“Religious” Infidels Are Still at Work

By Lewis Willis

The Akron Beacon Journal (May 8, 1998, A6) reported that the Jesus Seminar has spoken again. Their latest statement might prove to be far more controversial than their previous utterances.

The Jesus Seminar, founded in 1985 and based in Santa Rosa, California was originally reported to include 100 scholars who worked on their projects, but the latest infidel pronouncement says that only 75 scholars were involved in their newest hatchet job on God’s Word. You will remember that in 1993, the group issued their conclusion that Jesus said only 20% of the 1500 statements attributed to him in the Scriptures. The remainder were supplied by his friends, according to these religious giants.

Now, after five years of analysis, the Jesus Seminar has issued its findings on the actions attributed to the Lord during his earthly ministry. Not surprisingly, they are of the view that very few of the things Jesus is said to have done in the New Testament actually occurred. To be exact, they say “of the 176 events catalogued , . . . only 28 actually occurred with any historical probability.” Among the events ascribed to Jesus which “did not make the cut” are: most of his miracles, the historical accuracy of his arrest, trial, and passion, and his resurrection.

The Jesus Seminar found no historical basis for Gospel stories such as Jesus walking on the water, his rebuking of the wind which calmed the sea, his multiplying of the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude, and his changing water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. They assert that the miracle stories “are forms of propaganda used in those days to advocate or promote a figure” and they are nothing more than “storytelling.”

About the only things this group agreed on in their votes on the various incidents are: Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, his home was Nazareth, his mother’s name was Mary, and his name was Jesus. “Everything else is fiction,” according to Robert Funk, former president of the Society for Biblical Literature. There are few accurate historical details, according to these infidels, in the accounts “that a person named Jesus was executed during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26 to 36); that Jesus was arrested after some incident at the Temple and that some Jewish officials, probably the high priest and his associates, urged Pilate to execute Jesus; that he was crucified at a place called Golgotha; that he was flogged in accordance with Roman practice; and that his disciples fled when he was arrested.”

The Seminar further reported that “the notion that the disciples of Jesus discovered an empty tomb . . . to be unlikely.” Funk reported that “the empty tomb story was actually created by Mark 40 years or so after Jesus died and probably had nothing to do with the original experience.” In fact, they believe the story of the end of Christ’s life on earth is “dangerously anti-Semitic.”

The Consequences If This Assertion Is True?

There are some serious consequences if the Jesus Seminar is to be believed.

1. The most obvious consequence is that the biographers of Jesus — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — were liars! They told these incidents as fact! If they are not true, these men lied about these matters and are totally untrustworthy as witnesses of the life of the Lord (Acts 1:21-22).

2. Since these liars wrote the first five books of the New Testament, their testimony is tainted, to say the very least. How can we believe anything they wrote? John also wrote 1, 2, 3 John and the book of Revelation, all of which must now be challenged as valid, if these people are to be believed. That’s a total of nine New Testament books that are in dispute.

3. The apostle Peter, in his Pentecost sermon, preached that Jesus was approved among the Jews by miracles, wonders, and signs (Acts 2:22); that Jesus was delivered by the Jews to the Romans who crucified him (2:23); and that he was raised from the dead and that Peter was an eyewitness of this event (2:32). All of these facts are disputed by the Seminar. Therefore, Peter cannot be trusted and 1 and 2 Peter must also be questioned as truthful. Added to the nine New Testament books previously called into question are two more books which are wrong in their most fundamental message. Eleven (11) books should be removed from the New Testament if these people are to be believed.

4. Neither can we believe the apostle Paul because he also taught the story “of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18ff), some- thing the Seminar disputes. Not only must we reject Paul’s testimony to the church at Corinth, but how can we believe anything else he might say? He wrote 13 other books of the New Testament, and their truthfulness is also now in question, if the Seminar is to be believed! Let’s see, now, we add these 13 books to the 11 previously cast in doubt — that’s 24 books in the New Testament that cannot be trusted.

5. The writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) also wrote of the signs, wonders, and miracles of the Lord. So now we add Hebrews to the list of unreliable books, making a total of 25 of the 27 New Testament books now in dispute.

6. James was a servant of the Christ (1:1); he called him the Lord of glory (2:1); James believed in the devil (2:19, 4:7); and believed in the second coming of Christ (5:8). If James wrote of these false things, neither can the book of James be trusted. That’s 26 of the 27 books of the New Testament which teach error according to the Seminar.

7. That leaves only the little book of Jude to consider. Let’s see now, Jude was also a servant of Jesus Christ (v. 1); he warned about ungodly men who deny the Lord (v. 4) — My, I hope he wasn’t talking about the Jesus Seminar! Jude further wrote about ungodly men and their ungodly speeches, their great swelling words, their mockery (vv. 15-18). (Could that also be true of newspaper reports that ungodly men issue?) And Jude believed the words which the apostles spoke about Jesus (v. 17). The author of this book also believed in the very things the Jesus Seminar said are not true, so we must question this book also. That’s 27 of the 27 New Testament books that cannot be trusted!

Is this possibly what the Jesus Seminar is trying to get folks to do? Are they discrediting the New Testament? Are the Scriptures wrong simply because the Jesus Seminar does not believe them? Do they perhaps desire to be the voice of religion — setting forth obligations and declaring liberties — in the place of the Gospel? Can we trust them more than the writers of the New Testament?

What’s going on here? This is just another effort to pervert God’s word (Gal. 1:6-9), and it will end with the same result: these heretics and infidels have consigned themselves to the curse of Hell which is appointed for perverters. They simply cannot please God and go to Heaven for they are unbelievers (Mark 16:16; John 8:24; Heb. 11:6). Friends, don’t fall for this unfounded, false testimony of mere men who are on their way to Hell!

What Does it Mean to “Baptize”?

By Tom Hamilton

When we want to know what a certain word means, we have to look at how the word itself is used by the people that speak the language in question. Of course, we could look in a dictionary or lexicon, but these reference works themselves are merely cataloged listings of how the word has actually been used.

Therefore, in regard to a theological word like baptizo — “baptize”, we could look in the standard Greek lexicons, which affirm the word means to “dip, plunge, immerse,” but we should also double-check for ourselves by looking at the actual usage of this word in existing Greek literature. This is especially important for theological terms, because there is always the temptation to bend the meaning of a word to support our own peculiar interpretation or theology.

The truth is to be found in how the word was used itself, whether in classical Greek, the Greek of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT), the Greek literature contemporary with the NT, or the Greek NT itself.

Classical Greek

The literal meaning of baptizo is evident from its common usage in classical Greek, long before there was any biblical connection to the word. The word is used, for example of ships sinking: “Attalus observed one of his own pentere (a type of ship) which had been rammed by an enemy ship and was sinking (lit. ‘was being baptized’) . . .” (Polybius, Histories 16.6.2; see also 1.51.6). In an ancient medical text, one patient’s labored breathing is described in this way: “. . . she breathed like a diver (lit. ‘one who has been baptized’) who has surfaced” (Hippocrates, Epidemics 5.63).

This image of burial, especially in water, came to have figurative uses as well. It is often used to describe the greatest degree of drunkenness, the idea being that one is immersed in wine. For example, in an appeal for more moderate drinking as opposed to the previous day’s excesses, one speaker identifies himself as “one of those who was soaked (lit. ‘baptized’) yesterday” (Plato, Symposium 176b). Similarly, Plato also uses the term to describe a youth being overwhelmed in a philosophical argument, “I, knowing the young man to be going under (lit. ‘being baptized’) and wanting to give him some breathing-space . . .” (Plato, Euthydemus 277d). We read that the rulers of Egypt enjoyed a sufficient income such that “they do not bury (lit. ‘baptize’) the people with property taxes” (Diodorus Siculus, 1.73). Likewise, Plutarch comments that the Roman emperor Galba was hesitant to declare Otho his successor, because he knew him to be “unrestrained and extravagant and buried (lit. ‘baptized’) under a debt of five million (sesterces)” (Plutarch, Galba 21).

Septuagint Greek

In the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, one finds baptizo used in reference to Naaman. This Gentile had lep- rosy, but was sent word through Elisha’s servant to go and wash in the Jordan River seven times. Although Naaman at first refused to obey these instructions because they were too beneath him, he humbled himself and complied. In accordance with Elisha’s instructions, Naaman “went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kings

5:14). The picture is that of a full bath of the entire body repeated seven times.

Other Greek versions of the Old Testament use baptizo in Job 9:31 (“plunge me into a pit”), Psalm 9:16 (“the nations have sunk in the pit”), Psalm 69:2 (“I sink in deep mire”), Isaiah 21:4 (“lawlessness overwhelms me”), and Jeremiah

38:22 (“your feet are sunk in the mire”).

Contemporary Greek

In the secular Greek literature written at the same time as the NT, we find several examples which objectively demonstrate the real meaning of baptizo. The voluminous writer and Jewish historian Josephus uses the term figuratively to refer to one sinking into a deep sleep, just as we do: “sunken (lit. ‘baptized’) into unconsciousness and a drunken sleep     . . .” (Josephus, Antiquities 10.169). In reference to the crowds of refugees that flocked to Jerusalem during the time of the siege by Rome, Josephus says that they “flooded (lit. ‘baptized’) the city” (Josephus, Jewish War 4.137). In the Jewish War 2.476, Josephus gives a rather graphic account of a certain Simon who took his own life on the battlefield when it became apparent that his cause was lost — “he buried (lit. ‘baptized’) the sword into his own throat.” Finally, we might note Josephus’ account of the drowning of eighteen-year-old Aristobulus upon orders from his father, Herod the Great. In a swimming pool at Jericho, Aristobulus’ “friends” were “weighing him down continuously and keeping him under (lit ‘baptizing’) as if for sport, and they did not let him up to swim until they had completely drowned him” (Josephus, Antiquities 15.55).

New Testament Greek

In the NT we find that the usage of baptizo remains unchanged. It invariably bears the same meaning it did in classical, Septuagint, and contemporary Greek — to dip, plunge, submerge or immerse.

First, we see that its literal meaning is preserved in texts that deal with the ritual washings practiced by the Pharisees. In Luke 11:38 Jesus’ Pharisaic host is shocked that “Jesus was not ceremonially washed (lit. ‘baptized’) before the meal.” In Mark 7:4, Jesus refers to the Pharisees’ traditional practice of “the washing (lit. ‘baptizing’) of cups and pitchers and copper pots.” In both cases, a complete cleansing is envisioned, not the mere sprinkling or pouring of a small amount of water.

In fact, the work of John the Baptist (or “Immerser”) also required more than this small amount of water. We are explicitly told that John was “baptizing in Aenon near Salim because there was much water there” (John 3:23). At the baptism of Jesus by John, we read in Mark 1:9-10 that Jesus went into (eis) and came up out of (ek) the water. The same point is made in Acts 8:38 with Philip and the Ethiopian. Some want to interpret this merely as being a trip to the waterside or a wading in the water. However, the Greek prepositions “into” and “out of” demand that we understand that the baptized persons actually went into and came out of the midst of the water.

The symbolic usage that Paul makes of the word settles the issue. Not just once, but twice, Paul emphasizes that being baptized is like burying a dead body (Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 2:12). Therefore, just as Christ’s corpse was buried and afterwards resurrected, our old dead bodies of sin are buried in baptism and then raised to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). While this affirms that spiritual resurrection takes place after the burial (i.e., baptism), and not before, as most people wrongly teach, the primary point for our present study is that baptism is indeed a burial. Just as pouring a small amount of dirt or sprinkling a few grains of soil over a corpse does not qualify as a burial, so also a few drops of water can never properly be considered an immersion, which is what “baptism” means.

There can be no real doubt or dispute that this is the real meaning and usage of “baptism,” or that the New Testament’s use of this word is intended to require a person to submit themselves to a full bodily immersion in water for the forgiveness of their sins. You can see for yourself from every time period or area of the Greek language, this has always been the usage and meaning for baptizo. Anyone who disagrees can very easily prove his point by offering even one example where this is not the case, but the detractors have yet to be able to find even one example out of its hundreds of occurrences.

With all of this abundantly clear and indisputable evidence, one is made to wonder why there is even any controversy at all over the proper form of baptism. What is the theological axe these folks have to grind who wish to reject the plain meaning of the word? Why must people be like Naaman and refuse to simply do what they are told — be immersed?

Current Usage

I would be the last person on earth to try to convince people that the English word “baptize” only meant “immerse.” This is clearly not the case. Baptism is defined as an action in which water is either sprinkled or poured over someone or the person is immersed in it — immersion is merely one option. Likewise, baptism is defined as a Christian sacrament to symbolize purification and initiation into a religious organization. While I cannot dispute these English definitions of the word, I can affirm that neither definition is applicable to the NT, that is, neither one is what the NT is talking about when it uses the word baptizo.

It is this difference between the meanings of the English word “baptize” and the Greek word baptizo which creates all of the confusion. This confusion can be removed one of two ways.

On the one hand, we could insist that baptizo does, in fact, refer to a Christian sacrament administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, and our English word “baptize” is a perfect translation. One well-known lexicon attempts to settle the issue in this manner, defining baptizo as “to employ water in a religious ceremony designed to symbolize purification and initiation” (Louw & Nida, §53.41). But you can check the usage of the word itself, as we have done in this article, and objectively and honestly determine whether any passage supports this definition. One cannot help but suspect that this is a prime example of theological bias imposing itself upon the text in an utterly arbitrary and baseless manner.

On the other hand, we could acknowledge honestly that our English word “baptize” was created after the ecclesiastical establishment had already adopted several forms of “baptism” which the NT does not mention. When the time came for the first English translations of the Bible to be made, baptizo was forbidden to be translated into its true meaning, “immerse,” because this would explicitly condemn and expose the practices of the ecclesiastical establishment. Instead, baptizo was transliterated, and it was implied that the theological meaning for “baptism” which had developed over the centuries, was intended by the NT wherever baptizo occurred.

It is only because people have been convinced that baptizo has this theological meaning that they can say such things like, “Sprinkling is just another, equally acceptable way of baptizing.” If they said, “Sprinkling is just another, equally acceptable way of immersing!” they would see this statement for the silliness it is.

Let us understand honestly and clearly what the NT is talking about when it speaks of “baptism.

Sign in the Front of a Fire Station

By D. Gibson

Do Not Wait Until A Fire Starts To Plan Your Way Of Escape

I’m sure that all of us have thought long and seriously about the safety of our family should a fire occur in our home. It would be an unthinkable disaster, not only for the lives of loved ones but our home and the possessions acquired over a lifetime.

We’ve all bought fire detectors and placed them strategically according to articles we have read, advice from well informed sources, and the instructions on the box. Also, in most homes you will find one or more fire extinguishers. We buy fire insurance to help lighten the financial recovery. Our children are all instructed as to what action to take in case of emergency; dialling 911 and of course alternate exits This tragedy will probably never happen, but the wise are prepared in a crisis.

But there is a fire that is not a threat, it is a promise. It will consume our home, the city we live in, the planet we live on, and the entire universe. There will be no fire detector to give us that last minute warning. There will be no fire station to answer our 911 call and no amount of water to put out the flame. We are told, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet. 3:10). The element with the highest melting point is Tungsten at 6116° F. It does not boil until over 8500 degrees. It is used principally for the filaments in incandescent lamps and spark plugs. We can conclude that this is the minimal temperature that this great consuming fire will produce. But, there will be no device to measure the data.

However, we can be prepared. There are things we can do now that will save us in that last day. Yes, we will lose our earthly possessions, except for those treasures layed up in store safely tucked away in that fire-proof strongbox in heaven (Matt. 6:20-22). All necessary instructions have been recorded in a book that is widely distributed among the wise. It has always been the #1 best seller and readily available.

How strange that so many are prepared for a fire that will, by all odds, never come and so few are ready for the “big one” that will most certainly come and without warning today, tomorrow, next week, next year — do not wait until the fire starts to plan your way of escape!

“Why Should It Be Thought A Thing Incredible That God Should Raise The Dead?”

By Dick Blackford

It shouldn’t. He’s God! If I raised the dead it would be incredible, but it isn’t when God does it. Surely the one who gave life in the first place would have no trouble restoring it when it is lost.

Christianity loses its authority, its unique position among the religions of the world, its credibility and its hope for the world if Jesus was not raised from the dead. It was on this very foundation that the apostles based their case (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:14-16; 5:30, 31). This is the miracle of the Bible. If it cannot be sustained there is no use talking about the others and we may as well throw our Bibles away and close the doors of our church buildings. For “we are of all men most miserable,” if Christ be not raised (1 Cor. 15:16-20).

The startling fact with which those disciples were con- fronted that Sunday morning is the same one, which after 2000 years, presents itself to you and me — an empty tomb. What shall I do with Jesus (Matt. 27:22)? By getting to the heart of the matter of salvation, we hope your heart will be pricked upon the contention of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Many say Jesus was a good man, one of the world’s greatest teachers, but not the son of God. They can’t have it both ways and they need to make up their minds. If he was a good man, could he lie about being the son of God and remain a good man? If he was not the son of God, then he was the greatest impostor and liar the world has ever known. The terms “good man” and “great Teacher” could not describe one who has played a hoax on the whole world for 2000 years. To accept this we would have to believe that single-handedly Jesus perpetrated a universal, mass deception upon all mankind. We are asked to believe that a carpenter’s son was so persuasive that he convinced his own mother to take part in the lie to the point that she would watch her oldest boy be tortured, suffer, and die as a criminal for something they both knew was false. She was the only one who could save him. She was the only one who could have known for sure whether he was miraculously conceived during her virginity. Some had already said Jesus was “beside himself” (Mark 3:21). Mary could have told the authorities her son was touched in the head, has visions of grandeur, and thinks he is the son of God. Let me take him by the hand and I will lead him home and get him out of your hair.

Could Jesus have persuaded twelve men, all from different educational backgrounds and social casts to quit their jobs immediately and to go out with great zeal and preach and convert men to a doctrine they never really believed? Plus, he had the Old Testament prophecies behind every- thing from his birth to his death. And what of his miracles which were not done in a corner (Acts 26:26)? Even his enemies admitted the miracles (Acts 4:16). If he had failed in just one of them, they would have plastered it in the headlines of the Jerusalem Morning News.

How Some Explain The Empty Tomb

How do we account for the disappearance of the body of Jesus other than by a resurrection? Several theories have been advanced but the only serious attempt is the argument that the body was stolen. But by whom? His enemies or his friends? There have been modernists on both sides. But first let us consider the argument they did not make.

The change in attitude and action of that little band of disciples is one of the most convincing evidential facts surrounding the resurrection. Those who feared and fled are now rejoicing that they can suffer for Christ (Acts 5:41).

“The Tomb Is Not Empty.” They could have stopped Christianity it its tracks by refuting the empty tomb and proving the body was still there. The fact that no denial of the empty tomb was ever offered is mute but convincing evidence that John told the truth. Even the authorities said the body was missing (Matt. 28:11-15). John was not wrong about the empty tomb (John 20:1-8).

Stolen By The Disciples. The Jews came up with the best explanation to be found. They couldn’t have done better if they had had 2000 years to think up the best explanation. I have never been worried that anybody 2000 years after the event would be able to come with a better one, short of a resurrection, than those who were bodily present. They had the most to lose and the greatest motivation to come up with the best explanation possible. Theirs is superior to all other explanations that have been offered since. It was not a time for denial but for explaining. They had an empty tomb to account for. But even this explanation will not stand. Imagine having one of those soldiers who had guarded the tomb on the witness stand to be “cross” examined.

Lawyer: “What happened?” Guard: “They stole the body.” Lawyer: “Who stole it?” Guard: “His friends, the disciples.” Lawyer: “When did they steal it?” Guard: “During the night.” Lawyer: “And what were you doing when this happened?” Guard: “I was asleep” (Matt. 28:11-15). An eyewitness with his eyes closed? Going to sleep on duty was one of the worst crimes a soldier could commit. To think the governor would have approved this excuse is absurd. Soldiers cold-blooded enough to gamble over a dying victim’s cloak are not the kind to be hoodwinked by cowardly Galileans who had recently fled for their lives or to jeopardize their own lives by going to sleep on duty. And to ask us to believe all of them went to sleep at the same time is ridiculous.

Even if all of them went to sleep at the same time, it is unbelievable that the disciples could have accomplished this feat so casually. How would they roll away an “exceeding great” stone so big that the three women knew they could not move it (Mark 16:1-4)? Remember also that the tomb was hewn out in a rock” (Matt. 27:60). That means there was no back door and no trap door. The entrance and exit were one and the same. And why would they take off the linen cloths and napkin? This would require additional time and would make the body more difficult to remove. Instead of being a mess, such orderliness of the tomb is not consistent with grave robbers and body snatchers. It is not in keeping with burglars, to be so neat and tidy. Did you ever hear of anyone breaking into someone’s home and cleaning it up?

Furthermore, the disciples were not looking for a resurrection. Their state of despair showed they thought their hopes had ended. Mary went with spices with which to anoint a dead body. The theory that the disciples stole the body falls flat under a fair examination.

Stolen By His Enemies. When one is trying to solve a crime one of the first things to be done is to establish a motive. There could have been no motive unless it was to show they still had it in their possession when the disciples began claiming a resurrection. Since they did not refute the resurrection by showing they still possessed the body, then there is no motive. The enemies stealing it would be inconsistent with what we already know. Pilate secured the sealing of the tomb and stationed soldiers there to keep the disciples from stealing it (Matt. 27:62-67). Would these same enemies defeat themselves by stealing the body, thus making it look like a resurrection had occurred? They would have had everything to lose. They wanted to keep the body in the tomb. If they did steal it, why wasn’t it produced to defeat the disciples’ claims of a resurrection? Had it been possible, they would have. The fact that they did not have it in their possession is evidenced in that “a great company of the priests believed” (Acts 6:7). Likewise, this theory falls.

The “Swoon” Theory. This theory says there was no resurrection because Jesus never died. He merely fainted. Given time to rest, along with the cool tomb and spices, he revived. Remember, the soldiers made a first hand examination and “thrust a spear into his side” (John 19:34). They should have known better than anyone living today whether Jesus was dead. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus prepared him for burial. They made a “hands on” examination and saw no signs of life. They, too, would have known better than anyone living today. Remember, Jesus was persecuted prior to the crucifixion. He was beaten. A crown of thorns stuck in his brow. He had to carry his own cross. He was then nailed to it and hung on it for six hours. There would have been a considerable loss of blood. Then his side was pierced with a spear. Having the linen garments “bound,” “wound,” and “wrapped” (note those words) around him along with 100 pounds of spices (John 19:39) would have made it virtually impossible to escape. When Lazarus was raised he had been bound hand and foot with grave clothes and his face was bound with a napkin. Jesus commanded, “Loose him and let him go.” Lazarus was unable to free himself. Being bound in these grave clothes plus the sealing of the tomb could certainly have produced an air supply problem. Soldiers are outside guarding the tomb. The “exceeding great” stone covers the entrance. In spites of all this, Jesus escapes! Such a theory insults a child’s intelligence.

Wrong Tomb. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary “sat over against the sepulcher” after the burial (Matt. 27:61). The women “beheld” the tomb (Luke 23:55). Thus, it never occurred to them to say “Oops, wrong tomb” — because of the grave clothes. If it was an unused tomb, why would there be grave clothes rolled up? If it was a used tomb there would be evidence of another burial. All the authorities would need to do was show these confused women that the body was still in their possession. They knew this wasn’t the best explanation and could be easily disproved — a very weak theory.

Hallucination Theory. This asks us to believe that hundreds (if not thousands, 1 Cor. 15:6) of disciples hallucinated at different times and places over a period of 40 days! It still fails to explain the empty tomb. The enemies could have produced the body to show that the disciples’ minds were playing tricks on them. It is hard to see how anyone could make this argument and keep a straight face.

The Cause Theory. I knew a minister in the Disciples of Christ who took this position. It looks at the resurrection figuratively. It was the “cause” of Christianity that was revived. It still fails to explain all the events that occurred. The only motive for one taking this position is that he has a bias which says everything must be explained on a natural (not supernatural) basis. The apostles and many former enemies of Christianity — those who were there — never interpreted it figuratively (1 Cor. 15:1-6). Why would so many be converted to Christianity and accept the consequences that went with it if there was not a literal resurrection?

Other Theories. The vision hypothesis, the optical illusion, etc., are all answered by the empty tomb. One must explain what became of the body, how it happened in the face of the pains taken by both the Jews and Romans to prevent the appearance of a resurrection, along with the fear, cowardice, and despair of the disciples.

The Change in the Disciples

Is it reasonable to believe that men thrust into the very darkness of despair and cowardice could have, within a few weeks, risen to such heights of joy and courage as the disciples subsequently displayed? Their emotions were stretched from one extreme to the other. Peter had denied, cursed, and sworn that he didn’t know Jesus. Yet in just a few days he stands before thousands of those whom he had feared and accuses them of murder and boldly affirms the intention of Christians (Acts 4:19-21; 5:29).

The change in attitude and action of that little band of disciples is one of the most convincing evidential facts surrounding the resurrection. Those who feared and fled are now rejoicing that they can suffer for Christ (Acts 5:41). You can put a man’s head on the chopping block and he might be brave enough to die for something he really believes. But no man is brave enough to die for something he knows is a lie, especially when he stands to benefit in every way by denying it. These disciples were beaten, stoned and left for dead, run out of town, and were outcasts from formerly held respected positions. There was no gain in this life. One cannot find an ulterior motive on their part.

Is it mathematically possible that Jesus could have orchestrated this whole event and made things turn out so that they fulfilled all the prophecies about the Messiah and yet be an impostor? How did he get the Romans, the Jews, his disciples (including Judas), his family, and his own mother to act together exactly as they did? How did he fake the miracles (healing the sick, restoring limbs, raising the dead, calming the storm, cleansing the lepers, feeding thousands, turning water to wine, etc.)? With the Roman soldier we must proclaim, “Truly, this was the son of God” (Matt. 27:54).

Conclusion

Through the centuries the empty tomb has been the Gibraltar of the Christian’s faith and the Waterloo of skeptics. That’s why I have never worried that anyone 2000 years removed from the events would be able to come up with a better explanation. So why have many tried to explain it away? Because of wishful thinking. Once one accepts the resurrection it obligates him to live and behave in a certain way or reap consequences. It is much easier to deny it ever  happened and to live a life of indulgence which so vividly characterizes our society today.

It is not incredible at all that God can raise the dead (Acts 26:8). So, what will you do with Jesus? Will you make the change which occurs at baptism and begin your “newness  of life”? Remember, preaching the cross includes preaching the genuineness of baptism. Baptism is the bridge that ties us to the cross (Acts 2:23-41; Rom. 6:1-18; Col. 2:11-13; 1 Pet. 3:21).