Posted on 04/11/2005 6:27:36 AM PDT by logos
What would you say if you picked up the newspaper tomorrow morning and the lead headline screamed, "Bone of Jesus Found: Scholars Refute Resurrection"? Your first reaction might likely be grave skepticism and a quick glance through the body of the story to identify the names of these radical revisionists. But suppose upon reading the opening paragraph you discovered that the academicians who made this pronouncement are not of the Jesus Seminar variety but rather a battery of the most respected evangelical New Testament scholars in the world. The article indicates that these venerable professors had secretly gathered at an archaeological site in Jerusalem to examine a new find and that the whole group, much to their chagrin, concluded that these were the actual bones of Jesus of Nazareth. In light of this startling revelation, would you give up your Christian faith?
As emotionally and psychologically devastating as it might be to discard the faith, we would have to side with the apostle Paul, who said that "if Jesus has not been raised, you are still in your sins." Unlike most of the religions of the world, Christianity is rooted in space-time history and is therefore open to both verification and falsification. Schaeffer made this point well when he wrote, "If the tomb was not empty - so that a camera crew could have recorded the absence of Jesus' body at the same time that they could have filmed the linen strips and head cloth in which his body had been wrapped - we have no hope."
Although Lewis and Schaeffer differed concerning the historicity of some Old Testament accounts, they both tenaciously affirmed the historical texture of the New Testament narrative. Using keen literary discernment, Lewis confidently asserted that there are only two possible interpretations of the Gospel records, either eyewitness accounts or "modern, novelistic, realistic" fiction. Since the latter did not surface until many centuries after the time of Christ, there is good reason to believe that the events recorded in the Gospels are descriptions of true history.
The Bible is a record of God's salvific activity in human history. This revelatory account, which crystallizes in the passion of Christ, is a clear, concrete, tangible expression of God's loving compassion for his entire creation. To denude the Gospels of their historic content is to strip away the very heart and hope of the faith. In an age marked by grave historical skepticism and widespread gnosticism, Christian apologists must follow the example of Schaeffer and Lewis by insisting on the objective, space-time character of the Christian faith. As we argued in chapter five, if the Son of God did not enter the world as a little baby in Bethlehem, live a sinless life in Jewish flesh, die a terrible death on Calvary and leave an empty tomb on Easter morning, then the whole Christian faith falls to the ground.
Thank you all for reading along.
I don't understand why y'all are so hung up on archeological confirmation of Christ. If you follow the instructions in the Bible, you will know the truth.
I gather every "nabal" knows this; which is why they're always asking for "proof." As Eric Voegelin pointed out (in "Quod Deus Dicitur," 1985), the issue of proof of the existence of God can only be raised when the "fool" is present.
Thank you logos for another wonderful excerpt!
I didn't see where anyone is the least bit "hung up on archeological confirmation of Christ."
But, unlike the false religions of the world, ours is not rooted in blind faith. Ours is Truth, borne out by the facts. If the Resurrection did not happen, ours is just a lie like all the rest.
With all due respect, yours has to be one of the classic misreadings of the posted article.
We can hardly bash those who insist on truth, bb, unless of course, we want to bash Thomas. Further, thanks to Thomas, we have some bit of proof that our Lord is not averse to providing some proof when asked, at least every now and then. When and if He will do so most likely has to do with the motivation and attitude of the one doing the asking.
The premise of religious scholars finding Jesus' bones was the storyline of a movie starring Antonio Banderas, titled "The Body". Having seen the movie long ago I've already meditated on the "what if" challenge noted here.
In sum, my reaction is this: even if every scholar of every religious faith and every branch of science throughout the world gathered in a unified voice and swore on pain of death that a particular set of bones were those of Christ - I would nevertheless believe in His virgin birth, sinless life in Jewish flesh, terrible death on Calvary and his leaving an empty tomb on Easter morning.
The reason is simply this: He has already confirmed Himself to me by the indwelling Spirit. I know Him personally and I know nothing else except "in" Him. We are quite literally inseparable. Thus it is all the scholars I would not believe.
I've known lots of scholars, A-G. I only know one Jesus. The scales are nowhere near equal.
The storey goes, when Neibuhr was dying, he was asked what was the most greatest truth he had discovered in his studies. He is reported to have replied, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Probably wishful thinking on the part of a lonely pastor searching for the right illustration, but still contains the ultimate truth. Faced with "facts" man will believe the lie rather than come to the truth unless the Lord draws him. Revelations tells us that over and over again. I'd rather havetherocks and caves fall on me than bow down to the risen Lord. The irony of it all, as Tozer said, is that there ultimately be many "bloody knees" where truculant disbelievers are forced to bow and acknowledge the ture fact of who is God.
Everybody start composing good apologies, if you're going to quote Eric to "nabals"!!! :^)
Thanks so much for writing, blue-duncan!
Of course not, logos! But Thomas was not a "nabal." Don't forget, the definition of "nabal" is the man who says, in his heart, "There is no God." Thomas never thought or said anything like that. He had doubts; he did not reject God a priori. We have to make some distinctions, every now and then. Or so it seems to me.
Thanks for the cautionary note!
Not too long ago, I mentioned on a science thread that "doubting Thomas was an apostle, too". The correspondent responded that "Thomas ought to be the patron saint of scientists."
Indeed, most of the people I've meet who call themselves agnostic actually only have a few questions which trouble them deeply. This is especially true of "intellectual agnostics" - the ones who believed as a child but became confused during their public school education.
IMHO, many of the combative correspondents on science threads are of that ilk. They don't deny God exists, but they have deep, troubling questions - hence they "beat up" on believers, challenging their faith. I don't think they would be so aggressive if it didn't matter to them.
It is a wonderful opportunity to witness! And in several ways: showing love, joy and patience in dealing with the assaults - sharing the Word - and tackling their doubts with science and math.
Of course, it is very difficult to cull the true evangelical agnostics away from the conversation to address the agnostics directly. The evangelical atheists are the nabals.
Oh well, must go stain this afternoon, so I'll catch your reply on the come-back this evening.
That's a great insight, A-G. On the other hand, the "evangelical" (read: militant) atheists are pretty aggressive, too. The truth is we do not really know what is in a man's heart; only God knows this, and infallibly.
Alright, you people, please tell me what you mean by these terms: "evangelical agnostics/evangelical atheists". I alway thought "evangelical" meant "good news". How can doubt or denial be good news? Of course many of us live as if we belonged in those areas at various times of the day, but if you catch me there, please don't label me as such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.