Evidence For The Resurrection

Defense of the Fatih

Introduction:Apologetics and the Resurrection

Intro: Apologetics and the Resurrection

1 What is apologetics?

● Defending the faith

● Making a case

● Giving an account

● Giving a rational

justification

● Removing doubts

2 Why think so hard?

1. Evangelism

a. Good News

b. One method

2. Strengthening faith

3. Shaping culture

4. Worship

3 How ought we proceed?

1 Peter 3

1. Be ready

2. Be gracious

3. Be compelling

a. example

b. knowledge

Intro: Apologetics and the Resurrection1. The importance of the resurrection

a. Spiritually

i. Spiritual inheritance and eternal life hinge on it - 1 Pet. 1:3-4; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:17-18

ii. Produces faith, hope and perseverance in believers - 1 Pet. 1:3 Rom. 5:1-11; 1 Thess. 4:

13-18; Rom. 5, 6, 8

b. Evidentially

i. Vindication of Jesus’ claims

ii. Evidential tie-breaker between worldviews - 1 Cor. 15:32

iii. Confirmation of Scripture in general

iv. ...

Making the Case:

Structure and Principles of the

Argument

Inference to Resurrection as the Best Explanation

FACTSWhat are they?

EXPLANATIONFind the best explanation of those facts

Evidence - What do the records report? Resurrection - Assess merit of resurrection hypothesis

Reliability - Are the accounts acceptable? Non-resurrection - Assess rival hypotheses

Criteria - Observe criteria to assess credibility Conclusion: Show explanatory superiority of resurrection hypothesis

Focus - Narrow down to minimal facts

Inference to the Best Explanation1. How do we best explain the evidence?

2. Deductive, inductive, abductive reasoninga. Deductive - certain facts guarantee a certain conclusionb. Inductive - certain facts makes a certain conclusion probablec. Abductive - certain facts are best explained by a certain conclusion

3. Possible versus Reasonablea. What is the most reasonable explanation?b. Evidentially unsupported speculations do not refute the most reasonable explanation

4. Knowledge versus Certaintya. History deals in probabilitiesb. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Types of Logical ReasoningDEDUCTIVE

facts gaurantee>>> conclusion

INDUCTIVE

facts make probable>>> conclusion

ABDUCTIVE

facts <<<best explains conclusion

MINIMAL FACTS APPROACHThe “minimal facts approach” considers only data that meet two criteria:

1. The data are strongly evidenced2. The data are granted by virtually all scholars on the subject, even the skeptical ones.

A skeptic ought not be allowed to merely cite apparent contradictions in the Bible and say that the Resurrection has been disproved. The ‘minimal facts approach” builds a case using facts with a high degree of certainty, facts that any skeptic probably accepts. These facts need to be addressed. If a skeptic takes a position that even the majority of skeptical scholars reject, we can argue individually for the minimal facts that we are using. So, if a skeptic prefers to take another position, that’s okay. In doing so, the believer now has an opportunity to present much more data in support of the argument for Jesus’ resurrection. The skeptic will need to respond.

- P. 47 The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona

McCullagh’s Criteria (1 of 3)

1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the

disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into

being.

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people

repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the

resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

McCullagh’s Criteria (2 of 3)

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists.

And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead”

doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the

dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that

God raised Jesus from the dead.

McCullagh’s Criteria (3 of 3)

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through

history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the

conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so

forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship.

None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the

resurrection hypothesis.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus#ixzz42HDm0uto

Criteria From a Homicide DetectiveThe Truth Must Be FEASIBLE(The explanation has explanatory viability)

The Truth Will Usually Be STRAIGHTFORWARD(The explanation demonstrates explanatory simplicity)

The Truth Should Be EXHAUSTIVE(The explanation displays explanatory depth)

The Truth Must Be LOGICAL(The explanation possesses explanatory consistency)

The Truth Will Be SUPERIOR(The explanation achieves explanatory superiority)

- p. 39-40, Cold-Case Christianity, J. Warner Wallace

Principles That Raise Credibility*Multiple, Independent Attestation

Enemy Attestation

*Embarrassment

Eyewitness Testimony

Early Testimony

- Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig, pp. 395-396- The Case for The Resurrection of Jesus, HAbermas and

Licona, pp. 36-40

*Dissimilarity

*Semitic Traces

*Coherence

*Historical Congruence

Context and Expectation

Effect

Embellishment