Jesus Died The Apostles Lied? A Look At Another Claim Against the Resurrection

Preliminary Note

This article is dealing with the claim the Apostles lied about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Those who think I am overlooking the concept the Apostles were deluded should see the article HERE where I discussed some issues.

Looking at the Claim that the Apostles Lied

A theory given by certain cynical individuals runs along these lines: Jesus died, and the Apostles deliberately claimed Jesus rose from the dead while knowing He did not.  These individuals will argue that because Miracles cannot happen and it is not probable that it was a delusion, it is most likely the work of a deliberate deception.

I find this theory interesting because many of those I have encountered who use it argue that the people of the Middle East in the First Century AD were so primitive that they believed some (hitherto unexplained) scientific phenomenon was a miracle.

Yet for this belief to have continued on for two thousand years, it's not enough to claim over a billion stupid people to explain this.  To continue fooling people (including individuals who are intelligent), the people who created such a deception would have to be quite brilliant in order to create something that people would die for or radically change their life for and never be detected as false.

So the question arises, if we are to consider the charge of deception: Were the apostles stupid and superstitious peasants?  Or were they evil masterminds who perpetuated a fraud which lasts until this very day?  They couldn't be both.

What The Resurrection Means.  What Apostle Means.

We need to be clear about what this allegation means.  Unlike certain wishy-washy Christians who try to reduce the Resurrection to some sort of "feeling" that Jesus' teachings would live on, the Christian belief is that Jesus was literally executed by the Romans and rose from the dead.

The Apostles were those who witnessed the risen Christ and testified they saw Him.

Therefore, when dealing with the idea that the Apostles lied, it means they did not see the risen Christ, yet claimed they did see Him.

I've dealt with Deluded Apostles already, so now we need to consider the option of them not being fools, but knaves who deliberately created a lie which led thousands of people to martyrdom.

Considering Some Objections To This Concept

If we are to give the "conspiracy to lie" theory any credibility, it needs to provide the evidence to back up what was asserted in its claim.  The basic idea is that the Apostles knew Jesus died, but said He rose again contrary to what they knew.  However, there are several problems such a theory needs to address.

Let's consider the following:

1) Cui bono?  (Who benefits?)  If the Apostles deliberately lied, what did they hope to gain from it?  We have no evidence that any of the Apostles recanted what they believed.  They were tortured and reviled for what they preached.  Nor do we have any evidence of the apostles receiving material gain.  They were not wealthy men who stayed at home while exhorting followers to provide their every need and luxury.  They travelled and died in areas all over the Roman Empire preaching this doctrine.  Such a devotion does not sound like a fraud.

I have run across some who have tried to say that yes, the apostles lied but dying for a lie was not unreasonable because "who know what religious fanatics are thinking?"  This is a contradiction in terms however.  If the apostles believed what they taught to the point it encouraged "fanaticism" in them, then clearly it was not a lie which they fabricated.  If it was a lie, it could not encourage religious fanaticism in the people who knew it was a lie.  If someone else, other than the apostles invented this lie, where are the objections from those who knew differently?

2) The unanimity of the Apostles on the subject.  As I said above, the Apostles didn't just remain in one place.  They travelled widely in spreading the Gospel message.  Now in the days without immediate communication, they could have gone far and wide and questions asked by the people preached to would doubtlessly have gone beyond what the Apostles could anticipate for a fabrication they worked out on their own.  if they lied about Christ, one would expect a deviation of facts in the stories told as each Apostle had to improvise.

Instead we have a largely consistent agreement on the facts.  The different accounts have some variations, but only on small details and are consistent with individuals emphasizing what stuck most in their mind.  Scriptures remain very consistent across wide areas of the empire… we need to remember that before the days of the printing press, all copies were made by hand.  On occasion we see copyist errors, but no divergence on the message itself.

3) The Sincerity of the Apostles.  This is the flip side of #1 above.  We all know of those false religions where the founders gained materially from the religion they started.  Even in Christianity, we know of individuals who have abused their ministry for personal gain.  Did the founders of the religion do these things however?

However, the Apostles did not act for material gain.  They travelled, preached and eventually died because they believed what they taught was of vital importance for everyone.  Consider the words of Philippians 1:

^19 Yes, and I shall rejoice. For I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, ^20 as it is my eager expectation and hope that I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. ^21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. ^22 If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. ^23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. ^24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. ^25 Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, ^26 so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Disagree with Paul if you like, call him insane if you like, but this is a man who believes that to live is a mission to serve Christ and to die is to gain by being with Him forever.

5) The Body of Jesus would be a very permanent way to disprove the conspiracy.  If Jesus was still in the tomb, why was it not produced to prove them liars?  If it was no longer in the tomb, how did it leave the tomb?  Are we to believe a band of Jesus' followers who were in hiding snuck past armed guards and moved a large rock, stealing the body without a trace?  Would the Romans have tolerated such a lawbreaking on their watch.

Since the Apostles proclaimed the message of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, those who wanted to disprove Jesus would have been in a good position to do so.  Their adversaries would have been in position to root them out and disprove them by showing discrepancies from the witnesses who saw Christ.

The Lacking Piece of the Puzzle

The accusation that the apostles must have lied either requires being backed by evidence or else is based on a prior conviction that it could not have been true and therefore must have had another cause.

However evidence that the apostles lied is lacking, and the behavior of the apostles seems to indicate that they believed they had seen Jesus alive.  Considering the challenges against Christianity revolve around demanding physical proof for spiritual things, one would think it reasonable to insist on physical proof for assertions of a physical explanation.

Because evidence is lacking to prove any such point, it is not reasonable to claim that the apostles must have lied.  One is still free to believe it of course, but it must be recognized that such a belief is merely a personal opinion.

This is not the Argument from Silence fallacy.  Christians don't argue "You can't prove [A], therefore [B]."  They believe the witness of the Apostles was credible, while the claims against are not credible.  Anyone wishing to credibly argue otherwise needs to demonstrate why their own claims are believable and those of the Apostles are not.

However, instead of providing this credibility, the attacks I have seen all revolve around "it's impossible, so there must be another reason for it."  This assumes as proven however what needs to be proved (that it is impossible).  Neither I nor any other Christian are irrational for refusing to accept a claim which has no more basis than personal opinion that miracles are impossible.

"More Probable"?

Now, if one wishes to show misrepresentation, one must remember certain things must be demonstrated under law.  I find those guidelines useful to assess what needs to be proven with this claim:

1. What was said was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
2. An intentional, or fraudulent, misrepresentation occurs when a defendant knows that he or she is making a false statement of material fact.
3. the defendant intended for the plaintiff to rely on the false statement.
4. the plaintiff ordinarily needs to prove that he or she justifiably relied on the defendant’s statement
5. Finally, the plaintiff must show that he or she was injured as a result of the misrepresentation.

Since a lie is defined as an intentionally false statement, the charge of the lie is to say two things: that the statement made was false, AND that the false statement was made deliberately.

So, first of all someone who would accuse the apostles of misleading others needs to prove that what they said was a deliberate misrepresentation.  Second, that the apostles knew they were making such a statement.  Third, that the apostles intended those they preached to would rely on their claims.  Fourth, that the ones preached to were justified in relying on what the apostles said.  Finally that the believers were injured by the misrepresentation.

Points 3, 4 and 5 rely on points one and two being established as true.  So, to claim a lie, the statemtn that Jesus rose from the dead needs to be shown to be a deliberate misrepresentation, and the Apostles need to be shown as knowing the statement was false.

Unless those points are proven, the claim that the Apostles lied is a merely a statement with no basis in fact.

Jesus Died The Apostles Lied? A Look At Another Claim Against the Resurrection

Preliminary Note

This article is dealing with the claim the Apostles lied about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Those who think I am overlooking the concept the Apostles were deluded should see the article HERE where I discussed some issues.

Looking at the Claim that the Apostles Lied

A theory given by certain cynical individuals runs along these lines: Jesus died, and the Apostles deliberately claimed Jesus rose from the dead while knowing He did not.  These individuals will argue that because Miracles cannot happen and it is not probable that it was a delusion, it is most likely the work of a deliberate deception.

I find this theory interesting because many of those I have encountered who use it argue that the people of the Middle East in the First Century AD were so primitive that they believed some (hitherto unexplained) scientific phenomenon was a miracle.

Yet for this belief to have continued on for two thousand years, it's not enough to claim over a billion stupid people to explain this.  To continue fooling people (including individuals who are intelligent), the people who created such a deception would have to be quite brilliant in order to create something that people would die for or radically change their life for and never be detected as false.

So the question arises, if we are to consider the charge of deception: Were the apostles stupid and superstitious peasants?  Or were they evil masterminds who perpetuated a fraud which lasts until this very day?  They couldn't be both.

What The Resurrection Means.  What Apostle Means.

We need to be clear about what this allegation means.  Unlike certain wishy-washy Christians who try to reduce the Resurrection to some sort of "feeling" that Jesus' teachings would live on, the Christian belief is that Jesus was literally executed by the Romans and rose from the dead.

The Apostles were those who witnessed the risen Christ and testified they saw Him.

Therefore, when dealing with the idea that the Apostles lied, it means they did not see the risen Christ, yet claimed they did see Him.

I've dealt with Deluded Apostles already, so now we need to consider the option of them not being fools, but knaves who deliberately created a lie which led thousands of people to martyrdom.

Considering Some Objections To This Concept

If we are to give the "conspiracy to lie" theory any credibility, it needs to provide the evidence to back up what was asserted in its claim.  The basic idea is that the Apostles knew Jesus died, but said He rose again contrary to what they knew.  However, there are several problems such a theory needs to address.

Let's consider the following:

1) Cui bono?  (Who benefits?)  If the Apostles deliberately lied, what did they hope to gain from it?  We have no evidence that any of the Apostles recanted what they believed.  They were tortured and reviled for what they preached.  Nor do we have any evidence of the apostles receiving material gain.  They were not wealthy men who stayed at home while exhorting followers to provide their every need and luxury.  They travelled and died in areas all over the Roman Empire preaching this doctrine.  Such a devotion does not sound like a fraud.

I have run across some who have tried to say that yes, the apostles lied but dying for a lie was not unreasonable because "who know what religious fanatics are thinking?"  This is a contradiction in terms however.  If the apostles believed what they taught to the point it encouraged "fanaticism" in them, then clearly it was not a lie which they fabricated.  If it was a lie, it could not encourage religious fanaticism in the people who knew it was a lie.  If someone else, other than the apostles invented this lie, where are the objections from those who knew differently?

2) The unanimity of the Apostles on the subject.  As I said above, the Apostles didn't just remain in one place.  They travelled widely in spreading the Gospel message.  Now in the days without immediate communication, they could have gone far and wide and questions asked by the people preached to would doubtlessly have gone beyond what the Apostles could anticipate for a fabrication they worked out on their own.  if they lied about Christ, one would expect a deviation of facts in the stories told as each Apostle had to improvise.

Instead we have a largely consistent agreement on the facts.  The different accounts have some variations, but only on small details and are consistent with individuals emphasizing what stuck most in their mind.  Scriptures remain very consistent across wide areas of the empire… we need to remember that before the days of the printing press, all copies were made by hand.  On occasion we see copyist errors, but no divergence on the message itself.

3) The Sincerity of the Apostles.  This is the flip side of #1 above.  We all know of those false religions where the founders gained materially from the religion they started.  Even in Christianity, we know of individuals who have abused their ministry for personal gain.  Did the founders of the religion do these things however?

However, the Apostles did not act for material gain.  They travelled, preached and eventually died because they believed what they taught was of vital importance for everyone.  Consider the words of Philippians 1:

^19 Yes, and I shall rejoice. For I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, ^20 as it is my eager expectation and hope that I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. ^21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. ^22 If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. ^23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. ^24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. ^25 Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, ^26 so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Disagree with Paul if you like, call him insane if you like, but this is a man who believes that to live is a mission to serve Christ and to die is to gain by being with Him forever.

5) The Body of Jesus would be a very permanent way to disprove the conspiracy.  If Jesus was still in the tomb, why was it not produced to prove them liars?  If it was no longer in the tomb, how did it leave the tomb?  Are we to believe a band of Jesus' followers who were in hiding snuck past armed guards and moved a large rock, stealing the body without a trace?  Would the Romans have tolerated such a lawbreaking on their watch.

Since the Apostles proclaimed the message of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, those who wanted to disprove Jesus would have been in a good position to do so.  Their adversaries would have been in position to root them out and disprove them by showing discrepancies from the witnesses who saw Christ.

The Lacking Piece of the Puzzle

The accusation that the apostles must have lied either requires being backed by evidence or else is based on a prior conviction that it could not have been true and therefore must have had another cause.

However evidence that the apostles lied is lacking, and the behavior of the apostles seems to indicate that they believed they had seen Jesus alive.  Considering the challenges against Christianity revolve around demanding physical proof for spiritual things, one would think it reasonable to insist on physical proof for assertions of a physical explanation.

Because evidence is lacking to prove any such point, it is not reasonable to claim that the apostles must have lied.  One is still free to believe it of course, but it must be recognized that such a belief is merely a personal opinion.

This is not the Argument from Silence fallacy.  Christians don't argue "You can't prove [A], therefore [B]."  They believe the witness of the Apostles was credible, while the claims against are not credible.  Anyone wishing to credibly argue otherwise needs to demonstrate why their own claims are believable and those of the Apostles are not.

However, instead of providing this credibility, the attacks I have seen all revolve around "it's impossible, so there must be another reason for it."  This assumes as proven however what needs to be proved (that it is impossible).  Neither I nor any other Christian are irrational for refusing to accept a claim which has no more basis than personal opinion that miracles are impossible.

"More Probable"?

Now, if one wishes to show misrepresentation, one must remember certain things must be demonstrated under law.  I find those guidelines useful to assess what needs to be proven with this claim:

1. What was said was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
2. An intentional, or fraudulent, misrepresentation occurs when a defendant knows that he or she is making a false statement of material fact.
3. the defendant intended for the plaintiff to rely on the false statement.
4. the plaintiff ordinarily needs to prove that he or she justifiably relied on the defendant’s statement
5. Finally, the plaintiff must show that he or she was injured as a result of the misrepresentation.

Since a lie is defined as an intentionally false statement, the charge of the lie is to say two things: that the statement made was false, AND that the false statement was made deliberately.

So, first of all someone who would accuse the apostles of misleading others needs to prove that what they said was a deliberate misrepresentation.  Second, that the apostles knew they were making such a statement.  Third, that the apostles intended those they preached to would rely on their claims.  Fourth, that the ones preached to were justified in relying on what the apostles said.  Finally that the believers were injured by the misrepresentation.

Points 3, 4 and 5 rely on points one and two being established as true.  So, to claim a lie, the statemtn that Jesus rose from the dead needs to be shown to be a deliberate misrepresentation, and the Apostles need to be shown as knowing the statement was false.

Unless those points are proven, the claim that the Apostles lied is a merely a statement with no basis in fact.

Considering the Charge of Delusion and Resurrection Accounts

The account of the Resurrection is ultimately the center of the Christian faith.  As St. Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 15:

^14 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ^15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

Because of this, those who would deny the teaching of Christians and wish to refute it need to attack the teaching and try to prove a claim that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Two Categories for Charges

In looking at these charges, we need to consider their basis.  Why should we accept them as credible?  The possibilities are:

1. Either they are based on evidence
2. Or they are based on the assumption the supernatural cannot happen

Accusations based on the first category do need to be addressed.  Avoiding this can make it seem like we live our faith in ignorance.  However, accusations based on the second assumption are guilty of begging the question.  The claim that the supernatural cannot happen is something to be proven, not assumed to be true.

The Focus of This Article

For the purposes of this article, I am limiting myself to two possibilities: That Jesus died but did not rise again, and that Jesus did not die, but everyone believed He did.  I am quite aware there are other claims made, but let's keep things manageable.

Now, there are two basic possibilities to explore with this objection: One, the claims of Jesus dying but not rising and Two, the basis of Jesus not dying to begin with.  The underlying association for both is that the Apostles were mistaken in what they believed.

The first claim tends to run under the following syllogism

1. The dead cannot live again
2. Jesus was dead
3. Therefore Jesus cannot live again

The second set runs under the following syllogism:

1. The dead cannot live again
2. The apostles saw Jesus alive
3. Therefore he had not died

Enthymemes Assumed But Not Proven

In both cases the major premise needs to be proven.  This is something which has never quite been proven, and those who argue it tend to hedge their words in phrases like "it is more reasonable to suppose that…"  Ultimately in these disputes, there is usually an enthymeme (a premise assumed but not spoken) which demonstrates the principle issue to be considered.

In disputes with atheists, this is a dispute over whether an all powerful God exists.  If an all powerful God exists, then there is no reasonable argument that such a God could not raise the dead.

In disputes with religious or spiritual beliefs, the principle dispute is over the authority of Christ and whether God would have raised Jesus from the dead.  If Jesus Christ did have authority, then His resurrection is not against what God would do.

Ultimately, such disputes need to address the primary assumption (that God does not exist or that Jesus Christ was not His Son) before moving on to the actual debate of the Resurrection.  However, it is commonly assumed by those who reject the Christian belief that their view is true, and the attacks are focused on the claim that their beliefs are the reasonable ones and those which disagree are not.

The conclusion of their argument is that since they believe it impossible that Jesus was raised from the dead, it is more reasonable to explain the Apostles claim with another cause.

The Hallucination Theory

The Hallucination theory is based on the idea that if someone thought they saw a man known dead walking around it is more probable that the person hallucinated.  This seems to assume Hume's theory.  There are several objections however which this theory requires an answer to if it is to be considered reasonable:

Hallucinations are things which happen to individuals.  It is true that a group of people might see an object and not understand what it was, but we would see large discrepancies in testimony because each individual would be interpreting this in their own mind.  However, we see that the testimony of scripture attests to Christ being seen by Mary Magdalene, the disciples sans Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, the disciples in Emmaus, the apostles fishing, etc. 

Hallucinations tend to last for seconds or minutes.  The Christian claim is that Christ was among the apostles for 40 days.

Hallucinations do not interact with the world.  Yet the account is that Christ did interact with the world.  Thomas touched the wounds in his side, Christ ate with his apostles.

If the apostles were hallucinating, where was the actual body which could have proven their claims were false?  If the Sanhedrin wished to stop a delusion from going around all they would have to do is to produce the corpse of Jesus.

From this we have two considerations:

1. Either the sources are inaccurate or
2. The sources accurately attested to the fact that the Apostles saw something consistently

However, if the sources are to have been considered inaccurate, the question must be asked: On what basis can we make this claim?  What we have is an idea which rejects the testimony because the accounts contain miracles.  If this is to stand, then a valid disproof of the existence of the miraculous needs to be given.

Instead, this theory tends to reject all testimony which runs counter to the assumption that a miracle did not happen.  This is not reasonable however.  Without evidence to support the theory there is no reason to hold it as what did happen or was more likely to happen.

The "Jesus Did Not Die" Theory

The empty tomb is a hard thing to answer.  The Romans could not produce a body.  The Jews could not produce a body, and if Jesus was executed, the claim of the Resurrection could have been immediately shot down by showing his corpse.

Because of this, some people try to argue that Jesus was not really killed.  Now, to deny He was not executed is not reasonable (though the Koran [Sura 4:157-8] claims this) because even non-Christian sources attest He had been killed by the Romans.  The Roman historian Tacticus in his Annals, the Babylonian Talmud, the Greek Satirist Lucian, the Syrian stoic Bara Bar-Serapion and  Jewish historian Josephus (Though some references to the divinity of Christ are considered latter additions.  However, even with those removed, it attests to His being crucified) all report he had been executed.  So to argue He was never crucified requires some evidence to what actually did happen to him.

Given the crucifixion was a horrendous and disgraceful way to die, it is unlikely the Scripture writers would have chosen to invent this account of the death of their founder if a more "respectable death" had existed.

Because of this, some try to allege that Jesus was crucified and was presumed dead, but He later regained consciousness and escaped.

Now there are some very real problems with this assumption which need to be answered before it can be considered as anything more than idle speculation:

1) Jesus surviving the crucifixion needs to account for the fact that the Romans made sure a person was dead before removing him from the cross.  Soldiers who permitted a condemned man to escape would pay for it severely.

The fact that the soldiers broke the legs of the other prisoners crucified to hasten their death shows they were determined to make sure the prisoners were in fact dead.  Jesus, being seen to be dead, did not have His legs broken to be sure.  However He had a spear thrust into his side (see John 19:31ff), which shows the Romans left nothing to chance.

2) The spear thrust, described in John 19:34 attests to the flow of blood and water which, in medical terms meant Jesus' lungs had collapsed and indicate He died of asphyxiation (the normal method of death on the cross) [See here for an interesting medical description.  See here to go to the beginning of the report.  The JAMA issue it appeared in can be purchased here].

3) The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (John 19:38-42).  Claims he had merely lost consciousness need to explain how those who wrapped Him did not notice He was still breathing and also need to explain how He was not constricted and suffocated if wrapped when unconscious.

4) The accounts of the Resurrection convinced the Apostles He was gloriously alive, not half dead and injured (remember, assumptions that Jesus had regained consciousness and staggered back to the Apostles still have to account for the Roman practices of crucifixion).  Would the Apostles seeing a half dead man think He had risen from the grave?  Or would they have assumed He had merely escaped death?

5) How did a half dead man escape from the tomb, which was sealed and guarded?  Who moved the stone? (a half dead man could not)  If the apostles aided Him, it follows that they knew the truth and lied about it, which shoots down the idea of "sincere but deluded" and takes us back to the idea of "what did the apostles gain for lying?"  Moreover, if the Apostles overpowered the soldiers why were they not considered yet one more band of armed revolutionaries (which no document of the time alleges)?

6) If Jesus was alive and escaped, where did He go?  There are no credible documents of this.  Accounts of this type fall into categories of "pseudo-history" such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the like, not serious documents.  We again would move away from the "sincere but deluded" apostles and into the "willful fraud."

Such arguments in favor of the "unconscious Jesus" theory has to presuppose the inaccuracy of the texts, which requires proof if it is to be taken as anything other than idle speculation.

The Underlying Problem with the "Sincere But Deluded" Arguments

Whether one believes Jesus died and the Apostles were deluded about the belief He rose again or whether one believes Jesus never died to begin with, a crucial element is missing: evidence.

The Christian believes the testimony of the apostles to be reliable, that the apostles did encounter the Risen Christ and this encouraged them to preach their message to the world, even at the cost of their lives.  On the other hand, the person who denies this insists on another meaning and tends to call the Christians foolish for believing the testimony of the Apostles.

However, we are not unreasonable in asking "On what basis do you make your claims?"  If one wishes to assert that the accounts of the Resurrection are false, we must require evidence that backs up their claims.  To merely argue…

1. [Miracles] cannot [happen] (No [A] is [B])
2. The [Resurrection] was a Miracle ([C] is a part of [A])
3. Therefore the [Resurrection] could not have [happened] (Therefore [C] is not part of [B])

…requires proof of the major premise or proof that the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ were not accurate (which does not establish that miracles can't happen but seeks to deny it happened in this case).

Otherwise the claim is not reasoned, but merely an opinion without backing.

A Caveat

I do not make the argument that because there is no proof for these claims that it automatically means the opposite (the Resurrection happened) is true.  This would be the Argument from Silence fallacy (There is no proof for [A], therefore [B] is true).  Certainly there are many studies about the Scriptural accounts which need to be considered, and people who wish to study the Christian claims need to look at.

However, in all these cases, we need to recognize that presupposing that something can't be true is going to lead to pre-determined conclusions.  if the presumption is false, the conclusion cannot be said to be proven true. 

Most Christians do not accept Tertullian's maxim I believe because it is absurd.  Most believe because they find the testimony credible and the arguments against lacking credibility (this is not addressing the gift of faith of course, which is not apart from reason).  Christian apologetics are based on showing the credibility of the beliefs of Christianity.

If one wishes to deny the beliefs of Christianity, it is their right of course.  However, we are not being unreasonable in requiring the basis on which the rejection is made and assessing such claims.

Considering the Charge of Delusion and Resurrection Accounts

The account of the Resurrection is ultimately the center of the Christian faith.  As St. Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 15:

^14 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ^15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

Because of this, those who would deny the teaching of Christians and wish to refute it need to attack the teaching and try to prove a claim that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Two Categories for Charges

In looking at these charges, we need to consider their basis.  Why should we accept them as credible?  The possibilities are:

1. Either they are based on evidence
2. Or they are based on the assumption the supernatural cannot happen

Accusations based on the first category do need to be addressed.  Avoiding this can make it seem like we live our faith in ignorance.  However, accusations based on the second assumption are guilty of begging the question.  The claim that the supernatural cannot happen is something to be proven, not assumed to be true.

The Focus of This Article

For the purposes of this article, I am limiting myself to two possibilities: That Jesus died but did not rise again, and that Jesus did not die, but everyone believed He did.  I am quite aware there are other claims made, but let's keep things manageable.

Now, there are two basic possibilities to explore with this objection: One, the claims of Jesus dying but not rising and Two, the basis of Jesus not dying to begin with.  The underlying association for both is that the Apostles were mistaken in what they believed.

The first claim tends to run under the following syllogism

1. The dead cannot live again
2. Jesus was dead
3. Therefore Jesus cannot live again

The second set runs under the following syllogism:

1. The dead cannot live again
2. The apostles saw Jesus alive
3. Therefore he had not died

Enthymemes Assumed But Not Proven

In both cases the major premise needs to be proven.  This is something which has never quite been proven, and those who argue it tend to hedge their words in phrases like "it is more reasonable to suppose that…"  Ultimately in these disputes, there is usually an enthymeme (a premise assumed but not spoken) which demonstrates the principle issue to be considered.

In disputes with atheists, this is a dispute over whether an all powerful God exists.  If an all powerful God exists, then there is no reasonable argument that such a God could not raise the dead.

In disputes with religious or spiritual beliefs, the principle dispute is over the authority of Christ and whether God would have raised Jesus from the dead.  If Jesus Christ did have authority, then His resurrection is not against what God would do.

Ultimately, such disputes need to address the primary assumption (that God does not exist or that Jesus Christ was not His Son) before moving on to the actual debate of the Resurrection.  However, it is commonly assumed by those who reject the Christian belief that their view is true, and the attacks are focused on the claim that their beliefs are the reasonable ones and those which disagree are not.

The conclusion of their argument is that since they believe it impossible that Jesus was raised from the dead, it is more reasonable to explain the Apostles claim with another cause.

The Hallucination Theory

The Hallucination theory is based on the idea that if someone thought they saw a man known dead walking around it is more probable that the person hallucinated.  This seems to assume Hume's theory.  There are several objections however which this theory requires an answer to if it is to be considered reasonable:

Hallucinations are things which happen to individuals.  It is true that a group of people might see an object and not understand what it was, but we would see large discrepancies in testimony because each individual would be interpreting this in their own mind.  However, we see that the testimony of scripture attests to Christ being seen by Mary Magdalene, the disciples sans Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, the disciples in Emmaus, the apostles fishing, etc. 

Hallucinations tend to last for seconds or minutes.  The Christian claim is that Christ was among the apostles for 40 days.

Hallucinations do not interact with the world.  Yet the account is that Christ did interact with the world.  Thomas touched the wounds in his side, Christ ate with his apostles.

If the apostles were hallucinating, where was the actual body which could have proven their claims were false?  If the Sanhedrin wished to stop a delusion from going around all they would have to do is to produce the corpse of Jesus.

From this we have two considerations:

1. Either the sources are inaccurate or
2. The sources accurately attested to the fact that the Apostles saw something consistently

However, if the sources are to have been considered inaccurate, the question must be asked: On what basis can we make this claim?  What we have is an idea which rejects the testimony because the accounts contain miracles.  If this is to stand, then a valid disproof of the existence of the miraculous needs to be given.

Instead, this theory tends to reject all testimony which runs counter to the assumption that a miracle did not happen.  This is not reasonable however.  Without evidence to support the theory there is no reason to hold it as what did happen or was more likely to happen.

The "Jesus Did Not Die" Theory

The empty tomb is a hard thing to answer.  The Romans could not produce a body.  The Jews could not produce a body, and if Jesus was executed, the claim of the Resurrection could have been immediately shot down by showing his corpse.

Because of this, some people try to argue that Jesus was not really killed.  Now, to deny He was not executed is not reasonable (though the Koran [Sura 4:157-8] claims this) because even non-Christian sources attest He had been killed by the Romans.  The Roman historian Tacticus in his Annals, the Babylonian Talmud, the Greek Satirist Lucian, the Syrian stoic Bara Bar-Serapion and  Jewish historian Josephus (Though some references to the divinity of Christ are considered latter additions.  However, even with those removed, it attests to His being crucified) all report he had been executed.  So to argue He was never crucified requires some evidence to what actually did happen to him.

Given the crucifixion was a horrendous and disgraceful way to die, it is unlikely the Scripture writers would have chosen to invent this account of the death of their founder if a more "respectable death" had existed.

Because of this, some try to allege that Jesus was crucified and was presumed dead, but He later regained consciousness and escaped.

Now there are some very real problems with this assumption which need to be answered before it can be considered as anything more than idle speculation:

1) Jesus surviving the crucifixion needs to account for the fact that the Romans made sure a person was dead before removing him from the cross.  Soldiers who permitted a condemned man to escape would pay for it severely.

The fact that the soldiers broke the legs of the other prisoners crucified to hasten their death shows they were determined to make sure the prisoners were in fact dead.  Jesus, being seen to be dead, did not have His legs broken to be sure.  However He had a spear thrust into his side (see John 19:31ff), which shows the Romans left nothing to chance.

2) The spear thrust, described in John 19:34 attests to the flow of blood and water which, in medical terms meant Jesus' lungs had collapsed and indicate He died of asphyxiation (the normal method of death on the cross) [See here for an interesting medical description.  See here to go to the beginning of the report.  The JAMA issue it appeared in can be purchased here].

3) The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (John 19:38-42).  Claims he had merely lost consciousness need to explain how those who wrapped Him did not notice He was still breathing and also need to explain how He was not constricted and suffocated if wrapped when unconscious.

4) The accounts of the Resurrection convinced the Apostles He was gloriously alive, not half dead and injured (remember, assumptions that Jesus had regained consciousness and staggered back to the Apostles still have to account for the Roman practices of crucifixion).  Would the Apostles seeing a half dead man think He had risen from the grave?  Or would they have assumed He had merely escaped death?

5) How did a half dead man escape from the tomb, which was sealed and guarded?  Who moved the stone? (a half dead man could not)  If the apostles aided Him, it follows that they knew the truth and lied about it, which shoots down the idea of "sincere but deluded" and takes us back to the idea of "what did the apostles gain for lying?"  Moreover, if the Apostles overpowered the soldiers why were they not considered yet one more band of armed revolutionaries (which no document of the time alleges)?

6) If Jesus was alive and escaped, where did He go?  There are no credible documents of this.  Accounts of this type fall into categories of "pseudo-history" such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the like, not serious documents.  We again would move away from the "sincere but deluded" apostles and into the "willful fraud."

Such arguments in favor of the "unconscious Jesus" theory has to presuppose the inaccuracy of the texts, which requires proof if it is to be taken as anything other than idle speculation.

The Underlying Problem with the "Sincere But Deluded" Arguments

Whether one believes Jesus died and the Apostles were deluded about the belief He rose again or whether one believes Jesus never died to begin with, a crucial element is missing: evidence.

The Christian believes the testimony of the apostles to be reliable, that the apostles did encounter the Risen Christ and this encouraged them to preach their message to the world, even at the cost of their lives.  On the other hand, the person who denies this insists on another meaning and tends to call the Christians foolish for believing the testimony of the Apostles.

However, we are not unreasonable in asking "On what basis do you make your claims?"  If one wishes to assert that the accounts of the Resurrection are false, we must require evidence that backs up their claims.  To merely argue…

1. [Miracles] cannot [happen] (No [A] is [B])
2. The [Resurrection] was a Miracle ([C] is a part of [A])
3. Therefore the [Resurrection] could not have [happened] (Therefore [C] is not part of [B])

…requires proof of the major premise or proof that the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ were not accurate (which does not establish that miracles can't happen but seeks to deny it happened in this case).

Otherwise the claim is not reasoned, but merely an opinion without backing.

A Caveat

I do not make the argument that because there is no proof for these claims that it automatically means the opposite (the Resurrection happened) is true.  This would be the Argument from Silence fallacy (There is no proof for [A], therefore [B] is true).  Certainly there are many studies about the Scriptural accounts which need to be considered, and people who wish to study the Christian claims need to look at.

However, in all these cases, we need to recognize that presupposing that something can't be true is going to lead to pre-determined conclusions.  if the presumption is false, the conclusion cannot be said to be proven true. 

Most Christians do not accept Tertullian's maxim I believe because it is absurd.  Most believe because they find the testimony credible and the arguments against lacking credibility (this is not addressing the gift of faith of course, which is not apart from reason).  Christian apologetics are based on showing the credibility of the beliefs of Christianity.

If one wishes to deny the beliefs of Christianity, it is their right of course.  However, we are not being unreasonable in requiring the basis on which the rejection is made and assessing such claims.

Reflections on the Church and Politics

"I've always thought liberal and conservative were terms used not to think but to avoid thinking.  You can classify anything as liberal or conservative, then simply declare yourself one or the other, and all your thought for the rest of your life can be a knee jerk."

— Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell (page 17)

(Character of "CS Lewis" in a Socratic dialogue)

One of the tendencies I have noticed in the modern world is to place things into political categories.  Topic [A] is deemed conservative and is thus rejected by liberals.  Topic [B] is deemed liberal, and thus is rejected by conservatives.  I suppose it is natural in terms of partisan politics, but the problem is that often such categorical thinking is not limited to politics, but instead applies these categories to apolitical subjects or institutions.

Unfortunately this also is applied to the teachings of the Church, and the Church is deemed "liberal" by the conservatives, and "conservative" by the liberals.

The Falsity in an Either-Or Dilemma

…the parties have a great interest in winning the election, not so much in order to make their doctrines triumph by the President-elect's help, as to show, by his election, that their doctrines have gained a majority.

—Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

The logical form I have seen employed by conservatives and liberals in attacking the Church (or seeking to use the Church terminology as a mark of credibility for their ideologies) is a false dilemma, which runs as follows:

1. The Church either supports [A] or [B].
2. The Church doesn't support [A].
3. Therefore the Church supports [B].

So if the Pope doesn't support Israel or Marxists in Central America (these can be [A]) on an issue, he is promptly accused of supporting the PLO or despotic governments (these can be [B]).

The problem is with the major premise: "Either [A] or [B]."  If I partially support one of the options, if I reject both options or if I prefer a solution outside of [A] or [B], the major premise is false and the conclusion is not proven true.

Yet it is this error which liberals and conservatives use to either denounce the Church (when it condemns what they support) or make it appear their entire platform has legitimacy (when on an issue there are similarities between Church teaching and party platform).

Is Social Justice Liberal?

In light of the Church making certain statements on "Social Justice," I've noticed both liberals and conservatives seeking to hijack the term.  Many liberals interpret "Social Justice" as "Expanded government control of private enterprise," and seek to label anything which is not expanded government involvement as being "against Church teaching."

On the other hand, many conservatives also believe "Social Justice" is "Expanded government control of private enterprise," and conclude the Church is run by liberals.  The syllogism above becomes:

1. The Church either supports [Expanded government control] or it favors [laissez faire]
2. The Church has spoken against [laissez faire]
3. Therefore it favors [Expanded government control].

Of course, reading Caritas in veritate, we see that the Church favors neither model.  It recognizes that the individual role has a part to play, it recognizes the need of the state to protect the rights of the person… and it insists that without a Christian approach, a system will end up dehumanizing people, regardless of intent.

When the Church speaks of social justice, it is wrong to apply the political meaning of the term to the Church, which speaks of the morality which is binding on all societies.  The error of the false dilemma comes in assuming there is only one (partisan) solution and anyone who criticizes elements of the solution or praises certain elements of that solution must endorse the political platform which the term is associated with.

The Church teaches that the person has certain rights and dignities as a person which cannot be taken away by law.  Practices in a nation which deny these rights and dignities are to be condemned, regardless of the ideology which commits the injustice.  When an economic system or a political structure, or the customs of a nation allow this sort of injustice, the Church must speak on what is right and wrong, regardless of the political parties which believe in one choice or another.

So to invoke certain phrases from the Church is meaningless unless one understands the context of what the Church means.  "Social Justice" is assumed to be a "liberal" issue, and therefore it is assumed any solution must be "liberal" in nature… what the Church actually says and intends on the topic is immaterial to both factions.

Is Abortion Conservative?

The Church views the issue of abortion along these lines:

1. It is never licit to directly cause or will the death of an innocent person
2. the unborn child is an innocent person
3. Therefore it is never licit to directly cause or will the death of an unborn child.

Because of this, the Church has no choice but to condemn murder in keeping with the teaching of God. In the Ten Commandments, the Hebrew word translated as Kill in Exodus 20:13 is רָצַח (ratsach), which means "murder" or "slay." 

If the unborn child is living, the direct killing (slaying) of the unborn child is as unjust as infanticide.  This also shows why capital punishment or wars are not the same case as abortion, so those who oppose abortion yet believe capital punishment can be licit are not inconsistent (as John Grisham once argued in his rather poor novel The Appeal).

Yet the key issue of whether or not the unborn is a person never gets addressed by those who favor abortion rights.  For them, the sole issue is whether or not the woman has the right to engage in sexual activity without repercussions.  However, even if one rejects Christian morality the issue of a 'woman's right to control her fertility" becomes moot if the unborn is a person, because no person can decide to arbitrarily end another person's life out of expedience.

During the 2008 election the argument tended to run:

1. [Republicans] [oppose abortion] (All [A] is [B])
2. [The Bishops] [oppose abortion] (All [B] is [C])
3. Therefore [the Bishops] are [Republicans.]  (Therefore all [C] is [A])

The problem is that the argument claims that abortion is a Republican issue and therefore anyone who agrees with the issue is a Republican.  However anyone who opposes abortion who is not a Republican makes the conclusion false… the conclusion is not supported by the premises, and is a non sequitur.

Another logical problem is the Genetic fallacy.  Because opposition to abortion is equated with "conservative," it is rejected on account of the source.  However, the fact that conservatives agree with the Church on the issue does not mean the condemnation of abortion is not true.

The Underlying Problem

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

—Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

Both the conservative and the liberal who reject the Church position and label it as "proof" of favoring the other side assume their own view is correct, and their submission to Church teaching only goes so far as it mirrors what they believe.  When the Church teaching goes against a party platform, it is accused of being "partisan."

However, the Church's self-confessed interest is dealing with the salvation of souls and telling people to turn from sinful acts towards the truth.

Speaking of "what is just," for example, is different than saying "only party [X] is just."  The former is a statement of what is.  The second is ideology.

Before accusing the Church of "being liberal" or "being conservative" one has to understand what in fact the Church teaches and means in its statements.  If one recognizes the Church as the body Christ established on Earth to carry out His work of salvation, then it does have authority to bind and to loose.

Under such a view, worldly partisan views need to be compared to, and judged by, the teaching of the Church, and not the Church view be compared to and judged by the partisan world view.

Reflections on the Church and Politics

"I've always thought liberal and conservative were terms used not to think but to avoid thinking.  You can classify anything as liberal or conservative, then simply declare yourself one or the other, and all your thought for the rest of your life can be a knee jerk."

— Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell (page 17)

(Character of "CS Lewis" in a Socratic dialogue)

One of the tendencies I have noticed in the modern world is to place things into political categories.  Topic [A] is deemed conservative and is thus rejected by liberals.  Topic [B] is deemed liberal, and thus is rejected by conservatives.  I suppose it is natural in terms of partisan politics, but the problem is that often such categorical thinking is not limited to politics, but instead applies these categories to apolitical subjects or institutions.

Unfortunately this also is applied to the teachings of the Church, and the Church is deemed "liberal" by the conservatives, and "conservative" by the liberals.

The Falsity in an Either-Or Dilemma

…the parties have a great interest in winning the election, not so much in order to make their doctrines triumph by the President-elect's help, as to show, by his election, that their doctrines have gained a majority.

—Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

The logical form I have seen employed by conservatives and liberals in attacking the Church (or seeking to use the Church terminology as a mark of credibility for their ideologies) is a false dilemma, which runs as follows:

1. The Church either supports [A] or [B].
2. The Church doesn't support [A].
3. Therefore the Church supports [B].

So if the Pope doesn't support Israel or Marxists in Central America (these can be [A]) on an issue, he is promptly accused of supporting the PLO or despotic governments (these can be [B]).

The problem is with the major premise: "Either [A] or [B]."  If I partially support one of the options, if I reject both options or if I prefer a solution outside of [A] or [B], the major premise is false and the conclusion is not proven true.

Yet it is this error which liberals and conservatives use to either denounce the Church (when it condemns what they support) or make it appear their entire platform has legitimacy (when on an issue there are similarities between Church teaching and party platform).

Is Social Justice Liberal?

In light of the Church making certain statements on "Social Justice," I've noticed both liberals and conservatives seeking to hijack the term.  Many liberals interpret "Social Justice" as "Expanded government control of private enterprise," and seek to label anything which is not expanded government involvement as being "against Church teaching."

On the other hand, many conservatives also believe "Social Justice" is "Expanded government control of private enterprise," and conclude the Church is run by liberals.  The syllogism above becomes:

1. The Church either supports [Expanded government control] or it favors [laissez faire]
2. The Church has spoken against [laissez faire]
3. Therefore it favors [Expanded government control].

Of course, reading Caritas in veritate, we see that the Church favors neither model.  It recognizes that the individual role has a part to play, it recognizes the need of the state to protect the rights of the person… and it insists that without a Christian approach, a system will end up dehumanizing people, regardless of intent.

When the Church speaks of social justice, it is wrong to apply the political meaning of the term to the Church, which speaks of the morality which is binding on all societies.  The error of the false dilemma comes in assuming there is only one (partisan) solution and anyone who criticizes elements of the solution or praises certain elements of that solution must endorse the political platform which the term is associated with.

The Church teaches that the person has certain rights and dignities as a person which cannot be taken away by law.  Practices in a nation which deny these rights and dignities are to be condemned, regardless of the ideology which commits the injustice.  When an economic system or a political structure, or the customs of a nation allow this sort of injustice, the Church must speak on what is right and wrong, regardless of the political parties which believe in one choice or another.

So to invoke certain phrases from the Church is meaningless unless one understands the context of what the Church means.  "Social Justice" is assumed to be a "liberal" issue, and therefore it is assumed any solution must be "liberal" in nature… what the Church actually says and intends on the topic is immaterial to both factions.

Is Abortion Conservative?

The Church views the issue of abortion along these lines:

1. It is never licit to directly cause or will the death of an innocent person
2. the unborn child is an innocent person
3. Therefore it is never licit to directly cause or will the death of an unborn child.

Because of this, the Church has no choice but to condemn murder in keeping with the teaching of God. In the Ten Commandments, the Hebrew word translated as Kill in Exodus 20:13 is רָצַח (ratsach), which means "murder" or "slay." 

If the unborn child is living, the direct killing (slaying) of the unborn child is as unjust as infanticide.  This also shows why capital punishment or wars are not the same case as abortion, so those who oppose abortion yet believe capital punishment can be licit are not inconsistent (as John Grisham once argued in his rather poor novel The Appeal).

Yet the key issue of whether or not the unborn is a person never gets addressed by those who favor abortion rights.  For them, the sole issue is whether or not the woman has the right to engage in sexual activity without repercussions.  However, even if one rejects Christian morality the issue of a 'woman's right to control her fertility" becomes moot if the unborn is a person, because no person can decide to arbitrarily end another person's life out of expedience.

During the 2008 election the argument tended to run:

1. [Republicans] [oppose abortion] (All [A] is [B])
2. [The Bishops] [oppose abortion] (All [B] is [C])
3. Therefore [the Bishops] are [Republicans.]  (Therefore all [C] is [A])

The problem is that the argument claims that abortion is a Republican issue and therefore anyone who agrees with the issue is a Republican.  However anyone who opposes abortion who is not a Republican makes the conclusion false… the conclusion is not supported by the premises, and is a non sequitur.

Another logical problem is the Genetic fallacy.  Because opposition to abortion is equated with "conservative," it is rejected on account of the source.  However, the fact that conservatives agree with the Church on the issue does not mean the condemnation of abortion is not true.

The Underlying Problem

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

—Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

Both the conservative and the liberal who reject the Church position and label it as "proof" of favoring the other side assume their own view is correct, and their submission to Church teaching only goes so far as it mirrors what they believe.  When the Church teaching goes against a party platform, it is accused of being "partisan."

However, the Church's self-confessed interest is dealing with the salvation of souls and telling people to turn from sinful acts towards the truth.

Speaking of "what is just," for example, is different than saying "only party [X] is just."  The former is a statement of what is.  The second is ideology.

Before accusing the Church of "being liberal" or "being conservative" one has to understand what in fact the Church teaches and means in its statements.  If one recognizes the Church as the body Christ established on Earth to carry out His work of salvation, then it does have authority to bind and to loose.

Under such a view, worldly partisan views need to be compared to, and judged by, the teaching of the Church, and not the Church view be compared to and judged by the partisan world view.

On False Comparisons and Other Errors Used In Attacks on the Christian Faith

Read more »