Appendix: A Detailed Outline of Arguments
How about showing me how to do it?
How could we use the above argument in practice? Your company has announced that it is sponsoring a night out at the ballpark to see the local minor league baseball team. On the night of the game, you get to your seat and find that you are sitting next to Tom, the guy in accounting. Tom is very logical, and, although he has not been hostile toward the religious beliefs of others in the office, he has made it clear that he does not embrace a belief in God. He views religious beliefs as perhaps helpful to others, but not for a thinking person. It is now the third inning, and your conversation has been sporadic. Both of you have been up for pizza, hot dogs, french fries, cotton candy, and conversation with a few of the other employees. He now asks you what you enjoy doing when away from the office. For the past year you have spent much time with the visitation ministry of your church, dropping by the homes of those who have visited the church. You know that Tom is an atheist and will not think highly of your volunteer work. However, you want to use this as an opportunity to share the new information you have just acquired on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
So you confidently say to him,
I'm part of the visitation team at our church. We follow up with those who visit us for the first time on a Sunday morning. We ask them if there is anything we, as a church, can do to meet their needs. I also ask them if they're aware of the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Most aren't, so I briefly share some of the evidence with them. I've been doing it for about a year now, and I really find fulfillment investing time in a worthwhile cause.
You have not pushed your message on him or put him on the defensive. However, you have answered him in a manner that will probably produce curiosity on his part. He may respond by saying something like, 'What do you mean by 'historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection'? There's no real evidence. You have to believe the Bible."
Now you begin your case for the resurrection of Jesus. It is not an academic debate where you will possibly need to cover each point in depth. It is a casual discussion with a person who most likely knows much less than you do on the subject. This is not a time to show off your knowledge or to test yourself on how much of this book you remember. You have to get right to the point and be brief. You are confident that you know the truth, and you are compassionate, gentle, and respectful toward your friend. So you respond,
I understand where you're coming from. Many people are where you are and think that you have to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God in order to believe in Jesus' resurrection. However, I have found that the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is pretty good, even if we only consider those facts that are so strongly attested historically that even most skeptical scholars grant them.
Now your coworker is really curious. He's a logical person and a thinker. No one has ever told him that there are good reasons to believe. Yet you have just informed him that there is "evidence." You are talking his language and he becomes more interested in what you have to say. "What do you mean by historical facts?" he asks.
You are excited about his interest, yet you remain relaxed. You present your basic argument for Jesus' resurrection:
Well, to state it briefly: we know that Jesus' disciples sincerely believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them, especially since they were willing to die specifically for this message. Moreover, a number of outside data strongly suggest that their beliefs were true. Considering the fact that there are no viable opposing theories that can account for the disciples' beliefs, Jesus' resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the historical data.
You have made your case in a nutshell. If your coworker is interested in reli gious issues, you can expect him to respond with some questions. "Wait a minute. Back up the trolley! Apart from believing that the Bible is God's word, how do you know that the disciples really believed that Jesus rose from the dead?" He has asked you a reasonable question. And you are ready.
You present your POW! response:'
That's a great question. Let me give you three categories of evidence. First, we have the eyewitness Paul, who claims to have known and fellowshipped firsthand with the disciples. He repeats their testimony. Second, we have some very early oral tradition that was circulating within the church before the New Testament was even written, and it reports that the disciples were saying it. Finally, we have a number of written sources that all portray the disciples teaching that Jesus had appeared to them after he rose from the dead. In all, we have nine independent sources. Several of them are not even biblical writings. So you can see why there is a virtually unanimous consensus among scholars today, even among skeptics, that Jesus' original disciples said that he appeared to them risen from the dead.
Again, do not think that you have to provide all nine sources in order to establish that the disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They are all there if you need them. But you probably will not need them and will be giving too much information for a casual conversation if you do use them. Give him the three categories and unpack them if the need arises. Then mention that the disciples' willingness to suffer for their beliefs establishes that they sincerely regarded their beliefs to be true.
If we are talking to a person who is rather educated on the subject, we'll focus on Paul and the oral traditions, since scholars consider these to be the strongest reasons. However, if we are talking with the average layperson, we have found that many prefer to hear what nonbiblical sources say. In this case we will focus on the oral traditions and the apostolic fathers, demonstrating that the former predate the New Testament and are, therefore, extrabiblical sources. Let's assume that our friend here is an informed skeptic. You might answer,
First, we have Paul. Today we have the New Testament as one volume. However, the New Testament is comprised of twenty-seven books and letters from several different authors. It was not until the middle part of the second century that these books and letters began to be collected into a single volume that was considered to be sacred. My point is that Paul's writings are independent of those of Jesus' disciples. All scholars who study the subject regard Paul as a contemporary of Jesus' disciples. Paul wrote that both he and the disciples were claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and had appeared to them. Second, we have an early Christian creed that predates the writing of the New Testament, probably dating within five years of Jesus' crucifixion, that lists a number of times that the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples, to groups of people, and even to skeptics. Most agree that Paul received this material in Jerusalem from two other eyewitnesses, just a very few years after Jesus' crucifixion. Although this cannot be determined with great certainty, Paul quotes it and since he knew the disciples, the source of the creed was either the disciples themselves or from someone Paul deemed credible.
If he objects that these are all from the Bible, a book filled with errors and contradictions, you can add,
Even critical scholars accept these facts by using the New Testament as no more than books of ancient literature. But if you don't like them, we still have the writings of two church leaders from about the same time as the New Testament writers, who knew the apostles and were trained by them.' Both of them imply that Jesus' disciples were claiming that he had risen and had appeared to them. So we have eyewitnesses outside of the Bible who also say that the disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead.
Furthermore, it's important to remember that oral tradition predated the New Testament. So to the extent that it can be demonstrated, and it certainly can, that creeds and sermon summaries exist in the New Testament and predate it, these can be regarded as nonbiblical sources.' Nonbiblical sources are quoted in other parts of the New Testament. This does not make them 'biblical.' s But for the sake of our discussion on Jesus' resurrection, your charge that the Bible is filled with errors and contradictions is beside the point here, since I am not basing my argument for Jesus' resurrection on the inerrancy of the Bible or even on its general trustworthiness. I'm only considering strongly attested historical facts that are granted by the vast majority of scholars who study the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.
"Well, that's fine," responds your colleague. "I can accept that they were claiming that he rose from the dead. But that doesn't mean that he did. Maybe they were lying." This is a thoughtful response on the part of your colleague. And you acknowledge it:
I agree with you that merely claiming something says nothing about its being true. However, we can go a step further and establish that, not only did they claim it, they really believed it. Both a secular historian from the first century and Christian historians from the first through fourth centuries report how the disciples were all willing to suffer to the point of dying for their belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. While this does not prove that what they believed was true, since people have suffered and died for various causes, it does indicate that they sin- cerelyregarded their beliefin Jesus' resurrection to be true. Liars make poor martyrs. So now that we know that the disciples truly believed that Jesus rose from the dead, we have to account for their beliefs. What caused them to come to this conclusion?
Your skeptical friend now thinks about other possibilities, such as hallucinations, Jesus never died, the disciples never intended for us to believe that Jesus rose in a literal sense, and so on. You respond, "Yes, those are interesting possibilities. Let's consider them for a moment." Then, one by one, provide the reasons why these opposing theories fail to account for the data. You will need to bring up the other evidence in the process such as the empty tomb, the conversion of the church persecutor Paul, and the conversion of the skeptic James. Try not to inundate your friend with too much data. Keep it simple and let him ask for more if he needs it. Again, do not provide all of the reasons why each opposing theory should be abandoned. Rather give him one or maybe two reasons for each, unless he inquires further.
As the progression of the conversation begins to slow down, sum up what you have discussed:
So we know that the disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them. We've seen that there is good evidence to support their claims, namely the conversion of the church persecutor Paul, the conversion of the skeptic James, and the empty tomb. And finally, the complete inability of opposing theories to account for the data leaves Jesus' resurrection as the only plausible explanation to account for the known historical facts. And it seems that if Jesus rose from the dead, we have good evidence that God exists and has actually revealed himself to mankind in Jesus Christ.
You have now given your friend quite a bit to chew on. Don't be pushy. If he continues to ask questions, this may be a good time to transition to the gospel:
"I'm curious, Tom. Do you know what the main teaching of Jesus was?" 'That we should love each other?" he answers.
His main teaching is that God's kingdom has arrived and we can have salvation through believing in his Son. As it is now, we all stand condemned before God for failing to live up to his standard of perfection.b He taught that there is a penalty for failing to meet his standard and that is an eternal separation from God, quarantined in a place he calls hell.' However, he loved us all so much that he left his divine lifestyle in heaven to come and pay the penalty for our sins by his death on a cross.' Finally, by putting our faith in him alone as risen Lord of the universe and in his ability to save us, he promises to extend his mercy and grant us eternal life.`' It is not something that we can earn through our good deeds, but through faith in what he has already done for us.10
Tom now has a lot to think about. Everyone has a different personality. Don't expect Tom to break down and cry at this point and ask how he can become a Christian. Someone like Tom is going to need some time without being pressured by you or others to make a decision. Allow God to work in his heart as you consistently pray for him. Casually invite him and his family to go to church with you, then to go out to lunch afterward. Be available to answer his questions and do not be afraid to admit when you do not know the answer: "That's a really good question and I don't know the answer. But now I'm curious. I'll see what I can find out and get back to you." Don't be afraid to let Tom talk and fully express his questions and concerns. You will be surprised at how many times a person who is searching for answers, simply needs to air his concerns and have someone acknowledge them as fair questions, more than he needs an actual answer!
Notice the five points of the gospel presented to Tom:
1. We all stand condemned before God for failing to live up to his standard of perfection.
2. There is a penalty for sin and that is eternal separation from God, quarantined in a place he calls hell.
3. However, Jesus loves us all so much that he left his divine lifestyle in heaven in order to satisfy the penalty for our sins through his death on the cross.
4. By putting our faith in Jesus alone as risen Lord, he promises to grant us mercy and give us eternal life.
5. It is not something that we can earn through our good deeds. Otherwise, he would not have had to die on the cross. It is through faith in what he did for us on the cross.
It is helpful to notice the Bible verses used to support the five points, found in the endnotes, connected to the conversation with Tom (Romans 3:23; 6:23; 5:8; 10:9). These constitute what has come to be popularly known as the "Romans Road to Salvation" and is an easy way to present the gospel to others. It is helpful to have these references memorized, so that they will be on the tip of your tongue when you need them.
The fictional conversation with Tom was just an example. Every conversation will be a different experience. I (Licona) saw a good illustration of this just a few days after teaching a course on Jesus' resurrection. I received the following e-mail from one of those who had attended:
Hey! How are ya? I'm doing great and really trying to keep my head up. I feel like I am losing a "debate" with a friend of mine. I presented the argument for the Resurrection and then he responded: "Sounds like a second Superman. First point: people who were killed on the cross only had their hands nailed. Second point: none of the people who wrote the JAMA article [i.e., against the theory that Jesus didn't really die] were there. So how would they know? Third point: taking the word of a book that contains mystical animals and things that can be explained with drug usage (i.e., manna) or over-exaggerations, and using it as fact is absurd." Fourth point: he says I can't be a self-respecting person and base my life on something that I can't hold with 100% certainty. He says that would be a violation of who I am. Thus, I'm turning to you because I'm stuck. Oh, and are there more Muslims than Christians? He threw that at me as well. Anyways, I really, really, really appreciated your course these past seven weeks. I have learned a lot, but I'm still wanting to learn more. Thank you again for your time and for your help.
Keeping the Faith,
Brayden
I appreciated that e-mail. Brayden was out in the trenches sharing his faith. Without a doubt, on occasions we will be given objections we have not previously heard or have an objection presented in a manner somewhat differently than what we have presented in this book. However, that's okay. Remember what we discussed in the previous chapter under "Tips." There is no shame in admitting to not knowing an answer and volunteering to research it and come back with an answer if it may make a difference in whether that person will accept that Jesus' resurrection occurred. This is what I wrote back to Brayden:
Dear Brayden,
Thanks for your e-mail. It doesn't sound like he's very open-minded. If this is the case, no amount of logic will be of use to him. So don't be discouraged. Nevertheless, you do well to engage him in dialogue. Here are some responses that correspond to his points.
He is gravely mistaken in his assertion that victims of crucifixion in the first century had only their hands nailed. Archaeological findings in Jerusalem in 1968 revealed that the biblical accounts of crucifixion are correct for that period. Besides, whether Jesus' feet were nailed is not a major point. He was executed by crucifixion, and this is attested by multiple ancient sources outside of the New Testament who did not share Jesus' convictions (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.3; Tacitus, Annals 15.44).
Of course none of the writers of the JAMA article were there. However, if we conducted historical research in the manner your friend seems to be suggesting, we couldn't know anything about the Ameri can Civil War, Julius Caesar, or even World War 2. Was your friend there to witness any of these events or people? Does your friend deny the Holocaust because he wasn't there? If he says "of course not," ask him why not. When he says we have eyewitnesses who were there and documents that attest to it, answer that we have that also for Jesus' crucifixion! We not only have sympathizers of Jesus, but we also have secular historians of the period who write of his crucifixion. Even some of the most critical of scholars affirm that Jesus died due to being crucified. The strength of the JAMA article is that those in the medical community who have considered the effects of crucifixion on the body, claim that one cannot survive the full process.
You have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to the Bible. However, remember Brayden that you can use your "minimal facts approach." You are basing your argument primarily on historical data that can be established and is accepted by virtually all scholars who study the subject. So he cannot simply say, "I don't believe the Resurrection, because I don't believe the Bible." He is going to have to address the data you provide. You can begin to see why the minimal facts approach is powerful.
He says, "I can't be a self-respecting person and base my life on something that I can't be 100 percent certain that it's true. That would be a violation of who I am." Really? Ask him if he can have 100 percen t certainty that all of us were not created by an alien just 5 minutes ago with our memories and the food in our stomachs. He cannot be 100 percent certain. Therefore, using his own logic, he is not "a selfrespecting person" who can base his decisions as though the past events of his life are real! No one makes decisions based on 100 percent certainty. The wise person chooses probabilities.
I do not know if there are more Muslims than Christians. I believe estimates show that there are more Christians at present. However, what does that matter? In the first century there were certainly more Jews and pagans than Christians. Does that do anything to undermine the truth of a faith? Whenever questions you may not have thought through are thrown at you, don't be afraid to ask him how his question refutes Jesus' resurrection. Let him give you a reason. In many instances like this one, he may become confused himself over why he even mentioned it to begin with.
Reply to him with some of these things I've shared with you and feel free to e-mail me back with his response if you need more help. I'm proud of you, Brayden, for getting out there and sharing your faith. I've had experiences just like the one you are now having. Don't flee from these opportunities. They will strengthen you and prepare you to be even better the next time you engage in a dialogue with a skeptic. In time, you will have heard it all-and you'll smile when you hear it again because you will be prepared and confident in your response.
Remember to answer with "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned as it were with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person" (Col. 4:6). Love this guy and pray for him. Stand before this guy in humility before God, and answer him with gentleness and respect. But let him sense your confidence in your relationship with Christ.
Very truly yours,
Mike
Brayden's skeptical friend raised several objections that were covered in this book-Jesus did not die on the cross, the disciples hallucinated, and the Bible has discrepancies-and questioned the nature of proof and historical certainty. However, his objection that Jesus did not die on the cross was not spelled out clearly in those terms, and that confused Brayden. But this skeptical friend also raised an objection that we did not cover by claiming there are more Muslims than Christians in the world today. Of course, this objection has no bearing whatsoever on whether Jesus rose from the dead. With experience, Brayden will develop the ability to recognize flaws in the arguments of the person with whom he's talking.
Be patient and develop your skills. There are no substitutes for study and experience. Be careful not to go off onto other subjects. Stay on Jesus' resurrection." Don't get discouraged when someone seems unmoved by your presentation. When someone maintains their radical views after you have shared the evidence with them, this is not necessarily the result of any shortcomings of your efforts or weakness in the evidence. He may continue to shake his head in disagreement with you. But that is far from refuting the evidence you presented. In time, sharing your faith will become a lot of fun and you will be amazed at how God will use you to spread his Word.