Every person who lives and breathes navigates life with a particular
plausibility structure. A plausibility structure is made up of
presuppositions that a person believes and holds to (sometimes unconsciously) which causes them to filter out what they see as possible and impossible (i.e. plausible and implausible). Sometimes a person's plausibility structure is inline with whatever the current popular plausibility structure of society happens to be and they find that they are in agreement with most of the people around them on most significant matters. At other times a person's particular views and beliefs are viewed by the culture at large as odd or outdated, not because they are untrue, but because these views don't adhere to the reigning plausibility structure.
If a person who says they are a Christian is honest then one thing they need to admit is that there are some crazy and seemingly implausible things in the Bible. Think of almost any popular Old Testament story and you are likely to come across an event or occurrence that on the surface appears to be unbelievable. Story's like Noah's Ark or the Israelites crossing the Red Sea seem like pure myth and legend to a great number of people. Then we get to one of the most preposterous events in the Bible, Jesus rising from the dead after three days of cold death in a tomb. Ridiculous... if it weren't true.
When most people reject the story of the resurrection it's done on the basis of their plausibility structure and not on the evidence. What I mean by that is that for many people the idea of a man physically coming back to live after being brutally executed is as far fetched as believing that Superman is real. Therefore, they reject the idea out of hand without examining the facts of the situation. Because they have deemed it implausible from the get go they never bother to check and see if it might actually be true.
The interesting thing to me about the biblical approach to the resurrection of Christ is that the authors seem very aware of the fact that a literal resurrection from the dead sounds crazy. In response to this their reactions are very honest. They don't try to cover up any facts, they don't try to downplay any of the "unbelievable" elements of the account, and they don't just ask people to take a leap of faith and believe while ignoring their capacity for reason. On top of this, Paul challenges the plausibility structure of Christians by stating simply that if the resurrection didn't happen then everything they believe is futile. The following is an excerpt from the 15th chapter of the book of 1 Corinthians:
"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, then to the twelve. Then he
appeared to more the five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom
are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to
James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he
appeared to me.... Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead,
how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But
if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been
raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain
and your faith is in vain. We are eve found to be misrepresenting God,
because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not
raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not
raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been
raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then also those
who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we
have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact
Christ has been raised from the dead..."
What is Paul saying? He's saying, "I know this sounds crazy. And I know
that some of you find it unbelievable. But it's true!" He's also telling
people to go check the facts when he mentions that over five hundred
people witnessed Jesus post-resurrection and most of them are still alive.
He also doesn't hesitate to put himself on the line. If what he's saying
isn't true then he admits that it make him, not simply wrong, but a liar.
Having checked as many of the facts as I can I have concluded with
millions of others that Jesus is indeed alive and breathing, the tomb is
empty. I say this with full confidence knowing that it sounds crazy. If
your plausibility structure causes you to reject this notion I understand
where you're coming from and I don't expect you to give up rational
thought and just take a blind leap of faith. What's the point of that?
However, I would invite you to actually investigate the account and
wrestle with the facts, because this story would be crazy except for the
fact that it's true.
