Let us see the conclusion that's drawn from the four facts to which we shall shortly turn, he says "In summary then, there are five facts which are agreed upon today by the majority of scholars who have written on the subject: Jesus’ trial and crucifixion, his burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection." While I am not here disputing the central truth of Christianity that Christ rose from the dead. It is my contention, however, that simply presenting these as mere "facts of history" is the issue. Because it grants that history as distinct thing from God's decree and prophetic judgements of history. And that is the main issue.
A brief summary of the points
Let us, therefore, come to these four "facts" and really consider them:
Now let us note what the problem is with this kind of apologetical method. It strip-mines the events of this historical Faith; and divorces them from both there Revelatory significance and Theological backdrop. And this is one of the most egregious errors that can be committed. If one only answers the what question as in "what took place in history?" and not the why question as in "why did this event even happen in the first place?" It means you are not doing the right thing. For the Philosopher cannot answer the questions in Isaiah 40-48. "What is the purpose behind a particular event in history of mankind?"1) His crucifixion: According to the Gospels, Jesus was condemned by the Jewish high court on the charge of blasphemy and then delivered over to the Romans for execution for treason for claiming to be King of the Jews. Not only are these facts multiply attested by independent biblical sources like Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, but they are also confirmed by extra-biblical sources. 2) His burial in a tomb: This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus’ tomb was known. New Testament historians have established the fact of Jesus’ honourable burial on the basis of evidence such as the following. 3) The discovery that his tomb was empty. 4) His post-mortem appearances: The old formula quoted by Paul goes on to say, 'Then he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.'
This reminds me of the words of Jesus in which He quotes Abraham having said this:
But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”My objective in raising this section is simply to highlight the fact that we, in our defence of the faith, must never present the biblical events as "mere facts" when they are so much more than that and here we are told that the unbeliever will never be moved by the mere citing of something in history. We must also start with the more vital elements such as "why did it happen?""what does this mean for me as a person?" such questions are far more vital to the proclamation and defence of the faith. Now note the last statement, which is upon the request of this delusional man. We are told "If they do not listen to the Moses and the Prophets" meaning God very revealed word on the matter; then how on earth will they repent upon seeing a man rising from the dead? It is a sheer impossibility. The Word is the final authority on all matter; and not a particular activity.
A consideration of said method
Let us consider some of the other scriptures that WLC points to in his case for the resurrection to see if he is consistent with the scriptures at all. He states:
We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early.
This is the manner in which this "historical apologetic" takes place, instead of seeing the scriptures for what they truly are: the infallible and inerrant God-breathed word; it see it as a nearly reliable historical set of documents. And this is a damning position to place the Word of the living God in.
Notice the other conclusion that is arrived at "Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing?" It is good to mention this; but it is a somewhat incomplete statement. Let us take this and put it in this form. Even a natural man can believe in someone rising from the dead; and still it have no effect on them. So what accounts for the real difference in this matter. There are two factors which seem vacant from WLC's case.
(1) The Scriptures as the full and final authority on the matter. That is one thing which is seen in every aspect of Christ pre and post resurrection ministry to the disciples; even to the point of who expounding it to all of them after his resurrection (Luke 24). But even more, recall that interesting narration concerning 'the rich man and Lazarus' and the importance of scriptures being the thing that man must believe. And if they do not; then what good will it be for man to rise from the dead (Luke 15). This is the first thing that made an impact on the disciples lives, not to mention being regenerate of God (John 14-17).
(2) The Holy Spirit coming at Pentecost. This, then, happens to be the second thing. The means of the Apostles and early believers becoming bold proclaimers of resurrection of Christ has nothing to do with the resurrection as a individual event. So let us ask: what is the second part of this astonishing fact? Again, the scriptures tells us in Acts 2 these cowering men became bold proclaimers due not to an appearance but solely because of the work of the Spirit when it came upon them. Read the 1st and 2nd chapter of acts to see the place of the Spirit in this transformation and the resultant proclaimed word.
My question, then, is this. Why does WLC's case seem very bare compared to what the New Testament allows for in its own defence? And, then, a second question is this. Why is he classed as 'one of the most regarded Christian apologists' of today? To me he seems to a apologist of bare theism in general and not Christian theism. To answer these questions one only need to consider his stance on human philosophy over against that of theology. It becomes clear.
A classic text
There is one foundational text that is put forth in this quest. Let us just see one of the most utilised passages in this line of thought:
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Corinthians 15)This is one of the richest passages in all scriptures; and for any one to simply take the four headings as "mere facts" whether that be historical or theological (while both are certainly there), it is not its main point.
Let us make it clear what is the real focus in this passage.
(1) The events mentioned in this chapter are true historical points; and they are not to be seen as "facts." However one maybe defined. There is something more important to see and that is in the statements "Christ died for our sins" this is the point that we must concern ourselves with and really dig into. Not the fact that it happened, that much is a fact; but why it had to happen.
(2) Notice that it goes onto state the witnesses as that is the next thing. That Christ actually appeared to them together and individually. This was something that at that point could be tested (not today; it has to be believed upon other grounds). And it dispels all foolish reasoning such as the hallusinations or delirium. It happened and could not be discredited.
(3) now we turn to the two interesting points: (1) the disinterested fact of the tomb. What was Paul thinking when he added this as an important issue? Well, the most likely answer in this is that Jesus himself revealed this to Paul as well as other important facts. It is also an evidence of God very power. (2) the two enemies mention who became believers: James and Paul. This also is a demonstration of God's power. What a marvellous thing to think about!
(4) But there is a grand truth being put forth which is somehow vacant from this "mere facts" approach. Look back at those central statement that's repeated twice "according to scripture." In the first case it is the Old Testament and it prophetic indications of the Crucifixion. But it is the second that is more important, while it refers to a few citations of the Old for sure. But there is a far more important reference. The resurrection was to be reveal most notably in the New Testament (consider at this point that in 1 Corinthians 11 that Paul quote the same words that Christ does as Matthew records at the last supper). This is a great testimony to the fact that Matthew and Mark were written before 55 ad; possibly 45-52 ad. This also points to the infallible nature of the scriptures as it is one messages that is seen in all books. Also notice that Paul and Acts puts Luke' gospel into the 55-59 ad mark (Acts 1: 1 and 1 Timothy 5:18)
Conclusion
This 'minimal facts' or 'bare facts' approach does not do the faith any favours at all; in fact, it is a very warped and deranged attack on the sufficiency and authority of the scripture. Those who make this case may not see it this way but when you consider what it leads to as we have seen and in terms of what its proponents have said it becomes clear. It is not helping the faith but in reality destroying it. Consider what this does in terms of a case: rather than the ungodly being put on trial before God for their sins; they are putting God on trail in order to prove his existence.
Let us move away from this bankrupt approach.
