Ask any question you want about Christianity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Extra-Biblical Proofs of Jesus and the Bible


JEWISH SOURCES

Josephus on John the Baptist

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5, Section 2

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.



Josephus on Jesus Christ

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."


The Babylonian Talmud on Jesus

Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)

"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"


The Babylonian Talmud on Jesus

Sanhedrin 107b (200-500 C.E.)

"One day he (Rabbi Joshua) was reciting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick and worshiped it.....And a Master has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray.'"


ROMAN SOURCES

Pliny the Younger on Christians

Letter to Trajan 10.96 - (c.111-117 C.E.)

"I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed....I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished.....they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."


Suetonius on Christians

Vita Nero (De Vita Caesarum - Nero)16.11-13 (c.110 C.E.)

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."


Tacitus on Jesus and Christianity

The Roman Annals 15.44 (c.115-117 C.E.)

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."


MISCELLANEOUS AND CATHOLIC SOURCES

Eusebius

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 27

"They observed the Sabbath and the rest of the disciples of the Jews just like them, but on Sundays they performed ceremonies like ours in commemoration of the Lord's Resurrection. Therefore, because of such practices they received their name, since the name of Ebionites signifies the poverty of their understanding, for the poor man is called by this name among the Hebrews."


Justin Martyr

The First Apology to Caesar, Chapter 67 (c. 140-165 A.D.)

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the fist day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead."


Ignatius of Antioch

Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 9 (c. 98-117)

"How, then, shall we be able to live apart from Him, seeing that the prophets were His disciples in the Spirit and expected Him as their Master, and that many who were brought up in the old order have come to the newness of hope? They no longer observe the Jewish Sabbaths, but keep holy the Lord's day, on which, through Him and through His death, our life arose."


Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 15

"This is why we also observe the eighth day with rejoicing, on which Jesus also rose from the dead, and having shown himself ascended to heaven."


The Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (c. 65-69 A.D.)

The Didache 14:1

"And on the Lord's Day, after you have come together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, having first confessed your offences, so that your sacrifice may be pure."


The Dead Sea Scrolls

(c. 50-100 C.E.)

Messianic Prophecies - 4QTestimonia (or Messianic Anthology, 4Q175 [4QTest])

Fragments of Ecclesiastes - 4Q109 Qohelet a

The Book of Isaiah - 4Q Isaiah Pesher b (4Q162 [4QpIs b])


The Gospel of Thomas

114 (Alleged) Sayings of Jesus

This "gospel" is not accepted by Protestant Christians. Nonetheless, it is a historical document that was written near the time of Jesus Christ. For the purposes of this web site, I won't quote from it.



RESOURCES

Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger

Jesus Under Fire, J.P. Moreland, Michael Wilkins and Edwin M. Yamauchi

The Letters, Pliny the Younger

Nero, the End of a Dynasty, M.T. Griffin

The Roman Annals, Tacitus

The Works of Josephus, Flavius Josephus
 
http://www.bohne.com/jesus.html

Is There Proof That Jesus Existed?
On a recent television survey, people were asked if they thought Jesus was real. Amazingly, many people said they doubted His existence!
“Well, there aren't any photographs of Him, obviously . . . I'm not sure if He isn't just a myth,”, said one subject.

“I believe only what I can see . . . and I've never seen Jesus,” said a young lady in her twenties.

Hmmm . . . evidently these people don't believe in the existence of:

Christopher Columbus
Caesar Augustus of Rome
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
And scores of other figures in history.
In fact, based on the flawed logic of the people quoted above, we would have to throw out over 90% of all information contained in the world's libraries and archives today! It may surprise you to know that there is more documentation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ then there is of many of history's most famous figures that people take for granted. Not myth or legend, but actual documentation that existed in archives of the Roman Empire!

Want more proof? No problem: the information that was recorded in Rome was based on eyewitness accounts. And the Bible's recording of the resurrection was written less than thirty years after the death of Jesus, also taken from eyewitnesses!

Look, I've never seen Louis XIV, but I believe he existed. I've never seen Jesus, but I believe HE existed. If someone wants to convince me that Jesus didn't exist, they're going to have to do better than the lame premise, “Well, no one I know has ever seen Him!”, or “I only believe what I can see.” Get real!

What About ABC-TV's The Search For Jesus?
I always thought Peter Jennings was a fairly good journalist . . . he's dropped a notch in credibility from where I stand. While the show (which aired in July of 2000) stated to present an unbiased view with commentary from several sources, it was definitely misleading and slanted. Three of the six sources most often quoted were all presenters of “The Jesus Seminar.” In a nutshell, these guys are “out there.” They took things that Jesus said in the Bible, and if He didn't say it more than once, He didn't say it at all, in their opinion.

Gee, does that mean Patrick Henry never said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”, since he only said it once? Oh, and throw away the Gettysburg Address, because Lincoln only read that in public once, too.

Another guideline these Jesus Seminar presenters use is comparison to myth. For example, they doubt the virgin birth of Jesus. They claim that it is very similar to Caesar's claim of divinity (for those of you a little rusty in the Roman myth department, Caesar's family claimed a Roman god, embodied as a snake, came to earth and impregnated his mother while she was praying to him in the temple, therefore making Caesar divine). The Jesus seminar folks say, "If you believe one, you have to believe the other. If you don't believe one, you can't believe the other."

Says who? The birth of Jesus was based on historical fact. None of the disciples questioned the Virgin Birth concept.

On the other hand, most Roman citizens of the time smirked privately at the concept of Caesar's mother being impregnated by a god that came to earth as a snake. Of course, they'd never take issue with Caesar in public, unless they had a penchant for battling lions in the coliseum . . .

Another faux paus: one commentator said that crucifixion was “Devised by the Romans and used only by the Romans.” WRONG! It was devised by a pagan civilization that the Romans conquered. This society believed that their god lived in the center of the earth, and if they killed a blasphemer while he was standing on the ground, his sin would pollute the earth and anger this god--ergo crucifixion. The Roman Legions brought this punishment back to Rome.

The Search for Jesus would have been better titled The Search for Ratings While Offending As Few People As Possible. While it had some truth, it was definitely biased. In fact, Jennings own Religion Coordinator was vociferously opposed to the presentation--does that tell you anything?
 
PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.

wasn't his name jesus?
 
spuriousmonkey
496 posts
PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.

wasn't his name jesus?

Answer: Immanuel is Jesus in a different language, i'm pretty sure it was Jewish, but it might have been greek.
 
spuriousmonkey, I'm not too sure on the naming thing. It might have been a different language, but I'm not certain. Maybe this will put it all in perspective:

Names and Titles Of
A number of titles applied to Jesus Christ are related to his person and ministry. In his Messianic titles, he is the Aforepromised; the Anointed One; the Messiah (Christ); the Son (Only Begotten; seed) of God; King of the Jews; the Lion of Judah; the Comforter; the Counsellor; the Prophet (prophesy); the Suffering Servant; the Lamb of God; the High Priest (great); the Dayspring (east) and Day-star.
In terms of his preeminence and authority, he is Lord; Head; Prince; Chief Shepherd; Chief Cornerstone; the Word of God; the firstborn; the firstfruits; the forerunner.
In his act of salvation, he is Jesus; Savior; the surety and Mediator of the new covenant; the rock and the Author of life.
In the “I am” sayings of John’s Gospel, he is the bread of life; the door; the light (clear); the true vine; the way and the truth (Amen), and his disciples frequently called him their Master (Rabbi; Rabboni) and Teacher, and after his resurrection, Maran-atha.

W.E. Vine, Vine’s complete expository dictionary topic finder [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996 by W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd. of Bath, England.
 
NOW KEEPING WITH MY NAME I WILL POST A SERIES OF ANSWERS. Someone said that question and answer doesn't prove anything. Maybe you won't think that after you see these.
 
1. Does anything other than matter and energy exist, and if so, do we know anything about it?
You want me to believe that God exists. But everyone knows only matter and energy are real.
On the contrary. I think I can prove that things other than matter and energy are real.


Matter and energy have no ordering or organizing principle within themselves. Left to themselves, they would never have produced the order around us, and left to themselves even now they would eventually reach the point of absolute disorder. Scientists refer to this tendency toward randomness as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy. Whatever enforces order on matter and energy cannot itself be matter and energy. For no matter or energy is exempted from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This should lead us to two realizations: First, without something other than matter and energy to enforce order on matter and energy, there could be no order or design in the universe. Everything would be absolutely random. There would be no thinking and nothing to think about. You and I wouldn't be talking here.

But that's not so. Some matter does impose order on other matter, like genes causing life to form in one way and not in another.

Genes do cause order in some matter and energy but they do so only because they are already ordered themselves. They didn't cause their own order, but got it from something else. Whatever little bits of order and of order‑causing matter there may be in the universe, still the universe as a whole cannot have brought about that order, and there must be a cause for it outside matter.

The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.


We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.

Okay, something other than matter and energy exists. But you can't really know anything about it. After all, statements only have meaning if they can be investigated for truth or falsehood by empirical means. I take the scientific approach: nothing is meaningful that can't be tested empirically.

Think for a moment about that statement. Can it be tested empirically? Definitely not. It is an overarching principle about empirical investigation, and cannot itself be tested by empirical means. If it is true, then it calls itself meaningless. Whatever is meaningless cannot be true, since truth depends on meaning. So, that principle cannot be true.

Nothing prevents our talking sensibly about non‑material things.


Fine. In principle I have to agree-it isn't meaningless to talk about non-material things. But you can't know anything about them.

Do you know that you can't know anything about them?

Yes.


Then you do know something about them! You know that you cannot know anything about them. But if that's true, then it's something you know about them. Your own statement condemns itself, you can and do know something about non-material things.


Fine. But you can't know anything more about them.

Except that, you can't know anything more about them? Every time you limit what may be known about non‑material things, you add something else you know about them. The only logical approach is to admit that you can know about non‑material things, and then see where the evidence leads to determine what you know about them.

Well, all right. Where does the evidence lead? What do you think we can know about non‑material things?

First, we know that they exist‑or that at least one non‑material thing exists. At least one non‑material thing must have made matter and energy. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


2. Did the universe have a beginning?
You're talking about creation, but didn't evolution disprove that?
Let's leave evolution for later, if you don't mind. We're not talking about how all things got to their present form; we're only talking about how the material universe came into existence in the first place. In that sense, yes, we're talking about creation.

This isn't contrary to the idea of evolution, and it isn't contrary to science. One of the leading astronomers of our age, for instance, Robert Jastrow, says that scientific research about the universe has led to one extremely important conclusion: "... I am an agnostic in religious matters. However, I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy‑partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues.


"The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning—that it began at a certain moment in time ... for the astronomical evidence proves that the Universe was created ... in a fiery explosion...


"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly, a very objective mind-when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist or we paper it over with meaningless phrases. " (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York: Warner Books, 1984, pp. 11-16.)
 
3. Is there a creator? Is there a God? What can be known about a creator? How do we know things?
Okay, so we know the universe had a beginning. And we know there must be at least one non-material thing that created it. What else do we know about non-material things?

We know for instance that whatever created the universe has more power than all the power in the universe and that it is intelligent, capable of thinking on levels infinitely beyond our own abilities.

How do we know those things?

It's not difficult. We know that whatever force produces an effect must be sufficient to account for all the force within the effect; an effect cannot be greater than its cause. If an effect were greater than its cause, then there would be some part of the effect that was uncaused‑that would have come from nothing. But since nothing comes from nothing, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

Now for intelligence. Matter and energy are not capable of ordering themselves. Left to themselves they tend toward maximum disorder. It takes intelligence to bring about order in our material world. When you see a powerful computer, you don't suppose it just happened by accident, you ask who designed it, who built all its parts, who put those parts together. When that computer functions, you don't assume it does that by accident, either; you ask who wrote the program that guides it.


The universe has much more design than any computer in it (the computer is, after all, part of the universe, and the part cannot be greater than the whole). Human brains are thousands of times more complex than any computer. The scientific mind will ask the same questions about the order in the universe that it asks about the computer: who designed It, who gave it the program by which it processes so much information, who built its parts? If it didn't design itself, then its designer must be non‑material and must have intelligence greater than that in the universe.


Okay, but that doesn't prove that God exists.

You're right. We Christians believe much more about God than that He is more powerful and has more intelligence than the universe. But tell me-what would God have to do to prove to you that He exists?

I don't really know what it would take to convince me that God exists. But I'm willing to listen to any reasons you have.

That's great. Now, one more question: If God proved to you that He exists, would you trust Him?

I'm not sure I'd be willing to trust God, but perhaps I would. You'd have to give me some good reasons to do it. How can we know that God exists?
There are three basic ways we know things: reason, experience, and authority-and we Christians add a fourth, revelation, which is really another kind of authority.

Pure reason-logic and mathematics-affords absolute or 100% proof of things. Experience and authority only afford approximate proof. But we don't denigrate experience and authority simply because they don't give absolute proofs. We still trust them a great deal-sometimes we trust them 100% even though they don't give us 100% proof.


For instance, experience might tell you it's safe to cross the street. But you don't have absolute proof. Still when you cross the street you take 100% of yourself across; you trust yourself 100% to the answer experience gives to the question, "Is it safe for me to cross the street now?” Every day we make decisions like that trusting ourselves 100% to things we cannot know with 100% certitude but that we can know with varying degrees of certitude.


Sometimes we trust ourselves completely to something even when there is a fairly high degree of certitude that the thing will turn out to fail us. If we can only see two options, and one of them will almost certainly bring us disaster and the other has even a very low degree of certainty of saving us, we might well trust ourselves—100%—to that highly uncertain option that could mean deliverance.


Imagine, for instance, that you are standing in a sixth floor room of a burning building. You're convinced that if you stay there you will burn to death. You're also pretty sure that if you jump, you'll break your leg or kill yourself, or at least knock yourself out and die when the building collapses on top of you and burns you. What will you do? Quite probably you w1l1jump despite the danger, because you consider the slight chance of your survival by that means to be more attractive than the high chance of death if you stay in the building.


You would never have jumped had the building not been burning and had there been no other life-threatening situation leading you to make that decision. The stakes involved in a decision, then, can justify our trusting some things on little evidence that we would not ordinarily trust even on much greater evidence.


When we approach the question, "How can you prove that God exists?" we're dealing with a question that cannot be answered by pure reason alone-mathematics and logic. It must be answered by some combination of reason, experience, and authority. The evidence given must always fall short of absolute proof, but it is not insufficient for commitment. As with any other question of this sort, we must make our decisions based on degrees of probability. Naturally our decisions will be affected in part by the stakes in the matter.

All this is fine, and I can go along with it. But you still haven't given me any reasons to believe God exists. Are there any?

Yes, I think so. First, experience and reason have led us to believe that the universe was created/Christianity says that the Creator is God. Second, experience and reason have led man to believe that the universe must have been designed by some intelligent being; Christianity says that the Designer is God. Third, Christians say we believe God exists because He has told us so‑that's "revelation," that special kind of authority I mentioned. Fourth, Christians believe God exists because we believe He appeared in human flesh, He became a man in Jesus Christ.

Wait a minute! Why should I believe all these things?!

You've already agreed to the first two. I'm just telling you that from the Christian point of view, when we say "God" we're referring to that non‑material Creator/Designer. After all, we might as well use some term to designate the Creator/Designer, and throughout history philosophers have used the term "God."

Suppose the universe does have a creator. Where did that creator come from?

In any chain of cause and effect, there either is or is not a first cause‑a cause uncaused by any other cause. The chain of cause and effect cannot be circular, because then each effect would have to be both before and after its cause.

Nothing tells us that the universe's cause cannot itself be an effect-nothing in reason and experience alone, that is, though Christians believe God tells us so by revelation. But something does tell us that there must be some cause that is not an effect at all.


We're talking about the principle of contingency, i.e., that effects do not explain themselves, do not give the reasons for their own existence. If everything were contingent then nothing would be explained at all. But we know there must be a reason for the existence of the universe, since once it did not exist and later it did. If there is a reason for anything to exist, then something must not be contingent. Something must be uncaused.


No matter how many links we might think are in the chain of cause and effect, there either is a beginning to the chain, or there is no chain at all. But we believe there is a chain, so we must believe there is a beginning to it. This beginning is what the great philosophers, like Aristotle and Plato, called the "uncaused Cause." When we Christians speak of God, we mean the "uncaused Cause"‑though we mean much more than that: that the uncaused Cause is persona intelligent, loving, good, just, and other such things.

Okay, so there's an uncaused Cause that's powerful and intelligent. But what about your two other reasons for believing God exists?

At this point we're really asking not whether God exists, but what God is like. Fair enough?

Yes.

We know what God is like because He has told us by revelation and because He became a man in Jesus Christ to demonstrate to us what He is like. So if we really want to know what God is like, the best way is to meet Jesus. The Bible tells us about Him.
RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


4. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and absolutely good, why is there evil?

Wait a minute. Before we get to Jesus, I just realized a problem with the whole idea of God Himself. You tell me that God is all-powerful and I know you believe He's good. But then, what about evil? An all-powerful and all‑good God wouldn't permit evil to exist, and even if it did exist temporarily, He would destroy it. If God exists—the God you believe in-then why is there evil?
That's a good question. Actually, Jesus has a lot to do with our answer to this problem. But for the moment, let's handle it just on the logical level.

What we Christians must show is that the proposition "God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good" is logically compatible with the proposition "There is evil in the world." One way to do this is to show that there is some third proposition that is compatible with the first and that implies the second. In other words, we can show that A is compatible with B, no matter how incompatible they at first appear, if we can show that C is compatible with A and implies B.

What I'd like to suggest as that third statement is, "It would be morally better for God to create a world containing morally free beings than for Him to create a world without them."


I don't see how that ties the first two together at all.

I don't blame you. It isn't immediately apparent how this works. Let's look into this proposition, "It would be morally better for God to create a world containing morally free beings than for Him to create a world without them," and see just what is implied in it.

The key question is, 'What is a morally free being?" The answer is that a morally free being is a being that is free to do either good or evil at any given time—nothing forces him to do one thing or the other. This means it is always possible for a morally free being to do evil.


So, if it is truly better for God to create a world with morally free beings, then it is better for God to create a world with the possibility of evil than a world without that possibility.


Okay, but why is it better to be morally free than not?


You tell me. You're morally free. That means people can praise you for doing good and blame you for doing evil. A hammer isn't morally free. If someone uses it to do something evil, no one condemns the hammer; if someone uses it to do something good, no one praises the hammer, either. Now, which would you prefer: to be yourself, capable of right and wrong and so susceptible to praise or blame, or to be the hammer, capable of neither right nor wrong, and so susceptible to neither praise nor blame?


Okay, I’d rather be myself than a hammer. I’ll grant it's better to be morally free than not.

Good. Now, if God is morally good, and if it is better to create a world with morally free beings than without them, then if God creates anything He should create a world with morally free beings. But such a world is a world in which evil is possible. That means that our first proposition (Gods exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good) is compatible with a third (It is better to create a world with morally free beings than without them) which entails at least the possibility of our second proposition (There is evil in the world). This means God's existence and the reality of evil are not logically contradictory to each other. They are compatible.

But why doesn't God destroy all evil and prevent its returning?

He could, of course, but in so doing He would be destroying morally free creatures. And God could have created a world in which evil was impossible; but then He would have to have created a world without morally free creatures. The only alternative to a morally good world that contains evil is not a morally good world that contains no evil but a morally neutral world that contains neither good nor evil. Such a world, of course, wouldn't contain us. So which do you prefer: a world that contains you, or a world that doesn't?

A world that contains me. I see your point. I guess God and evil are compatible. But just why would God have permitted evil? What purpose is there in it?

First of course it was the only way to create a morally good world. But what was His purpose for evil? Christians believe evil serves a number of purposes, all consistent with God's plan for the world and, especially, for individual people.

One purpose is to occasion certain moral goods that could never come about without evil. One can never forgive someone without someone's doing something evil, right? Forgiveness is one of the highest moral goods, but it is a moral good that could never come about without evil. One could not have mercy without someone's doing something evil that deserved punishment. One cannot have compassion for those who suffer without someone's suffering, and compassion is also a very high virtue. These and other goods all depend for their existence and expression on the existence of evil. So God permits evil in part so that greater goods can occur than could ever occur without it.


Christianity says there is one even higher good that could never have occurred without evil: God's voluntary sacrifice of Himself to bear punishment for us. Think what kind of act gets the highest praise among men. Isn't it when someone voluntarily sacrifices his life in order to save the lives of others? Such self‑sacrifice is a tremendous good. The greatest such sacrifice was when God sacrificed His life in the Person of Jesus Christ to save the lives of all who believe in Jesus.


This doesn't make sense to me. Why was such a sacrifice necessary? What do you mean by God's having saved the lives of those who believe in Jesus? What did they need to be saved from?

They needed to be saved from two kinds of evil: sin and suffering. Christianity says all men are sinners-we all do evil. The possibility of our doing evil is entailed in our being morally free. The reality of it we see in our own lives and in the lives of others.

Justice requires that evil be punished. Punishment involves suffering. But suffering is a kind of evil—an evil of one kind brought on by another. So the problem for God was how to satisfy the demands of His justice and, at the same time, to deliver people from suffering His punishment upon evil. This He did by becoming man in Jesus and then suffering for our sins in our place.
 
5. Is man basically good?

But I think man is basically good, not sinful.

The question is simply whether man sins at all. Do you do everything you know you ought, and nothing you know you ought not? Have you never done anything wrong in all your life? Have you never lied, cheated, stolen, coveted what belonged to someone else, or hated someone?


Okay, I sin.

This is where we go back to the importance of Jesus in how God is dealing with evil. You see, God is dealing with evil by saving men from it, using it to make them better (by giving them opportunities to develop virtues that could not exist without evil), and making them triumph over it through Jesus. By Jesus' death and resurrection from the dead, God conquered evil, even though He did not annihilate it. This is how, as the early Christian writer Paul of Tarsus put it, God was able to "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26). God was just, in that He punished evil, thus satisfying the demands of justice against sin; and He justified those who had faith in Jesus. How? By putting the punishment on Jesus, who voluntarily took our place, and by crediting Jesus' goodness to our accounts. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE



6. What about atheism, agnosticism, and humanism?

I'm following you I guess, but all of this is getting pretty confusing just now. What about those who are agnostics, atheists, or humanists?
You already know atheism is wrong, since we've proved the universe must have a Creator and Designer. Besides, someone can only be an atheist who says that in all existence, there is no such thing as God. Only someone omniscient‑like God‑could know that. So an atheist, if he realized what he was claiming, would be claiming to be God!

We've already seen that atheism and agnosticism are false. For those who have gone through the reasoning you and I have gone through together, neither is an option. You've already acknowledged God's existence, and so you're neither an agnostic nor an atheist. For you to declare yourself one now would be for you to ignore everything you just discovered, and that wouldn't be intellectually honest.


Fine. But what about those who haven't gone through that reasoning? What's wrong with their being agnostics?

Nothing. It's how they respond to claims about God that's important. You see, there are two kinds of agnostics: those who simply say they don't know if God exists, and those who say no one can know. The second kind is really saying he knows the minds of all other people and knows what is and is not possible for them to know. I've never yet met anyone who could support such a claim. The first kind, to act consistently with his claim not to know whether God exists, should be open to and interested in arguments others can give him for the existence of God. Surely one who claims not to know something is wise to listen to those who claim to know it.

That sounds reasonable. And humanism?

Originally "humanism" referred to the belief that man and the works of man‑literature, art, science, music, drama, etc.‑were legitimate subjects of study. That may seem obvious to us today, but there was a period in the history of the western world, at least, when most people thought the only proper subjects of study were those connected with God and His works‑religion, essentially. Originally "humanism" simply reminded us that it was okay to study things outside religion, and for that we are thankful.

But there is another sense in which people call themselves humanists. They claim that man is totally self‑sufficient, that he can solve all his problems without God or God's help. Of course man can solve many problems himself. But Christianity says he cannot solve the problems of sin and of deserving God's punishment for sin without God's help.


Christianity welcomes the first kind of humanism, but rejects the second because it leaves the most important Being In all existence out of the picture and falsely exalts man, claiming he is better than he really is.
 
7. Isn't Christianity just wish—fulfillment?



So we really need God if we're going to solve all our problems. But that doesn't mean God actually exists, or that Christianity is true. Aren't you just wishing this stuff were true, and then claiming that it is?

Oh no! The mere fact that one wishes for something to be true doesn't make it untrue, any more than it makes it true. Haven't you ever wished for something and it ended up happening? We have to answer the truth or falsehood question independently of whether we wish for it or not. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


8. Did Jesus claim to be God, or was He really just a good moral teacher, or might his disciples have made up the story of his claims to be God?


Okay, then, what are the evidences for Christianity? Some say, for instance, that Jesus never existed, that he's just a fictional character.

The most important evidence for His existence is the New Testament, a collection of twenty‑seven writings (the first four devoted entirely to telling about His life and teachings‑two of these written by eyewitnesses), all of which tell of Jesus, of His life, of His teachings, and of the movement He started, which we know today as Christianity. These documents are strong evidence for the existence of Jesus.


But the New Testament isn't the only document attesting Jesus' existence. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, not a Christian, wrote of Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews. In describing the period of Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of the area where Jesus lived, Josephus said:



Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works‑a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities, Bk. XVIII, Ch. iii)



Josephus wrote his Antiquities in the late first century, completing it in the thirteenth year of the Roman emperor Domitian (A.D. 93‑94). It is one of the primary sources of historical information about late Jewish history.



The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, writing around A.D. 112 about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus and the existence of Christians in Rome (Annals, XV,44). Roman historian Seutonius wrote around A.D. 120 mentioned Jesus and His followers Life of Claudius, 25.4); and the Roman historian Pliny the Younger wrote of Jesus around A.D. 112 (Epistles X.96)



The Apostle Luke, one of the writers of the first four books of the New Testament the "Gospel of Luke," was a careful historian (he also wrote the New Testament Book of Acts). At the beginning of his writing about the life of Jesus, Luke assured his friend that he intended to convey the most carefully‑researched historical facts:



Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1‑4)



When Luke began writing about the public works of Jesus, he put it in a historical setting:



Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.... (Luke 3:1‑2)



The other three Gospels, or stories of the life and teachings of Jesus. also contain clear historical references. They were written by people who respected historical fact. Two of these men, Matthew and John, were followers of Jesus during His ministry; one, Mark, was the close friend of another follower, Peter (who himself wrote two short letters in the New Testament), and Luke was a close companion of Peter and several others of Jesus' followers, and recorded not only the life and teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, but also the lives and works of His closest followers and their first followers in the Book of Acts.



So there's very good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. In fact, we know more about the life and teachings, and even the birth and death of Jesus than about almost any other figure in the ancient world.



All right, Jesus existed. But why should I believe you when you say he's God in the flesh? I think of Him simply as a good moral teacher.



Good moral teachers don't knowingly teach falsehoods, do they? And they don't lead people to trust them to do things they can't do, do they? They also don't make grandiose claims about themselves, like claiming to be God, do they?



No, I suppose not But did Jesus make any such claims?



Yes, He did,



One of the ways Jews referred to God in Jesus' day was the "the Father," and Jews and Christians to this day refer to Him as such. At one point in His teaching, one of his followers, Philip, asked Him to show him and others of His followers the Father. Jesus responded, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father Is in Me? ... Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me..." (John 14:8‑11)



At another time, Jesus was assuring His followers that the Father would take care of them; he concluded by saying, “I and the Father are one." The response of the Jewish leaders to this made it clear they had understood Him to be claiming to be God: "The Jews took up stones again to stone Him" (stoning was a way of killing people believed to have dishonored God by blasphemy). "Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?“ The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30‑33)



In the Old Testament, the most commonly‑used name for God is Jehovah or Jahweh. This name is a rough transliteration of YHWH, Hebrew meaning "I AM." It is a name for God that expresses His eternal existence, or, in terms borrowed from our earlier conversation, His noncontingency. I AM" as a name for God indicates that He owes His existence to nothing else, that He is in fact the first Cause, not an effect (Exodus 3:13‑15).



The Jews of Jesus' day were thoroughly familiar with this designation for God, and so was Jesus. But Jesus applied this designation to Himself when He said, for instance, "... unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24), and "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM..." (John 8:28). Later Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews puzzled over this and responded, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM" (John 8:56‑58). Notice the distinction Jesus makes between Himself and Abraham here? He claims that Abraham came into existence, but claims eternal, non‑contingent existence for Himself. What was the Jews' response? "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him" (John 8:59). They believed He had dishonored God by calling Himself God.



Not only did Jesus claim to be God, His followers believed that claim. The Apostle John, one of His closest followers, called Jesus God in the first verse of his Gospel; John also quoted Thomas, another of Jesus' followers, calling Jesus God (John 20:28). Peter, another of Jesus' closest followers, called Jesus God in the first verse of his second letter (2 Peter 1: 1). The Apostle Paul called Jesus God in his letter to another Christian named Titus (Titus 2:13).


But that doesn't mean it's true. Just because someone claims to be God doesn't mean he is.


You're right. But what are the alternatives? We know Jesus claimed to be God. If He isn't God, then how else might we explain that claim?



I suppose he could have been lying, or he could have been insane.


Those are the only options if he is not God. But each option fails to stand careful questioning.



Was He a liar? Jesus always condemned lying. It seems psychologically pretty unlikely that Jesus was such a liar if He also condemned lying so thoroughly and consistently. Besides this, the idea that He purposely deceived people just doesn't fit with His whole character. Jesus loved people. He went out of His way time after time to help them. He healed them, got them out of trouble, fed them when they were hungry, urged them to love each other, and told them how. That someone like this could have been a liar of the magnitude of a man who would claim to be God when he wasn't is pretty hard to imagine.



Was He insane? Again, the idea just doesn't fit with what we know about Jesus. His teachings about human psychology, contentment, fulfillment, service to others, and the path to happiness are clear, compelling, and enormously convincing to many psychologists. Indeed, if people would live consistently in accord with His teachings in the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5‑7) their lives would be enormously more fulfilled and their mental health much greater than it is when they live contrary to those teachings.



One great Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, became a Christian after years as an atheist and, later, an agnostic, and was a professor of medieval literature and philosophy at Cambridge and Oxford universities in England. In his book Mere Christianity Lewis stated this dilemma forcefully,



... even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less to unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.



I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be alunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg‑or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronzing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, London, England: Collins Fontana Books, 1960, pp. 52‑53.)



Of course, in the long run, this must be your decision. The only good way for you to decide whether you think Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic, or really who He said He was, God in human flesh, is to get to know Him, to read thoroughly about Him in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Read those, or at least one of them, and you'll have a clear picture of Jesus' character‑then decide for yourself whether you think He was lying, insane, or God.

Perhaps Jesus never really made these claims. Maybe the writers of the New Testament just made those things up. Maybe their histories of the life and teachings of Jesus aren't really accurate.

That's a logicial possibility, of course, but the evidence is entirely against it.


First, historians and archeologists, Christians and non‑Christians alike, who specialize in studying the region and times of the New Testament are coming to realize increasingly how accurate and reliable the New Testament is as a collection of historical documents. They are finding again and again that if the New Testament says something happened, it happened.



There's another reason, too, for believing those claims weren't made up by Jesus' followers. Of the twelve foremost followers of Jesus (called "Apostles"), eleven suffered horrible, painful deaths at the hand of persecutors because they refused to renounce their faith in and preaching of Jesus, His resurrection, and His deity. The twelfth, John, died in extreme old age, exiled from his homeland by anti‑Christian authorities. He, too, refused to renounce his faith in Jesus. And before their deaths these men all repeatedly underwent terrible persecutions for their faith and never once wavered from it.



People do not die for what they know is false‑but they willingly die if need be, for what they firmly believe is true. The apostles claimed to be eye‑witnesses of the risen Jesus and to have heard His teachings with their own ears and so have come to the belief that He was God come to save them and all who believe in Him. It just doesn't make sense to think the apostles lied about Jesus.



Finally, there's one more evidence that Jesus was who He said He was. He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead, and that that miracle would be the chief sign that His claims about Himself were true. The resurrection of Jesus is the greatest proof of His diety and of the truth of the whole Christian faith.

Now you're talking about a miracle as the greatest proof for Christianity. But miracles are impossible. They're contrary to the laws of nature, and the laws of nature can't be broken.

The laws of nature don't tell us what can happen; they only tell us what nature can do unassisted by anything outside itself. If there's nothing outside nature, then nothing can ever happen that nature cannot cause by itself. If there is something outside nature that can affect nature, then things can happen that nature by itself could not cause.


You and I agreed earlier that there is something outside nature‑that is intelligent and powerful‑God. We know God can affect nature, because He created it. If God could create nature, then He can also affect it in other ways.



A miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature. It is simply the effect of a cause outside nature reaching into nature and producing what nature by itself could not have produced.



The laws of nature simply tell us that effects are appropriate to their causes. Natural causes produce natural effects. Unnatural causes would, if they acted on nature, produce unnatural effects.
 
9. Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

Okay, I'l1 grant that miracles are possible. But how do you know Jesus rose from the dead? Just because it's possible doesn't mean it happened.
We know it from historical evidence, just as we know anything else about historical events.

Let's set a little background to the kind of evidence we'll look at. This should help us assess the evidence more reasonably.

Numerous times during the last three years of His life, Jesus predicted that He would be crucified (He said it would be to pay for the sins of the world) and that, following the crucifixion, He would rise again from the dead. A little over a week before His death, for instance, He told His closest followers. "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man (this was a special title Jesus gave Himself) will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up" (Matthew 20:18‑19; similar predictions by Jesus are recorded in Matthew 12:40; 16:4; 17:22,23; Luke 9:22,31; 24:6,7; Mark 10:34, Matthew 26:32; Mark 9:9).

One curious thing is that His disciples did not understand these predictions. After one extraordinary event, Jesus instructed His disciples "not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man should rise from the dead. And they seized upon that statement, discussing with one another what rising from the dead might mean" (Mark 9:9‑10).

Though they had trusted Him completely before His death, after He died they were completely discouraged. They did not expect Him to rise from the dead.


Once, while two of His followers were walking together along a road after His death, they were approached by a fellow traveler, who noted their discouragement. They explained that they were discouraged because of Jesus' death. "Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" asked one of the disciples of the stranger. The stranger asked. "What things?" And the disciples explained to him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel" (Luke 24:17‑2 1). They “were hoping"-their hope was gone by now, but before they had hoped. Jesus' death had destroyed all their hopes in Him.


THEN something happened. The stranger responded, "... foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory'?" Then the stranger explained to them that throughout the Jewish Scriptures‑the Old Testament‑there had been predictions concerning the Savior's death and resurrection. Finally, the stranger disclosed Himself to them: it was Jesus Himself, though they had been kept from recognizing Him (Luke 24:31).


Were they just seeing a vision? No, because before the stranger revealed who He was, they watched Him break bread and give it to them.


Shortly after that when these two rejoined the other disciples in Jerusalem, they heard that Jesus had appeared to another of them Peter (Luke 24:34). While they were all together, Jesus Himself "stood in their midst. But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself, touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.'... And while they still could not believe (See, the disciples were skeptics, too! Just like you, they weren't about to believe in Jesus' having risen from the dead without solid evidence!) it for joy and were marveling, He said to them, 'Have you anything here to eat?' And they gave Him a piece of broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them" (Luke 24:36‑43).


One of the disciples, Thomas, was particularly skeptical. Even after the living Jesus had appeared to many of His followers, and they had all told that to him, Thomas refused to believe, since he hadn't been there with them to see and touch Jesus for himself. Even though the other disciples said, 'We have seen the Lord!" he responded, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the places of the nails, and put my hand into His side (Jesus had been pierced through the side with a spear by a Roman soldier to make sure He was dead), I will not believe" John 20:25). Eight days later the disciples were all gathered together again, and Jesus appeared among them. He walked up to Thomas and said, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Finally the skeptic was won over, and Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:26‑28).


When Luke began the second of his two books in which he described, first the life and teachings of Jesus, and then, the lives and teachings of the disciples after His death and resurrection, he impressed on his reader, a man named Theophilus, how strong were the reasons to believe in Jesus:


"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom he had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:1‑3).


The disciples of Jesus were not gullible! They required "many convincing proofs" before they would believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. And once they had seen those proofs, they committed themselves to telling the whole world about Him.

This all sounds good. but all these people were his best friends. I don't see any reason to believe they didn't just dream up the story.

That's always possible. But remember, we're talking about good reasons here, not just possibilities. The truly scientific mind goes in directions pointed to by strongest evidences, by probabilites, not mere possibilities,

Actually, while the disciples could have made all this up, it's highly unlikely that they did. First, they themselves tell us that they were merely confused by Jesus' predictions of His resurrection. They didn't expect to see Him alive again, so why should they have made up stories that He did? Second, as we discussed earlier, no one dies a martyr's death for what he knows to be a lie.


There's a third reason to believe the disciples didn't make up the story. The Jewish religious leaders rejected Jesus. If the disciples had made up a story about His rising from the dead, and then had begun to preach that story around Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders could have ended the whole thing quickly by exhuming the body of Jesus and bringing it out in public.


Then there's a fourth reason to believe they didn't make up the story. One of the apostles, named Paul, was not among the first followers of Jesus. In fact, during the first few years after Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul (who was then called Saul) actively persecuted the followers of Jesus, casting some in prison, having others beaten, and sending some to their deaths. He was the most bitter and dangerous enemy Christians had.


One day something changed Saul completely. While he was on his way to Damascus to persecute more Christians, "suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? And he said, ‘Who are You, Lord’ And He said,' I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do...”’ (Acts 9:3‑6). Saul was blinded by the experience, and three days later Ananias, one of the Christian believers there, came and restored his sight to him. From that day forward, Paul became one of the strongest of the apostles, preaching the gospel all over the Roman empire, withstanding tremendous persecutions and hardships for the sake of Jesus, and finally dying a martyr's death, all because he insisted that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to him.


In one of his letters, Paul summed up the evidence for Christ's resurrection this way: "... I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not 1, but the grace of God with me" (1 Corinthians 15:3‑ 10).


So you see, I don't think it makes much sense to say the disciples just made up the story of the resurrection of Jesus. It's possible, but it's so unlikely that I'd hate to stake my life on it.

You said the Jewish leaders didn't find the body in the tomb. Couldn't they have gone to the wrong tomb?

It wouldn't have been only the Jewish leaders, then, who had gone to the wrong tomb. Jesus' disciples must have made the same mistake, because several of them were so skeptical of the reports of others that they, too, went to the tomb to check whether the body was there. The first among Jesus' followers to go there were the women who had been involved in putting Him in the tomb in the first place just 36 hours earlier. I think it stretches credulity for us to think they made such a silly mistake that quickly afterward.

Besides, the Jewish rulers had made arrangements with the Roman governor Pontius Pilate to have a group of Roman soldiers stationed at the tomb, since they knew of rumors that Jesus might rise from the dead, and they wanted to be sure no one stole the body to fake a resurrection. The guards, the Roman authorities, and the Jewish leaders certainly knew the right tomb. And even if they hadn't known it, it wouldn't have taken long to check the other tombs in the area, find the body, and end the preaching of the resurrection.


Of course, too, the idea that these people were thinking of the wrong tomb doesn't explain the actual appearances of Jesus after His death and burial.


Well, maybe he never really died on the cross. Maybe he just became unconscious, and woke up in the tomb.

Again, that's a possibility, but highly unlikely. When he was reported dead, the Roman authorities instructed a soldier to run a spear through His side, directly under His heart, to make sure it was true. The Roman soldiers who performed crucifixions, were professional executioners the likelihood they would have been fooled is pretty slim.

Even if He had merely lost consciousness and later revived, that wouldn't explain the stories of resurrection. Because He was Himself a Person of absolute honesty. He would have corrected the disciples for teaching that He had died and risen again. And sooner or later He would really have died, and that would have crushed the disciples' hopes again.


Resuscitation doesn't really explain the nature of His appearances to the disciples, either. David Friedrich Strauss, a nineteenth‑century skeptical historian and philosopher who never believed in the resurrection of Jesus: wrote of the impossibility of the resuscitation idea:


It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship. (David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People, second edition, London: Williams and Norgate, 1879, volume 1, page 412.)

Maybe someone stole the body, and the disciples just thought it was a resurrection when they found the tomb empty.

Again, this doesn't explain the appearances of Jesus to the disciples. And they gave their lives because they refused to deny the truth of their testimonies of those appearances.

Besides, who would have stolen the body‑or could have, for that matter? The Romans had no motive to steal it; when the disciples began preaching the resurrection, they would have had plenty of motive to bring the body out into the open if they had stolen it. So the Romans didn't steal it.


The Jewish leaders also would not have had a motive to steal it. Their best motive was to see that it stayed in the same tomb‑that's why they asked the Romans to guard the tomb. Even if they had stolen the body, they, too, could have brought it out later to end the preaching of the resurrection.


In that polarized society, there was really only one other major faction‑the followers of Jesus. They had no motive to steal the body. Their own writings tell us they were disheartened after Jesus' death, not determined to find some way to perpetuate their movement. They hadn't even understood His predictions that He would rise from the dead. And then, of course, we're stuck with the paradox of people dying for what they would have known to be a lie. Besides, the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb were tough, well‑trained fighting men, hardly likely to be overcome by untrained fishermen and others without proper fighting weapons.


You see, there are possible explanations for the empty tomb other than the resurrection of Jesus. But they're all highly unlikely. As intelligent people, we make decisions based on probability. And the highest probability is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. The easiest way for you to know that is to meet Him yourself‑to pray to Him and ask Him to reveal Himself to you, to become your Lord, to forgive you for your sins, and to restore you to friendship with God.


I suppose I can believe the historical probabilities are strong that Jesus rose from the dead and is who he said he was. But I still just can't believe it. After all, this isn't absolute proof. Since you can't prove scientifically the resurrection of Jesus or that he is God, I don't think it's intelligent to believe in him. After all, you're asking me to commit my life to him‑for that I want absolute proof.

Then you're asking more proof about this than you do about pretty much anything else in your life. Every day you commit yourself totally to something that you don't have absolute proof will be worthy of that commitment. When you ride in a car, do you have absolute proof it won't develop a gas leak, catch fire, and explode? When you go up an elevator in a building, do you have absolute proof it won't come crashing down because the cable has broken, and leave you dead? Of course not. You only have varying degrees of probability.

Remember what I said earlier about our making decisions based on probability? Sometimes the stakes in the matter are pretty high, and those high stakes can lead us to trust ourselves to something even if the evidence for it isn't very strong. I'm not saying the evidences for Christianity aren't very strong; I think they're quite strong indeed. But even if those evidences weren’t that strong, I think you'd have good reason to trust yourself to it, because the stakes are so high. Jesus says if you don't believe in Him, you will be lost forever, consciously suffering separation from God because of your sins. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


10. Why do I have to believe in Jesus to become God's friend? Why couldn't God just accept us as we are?

Why do I have to believe in Jesus to become God's friend? Why couldn't I achieve that some other way?
If Jesus is who He said He is‑God‑then whatever He says is true. I've already given you what I think are very strong arguments that Jesus is who He said He is‑His resurrection being the strongest. So I think it makes sense to believe what Jesus tells us. And He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6).

Our sins put us under God's judgment. God is perfect, and He demands perfection of us. But none of us is perfect, so we cannot meet those demands. Because God is just He requires punishment on those who disobey Him. But Jesus said He had come to give His life to ransom us from God's just penalty against sin (Matthew 20:28).

I don't understand why all that was necessary. Why couldn't God just accept us as we are?

God made us to be His friends, but our sins make us repugnant to Him. The old Jewish prophet Habakkuk prayed once to God, "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor" (Habakkuk 1:13). So mankind's sinfulness separates him from God. Yet God's love for us is so strong that He promised He would send someone‑His only Son, in fact,‑to bear punishment as our substitute, so that we could be set free from sin and its punishment and become His friends again. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God's promise to send the Savior.

The price God paid to deliver us from punishment for sin was infinitely precious‑His own Son. If there had been any other way for us to reach God, Jesus would not have had to die. That He did die indicates that there was no other way to make salvation possible. His resurrection proved He was who He said He was and that His death did what He said It did, namely, paid the penalty for our sins.
 
Whatsupyall - The Sequel

You know, I started compiling a file of all the idiotic things this person has said, but it's become too big a task.
 
You didn't believe me that there was tons of proof. You didn't think there was answers for those hard questions.

Do you still believe there is no God?

Do you still have more questions, then follow the answers:

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/answers_for_atheists/default.htm

Do you still want more proof, then go to a Christian book shop and buy one of the hundreds of books that have the proof you're looking for.

Still don't care, then that is fine. It's your salvation.
 
Adam
§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥
7041 posts
Whatsupyall - The Sequel
You know, I started compiling a file of all the idiotic things this person has said, but it's become too big a task.

OKAY YOU'VE SPENT YOUR TIME SAYING WHAT YOU THINK OF ME, NOW IT'S TIME FOR WHAT I THINK:

LOL, the funny thing is this was all just a test. I'm a 16 year old who is being called by God to preach His word, and I wanted to see what I was up against. So far I haven't read one book on atheism, and I've read half a book on evolution, yet I was still able to make you defensive and resort to name calling in your responses.

Like seriously, look at yourselves, you spend all your time thinking about how stupid Christians are. While Christians spend all their time in fellowship with God, serving Him and receiving great joy.

It's not all that different once you think about it; you serve the great God Atheis, while I serve Jesus and the Christian God.

To the Greeks the gospel was foolishness. And to our modern day Atheists, they think it is stupid. NO DIFFERENCE!

Religion has followed this trend for thousands of years. I don't see how you could become so defensive against something that is so obviously going to happen.

You think I'm stupid, well considering I haven't read one book on Atheism I can see your reasoning. But the way you reached this conclusion is quite funny. You saw that I wasn't going to budge in my beliefs so therefore I was stupid. Yet that reaction is so predictable. I don't need 10 diplomas to see that Atheists only have one argument when it boils down to it. YOUR WRONG AND I'M RIGHT, BECAUSE I'M SMART AND YOU’RE DUMB!

Now I can see the next argument, NO I DIDN'T SAY THAT - YES YOU DID, NO I DIDN'T - YES YOU DID, NO I DIDN'T.

Come on, when you stop hiding behind your scientific theories, all you can say is childish dribble.

I hope God blesses your lives, and especially the person who prayed that I would go to hell. I hope you all find the blessings I've found in Jesus Christ. And I hope you all live a great life, and have an after life with God.

In all things God be glorified, bye
 
Answers

I'm a 16 year old who is being called by God to preach His word...
Click to expand...
Wow, aren't you special! God called you, personally, to go on a job for him? Kick arse!

yet I was still able to make you defensive and resort to name calling in your responses.
Click to expand...
It is not defensive to call a stone a stone, a fish a fish, or an idiot an idiot.
 
You know an awful lot about christianity considering you say your still at school. I'll be honest with you, you don't sound or write like a 16 year old schoolkid to me
 
Answers, you should take a long look at yourself in the mirror? You're 16!!!! That might explain a few things. Life is very confusing at your age.

One day, you may actually open your mind and question what you're being told.
 
Originally posted by answers
Hi, I'm another one of those annoying born again Christians :p

If there are any Atheists, who want to ask me some questions about Christianity or God then I'd be more then happy to answer them.

You can post them here, but to be sure I'll answer them email me the questions at

timpil@email.com

I'll answer every question as best I can. If you're bothered sending me a question, I'll be bothered answering it.
=================================

49 Questions About Christianity !


1.If Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of
Israel,why was it confined to Palestine where only
two of the original tribes had settled? Did that
mean that Jesus had failed in his mission?

2.Why should Jesus specifically forbid, on the one
hand, preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles Matthew
7:6,15:24,26) and yet on the other, tell the
disciples to teach all the nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost? (Matthew 28:19)

3.Why did Jesus prohibit the Gospel from being preached
to the Gentiles during his ministry (Matthew 10:5,
7:6,15:24-26) but after his 'resurrection' tell them
to preach the Gospel to the whole world? (Mark
16:15)
If Jesus really had made the latter statement, why
was there such a fierce debate within the early
Church (and particularly between Peter and Paul) as
to whether the Gospel should be preached to the
Gentiles? (Acts 15:6-30)

4.Out of all the signs that Jesus could have given
about himself, he chose to give the sign of Jonah:
This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a
sign but no sign shall be given to it except the
sign of Jonah. (Luke 11:29, Matthew 12:39, Matthew
16) Jonah was swallowed alive by a whale and
remained in its belly alive for three days. For
Jesus to have properly fulfilled the prophecy, he
would need to enter the tomb alive and come out
alive. Why should Jesus give this, of all signs, if
he was to die and be resurrected?

5.If Jesus's message was for the whole of mankind,
why did he forbid his disciples to preach to the
Gentiles? (Matthew 10:5-6)

6.When Jesus was asked what the only way was to true
salvation,he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew
19:17).
The first of the Commandments was to believe in the
Oneness of God (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer
so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity?
Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost?
7.Jesus said that he had not come to change the Law of
Moses (Matthew 5:17). The Law of Moses teaches that
there is one God (Exodus 20:3). If Jesus was
introducing the concept of Trinity, why did he not
say that he was changing the Law of Moses or
introducing a different
8.Jesus prophesied that men of his generation would not
pass away without witnessing his second coming and
the falling of stars (Mark 9:1, 13:30). Why was this
prophecy unfulfilled? Why was it that Jesus did not
return within the lifetime of his generation?

9.Why did Jesus forbid the disciples from calling
people fools yet called the Jewish leaders with
names like vipers and children of adultery? Is it
conceivable that a Divine Being would behave in this
way?

10.According to Luke, when the Jews tried Jesus they
asked him Are you the son of God? Jesus replied you
say that I am (Luke 22:70) which could mean: you say
that I am but I do not. If his divinity was
something he came to tell the world, why did he not
plainly say yes instead of couching his answer in
ambiguous terms?

11.In the Old Testament, the term Son of God was
applied to David (Psalms 89:27), the nation of
Israel (Exodus 4:22), the children of Israel
(Psalms 82:6), and Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:10).
Jesus also used it for the peacemakers (Matthew
5:9). If Jesus was referring to himself as the Son
of God in the literal sense, why did he not make it
clear that he was differentiating between a
symbolic reference and a literal meaning of the
term?

12.Jesus was the Messiah, the fulfillment of Old
Testament prophecies. He frequently made reference
to himself as the suffering servant foretold in the
Book of Isaiah (Matthew 8:17 & Isaiah 53:4; Luke
2:30 & Isaiah 52:10; Luke 22:37 & Isaiah 53:12). The
Messiah of the Old Testament was, however, promised
by God that he would not be killed (Psalms 34:19,
Isaiah 53:10). How was it, therefore, that the Jews
had succeeded in killing the Messiah if Jesus died
on the cross?

13.If Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him,
why did he continue to permit him as a disciple? Why
did he not tell the other disciples so that Judas
could be excluded from his closest circle of
followers?

14.If Jesus knew that one of his disciples would betray
him, why should he say that all twelve disciples
would sit upon twelve thrones? (Matthew 19:28)
15.If Jesus knew that he was to die on the cross, why
did he spend all night praying in the Garden of
Gethsemane seeking deliverance: Father if it is
possible may this cup be taken from me? (Matthew
26:39)

16.Jesus had taught that man's prayers are answered
the Garden of Gethsemane? What effect would this
incident have on the faith of his disciples and
followers to see that a prayer had not been answered
contrary to what Jesus had taught?

17.If Jesus believed that his prayer in the Garden of
Gethsemane would not be heard, why did he tell his
disciples earlier that prayers are answered?: Would
any of you who are fathers give your son a stone
when he asked for bread (Matthew 7:9-10) which means
that God hears the prayers of man more than a
father answers the wishes of his children and Ask
and it will be given to you; seek and you will find;
knock and it will be openedtoyou. And whatever you
ask in your prayers, you will receive, if you have
faith. (Matthew 21:22; John 11:41,42)

18.If Jesus's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane was
not to be heard, why was it something that he wanted
the disciples to witness? If the prayer was not to
be heard, what useful purpose does this story serve?

19.Why should Matthew, Mark and Luke all report
(Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42) that Jesus
asked for the cup of suffering to be passed if
possible yet John (John 18:11) reports that Jesus
hastened for the crucifixion saying shall I not
drink the cup the Father hath given me?

20.Why did Pontius Pilate just simply ignore his wife's
plea to have nothing to do with Jesus on account of
her bad dream? (Matthew 27:19) If the very mission
of Jesus was to suffer death, why should God
Almighty show a dream to Pilate's wife which would
cause her to try and persuade her husband to release
Jesus? Would not that appear to counter God's own
plan?

21.If Pilate really wanted Jesus to die on the cross,
why would he fix the crucifixion on a Friday evening
knowing that the Jews would have to take him down
before Sabbath and that such a little time on the
cross was insufficient for him to die?

22.If Jesus knew all along that he was destined to be
crucified to death (indeed if that was his purpose
in life), why did he exclaim on the cross Eli, Eli
Lama Sabachthani meaning my God my God why hast thou
forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)
23.If Jesus was about to die, how was he able to say in
a clear loud and audible voice that he was thirsty?
(John 19:28)
Sabachthani (Matthew 27:46) reported in their
original Aramaic form? Could it be that Jesus's
helpless cry left such a vivid impression of a man
seemingly bereft of hope that anyone who heard them
would remember the exact words?

25.Vinegar is often considered to have a stimulating
effect,rather similar to smelling salts. Why, in
Jesus's case, did it suddenly lead to his death?
(John 19:29,

26.How could an onlooker tell the difference between a
man on the cross who had died and a man who had
fainted (Mark 15:39) particularly when it is
reported that it was dark at that time? (Mark 15:33,
Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44)

27.If Jesus was dead when he was removed from the
cross, why did his body release blood and water,
since blood does not flow at all from a dead body?
(John 19:34)

28.Why did Jesus die before the other two who were
crucified with him even though the legs of the other
two were broken to hasten death? (John 19:32)

29.It is reported that dead saints came out of their
graves and made themselves known to many (Matthew
27:52). When the Jews saw this, why did they not
immediately profess faith in Jesus? Where did these
saints go? Who did they see? Why is there no account
of this story elsewhere other than in Matthew's
Gospel?

30.If the above story of saints rising from the dead is
not based on an actual historical event, what other
statements there in the Gospels which are not baon
actual historical facts?

31.Jesus said that the killing of prophets ended with
the killing of Zacharias (Matthew 23:35-36). How was
it, therefore, that the Jews had succeeded in
killing another prophet?

32.Crucifixion was meant to be an accursed death
(Deuteronomy 21:23). If Jesus was crucified, did
that mean he also suffered an accursed death?
33.Why was it that a Roman soldier was so readily
prepared to allow Joseph (a subjected citizen) to
take down Jesus's body from the cross without
checking and without Joseph having any apparent
lawful authority?

34.Why is there is no direct account by Joseph of
Arimathea or Nicodemus that Jesus was dead when he
was account would have settled the matter beyond
dispute?

35.Why should Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus take so
much trouble to recover the body of Jesus when this
would have been the duty of the nearest relative?
36.Why did Pilate agree to release the 'body' to Joseph
of Arimathea (a known Jew and follower of Jesus) if
he was not sympathetic to Jesus?

37.Crucifixion was a slow death. It usually lasted
several days. Death followed from exhaustion,
inability to respire property as a result of being
in an upright position or attacks by wild animals.
Why did Jesus, who was a fit and healthy man used to
walking the countryside for long distances, die so
quickly in only a matter of a few hours?

38.If Jesus really was expected to die in such a short
time, why did Pilate express surprise at Jesus's
death? (Mark 15:42-44)

39.Why would the Jews bribe the soldiers to say that
Jesus's disciples had stolen the corpse whilst they
(the soldiers) were asleep? If the soldiers had
truly related this story, they might have been asked
how they knew that the disciples had stolen the
corpse if they were asleep?

40.Why did the Jews not go and check the tomb
themselves? They had put much effort into getting
Jesus crucified. A friend of Jesus had been allowed
to take the body away. Why did they not visit the
tomb before Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of
Jesus did?

41.Why did Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus not stay
with Jesus in the tomb after taking down his body
from the cross to witness the resurrection? Jesus
had apparently told his followers that he would die
and rise after three days. (Matthew 16:21, 17:23,
20:17-19) This report had even reached the Jews
(Matthew 27:63). Why did not Joseph and Nicodemus
remain with Jesus to witness the event?

42.Did the Jews really believe that Jesus had died? If
so, why did they ask the Romans for a guard to be
placed outside the sepulcher? Matthew says the Jews
explained this by saying that Jesus's disciples
could spread false rumors about him rising from the
dead. However, if the Jews really believed this to
be the reason for the request, why could they not
have asked the disciples to produce the risen Christ
as proof? If the disciples had then done so, the
Jews could then presumably rearrest Jesus.

43.Why were the Roman authorities so disinterested
about the apparent removal of the body if this is
what the Jews were claiming?

44.Why was the stone moved from the tomb (Matthew28:2)
if it was a supernatural rising?

45.When Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of Jesus saw
him, he was wearing gardener's clothing (John
20:15). Where did Jesus get these clothes from? His
own clothes had been taken by the soldiers who had
divided them drawing lots (John 19:23). It was not
through Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus because
they are only reported of having taken in herbs,
aloes and a linen shroud (John 19:39, 40). What was
the significance of Jesus wearing gardener's
clothing (as opposed to normal clothing)? Was it
meant to be a disguise? If so, for what purpose?

46.Why were the women who visited the tomb terrified if
Jesus was dead (Mark 16:8)? What did they have to be
terrified of if the Jews had succeeded in killing
Jesus?

47.If Jesus could conquer death and rise from thedead,
why did he fear seeing the Jews afterthe
crucifixion? particularly as death had no more power
over him? (Romans 6:9)

48.Why did Jesus disguise himself afterthe
resurrection and appear only to the disciples?
Surely, this was the great manifestation of his
power and the fulfillment of the purpose of his
creation. What was the purpose in keeping it all a
secret now?

49.If Jesus was the risen Christ, why did he meet his
disciples behind closed doors and not in the open as
he used to? (John 20:19)

Note: All quotations are from the Revised Standard
Version.
Click to expand...
 
****The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.


We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.****

i think you are a bit confused here. Your claims might be valid if they were applied to a closed system, but the earth isn't. Evolution, genes do not have to adhere to the second law. Therefore: 3rd option. the earth is not a closed system, second law doesn't apply here.

edit: and congratulations to me for 500 posts in about 3 days, and condolences to you all for the same reason.
 
Originally posted by answers
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.

wasn't his name jesus?
Click to expand...

Answer: Immanuel is Jesus in a different language, i'm pretty sure it was Jewish, but it might have been greek. [/B]
Click to expand...
Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with virgins and Immanuel does not mean Jesus in any language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top