I have mixed feelings about the book. Some parts were very thick. Sometimes I didn’t know where he was going with the very large background that he was building for hundreds of pages. And sometimes I felt I was undergoing some sort of torture until I would just say, “Ok, ok, I believe, just let me stop reading!” I think a beginner like me can quickly drown with all the information presented. Then trying to look up the opposing view point made it almost an impossible task.

The other side of me was just amazed at all the research and reading N. T. Wright has done in presenting this information. Wright goes into much detail on each topic and fully develops the background of his arguments. He also addresses many of the current objections to the historicity of the resurrection. This book will definitely become for me a reference book regarding the resurrection.

In the end I would recommend the book. However, if I had to do it over again, I wouldn’t have read it page by page. I would have just read the nice conclusions at the end of most chapters and then dive more into chapters that I found more interesting. Over the next several weeks (or months) I’ll try to discuss some of the topics presented. I’ll also try to compile some of my notes here.

I just got finished reading another book by Gary Habermas. This book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” is co-authored by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. The book is aimed at preparing believers in their interactions with skeptics. The book, along with the accompanying interactive CD, is essentially a guide/instructions in presenting the evidences that exist for the resurrection of Jesus to non-believers. This books is similar to Habermas’ other book, “The Historical Jesus”, in that it has many of the same evidences and argument (Minimal Facts Approach). The book is full of data, and has a ~100 page note section. The book is not a “quick read” but is more of a text book style.

The authors first go over some historical principles in order to set up the arguments latter in the book. Next they go over what Habermas is know for, what he calls “The minimal Facts Approach”. This approach only considers data that is strongly evidenced and that is accepted by virtually all scholars, even the skeptical ones. The authors then go through 5 facts: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; 3) Paul, a persecutor of Christians, was suddenly changed; 4) James, a skeptic, was suddenly changed; 5) the empty tomb. (The fifth one, according to Habermas, is only accepted by ~75% of scholars, not virtually all like the other four).

Habermas and Licona then go over many objections and alternatives to Jesus’ resurrection. They then briefly go over a variety of other topics such as the nature of the resurrection, self-understanding of Jesus, “Intelligent Design”, some miscellaneous objections that didn’t fit elsewhere, and how the believer should present this information to non-believers.

I generally enjoyed this book. I primarily enjoyed the nice outline and summary of many of the evidence for the resurrection. I also liked that the book contained their rebuttals to many of the objections to the resurrection. It is a nice one stop type book, but because of this style, there were many times I wish the authors could have gone more in depth on a subject. However, the note sections usually gave references and notes of where to go for more details.

I’ll show my bias by saying that the biggest weakness in this book was Chap 11. In this chapter the authors discuss and support intelligent design. Needless to say this was a big disappointment for me. When theologians and historians start writing about science–reader beware.  For instance, on page 178 they write, “Of many amino acids in the body, only twenty types are useful for life. Of those, only four types are found in DNA.” When the basics of biology are not understood, yet one goes public and supports an unscientific “theory” like intelligent design, it tarnishes the rest of the book. I am not saying that the rest of the book is wrong, it just makes someone who already doubts the resurrection think twice about what they call facts.

Overall I would recommend this book, but would also recommend that they tear Chap 11 out. I found the book to be a good starting point in my research. (Check out the wiki page for my not so complete notes).

Another large distraction for me is all the creeping questions that enter my brain. Like:

1. if there was no Adam and Eve what happens to original sin?
2. the problem of evil
3. the God of the Old Testament
4. miracles
5. the Trinity
6. how should one read the Bible
7. what to do with all the confusing parts of the Bible
8. Is homosexuality wrong?
9. etc.

These questions start to multiply and start to crowd out the original question that I am struggling with: Is the Christian faith true?

The distractions not only confuse the issue, but they are time stealers. Instead of researching the resurrection, I am wasting my time commenting on a blog post about Intelligent Design. Instead of examining the historical reliability of the Gospels I’m discussing abortion. So instead of wasting the little time I have, I need to focus. I need to bundle up all these other questions and distractions and put them up on my “mental shelf of unanswered questions”.

Then after I have addressed the MAIN question, I can take these questions down, one by one and address them individually. I can take one question at a time and examine it, ponder it, research it, and try to come to a satisfying conclusion. I can’t expect to solve all these questions that others have pondered for thousands of years. I especially can’t expect to solve them at the same time. I can’t be that arrogant.

So my goal is to stay focused. The goal is to research the resurrection of Jesus, and keep these other questions on the shelf for now. We’ll see if I can last a week. . .

It is important to know that this does not mean that the task is impossible. Historians, paleontologist, archaeologist, evolutionist, criminal investigators, and cosmologist all examine the data of the past and make hypothesis that best fits the data. These fields also use the process of inference – using observations of the present to infer what happened in the past. This inference relies on some assumptions. Assumptions that are necessary, otherwise science has no meaningful framework in which to operate. Two of these assumptions are: 1)The principle of cause and effect, and 2) The universality of science. I’ll discuss both of these in a future blog.

History uses these principles as well as other historical tools to get at a probability, a degree of historical certainty. Like other fields of study, a 100 percent certainty is not possible, however one can reach a certain level of certainty. This level of certainty can cover a wide spectrum from the very doubtful to the very certain.

The problem with such a scale is that it is extremely subjective. What constitutes “somewhat certain”? How is it different from something more certain? At what point is it reasonable to accept a historic claim? Do we need proof beyond a reasonable doubt or does the reasons for accepting something just have to outweigh the reasons for not accepting it?

I have noticed that Christians tend to accept Christian claims based on minimal evidence. I’m not saying no evidence, just minimal evidence. They say a claim is demonstrated when the reasons for accepting it “significantly” outweighs the reasons for not accepting it. One of the problems with this is what constitutes “significant”. Who is the judge of this? Another problem is what data is included in the reasons for accepting a claim. I have also seen the Spirit card being played, in which the Holy Spirit testifies to the believer reassuring them what is true.

Agnostics I have found, lean more toward proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They also bring up that extraordinary claims such as the resurrection require extraordinary evidence. But is this criteria for proof unrealistic?

I grew up in a very nurturing Christian home. I went to a Christian grade school, a Christian high school, and a Christian college. I was baptized as an infant. I made profession of faith as a teenager. I went to many Christian youth outings. I gave myself to Christ. I married a fantastic Christian woman. I was again baptized as an adult. I was pursuing sanctification. I joined a church and a care group. I firmly believed I was a Christian. Sure, all through this time there were spiritual highs and lows, but the lows were always followed by a re-awakening. And looking back, those re-awakenings were associated with an emotional high and a feeling of hope.

I’m also a scientist. I always have been. From a very early age I wanted to be either Spider Man or a mad scientist who would turn into Spider Man. Specifically my focus has generally been in biology. However, I have a very broad training that encompasses Cell biology, Biochemistry, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Development Biology, EvoDevo and even Analytical Chemistry.

As a scientist I work and examine the natural world. I believe things based on the evidence. I try my best to think critically. It should come to no surprise that I believe in evolution and that all living things arose through common descent. As creationists define it, I believe in micro and macro evolution. I believe that humans had a common ancestor with the other great apes. I don’t believe there was a Noah flood, and I don’t believe there was an Adam and Eve.

For most of my life I held in balance the best I could, my belief in God and in the evolving world around me. The constant arguing with fellow Christian creationist and IDers caused my stumble into doubt. I continually asked myself, “If they are misrepresenting or lying about a non-salvation issue like evolution, are they misrepresenting or lying about salvation issues such as Christ resurrection, the existence of a loving God, etc.”

Normally my stumble into doubt would soon fade away as I would find some reason to believe. However since the beginning of 2007 my doubt has became more and more severe. Questions that I struggled with in the past resurfaced and became more troubling. If first part of Genesis is not literal, how much of the rest of Scripture is not literal? Was Christ resurrection just symbolic? The problem of evil becomes more problematic if Humans have been around some 250,000 years. That means God let humans suffer for 248,000 years before sending a Savior. Just think about all the pain and suffering that has gone on before “Adam and Eve’s original sin”.

Evolution has dealt a death blow to general revelation. God could have easily made Himself known in creation so that things couldn’t be explained by evolution and the idea of a creator would be necessary to explain the world around us. Why is God so hidden? Why isn’t it obvious that there is a God? Why is the one thing He supposedly gave us (the Bible) so hard to understand? Why can people read so many different things into it; resulting in many denominations and even cults? Why didn’t Jesus specifically write down what He wanted us to do and make that text physically unchangeable? Such as a stone tablet, or having the printing press invented in Jerusalem. Instead He relied on flawed people to hand write His message. If the first part of Genesis (at least 1-10) can’t be taken literally, what part of the Old Testament can? What part is “true” what part isn’t?

Broader questions arose too. What kind of relationship is it that we’re forced into an extreme decision: to believe and love Him, or be punished for eternity? My life seems too short and I feel too uninformed to base a decision that will affect the rest of my eternity.

Atheism seems more logically in tune with what I experience day to day. Things reproduce, grow, die, and then fade away. If we are so close to apes, what make us think we have a soul and they don’t? What about a dog, or a fish, or a tree? We’re here for a moment, and then we’re gone. Poof. Nothing more than a rotting body. No “after life”, just nothing.

Why should I believe otherwise? Oh yeah, that book that some people long ago wrote. What was their motivation to write that stuff? Was it to come to grips with their crappy life? To make themselves feel better about their lousy lot in life? Is it just another religion with a promise of an after life? And just because Christianity has the best (religious) story doesn’t make it true.

These are just a few of the painful, gut wrenching thoughts that go through my head. So as of today I go back and forth of whether or not I’m a Christian with severe doubt, or an agnostic. So, I’ve started this blog to help capture some of my thoughts, and hopefully can make progress one way or another.