cannot be true at the same time because they contradict themselves. The same is true (if you pardon the pun) for religious pluralism. A great article that illustrates this is found at http://www.equip.org/free/DB035.htm, and although its purpose was originally a polemic towards the Bahá'í faith it nevertheless includes a comparison chart and a general defence of Christianity against its pluralistic claims.

3) The Claims of Jesus Himself.

This point is obviously aimed more at Christians, but I feel it necessary to put in for a wider readership. If one is a Christian, can one also be a pluralist? I used to be, but I must say that as I got to know more and more of the Gospels I found it hard to retain such a view. The Gospels are indeed pretty exclusive, no bones about it! Jesus Himself was in a sense egotistical, but in the best way possible! He said many things that were very much exclusive, here’s a few examples-

- “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’”. (John 14:6).

- “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live…’” (John 11:25).

- “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”. (John 3:16).

Jesus certainly believed that He was the Son of God, and that He was the way in which the Father could be reached. If one is a Bible believing Christian, then you must address these passages before claiming to be a religious pluralist. Some have dismissed them as bad translations, but that doesn’t stand. For those who don’t know, the New Testament was originally written in Greek and one can find an extensive translation guide in something called a ‘lexicon’. Looking under one of these, I searched for the phrase “the truth”, found in John 14:6. In Greek it is ‘aletheia’, and the first option available to us states that it includes “what is true in any matter under consideration…in reality…[and] in fact” (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1086017608-3387.html). This is important, as this particular phrase is very much exclusivist. Jesus could have just left it at “the way”, or in Greek ‘hodos’, which admittedly can mean “a course of conduct”. However, He did some serious qualifying by including ‘aletheia’ and ‘zoe’
(“The life”), my point being that any whiff of religious pluralism is blasted out of the window by these further two phrases.

I think what one needs to make clear before I conclude this article is that I am not advocating religious intolerance in any form. To the contrary, I would seriously suggest that most (if not all) believers should engage in comparative religious studies- I know I have, and I also know that it has helped me greatly in understanding not only other people’s faiths but also my own! Rather, what I am saying is that ‘religious pluralism’, the notion that all religions can hold an equal facet of truth, is a seriously flawed idea. Not only this, but as I displayed in my third point for a Christian to believe requires either an unhealthy dose of ignorance or just sheer disobedience to Biblical teachings. Don’t think that such exclusivist teachings are found only in Christianity, though- similar things are taught in Islam, various sects and numerous cults (e.g. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses). How then can we possibly hope to stick to the label of Religious Pluralism? Quite simply, we can’t!

My solution is one that makes many uneasy- simply investigate the different religions for yourself! See which ones hold up to scrutiny. Are defences present, and if so are they worth the paper they are written on? Such an attitude has led me to a strong and developed faith in Jesus Christ, and if anything it can inspire worthwhile and meaningful inter-faith dialogue- something that is, in the current world-situation, terribly necessary!

Of course an inter-faith dialogue can lead to problems, but I say that the words of Simon Peter stand true and worthy of recognition even today, and if we followed them then perhaps the said dialogue would be made that much more safe.

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Peter 3:15-16).

My Review of "The Passion of the Christ"

This is my opportunity to get my reviewing shoes on- something I haven’t done in a while now! I used to write for several computer game websites- they were pretty small and basic but nonetheless an ample ‘developmental’ position, where my writing skills are concerned anyway. But, something told me before seeing ‘The Passion’ that these would need an overhaul if I were to express anything that the movie represents- and now I have seen it I think I was right.

What with all the controversy and the hype acting as filmic ‘ying’ and ‘yangs’, and with all the conflict of opinions that naturally follow this, I deem it necessary to sift through the spin from either side and get to what was true. Did I succeed? Good question. As a Christian I had a bias. Not only that, as someone who openly supported this film before hand I had another bias. But whatever anyone tells you, we all suffer from this and it makes me no different from a film critic, or a Jewish/Muslim viewer or a preacher who fancied the odd Saturday night out. However, what biases cannot do is change what was shown on that screen and that is what I’m going to talk to you about- not personal convictions, and not personal beliefs. This is about the movie, and for now (and just for now- I won’t make a habit of it) I will forget my beliefs. Until, of course, I come to the part of the review that demands I look at it from a Christian perspective...but you can just turn off at that point! Aside from this, I will analyse the movie from both a secular and a ‘neutral movie goer’s’ perspective.

1) From a Secular Perspective

Within this I’ll temporarily ignore the filmic elements (e.g. was it good on a movie-goer’s basis) and focus entirely on whether or not, to the non-Christian, this is worth seeing. Well…this is not the easiest concept to address to be honest. I’m really trying hard to put myself into a secular mindset, but I suppose it’s just easier to address it bit by bit. Ok, here goes. Firstly, was this film ‘preachy’? Absolutely not. I didn’t feel like I was getting preached to. Infact most of the time it was just the teachings of Jesus were expressed; love, forgiveness and providence. This isn’t ‘preachy’- it’s moralistic! And what’s wrong with that, seriously?

Secondly, is it worth seeing if it’s just about Jesus? Aside from getting to know what all the fuss is about, I have to say it really is. It can give one an interesting insight into the dynamic life of Jesus Christ, and no one can claim that any other single individual has affected general world history in the same way or to the same extent. It’s always healthy to have a different perspective. Suffice to say; I think this film rather safely passes the ‘secular’ test.

2) From a Neutral ‘Movie-Goer’ Perspective

This category is going to address the much-cited criticism of ‘The Passion’, which tends to revolve around two central claims; a) it is anti-Semitic and b) it is excessively violent. If any movie contains such things then naturally its message and overall impact will be hindered somewhat. So what’s the deal?

On the claim of anti-Semitism, my first reaction is one of confusion- confusion at how such a film can be dubbed with such a derogatory term. If one is labelled an anti-Semite in one’s western society, and the claim is just and fair, then one is rightly stigmatised. In my personal opinion, anti-Semitism is a terrible thing; something which has manifested itself in no uncertain terms over the past century (and, unfortunately, over the past millennia at the hands of the institutionalised Church). Therefore, given the track record of previous ‘Passion’ plays and the anti-Semitism that followed them, the Anti-Defamation league expressed deep concern since Mel Gibson revealed his plans for this feature film. Where they must draw the line, I contest, is when the film is released and their charges have no weight behind them. As is the case now.

This movie is certainly not anti-Semitic. If one wanted to put such a label on this film then it is possible; one could look at how the Jews shouted for Jesus’ death, or how the High Priests plotted against Him. However, to do so would mean one would need to either forget or remain ignorant about the fact that in the crowd there were nevertheless a substantial number who were shocked and appalled by the beaten Jesus presented before them, or that when Jesus was being beaten on His way to the site of crucifixion there were a number of Jews who said, and I quote, “somebody stop this”. One would also need to forget that Jesus, Mary, His disciples and His other followers were Jewish and were presented as such, or that in front the High Priests one individual rose up and basically told the court that the trial was illegitimate. These things show the reader and the viewer alike how the film was balanced. Indeed, the charge of ‘Who Killed Jesus?’ is one that is incredibly easy to put to rest from a Christian perspective. Answer- we all did. Those administering the blows were ourselves. Let’s not forget why Jesus had to die- to save us all from our sin. John 3:16 states- “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (emphasis added).

Sorry if I had to quickly dip into my own beliefs there; I know I said I wouldn’t until later but in that scenario I deemed it necessary. Now, moving on to the claim of excessive violence. This one, I must admit, is relative in that it depends on who is watching it. From a personal perspective, it certainly wasn’t excessively violent but then again I’m a 17-year-old male who, for the last 10 year of his life, has grown up with a dose of violent TV, movies and video games. I no doubt have become desensitised to what is perceived by the older generations as ‘twisted’ or ‘vulgar’. So it should come as no surprise again that those who are mostly offended by the violence are often 35 and over. This is not meant as a derogatory statement, nor is it meant to include an element of oxymoronic condescension; rather it is intended to highlight a reality that has been picked up by other individuals I’m familiar with.

The bottom line in this issue is this- if you feel you are used to violence you won’t be offended. If you aren’t, then you will be. It’s that simple. To be honest, however, the violence that is shown for about 30-40% of the movie is no worse than what you would see on a primetime television drama. The worse bits by far are the Scourging and the Crucifixion, and it is these scenes that get the film its high classification ratings. They aren’t that bad, I ‘like’ to class them as ‘brutal but realistic’ and ‘painful yet necessary’.

3) From a Christian Perspective.

This category is something that is generally far more difficult to ‘pin down’. As a Christian, I picked up things from the movie that the average non-Christian viewer would not, which is inevitable really. Certain events in the film are biblical; others are not, but at the same time they present us with a high level of Christian imagery and symbolism. At other times, Catholic Traditions make themselves present. A quick example from each of these criteria is in order.

Certain bits, such as Jesus on the cross, the ‘Question and Answer’ session before the High Priests (the Sanhedrin), and the way in which Jesus is presented to Pilate, are very much Biblical and toe the line of Gospel accuracy. I remember reading an ‘Empire’ review of this film which said that it followed the Gospels “religiously” which I found rather amusing! And indeed it does, but there are certain situations that are not included in the Bible. For example, Satan is included in the Garden with Jesus, who then stamps on the heel of a serpent, Satan is later seen carrying a deformed child whilst Jesus is being scourged, and a woman cleans Jesus’ face whilst He is carrying the cross to the place of Crucifixion (Golgotha). Some of these can be explained as Christian imagery (such as the first two, the first of which represents Jesus’ temptations and the fulfilment of a Genesis prophecy, the second represents the Anti-Christ- the child of Satan), others can be explained as Catholic tradition. Within Catholicism, there is something called the 7 Stations of the Cross which are presented in this film, namely and most memorably in the case of Veronica- the one who wipes the blood from Christ’s face.

Aside from these little ‘quirks’, some have argued that the film presents an altered theology from the mainstream. Jesus says ‘It is accomplished’ just before He dies, as opposed to ‘It is finished’. What initially may appear insignificant some claim carries a greater importance. If something is merely ‘accomplished’ then it can be added to, such is the Catholic doctrine of salvation through works as well as forgiveness from God (‘Grace’). However, such a claim, however well founded, is nevertheless speculation and ‘accomplished’ can just as easily carry the same significance as ‘finished’. This type of nitpicking won’t get us anywhere.

And it is here that I highlight the big issue from a Christian perspective- aside from the nitpicking, what can this film do to contribute to Christianity? Well, from a personal view I can say that I have seen some very good effects indeed. This film has converted some, made others question and at the very least has changed people’s ideas about Christ. Anything like this is good for the Christian. I must say, however, that even if some have been ‘converted’ to Christianity solely through this movie I can’t see it happening as a widespread phenomenon. This movie is very good, but for those who don’t know an awful lot about Christianity they aren’t going to be won over by powerful imagery and profound, underlying messages. What this will do, however, is enable the Christian to talk about his/her faith and teach the individual about Christ and His message. That is all we can do as Christians- some see us as ravaging lions who will try to ‘win’ people over to our religion, when infact most of us just want to share the Gospel- the good news that Christ died for all mankind and was resurrected, and any action after that is a bonus! If this film can allow us to do this, then in my opinion it has served its purpose.

So, I have gone over these three categories and what opinion have I come to? Well I must say I was very impressed by ‘The Passion of the Christ’. As mentioned before, it has and is serving its spiritual purpose and from a non-religious viewpoint it is a fantastic movie, a great and moving watch that asks us questions- it engages the audience, something all epic movies should do! Not only that, it does it on a grand scale and with hints of religion, something that whether we like it or not will continue to pull at the heartstrings of society. No wonder why it has been so successful.

Final Verdict? Go see it, ponder on its message and be prepared to answer the question that Jesus Himself asked Peter, His disciple, all those years ago-

“Who do you say that I am?”

The Enigma that is God

This is a question that has plagued mankind for millennia- we seem to constantly ask, what is He; who is He; where is He and, of course, does He exist? It’s worth noting that although I intend to answer some basic objections I am by no means ‘qualified’ in that I’m only a student, I don’t have a degree in philosophy or anything. I just have a lot of time, a lot of thought, a lot of personal study and a lot of formal study within college. The answers I give you may not accept or particularly like, you may find them ridiculous, and you may find them satisfactory. Within religious studies there are always counter arguments but it is worth noting that there are counters to the counters. Do not look to me for most of these, but rather look at a more complex site- I believe I give you quite a few on www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics (scroll down). Now that is sorted I can move on to answering some of the more common and basic objections to God’s existence. Like I said before, I do hope they’re at least decent.

1) There is no evidence for God’s existence.

An interesting statement, I feel. It all comes down to what one would class as ‘evidence’. Most people when they say this imply a lack of scientific evidence. Believe it or not, I would mostly agree with the notion that God is void of this. Although some of this would exist if we could touch, see and hear Jesus (as Christianity teaches He is God in flesh), this still does not escape the fact that observable and testable scientific evidence for God does not exist. But I wish to add at this point another twist- there cannot be scientific evidence for God’s existence. Why? Well, think about it. What is science? It tests and observes physical matter, i.e. what is tangible (seeing, hearing, tasting etc). Is God tangible? No, because He is metaphysical in nature, as opposed to physical. Therefore how can science test something that cannot logically be tested? How can the finite measure the infinite? It’s logically, technically and philosophically impossible. So it’s no surprise that there is no scientific evidence for God, and we shouldn’t keep banging on about it because that was never the case. The Bible itself says that God is spiritual (John 14) and that He is something you cannot touch and see. It is Atheism that moved the goalposts shorter together, not religion. So I moved them back for us.

So if there can be no scientific evidence for God, what can we have? Well there is only one other possible form- ‘logical’ evidence, something that implies heavily God’s existence. This takes several forms- religious experiences, fulfilled prophecies, Biblical accuracies, apparent design in the universe and scientific probabilities. I can’t go into detail on these for they would qualify a whole issue in themselves, so if you want such details look on the site. But I’ll briefly go over them-

- Religious Experiences are the strongest proof for the believer. Note that this proof is wholly individual as opposed to universal. My religious experiences are not designed to prove God to the unbeliever; rather they merely prove God to myself. I compare them to emotions in that we can be 100% certain that when we experience an emotion that that emotion is real. Even if we call love something like ‘super happy fun juice’ it would still be love but under a different name. The feeling remains the same. This is how it is with a religious experience; we can be certain of their reality and their origin. If having a religious experience is essentially an experience of God, then I can therefore say that as certain as I am that my emotions exist I am certain that God exists because of my religious experiences. Note that I acknowledge that some of these can be explained naturally, but many cannot. Many healings and life transformations have taken place that are still inexplicable and these number in the millions if not billions. If you are a sceptic, are you willing to say that every single person who has had these in every single situation is either a liar or a fool? Do you really have that much of an ego and that much contempt for other people?

- Fulfilled prophecies are incredibly numerous. Although some Biblical prophecies can be vague many are unbelievably precise and definite, and what is even more unbelievable is that history shows that they have been fulfilled. The chances of these hundreds of prophecies being fulfilled on their own accord, over a space of a few thousand years, is astronomical- so much so that mathematicians will tell you that the probability is classed as technically impossible. But look- they have been fulfilled! All of them, in a relatively short space of time! If the God of the Bible tells us that He will do this, and then suddenly it happens, then surely this is good logical ‘proof’ for His existence? Note to see examples of these go on the main site and look among the links and other articles.

- Biblical accuracies include scientific and historical
fields. To see examples look on www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswiththebible.htm.

- Apparent design and scientific probabilities are also covered in the first two articles on www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithgod.htm.

So this is the logical ‘evidence’. It’s a good argument, not water proof but nonetheless satisfactory in most people’s eyes. If the only thing we can draw from this point is that God cannot possibly have scientific evidence, so we should stop banging on about it, then it would make me and my chatting fingers very pleased.

2) Why does God allow Evil?

This is something I’ve covered extensively on both the site but also in a previous issue. See www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithgod.htm and http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/tapologetics/message/5.

3) I don’t want anyone ruling my life.

There’s a bizarre stereotype of God running around most youth sceptic circles, and it is that God is some sort of sadistic ruler who wants you to kiss His backside at all times. This is simply not true. God does not want to make you suffer, or make your life boring. He just wants to be with you, and for you to be with Him. He wants you to accept that He created you and as such He loves you. He knows what is best for you and it only follows that believers want to follow His word. He doesn’t want you to unwillingly obey Him; infact the obedience is of secondary importance to Him. It is a natural and logical by-product of accepting Him as your loving creator. Therefore, obedience to God isn’t tiring or exhausting (most of the time!), He doesn’t want you to be His slave, it’s something that you should want to do once you accept that you love Him. It’s not a bad thing. You obeyed your mum and dad when you were little because they loved you, you loved them and you accepted that they knew best for you. There is little difference.

4) Why would God allow people to go to hell?

This is a sensitive issue, one fuelled with emotion and rightfully so. It is worth noting that these emotions easily cloud or logical judgement and just because we may not like something does not make it untrue. I personally don’t like the notion of hell; infact I despise it. But I accept it because it is necessary and it’s something that cannot be helped. Basically, the reason why God allows hell to exist stems from the issue of sin, and the fact that we all have it, from the ‘pope to the pauper’ as I like to say. It also comes from the fact that God is Holy, perfect and righteous. To be in a state of Holiness means that you are the complete opposite of being unholy. Like two ends of a magnet, these two extremes cannot meet, both logically and philosophically. Therefore, if we are unholy because of our sin, and God is 100% Holy because He is God, then He cannot have sinners in His presence. IT would go against His nature, it would go against logic and it would also be unfair. God is just; He is the epitome of fairness. Would you expect such a God to say to someone like Hitler or Stalin ‘Oh it’s alright, you can be with me and all is forgotten’? No of course not. This obviously gives us a nasty cycle, until we get to Jesus- He provides a way out of it and He frees us from sin, bringing us to God and allowing us in His presence. To find out more go to www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics and scroll down to ‘The Gospel’.

So there you have it. Four Common Objections to God answered and (hopefully) done with. I hope this has helped in some way, and I hope the answers have been at least decent

Jesus- Part 3- Did Jesus Die?

About a year ago, BBC Four aired a documentary with this very title. It was extremely biased, arguing the negative. Not only did the director, Richard Denton, say some pretty weird things
(including that the disciples "just [made] a mistake", and that one explanation is "that he gets out and goes to the South of France with Mary Magdalene"). For the non-Christian, it may be
difficult to just get how absolutely ridiculous this stuff sounds. But let me promise you- this is about as feasible as Bobo the Clown taking a masters in advanced physics. In an interview, Denton states that "The real question doesn't hang over the resurrection, which I think is explicable. The real question hangs over him ascending into heaven". I'm sorry that's completely untrue. The 'real question' does hang over the ressurection, because it is naturally interwoven
with His death.

Denton isn't on his own; he is just one pawn in the whole chess set of revisionist historians and vocal sceptics who are beginning to use the claim that Christ didn't die. However, unless one wants to take issue with the Gospel accounts (which I have addressed on the main site and in previous issues), there is no room for such a claim. Logically speaking and historically, Christ died. This is backed up not only by what the Bible says, but also what Jewish and Roman historians said at the time. Not only that, but if we look at the Gospel accounts of the events leading up to the Crucifixion, we have enough evidence to show that He did indeed die.I will now attempt to show you that the so called 'swoon theory' (i.e. that Jesus just fainted or in some way survived the execution) is completely illogical; historically, medically and biblically speaking. As such, I will divide this into three parts seperated into the said categories.

1) From a Historical Perspective-

Easy this one. Josephus says that "Pilate...had condemned him [Jesus] to the cross... he appeared to them alive again the third day". Although this verse (and the larger text in which it is situated) is hotly debated as to whether or not it is a forgery, most agree that there is a central body of text that is genuine. No surprises that this is part of it, and there is no doubt in Josephus' mind that Jesus was killed. Another claim is that Jesus survived the execution because a) others have; and b) because the disciples gave Him medicine. however, not only does the Bible tell us that the tomb was sealed with wax and a stone, and then guarded (so He couldn't have been given medicine) Josephus only talks about ONE person who survived crucifixion. It was one of his friends, who (after a plea from Josephus himself) was took down along with two others. Even then, two of them died just after a few hours and they WERE given medicine. Not good news for the Swoon theorists.

Secondly, another historian, Tacitus states that Jesus "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus". I think that we can say safely say that the 'extreme penalty' was not being forced to eat a marmalade and jam sandwich.

And finally, the Babylonian Talmud states that "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged...forty days before the execution took place...". Perhaps this seems like an odd quote, so allow me to explain. 'Yeshu' is the proper name of Jesus, a form of the name 'Yeshua'. 'Jesus' is just a greek translation of this. Also, when it says He was 'hung' it means He was hung from the
cross. I also added the 'forty days before the execution' bit because it makes it clear that it was an execution, i.e. He died, as people at executions do. Or at least they have a tendency to. Strange that. So now we can see that Jesus, historically speaking, certainly did die. There are other historians apart from the ones given that give testimony to this, such as Lucian. Look on
www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm if you want to take a look.

2) From a Medical Perspective-

I won't cover this in detail because it is such a huge topic and being a 17 year old i'm not particularly qualified to talk about it that much. It is worth noting, however, that there are
certain things that modern science has told us which practically prove that Christ died.
A perfect example of this would be when He was dead, and the Roman soldiers inspected the bodies. The Gospel of John tells us what happened next-

"Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water" (John 19).

Basically, breaking the legs of a person being crucified quickens death as it makes it incredibly difficult to breathe. When they came to Jesus, the Roman Soldiers saw that He was dead and as the Gospel author tells us they peirced Him, probably in his right side, which resulted in a flow of blood and water. So what was this all about? Another Bible myth? Absolutely not. Just as medical science has told us that Christ's sweating of blood is physically possible, it has also told us that this is possible. When we die, our blood and plasma begin to seperate, and as the plasma is around 90% water the Bible seems to have got it right. The Christian Medical Fellowship tells us that-

"Post mortem clotting of the blood can be delayed by the presence of circulating fibrinolysins, especially if death is associated with severe pain. The effect is that the red cells can separate from the plasma within thirty minutes. ‘Blood and water’ would then emerge in sequence by gravity from a body cavity pierced by a sharp object. The only real possibilities for the source of the blood and the water are the pleural and pericardial cavities, because the heart itself contains too little. Haemothorax could well have resulted if ribs had been fractured during the flogging Jesus received in Pilate’s palace (Jn 19:1). Haemopericardium could have resulted from either cardiac rupture or, more probably, rupture at the junction of aorta and left ventricle."

For more information on the medical aspects of Jesus' death, I suggest you look at http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/ , and http://www.cmf.org.uk/index.htm?nucleus/nucjan00/diff.htm .

3) From a Biblical Perspective-

This is an interesting method. One has to take as a given that the Bible is mostly or fully accurate before one can adopt this, but I've already covered that issue elsewhere. So with this pre-supposition in mind, let's get down to the matter in hand.

Basically, this approach demands that we look at the sequence of events and then ask ourselves 'is it physically possible that Christ survived?' I'll run through these now.

- He was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, probably after 11.30pm (Matthew 26:36-56; Mark 14:32-51; Luke 22:39-46;John 18:1-11).

- He was presented infront of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish High Council). His clothes were ripped, they spat in His face and they struck Him with their fists (Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:63-65; John 18:12-14 + 19-24).

- He was taken before Pilate and Herod. Pilate gave the crowd an option between Jesus and Barabbus the murderer. The crowd chose Jesus to die, and Jesus was flogged (Matthew 27:11-26; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 22:66-71 + Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28-40 + 19:1-16). Note that the flogging was done with a 'flaugrum', and instrument similar to a Cat and Nine Tails. Each of the tails had a leather tip on and when it struck the flesh it would rip up tissue and cause massive bleeding. Sometimes people died from this alone.

- The Roman Soldiers then took Jesus away. They mocked Him, they spat on him, they put a scarlet robe and a crown of thorns on Him. Note that these thorns were not little like English ones, they often were six inches. They would dig into the skin and cause bleeding. Later they took this off, which would re-open the flogged wounds and cause even more bleeding, and
they took a staff and beat Him over the head "again and again" (Matthew 27:27-31; Mark 15:16-20; John 19:1).

- They got someone called Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross, as Jesus could not, and they led Him to Golgotha where He was to be crucified, and they put nailed Him to the cross. (Matthew
27:32-44; Mark 15:21-32; Luke 24:39; John 19:17-27 + 20:25).

- After receiving a drink of wine vinegar, Jesus gave up His spirit after crying out in a loud voice. This is compatable with Him going into shock. They then pierced His right side, and the spear would have most likely gone into His lung and heart. (Matthew 27:45-56; Mark 15:32-41; Luke 23:44-49; John 28-37).

- He was then put into a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea and several soldiers were put on guard (Matthew 27:57-66; Mark 15:42:47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42).

I can't tell you how long it took to get that together, my bible in hand and daytime TV on in the background heh heh .

Aaanyway, is anyone seriously going to tell me that after all that happened to Him Jesus just survived and 'woke up' 3 days later? Are you going to say that He then just got up and walked, even though He had wounds on His hands, feet and side, and serious flogging wounds and major blood loss? even more bizarre is that for the Swoon theorists to be correct He would have had to push the incredibly heavy stone aside with all His injuries, sneak past the guards unnoticed, and then appear to the disciples and walk for miles whilst appearing perfectly fine. I'm sorry this is both medically and logically impossible. Jesus died, pure and simple. And it is here that I am going to finish. I hope that for those who have read this that it has helped or informed you in some way. It took a while to write, but I feel it was worth it.

Jesus- Part 2- The Resurrection

Last post, I discussed the historicity of Jesus Himself, as in did He actually exist? You can check that out in the messages portion of the main site, but for this issue I thought I would carry on with the Jesus theme and discuss the most important thing about His life to Christians- the Resurrection. This is the focal point for any Christian’s faith, and with it Christianity is true, but without it it’s false. It’s that simple I’m afraid. Think about it- if the Resurrection is true, and it did actually happen, what does that mean for you and the whole world? It means that what He said was true; it means that miracles can happen and as such God does exist; it means that Jesus is who He said He was (the Son of God, God Himself in human flesh); it means that the claims of Christianity are true, and most importantly it means that the whole world should submit to Jesus Christ in humility and love. To me, these are very serious implications, albeit ones that Christians today have already considered.

Therefore, it should be clear to all of you that the resurrection is central to Christianity and perhaps one of the most important events in human history. However, the early Church in Corinth began to doubt the resurrection of the dead, and as such St.Paul had to reiterate just how profound and important Christ's is to Christianity in 1 Corinthians 15: 14-15 + 17- “...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."..."And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins".

So as you can see, the resurrection is all-important to Christians. Which is why it is even more disturbing that many doubt the historicity or logical possibility that Christ could have been raised.

In this article, I will deal with two different questions- 1) is the resurrection story reliable, and 2) what else could have happened? By doing this, we will slowly eliminate several doubts about Jesus rising from the dead, and as such you will be able to make an informed choice in regards to your own beliefs.

1) Are the accounts of Jesus rising from the dead reliable?

This is something that I considered briefly last issue with regards to the Gospel accounts being reliable, but I think it’s worthwhile it being assessed again under this context. I don’t think there should be much doubt as to whether or not the Gospel accounts we have today are reliable. As stated in issue 3, the Gospels are 99.5% textually pure, which means that the copies we have today are exactly the same to the earliest ones 99.5% of the time. Furthermore, the New Testament is also historically reliable. What may surprise some people is that there is as Dr. Paul Meier says, "positive evidence from a hostile source", for example Josephus and the Toledoth Jeshu. Non-Christian historians or sources dating to the 1st to 3rd Century record many of the people, places and events mentioned in the latter half of the Bible. For example, Thallus mentions the eclipse of the sun at Jesus’ death; archaeologists have discovered St.Paul’s hometown, and Josephus mentions King Herod. Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg; if you want more then you should hop over to somewhere like www.christsites.com or www.carm.org so you can get an even bigger picture.

So as you can see there is little reason to think that the Gospel accounts aren’t reliable. Although I acknowledge that many atheists have presented good arguments against its reliability, I also know that many Christians have defended it incredibly well. Infact, it is the consensus amongst historians and scholars that we should have confidence in these accounts.

2) If the resurrection didn’t happen, then what did?

This is an interesting topic, one that I love to debate with atheists about. The reality is that not many viable alternatives can be provided, if any at all. Although no doubt the sceptics among you will have an idea or a theory as to what happened, they may yet be discussed on here. So don’t hold judgement just yet. I will address this by looking at various alternatives, and I will analyse them to see whether they can hold up to scrutiny (NOTE- the following is an excerpt mostly from the Teen Apologetics site, situated on www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm. Why? Because I’m a lazy git…you try writing out 500 words all over again. It’s bloomin’ tedious…)

1. 'The disciples stole the body'- this is the most common alternative I hear. However, it really doesn't make any sense once you look at the details. Firstly, there were a group of (very hard) Roman Soldiers on guard near the tomb. EVEN if they were sleeping (which is unlikely in its self) then the wax seal on the tomb would have to be removed prior to the stone being rolled away, which would have required at LEAST four people. How can all have been done even if the guards were sleeping? They wouldn't have left their positions because the penalty would have been death, so I can't see many volunteers for doing that. And besides, the Disciples were extremely depressed at this point, they'd just lost the Person they'd loved the most in their lives so they wouldn't have gone all the way back to the tomb, having suddenly recovered from their grief, to execute an incredibly ingenious plan which would require a steady mind and steady nerves (and not to mention no body- they couldn't make a noise nor could they afford to be seen remember!).

2. 'The Roman Soldiers and the Jews stole the body'- erm, why? What possible reason could there be? After going to the extent of killing their leader, why would they give this tiny, seemingly insignificant movement any credence by fulfilling what their Lord had said He would do? Why would they then not produce the body once His followers started blabbering on about a resurrected Christ? Why would they place Roman Soldiers ON GUARD to protect the body from being stolen, only to steal it themselves? This just doesn't make any sense at all.

3.'Those who saw the risen Jesus were merely hallucinating'- there were literally hundreds of people who saw the resurrected Christ, and I've never heard of a single hallucination that was seen by hundreds of people in exactly the same way. Also, research suggests that hallucinations are not life changing and that those who experience them are usually helped to recover by their friends and family, and as a result those who had the experience just dismiss them. However, the disciples underwent a HUGE life change- they preached in front of thousands when before they were scared followers, they were persecuted, jailed, tortured and finally executed. Hallucinations don't do this.

4.'They were on drugs'- erm, all of the hundreds of witnesses? On the same drug, which by some chance all had exactly the same effect? In different places, at different times? Even though the Jews were pure people who wouldn't have took things that harmed the body, and even though there's no evidence of such a drug existing? Uh-huh...

5.'Jesus didn't die on the cross'- this is something I’ll probably be addressing next issue, or alternatively you can check out a version on www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/objectionswithjesus.htm titled ‘Jesus didn’t die on the cross’.

6.'It was all made up, and therefore the Gospel accounts are merely fiction'- I have addressed this issue already.

7. 'Miracles can't happen'- see the article of the same title in the 'General Objections' section of the Teen Apologetics site (http://www.freewebs.com/teenapologetics/generalobjections.htm).

So, what does this mean for everyone? Well I just want to tell you that what I’ve spoken here is by no means the final word on this issue. There are many scholarly atheists who would be more than happy to pick apart this article. However, there would be many more scholarly Christians who could easily pick apart their pickings. So I think its safe to say that this is a basic but still relatively satisfactory defence of the resurrection. Given this, it could be said that the resurrection is not as easily dismissed as some think.

What may seem ‘far out’ to many (including myself) is actually more logical than most of the alternatives, so does this mean that Christianity is vindicated and is therefore the truth? Well that’s up to you. All you need to do is to give yourself and Christianity the proper look-in that is deserved. If you’re not a Christian, then this means that you may have a personally challenging time. If you are a Christian, well to be honest that’s even more difficult. Not only do you have to carry on serving Jesus Christ, which is difficult enough in itself, but also you should defend the resurrection and the Lord Himself from sceptical attacks. Either way, it’s not an easy thing, all this resurrection stuff. That may be the case, but the rewards it carries with it are beyond reckoning.