What we believe to be the truth is a result of socially learnt factors. Who has actually determined the speed of light (i.e., done the experiment?)–but no one doubts that the speed is 186,000 miles per second. Much of what we take to be true is taken on faith, and what we believe we can put our faith in depends on our socialization. During socialization we internalize what sociologist Peter Berger calls “plausibility structures.” By that term he means those social structures—schools, degrees, peer-refereed journals, reputable reference works, credentials, even white lab coats—that signal to the individual mind that all this reported knowledge he has been learning is plausible knowledge.

Note the word “plausible” because the socialization of knowledge and truth is NOT about the actual truth of the knowledge we possess, but IS about how we accept something as true. Peter Berger writes, “One of the fundamental propositions of the sociology of knowledge is that the plausibility, in the sense of what people actually find credible, of views of reality depends upon the social support these receive. Put more simply, we obtain our notions about the world originally from other human beings, and these notions continue to be plausible to us in a very large measure because others continue to affirm them. . . . Most of what we “know” we have taken on the authority of others, and it is only as others continue to confirm this “knowledge” that it continues to be plausible to us.” So we believe what someone says as true because they have a relationship to us that has proved them trustworthy in the past, or because they have university degrees, or other people have redone their experiments.

This, of course, is also true about religious knowledge, including knowledge of history, or truths revealed to us directly by God. I did not disparage history as a source of knowledge about Christ’s resurrection, but only stated that I did find it to be overwhelmingly convincing.

Now take for instance the reports of the disciples that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. How do we know that their reports are trustworthy? We know nothing worthwhile about (in terms of character or trustworthiness in regards to reporting on some alleged historical event) about Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus or Simon the Cananaean. That’s 2/3 of the disciples. Contrast that with what we know about the character of the early Mormon witnesses to the gold plates, the signatures of the “witnesses” inside the cover of the
Book of Mormon, etc. There is much to be said pro and con about their testimony and the trustworthiness of their characters.

Or what about the 500 that claimed to see Jesus? We don’t even know the when or the where, let alone the identity of any of them. Unless you are already a believer, the claim that 500 people saw Jesus (not reported by anyone else in antiquity) is not persuasive at all.

And how do we know that the tomb was in fact empty? Apart from the Easter morning visitors, we have no records that anyone else ever visited the tombs. And even if someone had tried, would not Joseph had rolled the stone back to protect the other bodies and bones in the tomb? And wouldn’t the tomb have been marked with a curse upon anyone who opened it, as was the custom? So then, we are only dealing with the veracity of a very few people–again, about whom we know little.

So, historically speaking, we have little to go on that is not open to the same sort of skepticism that we rightfully have about other alleged historical events. True, there is enough evidence to make one wonder, and to be persuasive (depending on what one finds to be probable), but not enough to be conclusive. However, once one crosses the line over to belief in God, then it becomes much more probable and persuasive.

regards,
John

Rayner Markley;
You weren’t reading I Corinthians 15-”Christ the first fruits, then those that are his.”

Well, maybe not quite a space alien, but a heavenly being anyway.

The resurrection of Christ is certainly a bedrock to anchor one’s trust in God, but there may be a weak link in the chain. That is, since Jesus was a unique person, God certainly raised His own Son, but that is not really evidence of our own resurrection. Saint Paul firmly believed that Christ was the first and like Him all saints would be resurrected but he didn’t show a necessary connection. I guess one has to say that there is no salvation for us without resurrection (our resurrection, that is).

I would say that the historical evidence of the resurrection is a bedrock my trust in God rests on. John CT says that only probabilistic arguments exist for it and perhaps that’s true, but why is that a problem?

All historical records describe events that we will never see. If we are going to be hyper-sceptical it is quite easy to dispute Caesar crossing the Rubicon but it makes best sense of the subsequent events, that is the armed conflict between Caesar and Rome.

The resurrection was an event that we will never see, however it makes the actions of Jesus’ followers after his death understandable. The Jewish sense of resurrection was for the distant future, the end of the age, so it’s unlikely that his followers would have have found a present resurrection to be a plausible scenario. That was even if his death in such shameful circumstances (cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree) did not destroy utterly their belief in him as God’s anointed.

There does not seem to be any need to create a resurrection, and a number of reasons why it would not be advisable to do so. Not least that in doing so they would be putting themselves outside the bonds of Jewish brotherhood for no good reason.

Probabilistic arguments demonstrate their strength when comparing them to alternative scenarios.

Did Jesus swoon? Unlikely based on what we know of Roman crucifixion, and a revived Jesus who somehow managed to move a ton or more of rock to escape his tomb wouldn’t convince anyone that he had conquered death.

Did Jesus have a twin brother who took over his identity after his death to convince others that he had survived? No record exists of such a person. James, Jesus’ brother, would be highly unlikely to follow such a person to martyrdom.

Was Jesus a space alien who flew away in a flying saucer? I’ll say no more about that.

For me it’s Jesus, I know that’s an easy statement that no one would disagree with but it is His character, deeds and words that I am drawn to. Philip Yancey said that Jesus is the God I wanted, if there was a God I’d want HIm to be just like Jesus.

Thanks for this most important topic, Michael.
I guess it is a question of Christian evidences, that is, what particular evidence is most important or convincing to an individual. I find it interesting that Saint Paul wrote: If there is not resurrection your hope is futile (I Cor 15:14), but Christ has indeed been raised (verse 20). And the assurance for that is tied in with his intense conversion experience as he testified before King Agrippa ‘I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision’ (Acts 26:19). Paul was the first prominent believer who did not know Jesus’ earthly ministry or witness the events of the resurrection.

Few of us have such an experience, and for me the anchor is simply Jesus Himself. No other name claims what He claims–that is, to save (Acts 4:12). If Jesus fails, there is no alternative, and if He was a fraud or a fool (which I don’t believe of course) at least I will end up wherever He is. I believe there’s a bit of an existentialist in most of us.

Although what I know of Jesus comes from Scripture and the testimony of the church, those are not the anchors. They are simply fallible sources, like to creation and experience and all other evidences, which can lead to any number of alternative faiths in addition to the Christian. Jesus is indeed our unique anchor.

Dr. Foltz #13. You might want to re-read my concluding sentence before “correcting” me.

From #12 “I realize eventually that I do not need to have confidence in the Church because God is able and more amazing then I can imagine.”

Kara #35 Beautiful picture!

Yipeng:

What is “Grace Seperation”? Thanks!

The Lord has written my name with clouds. At first I wasn’t sure and I thought I was imagining things, but it was so clear and the letters were so perfectly formed that there was no denying it! He did indeed write to me personally.

Secondly the Lord directed me to scriptures that I will have a boy within the following year even though we have been trying for a while and sure enough, the next year my son was born!

I actually can go on and on, but if you live close to Him and spend quality time with Him you will hear Him speaking into your heart and you will feel Him pulsating through your veins.

What about the “Grace Separation” of Christianity from other religions… Do you think this is a good anchor?