The above sentence is the headline the editor placed above my letter to his publication. That publication is 'Touchstone,' a newspaper published by the Methodist Publishing Company in New Zealand, although it points out that the opinions included in it do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Methodist Church of New Zealand.
One of the regular contributors is Ian Harris who contributes to the column headed 'Honest to God.' In his March 2013 column he wrote concerning some widely held views concerning the Gospels and their versions of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
In reply I submitted the following opinion which was published in the April edition of Touchstone under the heading of 'Would you die for a metaphor.' I reprint that opinion:
I take issue with a few of the things stated as authoritative by your correspondent Ian Harris in his column, Honest to God, in your March issue.
Ian states that the gospels are filled with lessons and hope but not necessarily facts. I must confess to admiring Mr Harris. Over the years I have come across his columns and believe he comments as he does to stir up his readers to open their minds, I admire that.
In the column I refer to, he comments negatively upon matters written 40 or 50 years after an event. Surely, there would still be people alive who had witnessed that event. There would also be those who had heard, first hand, from such witnesses. They would have to be a more authoritative voice than someone living 2000 years after the event.
Likewise, up to 100 years after the event, one would think that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders would have produced witnesses to refute what the Apostles and early Christians were saying.
After all, here were groups of people claiming that they knew the Messiah and those groups were 'eating' into their faith. One would presume that given the chance, the Jewish authorities would have jumped quite decisively upon provable lies, but evidence of such is absent.
Numerous critics of the physical resurrection, point to inconsistencies within the gospels when it comes to who saw who and what and when on Easter morning. As a former police detective, I and every lawyer I ever came across can tell you that if there are five witnesses to a single event then there will be five different versions.
If you want to examine this matter in any detail I would suggest you read Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ.
I further believe that many of those people viewed Jesus as more than just 'a man among men.' After all, the early believers willingly died for their beliefs. If they were defending something that they knew to be a lie, do you think they would have died for it?
As a Christian, if you believe that the resurrection was not physical, are you willing to die for it?
