I was asked to comment on this somewhat bizarre video wrestling with whether Jesus was “given an honorable burial.” The skeptic in this debate is apparently Ricky Brock (also known as CaptainDadPool), who also happens to be the volunteer Pennsylvania state director (?!) for American Atheists. (I did not know that American Atheists have “state directors.”) Mr. Brock claims to be a “former evangelical Christian who became an atheist” after graduating from a Bible college with a “degree in Biblical Theology.” It would be interesting to know which Bible college he attended and graduated from. I’m assuming he has a Bachelor’s degree relating to Biblical theology. More information on him is here indicating he is a full-time stay-at-home dad.

[Before I comment on debate content, I briefly perused the “legal” section of the American Atheists web site which claims to “deal with potential violations of the separation of religion and government.” They are particularly interested in “specific legal problems, government acts which may violate the laws protecting the freedom of religion.” How ironic that they claim to “protect” freedom of religion when in fact they vociferously attack and infringe on freedom of religion, a point that is well documented in Davidson’s book Pagan America.]

To his credit, Brock is polite, calm and respectful in this debate, unlike someone like Richard Dawkins who can be terribly confrontational and insulting. I’m puzzled though by his fixation in this video and elaboration on what he characterizes as the “less-than-honorable burial” that he alleges Jesus incurred. It’s much more important and theologically pertinent that Jesus was executed in the most dishonorable manner possible at the time – by crucifixion. Crucifixion was considered so shameful, painful and barbaric that it could not be used on Roman Citizens, which is why Paul was not crucified but beheaded. Jesus suffered a shameful death, incurring the wrath of God as the propitiation for our sin (Gal 3:13). Brock ignores the obvious 800 lb gorilla to focus on a gnat. If he truly wants to discredit Christianity, his focus should be on refuting the resurrection (1 Cor 15:14), not centering his attention on a “less-than-honorable” burial.

Brock’s seems to clearly affirm the historical trustworthiness of the gospels, referring to them several times. But his perplexing exegesis would not pass muster from someone like Bart Ehrman who is also a self-proclaimed former-evangelical-turned-atheist. Ehrman has a PhD in Biblical Textual Criticism and while I obviously don’t agree with much Ehrman says, he gets many things correct. In contrast, Brock gets so much wrong that it’s challenging to follow his meandering and convoluted train of thought.

While seeming to affirm the historical trustworthiness of the gospels, Brock simultaneously and explicitly says the New Testament data is “not consistent”. He fails to recognize that the gospels are eyewitness testimony, and a primary characteristic of genuine eyewitness testimony is differing perspectives from each eyewitness. In fact, identical eyewitness testimony is considered evidence of collusion in courts of law.

Brock claims that the gospels were “written much later”, but doesn’t specify how much later. Even Bart Ehrman admits they were written in the First Century and dates Mark to 70 AD, when eyewitnesses were still alive to refute falsehood. There simply was not sufficient elapsed time between the resurrection and the writing of the gospels for a legend to develop. Even more important – both Galatians and 1 Thessalonians are dated to the early 50s, well before the gospels were written and only 20 years after the resurrection when many eyewitnesses were still alive . . . and both epistles clearly affirm the resurrection of Jesus (Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14).

Brock clearly believes that Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead. But he ignores the elephant in the room – namely, why then did the Jews and Romans not simply produce his rotting body to refute the disciples’ claim of resurrection and crush the movement in its infancy? In fact, the Jews recognized and acknowledged that the body was indeed missing and explained it by perpetrating the hoax that the disciples stole the body. But the stolen body theory necessitates numerous incredulous assumptions:

• The entire Roman guard force (a minimum of 3 and perhaps as many as 10-16) fell asleep even though the penalty was death.
• The disciples were able to quietly move a 1-2 ton stone.
• None of the guards were awakened by a 1-2 ton stone moving in their vicinity.
• Rome never investigated a breached Imperial Seal.
• The disciples became fearless for what they knew was a lie.
• The disciples were willing to die for what they knew was a lie.
• The resurrection appearances were imagined.

How do we explain that the church was birthed and exploded in the very city where Jesus was executed, among the populace that witnessed his crucifixion, before the Jews who demanded his death and under the Romans who killed him? There is only one plausible explanation – Jesus bodily rose from the dead, changing everythng. The early church in Jerusalem was composed of all Jews; how do we explain that virtually overnight they changed their day of worship from Saturday (meticulously observed for more than a thousand years) to Sunday? The answer is that it was the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. How do we explain the sudden conversion of Saul of Tarsus, chief enemy of the church, to Paul the apostle, chief advocate for the church and the man God would use to write 2/3 of the New Testament? Paul himself tells us – the risen Jesus appeared to him (1 Cor 15:8).

Proclamation of the Resurrection was central to the gospel in the early church with many suffering persecution and martyrdom for their message that Jesus was alive. Specific mention of the resurrection in the Book of Acts occurs in: Acts 1:3, 21-22; 2:24, 29-32; 3:15, 26; 4:2; 4:10; 4:33; 5:30; 9:40-41; 10:39-40; 13:30-37; 14:19-20; 17:2-3; 17:18; 17:31-32; 20:9-10; 23:6; 24:14-15; 24:20-21; 25:19; 26:7-8; 26:22-23. In addition to these specific explicit occurrences, there are also a considerable number of implicit references (i.e., Acts 8:37 where Jesus “is” [instead of “was”] the Son of God; Acts 9:5-6, 9:27; 22:6-8; etc.)

As a general comment, Brock’s opponent could have been more effective had he refocused the conversation on the Resurrection and the reliability of the NT manuscripts. Instead much of the debate is tangled and chases meaningless rabbit trails. I commented earlier on the phenomenon that many atheists devote huge amounts of their time and effort to refuting something they believe is fiction. Some atheists seem to even make it a full-time job. In contrast, I don’t waste my time and effort incessantly refuting people whom I believe are delusional – i.e., flat-earthers or those who deny that the Apollo moon landings ever happened and were an elaborate hoax. If asked I will provide evidence that refutes their claims, but my time and effort is better spent elsewhere. Brock’s protests reveal far more about him than he realizes.

Indeed . . . methinks that Mr. Brock protests too much. 🙂