Resurrection did not happen, say quarter of UK Christians

[OzSpen]

What an appropriate time for BBC News to debunk Jesus’ resurrection!

This is the headline in a BBC News story (9 April 2017) about Christian belief in the UK. The story states that

A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, a survey commissioned by the BBC suggests.

However, almost one in 10 people of no religion say they do believe the Easter story, but it has "some content that should not be taken literally".​

Why do you think this is happening?

A spokesperson for liberal Christianity put it this way, in the article:

Reverend Dr Lorraine Cavanagh is the acting general secretary for Modern Church, which promotes liberal Christian theology.

She said: "I think [people answering the survey] are being asked to believe in the way they might have been asked to believe when they were at Sunday school.

"You're talking about adults here. And an adult faith requires that it be constantly questioned, constantly re-interpreted, which incidentally is very much what Modern Church is actually about.

"Science, but also intellectual and philosophical thought has progressed. It has a trickle-down effect on just about everybody's lives.

"So to ask an adult to believe in the resurrection the way they did when they were at Sunday school simply won't do and that's true of much of the key elements of the Christian faith."​

In other words, belief in the resurrection of Jesus is for infant understanding and not for adults. Now that we are grown up, we can question and not come to an infantile conclusion.

How would you respond to such a view?

Oz

 

[Nathan]

I would have to ask some questions to better understand what they are thinking.

First one would be; "Who do you believe Jesus was/is?"

Seems to me, if they do not believe in the resurrection, then they just think He was a 'good' man or a 'good' teacher. It would indicate to me that they do not believe He was the Son of God.

 

[GodsGrace]

Interesting.
For me it's easy Oz.

If the resurrection did not happen, then Jesus was a delusional madman and the apostles were His accomplices and went to their deaths to protect and promote this madman.

Another idea is that when the letters and gospels were written, many who saw Jesus or experienced that Passover were still alive. And yet there was no outcry from them ,as there would have been had they been fabricated.

Cannot say more, not at computer, but that would be my reply.
Am I so dumb as to be serving a madman and his accomplices?

 

[Politico]

What an appropriate time for BBC News to debunk Jesus’ resurrection!

This is the headline in a BBC News story (9 April 2017) about Christian belief in the UK. The story states that

A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, a survey commissioned by the BBC suggests.

However, almost one in 10 people of no religion say they do believe the Easter story, but it has "some content that should not be taken literally".​

Why do you think this is happening?

A spokesperson for liberal Christianity put it this way, in the article:

Reverend Dr Lorraine Cavanagh is the acting general secretary for Modern Church, which promotes liberal Christian theology.

She said: "I think [people answering the survey] are being asked to believe in the way they might have been asked to believe when they were at Sunday school.

"You're talking about adults here. And an adult faith requires that it be constantly questioned, constantly re-interpreted, which incidentally is very much what Modern Church is actually about.

"Science, but also intellectual and philosophical thought has progressed. It has a trickle-down effect on just about everybody's lives.

"So to ask an adult to believe in the resurrection the way they did when they were at Sunday school simply won't do and that's true of much of the key elements of the Christian faith."​

In other words, belief in the resurrection of Jesus is for infant understanding and not for adults. Now that we are grown up, we can question and not come to an infantile conclusion.

How would you respond to such a view?

Oz

John Wesley, who was instrumental in turning his his nation from the cliff of absolute moral bankruptcy, would certainly have plenty to say to his UK citizens.

I have a much better question to pose in response to the question you have posed:

How can a Cristian expect anything less than the apostate, secularization of the Church and the population in general when that same Christian goes around believing and telling people that God's Word teaches that society must decline morally from this point in time forward as some supposed fulfilled precondition to the 1 Thessalonians 4:17 event? (not suggesting that is what you have done)

How can we expect anything less than apostasy and secularization of societies if we preach and teach such a hopeless, God-forsaken eschatology?

 

[Politico]

Interesting.
For me it's easy Oz.

If the resurrection did not happen, then Jesus was a delusional madman and the apostles were His accomplices and went to their deaths to protect and promote this madman.

Another idea is that when the letters and gospels were written, many who saw Jesus or experienced that Passover were still alive. And yet there was no outcry from them ,as there would have been had they been fabricated.

Cannot say more, not at computer, but that would be my reply.
Am I so dumb as to be serving a madman and his accomplices?

Your right bout the necessity of the death and resurrection of Christ. The incarnation and Christ's death is God atoning for our sins, stepping in the gap for us, and condescending to our condition so that we can fully identify with Him.

In the Incarnation, men/women were granted their desire to meet their Maker face to face. He ate our food, held our children, bore our sicknesses, etc. If Christ had not rose from the dead, then He would not have had the victory over sin and death. (Not even sin and death could stand against God in the flesh.) In addition, if he had not risen, then He would not be dwelling in us; and if He dwells not in us, then neither have we victory over sin and death. If God has not victory over sin and death, then sin and death has victory over God. Now, can anything be stronger than God or have victory over Him? Of course not. Sin and death entering the world had to be destroyed; else they would have overcome God's plan of creation and salvation.

 

[GodsGrace]

Your right bout the necessity of the death and resurrection of Christ. The incarnation and Christ's death is God atoning for our sins, stepping in the gap for us, and condescending to our condition so that we can fully identify with Him.

In the Incarnation, men/women were granted their desire to meet their Maker face to face. He ate our food, held our children, bore our sicknesses, etc. If Christ had not rose from the dead, then He would not have had the victory over sin and death. (Not even sin and death could stand against God in the flesh.) In addition, if he had not risen, then He would not be dwelling in us; and if He dwells not in us, then neither have we victory over sin and death. If God has not victory over sin and death, then sin and death has victory over God. Now, can anything be stronger than God or have victory over Him? Of course not. Sin and death entering the world had to be destroyed; else they would have overcome God's plan of creation and salvation.

Of course, I agree with you.
The problem is that person's that call themselves Christian do not believe this in a high percentage of the cases.

Have we become too "intelligent" to believe it?
Do we trust science more?

What would you say to these people?
If they don't believe in the resurrection, I can bet they don't believe in the Bible either. So you can't use scripture at the beginning.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Those quarter of UK "Christians" aren't Christians at all. They deny Christ and Christians don't do that. 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. So their faith is useless. They may as well believe in unicorns for salvation. That seems clear to me.

 

[Free]

What an appropriate time for BBC News to debunk Jesus’ resurrection!

This is the headline in a BBC News story (9 April 2017) about Christian belief in the UK. The story states that

A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, a survey commissioned by the BBC suggests.

However, almost one in 10 people of no religion say they do believe the Easter story, but it has "some content that should not be taken literally".​

Why do you think this is happening?

A spokesperson for liberal Christianity put it this way, in the article:

Reverend Dr Lorraine Cavanagh is the acting general secretary for Modern Church, which promotes liberal Christian theology.

She said: "I think [people answering the survey] are being asked to believe in the way they might have been asked to believe when they were at Sunday school.

"You're talking about adults here. And an adult faith requires that it be constantly questioned, constantly re-interpreted, which incidentally is very much what Modern Church is actually about.

"Science, but also intellectual and philosophical thought has progressed. It has a trickle-down effect on just about everybody's lives.

"So to ask an adult to believe in the resurrection the way they did when they were at Sunday school simply won't do and that's true of much of the key elements of the Christian faith."​

In other words, belief in the resurrection of Jesus is for infant understanding and not for adults. Now that we are grown up, we can question and not come to an infantile conclusion.

How would you respond to such a view?

Oz

Since such people claim to be Christian, I would point out Paul's words in 1 Cor. 15:

1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
1Co 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1Co 15:19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (ESV)

If Jesus wasn't raised, then none of us will be raised and the entire NT is an exercise in futility. Really, what would be the point? One simply cannot be a Christian and believe that Jesus was not raised from the dead.

I would then point out the shift in historical Jesus scholarship in the last 50 years. This is from a letter I received from Stand to Reason, just the other day:

"You may not know this, but in the last 50 years there has been a dramatic reversal in historical Jesus scholarship regarding the resurrection accounts. The vast majority [of] experts on the life of Jesus--including secular scholars who have no theological stake in the game--overwhelmingly agree to four facts of history.

First, they agree that Jesus died on a Roman cross and was buried in a tomb. Second, they agree that the tomb was empty three days later. Third, they agree that various individuals (and sometimes whole groups of people) experienced what they took to be the resurrected Jesus. Fourth, a skeptical non-believer--James, the brother of Jesus--and a vicious persecutor of Christians--Saul of Tarsus--did an immediate about-face based on what they claimed was an encounter with the risen Christ, and both suffered martyrdom rather than recant.

Note, none of these facts--a dead man, an empty tomb, claimed sightings, and changed minds--is supernatural in itself. Individually, they happen all the time. That's why historians have no trouble agreeing on those particulars, especially since the evidence supports them. What historians don't agree on is what best explains these four facts pertaining to Jesus. But there aren't many options."

That is based on the text of The Story of Reality, by Greg Koukl, pp. 151-2.

 

[Politico]

Of course, I agree with you.
The problem is that person's that call themselves Christian do not believe this in a high percentage of the cases.

Have we become too "intelligent" to believe it?
Do we trust science more?

What would you say to these people?
If they don't believe in the resurrection, I can bet they don't believe in the Bible either. So you can't use scripture at the beginning.

A great opening argument against secularists is to point out them that in reality all belief systems are faith-based. Such Godless worldviews have, as their foundation, the major faith-based assumption/principle/starting point of the 'something from nothing' hypothesis. This foundation then serves as the basis for all their other faith-based claims such as considering topics related to ethics, human value, the nature of emotions such as love and human inspiration, etc.

When addressing such liberal, theological claims as you have mention, we can point out that that theology without a risen Christ has no way for man to truly change his nature or habits. There is no provision in such belief systems for overcoming the fallen nature of man; their is no provision for dealing with sin and guilt. Man is ultimately savior--corruptible man.

With no risen savior, man cannot escape his corrupt nature. Scripture commands us to be joined to that which is perfect (GOD,Christ) in order to escape such sin/corruption. However, man/woman cannot be joined to God without the eradication of sin because sin cannot be joined to God/Christ. Man has no power or means to eradicate sin becasue man cannot pay the price of sin, which is death, and yet still live. What is the value of man's soul? Is it not infinite? Of so, then how can man pay the price to redeem his soul from death? Only an infinite God can pay such an infinite price, and He could only pay that price with the cost of his own life (the value of His life is infinite). If He had not risen from the grave then that price was not paid!

God alone is very Life. Imputed sin separates us from God/Life. Anyone not joined to Life is necessarily dead. Without a risen Christ, sin remains; therefore, those to whom sin is imputed is necessarily dead.

I apologize for not providing Scripture references right now, However, I don't have the time. However, everything I have stated is Scriptural.

 

[Politico]

If they don't believe in the resurrection, I can bet they don't believe in the Bible either. So you can't use scripture at the beginning.

All belief systems require moral authority. Otherwise, their supposed moral absolutes--and their derived laws/principles--are nothing more than personal preference (subjective). So for the Godless, they derive their supposed moral absolutes from the only source available to them--corruptible man. For the Redeemed, we source are moral absolutes from God and his His Written Word. So in arguing for moral authority, we must first establish are source of authority when arguing with secularists and atheists.

 

[GodsGrace]

A great opening argument against secularists is to point out them that in reality all belief systems are faith-based. Such Godless worldviews have, as their foundation, the major faith-based assumption/principle/starting point of the 'something from nothing' hypothesis. This foundation then serves as the basis for all their other faith-based claims such as considering topics related to ethics, human values, the nature of emotions such as love and human desperation, etc.

When addressing such liberal, theological claims as you have mention, we can point out that that theology without a risen Christ has no way for man to truly change his nature or habits. There is no provision in such belief systems for overcoming the fallen nature of man; their is no provision for dealing with sin and guilt. Man is ultimately savior--corruptible man.

With no risen savior, man cannot escape his corrupt nature. Scripture commands us to be joined to that which is perfect (GOD,Christ) in order to escape such sin/corruption. However, man/woman cannot be joined to God without the eradication of sin because sin cannot be joined to God/Christ. Man has no power or means to eradicate sin becasue man cannot pay the price of sin, which is death, and yet still live. What is the value of man's soul? Is it not infinite? Of so, then how can man pay the price to redeem his soul from death? Only an infinite God can pay such an infinite price, and He could only pay that price with the cost of his own life (the value of His life is infinite). If He had not risen from the grave then that price was not paid!

God alone is very Life. Imputed sin separates us from God/Life. Anyone not joined to Life is necessarily dead. Without a risen Christ, sin remains; therefore, those to whom sin is imputed is necessarily dead.

I apologize for not providing Scripture references right now, However, I don't have the time. However, everything I have stated is Scriptural.

Hi politico
No scripture is fine with me. I can tell if something is scriptural or not.
I also don't have a Bible handy many times...

You've stated the entire salvation plan that God had from the beginning.

I like to ask people if it's easier to believe that something came from nothing, or that God created everything.

Any scientist will confirm that something cannot come from nothing.
They will also confirm that there has to be a first cause.

I tell them that I find it easier to believe God created everything.

It solves so many problems!

 

[WIP]

A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, a survey commissioned by the BBC suggests.

Just proves that claiming the title Christian does not make one a Christian.

 

[OzSpen]

I would have to ask some questions to better understand what they are thinking.

First one would be; "Who do you believe Jesus was/is?"

Seems to me, if they do not believe in the resurrection, then they just think He was a 'good' man or a 'good' teacher. It would indicate to me that they do not believe He was the Son of God.

Nathan,

There are liberal, postmodern deconstructionists like John Dominic Crossan who state that 'the Easter story at the end is, is like the Nativity story at the beginning, so engraved on our imagination as factual history rather than fictional mythology' (Crossan 1994:161).

He explained that Jesus' resurrection 'is not ... about the vision of a dead man but about the vision of a dead man who begins the general resurrection. It is an apparition with cosmically apocalyptic consequences' (Crossan 1999:29).

What is an apparition? It is 'a ghost or ghostlike image of a person' (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v apparition).

Oz

Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.
Crossan, J D 1998. The birth of Christianity: Discovering what happened in the years immediately after the execution of Jesus. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.
Crossan, J D 1999. Historical Jesus as risen Lord, in Crossan, J D, Johnson, L T & Kelber, W H, The Jesus controversy : Perspectives in conflict, 1-47. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

 

[OzSpen]

John Wesley, who was instrumental in turning his his nation from the cliff of absolute moral bankruptcy, would certainly have plenty to say to his UK citizens.

I have a much better question to pose in response to the question you have posed:

How can a Cristian expect anything less than the apostate, secularization of the Church and the population in general when that same Christian goes around believing and telling people that God's Word teaches that society must decline morally from this point in time forward as some supposed fulfilled precondition to the 1 Thessalonians 4:17 event? (not suggesting that is what you have done)

How can we expect anything less than apostasy and secularization of societies if we preach and teach such a hopeless, God-forsaken eschatology?

Politico,

Yours is a good thought for another thread. I encourage you to start that thread.

The OP here is discussing those 'Christians' who do not believe in Jesus' resurrection.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Since such people claim to be Christian, I would point out Paul's words in 1 Cor. 15:

1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
1Co 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1Co 15:19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (ESV)

If Jesus wasn't raised, then none of us will be raised and the entire NT is an exercise in futility. Really, what would be the point? One simply cannot be a Christian and believe that Jesus was not raised from the dead.

I would then point out the shift in historical Jesus scholarship in the last 50 years. This is from a letter I received from Stand to Reason, just the other day:

"You may not know this, but in the last 50 years there has been a dramatic reversal in historical Jesus scholarship regarding the resurrection accounts. The vast majority [of] experts on the life of Jesus--including secular scholars who have no theological stake in the game--overwhelmingly agree to four facts of history.

First, they agree that Jesus died on a Roman cross and was buried in a tomb. Second, they agree that the tomb was empty three days later. Third, they agree that various individuals (and sometimes whole groups of people) experienced what they took to be the resurrected Jesus. Fourth, a skeptical non-believer--James, the brother of Jesus--and a vicious persecutor of Christians--Saul of Tarsus--did an immediate about-face based on what they claimed was an encounter with the risen Christ, and both suffered martyrdom rather than recant.

Note, none of these facts--a dead man, an empty tomb, claimed sightings, and changed minds--is supernatural in itself. Individually, they happen all the time. That's why historians have no trouble agreeing on those particulars, especially since the evidence supports them. What historians don't agree on is what best explains these four facts pertaining to Jesus. But there aren't many options."

That is based on the text of The Story of Reality, by Greg Koukl, pp. 151-2.

Free,

I agree with all of this, but we need to emphasise that this was a bodily resurrection and not that of, say, J D Crossan and his support for the resurrection as apparition.

The abstract of my PhD dissertation on Crossan and the resurrection is at: http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/50510?show=full

Excellent analysis you gave.

Oz

 

[ezra]

why even acknowledge there garbage

 

[OzSpen]

Just proves that claiming the title Christian does not make one a Christian.

Exactly! It's too bad the BBC didn't include a couple questions in its survey relating to what is a Christian. Questions such as:

• What does it mean to be a Christian?
• Do you believe that you need to repent and seek forgiveness of your sins from God, to become a Christian?
• What does the New Testament state is the content of the Gospel preached?
• Etc.

Getting a secular news organisation to ask these kinds of questions would be like whistling in the wind.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

why even acknowledge there garbage

Ezra,

Do you mean 'their garbage'?

I raised this issue because we need to know the strategy of the enemy. Imagine going into battle as a complete novice with no understanding of how the enemy operates.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Interesting.
For me it's easy Oz.

If the resurrection did not happen, then Jesus was a delusional madman and the apostles were His accomplices and went to their deaths to protect and promote this madman.

Another idea is that when the letters and gospels were written, many who saw Jesus or experienced that Passover were still alive. And yet there was no outcry from them ,as there would have been had they been fabricated.

Cannot say more, not at computer, but that would be my reply.
Am I so dumb as to be serving a madman and his accomplices?

Wondering,

Great response.

1 Corinthians 15 proves you are spot on.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Those quarter of UK "Christians" aren't Christians at all. They deny Christ and Christians don't do that. 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. So their faith is useless. They may as well believe in unicorns for salvation. That seems clear to me.

Papa,

Christ being raised is given new meaning today, such as: (a) raised in your hearts, (b) apparition. That's why we must present the biblical evidence for bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Oz