Yesterday was Easter. So, predictably, there were a lot of Easter themed memes and posts in my social media feeds. Even so, I have to say that I was a bit surprised by how many atheist, "anti-Easter", posts I ran across. I thought it would be fun to share a few of my favorite atheist Easter memes.
 |  |
Let's be honest, the one with Jesus riding a bunny that poops colored eggs is pretty funny. The second one, "Zombie Jesus," is a bit more pointed, but still on the comical side. Now for a few of the more controversial ones I ran across (this is an apologetics website after all).
Just LOOK at all of those "contradictions"! Oh wait, there aren't any in this chart. A contradiction occurs when two things are being claimed that cannot both be true at the same time. However, it is not contradictory for one Gospel writer to say that Peter went to the tomb and for another Gospel writer to say that Peter and John went to the tomb. Sure, one is giving information that the other does not, but that isn't a contradiction unless the former necessarily rules out the latter, and it clearly does not. If I tell you that I wrote this blog today and then later my wife says we went to the park today, that isn't contradictory, because we did both. I just didn't mention the park. Applying that principle consistently pretty much takes care of everything on this particular list of "contradictions." And even if these were ALL legitimate contradictions, I defy anyone to explain to me how that (by itself) would do anything to undermine the consistent New Testament testimony concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (you know, the "big stuff"a).
For the record, I edited out an explicit word from the last square. Anyway...is claiming the empty tomb is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus just "like saying the yellow brick road is evidence for the existence of the Wizard of Oz?" Not even remotely. First of all, where do we learn about the empty tomb? From the New Testament. Where do we learn about the yellow brick road? From L. Frank Baum's, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." The former is recognized, even by the most staunch (informed) opponents of Christianity as being largely historically reliable (though they would certainly dismiss the supernatural elements). The latter is recognized, by everyone, as a fictional children's novel. So, is the empty tomb one of those supernatural elements that most historians would simply dismiss? Not according to Gary Habermas, who has done extensive research on the last three decades of scholarly writings having to do with the resurrection. What did Habermas find? According to Michael Licona,
"Habermas claims that at least two out of three scholars (and maybe more) writing on the empty tomb since 1975 grant its historicity with a view toward the resurrection of Jesus. In other words, they either hold or are open to the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for why the tomb was empty. Habermas's moderate-to-strong majority does not include those who grant the historicity of the empty tomb while explaining it naturally…. When these are taken into consideration...there is a degree of heterogeneity to the majority who argue for the historicity of the empty tomb, although its cause is disputed.... Thus the empty tomb may be added to a collection of facts pertaining to Jesus' fate that are granted by a significant majority of scholars writing on the subject."*
Notice that the 75%, which is already a sizeable majority, does not include those who grant that the tomb was, in fact, empty, but think a natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one. That means the majority of scholars who accept the empty tomb as historical fact is actually even higher than 3 out of 4. You can read the details of Dr. Habermas' findings here.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not claiming that something is true just in virtue of the fact that a lot of scholars hold to it (that would indeed be fallacious). But it minimally demonstrates that it is entirely wrongheaded to dismiss the question "How do you explain the empty tomb," on the grounds that it is equivalent to asking, "How do you explain the yellow brick road?" It is not.
____________________________________
*Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010), 461-62.
"Habermas claims that at least two out of three scholars (and maybe more) writing on the empty tomb since 1975 grant its historicity with a view toward the resurrection of Jesus. In other words, they either hold or are open to the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for why the tomb was empty. Habermas's moderate-to-strong majority does not include those who grant the historicity of the empty tomb while explaining it naturally…. When these are taken into consideration...there is a degree of heterogeneity to the majority who argue for the historicity of the empty tomb, although its cause is disputed.... Thus the empty tomb may be added to a collection of facts pertaining to Jesus' fate that are granted by a significant majority of scholars writing on the subject."*
Notice that the 75%, which is already a sizeable majority, does not include those who grant that the tomb was, in fact, empty, but think a natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one. That means the majority of scholars who accept the empty tomb as historical fact is actually even higher than 3 out of 4. You can read the details of Dr. Habermas' findings here.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not claiming that something is true just in virtue of the fact that a lot of scholars hold to it (that would indeed be fallacious). But it minimally demonstrates that it is entirely wrongheaded to dismiss the question "How do you explain the empty tomb," on the grounds that it is equivalent to asking, "How do you explain the yellow brick road?" It is not.
____________________________________
*Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010), 461-62.
RSS Feed
