[Questioner} Since Christ indicated in the story of "Doubting Thomas" - he didn't expect
there was any evidence other than his letting Thomas perhaps probe his wounds
in his hand and/or shove his hand into the side of his mortal
wound that there was any more evidence that Christians would be blessed based
on their ability to believe based on nothing, why are you providing
evidence of his resurrection? [Dr Craig] Alright let's try to understand this question.
This is actually a theological question. It doesn't call into question any of
the historical facts I presented tonight: the burial, the empty tomb, the
appearances, and so forth.
Nor is an attempt to show that the resurrection of Jesus is not the best
explanation of these facts based on criteria like explanatory scope,
explanatory power, plausibility, and so forth. This is a theological
objection. It's saying if Jesus, and John who recorded the "Doubting Thomas" story,
thought that evidence isn't important for belief in Jesus' resurrection then,
why do something like what I've done tonight?
Well, I think that this is based upon a misunderstanding of the Thomas story. Let
me just read that account to you.
"Thomas, one of the twelve named Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." So
Thomas wasn't with the others when Jesus appeared to them in the upper
room. "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, 'We have seen the Lord!' but he
said to them, 'Unless I 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.' And after eight days,
again the disciples were inside and Thomas with them Jesus came. The doors
having been shut and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then he
said to Thomas, 'Reach here your finger and see my hands and reach here your hand
and put it in my side and be not unbelieving but believing.' Thomas
answered and said to him, 'My Lord and my God.'
Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen me have you believed? Blessed are they
who did not see and yet believed." Now the questioner is suggesting, what this is
saying is that it's more blessed to just believe in the resurrection of Jesus on
faith or something without seeing
than to require evidence. But is that the correct interpretation of the story?
No, this gentleman is shaking his head no. What Thomas refused to do was to believe the
Apostolic testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. The disciples had seen the Lord,
and they bore testimony to what they had seen and experienced. And Thomas was
refusing to believe the eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.
And John is saying to the readers of his day,
"Don't be skeptical! You yourself haven't seen an appearance of Jesus. Jesus
doesn't appear to every person in every age. You haven't seen him but you have
the Apostolic eyewitness testimony to this event and you should believe on
that basis". And so right after the story he goes on to say, "Many other signs therefore,
Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples which are not written
in this book but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is
the Christ the Son of God. And that believing you may have
life in his name." So John is saying these signs are recorded, we have the
eyewitness apostolic testimony to these miraculous signs, and therefore you are
blessed if you believe this apostolic testimony to these signs even if you
yourself is not personally seen the empty tomb or witnessed a resurrection
appearance of Jesus. So far from undermining the historical evidence for
the resurrection I think this story actually augments the importance of
examining the Apostolic testimony to the resurrection and if it is trustworthy and
unbelievable, believing on that basis rather than saying, "Well why doesn't he
appear to me in my bedroom. That, John says, is an unreasonable demand.