Belief in God, Resurrection & War

Truth in the Battle Against Doubt & Unbelief

As a former USAF Special Operations Intelligence Officer, I have had to navigate the labyrinth of conflicting message traffic. Message traffic is generated by many sources, also known as multi-source Intel. After thousands of hours of intelligence analysis, mission planning and guidance in the briefing room of the General Staff to near-real time planning in the cockpit and back home safely, I have learned that discernment is critical to decision making that fulfills the mission.

Mission planning requires the analysis of imperfect data to assemble actionable insights. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats are all necessary to evaluate. This unique vantage point informs our understanding of historical truth which includes military operations, but also particularly when examining scripture.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ stands as the most significant event in human history, subject to both reverence and skepticism. Influential voices—such as Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic)—who represents a new generation of Atheism taking reigns from Hitchens and Dawkins. He is uncanny in his ability to highlight perceived inconsistencies. History teaches us that contradictory details do not necessarily negate the truth of an event. As in warfare, historical reality is often discerned through a “best-fit” approach, merging partial or divergent accounts into a coherent conclusion.

In this targeted apologetic, it is my intention to provide proof of historical events in the face of contradictory evidence.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.” – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

The Reality of Historical Errors and Their Implications

History is never documented with uniform precision. Multiple eyewitness accounts frequently contain contradictions in detail but nevertheless preserve the main event’s factual core. Below are examples spanning antiquity to modern times that illustrate this principle.

The Battle of Thermopylae (480 BCE)
- Primary Sources: Herodotus (Histories, Book 7)¹, Diodorus Siculus (Library of History, Book 11).
- Conflicting Reports: Various troop counts (Herodotus says ~2.6 million Persians, which modern historians consider inflated; other ancient sources suggest smaller forces).
- Historical Core: Despite discrepancies in numbers, the battle itself and its strategic outcome (Persian advance slowed by Spartan resistance) remain indisputable.
Julius Caesar’s Crossing of the Rubicon (49 BCE)
- Primary Sources: Suetonius (The Lives of the Twelve Caesars), Plutarch (Parallel Lives), Appian (Civil Wars).
- Conflicting Reports: Different accounts about Caesar’s precise statement upon crossing (“alea iacta est” vs. “iacta alea est”) and the exact date.
- Historical Core: The crossing occurred, triggering a civil war—a pivotal moment in Roman history.
The Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)
- Primary Sources: International news broadcasts, eyewitness interviews, East German archives.
- Conflicting Reports: Who initiated the first breach, when exactly the borders were opened, and personal recollections vary.
- Historical Core: The Wall came down, symbolizing the end of the Cold War in Europe.

Seen in this light, minor inconsistencies about timing, precise numbers, or personal details rarely lead historians to dismiss the event itself. Rather, we understand these discrepancies as byproducts of human testimony. I have always said that finding “mistakes or contradictions” actually can lead you closer to the truth. The eventual conclusion does not betray a humble leap towards faith.

Applying this principle to the resurrection narratives, the Gospels’ variations in the number of women or angels at the tomb align well with typical eyewitness reportage. It is a misconception that “perfectly consistent” accounts prove historicity; in fact, they often suggest collusion.

The Resurrection as a Historical Anchor

Skeptics like Cosmic Skeptic target ostensible contradictions within the Gospel accounts—an effective rhetorical tactic which makes these “Contemporary Pharisees” appear sophisticated and authoritative. The most common points of contention Alex enjoys presenting in a manner similar to the “tyranny of the experts” include:

Timing of the Women’s Visit:
- Mark 16:2 indicates “very early … after the sun had risen.”
- John 20:1 suggests “while it was still dark.”
Number of Angels at the Tomb:
- Matthew 28:2–5: One angel.
- Luke 24:4: Two men in dazzling clothes (taken to be angels).
Differences in Witness Lists:
- The Gospels vary in which disciples or followers saw the risen Jesus first and how they responded.

Convergence on Core Facts

In intelligence work, when multiple sources converge on a central claim—despite peripheral differences—the probability of that claim being true increases. The Gospels converge on these core points:

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate (c. 26–36 CE). Crucifixion was Rome’s standard punishment for sedition.
He was buried and subsequently found missing from his tomb (empty tomb).
Multiple individuals and groups claimed to see Him alive (post-resurrection appearances).

These same facts are echoed not only in Christian writings but in external sources:

Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3) possibly references Jesus’ crucifixion.
Tacitus (Annals 15.44) confirms that Christ was executed under Pontius Pilate.

Such attestation from hostile or neutral sources strengthens the claim that the disciples believed they had witnessed a resurrected Christ. Whether one accepts the supernatural explanation, the bedrock historical claims are impossible to dismiss unless one’s conscience is seared.

Engaging Modern Skeptics: The Alex O’Connors of the World

Alex O’Connor, known online as Cosmic Skeptic, is a prominent atheist commentator. His platform emphasizes naturalistic explanations, empirical skepticism, and a call for consistent rational standards which as I mentioned before he is quite authoritative even confident, and I admit, to me he is quite annoying. The elitism pours out of his soul. If I had a chance to speak with him, I would try to influence him to reconsider.

Emphasize Historical Context

Modern critics often hold ancient texts to contemporary standards of historiography.
Clarify that the Gospels function as ancient Greco-Roman biographies, complete with their literary conventions and typical variances.

Acknowledge Known Errors & Tensions

Contradictions in genealogies (e.g., Matthew 1:1–17 vs. Luke 3:23–38) can reflect differing authorial objectives: legal lineage vs. biological or theological emphasis.
By freely conceding these tensions, we remove a common rhetorical weapon from the skeptic’s arsenal and refocus on the “core truths” rather than peripheral factual disputes.

Deploy Inference to the Best Explanation

In historical analysis—much like intelligence gathering—the best theory accounts for the most data with the fewest inconsistencies.
Propose that the resurrection is the best explanation for:
The disciples’ radical transformation (from fear to bold public proclamation).
The empty tomb narrative, which even the opponents of early Christians did not deny.
The extraordinary growth of a Jesus-centric movement in the face of persecution and martyrdom.

Model Respectful, Evidence-Based Dialogue

Present the case calmly, acknowledging the limits of historical inquiry.
Respect the skeptic’s intellectual autonomy while demonstrating that faith in a historical resurrection is not contrary to reason, but can be supported by a careful reading of the evidence.

Parallel to Contemporary Events: January 6, 2021

In intelligence and investigative domains, recent events can mirror the complexities of ancient history. Consider January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol—a modern flashpoint:

Initial Narrative: Widely labeled an “insurrection” despite a notable absence of conventional weaponry.
Contrarian Reporting: Over time, video footage and testimonies suggest infiltration or incitement by certain individuals—possibly including government agents—exacerbating the unrest.
Core Fact: The protest and subsequent breach did occur; it was significant enough to capture global attention.

Yet, details remain contested: motives, levels of organization, who instigated violence, and the precise role of law enforcement. Just as historians weigh the validity of competing narratives concerning the Resurrection, so too do modern analysts piece together contradictory reports surrounding January 6. The goal is not to reject the event outright but to sift through the data for the most coherent explanation.

The Immutability of the Resurrection Claim

Despite centuries of scrutiny, the foundational claims of the resurrection persist. Historical facts—like battles and social movements—cannot be undone once they occur; the debates revolve around their interpretation. Skeptics may dispute theological significance or demand empirical repeatability, but their critiques do not alter that the claim of resurrection anchored early Christian identity:

“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:17

This unwavering centrality in Christian tradition underlines the gravity of the resurrection claim: it is not a peripheral doctrine but the movement’s cornerstone. Historical methodology—evaluating sources, cross-referencing testimonies, and assessing alternative explanations—continues to show that the best account of early Christian origins involves something extraordinary happening after Jesus’ crucifixion.

Fighting the Good Fight

Engaging in the “war against atheism” is not about hostility toward skeptics; rather, it is a call to defend and clarify truth with humility and rigor. Like a seasoned commander or intelligence officer, one must develop strategic patience:

Understand the Terrain: Know the common objections, the relevant scholarship, and the rhetorical style of critics like Alex O’Connor.
Fortify Your Base: Strengthen the internal coherence of your position—acknowledge peripheral errors without surrendering the core.
Move with Precision: Use inference to the best explanation to navigate the battlefield of competing theories.

The resurrection stands on its historical merits: multiple attested sources, the transformation of the disciples, and the enduring legacy of the early church. It echoes through history as an event both hotly contested and profoundly transformative. We cannot re-engineer the past, but we can learn from it—whether it’s 1st-century Judea, the hot gates of Thermopylae, or the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Truth stands, and our role is to discern, defend, and share it.

Final Exhortation: The Resurrection happened—as the historical evidence powerfully suggests. No skeptic can rewrite the fundamental events, just as no revisionist can invalidate other pivotal moments in history. The battlefield is set: engage faithfully, argue coherently, and let truth prevail.

Footnotes

Herodotus. Histories. Translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt, Penguin Classics, 2003.
For general Roman crucifixion practices, see Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Fortress Press, 1977.
For the empty tomb narrative, see Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Fortress Press, 2003.
1 Corinthians 15:3–7 provides an early Christian creed that predates the written Gospels.
Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews. Translated by William Whiston. Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.
Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004.
Acts 2:14–36 shows Peter’s bold speech in Jerusalem shortly after the events described in the Gospels.