VF-320 transcript. Dr.Gene Scott, April 3, 1983

I'm told that channel 2 here in Los Angeles conducted a poll, "How many people believed that Jesus Christ was divine?"

Over 90% didn't believe in miracle. 

It reminds me of a story. 

We've been here 8 years and you can tell the same ones over, and people don't remember, some of them. Others weren't here when I told it the first time. 

Did you ever hear about the little boy that came home from Sunday school, and his daddy said, what did they tell you today? 

And he said, well, there was this guy Moses, and he organized a bunch of slaves in a revolt, and they started marching over across the desert, and suddenly one of the scouts came roaring up in a jeep, and he said "This guy Pharaoh is coming after us". 

And shells started breakin' around them, and the tanks were charging over the sand dunes, and Moses hooked up his phone and he called the engineers. 

And he says "What can we do about this Red Sea?" 

And they got their heads together in a hurry, and they decided they'd build a bunch of pontoon bridges. 

And they built those pontoons, and Moses was roaring through his loudspeakers, and they lined up the jeeps, and they lined up the tanks, and they lined up the heavy artillery, and they got on the pontoons and raced across the Red Sea. And they put a demolition squad on the pontoons and they planted bombs and charges all inside of it, and that dumb Pharaoh, he came charging over the sand dune, his tanks and jeeps and heavy equipment, he just charged right out on those pontoons after those Israelites. And when he got about in the middle, Moses radioed his engineers and he said "punch that plunger" and they punched it down and kablooey blom blom they blew the pontoons up and Pharaoh and his tanks and his guns and every thing went down to the bottom of the Red Sea.   

And his dad said "Did your Sunday school teacher tell you that story?" 

He said, 'Not exactly, but you'd never believe it the way she told it!' 

If you don't believe in miracle, you haven't any business being a Christian. 

Christianity starts with a mind-boggling proclamation.  

Now I was preaching last Sunday on my own journey to faith. 

I lost my faith because of a habit pattern of everybody, from men on the street to college professors. 

Everybody thinks you can talk about religion with your first words coming out of the cradle. Everybody's an expert on religion. They assume you don't need any brains to be a Christian, you don't need any facts, you don't need to study. 

Everybody's an expert, and those that stay furthest away from the church, they're usually the biggest self-proclaimed experts. 

Christianity starts with a fact. Now, I have grown up in the church. 

Like the song, it's sung every Easter, and it's true. 'You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart.' And you sang it earlier. 

But that doesn't mean a bowl of beans to your neighbor. You can't do anything for anybody with your experience. 

'You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart' doesn't do a thing for me. Some people get a bigger kick with a bottle of Johnny Walker Red. That doesn't make me believe in miracles. 

I don't doubt it. 

But on the day of Pentecost, when a mocking mob gathered, and said of the disciples that they were mad, or drunk, Jesus didn't look down on a scene, left out, and hear his chief apostle say 'well folks, if you could feel what I feel, you'd be jumpin' around here and talking in tongues too.' 

That wasn't the message. 

I'm sure he felt something. But Peter didn't stand on the day of Pentecost and say "Men and brethren, you ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart." 

There never would have been a Christian church. 

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all of one accord in one place, and suddenly there came a sound from heaven, and remember this, there wasn't any mob around. 

120 of them in one room, suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all of the house where they were sitting, and there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 

Anybody ever had an experience better than that?  

There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 

Now that is an experience that is worth talking about, if the purpose of Christianity is to testify to our experience. 

Their experience was so phenomenal, that it says when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together. They're no longer in the upper room, they're down on the street. 

And they were all confounded because that every man heard them speak in his own language, and they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another behold are not all these which speak Galileans? Why hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born? 

They began to question, they named 17 languages they heard, so they were already tuned in on the experience. 

But suddenly Peter rose to preach. He didn't start with his experience. Except to deny what they were accusing. He said these are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel, in the last days God will pour out his spirit upon all flesh, but then he gets down to fact. He says Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, which ye yourselves also know.

He started where they were. He didn't say cut the top of your head off, and quit thinking.

He didn't say what I've heard people say to me all my life, 'you just gotta believe now!' 
He started with a fact they knew, Jesus of Nazareth, a man. Nothing supernatural in that opening word. A man approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you which ye yourselves also know. Him ye have taken, they knew that too, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain. They knew that. 

Then he moves to a declaration they didn't know. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because he could not be holden of it. 

He then preaches from scripture because it's Jews that have gathered, and repeats it again. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses, 

And then, they cry "what must we do?", and 3000 are born into the kingdom in one day.

You go to the third chapter of Acts. You go to the fourth chapter of Acts. You go to the fifth chapter of Acts. You keep going to the thirteenth chapter of Acts. Everywhere they went preaching, they proclaimed a fact.

When they told Peter to stop preaching Christ, he says "you killed the Prince of Life, but God raised him up". In another message "you hanged him on a tree and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, but God raised him up from the dead". 

Paul when he began to preach said to the Corinthians, "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received. How that Christ was crucified, according to scripture, died was buried and on the third day rose again". Then he cites living witnesses. 

After that he appeared. And he names them one after another. Concluding with one appearance to above five hundred brethren at once of whom he says the greater part remain unto this day, available to be called as witnesses, but some are fallen asleep, dead. But the major part of the group could still be called to witness the resurrection. 

He said "if Christ be not risen, our faith is vain. Furthermore we bear false witness of God because we have testified of him that he raised up the Christ". 

Everywhere you turn in the New Testament, there's a fact.

They didn't have to study Genesis. They didn't have to determine how old the earth was. They didn't have to explain that bureaucrats were missing links. They didn't have to do any of the things that Christians have to do today. They didn't have to take a bible course. They didn't have to swear allegiance to every comma, period and question mark in the King James.

A man had gone around, as I said last Sunday, making such claims about himself, that if he were not what he said he was, he either should be committed for believing the impossible about himself, or he was an out and out fraud trying to deceive people.

If what he said about himself were true, you don't need any better starting point for God that what he claimed about himself.  He seated all authority in himself. What ever else God may be, he's the boss.

And Jesus put himself in that chair. He had that sense of moral perfection that never gave any awareness of any wrongdoing that qualified him to be the ransom for a lost world, and he looked at the world saying something's wrong with it could only be set right if he died for it. And he put himself at the center of the religious universe. 

You didn't have to learn a lot of theology; you just have to accept his mastery.

And as I said last Sunday, if my Dad had went around making those statements I'd know he flipped at 77. I'd commit him. Or I'd say Dad you're putting me on. You turned into a comedian in the last days. 

But if my Dad, if Bruce Henderson, if Wes Parker, if any person went around, if Keith went around making those claims, and included the claim that when you put him in the grave he would come out in 3 days, and he came out, I'd take another look at Keith, Wes, Bruce, or my Dad. 

Christianity starts right there.

You can spend the rest of your life solving every other problem, but Christianity starts right there. Either Jesus Christ was a nut, or a fraud, or if he was what he claimed to be, the most important personage walking on this earth, anywhere on the stage of history, and deserving of what the Christian church has given him the allegiance that he demanded.

I'm tired of people saying well, you know, what's a Christian.

Well, You stop doing this, whatever it is that's good, fun, alive, enjoyable, profitable, anything that you like to do, you stop doing it. Christianity is misery, producing miserable people, that you'd rather be in hell than go to heaven with. 

Christianity is Christ.

The only truly natural person, who moved out of the invisible world and as John has said "no man hath seen God but Christ declared him", the word is exegesis, leading from behind a curtain and putting on display. 

And the claim of Christ is if you want to know what God's like take a look at me. If you want to know what the glory of God is that every man falls short of. take a look at me. And having displayed that, you're all lost and without hope but I'm going to ransom you, and as a gift, give your life back. 

And when people said show us a sign, and they're running all over Los Angeles, that if you put up a spiritual sign post anywhere, here they come. They said show us a sign, Jesus says, only one. 

Can you hear me over there in the catacombs? Am I ok today? Can you hear me up there?
Can you hear me right here? Huh?

They said show us a sign. He said only one. He gave the one, and they've been looking for others ever since.

And the one he said he would show them, to prove his claims, and Paul would stand on Mars Hill, years later, and say this was the vindication.

He pointed to Jonah, 3 days in the belly of the whale, and out again, as the one sign that would prove God's veracity, and prove God's vindication of the claims of his son. He'd go in the grave and come out again. 

Without the resurrection Christianity is an absolute fraud. 

I said to Lex Miller the New Zealand theologian I studied under at Stanford, I said Lex, how come you won't base your faith on the resurrection? You claim that God suddenly out of nothing created the worlds. You claim in some abstract way that God from beyond history is the answer to history's problems, someday in his time in the future.

How come you won't base your faith on the resurrection? He looked at me with the strangest look.

Gene, I'm afraid that I can't be convinced.

I thought to myself, what in the world? Paul said "if Christ be not risen our faith is vain".

I lost my faith.

Oh I'd seen 'em flippen floppin' spiritual jumps. They'd tromped over me in revivals when I was a kid. Getting me down in the sawdust at St. Alena campground so some evangelist could get a new scalp on his belt and given me the Holy Spirit. All they were doin' was keep me in there while those that had it were playing football. I wanted to get that Holy Spirit so I could go out and bang around with 'em.

I was a second-class citizen until I had all the experiences. And I had 'em. And in spite of my youthful ignorance, I am totally convinced that my experiences were genuine but when I got into university every spiritual experience I had was explained away.

Not every psychological experience is spiritual, but every spiritual experience is a psychological experience because all a physiological experience is, is you havin' an experience. 

So unless somebody else had it, if you have it, it's psychological. If they had it, it's psychological to them. And it can be explained away. 

But Given the resurrection and the authority of Christ that God will not give you stone for bread, serpent for fish when you ask him, and that he is in control and greater is he that is in us than he that is in the world, once your faith is solidly based, what you ask of God you can know what you will get from God, not somebody else. 

But without that foundation you can be ripped apart in your faith and too much of Christianity is scared to tackle the job.

It can be. I came to a point where either I was going to abandon Christ or I would settle this issue. If he came out of that tomb, I was ready to worship him.

Oh, I know all the definitions of God. Gawwd omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.

What in the hell does that mean?

Wake up!

I heard a preacher get up and say "you've got to first believe that God is personal, and then you've got to believe that it's the nature of a person to reveal himself, and then you've got to believe that being that is his nature, if you look you'll find his revelation, and then when you come to this one", I said "what if you come to another one?"  

I had a problem with my head, with that resurrection bit. If I could believe he came through that stone, sailed off in the blue, with 2 eyes lookin' at him, I'm going to take another look at him. 

Now I can't see him, the way the first century witnesses could.  But I can attack it like any other historical problem.

Now the problem with Christianity, nobody thinks they should tackle it like any other historical problem. They want to grab a few things here and get in an argument.

Any historical problem you start out with certain things, called your frame of reference. 

If somebody tells you that Scott preached awful today, that assumes that I was here preaching. Now if nobody believes that I was here, why get into an argument about how I preached? I mean, let's settle the first fact.

If I'm here, we might decide whether I'm preaching or not. But if I'm not here, it's sure a wasted energy to discuss my sermon. And if there's no Glendale, why argue about what we did here?

If you're intelligent you start with certain things that you take for granted, and then you build your argument. Don't ever talk about the resurrection if you don't believe Jesus lived.

Now there's some people that don't believe that. In fact there's a whole world that believes what's wrong with the whole world is that you think you live.

Truth is, that you don't. I've never found one of those fellas that will stand in front of a streetcar to prove his point.

But don't talk about the resurrection, what sense is there in discussing whether Jesus rose from the dead if you don't believe he ever lived? And somebody's said I don't' believe he ever lived, man I got a lot easier job proving that than the other one.

I mean, if that's the discussion, did Jesus live, I got an easy task. Even Tacitus the Roman historian admits that. 

#2, he was crucified.

In Jerusalem, at the hand of the Romans, or at their authority, instigated by Jewish leaders.

You say I don't believe that. Well then, we're not going to talk about the resurrection. That's a lot easier. How may of you know that's a lot easier to prove than the resurrection?

Now the best seller that I've been debunking on Saturday night, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" doesn't believe that. They believe Jesus practiced on Lazarus, and pulled a sham in a garden that people couldn't get to. Well, that's easy to debunk. I'll do that on Saturday nights.

If you don't believe he was crucified by the Romans, at the instigation of Jewish leaders, not all Jews. Jesus was one by the way. His disciples were. But the Jewish religious leaders instigated it. And the Romans carried it out.

#3 he was considered dead. That does not say he was, it just says, they thought he was. You don't normally bury people you think are alive, do ya'?

Now if you don't believe those 3 things, and don't talk to anybody who doesn't.

Don't get involved in vain questioning. Don't argue the resurrection with somebody that is refusing to believe Jesus lived, was crucified at the hands of the Romans, instigation of the Jewish leaders, and considered dead.

#4, he was buried in a known tomb, and an accessible tomb.

Now you may want to say to me, 'I don't believe that'.  Man, my job's easier. I can prove that a lot easier than I can prove he rose from the dead. You don't have to believe in miracles to prove that. That's the starting point.

#5, he was preached within 7 weeks and earlier, actually, on the first day.

He was preached raised, ascended and the tomb empty. They didn't just preach an empty tomb. They preached a living savior that they touched, that they fellowshipped with, that they ate with, that they talked with, that they walked with, and they preached an ascension.

That he ascended up into the heavens.

All three, organically inseparable as part of the New Testament preaching. And I'm preaching it today. So nobody can argue with that. Unless you believe I'm not here.

#6, now this is a conclusion.

To us, 2000 years away, if Jesus is not the Son of God, our bread and butter doesn't depend today on solving this problem. Your job does not depend today on solving this problem.

It is common sense that if your position, your prestige, your job your livelihood, and possibly your life, depends on disproving something, you will be more concerned to disprove it, than an ordinary passerby.

Right? Now that's not a fact, that's a conclusion.

That a person that has his life, his livelihood, his position, his reputation on the line is more concerned to protect it and to disprove a fact that threatens that, than just an ordinary fella 2000 years later. Do you agree with that?

The Jewish leaders the conclusion comes from a fact.

If the Jewish religious leaders, do you have any idea what would happen to my own spiritual leadership position, if the bureaucrats in the FCC were revealed to be angels from heaven? Huh? I'll guarantee you it would be much harder to get a crowd here to hear me preach next Sunday. If the lord appeared at King's House 1 next Sunday and said "my children, these FCC bureaucrats are Gawwd's servants." 

Believe you me, there ain't ever gonna be a spokesman whose credentials will be checked out like I'm gonna check that guys out. I'm concerned about that.

If they're angels, and I've been mis-representing them I'm gonna do something about that message. 

The Jewish leaders, who instigated the crucifixion, calling him a blasphemer. If he rose, and ascended, and that tomb was empty, they're psychologically more motivated to disprove that message than you and I could ever be today.

And if all they have to do, well. Let's take one step.

Jewish leaders, more concerned. I'm gonna put more involved. And therefore they persecuted the New Testament preachers for telling that message. 

Every record, from the earliest day is stop saying what you're saying about him raising from the dead. They said to Peter, stop preaching this message. He said "shall we obey God or man? You desired a murderer to be granted unto you, and hanged Jesus on a tree, but God raised him from the dead. And we'll obey God and not man," they kept preaching.

Every record shows the New Testament preachers were horribly persecuted, because of the preaching of this message.

And #8, this is a conclusion that forces me to believe a fact.

Now, hear what I'm doing, I'm laying a platform. I will not discuss the resurrection of Jesus Christ with anybody, anywhere, who does not believe these 8 things. It's a waste of time. It's much easier to prove each of these 8, than it is to prove the resurrection. So if you're not willing, any person, to accept the 8, then let's stop on them. 

I got all 1983 to preach one month on each of them, and lay the evidence that Jesus lived, was crucified at the hands of the Romans, instigated by Jewish rulers, or Jewish leaders, considered dead, placed in an accessible known tomb, preach raised ascended and that the tomb was empty. 

These same Jewish leaders because of their involvement in his crucifixion would be more concerned to disprove the preaching because it threatened their religious leadership, it threatened their reputation, it threatened their livelihood, it could threaten their life.

They were very concerned to disprove it so they persecuted the preachers, told them don't preach this. And on that basis, the tomb was empty. You say how come? All right.

If he was buried in a known, accessible tomb, and if the Jewish leaders were as involved, and wanting to disprove the preaching, as they would be because of the threat on their position, all they had to do to shut up the preachers was go to the tomb, and produce the body.

If I'm walking around saying 'he came out of the tomb!' all that you've got to do to disprove the sermon is go there, and produce the body, and their message is made a lie. 

You say, well it's only true if these facts are true. That's right. That's what I said.

I will never talk the resurrection, until these are assumed to be true. You don't have to believe in miracle to believe in any of these.

But these 8 facts under gird any discussion of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the tomb had to be empty if the Jewish leaders were as concerned as they would have been as we're assuming. And the tomb was known and accessible. It had to be empty, for the message to even get out of the gate.

Second reason I believe the tomb was empty, which is inferred. Nobody knows where the tomb is. They fight to this day in the religious community regarding which of 2 sites selected today, represents the tomb of Christ. Nobody knows where his tomb really is.

You can find ancient Old Testament characters, you can find their tombs with certainty. Nobody, for centuries, could find Christ's tomb. It was lost to history. Because who cared?

Nobody cared about a bloomin' empty tomb. Only stupid Christians today going gaga over that tomb. And go home and never think of Christ again. They didn't care about a hole in the rock. They served a living savior. Who cares about a tomb when there's no body in it?

I may put flowers on yours when you're dead Bruce, but when you come out of it, I'm saving the expense of flowers. 

If there's nobody there, who wants the tomb? So it was lost to history. Nobody cared about it. Until those idiots trying to compete with heathen idolatry, three, four centuries later, decided we better find where his blessed body laid. They didn't care where it was sitting, they just wanted to go where it was laid. 

The tomb was empty.

Now, assume those facts, and I can discuss the resurrection. The resurrection was preached, ascension, and tomb empty. These are some of the theories to explain the preaching.

First one, because and supportive of the facts I've given you. 

The Jewish leaders were so concerned to disprove the preaching, they not only persecuted the disciples, but before they started persecuting them the first thing they said was the disciples stole the body.

Dirty rats. Just a bunch of lying thieves. They bet on the wrong horse, or the wrong God, and he got himself killed. And they're running around looking like idiots.

So the only way they can save face is to sneak in there and steal the body. Then make up the story that Jesus rose from the dead. That's what the Jewish leaders said they did.

Second story is the Romans took the body.

Third story is the Jewish leaders themselves took the body.

Fourth story is wrong tomb. Poor old women, crying over Jesus, bleary eyed in the early morning light or the late evening light. Stumbling around in their grief, went to the wrong tomb. Low and behold, it's just a hole in the ground, they got overly excited, ran out screaming, 'he lives!' Those dumb women, going to the wrong, they never were geographers anyway. Couldn't read a map, and they went to the wrong place. And the whole Christian movement springs from that error.

Resuscitation. How do you spell that word? Revived.

He was, he was considered dead but he wasn't. And when he got in the coolness of the tomb, boy I could use some of that here right now, it might revive me. 

When he, and some of you. When he got in the coolness of the tomb, he resuscitated. 

Poor old, now look, he had a stab wound in his side, he'd been beaten, he'd been nailed to a cross, he was considered dead. He was wrapped up like a mummy. But in the tomb, he resuscitated, unwrapped himself, and shoved that tomb, that rock aside. 

Man if he could do that, he's better than Houdini. And sick to boot. He just resuscitated, and undid it all.

Have you ever seen how they wrap those dead people? Man, I've had nightmares and tried to come out of sheets a well man. And almost choke myself to death. And on top of that, he moved the rock.

Hallucinations. Glorified daydreams. They thought they saw him, but they really didn't. Just, well it's sad. They drank too much grape juice. New testament wine. Grape juice. And they had hallucinations. 

7th, they made up the whole thing.

They lied, and knew it. Scoundrels. They just made the story up. Dirty rats.

8. They told the truth. They told what they saw. They told what they encountered. They told what they witnessed as honest men.

Now, because the world is dominated by know nothings, and do you know what the biggest proof of no nothingism in television is? 

Nobody can study any subject, that's got any brains, without coming to a conclusion. You know that? Television proves how stupid it is, 'cause they can never come to a conclusion on anything. They worship the great god 2 sides. Easter Sunday morning, one of 'em is reporting on sunrise service. Sun came up in the east, but of course there are some people here that say it came up in the west. You can't study any subject without coming finally to a conclusion. The jury system is based on that.

You can't, until you are exposed to evidence, have a reaction, but you cannot avoid a psychological conclusion. Exposure to the evidence drives you in a corner. Now, some people take longer than others, and they remain agnostic, which is not sure. But there's a psychological happening to the reaction of experience. 

You'll never be as convinced that a stove will burn your finger as when you lay your finger on it. And it's mighty hard to convince you that it doesn't burn, after you put your finger on it. 

Too may people approach the resurrection the way my professors did. 

They said a resurrection can't occur. Why? Cause it would be miracle. And miracles can't occur. Therefore anybody that says it did occur, can't be telling the truth. Or they are too gullible to be respected as a good reporter. So we will reject the report. Cause the resurrection couldn't occur. Cause it's a miracle. And miracles can't happen. And anybody that says they do, is a poor reporter. Cause miracles can't happen. And resurrection's a miracle. And since miracles can't happen, the resurrection didn't happen. 
And anybody that says it did shouldn't be respected as a good reporter, because good reporters know miracles can't occur. And a resurrection's a miracle. And since miracles can't occur, it didn't. And anybody that says it did, shouldn't be listened to. Cause miracles can't occur. And a resurrection's a miracle. And any intelligent person knows miracles can't occur. So anybody that says they did's a poor reporter.  Don't listen to them, cause it's a miracle they're reporting. And miracles can't happen. And anybody that says they do, is just not a good reporter, cause anybody knows they don't occur. And resurrection's a miracle, and miracles don't occur. 

And I sound like an idiot. And I hope I sounded like a real idiot. Cause most people like that are real idiots.

The Christian says miracles are what they are. Beyond natural. Unexplainable by natural means happenings. They don't occur naturally. And when one does occur, if the evidence can drive me to accepting it, man I'm stopping dead in my tracks and studying that one a long time.

I'm convinced by the facts, not the preconceived notion. And when you study anything long enough, and I said that because most people won't study it, you are driven to a conclusion.

I did an undergraduate major in history. I hated objective historians. You know what an objective historian is? He says, well, this one says that, and that one says this, and this other one says something else. And then leaves you. What am I studying him for? If he don't know enough to at least tell me, whether this one or that one or this other one has more evidence, I don't need him.

I don't blame you for ducking Mom. The way I use this handkerchief, I wouldn't want it on me either. 

I hate objective historians. I can't stand someone too cowardly to take a stand. Tell me what your position is, I don't have to accept it, but let me know where you are, then I'm not going to be tricked by you. 

Now listen to me. 

All this represents intellectual semantical massage to avoid the issue. The issue is it's hard to discount the sincerity of these preachers. 

So some snide intellectual, who says miracles can't occur, and anybody blah blah blah has to explain the passion of the preaching. But there's only two choices.

These 8 facts, if true, require 2 choices. Everything else is semantical massage. They either lied and knew it, dirty rats, or they were telling truthfully what they witnessed. There aint nothing in between.

The sermon they preached was 3 fold. Empty tomb, resurrected body, (living), and ascension. If the disciples stoled the body, then they lied, right?

So we're down to 2.

Now if the Romans stole the body, number one it's untenable, with the Jewish leaders having this kind of influence on the Roman government to get him crucified, and with the Jewish leaders being more concerned than you and I would ever be to disprove it, and with the preaching affecting their leadership, all they had to do was ask the Romans, and with the stirring up of strife in the city, the Romans themselves would have announced the fact, we took the body hey hold down a bit. 

So it's not tenable.

That isn't what convinces me. All that theory does is explain the empty tomb. It doesn't explain the preaching of the ascension. It doesn't explain the preaching of a living body, moving around for 40 days, partaking of food with them.  It only explains part of the message.

They had to make up the rest of it. So they're still liars. They're either lying or telling the truth.

Romans taking the body is untenable, but if it were tenable, it only explains 1/3 of the message.  They had to make up the lies about the rest of it. So they're lying or telling the truth.

That the Jewish leaders took the body, totally untenable. Why would they need to persecute and try to get 'em to shut up? If they took the body all they had to do was say "hey! We took it!"  No, they didn't have to accuse the disciples of stealing the body, but even if it were tenable, it only explains the empty tomb. 

It doesn't explain the rest of the message, the ascension, the living experiences. They made up the rest of it. They're liars. In part or whole, they are liars.

Even if that Jewish leader theory....wrong tomb. Untenable if you accept my facts. The tomb was known, and accessible, the Jewish leaders were concerned to disprove the preaching.  All they had to do was go to the right tomb, and make those bleary eyed women look silly. Just that simple.

But if it were tenable, it only explains the empty tomb. It does not explain the preaching of the ascension. It does not explain the preaching of a living Christ. They're still lying or telling the truth, in part or whole.

Resuscitated.

Untenable. Any of you ever been crucified? In the telling of the story it looks stupid. 

How did he get through the rock? Hey let me out!  Quick! I'm dying in here! Let me out! 

But even if he resuscitated, it explains an empty tomb, though hardly.  I mean, how did he get past the guard? Well, he unwrapped himself and sang a carol, and put them to sleep. 

But that is not the Christ they preached. They didn't preach a sick, emaciated, get well recovery, from a crucifixion Christ. They preached a live, vital savior, and that still would not explain the ascension.

Ok folks, I resuscitated, and let me tell you something, if you get crucified and get in the right kind of damp tomb, it puts something in ya that when ya come out 40 days later, you can fly.

The ascension still is not explained. They made that up. They're lying in part or whole no matter how you look at the story.

Hallucinations.

Well, I don't want to get into a long psychological discussion. Let me just explode it simply. Hallucinations might explain they believe they saw the ascension, they believe they saw Jesus but you can sure blow a hole in it by going to the tomb and pulling the dead body out. The empty tomb would not have been empty if all they had was hallucinations. And anybody that knows anything about psychology knows that if they went and took the body out, and stole it, they're in a state of mind now of deceit that they can't manufacture hallucinations.

They're lying. Some part of the story of the 3 fold message is either in whole or part a lie. 
What are we left with? Two. 

As the choice with Jesus is, and ya can't escape it. The only Jesus on the stage of history is either a nut or a fraud, or he's what he claimed to be. 

Now if he's not the Son of God, I don't need him. I can sell Confucius' golden rule much better than Jesus. Jesus golden rule says do to others what you want done to yourself. 
Man, don't you dare do that to me. I've been so tired all my life of people doing for me what they want done for them. No thanks. I'm tired of you crammin' down my throat what you want done for you. Well I'm glad I got a few friends here.

I mean. That produced the inquisition. They rationalized the inquisition with that. 
I want my soul saved. So I'm going to save yours by burning you at the stake until you repent. Do unto others what you want done to yourself. Leave my soul with me and God. Don't you go saving it for me.

Confucius said "don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself." Man, I like that a lot better. As a simple ethical principle, I'm safer with that. 

Jesus Christ brought no unique teaching. I can find out of the riches of the Pharisee literature at its best, everything that Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount. 

The uniqueness of Christ is what he claimed about himself. And that forces a choice.

He's either the Son of God as he claimed he was, or he's a nut, or a fake, and you ought to forget this Christian business.

He is the Son of God if he came out of that tomb. And as you study that fact you are forced into the same corner. 

The choice of veracity boils down to the witnesses. They either lied and made it up, and knew it. Or they reported a fact that overwhelmed them.

I've got 15 minutes, less than that probably. Let me tell ya. When I came to that point I spent 3 and a half years and I summarize those 3 1/2 years in about 12 minutes every Easter. When I was finally cornered, I knew I was either going to abandon Christianity totally, and forget it, or if I got hooked on the evidence of the resurrection I was gonna' finish the trip.

And the evidence of the resurrection cornered me. 

It is settled on this point alone. Those guys that told the story were lying and knew it, or they were reporting what they honestly encountered.

And there're 4 reasons why I believe they were telling the truth. One I can dispense with in a sentence. 

Internal evidences.

Now you have to live with the gospels to feel this. But have you ever seen a liar that doesn't embellish his story to help himself? Liars anticipate where they're getting in trouble. And then they overkill.

I've done this before, but let me say it quickly, as one sample of this.  Mark wrote to gentiles. Everybody agrees with that. His is the shortest gospel, he wrote to gentiles.

All evidence indicates he was the young lad that ran away in the darkness the night that Jesus was crucified. And somebody tried to catch him and grabbed his garment and he ran away naked. His mother owned the house where the Last Supper was held.

When he became a young preacher, an evangelist, he wrote the shortest gospel. Everybody agrees he wrote it to gentiles. Now if you're a liar and you know you're a liar, you're going to try to tell a story that's convincing. He wrote to non Jews, and his purpose in writing was to prove that Jesus was the son of God. That's the lie he's concocting.

Now if you're going to tell your neighbors that somebody is the Son of God, does it make much sense, if you know you're lying, to refer to the man you're going to try to prove is the son of God as the son of man? To an ordinary heathen, son of man means, he's a man's son. 

Now if you're trying to prove that Bruce here is the Son of God it's not going to serve your story every other sentence to have Bruce referring to himself as the son of man.

You can count 'em. It's a short gospel, go home and read it. Writing to heathen, trying to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, Mark, in the shortest gospel, has Jesus referring to himself as the son of man more than any other gospel writer. 

What does that indicate? If you know you're telling a lie, you have no expectancy your book will be canonized, why not change it? If the guy went around calling himself son of man, just change it. And have him refer to himself as Son of God. That's what a liar would do. 

But Mark, being true to the fact, even though it hurt his presentation to heathen, trying to prove that Jesus is the son of God has Jesus, every other breath, referring to himself as the son of man. Why? Because that's what Jesus did. 

Now Jesus was preaching to Jews. If you were a Jew, brought up on both Daniel and the apocryphal literature, where the son of man is a messianic term, and the scriptures that you had been reading all your life as a Jew in the book of Enoch or the book of Daniel, has the son of man coming with lightening on clouds of glory to set up his kingdom, it makes sense. 

But if you transpose Jesus in a book out of that frame and try to describe him to Egyptians and try to prove to Egyptians or Romans that he is the son of God, if 
you're a liar and know you're a liar, just change it a little bit. You don't have to stay true to the text.  You're lying. The fact that he stayed true to what Jesus really said makes him sound like an honest man, not a liar.

You find these interwoven in the scriptures. 

Jesus is out in the desert and a multitude follows him. And it says, he looks to Phillip. Well there's 3 different accounts. One account says he says to his disciples where can we buy bread? You go to any other gospel, written in another country, at another time by another man, and you have the same incident described. Only in this second description there's another fact added. He didn't just say to his disciples where can I buy bread? He said to Phillip, "Phillip, where can we buy bread?" 

Now you go to another part of the middle eastern world, another time, another year, another writer, another place, and you read the third description of the same incident. No, a different incident. This time you read in a totally separate writer, that he's calling Phillip to be a disciple and Phillip was from Bethsaida. Now you go back and check your records. In another gospel you find that the place where he is asking where can I buy bread is near Bethsaida. 

It takes all four accounts scattered among different places, different writers to put it together. 

Why did he ask Phillip? Phillip was from Bethsaida. Why did he still ask Phillip? Because the place he was at was near Bethsaida.  The only man of his disciples expected to know where you could buy bread in that territory was Phillip. If you're just making up a lie, why be that accurate? You say, does that convince you alone? Heck no. 

But they don't sound like a liar. I've listened to some real royal liars. The more you study these people, the more they sound like simple minded accurate reporters of what they saw. 

Some have said, well proof that they're lying is they waited 7 weeks to tell this story. And during that 7 weeks they craftily concocted the lie. Well if they're smart enough to tell the lie as convincingly as they do, don't you think they're smart enough to figure that out? I would be. Why wait 7 weeks? When you know it'll hurt your story? Why wait?

The picture is honest people to whom Jesus said be my witness, but don't you leave Jerusalem until something happens to you.

And you that have listened to me preach on the feast days, it happened exactly on the feast of Pentecost. And that's when they began to preach it. They sound more like honest people who were stunned themselves at the resurrection. And now, when he tells them to wait until they be endued with power, they're not leaving that place at Jerusalem until the experience comes. Now I could preach the whole morning on these internal criteria for honesty. That alone wouldn't convince me at all. But added to these other things, I find it hard to believe they were lying. 

Number 2.

There's a cataclysmic change in all these men and it's as though, if you were drawing a line, there's a sharp break. In front of that break, they exhibit the kinds of things you can despise people for. 

James and John are high tempered selfish self-seeking ask their mama for chief seats in the kingdom. On the other side of some event, John, everybody agrees, becomes the epitome of love. Total contrast with the fire breathing Son of Thunder on the other side.

Peter is unstable. Wherever you meet him, he's unstable. Jesus says I'm going to the cross, he jumps up and says be it far from thee lord. Shut up. You speak as Satan. Loud mouth. Always getting his foot in his mouth. Takes him up on the mount of transfiguration, ask him to wait, he sleeps. But sure enough, he wakes up and sees Elijah, that's the claim, Moses there talking to Jesus, and here goes his foot in his mouth. Oh! Let's build 3 tabernacles here, one for Moses, one for Elijah, one for Jesus. He couldn't even stay awake. How's he going to build a tabernacle? Overkill.

Wherever you meet him, he's...when Jesus talks about somebody denying him, he's not willing to be beaten. He says not me boy, I'm telling ya, if they get on my case I'll die for ya'. And you know the story, he denies his lord 3 times that night. Jesus gave him a special kind message.  Said, go tell Peter. Peter didn't believe anything at that point.

He says go to Galilee and wait for me. Jesus is 5 minutes late and Peter says, I'm going fishing. But suddenly something changes him, the encounter of the resurrection. Peter become the rock. 

The record of Thomas is the one that always has overwhelmed me. 

I've said of this one incident, I'd almost worship the people who wrote the gospels for the way they weave it in. It's weaven, or woven in like that Bethsaida buy bread incident. In all the different gospels you get a continuing picture of the personality of Thomas. 

He's always the doubter. No matter what the circumstance, he's the hard head. Jesus is going to take a dangerous journey. Thomas jumps up and says let's go with him that we may die with him. And you can admire the courage, but he's a humanistic realist. He actually thinks Jesus will be killed on the journey, or the danger is there, and he's willing to go and die with him. 

That's a human view. Jesus says no man takes my life from me. The Shepard lays his life down. Thomas is a realist. 

Jesus is preaching about heaven. Says I'm going to go away from you. I'm going to go to a place, prepare mansions for you, come back and get you, and take you to be with me.  I can see all the rest of the disciples having a Pentecostal revival. Boy, they just whooo whoopee.

He's going away, he's gong to come, he's going to give us some mansions, were going to go, we're going to rule with him. And Jesus then says whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.  Rest of didn't hear him. The first time the word mansions hit 'em, they were just having a spiritual fit.  

But old Thomas, he's listening. Sounds pretty good, I'm gong to leave you, you don't have to be spiritual to know that do you? The guy's going to go.  I'm going to build mansions for you. I don't even have to be spiritual to figure that out.  Just a good carpenter could get the job done. I'm going to come back. Well. I aint lost so I'm sure he can find me. I'm going to take you to be with me. Good.

And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Now you've go to get spiritual. And Thomas says, wait a minute! We don't know where you're going! How can we know the way? Hardhead. The significance is, whose doubting when the resurrection is preached?

Thomas. Same bird. Same hardhead. To him, he's dead. 

And somebody comes in, can't you see old Thomas, here comes these women, gooey eyed, oh, he's risen! awww hogwash and horse spit.  He's deader than a hammer. No, he's alive! Idiots. I won't believe it until I can put my hand in the print of the nails and thrust it in where the spear hit his side. Man I watched that scene.  He's deader than a hammer.

No, he's alive! Grrr. Put 'em over on channel 40. Not me. Not old Tommy boy. 

Suddenly he's changed.  And Thomas takes the gospel when that day came and Jesus said behold my hands and my side and he fell on his knees and says my Lord and my God. And from that day forward no doubting again he takes the gospel and pierces the Himalayas to the toughest region to be a missionary, to be pierced with a Brahman sword near Madras India.

The cataclysmic change in every one of these people occurred at the same time. Before they started telling this story, they weren't worth a hill of beans as a group. Suddenly they changed. Like them or dislike them, from instability to stability, from hot headed high tempered son of thunder to the dispenser of love and pastoral shepherding.  From doubt to stability that carries him through the Himalayas.

Lies do not change people that cataclysmic. Something changed them.

Third.

You don't pay the price they paid for a lie. Best traditions say Bartholomew was flayed to death with a whip in Armenia. Tied to a stake and literally skinned with a whip. Thomas pierced with a sword. St. Andrew crucified on that cross from whence it gets its name. Mark dragged to death by idolatrous priests. Luke hanged from an olive tree, given a change to recant his testimony. Every disciple save John, died a horrible death for this lie. 
I might believe it, except for the fourth. 

And this is what Thomas Aquinas calls the great proof of the resurrection. They paid their price for their testimony alone. 

I could believe, Steve you be Bartholomew, and Keith you be the Apostle Peter, and Bruce you be Thomas. Now we're a bunch of liars. And I'll be Andrew. We're just a bunch of liars, but were losing face.

Man we thought we were going to have a kingdom.

And this dumb idiot that led us got himself crucified.

What are we going to do? Make up this lie.

You rat on us, once we get started and it's going to be tough Steve. And you rat on us, 
And with your karate friend you better get to me before I shoot from long distance because if you rat on us... this honky gonna put you away.

And Bruce, Thomas, now we've got to stick to this story or we're done in, right?

Now keep us together as a group, and they start saying now renege on it.

Remember what I told you. Remember what I told you. Together we might stick it out, to death.

But separate us. There's no telephone, there's no television, there's no satellite, there's no radio there's no, there's not even mail service that can get to us. 

I don't know where you are, I don't know where you are, you don't know where I am, and I don't know where you are. In far-flung corners of the then known world, out of contact. We suddenly are faced with persecution and death for this lie we're telling. 

All you've got to do to keep from being skinned alive with a whip is say "Hey! I renege", catch the next boat and when you see me up here wherever I am, and I say Steve, did you hang in there? And you say yes sir, boy, I'm telling ya I've been telling it good.

I won't know the difference.

You're alone. You're alone. You're alone. 

We got the historic perspective. We've been digging up the records for 2000 years.

Nobody can convince me that it's psychologically feasible that some one of this group will not break under the pressure and one of them somewhere persecuted to death will break and say it's not true.

Find one.

As Thomas Aquinas said the great proof of the resurrection not a single one of them in the pages of history ever backed off from their testimony, though they died alone for it.

I can't believe they weren't honest men telling the truth.

I remember what Larry Thomas said to me. Gene, I'm convinced. My teacher. I'm convinced these men believed what they were telling, so there's got to be something wrong with your first 8 facts. 

Oh I got ya when you do that. Those 8 are easy! I got ya when you get to that corner.

So what?

If they're telling the truth, he came through that rock, he split the heavens, and he'll come again one day as he said. 

He is the seat of authority.

I, I don't, I don't have to get my orders from Washington. He's the authority. I don't need anybody else's approval. He died for me. He covered me. And he takes me as I am.

I don't need to go through some of the maneuvers that Christians traditionally say you have to, to be a Christian.

I just have to look up and say dumb as I am Lord, I accept this, you're my Master. And I'm ready to listen anytime you want to call.

I know that I fall short, as everybody sitting here does in their deepest of heart.

But I know that the one who knew that about me better than anybody while I was yet a sinner and still am a sinner, paid the supreme price to cover me. 

I know he's in control. I know that if God be for us who can be against us. I know that because he lives I can face tomorrow. 

It makes a lot of difference.

And I know that if he came out of that grave and through that rock and sailed off into glory, I'd rather be in his hands, than anybody in this world.

He's in control. And our faith is solid as a rock. And I can trust him to do what he said. 
VF-320 Basic Christianity (Volume 1)		Dr. Gene Scott
The Resurrection (Easter Sunday, April 3, 1983)

Page  22 of  22 
  2222