Who are our Witnesses?
In evaluating evidence, we must consider not only what the witness says but also his character and his trustworthiness. Ancient historians were usually paid by royalty who desired to be flattered. They were not motivated to make truth known. The New Testament writers were not paid by anyone. On the contrary, they risked loss of liberty and even death for what they wrote. No impartial court could lightly dismiss the evidence of witnesses ready to suffer such hardships for what they assert. They declare unanimously that they saw, heard, and touched the reality of Jesus' resurrection. If we trust pagan historians whose motives are suspect, why not trust historians whose motives are pure – as evidenced by their willingness to suffer.
We have only three options when it comes to examining the disciples' trustworthiness as eyewitnesses:
1) Either they were all liars motivated by some evil desire, or
2) They themselves were deceived, or
2006-10-17
12:03:17
·
9 answers
·
asked by
mmmk92
2
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
3) Their testimony is the truth.
1. Would liars knowingly preach that which would bring them hardship, suffering, persecution, torture and death? Not likely! Liars would proclaim that which would ensure their own comfort and prosperity. Liars would even change their message to avoid negative responses, yet the disciples adamantly proclaimed the resurrection message despite the reaction it brought.
2. Could they have been deceived? Many have said that they all suffered hallucinations wanting to see Jesus so badly. But the nature of a hallucination is that it distorts understanding and brings confusion. It does not bring positive transformation as in the case of the disciples. Hallucinations never work to integrate a personality - they are signs of personality disintegration, i.e., psychosis - and certainly never impart a new hope, positive motivation and fearlessness. Before the resurrection the disciples were confused cowards: afterwards they were confident and fearless.
2006-10-17
12:04:20 ·
update #1
Moreover, these men were not likely candidates for such mental confusion. They were practical, down-to-earth, hardworking fishermen, pragmatic businessmen, skeptics themselves, whose lack of faith and other character flaws were often rebuked by Jesus himself. At the first hearing of the resurrection none of them believed. Only after personal encounters with the resurrected Jesus, did they believe.
3. The disciples report that at different times and places, sometimes together, sometimes apart, they had very similar experiences. The nature of hallucinations is not like this. Each hallucination would be as different in nature as the men themselves. They would not have uniform experience. They report that they talked to, listened to, ate with, and even touched the Resurrected Jesus.
2006-10-17
12:05:33 ·
update #2
Could eleven men have the same detailed experiences with the resulting transformation, and it be a mental delusion? Would not one of them doubt the 'reality' of his experience under the pressures of intense persecution? They knew the reality of these experiences. They could not doubt. Thus the only logical conclusion we can come to is that the disciples were not liars and they were not deceived. They simply told the truth of their experiences. Jesus rose from the dead!
What Do Our Witnesses Testify?
Their testimony is simple and straightforward:
A) Jesus died,
B) He was buried, and
C) On the third day He rose bodily from the dead.
2006-10-17
12:06:57 ·
update #3