This is a video response to Bart Ehrman's, Jesus Interrupted. Group project: Jesus, Karis, Danae, Brian, and Josef.
Sources: Gary R. Habermas - did Jesus rise from the dead? : the resurrection debate. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987
Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004.
N.T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003
did the resurrection of Jesus really take place?
on what historical evidence could this claim be based?
maybe this question doesn't have any relevance
it's a miracle right? there just can't be empirical evidence
after all, a historians job is to see what's most probable
not entertain notions that are naturally impossible
but if we suppose for a moment the existence of God
the resurrection of Christ wouldn't seem a facade
you see if we can't a priori disprove God's existence
then it's highly probable that this was a miraculous instance
but it's not just granting a hypothetical situation
that allows us to make God a probable causation
it's about our ideological presuppositions
that might give us naturalistic tunnel vision
we should neither suppose nor exclude God's intervention
but examine the facts with unbiased attention
the historical bedrock on which scholars agree
indisputable facts that amount to three:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. afterwards, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them.
3. Paul converted after a personal experience that he interpreted as a postresurrection appearance of Jesus.
all these facts are derived from not only Scripture
and help begin to form a picture
so before we dismiss it as unreliable
know that scholars consider them viable
but to establish the resurrection's foundation
there are other things to take into consideration
take the first witness Mary, and the cultural environment
a scandal that passes the criteria of embarrassment
or let's consider the empty tomb
alone it leaves us wanting with much to assume
the lack of a body could have been a robbery
a common crime of the first century
but what about his followers' transformation?
could we chalk that up to a hallucination?
perhaps if these occurred in isolation
but together they form a sufficient condition.
or James, who of his own half-brother, was skeptical
found his messianic claims to be indefensible
but after the resurrection he turned over a new leaf
his experience of meeting Jesus shattered his disbelief
but I digress.
Walter Kuneth said that "The word of the resurrection of Jesus is an assault of life upon a dying world."
Life. Jesus is the bread and the living water
He died for you like a lamb to the slaughter
so that all, all, your past sins
through him you'll overcome and with a grin
say all that's behind me, it's been atoned
and now I can call myself one of his own
with careful consideration, not wavering whims
surrender myself and follow him
That's why I consider history,
faith and facts are not a dichotomy
I mean, what if the resurrection is really true?
its something to think about.