If you were able to go back in a time machine and witness the tomb of Christ only to find that Christ did not raise from the grave, what would that do to your Christian faith?
Fill out the poll on the right in addition to your answer here.
If you were able to go back in a time machine and witness the tomb of Christ only to find that Christ did not raise from the grave, what would that do to your Christian faith?
Fill out the poll on the right in addition to your answer here.
139 replies to "Quick Question for You"
Ryft: good to see you, dude. ltns.
This is where evidential apologetics driving theology gets us.
“Anything is possible” just isn’t possible.
#John in your comment #48
I know you like to argue ( in the formal sense) but you realize you would be arguing against the gospel accounts? I assumed we had a round trip ticket and if that is the case, that we’ve been there and back, then you would be arguing against the testimony of the others who saw Christ after his resurrection.
This is getting messy. 🙂
I read the bones as a hoax, like evolution. God’s Word is the definition of truth. Christ did rise from the dead. The physical evidence is wrong.
I agree with Joshua Allen’s statement above that: “someone who regards the resurrection as non-essential is, by definition, not a Christian.”
It is essential because it happened. Had it not happened, then Christianity would look very different, and the creeds would not have included it as one of their central tenants.
Let me use a more simple hypothetical example. We believe that Christ rose on the third day, because that is what happened. If God has chosen to raise him on the fourth day, we would be believing that instead.
If it could be conclusively, definitely proven, even to my own eyes which have traveled back in time, that Christ is dead, that he never rose from the dead then I don’t know what I’ve been preaching or even why I believe anything about any future hope.
It would be over.
I’d count my previous belief the most abject stupidity that has ever been believed.
Not only would I not bother believing anything else, I’d embrace Nietzsche.
If you were able to go back in a time machine and witness the tomb of Christ only to find that Christ did not raise from the grave, what would that do to your Christian faith?
“Christ did not raise” what? You omitted the object of the transitive verb.
@Dale
I’d like to add here that I think we are approaching a topic from two non-existent points of view
Yes, this reminds me of the hilarious recurring skit in the movie, “The Princess Bride”, where Vizzini has the habit of exclaiming, “Inconceivable!” whenever something that is merely improbable occurs. Inigo Montoya replies, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means”
Your comment highlights an important point. If someone were to transport you by time machine and show you Christ’s bones in the tomb as proof that the resurrection were a lie, this would be one of the very few cases where an exclamation of “Inconceivable!” would be semantically appropriate. Whatever the time machine evidence could be showing, it is not conceivable that it could be falsifying the resurrection, because we know the resurrection to be true. There would have to be some other explanation.
I really don’t see either how some of you can say that it wouldn’t matter to you if He was raised or not. Obviously to Paul, it mattered a whole lot!! Without His resurrection we are still in our sins.
And some of you have said that you would still have the Holy Spirit. But did you ever stop to think that before the resurrection no one had the Holy Spirit as we do now? He was with the Old Testament Christians and sometimes came upon them for specific things, but He did not indwell them as He does us. That is something that happened only post resurrection. And actually, Paul also says that if we don’t have the Spirit, we don’t belong to Him.
So, without the resurrection, there is no Christian faith as we know it at all.
I agree with Joshua Allen’s statement above that: “someone who regards the resurrection as non-essential is, by definition, not a Christian.”
I think I will have to split hares (carrot anyone) with both of you here.
If the resurrection happened then Christ’s atoning work occured regardless if we believe the resurrection happened. The resurrection of Christ is foundational to the truth of Christianity but could one beleive on Christ for one’s salvation but not believe in the resurrection? I could claim to not believe in representative democracy but still garner the benefits of it. I can claim that my wife does not love me and truly believe it but still benefit from her love for me.
I know a few people who defend their Christianity tooth and nail who don’t believe in the resurrection. They believe in the power of Christ in their life though. I find it odd myself.
hmmm..Must read Bible
Re post 56
I thought it was obvious: “raise bread” of course. It was a reference by CMP to the bread used at the last supper. Was it leavened or unleavened?
Re Christ not risen
Note that I used the word “yet”. Christ’s resurrection is promised, but the timing is not promised. Even the “three days” prophecy is not conclusive because a day is as a thousand years with God. So if there was a body in the tomb, I would conclude that God has yet to fulfill his promise to raise Christ, and I would remain certain that God will eventually raise Christ as the first fruits (i.e., before the rest of us), and that possible the “three days” means 3,000 years and Christ will rise in the year 3,032 A.D. In the meantime, we are baptized into his death and raised into the promise of Christ’s coming resurrection. The Holy Spirit is given to us now as a foretaste of what will come, as part of the already / not yet of God’s coming kingdom.
Sure, if Christ is never raised then my faith will have been in vain, but no one can say that Christ was not raised until time is over (i.e., our sun supernovas).
So, no, I don’t think it would be impossible at all to remain a Christian even if I were to see Christ’s bones. One also cannot push the hypothetical too hard. Would Paul have preached and written the same way had there been bones in the Tomb? He still would have experienced the bright light and Christ’s voice, and so would have written of Christ’s coming resurrection.
regards,
#John
#John,
I can see your point–up to a point! However, Jesus spoke of His being in the tomb or dead for 3 days as was Jonah 3 days in the fishes belly. I believe that has always been taken to be 3 literal days. It wouldn’t of fit the rest of the prophecy regarding Nineveh if it wasn’t. So it seems to me the analogy would break down if Jesus were to be raised in 3000 years–not 3 days.
Wow.
I’m with Jim in #46.
There’s so many on here that indicate “No Christ = No God ” Wow…
I can accept
No Christ = no Messiah or No Christ = No Trinity or No Christ = No Salvation outside the Law etc, etc… Hinging Yahweh on the bodily resurrection of Christ is a stretch for me.
Cheryl U
But did you ever stop to think that before the resurrection no one had the Holy Spirit as we do now ?
Then how do you know that the OT writers were inerrant ? If they’re not Spirit led, who says they’re inerrant ?
In Him
Mick
Depends if one believes that Jonah is literal history or figurative.
I would have to make sense of two things: Jesus’ bones and my spiritual experience of Jesus. If I believe that those two things to be true, then I will make all the other scriptures work to fit those two facts. Such an approach would be no different than the YEC approach to Genesis. Finding bones of Jesus is equivalent to finding in the very geology of the earth that it is billions of years old. We clearly have the latter and yet we can observe the gymnastics that the YECs go through in order to fit things into a framework that they believe must be true. Likewise, if I believe my experience of Jesus to be true, I’ll make it all work (including interpreting Jonah figuratively (which some do anyway)).
regards,
#John
re 62 and the spirit in the OT
There is a long interpretive tradition, with which I concur, that holds that the OT persons were only indwelt temporarily when they had to accomplish something specific for God, for example, the builders of the first tabernacle, Samson, the prophets when prophesying, the writers of the OT when they were writing, etc. We now get indwelt permanently and continuously (unless we later reject God, but that is a whole ‘nother debate), and it seems that we can wax and wane with regard to how powerfully we experience that indwelling or how powerfully God works through us.
regards,
#John
#John1453 on 04 Dec 2009 at 3:59 pm:
Re post 56
I thought it was obvious: “raise bread” of course. It was a reference by CMP to the bread used at the last supper. Was it leavened or unleavened?
I know what you’re thinking. “Did He raise bread or did He not raise bread?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as He is the Son of God, the most powerful Person in the world, and would blow the door to a tomb clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Does it matter? Well, does it, punk?
As I like SciFi, this is an interesting thought experiment. I would worry along the path of a multitude of Universes. Did the past I visited belong to the Earth I currently inhabit?
Secondly, did I maintain my awareness, or was I plunged into a “virtual experience”?
Given that there was an invention such as time travel, what other challenges to human perception could there be?
I believe like others have said, that if Jesus had not been resurrected, we believers are to be pitied. Most atheists would be right about that.
The alternative of converting to Judaism, and still wait for the Hope to come is a possibility. Not likely, because I am a sinner who needs God’s help every day!
Hi Mick,
When I said, “But did you ever stop to think that before the resurrection no one had the Holy Spirit as we do now ?” What I was referring to was what #John spoke of in #64. That is what I meant by the Spirit coming upon them for specific things. I do, of course, believe they were Spirit led in writing the OT. Otherwise we would certainly have no guarantee at all that they were actually writing and speaking words from God.
re #65 Eric
Come on, make my day.
The proof that our sins were forgiven or that Christ’s work on the cross was acceptable was that he died and…………….. came back to tell ! alive and well ! without the resurrection we have no assurance our sins are forgiven or that all is well. I wouldn’t follow that Messiah any more than I would follow David Koresh. I pray I would not follow…look he is here or look he is in the desert..we are not asked to believe every claim without some, I won’t say proof, but verification or validity.
I concede that you could do that if you wanted (i.e. as a matter of your own free will), but surely you see that’s not how the writers of scripture spoke. None of what you’re saying has anything to do with the Christianity taught in the New Testament. Furthermore, it makes all the same claims about having reconciled man with God that Christianity does, but without any apparent warrant that the reconciliation actually worked. You run into Mill’s argument against miracles: incredible claims require incredible proofs; and now the claim “man is reconciled to God” isn’t backed up by the proof that “God raised His Christ up from the dead.”
-Wm (dare I say “of your own libertarian free will”?)
“I would have to make sense of two things: Jesus’ bones and my spiritual experience of Jesus.”
You should doubt your senses, your experiences; not radical doubt, but question whether they can actually support the conclusions you’re reaching based on them. You’re claiming to conclude that Christ’s intercession with God worked based on a feeling inside yourself; but on what grounds can you claim that your internal feelings testify to your relationship with God? Because a little thing can affect them. A slight disorder of the stomach can make them cheat. You may be a bit of undigested beef, a blob of mustard, a crumb of cheese. Yes. There’s more gravy than of grave about you.
-Wm
God would be dead. Nietzsche would be my philosopher of choice, I suppose. I guess I would have to conclude that I was among the most pitiable people for the past fifteen years (agreeing with only that statement of the foolish Paul, and nothing else).
I’d likely revert to my native-born Judaism and await the Messiah. Christ’s failure to rise from the dead wouldn’t invalidate the Old Testament, just the Apostles’ and the Church’s and Christians’ interpretation of it. 🙂
I just don’t know how anyone could switch to Judaism in light of all this. God speaks, makes promises, the promises comes to be, a virgin bears a child, he performs miracles, he talks about what’s going to happen, he stands tall going back to Jerusalem to face death, dies triumphantly and….
….stays dead.
This is more than a “woops, we believed in the wrong guy”. This is the right guy but not even He could beat death. “Give up,” it says “Don’t even bother. Sure Lazarus got up, but guess what, a few days from now he’ll die too. Everyone dies. Even God.”
“Give up.”
EricW..yep. Although not native-born Judaism
#John1453 and CherylU: Thanks…we’re on the same page. God, Spirit, no Christ (yet)… conclusion: Judaism
In Him
Mick
Time machines are philosophically and physically impossible contraptions.
There is difficulty in answering this question in that people have met Jesus. The interaction people now have with Jesus is related to the fact he currently is alive. It is like asking what would happen if I went to The US and found that Michael Patton does not exist, would I still read his blog? I don’t know, but I do, and have been reading it so there must be someone writing this blog.
If Jesus did not rise there is no Christianity.
But I am and still would be convinced God exists. So I would be a Theist of sorts.
The problem is that I am aware I sin. Morality (and moral failure) is real. Without Jesus I am in terrible state. I guess I can only appeal to God’s mercy.
Unfortunately, I can’t choose an answer in your poll, because it’s not there. I can’t choose option #1 because even the resurrection of Christ’s spirit (sans the reanimation of his physical body) from Sheol/Hades would still be a historical (albeit spiritual and “unseen”) event.
I can’t choose option #2 because I do believe Christ’s body was historically and literally reanimated by His spirit, which was (more importantly) resurrected from Sheol/Hades.
I can’t choose option #3 because of reasons given below.
I can’t choose option #4 because I’d prefer not to be cognitively dissonant.
And I can’t choose option #5 because of reasons given below.
The bodily, i.e., physical, resurrection of Jesus was a definitive sign to Jesus’ disciples that the spirit of their Messiah had been indeed resurrected from Hades/Sheol (the gates of Hell—i.e., Sheol/Hades—will not prevail against Christ or His Church). Jesus’ power over Sheol/Hades was/is a much more important point to demonstrate, from a salvific perspective, than the reanimation of his physical body. But his physical resurrection served a real purpose, which was to convince others that their encounter with the risen Christ was quite real and not possibly a product of their imagination or wishful thinking.
Even if Jesus’ physical body had remained in the grave, yet I experienced an encounter with the risen Christ (i.e., resurrected from Sheol/Hades) in His new bio-spiritual body (which I believe may very well be a separate entity from his bio-physical body), then my faith is not in vain and quite validated, thank you.
I don’t know that I even understand the question, and especially so since quite a few people say they would retain their Christian faith, since I don’t know what CHristian faith is without the resurrection. I can understand faith in God or something, or a return to Judaism, but what exactly is Christian faith without the resurrection? What is this faith?
I agree 100% with Eric W. post 73. I don’t see why you would throw away the Old Testament cause the New Testament was false. That’s like Christians throwing away the New Testament cause the koran is false.
As I stated above, I do believe Jesus’ actual physical body was raised from the dead and changed to become a spiritualized physical body which entered somehow into heaven. But Michael has proposed this question and I also stated I would not stop being a Christian if Jesus’ actual bones were found. Some of you say, “It’s impossible to remain a Christian because there is no Christianity without Jesus’ actual body being resurrected and I would then just continue sinning” and some of the commenters seem to indicate that they would relish sinning! But I hope they realize that sinning does not just separate us from the presence of God, but also brings grief to us and to our loved ones. God wants you to be filled with love, joy, peace…not sin and grief. Are you saying there is no God if Jesus’ actual body was not resurrected? Are you saying there is no right or wrong? Obviously, God has always existed and the Holy Spirit has always existed. Michael has not told us that we have to negate any experiences we have ever had if Jesus was not resurrected. So if the Holy Spirit has acted upon us and within our lives and then we found out Jesus’ bones were found, we would ask ourselvesm, “Well, how is the Holy Spirit working within me?” Perhaps we would then remember that when Jesus was walking on the earth prior to his death, he said that he would send the Comforter, the Advocate to us to be with us until the end of the world. HOW he did that is not something we can really understand. The Holy Spirit didn’t just suddenly come about. The Holy Spirit worked with the prophets of the Old Testament and we are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. We are also told about Cornelius in Acts 10, ” He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, ‘Cornelius!’ Cornelius stared at him in fear. ‘What is it, Lord?’ he asked. The angel answered, ‘Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter.’ ” God used Cornelius to teach Peter that God responds to anyone seeking to do God’s will and he used Peter to bring the fullness of the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his family. So, Cornelius, who was not even Jewish was visited by an angel because of his devotion to God. God will not leave anyone bereft who seeks to do his will. HOW God does all that is great and wonderful mystery.
And I like the way a Mike Beidler writes in #77. He talks about if Jesus’ actual body was not resurrected and yet his disciples saw him, then he must have created another bio-physical body. Why not? God created us from the dust of the earth. He can create a body as needed.
Neverthless, I DO believe Jesus actual body was…
[…] (A Quick Question – @Parchment and Pen) […]
It seems to me to be clear that in I Cor Paul is speaking of an actual physical resurrection of the body which will be changed into a new glorious body. It doesn’t sound to me at all like he is saying the old body stays behind and God creates a totally different one to give to us or to Jesus. That also rules out what some have spoken of as a “spiritual resurrection” of Jesus.
And Paul makes it very clear that without this resurrection of Jesus that he described which is of the physical body, we are still in our sins and are of all men most to be pitied.
Again I will say: No actual past tense physical bodily resurrection of Jesus = no Christianity and no salvation from sins today.
Michael (CMP),
What would it do to YOUR faith if Jesus tomb was not empty?
Joanie D,
You are correct that a belief in God would still, and should still be in tact without the resurrection of Christ. That God would still be evidenced in creation as awesome, provisional, etc. Others are also right that Judaism and the OT would remain unaffected. But Christianity and the NT would be utterly shaken to the point that none of the witnesses or testimony that we do have of Christ and his life would be believable, it would all become tainted. How could anyone know if God excepted the claims that Jesus was the lamb that takes away the sin of the world without the proof that the curse and judgment of death had been overturned, met and liberated?
As far as going back in time after believing you been saved and liberated from death and the law…that would be a tough transition, One maybe that I would have to face ..back to sacrificing sheep and priests and law and cleansings..because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
If the bones are in the tomb we have no proof that Jesus of Nazareth is the Savior, the Lamb, the high Priest. We can only hope what he said was true, because he never returned from the Holy of Holies to display triumphantly that the sacrifice was received of God. The bones would be clear evidence that he had not triumphed over death. Bones are the epitome and stark reality that death had swallowed him up and he was defeated by it or at the very least not yet triumphant over death and so not able to save being yet a victim himself. To await our resurrection based on knowing He was resurrected is faith. If we have to await his resurrection and then believe he will raise us too is akin to believing in fables.
If I remember correctly, someone in an earlier comment asked if it was necessary to believe in Jesus’ resurrection to be saved or if believing in His death on the cross was enough. I didn’t think about it at the time, but these verses in Romans just came to my mind:
“But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” Romans 10:8-10
This survey is interesting. As you probably know, William Craig was asked the same question and he said he would not lose his Christian faith but would think that somehow he was tricked perhaps by Satan.
I think Craig is being honest. There is really nothing (NOTHING) that could disconfirm his Christian faith because he has the witness of the Spirit. I wrote a blog post on the inner witness of the Spirit and the Mormon’s burning in the bosom recently.
See http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/
I wonder if 70% of your readers would really give up their faith if somehow the bones of Jesus were discovered. I tend to think they can say that because they know there is no possibility of any bones being found today being proven to be the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. Its impossible, so they can pretend that their faith really is disconfirmable, when in reality, I think most Christians are like Craig–there is really nothing that could disconfirm their prior religious belief.
Ken
Cheryl,
My “Christian” faith would be over as there would no longer be a basis for it. Paul’s words are haunting and should guide us. If Christ has not been raised, we are of all men most to be pitied.
Is “punt” an option? Seriously, I find it inconceivable that Christ could raise the dead, and not Himself, also rise. Maybe we should “go back” and check out those stories too! 🙂
What a ludicrous exercise. I’d rather deal in “what is” than “what if.” If CMP was trying to get us to see how essential the resurrection, then fine. Otherwise, in the spirit of Dr. Mike (comment #34), I mock you all. I don’t mean top be unirenic(?) but please… there are no end to hypotheticals. Let’s deal in reality.
So Drew, you never deal with counterfactuals ay?
If it could be conclusive shown that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Paul would be right. We would still be in our sins, our message and faith would be vain, and the apostles would have been exposed as charlatans or mentally unstable. We would truly be the most pitiful of all people.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then the early Christians would have either been liars or certifiable mental cases. A church filled with that kind of demographic would have miserably failed to survive the hostility of society and the Roman state that the early church faced. The church would have been DOA if it were not for the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The continued existence and subsequent victory of the church demonstrates the power of the resurrection.
Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 15, deductively demonstrated through logic the necessity of the resurrection of Jesus. I would therefore conclude that any finding that determined that Christ did not rise from the dead would be fraudulent, no matter how convincing it sounded.
Drew:
Lighten up, eh? I wasn’t mocking anyone: it’s what I would do.
This has been an interesting and revealing thread to read. It cuts to the very heart of the basis for the hope that is in us.
No resurrection, no return of Jesus Christ.
The problem with your assertion is that without the resurrection Christianity is inexplicable, particularly in light of its Jewish founders who a) had a perfectly good religion of their own, and b) knew the penalties for setting another alongside God.
Meanwhile a hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead) doesn’t have to be falsifiable in the present, merely potentially falsifiable at some point. Michael identified the one piece of evidence that would falsify Christianity, not in the present (as there would be no way to prove such) but within the first weeks of the founding of the Jesus movement.
Bill Craig stated that he would believe he was being deceived because without the Resurrection the first fifty years of the Church makes no sense.
You might be more accurate to say that we wouldn’t give up our trust in God now (faith) because Christianity wasn’t falsified when it could have been.
Meanwhile Mormons hold to the “burning in the bosom” because that’s all they have. All the claims that Joseph Smith made about historical America that can be investigated have been found to be false. Meanwhile the gospels do not offer much that substantially disagrees with what we find in other sources (alternate texts and archaeological digs). You’re not comparing like with like (but then bait and switch is an easy tactic isn’t it?)
I’d cry. A lot. I’d like to say that I’d then walk away from Christianity, but realistically, I’d try as many ways as I could think of to make it work without the Resurrection. They’d probably all fail though, because if I can’t trust the New Testament about something as central as the Resurrection, what can I trust it about?
I’d probably use the time machine to go back a few more years and see Jesus while he was alive to figure out what was really going on.
From there, I’d look into all the other world religions in hopes of discovering one that was true. I’d probably be praying a lot throughout this whole process, just in case there was a personal God who was paying attention. I’d also try really hard to figure out what was really happening all the times I thought I was having experiences with Jesus.
Only two people held that the question is intrinsically incomprehensible. I find that somewhat telling.
P.S. Hi there, Josh. Yes, indeed a very long time.
It is interesting that nearly 1/3 of the people on this blog said their Christianity could continue even if they knew evidentially that Jesus did not raise from the grave.
Jason,
You say:
“The problem with your assertion is that without the resurrection Christianity is inexplicable, particularly in light of its Jewish founders who a) had a perfectly good religion of their own, and b) knew the penalties for setting another alongside God.”
I think the rise of Christianity can be explained on the basis that some people THOUGHT they saw Christ alive just as easily as it could be by a historical, physical resurrection.
You say:
“Bill Craig stated that he would believe he was being deceived because without the Resurrection the first fifty years of the Church makes no sense.”
That is not what he says. He says he would know his senses are being deceived because of the “witness of the Spirit.”
You say:
“Meanwhile Mormons hold to the “burning in the bosom” because that’s all they have. All the claims that Joseph Smith made about historical America that can be investigated have been found to be false. Meanwhile the gospels do not offer much that substantially disagrees with what we find in other sources (alternate texts and archaeological digs). You’re not comparing like with like (but then bait and switch is an easy tactic isn’t it?)”
Most critical scholars would say that the Bible is also not reliable although its much harder to show since its so old and BOM is much more recent.
The point is that Mormons, intelligent Mormons, hold to their faith because of the burning of the bosom and perhaps also because they would say, “how can you explain the rise of Mormonism” (the difficult journey to Utah, deaths along the way, etc). without saying its from God?
Ken
Hmmm.
I’ve run into this question a couple times before.
I think when it comes down to it, my faith would be gone. I’m a Christian because I beleive it is true, and not because it is what works for me (something that I think non-christians don’t always realise about out faith).
Also, I don’t think it would accept it if I was taken back in time by someone else, the time machine would have to be my own invention, so that I could be sure of not being deceived.
CMP,
You said, “It is interesting that nearly 1/3 of the people on this blog said their Christianity could continue even if they knew evidentially that Jesus did not raise from the grave.”
I have been really astonished by this conversation. As you said earlier, I have always understood the resurrection to be foundational to our faith. But obviously, a lot of folks don’t see it that way. Maybe a blog ariticle on the subject is in order??
@CMP, I too am surprised by people who say that they would still consider the Jewish faith to be plausible, or more, Christ to be the Messiah, if they came to believe that the resurrection did not occur. I wouldn’t say “astonished”, though, since I think people are primarily making rhetorical points.
On the other hand, I still maintain that your question is intrinsically incoherent. Like the poem of the Jabberwocky, it has a grammatical structure, but makes no sense.
The comment “Christianity could continue even if they knew evidentially that Jesus did not raise from the grave” is a good example. That statement presupposes that Christians do not already know evidentially that Christ did raise from the grave. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, is arguing that such a presupposition is incoherent. How can someone be a Christian without knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the resurrection occurred? A Christian who simply believes that the resurrection is “plausible” or “probable”, is indeed pitiable. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that such a person is not Christian, but Paul certainly considers such people to be on the fringe of lunacy.
So your challenge, in essence, is asking “If you got in some machine, and became convinced that every bit of evidence and experience in your prior life had been a lie, what would it do to you?”
You pose the question as if the new time-machine “evidence” about the resurrection would be filling a void in evidence that exists today, as if we have no evidence that Christ is risen. I don’t see how you can presuppose that without presupposing that Christianity is wrong. That presupposition is extreme, and must be rejected. If we reject this presupposition, your scenario can only be a scenario of contradictory evidence. It’s like asking, “What if you woke up one morning to find out that you were a green alien strapped into a virtual reality game on your planet, and had only dreamed that you were a human?” That is exactly the sort of question you are asking here. Such questions are seemingly profound, but quickly run out of steam.
If some isolated incident with a time machine convincingly made me question a lifetime of evidence about the resurrection, you can bet that I would also question the time machine.
Furthermore, I don’t buy the presupposition that someone becomes a Christian because he first considers the resurrection story to have been plausible. It didn’t happen that way with Paul, and didn’t happen with any of the Saints that I read about. Peter’s belief in the deity of Christ, like Paul’s, came *before* he became convinced of the bodily resurrection. Sure, it might be possible to find people whose belief in the bodily resurrection led directly to their belief in Christ’s deity, but it seems far more common that the evidence for bodily resurrection comes *after* the person has proceeded in faith with Christ.