CSI JERUSALEM 2

I believe in science. I do not trust anecdotal evidence. Testimonials, by themselves, have little value in establishing a fact. I have been misled by testimonials so many times that I have become more trusting of scientific research. However, scientific research is conducted by emotional and biased human beings, so the results of it are not always true either. With an issue so positively and negatively charged with emotion as the resurrection of Jesus is, logical investigation is difficult to come by. On this issue, I am not purely objective, but the evidence I share certainly has to be considered by any one who is making a decision about Jesus.

research is not just quantitative (scientific), it is also qualitative; that means that it deals with the testimonies and documents of human beings. Consider the credibility of the witnesses. They had no reason to lie. They were a small group of frightened people who had nothing to gain but persecution and death. They had no motive. They did die for their testimony! Their persecution and death establishes their credibility. Granted, there are discrepancies between the stories of the resurrection in the four gospels, but there is agreement on the event. All the disagreements mean is that the authors didn't get together to "cook" the story before they wrote it down. The writer of the Gospel of Judas does not fit into this category. He did have motive.

It also needs to be added that the tendency of the disciples was not to believe in the resurrection. Dead people do not come to life. Thomas' doubts pretty much sums it up, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe"(John 20:25). Thomas received his "scientific" proof and responded, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28).

Grace & Peace;
Tom