Conclusion
Conclusion
Putting It All Together
A Te have covered a lot of information in this book. In order to keep from
overwhelming those you talk to, have a simple outline of a basic presentation in mind. This will help you stay on track and avoid fumbling for words.
As discussed in the last chapter, many times it is better to understate your conclusion. A friend from Scotland described Germany's bombing of London in 1940 as a "bit of a nuisance." We may hold that Jesus' resurrection can be established with a reasonable degree of historical certainty. When talking with unbelievers, though, on many occassions it may be better to understate this conclusion.
Suppose we make the claim to an unbeliever that we can "prove" that Jesus rose from the dead with "a reasonable degree of historical certainty." The person we are talking to may have a much tougher set of criteria for proving something to that degree of certainty than we do. The average person has never given any thought to the nature of historical truth and the various degrees of historical certainty, as we considered them in chapter 1 (pp. 30-33). In this person's eyes, something must be either proven with I00 percent certainty, or it is not proven at all. In the end we inevitably will be perceived by such a person as failing to "prove" Jesus' resurrection. The unbeliever may not reflect on the fact that there is pretty good evidence for it. All he or she thinks about is that we didn't live up to his or her standard for proof.
Now suppose that we say instead to the unbeliever, "I think there's some pretty good evidence for Jesus' resurrection." The person is still going to ask for some of this evidence, and we still will have to respond to his opposing theories. The difference is that, at the end of our discussion, the person is more likely to think, "Not only did they provide some good evidence for Jesus' resurrection as they promised, but it almost looks to me that they may have even proved it."
Using this approach, we may start off by saying, 'I believe there's some pretty good evidence for Jesus' resurrection." When asked to provide that evidence, we respond by saying, "Because not everyone believes the Bible in its entirety, how about if I use only facts that are so strongly evidenced historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones?" This usually solicits the skeptical friend's attention. We can then follow up by providing something like the following argument:
• The disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and had appeared to them.
• A number of outside evidences support the truth of their belief in his resurrection.
• Since no opposing theories can adequately account for all of the historical evidence. Therefore, Jesus' resurrection is the only plausible explanation.
This argument has proven effective. For one thing, it makes the conversation more interesting for the skeptic who probably thought we were going to say, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it!" Furthermore, this argument is simple and can be stated in about twenty seconds.
The argument also follows logically. Suppose we know a fact designated as "X." Let's also say that there are a total of four possible explanations for X: explanation 1, explanation 2, explanation 3, and explanation 4. Finally, there is good evidence that 1 accurately explains X, while 2, 3, and 4 are extremely unlikely, if not impossible. In this instance, 1 is the most reasonable explanation for X.
Johnny's mother finds the cookie jar open, several of the chocolate chip cookies are missing, and the clean floor is marred by small muddy human footprints that lead up to and away from the jar. We will refer to this collection of facts as "X." Let's also say that we conclude that there are only four plausible explanations to account for X:
Explanation 1: Johnny stole the cookies.
Explanation 2: Johnny's mother ate the cookies and forgot.
Explanation 3: Johnny's sister stole the cookies.
Explanation 4: Johnny's father stole the cookies.
We might be able to think of other explanations. Perhaps an alien, wearing shoes much like Johnny's, stole the cookies. While this cannot be ruled out altogether, it would not be an explanation we'd include among the most reasonable or plausible. We decide to confine the possibilities to 1-4, as the most plausible. The size of the footprints by the cookie jar seem to mean that Johnny's mother and father are unlikely candidates. Besides, Johnny's father has been at work the entire time. His sister has been at a friend's house all day and is allergic to chocolate, making her unlikely as well. Moreover, Johnny loves cookies and had just told his mother that he was hungry. Given that there is strong evidence in support of 1 (the theory that Johnny stole the cookies), and given that 2, 3, and 4 are all unlikely, Johnny's mother is justified in believing-with a reasonable degree of confidence-that 1 is true, and she can act accordingly.
This logical reasoning applies to the resurrection of Jesus. X is the proposition that the disciples of Jesus sincerely believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. Let's say that there are only five initially plausible explanations that account for these claims on the part of the disciples:
Explanation 1: Jesus rose from the dead.
Explanation 2: Fraud was involved on the part of the disciples.
Explanation 3: The disciples sincerely believed they saw the risen Jesus, but were hallucinating or delusional.
Explanation 4: Jesus never really died, so when he appeared to his disciples they thought he had risen from the dead, when he had really only revived from a coma.
Explanation 5: The entire story was a legend that developed over time.
Now consider the additional factors of the empty tomb and the conversions of the church persecutor Paul and the skeptic James because they both believed that the raised Jesus had appeared to them. These provide evidence that explanation 1 is true. One might speculate that explanation 2 (that the disciples stole the body and were lying about the appearances) may also account for the empty tomb. But it does not adequately account for the disciples' transformed lives and willingness to die. Nor does it adequately explain the appearances of the risen Jesus to the skeptics Paul and James.
Similarly, let's consider that explanations 2-5 have all been demonstrated to be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, by several reasons each. Given that there is strong evidence in support of explanation 1, and explanations 2 through 5 are extremely unlikely, if not impossible, Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the most reasonable explanation of the historical data.
Granted, the scenario is more complicated than this exceptionally brief synopsis, but it summarizes the principles used throughout this volume.