CRJ, Class 1 Recap

The first meeting of our study of "Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" (CRJ) went really well. We had about 15 folks in attendance and every single person contributed to the discussion throughout the class! We started off the class by going over the classsyllabus (you can check that out here). Our class objective is to "to prepare everyday believers to defend and articulate a case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus."  Next we watched a short, animated video on "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" It does a nice job summarizing the sort of material we will be learning from this course. (This was actually posted on Chad Gross's website,TruthbombApologetics, a few days ago!) It's only 4.5 mins so check it out if you can! After the video we moved on to discuss the first three chapters of CRJ which consisted of two sections: Introduction and The First Two Facts. Introduction We started our discussion by reinforcing the purpose of the class. We did this by discussing the "Jesus Seminar" and considering how everyday believers would react/respond to such authoritative-sounding statements despite the fact that "the Jesus Seminar and its friends do not reflect any consensus of scholars except for those on the radical fringe of the of the field. Its methodology is seriously flawed and its conclusions unnecessarily skeptical.” (Luke Timothy Johnson). And so the task of our class is to be equipped to be ready to make a defense for the hope that is in us. (1 Peter 3:15).  We also considered how important the resurrection really is to Christianity. What's at stake here? Paul says that if the resurrection didn't happen then Christianity is over (1 Cor 15:12-19)! We agreed. It was asked if a person could really be considered "Christian" if they didn't believe in the resurrection. We said that because the resurrection is so essential to Christianity (along with the Incarnation and Atonement) it's hard to understand how one could be "Christian" and yet deny the resurrection. We did a thought experiment asking, "if the resurrection really did happen the way it is claimed, does that necessarily confirm Christianity?" After a bit of discussion we determined that if Jesus was resurrected then that means we need to deal with Jesus and figure out who he was. And that will lead to "Christianity". After laying that groundwork we then began discussing historical methodology. First we considered the idea of "certainty". Often skeptics demand "certainty" or "proof" (whatever that means). But we were reminded that 100% certainty can almost never be realized. (For instance, are you 100% certain that you are really reading this? Are you sure you're not in the Matrix and in reality just laying in a chair being induced to think you're reading this?!) Instead we should view certainty as a spectrum, not a binary (on/off) function.  Our historical approach is a "minimal facts" approach. We are going to use (1) strongly evidenced data and (2) data granted by virtually all scholars on the subject, even the skeptical ones. The idea is to "keep the main thing [the resurrection] the main thing." (I.e. we don't yet need to go off on rabbit trails to prove biblical inerrancy, for instance). What principles do historians use to support a historical claim? There are five we discussed: Multiple, independent sources Enemy attestation Embarassing admissions Eyewitness testimony Early testimony When we apply this to a historical study of Jesus it means we want multiple, independent, early, eyewitness testimony. The best source for this is from a bunch of old letters that have been compiled into what we call "The New Testament" (NT). The First Two Facts Fact # 1: Jesus died due to crucifixion. This historical claim is made by all the gospels and is ubiquitous in the NT. But, it is also claimed by five non-Christian sources. (A few folks volunteered to research a source and give a brief synopsis next week.)  Fact #2: Jesus' disciples sincerely believed he rose from the dead and appeared to them. This claim has two branches of support: (1) They claimed it [documentation] and (2) They believed it [action]. The evidence behind the fact that "They claimed it" is remembered by P.O.W. Here we have an astounding nine sources! (Paul (x1 source), Oral Tradition (x2 sources: Creeds, and Sermon Summaries) Written Tradition (x6 sources: 4 gospel writers, 2 early church fathers) That they believed it and suffered persecution and martyrdom is supported by at least seven sources (Acts, Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Origien, and Dionysius of Corinth).  This concluded our discussion on this week's main content. We wrapped up the class with a case study in groups of 3 or 4. We read some comments from a fictional skeptic and then formed a response. This helps reinforce the material and think through how we might express it in our own words.

For next time (March 10, 2016 in rooms 13-15 of Mt. Zion UMC Education building): Read chapters 4 and 5 Review chapters 1, 2, and 3 for a short five-question quiz (For those who volunteered) Give a brief synopsis of the five non-Christian sources behind the claim that Jesus died due to crucifixion