Now that we have both feet firmly planted in the 21st Century, we face a staggering and complex array of issues and challenges. Things that just a few decades ago were science fiction have become part of our reality, and words and phrases like embryonic stem cell research have crept into the common vocabulary.

The rapid advance of technology has given some cause to believe that humans may just be capable of creating a Utopian society after all. We’re far more interconnected globally, life expectancy is far above what it was 100 years ago, infant mortality rates are down, the amount of drinkable water is up and the threat of nuclear holocaust is all but gone.

Sadly, for all our technological advances, there are still as many social ills as ever. We are more disconnected as families, global poverty stubbornly persists and the threat of nuclear war has given way to the threat of terrorist activities that have spread from places like Iran and Afghanistan to threaten places like London and New York. The gap between rich and poor remains, and humans seem to be confused about the very nature of human identity. The very technology that gives so many reason for hope, has been seemingly unable to stem the time of the production of one of the great threats of our time: pollution.

Abortion. War. Poverty. Violence. Crime. Disease.

This is the stuff of headline news, and it comes as no more of a surprise to us than it did to our forefathers. These things have always been with us, and — it would appear to some — perhaps they always will.
The world is a yucky place, and it causes one to wonder:

Why get involved with such a world?

Seriously, why bother?

So many people — Christians and non-Christians alike — are sounding an alarm-like warning that we must get involved and work for active change. Some politicians appear to be running on the one-word platform of:

CHANGE!

But why? Why get involved? Why vote? Why become active? Why not simply sit back and wait for Jesus to come back and make everything right again?

“All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that’s my job. And I’m prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legends or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I’ve read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legends that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff.”

C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, Walter Hooper, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), p. 209

I went to school. I attended classes here, here and here (though that last one probably won’t claim me anymore). Eventually I started working my way toward a Doctorate in Philosophy here (and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for my wife telling me she was pregnant with our third daughter — something about having to choose between food on the table or initials after my name).

In each of those institutions of higher learning there were multiple scholars who had specialized in studying Christianity — devoted huge chunks of their lives to learning the history, languages, etc. that make Christianity what it is.

And these are not the only places of such scholarship. There are literally hundreds of colleges, universities and seminaries across the globe where rigorous and careful study of the Christian religion takes place. And it has been this way for nearly 2,000 years.

This is not the case for the Mithraic religion.

In fact, from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s there was really just one guy who could claim any level of scholarship and expertise in the field of Mithraic studies. That guy’s name: Franz-Valery-Marie Cumont.

He was a brilliant man — especially learned in the fields of history and archeology — and his scholarship is invaluable to many — particularly those who study comparative religion.

But he was just one guy. There was no community of scholarship with which to compare and contrast his theories. And, several decades after his death, most of his theories were denounced.

It doesn’t make him a bad guy. It just makes him a bad source to cite when you’re trying to disprove Christianity.

And that’s where most of the people who claim that Christianity actually stole the majority of its ideas about Jesus from Mithras go wrong.

Cumont had this idea that the Mithras cult as it existed in 2nd Century Rome was the same as the Mithras cult as it existed in 4th Century BC Iran and India. No credible historian believes this anymore. The only people who mention it are people who don’t do their homework.

Scholarship is hard, but it’s sometimes necessary. The historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection is too important to take shortcuts. So, let’s check our sources carefully. And, more importantly, let’s check our motives.

Again, I want to end with a couple of questions:

Why would someone want to disprove Jesus’ Resurrection? What might they gain from believing it to be a myth?

Last night, Susan Fulford left this comment:

You do realise of course that the resurrection story was quite a common theme in the mystery religions at least 400 years before the supposed death of Jesus. In fact if you check your classsical history and check the cult of “Mythras” , you will find that Mythras was around (according to the Persians), around 400BC. His birth date was 25 December and he had 12 helpers or “disciples” who preached his doctrine. Also he was put to death but rose again. The Mythras cult was not the only one which expounded the resurrection story. there were several, all of which existed 100’s of years before Jesus lived. I suggest you read up on these mystery cults so that you can get a more informed and wider view of the historical background. That is, look at all the facts!

Ordinarily I would just delete this. I doubt she is really interested in any kind of dialog and probably meant to just be a pain in my side. But this business about Jesus’ Resurrection is important. If it is true, it is the most important business in human history. So, I’m going to take on the idea that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mythras.

I fear this may bore some of you. I’ll do my best to make this concise and interesting. Again, this is one of those statements that gets made from time to time as an attempt to shut the mouths of Christians who insist on speaking of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus as if it actually happened. It would be wise to have some kind of response at the ready.

Okay — to set the stage: There was a time when Mithraism actually competed with Christianity for people’s loyalty. Today, Islam is on the rise. Celebrities join the Church of Scientology regularly. You might have a friend who recently announced that they have become a Buddhist.

You never hear of someone joining Mithraism anymore. It is essentially a dead religion.

But it’s still a factor in this one arena: It is where skeptics (usually — as we shall see — skeptics who haven’t done a lot of homework) are most likely to point and claim that Christianity is a copycat religion.

This theory comes from some strange books that have been released in recent years (The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S and The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty are among the most popular). These books make the claim that what we believe about Jesus is mostly stuff the ancient Persians believed about Mithras first. Only later did people take those beliefs and apply them to Jesus. In fact, the theory is now being bandied about that Jesus never actually existed but was created (a theory no historian in his or her right mind actually believes).

Among the things allegedly borrowed from Mithraism:

• Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave
• Mithra was an itinerant teacher with 12 disciples
• Mithra performed many miracles and promised his followers eternal life
• Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace
• Mithra was buried in a tomb and rose from the dead after three days
• Mithra’s followers continued to spread his teaching and celebrated his resurrection annually — on the day that has now become Easter
• Mithra’s followers referred to him as the Good Shepherd, the Lion, the Lamb, the Way, the Truth and the Light, Logos, Redeemer, Savior and Messiah
• Mithras wanted his followers to gather on the first day of the week to celebrate a “Lord’s Supper”
• These gatherings would be overseen by “Fathers” and the Father of all the Fathers (kind of like a Pope) lived in Rome

Okay, I’m going to spend some time delving into all this in the coming days. I’ll need to do a little background first — to talk about Mithraic studies in general over the past few decades.

For today, I’d like to hear from you.

Does any of this matter? Why should we care whether or not Christianity has incorporated ideas and concepts from other religions — even myths?

I received an email a few days ago from my friend David Padgett that I’d like to share with you. He’s been working with Christians in the former Soviet Union for several years. He writes:

As you probably know, in the former Soviet Republics, orphans are kept in the orphanage until they are 16 and then sent on their own to Technical School, where they might learn something, but most likely it will be how to sell their body or sell drugs to others etc.

Here are some statistics gathered by “Orphans Hope” on kids who are sent to face the world without the life skills to do so:

• About 10% of these children commit suicide before their eighteenth birthday
• 60% of the girls end up in prostitution
• 70% of the boys in crime

In Kazakstan, we have had some success with a transition home called the Light House, and we want to imitate that work with the small church in Simferopol, in the Crimean region of Ukraine, but that church (about 50 members) does not have the funding to rent or buy a house big enough for the kids. The preacher and his wife, after long consideration have agreed to take in the children they have worked with every week for 6 years, but they cannot do so in their current two bedroom apartment.

We are out of luck, we don’t have nearly the knowledge or resources to help them, but we really just have to help.

We have long wanted to build a transition home for 16 year old orphans who are turned out on their own because it is the only known method for getting jobs and long term Christian lives for orphan kids who are not adopted, but now we have to do something smaller more quickly.

Five of the children from the village orphanage who are especially close to Eugene and Helen Strakhov (the preacher and his wife in Simferopol), will be shipped to different cities at the government’s discretion in May, 2008, because the village orphanage near Simferopol is being shut down (due to the expense of repairing some dilapidated buildings (the roof collapsed in one bldg)!

Eugene and Helen have volunteered to house the five orphans (Sasha, Marina, Peter, another Peter, and Oksana), but their apartment is way too small. We have thought about buying a 5-6 bedroom house for their daughter, the male and female orphans and a church office etc., but it would cost $70-100k and time is very short. So the best plan we’ve heard is to rent a place with a lease for one year for a cost of about $12k. We could then use that year to evaluate the work and look at longer term options.

Eugene and Helen have worked with them and brought them to church for more than five years. Two of them, Sasha and Marina, have become Christians, the others are especially close to Eugene and Helen and seem likely to do well. We are trying to fit in one more named Julia by the way and have started showing 6 kids on our slide shows.

So, we cannot find it in our hearts to send the kids that we know, and have invested so much in away to so many dangers, especially the two Christians.

We don’t know what to do, but must do something, so here we are on your doorstep as it were. We have already talked to as many people as we could find from church organizations closer to us and their money is locked into other programs so we have only raised $2,500.00/$12,000.00 so far. (UPDATE: They’ve got verbal commitments for $3,950 now)
Here are some important details:

Three of the kids are 16 and would be sent out on their own in June anyway, but that is good in a way because they are easier for us to move in with Eugene and Helen. The other three are under 16 and so Eugene and Helen would have to be granted Foster Parent status by the government to keep them. We know that some families in Donetsk have gotten foster parent status while renting their homes, but it might be a sticking point if someone in the government is looking to cause us trouble.

Even once we gain the rental property and get Eugene and Helen moved in, they cannot be sure that they’ll get permission to keep the two younger children. The church there is well respected on many occasions, but the government is very fluid and unpredictable. So while it is very likely that we can get the older kids we cannot guarantee getting the three younger kids until it happens.

Once we get all those obstacles out of the way, even then there is no guarantee that we’d be able to watch those kids be converted or remain faithful all through there tough teenage years, but as you know from the success of the Lighthouse in Kazakhstan and others in Ukraine it is the only way we know of for non-adopted kids to possibly have a shot at a stable life, getting a job and maybe even one day a successful family.

If we see even one kid make it, the good done in reversing the shortfalls, and the cycles of unstable families that produce more unstable families does not sound like something that could ever be unnoticed. Would it not justify all the work done everywhere just within itself? If on the other hand the church in Simferopol, which was founded to reach out to orphans, is not able to find a way to reach out to these kids when they really need it, it will be a discouragement that is hard to overcome.

The church there has about 50 people, but only one family has a car, the preacher and his wife, which they use to take many other families to the market to sell vegetables they have grown. Some of the families have homes and have adopted children and taken in others as foster children, which is the best solution, and we search to find more qualified families all the time, but they are all booked up. The church will spend its time and available funds to support this, but it won’t be enough financially. However, we have a loving family who has worked with these kids almost every day for more than 5 years volunteering to care for them.

Just a few minutes ago I received this update:

Good news. Our prayers have gone up before God as a fragrant offering. Today, God gave Helen favor with the Ukrainian authority who handles foster children placement. According to her, the prospects are good for Eugene and Helen to take in the children to their home. They will need to find a place to rent and we will need to pay a year lease for the facility first. They are looking for this place. Pray that God will help them locate something. I believe God will hear our prayers – and especially the orphans over there who are praying!

Okay, here’s where you can come in. David says the two biggest needs they have are prayer (obviously) and money. If you’ll go here and send Faith 2.0 your money (and I know you have some extra — the IRS is sending you a big check in a few weeks), we could literally change the world for these six orphans.

There’s something in the Bible about helping orphans, isn’t there?

For the past couple of weeks I’ve been engaged in an exercise in Classical Apologetics (that’s what this kind of reasoning is called, Mike — as opposed to Evidentialist Apologetics, Reformed Apologetics or Fideist Apologetics).

We’ve boiled it all down to two big options:

• Either the Disciples told the biggest lie in human history.
• Or they were telling the truth.

I believe they were telling the truth, and there are several reasons why I believe this. We could talk about the change we observe in their lives after they claim to have seen Jesus back from the dead. We could talk about the internal consistency of the four Gospels and how many of the stories contained therein would never have been included in a fraudulent document. But I want to focus on something Dave mentioned in yesterday’s comments.

I want to talk about the price these early followers were willing to pay.

Of the original 12, Judas killed himself. John died an old man in exile. The other 10 were martyred — some in extremely horrendous ways. Church tradition says that Thomas was stabbed with a sword, Andrew was crucified on an X-Shaped cross, Peter was crucified upside-down, Bartholomew was flayed alive with a whip and then crucified.

Other early followers faced similar deaths. Paul was beheaded. Luke was hanged. Mark was dragged to death through the streets of Alexandria.

Now, people may be willing to die like that for something they believe to be true but is, in fact, false. But people will not suffer like that for something they know to be a lie.

Thomas Aquinas pointed out something further about their deaths: They died alone.

I can understand if these early followers of Jesus had been embarrassed after the death of their leader. It would be easy to imagine them gathering together and trying to come up with a cover story — some way of saving face among the people. We can conceive of them creating the story and going over it and over it until they have all their details straight. And as long as they stick together, peer pressure might keep any one of them from being the first to rat the others out.

Suppose Mike and Dave and Lee Ann make up a story like this. As long as they all stick together, no one wants to let the others down.

But put Mike in India, Lee Ann in Alexandria and Dave in Rome (he’s Italian, after all).

If you knew you were telling a lie, and you knew neither of your two partners in crime would ever find out that you recanted your story…and you were being threatened with a horrible, painful death…all you’ve go to do to get out of it is say, “It’s a lie.” You could say it and leave…head to, say, France and live to a ripe old age.

If you ever ran into one of the other two, you could lie to them! You could say, “The folks in Rome wanted me to say it was all a lie, but I wouldn’t. So, they ran me out of town.”

No one will ever know.

Aquinas said it’s just inconceivable that these early followers, separated from each other, faced with certain and painful death…that no one would recant. There’s not a shred of evidence anywhere that any of these early eyewitnesses ever wavered in their telling of this story.

I can be accused of a great many things. I may not be the easiest person to get along with. I may be mechanically inept. I sometimes avoid people, and I have been known to spin stories that put me in a more positive light. I have many faults, but I hope I cannot be accused of being naive or unwilling to examine the historical record. I hope to have demonstrated that Christianity does not require its adherents to put their brains in park and accept myth as history, opinion as fact or lies as truth.

As Terry said in an earlier comment: My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.

The blood shed for me on the Cross nearly 2,000 years ago today.

The righteousness vindicated by the emptiness of the grave.

This is my story. This is my song. Praising my Savior all the day long.

Yesterday we listed eight possible theories people have put forward about Jesus’ Resurrection. In addition, Darin wrote in to add the idea that Jesus may have had a stunt double like in the movie Vantage Point.

Sorry if that spoils a major plot point for anyone out there.

There are a few variations of that theme. One put forth by one of the Gnostic Gospels is that at the last second, Jesus switched places with Judas.

Let’s think through these theories, because on the surface they sound reasonable. Upon closer inspection, however, we’ll see how implausible each theory actually is.

Before we dive in, I should mention this: What we’re about to do is hardly objective. Objectivity on this topic is literally impossible. Some would say that objectivity on any topic is impossible. See, knowledge of any kind forces an opinion; exposure to facts removes neutrality. Once you learn something you immediately form an opinion.

The earliest theory is that the disciples stole Jesus’ body. The Jewish leaders actually cooked this idea up, but this would mean that the disciples lied (which is Theory #7). We’ll deal with this more later.

What about the Jewish leaders stealing the body? Well, this theory doesn’t make a lot of sense. They had so much at stake (see Presupposition #6 from Monday’s post) that it would have been in their best interests to disprove the resurrection. They could have done that easily by producing the corpse. Besides that, the Disciples didn’t just claim that the body was gone; they claimed to have seen Jesus alive and walking around. So, even if the Jewish leaders stole the body, the Disciples still embellished the story a lot.

And what’s really at stake here is whether the Disciples told the truth or lied, right?

What about the Roman leaders? Did they take the body (theory #3). It’s pretty clear that many of the Jewish leaders were in cahoots with the Roman leaders. If the Jewish leaders knew where the body was, they would have said something. And if the Romans had the body, the guards would not have made up a story about falling asleep. Besides, that still wouldn’t explain the Disciples’ story about seeing and talking with Jesus.

Maybe the women went to the wrong tomb (though Lee Ann contends that it’s driving that gives most women trouble — not walking). We established that the tomb was easily accessible and well-known. If the Jewish leaders knew where the tomb was and could get to it, they would do so to disprove the claims that Jesus was alive and well.

Maybe it was all a mass hallucination (theory #5). Well, if so there still would have been a corpse in the tomb. You’d have to add this theory to one of the first three because the body went somewhere — either it left the tomb on its own or someone took it.

Maybe Jesus wasn’t really dead. Maybe he was just unconscious for a while, and when he came to he got up and in his weakened condition (weakened from the beatings and the loss of blood and having been in a three-day coma) pushed a giant stone out of the way, overpowered Roman guards and left. Okay, that might explain the empty tomb, but the Disciples also claimed to watch him as he ascended into heaven. So, they’re still lying.

If you assume the eight things we talked about on Monday (which are much easier to demonstrate than the actual Resurrection), there are only two options:

1. The Disciples lied.
2. The Disciples told the truth.

The whole Christian faith comes down to these two possibilities. And we have to think about whether or not these Disciples were honest men telling the truth about what they saw and experienced.

Tomorrow I’ll give you my reasons for why I believe they were telling the truth. For today I want to hear from you:

Why does any of this matter? Why does it matter to you personally that Jesus’ Resurrection actually happened?  

At first glance, a story about a wandering preacher who was executed by the government but came back to life before ascending into heaven seems a little hard to swallow. But the fact is: The Resurrection of Jesus won’t go away.

We could perhaps understand if a few of his closest associates had missed him so much they imagined seeing him again. Or perhaps they had some other more nefarious reason for spreading their story about a resurrection. But we’d expect such a story to die down rather quickly.

And yet…the Resurrection of Jesus is widely believed today…and by some rather intelligent people.

Clearly, there is more afoot here than is apparent to the eye! Clearly, there must be reasons why a person would believe in such an exceptional story — good, solid, historical reasons.

There are several theories that have surfaced over the nearly 2,000 years since the actual events transpired — theories meant to explain the Resurrection away. Here are the most common:

1. The Disciples stole the body.
2. The Jewish leaders stole the body.
3. The Roman leaders stole the body.
4. The women on Easter Sunday went to the wrong tomb.
5. This was all a mass hallucination.
6. Jesus wasn’t really dead; he was unconscious and later revived.
7. The Disciples intentionally lied about the whole thing — just made it up.

Are there any popular theories you know of that aren’t included here?

Oh, and if we can pick these apart historically or psychologically or just logically, then we’ll deal with this startlingly alternative theory:

8. It just might be all true.

1. Jesus actually lived. Obviously, you have to start here. There’s no resurrection of a person who never lived.
2. Jesus actually died. Some people believe that Jesus just passed out and later recovered — giving the impression of having come back from the dead. But people back then knew what dead was, and they knew Jesus was dead. They ran a sword through his side to check before they took his body down from the cross and put it in the tomb. He actually died.
3. Jesus’ death was caused by a crucifixion that was instigated by Jewish leaders in Jerusalem and carried out by Roman authorities. Again, the Romans were professional killers; they knew what they were doing. Oh, and it wasn’t all the Jewish people who bore the blame for this event; it was certain Jewish leaders.
4. Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb that was both easily accessible and well known. Those Jewish leaders and those Roman authorities both knew where the tomb was and had access to it.
5. The disciples went around later and began to say that Jesus was alive. I’m not saying he actually was alive; I’m just saying that they thought he was. The disciples claimed that the tomb was empty and that Jesus not only rose from the dead but ascended into heaven. They said it early, and they said it often. They said it in the city where he died.
6. The Jewish leaders who instigated this whole thing had a lot more at stake in this matter than we do. Their reputations were on the line here. They wanted to disprove the resurrection way more than anyone alive today would. If they accused him of blasphemy and had him killed, and then he came back to life from the dead…well…they would have some ’splainin’ to do.
7. The disciples who preached the Resurrection came under intense persecution. And their persecution came about as a direct result of their message about the Resurrection. Furthermore, if they had stopped talking about it, the persecution would have relented.
8. The tomb was empty. The Jewish leaders, having a lot riding on this, knowing where the tomb was located and having access to it, would have gone immediately to discover the body. But that didn’t happen. Why? Because there was no body in the tomb.

Before we ever get to talking about the Resurrection of Jesus, we must be clear on all of the above. What we’ve talked about thus far is a matter of historical record. This is relatively easy to verify.

And the reason I’m doing this is because Christians are often portrayed as people who have checked their brains at the door — people who haven’t really thought about stuff deeply.

The sad truth is that many Christians have done just that: they’ve failed to think through why they believe what they believe.

But if the Resurrection is true, then it is the single most important event in all of human history. A person would have to be a fool to go through life and never spend more than a few moments contemplating whether or not it actually took place. Some of the smartest people who ever lived have examined the evidence and come away convinced that it happened.

This is too important to be dismissed by a wave of some skeptic’s hand. This calls for some intelligent analysis.

Tomorrow we’ll examine some of the theories people have put forth to explain the Resurrection away. For today, I have two questions:

Why do you think so many people have put their brains in park about the Resurrection?

What do you think might be some of the negative consequences of doing that?