Jesus:
1. He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God.
2. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming yet He was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with Him and the little ones nestled in His arms.
3. No one was half so kind or compassionate to sinners yet no one ever spoke such red-hot scorching words about sin…
4. His whole life was love, Yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell…
5. He saved others but at the last, Himself He did not save.
There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confront us in the Gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality."
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Is Jesus God?
Here are some facts from the life of Jesus Christ and why it's not blind faith to believe in him...
By Paul E. Little
It is impossible for us to know conclusively whether God exists and what He is like unless He takes the initiative and reveals Himself. We must know what He is like and His attitude toward us. Suppose we knew He existed, but that He was like Adolf Hitler -- capricious, vicious, prejudiced, and cruel. What a horrible realization that would be!
We must scan the horizon of history to see if there is any clue to God's revelation. There is one clear clue. In an obscure village in Palestine, almost 2,000 years ago, a Child was born in a stable. Today the entire world is still celebrating the birth of Jesus.
He lived in obscurity until He was thirty, and then began a public ministry that lasted three years. It was destined to change the course of history. He was a kindly person and we're told that "the common people heard Him gladly." And, "He taught as One who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law" (Matthew 7:29).
The Life of Jesus Christ. Is Jesus God?
It soon became apparent, however, that He was making shocking and startling statements about Himself. He began to identify Himself as far more than a remarkable teacher or prophet. He began to say clearly that He was God. He made His identity the focal point of His teaching. The all-important question He put to those who followed Him was, "Who do you say I am?" When Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:15-16), Jesus was not shocked, nor did He rebuke Peter. On the contrary, He commended him!
He made the claim explicitly, and His hearers got the full impact of His words. We are told, "The Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18).
On another occasion he said, "I and My Father are One." Immediately the Jews wanted to stone Him. He asked them for which good work they wanted to kill Him. They replied, "We are not stoning You for any of these but for blasphemy, because You, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33).
Jesus clearly claimed attributes which only God has.
When a paralyzed man was let down through the roof wanting to be healed by Him, He said, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." This caused a great to-do among the religious leaders, who said in their hearts, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
At the critical moment when His life was at stake, the high priest put the question to Him directly: "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy" (Mark 14:61-64).
So close was His connection with God that He equated a person's attitude to Himself with the person's attitude toward God. Thus, to know Him was to know God (John 8:19; 14:7). To see Him was to see God (12:45; 14:9). To believe in Him was to believe in God (12:44; 14:1). To receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37). To hate Him was to hate God (John 15:23). And to honor Him was to honor God (5:23).
Jesus Christ - Not Blind Faith
As we face the claims of Christ, there are only four possibilities. He was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or the Truth. I
f we say He is not the Truth, we are automatically affirming one of the other three alternatives, whether we realize it or not.
(1) One possibility is that Jesus lied when He said He was God -- that He knew He was not God, but deliberately deceived His hearers to lend authority to His teaching. Few, if any, seriously hold this position. Even those who deny His deity affirm that He was a great moral teacher. They fail to realize those two statements are a contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher if, on the most crucial point of His teaching -- His identity -- He was a deliberate liar.
(2) A kinder, though no less shocking possibility, is that He was sincere but self-deceived. We have a name for a person today who thinks he is God. That name is lunatic, and it certainly would apply to Christ if He were deceived on this all-important issue. But as we look at the life of Christ, we see no evidence of the abnormality and imbalance we find in a deranged person. Rather, we find the greatest composure under pressure.
(3) The third alternative is that all of the talk about His claiming to be God is a legend -- that what actually happened was that His enthusiastic followers, in the third and fourth centuries, put words into His mouth He would have been shocked to hear. Were He to return, He would immediately repudiate them.
The legend theory has been significantly refuted by many discoveries of modern archeology. These have conclusively shown that the four biographies of Christ were written within the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ. Some time ago Dr. William F. Albright, world-famous archaeologist now retired from Johns Hopkins University, said that there was no reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written later than A.D. 70. For a mere legend about Christ, in the form of the Gospel, to have gained the circulation and to have had the impact it had, without one shred of basis in fact, is incredible.
For this to have happened would be as fantastic as for someone in our own time to write a biography of the late John F. Kennedy and in it say he claimed to be God, to forgive people's sins, and to have risen from the dead. Such a story is so wild it would never get off the ground because there are still too many people around who knew Kennedy. The legend theory does not hold water in the light of the early date of the Gospel manuscripts.
(4) The only other alternative is that Jesus spoke the truth. From one point of view, however, claims don't mean much. Talk is cheap. Anyone can make claims. There have been others who have claimed to be God. I could claim to be God, and you could claim to be God, but the question all of us must answer is, "What credentials do we bring to substantiate our claim?" In my case it wouldn't take you five minutes to disprove my claim. It probably wouldn't take too much more to dispose of yours. But when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, it's not so simple. He had the credentials to back up His claim. He said, "Even though you do not believe Me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38).
Is Jesus God? Some Points to Consider
First, His moral character coincided with His claims. Many asylum inmates claim to be celebrities or deities. But their claims are belied by their characters. Not so with Christ. He is unique -- as unique as God.
Jesus Christ was sinless. The caliber of His life was such that He was able to challenge His enemies with the question, "Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?" (John 8:46). He was met by silence, even though He addressed those who would have liked to point out a flaw in His character.
We read of the temptations of Jesus, but we never hear of a confession of sin on His part. He never asked for forgiveness, though He told His followers to do so.
This lack of any sense of moral failure on Jesus' part is astonishing in view of the fact that it is completely contrary to the experience of the saints and mystics in all ages. The closer men and women draw to God, the more overwhelmed they are with their own failure, corruption, and shortcomings. The closer one is to a shining light, the more he realizes his need of a bath. This is true also, in the moral realm, for ordinary mortals.
It is also striking that John, Paul, and Peter, all of whom were trained from earliest childhood to believe in the universality of sin, all spoke of the sinlessness of Christ: "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).
Pilate, no friend of Jesus, said, "What evil has He done?" He implicitly recognized Christ's innocence. And the Roman centurion who witnessed the death of Christ said, "Surely He was the Son of God" (Matthew. 27:54).
Second, Christ demonstrated a power over natural forces which could belong only to God, the Author of these forces.
He stilled a raging storm of wind and waves on the Sea of Galilee. In doing this He provoked from those in the boat the awestruck question, "Who is this? Even the wind and waves obey Him!" (Mark 4:41) He turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people from five loaves and two fish, gave a grieving widow back her only son by raising him from the dead, and brought to life the dead daughter of a shattered father. To an old friend He said, "Lazarus, come forth!" and dramatically raised him from the dead. It is most significant that His enemies did not deny this miracle. Rather, they tried to kill Him. "If we let Him go on like this," they said, "everyone will believe in Him" (John 11:48).
Third, Jesus demonstrated the Creator's power over sickness and disease. He made the lame to walk, the dumb to speak, and the blind to see. Some of His healings were of congenital problems not susceptible to psychosomatic cure. The most outstanding was that of the blind man whose case is recorded in John 9. Though the man couldn't answer his speculative questioners, his experience was enough to convince him. "One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" he declared. He was astounded that his friends didn't recognize this Healer as the Son of God. "Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind," he said (John 9:25, 32). To him the evidence was obvious.
Fourth, Jesus' supreme credential to authenticate His claim to deity was His resurrection from the dead. Five times in the course of His life He predicted He would die. He also predicted how He would die and that three days later He would rise from the dead and appear to His disciples.
Surely this was the great test. It was a claim that was easy to verify. It either happened or it didn't.
Both friends and enemies of the Christian faith have recognized the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation stone of the faith. Paul, the great apostle, wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul rested his whole case on the bodily resurrection of Christ. Either He did or He didn't rise from the dead. If He did, it was the most sensational event in all of history.
God Does Not Ask for Blind Faith
If Christ rose, we know with certainty that God exists, what He is like, and how we may know Him in personal experience. The universe takes on meaning and purpose, and it is possible to experience the living God in contemporary life.
On the other hand, if Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity is an interesting museum piece -- nothing more. It has no objective validity or reality. Though it is a nice wishful thought, it certainly isn't worth getting steamed up about. The martyrs who went singing to the lions, and contemporary missionaries who have given their lives in Ecuador and Congo while taking this message to others, have been poor deluded fools.
The attack on Christianity by its enemies has most often concentrated on the Resurrection because it has been clearly seen that this event is the crux of the matter. A remarkable attack was the one contemplated in the early '30s by a young British lawyer. He was convinced that the Resurrection was mere fable and fantasy. Sensing that it was the foundation stone of the Christian faith, he decided to do the world a favor by once and for all exposing this fraud and superstition. As a lawyer, he felt he had the critical faculties to rigidly sift evidence and to admit nothing as evidence which did not meet the stiff criteria for admission into a law court today.
However, while Frank Morrison was doing his research, a remarkable thing happened. The case was not nearly as easy as he had supposed. As a result, the first chapter in his book, Who Moved the Stone? is entitled, "The Book That Refused to Be Written." In it he described how, as he examined the evidence, he became persuaded against his will, of the fact of the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The Death of Jesus:
Jesus' death was by public execution on a cross. The government said it was for blasphemy. Jesus said it was to pay for our sin. After being severely tortured, Jesus' wrists and feet were nailed to a cross where He hung, eventually dying of slow suffocation. A sword was thrust into His side to confirm His death.
The body of Jesus was then wrapped in linens covered with approximately 100 pounds of gummy-wet spices. His body was placed in a solid rock tomb A 1 1/2- 2 ton boulder was rolled by levers to secure the entrance. Because Jesus had publicly said He would rise from the dead in three days, a guard of trained Roman soldiers was stationed at the tomb. And an official Roman seal was affixed to the tomb entrance declaring it government property.
In spite of all this, three days later the body was gone. Only the grave linens remained, in the form of the body, but caved in. The boulder formerly sealing the tomb was found up a slope, some distance away from the tomb.
Was Jesus' Resurrection Just a Story?
The earliest explanation circulated was that the disciples stole the body! In Matthew 28:11-15, we have the record of the reaction of the chief priests and the elders when the guards gave them the infuriating and mysterious news that the body was gone. They gave the soldiers money and told them to explain that the disciples had come at night and stolen the body while they were asleep. That story was so false that Matthew didn't even bother to refute it! What judge would listen to you if you said that while you were asleep you knew it was your neighbor who came into your house and stole your television set? Who knows what goes on while he's asleep? Testimony like this would be laughed out of any court.
Furthermore, we are faced with a psychological and ethical impossibility. Stealing the body of Christ is something totally foreign to the character of the disciples and all that we know of them. It would mean that they were perpetrators of a deliberate lie which was responsible for the deception and ultimate death of thousands of people. It is inconceivable that, even if a few of the disciples had conspired and pulled off this theft, they would never have told the others.
Each of the disciples faced the test of torture and martyrdom for his statements and beliefs. Men and women will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie. If ever a man tells the truth, it is on his deathbed. And if the disciples had taken the body, and Christ was still dead, we would still have the problem of explaining His alleged appearances.
A second hypothesis is that the authorities, Jewish or Roman, moved the body! But why? Having put guards at the tomb, what would be their reason for moving the body? Also, what about the silence of the authorities in the face of the apostles' bold preaching about the Resurrection in Jerusalem? The ecclesiastical leaders were seething with rage, and did everything possible to prevent the spread of this message that Jesus rose from the dead. They arrested Peter and John and beat and threatened them, in an attempt to close their mouths.
But there was a very simple solution to their problem. If they had Christ's body, they could have paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem. In one fell swoop they would have successfully smothered Christianity in its cradle. That they did not do this bears eloquent testimony to the fact that they did not have the body.
Another popular theory has been that the women, distraught and overcome by grief, missed their way in the dimness of the morning and went to the wrong tomb. In their distress they imagined Christ had risen because the tomb was empty. This theory, however, falls before the same fact that destroys the previous one. If the women went to the wrong tomb, why did the high priests and other enemies of the faith not go to the right tomb and produce the body?
Further, it is inconceivable that Peter and John would succumb to the same mistake, and certainly Joseph of Arimathea, owner of the tomb, would have solved the problem. In addition, it must be remembered that this was a private burial ground, not a public cemetery. There was no other tomb nearby that would have allowed them to make this mistake.
The swoon theory has also been advanced to explain the empty tomb. In this view, Christ did not actually die. He was mistakenly reported to be dead, but had swooned from exhaustion, pain, and loss of blood. When He was laid in the coolness of the tomb, He revived. He came out of the tomb and appeared to His disciples, who mistakenly thought He had risen from the dead.
This is a theory of modern construction. It first appeared at the end of the eighteenth century. It is significant that not a suggestion of this kind has come down from antiquity among all the violent attacks which have been made on Christianity. All of the earliest records are emphatic about Jesus' death.
But let us assume for a moment that Christ was buried alive and swooned. Is it possible to believe that He would have survived three days in a damp tomb without food or water or attention of any kind? Would He have had the strength to extricate Himself from the graveclothes, push the heavy stone away from the mouth of the grave, overcome the Roman guards, and walk miles on feet that had been pierced with spikes? Such a belief is more fantastic than the simple fact of the Resurrection itself.
Even the German critic David Strauss, who by no means believes in the Resurrection, rejected this idea as incredible. He said:
It is impossible that One who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in the need of medical treatment, of bandaging, strengthening, and tender care, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given the disciples the impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave; that He was the Prince of Life.
Finally, if this theory is correct, Christ Himself was involved in flagrant lies. His disciples believed and preached that He was dead but came alive again. Jesus did nothing to dispel this belief, but rather encouraged it.
The only theory that adequately explains the empty tomb is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Instead of Blind Faith, the Ability to Know God
If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, proving He is God, He is alive today. He is willing to be more than worshiped. He is willing to be known and to come into our lives. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him" (Revelation 3:20).
The late Carl Gustav Jung said, "The central neurosis of our time is emptiness." All of us have a deep longing for our life to have meaning and depth. Jesus offers us a more meaningful, abundant life, which comes through a relationship with Him. Jesus said, "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10).
Because Jesus died on the cross, taking with Him all of humankind's sin, He now offers us forgiveness, acceptance and a genuine relationship with Him.
Right now you can invite Jesus Christ into your life. You could say to Him something like, "Jesus, thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I ask You to forgive me and to come into my life right now. Thank You for giving me a relationship with You."
By Paul E. Little
It is impossible for us to know conclusively whether God exists and what He is like unless He takes the initiative and reveals Himself. We must know what He is like and His attitude toward us. Suppose we knew He existed, but that He was like Adolf Hitler -- capricious, vicious, prejudiced, and cruel. What a horrible realization that would be!
We must scan the horizon of history to see if there is any clue to God's revelation. There is one clear clue. In an obscure village in Palestine, almost 2,000 years ago, a Child was born in a stable. Today the entire world is still celebrating the birth of Jesus.
He lived in obscurity until He was thirty, and then began a public ministry that lasted three years. It was destined to change the course of history. He was a kindly person and we're told that "the common people heard Him gladly." And, "He taught as One who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law" (Matthew 7:29).
The Life of Jesus Christ. Is Jesus God?
It soon became apparent, however, that He was making shocking and startling statements about Himself. He began to identify Himself as far more than a remarkable teacher or prophet. He began to say clearly that He was God. He made His identity the focal point of His teaching. The all-important question He put to those who followed Him was, "Who do you say I am?" When Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:15-16), Jesus was not shocked, nor did He rebuke Peter. On the contrary, He commended him!
He made the claim explicitly, and His hearers got the full impact of His words. We are told, "The Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18).
On another occasion he said, "I and My Father are One." Immediately the Jews wanted to stone Him. He asked them for which good work they wanted to kill Him. They replied, "We are not stoning You for any of these but for blasphemy, because You, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33).
Jesus clearly claimed attributes which only God has.
When a paralyzed man was let down through the roof wanting to be healed by Him, He said, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." This caused a great to-do among the religious leaders, who said in their hearts, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
At the critical moment when His life was at stake, the high priest put the question to Him directly: "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy" (Mark 14:61-64).
So close was His connection with God that He equated a person's attitude to Himself with the person's attitude toward God. Thus, to know Him was to know God (John 8:19; 14:7). To see Him was to see God (12:45; 14:9). To believe in Him was to believe in God (12:44; 14:1). To receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37). To hate Him was to hate God (John 15:23). And to honor Him was to honor God (5:23).
Jesus Christ - Not Blind Faith
As we face the claims of Christ, there are only four possibilities. He was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or the Truth. I
f we say He is not the Truth, we are automatically affirming one of the other three alternatives, whether we realize it or not.
(1) One possibility is that Jesus lied when He said He was God -- that He knew He was not God, but deliberately deceived His hearers to lend authority to His teaching. Few, if any, seriously hold this position. Even those who deny His deity affirm that He was a great moral teacher. They fail to realize those two statements are a contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher if, on the most crucial point of His teaching -- His identity -- He was a deliberate liar.
(2) A kinder, though no less shocking possibility, is that He was sincere but self-deceived. We have a name for a person today who thinks he is God. That name is lunatic, and it certainly would apply to Christ if He were deceived on this all-important issue. But as we look at the life of Christ, we see no evidence of the abnormality and imbalance we find in a deranged person. Rather, we find the greatest composure under pressure.
(3) The third alternative is that all of the talk about His claiming to be God is a legend -- that what actually happened was that His enthusiastic followers, in the third and fourth centuries, put words into His mouth He would have been shocked to hear. Were He to return, He would immediately repudiate them.
The legend theory has been significantly refuted by many discoveries of modern archeology. These have conclusively shown that the four biographies of Christ were written within the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ. Some time ago Dr. William F. Albright, world-famous archaeologist now retired from Johns Hopkins University, said that there was no reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written later than A.D. 70. For a mere legend about Christ, in the form of the Gospel, to have gained the circulation and to have had the impact it had, without one shred of basis in fact, is incredible.
For this to have happened would be as fantastic as for someone in our own time to write a biography of the late John F. Kennedy and in it say he claimed to be God, to forgive people's sins, and to have risen from the dead. Such a story is so wild it would never get off the ground because there are still too many people around who knew Kennedy. The legend theory does not hold water in the light of the early date of the Gospel manuscripts.
(4) The only other alternative is that Jesus spoke the truth. From one point of view, however, claims don't mean much. Talk is cheap. Anyone can make claims. There have been others who have claimed to be God. I could claim to be God, and you could claim to be God, but the question all of us must answer is, "What credentials do we bring to substantiate our claim?" In my case it wouldn't take you five minutes to disprove my claim. It probably wouldn't take too much more to dispose of yours. But when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, it's not so simple. He had the credentials to back up His claim. He said, "Even though you do not believe Me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38).
Is Jesus God? Some Points to Consider
First, His moral character coincided with His claims. Many asylum inmates claim to be celebrities or deities. But their claims are belied by their characters. Not so with Christ. He is unique -- as unique as God.
Jesus Christ was sinless. The caliber of His life was such that He was able to challenge His enemies with the question, "Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?" (John 8:46). He was met by silence, even though He addressed those who would have liked to point out a flaw in His character.
We read of the temptations of Jesus, but we never hear of a confession of sin on His part. He never asked for forgiveness, though He told His followers to do so.
This lack of any sense of moral failure on Jesus' part is astonishing in view of the fact that it is completely contrary to the experience of the saints and mystics in all ages. The closer men and women draw to God, the more overwhelmed they are with their own failure, corruption, and shortcomings. The closer one is to a shining light, the more he realizes his need of a bath. This is true also, in the moral realm, for ordinary mortals.
It is also striking that John, Paul, and Peter, all of whom were trained from earliest childhood to believe in the universality of sin, all spoke of the sinlessness of Christ: "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).
Pilate, no friend of Jesus, said, "What evil has He done?" He implicitly recognized Christ's innocence. And the Roman centurion who witnessed the death of Christ said, "Surely He was the Son of God" (Matthew. 27:54).
Second, Christ demonstrated a power over natural forces which could belong only to God, the Author of these forces.
He stilled a raging storm of wind and waves on the Sea of Galilee. In doing this He provoked from those in the boat the awestruck question, "Who is this? Even the wind and waves obey Him!" (Mark 4:41) He turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people from five loaves and two fish, gave a grieving widow back her only son by raising him from the dead, and brought to life the dead daughter of a shattered father. To an old friend He said, "Lazarus, come forth!" and dramatically raised him from the dead. It is most significant that His enemies did not deny this miracle. Rather, they tried to kill Him. "If we let Him go on like this," they said, "everyone will believe in Him" (John 11:48).
Third, Jesus demonstrated the Creator's power over sickness and disease. He made the lame to walk, the dumb to speak, and the blind to see. Some of His healings were of congenital problems not susceptible to psychosomatic cure. The most outstanding was that of the blind man whose case is recorded in John 9. Though the man couldn't answer his speculative questioners, his experience was enough to convince him. "One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" he declared. He was astounded that his friends didn't recognize this Healer as the Son of God. "Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind," he said (John 9:25, 32). To him the evidence was obvious.
Fourth, Jesus' supreme credential to authenticate His claim to deity was His resurrection from the dead. Five times in the course of His life He predicted He would die. He also predicted how He would die and that three days later He would rise from the dead and appear to His disciples.
Surely this was the great test. It was a claim that was easy to verify. It either happened or it didn't.
Both friends and enemies of the Christian faith have recognized the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation stone of the faith. Paul, the great apostle, wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul rested his whole case on the bodily resurrection of Christ. Either He did or He didn't rise from the dead. If He did, it was the most sensational event in all of history.
God Does Not Ask for Blind Faith
If Christ rose, we know with certainty that God exists, what He is like, and how we may know Him in personal experience. The universe takes on meaning and purpose, and it is possible to experience the living God in contemporary life.
On the other hand, if Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity is an interesting museum piece -- nothing more. It has no objective validity or reality. Though it is a nice wishful thought, it certainly isn't worth getting steamed up about. The martyrs who went singing to the lions, and contemporary missionaries who have given their lives in Ecuador and Congo while taking this message to others, have been poor deluded fools.
The attack on Christianity by its enemies has most often concentrated on the Resurrection because it has been clearly seen that this event is the crux of the matter. A remarkable attack was the one contemplated in the early '30s by a young British lawyer. He was convinced that the Resurrection was mere fable and fantasy. Sensing that it was the foundation stone of the Christian faith, he decided to do the world a favor by once and for all exposing this fraud and superstition. As a lawyer, he felt he had the critical faculties to rigidly sift evidence and to admit nothing as evidence which did not meet the stiff criteria for admission into a law court today.
However, while Frank Morrison was doing his research, a remarkable thing happened. The case was not nearly as easy as he had supposed. As a result, the first chapter in his book, Who Moved the Stone? is entitled, "The Book That Refused to Be Written." In it he described how, as he examined the evidence, he became persuaded against his will, of the fact of the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The Death of Jesus:
Jesus' death was by public execution on a cross. The government said it was for blasphemy. Jesus said it was to pay for our sin. After being severely tortured, Jesus' wrists and feet were nailed to a cross where He hung, eventually dying of slow suffocation. A sword was thrust into His side to confirm His death.
The body of Jesus was then wrapped in linens covered with approximately 100 pounds of gummy-wet spices. His body was placed in a solid rock tomb A 1 1/2- 2 ton boulder was rolled by levers to secure the entrance. Because Jesus had publicly said He would rise from the dead in three days, a guard of trained Roman soldiers was stationed at the tomb. And an official Roman seal was affixed to the tomb entrance declaring it government property.
In spite of all this, three days later the body was gone. Only the grave linens remained, in the form of the body, but caved in. The boulder formerly sealing the tomb was found up a slope, some distance away from the tomb.
Was Jesus' Resurrection Just a Story?
The earliest explanation circulated was that the disciples stole the body! In Matthew 28:11-15, we have the record of the reaction of the chief priests and the elders when the guards gave them the infuriating and mysterious news that the body was gone. They gave the soldiers money and told them to explain that the disciples had come at night and stolen the body while they were asleep. That story was so false that Matthew didn't even bother to refute it! What judge would listen to you if you said that while you were asleep you knew it was your neighbor who came into your house and stole your television set? Who knows what goes on while he's asleep? Testimony like this would be laughed out of any court.
Furthermore, we are faced with a psychological and ethical impossibility. Stealing the body of Christ is something totally foreign to the character of the disciples and all that we know of them. It would mean that they were perpetrators of a deliberate lie which was responsible for the deception and ultimate death of thousands of people. It is inconceivable that, even if a few of the disciples had conspired and pulled off this theft, they would never have told the others.
Each of the disciples faced the test of torture and martyrdom for his statements and beliefs. Men and women will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie. If ever a man tells the truth, it is on his deathbed. And if the disciples had taken the body, and Christ was still dead, we would still have the problem of explaining His alleged appearances.
A second hypothesis is that the authorities, Jewish or Roman, moved the body! But why? Having put guards at the tomb, what would be their reason for moving the body? Also, what about the silence of the authorities in the face of the apostles' bold preaching about the Resurrection in Jerusalem? The ecclesiastical leaders were seething with rage, and did everything possible to prevent the spread of this message that Jesus rose from the dead. They arrested Peter and John and beat and threatened them, in an attempt to close their mouths.
But there was a very simple solution to their problem. If they had Christ's body, they could have paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem. In one fell swoop they would have successfully smothered Christianity in its cradle. That they did not do this bears eloquent testimony to the fact that they did not have the body.
Another popular theory has been that the women, distraught and overcome by grief, missed their way in the dimness of the morning and went to the wrong tomb. In their distress they imagined Christ had risen because the tomb was empty. This theory, however, falls before the same fact that destroys the previous one. If the women went to the wrong tomb, why did the high priests and other enemies of the faith not go to the right tomb and produce the body?
Further, it is inconceivable that Peter and John would succumb to the same mistake, and certainly Joseph of Arimathea, owner of the tomb, would have solved the problem. In addition, it must be remembered that this was a private burial ground, not a public cemetery. There was no other tomb nearby that would have allowed them to make this mistake.
The swoon theory has also been advanced to explain the empty tomb. In this view, Christ did not actually die. He was mistakenly reported to be dead, but had swooned from exhaustion, pain, and loss of blood. When He was laid in the coolness of the tomb, He revived. He came out of the tomb and appeared to His disciples, who mistakenly thought He had risen from the dead.
This is a theory of modern construction. It first appeared at the end of the eighteenth century. It is significant that not a suggestion of this kind has come down from antiquity among all the violent attacks which have been made on Christianity. All of the earliest records are emphatic about Jesus' death.
But let us assume for a moment that Christ was buried alive and swooned. Is it possible to believe that He would have survived three days in a damp tomb without food or water or attention of any kind? Would He have had the strength to extricate Himself from the graveclothes, push the heavy stone away from the mouth of the grave, overcome the Roman guards, and walk miles on feet that had been pierced with spikes? Such a belief is more fantastic than the simple fact of the Resurrection itself.
Even the German critic David Strauss, who by no means believes in the Resurrection, rejected this idea as incredible. He said:
It is impossible that One who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in the need of medical treatment, of bandaging, strengthening, and tender care, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given the disciples the impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave; that He was the Prince of Life.
Finally, if this theory is correct, Christ Himself was involved in flagrant lies. His disciples believed and preached that He was dead but came alive again. Jesus did nothing to dispel this belief, but rather encouraged it.
The only theory that adequately explains the empty tomb is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Instead of Blind Faith, the Ability to Know God
If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, proving He is God, He is alive today. He is willing to be more than worshiped. He is willing to be known and to come into our lives. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him" (Revelation 3:20).
The late Carl Gustav Jung said, "The central neurosis of our time is emptiness." All of us have a deep longing for our life to have meaning and depth. Jesus offers us a more meaningful, abundant life, which comes through a relationship with Him. Jesus said, "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10).
Because Jesus died on the cross, taking with Him all of humankind's sin, He now offers us forgiveness, acceptance and a genuine relationship with Him.
Right now you can invite Jesus Christ into your life. You could say to Him something like, "Jesus, thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I ask You to forgive me and to come into my life right now. Thank You for giving me a relationship with You."
Friday, August 29, 2008
Soon we will all become extinct...
Do you know anything about your great grandfather's father?
I must say, I don't know anything about my grand father's father, I don’t even know his name, all I know is that I exist because he existed and had children.
It is interesting that in 4 generations, no one will know you existed - we will all be extinct.
Think about it, there is nothing I can do on this earth that will last for eternity, I can get 50000 people to help me build a pyramid for 200 years, but guess what, eventually it will all deteriorate, as most of them already have and soon they will all be a heap of sand.
There is nothing I can do that will last for eternity except for save souls for Jesus.
Its quite awesome how the lord seemingly wants to use humans to reach others and to save then from the everlasting fire, look at when the angel appeared to Cornelius, the angel told him to invite peter to come and speak in his house, note that the angel did not say a word to him regarding Christ Jesus, but it had to be done by Peter and when Peter was telling them all about what Jesus did, the holy spirit fell on them and many believed.
I mean the angel could just have told him all things and he would have believed, instead it had to be done by humans. For some strange reason the lord chooses to use humans to further his kingdom and to save souls..
Praise the LORD I’m ready to step up to the plate!!!
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Speaking by God's Spirit
1 Corinthians 12:3 ..For this reason I want you to be aware that no one who is speaking by God's Spirit can say, "Jesus is cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
No one who is speaking by God's spirit can say Jesus is cursed, so by what spirit can we say this then?..If it is not by God it has to be by the devil.
If Jesus was not the son of God, he would have been working with the devil.. mmm then why would the devil tempt Jesus by saying "I will give you all these things if you will bow down and worship me!" (Matthew 4:9). Why would the devil tempt Jesus if Jesus was working with him, Jesus did not do anything without giving glory to his father (the God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, Moses….) therefore the miracles that Jesus did could not have been by the devil’s power since Jesus gave all the glory to the almighty "I AM" and the devil wants to diminish God more than anything.
Jesus was tempted in every possible way since the devil did everything in his power to prevent Jesus from saving God’s children from the hold that he had over us:
• Luke 4:1: Then Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River. He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness where he was being tempted by the devil for 40 days.
• Matthew 4:1: After this, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
• Hebrews 4:15: For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses. Instead, we have one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet he never sinned.
James 1:13: When someone is tempted, he should not say, "I am being tempted by God," because God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.
Jesus was tempted by the devil in the same way as we are tempted everyday…therefore when you have a thought in your head questioning the glory, beauty, grace and love of the almighty Jesus Christ, know that that thought did not come to you by the holy spirit but by the devil and you should give it no more thought and rebuke it in the name of Jesus….
If there is one thing that I want to surface from this message this morning is that the devil wants to rob us of every piece of glory that God has planned for us, and devil tempts us to doubt all the promises God has made for us (remember that God promised to send one who will Justify us and make us Righteous before God - Jesus came and fulfilled the promise), therefore when we are tempted to believe the devils lies, see who it is coming from, submit to Jesus, and he will fight the battle for us.
The Devil failed in tempting Jesus, the devil is failing in tempting me, and the devil is failing more and more in each of your lives and in the world … GLORY TO JESUS!!, with His help we will have victory over the Devil and spend eternity with our father :-)
May the Lord help us to break away from the traditions and things that have been passed on to us by our fathers and start walking in the things that our true heavenly farther have passed on to us - Follow Jesus and don't look to the left or to the right...
GLORY!!!!
FIRE!!!!!!
No one who is speaking by God's spirit can say Jesus is cursed, so by what spirit can we say this then?..If it is not by God it has to be by the devil.
If Jesus was not the son of God, he would have been working with the devil.. mmm then why would the devil tempt Jesus by saying "I will give you all these things if you will bow down and worship me!" (Matthew 4:9). Why would the devil tempt Jesus if Jesus was working with him, Jesus did not do anything without giving glory to his father (the God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, Moses….) therefore the miracles that Jesus did could not have been by the devil’s power since Jesus gave all the glory to the almighty "I AM" and the devil wants to diminish God more than anything.
Jesus was tempted in every possible way since the devil did everything in his power to prevent Jesus from saving God’s children from the hold that he had over us:
• Luke 4:1: Then Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River. He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness where he was being tempted by the devil for 40 days.
• Matthew 4:1: After this, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
• Hebrews 4:15: For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses. Instead, we have one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet he never sinned.
James 1:13: When someone is tempted, he should not say, "I am being tempted by God," because God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.
Jesus was tempted by the devil in the same way as we are tempted everyday…therefore when you have a thought in your head questioning the glory, beauty, grace and love of the almighty Jesus Christ, know that that thought did not come to you by the holy spirit but by the devil and you should give it no more thought and rebuke it in the name of Jesus….
If there is one thing that I want to surface from this message this morning is that the devil wants to rob us of every piece of glory that God has planned for us, and devil tempts us to doubt all the promises God has made for us (remember that God promised to send one who will Justify us and make us Righteous before God - Jesus came and fulfilled the promise), therefore when we are tempted to believe the devils lies, see who it is coming from, submit to Jesus, and he will fight the battle for us.
The Devil failed in tempting Jesus, the devil is failing in tempting me, and the devil is failing more and more in each of your lives and in the world … GLORY TO JESUS!!, with His help we will have victory over the Devil and spend eternity with our father :-)
May the Lord help us to break away from the traditions and things that have been passed on to us by our fathers and start walking in the things that our true heavenly farther have passed on to us - Follow Jesus and don't look to the left or to the right...
GLORY!!!!
FIRE!!!!!!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Jesus' Resurrection
Resurrection:
No doubt the most famous aspect of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is His resurrection from the dead. In His resurrection, Jesus stands apart from all the gods and goddess that mankind in its futility has conjured up. Far from being merely something that others have claimed about Him, Jesus of Nazareth predicted and accomplished His own resurrection from the dead.( Matthew 16:21; 20:17-19; Mark 8:31; 9:31; John 2:19; 10:17-18 ). In our claim that Jesus rose from the dead, we as Christians are not merely speaking metaphorically. By resurrection, we do not mean that Jesus rose "spiritually", nor merely that the memory of Jesus lives on in the hearts of His followers or in the continuance of His cause. Nor are we merely acknowledging His influence upon history. The doctrine of the resurrection proclaims that the literal, physical body of Jesus came back to life. But is it not a mere resuscitation. His body was raised glorified, albeit still physical.
Many have claimed that the Christian doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead is too fantastic to be true. Interestingly, the resurrection of Jesus has led people to conversion when they have sought to analyze it historically.[22] The accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament has been subjected to rigorous historical analysis more than probably any other aspect of the Bible. What exactly, then, have these historical analyses revealed about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? A careful examination shows that the conclusion that Jesus rose bodily from the dead is the best explanation for the evidence surrounding two substantiated facts from history: Jesus died and His tomb was found empty. In our next newsletter, I take up the task of showing why a resurrection from the dead is the only tenable explanation for these two facts. His Resurrection
Introduction
In our last newsletter, I began the task of examining the historical evidence surrounding Jesus of Nazareth in order to argue that it is reasonable to believe that Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be. My examination looked at the famous Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument and the Sages argument. In this issue, I want to examine the evidence surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. By way of introduction to the topic of Jesus' resurrection, let me repeat my preliminary remarks from last month and move into the specific details in support of the conclusion that a resurrection from the dead is the only tenable explanation for these two substantiated facts from history: Jesus died and His tomb was found empty.
The Resurrection
No doubt the most famous aspect of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is His resurrection from the dead. In His resurrection, Jesus stands apart from all the gods and goddesses that mankind in its futility has conjured up.[1] Far from being merely something that others have claimed about Him, Jesus of Nazareth predicted and accomplished His own resurrection from the dead.[2] In our claim that Jesus rose from the dead, we as Christians are not merely speaking metaphorically. By resurrection, we do not mean that Jesus rose "spiritually", nor merely that the memory of Jesus lives on in the hearts of His followers or in the continuance of His cause. Nor are we merely acknowledging His influence upon history. The doctrine of the resurrection proclaims that the literal, physical body of Jesus came back to life. But it is not a mere resuscitation. His body was raised glorified, albeit still physical.[3]
Many have claimed that the Christian doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead is too fantastic to be true.[4] Interestingly, it is the resurrection of Jesus, more than virtually any other event in the Bible, that has led people to conversion when they have sought to analyze it historically.[5] The accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament have been subjected to rigorous historical analysis more than probably any other aspect of the Bible. What exactly, then, have these historical analyses revealed about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus?
Jesus Died:
The first important point of evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the fact that He really died. The infamous "swoon theory", the claim that Jesus did not die but merely swooned it, is at odds with the evidence. Given the nature of crucifixion, there can be no doubt that Jesus died as a result of all that happened to Him. An article from the Journal of the American Medical Association explains in medical detail what takes place when one is crucified.[6] The crucifixion of Jesus included a flogging, followed by being nailed through the wrists and feet.[7]
According to the article, a number of things were contributing factors to Jesus' death. Without listing the intense details, let their concluding words suffice.
Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiorespiratory failure. However, the important feature may be not how he died but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumptions that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.[8]
According to the historical evidence, Jesus' side was pierced with a sword,[9] Pilate made sure that Jesus was dead,[10] His body was anointed with one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes,[11] and placed in a tomb hewn out of rock and sealed with a large stone.[12] In addition, a guard was placed at the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body.[13] Thus, it is indisputable that Jesus of Nazareth indeed died.
His Tomb Was Found Empty:
The second important point of evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the fact that His tomb was found empty. The crux of our argument for the resurrection lies in the fact that no better explanation for the empty tomb exists than a resurrection from the dead. Thus, I will try to answer the objections against our position by showing why no other explanation for the empty tomb is satisfactory.
Objection One: Was the tomb really empty?
Obviously, the first objection that can be made is to simply deny that the tomb was found empty. Besides the substantiated historical testimony that indeed the tomb was empty, those who would suggest that Jesus' body remained in the tomb are hard pressed to explain two things. First, even the enemies of the Christians never disputed their claim that the tomb was found empty. All they tried to do was explain why it was empty.[14]
Second, if Jesus'body remained in the tomb then why did the enemies of the Christians not produce the body, since they were all too happy to be able to dispel the claims that Jesus had risen from the dead. If the Christians were going around proclaiming Jesus' resurrection from the dead then all the enemies had to do was to direct everyone's attention to the tomb where His body lay.
Objection Two: Could the body have been stolen?
A second objection that attempts to explain the empty tomb is that the body was stolen. There were only three groups who could have stolen the body; the disciples, the Jews, or the Romans. I suggest that it is untenable that any of these could or would have stolen the body. The historical evidence indicates that the disciples had all fled at Jesus' arrest.[15] Being in fear of arrest themselves, it is unlikely that they would have risked stealing Jesus' body. In addition, the disciples could not have gotten past the guard that had been set up to watch the tomb. Lastly, it is clear from what followed in next few years that the disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Even if one wanted to deny the reality of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, there can be no doubt that Jesus' disciples affirmed it, even to the point of death. Thus, since the disciples most certainly believed that Jesus had risen from the dead then it is impossible that they were the one who could have stolen the body.
It is equally untenable that the Jews could have stolen the body. First, the Jews never disputed the empty tomb, but merely sought to explain it in some other way than a resurrection. Second, if the Jews had stolen the body, then it would have been easy to prove that Jesus had not risen from the dead by simply producing the body for the public. The Jews had a vested interest in disproving the resurrection, but were not able to do so since they did not know where the body was.
The only other group that could have stolen the body is the Romans. However, it is also untenable that the Romans stole the body for similar reasons as the Jews. The Romans likewise had a vested interested in quelling the "rumors" that Jesus had risen from the dead. It was their commitment to Jesus' resurrection which bound the Christians together as a movement, presenting itself, at least in the eyes of the Roman empire, as a social threat to Rome's authority. Thus, the Romans would have most certainly produced the body publicly to prove that Jesus had not risen from the dead. Since there is not a likely candidate to blame for a stolen body, then it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus' tomb was found empty because the body was stolen.
Objection Three: Could the body have just disappeared?
There may be some who would suggest that the empty tomb is unexplainable because the body of Jesus simply disappeared for reasons unknown. It must be pointed out, however, that this is not so much an objection to our claim that Jesus rose from the dead as it is a failure to respond at all. In addition, this pseudoexplanation is untenable for other reasons that we will see in a moment. For others, the claim that Jesus' body disappeared might be explained as a dematerialization. It may sound on the surface as an ad hoc explanation[16] for the missing tomb, but the notion that the body of Jesus simply dematerialized is a legitimate suggestion in certain circles, particularly among occultists and New Agers.
Could it be that the disciples were deceived into believing that they had seen Jesus? Perhaps someone perpetrated a hoax on the disciples, or perhaps the disciples were hallucinating. It does not seem plausible, however, that anyone could have perpetrated a hoax on the disciples. Who could have done this and why? We have already seen that both the Jews and the Romans had a vested interest in quelling the resurrection rumors. No one could or would have taken the body out of the tomb. To insist upon such conjecture in order to avoid the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead seems increasingly ad hoc.
Neither does it seem plausible that the disciples were hallucinating. They could not have been deceived into thinking they had seen Jesus alive if His body was still dead in its tomb, which it must have been if He had not risen. Additionally, too many all at once saw Jesus alive.[21] Also, not only did the disciples claim to see Jesus, but they claimed to touch Him and eat with Him as well.[22] Thus, it seems impossible that the disciples were either lying or deceived, either by hoax or hallucination, in their claims to see Jesus alive after His death.
Though it might be possible for an Ascended Master to "manifest" to mere physical mortals, it would never be the case that the Ascended Master would allow those to whom he appeared to wrongfully believe that he was a physical entity resurrected from the dead. The whole point of an Ascended Master appearing would be to reassure those who had not yet ascended and to instruct them how to ascend themselves by mastering the mystical and occult techniques that lead to his own ascension. The disciples, however, most certainly believed that Jesus was exactly what Jesus wanted them to believe He was, i.e., a physically resurrected person.
Conclusion:
An examination of the evidence surrounding the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth brings us to this conclusion. Since Jesus really died and was buried, and the tomb was found empty and the body could not have been stolen and it could not have disappeared (since the disciples saw Jesus after His death and could not have been lying, nor have been deceived by a hoax or an hallucination, nor have been seeing a "ghost" or an Ascended Master), then the best explanation for the empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus was that He really rose from the dead. There are no historical reasons for rejecting this conclusion. There can only be philosophical objections. But if God exists and miracles are possible, then it is most reasonable to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead, just as He said He would. Thus, since Jesus predicted and accomplished His own resurrection from the dead, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus was indeed who He claimed to be, viz., God incarnate.
No doubt the most famous aspect of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is His resurrection from the dead. In His resurrection, Jesus stands apart from all the gods and goddess that mankind in its futility has conjured up. Far from being merely something that others have claimed about Him, Jesus of Nazareth predicted and accomplished His own resurrection from the dead.( Matthew 16:21; 20:17-19; Mark 8:31; 9:31; John 2:19; 10:17-18 ). In our claim that Jesus rose from the dead, we as Christians are not merely speaking metaphorically. By resurrection, we do not mean that Jesus rose "spiritually", nor merely that the memory of Jesus lives on in the hearts of His followers or in the continuance of His cause. Nor are we merely acknowledging His influence upon history. The doctrine of the resurrection proclaims that the literal, physical body of Jesus came back to life. But is it not a mere resuscitation. His body was raised glorified, albeit still physical.
Many have claimed that the Christian doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead is too fantastic to be true. Interestingly, the resurrection of Jesus has led people to conversion when they have sought to analyze it historically.[22] The accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament has been subjected to rigorous historical analysis more than probably any other aspect of the Bible. What exactly, then, have these historical analyses revealed about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? A careful examination shows that the conclusion that Jesus rose bodily from the dead is the best explanation for the evidence surrounding two substantiated facts from history: Jesus died and His tomb was found empty. In our next newsletter, I take up the task of showing why a resurrection from the dead is the only tenable explanation for these two facts. His Resurrection
Introduction
In our last newsletter, I began the task of examining the historical evidence surrounding Jesus of Nazareth in order to argue that it is reasonable to believe that Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be. My examination looked at the famous Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument and the Sages argument. In this issue, I want to examine the evidence surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. By way of introduction to the topic of Jesus' resurrection, let me repeat my preliminary remarks from last month and move into the specific details in support of the conclusion that a resurrection from the dead is the only tenable explanation for these two substantiated facts from history: Jesus died and His tomb was found empty.
The Resurrection
No doubt the most famous aspect of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is His resurrection from the dead. In His resurrection, Jesus stands apart from all the gods and goddesses that mankind in its futility has conjured up.[1] Far from being merely something that others have claimed about Him, Jesus of Nazareth predicted and accomplished His own resurrection from the dead.[2] In our claim that Jesus rose from the dead, we as Christians are not merely speaking metaphorically. By resurrection, we do not mean that Jesus rose "spiritually", nor merely that the memory of Jesus lives on in the hearts of His followers or in the continuance of His cause. Nor are we merely acknowledging His influence upon history. The doctrine of the resurrection proclaims that the literal, physical body of Jesus came back to life. But it is not a mere resuscitation. His body was raised glorified, albeit still physical.[3]
Many have claimed that the Christian doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead is too fantastic to be true.[4] Interestingly, it is the resurrection of Jesus, more than virtually any other event in the Bible, that has led people to conversion when they have sought to analyze it historically.[5] The accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament have been subjected to rigorous historical analysis more than probably any other aspect of the Bible. What exactly, then, have these historical analyses revealed about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus?
Jesus Died:
The first important point of evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the fact that He really died. The infamous "swoon theory", the claim that Jesus did not die but merely swooned it, is at odds with the evidence. Given the nature of crucifixion, there can be no doubt that Jesus died as a result of all that happened to Him. An article from the Journal of the American Medical Association explains in medical detail what takes place when one is crucified.[6] The crucifixion of Jesus included a flogging, followed by being nailed through the wrists and feet.[7]
According to the article, a number of things were contributing factors to Jesus' death. Without listing the intense details, let their concluding words suffice.
Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiorespiratory failure. However, the important feature may be not how he died but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumptions that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.[8]
According to the historical evidence, Jesus' side was pierced with a sword,[9] Pilate made sure that Jesus was dead,[10] His body was anointed with one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes,[11] and placed in a tomb hewn out of rock and sealed with a large stone.[12] In addition, a guard was placed at the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body.[13] Thus, it is indisputable that Jesus of Nazareth indeed died.
His Tomb Was Found Empty:
The second important point of evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the fact that His tomb was found empty. The crux of our argument for the resurrection lies in the fact that no better explanation for the empty tomb exists than a resurrection from the dead. Thus, I will try to answer the objections against our position by showing why no other explanation for the empty tomb is satisfactory.
Objection One: Was the tomb really empty?
Obviously, the first objection that can be made is to simply deny that the tomb was found empty. Besides the substantiated historical testimony that indeed the tomb was empty, those who would suggest that Jesus' body remained in the tomb are hard pressed to explain two things. First, even the enemies of the Christians never disputed their claim that the tomb was found empty. All they tried to do was explain why it was empty.[14]
Second, if Jesus'body remained in the tomb then why did the enemies of the Christians not produce the body, since they were all too happy to be able to dispel the claims that Jesus had risen from the dead. If the Christians were going around proclaiming Jesus' resurrection from the dead then all the enemies had to do was to direct everyone's attention to the tomb where His body lay.
Objection Two: Could the body have been stolen?
A second objection that attempts to explain the empty tomb is that the body was stolen. There were only three groups who could have stolen the body; the disciples, the Jews, or the Romans. I suggest that it is untenable that any of these could or would have stolen the body. The historical evidence indicates that the disciples had all fled at Jesus' arrest.[15] Being in fear of arrest themselves, it is unlikely that they would have risked stealing Jesus' body. In addition, the disciples could not have gotten past the guard that had been set up to watch the tomb. Lastly, it is clear from what followed in next few years that the disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Even if one wanted to deny the reality of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, there can be no doubt that Jesus' disciples affirmed it, even to the point of death. Thus, since the disciples most certainly believed that Jesus had risen from the dead then it is impossible that they were the one who could have stolen the body.
It is equally untenable that the Jews could have stolen the body. First, the Jews never disputed the empty tomb, but merely sought to explain it in some other way than a resurrection. Second, if the Jews had stolen the body, then it would have been easy to prove that Jesus had not risen from the dead by simply producing the body for the public. The Jews had a vested interest in disproving the resurrection, but were not able to do so since they did not know where the body was.
The only other group that could have stolen the body is the Romans. However, it is also untenable that the Romans stole the body for similar reasons as the Jews. The Romans likewise had a vested interested in quelling the "rumors" that Jesus had risen from the dead. It was their commitment to Jesus' resurrection which bound the Christians together as a movement, presenting itself, at least in the eyes of the Roman empire, as a social threat to Rome's authority. Thus, the Romans would have most certainly produced the body publicly to prove that Jesus had not risen from the dead. Since there is not a likely candidate to blame for a stolen body, then it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus' tomb was found empty because the body was stolen.
Objection Three: Could the body have just disappeared?
There may be some who would suggest that the empty tomb is unexplainable because the body of Jesus simply disappeared for reasons unknown. It must be pointed out, however, that this is not so much an objection to our claim that Jesus rose from the dead as it is a failure to respond at all. In addition, this pseudoexplanation is untenable for other reasons that we will see in a moment. For others, the claim that Jesus' body disappeared might be explained as a dematerialization. It may sound on the surface as an ad hoc explanation[16] for the missing tomb, but the notion that the body of Jesus simply dematerialized is a legitimate suggestion in certain circles, particularly among occultists and New Agers.
Could it be that the disciples were deceived into believing that they had seen Jesus? Perhaps someone perpetrated a hoax on the disciples, or perhaps the disciples were hallucinating. It does not seem plausible, however, that anyone could have perpetrated a hoax on the disciples. Who could have done this and why? We have already seen that both the Jews and the Romans had a vested interest in quelling the resurrection rumors. No one could or would have taken the body out of the tomb. To insist upon such conjecture in order to avoid the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead seems increasingly ad hoc.
Neither does it seem plausible that the disciples were hallucinating. They could not have been deceived into thinking they had seen Jesus alive if His body was still dead in its tomb, which it must have been if He had not risen. Additionally, too many all at once saw Jesus alive.[21] Also, not only did the disciples claim to see Jesus, but they claimed to touch Him and eat with Him as well.[22] Thus, it seems impossible that the disciples were either lying or deceived, either by hoax or hallucination, in their claims to see Jesus alive after His death.
Though it might be possible for an Ascended Master to "manifest" to mere physical mortals, it would never be the case that the Ascended Master would allow those to whom he appeared to wrongfully believe that he was a physical entity resurrected from the dead. The whole point of an Ascended Master appearing would be to reassure those who had not yet ascended and to instruct them how to ascend themselves by mastering the mystical and occult techniques that lead to his own ascension. The disciples, however, most certainly believed that Jesus was exactly what Jesus wanted them to believe He was, i.e., a physically resurrected person.
Conclusion:
An examination of the evidence surrounding the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth brings us to this conclusion. Since Jesus really died and was buried, and the tomb was found empty and the body could not have been stolen and it could not have disappeared (since the disciples saw Jesus after His death and could not have been lying, nor have been deceived by a hoax or an hallucination, nor have been seeing a "ghost" or an Ascended Master), then the best explanation for the empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus was that He really rose from the dead. There are no historical reasons for rejecting this conclusion. There can only be philosophical objections. But if God exists and miracles are possible, then it is most reasonable to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead, just as He said He would. Thus, since Jesus predicted and accomplished His own resurrection from the dead, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus was indeed who He claimed to be, viz., God incarnate.
What did Jesus Believe about the Bible?
Introduction
Our last premise states that Jesus taught that the Bible was more than a trustworthy document of history, but was the very Word of God. Since Jesus is God and teaches that the Bible is His word, then it is His word. And since the Bible teaches Christianity, then Christianity is true.
In setting forth the defense of the last premise, I will examine several points, viz., what Jesus affirmed about the Bible (specifically the Old Testament), the authentication of the New Testament, and what the Bible says about itself.[1] Finally, I will give an example of how the overall argument might look in an everyday setting.
What Jesus affirmed about the Old Testament:
The chart "What Jesus Affirmed about the Old Testament" shows how Jesus regarded His Bible.[2] There can be no doubt that Jesus regarded it as the Word of God. His use of Scripture indicates that He regarded it as inspired, authoritative, and infallible. For example, in Matthew 22:43 Jesus regards David's words as words he spoke "in the Spirit." His use of Scripture in Matthew 4:4,7, and 10 show the authoritative role it held in His mind. In John 10:35 Jesus says "... the scriptures cannot be broken." These and other verses show that for Jesus the Scriptures were more than merely historical documents but were the very words of God.
What Jesus Affirmed about the Old Testament
The Nature of the Old Testament's Authority. It Has:
A. Divine Inspiration -- Matthew 22:43
B. Indestructability -- Matthew 5:17,18
C. Infallibility -- John 10:35
D. Final Authority -- Matthew 4:4,7,10
E. Historicity -- Matthew 12:40; 24:37
F. Factual Inerrancy -- John 17:17; Matthew 22:29
G. Christ-Centered Unity --Luke 24:27, John 5:39
H. Spiritual Clarity -- Luke 24:25
I. Faith and Life Sufficiency -- Luke 16:31
The Extent of the Old Testament's Authority. It Extends to:
A. The Words -- Matthew 22:43; (cf. 1 Cor. 2:13)
B. The Tenses of Verbs -- Matthew 22:32; (cf. Gal. 3:16)
C. The Smallest Parts of the Words -- Matthew 5:17,18
The Authentication of the New Testament:
Since Jesus' use of Scripture and what we can infer from His use of Scripture only pertain to the Old Testament, it is necessary, for the purposes of our argument, to show the authentication of the New Testament. I believe that two main passages in the Gospel of John lay the ground work for our understanding of the authority and inspiration of the New Testament: John 14:25-26 and John 16:12-15.
In these passages Jesus says:
"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."
Often these words of Jesus are taken to apply to Christians in general. I suggest that what Jesus is saying here is that his apostles were going to write what we now know as the New Testament. It is evident that Jesus knew His message to the world would depend upon the words of His apostles. In John 17:20 Jesus says "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word."
Jesus had many things to say to His apostles but they would have to wait until the coming of the Holy Spirit. Notice the three main things the Holy Spirit would do in His guiding them into all truth. First, the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all things Jesus said to them. Bear in mind that the apostles wrote about the words and actions of Jesus after the fact. Thus, it was important that the Holy Spirit enable the apostles to remember the facts. Second, the Holy Spirit, also called the Spirit of Truth, would teach them all things. Third, the Holy Spirit would show them things to come.
It is interesting that these three actions by the Holy Spirit in His directing the apostles correspond to what we have discovered to be the three divisions of New Testament Scripture; historical ("bring to your remembrance") which covers Matthew through Acts, teaching ("teach you all things") which covers Romans through Jude, and prophecy ("show you things to come") which covers Revelation. Thus, in these passages we have Jesus pre-authenticating the writing of the New Testament by His apostles.
The Three Divisions of the New Testament
John 14:25-26; 16:12-15
"... bring to your rememberance all things I said unto you"
Matthew - Acts (Historical)
"... teach you all things"
Romans - Jude (Teaching)
"... show you things to come"
Revelation (Prophecy)
We can go on to show that each book of the New Testament is either written by an apostle of Jesus or is written by a contemporary of the events in proximity to an apostle of Jesus. The two passages from the Gospel of John above directly authenticate the apostolic authority of the books of Matthew, John, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Revelation since the writers of these books were a part of the original twelve to whom Jesus spoke these words.
We see from Acts 9:15; 26:17-18 and Galatians 1:11-19 that Jesus personally commissioned Paul as an apostle. Thus, the writings of Paul bear the authority of Christ. This authenticates the apostolic authority of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and possibly Hebrews. Paul's authority is also corroborated by Peter's testimony of Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
... and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Notice that Peter equates the writings of Paul with Scripture. Since Peter was one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus, his endorsement of Paul further establishes Paul as an apostolic authority.
Mark's authority stems from his proximity to Peter and Paul in Acts 12:12-19,25; 1 Peter 5:13, and 2 Timothy 4:11. Luke's authority stems from his proximity to Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 2 Timothy 4:11. James' and Jude's authority stems from their proximity to Peter, John, and Matthew in Acts 1:14.
The authority of James is further manifested in how James presided over the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and how the apostles Paul and Peter regard him during that council. James' authority is also corroborated by Paul where we see Paul recognizing him as an apostle (Galatians 1:19) and as a pillar of the church (Galatians 2:9). In addition we can see James' authority in that when representatives came from Jerusalem to Antioch to address a theological issue, they were said to have come from James (Galatians 2:12). It is noteworthy also to see that Peter, as an apostle, reported to James (Acts 12:16-17).
The New Testament book that poses the greatest challenge is Hebrews since its authorship is in question. Many scholars believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, in which case its authority would be established. Others suggest that Barnabas might have written Hebrews. If this is so, we can establish Bamabas' apostolic authority by Acts 14:14 where Barnabas is referred to as an apostle in his work with Paul.[3] With this we have every book in the New Testament accounted for regarding its apostolic authority. Each writer can be linked directly to Jesus or to someone who is linked directly to Jesus. Since we have established from premise two that Jesus is God, then those writings authenticated by Him are the words of God.[4]
What Scripture Says, God Says
The chart "What Scripture Says, God Says" shows the Scriptures' testimony of itself.[5] These verses indicate that the words of the writer are sometimes called the words of God, and the words of God are sometimes called the words of the writer. For example, the words of David in Psalm 2:1 are said to have been said by God. We see then, as far as the Bible is concerned, the notion of Scripture is interchangeable with the words of God Himself.
What Scripture Says, God Says
God Says Scripture Says
======== ==============
Genesis 12:3 Galatians 3:8
Exodus 9:16 Romans 9:17
Scripture says God Says
============== ========
Genesis 2:24 Matthew 19:4-5
Psalm 2:1 Acts 4:24-25
Psalm 2:7 Hebrews 1:5
Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:35
Psalm 95:7 Hebrews 3:7
Psalm 97:7 Hebrews 1:6
Psalm 104:4 Hebrews 1:7
Isaiah 55:3 Acts 13:34
How might the argument work?
Suppose you were in a discussion about a moral issue such as abortion. You express you belief that abortion is wrong. A conversation could proceed this way. Notice how the argument is woven into the conversation, albeit in reverse order.
"Conclusion"
"Why do you think abortion is wrong?" your friend asks. "Because it is murder and I believe that murder is wrong." you respond."Why do you believe that murder is wrong?" "Because the Bible teaches that murder is wrong, and I believe the Bible." "Why do you believe the Bible?" "I believe the Bible is the Word of God." "Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?"
"Premise C"
"Because Jesus believed the Bible is the Word of God and I believe Him.""Why do you believe Jesus?" "Jesus was the Son of God." "How do you know Jesus was the Son of God?"
"Premise B"
"No one could do and say the things Jesus said who wasn't the Son of God, including predicting and accomplishing His own resurrection from the dead." "How do you know that these things happened?"
"Premise A"
"Because we have the historical testimony of these things." "How do you know that this historical testimony is reliable?" "Because by the standards of analysis historians use the Bible is shown to be reliable history."
As I have laid the argument out in its entirety here, it might look so detailed that one could never employ it in a general conversation. The argument is designed, however, to be applied according to the need of the investigator. Many you encounter may already believe that the Bible is historically reliable but have never considered the possibility that it is divinely inspired. Others may seriously consider the claims of Christ if only they could be confident that we have a reliable historical witness to His words and deeds. Thus, you can employ the argument at whatever level is appropriate for the need of your hearer.
Conclusion
Let us remind ourselves of the words of 1 Peter 3:15. "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." Wisdom dictates that we engage others in a discussion of the claims of Christ and present unto them the case for Christianity so that they can confront the Jesus of the Bible. Whether they believe or not is not up to us. Our task is to declare and defend the Gospel. As the apostle John says:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.[6]
And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
Our last premise states that Jesus taught that the Bible was more than a trustworthy document of history, but was the very Word of God. Since Jesus is God and teaches that the Bible is His word, then it is His word. And since the Bible teaches Christianity, then Christianity is true.
In setting forth the defense of the last premise, I will examine several points, viz., what Jesus affirmed about the Bible (specifically the Old Testament), the authentication of the New Testament, and what the Bible says about itself.[1] Finally, I will give an example of how the overall argument might look in an everyday setting.
What Jesus affirmed about the Old Testament:
The chart "What Jesus Affirmed about the Old Testament" shows how Jesus regarded His Bible.[2] There can be no doubt that Jesus regarded it as the Word of God. His use of Scripture indicates that He regarded it as inspired, authoritative, and infallible. For example, in Matthew 22:43 Jesus regards David's words as words he spoke "in the Spirit." His use of Scripture in Matthew 4:4,7, and 10 show the authoritative role it held in His mind. In John 10:35 Jesus says "... the scriptures cannot be broken." These and other verses show that for Jesus the Scriptures were more than merely historical documents but were the very words of God.
What Jesus Affirmed about the Old Testament
The Nature of the Old Testament's Authority. It Has:
A. Divine Inspiration -- Matthew 22:43
B. Indestructability -- Matthew 5:17,18
C. Infallibility -- John 10:35
D. Final Authority -- Matthew 4:4,7,10
E. Historicity -- Matthew 12:40; 24:37
F. Factual Inerrancy -- John 17:17; Matthew 22:29
G. Christ-Centered Unity --Luke 24:27, John 5:39
H. Spiritual Clarity -- Luke 24:25
I. Faith and Life Sufficiency -- Luke 16:31
The Extent of the Old Testament's Authority. It Extends to:
A. The Words -- Matthew 22:43; (cf. 1 Cor. 2:13)
B. The Tenses of Verbs -- Matthew 22:32; (cf. Gal. 3:16)
C. The Smallest Parts of the Words -- Matthew 5:17,18
The Authentication of the New Testament:
Since Jesus' use of Scripture and what we can infer from His use of Scripture only pertain to the Old Testament, it is necessary, for the purposes of our argument, to show the authentication of the New Testament. I believe that two main passages in the Gospel of John lay the ground work for our understanding of the authority and inspiration of the New Testament: John 14:25-26 and John 16:12-15.
In these passages Jesus says:
"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."
Often these words of Jesus are taken to apply to Christians in general. I suggest that what Jesus is saying here is that his apostles were going to write what we now know as the New Testament. It is evident that Jesus knew His message to the world would depend upon the words of His apostles. In John 17:20 Jesus says "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word."
Jesus had many things to say to His apostles but they would have to wait until the coming of the Holy Spirit. Notice the three main things the Holy Spirit would do in His guiding them into all truth. First, the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all things Jesus said to them. Bear in mind that the apostles wrote about the words and actions of Jesus after the fact. Thus, it was important that the Holy Spirit enable the apostles to remember the facts. Second, the Holy Spirit, also called the Spirit of Truth, would teach them all things. Third, the Holy Spirit would show them things to come.
It is interesting that these three actions by the Holy Spirit in His directing the apostles correspond to what we have discovered to be the three divisions of New Testament Scripture; historical ("bring to your remembrance") which covers Matthew through Acts, teaching ("teach you all things") which covers Romans through Jude, and prophecy ("show you things to come") which covers Revelation. Thus, in these passages we have Jesus pre-authenticating the writing of the New Testament by His apostles.
The Three Divisions of the New Testament
John 14:25-26; 16:12-15
"... bring to your rememberance all things I said unto you"
Matthew - Acts (Historical)
"... teach you all things"
Romans - Jude (Teaching)
"... show you things to come"
Revelation (Prophecy)
We can go on to show that each book of the New Testament is either written by an apostle of Jesus or is written by a contemporary of the events in proximity to an apostle of Jesus. The two passages from the Gospel of John above directly authenticate the apostolic authority of the books of Matthew, John, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Revelation since the writers of these books were a part of the original twelve to whom Jesus spoke these words.
We see from Acts 9:15; 26:17-18 and Galatians 1:11-19 that Jesus personally commissioned Paul as an apostle. Thus, the writings of Paul bear the authority of Christ. This authenticates the apostolic authority of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and possibly Hebrews. Paul's authority is also corroborated by Peter's testimony of Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
... and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Notice that Peter equates the writings of Paul with Scripture. Since Peter was one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus, his endorsement of Paul further establishes Paul as an apostolic authority.
Mark's authority stems from his proximity to Peter and Paul in Acts 12:12-19,25; 1 Peter 5:13, and 2 Timothy 4:11. Luke's authority stems from his proximity to Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 2 Timothy 4:11. James' and Jude's authority stems from their proximity to Peter, John, and Matthew in Acts 1:14.
The authority of James is further manifested in how James presided over the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and how the apostles Paul and Peter regard him during that council. James' authority is also corroborated by Paul where we see Paul recognizing him as an apostle (Galatians 1:19) and as a pillar of the church (Galatians 2:9). In addition we can see James' authority in that when representatives came from Jerusalem to Antioch to address a theological issue, they were said to have come from James (Galatians 2:12). It is noteworthy also to see that Peter, as an apostle, reported to James (Acts 12:16-17).
The New Testament book that poses the greatest challenge is Hebrews since its authorship is in question. Many scholars believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, in which case its authority would be established. Others suggest that Barnabas might have written Hebrews. If this is so, we can establish Bamabas' apostolic authority by Acts 14:14 where Barnabas is referred to as an apostle in his work with Paul.[3] With this we have every book in the New Testament accounted for regarding its apostolic authority. Each writer can be linked directly to Jesus or to someone who is linked directly to Jesus. Since we have established from premise two that Jesus is God, then those writings authenticated by Him are the words of God.[4]
What Scripture Says, God Says
The chart "What Scripture Says, God Says" shows the Scriptures' testimony of itself.[5] These verses indicate that the words of the writer are sometimes called the words of God, and the words of God are sometimes called the words of the writer. For example, the words of David in Psalm 2:1 are said to have been said by God. We see then, as far as the Bible is concerned, the notion of Scripture is interchangeable with the words of God Himself.
What Scripture Says, God Says
God Says Scripture Says
======== ==============
Genesis 12:3 Galatians 3:8
Exodus 9:16 Romans 9:17
Scripture says God Says
============== ========
Genesis 2:24 Matthew 19:4-5
Psalm 2:1 Acts 4:24-25
Psalm 2:7 Hebrews 1:5
Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:35
Psalm 95:7 Hebrews 3:7
Psalm 97:7 Hebrews 1:6
Psalm 104:4 Hebrews 1:7
Isaiah 55:3 Acts 13:34
How might the argument work?
Suppose you were in a discussion about a moral issue such as abortion. You express you belief that abortion is wrong. A conversation could proceed this way. Notice how the argument is woven into the conversation, albeit in reverse order.
"Conclusion"
"Why do you think abortion is wrong?" your friend asks. "Because it is murder and I believe that murder is wrong." you respond."Why do you believe that murder is wrong?" "Because the Bible teaches that murder is wrong, and I believe the Bible." "Why do you believe the Bible?" "I believe the Bible is the Word of God." "Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?"
"Premise C"
"Because Jesus believed the Bible is the Word of God and I believe Him.""Why do you believe Jesus?" "Jesus was the Son of God." "How do you know Jesus was the Son of God?"
"Premise B"
"No one could do and say the things Jesus said who wasn't the Son of God, including predicting and accomplishing His own resurrection from the dead." "How do you know that these things happened?"
"Premise A"
"Because we have the historical testimony of these things." "How do you know that this historical testimony is reliable?" "Because by the standards of analysis historians use the Bible is shown to be reliable history."
As I have laid the argument out in its entirety here, it might look so detailed that one could never employ it in a general conversation. The argument is designed, however, to be applied according to the need of the investigator. Many you encounter may already believe that the Bible is historically reliable but have never considered the possibility that it is divinely inspired. Others may seriously consider the claims of Christ if only they could be confident that we have a reliable historical witness to His words and deeds. Thus, you can employ the argument at whatever level is appropriate for the need of your hearer.
Conclusion
Let us remind ourselves of the words of 1 Peter 3:15. "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." Wisdom dictates that we engage others in a discussion of the claims of Christ and present unto them the case for Christianity so that they can confront the Jesus of the Bible. Whether they believe or not is not up to us. Our task is to declare and defend the Gospel. As the apostle John says:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.[6]
And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Why can the bible be trusted?
Why do I trust the Bible to be historically reliable?
Concerning the historicity of the New Testament, there are three relevant points to consider.
1. The Time Gap - the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, as compared to other writings from the ancient world.
2. The Number of Manuscripts - the number of existing manuscripts of the New Testament, as compared to other writings from the ancient world.
3. Quotes - quotes of the New Testament from early Christian writings.
3. Quotes - quotes of the New Testament from early Christian writings.
1. The Time Gap:
The original manuscripts of the New Testament have long since dissolved, as with the other original works from the ancient world. Before the originals disappeared, copies were made in order to make the works more accessible. Invariably, these copies began to dissolve due primarily to the physical deterioration of the materials upon which they were written. Thus a time gap developed between when the original work was written and the oldest existing (referred to as extant, the opposite of extinct) copy of the original. All things being equal, the closer the copy is to the original, the more accurate it is regarded as being, presumably because there has been less time for mistakes to creep in during transmission.
With this in mind, how does the New Testament compare with other works from the ancient world regarding the time gap?[8] There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are read today. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from this writing of Thucydides. The earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, making a time gap of 1,300 years. The Roman historian Suetonius lived around AD 70 to AD 140. The earliest copy of his work The Twelve Caesars dates around AD 950, making a time gap of about 800 years. In the chart below you can see the time gaps of other works from the ancient world.
Author When Written Earliest Copy Time Span # of copies
Caesar 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Tacitus AD 100 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20
Pliny AD 61 - 113 850 AD 750 years 7
(History)
Herodotus 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
(History)
Aristotle 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
How does the time gap of the New Testament compare to these works? There are a number of manuscripts of the New Testament which, for all practical purposes, eliminates any significant time gap. The John Ryland Manuscript, located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England and the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, is dated AD 130, within 40 years of the original. It contains fragments of the gospel of John.
Other, more extensive, copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri[10], containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century, the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late 2nd century, the Codex Sinaiticus[11], dated AD 350, and the Codex Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. It can be seen that, as far as the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and the earliest extant manuscripts, there is no work from the ancient world which can compare to the New Testament. As Sir Frederic Kenyon says
The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text.[12]
Kenyon goes on to rightly conclude
... no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.[13]
2. The Number of manuscripts:
Not only does a comparison of the time gap show that the New Testament is unparalleled in the ancient world, but a comparison of the number of manuscripts shows the superiority of the New Testament as well. Many works of the ancient world are preserved in just a few manuscripts. There are seven manuscripts of Thucydides' Peloponnesian War and eight of Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars. The chart above also shows the number of manuscripts of other ancient works.
The number of New Testament manuscripts by comparison is overwhelming. There are in existence around 5,000 Greek manuscripts, 8,000 Latin, and 1,000 versions from other languages, making 14,000 manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.
The significance of having a larger number of manuscripts as far as confirming the integrity of the text is this: the greater the number of manuscripts of an ancient document, the more certain the reading of the original can be ascertained. Suppose someone gave you a copy of a telegram written to you which said
"You have won one million #ollars!"[14]
As you read the copy you feel quite certain that what you have won is one million dollars, and that the number sign was merely a copyist's error. However, suppose that you received another copy of the telegram which read
"You have won one &illion dollars!"
With this additional copy you are more certain of your conclusion about the original telegram, since the 'd' is present in the second copy where it was missing from the first, and the 'm' is present in the first where it is missing from the second.
It is in this manner that literary scholars ascertain the reading of the original writing of an ancient document. Obviously, the more manuscripts in existence to cross reference, the more reliable your reading of the original can be. Thus, with the New Testament, it can be concluded
It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament.[15]
3. Quotes:
All that we have said thus far puts the historical reliability of the New Testament beyond all doubt. What we have is what they wrote. But the case for the integrity of the New Testament does not stop there. During the first generation of Christian leaders, referred to as the Church Fathers, we find numerous quotes of the New Testament from their personal correspondence. For example, Clement of Alexandria, who lived about AD 150 - AD 212, has 2,406 quotes from all but three books of the New Testament. Tertullian, who was an elder of the church in Carthage and who lived around AD 160 - AD 220, quotes the New Testament 7,258 times. Of these quotes, around 3,800 are from the gospels. Other quotes from Church fathers include Justin Martyr, 330 quotes; Irenaeus, 1,819 quotes; Origen, 17,922 quotes, Hippolytus, 1,378 quotes; and Eusebius, 5,176 quotes, making a total of 36,289 quotes of the New Testament.
What is interesting and significant about these numerous quotes of the New Testament is that you could destroy all the manuscripts of the New Testament, and destroy all the New Testaments in existence in the world, and you could reproduce all but eleven verses of the New Testament from these quotes of the Church Fathers.
Thus, when it comes to checking and cross checking the readings of the New Testament, it stands as the most historically attested to work of the ancient world.
Conclusion:
The first of several steps has been taken to establish the case for Christianity. There can be no doubt that the New Testament we have today is as it was written by the original writers. Our next task will be to defend the notion that it is reasonable to believe that what they wrote actually took place.
Is the Bible historically accurate?
How reasonable is our faith.
The argument consists of three premises:
1. The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document of history.
2. On the basis of this we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is the very Word of God.
1. The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document of history.
2. On the basis of this we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is the very Word of God.
Our previous discussion covered the first part of premise one by answering the question "Is the Bible that we have today an accurate copy of the original Bible?" In other words, "Do we have what they wrote?" We discovered that a comparison of the New Testament with other works from the ancient world regarding (1) the time gap between when the document was written and the oldest existing manuscripts, and (2) the number of manuscripts which still exists, shows that by all standards of historical analysis, the New Testament is historically substantiated.
(3) Additionally, the overwhelming number of quotes from the early Christians establishes that the text of the New Testament as we have it today is as it was originally written.[1]
The Authenticity of the New Testament:
In this discussion I want to take the next step in establishing the case for Christianity, which will complete our defence of premise one. The question I want to address is "Did what the biblical writers wrote really happen?" It is not enough to know that the New Testament we have today is the New Testament as it was originally written. We have to show why it is reasonable to believe that the New Testament events actually took place. To this end, I want to discuss several points by way of introduction and then look specifically at the eyewitness testimony.
First, some objections against the historical authenticity of the Bible are philosophical, not historical. I discussed this point in the last newsletter in the section entitled "History and Philosophy." Its importance cannot be overstressed. Too much time and energy can be wasted in trying to defend philosophical points with the tools of historical analysis. It does no good to argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus if your opponent denies the possibility of miracles. Whether miracles can occur is not an historical issue but a philosophical one. The arguments and evidences needed in order to establish a philosophical point are different than the arguments and evidences needed in order to establish an historical point. In this series, I am not addressing the philosophical problems associated with Christianity. Those questions are important but require a separate treatment.
Second, some object that writers from the ancient world were not interested in accurate history, thus the New Testament cannot be taken as reliable history. As C.S.Lewis has said, this objection amounts to a sort of "chronological snobbery." As "modern" thinkers, we somehow have gotten the notion that "ancient" writers are "pre-scientific" and thus are uninterested in accuracy. This is simply a misreading of history. Though it may be true that ancient writers lacked the instruments of technology to assess their experience as precisely as we are able, it nevertheless remains that eyewitness testimony meant as much to the ancients as it does to us. This is especially true with the Hebrews. The writings from other ancient historians show that ancient writers understood the differences between history and myth. In the technical sense, a myth was a story used to illustrate certain principles. For the most part, the details, historicity, or authenticity of the myth were irrelevant to the significance of the principles. In this regard, the New Testament is most certainly not myth, nor was it ever offered as one by the writers. As far as the biblical writers were concerned, the historical accuracy of the events was absolutely indispensable to the truth and significance of the Christian faith. As Paul argues:
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.[2]
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.[2]
Third, the historical testimonies of New Testament events, particularly of the life of Jesus, are from contemporary eyewitnesses to the events. It is important to bear in mind that the events recorded in the New Testament are attested to by those who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the events. According to the arguments that were set forth in the last newsletter, we have in our possession today the accounts of these eyewitnesses. Thus, the evidence for the authenticity of these events will have everything to do with the notions of weighing the reliability of those who claim to be eyewitnesses.[3]
Eyewitness Testimony
Eyewitness Testimony
The crux of the matter of the New Testament's authenticity is the reliability of the New Testament writers as eyewitnesses to the events. In establishing their reliability there are several points to consider. First, it is reasonable to believe that the witnesses to the New Testament events were willing and able to tell the truth. The early followers of Jesus had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by claiming what they did about Him.
Generally, the reliability of eyewitness testimony can be mitigated if it can be shown that the witness has a vested interest in what he is claiming to have seen. But early Christianity was certainly not the lucrative enterprise it sometimes is today. There is no reason to suppose that the writers of the New Testament would fabricate the events of the New Testament since they had nothing to gain. Not only was there nothing to gain, but there was everything to lose by claiming what they did about Jesus. It was their Christian commitment that brought about the martyrdom of possibly every New Testament writer except John. Generally, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is strengthened if it can be shown that the witness has a vested interest in the opposite of what he is claiming. For example, one probably would not doubt a child who confessed to a misdeed that certainly would elicit a spanking from the parent. Since the child has a vested interest in the misdeed not occurring, if he admits to it and risks a spanking, then it is reasonable to believe that the child is telling the truth . Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers claimed to witness what they did is that in fact they did witness it.
Second, the presence of adverse testimony (i.e., the testimony of those who could have contradicted the New Testament writers if the events had not taken place) would have hampered the spread of Christianity. In other words, if the witnesses' testimonies were false, others would have been able to contradict and squelch the growth of Christianity. It is interesting that the enemies of Christianity did not so much try to contradict the claims of the early Christians about such events as, for example, the resurrection, as they instead tried to offer other explanations for the events. Matthew 28:12-15 tells us:
When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, "Tell them, 'His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure." So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, "Tell them, 'His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure." So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
If it had not been the case that Jesus had risen from the dead, there certainly would have been overwhelming testimony to that effect. Indeed, the early Christians sometimes appealed to the knowledge of current events of their hearers in making their case for Christianity. Notice how Paul argues here before Festus in Acts 26:24-26:
Now as he thus made his defence, Festus said with a loud voice, "Paul, you are beside yourself. Much learning is driving you mad!" But he said, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason. For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner."
Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the claims of the New Testament writers flourished right in the area where the events allegedly took place is that they indeed took place.
These and other evidences that could be marshaled make it more than reasonable to believe the veracity of the eyewitness testimony. However, the case for the authenticity of the New Testament does not stop here. It can be shown that the New Testament bears what some have called the "earmarks of historicity."
The Earmarks of Historicity[5]
The "earmarks of historicity" are particular characteristics which indicate the historical authenticity of documents. When scholars examine historical narrative, they took for indicators which point to historical authenticity. There are several examples of these historical characteristics in the New Testament. First, Jesus' sayings bear a literary form that was not used in the early church when the Gospels were written down. The Gospel writers have Jesus speaking in memorizable form common among Rabbis, and they have Him using expressions such as verily, verily (amen, amen, truly, truly). The significance of these characteristics is that these literary forms were not used by writers of the time of the Gospels.[6] One can not explain why the writers have Jesus talking the way He does by claiming that this was the way the writers themselves talked. It was not. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers have Jesus talking the way He does is that He really talked that way.
The "earmarks of historicity" are particular characteristics which indicate the historical authenticity of documents. When scholars examine historical narrative, they took for indicators which point to historical authenticity. There are several examples of these historical characteristics in the New Testament. First, Jesus' sayings bear a literary form that was not used in the early church when the Gospels were written down. The Gospel writers have Jesus speaking in memorizable form common among Rabbis, and they have Him using expressions such as verily, verily (amen, amen, truly, truly). The significance of these characteristics is that these literary forms were not used by writers of the time of the Gospels.[6] One can not explain why the writers have Jesus talking the way He does by claiming that this was the way the writers themselves talked. It was not. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers have Jesus talking the way He does is that He really talked that way.
Second, there is material in the Gospel accounts that was irrelevant to any issues in the early church. For example, by the time the Gospel accounts were written, there were no controversies regarding the Sabbath. One can not explain the content of the Gospel accounts on the basis of the needs of the early church. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers have Jesus discussing the Sabbath with the Pharisees is that He really had these discussions.
Third, there is material lacking in the Gospel accounts that would have been extremely relevant to the needs of the early church. If the Gospels were made up by the writers, one would expect that they would have construed the story in a way that would have been most advantageous to themselves. But this is not so. For example, there is nothing in Jesus' teachings on circumcision, on gifts such as tongues, nor on food laws such as eating meat sacrificed to idols. Surely if the writers were going to fabricate a story about Jesus, they would have had Jesus explicitly teaching on these subjects that were so controversial in their own situation so as to settle them once and for all. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers do not have Jesus teaching on such matters is that He "eyewitreally" never taught on them.
These and other evidences that could be marshaled make it more than reasonable to believe the historical authenticity of the New Testament. However, the case for the authenticity of the New Testament does not stop here either. Evidence can be introduced from outside the New Testament that points to its historical authenticity.
Extra Biblical References
Sometimes uninformed critics of the Bible, particularly of the New Testament, claim that since there are no references outside the New Testament to events of the New Testament, therefore the New Testament testimony is suspect. The truth is that there are several references to New Testament events outside the New Testament. For example, Suetonius, in his The Twelve Caesars says:
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Crestus [a Latin reference to Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.[11]
Compare this reference to Acts 18:2 which clearly refers to the same event.
And he [Paul] found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
Sometimes uninformed critics of the Bible, particularly of the New Testament, claim that since there are no references outside the New Testament to events of the New Testament, therefore the New Testament testimony is suspect. The truth is that there are several references to New Testament events outside the New Testament. For example, Suetonius, in his The Twelve Caesars says:
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Crestus [a Latin reference to Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.[11]
Compare this reference to Acts 18:2 which clearly refers to the same event.
And he [Paul] found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
Another clear reference outside the New Testament to a New Testament event is found by the Roman historian Tacitus in his work The Annals of Imperial Rome.
"To suppress this rumour [that the massive fires of Rome had been deliberately set by men], Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in
"To suppress this rumour [that the massive fires of Rome had been deliberately set by men], Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in
Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus.
The Jewish historian Josephus (ca. 90-95 AD) mentions the martyrdom of the apostle James, refers to James as Jesus' brother, mentions the martyrdom of John the Baptist, and mentions Jesus a second time. Other references include the Roman historian Thallus (ca. 52 AD) as quoted by Julius Africanus concerning the darkness at the crucifixion, the Roman author and administrator Pliny the Younger's (ca. 112 AD) mention of the early Christians' worship of Christ, and historical references from the Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian.
These and other references I could cite prove the charge that there are no extra biblical references to New Testament events is false, and thus provide corroborating evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament.
Conclusion:
We are now finished with the defense of our first premise. With these two newsletters, we have established that the New Testament is a basically reliable document of history. Our task now is to build a cumulative case for who Jesus is, based on this historical testimony. In the meantime, perhaps it would be encouraging to be reminded of what we are supposed to do with all this information. Though this sounds like the kind of question one would expect at the end of the series, perhaps it would be better to go ahead and address it in the midst of our discussions so that you can see the practical importance of what sometimes may appear as academic tedium. There are several important applications of this information. Probably the most important use of this apologetics information is to help change other people's minds.
May the Lord give us opportunities to share and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ, that by His grace, those who are lost may see and believe His truth.
How do we know that the Bible we have today can be trusted?
The Bible claims to be God's unique communication to mankind. Billions of men and women have based their lives on its message. Millions have died for it.
Can an intelligent person believe in the Bible?
Yes. The Bible is not a book of fables. Unlike other spiritual books, it does not demand blind faith. Multiple categories of evidence support the historical accuracy of the Bible as well as its claim to divine authorship.
Ancient history supports the Bible's accuracy as a historical record.
The Gospels provide multiple reliable accounts of Jesus' life.
Archaeology backs up the Biblical account.
Textual scholarship confirms that the books of the Bible have not changed since they were first written.
Does ancient history agree with the Bible?
If the Bible is God's message to us, we should hope its version of history is accurate. It is.
For example, the Bible reports that Jesus of Nazareth performed many miracles, was executed by the Romans, and rose from the dead. Numerous ancient historians corroborate the Bible's account of the life of Jesus and his followers:
Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world. An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is consistent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, certainly not biased toward Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders, not on obscure rabbis from distant provinces of the Roman Empire. Yet ancient historians (Jews, Greeks and Romans) confirm the major events that are presented in the New Testament, even though they were not believers themselves.
Are the gospel accounts of Jesus reliable?
Secular historians recorded the general facts of Jesus' life, but his close associates made more detailed reports based on direct eyewitness testimony. These are called the four gospels, the first four books of the New Testament. How can we be sure these biographies of Jesus are accurate?
When historians try to determine if a biography is reliable, they ask, "How many other sources report the same details about this person?" Here's how this works. Imagine you are collecting biographies of President John F. Kennedy. You find many describing his family, his presidency, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and almost all of the biographies report similar facts. But what if you found one biography reporting that JFK lived ten years as a priest in South Africa? The other biographies had him in the U.S. at the time; a sensible historian would go with the accounts that agree with one another.
Regarding Jesus of Nazareth, do we find multiple biographies reporting similar facts about his life? Yes. While they don't redundantly cover all of the same information, the four gospels tell essentially the same story:
Matthew Mark Luke John
Jesus was born of a virgin 1:18-25 - 1:27, 34 -
He was born in Bethlehem 2:1 - 2:4 -
He lived in Nazareth 2:23 1:9, 24 2:51, 4:16 1:45, 46
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist 3:1-15 1:4-9 3:1-22 -
He performed miracles of healing 4:24, etc. 1:34 4:40, 9:7
He walked on water 14:25 6:48 - 6:19
He fed five thousand people with
five loaves and two fish 14:7 6:38 9:13 6:9
Jesus taught the common people 5:1 4:25, 7:28 9:11 18:20
He spent time with social outcasts 9:10, 21:31 2:15, 16 5:29, 7:29 8:3
He argued with the religious elite 15:7 7:6 12:56 8:1-58
The religious elite plotted to kill him 12:14 3:6 19:47 11:45-57
They handed Jesus over to the Romans 27:1, 2 15:1 23:1 18:28
Jesus was flogged 27:26 15:15 - 19:1
He was crucified 27:26-50 15:22-37 23:33-46 19:16-30
He was buried in a tomb 27:57-61 15:43-47 23:50-55 19:38-42
Jesus rose from the dead and
appeared to his followers 28:1-20 16:1-20 24:1-53 20:1-31
Two of the gospels were written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles. These writers had direct access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four gospels because they agreed with what was already common knowledge about Jesus' life.
Each of the four gospel writers made a very detailed account. As you would expect from multiple biographies of a real person, there is variation in the style but agreement in the facts. We know the authors were not simply making things up, because the gospels give specific geographical names and cultural details that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.
Jesus' recorded words leave out many topics the early church would have liked a statement on. This indicates that the biographers were honest, not putting words in Jesus' mouth to suit their own interests.
Has the Bible changed and become corrupted over time?
Some people have the idea that the New Testament has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.
For instance, we know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because:
1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies -- over 24,000.
2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time.
3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals (see link at end of this section).
When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' -- sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."5
Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6
The New Testament is humanity's most reliable ancient document. Its textual integrity is more certain than that of Plato's writings or Homer's Iliad. For a comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings, click here.
The Old Testament has also been remarkably well preserved. Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures.
Some people have the idea that the New Testament has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.
For instance, we know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because:
1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies -- over 24,000.
2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time.
3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals (see link at end of this section).
When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' -- sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."5
Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6
The New Testament is humanity's most reliable ancient document. Its textual integrity is more certain than that of Plato's writings or Homer's Iliad. For a comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings, click here.
The Old Testament has also been remarkably well preserved. Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures.
Does archaeology support the Bible?
Archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is God's written word to us. However, archaeology can (and does) substantiate the Bible's historical accuracy. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible -- sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn't think the pool existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes.
The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records.
In contrast, news reporter Lee Strobel comments about the Book of Mormon: "Archaeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see 'no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.'" Archaeologists have never located cities, persons, names, or places mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Many of the ancient locations mentioned by Luke, in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, have been identified through archaeology. "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error."
Archaeology has also refuted many ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, a theory still taught in some colleges today asserts that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), because writing had not been invented in his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. "It had wedge-shaped characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi. Was it post-Moses? No! It was pre-Mosaic; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.). It preceded Moses' writings by at least three centuries."11
Another major archaeological find confirmed an early alphabet in the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in 1974. These 14,000 clay tablets are thought to be from about 2300 B.C., hundreds of years before Abraham. The tablets describe the local culture in ways similar to what is recorded in Genesis chapters 12-50.
Archaeology consistently confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND SIGNIFICANCE
Mari Tablets Over 20,000 cuneiform tablets, which date back to
Archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is God's written word to us. However, archaeology can (and does) substantiate the Bible's historical accuracy. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible -- sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn't think the pool existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes.
The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records.
In contrast, news reporter Lee Strobel comments about the Book of Mormon: "Archaeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see 'no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.'" Archaeologists have never located cities, persons, names, or places mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Many of the ancient locations mentioned by Luke, in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, have been identified through archaeology. "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error."
Archaeology has also refuted many ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, a theory still taught in some colleges today asserts that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), because writing had not been invented in his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. "It had wedge-shaped characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi. Was it post-Moses? No! It was pre-Mosaic; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.). It preceded Moses' writings by at least three centuries."11
Another major archaeological find confirmed an early alphabet in the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in 1974. These 14,000 clay tablets are thought to be from about 2300 B.C., hundreds of years before Abraham. The tablets describe the local culture in ways similar to what is recorded in Genesis chapters 12-50.
Archaeology consistently confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND SIGNIFICANCE
Mari Tablets Over 20,000 cuneiform tablets, which date back to
Abraham's time period, explain many of the patriarchal
traditions of Genesis.
Ebla Tablets Over 20,000 tablets, many containing law similar to the
Ebla Tablets Over 20,000 tablets, many containing law similar to the
Deuteronomy law code. The previously thought fictitious five
cities of the plain in Genesis 14 (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah,
Zeboiim, and Zoar) are identified.
Nuzi Tablets They detail customs of the 14th and 15th century parallel to
Nuzi Tablets They detail customs of the 14th and 15th century parallel to
the patriarchal accounts such as maids producing children
for barren wives.
Black Stele Proved that writing and written laws existed three centuries
Black Stele Proved that writing and written laws existed three centuries
before the Mosaic laws.
Temple Walls of Karnak, Egypt Signifies a 10th century BC reference to Abraham.
Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 BC)
Lipit-Ishtar Code (ca. 1860 BC)
Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BC) Show that the law codes of the Pentateuch were not too
Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 BC)
Lipit-Ishtar Code (ca. 1860 BC)
Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BC) Show that the law codes of the Pentateuch were not too
sophisticated for that period.
Ras Shamra Tablets Provide information on Hebrew poetry.
Lachish Letters Describe Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judah and give
Ras Shamra Tablets Provide information on Hebrew poetry.
Lachish Letters Describe Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judah and give
insight into the time of Jeremiah.
Gedaliah Seal References Gedaliah is spoken of in 2 Kings 25:22.
Cyrus Cylinder Authenticates the Biblical description of Cyrus' decree to
Gedaliah Seal References Gedaliah is spoken of in 2 Kings 25:22.
Cyrus Cylinder Authenticates the Biblical description of Cyrus' decree to
allow the Jews to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (see
2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4).
Moabite Stone Gives information about Omri, the sixth king of Israel.
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Illustrates how Jehu, king of Israel, had to submit to the
Moabite Stone Gives information about Omri, the sixth king of Israel.
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Illustrates how Jehu, king of Israel, had to submit to the
Assyrian king.
Taylor Prism Contains an Assyrian text which detail Sennacherib's attack
Taylor Prism Contains an Assyrian text which detail Sennacherib's attack
on Jerusalem during the time of Hezekiah, king of
Israel.
Are there contradictions in the Bible?
While some claim that the Bible is full of contradictions, this simply isn't true. The number of apparent contradictions is actually remarkably small for a book of the Bible's size and scope. What apparent discrepancies do exist are more curiosity than calamity. They do not touch on any major event or article of faith.
Here is an example of a so-called contradiction. Pilate ordered that a sign be posted on the cross where Jesus hung. Three of the Gospels record what was written on that sign:
In Matthew: "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews."
In Mark: "The king of the Jews."
In John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews."
The wording is different, hence the apparent contradiction. The remarkable thing, though, is that all thee writers describe the same event in such detail -- Jesus was crucified. On this they all agree. They even record that a sign was posted on the cross, and the meaning of the sign is the same in all three accounts!
What about the exact wording? In the original Greek of the Gospels, they didn't use a quotation symbol as we do today to indicate a direct quote. The Gospel authors were making an indirect quote, which would account for the subtle differences in the passages.
Here is another example of an apparent contradiction. Was Jesus two nights in the tomb or three nights in the tomb before His resurrection? Jesus said, prior to his crucifixion, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Mark records another statement that Jesus made, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." (Mark 10:33,34)
Jesus was killed on Friday and the resurrection was discovered on Sunday. How can that be three days and nights in the tomb? It was a Jewish figure of speech in Jesus' time to count any part of a day or night as a full day and night. So Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would be called three days and three nights in Jesus' culture. We speak in similar ways today -- if a person were to say, "I spent all day shopping," we understand that the person didn't mean 24 hours.
This is typical of apparent contradictions in the New Testament. Most are resolved by a closer examination of the text itself or through studying the historical background.
Who wrote the New Testament? Why not accept the apocrypha, the gospel of Judas, or the gospel of Thomas?
There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. The church accepted the New Testament books almost as soon as they were written. Their authors were associates of Jesus or his immediate followers, men to whom Jesus had entrusted the leadership of the early church. The Gospel writers Matthew and John were some of Jesus' closest followers. Mark and Luke were companions of the apostles, having access to the apostles' account of Jesus' life.
The other New Testament authors had immediate access to Jesus as well: James and Jude were half-brothers of Jesus who initially did not believe in him. Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Paul started out as a hater of Christianity, but he became an apostle after he had a vision of Christ. He was also in communication with the other apostles.
The content of the New Testament books lined up with what thousands of eyewitnesses had seen for themselves. When other books were written hundreds of years later (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, written by the Gnostic sect around 130-170 A.D., long after Judas' death), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as forgeries. The Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 A.D., is another example of a counterfeit writing erroneously bearing an apostles' name. These and other Gnostic gospels conflicted with the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained numerous historical and geographical errors.13
In A.D. 367, Athanasius formally listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list. These lists, however, were not necessary for the majority of Christians. By and large the whole church had recognized and used the same list of books since the first century after Christ. As the church grew beyond the Greek-speaking lands and needed to translate the Scriptures, and as splinter sects continued to pop up with their own competing holy books, it became more important to have a definitive list.
Why did it take 30 to 60 years for the New Testament Gospels to be written?
The main reason the Gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection is that there was no apparent need for any such writings. Initially the gospel spread by word of mouth in Jerusalem. There was no need to compose a written account of Jesus' life, because those in the Jerusalem region were witnesses of Jesus and well aware of his ministry.14
However, when the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, and the eyewitnesses were no longer readily accessible, there was a need for written accounts to educate others about Jesus' life and ministry. Many scholars date the writing of the Gospels between 30 and 60 years after Jesus' death.
Luke gives us a little more insight into this by stating, at the beginning of his Gospel, why he was writing it: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have been taught.15
John also gives the reason for writing his Gospel: "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."16
Have you ever read anything from the New Testament Gospels? To read a sample from the Gospel of John, click here.
If you would like to know more about Jesus, this article will give you a good summary of his life: Beyond Blind Faith.
Does it matter if Jesus really did and said what is in the Gospels?
Yes. For faith to really be of any value, it must be based on facts, on reality. Here is why. If you were taking a flight to London, you would probably have faith that the jet is fueled and mechanically reliable, the pilot trained, and no terrorists on board. Your faith, however, is not what gets you to London. Your faith is useful in that it got you on the plane. But what actually gets you to London is the integrity of the plane, pilot, etc. You could rely on your positive experience of past flights. But your positive experience would not be enough to get that plane to London. What matters is the object of your faith -- is it reliable?
Is the New Testament an accurate, reliable presentation of Jesus? Yes. We can trust the New Testament because there is enormous factual support for it. This article touched on the following points: historians concur, archaeology concurs, the four Gospel biographies are in agreement, the preservation of document copies is remarkable, there is superior accuracy in the translations. All of this gives a solid foundation for believing what we read in the New Testament: that Jesus is God, that he took the penalty for our sins, and that he rose from the dead.
While some claim that the Bible is full of contradictions, this simply isn't true. The number of apparent contradictions is actually remarkably small for a book of the Bible's size and scope. What apparent discrepancies do exist are more curiosity than calamity. They do not touch on any major event or article of faith.
Here is an example of a so-called contradiction. Pilate ordered that a sign be posted on the cross where Jesus hung. Three of the Gospels record what was written on that sign:
In Matthew: "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews."
In Mark: "The king of the Jews."
In John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews."
The wording is different, hence the apparent contradiction. The remarkable thing, though, is that all thee writers describe the same event in such detail -- Jesus was crucified. On this they all agree. They even record that a sign was posted on the cross, and the meaning of the sign is the same in all three accounts!
What about the exact wording? In the original Greek of the Gospels, they didn't use a quotation symbol as we do today to indicate a direct quote. The Gospel authors were making an indirect quote, which would account for the subtle differences in the passages.
Here is another example of an apparent contradiction. Was Jesus two nights in the tomb or three nights in the tomb before His resurrection? Jesus said, prior to his crucifixion, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Mark records another statement that Jesus made, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." (Mark 10:33,34)
Jesus was killed on Friday and the resurrection was discovered on Sunday. How can that be three days and nights in the tomb? It was a Jewish figure of speech in Jesus' time to count any part of a day or night as a full day and night. So Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would be called three days and three nights in Jesus' culture. We speak in similar ways today -- if a person were to say, "I spent all day shopping," we understand that the person didn't mean 24 hours.
This is typical of apparent contradictions in the New Testament. Most are resolved by a closer examination of the text itself or through studying the historical background.
Who wrote the New Testament? Why not accept the apocrypha, the gospel of Judas, or the gospel of Thomas?
There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. The church accepted the New Testament books almost as soon as they were written. Their authors were associates of Jesus or his immediate followers, men to whom Jesus had entrusted the leadership of the early church. The Gospel writers Matthew and John were some of Jesus' closest followers. Mark and Luke were companions of the apostles, having access to the apostles' account of Jesus' life.
The other New Testament authors had immediate access to Jesus as well: James and Jude were half-brothers of Jesus who initially did not believe in him. Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Paul started out as a hater of Christianity, but he became an apostle after he had a vision of Christ. He was also in communication with the other apostles.
The content of the New Testament books lined up with what thousands of eyewitnesses had seen for themselves. When other books were written hundreds of years later (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, written by the Gnostic sect around 130-170 A.D., long after Judas' death), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as forgeries. The Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 A.D., is another example of a counterfeit writing erroneously bearing an apostles' name. These and other Gnostic gospels conflicted with the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained numerous historical and geographical errors.13
In A.D. 367, Athanasius formally listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list. These lists, however, were not necessary for the majority of Christians. By and large the whole church had recognized and used the same list of books since the first century after Christ. As the church grew beyond the Greek-speaking lands and needed to translate the Scriptures, and as splinter sects continued to pop up with their own competing holy books, it became more important to have a definitive list.
Why did it take 30 to 60 years for the New Testament Gospels to be written?
The main reason the Gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection is that there was no apparent need for any such writings. Initially the gospel spread by word of mouth in Jerusalem. There was no need to compose a written account of Jesus' life, because those in the Jerusalem region were witnesses of Jesus and well aware of his ministry.14
However, when the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, and the eyewitnesses were no longer readily accessible, there was a need for written accounts to educate others about Jesus' life and ministry. Many scholars date the writing of the Gospels between 30 and 60 years after Jesus' death.
Luke gives us a little more insight into this by stating, at the beginning of his Gospel, why he was writing it: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have been taught.15
John also gives the reason for writing his Gospel: "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."16
Have you ever read anything from the New Testament Gospels? To read a sample from the Gospel of John, click here.
If you would like to know more about Jesus, this article will give you a good summary of his life: Beyond Blind Faith.
Does it matter if Jesus really did and said what is in the Gospels?
Yes. For faith to really be of any value, it must be based on facts, on reality. Here is why. If you were taking a flight to London, you would probably have faith that the jet is fueled and mechanically reliable, the pilot trained, and no terrorists on board. Your faith, however, is not what gets you to London. Your faith is useful in that it got you on the plane. But what actually gets you to London is the integrity of the plane, pilot, etc. You could rely on your positive experience of past flights. But your positive experience would not be enough to get that plane to London. What matters is the object of your faith -- is it reliable?
Is the New Testament an accurate, reliable presentation of Jesus? Yes. We can trust the New Testament because there is enormous factual support for it. This article touched on the following points: historians concur, archaeology concurs, the four Gospel biographies are in agreement, the preservation of document copies is remarkable, there is superior accuracy in the translations. All of this gives a solid foundation for believing what we read in the New Testament: that Jesus is God, that he took the penalty for our sins, and that he rose from the dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
