Mark McFall, who edits a quarterly journal entitled In the Word, believes that although the Bible is errant, it is nevertheless the inspired word of God. Getting him to defend any specific biblical claim on the Errancy@iierrancy.com forum, which he has been a member of for several years, is almost impossible, because he lurks far more than he participates. Although he is intellectually honest enough to admit that errors run all through the Bible, he is a staunch defender of the resurrection of Jesus in the sense that he claims that it is very reasonable to believe that this event happened even if it isn't possible to demonstrate that it is a historical fact.

In the article linked to in the title, he rehashed a favorite theme song of his, which he has sung several times on the Errancy list. He believes that although the many claims of resurrections in ancient times, including even those in the Bible, didn't happen, the resurrection of Jesus is an exception. He believes that it did happen. So that I won't be accused of misrepresenting him, I will quote a sentence from the introduction of his article in which he made this claim.

You see, outright I don’t believe resurrections happen, yet I am somehow able to find myself not only seriously contemplating the idea of Jesus’ resurrection on an ongoing basis but also actually holding to the belief that such an impossible feat occurred. For me, this belief doesn’t rest on the notion that because the "Bible says it happened: it happened." If it did, then I would also believe all the other resurrections in the Bible, and quite frankly I can’t bring myself to believe certain reports given the nature in which they are told. For instance, the report in Matthew 27:51-53 that states many saints came out of their tombs and entered Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection. This has a fictional apocalyptic ring that I just don’t buy if literalness is the intent.

When I made my first contacts with Mark McFall on the Errancy list, I learned that he had begun his internet activities as a biblical inerrantist but had eventually come to realize that this is an indefensible belief. Although apparently able to see problems in the biblical inerrancy doctrine, he has maintained a belief that the Bible, although errant, is nevertheless the inspired word of God and that the errors in it are not God's errors but human errors made by those whom he inspired to write it. He has been repeatedly pressed to answer two questions that bother those of us who cannot accept his view of the Bible: (1) If the inspiration of an omniscient, omnipotent deity did not guide those whom he chose to write the Bible to write only the truth, then what was the purpose of inspiration? (2) How can someone who believes that the Bible is errant determine truth from error in it? When asked to answer these questions, he has been able to speak only in generalizations and abstractions that don't give any real answers to them. In reading his occasional posts--and especially his article that I am now replying to--I have decided that he still clings to the Bible because of a deep desire to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual historical event. I suspect that this desire is rooted in an inability to accept that this life is it and that there will be nothing after it. Personally, acceptance of this reality has never bothered me, any more than the realization that I was nothing before I was born, but in my conversations and correspondence with people who see the irrationality of religion and would like to escape from its bondage, I have found that the question of what will come after this life is a real concern for them. Mark McFall just doesn't talk like a committed Bible-believing Christian, so I can't help thinking that he too clings to some semblance of belief because of an uncertainly of what lies in the future. In his Errancy posts, he has shown a commendable ability to see through the phoniness and fictionalization of much of the material in the Bible, so I hope in my rebuttal of his article to show him and others that what he sees as "objective evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus is actually no more substantial than the Bible records of fantastic events that he rejects. His belief in the resurrection of Jesus is based on the fallacy of undesirable consequences or wishful thinking, which fallaciously assumes the truth or falsity of propositions because of one's personal desires. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, for example, this would imply the finality of death. Since that would be an undesirable consequence of rejecting the resurrection, McFall assumes, through wishful thinking, that it did happen.

The introduction of McFall's article about the resurrection simply stated the fact that he rejects "ancient resurrection concepts" about mythical figures like "Osiris, Inannan, Zalmoxis in Herodotus, Horus, Dionysus, Attis, Mithras, Adonis, and the Dioscuri brothers" but accepts the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus because it, unlike the other tales, "is undergirded by collective evidences that should cause just about anybody familiar with mythical stories a moment of pause." I will therefore skip his introduction and confine my point-by-point rebuttal to what McFall thinks is objective evidence that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual event. I believe I can demonstrate that this so-called objective evidence is no more substantial than various biblical claims whose historicity McFall rejects. He introduced his "objective evidence" with the following comments.

There exists too much information of postmortem observances embedded in documents known to have, with various debatable degrees, historical value; to simply dismiss the data surrounding Jesus out-of-hand because there is a familiar human concept of hope beyond the grave, is to ignore the evidential weight of what is reported.

Objectively commenting... on Paul

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, we read:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

The basic message of this passage is identified by objective scholars (as well as informed skeptics) to have been in circulation just two to eight years after Jesus is thought to have been killed. Though the document that contains this passage, 1 Corninthians, is dated some twenty years after Jesus' death, the scholarly consensus favors the idea that its recollective-message precedes 1 Corinthians by at least ten years.

McFall doesn't come right out and say it, but what he really meant was that the "basic message" of 1 Cornithians 15:3-5 was "in circulation" within two to eight years of AD 28-30, the time when Jesus was allegedly crucified. I have been studying the Bible seriously for more than half a century, and I can't recall the first time I heard the claim that McFall repeated in the paragraph above. This claim usually includes a "sister claim" that Paul was actually repeating an early creed, which dated from about AD 32 to 40. I suppose that there may be some linguistic evidence in the Greek text to support the interpretation that this was a creed that early Christians recited, but I have never seen that evidence explained, and I doubt that McFall has the linguistic background to present any kind of argument in support of this view of the passage. As he indicated above, he is simply repeating what many consider to be a "scholarly consensus" of the passage. For the sake of argument, let's just assume that this consensus is correct and that Paul was repeating an early creed. How does McFall or his scholars know that it was "in circulation" just two to eight years after Jesus was "thought" to have been killed? The key word here is "thought," because in all that the apostle Paul wrote about Jesus, he never once put his life and death into a historical setting. First Timothy 6:3 said that Jesus had "witnessed the good confession" before Pontius Pilate, but I think that McFall is informed enough in biblical scholarship to know that only rank fundamentalists--which McFall is not one of--think that the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were actually written by the apostle Paul.

The historical setting of the life of Jesus, which dated him at the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate, came with the writing of the gospel of Mark around AD 70. It became the primary source of the other two synoptic gospels, which came later and followed Mark's example and put Jesus into the same historical setting. In the epistles of Paul, however, no such setting was ever presented. McFall can read 1 Corinthians 15 from now until doomsday, but he will find nothing in it that would date the life of Jesus at the time claimed in the synoptic gospels. Paul simply did not put Jesus into a specific historical setting. What, then, is McFall's basis for claiming a "scholarly consensus" that the "basic message" of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 was "in circulation" as early as the AD 30s? What has happened is that biblical scholars, who are mainly Christians, first accepted the historicity of the synoptic gospels and from that assumption further surmised that the "creed" that Paul quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 had originated soon after the death of Jesus, possibly as soon as two years afterwards. This, however, doesn't tell us how they had made this determination. In order to know that such a creed actually existed at that time, there would have to be actual documentation of its existence. No such documentation exists, however, so McFall is actually arguing that Paul was quoting a creed that had originated within two to eight years of the unknown date when Jesus died.

If McFall is going to present this text as an "objective comment" on the "evidence" for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, at the very least he should take the time to tell us exactly how he was able to determine that Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 had originated in the AD 30s. Until he does that, he is simply arguing by assertion. For the sake of argument, however, let's just assume that McFall's chronology is correct and that (1) Jesus was crucified around AD 28-30 and (2) Paul's "creed" had originated within two to eight years of that date. Even if both points were true, why should this be considered "objective evidence" for the historicity of the resurrection? If, for example, McFall should encounter documents, which claimed that John Doe in Keokuk, Iowa, had flapped his arms and flown to San Francisco 70 years before the authorship of the documents, and, then, if McFall should find a letter, written within two years of Doe's alleged miraculous flight, which claimed that Doe had indeed performed this miraculous deed, would McFall accept this letter as "objective evidence" that Doe's flight was a historical fact? Somehow I doubt it.

McFall is having problems recognizing a widely accepted axiom, which says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I recommend that he take the time to read "Evaluating Historical Claims," in which I showed that the very nature of miraculous claims like resurrections from the dead, parting the waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan River, and such like require rational people to reject them because of the very nature of the claims; otherwise, one would have to believe all sorts of ancient miracle claims. McFall seems to believe that if a claim that Jesus rose from the dead was made within two to eight years of the alleged event, this becomes "objective evidence" that the event happened. As I said above, McFall can't really confirm the date of this alleged "creed," but even if he could, that would in no way make it "objective evidence" that a dead man had returned to life. If I may adapt a slogan from the presidential campaign of 1992, it is the nature of the claim, stupid. That is what makes it unbelievable.

McFall's position is that the proximity of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 to the time of the resurrection gives it credibility. I have shown above that this alleged "proximity" cannot be determined, but let's notice that as McFall continued his article, he did try to equate proximity with reliability.

If one were to put this evidence on the table for comparison with other ancient resurrection figures it would be discovered that it stands out in value due to its close recorded proximity; simply put, no other resurrection figure has an undergirding feature such as this.

How McFall could possibly believe that the "proximity" of a report to the time of a miraculous claim would give it credibility is beyond me. I used above the hypothetical example of John Doe's arm-flapping flight to San Francisco to show that the proximity of a report cannot give reliability to an outrageous claim, but I don't have to rely on the hypothetical to show the absurdity of McFall's reasoning. Josephus wrote Wars of the Jews in AD 75, which was only five years after the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem. In book 6, chapter 5, section 3, Josephus claimed that several miracles had happened during the Roman siege of the city. He said that a light so bright shined around the temple altar at the ninth hour that it gave the appearance of daylight for about a half hour; he said that a heifer being led to the altar gave birth to a lamb; he said that an army of chariots and soldiers were seen in the clouds surrounding the city. By McFall's standard of reliable evidence, he should believe that these miracles actually happened, because they were reported by Josephus just five years after they had allegedly happened. In the case of Josephus's claim about the army that was seen in the clouds over Jerusalem, he said that such a "prodigious and incredible phenomenon... would seem to be a fable were it not related by those who saw it." Therefore, Josephus didn't just report these miracles within five years of their alleged occurrence; he supported one of them with eyewitness claims, but I seriously doubt that McFall would say that he accepts these claims as actual historical events. Why then does he see an alleged creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, which cannot be dated with any degree of accuracy, as "objective evidence" that a dead man had returned to life?

After deriving from his "proximity" claim conclusions not justified by its evidence (since proximity can never give credibility to outrageous claims), McFall then looked for support in Paul's claim that 500 "brethren" had seen the risen Jesus.

Paul, in an attempt to head off contemporary criticisms pertaining to this report, appealed to "more than five hundred" people who, he says, witnessed a single appearance, and disbelievers could substantiate the claim by interviewing some of the witnesses still living (1 Cor. 15:6). Unfortunately, though many of these witnesses could have been easily sought out in Paul's day, they were left unnamed. To modern readers this supportive argument carries little evidential value because the witnesses can never be identified. However, when one takes into consideration the magnitude of this appeal, in light of the fact that contemporary critics could have cited Paul on his erroneous assertion but did not, the validity of his appeal to more than 500 witnesses can reasonably be seen in a favorable light even though unnamed. Nevertheless, whether this argumentative appeal is true or not, it rises to a consideration unparalleled by evidences surrounding other reported resurrection figures due to its very nature.

I suspect that even McFall realized the weakness of his argument here, because he himself noted that it was "unfortunate" that Paul did not name any of these witnesses. Let's suppose that the hypothetical letter that I mentioned above about John Doe's arm-flapping flight from Keokuk, Iowa, to San Francisco had said that 500 people had seen Doe flap his arms and take off in Keokuk and that 500 others had seen him land in San Francisco. Would McFall consider this "objective evidence" that Doe's flight had really happened, or would he see the failure of the writer to give the names of any of these 500 witnesses to be a major weakness in the claim? I think I have seen enough of McFall's real objectivity on the Errancy forum to know that he would consider this a serious weakness in the claim that Doe had made such a flight. Well, if I should say that even though the letter didn't name any of these witnesses, those who read it just two years after the flight had allegedly happened could have gone to Keokuk, Iowa, and San Francisco and substantiated the claim by interviewing some of the witnesses while they were still alive. Would that impress McFall and make the evidence of the letter more objective to him? Or what if I should say that if this flight had not happened as claimed, contemporary critics would have "cited" the writer on his "erroneous assertion but did not"? Would that make the claim of this arm-flapping flight across the country more believable to McFall?

Now let me explain what is wrong with McFall's attempt to give credibility to Paul's claim that 500 unnamed "brethren" had seen the resurrected Jesus at the same time. First, most people don't even bother to verify ridiculous claims. I once attended a Pentecostal revival meeting at which the preacher claimed that God had performed many miracles through him including resurrecting the dead. How much time does McFall think that I spent investigating this claim? If he says, "None at all," he will have hit the nail right on the head, because I didn't spend even a second checking into the claim, and I suspect that people 2,000 years ago would have been much like the average person is today. They wouldn't have wasted time trying to verify a ridiculous claim that 500 people had seen a man after he had returned from the dead. Second, those witnesses could not have been "easily sought out," as McFall claimed above. These 500 were mentioned in an epistle to "the church of God that is in Corinth, with all the saints in the whole of Achaia" (1 Cor. 1:1). In other words, this epistle was addressed to readers who lived in what is now Southern Greece. They would have been about 900 miles from Jerusalem, so what kind of twisted logic did McFall use to determine that the readers of this epistle could have "easily sought out" those 500 witnesses? They would have been required either to take a ship from Southern Greece to Palestine or else travel by land over a much longer distance up the Grecian peninsula, across ancient Thracia, down through Asia Minor (modern Turkey), and through Lebanon down to Jerusalem. This would have been a journey of about 1500 miles, which wouldn't exactly have been an "easy" trip in those days.

When 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is examined with real objectivity, one can see that there is no "objective evidence" in it that a man died and then rose from the dead. Early in his article, McFall spoke of a "fictional ring" that he saw in Matthew's claim that an earthquake shook open the tombs of "many saints," who were later resurrected and went into Jerusalem where they were seen by "many" (27:52-53), but why he cannot see a fictional ring in Paul's claim that 500 "brethren" saw the resurrected Jesus at the same time is beyond me. There is nothing in the claim that even comes close to being "objective evidence" that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

McFall then turned to implications in Paul's account that the resurrected Jesus was "without physicality."

Interestingly, given the implied physicality of Paul's perception above, Paul is also recorded as conveying a different perception related to Jesus being without physicality (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8; 26:13-15). As we will see below, others also had these two perceptions which suggest that Jesus passed into a mode of being that was superior to all obstacles.

I agree with McFall that 1 Corinthians 15 seems to present a view that the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual rather than physical, but I am mystified as to why he would mention this in an article intended to give "objective evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. The fact that Paul seemed to think that the resurrection was "without physicality" makes it even less believable, because that which is spiritual can be easily explained as imaginary or hallucinatory.

McFall turned next to the "objective evidence" in Mark's gospel.

Objectively commenting on Mark

In the account identified as Mark, three women who sought to care for the lifeless body of Jesus were told by a "young man" who was present at the burial site (vs. 5) that Jesus "has risen" (vs. 6) and they would soon see him in "Galilee" (vs. 7). This encounter, odd as it is, left the women "gripped" with fear (vs. 8). Unfortunately, this "young man" is left unnamed which naturally raises suspicions for the modern reader.

Just as he did in presenting his "objective evidence" from 1 Corinthians 15, McFall shows here that he realizes that the evidence from Mark's gospel is flimsy, because he said again that it was "unfortunate" that certain information was left out of this account. In this case, it was the name of the "young man" whom the three women had encountered, so even McFall can recognize that a claim that a dead man had returned to life was weakened by the failure of the claimant to report the name of the person who had announced this miracle to the women who had come to anoint the body with spices. Common sense would tell those reading the claim of a miraculous event that the one reporting the miracle would want his account of it to be as convincing as possible. At the very least, a convincing account should include clear identifications of all parties involved, so "Mark" failed to meet even the minimum standards of evidence.

As McFall continued to present his "objective evidence" from Mark's gospel, he pointed out even more weaknesses in the "evidence."

As a further negative, this particular resurrection narrative is cut-short [sic] when the women leave and the recorder pens his last words that "they said nothing to anyone" (Mk. 16:8). For modern readers, who are familiar with the other Gospel accounts, this statement appears perplexing as each of the other Gospel writers specifically note [sic] that the women went quickly to report the empty tomb to the disciples (Mt 28:8; Lu 24:9-10; John 20:2). Why Mark is under a different impression, we can only speculate.

Speculate? We have to speculate as to why a detail like this would have been left out? I thought that McFall was going to give us "objective evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus, but he is quickly becoming his own worst enemy, because the longer he writes, the more unconvincing his "objective evidence" becomes as he points out what even he can see as major weaknesses in his "evidence." Wouldn't evidence that is really objective preclude the need to speculate?

Let's see if his "objective evidence" gets any better.

Nevertheless, as just mentioned, this writer abruptly ends his version at verse 8 (that the original Mark ended at verse 8 is the opinion of the majority of mainline scholars). While obviously this abrupt ending is a set back....

A setback? How could there be a setback as serious as this in "objective evidence"?

[While obviously this abrupt ending is a set back], as it would have been useful to glean more information from this particular writer,

So even McFall recognizes that it would be "useful" for a miraculous claim to contain sufficient information to make the claim credible, but he apparently thinks that a record of an alleged resurrection from the dead is nevertheless convincing even though it contains all of the holes and "setbacks" that McFall is identifying. Amazing!

[While obviously this abrupt ending is a set back, as it would have been useful to glean more information from this particular writer], a second writer stepped in shortly thereafter.

Shortly thereafter? How shortly? Ten years thereafter? Twenty years? Thirty years? I have not seen any scholarly consensus on when the Marcan Appendix was added to the gospel of Mark, so I would be interested in knowing how McFall determined that this second writer had "stepped in shortly thereafter." The gospel of Mark itself is generally dated at AD 70, which would have been 40 years after the alleged resurrection. That within itself makes Mark's "evidence" not very objective, but if this second writer didn't step in until 10 or 20 or 30 years or more after this, that would make the "second writer," who added the Marcan Appendix, even less reliable. As I am writing this article, the news media has been reporting on the unreliability of memory, so how reliable would be the memory of someone who was writing about what had happened 50 or 60 years ago? I know that memories of events that happened in my life 50 or 60 years ago are very nebulous, so if this is McFall's idea of "objective evidence," he needs to reexamine the standards by which he determines reliability.

This next writer pens a resurrection narration of postmortem appearances, which include sightings by Mary Magdalene and three other separate observances by some close to Jesus who had heard but remained skeptical of His resurrection. (Mk. 16:9-14).

Yes, but objective readers will keep in mind that this "next writer's" narrative of postmortem appearances was written some 50 or so years after the alleged resurrection had occurred, and it was written in a time when this writer would not have had access to research materials (newspapers, books, video tapes, audio tapes, etc.) that would be available to a modern writer. If such a narrative is McFall's idea of "objective evidence," then I will repeat that he needs to reexamine the standards by which he determines reliability.

Though this secondary writer quickly changes his tone to include talk about an aberrant baptismal rite,

An aberrant baptismal rite? The author of the Marcan Appendix simply claimed that Jesus had told his disciples that he who believes and is baptized would be saved (v:16), and this is entirely consistent with various other New Testament passages that obviously teach that baptism is a requirement of "salvation." If McFall would care to dispute that the New Testament teaches that baptism is necessary for "salvation," I would be glad to oppose him in a debate on that subject.

[Though this secondary writer quickly changes his tone to include talk about an aberrant baptismal rite,] demons, picking up serpents, and drinking deadly poison in conjunction with his view of being a true Christian (Mk. 16:15-18), the substance of the reported resurrection rightly overshadows these strange theological concerns.

I trust everyone has taken note of what McFall just said. He is claiming that we cannot trust what the Marcan Appendix said about "strange theological concepts" concerning baptism, casting out demons, taking up serpents, and drinking deadly poisons, but we can believe what the author of this appendix said about a dead man returning to life. Is this his idea of "objective evidence? No other comment from me is necessary here, because I think that any objective reader can see that McFall isn't very objective about the New Testament claim that Jesus rose from the dead. He is obviously determined to believe it, and so he is going to believe it no matter how flimsy the real evidence may be.

McFall then turned to Matthew's "objective evidence."

Objectively commenting on Matthew

In the account identified as Matthew (see: Ch. 28),

Now this is a telling comment. It appears to be worded in a way that recognizes that this gospel wasn't really written by the apostle Matthew. If so--and I am sure that this is what McFall meant--McFall is actually claiming that an anonymously written claim that a man returned to life should be considered "objective evidence" that this resurrection actually happened. McFall indeed has some strange concepts of what constitutes objective evidence.

[In the account identified as Matthew (see: Ch. 28),] the writer elaborates on the expected Galilean appearance to which the first draft of Mark alludes. Like the Markan account, he initially mentions women (two are named here: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary) as being first on the scene at the tomb. However, as a variant version to Mark (as well as Luke and John), Matthew reports the tomb was guarded (Matt. 27:64).

And it doesn't bother McFall that an anonymously written claim of a resurrection from the dead was the only gospel account that included this detail about the contingent of guards? Of course, I think that the gospels are simply fictionalized "history" intended to put the Christ myth into a historical setting, so I don't believe that any of the details in the narratives really happened, but if we should grant that there was a crucifixion, burial, and subsequent empty tomb, we must ask ourselves which is more likely, that the guards were really assigned or that "Matthew" was simply punching up his account with the detail about the guards in order to have a response to those who might have tried to explain the empty tomb by claiming that the disciples of Jesus had stolen his body?

Additionally, the "young man" recounted in Mark's account is introduced by Matthew as a type of "angel" for an unknown reason.

So McFall is claiming that an anonymously written account of a resurrection from the dead, which is laced with claims that an "angel" appeared to roll the stone away from the tomb and then announce the resurrection and that an apparently miraculous earthquake that shook open the tombs of many saints, who later rose from the dead themselves, should be considered "objective evidence" that at least one of these resurrections from the dead really happened. I trust readers to see that I am right when I say that McFall seriously needs to reexamine his ideas of what constitutes objective evidence.

It is this "angel," coupled with the rolling of the stone and a severe earthquake that cause the guards who are securing the tomb to faint (Mt. 28:4), for there was as yet no appearance of the resurrected Jesus.

Let's go back to something that McFall said earlier in the introduction to his article.

You see, outright I don’t believe resurrections happen, yet I am somehow able to find myself not only seriously contemplating the idea of Jesus’ resurrection on an ongoing basis but also actually holding to the belief that such an impossible feat occurred. For me, this belief doesn’t rest on the notion that because the "Bible says it happened: it happened." If it did, then I would also believe all the other resurrections in the Bible, and quite frankly I can’t bring myself to believe certain reports given the nature in which they are told. For instance, the report in Matthew 27:51-53 that states many saints came out of their tombs and entered Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection. This has a fictional apocalyptic ring that I just don’t buy if literalness is the intent.

This statement puts McFall in the position of arguing that when the anonymous "Matthew" said that "many saints" were resurrected from their tombs and went into the city and appeared to "many," that claim was wrong, but when just a few verses later, the same anonymous "Matthew" said that Jesus rose from the dead, this claim was "objective" and correct. Why? That is a question that McFall just doesn't answer. He said that the part of "Matthew's" report that spoke of "many saints" coming out of their tombs had "a fictional ring" to it that he just couldn't buy, yet he had indicated before this that he just didn't believe that resurrections happen (except, of course, for the resurrection of Jesus). However, he identified no criteria that enabled him to determine which resurrection claims had the "fictional apocalyptic ring" to them. On the Errancy forum, I posted the following comments on this part of McFall's article. I began it with the same quotation from McFall's introduction, so I won't requote it here.

There are three NT accounts of the resurrection of Jairus's daughter, and they contain inconsistencies. Matthew's account has Jairus coming to Jesus and telling him that his daughter "is even now dead" (9:18). Mark's account, however, says that Jairus told Jesus that his daughter was "at the point of death" (5:22). Luke's account could be construed to agree with Mark's, because his simply said that the daughter "was dying" (8:42). Mark's account has this event happening while a "great multitude" was gathered to Jesus "by the sea" (5:21), but Matthew's account has it happening after Jesus had passed by a multitude and was eating in a house (9:10), There are other variations in the story, but all three accounts claim that Jesus raised Jairus's daughter from the dead.

Why then doesn't McFall agree that this resurrection happened?

I focused attention on variations in the three accounts, because McFall has argued that inconsistencies in separate accounts of an event don't mean that the central claim in the accounts is false. In this case, he was using variations in the accounts of Hannibal's movement of his army, which included pack elephants, across the Alps as a basis for arguing that variations in the New Testament resurrection accounts do not prove that the resurrection didn't happen. If he has a credible argument here, then why doesn't he believe that the resurrection of Jairus's daughter was an actual historical event? Except for the resurrection claim in the three accounts, no other miraculous claims were made by the three writers who included this story in their gospels, so just what is there in this story that has "the fictional ring" that McFall cited above as his reason for not believing Matthew's claim that "many saints" were resurrected after the resurrection of Jesus? The only possible answer I can see to this question is that McFall wants desperately to believe that Jesus did rise from the dead, but as far as real "objective evidence" for this belief is concerned, he has none.

McFall, nevertheless, struggled to find something in Matthew's account that he could claim as "objective evidence."

From there, this angel informs the arriving women that Jesus has risen and that He will meet with them on the Mountain of Galilee; the women then depart to inform others close to Jesus what they have learned. Therewith, Jesus suddenly appears before the group instructing his disciples to again meet with Him on the Mountain of Galilee. Falling to the ground, His disciples take "hold of His feet and worship Him" (Mt. 28:9); and nothing more in the text is said regarding that.

And what is there in all this that McFall considers "objective evidence"? I see nothing here that differs in any substantial way from any of the many other miracle claims in the Bible, which McFall says that he can't accept because of the "fictional ring" that they have.

Incidentally, Matthew, like Mark and Luke, differ from John just prior to this encounter as John first has the disciples heading off to verify the empty tomb.

What is McFall trying to say here, that this variation makes the synoptic accounts credible? If so, why? If not, why mention it, since McFall's position is that variations in accounts of the same event don't discredit the historicity of that event?

After arriving on the Mountain of Galilee, as instructed, Jesus appears to them but now Matthew records that while some believed Jesus was in a resurrected state, others were more skeptical (Mat. 28:17).

And how would the disbelief of Jesus's own disciples make Matthew's record of it credible "objective evidence"? I assume everyone has noticed that McFall is now just summarizing the scriptures he sees as objective evidence for the resurrection but is telling us nothing about why these accounts should be believed.

Thereafter, like the secondary writer of Mark, though not on a bizarre level, the writer then expresses theological statements in conjunction with authority that would naturally accompany a figure who appeared to be superior to the natural processes of death.

And in what way do these expressions of "theological statements" constitute "objective evidence" that the resurrection really happened? McFall doesn't say, so I want readers to notice as we continue through his "objective evidence" that McFall only summarizes what the gospel writers said but gives us no good reasons at all to believe that their claims of a resurrection are credible.

McFall next turned to summarizing what Luke said about the resurrection.

Objectively commenting on Luke

In the account identified as Luke, the author is under the impression that there were two men who appeared at the empty tomb (instead of one as recounted by Mark; or one angel as recounted by Matthew) after the women had arrived (Luke suggests more than three women Lk. 24:10).

These variations, like the others, of course, don't affect the credibility of Luke's account. Why, no, heaven forbid! At times, I find myself thinking that McFall actually believes that inconsistencies in accounts of the same miraculous event somehow make them more credible, so maybe if a couple of the other gospel writers had spun variations of Matthew's claim that "many saints" came out of their tombs and appeared to "many," McFall would see the inconsistencies in them as "objective evidence" that this miracle really did happen. At any rate, at this point in his analysis of Luke"s "objective evidence," McFall has done nothing but summarize.

According to the text, these men had given the women the idea Jesus had "risen" (Lk. 24:6) by reminding them of Jesus' words related to rising on the third day (Lk. 24:7). Here, I find it odd that the women appear unaware of this possible rising as Matthew records that that is precisely why Pilate sent his guard to watch the tomb (Mt. 27:63-65).

I'm sure, however, that McFall doesn't see this oddity as any reason to doubt Luke's claim that a resurrection had occurred. As for the women's apparent unawareness of a "possible rising," I don't see why McFall would find this at all odd, since the apostles themselves were unaware of this possibility, even though they had been told by Jesus during his personal ministry that he would rise again on the third day (Matt. 16:21; Matt. 17:22-23; Matt. 20:17-19). I discussed this "oddity" in detail in "Why Didn't They Know?" an article published in The Skeptical Review (Vol. 4, No. 4). If the apostles were unaware of a "possible rising," why would McFall find it odd that the women were also unaware of this possibility?

Anyway, like Mark and Matthew (but unlike John), Luke reports no initial sighting at or around the tomb, but only that the women were led to believe that Jesus had risen due to the said circumstances. As the women went to tell the others of these things, Luke reports that they received the women's comments and excitement as "nonsense" (Lk. 24:11).

Actually, Luke didn't say that when the women told "the others" what they had experienced, they received it as "nonsense." He said that "certain" of the disciples had gone to the tomb and found it "even so as the women had said" (24:24); however, if McFall wants to interpret this to mean that the other disciples had "received the women's comments and excitement as nonsense," we will take his view of it. Now let him explain to us how this spin on Luke 24:24 would make Luke's account of the resurrection "objective evidence"? In his comments above, McFall didn't say why this should be considered objective evidence, but I find it a bit odd that those whom the women reported to found their "comments and excitement" to be "nonsense," but McFall finds it to be "objective."

Later that same day, Luke records that while a man named Cleopas and another unnamed individual were on their way to Emmaus the resurrected Jesus joined them in their journey but the men did not recognize Him. According to Luke, their eyes became altered in such a way that they were "prevented from recognizing" the person traveling with them.

And this altering of the eyes (Luke 24:16) doesn't have a "fictional ring" to it? Strange indeed! Apparently nothing has a fictional ring to it if McFall wants to believe it.

Luke explains that during this journey the figure conversed with the two men about the empty tomb,

The "figure"? McFall seems to be implying here that Jesus was unrecognizable to those who knew him because his body had somehow been altered, but the text seems to be saying that the disciples were miraculously kept from recognizing him. So which was it? If Luke's "evidence" is truly "objective," McFall should know which it was.

Oh, I forgot; ambiguity or inconsistency in a text doesn't keep its central claim from being true. How careless of me to forget that!

[Luke explains that during this journey the figure conversed with the two men about the empty tomb,] (which by that time had made ancient headlines), and attempted to persuade them of the idea that the Messiah was to suffer for a time and then enter glory as communicated in the Old Testament (Lk. 24:26).

Luke's account also recognizes that these two disciples were aware that Jesus was supposed to rise from the dead on the third day.

Lukde 24:15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, "What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?" They stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?" 19 He asked them, "What things?" They replied, "The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place.

Why did Cleopas point out to "the figure" that it was then the third day since those events had happened unless he was recognizing that Jesus was supposed to have risen on that day? If they knew this much, then why didn't they give more credibility to what the women had said that they had experienced at the tomb. Luke said that "certain" disciples checked the women's story and found the tomb "even so as the women had said," but apparently Cleopas never considered that verification of what the women had said was reason to believe that Jesus had risen on the third day as he had promised he would. I find it strange that McFall can find "objective evidence" in any of this, but, of course, McFall believes that ambiguity, bizarre theological views, inconsistencies, variations, and such like do not affect the credibility of the documents that record the same events.

Let's see what else McFall says about the "figure" in Luke 24 that makes Luke's account "objective evidence."

As they entered Emmaus, the men requested that this figure join them for dinner. At dinner, this figure apparently broke bread in such a manner that it caused the men to realize this was actually Jesus, and once they became aware, Luke records that Jesus simply "vanished from their sight" (Lk. 24:31).

I suppose we are to think that the way Jesus broke the bread caused the alteration of their eyes to go away so that the disciples then recognized who he was. McFall doesn't see any "fictional ring" to this?

From there, these men went to find others who were close to Jesus to "relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread" (Lk. 24:35). As they were relating their experiences to an untold number of disciples, Luke reports that Jesus appeared in their midst (Lk. 24:36).

As this tale was spun by Luke, the resurrected Jesus apparently had the ability to teletransport himself from one place to another. When the disciples at Emmaus finally recognized him, for example, Jesus "vanished out of their sight" (v:31). Then later, after the disciples from Emmaus had gone to Jerusalem and found the other disciples gathered together, Jesus suddenly appeared out of nowhere and stood in their midst (v:36). None of this has a "fictional ring" to McFall? Strange indeed.

According to the text, the group became startled and frightened, so Jesus speaks to them to calm their nerves by saying: "why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Lk. 24:38-39).

If Jesus were indeed flesh and bones and not a "spirit," then how was he able to materialize out of nothing and vanish from sight as Luke and also John ((20:19) claimed? I'm just curious, so I thought I would ask. Maybe McFall can tell us when he is explaining why the claims of teletransportation don't have "fictional rings" to them.

Due to [sic] the impossibility of such a feat in light of His disciples witnessing His death, Luke records that this type of tangible evidence was not enough to convince those closest to Him that He was in a resurrected state (Lk. 24:41). Instead, the men naturally continue to assume that the figure standing before them is some kind of ghostly apparition; after all, it's easier to assume an apparition of a sort than it is to assume a corpse literally came back to life.

I am curious about something else. Those who were the closest associates of Jesus doubted that he would rise from the dead as he claimed he would, they later doubted the reports of those who claimed that they had seen him alive again, and they even doubted when Jesus appeared in their midst, yet McFall and his like-minded cohorts think, for some strange reason, that people who are living 2,000 years after this miracle allegedly happened should accept this tale of a resurrection without so much as even a smattering of a doubt. Thomas, who wasn't present when Jesus appeared in the midst of the disciples, said that until he could see the nailprints in the hands of Jesus and put his hand into Jesus's side, he would not believe, but those of us living today are supposed to accept this yarn on nothing more than the "objective evidence" of inconsistent, contradictory accounts written by those who wrote the gospels decades after the alleged resurrection had happened. Is that really what McFall expects of us? Apparently so, but I trust he will understand why more rational people will expect more than this.

Taking it to the next level, Jesus requests something to eat in an effort to prove that which is more difficult to believe (Lk. 24:42-43). As they marvel at Jesus eating, He turns to the scriptures and takes the same line of reasoning as he did with the two men earlier, by relating the idea that everything in the Old Testament points toward Him, and that the Messiah was to suffer and rise again from the dead (Lk. 24:44-46). It is at this point, that Luke says their minds became open and they began to understand everything that was unfolding.

It is time to remind everyone again that McFall is basically doing nothing but summarizing, in this case, what Luke said, but he is giving us no reason at all to see Luke's account as "objective evidence" that the resurrection really happened. I don't see that Luke 24:44-46 meant that everything in the Old Testament pointed toward Jesus. To me, the text merely meant that Jesus was claiming that some things in the Old Testament prophesied of him. However, if McFall wants to take the position that everything in the Old Testament pointed to Jesus, I would be glad to oppose him in a debate on this proposition. For the sake of argument, however, let's just assume that Jesus did mean that everything in the Old Testament had pointed to him. How could that claim in any way be considered "objective evidence" that Jesus rose from the dead? If McFall is really serious in his interpretation of this passage, he must not know that assertions do not constitute evidence and especially not "objective evidence."

After going out as far as Bethany and conversing with them further, Jesus departs from their presence. As to how Jesus parted, the manuscript tradition varies as one has Him just leaving while the other has Him carried up to heaven (Lk. 24:51; see: NAS vs KJV).

Well, I wonder why some manuscripts had Jesus just leaving or departing. I will say more about that when I am commenting on McFall's comments immediately below.

Since the former is more believable we ought to embrace that version even if Luke actually wrote the latter.

Say what? Even if Luke actually wrote that Jesus was carried up to heaven, we "ought to embrace" the versions that say that he just left? This is a good opportunity for McFall to answer questions that he has completely ignored in the Errancy@iierrancy.com forum. If we cannot believe a biblical writer when he said X, why should we believe him when he said Y? To apply this question to the subject at hand, I will ask McFall to tell us why we should believe that Jesus rose from the dead if we cannot believe that he left his disciples and ascended into heaven? Why is the resurrection anymore believable than the ascension?

Don't expect McFall to make any serious effort to answer these questions. He is a "smorgasbord Christian," who like those who dine at all-you-can-eat buffets, will pick and choose from the Bible what appeals to him but leave the other. He knows that biblical tales of walking on water, calming storms, feeding multitudes with only a few scraps of food, ascensions into heaven, and such like are too ridiculous to believe, but he has so much insecurity about what awaits him after death that he wants to believe that Jesus gave the world hope of afterlife through a resurrection from the dead, and so McFall puts this on his plate but leaves the ascension to be dumped into the garbage.

As we know, Luke has natural leanings toward Jesus' divinity and is therefore prone to exaggeration thru [sic] heaven bound imagery as we see by his other report in Acts 1:9 where Jesus ascends into the clouds.

So now we know why McFall thinks that we should "embrace" the manuscripts that say that Jesus just left his disciples and says nothing about an ascension into heaven. The claim of an ascension into heaven just isn't believable, so let's practice our smorgasbord approach to the Bible and reject that part. However, I would again like to ask McFall to tell us why the claim of a resurrection from the dead is more believable than the claim of an ascension into heaven. The one is just as ridiculous as the other, but if I could make myself believe that a man who was stone-cold dead returned to life, I could just as easily believe that after his resurrection he ascended into heaven.

Now let's look, at long last, at McFall's attempt to make the gospel accounts of the resurrection "objective evidence" that this phenomenal event really happened.

The same cannot be said of the resurrection observances noted above as they have all the earmarks of objective reporting as disbelief is freely mentioned.

So there you have it. We can be sure that the gospel accounts objectively reported the resurrection observances, because they "freely mentioned" disbelief that this event had happened. According to this logic, McFall would have to believe that if a religious group today should claim that their leader had died and returned from the dead, the claim should be believed if the accounts of it, even though they may have been written by disciples of the "resurrected" leader, mentioned that some members of the group doubted that the resurrection had happened. What kind of logic is that? A more reasonable way to look at the references in the gospel accounts to doubts among the disciples of Jesus is to regard them as simply a device that was used to make an unbelievable claim more credible. You see, the gospel writers were saying, you can believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead, because even some of his own disciples didn't believe it at first. This would be a device somewhat like "Matthew's" injection of the guards into his narrative. It was his way of saying that the disciples of Jesus couldn't have stolen the body from the tomb because it was being watched by a contingency of guards. McFall refuses to grant recognition to the obvious fact that anyone who writes fiction can plot it any way he wants to.

Of conflicting interest with the book of Acts, is a discrepancy between mentioned time-frames: while Acts reports that all these "convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3-4) happened over a 40 day period, the Gospel of Luke reports (by context) that everything related to Jesus' resurrection happened in a single day.

Of course, McFall doesn't think that this discrepancy should cast any doubt on the claim that a resurrection happened, even though the discrepancy is in two accounts that were presumably written by the same person (Luke). I appreciate that McFall didn't twist himself into a verbal pretzel (as biblical inerrantists consistently do) to try to make Luke 24:50-53 not mean that Jesus had ascended into heaven on the same day that he was resurrected, but I would really like to see McFall give us a logical reason why this discrepancy does not cast suspicion on the credibility of Luke's claim that Jesus rose from the dead. In one account (his gospel), Luke said that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven on the same day, but in the other account (Acts), he said that Jesus remained on earth for 40 days after his resurrection and then ascended into heaven. If a flagrant inconsistency like this won't cast suspicion on the outrageous claim of a resurrection from the dead, made in both accounts, then McFall needs more help than I can give him.

Objectively commenting on John

In the account identified as John, there are actually two separate streams of reports embedded in the ending of this work. Chapter 20 relates resurrection appearances that occurred in the Jerusalem area, and Chapter 21 relates resurrection appearances roughly 75 miles away in the Galilee/Tiberias area. According to critical scholarship, these accounts were penned by two different authors, which, like Mark, increase the value of the document.

I guess McFall means that two liars are better than one. The gospel of John has been generally dated at ca. AD 90, which would have been about 60 years after the alleged resurrection. As I pointed out in my comments about "Mark's" gospel, an account of an alleged resurrection, which was written four decades or more after the fact, cannot be considered "objective evidence" by any reasonable person, so an account of this alleged resurrection that was written 60 years after the fact would be even less credible. If the 21st chapter was added to this gospel after it was written in AD 90, that would reduce its credibility even more.

In Chapter 20, this author's version has Mary Magdalene going to the tomb only to find it empty, and then has her departing to tell the disciples of her finding. For John, this is an important element in the story as we can easily visualize thru [sic] his emphasis their responsive excitement to verify the empty tomb.

His emphasis? Their responsive excitement? What are the antecedents of these pronouns? McFall seems to have meant his to be a reference to "John," the putative author of this gospel, and their to be a reference to the "responsive excitement" of Peter and "the other disciple," who ran to the tomb after receiving Mary Magdalene's report that the body of Jesus had been stolen (John 20:3-8). McFall didn't say why this would be an "important element in the story"; he just arbitrarily declared that it was. When one wants to see "objective evidence" of the historicity of the resurrection, he will apparently grab any straw in sight, but I see the "responsive excitement" of Peter and "the other disciple" to verify the empty tomb entirely differently in that I don't dismiss the possibility that fictionalized history can be written any way the writers want to plot it. If, for example, the "responsive excitement" of Peter and "the other disciple" would have made the story more credible--and I don't believe that it did--why can't McFall recognize that the writer of John could have intentionally plotted his story to give it this element? In other words, the "responsive excitement" that McFall is so excited about isn't necessarily historical just because it is found in an anonymously written document unless he can prove that it would not have been possible for the author(s) to have deliberately plotted the story to give it this "important element." In reality, then, McFall is making the same mistake on this particular point that inerrantists make on the entire Bible. The latter assume that whatever the Bible says from beginning to end has to be true; McFall assumes that what the book of John says about the "responsive excitement" of Peter and "the other disciple" is true. Therefore, I would ask McFall, who admits that errors are in the Bible, to tell us how he knows that this "responsive-excitement" element in the book of John is not an error.

While John goes on to give a pretty detailed account of their responsive desire to verifying the empty tomb, it is quite interesting that the other Gospels say nothing of it.

I don't understand how McFall could say that the other gospels said nothing of the "responsive desire to verify the empty tomb." Has McFall never read Luke 24:12, which says that upon hearing from the women who went to tell the apostles what they had seen at the tomb, "Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened." Luke later had Cleopas, one of the disciples whom Jesus met on the road to Emmaus, say that "certain women" had gone to the tomb and found it empty and that when they reported this to the disciples, "Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said" (Luke 24:22-24). All I can do at this point is leave it to readers to decide just why McFall thinks that the other gospels said nothing about the "responsive desire" of the disciples to verify the empty tomb. Luke's references may not be as detailed as John's, but he certainly said something about efforts of the disciples to verify the women's report that the tomb was empty.

After racing to the empty tomb, John records that at least one disciple became a believer as he merely peered into the empty tomb (Jn. 20:8). There was no need to experience a resurrection appearance in order to believe for this disciple.

I will just repeat here what I said above. Inerrantists assume the reliability of everything the Bible says from beginning to end, whereas McFall apparently limits his assumptions of reliability to details about the resurrection that he wants to be true. Since McFall believes that the Bible contains errors, I would like for him to explain to us just how he knows that the claim in John 20:8 that the "other disciple" believed when he entered the tomb and saw that it was empty is historically accurate. How can he possibly know that the writer of John didn't just plot the story to include this detail?

If this detail is historically true, all that I can say is that this "other disciple" was naively gullible. Let's just suppose that a close friend of McFall has died and that three days after the funeral and burial, McFall goes to the cemetery to put flowers on the grave. If upon arriving at the gave, McFall should find it open and empty, would he immediately assume that his friend had risen from the dead? I seriously doubt that he would, because he is sensible enough to know that there would be explanations for the missing body that are far more rational than a resurrection explanation. He would assume that grave robbers had taken the body to sell it to some unethical medical school or that the grave had simply been vandalized, or he would assume that the body had been excavated for autoptical reasons. Various explanations of the empty grave would no doubt occur to McFall before he would "believe" that his friend had risen from the dead.

John then makes a general statement in the next verse: "for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead" (Jn. 28:9). Did this one person have that understanding? We are not told.

McFall left completely untouched several questions raised by this "general statement." First of all, exactly what "scripture" said that Jesus "must rise again from the dead"? I defy McFall to produce that scripture, and before he cites Psalm 16, I encourage him to read "What Third-Day Prophecy?" an article in which I showed that the apostle Peter in Acts 2:25-28 and the apostle Paul in Acts 13:35-37 obviously distorted the meaning of Psalm 16 by claiming that it referred to the resurrection of Jesus when it was clearly referring to the present condition of its author. I further showed in this article that the claims in Luke 24:46 and 1 Corinthians 15:4 that the "scriptures" had said that Jesus would rise on the third day have no basis in fact. I would add to these passages the one that McFall cited above in John 28:9 and challenge him to show us what scriptures predicted that the Messiah would rise from the dead. Until he can do that, I won't get excited about "John's" reference to the failure of the disciples to "understand the scripture" that said "he must rise again from the dead," because I can't get excited about a nonexistent scripture.

Another problem in McFall's citation of John 28:9 is that it raises the question of why the disciples didn't understand that Jesus would rise from the dead. Although the "scriptures," which at that time would have been the Old Testament, said nothing about the Messiah's resurrection from the dead, Jesus certainly had told his disciples enough times that he would rise again that they should have immediately known why the tomb was empty.

Matthew 16:21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matthew 17:22 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into human hands, 23 and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised." And they were greatly distressed.

Matthew 20:17 While Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and said to them on the way, 18 "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; 19 then they will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on the third day he will be raised."

Parallel accounts of these passages can be found in the other synoptic gospels, so one has to wonder why, after having been told so often that he would rise from the dead, the apostles for some reason just didn't seem to know after the crucifixion that their "savior" was supposed to rise again. The enemies of Jesus knew that a resurrection was supposed to happen, because they went to Pilate and asked for guards to be stationed at the tomb so that the disciples couldn't steal the body and then claim later that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Matthew 27:62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, "Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead,' and the last deception would be worse than the first."

So the chief priests and Pharisees knew that Jesus had promised to rise from the dead, but the disciples, who had had this promise hammered into their heads while they were with Jesus, didn't know it. That is curious indeed. I discussed this problem in more detail in "Why Didn't They Know?" I recommend that McFall read it and then explain to us why the apostles were surprised by the resurrection of Jesus. While he is at it, perhaps he will explain to us why we should see "objective evidence" in parts of the gospels that are in flagrant conflict with other parts of the same documents.

Nevertheless, in agreement with Luke, though not in time frame, John reports that there were two angels who were having a brief discussion with Mary (after the disciples had left). Thereafter, Jesus suddenly appeared before her though somehow she was unable to recognize Him. Instead, Mary supposed Him to be the gardener but soon realized it was Jesus. John then says that Mary began to cling to Jesus, but Jesus insisted that she not touch Him for He had not yet ascended to His Father.

As I have pointed out before, McFall's "objective evidence" consists of little more than summations of the gospel narratives. He rarely took the time to try to tell us what was so objectively convincing about the narratives, so I see no need to comment on his summary paragraph just quoted. Let's go on to see if he was able to uncover something startlingly significant in the rest of "John's" narrative.

Oddly, not only does this insistence conflict with Luke's report above that Jesus requested his disciples to touch him (Lk. 24:39), but it also conflicts with what this particular author reports himself as we shall see shortly.

McFall, of course, doesn't think that all the "conflicts" that he has been honest enough to point out should have any effect on evaluating the reliability of the resurrection accounts. I would urge him to explain why we should think that claims of a resurrection are reliable even if they contain what he calls "conflicts." Inconsistencies cast doubt on testimonies of ordinary events, so why shouldn't inconsistencies in claims of miraculous events reflect on the reliability of those claims?

John then relates an appearance in which Jesus passes thru a wall/door to show himself as living to a group of disciples (Jn. 20:19). In effort to prove that His corpse literally revived, Jesus shows his hands and side for verification (Jn. 20:20). One disciple, Thomas, is not with them and when he is informed of Jesus' resurrection, he states: "unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe"(Jn.20:25). Of interest at this point is that Thomas needed more evidence to become a believer, much more than the unnamed disciple whom [sic] simply peered into the empty tomb.

And the point of all this is what? McFall didn't say; he just summarized "John's" account of these events and then went on his merry way. I, however, do have an observation to make. Thomas, who had been a close associate of Jesus, wouldn't believe that a resurrection had occurred until he had seen tangible evidence of it, but people who are almost 2,000 years removed from this alleged event are supposed to believe that it happened on no more evidence than that anonymously written documents said that it had happened. Is that McFall's idea of "objective evidence"? I contend that if Thomas had justifiable reasons not to believe that Jesus had risen, we have far more reasons not to believe it either.

After eight days Jesus again passed thru a wall/door where his disciples were located to show himself in a physical bodily state and Thomas was present.

And what is McFall's evidence that this event actually happened? The mere fact that some unknown person said that it did? I trust he will understand me when I say that I don't consider that very "objective evidence."

So let's return now to McFall's summation of "John's" record of alleged resurrection events.

The author of John then records that Jesus said to Thomas: "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing"(Jn. 20:27).

And McFall's evidence that this actually happened is what?

While Thomas apparently needed more evidence than the unnamed viewer mentioned above, in contrast Luke recorded that even after Jesus showed and offered Himself to be touched His disciples were still in disbelief (Lk. 24:41). Thus proving, everybody has a different level of understanding when it comes to weighing evidence for belief.

We didn't need to have these parts of the gospel narratives summarized for us to know this. Anyone who has had any experience at all with religious adherents would know that this is so. Some people are so naively gullible that they will believe just about anything, whereas others, who are more rational, will require substantive evidence. What I want to know is how any of this can be see as "objective evidence" that a man returned to life after having been stone-cold dead for over two days. McFall never tells us.

In the account recorded by the author of Chapter 21, we have a much different manifestation in which Jesus is not so apt to prove His resurrection presence; probably because, according to this recorder, this is now the third visible manifestation. In this scene,Jesus is standing on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias and calls out to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, and two other apostles, who are fishing about a 100 yards out (Jn. 21:8), and instructs them to cast their net on the opposite side of the boat. Not realizing that it is Jesus, but yet heeding the words of this individual, they cast their net to the other side and instantly catch a full load. From that circumstance, Peter makes the exclamation that the person standing on the shore is the Lord/Jesus. Dragging their catch as fast as they can back to shore, but not fast enough for Peter as he apparently bailed ship to beat his shipmates there, they arrive on land and notice a charcoal fire already burning and fish cooking. Strangely, perhaps because there's not enough fish cooking, Jesus has the group put their own fish on the grill for breakfast. During this feasting time "the disciples did not venture to question Him" (Jn. 21:12), but the text goes on to report that Jesus questioned them as to their level of love for Him while persuading them to follow Him. The text then ends with the author signifying the truth of not only his report but the report of Chapter 20 and notes that there were many other things that Jesus did but that the details were too lengthy to include.

Well, once again, I must ask what any of this proves. The story is quaint, but even if we assume that it is historically accurate, how would it in any way prove that Jesus had risen from the dead? All that it does is relate an event that allegedly happened after the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead, but how do we know that those other claims are historically accurate? McFall just doesn't tell us. At the beginning of his article, McFall said that there was "too much information of postmortem observances embedded in documents known to have, with various debatable degrees, historical value; to simply dismiss the data surrounding Jesus out-of-hand," but is he so naive that he just can't see that anyone with much writing talent at all could embed "postmortem observances" of a resurrected hero? He referred to the "historical value" of the documents in which these "postmortem observances" were embedded, but he has a tremendous task before him if he is going to prove "historical value" in anonymously written documents that even he admits are riddled with "conflicts." If this is McFall's idea of "objective evidence," I must question the criteria by which he finds objectivity.

Objectively reflecting and conclusion

It has been said by many conservative scholars and well-meaning popular Christians that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is simply "overwhelming."

Yes, I have heard this same claim, many times, but invariably the "overwhelming" evidence turns out to be no more convincing than the "objective evidence" that McFall has presented to us in the article I am replying to. Those who can make such claims certainly don't have the rationality that Thomas displayed in the actions attributed to him in John 20.

As an informed Christian, who does believe that Jesus rose from the dead, I'd like to say that this belief does not come easy for me. I find the evidence, though superior on a comparative scale, not to be on an overwhelming level given the impossibility of such a feat, and it is also obvious that some of the disciples who actually witnessed and interacted first-hand with the resurrected Jesus had a difficult time believing it too. In my opinion, those who put forth the notion that the evidence is overwhelming fail to take into account the varying degrees in which people individually process information. The most that can be said is that the resurrection of Jesus is the best attested as far as resurrections go.

I really appreciate McFall's candor. He has come a long way, and I just hope that some day he will be able to take that last step and admit to himself his belief in the resurrection of Jesus has been based on nothing more than the fallacy of wishful thinking, which at this time deters him from recognizing that there is really no rational reason for him to believe that there will be life after this one.

Yes, as scholars of varying views contend, the historicity of the empty tomb is very strong,

The historicity of the empty tomb rests on McFall's flimsy belief that although the Bible contains errors in what it says, what it says in the resurrection narratives is true. In other words, the only historical evidence that McFall has of an empty tomb is that documents anonymously written by people who obviously wanted to advance the tale of a resurrected Messiah made references to a body missing from its tomb. If that is McFall's idea of "strong" evidence of "the historicity of the empty tomb," all I can say is that his idea of strong evidence differs substantially from mine.

but the resurrection of Jesus is outside of historical reach and in the realm of reasoned faith.

I would ask McFall to tell us what is reasonable about a faith that jumps over rational explanations to a conclusion that something as unreasonable as a resurrection had taken place. Even if we granted the assumption of an empty tomb, that would not give adequate reason to assume that a resurrection from the dead accounted for the missing body. I will return to the hypothetical burial of McFall's friend, which I referred to above. If McFall should go to his friend's grave to put flowers on it and find it empty, he surely wouldn't assume that the body was gone because his friend had risen from the dead, because he would know that there would be too many unmiraculous explanations to account for the empty grave than to assume that a resurrection had happened. Why can't he apply the same commonsense reasoning to the New Testament claim of a missing body? The only answer I can think of to that question is that he desperately wants to believe in an afterlife.

That is, reasoning from an evidential point to a seemingly logical conclusion.

Seemingly is the key word here, because there is nothing logical about assuming that a man who had been dead for over two days returned to life.

Naturally, since each human mind works in an individual manner to solve mysteries, it is no wonder that various theories have been put forth as to why the tomb was empty; from the myth theory, wrong tomb and swoon theory (the belief that Jesus really wasn't killed but rather woke up in the coolness of tomb and somehow exited), to the theory that He was secretly buried in an unknown location in the ground, and finally to offering the explanation that He had a twin brother; each in an effort to come up with a plausible scenario for witnesses viewing Him alive after He was killed. Theories of this sort are numerous and should not be detested by Christians as an awareness of these views will help us better understand our own.

Once again, McFall is assuming the historicity of those parts of the Bible that he wants to believe are true. The resurrection of the "many saints" in Matthew 27:52-53 has a "fictional ring" to it, so McFall doesn't believe that this happened. The resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:38-4) has a "fictional ring" to it, so McFall doesn't believe that this happened. The resurrection of the widow of Nain's son (Luke 7:12-15) has a fictional ring to it, so McFall doesn't believe that this happened. The resurrection of Jesus--well, the resurrection of Jesus, now McFall does believe that it happened. So I am going to propose another "theory" for McFall to consider. None of the events surrounding the New Testament accounts of Jesus's crucifixion, death, and resurrection actually happened, so there was no empty tomb to explain. How's that for a "theory"? If McFall rejects this theory, let him explain why we should believe anonymously written documents that claim a crucifixion, death, and resurrection that cannot be corroborated by any historical records of the time?

For me, if I compare belief in Jesus' resurrection to belief in God, I find it quite easy (even natural) to believe in God given the unknowable vastness of the universe and the Earth's apparent uniqueness within it.

I don't know what McFall means by the earth's apparent uniqueness within a vast universe, but if he does much reading at all about the continual discoveries being made by modern astronomy, he should know that there are good reaons to believe that there is nothing at all unique about the earth, but this is an issue that probably won't be settled within our lifetime, so I will comment instead on the ease with which he is able to believe in what he calls "God." Ever since I woke up and started studying these matters on my own instead of listening to what was being spewed from pulpits and promulgated in Bible classes, I have wondered how any rational person can believe in "God" when the realities that we see all around us dispute the existence of such an entity. Just recently over 200,000 people were killed by a tsunami in Southern Asia. I know that simple-minded preachers rationalize such events as these as "judgments of God," but most of the victims of this tragedy were children. How can anyone believe that a benevolent deity would allow such a disaster as this to happen? I suppose the answer to that question is that the same people who believe that "God" ordered the massacres of everyone who breathed during Joshua's conquest of Canaan (Deut. 20:16; Josh. 10:40; Josh. 11:11-12) and that he commanded king Saul to massacre all of the Amalekites, including women, children, and babies 1 Sam. 15:1-3) could also believe that this god could entertain himself by sending a tsunami to wipe out 200,000 people.

There is much more I could say about this, but I don't want to write a book at this point to distract attention from the flimsiness of McFall's "objective evidence" of the resurrection of Jesus.

I find it easy to believe Jesus actually lived, and had a unique relationship with this God to the extent that He was generally and correctly (in my view) identified as the Son of God who came to help build good human relations and die for our sins.

I hope McFall will not take offense when I say that I really don't care what he finds "easy to believe." I am sure that there are millions of Hindus who find it easy to believe that Krishna actually lived and that he was an avatar or incarnation of the god Vishnu. Likewise, I am sure that millions of Muslims find it easy to believe that Muhammad was a prophet of Allah. I am also sure that members of the Heaven's Gate cult found it easy to believe that a spaceship was coming in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet to take them away to a higher plane of existence. They believed it enough that they were willing to die to make it come true, and as we will see later, McFall seems to think that dying for what one believes is somehow proof of the truth of that belief. Anyway, I hope McFall will try to explain to us what the ease of believing has to do with proving that a particular belief is true?

I find it far more difficult however, to believe that His body returned to life at a point in time when the smell of a rotting corpse is at the verge of penetrating the air.

Well, then, McFall apparently doesn't believe those parts of the resurrection narratives that speak of how long Jesus was in the tomb. I really would like for McFall to explain to us how he determines truth from error in the Bible, but I have no hope that he will ever try to do this. He has evaded this challenge longer than I can now remember.

Honestly, if I wasn't aware of the general background surrounding His public ministry and teachings, this essay would have quite a different focus.

Just how did McFall develop an "aware[ness] of the general background surrounding [Jesus's] public ministry and teachings"? The background and teachings of Jesus are related in the New Testament gospels, but how does someone who thinks that the New Testament erred concerning how long Jesus was in the tomb and erred in claiming that "many saints" were resurrected on the day that Jesus was crucified, and so on, determine truth from error in what the New Testament said about the general background and public ministry of Jesus?

Don't expect McFall to answer this question, because he won't. I would, however, like for him to tell us exactly what he is "aware of" in the general background and personally ministry of Jesus that made the resurrection claim more credible. McFall didn't say; he just said that if he wasn't aware of these, his article "would have quite a different focus."

McFall has a habit of writing in abstractions that he doesn't bother to explain.

In my view, the resurrection narratives by themselves do not provide me with enough evidence to fully convince, but what I know given the totality of the Gospel versions and their individual portraits of Jesus' public life and God-orientated teaching along with resurrection narratives that persuades me into belief.

Once again, McFall wrote in abstractions that explained nothing, so there is nothing to reply to here. How can I comment on "the totality of the Gospel versions and their individual portraits of Jesus' public life" that make the resurrection claim credible to McFall when he doesn't specify what the totality of the gospel versions and their individual portraits of Jesus are. I do think that if I believed in an outrageous claim like the resurrection and wanted others to believe it too, I would try to explain in specific terms why I have this belief, but McFall apparently felt no such obligation.

Something significant happened after Jesus' death to the extent that many came under the impression that Jesus returned to their presence.

So the resurrection narratives claimed, but how exactly does McFall know that these claims were true. This brings us right back to the question that McFall has repeatedly declined to answer: How does he determine truth from error in documents that by his own admission contain errors?

Whether His appearance was with or without physicality (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8; 26:13-15 vs. Jn. 20:27; 20:17; Mt. 28:9; Lk. 24:39, 41-42) or transcending between the two properties, His presence was nonetheless experienced by enough people to draw attention to the fact that something out of ordinary had occurred.

So the New Testament claims, but we are still at square one. How does McFall know that the resurrection narratives were historically accurate in recording these claims? He admits that there are many mistakes and "conflicts" in the New Testament, but for some inexplicable reason, he apparently refuses to entertain the possibility that some of those mistakes just might be the very points in the resurrection narratives on which he is basing his belief. I said years ago in the Errancy forum that McFall had put himself into an untenable position when he acknowledged that errors were in the Bible. That prediction has proven to be true.

Many lives were indeed changed by these occurrences to the extent that those changed were willing to die in order to share the knowledge of Jesus' resurrection.

I am very disappointed to see McFall resorting to this "apolgetic" claim that has been discredited so many times that I would think that he would be embarrassed to use it, but I apparently underestimated the progress that McFall has made in throwing aside his fundamentalist baggage. I will ask him three questions: 1. What is so unusual about people dying for their religious beliefs? 2. Does dying for one's religious beliefs in any way prove the truth of that belief? 3. What proof does McFall have that "many lives were indeed changed by these occurrences" to the extent that they were willing to die to "share the knowledge of Jesus' resurrection"?

The only possible answer that I can think of to the third question is that the New Testament, and especially the book of Acts, tells McFall that many people died for their faith, but this takes us right back to square one. McFall admits that the New Testament is historically inaccurate in places, so how does he know that the New Testament references to martyrs is true? In other words, how can McFall determine truth from error in an errant Bible?

Don't expect him to answer that question.

Granted, others of various religious persuasions have died for beliefs thought to be true too. It is from these considerations, that I weigh the evidences in the balance, and admit that although I struggle with accepting Jesus' resurrection, I'm able to embrace it given the totality of circumstances.

Given the totality of circumstances? Once again, McFall is talking in unexplained abstractions. If "others of various religious persuasions" should tell McFall that they are able to embrace the beliefs of those religions "given the totality of circumstances," how impressed would McFall be? If he will answer that question, he may have an inkling of just how unimpressed with the abstract "objective evidence" that he has talked around in his article. If there is some "totality of circumstances" that makes belief in the resurrection plausible, McFall should tell us in specific terms what those circumstances are.

As I mentioned earlier, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, or at least appear to do so, I find the type of evidence surrounding His resurrection extremely perplexing.

What evidence surrounding his resurrection? Basically all that McFall has done is summarize sections of the resurrection narratives and call that "objective evidence." I am sure that I was not the only reader of his article who did not find the evidence very objective and certainly not convincing.