I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (51 page)

Read I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Online

Authors: Norman L. Geisler,Frank Turek

Tags: #ebook, #book

BOOK: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
11.35Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

The bottom line is this: even if one could explain the empty tomb naturally, this would not be enough to disprove the Resurrection. Any alternative theory of the Resurrection must also explain away the appearances of Jesus. The wrong tomb theory explains neither.

Swoon or Apparent Death Theory—
Is it possible that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross? Perhaps Jesus merely swooned. In other words, he was still alive when he was placed in the tomb, but he somehow escaped and convinced his disciples that he had risen from the dead. There are numerous fatal flaws with this theory as well.

First, enemies and friends alike believed Jesus was dead. The Romans, who were professional executioners, whipped and beat Jesus brutally to the point of his collapse. They then drove heavy, wrought-iron nails through his wrists and feet, and plunged a spear into his side. They didn’t break his legs to speed death because they knew he was already dead. (Crucifixion victims often died by asphyxiation because they couldn’t push themselves up to breathe. Breaking the legs would, therefore, speed death.) Moreover, Pilate checked to make sure Jesus was dead, and Jesus’ death was the reason the disciples had lost all hope.

The brutal Roman crucifixion techniques have been verified through archaeology and non-Christian written sources (see chapter 15 for a vivid description of Jesus’ crucifixion experience). In 1968, the remains of a first-century crucifixion victim were found in a Jerusalem cave; the heel bone of this man had a seven-inch nail driven through it, and his lower arms showed evidence of nails as well.
5
The spear in the heart has also been verified as a Roman crucifixion technique by the Roman author Quintilian (A.D. 35–95).
6
Given such treatment of Jesus, it’s no wonder the eyewitnesses thought he was dead.

Not only did those in the first century believe Jesus was dead; modern medical doctors also believe Jesus actually died. Writing in the March 21, 1986, edition of the
Journal of the American Medical
Association,
three medical doctors, including a pathologist from the Mayo Clinic, concluded:

Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.
7

As we indicated in the last chapter, the blood and water from the spear wound appears to be another genuine eyewitness detail from the pen of John. That fact alone should end all doubt about the death of Jesus.

The second major flaw in the swoon theory is that Jesus was embalmed in seventy-five pounds of bandages and spices. It is highly unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (John 19:40) would have mistakenly embalmed a living Jesus.

Third, even if everyone was wrong about Jesus being dead when he went into the tomb, how would a badly injured and bleeding man still be alive thirty-six hours later? He would have bled to death in that cold, damp, dark tomb.

Fourth, even if he did survive the cold, damp, dark tomb, how could he unwrap himself, move the two-ton rock up and away from the inside of the tomb, get by the elite Roman guards (who would be killed for allowing the breach of security), and then convince the scared, scattered, skeptical cowards that he had triumphed over death? Even if he could get out of the tomb and past the Roman guards, Jesus would have been a battered, bleeding pulp of a man whom the disciples would pity, not worship. They’d say, “You may be alive, but you’re certainly not risen. Let’s get you to a doctor!”

Fifth, the swoon theory cannot explain Jesus’ bright-light appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus. What turned around this avowed enemy of Christianity shortly after the crucifixion? It certainly wasn’t a normal human being who had healed from his crucifixion experience.

Paul’s description of his conversion is recorded twice in the historically authenticated book of Acts. In chapter 22, Paul tells a hostile Jewish crowd about Christ’s appearance to him:

“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’

“‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.

“‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied”

(vv. 6-8).

Paul was then blinded for three days and experienced a 180-degree attitude change. He went from Christianity’s most eager enemy to its most ardent advocate.

Paul’s conversion experience cannot be explained by a swooned Jesus wielding a torch and using his “God voice” from the bushes. This was a dramatic display of divine power in broad daylight that dramatically changed a man, and the world, forever.
8

Sixth, several non-Christian writers affirmed that Jesus had died by crucifixion. These include Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and the Jewish Talmud. The Jewish Talmud, for example, says that Yeshua (Jesus) was hung on a tree on the eve of the Passover.
9
This is not a source considered friendly to Christianity, so there’s no reason to doubt its authenticity.

For these reasons and others, very few scholars believe the swoon theory anymore. There’s simply too much evidence against it.

The Disciples Stole the Body
—The theory that the disciples stole Jesus’ body cannot support the skeptic’s last option—that the New Testament writers were all deceived. Why? Because the theory makes the New Testament writers the deceivers, not the deceived ones! This, of course, flies in the face of all the evidence we’ve seen so far. The theory takes the untenable position that the New Testament writers were all liars. For some inexplicable reason, they stole the body in order to get themselves beaten, tortured, and martyred! Adherents to this theory cannot explain why anyone would do this. Why would the disciples embark on such a self-defeating conspiracy? And why did every one of them continue to say that Jesus had risen from the dead when they could have saved themselves by recanting that testimony?

In addition to the disciples’ severe conflict of interest, adherents of this theory cannot explain other absurdities required by their theory. For example, how did the disciples get past the elite Roman guards who were trained to guard the tomb with their lives? If Jesus never rose from the dead, then who appeared to Paul, James, and the other eyewitnesses? Did the New Testament writers lie about their conversions too? Did Paul simply make up the evidence found in 1 Corinthians? And what about the non-Christian writers? Did Josephus lie about James being martyred by the Sanhedrin? Did the Roman writer Phlegon (born ca. A.D. 80) lie as well when he wrote in his
Chronicles,
“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails”?
10
It would take more of a “miracle” for all this to happen than for Jesus to rise from the dead.
We don’t have enough faith to believe all that!

As we have seen, the notion that the disciples stole the body is exactly the explanation the Jews offered to explain the empty tomb. Beyond the fact that the disciples had no motive or ability to steal the body, this ancient Jewish explanation was not a good lie for two other reasons: 1) how would the sleeping guards have known that the disciples stole the body? and 2) no Roman guard would admit to the capital crime of sleeping on the job. (Perhaps that’s why, as Matthew records, the Jewish authorities had to pay off the guards and promise to keep them out of trouble with the governor.)

In 1878, a fascinating archaeological discovery was made that may corroborate the Bible’s claim that the Jews were circulating the theft explanation. A marble slab measuring 15 by 24 inches was discovered in Nazareth with this inscription:

Ordinance of Caesar: It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain perpetually undisturbed for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors or children or members of their house. If, however, anyone charges that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing on other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In case of violation I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation of sepulchre.
11

Scholars believe this edict was issued by Emperor Tiberius, who reigned from A.D. 14–37 (during most of Christ’s life), or Emperor Claudius, who reigned from 41–54. The striking nature of this edict is that it raises the penalty for grave robbing from a mere fine to death!

Why would the Roman emperor bother to make such a severe edict at this time in such a remote area of his empire? While no one knows for sure the reason for the edict, there are a couple of likely possibilities, both of which point back to Jesus.

If the inscription is from Tiberius, then it’s likely that Tiberius learned of Jesus through one of Pilate’s annual reports to him. Justin Martyr claims that this was the case.
12
Included in that report may have been the Jewish explanation for the empty tomb (the disciples stole the body), prompting Tiberius to prevent any future “resurrections” with the edict.

If the inscription is from Claudius, then the edict may have been part of his response to the riots in Rome in A.D. 49. In Acts 18:2, Luke mentions that Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome. This is confirmed by the Roman historian Seutonius, who tells us that, “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.”
13
(Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ.)

What did Christ have to do with Jewish riots in Rome? Perhaps Rome experienced the same course of events that took place in Thessalonica at roughly the same time. In Acts 17, Luke records that Thessalonica was thrown into “turmoil” when the Jews became “jealous” of Paul preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead. These Jews complained to the city officials, “These men [Paul and Luke] who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here. . . . They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus” (vv. 6-7).

If this is what actually happened in Rome, then Claudius would not have been pleased with a group who was defying his decrees and fol- lowing another king. Once he had learned that this new seditious sect originated with Jews who believed their leader had resurrected, he may have exiled all the Jews from Rome and made grave robbing a capital offense.

Either of these two possibilities would explain the timing, location, and severity of the edict. But even if the edict is
not
connected with Christ’s empty tomb, we already have good evidence that the Jews put forth the theft hypothesis (see last chapter). The main point is that the theft hypothesis was a tacit admission that the tomb was really empty.
After all, why would the Jews concoct an explanation for the empty
tomb if Jesus’ body was still in there?

A Substitute Took Jesus’ Place on the Cross—
This happens to be the explanation offered by many Muslims today—Jesus was not crucified, but someone like Judas was killed in his place.
14
The Qur’an claims of Jesus,

They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (cer-tain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (Sura 4:157-158).

So according to the Qur’an, it only appeared that Jesus was crucified, and Allah took him directly to heaven.

There are a number of problems with this theory, not the least being that there’s absolutely no evidence to back it up. This assertion from the Qur’an comes more than 600 years after the lifetime of Jesus. How can this be considered a more authoritative source for the life of Jesus than the accounts of the eyewitnesses? For this theory contradicts all the eyewitness testimony, and the testimony of the non-Christian sources.

Moreover, this theory raises more questions than it answers. Are we to believe that scores of people who witnessed some aspect of Jesus’ death—the disciples, the Roman guards, Pilate, the Jews, Jesus’ family and friends—were
all
mistaken about who was killed? How could so many people be wrong about a simple identification? This is like saying that Abraham Lincoln wasn’t the one killed next to his wife on that April evening in 1865 at Ford’s Theater. Was Mary Lincoln mistaken about the man sitting next to her? Was Lincoln’s bodyguard wrong about whom he was guarding? Was everyone else mistaken about the identity of the president as well? This is not believable.

There are many other questions raised by this theory. If Jesus wasn’t killed, then why was the tomb of the man who really
was
killed found empty? Are we to believe the
substitute
rose from the dead? If so, how did he do it? Are we to believe that all the non-Christian historians are wrong about the death of Jesus? And what are we to make about the Jewish admission of Jesus’ death? Was the Talmud mistaken for saying that Jesus was hanged on a tree on the eve of the Passover? In short, are we to believe that everyone from the first century was wrong about everything?

One has to question a theory that comes more than 600 years after the events and asks you to believe that all the first-century evidence is wrong. In fact, this theory contradicts most of the twelve facts virtually all scholars believe (see the beginning of this chapter). Like other alternative theories, this one is built on mere speculation without a shred of evidence to support it.
Therefore, we don’t have enough faith to believe it.

Other books

La dama de la furgoneta by Alan Bennett
Darker Than Night by John Lutz
Linda Barlow by Fires of Destiny
Cooking With Fernet Branca by James Hamilton-Paterson
No Worse Enemy by Ben Anderson