The gospel according to Snopes (1 Corinthians 15:1-11)

I want you to consider two different stories:

  • In 1793, a meteor struck the area currently known as Chambersburg. The rock fragment—mostly iron—was roughly the size of a Volkswagen, and the impact could be heard from as far as 100 miles away. All official records of the incident have been lost, but we can piece together details based on one or two journals from what appear to be local residents of the time.
  • In 1993, a meteor struck downtown Chambersburg. Well over a hundred witnesses saw it, including many member of our own congregation such as Lyle Geiger, Larry Goldman, and Sherry Libby.

You’ve probably seen through my transparent illustration to know that neither story is true, but if you had to rate their relative believability, which one seems more plausible? Or, maybe we should ask the question a different way: which story would you have an easier time verifying—or discrediting?

Naturally, you’d choose the second as the more “testable” tale. You might first go to the web to search for articles from the time period to confirm the events.  You might chase down the witnesses we’ve named to see if they confirm or deny the details. And if they can’t back it up—or, more significantly, if these “witnesses” are just fictional characters (they’re not, by the way), then you have all the more reason to doubt my story.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SNOPES

logo-snopesOf course, the internet abounds with all sorts of stories and rumors. So many that it’s hard to always know what’s true and what’s not—or what lies in the foggy space between.  Thankfully the internet is self-correcting, at least to a degree. Ever heard of the website “Snopes?”  The folks who write for Snopes.com have done the world a great service in evaluating many of the claims you read about online. So if you ever encounter a rumor you just can’t make up your mind on, you can check with Snopes to see if it’s true.  Cigarettes linked to cancer? True.  Eating bacon regularly gives you six-pack abs? False.  Pastor Chris Wiles irresistible to women? Kind of a grey area.

See how that works?

Here’s what I’m getting at, with both the Chambersburg meteor story and the Snopes reference: Christianity is built not on the basis of human experience, but on the basis of historical fact. This is the basis of what Paul wrote to the church in Corinth:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Corinthians 15:1-11)

See, many religions base their teachings on some abstract, personal experience. Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Gautama Buddha—these men each formed a religion based on some persona encounter they had with the divine.  Now, who am I to judge whether these men really did or did not have such an experience?

Christianity is way different. In Christianity, we have Paul saying, Look, these things really happened. Jesus came back from the dead. People saw him. Don’t believe me? Ask James. Ask Peter. Sure, they didn’t have Snopes to fall back on, but they could at least name names.

NO LONGER SAFELY SECULAR

Stop and think about this for just a moment. In today’s world, we tend to evaluate religious belief based on its personal or social impact. Some have committed acts of violence in the name of Christianity, we might object, So what makes Christianity any better than any other religion out there?

That’s a whole discussion in itself, but let’s start by saying, We’re asking the wrong question. The greatest measuring stick is not “Is Christianity good?” but “Is Christianity true?” Because we can squabble over what we truly define as “good;” there’s little room for interpretation as to whether Jesus rose from the dead.

Don’t you see what that means? Suddenly the world isn’t as safely secular as we thought it was. The resurrection—the stark, historic reality of the resurrection—shatters my credulity.  If I choose to reject the Christian gospel, it can’t possibly be due to a lack of evidence.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us confronted with the spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally subversive reality of the empty tomb, a barren cross, and a risen Lord. Jesus saves. Paul’s life was changed forever, yours can as well. Join us this week as we explore what this resurrection means for us.

 

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The gospel according to Snopes (1 Corinthians 15:1-11)

  1. On WCRH yesterday there was an interview on a program called First Person in which a couple points presented struck me as having merit.

    http://www.firstpersoninterview.com/

    The person being interviewed NABEEL QURESHI – RESURRECTION DAY related some arguments that he heard from Gary Habermas who is a Christian scholar who read extensively the scholarly viewpoints on the Resurrection of Jesus.

    He pointed out that Jesus resurrection was not only witnessed by his friends but by his enemies.

    Jesus brother James was not a believer during the life of Jesus. And yet he became (if I remember correctly) one of th most influential Christians in the Jerusalem church. And if I remember correctly he died for his belief.

    Also Saul of Tarsus persecuted the church and claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. He gave his life to promote the gospel of Jesus and also died for promoting his view.

    So, while people can concoct a scenario where Jesus’ friends might have pulled off some long-shot deception about Jesus being resurrected, getting people like James and Paul to be eager agents of a deception is – well probably ludicrous.

    Even today, just from the power of Jesus moral teachings, the most well-known atheist of our day Richard Dawkins has even wrote an article

    http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/richard_dawkins_atheism.html
    “As recently as December, 2004, Richard Dawkins was pictured wearing an “Atheists for Jesus” tee shirt sent to him after he had himself composed an article, bearing that title, for a Humanist publication he was editorially involved with.”

    Shirts are even available online Atheists for Jesus.

    However as Jesus said in regards to his endorsement from John the Baptist, Jesus did not accept testimony from men, but only relayed it so that others can believe. I’m not holding up Richard Dawkins as the final authority on Jesus – I’m just pointing out that from a moral angle Jesus impresses.
    .

  2. I heard someone argue that Jesus resurrection was attested to by some of his enemies. Saul of Tarsus wasn’t someone wanting to believe in the resurrection, but he saw Jesus. Also, Jesus brother James was according to the Bible not a follower of Jesus till the resurrection.

    On another note, I’m wondering if you used the word “credulity” correctly. Credulity is defined as “willingness to believe or trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility.”

    So the resurrection knocks the paradigm from one of believing in it due to being gullible, to believing based on evidence? That is what you meant?
    I am not trying to get in an argument over words …

    Thirdly, in a post I attempted to put up a few hours ago, I had included a link to a discussion on the resurrection from a radio program called first person interview that aired on a local radio station Sunday. The comment didn’t go up. Are comments with links filtered out automatically?

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s