This is one of those posts I've had on my mind for months, without being sure I could write the words I meant. After this morning, the picture came into sharper focus.
I've read more accounts than I can remember of folks in
I'm not intentionally searching for such gruesomeness, or finding these lurid stories in the worm-eaten journals of early 18th century explorers; I'm talking about accounts of people being killed or eaten alive in events still happening to this day.
-----
Atheists are a puzzling bunch of people, especially when they seek to attack Christ. Some would like to claim Jesus never existed at all, but was merely a myth, a fairy tale like King Arthur, passed down from oral tradition at the beginning and then embellished in written accounts through generations of creative scribes and disingenuous authors.
But even if Jesus did exist, they argue, his life doesn't matter anyway because the accounts of his death, burial and resurrection are nothing more than fictions created to conceal “what really happened”:
(a) Christ merely passed out on the cross and was buried, then the cool damp air inside the tomb miraculously revived him, or
(b) The beatings, floggings and side-spearing never happened, because if they had, Christ would have been in such a terrible state that no amount of damp air could help him, or
(c) Christ actually did die on the cross, but the disciples forgot where he was buried and mistakenly assumed he’d been resurrected when they found an empty tomb, a simple error of geography that caused a troublesome centuries-long misunderstanding; but then “probably what really happened” was:
(d) The disciples stealthily moved the 5-ton stone, stole Christ's body from under the sleeping Romans' noses and, being eager to be persecuted and die as penniless martyrs, thought it'd be a good idea to cook up a tale of his resurrection and ascension into heaven to add credibility to their claims.
Seems like skeptics would study the topic more closely first, determine which hypothesis seemed most plausible and complete to suit their purpose, and then stuck with that one explanation before they started dismissing the resurrection.
And I think they would, too ... if only they could find one that was thoroughly plausible and absolutely complete.
-----
Not even James Cameron could find Christ's body (and thus missed his opportunity to be immortalized in Hollywood as The Man Who Ruined the Resurrection), but I’m sure skeptics would settle for finding a new "Secret Lost Gospel of Bob the Centurion" buried in a jelly jar under Pilate’s shoe closet that repudiated all four gospel accounts of Christ's arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection.
Shoot, they'd settle for finding a piece of gum with an Aramaic yodh scribbled on one side if they thought they could chew it long enough to prove Christ changed his mind when confronted by his accusers, or in any way ever denied being who he claimed to be.
But Christ really was who he said he was, and no account will ever be found that says Christ:
(2) Backed down or reversed himself when challenged by his accusers
(3) Offered to negotiate a plea-deal to spare his life
(4) Agreed with the Pharisees that living by the law was sufficient, in exchange for a lighter sentence
(5) Showed the Sanhedrin how he'd done the magic tricks behind the "Feed the 5000" and "Waiter, we need more wine" illusions
(6) Argued with Pilate, "Man I don't know what you heard so far, but those people out there got it all wrong"
(7) Renounced the gospel, admitted he was a liar or complained "Wow, what was I thinking about?" as the nails were being driven into his hands and feet
What a heyday the Romans and the Pharisees coulda had if even one of those things had been true and a witness coulda been presented to prove it. And certainly enough time elapsed before the first written gospel accounts were widely circulated that the Romans coulda just made one up, like the Sanhedrin did with false witnesses, to nip this irritating new Christianity in the bud.
But they didn't because they couldn't: too many eye-witnesses were still alive who'd been physically present at Christ's trial and crucifixion who could dispute any false accounts that contradicted what they'd seen with their own two eyes.
That leaves modern-day atheists and skeptics with nothing to support their claims but intrigue and fanciful possibilities ... theories far more difficult to substantiate than the historical gospels they attempt to dispute.
-----
Church tradition holds that all 11 of Christ's disciples died martyr's deaths (the 12th being Judas Iscariot). Why would men willingly choose to die prolonged agonizing deaths for no purpose, rather than renounce the lie of their own creation? Wouldn't it just have been easier to say, "Hey dude with the flails, take a time-out and check Peter's basement ... we hid the body in there"?
The disciples couldn't deny the resurrection because they'd seen Jesus alive with their own eyes, and knew without any doubt Christ's message was real … and so they spent the rest of their lives doing exactly as he commanded. Even though sharing the gospel ultimately cost all of them their lives.
Sure, Peter denied him three times while Christ was being questioned; it's just that I can't find an account anywhere of any of the 11 disciples denying Christ after his resurrection. Wonder if Christ expects less from us today ... because we weren't physically there to see it?
No, just because we weren't there 2000 years ago, I don't think that he does.
-----
This morning I wondered what it would be like to be in a church somewhere if a bound man was brought out during the message to stand beside the pastor, who then explained to the congregation that to better understand what really happened to Christ, the man standing before them would receive 20 lashes with a cat-o-nine tails. Right before their eyes, to demonstrate one part of what Christ's suffering had been like.
Yep that sounds weird, and I'll bet the auditorium doors would be choked with folks running over each other in horror and fleeing with disgust to get away, no matter how calmly the pastor tried to assure them, "It's perfectly OK, because this man agreed to let it take place so that we could all see."
Doubt that'd make much difference to the congregation, because most people couldn't sit still and watch the event unfold. But assuming they had no choice but to see it happen, I’m convinced that afterwards not one of them would ever deny what they’d witnessed … because they’d been there and seen it with their own two eyes.
Being an eye witness to the living, resurrected Christ permanently changed the disciples’ lives. His resurrection proved Christ was who he said he was, that he alone had died in our place, conquered the grave and rose again to save us from our sins. And that when he said “I am the way, the truth and the life,” brother he meant every word.
So as believers, are we living every day according to the things in the gospels we happen to agree with, or according to the idea that faith means God is a spiritual slot machine about to pay off if we’ll just be patient long enough, or maybe because we believe he’s our heavenly bipolar uncle willing to reward us and give us exactly what we want … so long as we say exactly the right words or recite the appropriate chants … and catch him in the right mood?
Or are we living like the disciples, according to what we’ve seen and witnessed instead?
No comments:
Post a Comment