Common Objections to the Resurrection Answered, Part 1
It’s assumed that the burden of proof rests on Christians to account for the resurrection. This isn’t entirely true, but we can play along, because there are good answers to critics who don’t believe Jesus really did rise from the dead. Today I’ll look at four common objections, and tomorrow I’ll look at four more. On Saturday, I’ll have five “burden of proof” questions for skeptics.
“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
- Antony Flew (former atheist)
1. People back then were primitive, foolish, & superstitious. They easily believed things like resurrections. This kind of stuff was “in the air.”
No, they weren’t, and no they didn’t. This is “chronological snobbery” of the highest order. People back then were more acquainted with death than we are, and were not any more likely to believe in revivification (the return of life to the same body), let alone resurrection (the gift of eternal life in a renewed, glorified body). Are we really so much smarter now? Furthermore, it demonstrates an ignorance of the Ancient Near East (ANE) context. According to N.T. Wright’s majestic The Resurrection of the Son of God, pagans emphatically denied resurrection (as distinguished from revivification). Some Jews believed it would happen, but only in the future. None expected it imminently. This is why the disciples themselves–notably Thomas–had such trouble believing it when it happened, even though Jesus had told them in advance!
2. There were dozens of messianic pretenders. Jesus was just one in a long line.
Not so. Yes, there were many others who claimed to be the Messiah, but Jesus was utterly unlike them. Again, according to Wright, “The resurrection of Jesus took everybody by surprise. The disciples weren’t expecting it. They knew perfectly well, that if you followed someone who you thought was the Messiah, and he got killed, then that was it. We know at least a dozen other Messianic or prophetic movements, within a hundred years on either side of Jesus, they routinely ended with the death of the founder. And if the movement wanted to continue, they didn’t say, oh he’s been raised from the dead. They said, lets find his brother or cousin who can carry on this movement. You can see how those Jewish groups did that. This one did it differently. They had James the brother of Jesus, as this great leader of the early church, but nobody said, James is the Messiah. They said, Jesus is the Messiah. Why? He’s dead. They got him, didn’t you realize they crucified… No. He was raised from the dead.” Watch N.T. Wright on the historicity of the resurrection.
3. The Gospel accounts contradict themselves
This is a larger question regarding the reliability and historicity of the Gospels, which is dealt with well in many books like Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, and Richard Bauckham’s Jesus & the Eyewitnesses.
But let’s remember that these are four distinct witnesses, describing the same events from different vantage points. Again, to borrow from Wright (he’s the best on this), imagine you’re driving around a city on it’s beltway. You want to get to a downtown destination. As you drive around the beltway, you see signage telling you how to get there, but depending on their placement, they may indicate different direction (North, South, East, West) or mileage. Would you then say they contradict? These are the kinds of ridiculous standards skeptics place on the Gospels.
The Gospels all include the same essential data, that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and resurrected on the 3rd day. Even if you (falsely) argue that they contradict each other on smaller details, they still agree on the most important facts. It’s the same with other books of Scripture.
4. Post-resurrection sightings are really just mass hallucinations
Grieving and/or psychologically disturbed people are known to see a dead spouse, relative, or friend. But 500 witnesses, Paul says?! (1 Corinthians 15:6).
Psychology has yet to document simultaneous, identical, mass hallucinations, prolonged over 40 days. This is simply unheard of.
Thanks for posting this. I’m involved in a few conversations regarding this very topic, and I appreciate such succinct answers. Look forward to the rest of your posts.
Why is it not entirely true that the burden of proof of Jesus’ resurrection rests on those making the claim? If I tell you that I rode an invisible elephant to class today, are you really going to just believe me? Of course you won’t. You’ll believe that I’m lying, or less likely that I was crazy or on drugs, or if there are any other conceivable alternatives other than that I actually rode an invisible elephant to class. If the burden of proof doesn’t fall on Christians with respect to Jesus, then who does it fall on? Those who don’t accept the claim? This would be like me putting the burden of proof on you to prove that I didn’t actually ride an invisible elephant to class today.
1. Actually superstition was more prevalent in the past, as people weren’t nearly as knowledgeable about the world, and as science didn’t even exist yet. People were much more inclined to believe just about anything back then than they are now because we have a whole body of scientific evidence now to test claims against. I’m not necessarily saying that people were less rational back then; they were just more ignorant. In fact, I would even say that it would have been more rational back then (given the lack of contrary knowledge/evidence) to believe in the resurrection of Jesus than it would be now if it “happened” in present day. It was a lot easier to get away with convincing people of mystical and miraculous things back then because they didn’t have the science, technology, and experts that we have today.
2. Sure, you can probably single out some specifics that make Jesus’ story “unique”. But every story is unique in its own way. Stories, themes, and claims found in Christianity are seen over and over again in numerous beliefs, religions, mythologies, etc. before and after Christianity and Jesus. The fact that Christianity is the one that was successful (in terms of reaching a wide audience) doesn’t make it the correct one.
3. I’m not particularly interested in Biblical interpretation.
4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are sooo many more likely alternatives to the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Here are just a few: Jesus never existed, he was never actually believed to have died, he was actually just in a coma, Paul is lying, Paul is delusional, and I could probably go on for a very long time. Even if I were to be convinced that the resurrection of Jesus did happen, I wouldn’t become a Christian and I wouldn’t believe in God. That Jesus was the son of God and that all of Christianity is true is one of the most unlikely explanations of a supposed resurrection.
Dear Rustophilus,
Jesus says “if anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink”.
When you get fed up with life and realise that you are thirsty for real, concrete hope, maybe you’ll remember that Jesus is the one who alone gives us hope of eternal life in everlasting joy and loving relationship with God himself.
It’s not a pipe dream. It’s a concrete hope based on the fact of the resurrection.
You can believe it!