It always gives me a giggle when people say something like, “Jesus was all about love.”
And I think, ‘What Jesus are you talking about?’ There is more talk about eternal punishment in the New Testament than there is in the Old. Jesus talked more about hell than He did about heaven. Yes, one of Jesus’ characteristics, perhaps even His main characteristic was love, but He was fantastically serious about fulfilling God’s plan for you and me. And come hell or high water, or the deaths of millions of people, that plan WILL be carried out to completion, and the dominion of hell will not be able to stand against it.
I’m going to do a bit of a series that entails one of my favourite passages of Scripture. John chapter 21.
Prior to this account, Jesus had been betrayed by Judas. Peter had promised Jesus that even if all the other disciples ran away he, Peter would never abandon Jesus. In fact, Peter announced, he was ready to die with and for Jesus and His cause. I don’t know what tone of voice Jesus used, but He told Peter, in effect, “Are you kidding me? Before the night is out, you will deny that you even know Me; and not just once but three times.” Well, Jesus was crucified, He was buried and He rose from the dead, just as He had told them would happen. Peter did denying knowing Jesus and he had gone into hiding. The news of the tomb being empty had brought the disciples out of hiding and appearances by Jesus had left the disciples in a quandary. Remember, based on Old Testament prophecy, the disciples were still thinking that Jesus was going to lead a revolt against Rome and establish Israel to its former glory. Ok, enough of the preamble.
As this account unfolds, Jesus and Peter are once more going to be centre stage. If you’ve ever disappointed a best friend, as well as yourself, you might understand a little bit of what Peter was going through. As John tells us, Peter and his friends were coming back from a night of fishing when they saw a person sitting on the shore. The guy had a fire going and He was cooking some fish. Eventually, as they got closer to shore, the people in the boat with Peter recognised the person as Jesus. Peter, forgetting his humiliating emotional, personal and spiritual defeat dived into the water and made his way to the Lord. As I stated, Jesus was cooking some fish and the disciples brought some of their catch to make a meal of it. They spent some time, their bellies full, lying on the beach by the fire. Life was good again. Any time now, or so they believed, Jesus would become their king. He’d drive out the Romans which would usher in the Messianic kingdom.
Then Jesus turned to Peter and, motioning with a sweep of His hand to indicate the boats and the crew and the friends lying on the sand, Jesus said, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than all of these?”
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Which Is Easier?
That’s what Jesus asked a group of unbelievers. He had been teaching and healing throughout the day when yet another paralytic was placed in front of him. Jesus looked at the man and said,
“Friend, your sins are forgiven.” Luke 5:20
The religious people in the crowd, often the first to put rules before love, chastised Jesus for saying such a blasphemous thing, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
To which Jesus replied, “Which is easier: to say, “Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . .” He said to the man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
=========
So, how would you answer Jesus’ question? Which is easier, to forgive someone’s sins, or to heal their infirmity?
Well, which caused Jesus less pain? Giving someone physical health or making it possible for them to enter heaven? In reality no human on earth can do either. Yet Jesus could and did both.
. One took the speaking of a word, while the other drained His blood.
. One took place in a house surrounded by friends. The other, alone and naked on a Roman cross.
. One took a moment of time. The other took His life.
. One caused the wrath of man. During the other He absorbed the wrath of God.
So which is easier, admitting that you’re physically sick or admitting that you’re spiritually dead?
“Friend, your sins are forgiven.” Luke 5:20
The religious people in the crowd, often the first to put rules before love, chastised Jesus for saying such a blasphemous thing, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
To which Jesus replied, “Which is easier: to say, “Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . .” He said to the man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
=========
So, how would you answer Jesus’ question? Which is easier, to forgive someone’s sins, or to heal their infirmity?
Well, which caused Jesus less pain? Giving someone physical health or making it possible for them to enter heaven? In reality no human on earth can do either. Yet Jesus could and did both.
. One took the speaking of a word, while the other drained His blood.
. One took place in a house surrounded by friends. The other, alone and naked on a Roman cross.
. One took a moment of time. The other took His life.
. One caused the wrath of man. During the other He absorbed the wrath of God.
So which is easier, admitting that you’re physically sick or admitting that you’re spiritually dead?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
In The Beginning
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the Big Bang.
In their quest for answers regarding the origins of the universe, and imagining themselves to be rational inquisitors, atheists say that they follow the evidence wherever it takes them.
Ah - not so much. Because the implications are so distasteful for them, atheists are barely willing to accept the two words “Big Bang.” Some in fact perform mental contortions to avoid the implications of the universe having a beginning. Their narrow and irrational definition of “evidence” causes atheists to a priori reject the first five words of the verse with hardly a blink of the eye. The contradiction between what they say and what they do passes right over their heads.
“Roughly five hundred years before Jesus was born, Heraclitus coined the term Logos. In Stoicism, logos expresses the ordered and teleologically oriented nature of the cosmos. It can thus be equated with God and with the cosmic power of reason of which the material world is a vast unfolding.” Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Bolume, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1985, 506
John 1:1-5 says: - “In the beginning was the Reasoning Mind (Logos) and the Mind was with God and the Mind was God. / In the beginning was the Cause of the beginning of the universe. / In the beginning the Cause of the beginning of the universe was the Mind and the Cause was with God and the Cause was God. / Through the Mind all things have had a beginning. / All things that have a beginning were given a beginning by the Mind. What the Mind gave a beginning to was Life. / And this life was a light to live by. / The light shines in the darkness but atheists have not understood it.
In their quest for answers regarding the origins of the universe, and imagining themselves to be rational inquisitors, atheists say that they follow the evidence wherever it takes them.
Ah - not so much. Because the implications are so distasteful for them, atheists are barely willing to accept the two words “Big Bang.” Some in fact perform mental contortions to avoid the implications of the universe having a beginning. Their narrow and irrational definition of “evidence” causes atheists to a priori reject the first five words of the verse with hardly a blink of the eye. The contradiction between what they say and what they do passes right over their heads.
“Roughly five hundred years before Jesus was born, Heraclitus coined the term Logos. In Stoicism, logos expresses the ordered and teleologically oriented nature of the cosmos. It can thus be equated with God and with the cosmic power of reason of which the material world is a vast unfolding.” Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Bolume, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1985, 506
John 1:1-5 says: - “In the beginning was the Reasoning Mind (Logos) and the Mind was with God and the Mind was God. / In the beginning was the Cause of the beginning of the universe. / In the beginning the Cause of the beginning of the universe was the Mind and the Cause was with God and the Cause was God. / Through the Mind all things have had a beginning. / All things that have a beginning were given a beginning by the Mind. What the Mind gave a beginning to was Life. / And this life was a light to live by. / The light shines in the darkness but atheists have not understood it.
More Grace than Guilt
A lot of atheists scoff at the idea of the 10 Commandments. They say things like, “What? No one knew those things were wrong before God wrote it down for them?”
For years I struggled to understand the verse in Romans 5:20 - “The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.”
If you read through the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 - 7) you find several impossible standards being set out for us.
. Don’t be angry.
. Don’t lust.
. Honour others more than ourselves.
. Love your enemies
. Forgive those who harm you every time
Jesus is laying out in no uncertain terms just how far we fall from God’s standards and expectations for us. Because of this, Paul was able to write, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Now, many are tempted to look at the Sermon on the Mount, find it impossible and toss it aside.
Don’t! Ok? Please don’t do that. What happens when you toss aside God’s impossible standard is that you cause yourself to miss out on the opportunity to enjoy His incredible grace and mercy.
Only when we are forced to see our impossible situation can we become aware of our need for His grace. God is offering to do for us, what we cannot do for ourselves.
In Romans 5:20, Paul is saying, the more we become aware of how sinful we are (that’s what the law, the 10 Commandments are for) the more we can see that
. We need God’s mercy, grace and salvation
. We can HAVE God’s mercy, grace and salvation
All of us have sinned - All of us are guilty - All of us can be forgiven.
That is good new folks.
As the sign at the top of my blog says, “No one is so good that forgiveness isn’t required. No one is so evil that forgiveness isn’t offered.
Atheists are terribly offended by the very idea of forgiveness. Atheists, like the rest of us are Pharisees by nature; judging others of guilt while viewing ourselves as good. In fact, atheists have made a creed out of it: “I don’t need God in order to be a good person.” Mmm, hmm.
Is this how you view yourself? As being so good that you don’t need God? If so,
Be Afraid. Be very afraid!
It is only those whom God is seeking whose eyes He opens to their need for forgiveness. And when God does that for you, when God opens your eyes to your true nature, be glad.
. No matter how bad you have been and perhaps are, God’s grace is bigger.
. No matter how bad you have been and perhaps are, forgiveness is being offered to you.
Because of God’s mercy and grace, you no longer have to pretend. You can be real. You can admit to being in need of help. Reach out and take that help. If you do, a life so good you never dreamed it’s possible will open up to you. Good luck on your journey.
For years I struggled to understand the verse in Romans 5:20 - “The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.”
If you read through the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 - 7) you find several impossible standards being set out for us.
. Don’t be angry.
. Don’t lust.
. Honour others more than ourselves.
. Love your enemies
. Forgive those who harm you every time
Jesus is laying out in no uncertain terms just how far we fall from God’s standards and expectations for us. Because of this, Paul was able to write, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Now, many are tempted to look at the Sermon on the Mount, find it impossible and toss it aside.
Don’t! Ok? Please don’t do that. What happens when you toss aside God’s impossible standard is that you cause yourself to miss out on the opportunity to enjoy His incredible grace and mercy.
Only when we are forced to see our impossible situation can we become aware of our need for His grace. God is offering to do for us, what we cannot do for ourselves.
In Romans 5:20, Paul is saying, the more we become aware of how sinful we are (that’s what the law, the 10 Commandments are for) the more we can see that
. We need God’s mercy, grace and salvation
. We can HAVE God’s mercy, grace and salvation
All of us have sinned - All of us are guilty - All of us can be forgiven.
That is good new folks.
As the sign at the top of my blog says, “No one is so good that forgiveness isn’t required. No one is so evil that forgiveness isn’t offered.
Atheists are terribly offended by the very idea of forgiveness. Atheists, like the rest of us are Pharisees by nature; judging others of guilt while viewing ourselves as good. In fact, atheists have made a creed out of it: “I don’t need God in order to be a good person.” Mmm, hmm.
Is this how you view yourself? As being so good that you don’t need God? If so,
Be Afraid. Be very afraid!
It is only those whom God is seeking whose eyes He opens to their need for forgiveness. And when God does that for you, when God opens your eyes to your true nature, be glad.
. No matter how bad you have been and perhaps are, God’s grace is bigger.
. No matter how bad you have been and perhaps are, forgiveness is being offered to you.
Because of God’s mercy and grace, you no longer have to pretend. You can be real. You can admit to being in need of help. Reach out and take that help. If you do, a life so good you never dreamed it’s possible will open up to you. Good luck on your journey.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Why Would That Be?
Atheists are forever crying, "Evidence, Evidence! Give me evidence. And don't you dare let it be from the Bible." Ok, here comes some evidence.
Absolutely none of what you’re about to read has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars.
The reason that I’m not using the documents that were later compiled into what we now know as the New Testament is of course, atheists have a double standard when it comes to judging ancient documents. Something that critics seem to forget is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as well as Acts of the Apostles and the other letters that are included in the New Testament weren’t written FOR inclusion into the Bible. What are now part of the Bible were once independent documents circulating throughout the Christian and non Christian community. These guys weren’t journalists working for something like, “Bible Magazine.” The documents that were compiled into what we know today as the New Testament were separate ancient documents, written by people who were interested in the life of Jesus. Some had been followers of or students of Jesus. Others, like Dr. Luke were historians. These people had no idea that what they’d written would one day become part of the biggest and most important movement in history.
While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust), to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. I asked you yesterday, Why would the following have occurred if the facts of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection weren’t as described? There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the following historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross:
Why would Josephus, Matthew, Tacitus, Mark, Lucian of Samosata, Dr. Luke, Mara Bar-Serapion, John, The Babylonion Talmud and John Dominic Crossan, the Founder of the “Jesus Seminar” all attest that Jesus’ crucifixion is historical fact? And why would that be when all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are non Christians?
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, why would these historians and scholars write that He did? Why would they simply invent these stories? There was/is absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained by concocting this as a lie.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why do we have multiple, independent, extra Biblical sources attesting to the risen Jesus?
. Why do we have virtually unanimous modern historical scholarship agreeing that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross.
. Why would atheist historian and New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann say, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
. Why would atheist historian Paula Fredriksen say, “I don’t know what they saw, but as a historian I know they believed they saw Jesus.”
. Why would highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agree that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus."
. Why would atheist and founder of the Jesus Seminar state, “The Jesus was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” if Jesus wasn’t a historical figure?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make sense. Why would the enemies of Christianity affirm the historical facts regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the evidence isn’t accurate and compelling?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why would all the disciples, plus hundreds and hundreds of others believe that they saw Him alive?
. Why would they say that they spoke with Him?
. Why would they say that they ate with Him at various times and various places?
. If none of that is true, why would they be willing to die for making up the lie of seeing Jesus alive? There was absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained, and everything to lose by concocting the supposed lies about Jesus life, death and resurrection.
REMEMBER these people didn’t believe someone else’s lie. Over the centuries many people have died for believing someone else’s lies. But if THESE people died for a lie, it was THEIR lie! They died for saying they saw Jesus alive again after His death. Liars simply do not make martyrs of themselves.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, their willingness to die for the “truth” doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Paul’s testimony about His encounter with Jesus and why do we have his radical transformation in character from a persecutor of the Church and a killer of Christians to the greatest missionary that the Christian Church has ever seen?
Remember, Paul:
. Was a rabid sceptic when Jesus appeared to him.
. Was an enemy of the Church when Jesus appeared to him.
This is not like most conversions whereby the person reads or hears something that persuades h/her to change. Paul’s evidence for the risen Jesus was first hand and so convincing that he endured years of hardship, persecution and rejection for proclaiming the risen Lord, before finally being beheaded by Nero in 64AD.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in Paul’s character doesn’t make any sense. He had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain, and everything to lose by concocting a story of meeting Jesus while on His way to persecute the Church.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why in the world would Jesus’ brothers James and Jude go to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead? . Why would they claim that they had seen Him alive after His death?
. Why would they confess that Jesus is the Lord God, Messiah?
Think about it! This was their half-brother, someone that they’d previously mocked and ridiculed. James’ and Jude’s conversions were a drastic change from thinking their Brother was insane and an embarrassment to the family.
What would it take for you to make this kind of change? What would it take for you to die for that change? For me, it would take nothing LESS than a resurrection.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in the beliefs of Jesus’ siblings doesn’t make any sense. They had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain and everything to lose if what they said about Jesus appearing to them after His death was not true.
Remember, Both Paul and James were sceptics at the time that Jesus appeared to them. Why would they become His followers if His resurrection wasn't historical fact?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why was His tomb empty?
. Jesus’ ENEMIES were the ones to CONFIRM that the body was missing by proposing that the disciples stole it.
. The disciples didn’t have the power nor the inclination to steal His body. They were hiding behind locked doors.
. Jesus’ enemies had no reason to steal the body and every reason to keep it right where it was. They posted an armed guard, and sealed the tomb with the Governor’s seal to make sure that nothing happened to the body.
. The first proclamations of the empty tomb were made right there in Jerusalem where Jesus was murdered and buried. The tomb could have been easily checked out.
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, how is it that the tomb was empty with no sound explanation other than the resurrection?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do the ancient documents written by Jesus’ followers make the “mistake” of saying that women (who at the time were seen as lower than dogs and not capable of telling the truth) were the ones who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Lord. If it wasn’t true, if the disciples were trying to convince others of a lie, if the resurrection wasn’t historical fact, why would the writers invent the testimony of women to say that it was true?
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that His followers would do that.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why did Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria all non Christians and all historians write about Jesus’ brother James, his leadership in the Jerusalem Church and his martyrdom for proclaiming Jesus as risen Lord and Saviour?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. I think they would only write these things if the evidence convinced them that it was accurate.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have an early oral tradition or creed that dates from the first year after Jesus’ death attesting to the fact of Him rising from the dead.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. There is no hint of legend or exaggeration in this oral tradition. And these people had their lives to lose by repeating it. Why would they do that if it wasn’t true?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the written works of the early Church with hymns, poetry and creeds, stemming from the early oral history telling about Jesus rise from the dead?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, we simply wouldn't have this.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the Christian Church? Paul told early Christians, “If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your faith is worthless.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact there wouldn’t be any Christianity. Yet here it is today, over 2 billion strong.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
How did Paul know what He knew about Jesus prior to any contact with the apostles and why would they accept Paul as one of their own based on what he was teaching about Jesus? This was an “outsider” eager to kill the leaders of the early Jesus movement, now coming to them with a knowledge of Jesus’ teaching equal to those who had been insiders.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, and without Jesus appearing to Paul and teaching Paul about Himself, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the four ancient biographies of Jesus, one of them by historian and physician Luke who got his information from eyewitnesses all affirming the resurrection of Jesus? Why would they tell Luke that these things happened if they weren’t true? They paid for that "lie" with their lives.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp and others, all saying that they had been taught by the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead. And THEN, all of these men were themselves martyred based on the believability of what the disciples had told them. These were not ignorant, gullible men. Yet the evidence made sense to them.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, how could that happen?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
What would account for the disciple’s radical transformation from fearful and cowardly men who denied Jesus and who ran away from Him during His trial, to bold individuals who were so confident of the truth of what they saw and heard regarding His resurrection, that they were willing to undergo years of persecution as well as torture and death rather than change their story.
Peter watched his own wife being crucified just prior to his own crucifixion. Surely, if the risen Jesus was a lie concocted by Peter himself, he wouldn’t have allowed that to happen.
Without the resurrection, this type of behaviour doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why was it that Polycarp wrote of the endurance under torture of Paul, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus for their belief in the risen Christ?
. Why was it that Ignatius also wrote of the suffering and death of the apostles?
. Why was it that Polycarp and Ignatius were both martyred?
. Why would they be willing to die in such a manner if the accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection weren’t accurate?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would we have confirming accounts of the disciples teaching and deaths in Roman public records called “Lives of the Caesars.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would Origen write, “Jesus, who has both risen AND led His disciples to believe in His resurrection and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth that they showed to all men by their suffering how they were able to laugh at life’s troubles beholding to life eternal and a resurrection clearly demonstrated to them in word and deed by this one Jesus.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that Origen would write that.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why do we have Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Hegesibous, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, all of these sources, Christian and non Christian alike affirming the historicity of Jesus and the disciples willingness to die for what they believed to be true.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that these many and varied individuals would make this stuff up.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why is it that Luke writes that Jesus spent about 40 days with the disciples after He rose from the dead, and
. Why can it be further calculated that about 50-55 days after His death, Jesus’ followers started proclaiming His resurrection, and
. Why did Tacitus, an ENEMY of Christianity, write “Jesus’ execution by Pontius Pilot checked, for the moment, the Christian movement but it then broke out with force not only in Judea but even in Rome.”
. Why would these accounts, one from a follower of Jesus and one from a secular historian and enemy of Christianity be so similar unless they’re true?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
Absolutely none of what I’ve just written has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars. While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust) to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the above historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
These questions, stemming from this evidence demands more than just a flippant, “People rising from the dead is impossible.” Something totally “other” happened back then and ignoring it is not a rational nor a logical thing to do.
If Jesus did in fact supernaturally rise from the dead, then what He taught about being the Son of God and about the existence of Creator God must also be true. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus demands a verdict. With the evidence so overwhelmingly pointing to the fact of His resurrection, one can do three things:
. Submit to Jesus as Lord and Saviour - Or
. Lie to yourself that none of this proves anything - Or
. Say to yourself, “I don’t care if God is real, I’m going to live my life, my way.”
Absolutely none of what you’re about to read has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars.
The reason that I’m not using the documents that were later compiled into what we now know as the New Testament is of course, atheists have a double standard when it comes to judging ancient documents. Something that critics seem to forget is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as well as Acts of the Apostles and the other letters that are included in the New Testament weren’t written FOR inclusion into the Bible. What are now part of the Bible were once independent documents circulating throughout the Christian and non Christian community. These guys weren’t journalists working for something like, “Bible Magazine.” The documents that were compiled into what we know today as the New Testament were separate ancient documents, written by people who were interested in the life of Jesus. Some had been followers of or students of Jesus. Others, like Dr. Luke were historians. These people had no idea that what they’d written would one day become part of the biggest and most important movement in history.
While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust), to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. I asked you yesterday, Why would the following have occurred if the facts of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection weren’t as described? There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the following historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross:
Why would Josephus, Matthew, Tacitus, Mark, Lucian of Samosata, Dr. Luke, Mara Bar-Serapion, John, The Babylonion Talmud and John Dominic Crossan, the Founder of the “Jesus Seminar” all attest that Jesus’ crucifixion is historical fact? And why would that be when all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are non Christians?
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, why would these historians and scholars write that He did? Why would they simply invent these stories? There was/is absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained by concocting this as a lie.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why do we have multiple, independent, extra Biblical sources attesting to the risen Jesus?
. Why do we have virtually unanimous modern historical scholarship agreeing that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross.
. Why would atheist historian and New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann say, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
. Why would atheist historian Paula Fredriksen say, “I don’t know what they saw, but as a historian I know they believed they saw Jesus.”
. Why would highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agree that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus."
. Why would atheist and founder of the Jesus Seminar state, “The Jesus was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” if Jesus wasn’t a historical figure?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make sense. Why would the enemies of Christianity affirm the historical facts regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the evidence isn’t accurate and compelling?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why would all the disciples, plus hundreds and hundreds of others believe that they saw Him alive?
. Why would they say that they spoke with Him?
. Why would they say that they ate with Him at various times and various places?
. If none of that is true, why would they be willing to die for making up the lie of seeing Jesus alive? There was absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained, and everything to lose by concocting the supposed lies about Jesus life, death and resurrection.
REMEMBER these people didn’t believe someone else’s lie. Over the centuries many people have died for believing someone else’s lies. But if THESE people died for a lie, it was THEIR lie! They died for saying they saw Jesus alive again after His death. Liars simply do not make martyrs of themselves.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, their willingness to die for the “truth” doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Paul’s testimony about His encounter with Jesus and why do we have his radical transformation in character from a persecutor of the Church and a killer of Christians to the greatest missionary that the Christian Church has ever seen?
Remember, Paul:
. Was a rabid sceptic when Jesus appeared to him.
. Was an enemy of the Church when Jesus appeared to him.
This is not like most conversions whereby the person reads or hears something that persuades h/her to change. Paul’s evidence for the risen Jesus was first hand and so convincing that he endured years of hardship, persecution and rejection for proclaiming the risen Lord, before finally being beheaded by Nero in 64AD.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in Paul’s character doesn’t make any sense. He had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain, and everything to lose by concocting a story of meeting Jesus while on His way to persecute the Church.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why in the world would Jesus’ brothers James and Jude go to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead? . Why would they claim that they had seen Him alive after His death?
. Why would they confess that Jesus is the Lord God, Messiah?
Think about it! This was their half-brother, someone that they’d previously mocked and ridiculed. James’ and Jude’s conversions were a drastic change from thinking their Brother was insane and an embarrassment to the family.
What would it take for you to make this kind of change? What would it take for you to die for that change? For me, it would take nothing LESS than a resurrection.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in the beliefs of Jesus’ siblings doesn’t make any sense. They had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain and everything to lose if what they said about Jesus appearing to them after His death was not true.
Remember, Both Paul and James were sceptics at the time that Jesus appeared to them. Why would they become His followers if His resurrection wasn't historical fact?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why was His tomb empty?
. Jesus’ ENEMIES were the ones to CONFIRM that the body was missing by proposing that the disciples stole it.
. The disciples didn’t have the power nor the inclination to steal His body. They were hiding behind locked doors.
. Jesus’ enemies had no reason to steal the body and every reason to keep it right where it was. They posted an armed guard, and sealed the tomb with the Governor’s seal to make sure that nothing happened to the body.
. The first proclamations of the empty tomb were made right there in Jerusalem where Jesus was murdered and buried. The tomb could have been easily checked out.
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, how is it that the tomb was empty with no sound explanation other than the resurrection?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do the ancient documents written by Jesus’ followers make the “mistake” of saying that women (who at the time were seen as lower than dogs and not capable of telling the truth) were the ones who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Lord. If it wasn’t true, if the disciples were trying to convince others of a lie, if the resurrection wasn’t historical fact, why would the writers invent the testimony of women to say that it was true?
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that His followers would do that.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why did Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria all non Christians and all historians write about Jesus’ brother James, his leadership in the Jerusalem Church and his martyrdom for proclaiming Jesus as risen Lord and Saviour?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. I think they would only write these things if the evidence convinced them that it was accurate.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have an early oral tradition or creed that dates from the first year after Jesus’ death attesting to the fact of Him rising from the dead.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. There is no hint of legend or exaggeration in this oral tradition. And these people had their lives to lose by repeating it. Why would they do that if it wasn’t true?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the written works of the early Church with hymns, poetry and creeds, stemming from the early oral history telling about Jesus rise from the dead?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, we simply wouldn't have this.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the Christian Church? Paul told early Christians, “If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your faith is worthless.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact there wouldn’t be any Christianity. Yet here it is today, over 2 billion strong.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
How did Paul know what He knew about Jesus prior to any contact with the apostles and why would they accept Paul as one of their own based on what he was teaching about Jesus? This was an “outsider” eager to kill the leaders of the early Jesus movement, now coming to them with a knowledge of Jesus’ teaching equal to those who had been insiders.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, and without Jesus appearing to Paul and teaching Paul about Himself, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the four ancient biographies of Jesus, one of them by historian and physician Luke who got his information from eyewitnesses all affirming the resurrection of Jesus? Why would they tell Luke that these things happened if they weren’t true? They paid for that "lie" with their lives.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp and others, all saying that they had been taught by the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead. And THEN, all of these men were themselves martyred based on the believability of what the disciples had told them. These were not ignorant, gullible men. Yet the evidence made sense to them.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, how could that happen?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
What would account for the disciple’s radical transformation from fearful and cowardly men who denied Jesus and who ran away from Him during His trial, to bold individuals who were so confident of the truth of what they saw and heard regarding His resurrection, that they were willing to undergo years of persecution as well as torture and death rather than change their story.
Peter watched his own wife being crucified just prior to his own crucifixion. Surely, if the risen Jesus was a lie concocted by Peter himself, he wouldn’t have allowed that to happen.
Without the resurrection, this type of behaviour doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why was it that Polycarp wrote of the endurance under torture of Paul, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus for their belief in the risen Christ?
. Why was it that Ignatius also wrote of the suffering and death of the apostles?
. Why was it that Polycarp and Ignatius were both martyred?
. Why would they be willing to die in such a manner if the accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection weren’t accurate?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would we have confirming accounts of the disciples teaching and deaths in Roman public records called “Lives of the Caesars.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would Origen write, “Jesus, who has both risen AND led His disciples to believe in His resurrection and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth that they showed to all men by their suffering how they were able to laugh at life’s troubles beholding to life eternal and a resurrection clearly demonstrated to them in word and deed by this one Jesus.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that Origen would write that.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why do we have Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Hegesibous, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, all of these sources, Christian and non Christian alike affirming the historicity of Jesus and the disciples willingness to die for what they believed to be true.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that these many and varied individuals would make this stuff up.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why is it that Luke writes that Jesus spent about 40 days with the disciples after He rose from the dead, and
. Why can it be further calculated that about 50-55 days after His death, Jesus’ followers started proclaiming His resurrection, and
. Why did Tacitus, an ENEMY of Christianity, write “Jesus’ execution by Pontius Pilot checked, for the moment, the Christian movement but it then broke out with force not only in Judea but even in Rome.”
. Why would these accounts, one from a follower of Jesus and one from a secular historian and enemy of Christianity be so similar unless they’re true?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
Absolutely none of what I’ve just written has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars. While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust) to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the above historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
These questions, stemming from this evidence demands more than just a flippant, “People rising from the dead is impossible.” Something totally “other” happened back then and ignoring it is not a rational nor a logical thing to do.
If Jesus did in fact supernaturally rise from the dead, then what He taught about being the Son of God and about the existence of Creator God must also be true. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus demands a verdict. With the evidence so overwhelmingly pointing to the fact of His resurrection, one can do three things:
. Submit to Jesus as Lord and Saviour - Or
. Lie to yourself that none of this proves anything - Or
. Say to yourself, “I don’t care if God is real, I’m going to live my life, my way.”
I'm an Expert!
. It's amazing how people who claim for themselves a superiority of analytical thought and bias-proof intelligence can claim themselves experts on a subject area that they simply do not grasp.
The people that I’m talking about are atheists and the matter in question are the historical documents that have been compiled and included in the New Testament. Claiming nothing more than an inability to trust anything to do with religion, this group of people toss out solid evidence like someone emptying a stinky ashtray.
When it comes to the New Testament, especially as it attests to the reality of Jesus the Christ, His life, His death and especially His resurrection, there is more witness testimony than for any other document in ancient literature. With respect to the accuracy and continuity of the documents:
. There are more than 5,700 Greek copies of the New Testament.
. There are 10,000 copies of the New Testament in Latin.
. Take into consideration copies that are available in other languages and we have available to us 30,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament.
. Take into consideration all the quotations of the early Church Fathers and you will find over one million more verses that have been preserved from the first century onward.
It is these early manuscripts and quotations that allow us to know that the copies that we have of the New Testament and the eyewitness testimony are very reliable and accurate.
There isn’t any other literature from the Greco-Roman world that comes even close to this quantity or quality of evidence. If we were to take all the copies available from prominent authors of that time, we couldn’t find any one of them that have more than 20 copies of their work still in existence. Put them in a stack and you might get a pile of books a little over a metre high. Do the same with copies of the New Testament and you will have a stack of books 1.5 kilometres or 1,500 metres tall. Of course quantity is meaningless if the documents were originally written centuries after the event. For example, the gospels of Thomas or Judas or Mary, were written so long after the event, and by people so foreign to the context that their authors cannot even accurately describe Palestine and the Jewish culture as they truly were. In a case like that it wouldn’t help to have a billion copies.
This is not a concern for those looking to the New Testament documents for authenticity. At the latest, there is only a 75 year gap between available copies and the time that the New Testament was completed. For the early Church’s creed that Paul passes on to the Christians in Corinth and which he most certainly got from the apostle’s oral, eye witness reports, we are looking at within 5 years of Jesus death and resurrection at most.
For copies of materials from other ancient historical writers, a gap of 1,000 years is not unusual and what we have in those cases are mere fragments of their works. Here is the amazing part in all this. Atheists, those self proclaimed bastions of intelligence, integrity, and rational thought will eagerly accept secular ancient literature that has very little confirmation. Yet, they will disregard any document from the same time period if it has been gathered and placed into the New Testament. They will eagerly accept secular ancient literature that has very little external verification. Yet, they will disregard any and all of the abundant extra Biblical testimony regarding Jesus of Nazareth simply because those documents record information about a person who challenges their world-view. Outlandish, outrageous and beyond the pale hardly describes their behaviour. How they can live with themselves is puzzling. How they can view themselves as logical and reasonable is puzzling.
When I’ve asked those who challenge any information about Jesus, “What criteria do you use to judge the credibility of ancient literature like the New Testament” I get a “Huh?” One atheist said that all he looks for is a single confirming account of the event in question. Of course he means unless that event is recorded in the Bible. Then any number of confirming documents are insufficient. It seems that YouTube or similar source material is the atheist’s most frequent generator of information regarding Biblical criticism.
Many people are unaware that the reliability of ancient documents is based on standard measures. Those who possess genuine skills as Historical Scholars have attested to the validity and the dependability of the New Testament documents for the following reasons:
Bibliographical test - Are the copies that we have reliable? In comparing the New Testament documents to other ancient sources, how does the New Testament stack up? Well, let’s do a comparison.
. The history of Thucydides has just eight copies dated 1,300 years after he wrote.
. Copies of Aristotle’s poetics are dated 1,400 years after the originals and only five copies exist.
. Copies of Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” are from 1,000 years after the originals and only ten copies exist.
Even though the time between the original and copies seems very long indeed, no classical scholar, or atheist for that matter, would ever conclude that the copies are not dependable because they were written over a thousand years after the original. They do however complain if a document that’s been included into the New Testament is dated 30 years later than the original. (You may roll your eyes now)
Now, remember the 30,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament that I mentioned earlier with at least one million quotations that are also in existence? Do you know what kind of time frame between copies and originals that we’re talking about? One of the world’s foremost archeologists William F. Albright has stated, “We can say emphatically that there is a solid basis for saying that EVERY book of the New Testament was completed before A.D. 50 and 75.” The majority of the New Testament documents were completed by Paul who was executed by Nero in 64AD.
- The amazingly short time frame means that the burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
. External evidence - Do other historical documents confirm what was written in the documents in question? This is one of the most critical steps in confirming New Testament documents. Not because they are more in doubt than other ancient literature but because the sceptic’s presuppositional bias causes him to doubt, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In the case of the New Testament, confirmation by Eusebius, Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Babylonion Talmud, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, and many others, as well as archeological finds provide powerful external evidence for the reliability of the New Testament documents.
- This means that the burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
. Coherence - Is the information accurate, based on what we know from other historical documents regarding culture, events, customs etc.? The New Testament writers were so obviously authors from the time and culture about which they were writing that even secular historians and archaeologists turn to the New Testament documents for confirming information regarding their own discoveries.
- This means that the burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
. Dating - Was the description of the event in question written within a short time after the event took place? Was the document written when eyewitnesses were still alive? Was the document written early enough that legend did not have a chance to develop? The answer to these questions is an overwhelming “Yes” for the New Testament documents.
- Because of this, the burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
Internal Evidence - Are the writers obviously telling the truth? Aristotle himself said, regarding literary criticism, “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.” John Warwick Montgomery states, “One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error . . .”
Of course sceptics look at miracles that are documented and say > Fraud or Error.
The New Testament in general and Jesus in particular actually takes the time to specifically address both the ancient and the modern sceptic’s concerns. First of all, in advocating their case for Jesus’ resurrection, the apostles appealed to common knowledge of those who were alive at the time. “Not only have we seen these things, but you also have seen and heard what happened in the life of Jesus.” Eyewitnesses were still alive when the New Testament documents were written and circulated.
Jesus is quoted as saying, “You don’t have to believe Me when I say that I Am God just because that’s what I tell you. But your should believe that I Am God because of what I do.”
Why would He say that? Jesus made that statement because He was doing things that were clearly outside of or contrary to the laws of physics as they/we understand them. Those people knew that a disease doesn’t respond to someone talking to it. Those people knew that water doesn’t just turn into wine at someone’s command. Those people knew beyond a shadow of doubt that normal people don’t calm a storm or forgive those who are unjustly killing them. And those people for sure knew that dead people don’t come to life again by natural means. Neither could Jesus’ detractors just toss these events aside. People were healed. The wine was real. Storms were calmed, people were forgiven, the blind were made to see, the lame were walking, people's lives were renewed and changed and Jesus was seen to be alive in ways that disallowed the idea of hallucinations or outright lies. Those are things that only God can do. Jesus was saying that He was doing these things in real space and real time and He was doing it for their benefit. And as it turns out He was doing it for our benefit as well. He did those things so that we could know that He was and is the real deal.
A man named John, who was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus describes Jesus’ manipulations of matter and energy as “signs.” They were signs that Jesus has mastery over the natural elements of our universe. That kind of manipulation and that kind of power is only possible in the Being who brought into existence the very elements and laws that govern those elements in the first place. Those demonstrations by Jesus were signs that He used to show that something from another dimension had physically and visibly entered into our dimension. Something totally “other” happened when Jesus walked the earth. In fact, the Christian faith, and the body of believers - the Church, even with all it's faults, is an ongoing evidentiary miracle in it’s own right. There would be no reason for the Christian faith to exist let alone be the driving force for virtually all we know as good for the human race if Jesus was and is not God incarnate. Because there is no evidence to suggest that the writers of the New Testament were lying,
- The burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
These are the criteria that sceptics need to address when denying the reliability of the New Testament. In every case that I have encountered, they have failed to do so. The accounts of Jesus fulfill these criteria for historical reliability in spades. Failure to heed this evidence makes atheist sceptics appear impossibly ignorant.
Finally, it needs to be asked. If the Bible in general and the New Testament specifically is a work of fiction, who wrote this piece of fiction that changed the course of history, and then mysteriously slipped into obscurity? Who was this writer who invented the character of Jesus, a character so noble that presently 2 billion people love, cherish and worship Him?
As a former evangelist-turned-atheist Charles Templeton recently described Jesus - “He [Jesus] was the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to His own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about Him except that this was a form of greatness? Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus. He cared for the oppressed and exploited. There’s no question that He had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history.”
If this character Jesus is fictional, who is the writer who created a fictional character so powerful that at this very moment, millions would lay down their lives for Him? And how would such a gifted writer slip into obscurity with absolutely nothing being known about her / him? It doesn’t make any sense, but neither does most of what atheists say when they dip into the subject of historical theological literature.
The people that I’m talking about are atheists and the matter in question are the historical documents that have been compiled and included in the New Testament. Claiming nothing more than an inability to trust anything to do with religion, this group of people toss out solid evidence like someone emptying a stinky ashtray.
When it comes to the New Testament, especially as it attests to the reality of Jesus the Christ, His life, His death and especially His resurrection, there is more witness testimony than for any other document in ancient literature. With respect to the accuracy and continuity of the documents:
. There are more than 5,700 Greek copies of the New Testament.
. There are 10,000 copies of the New Testament in Latin.
. Take into consideration copies that are available in other languages and we have available to us 30,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament.
. Take into consideration all the quotations of the early Church Fathers and you will find over one million more verses that have been preserved from the first century onward.
It is these early manuscripts and quotations that allow us to know that the copies that we have of the New Testament and the eyewitness testimony are very reliable and accurate.
There isn’t any other literature from the Greco-Roman world that comes even close to this quantity or quality of evidence. If we were to take all the copies available from prominent authors of that time, we couldn’t find any one of them that have more than 20 copies of their work still in existence. Put them in a stack and you might get a pile of books a little over a metre high. Do the same with copies of the New Testament and you will have a stack of books 1.5 kilometres or 1,500 metres tall. Of course quantity is meaningless if the documents were originally written centuries after the event. For example, the gospels of Thomas or Judas or Mary, were written so long after the event, and by people so foreign to the context that their authors cannot even accurately describe Palestine and the Jewish culture as they truly were. In a case like that it wouldn’t help to have a billion copies.
This is not a concern for those looking to the New Testament documents for authenticity. At the latest, there is only a 75 year gap between available copies and the time that the New Testament was completed. For the early Church’s creed that Paul passes on to the Christians in Corinth and which he most certainly got from the apostle’s oral, eye witness reports, we are looking at within 5 years of Jesus death and resurrection at most.
For copies of materials from other ancient historical writers, a gap of 1,000 years is not unusual and what we have in those cases are mere fragments of their works. Here is the amazing part in all this. Atheists, those self proclaimed bastions of intelligence, integrity, and rational thought will eagerly accept secular ancient literature that has very little confirmation. Yet, they will disregard any document from the same time period if it has been gathered and placed into the New Testament. They will eagerly accept secular ancient literature that has very little external verification. Yet, they will disregard any and all of the abundant extra Biblical testimony regarding Jesus of Nazareth simply because those documents record information about a person who challenges their world-view. Outlandish, outrageous and beyond the pale hardly describes their behaviour. How they can live with themselves is puzzling. How they can view themselves as logical and reasonable is puzzling.
When I’ve asked those who challenge any information about Jesus, “What criteria do you use to judge the credibility of ancient literature like the New Testament” I get a “Huh?” One atheist said that all he looks for is a single confirming account of the event in question. Of course he means unless that event is recorded in the Bible. Then any number of confirming documents are insufficient. It seems that YouTube or similar source material is the atheist’s most frequent generator of information regarding Biblical criticism.
Many people are unaware that the reliability of ancient documents is based on standard measures. Those who possess genuine skills as Historical Scholars have attested to the validity and the dependability of the New Testament documents for the following reasons:
Bibliographical test - Are the copies that we have reliable? In comparing the New Testament documents to other ancient sources, how does the New Testament stack up? Well, let’s do a comparison.
. The history of Thucydides has just eight copies dated 1,300 years after he wrote.
. Copies of Aristotle’s poetics are dated 1,400 years after the originals and only five copies exist.
. Copies of Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” are from 1,000 years after the originals and only ten copies exist.
Even though the time between the original and copies seems very long indeed, no classical scholar, or atheist for that matter, would ever conclude that the copies are not dependable because they were written over a thousand years after the original. They do however complain if a document that’s been included into the New Testament is dated 30 years later than the original. (You may roll your eyes now)
Now, remember the 30,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament that I mentioned earlier with at least one million quotations that are also in existence? Do you know what kind of time frame between copies and originals that we’re talking about? One of the world’s foremost archeologists William F. Albright has stated, “We can say emphatically that there is a solid basis for saying that EVERY book of the New Testament was completed before A.D. 50 and 75.” The majority of the New Testament documents were completed by Paul who was executed by Nero in 64AD.
- The amazingly short time frame means that the burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
. External evidence - Do other historical documents confirm what was written in the documents in question? This is one of the most critical steps in confirming New Testament documents. Not because they are more in doubt than other ancient literature but because the sceptic’s presuppositional bias causes him to doubt, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In the case of the New Testament, confirmation by Eusebius, Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Babylonion Talmud, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, and many others, as well as archeological finds provide powerful external evidence for the reliability of the New Testament documents.
- This means that the burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
. Coherence - Is the information accurate, based on what we know from other historical documents regarding culture, events, customs etc.? The New Testament writers were so obviously authors from the time and culture about which they were writing that even secular historians and archaeologists turn to the New Testament documents for confirming information regarding their own discoveries.
- This means that the burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
. Dating - Was the description of the event in question written within a short time after the event took place? Was the document written when eyewitnesses were still alive? Was the document written early enough that legend did not have a chance to develop? The answer to these questions is an overwhelming “Yes” for the New Testament documents.
- Because of this, the burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
Internal Evidence - Are the writers obviously telling the truth? Aristotle himself said, regarding literary criticism, “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.” John Warwick Montgomery states, “One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error . . .”
Of course sceptics look at miracles that are documented and say > Fraud or Error.
The New Testament in general and Jesus in particular actually takes the time to specifically address both the ancient and the modern sceptic’s concerns. First of all, in advocating their case for Jesus’ resurrection, the apostles appealed to common knowledge of those who were alive at the time. “Not only have we seen these things, but you also have seen and heard what happened in the life of Jesus.” Eyewitnesses were still alive when the New Testament documents were written and circulated.
Jesus is quoted as saying, “You don’t have to believe Me when I say that I Am God just because that’s what I tell you. But your should believe that I Am God because of what I do.”
Why would He say that? Jesus made that statement because He was doing things that were clearly outside of or contrary to the laws of physics as they/we understand them. Those people knew that a disease doesn’t respond to someone talking to it. Those people knew that water doesn’t just turn into wine at someone’s command. Those people knew beyond a shadow of doubt that normal people don’t calm a storm or forgive those who are unjustly killing them. And those people for sure knew that dead people don’t come to life again by natural means. Neither could Jesus’ detractors just toss these events aside. People were healed. The wine was real. Storms were calmed, people were forgiven, the blind were made to see, the lame were walking, people's lives were renewed and changed and Jesus was seen to be alive in ways that disallowed the idea of hallucinations or outright lies. Those are things that only God can do. Jesus was saying that He was doing these things in real space and real time and He was doing it for their benefit. And as it turns out He was doing it for our benefit as well. He did those things so that we could know that He was and is the real deal.
A man named John, who was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus describes Jesus’ manipulations of matter and energy as “signs.” They were signs that Jesus has mastery over the natural elements of our universe. That kind of manipulation and that kind of power is only possible in the Being who brought into existence the very elements and laws that govern those elements in the first place. Those demonstrations by Jesus were signs that He used to show that something from another dimension had physically and visibly entered into our dimension. Something totally “other” happened when Jesus walked the earth. In fact, the Christian faith, and the body of believers - the Church, even with all it's faults, is an ongoing evidentiary miracle in it’s own right. There would be no reason for the Christian faith to exist let alone be the driving force for virtually all we know as good for the human race if Jesus was and is not God incarnate. Because there is no evidence to suggest that the writers of the New Testament were lying,
- The burden of proof shifts to the person who is saying that these documents can’t be trusted.
These are the criteria that sceptics need to address when denying the reliability of the New Testament. In every case that I have encountered, they have failed to do so. The accounts of Jesus fulfill these criteria for historical reliability in spades. Failure to heed this evidence makes atheist sceptics appear impossibly ignorant.
Finally, it needs to be asked. If the Bible in general and the New Testament specifically is a work of fiction, who wrote this piece of fiction that changed the course of history, and then mysteriously slipped into obscurity? Who was this writer who invented the character of Jesus, a character so noble that presently 2 billion people love, cherish and worship Him?
As a former evangelist-turned-atheist Charles Templeton recently described Jesus - “He [Jesus] was the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to His own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about Him except that this was a form of greatness? Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus. He cared for the oppressed and exploited. There’s no question that He had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history.”
If this character Jesus is fictional, who is the writer who created a fictional character so powerful that at this very moment, millions would lay down their lives for Him? And how would such a gifted writer slip into obscurity with absolutely nothing being known about her / him? It doesn’t make any sense, but neither does most of what atheists say when they dip into the subject of historical theological literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)