Batman v Superman versus Avengers Age of Ultron

Okay so I`m going to let the geek in me out for this blog and talk about some of the up and coming major comic book films that are currently in development. I`m going to be talking primarily about Batman v Superman (scheduled for a 2015 release) and Avengers Age of Ultron (also scheduled for 2015). However, I also want to discuss my excitment (I resisted the urge to write x-citement) for X-Men Days of Future Past.

Batman v Superman and Avengers Age of Ultron will arguably represent the greatest clash of film franchise superpowers yet upon the Silverscreen. Batman and Superman are two of DCs most successful, prolific and beloved characters; moreover, they are arguably the most iconic superheroes in the world. Known in the DC universe as "The World`s Finest" Batman and Superman are the ultimate superhero duo. Batman is the world`s greatest detective; a master or criminology and a zen warrior, with a seemingly limitless arsenal of advanced technological weaponry and gadgetry. Superman is physically Batman`s superior in everyway - possessing god-like superpowers harnessed through the radiation of the Sun`s light. It is no secret Superman can fly, see through solid objects, fire lazer beams from his eyes and is impervious to all but the most sophisticated and deadliest of man-made weaponry (and of course Kryptonite). Yet one of Superman`s greatest strengths lies not in his powers but in his humanity. Superman`s actions are governed by a strong sense of morality and justice but which also sees the good in people.

The Avengers meanwhile both on screen and off combine some of Marvel`s greatest superheroes, including Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Hulk and in the comic book universe even the likes of Spiderman among others. Marvel enjoyed tremendous success at the box office with the first Avengers film, Avengers Assemble. The sequel will include new characters including the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, as well as a brand new and terrifying foe - Ultron. With the Avengers already being established as a successful blockbuster franchise, it would seem that Marvel has the edge in terms of momentum with their flagship ensemble superteam. However, here are my thoughts.

Batman v Superman:

The announcement that the next Superman sequel would also feature Batman as the co-lead character took many fans by surprise, including myself. Following Marvel`s successful formula of introducing the separate Avengers characters before bringing them all together, many fans expected DC to do the same with Batman receiving his own reboot as well as other Justice League characters such as the Green Lantern and Wonderwoman. But DC chose to follow a different route. And it is a route I respect and applaud them for taking. Despite many fans concerns that they are "rushing" a Batman/Superman film to try and keep pace with Marvel and the Avengers, I see it very differently. Yes there may be some truth to the fact that Marvel has DC chasing their tails in the war for Silverscreen domination, but I believe this decision makes perfect sense within the universe Zack Snyder created in Man of Steel.

Man of Steel was met with mixed reactions, with people either loving or hating the movie. Most criticism fell on the the latter part of the film and its protracted end battle between Superman and Zod, not to mention the incredibly controversial ending where Superman has to kill Zod in order to save the lives of innocent bystanders caught in the middle of their epic duel. While I understand this criticism, I don`t subscribe to it. The scale of collateral damage within the film, wrought upon a very unfortunate Metropolis, would be precisely the kind expected should the world be faced with its first major existential threat from an alien military general who is given superpowers through the effect the sun`s radiation has on his physiology. As an alien from a race where people are born artificially, each encoded with their own function and purpose in society, his being the protection and survival of his race no matter the moral consequences of his actions; Zod would have literally killed every human being upon earth had Superman not killed him. Superman`s actions were for the greater good and the protection of the human race. As Zod had the same god-like powers Superman possessed, this was a decision only Superman could have made and he had to make it with the knowledge that he was dooming his own race of Kryptonians to history.

In light of the aftermath of Man of Steel it is completely logical that they would create a Batman versus Superman sequel. Batman and Superman co-exist within the DC universe and as Batman is already meant to be a veteran superhero within Snyder`s cinematic DC universe, he would naturally have been alerted to the potential threat an alien like Superman poses to the world in the wake of the catastrophic events of Man of Steel. As a character Batman is fundamentally a cynical person, who trusts no-one, bar possibly his loyal butler Alfred. It is well documented within the comics that Batman distrusts every member of the Justice League and is especially careful in creating defences against Superman`s powers, should ever he be tempted to turn to evil. Had Superman been given his own sequel after Man of Steel it would have made no sense from within the DC universe. The world discovering that humanity is not the only intelligent life form in the universe and that aliens do in fact exist - who are also more powerful than us and who could cause a very real existential threat changes everything. In reality it would change the course of human history forever. Within the DC universe we would expect the likes of Batman and the Green Lantern to show up to assess the situation and strategise how best to respond. Superman could not exist within a vacuum. A Batman v Superman film is to my mind the most logical and natural sequel to Man of Steel.

Regarding the casting of Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman, I believe he received a disproportionate amount of criticism. Yes, he also starred in the Marvel film Dare Devil, which was one of Marvel`s failures but he was not the only reason for the failure of that film. Dare Devil is a very flawed film top to bottom. Since then, Affleck has come a long way in his own acting career and as a director, who has earned a lot of respect for his own films. Until the film is made and the first trailer is released there`s no way to know now whether DC have made the right decision. However, I am prepared to be open-minded and am still very hopeful and optimistic about the film. The continuity of returning star Henry Cavill as Superman is excellent news, as he was born to play Superman with his looks and physique.

That is not to say I have no concerns about this film. This film is possibly the DC film with the highest stakes. Get it wrong and it is unforgivable. There are rumours Wonderwoman may get a cameo and Lex Luther will surely turn out to be the arch villain that ultimately unites the two superheroes in a common cause. These are major characters in the DC universe and their portrayal, the plot and pace of this film are all crucial to its success. At the end of the day Batman is my favourite superhero of all time and a film with him and Superman in it is a dream come true. I can`t wait to 2015 to see it.

Avengers Age of Ultron

As many of my good friends know, I hated Avengers Assemble. But contrary to what some of my friends may think, I don`t love to hate the Avengers; it genuinely disappointed me. The Avengers is a totally superficial film that completely got the balance wrong. Hawkeye was a pivotal character within the film yet he only received a minor cameo in Thor, with no explanation as to who he was and so the impact od him being controlled by Loki for evil was lessened in my opinion. Loki`s alien army was pathetically generic and didn`t even look realistic. The end battle scene for the fate of New York was total overkill - much worse than Man of Steel, and it seemed much of it was just an excuse to see the Hulk practically beat the entire alien invasion force single handedly. Very simply, it was dumb.

Criticism of the first Avengers film notwithstanding, I will go and see Avengers 2 and I will try and keep an open mind. From what I have learnt about the character, Ultron seems like a genuinely terrifying threat to humanity and a far better villain than Loki`s underwhelming and forgettable alien army...in fact having a villain that can`t be beaten up so easily by the Hulk will be a vast improvement (not to say Loki was a poor villain, but I felt he was undermined by that scene and it made it hard for me to understand the relevance of the Avengers if the Hulk was such a dominant force all by himself, with the added convenience of being able to control his rage).

Nevertheless, I think Avengers 2 could be just as disasterous as the first one, for several reasons. 1. Joss Whedon is directing it again (will he go back to the well again of the first Avengers formula?), 2. The introduction of more superheroes could be difficult to balance, a serious problem that X-Men Last Stand suffered from and 3. Iron Man 3 was a somewhat anticlimatic finale to the Iron Man trilogy. This I believe is cause for concern because Iron Man is a major character within the core Avengers team. Stark was made out to be too vulnerable in Iron Man 3 to the point where he was having panic attacks induced by questions from small children. His experimentation with his Iron Man suits had become totally ridiculous to the point where the supposed upgrade broke down and he spent the best part of the film just as Tony Stark, which was further exacerbated by the fact that his girlfriend, Pepper Pots, had to save the day for him after undergoing the extremis operation (an operation Stark himself receives in the graphic novel). The portrayal of the Manderin while novel, was ultimately unsatisfying and a massive let down, especially for Iron Man`s arch-nemesis.

X-Men Days of Future Past

Finally onto another major superhero francise: the X-Men. X-Men Days of Future Past comes out next year and the first trailer has just recently been released. The film borrows its title and major theme from the graphic novel of the same name. The film takes place in a dystopian future, where Mutants have almost been hunted to exstinction by giant robotic Sentinels. Like its comic book namesake, the film involves time travel as Wolverine`s mind is transported back in time into the body of his younger self in order to prevent the apocalyptic war against the mutants, with the help of the young Professor Xavier and Magneto, introduced in X-Men First Class. I am really excited for this film. Firstly, I love dystopian sci-fi plots (the Matrix is one of my all-time favourite films). Secondly, I enjoyed both X-Men First Class and The Wolverine, proving that the X-Men franchise was not lost after X-Men 3 Last Stand. Thirdly, Bryan Singer is once again directing it, after having established the franchise in the first place.

Going back to point 2, X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a disappointing film, but what it got right was the central axis of the film, namely the transformation of Logan into the adamantium laced killing machine that is Wolverine. The actual adamantium surgery scene is one of my favourite superhero movie moments, as an enraged Logan emerges from the chamber in beserker Wolverine mode. The Wolverine, however, is to my mind the defining Wolverine film of the series. Set in Japan sometime after the events of X-Men 3, Logan is haunted by the death of Jean and has lost all purpose in life. Rather than this being a weakness to the film or character, I believe it adds depth and gives us a great Wolverine film. What makes Wolverine such a compelling and interesting character, is his humanity and his desire to be a better person than the mere killer he was created to be by the Weapon X story arc. The Wolverine (film) brought out the best in Wolverine`s character - a man who ultimately wants to do the right thing and finds the strength to live with his mutant ability that gives him near immortality. He learns to bear the emotional and psychological scars of his past and use his natural born weapons - his iconic claws - to serve the greater good.

With both the X-Men and Wolverine franchises being redeemed, I think there is real cause for hope with this new film. Parts of the trailer make me really excited, such as the teasers of new characters Bishop, Warpath and Blink, as well as a bullet-ridden Wolverine. Some of the aesthetics are a little concerning in my opinion (it looks at points like Last Stand), however, they may come across far better in the finished film on the big screen. Overall, I think Days of Future Past is a very ambitious X-Men sequel and a very exciting one, combining the casts of the original and prequel X-Men films.

With comic book/superhero films becoming an established and popular film genre in their own right, film studios are attempting bolder and bolder story arcs and adaptations. The Avengers was a real game changer within the genre as superhero films of the future will now be judged by its scale and success. I`m sure excitment levels will rise the closer we get to the release dates of all these respective films and there is much to look forward to in the near future.

the power of music to move the spirit

Those of you who are friends with me over facebook will have probably noticed that I am inclined to share my favourite songs. These songs are a reflection of my current spiritual state; often being songs that have inspired my faith, connected me to God in worship, or have touched my spirit in a very profound way. Music can take all forms and shapes, and ranges in value from the profane to the sacred. But what sets a particular song apart as sacred? For me music has great transcendental qualities to it, as well as being a powerful vehicle for worship - I think of worship ministries as "gateway" ministries, enabling believers to be transported into the very presence of God by harmonising body, soul and spirit in singing praise.

There is a strong connection between worship and the Holy Spirit:

"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart," Ephesians 5:18-19

Notice the connection between being filled with the Holy Spirit and the act of worshipping God through music. Songs of worship naturally flow from being filled with the Spirit. Another important observation to make is the contrast between the acts of the flesh and the act of worship - when a person is making melody to the Lord with all their heart, they are not giving strength to the sinful nature, having turned from their acts of debauchery. Thus the act of worship is an act of denying the self and mortifying the flesh.

Music reaches the spirit in a powerful way, for example David played the lyre to sooth Saul's troubled spirit:

"And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him." 1 Samuel 16:23

Music changes a person's demeanour, emotions, and attitude. Spirit filled music can also activate a greater awareness and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. Like the example of David ministering to Saul through his talent with the lyre, Spirit filled music contains words and even melodies that can liberate captive souls and set people free from emotional, spiritual or pyschological oppression. Worship is an act of healing in its own way.

Music is also connected to the revelatory work of the Holy Spirit, which explains why worship is so often connected to prayer events organised by churches:

"After that you shall come to Gibeath-elohim, where there is a garrison of the Philistines. And there, as soon as you come to the city, you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre before them, prophesying. Then the Spirit of the Lord will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man." 1 Samuel 10:4-6

This event described in 1 Samuel is of the anointing of Saul as king over Israel. Samuel anointed Saul with a flask of oil. Olive oil was used in ancient Israel as a symbol of the anointing of God's Holy Spirit, known in Hebrew as the Ruach Hakodesh. Only the offices of Priest, Prophet or King were anointed by God with the Holy Spirit in ancient Israel. Saul was given instruction by Samuel to meet with a group of prophets, who were playing instruments and making music, and receive the Spirit of the Lord and the gift of prophesy. Here again we see a connection between music and the work of the Holy Spirit. These prophets were not playing music and prophesying separately, they were prophesying while making music simultaneously.

Every recorded event in which a person received the in-filling of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts is accompanied by signs of either tongues, praise or prophesy. All these signs are verbal and auditory in nature. The experiences of the early Christians in Acts link to Paul's instructions to the church at Ephesus to be filled with the Holy Spirit and make melody to the Lord.

Music is of God, music is encouraged by God, and music also transports us into the eternal Kingdom of God. John describes a vision he received in the book of Revelation of the throne room in Heaven, in which 4 Living Creatures and 24 Elders bowed down before Jesus and worshipped him:

"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”

Revelation 5:6-10

There is a majestic purity about Spirit-filled worship. God is worshipped in Heaven by the angelic beings of the spiritual realm. This heavenly worship echoes throughout eternity, and when believers enter into worship and express their praise and thanksgiving to God Almighty they too enter into this chorus. Just as the Kingdom of God reigns in the hearts of believers and manifests itself through the work and ministry of the Church here on earth; so too worship bridges heaven and earth, uniting them together in the heart and spirit of the believer. Worship is a manifestation of the state of the heart and spirit as instruments are tuned and played, creating melody and sound that vibrates in our ears. Thus worship is another manifestation of the very Kingdom of God itself, just as the Temple and the Holy of Holies were both earthly models of the Heavenly reality, reflections of the true Temple and Holy of Holies that Christ entered into after his ascension in his office as Great High Priest; so too the music we use to worship God is an earthly model of the music sung in Heaven.

Music is an important expression of my spirituality and my relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I encourage you to seek the heart of God and the power of the Holy Spirit through music.

Zion - The Kingdom of God

"For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place" Psalm 132:13

Zion, a word synonymous with two things - Heaven and Jerusalem. These two realms, one spiritual the other terrestrial are joined together through God Himself! Let that sink in for a moment...God chose to make His dwelling here on earth, as well as in Heaven. Even though this earth was marred by sin after the Fall, and wickedness increased upon the earth in the days of Noah, God decided not to abandon the earth. No, the earth has a very special place within God's heart, why? Earth was His design from before the beginning of time, to be our home. As we are made in God's image, created and designed for the purpose of being in relationship with God, God therefore chose to make His dwelling among us. God first created the universe, then the earth, then humanity and then through His chosen people the Jews, built Jerusalem, His Holy City - also called Zion. 

Zion bridges the divide between Heaven and Earth. Therefore Zion is none other than the Kingdom of God. Zion is an interdimensional realm, at one and the same time temporal and eternal. This is why Jesus came proclaiming:

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15

and 

"Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:25

Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God in both the present and future tense. This is because ever since God laid the foundation for His Kingdom on Mount Zion (Jerusalem), the Kingdom of God was birthed here on earth, though not fully manifested, as is its Heavenly counterpart. Mount Zion may still be awaiting its complete redemption, when Jesus will return to reign over the earth from His throne in Jerusalem, but the Kingdom of God is still very much a present reality through Christ's Church. In this age of Grace, the Church has become the vehicle through which God has been expanding His Kingdom. God has never changed His desire for His Kingdom to reign here on earth - it was the focal point of Jesus' ministry:

"but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.” Luke 4:43

 Jesus' sacrifice upon the cross was the means by which people are saved from their sin, but the cross was not entirely an end in itself. Jesus proclaimed he was the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no-one came to the Father accept through him. Jesus' sacrifice paid the price for our sin, as the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), so that we may have life! But what life? Our ordinary, mundane, busy, materially obsessed old life? Our life of sin, debauchery, immorality, addiction, greed and vice? No, Jesus died a criminals death - our death - so that we may have eternal life. Where is this eternal life to be lived? In the Kingdom of God. For the follower/disciple/believer in Jesus Christ that life begins at the moment of repentance. That life, not of sin but of righteousness, begins here on earth. The Church is the very manifestation of the Kingdom of God. 

If you are a Christian reading this then I invite you... I encourage you... I urge you to allow God to birth a new vision in your heart for His Kingdom, and a renewed passion for His Holy dwelling Zion. Realize that the Kingdom is not a future reality, but a present one. Realize that it is in our very midst (Luke 17:21). If you want to know the heart of God - it is for Zion:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath." Zechariah 8:2

If you want to follow Jesus then listen to His commandment:

"But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." Matthew 6:33

Pray. Pray hard for that the Kingdom of God would increase upon the earth, bringing spiritual, emotional and political freedom to the oppressed; bringing justice to the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, the refugee and the immigrant; bringing peace and joy to the tormented and to all those who seek it like the prodigal son in the temptations of the world. 

If you are not a Christian reading this, then respond to Jesus' call to repent and believe in the Gospel. If you are not living in and for the Kingdom of God then you are living under the kingdom of Satan. This world is corrupt - dictators horde power and deny people their rights, liberties and freedoms. Politicians fight amongst each other in an ideological battle for bragging rights. The god of mammon keeps people, governments and economies in bondage and leads to ruin through economic depression and recessions. What will you place your security in, your job? savings? investments? the economy? your government? your own wisdom and reason? These are all fallable things, which are predictable in their disappointments. 

Choose to live for the one thing on this earth that crosses the divide between Heaven and Earth; the one thing that is of eternal value, and the one thing that will bring you into the Glory and the majestic presence of the Almighty God - the Kingdom of God.

What does it mean to be a follower of Jesus? Part 1

What does it mean to follow Jesus? Sometimes I get the impression that Christianity is like the modern phenomenon of Twitter. Jesus is akin to the celebrities who enjoy the fame, popularity and bragging rights of having hundreds of thousands of followers. Christians go to church each Sunday to hear a message or sermon given from the Bible, and might even read a daily devotional like Twitter users read tweets by their favourite celebrities. Occasionally Christians will retweet those messages in what people commonly understand as evangelism. Is this what it means to follow Jesus? Is it none other than the transmission of His words?

Jesus’ claims and identity deserve and demand more than that! Christians are familiar with C.S. Lewis’ famous trilemma that Jesus was either the Lord, a liar or a lunatic. Yet do we fully understand the ramifications of the Christian’s conviction that Jesus is indeed Lord? What does it mean to be a disciple of Jesus and to call oneself a follower? James makes it very clear that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). Jesus himself says if anyone would come after him, let him take up his cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). How does this work out in the daily life of the Christian disciple?

There is an old saying “everyone has their own cross to bear”. The saying refers to Jesus’ cross as he made his way to Calvary and is commonly used as a euphemism for burdens or suffering. Is this how the Christian is to understand Jesus’ words, to carry our burdens with a form of stoicism and possibly compassion for others in theirs? The cross is a symbol of execution and death. Crucifixion was the most dreaded form of execution across the Roman Empire; its victims would suffer agonising pain as nails would be hammered through their wrists and feet. Death itself was slow and came by asphyxiation as the weight of the body pulled the victim down preventing the diaphragm from working. Placing the cross then into its historical context means far more than merely carrying burdens. It speaks spiritually (considering Jesus’ own foreknowledge of his crucifixion in his teaching to his disciples), of self-denial, selflessness and sacrifice. But the important question is sacrifice and self-denial of what? Simply put of everything that would come in the way of following Jesus.

As Jesus was teaching one time a scribe came to him and said:

“Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

At the same event:

“Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”  And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

 Matthew 8:19-22

These are hard teachings by Jesus and provide great insight into the cost of discipleship. There was a saying in ancient Israel that disciples were to “cover themselves in the dust of their rabbi”. Many rabbis, like Jesus, were itinerant teachers travelling from one place to another, attracting followers who desired to grow and improve themselves by their wisdom and instruction on the Torah. Roads in ancient Israel were made of dirt not modern tarmac or concrete and so travellers would churn up much dust on their journeys. Covering oneself therefore in the dust of a rabbi was a metaphor for literally following the rabbi wherever he went and remaining close to him at all times, proving your devotion to his teachings.

Jesus in the passage quoted above teaches a similar principle. Jesus was not actually implying that the dead could literally bury themselves or that corpses should be left to rot where they lay. Rather, Jesus was making a very bold statement that none other than total devotion and loyalty would suffice to be his disciple. Attachment to home, country and even family was secondary. This is the challenge facing Christians today. To take up our cross and follow Jesus then means having to make sacrifices material and otherwise. It means nonconformity to society’s norms of materialism, consumerism and individualism. It means denying unhealthy and sinful temptations that pollute the body and soul such as pornography, gluttony, greed, violence, drugs, drunkenness and debauchery. To follow Jesus is to be radically countercultural, not in a negative way but in an extreme way nonetheless.

Conversely, while sacrifice may have uncomfortable connotations for many – after all sacrifice is hard and requires discipline, perseverance and a strong will power – Jesus would not ask his disciples to do anything that would harm them, ruin  their life or deny them fulfilment in life. Jesus supported marriage, drank wine, healed the sick, embraced children and supported his disciples' in their professional capacities. Neither did Jesus ask his disciples to do anything he was not prepared to do himself. Jesus always led by example. It is this example, most clearly demonstrated in the crucifixion itself, which makes following Jesus so incredibly challenging: because we cannot accuse Jesus of being hypocritical or question his integrity. Jesus proved beyond all doubt that he was a man of his word and he lived out his teachings with utter conviction and integrity. Either we embrace Jesus wholeheartedly and follow him or not.

Jesus’ teachings on self-denial of the sinful nature are liberating both for the soul and body as one becomes freed from slavishly indulging to the harm and detriment of one’s self, family and community. Jesus’ call to follow him wherever he leads brings reward beyond the material comforts and benefits of a good job and a nice home. It leads to a right relationship and peace with God, the infilling of the Holy Spirit, the joy of salvation, spiritual wisdom and eternal life. 

For the Christian then, the life devoted to following Jesus - like that of the 12 disciples – must be one of learning, emulation, and a permeation and manifestation of the truths Jesus taught regarding charity, philanthropy, marriage, parenthood, egalitarianism, forgiveness, righteousness, prayer and worship. Every area of life must be surrendered to Jesus and allowed to become transformed and purified.

Discipleship is a life choice that can only be realized in a right relationship with God lived out in the power of the Holy Spirit. Discipleship should always focus on the person and teaching of Jesus Christ. Discipleship should result in very real and tangible outward manifestations of internal spiritual realities. Discipleship produces humility, meekness, wisdom and should permeate all relationships personal and professional.

Evidence for Easter, Reasons to Rejoice!

At Easter Christians celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Good Friday remembers the day when Jesus died at the hands of the Roman authorities outside the city of Jerusalem in First Century Israel. Easter Sunday celebrates the day when Jesus was resurrected from death and abandoned the tomb. The first part to Easter is far more palatable to non-Christians as it can be interpreted in a number of ways – a good, moral teacher who was martyred in the name of love and non-resistance to violence; an example of other-centred, sacrificial love to his followers; or the tragic death of a spiritual leader who was misunderstood and resented by bigoted religious leaders. Jesus death needn’t even be a historical event. It could be a mere fable or legend that contains moral and spiritual truth, a kind of allegory for people to appropriate and apply to their lives personally. 

But the second part of the Easter story – the resurrection of Jesus from the grave is far more offensive and problematic to non-Christians and opponents of Christianity. For the resurrection (should it be true) means not only that Jesus’ death was an historical event, but that the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth is also the Messiah, God’s anointed one and the incarnate Son of God. Christianity then is unique amongst the world’s major religions in that its central figure is intricately connected to the events of human history. God is not just a transcendent, immaterial or pantheistic entity. God is not just the pot of gold found at the end of the gnostic rainbow of enlightenment. God is a personal, conscious, relational Being. One that reveals Himself to humanity not only through His creation (universe) but also through the second person of the Trinity: Jesus Christ. 

However, what if the resurrection could be proven false? What if the original disciples in their grief were merely hallucinating? What happens if the resurrection was a later fabrication and a mythologizing of Jesus, in order to win over converts in a Greco-Roman world steeped in the pagan beliefs of dying and rising gods – the so called mystery religions? Then Christianity just becomes wish fulfilment, it becomes a story that tries to ground hope in something substantial and not just abstract, but not a true reflection of reality. In other words it is a lie. 

So, because the resurrection is of such fundamental importance to the teachings and claims of the Christian faith what is the evidence? And what are the strengths of the arguments of Christianity’s sceptics? 

The evidence for the resurrection:

Scholars generally agree in the dating of the Gospels and writings of Paul in the New Testament. Mark’s Gospel was the first Gospel to be written either early-to-mid 50s AD. Because Matthew and Luke both use Mark as a source for their own Gospels, an extant source known as ‘Q’, as well as internal and external data (such as the lack of mention of the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70) they’re dated between the mid-50s- mid 60s AD. John’s Gospel was the last to be written sometime between 70 and 100 AD. In terms of ancient texts the canonical Gospels of the New Testament were written relatively close to the events they describe, when compared to other ancient writings. This coupled with the fact that the ancient Near East had a strong tradition and culture of oral communication as a way of disseminating information, means that the theories of mythologizing the Gospels are very weak. Luke begins his gospel by identifying the purpose, intention and audience of his gospel:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” Luke 1:1-4

Here Luke explains the source of the evidence for his gospel:

1.    “Who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…have delivered them to us”, the information in his gospel did not just come from oral tradition that has been passed down in a clumsy “Chinese Whispers” fashion, but eyewitness testimony.

2.    “Some time past” Luke has followed closely the expansion and events of the early church for many years, meaning the information has not been mythologized and remains rooted in the eye witness accounts.

3.    “Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” Luke’s patron is identified in name. Theophilus is a gentile believer who wants certainty about this new faith he has learnt about, to see if it has any credibility and truth to it. This is evidence of a kind of empiricism. Theophilus does not blindly accept the resurrection story, such as ancients are caricatured to gullibly or superstitiously be, but seeks empirical, observational evidence of the empty tomb. 

Then there is the criterion of embarrassment. Several facts are mentioned within the Gospels that would have been embarrassing for the early disciples and thus would have been prime candidates for omission or editing if the Gospels were not historical reliability. One such fact relates directly to the resurrection of Jesus – Jesus’ empty tomb was first reported by Jesus’ female followers. This causes an embarrassment for the early church’s testimony because the testimony and witness of women was not given credence in the ancient world, especially in a court of Law. 

“When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb…and looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back – it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here.” Mark 16:1-6

This account would have potentially damaged the early church’s credibility; especially over the most important event in Jesus’ life and the proof of Jesus’ divinity. The Church stands or falls on the resurrection. In a patriarchal world where women were subordinate to men, and in a country whose national religion was strictly monotheistic, in whose belief system the Resurrection was a universal event on the Judgement Day of God and who had no concept of individual resurrection; in order for the resurrection to be taken seriously it had to be a real historical event. The empty tomb must have been a physical reality otherwise the early church would never have existed. In light of the fact that this message is so important to the Christian faith, the only reason to account for the women finding the empty tomb (as it had the potential to be so damaging to the acceptance of the resurrection) is because it is true. The women really were the first to find the empty tomb and their eye witness report was trustworthy and later verified by the other disciples. 

These are just two proofs from the Gospels themselves. However, there is also evidence and internal proofs of the resurrection in the letters of Paul.  The letter of 1 Corinthians is approximately dated to AD 54-55 only 24-25 years after the death of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 Paul reminds the Corinthian church of the Gospel he preached to them:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you… For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve.” 

1.    “Remind you…I preached to you” Biblical scholars believe that Paul’s original preaching of the Gospel to the Corinthians could be dated as early as AD 50. That is only 20 years after Jesus’ death.

2.    “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” Paul here is referring to his meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem found in Galatians 1:18-19, three years after his conversion to Christ. Paul’s conversion is dated to between one and three years after Jesus’ death, as he was riding to Damascus to persecute the early church community there after the martyrdom of Stephen. So Paul’s meeting with the leaders of the Jerusalem church took place approximately six years after Jesus’ death.

3.    “He was buried, that he was raised on the third day” As Peter was an eyewitness to Jesus’ resurrection this means we have internal evidence within the New Testament that the historical resurrection of Jesus was at the heart of the Christian Gospel from its very inception. Paul is writing 25 years after the death of Jesus about a visit to the Corinthian church about 20-22 years after the death of Jesus, in which he preached to them the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection that had been conveyed to him six years after Jesus’ death by Peter who was an eyewitness to Jesus’ resurrection. Thus we have a direct link back to the resurrection of Jesus outside of the Gospels inside the New Testament.

The arguments against the resurrection:

Sceptics have explicated many theories that argue against the historicity of the resurrection. Here are some of them:

1.    Hallucination Theory

2.    Swooning on the Cross Theory

3.    Wrong Tomb Theory

4.    The mythologizing of the resurrection based on ancient pagan mystery religions

The Hallucination Theory claims the disciples in their grief experienced an encounter with Jesus that appeared real to them but in fact was not. These resurrection “appearances” were nothing more than hallucinations. The problem with this theory is that there are many separate reports in the Gospels of Jesus appearing to over 500 people, some individually, others collectively. Jesus spoke to, ate with and touched these people in many different locations. Psychologists on the other hand, explain that group hallucinations of this kind are not possible. The accounts of the risen Jesus vary too widely to conform to typical hallucination experiences. They are not ghostly or outer-body entities as is common to hallucinations.

The Swooning on the Cross Theory is also incredibly weak. This theory argues Jesus did not really die on the cross but rather fainted and was buried in a kind of comatose state. This theory struggles to give a realistic account of the Easter events for several reasons. Jesus was subject to flogging before crucifixion. Roman flogging was so severe that it occasionally caused death in itself. Jesus was so weak after his flogging that he could not even carry his own cross beam, and a man named Simon of Cyrene had to carry it for him. The act of crucifixion itself left no possibility for survival. Victims were nailed to the cross through their wrists and feet/ankles. The weight of the body would pull the victim down and because of the extension of the arms would cause suffocation as the diaphragm is not able to work properly. Victims would be left on the cross for days until death. Crucifixion was so tortuous and such a painful and slow death that it was illegal for any Roman citizen who had been given the death penalty to die via crucifixion. 

As Jesus was crucified the day before the Sabbath (Friday) and the Jews believed it was a curse to leave people on the cross over the Sabbath, the Chief Priests ordered the Roman centurions to break the legs of the victims, in order for them to die more quickly and thus be taken off the cross before the Sabbath. When the Roman centurions came to Jesus they found he was already dead and so to make sure they pierced his ribs with one of their spears. The Gospel accounts record blood and water pouring out of the wound, which modern medical science has since identified and explained as pericardial fluid that amasses in the pericardial cavity of the heart. So Jesus was pierced directly in the heart.

Lastly, even if Jesus had survived flogging, crucifixion and being pierced through the heart, how could he have recovered in three days and been strong enough to remove the stone that was rolled in place of the entrance of the tomb, to stop the disciples from stealing Jesus’ body? It would have been impossible. 

The Wrong Tomb Theory is very simple. Jesus’ female followers went to the wrong tomb the morning after the Sabbath. If this theory were true then the Jewish and Roman authorities only needed to point to the correct tomb, with stone and body still in place to have discredited the disciples claim to the resurrection. The fact that they could not and that no body was produced to counter the claims of the resurrection prove this theory is false. It cannot explain the phenomenon of the rise of the early church.

Finally the theory of the mythologizing of the resurrection based on ancient pagan mystery religions. This theory claims that the early church mythologized Jesus’ life, death and resurrection by appropriating ancient pagan mystery religions to appeal to the Greco-Roman world. The ancient pagan mystery religions and cult of Isis and Osiris are claimed to involve dying and rising gods, and thus Jesus’ resurrection is just a retelling of this ancient story. This theory has come under heavy criticism by critical scholarship. 

The ancient pagan myths of dying and rising gods are based on the vegetation cycle of the seasons and are allegories of fertility and the cycle of nature. Jesus’ resurrection carries with it a dramatically different spiritual teaching in that Jesus’ sacrifice is seen as an atoning, substitutionary death for human sin, based on a Judeo world view of sin and the origin of Man. This Christian teaching departs strikingly from the stories of the pagan religions. 

The “resurrection” accounts of the pagan myths bear no resemblance at all to the resurrection of Jesus. Osiris’ body was dismembered and his wife Isis pieced his body back together, after which Osiris became Lord of the Underworld. His “resurrection” is hardly bodily in an earthly sense. In none of the pagan myths do the gods die voluntarily or for the intention of helping humanity. Their deaths are results of accidents, murder and self-emasculation.

The pagan mystery religion theory also suffers from anachronisms. Pagan mystery religions were very confined to specific locations until around AD 100. Thus as the resurrection was of central importance to the Gospel from the beginning of the Christian movement it did not have exposure to these pagan mystery religions at the time the Gospels were written. Moreover, the manuscript evidence and source material for the pagan mystery religions come from the Third Century AD. Proponents of this theory uncritically reconstruct and reason back these beliefs retrospectively into their ancient forms prior to Christianity. This is poor scholarship. The mystery religions were nonexclusive, they borrowed ideas from one another and adherents could be members of several cults, so the opposite is more likely to be true. The fact that the source material used by proponents comes hundreds of years after the New Testament means it is chronologically incorrect.

Furthermore, the theory commits the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed by reasoning, falsely, that just because two things exist beside one another that one must have caused the other. The writers of the New Testament would never have borrowed and appropriated the beliefs of paganism because the historical resurrection is based in First Century, monotheistic Israel. For Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah any association with paganism would have discredited that claim. These reasons, combined with the historical evidence and reliability of the eye witness testimony of Jesus’ resurrection prove that the mystery religions theory is anachronistic and logically false. 

 

The claims and implications of the resurrection are far too important to be indifferent to or reject arbitrarily due to a naturalistic view on miracles. The arguments and evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (only touched upon in this essay) is far more compelling and convincing than the arguments against. These sceptical arguments are very weak, whereas the evidence for the resurrection are both individually strong as well as sequentially strong, each corroborating the next. The resurrection is a life changing event. Jesus’ resurrection means that Jesus was indeed the incarnate Son of God. His death paid the price for our sin and through his resurrection there can be forgiveness, new spiritual life and one day eternal life in a renewed resurrected body. Jesus is the ultimate fulfilment of God’s revelation to humanity and brings us into a relationship with God.