Basic
Worldview:
104
Why Christianity?
List of
Messianic Qualifications
and the Resurrection of Jesus (Part 1)
Judaism
and Christianity Introduction and History
History
of Judaism Continued
Scholarly
Objections and Historicity of Daniel (P. 1)
Historicity
of Daniel (P. 2) & Judeo-Christian Syncretism
A
Few Words on Gnosticism
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 1)
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 2) & Prophecy in Judaism
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 1)
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 2)
List
of Messianic Qualifications & the Resurrection of Jesus
(P. 1)
The
Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
Study
Conclusions and Overall Comparisons
Additional
Material
The
Sufferings of Eyewitnesses
Comparison
of Mystical Religions to Judeo-Christianity
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 1)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 2)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 3)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 4)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 5)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 6)
Introduction | Section 1
| Section 2 | Section
3
List of Messianic Qualifications
1. Be an Israelite. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Exodus 19-24)
2. Mediate a new covenant between God and His people. (Deuteronomy
18:15-19 and Exodus 19-24)
3. Give God's new law, commands, and covenant to the people,
which would be written in their hearts as opposed to tablets
of stone. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Exodus 19-24)
4. Intercede between God and His people. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19
and Exodus 19-24)
5. Be given God's word from God and would tell it to the people.
(Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Exodus 19-24)
6. Deliver God's people from bondage. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19
and Exodus 19-24)
7. The new covenant established by the Messiah, may like Moses'
initiation of Israel's covenant with God, include a sacrifice.
(Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Exodus 19-24)
8. The new covenant established by the Messiah, may like Moses'
initiation of Israel's covenant with God, include a sacrificial
meal. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Exodus 19-24)
9. The new covenant established by the Messiah, may like Moses'
initiation of Israel's covenant with God, include the leaders
of God's people being taken up on a mountain and seeing God's
glory. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and Exodus 19-24)
10. The Messiah will be responsible for bringing the Gentile
nations to God.
11. The Messiah will suffer physical affliction. (Isaiah 52:13-14,
Isaiah 53:5, 10)
12. The Messiah will be despised and rejected. (Isaiah 53:3-4)
13. The Messiah will be an offering for our sin and bear the
sin of many and justify them. (Isaiah 53:5-8, 12)
14. The Messiah will be killed. (Isaiah 53:7-8, 12, Zechariah
12:10)
15. The Messiah will be king over Israel. (Isaiah 9:6-7)
16. The Messianic kingdom will have no end. (Isaiah 9:6-7)
17. The Messiah will be of the house of King David, of the
tribe of Judah. (Isaiah 9:6-7)
18. The Messiah will come forth from Bethlehem, the family
home of King David. (Micah 5:2)
19. The Messiah will be a conquering king. (Psalm 2:2, 6,
9)
20. The Messiah will come and be killed after 26 A.D. and
before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. (Daniel 9:25-26)
After looking at this list in the context of Daniel 9's timeframe
three things become obvious. First, Jesus is the only available
person to fulfill the messianic expectations of Judaism. So,
if Jesus isn't the Messiah, then Judaism is proven false since
it clearly prophesied in God's name that a Messiah would come
and be killed between 33 A.D. and 70 A.D. This constitutes
a huge catch-22 for followers of Judaism. They must either
accept that Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah, in which case
Judaism is validated. Or, if they reject that Jesus was the
Messiah, then Judaism is proven false and unreliable since
Judaism (by means of its accepted authoritative scripture,
particularly Daniel) clearly prophesies in God's name that
a Messiah would come (even within a given timeframe).
Second, it is obvious from the New Testament record that Jesus
has not fulfilled item numbers 15, 16, and 19. However, this
cannot be used as a reason to reject Jesus as the Messiah.
It may simply be the case that Jesus will fulfill the Jewish
expectation of an exalted, conquering, kingly Messiah in the
future as the New Testament clearly teaches. Additionally,
because we have no timeframe for the occurrence of these particular
messianic requirements, no description of how they relate
to the suffering, rejected, dying Messiah, and no Biblical
indication that there will be two distinct Jewish Messiahs,
Judaism has no Biblical basis for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah
on the grounds that he has yet to accomplish these three prophecies.
Third, even a quick glance at this list points to Jesus as
the Messiah (or Christ). The New Testament records that he
fulfilled these requirements along with many others. He was
an Israelite of the tribe of Judah and a descendent of King
David (Matthew 1:1-25, Luke 3:23-38). He was, in fact, born
in Bethlehem, David's family home (Matthew 2:1-23, Luke 2:1-15).
He brought a new covenant and gave a new law, by which the
Gentiles came to worship the God of the Jews (for examples
see Matthew 12:17-21, Luke 2:25-32, Acts 9:15, Acts 10:45,
Acts 11:1, Acts 15:7). He suffered, was rejected, and sacrificed
himself mediating a new covenant between God and God's people
and providing atonement for man's sin. Like Moses, he took
the men he had appointed to be leaders over God's people up
on a mountain where God's glory was revealed to them (Matthew
17:1-5, Mark 9:2-7, Luke 9:28-35, 2 Peter 1:16-18). And most
significantly, he was killed in the year 33 A.D. just as Daniel
9:25-26 prophesied (Mark 8:31, Luke 17:25, Matthew 26-28,
Mark 14-16, Luke 22-24, John 18-21).
(For more on how Jesus brought a new covenant and the Law
of Christ please see the articles in the Redemption and Liberty
in Christ sections of our website.)
(NOTE: The most comprehensive and detailed arguments that
Jesus is the Messiah are those provided in the New Testament.
For this reason we recommend that those who are seriously
interested read the New Testament beginning with the four
gospels and the Book of Acts.)
With all of this in mind and with no other available person
to fulfill the prophesies of the Jewish scripture, we must
accept Jesus as the Messiah and thereby remove the final separating
issue between Christianity and Judaism. Having done so, we
have shown that unlike Islam, Christianity is not only a legitimate
interpretation of Judaism, but it is the correct, legitimate
interpretation of Judaism. And, in fact, having established
that Jesus Christ fulfills the Old Testament requirements
and prophecies that the Messiah would bring a new covenant
to the Jewish people just as Moses had mediated a covenant,
we have already partially demonstrated this conclusion.
And by demonstrating that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of
the Old Testament we have simultaneously established that
Judeo-Christianity, unlike all of the other religions we have
examined, is substantiated by the evidence it offers. The
legitimate supernatural phenomena exhibited by Judeo-Christianity
demonstrates that it should be accepted as a reliable and
accurate understanding of God, if for no other reason than
that no other religion can make this claim. Other religions
offer either no evidence to support their claims or the evidence
that they do offer contradicts itself, such is the case with
Islam. Only Judeo-Christianity offers supernatural evidence
that provides corroboration for its claims about the God who
exists beyond the natural world we see all around us.
But, before we move on to a comparison demonstrating the reasonableness
and superiority of the Judeo-Christian religion over that
of Islam and the many forms of Propositional religion, we
must also discuss one final piece of evidence for the validity
of Judeo-Christianity - resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Resurrection The central claim of Judeo-Christianity
is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Christ is simply the
Greek word for Messiah). Because the New Testament authors
claimed the resurrection of Jesus as proof that Jesus' teaching
was from God, we must also determine whether or not it is
reasonable to accept their testimony that Jesus did, in fact,
rise from the dead. For this reason no examination of the
validity and reliability of Judeo-Christian theology would
be complete without a demonstration of the historical legitimacy
of the resurrection.
Before we proceed we must remember three important facts about
historical analysis.
First, we cannot object to the historical claim that Jesus
was resurrected simply because of the involvement of supernatural
phenomena. As we have discussed in greater detail earlier
in this study, history, in and of itself, contains no prohibition
against the occurrence of such phenomena. Only if we presuppose
invalid atheistic conclusions or unwarranted deistic or naturalistic
conclusions through circular reasoning can we disregard even
the proposition of the supernatural or miraculous. Since employing
such conclusions as criteria for dismissing miraculous claims
would be inappropriate circular reasoning we must instead
consider the resurrection on its own historical merits as
we would any other claimed historical event.
Second, we noted in our section on Propositional religions
that the evidence of the supernatural offered by religions
of this type tended to be subjective in nature and was defined,
by these religions themselves, as unknowable through normal
reasonable processes. History, by basic definition, is interested
in events that can be objectively verified through a reasonable
assessment of evidence. Since, Propositional religions are
not concerned with claims of this type, their evidence (being
subjective in nature) is not available to and does not involve
historical analysis. For this reason some historians may be
content to permit this kind of supernatural claim simply because
it falls outside of the domain of historical interest and
qualifications.
And yet it is the very claim made by Evidentiary religions
that knowable, verifiable supernatural events have occurred
that leads some historians and scholars to dismiss them, not
through an assessment of the evidence, but without an assessment,
simply because some historians and scholars hold to the presupposition
that the supernatural cannot occur. It is a blatant contradiction
and prejudice to permit subjective claims of the supernatural
which, by definition, cannot offer objective evidence of their
validity, while at the same time dismissing out of hand, claims
of the supernatural, which offer objective evidence of their
validity, without first conducting an examination of that
evidence.
And while this criticism applies to those scholars who would
apply an atheistic bias to the evidence, a similar comment
can be made regarding Theists. Given the existence of God,
which we have demonstrated in our previous article series
on Atheism, there is a need for us to investigate what view
of God is accurate and should be adopted. The world's religions
comprise the available options. As we examine which of the
world's religions offer an accurate view of God, it would
be completely contradictory for us to reject the testimony
of those who claim to have experienced objectively verifiable
events, such as miracles, while at the same time accepting
the testimony of those who claim to have experienced an internal,
subjective realization of truth. It is completely irrational
to dismiss without examination the testable evidence offered
by one party in order to favor an alternate explanation given
by another party, which offers absolutely no evidence and
cannot be verified.
If the goal is to determine the most reasonable assessment
of God based upon the available objective evidence, then we
cannot dismiss testimony regarding physical events while at
the same time believing testimony regarding mere mental realizations.
Rational analysis concerning the accurate view of God requires
that testimony regarding external, physical evidence take
preference over subjective knowledge precisely because the
external evidence can be objectively tested, while subjective
knowledge can not.
It is one thing to dismiss a subjective claim of the supernatural,
which cannot be verified through objective assessment of the
evidence as we have done. It is quite another to dismiss supernatural
claims, which do offer objective evidence to substantiate
their claims, without any assessment of the evidence that
they offer. For this reason, we must now perform an evaluation
of the evidence offered by the Judeo-Christian scripture concerning
the supernatural claims that it makes in order to determine
if those claims are valid and should be accepted or invalid
and must be rejected.
Third, we cannot simply reject the New Testament record of
Jesus simply because it is told by his followers. The simple
fact is that history is recorded by the victors and is seldom
if ever written by those with no interest in the subject matter.
If we cannot rely upon any historical documentation that is
written by someone with a stake in or a relationship to the
subject matter then a modern understanding of history becomes
rather impossible. Instead, since historians accept that people
with a personal interests can be relied upon to provide an
accurate and fair description of historical events, we must
also acknowledge that the New Testament can be considered
as reliable, accurate, and fair with regard to historical
material and accounts it provides.
For all three of these reasons, we must evaluate the New Testament
record of Jesus as we would any other historical document
or any other record of an event.
As a historical document we must also recognize two facts.
First, the New Testament is the only available ancient Jewish
source concerning the events in question. Besides the New
Testament we have no other resource expressing a Jewish view
of these events that dates from the time period of these events.
Though the New Testament is written from the point of view
of particular Jews who accepted the resurrection of Jesus
Christ, it is also the only ancient source informing us of
the opposing Jewish view. Other than the New Testament Jewish
writings presenting an opposing point of view to the resurrection
of Christ, other oppositional accounts do not emerge until
centuries after the fact, which means that those who proposed
them were simply in no position to evaluate the legitimacy
of the resurrection, particularly in comparison to first and
second hand testimony.
In light of this it is inappropriate to object to the New
Testament record as if it is not representative of the Jewish
view. For one, there is no other Jewish source speaking about
the death and resurrection of Jesus from the 1st century.
And two, the New Testament is a Jewish view of the events,
written by Jews and written from the teachings and testimonies
of Jews.
Second, though, many Christians have certainly been anti-Semitic
and used the New Testament as basis for their prejudice, the
New Testament itself cannot be considered to be an anti-Semitic
document for two reasons. First, the New Testament account
of Jesus is a record of events, in which all the characters
including both protagonists and antagonists (except Pontius
Pilate) are Jews. Second, the New Testament was mostly written
by Jews. In light of these two facts, it is absurd to label
the New Testament as anti-Semitic anymore than it would be
to label the movie Braveheart anti-Scottish simply because
in that movie Scottish lords are depicted as being instrumental
to the betrayal, capture, and killing of William Wallace.
Like the hero of Braveheart is Scottish, the hero of the New
Testament is Jewish, which makes it is impossible to consider
either to be works of racism, even though the villains in
these works are also Scottish and Jewish, respectively.
One final note before we proceed to examine the historicity
of the resurrection of Jesus. For those of us who live after
the fact, none of the events of history are available to direct
verification. We cannot directly verify whether or not Alexander
the Great conquered ancient Mesopotamia by the time he was
33 years old. We cannot directly verify whether or not John
Wilkes Boothe assassinate Abraham Lincoln. We cannot observe
these things ourselves. Nor can we watch or listen to video
or audio records capturing these events. Instead, we are forced
to rely upon the testimony of those who lived at the time
and were in a position to directly verify (or refute) the
legitimacy of historic events.
The same is true for the resurrection of Jesus. Like other
historical events, the resurrection is not available to us
for direct verification. Instead, we must rely upon the testimony
of those who lived at the time and were in a position to directly
verify the legitimacy of that event.
There are four things that should be noted as we begin our
examination of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
The first is that Jesus Christ is an actual historical person
as were his disciples and the other persons involved in the
New Testament account. This fact is demanded by the academic
standards for determining historicity, as established in depth
earlier in this article series. Because of this we cannot
think of the New Testament account as the same as Greco-Roman
or eastern mythological stories involving some accomplishment
of some god or goddess. The fact that Jesus of Nazareth was
a real historic figure means that the examination of whether
or not he rose from the dead is a legitimate historical question
and not simply a matter of myth or legend.
Second, we must recognize that at the time of these events
it was possible to objective verify whether or not the resurrection
had, in fact, occurred. This is important because if an event
was not available to objective verification at the time it
is said to have occurred, we would not be able to reasonably
assess its historical legitimacy.
For example, we might imagine two claims of the supernatural.
The first claim comes from an individual who reports that
God has appeared to him when he was alone in his room. The
second claim comes from an individual who claims that God
has regenerated his amputated left arm.
The first claim could not be considered historically legitimate
because there would be no external or physical means by which
we could verify whether or not God appeared to this person
while they were alone in their room. This type of supernatural
claim was common among Propositional religions and was exhibited
in Islam. We have no way of knowing whether or not the angel
Gabriel appeared to Mohammed in the cave as he claimed, or
if Mohammed was, in fact, just making all of this up or perhaps
himself deceived in some way. Likewise, it could not be objectively
verified whether or not Siddhartha Gautama or Vardhamana actually
achieved enlightenment. Such events, by their nature cannot
be objectively verified by those alive at the time, and we
have no reason to accept that they ever actually occurred.
However, the claim of the man who said that God had regenerated
his amputated left arm could indeed be objectively verified.
It could be determined from those who knew him and from medical
records and photographs whether or not this individual had
previously had an amputated left arm. And we could certainly
verify whether or not the left arm was now present again after
the amputation. Therefore, since we could verify that his
left arm was actually restored after previously having been
amputated, we would have sound reason to accept this man's
claim.
Jesus' resurrection falls into the second type of claim. Those
around at the time could verify that Jesus was dead and that
three days later he was alive again. This places the resurrection
of Jesus into the realm of a historical claim, which like
all other historical events, can be verified for us now, by
analyzing the testimony of those who witnessed first-hand
the events in question.
Third, we must remember that the New Testament record of the
events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection were, in
fact, written by either first-hand witness who lived at the
time of the events in question and were close to Jesus during
them or by second-hand witnesses who recorded the testimony
of other first-hand witnesses. This is important because it
allows us to evaluate the testimony of those who actually
claimed to witness the events in question and who were in
a position to objectively verify them. When first and/or second-hand
testimony is not available we do not have access to an objective
verification of the events in question at a point in time
when they could be directly verified. And, with no objective
verification of these events available for us to base our
examination on, we would have no reason to accept that the
event in question actually occurred.
Fourth, we must recognize that the record of the New Testament
confirms that those who claimed that Jesus was resurrected
from the dead were, in fact, interested in objectively verifying
whether or not this had truly and legitimately occurred. The
New Testament does not present Jesus' disciples as being willing
to accept the claim that Jesus was resurrected without proof
that they could verify or without the testimony of those who
were in a position to directly verify whether the resurrection
had, in fact, occurred. They were not willing to accept the
mere proposition that Jesus had risen from the dead. They
needed evidence, which they could verify. Without this evidence,
without seeing for themselves, many of the disciples refused
to accept the notion of Jesus' resurrection.
We must therefore draw a striking contrast between the manner
in which the New Testament asserts the resurrection of Jesus
Christ and the manner in which other religious texts present
remarkable claims about their founders. In all of the other
cases that we examined from Zoroaster, to Siddhartha Gautama
(Buddha), to Varhamana, etc. we saw that extraordinary claims
were made without any attempt to provide evidence for those
claims, which was objectively verifiable even at the time
of the events in question. Instead, those who promoted these
religions accepted the claims of these men without objectively
verifiable evidence and expected others to do so as well.
Acceptance of those claims was always openly based upon subjective,
inner realization.
However, Jesus' disciples were reluctant to accept that he
had been resurrected. Despite his teachings, they did not
fully comprehend them and, therefore, had not expected this
to occur and most refused to accept that Jesus had risen from
the dead until they were able to confirm this directly themselves.
In their accounts Jesus' disciples don't even embellish their
responses, but instead attest to the fact that they were unwilling
to believe without proof. They report that Jesus had risen
not because they believed it or because of some personal,
subjective experience, but on the basis of evidence, which
they objectively verified. Likewise, Jesus does not require
them to accept that he has risen from the dead without proof,
instead, he himself provides them with evidence proving that
he had, in fact, risen from the dead.
Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into
Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17
And when they saw him,they worshipped him: but some
doubted.
Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first
day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out
of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told
them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11
And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had
been seen of her, believed not. 12 After that he appeared
in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went
into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the
residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared
unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with
their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed
not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told
all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. 10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James,
and other women that were with them, which told these things
unto the apostles. 11 And their words seemed to them as
idle tales, and they believed them not. 12 Then arose
Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld
the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering
in himself at that which was come to pass...36 And as
they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them,
and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified
and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do
thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my
feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when
he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered,
he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave
him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43
And he took it, and did eat before them.
John 20:20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto
them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad,
when they saw the LORD...24 But Thomas, one of the twelve,
called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The
other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the
LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands
the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of
the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and
Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and
stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then
saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my
hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side:
and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered
and said unto him, My LORD and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto
him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
These are not the actions of those who are delusional, gullible,
or are eager to believe what only serves their own interests.
Instead, they are exactly what we'd hope and expect that reasonable
persons would do when faced with such a claim. They wanted
to directly and objectively verify the claim and they only
accepted that Jesus had been resurrected once they were able
to do so.
With all of that said we can now move on to examine the New
Testament record of the events in question to determine whether
or not we have reason to accept the New Testament claim that
Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact.
(Continued in next section.)
