JESUS OF NAZARETH DIED AND ROSE BODILY FROM THE
GRAVE
ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota
------------------------------------------------------------
"JESUS OF NAZARETH DIED AND ROSE BODILY FROM THE GRAVE"
The Geisler-Till Debate
------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW
* Participants and Format of the Debate
* Geisler's First Speech
* Till's First Speech
* Geisler's Second Speech
* Till's Second Speech
* Questions and Answers
* Till's Concluding Speech
* Geisler's Concluding Speech
------------------------------------------------------------
PARTICIPANTS AND FORMAT OF THE DEBATE
Dr. Norman L. Geisler (author, educator, and Dean of
Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, NC) and Mr.
Farrell Till (editor of The Skeptical Review and English
teacher at Spoon River College, Canton, IL) met for public
debate March 29, 1994, at the Columbus College Fine Arts
Hall (Columbus, GA). The proposition was "Jesus of Nazareth
died and rose bodily from the grave," which Geisler affirmed
and Till denied. The format was two 20 minute speeches
followed by two 10 minute rebuttals. There was then a
30-minute period of questions from the audience and finally,
the closing speeches of two minutes each. Geisler won the
toss and, thus, spoke first.
NOTE: This transcript is not the official record of the
debate although it has been reviewed and approved by Farrell
Till. While complete accuracy was attempted, errors no doubt
persist. Square brackets ([]) were used for explanatory
insertions and to indicate that it was impossible to
determine from the tape what was said. Ellipses (...) were
used to show that the speaker did not complete his thought
(they do not imply that words were left out of the
manuscript).
DR. NORMAN L. GEISLER'S FIRST SPEECH (TWENTY MINUTES)
It is an honor to be here. On the topic under discussion, I
affirm that Jesus of Nazareth died and rose bodily from the
grave. I offer two points in support of this claim. First,
the New Testament documents are historically reliable
accounts. Second, these documents reveal that Jesus really
died on the cross and actually rose bodily from the grave.
The argument for the historical reliability of the New
Testament accounts has two parts.
First, the existing manuscripts of the New Testament are
accurate copies of the original ones -- in particular those
relating to the death and resurrection of Christ. Second,
the writers of these documents (specifically the Gospels,
Acts, and 1 Corinthians) were either eyewitnesses or
contemporaries of the eyewitnesses providing an accurate
account of the fact that Jesus died and rose again.
The documentary evidence for the reliability of the New
Testament is greater than that for any other book from the
ancient world. Hence, employing the same criteria used on
other ancient documents, the New Testament is an accurate
representation of the first century original. Three lines of
evidence combine to demonstrate this conclusion. First, the
New Testament has more manuscripts. It is not uncommon for
great classics to survive on only a handful of manuscripts.
According to the noted Manchester scholar, F.F. Bruce, we
have about nine or ten good copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars,
twenty copies of Livy's Roman History, two copies of
Tacitus' Annals, eight copies of Thucydides' History. The
most documented secular work from the ancient world is
Homer's Illiad -- surviving on 643 manuscript copies. By
contrast, there are over 5,366 Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament, most of which include the Gospels. The New
Testament is the most highly documented book from the
ancient world.
Second, the New Testament has earlier manuscripts. One of
the marks of a good manuscript is its age -- generally, the
older the better, since the closer to the time of the
original composition the less likely it is that the text has
been corrupted. Most books from the ancient world survive
only in a handful of manuscripts that were written about
1,000 years after the end of the first century. And one
portion of the Gospel of John survives from within about a
generation of the time it was composed. No other book from
the ancient world has as small a time gap between
composition and the earliest manuscript copies as the New
Testament has.
Third, the New Testament is more accurately copied. The New
Testament is one of the most -- if not the most --
accurately copied books from the ancient world. The great
Greek scholar A.T. Robertson said that the real concern is
only with a thousandth part of the entire text. This would
make the New Testament 99.9% free of significant variants.
The noted historian Philip Schaff calculated that of the
variants known in his day, only 50 were of real
significance, and not even one affected an article of faith
or a precept of duty. By comparison with the New Testament,
most other books from the ancient world are not nearly so
well authenticated. Professor Bruce Metzger, of Princeton,
estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with
only about 90% accuracy and Homer's Illiad with 95%. By
comparison, he calculated that the New Testament is about
99.5% accurate. So even by conservative standards, the New
Testament survives in a 99+% reconstructed text with all the
essential truths about the death and resurrection of Christ
not being affected.
In summation, the evidence, the British scholar Sir
Frederick Kenyon declared, that the number of manuscripts of
the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of
quotations from it in the oldest writers of the church is so
large that it is practically certain that the true reading
of every doubtful passage is preserved in someone or another
of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other
book from the ancient world. In addition to abundant and
accurate manuscripts, there is also equally good evidence
that what these texts affirm about the death and
resurrection of Christ is historically reliable. It should
be noted that it is not necessary to this argument that they
are inspired or inerrant, but only that like other good
works of antiquity they are accurate. Again, the evidence
for this is greater than that of any work from that period.
First of all let me mention four crucial books, namely Luke,
John, Acts, and 1 Corinthians, which purport to be written
by eyewitnesses and/or contemporaries. Luke was an educated
contemporary of Christ who said: "That just as those who
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the
word (namely the apostles), so too it seemed fitting for me
as one having a perfect understanding of all things from the
very first to write you an orderly account." John the
apostle claimed to be an eyewitness in chapter 21; Paul
affirmed that he was a contemporary of Christ and a witness
of his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15), noting that there
were over 500 witnesses most of whom were still alive when
he wrote.
Second the claim of being written by contemporaries is
supported by the freshness, vividness, and accuracy of the
accounts (giving specific geographical, topological, and
cultural details that are known to fit the time period of
which they speak). Although the Gospel writers offer
different perspectives, they all present the same basic
facts about the death and resurrection of Christ. Further,
all mention of real historical places of the times (such as
Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem) all utilize the names of
actual places of people such as Pharisees, Sadduccees,
Herodians. In addition, names of real historical persons of
the period are mentioned (like king Herod, Pontius Pilate,
and Caesar Augustus).
Third, the science of archaeology has confirmed the basic
historical accuracy of the Gospel record. To take but one
example, there are the writings of Sir William Ramsay, whose
conversion from a skeptical view of the New Testament was
supported by a lifetime of research in the near-eastern
world. He wrote, "I began with a mind unfavorable to it.
More recently I found myself often brought in contact with
the book of Acts as an authority for topography, antiquites,
and society of Asia minor. It was gradually born in upon me
that in various details the narrative showed marvelous
truth." As a result, Ramsay discovered that Luke was a
first-rate historian. In Luke's references to 32 countries,
to 44 cities, and 9 islands, there were no errors. This
being the case, Luke's prior narration of Christ's death and
resurrection (which are integral parts of his Gospel) should
be accepted as authentic as well. And since it is in accord
with that of the other Gospels on the basic facts about the
death and resurrection of Christ we have here an
archaeological confirmation of the basic historicity of
these documents on these essential facts.
Fourth, the manuscript evidence points to a first century
date for the basic Gospel material. The John Rylands papyri,
being an early second century copy of portions of John found
in Egypt, points to a first century origin of John in Asia.
Likewise the Bodmer papyri from the end of the second
century and the Chester Beatty papyri from only a half
century later form crucial links in a manuscript chain that
takes us right back to the threshold of the first century
when the books were written.
Fifth, the writers of the New Testament books on the
resurrection like Luke, John, and Paul were known to be
honest men. They not only expounded a high moral standard of
honesty and integrity, but they lived by it and died for it.
While some people have been known to die for what they
believed to be right but was wrong, few people have been
willing to die for what they know to be wrong. What is more,
the other Gospels (like Matthew and Mark) with no direct
claim of authorship give the same basic message about
Christ's death and resurrection.
Sixth, the testimony of the early second century writers
directly link the Gospels with the eyewitnesses and
contemporaries of the events. The Oracles of Papias
(125-140) for example, make the significant affirmation that
the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, that Mark
the associate of Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark shortly
after the middle of the first century.
Seventh, the immediate successors of the apostles beginning
in the late first and early second century cite Gospels and
epistles as authentic including sections on the death and
resurrection of Christ. In A.D. 95 Clement of Rome cited the
Gospels. Around A.D. 110 Ignatius quoted Luke 24:39 (a
crucial text on the resurrection of Christ). Polycarp, a
disciple of John the apostle cites the synoptic gospels as
authentic. The Epistle of Barnabas (135) quotes Matthew.
Papias (125 and following) speaks of Matthew, Mark, and John
writing Gospels saying three times that Mark made no errors.
Eighth, highly reputable contemporary scholars date the New
Testament books within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and
contemporaries of the events. Archaeologist Nelson Gleuck
wrote: "We can already say emphatically that there is no
longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New
Testament after A.D. 80." The renown paleographer William F.
Albright declared that every book of the New Testament was
written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and 80s of the
first century and very probably between 50 and 75. More
recently, even the radical "death of God" theologian Bishop
Robinson of Honest to God fame declared that the New
Testament was written by contemporaries beginning only seven
years or so after the events and were circulated among other
eyewitnesses and/or contemporaries of the events.
Ninth, the known time lapse between the actual events and
the time of composition of the first document is too short
for mythological development. One expert, Julius Meuller,
declared that it takes at least two generations for a myth
to develop. Whereas there is only 20 years or so in the case
of the New Testament. He also notes that myths do not
develop when there are still contemporaries of the events to
debunk them (such as there were at the time of the basic New
Testament documents). Furthermore, the New Testament record
shows no sign of mythological development (such as are
present, say in the 2nd and 3rd century apocryphal gospels).
Tenth, and last, even radical critics of the New Testament
acknowledge that the apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians about
A.D. 56. But this is only 22 years after Jesus was crucified
in A.D. 33. and well within the lifetime of the
eyewitnesses. Further, Paul indicates that his material is
based on an even earlier creed which he received (1
Corinthians 15:1) that comes from within a few years of the
events themselves. In this text, Paul affirmed that the
majority of 500 witnesses were still alive when he wrote
(implying that his readers could confirm for themselves if
they wished).
In brief, there is nothing like this kind of evidence for
any other historical event from the ancient world. Now, if
the New Testament documents are reliable, it remains only to
show that they affirm that Jesus died and rose from the dead
a few days later.
A brief review of the New Testament evidence will suffice to
support these two truths.
* First of all, Jesus announced many times during His
ministry that He was going to die. Typical is Matthew
17 where He said the son of man is about to be betrayed
into the hands of men and they will kill Him and the
third day he will be raised.
* Second, the nature and extent of Jesus' injuries
indicate that He must have died: he had no sleep the
night before He was crucified, he was beaten several
times and whipped, he collapsed on the way to His
crucifixion carrying His cross. This in itself, to say
nothing of the crucifixion to follow, was totally
exhausting and life-draining.
* Third, the nature of the crucifixion assures death.
Jesus was on the cross from 9 a.m. until just before
sunset, he bled from wounded hands and feet as well as
from thorns that pierced his head. There would be a
tremendous loss of blood from doing this for more than
six hours. What is more, crucifixion demands that the
victim constantly pull himself up in order to breathe
(thus inflicting excruciating pain from the nails).
Doing this all day would kill anyone even if they were
in good health.
* Fourth, the piercing of Jesus' side with a spear from
which came blood and water is proof of His death. For
if he had not already died, this fatal spear wound to
the heart by trained executioners would have certainly
finished the job.
* Fifth, Jesus affirmed the very moment of His death on
the cross when He declared, "Father into thy hands I
commend my spirit." And having said this He breathed
His last (John renders this: "He gave up His spirit").
Indeed Jesus' death cry was heard by those who stood
by.
* Sixth, the Roman soldiers accustomed to crucifixion
and death pronounced Jesus dead. It was a common
practice to break the legs of victims so they could no
longer lift themselves and breathe. But since these
professional executioners were so convinced that Jesus
was actually dead, they even deemed this unnecessary in
Jesus' case.
* Seventh, Pilate double-checked to make sure Jesus was
dead before he gave the corpse to Joseph.
* Eighth, Jesus was wrapped in 75 pounds of cloth and
spices and placed in a sealed tomb for three days. If
he was not dead by then (which He clearly was) He would
have died from lack of food, water, and medical
treatment from three days in the tomb.
* Ninth, medical authorities who have examined the
circumstance and nature of Christ's death have
concluded that He actually died on the cross. In an
article in the Journal of the American Medical Society,
March 1986 concludes: "Clearly the weight of historical
and medical evidence indicated that Jesus was dead
before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports
the traditional view that the spear thrust between his
right rib probably perforated not only the right lung
but also his pericardium and heart and thereby insured
his death. The interpretations based upon the
assumptions that Jesus did not die on the cross appear
to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.
But, not only is this an established fact that Jesus died,
it is also a fact that He rose from the dead, which he
offered as confirming of His unique claim to be the son of
God. Let's look briefly at the evidence.
That Jesus rose from the dead even leaving behind an empty
tomb and grave clothes is verified by all four Gospels,
Acts, and 1 Corinthians.
These historically reliable documents record 12 different
appearances of Christ beginning three days after his death
to over 500 people over a 40 day period of time during which
Jesus was seen, heard with the natural senses. His tomb was
visited, found empty, indeed no one ever found his dead
body. Jesus dined with His disciples four times eating
physical food himself. He was touched and offered Himself to
be touched four times (including His challenge to Thomas to
put his finger in his hand and to see the crucifixion
wounds). When Thomas complied, he declared, "My Lord and my
God." Every earnest seeker of truth is still invited to do
the same. Many skeptics including Simon Greenleaf, Frank
Morrison, and Josh McDowell have done so and believed. After
carefully studying the evidence for almost half a century
now, I would thoughtfully and earnestly invite you to do the
same and join them. Thank you. [applause]
MR. FARRELL TILL'S FIRST SPEECH (TWENTY MINUTES)
Like Dr. Geisler, I want to express my appreciation for the
oppurtunity to be here. I always consider it a privlege to
speak on subjects like the issue under discussion tonight,
and I certainly want to thank those who arranged this event
for asking me to be a part of it. At the same time, I think
that I must also take just a moment to express my
disappointment. I thought when I was first contacted about
coming here that we were going to have a debate. Dr. Geisler
insisted on the format that we are using. There will be one
hour of speaking time, and how can anyone cover a subject
like this in just one hour's time? I begged him in
correspondence to reconsider to increase the speaking time;
he rejected that. I asked him to at least allow for a period
of cross-examination where I could directly question him and
he could directly question me, and he rejected that too and
finally he wrote me a short note that said, "Do it the way
that I have outlined or there will be no debate." I was very
anxious to get him here, and since I've heard his speech, I
think that I made the right decision. I was very anxious to
get him here before an audience, and so I finally agreed to
his conditions and so here we are tonight.
I think that if I make three counter arguments that I could
answer everything that Dr. Geisler said and answer it
satisfactorily. For a moment I was confused; I thought that
he was, or that the subject was supposed to be a discussion
of the accuracy of the New Testament records. Let's assume
that the New Testament was copied with one hundred percent
accuracy. That would in no way prove that anything that was
written in it was necessarily true.
The first major flaw that I would like to point out in Dr.
Geisler's position is that the story of Jesus is a story
that was just too familiar by the time that it started being
told and applied to this man Jesus of Nazareth. Long before
Jesus of Nazareth allegedly lived, virgin-born,
miracle-working, crucified, resurrected, savior-gods were a
dime a dozen. They flourished in most of the pagan religions
that were believed by people who lived centuries, centuries,
and centuries before Jesus allegedly lived. I could, if time
permitted, and I think that perhaps that's one reason why he
did not want more speaking time; he did not want to have to
deal with issues like these. I could take saviors like
Krishna, saviors like Osiris, saviors like Dionysus, saviors
like Tammuz, who presumably lived centuries and centuries
before Jesus of Nazareth allegedly lived, and they were born
of virgins, they worked miracles, they died, most of them
through crucifixion, and they were resurrected from the
dead, and their followers were zealous for them.
All of the things that he says about Jesus were said many,
many, many years before this Jesus allegedly lived. Doesn't
that make you a bit suspicious, Dr. Geisler? If I should
write a book, and after that book were published, someone
should discover the plot, the major points of the plot, were
the same as a book that had been written a thousand years
ago, what would you suppose? Would you suppose that
independently I had arrived at all of these major points of
the plot, or would you assume that I somehow had known about
that earlier work and that I had plagiarized? That's a major
problem that he's going to have to deal with.
I'm going to mention the name of a church father. He made
references to the early church leaders, so let me mention
just one. Justin Martyr. You may never have heard that name,
but I assure you that Dr. Geisler has heard it. Justin
Martyr was a second-century so- called church father, and he
wrote two apologies in which he tried to convince the pagans
of his generation that it was logical to believe that Jesus
Christ was the son of God, born of a virgin, and [that] all
the things that were being preached about him were
believable. In his first apology, Volume I, chapter 22, page
69, in the Reeves edition. I hope that you wrote that down
and if you can't find the Reeves edition, you should be able
to find another edition, and by looking at Volume I, chapter
22, you should be able to find this. In writing directly to
the emperor of his generation, Justin Martyr said this:
"By declaring the logos, the first begotten of God, our
master Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin, without any
human mixture, we (Christians) say no more in this than
what you (pagans) say of those whom you style the sons
of Jove."
Now do you understand what he is saying? He is saying to
them, "Well, why do you think that it is so fantastic that
we say that Jesus was born of a virgin when you yourself say
that there are many sons of Jove?" [Jove] being a primary
god that the pagans of that generation believed in. "For you
need not be told what a parcel of sons the writers most in
vogue among you assigned to Jove." In other words, I don't
need to tell you how many there are that your writers claim
were the actual sons of Jove.
"As to the son of God called Jesus, should we allow him
to be nothing more than man, yet the title of the son
of God is very justifiable. Upon the account of his
wisdom, considering that you (pagans) have your Mercury
in worship under the title of the word a messenger of
God. As to his, (that is Jesus Christ's) being born of
a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that."
Now it's true that Justin Martyr was talking about the
virgin birth of Jesus, but he could have said this same
thing about the miracles that Jesus allegedly performed. He
could have said the same thing about his crucifixion, and he
certainly could have said the same thing about his
resurrection.
People, I want you to stop and think seriously for just a
moment. I know how much emotionalism is involved in this,
but please understand this. Crucified, resurrected
savior-gods, who had been born of virgins, were a dime a
dozen at this time. Matthew the 14th chapter, verse 1, go
home and read it, and you'll see that when Jesus began to do
his mighty works, that Herod who had ordered prior to this
the execution of John the Baptist, said, "Why, this is John
the Baptist risen from the dead." Now I'm not trying to tell
you that Herod necessarily said that, but the fact that
whoever wrote this in the book of Matthew would have made a
statement like that just goes to show how commonplace belief
in the resurrection from the dead was at that time. Now
let's suppose that this year when the baseball season opens,
that some player goes on a tear, a rookie that we've never
heard of before, he goes on a home-run tear and he starts
knocking home runs all over the place. Who is going to say,
"Well, this is Babe Ruth risen from the dead?" Or let's
suppose that a dictator of a foreign country starts
massacring his people. Is anyone going to say, "Well this is
Adolph Hitler risen from the dead?" Certainly not, because
we are more intelligent than that today.
Dr. Geisler has got to stand before this audience and he has
to forget how accurate the scribes were when they copied the
New Testament, and he has got to prove to us that when the
New Testament says that Jesus was scourged, that that
actually happened. He's got to prove to us that when his
side was pierced on the cross, that that actually happened.
Where is his evidence that those things actually happened?
Well, it's in a book; it had 5,000 manuscripts or something
like that circulating; what does that prove?
I brought with me a book [holding it up] that maybe some of
you thought was a Bible. It isn't the Bible; it's the Book
of Mormon. You may have seen it. Every issue that I have
seen, and I was trying to make this point on the radio,
either, uh, yesterday, and I was cut off before I could
finish it. If you look in the beginning of the Book of
Mormon, you will find a copy of the affidavit that was
signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris,
the so-called three witnesses. They testified that they saw
the golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written,
that they handled them with their hands, and that they saw
Joseph Smith translating. They saw this with their own eyes.
This is not hearsay evidence.
Dr. Geisler [gesturing towards Geisler], what did Mary
Magdalene ever write? Do you have it? What did Joanna, one
of the women who went with her to the tomb, ever write? Who
was she, anyway? What did Salome ever write? Who are these
500 brethren that Jesus appeared to? Can you give us their
names? Could you tell us where this happened? It's hearsay
evidence. Don't you know what hearsay evidence is? Haven't
you ever heard Judge Wapner saying, "That's hearsay
evidence, it's inadmissable"? That's such a rudimentary fact
that it's known even in the People's Court. Hearsay evidence
[clapping hands for emphasis] is not admissible! But this
[slapping Book of Mormon] isn't hearsay. This is the direct
testimony of the three witnesses. Underneath it is the
direct testimony and the affidavit of the eight witnesses,
who said that they also handled the plates. They just didn't
see the angel bring them down. Does Dr. Geisler believe that
what's written in this book [holding up the Book of Mormon]
is true? No! Does he believe he direct testimony of Oliver
Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris? No! I assure you
that he certainly does not believe it. But he believes the
hearsay evidence of this Mary Magdalene. He believes the
hearsay evidence of these 500 brethren. Hearsay evidence, my
friends, is simply not admissible, and that is a point that
he must deal with. Let's not say we hope that he'll deal
with it. When he comes back before this audience and he does
not deal with that, then we have every right to reject
everything that he has said to us tonight.
The second flaw in Dr. Geisler's theory is that it is an
extraordinary claim. If he had come to us tonight and had
said, "On the way here, I had a flat tire." I'd believe
that, wouldn't you? He looks like a pretty decent fellow. I
wouldn't have any, any reason at all not to believe him if
he told us that he had a flat tire on his way to the debate
tonight. People have flat tires all the time. But what if he
came to us and said, "Yesterday I was driving along in my
car and suddenly there was a bright light, it just flashed
out of nowhere, and I felt myself being drawn out of my
automobile, and suddenly I found myself aboard a flying
saucer, and little alien creatures from another planet had
me on the table, and they were examining me, and after they
finished their examination, they beamed me back down in my
car, and I continued my trip." How many in there would
believe this? No, you wouldn't believe it, because it is an
extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. If someone walked into this
auditorium and said, "I saw Elvis Presley yesterday," would
you believe it? Someone over here raised his hand. Who
knows, maybe he's seen Elvis Presley. But you know certainly
that you would not believe this, because it would be an
extraordinary claim. What if this person said, "Five hundred
people were with me, and we saw Elvis Presley." Would you
believe it? No, because it is an extraordinary claim, and
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now I
want to know what in the world is extraordinary about the
fact that this story was written in a book that Dr. Geisler
does not for one moment believe. Yet, you know, this book is
far more recent than the one that he puts his faith in. This
book isn't even two centuries old. That one [gesturing at a
Bible on his table] is over 2,000 years old, some of it. If
someone makes an extraordinary claim today, he [Geisler]
doesn't believe it, but if somebody makes an extraordinary
claim 2,000 years ago, he declares that he is a man who is
inspired by God and that his testimony is reliable.
Another problem, and we're running rapidly out of time.
Another problem with this wonderful evidence that he has is
that it is contradictory. Have you people ever read the
resurrection accounts in the four gospels? If you haven't, I
urge you to do so. I beg you to go home tonight and read the
28th chapter of Matthew and see what Matthew said, read the
16th chapter of Mark and see what Mark said, read the 24th
chapter of Luke and see what Luke said, read the 20th
chapter of John and see what John said, and if you don't see
contradictions, then you're not reading it carefully enough.
Let me give you one example of a glaring contradiction. This
one is enough to completely discredit this reliable evidence
that he was telling us about. Matthew, and also Mark and
Luke, tell us Mary Magdalene went to the tomb the first day
of the week, and while she was there she saw an angel, who
had rolled the stone away. This angel announced that Jesus
whom they were looking for was not there, that he had risen
from the dead. According to Luke's account, he said, "Don't
you remember that while he was with you, he told you that he
would rise from the dead?" And Luke said when the angel said
this to them, they then remembered the words of Jesus, that
he would rise from the dead. But what does John tell us? By
the way, Dr. Geisler, you are not going to [laughing
derisively] try to tell us that was the apostle John? You
are going to fly in the face of the best biblical
scholarship in the world... but, anyway, the book of John
tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, found that it
was empty, she ran to Peter and the other disciple, and what
did she say? Did she say, "An angel has told me that the
Lord has risen from the dead?" No, she said, "They have
stolen the Lord's body, and I do not know where they have
laid him." And yet she had, according to Matthew, Mark and
Luke, seen an angel that had told her he has risen from the
dead. Luke said she remembered his promise that he would
rise from the dead, but John says she ran to the apostles
and said that they have stolen the body of the Lord, and we
don't know where he is, and we're going to have to stop
because my time is up, and I appreciate your attention.
[applause]
DR. NORMAN L. GEISLER'S SECOND SPEECH (TEN MINUTES)
For the purposes of contrast and comparison, I'll frame my
response to Till over against the evidence I presented for
the resurrection. First, I argued that the basic evidence
for the New Testament is found in the fact that the New
Testament documents are reliable, having more evidence for
them than for any other book from the ancient world. This
was supported by 13 different lines of evidence, most of
which professor Till never really addressed. I hope he'll
address these 13 later on.
Second, I showed that the historical reliability of the New
Testament documents affirm repeatedly that Jesus of Nazareth
died physically on a cross, and rose from the dead several
days later. That Jesus actually died was supported by nine
arguments, again, most of which professor Till never
addressed, we'll wait to see if he addresses these nine
arguments later.
Furthermore, Jesus' resurrection was demonstrated by over
500 eyewitnesses over a 40 day period of time, on 12
separate occasions, observed his empty tomb, touched his
reanimated body, saw him eat physical food, and listened to
him teach nearly a month and a half. This is not hearsay
evidence. By contrast, professor Till offered no first-hand
evidence for the only logical alternative, namely that Jesus
did not rise from the dead. Rather, he contented himself
largely with an attempt to attack the credibility of the
evidence that I presented. But this move will not work. For
the topic, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead", is a question
which calls for an affirmation or denial.
But it is incumbent upon anyone making a truth-claim such as
the this to offer positive evidence, which professor Till
failed to do. At least no first-hand contemporary evidence
such as was presented for our view. Hence, the choice of an
intelligent listener is between accepting that Jesus did
rise from the dead as supported by numerous lines of
contemporary evidence, such as I presented. Or else that
Jesus did not die and rise from the dead without any
first-hand evidence for such a claim.
This choice should not be difficult for all who are
interested in having a rational basis for their belief.
Rather than offer any positive evidence contemporary of the
events that Jesus did not rise from the dead, professor Till
largely contented himself with an attempt to undermine the
argument that Jesus did rise from the dead. But as every
student of logic knows, giving arguments against an opposing
view is not the same as giving arguments for one's view.
It's simply a failure to provide any evidence for what one
claims to be true. And when one fails to give any rational
justification for his view, it is a rationally unjustified
view. But no rational person should accept as truth, a
rationally unjustified belief -- certainly not one about an
important issue such as the one we're discussing tonight.
Logically, either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not.
But since Professor Till has failed to support the position
that Jesus did not rise from the dead, it remains only to
examine his arguments against the evidence that Jesus did
rise from the dead.
As for my second point that the basic New Testament
documents affirm that Jesus really died physically and rose
again several days later, professor Till never really
offered any evidence against it. Rather, what he did was to
ignore what these documents actually say and to offer his
own speculations instead. But such an argument fails to
address the real point. One that is obvious to anyone who
reads the New Testament documents. Namely, that whether we
accept or reject the New Testament message, they do affirm
that Jesus died and rose from the dead.
One of the few points that professor Till really addressed
was whether the basic New Testament documents are reliable
when they affirm Jesus died and rose. In response he said
first, in effect, the documents are not reliable because
they're not inerrant. But whether or not there are
inconsequential errors in the record is both irrelevant and
misses the point. First of all, it's irrelevant to what I
argued, since the argument does not depend on the claim that
the New Testament documents are reliable in so far as they
affirm the basic truths that Jesus died and rose again, not
necessarily in every detail they affirm. What professor Till
would have to do, and what he clearly did not do, is to
prove that the New Testament documents are not reliable when
they affirm that Jesus died and rose again. Whether the
basic New Testament documents are inerrant in all things, is
another topic for another night, one which apparently
professor Till would rather debate than the one we
discussing tonight.
Second, there is a related but equally fallacious argument
in professor Till's presentation. Namely, that whenever one
finds discrepancies about an event, that the documents or
testimony about that event cannot be reliable. But this
clearly does not follow for several reasons. For one thing,
it proves too much. It proves that most documents from
antiquity are not reliable since they too have similar
discrepancies. Thus, his argument, in effect, destroys our
knowledge of all of ancient history. Furthermore, if
professor Till is right, that all conflicting testimony on
details in a courtroom proves that one cannot even know the
broad facts of what happened. To borrow a contemporary
example, it's like arguing that since there are so many
conflicting stories about the circumstance of President
Kennedy's death, that there is no good evidence that he
actually died.
Furthermore, he fails to realize that there were not other
people who believe in death and resurrection. Frazer's
Golden Bough thesis is almost a century old and it fails to
recognize the significant difference between non-Christian
belief in a spiritual afterlife and the Christian belief in
bodily resurrection. None of the pagan religions believed in
a literal, physical, bodily resurrection like the New
Testament teaches. It's a false analogy. It fails to account
for the important difference between non-Christian belief in
reincarnation into another body and resurrection of the same
body leaving an empty tomb behind.
Finally, following David Hume, professor Till argued that
regardless of whatever evidence there may be for the
reliability of the New Testament documents, they should not
be believed since they contain miracle stories. But this
argument either begs the question, or else it's false. It
begs the question if one assumes that miracles like the
resurrection did not happen, because miracles cannot happen.
And if it admits that miracles can happen, then its wrong
since the New Testament documents are reliable, that a
resurrection did happen, which even David Hume admits, would
be a miracle if it happened.
In short, the skeptic's dilemma is that either miracles are
assumed to be impossible before even looking at the evidence
which begs the question, or else miracles are possible and
we must look at historical evidence to see if indeed one has
actually occurred. But as we've seen, there is strong
evidence that the basic New Testament documents are
historically reliable. And these documents demonstrate that
Jesus died and rose from the dead.
In short, I have given strong contemporary evidence for the
view that Jesus rose from the dead, and professor Till has
offered only the improbability of miracles as a counter
argument. But as we all know, the improbability against
winning the lottery should in no way hinder anyone believing
it has happened. Indeed, ruling out the credibility of the
New Testament documents because central events have not
occurred, is like refusing to believe that a hole-in-one has
occurred since the odds are so improbable for one repeating
it several times.
What is more, even if the event has never occurred before,
this is not an invalid argument against it happening once. I
don't know of a single naturalistic scientist who will
refused to believe in the spontaneous generation of first
life even though they have never seen it happen, nor know it
to have happened repeatedly since it first allegedly
occurred in the primal pond -- or wherever. Likewise, no
intelligent person should reject the resurrection of Christ,
nor the reliability of the New Testament that relates it,
simply because no one alive has witnessed such event.
The rational personal doesn't make up his mind in advance of
an event as to whether it can or cannot happen. Rather he
opens his mind to the evidence of what actually did happen,
and as we have seen, the evidence is overwhelming to the
fact that Jesus did die and rise from the dead. And since no
real evidence has been presented for a contrary view, a
rational person ought to believe it has happened. Thank you.
[loud applause]
MR. FARRELL TILL'S SECOND SPEECH (TEN MINUTES)
This is my ninth debate. No, this is my tenth debate. And I
have seen a first. Did you notice that Dr. Geisler read a
manuscript for his first speech? That's okay, because he won
a toss and he was the first speaker. So if we wanted to read
a manuscript that he had written, that's okay, but I made a
rebuttal speech, and I didn't follow a manuscript. How in
the world did could he write a speech to rebut my speech
before he even knew what I was going to say? [Geisler
remarked, "I read your books."] He ignored the major points
that I made. [pausing] I'd like to know what the book is,
since I've not written a book on the resurrection.
Anyway, let me try to reply to the points that he made. The
New Testament documents are reliable, he told us again.
Well, I don't know exactly what he means by reliable. If he
means that they were copied in a reliable way, that is open
for debate. I have a reference Bible on my desk; I'd like
for you to come up and look at it and notice how many
footnotes there are in it that tell us that some authorities
say this, some ancient manuscripts say this, others say
this. The thing is riddled with footnotes. Does he call that
accuracy? But let's just assume that the book is a hundred
percent accurate. As I said, that would prove only that is a
hundred percent accurate in what it says, but it would not
prove that what it says, but it would not prove that what it
says necessarily happened. And that's the problem that he's
going to have to confront, and he didn't confront it.
If we were just going to argue about whether the New
Testament said that Jesus was crucified, whether the New
Testament said that certain women went to the tomb and found
it empty, whether the Apostle Paul said that Jesus appeared
to 500 brethren at one time, whether the New Testament said
that Thomas said that unless he saw him and touched the body
and examined the wounds, that he would not believe that
Jesus had risen from the dead, then there would be no need
for us to come here and have the debate, because, Dr.
Geisler, I readily admit that the New Testament says all of
those things, but this book [tossing the Book of Mormon onto
Geisler's table] also says a lot of things, and you don't
believe it, and you know that you don't believe it, and yet
the evidence for that is closer to us, and it would be a lot
easier for you to examine the integrity of the witnesses for
that book than it would be for you to examine the integrity
of the witnesses for that book [gesturing at a Bible on his
table]. Now that's something that you have got to contend
with. You've got to give us a reasonable answer to such as
that, and you cannot do it.
He said that he gave nine arguments to support the fact that
Jesus really did die and rise from the dead, and he said
that I didn't say anything about that. I made three major
counter arguments that I believe effectively answered
everything that he said. But did you notice that one of his
arguments for the fact that Jesus had really died was this
article that was published a few years ago by supposed
medical authorities who said that they had determined from
the New Testament accounts that Jesus really did die and
that the manner of death had happened in a certain way. Dr.
Geisler, how can anyone determine the cause of death 2,000
years after somebody died without having the body to examine
through autopsy? That's the type of evidence that you're
going to give us?
And did you hear him say I presented no evidence that Jesus
did not rise from the dead. He who asserts must prove. That
is an axiom of logic that surely you recognize. If I were
the one who had come here tonight and... or, I'll apply my
example to me... If I should have come here tonight and
claimed that I was abducted aboard a flying saucer a few
days ago... Dr. Geisler, let me see you prove that that did
not happen. You wouldn't bother to do it. You wouldn't
bother for one moment to do it. You'd say, "Till, you're the
one who said that it happened. The burden of proving it
rests on you." Now this man says that a man by the name of
Jesus of Nazareth was stone-cold dead in his grave for one
entire day and parts of two other days and that his body was
revivified and literally restored to life. That is an
extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence.
He not only does not have extraordinary evidence, but the
evidence that he has is extraordinarily unextraordinary!
Because it's nothing but hearsay, and he knows it. And he
would be laughed out of court if he would try to go into a
courtroom and say, "Well, someone said that someone said
that they saw this man rise from the dead." That type of
evidence simply is not admissible. If I say that I believe
in elves, it's my duty, it's my responsibility to prove that
elves exist. He does not prove that the elves do not exist.
He said that the New Testament does affirm that Jesus did
rise from the dead. Yes, yes, yes. Do you want me to write
it in boxcar letters on the side of this auditorium. I'll do
that if they won't get me for vandalism. Yes, the New
Testament does affirm that Jesus rose from the dead. That's
not the issue. The issue is, is this true simply because a
book that was written 2,000 years ago says that it happened.
All right, how likely is it that this happened?
Let's take his apostle Thomas as an example. He referred to
him; he would be a good one to use as an example. You are
familiar with the story. Jesus appeared to the apostles on
the night of his resurrection according to the 20th chapter
of John. Thomas wasn't there, although [turning to look at
Geisler] in Luke's account of that same appearance Dr.
Geisler, he said, Luke said that Jesus appeared to the
eleven. So I think you have a little contradiction here.
But, anyway, according to John, Thomas wasn't there, and
Thomas said, "Unless I can see him myself, unless I can
touch the wounds with my own hands, I will not believe." Now
I want you to think about that very seriously for just a
moment. Please try to remember this. Thomas knew the
apostles personally, and yet he would not believe this
extraordinary claim that they were making -- that this man
who had died had literally risen from the dead. Thomas said,
"I'm not going to believe it until I can examine the
evidence with my own hands," and he knew the apostles
personally. Yet Dr. Geisler expects us to believe the word
of those same apostles, which we have only through hearsay
testimony, by the way, even though we don't know the
apostles personally, and I submit to you that if Thomas knew
them personally and did not consider that satisfactory
evidence (their mere words satisfactory evidence) even
though he did know them, that we're justified to reject
their evidence because we don't even know the character of
the people who made this claim. You talked about the
improbability of winning the lottery. That doesn't mean that
people don't win the lottery simply because it's impossible.
Yes, Dr. Geisler, I live in a state that has a lottery, and
nearly every week someone wins two or three or five or ten
million. It happens all the time. Show me people rising from
the dead all of the time, and I'll say that you have a
point. [applause]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
[After the second round of speeches, Geisler and Till
answered questions from the audience. All questions were
submitted on cards and specifically addressed to one of the
speakers. The speaker to whom a question was addressed had
two minutes to answer the question; his opponent then gave a
one-minute response.]
Question for Till: What does eternal life portend for you?
Till:
What does eternal life portend for me? Well, according to
the Bible, I'm going to straight to hell, and I'll fry there
for eternity. [applause and laughter] How's that for an
answer? [spoken above a continuation of scattered applause]
But, to come back to a point that I've tried to make, which
those of you that are obviously not in my corner can't seem
to grasp, the mere fact that the New Testament teaches that
doesn't mean a thing, doesn't mean that it's so. I don't
know if you people will begin to comprehend how seriously I
have studied the Bible. I put twelve years into being a
minister and a missionary, and I was sincere, whether you
believe it or not. I just could no longer believe it
anymore. Now, if God wants to send me to hell for that, that
would be just like him, wouldn't it? [murmurs of
disapproval] Because this is the God in the Old Testament,
First Samuel the 15th chapter [raising voice over murmurs
from the audience], that ordered the killing of babies, and
he did it in Numbers the 31st chapter, and read the book of
Joshua, and you'll see that he did it there. Is that the God
you want me to believe in? You people can have him!
[applause]
Geisler's Response:
Since I've given arguments, in fact ten arguments, that the
New Testament documents are true, not just accurately
copied, which professor Till never answered any of the ten,
I believe that when New Testament documents say that this is
eternal life that you may know him, Jesus Christ, I believe
eternal life is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,
the eternal one ["Amen!" from the audience], and I don't
believe that God wants to send anyone to hell and certainly
not professor Till. Jesus said, "Oh, Jerusalem, oh,
Jerusalem, how oft I would have gathered you together as a
mother hen gathers her chicks, but you would not." And if
professor Till goes to hell, it's because he doesn't want
eternal life [loud applause and shouts of approval], not
because God doesn't love him [louder applause].
Question for Geisler: What is the medical evidence that it
is possible for one to be dead three days and then live
again?
Geisler:
You may recall that we argued that the New Testament
documents are historically reliable. When you're talking
about evidence for an ancient event, you're talking about
evidence based on documents and based on early documents and
based on contemporaries and eyewitnesses. The New Testament
has over five hundred eyewitnesses, contemporaries of the
event, documents that go right back to the beginning. To
deny the credibility of those documents and the testimony
that Jesus died and rose from the dead is to undermine the
credibility of all ancient documents, because the evidence
for the Bible is much greater than that for other documents.
I have not seen professor Till or anyone else here tonight
in the questions or comments provide anything to disprove
that evidence. If the documents are reliable, if they are
true and they present that Jesus died and rose from the
dead, that's the best kind of evidence you can have for
ancient events. If you won't accept that evidence, that is
kind of like the famous philosopher Nietzsche, the one who
said, "God is dead," signed Nietzsche, under which some
Christian wrote, "Nietzsche is dead," signed God. [laughter]
Nietzsche said this: "If you can prove this God of the
Christians to be, I would believe him all the less." I
commend to you that disbelief is not rational; it's
volitional. Disbelief is not because of people don't have
enough brain power; it's because they don't have the will
power. The evidence is there. It's valid, it's historical,
and it's ample. If someone rejects it, the consequences are
theirs. It's not because of lack of evidence; it's because
of their choice to disbelieve the evidence that is there.
[applause]
Till's Response:
Well, pardon me, but I thought the question was, "What
medical evidence is there [loud applause] to prove [pausing
as applause continues] that someone could return to life
after dying?" And he talks about how I don't answer this and
I don't answer that. I heard absolutely nothing in his
answer to indicate that he knows of any medical evidence
that can be given to support the premise that someone can
rise from the dead. He got off again on the, uh, on the fact
that we have five, uh, over five hundred reliable witnesses.
Who were these five hundred? I challenge him to tell us
before he leaves tonight who these five hundred were that
the Apostle Paul mentioned in First Corinthians the
fifteenth chapter, that Jesus allegedly lived, uh, appeared
to after he had died. Where did they live? When did this
happen? How can we know that this happened? The New
Testament is reliable? Yes, but does that mean that whatever
it says is true? [applause]
QUESTION FOR TILL: There have been many hearsay accounts
that Elvis lives. Do you have any firsthand evidence that he
doesn't? [Laughter, continuing while Till walks to the
lectern]
Till:
And that's funny? Well, let's go, let's go back to what I
said a moment ago. He who makes an outrageous, extraordinary
claim, he is the one who is obligated to prove it. If there
is anyone in this audience tonight who believes that Elvis,
Elvis Presley is alive, that is your responsibility, your
obligation to prove. I Don't have to prove that Elvis
Presley did not rise from the dead. I do not have to prove
that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead. I'm not the
one who is making this outrageous claim. Dr. Geisler is
claiming that this man who was stone-clod dead in his grave
came back to life. That is an extraordinary claim; it
requires extraordinary evidence, and I certainly have not
seen anything that even comes close to being extraordinary
evidence to support that. We've heard a lot of talk about
how reliable the documents are. Well, the book that I
pitched on his desk and then retrieved, because I certainly
want it [laughter] in my library, is over on my desk now. Do
you know that that book says that Jesus Christ appeared in
the Americas and that he preached to the Native Americans? I
doubt seriously if Dr. Geisler believes that that actually
happened. Yet if there are any Mormons in the crowd, I'm
sure they would say, "How in the world could you possibly
believe that this did not happen?" What's the difference?
They were conditioned to believe it; we have not been
conditioned. That's why those of you who applaud everything
that he says, even though it offers no evidence, do what you
do. See, you have been conditioned to believe this
[applause].
Geisler's Response:
Even in a courtroom, as it was in biblical times, from the
mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be
established. I can name a lot of people who saw Jesus --
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Judas, the Apostle Paul.
You only need two or three; you don't need five hundred to
establish there were eyewitnesses. Secondly, historical
evidence is what you have for historical events. Medical
evidence is what you have for medical events. I gave the
medical evidence that Jesus died, and I gave the historical
evidence that Jesus arose -- firsthand, first-century,
eyewitness evidence. Professor Till hopes to escape the net
tonight by saying two contradictory things. On the one hand,
it's pretty obvious to all of us that he doesn't believe
Jesus rose from the dead. Either Jesus did or he didn't. He
says I have to present evidence for my view, but he doesn't
have to present evidence for his view. Everyone who makes a
truth claim has to present evidence for their view. I
presented evidence that Jesus did. Where is his evidence
that Jesus didn't? [applause and "Amen!"]
QUESTION FOR GEISLER: Given that you believe that the Holy
Spirit is the true author of the Bible, how does it add to
the credibility of your position to say that the gospel
accounts were written by human witnesses?
Geisler:
As I indicated, the topic for discussion tonight is, "Did
Jesus rise from the dead?" Secondly, I answered that not by
claiming the Bible's inspired. In fact, if you check the
tape, you'll see that I disclaimed that that was necessary
for argument. I simply argued that the Bible was
historically reliable. You don't have to accept the Bible as
inspired to know that Jesus rose from the dead. You just
have to give evidence that it's [a] historically reliable
document in its central truth. You don't have to prove the
Bible was inerrant. There are answers for all of Professor
Till's little questions about this or that. The women, for
example, at the tomb simply said they remembered, didn't say
they believed, which is an easy answer to his question, but
that is not necessary to prove that an ancient document is
reliable; otherwise, all the documents from ancient history,
which by admission of the people who accept them have minor
errors in, would have to be discredited. If we had to have
inerrancy before we had reliability, we wouldn't have
knowledge of the past at all. All the arguments claim is
that the documents are reliable. I offered dozens of
arguments combined that they are, that the earliest desk on
the other side -- eyewitnesses, first-century, contemporary
accounts, or even close to it -- that Jesus didn't rise from
the dead. Any intelligent person who wants to make a choice
built on the evidence has to choose that Jesus did rise from
the dead. If one chooses to [dis]believe in spite of the
evidence, then all we can say is you can lead a horse to
water, but you can't make him drink. That's exactly what the
problem is tonight. Looking at the evidence, it favors the
fact that Jesus rose. Giving theories, hypotheses,
suggestions about the Book of Mormon [time clock beeps], or
some other book, which the eyewitnesses said that they saw
[time clock continues to beep], what does that prove?
[beeping continues] They weren't seeing anybody who rose
from the dead [beeping continues]; they were seeing
supposedly tablets of which some of them later denied their
testimony. Show me an apostle who later denied his ["Time!"
shouted from the audience] testimony. They all died for what
they believed. [Applause as Geisler finally walks away]
Till's response:
Well, of course, the gospel accounts were not written by
eyewitnesses. Bible scholars know that, and Dr. Geisler has
to be familiar with the evidence that indicates that they
didn't. If you think that Matthew, the apostle Matthew,
wrote the book of Matthew, if you think that the apostle
John wrote the Gospel of John, you have to be living on
another planet or else you are not paying attention to the
evidence. Uh, there is nothing to indicate that they were
eyewitnesses. Luke even in the beginning of his gospel said
that he was not an eyewitness to these things but that he
had researched the subject. And, uh, to get to this thing
that he keeps harping on, I'm going to announce to him
something that he doesn't know. I'm not really Farrell Till,
Dr. Geisler. I'm Napolean Bonaparte reincarnated, and I want
to see you stand here and prove that I'm not. [laughter,
then scattered applause as Till walks away]
QUESTION FOR TILL: John and Paul both saw Jesus after the
resurrection and wrote about it in the New Testament. Is
that also hearsay?
Till:
Well, uh, I just got through saying that John did not write
the gospel that bears that name. Bible scholars know that.
I'll quote a Unitarian minister whom I once heard say that
there are Bible scholars and there are fundamentalists. And,
of course, there are fundamentalists who certainly believe
that Mark wrote Mark, that Matthew wrote Matthew, that John
wrote John, but the evidence against this is overwhelming. I
just urge you to go to your library, get the information,
and study it for yourself, and you'll see that "John" who
wrote the book of John was certainly not an eyewitness to
the resurrection. As for the Apostle Paul, he had a vision,
and visions don't count. It's that simple. If this
hypothetical person that we've been talking about walked
into the auditorium tonight and said that he had seen Elvis
Presley and that he had seen him in a vision, why, we'd rush
him off to some psychiatric ward and get attention for the
poor fellow, because we would know that he needed it. But,
of course, the Apostle Paul said almost two thousand years
ago that he saw Jesus in a vision, and Dr. Geisler swoons
over that, as if that is some great proof. When we have
dreams, we know that there's really nothing to it, and when
we hear people say that they have visions, we know that this
is very, very unreliable evidence. So he's basing much, uh,
much of what believes on [time clock beeps] a man who said
that he had a vision. That's unreliable. [applause]
Geisler's Response:
First of all, I didn't claim only eyewitnesses. I said
eyewitnesses or contemporaries of events. Luke was a
contemporary, and he said very clearly that he was a
contemporary of eyewitnesses. In chapter one, he said, "I
have put down what, things most surely believed, just as
those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses." He was [a]
contemporary of eyewitnesses; he interviewed eyewitnesses.
Secondly, John clearly was an eyewitness. He said so right
in John chapter 21, verse 22 and following, and he says,
"This thing then went out among the brethren that this
disciple, John, would not die, yet Jesus did not say to him
that he would not die but if I will that you remain until I
come." This disciple, John, in context, who testifies of
these things and wrote these things, and we know that his
testimony is true, and there are also many other things
which Jesus did which are not written in this book, uh, that
I suppose if I would number them the whole world [time clock
beeps] could not contain the books." [beeping continues]
Jesus, uh, John did claim to be an eyewitness [time clock
beeping continues], and in First John one, he said, "I saw,
I heard, I handled I touched them" [beeping continues]. I
would say that's a good eyewitness. [applause]
QUESTION FOR GEISLER: Can you cite any corroborative
evidence outside of the New Testament that Jesus rose from
the dead?
Geisler:
Actually that question is kind of like saying, "Now apart
from your eyewitnesses, you don't have a very good case."
That's like four eyewitnesses in court who saw an accident,
and then one person came right after the accident, and the
defense attorney said, "Now apart from those four
eyewitnesses you just gave, you know you have only
circumstantial evidence." So it's begging the question to
say apart from the New Testament, and I gave the argument
that the New Testament was historically reliable. Those
arguments haven't even been addressed, let alone refuted.
But in addition to that, there are whole books, as several
on the table, on this single topic, one by Dr. Habermas, one
by the Manchester scholar F.F. Bruce. I'll cite just some of
this evidence that Jesus lived in the first century, died,
and it was believed by his disciples that he rose from the
dead. Josephus, Antiquities 29, [sic] Cornelius Tacitus, uh,
the Greek satirist Lucian, Roman historian Suetonius, Pliny
the Younger, Samaritan born Thallus, letter of Mara
Bar-Serapion, the Jewish Talmud, Phlegon, who spoke of
Christ's death and resurrection in his chronicles, saying
this: "Jesus while alive was of no assistance to himself but
that he arose after his death and exhibited the marks of his
punishment and showed how his hands had been pierced by
nails." This is in his chronicles, cited by Origen. Here is
an early Roman, as well as Josephus, reporting that the
disciples did, that they were convinced, that they were
converted, that they believed that he was God, that they
worshipped him. All of this is reported by contemporary,
early first-century historians in support of precisely what
the New testament says. [applause]
Till's Response:
I really have to wonder about your honesty, Dr. Geisler. You
have to know, or else you've been living on another planet,
that many of those writers that you've refer to have been
discredited by scholars, especially that quotation you
referred to from Josephus. It is recognized by all reputable
scholars of Josephus as a forgery. I see someone shaking
your head. Come and see me after this is over, and I will
present you with testimony from very reliable theologians
who just admit, "It's a forgery! Josephus did not write
that." As for as some of the other things, other so-called
historians that he referred to, in many of those references
that he has in mind, all that they were doing was recounting
what Christians believed. Christianity was a fact by that
time, and I can take you to encyclopedias now, and I can, I
can show you where encyclopedias say [time clock beeps] that
Mormons believes this and Mormons believe that [beeping
continues], or this happened in Mormonism... [Gesturing at
time keeper] He went over a few times; I can too. [scattered
laughs as beeping continues]. And all that they're doing is
recounting the claims of Mormonism. [applause]
Question for Till: You said that Dr. Geisler must prove to
us that Jesus rose from the dead. How do you define proof?
Till:
Well, uh, I would just ask you to apply to that the same
standard that you would apply to our hypothetical gentleman
who walks in and tells us that he has seen Elvis Presley
[comment from back of audience provokes scattered audience
laughs and murmurs] or someone else has risen from the dead.
Are you going to accept his mere word? You will at least
have the person himself saying that he saw him. In all of
these wonderful witnesses that he's citing [gesturing at
Geisler], with the exception of the Apostle Paul, all he is
hearsay. What did Mary Magdalene ever write? Do you have it,
Dr. Geisler? What did Salome write? [turning to Geisler]
Would you even tell us who this Salome was? Where did she
live? When did she die? Would you tell us who this Joanna
was who went to the tomb? You don't even know who she is,
but you seem to think that she is a credible witness, and
you don't even know whether she really said [time clock
beeps] that she saw the resurrection or whether... [Till
turns to time keeper] Don't I have two minutes? [Time keeper
apologizes] Uh, you don't even know whether she actually
said that she saw the empty tomb and that she saw Jesus
after he was resurrected. You have the word of someone who
wrote a gospel account who said that she said. You have the
account of the Apostle Paul, a man saw visions, who said
that Jesus appeared to five hundred witnesses. Trot out one
of those five hundred witnesses or give us something that
they wrote, that we can be sure that they wrote, and we will
accept that as reliable proof or evidence. Until then, I
have to keep hammering home the point: he has nothing but
hearsay evidence. And go ahead and shake your heads, but
that's the truth. That is the truth, my friends, and if you
had not been raised and conditioned to believe this, you
wouldn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead any more than
you would believe that Krishna [gesturing emphatically] rose
from the dead or that Osiris did. [light applause]
Geisler's Response:
Let me remind you again of the eyewitnesses. Paul was an
eyewitness and was not a vision. I challenge professor Till
to find one passage in [the] New Testament [that] clearly
and unequivocally says that it was a vision. I can show you
many passages where says he saw, just like the other
apostles, appeared to him. First Corinthians 15:3 and
following and 1 Corinthians 9:1, he lists himself right
along with the others. He saw, John saw, I've already
mentioned, James saw -- that was Jesus' half-brother, who
was an unbeliever before the resurrection. He was converted
as a result of the resurrection. Notice professor Till never
really defined proof. The reason for that is, had he defined
it, we had already given it, so it's better not [loud
applause] to give a definition than to face the consequences
[applause continues].
Question for Geisler: Dr. Geisler, address the other claims
of being the Christ. Were they reliable accounts? Was it
[sic] historically accurate?
Geisler:
Well, of course, that's been shown. The New Testament
documents, the gospels, Acts, and First Corinthians, which
are the crucial ones, in talking about the death and
resurrection, they're reliable, and once you accept that
they're reliable, then, of course, you accept the fact, as
indeed professor Till did. With regard to did Jesus die, he
said there's no question that the New Testament says that he
rose from the dead. The question is simply, "Is it true?" We
gave ten arguments that it's true; he didn't respond to any
of them. I'm still waiting for the response, and in addition
to that, if that's true, then, of course, Jesus' claim to be
the Messiah is true. He said, "I who speak to you am he," to
the woman at at Samaria; he said to Caiaphas, the high
priest, "I am the Christ." Jesus claimed to be the Christ,
the Messiah, the Son of God, and he offered the resurrection
as a proof of that claim. That's why we celebrate Easter,
because who's buried in Grant's tomb? Grant! Who's buried in
Washington's tomb? Washington! Who's buried in Jesus' tomb?
Nobody! He rose [applause] from the dead! [applause
intensifies]
Till's Response:
No, Dr. Geisler, you're wrong. We don't celebrate Easter
because it was the time that Jesus rose from the dead. We
celebrate Easter because it is a carryover from paganism.
[weak laughter] Read Ezekiel the [loud laughter] eighth
chapter, verse fourteen -- my friends who are back there
laughing, I'm quoting your Bible to you. Read Ezekiel the
eighth chapter, verse fourteen, and you'll see that Ezekiel
referred to the women who were standing before the gate of
the house of Jehovah, weeping over Tammuz. Tammuz was a
virgin-born, Sumerian-Babylonian, uh, savior-god, who died
and was resurrected, and each spring, in this ceremony, the
women weeped [sic] and wailed over his death, and then a few
days later, they celebrated his resurrection. It's a pagan
custom, Dr. Geisler. You know that, and you talk about I
don't deal with arguments. [Time clock beeps] I wish you'd
deal with this one. [applause]
MR. FARRELL TILL'S CONCLUDING SPEECH (TWO MINUTES)
I'll use this time to refer to some things that I didn't
have the oppurtunity to refer to during the regular
speeches. Dr. Geisler made the statement that the pagans
saviors were not like Jesus because they did not experience
bodily resurrection. But I want to assure you, my friends,
that that is not so. O-s-i-r-i-s, write it down,
O-s-i-r-i-s, he was an ancient Egyptian, virgin-born,
savior-god who died, and he was resurrected. You research
and you'll find that his mother [sic] searched for his body
that had been torn to pieces, put it back together, sort of
like in Frankenstein manner, and he was resurrected bodily
back to life. That's just one example that I could give you.
He is depending upon your ignorance, people. And I'm not
trying to be insulting to you. Your preachers do it all the
time. You get the wool pulled over your eyes, and it's your
own fault, because you don't know the Bible, first of all,
and you certainly know very little about the history of
religion. If you would go examine the evidence, you would
see that many of the things that he is telling you have no
basis in fact.
He says that Jesus had appeared to James, the half-brother
of Jesus. I'd like to know how that he knows that. The
apostle Paul said that Jesus appeared unto James. How do you
know that was the half-brother of Jesus? It could have been
the apostle James, couldn't it? I wish I could say a lot
more, but you know two minutes goes by very quickly.
[applause]
DR. NORMAN L. GEISLER'S CONCLUDING SPEECH (TWO MINUTES)
I have presented strong evidence and contemporary evidence
that Jesus died and rose from the dead. No such evidence for
the contrary view has been presented. This evidence is
sufficient for anyone who wants to believe.
But what about those who choose not to believe? They are, of
course, free to do so. But they should remember two things.
First, not to believe is a choice, but not a rational
obligation. Second, the choice not to believe has great
existential import for one's personal life. For if Jesus did
rise from the dead as the New Testament says he did, then
this tends to verify his claim to be the son of God. And if
Jesus is the son of God, then there are great benefits for
you personally?
For one, it means that there is hope for you beyond the
grave. Since Jesus has reversed death and therefore has the
right to claim "I am the resurrection and the life,
whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."
Further, if Jesus rose form the dead, it offers hope to
overcome another great problem that psychologists tell us is
inflicting humankind -- the problem of guilt. For the same
New Testament documents that say Jesus rose from the dead
tell us that He died for our sins. And since it's obvious
from both experience and Scripture that all have sinned, the
resurrection of Christ offers a permanent solution to the
problem plaguing mankind, namely, guilt.
The question then is this: since the evidence shows that it
is plausible to say nothing [?] but probably that Jesus rose
from the dead, and since this can be the basis for the hope
of eternal life and forgiveness of sins then why not
believe? You have nothing to lose but your fear and guilt
and everything to gain including forgiveness and eternal
life. Don't allow the skeptic who is skeptical of everything
but his own skepticism to rob you of these all-important
benefits. Believe and be saved.
------------------------------------------------------------
1994 Used by Permission of
Dr. Norman L. Geisler
Southern Evangelical Seminary
5801 Pineville-Matthews Road
Charlotte, NC 28226-3447
(704) 543-9475
USA
and
Farrell Till, Editor The Skeptical Review
P.O. Box 717
Canton, IL 61520-0717
(309) 647-4764
Prepared by Apologetics Press
(230 Landmark Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117)
in cooperation with Farrell Till.
ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota