Possibilities

As a step towards the main point of this blog (which is the examination of the possibility of Jesus' resurrection), I will now do what millions or more have done before me and attempt to outline all the possibilities for what happened after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

I see three possibilities:
1.  Jesus did not actually die as a result of crucifixion.
2.  Jesus did die, but did not rise again.
3.  Jesus did die and did rise again.

It is this third outrageous possibility that Christians like me believe to be true.  Even calling it a "possibility" seems rather absurd.  But before we get into just how absurd it may or may not have been, let's look at the other two possibilities first.

1.  Jesus did not actually die as a result of crucifixion.

I did a quick google search for "how many have survived crucifixion" and found confirmation that there are some people who believe Jesus did "survive" crucifixion in the sense that he did not technically die.  For example, one web site presents the theory that Jesus did not literally die on the cross, but fell into a deep coma from which he recovered while tucked away in his tomb.  This may be slightly "less miraculous" and easier to believe than the idea that Jesus rose from the dead, but it is still miraculous to say the least that someone in the first century would fall into a deep enough coma that they were presumed dead and then spontaneously come out of it by the third day after they fell into it.

This search also uncovered the fact that at least one person has survived a crucifixion that was intended to be lethal.  This person was a friend of Josephus, but in his case, the Romans were well aware that the person was still alive when he was taken down from the cross as Josephus had pleaded for his friend's life and won.  It sounds like there was no recorded instance of a person who was thought to be dead when removed from the cross but later found to still be alive.  (Of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that no one confirmed it happened.)

It was also mentioned that the Romans confirmed death before taking someone off the cross by piercing their side, which the Bible claims was exactly what happened to Jesus before he was removed from the cross.

What it means to "pierce their side" seems up for debate as one source I found claimed that "piercing the side" would NOT pierce the heart while another I read said that it likely would.  The first source also claimed that the fact that blood flowed from Jesus' pierced side as reported in the Gospels proved he was still alive, but the second source suggested that the flowing of both blood AND water from Jesus side indicated he may have suffered from hypovolemic shock and died.

Further evidence for the hypovolemic shock that would have accelerated Jesus' death include his collapse on the way to his crucifixion site and his declaration of thirst near his death.  The shock would have been caused by the whipping Jesus received prior to crucifixion, a whipping which by itself could sometimes be fatal, and would explain Jesus' relatively quick death on the cross.  (http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html)

However, the source that claims the piercing did NOT kill Jesus and in fact proved he was alive presents an alternative for why Jesus "died" relatively quickly on the cross.  In what reads like a conspiracy theory (and I admit, conspiracy theories can be true), this site suggests that perhaps the whole crucifixion of Jesus was staged.  The suggestion is that Jesus was drugged while on the cross, perhaps from the sponge that was lifted up to him when he said he was thirsty, and only appeared to be dead when taken down.  It is further suggested that Jesus was then taken to a private tomb (that part is reported in the Bible) and there he was revived.  This website claims that the perfume ingredients reported to be taken to anoint Jesus' body had medicinal purposes that could account for Jesus' revival from unconscious non-death. (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/04/Could-Jesus-Have-Survived-The-Crucifixion.aspx)

The above mentioned article further claims that when Joseph, the man who provided the tomb for Jesus, asked Pilot, the man who authorized Jesus' execution, for access to the body of Jesus, he referred to Jesus' body with a word that meant a living body.  The author of the article claims that this is the revealing evidence, reported right in the Gospel, that Jesus was still alive when taken from the cross.

Now, it seems very strange to me that Pilot would authorize Jesus to be taken down if he thought Jesus was still alive.  In fact, the same Bible passage that the above article's writer cites as "proof" that Jesus was still alive goes on to clearly state that Pilot confirmed with a centurion at the crucifixion site that Jesus was already dead.  So no matter what word Joseph may have used to describe Jesus' body, it certainly sounds as if, according the the Gospel account cited as "evidence" that Jesus was still alive, it was actually confirmed that Jesus was dead.  It doesn't seem to me as if citing this passage of Scripture proves anything about Jesus still being alive.  Even if there is an implication that he might have still been alive, it explicitly states that he was dead.  (Mark 15:43-45)  And that "implication" seems tenuous itself as the word for body (soma) that the author claims refers to a living body only might refer to a living body according to my research (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/soma.html).

It seems to me that this theory about Jesus not really being dead is tempting, but is it the truth?  Is it even the easiest of the options to believe?  I'll consider the other options and hope to give an even more in depth analysis and comparison of them in upcoming posts.

More on the Baptism of Jesus - Finally!

It's been five months since I last posted here, so I figured it was time to throw a little something together.  We're all imperfect; we all get distracted from certain things, no matter how important they might be.  The same was true for me and this blog as well.  I can't make any promises about how often I will post going forward, and will probably end up neglecting this blog again, but here are at least some thoughts continuing on the topic of Jesus' baptism.

First off, my last post mentioned the strangeness of Jesus' baptism and the possibility that this strangeness lends some credibility to the fact of His baptism.  If He was perfect, why be baptized at all?  Why include such a strange and confusing story if the Gospels are a work of fiction?

The argument that something probably would not have been made up by no means proves it wasn't made up.  People do make up crazy and nonsensical things that contradict other things they've said all the time.  In terms of evidence beyond the "it seems to work against the other alleged facts about Jesus being perfect" argument, I was interested to find a few websites about archaeological research into finding the exact site of Jesus' baptism.   Now, if Jesus was never baptized, no such site would even exist, so I would think that if someone could definitively identify the site where Jesus was baptized, that would mean he was actually baptized.

I found mention of some research into Jesus' baptismal site based on other historical happenings, like people establishing churches near the site of Jesus' baptism in the days of early Christianity. The establishing of churches near the alleged site of Jesus baptism still does not prove Jesus' baptism happened, but it shows Jesus' baptism was important to people.  Based on its importance for early Christians, it seems that either the baptism really happened or many people were convinced it had.  People usually don't intentionally cling to something they know to be false, and the churches were started not long after the time Jesus was alive, by people who had the potential to have received first or second hand accounts of Jesus' baptism.  This all lends credibility to Jesus' baptism being real, but it doesn't "prove" it.  (As a side note, a very similar thing could be said of Jesus' resurrection, but we will get to this more in future posts.)

Then, I found this documentary (which I have not personally vetted and have just started to watch) about the site of Jesus' baptism:  http://www.baptismsite.com/index.php/watch-the-documentary.html (I may update or add to this post after I've watched more of the documentary)

Now supposing Jesus' baptism really did occur, what is it's significance to followers of Jesus?  Perhaps it lends authenticity to what John the Baptist was saying about repentance.  It could also serve as an example for Jesus' own followers.  When I think of Jesus being baptized, I think also of the story about Him turning around and washing his disciples feet.  When Jesus asked John to baptize Him, John at first refused according to Matthew 3:14.  According to Matthew, John felt Jesus should be baptizing Him, but Jesus replied by saying:  “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15)  I don't really know what that means, but perhaps it means that Jesus was setting an example for others.  With the washing of His disciples feet, Jesus again met with resistance, according to the Gospel of John.  This time, Peter tried to stop Jesus from this degrading act of feet washing, but Jesus told him, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." (John 13:8b)  And John's account further states that after washing the disciples feet, Jesus told them that they "also should do just as I have done to you" (John 13:15b).  The Bible often claims to share with us things that Jesus did that we should emulate.  It seems that baptism may intended as one of those things as well.

In my next post, I will try to finally get to what in many ways was the original goal of this blog.  I will consider some of the alleged evidence for Jesus' resurrection and/or will present some alternative theories for Jesus' resurrection.  There are many who will lean towards the alternative theories, but I hope to show that believing in Jesus' resurrection, though it seems crazy, is not as far out there as many people think.

Accepted Facts About Jesus

When it comes to the life of Jesus, I was interested to read on wikipedia that there is very little debate as to whether Jesus of Nazareth was a real person or not.  The verdict is in.  Jesus is a real historical figure.  Even though there isn't a ton of literature about him from the era in which he lived, there are key sources that mention him in addition to Christian writings.  The writings by Josephus are one significant source external to the Bible.  Based on conversations with friends who accept that Jesus lived but don't accept his divinity, I'm not too surprised to learn that people as a whole do accept that Jesus really lived.  However, there are some out there who don't think Jesus even lived, and I think it's worth pointing out that historians would tell such people that they are simply wrong.

I've also heard people state that they not only believe Jesus existed, but they accept that he was crucified as well.  They have no compelling reason not to believe this since it seems like a very reasonable way for Him to have died.  It seems those people I have heard say this are not alone, as many others accept the historical fact of Jesus' crucifixion as well.  (I plan to talk more about His crucifixion in a later post.)

One thing I did not realize, which I would like to address in this post, was that Jesus' baptism is also accepted as fact.  In the footnotes on the wikipedia entry on the Historial reliability of the Gospels, I find that "Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these 'two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent'."  In my initial post, I outlined Jesus's existence, crucifixion, and resurrection as the three key alleged facts that I must believe as actual facts to consider myself a Christian.  It seems people find it pretty easy to accept the first two of these, but the baptism of Jesus is an additional "bonus fact" that was not on my original list.  Though I did not initially consider this "fact" to be a key tenant of Christianity, perhaps it is more important than I originally considered.

First, let's investigate the truth of Jesus' baptism a little more closely.  What convinces people that Jesus' baptism is a real historical event?

I found references to numerous books asserting that this baptism really happened.  Finding the exact reasons these authors believed this event yet did not believe others from the Bible that seem equally possible has proven difficult without having direct access to any of these books.  I hope to acquire access to at least some of these books for my next post, but I have found one interesting argument so far.

The argument I found was based on the idea that the baptism of Jesus could portray Jesus as being subservient to or depend upon John, the man who baptized him.  Why include mention of such an event that could be seen to counter the divinity of Jesus unless it actually happened?  The Gospel texts add bits that, if we accept them, show that Jesus was in fact divine, such as John recognizing Him as the Christ and a voice from heaven claiming Him as the Son of God.  Doubters of Christ's divinity would say those bits were added by Christians to attempt to explain that even though Jesus was baptized by John, such an act did not disprove His divinity.  But why would these extra bits, whether they are true or not, need to be added if Jesus was not actually baptized to begin with?  Wouldn't it have been easier just to not mention the baptism at all?  The fact that the baptism is mentioned in the Gospels at all, when it seems like it could have easily been excluded if the Gospels were pure fiction, makes people more apt to accept it as a historical fact.

What are some other reasons people accept the baptism of Jesus as historical fact and what are the implications, spiritual or otherwise, of this historical fact?  The answer to that will carry over into my next post.

What is Reasonable?

Is a belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and had divine powers that led to his resurrection from the dead reasonable?  Is faith in any religious doctrine reasonable?  Does "reason" only extend to definitely proven and non-debatable facts?

I think we can extend "reason" even to things that aren't completely provable.  For example, I'm a computer programmer and have what I would call "reasonable" opinions about what makes the code I write "good" or "bad".  Many of these "opinions" are very close to fact or could even be considered fact as they are shared by many in the industry and have statistics and/or logic to back them up.  Others are more of a matter of personal preference and are based on how I define "good" and "bad."  I have my own reasons for these preferences and I could explain to others why I have these preferences and my reasons would make sense.  Holding to the standards I have chosen is "reasonable," but someone else could have a preference that is different and still "reasonable."

Religion can be viewed in a similar yet different manner.  Multiple beliefs could be reasonable.  Certain beliefs can instead be unreasonable.  However, unlike my computer programming example above where there may not always be a definitively "correct" way to right a program, different religious beliefs are contradictory enough that they can't all be 100% "correct".  I think if a belief is "correct" it will be reasonable, but not all "reasonable" beliefs are necessarily "correct".

Take the question of "Is there a God?"  There could be arguments for answering this with either a "yes" or a "no".  We might say that either belief is reasonable (or at least I would say that).  But only one can be right.  Christians say the right answer is "yes".  I don't want to say that not believing in God is unreasonable.  I instead want to argue that belief in God is reasonable.  I can't convince you that it's also right; that's up to you to decide.  But I hope you can at the very least agree that God could exist.

Now if we take this to the level of Christianity and try to find the "reasonableness" of believing that Jesus Christ was God and rose from the dead, I agree that it starts to seem even less reasonable than belief in some generic God.  But because Jesus's divinity depends on an event (namely, His resurrection) really happening, there is more concrete evidence to find and examine than there is when it comes to "simply" believing in God.  To me, if it weren't for Jesus, believing that God exists would be harder, but because we have documentation from first hand witnesses about Jesus, this makes belief in God and in Jesus as the Son of God more reasonable.

I hope to write more in the next couple of days about that documentation of Jesus' resurrection and just how reasonable it is to trust it, and then get into evidence about Jesus that I haven't presented yet.  These first two posts have contained thoughts and reasoning about Christianity and what is required to accept it, but my intention is to start examining evidence soon.  I could start quoting from the Bible right now, but since not everyone accepts all of the accounts in the Bible as factual, I'd like to do some other research as well.

First Post

We might trust in what we don't see, but as Christians, we trust in the testimony about what others have seen.  We have a faith that is based in historical accounts of facts about what people saw happen thousands of years ago.  Even though a lot of time has passed, this still makes Christianity a faith in facts.  The Bible itself points out that "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14).  Christianity is not based on some philosophy that someone just made up, but the heart of it's foundation is something that Christians consider a real, historical event.  Sure, there is plenty of philosophy that comes out of that event, but all of that is based on observations of what really happened and what this miraculous man who could overcome death had to say about our lives.

You might debate whether what I as a Christian call a "real, historical event" is truly "real and historical", and that's great!  That is exactly what you should be doing!  Don't focus on all the other details and side plots of Christianity, just ask yourself a few simple questions to get started:  

1. Was Jesus Christ a real person who really walked this earth?  
2. If so, did he really suffer and die via execution on a cross?  
3. If so, did he then rise again and appear to several witnesses who then attest to this in the Bible?  

If you answered "yes" to all of these things, you must then ask yourself, "What does this mean to me?"  If you answered "no" to any of these three questions, look at the first question to which you answered "no" and ask yourself, "Why is my answer no?" 

If you answered "no" to only the third question above, your reason might be something along the lines of "because that's impossible."  But how do you know it's impossible?  Just because you've never seen it happen yourself?  Thomas was the same way (John 20:24-29).  You need to do research for yourself and determine what really happened two-thousand years ago, and only then can you decide if you're going to believe it as truth, or dismiss it as false, but just saying, "It's impossible" without digging deeper is not acceptable.

The starting of this blog and this first post were inspired by a Bible study at my church about the eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Though the phrasing is my own, the key ideas behind this post were pulled from that study.