Chapter 6: The Resurrection
- Home
- About the Author
- More about the Book
- Excerpts from the Book
- - Contents
- - Preface
- - Introduction
- - 1) The Physical Universe
- - 2) The Human Mind:
Cognition and Conscience - - 3) Love
- - 4) Tackling Arguments
Against a Designing God - - 5) Jesus
- - 6) The Resurrection
- - 7) Suffering
- - 8) Christianity and Politics
- - 9) Other Religions
- - 10) Heaven and Hell
- More Praise for God, Actually
- Roy's Book Reviews
- Where To Buy
In Chapter 6, Williams scrutinises the evidence for the Resurrection, and finds
it eerily compelling.
This is, perhaps, the most important issue of all. The Christian religion was founded on the belief that the man Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, died and was buried, but three days later was alive again - 'resurrected'. More specifically, Christians claim that Jesus escaped from the sealed tomb in which His dead body had been interred. Subsequently, over a period of several weeks, He appeared in bodily form to hundreds of people, including the Disciples and Mary Magdalene, some of whom spoke and ate with Him.
This claim is utterly central to Christianity, to the idea that Jesus was not
merely a mortal man, but also was God - and hence that everything He did and
said must be understood in that context.
St Paul did not mince words on this subject. He bluntly conceded to sceptics of his day that if the Apostles' claims about the Resurrection were untrue, then the Christian religion was worthless and their conduct amounted to blasphemy:
St Paul concluded that Christians 'were to be pitied more than all men' (1 Corinthians 15:19) if they had placed their faith in a mortal man whose teachings applied only to this earthly life.
It may be objected that St Paul overstated the matter: quite a large number of people today who practise the Christian religion profess that they do not believe in the Resurrection as an actual historical event. Such people argue that we are not supposed to take the Resurrection story literally; that the Resurrection is a sort of grand metaphor for the change ('new life') that comes upon any person who truly tries to live by the teachings of Jesus. Sceptics and opponents of Christianity are usually not so charitable, but they arrive at the same conclusion. They assert with varying degrees of sanctimony, sarcasm and bile that the Resurrection cannot be understood literally. It has been variously described as 'the central myth of the New Testament' and as 'the defining heresy of traditional Protestant and Catholic Christianity' . Christopher Hitchens has averred that 'we have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing' .
As I have made clear, I am certainly not one who considers that every word of the Bible should be read literally or that every passage should be accorded equal importance. There is good sense in many of the arguments advanced by John Spong and other 'liberal' Christians: in some respects the Bible does need to be 'rescued from fundamentalism'. When reading any given passage, you must consider the context in which it was written and ask yourself what the author of the passage must have been intending to convey.
When it comes to the Resurrection, however, it seems to me quite clear that St Paul in his letters - and the authors of the Gospels and the Book of Acts - intended what they wrote to be taken literally. They were recording their version of a real event; at the least, they all sincerely believed that the Resurrection actually happened. Even Joachim Kahl acknowledged this: 'The resurrection is regarded everywhere in the New Testament as a historical fact to which eyewitnesses bear authentic testimony' . Of course, Kahl rejected the accuracy of that testimony, as do many others like him today.
If the Resurrection did actually happen, then clearly enough it was a miracle. The question, then, is whether that miracle did actually occur.
Buy God, Actually and read more...
They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them,
'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands
and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and
bones, as you see I have.'
The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection. If they had died without making anyone else believe this 'gospel' no gospels would ever have been written. It is very important to be clear about what these people meant.
The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection. If they had died without making anyone else believe this 'gospel' no gospels would ever have been written. It is very important to be clear about what these people meant.
This is, perhaps, the most important issue of all. The Christian religion was founded on the belief that the man Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, died and was buried, but three days later was alive again - 'resurrected'. More specifically, Christians claim that Jesus escaped from the sealed tomb in which His dead body had been interred. Subsequently, over a period of several weeks, He appeared in bodily form to hundreds of people, including the Disciples and Mary Magdalene, some of whom spoke and ate with Him.
This claim is utterly central to Christianity, to the idea that Jesus was not
merely a mortal man, but also was God - and hence that everything He did and
said must be understood in that context.
St Paul did not mince words on this subject. He bluntly conceded to sceptics of his day that if the Apostles' claims about the Resurrection were untrue, then the Christian religion was worthless and their conduct amounted to blasphemy:
[I]f Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have
testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.
(1 Corinthians 15:14-5. My emphasis.)
(1 Corinthians 15:14-5. My emphasis.)
St Paul concluded that Christians 'were to be pitied more than all men' (1 Corinthians 15:19) if they had placed their faith in a mortal man whose teachings applied only to this earthly life.
It may be objected that St Paul overstated the matter: quite a large number of people today who practise the Christian religion profess that they do not believe in the Resurrection as an actual historical event. Such people argue that we are not supposed to take the Resurrection story literally; that the Resurrection is a sort of grand metaphor for the change ('new life') that comes upon any person who truly tries to live by the teachings of Jesus. Sceptics and opponents of Christianity are usually not so charitable, but they arrive at the same conclusion. They assert with varying degrees of sanctimony, sarcasm and bile that the Resurrection cannot be understood literally. It has been variously described as 'the central myth of the New Testament' and as 'the defining heresy of traditional Protestant and Catholic Christianity' . Christopher Hitchens has averred that 'we have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing' .
As I have made clear, I am certainly not one who considers that every word of the Bible should be read literally or that every passage should be accorded equal importance. There is good sense in many of the arguments advanced by John Spong and other 'liberal' Christians: in some respects the Bible does need to be 'rescued from fundamentalism'. When reading any given passage, you must consider the context in which it was written and ask yourself what the author of the passage must have been intending to convey.
When it comes to the Resurrection, however, it seems to me quite clear that St Paul in his letters - and the authors of the Gospels and the Book of Acts - intended what they wrote to be taken literally. They were recording their version of a real event; at the least, they all sincerely believed that the Resurrection actually happened. Even Joachim Kahl acknowledged this: 'The resurrection is regarded everywhere in the New Testament as a historical fact to which eyewitnesses bear authentic testimony' . Of course, Kahl rejected the accuracy of that testimony, as do many others like him today.
If the Resurrection did actually happen, then clearly enough it was a miracle. The question, then, is whether that miracle did actually occur.
Buy God, Actually and read more...
