Truth Challenge » Apologetics

Why are young people not coming to the traditional church? An apology for reaching young people

admin — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:57:54 +0000

“Why are 20-year-olds not responding to the Gospel and coming to church?” This was the provocative question asked by Rev. John Roth[1] in his Good Friday sermon in 2008. The following was my email response to his question with a few additions.

Many years ago J. Gresham Machen (d. 1937) wrote a booklet, “Christianity and Culture.” I don’t have the booklet (which is only 15 pages) but I am reading quotes from this book in William Lane Craig’s, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Machen wrote, “The chief obstacle to the Christian religion to-day lies in the sphere of the intellect. . . The Church is perishing to-day through the lack of thinking, not through an excess of it” (Machen p. 13, in Craig, p. xv).

William Lane Craig is one of the foremost evangelical apologists in the world today. He is addressing intellectual issues of our day. See his homepage HERE. Some of Craig’s debates and articles are HERE.

Craig states the following that, I think, addresses some of the problems in engaging 20-year-olds today:

Our churches are filled with Christians who are idling in intellectual neutral. As Christians, their minds are going to waste. One result of this is an immature, superficial faith. . . They know little of the riches of deep understanding of Christian truth, of the confidence inspired by the discovery that one’s faith is logical and fits the facts of experience. . . If Christian laymen don’t become intellectually engaged, then we are in serious danger of losing our children. In high school and college Christian teenagers are intellectually assaulted on every hand by a barrage of anti-Christian philosophies and attitudes. As I speak in churches around the country, I continually meet parents whose children have left the faith because there was no one in the church to answer their questions. For the sake of our youth, we desperately need informed parents who are equipped to wrestle with the issues at an intellectual level (William Lane Craig 1994, Reasonable Faith, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. xv).

I know how destitute I was in 1984 when I was pursuing doctoral studies in the USA at university and the professor said to me in front of the class when I questioned a theory: “Your views are b-s” (and he didn’t abbreviate). From that very moment I have spent a lot of time equipping myself to defend the Christian faith against challenges to the faith. My churches did not equip me to do that. They should be doing it on the basis of Eph. 4:12.

Then we have to counter the trash from some pulpits and the mass media. Did you read the anti-biblical challenge from within the church from clergy such as the Rev. Dr. John Evans, Uniting Church minister at Church of All nations, Carlton (Melbourne) “Ditch Good Friday as holiday.”[2] Then there is the heretical material coming from people such as John Shelby Spong, Barbara Thiering, John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar.

Therefore, I suggest that we are not reaching 20-year-olds (and others), because we are not answering the questions they are asking about God, the world and even in spiritual matters. How can we overcome this problem? These are my suggestions:

1. Equip the people in our churches to be defenders of the faith. Surely we have examples of this approach with Paul at Athens (Acts 17:16ff) in reasoning in the synagogue with Jews, devout persons and in the market place with those who happened to be there (v. 17), as well as Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (v. 18). Then we have Paul on the Areopagus (Acts 17:22ff) addressing one of the issues of the day, “To an unknown god.” We don’t seem to be doing this much today. In fact, I don’t know of any church locally that has an outreach ministry of apologetics that is answering the questions 20-year-olds and others are asking.

2. We have resources by the droves to help pastors and teachers to equip God’s people for ministries of apologetics. William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler, John W. Montgomery, Winfried Corduan, John Frame, Cornelius van Til, R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Craig Evans, Gary Habermas, Douglas Groothuis, Douglas Geivett, N. T. Wright and others have helped me with answers to the questions of our day.

3. As we equip God’s people in apologetics, have focus groups where young people gather: high schools, universities, skate parks, etc. In fact we have an ideal opportunity to do this in high school with RE (religious education, although there are limitations here) but I don’t see it being done. We could ask high school teens questions such as these?

a. Do you believe in God? If not, why not? What is stopping a teen from believing in God? Explore this in open, honest discussion. Most lay people teaching RE are not equipped to do this.

b. Why is there so much evil in the world? How can your good God allow genocide and even contribute to it in the time of Noah?

c. What’s the big deal about God? Why even bother with him?

d. That religious stuff in the Bible is unbelievable (raising the dead and casting out demons’ crap – that’s what a person said to me).

e. In the world of science, can Bible stuff be believed?

f. I’m living alright without God. Why even bother with him?

4. Then we have outreach to address these needs with mass media advertising—even use the classifieds in newspapers and billboards.

5. I engage with atheists on the www to help sharpen my skills and answer their penetrating questions. One of them stated:

- Please show me where your religion counts as proof. Can you prove that babies are aware of sin or not?
- Some things are wrong regardless if they are sins or not. Sin is only an action contrary to religion.
- Sin doesn’t equal wrong. Sin is contrary to religion. For example genocide is wrong regardless of religion. Gay marriage is not wrong regardless of religion.
- Your religious laws do not apply.
- Personhood is not proof of god. Nature is not proof of god.
- Anyone, even a creator, who creates beings, gives them free will and then commits genocide on them if they disobey is a TYRANT. Sentient beings are different than an object. As soon as people had free will then they were not owned by god. God cannot do as he sees fit. If he kills them then he is a tyrant.
- Using the bible to prove your point is meaningless to me. Your bible means nothing to me. Sin is an action contrary to a religion. If a person doesn’t follow your religion then they are not sinning (by your religion).

6. Francis Schaeffer did this kind of thing magnificently. We all don’t have the gifts of Schaeffer, but we all must engage secular young people and others to begin to answer their penetrating questions. When we start to do this, I think that the young may begin to take notice of Jesus, God and the church. To this point, most of our answers are stereotypically Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, etc. However, if we are to engage our culture and attract young people, it will mean outreach activities with a sharp apologetic edge. How long is it since you, as a pastor, were engaged in a debate (either public or in your church) with a local young adult? We have a local university. Why debate one of its students on a hot topic for the young? What about debating topics such as the following?

- Why does vandalism attract young people?
- The truth about illicit drugs.
- Why does premarital sex not make sense?
- The abortion death squad.
- How to make marriage work.
- Why defacto relationships don’t work.

7. Please understand that I am NOT advocating a seeker-sensitive contemporary approach to marketing Christianity. Take a listen to what Bill Hybels thinks of the very model that he helped to invent and promote with vigour. Hybels, one of the seeker-sensitive church gurus has made this confession:

Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back, it wasn’t helping people that much. Other things that we didn’t put that much money into and didn’t put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for (“Willow Creek Repents,” (Christianity Today, 18 October 2007)

After 30 years of promoting seeker-sensitive programs and investing millions of dollars in the venture, he says:

We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ’self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between service, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own (“Willow Creek Repents,” Christianity Today, 18 October 2007).

What I’m suggesting is vastly different from that.

8. However, I am of the view that a church can have solid biblical lyrics in its songs without maintaining a hymn style of 2-3 centuries ago. I was raised on traditional hymns but that does not reach today’s generation. We could sing the great hymns of the faith accompanied by contemporary instruments rather than be anchored in another era of a pipe organ, electronic organ or piano. You can still have guitars and percussion in your music, maintain a moderate level of sound, and sing songs of substance biblically.

9. Too much that comes from our pulpits does not answer the questions that people are asking. We can begin to do this by application in our sermons. Why not address topics like these?

- How can I believe in God with so much suffering in the world?
- Surely it’s arrogant to believe that there is only one way to the best of life after death.
- What makes Jesus different from Muhammad?
- Too much of Christianity is unseen. We live in a scientific age that requires empirical support.
- Many within the church say the Bible is myth. Is it or is it not? Can you trust the Bible?
- Who made God?
- How can I believe in God when there are so many hypocrites in the church?
- What can we do about the march of militant Islam?

There is another dimension to why the church might not be attracting all people, including 20-year-olds:

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. (2 Tim. 3:1-5 ESV)

These are some thoughts from a believer who is also concerned over why we are not reaching all people, especially the young.

Appendix A

Ditch Good Friday as holiday: cleric[3]

March 20, 2008 – 2:32PM

Sydney Morning Herald

Good Friday should be dumped as a public holiday and replaced with a national reconciliation day recognising Aborigines as integral to Australia’s identity, a Melbourne cleric says.

The Reverend John Evans, the Uniting Church Minister at the Church of All Nations in Carlton, said Good Friday had lost its religious significance outside the Christian community.

He also said Australia was becoming a more multicultural, multifaith society and having Good Friday as a public holiday may no longer be appropriate.

Dr Evans applauded Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s public apology as a major step towards reconciliation, but said a day such as Good Friday should be set aside to mark the recent steps forward.

“We have done a great thing with the national apology but when you look at our public holidays there are no public holidays that recognise the role and place of Aborigines as the first people of this land,” he said.

Dr Evans said any day, not just Good Friday, could be suitable for a national reconciliation day.

The exact day should be put to the Aboriginal community, he said.

In a statement released today, Dr Evans said: “Whether Good Friday is a public holiday or not will not change or challenge the day’s significance. In fact, in the place of Good Friday, there should be a national holiday to mark our endeavours towards Aboriginal reconciliation.”

When asked about the statement, Dr Evans said: “That would be the gift that I would be prepared to make, that if the only way we could get a public holiday for national day of reconciliation is that it’s Good Friday, I’d be for it.”

He said Good Friday would not lose its name or significance as a result.

“We will never not have Good Friday. The question is should it be a public holiday,” he said.

“And I would welcome it to be a public holiday but I would also observe that it is not being treated as a holy day.”

Dr Evans said a national reconciliation day fits in with the message of Easter, which he said was about reconciliation between individuals, God and each other.

But Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, Christopher Prowse said despite the importance of reconciliation it would be inappropriate to have such a day on Good Friday.

“Aboriginal issues are very important for Australia, however the Good Friday observance has a different focus and that focus should not be deflected by other issues, however important.”

But another day could be set aside for reconciliation, he said.

AAP

[1] Rev. John Roth is the pastor of Hervey Bay Presbyterian Church, Denman’s Camp Road, Hervey Bay 4655, Australia. It was in his Good Friday sermon on 21 March 2008.

[2] See Appendix A.

[3] Available from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/ditch-good-friday-as-holiday-cleric/2008/03/20/1205602551698.html [21 March 2008].

Jesus is not unique: An assessment of the ABC TV “Compass” program

admin — Sat, 02 May 2009 07:29:31 +0000

A. Introduction

What would be your response if you turned on your TV at Easter time to a documentary and heard this[1]

1. The Jesus story is supposed to be exclusive to Christianity. That’s what we have been told for 2,000 years.

2. But it’s not unique. The ancient god, Krishna, was 800 years before Christ and he had a miraculous birth and was attended by angels.

3. Buddha performed miracles and fed 5,000 people;

4. Jesus didn’t die on a cross in Jerusalem, but is buried in India.

5. The Muslims expect Jesus to return to be in a tomb next to Muhammad’s.

6. The Christian’s christos (Christ) comes from the same root as Krishna.

7. The second line of the Lord’s prayer, “Hallowed be thy name,” has almost the same idea as Krishna’s.

8. In the Gospel of John, Jesus said: “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold” (John 10:16). When Jesus said this “he was speaking of other religions and their teachings.”

9. Buddha’s continuum of life and the perfecting of life are very similar to that proclaimed by Jesus.

10. The pagan religion of Mithras parallels the rise of Jesus. Mithras offered life after death. Did Christianity steal these ideas as Mithras lived before Christ?

11. Christianity borrowed some of its ideas from the Osiris, an ancient god of the Egyptians that went back as far as 2,500BC. That’s why Christianity spread so quickly in Egypt.

12. Why do Christians reject these parallels? That’s because Mithras and Osiris are too close to the Christian story.

I walked into this barrage of statements about the alleged parallels between Jesus and world religions when I turned on ABC TV’s Compass program, Sunday night, 5th April 2009. This was the first part of the program called, “The Hidden Story of Jesus,” and it was prepared and narrated by a liberal theologian [2] from the UK by the name of Robert Beckford, who teaches at Oxford Brookes University. Part 2 was on Easter Sunday, 12 April 2009 and I did not see it.

This program had been shown in the UK in December 2007 on Channel 4 – around Christmas time. I wonder why?

This Australian ABC TV attack on the fundamentals of the Christian faith was telecast to coincide with the Christian’s celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection at Easter 2009. Could this be a coincidence?

Could you imagine ABC TV attacking Islam like this during the holy month of Ramadan which is usually in September?[3]

I want to use this background to investigate how we as Christians are to assess attacks against Christ and Christianity. I will begin with some preliminary questions before I get to a broad outline of how we should be assessing any worldview – not just Christianity.

What does this kind of TV attack do to a new Christian?
Is it a human right not to attack Christianity or any other religion?

Let’s look at these 2 questions:

B. Firstly, what does this kind of TV attack do to a new Christian?

How do you think a new Christian or an immature Christian would respond to this information? He or she has learned that Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).[4] This makes Jesus very unique and the exclusive way to eternal life. But that’s not what the TV commentary said.

The new Christian may very well have been exposed to the teaching of Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Then along comes somebody from within the church, a theologian, Dr. Robert Beckford, who says that what he heard when he was being raised as a child in the Sunday School, is not what he believes now – based on his research. He says that Christ is not unique. You can find Christ’s teachings in many of the world’s religions.

Where does that leave the Christians?
Have we been lied to for the last 2,000 years?
Can we Bible-believing Christians continue to believe what we were taught in Sunday School when the new information contradicts it?
Or, do we have to agree with and follow the supposed latest research of Dr. Beckford that blows the exclusive claims of Jesus out of the water?
If Jesus’ message can be found in any of the world’s religions, then surely it’s a fundamentalist farce to impose the exclusive claims of Jesus on unsuspecting people – that’s what Beckford said.
Should we be suggesting that there are many ways to experience the ultimate in religious experience and to enter the Kingdom (whatever that means).
In this TV program there was an interview with Egyptologist, Dr. Bonjana Mojsov[5], who would not accept that Christianity stole these ideas from Osiris but she was diplomatic in claiming that Christianity borrowed these ideas. She said that this could be one of the reasons why Christianity spread so quickly in the early days in Egypt.

What does this do to new-found Christian faith? It could have a very negative impact on new faith unless Christian discipleship includes this kind of Bible teaching from John 15.

Jesus said according to John 15:18-21:

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. ¹⁹If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. ²⁰Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. ²¹But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.”

From Jesus again: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (That’s Matt. 10:24-25).

Let’s turn to the apostle Paul in Rom. 12:14:”Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” This parallels what Jesus said: “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:44-45).

What did Paul say to the Corinthian church? “When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things” (I Cor. 4:12-13).

Paul to Timothy said: “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12).

Christians, this is Bible! Christians will be persecuted by the ungodly and it is essential in discipleship of new Christians that this dimension is included. People who come to Jesus for an easy, free ride, have missed the Saviour and what he taught.

When you come to Christ, your inner world is radically changed because you have been born again. You are now in a dynamic, correct relationship with God. But don’t expect the world to be excited about this.

What I viewed on that television program is typical of what to expect from secular TV or from a non-Christian with whom you may work. Antagonism is the order of the day from some people.

The first question I had was: What will this kind of program do to new Christians? I am of the view that it will hit them for a spiritual sixer unless you disciple them to follow Jesus in this way: “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”

So do we have to sit back and take persecution as the expected. No! No! Expect it, but the Bible’s teaching is also: “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light” (Eph. 5:11-14).

That is, expose the darkness and the “unfruitful works of darkness” as you continue to experience the shameful behaviour of unbelievers.

Firstly, what do statements of doubt in the mass media or from any other person, do to the new Christians? It could devastate them unless you prepare them to expect it.

C. Secondly, is it a human right not to attack Christianity or any other religion?

Or, to put it another way, should Australia be passing legislation to make it illegal to attack or expose any religion?

For those interested, I recommend an article in the University of Queensland Law Journal, December 2007 edition, where there is an excellent analysis by Rex Tauati Ahdar titled, “Religious vilification: Confused policy, unsound principle and unfortunate law.”[6] It’s available online.

Rex Ahdar shows how the UK and three states of Australia[7] (Queensland, Tasmania & Victoria) have “enacted laws banning incitement to religious hatred.”[8] He points out that

“the best argument against religious vilification is . . . the Catch the Fire case [in Victoria]. This decision, the first major litigation on the subject, bears out the concerns of many that religious vilification laws are conceptually unsound and produce results antithetical to the religious tolerance its promoters hope for. . . . The justifications for the introduction of religious vilification laws have never been persuasive.”[9]

There is another excellent article by a lawyer in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 April 2009,[10] in which he states:

This week we have heard about an increasing international trend to prosecute religious issues in the courts.

In Britain cases are being brought under laws such as the Religious Hatred Act, which makes it a crime to “stir up” “religious hatred”. British police have even warned that insulting Scientology would be treated as a crime.

Such legislation may soon be heading to a statute book near you.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is finalising a report almost certain to recommend legislation on religion – on freedom of religion or religious vilification – that would mean similar prosecutions being launched under national law.

Why do we need this? The last time Australians were asked whether they wanted freedom of religion embodied in the constitution was in 1988. Showing a robust common sense, they voted a resounding “no”. It lost in every state and territory, with up to 74 per cent against.

Citizens knew in their bones that Australia was one of the freest countries in the world and that we wouldn’t make ourselves freer by inventing new offences.

So why are we even having this debate? The commission says on its website it’s because of “an increased presence of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and other religious communities”.

This is an extraordinary statement; it undermines the need for any change in the law. If Australia were a nightmare realm of vilification and persecution, a dystopia of religious angst, I doubt that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews would settle here in growing numbers. The growth of these communities is proof positive Australia enjoys freedom of religion. . .

The Human Rights Commission hints it would only recommend civil penalties. This is bogus.

Those statements were made by a lawyer and former Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr.

There has been a further development in the vilification of religion stakes. A non-binding resolution, put forward by the Islamic states in March 2009, was adopted recently by the United Nations Human Rights Council. It “calls for the ‘defamation of religion’ to be considered a human rights violation – a crime.”[11], [12]

How should we respond to such an initiative? Let me suggest to you that since the time of Christ & the beginning of the church, the “offence of the cross” has been borne by Christians. Jesus was despised, rejected, ridiculed & scorned. This also happened to his immediate disciples. It has happened and will continue to happen to all who faithfully follow Christ.

It was the early church father, Tertullian, who made this pointed and true observation:

“We are not a new philosophy but a divine revelation. That’s why you can’t just exterminate us; the more you kill the more we are. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. You praise those who endured pain and death – so long as they aren’t Christians! Your cruelties merely prove our innocence of the crimes you charge against us.”[13]

In an antagonistic world, we are called upon to defend the Gospel. We are not called to defend our own honour. We should be confident of this: When we defend the Gospel, God will see to it that His name is vindicated. Christ will judge all nations and all people with absolute justice & righteousness.

Until that time at the consummation of the age, I do not believe that governments should set laws that prevent defamation of religion – as the “Catch the Fire” case demonstrated.

Instead, in this Australian democracy, I recommend that we ask governments to make laws that protect our right to preach & share the Gospel.

Such laws will bring with them the right for other religions to proclaim their beliefs. And the laws also will give Christians and other religions the right to critique each others’ beliefs & practices.

I believe that this is the greatest opportunity for this Australian democracy to remain open to the proclamation of the Gospel and the defence of the faith. [14]

We must teach all Christians and especially new believers, to expect persecution. Until Jesus comes, the offence of the cross means that your faith will be under attack from everyday human beings as well as by the mass media.

What the ABC Compass program broadcast should be expected from any who do not accept the authority of the Scriptures. Those attacks, as exemplified by this program, are also coming from within the church by liberal theologians such as Robert Beckford.

That gets to some core principles for assessing any teaching from whatever the source, ABC TV or any other antagonist to the faith. How do you know what is true and what is false?

D. How do believers tackle any resistance to Christ and Christians?

The New Living Translation puts it simply and beautifully: “Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ” (I Peter 3:15-16). “Be ready to explain it.” “To explain” is the Greek apologia, which means to give an apologetic, a defense of the faith.

This applies to the ABC Compass program AND to every other assault on the faith. How do we assess any worldview?

What is a worldview? James Sire says that “a world view is a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of our world.”[15]

It is like looking at the world through a pair of coloured belief glasses. Those glasses represent meaning and value in life. They cover everything that we believe, but they also include what we say and do. What you believe always leads to your actions in word and deed.

All of us have presuppositions. Are they fixed and where do they come from? What do you consider to be the presuppositions or assumptions that a person brings to a TV program or to listen to me today? Presuppositions are very often firmly held by the person.

I want to suggest seven categories of assessing any world and life view. They can be used to assess, what I will call, “The Religious Copycat Theory”[16] that was promoted by the Compass TV program. This is the view that Christianity is a copy of some fundamentals of other religions. We’ll check out this theory briefly.

What categories can we use to assess any worldview? These are some of the fundamentals of assessment. I’m going to use the outline of Norman Geisler and William Watkins in their book, Perspectives.[17] This outline includes seven questions:

1. What’s your view of God or ultimate reality?[18]

2. What’s the nature of the world?

3. Does God intervene in the world? Or, are miracles possible?

4. What’s the nature of human beings?

5. Evil is real. Where did it come from?

6. Ethics. Are there right and wrong thoughts and actions in our universe?

7. What’s the nature of history? Where is history going?

I’ll only have time to investigate the first three of these as applied to this TV program:

What’s the view of God or ultimate reality?
What’s the nature of the world? and
Does God intervene in the world? That is, are miracles possible?

Let’s examine the content of Dr. Beckford’s documentary under these headings. Remember, I have only seen the first episode. I will not have the time to examine each of these points in depth.

1. What’s his view of God or ultimate reality?[19]

Beckford says that Jesus, Krishna & Buddha have remarkable similarities and they have parallels with the religions of ancient Egypt & Persia.

He says that Jesus is supposed to be exclusive to Christianity and this story has been promoted for 2,000 years, but that’s not the case.

He claimed that for the Hare Krishna, Christos [Christ] and Krishna came from the same root word. Krishna is one of the prominent gods of Hinduism.

He spoke of a follower of Krishna who said that Jesus was an incarnation of god. I ask: What’s the difference between a Hindu incarnation of a god and Jesus Christ’s incarnation?

He claims that the words from the Lord’s prayer, “Hallowed be thy name” are “almost the same” for Krishna. But the exact quote was not given to prove that this parallel exists.

Beckford interviewed a Hindu Brahmin priest who said: “Talking to God — whoever God is.” He was a Hindu priest but he did not know who God is. He sounded like an agnostic.

This is Beckford’s understanding of the nature of God. When Jesus said, according to the Gospel of John, “I have other sheep that are not in this fold” (John 10:16), he was speaking of other religions and acceptance of their teachings. Beckford spoke of Hindus celebrating the inner light and it bothers him that Christians have big problems with Hindus because Hindus experience the kingdom of God by whatever means are best to them.

Also, Beckford said that when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” it was parallel to Buddha’s understanding of enlightenment.

a. How should I respond as a Christian to these statements?

(1) Was Jesus an incarnation of a god or was he God Himself?

A Hindu website provided this explanation of what the Hindus mean by somebody or something being an incarnation of god:

Avatar means to appear, to descend, to take birth or manifest. In Hinduism, an avatar means the form of a deity and usually refers to an incarnation of God or His aspects such as Vishnu on planet earth, either as a man or an animal or some mythical creature. An avatar is not mere materialization or appearance of God in physical form for the sake of his devotees. It is neither a disguise nor a trick played upon our senses. God has been appearing to people from time to time either to pass on some message or accomplishing some task through the beholder. His voice has been heard by countless people upon earth either internally through the subtle channels or externally through actual hearing.[20]

So, in Hinduism, an incarnation is “the form of a deity” as an “appearing to people from time to time” to give a message that can come through people hearing a voice internally or externally.

How does this compare with the incarnation of Jesus Christ?

Philippians 2:5-8 says this of Jesus Christ when he came to earth as a human being.

The KJV puts it:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The English Standard Version reads:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

When Jesus Christ became a man on earth he was God. The language, “form of God” means “equality with God.” Also he was taking the form of a servant in the likeness of human beings. We know that Jesus did not give up his divine attributes. We know that “he knew all people” and “he knew himself what was in man” (John 2:24-25 ESV). That is, he had divine foreknowledge on earth.

John 18:4 speaks of Jesus, that he “knowing all that would happen to him” (ESV).

He had omnipotent power to rebuke the wind, miraculously feed the hungry, heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead. Christ performed miracles because of his own inherent power as God on earth.

Surely the miraculous works of Elijah and Elisha didn’t indicate that they were God incarnate because they performed them in the power of the Spirit. However, of Jesus it is stated: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31). Jesus miracles point to his being the Son of God, God on earth.

Theologian Charles Hodge put it this way:

“Christ, however, wrought miracles by His own inherent power . . . Christ never referred this miraculous power to any source outside of Himself; He claimed it as His own prerogative; and He conferred the power upon others. . . He was God in fashion as a man. He therefore appealed directly to His works.”[21]

Therefore,

(2) The NT identifies Jesus as God.

The TV program was short on exact quotes. When Beckford makes momentous claims about Jesus, Krishna and Buddha having such remarkable similarities, it is incumbent on him to present the exact quotes to confirm this. Otherwise, I will treat his remarkable similarities as remarkable presuppositions.

What about this idea that Jesus is not exclusive to Christianity?

(3) Jesus said, according to John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (NIV).

Beckford says that this is the equivalent of Buddha’s “enlightenment.” What was Buddha’s enlightenment?

One Buddhist website[22] described Buddha’s Enlightenment like this: “One happy Vesak night, as he was seated under the famous Pippala tree at Buddha Gaya, with mind tranquilized and purified, in the first watch he developed that supernormal knowledge which enable[d] him to remember his past lives.[23] In the middle watch he developed vision dealing with the death and rebirth of beings.”[24]

Buddha had an experience of personal transformation where he came to consider others as himself.

For the Buddhist, this comes through experiencing the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.[25]

The Four Noble Truths are:

1. First Noble Truth: The existence of suffering;

2. Second Noble Truth: The cause of suffering is the “craving desire for the pleasures of the senses. . .”;

3. Third Noble Truth: The ending of suffering happens by giving up, getting rid of, extinguishing this very craving, so that no passion and no desire remain.[26]

4. Fourth Noble Truth: The ending of all pain through the Eightfold Path.

The Eightfold Path is:

1. First step: Right views (accept the four noble truths);

2. Second step: Right resolve (renounce the pleasures of the senses);

3. Third step: Right speech (”do not lie, do not slander or abuse anyone. Do not indulge in idle talk”[27]);

4. Fourth step: Right behaviour (”do not destroy any living creature; take only what is given to you; do not commit any unlawful sexual act.”[28]

5. Fifth step: Right occupation, which is to earn your living in a way that will harm no-one.

6. Sixth step: Right effort: “You must resolve and strive heroically to prevent any evil qualities from arising . . .”[29]

7. Seventh step: Right contemplation, “Be observant, strenuous, alert, contemplative, free of desire and of sorrow.”[30]

8. Eighth step: Right meditation, “When you have abandoned all sensuous pleasures, all evil qualities, both joy and sorrow, you must then enter the four degrees of meditation, which are produced by concentration.”[31]

One Buddhist priest on this TV program said that there were a “lot of similarities” with Christianity. A Tibetan Buddhist leader was asked how he would explain Jesus as a Buddhist. He said that Jesus is a “holy being” and his thoughts and motivations were similar to Buddha.

From what I have already expounded on the truth of Jesus Christ, Jesus is more than a holy being who helps people with rebirth. Jesus is God Himself as the Bible declares. Jesus’ words are: “I and the father are one” (John 10:30).

If Jesus is only a “holy being”, is this similar to what Jesus meant when he said that he was the way, the truth and the life in John 14:6 and that he was the only way to God the Father? You need an imagination to say that these are parallels.

Jesus was not describing anything to do with past lives and rebirth as Buddha was. He was not talking about human effort to achieve entrance into the Kingdom of God and thus eternal life.

Jesus was the way to God according to the Gospel of John because of these facts:[32]

Jesus is the truth of God, “full of grace and truth” (1:14);
Jesus is the life of God (1:4; 3:15; 11:25);
Jesus “has made God known” or he narrates God (1:18);
Jesus is the way to God because He does exactly what the Father gives him to say and so (5:19ff; 8:29);
Jesus is called God because he is God (1:1, 18; 20:28); These verses say that “the Word was God” (1:1). Of Jesus Christ it states that “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (1:18). Of Jesus, “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God’” (20:28).
Also, Jesus “is God’s gracious self-disclosure, his ‘Word’, made flesh (1:14)”[33];
Jesus is the life (also 1:4) as he is the one who has “life in himself” (5:26);
He is “the resurrection and the life” (11:25);
1 John 5:20 says that Jesus is (get this): “the true God and eternal life.”

D. A. Carson provides this beautiful summary of Jesus’ exclusive claims:

“Only because he is the truth and the life can Jesus be the way for others to come to God, the way for his disciples to attain the many dwelling-places in the Father’s house (14:2-3), and therefore the answer to Thomas’s question (14:5). In this context Jesus does not simply blaze a trail, commanding others to take the way that he himself takes; rather, he is the way. . . He is himself the Saviour (4:42), the Lamb of God (1:20, 34), the one who so speaks that those who are in the graves hear his voice and come forth (5:28-20). He so mediates God’s truth and God’s life that he is the very way to God . . , the one who alone can say, No-one comes to the Father except through me.”[34]

These claims are exclusive to the claims of Christ and Christianity. They are contrary to the claims of Robert Beckford that Jesus is not unique. Beckford on “Compass” said that “as a Christian I am not just following Jesus but also following Buddha.” No other religious leader comes close to the uniqueness of the claims of Jesus Christ.

It was Thomas a Kempis in his book, Of the Imitation of Christ, who gave this meditation on what Jesus said in John 14:6. A Kempis says that this is what Jesus emphasised:

“Follow thou me: I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. Without the Way there is no going; without the Truth there is no knowing; without the Life there is no living. I AM the Way which thou oughtest follow; the Truth, which thou oughtest to trust; the life which though oughtest to hope for. I am the inviolable way; the infallible truth, the never-ending life. I AM the straightest Way, the infallible Truth, the endless Life. I AM the straightest Way, the supreme Truth, the blessed, the uncreated Life.”[35]

When we examine any worldview, we ask: What’s your view of God or ultimate reality?

Secondly we ask:

2. What’s the nature of the universe?

I didn’t see anything in the first episode of this program that gave me a clear picture of what Beckford was saying about the nature of the universe. But when you listen to others expounding on this theme, watch for themes such as:

Is there evidence that the universe is changing and is caused?
Are there order and design in the universe?
Who caused this order and design?
From where did evil and violence come?

In checking out any belief system, including those on TV, how do they answer the question about the nature of the universe?

There’s a third question to ask of every worldview:

3. Does God intervene in the world? Or, are miracles possible?

Beckford says that the ancient Hindu god, Krishna, had a miraculous birth including an immaculate conception, and this birth was attended by angels. Krishna was placed in a swing at his birth.
Beckford said that Buddha performed miracles, including feeding 5,000. Thus Beckford believed in supernatural intervention by Buddha. But he provided no quotes from Buddha’s writings to confirm that these miracles happened. This kind of information was provided to try to show that Jesus was not unique.
Beckford spoke of Lord Krishna and his many miracles but quotes from Krishna confirming that these miracles had happened in space and time were absent. I’m speaking about the lack of exact quotes.
Beckford raised the issue of Buddha’s miraculous birth and the miracles he performed that were similar to those of Jesus, like walking on the water.

a. How should we as Christians respond to this information?

Again, Beckford was short on quotes from Krishna and Buddha so I was not able to check out the miracles to which he might be referring. Time does not permit us to look in detail at all of these statements, so I’ll respond to his statements about the so-called miraculous birth of the Buddha.

One Buddhist website said: “As legend would have it, Siddhartha Guatama (the Buddha), was born in 623 BC, “a blatantly precocious prince,” to his mother Queen Mahamaya in Lumbini, now modern Rumindei in Nepal (about 250km south-west of Katmandu), where he “was reportedly born out of her right side while she remained standing.”[36]

Others say that “the time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians date his lifetime from c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE; more recently, however, at a specialist symposium on this question,[37] the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha’s death, with others supporting earlier or later dates.”[38]

Alexandra David-Neel wrote this of Buddha: “Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.”[39]

This is very different to the virgin conception and birth of Jesus Christ, which have clear documentation in the New Testament and the writings of the early church fathers. The Scriptures state that

^“26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

²⁹Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. ³¹You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. ³²He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:26-32 NIV).

We know what happened. The Virgin Mary conceived miraculously by God’s intervention without a man’s involvement and Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Jesus other miracles recorded in the NT were seen and recorded by eyewitnesses or by interviewing those who “could speak from firsthand knowledge and whom they could interview.”[40]

I recommend to you Richard Bauckham’s new book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, which provides an outstanding exposition of this fact that “the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who personally knew Jesus.”[41]

What do those who know other religions well, say about the Hindu religion? For example, Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, writes: “I came [to Christ] amid the thunderous cries of a culture that has three hundred and thirty million deities. I remain with Him knowing that truth cannot be all-inclusive. Truth by definition excludes.”[42] Ravi was a Hindu living in India before he came to Christ in his teens.

If you are testing any worldview, as James Sire states, it needs to have:

Firstly, Inner coherence.

Professor Keith Yandell of the University of Wisconsin put it concisely: “If a conceptual system contains as an essential element (one or more membered) set of propositions which is logically inconsistent, it is false.”[43]

Secondly, it needs to understand all of the data of reality of all types that we gain from our conscious experience of daily lives.
Thirdly, it “should explain what it claims to explain.” E.g. If it says something is right or wrong, on what basis is that judgment made? If it says that Krishna, Buddha & Jesus were miraculously conceived or born, is this explained in exactly the same way for each religion? Are we dealing with the same kinds of facts for Krishna, Buddha and Jesus?
Finally, it needs to be personally, subjectively satisfactory in human experience. It needs to meet our sense of personal need. As James Sire puts it: “Truth is ultimately the only thing that will satisfy. But to determine the truth of a world view, we are cast back on the first three characteristics . . . internal consistency, adequate handling of data and ability to explain what is claimed to be explained.”[44]

Conclusion

Ravi Zacharias had a book published in 2008 that is titled, New Birth or Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna.[45] In it, he has created a narrative discussion because Jesus and Krishna, based on these two different belief systems – Christianity and Hinduism. Jesus & Krishna never actually had an historical conversation. In an interview about that book, Ravi Zacharias said:

The one notion to which all religions subscribe (either explicitly or implicitly) is the notion of exclusive truth. Populists like to deny that premise, but all religions either make this claim or try to covertly smuggle it in. My premise is that the popular aphorism that “all religions are fundamentally the same and only superficially different” simply is not true. It is more correct to say that all religions are, at best, superficially similar but fundamentally different.[46]

In an earlier book, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, Ravi Zacharias wrote:

All religions are not the same. All religions do not point to God. All religions do not say that all religions are the same. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life’s purpose.

Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.[47]

The Compass TV program was a populist example. It wanted to make Jesus look as though he did not make exclusive claims about himself but that His claims were in other religions. The claim of Jesus not being unique and that his teachings can be found in any of the world’s religions needed to be tested. I have attempted to do that on a limited scale today.

Jesus is absolutely unique. His claim is very specific: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Of Jesus Christ, the Bible states: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

“All religions are, at best, superficially similar but fundamentally different.” [48]

Of Jesus, the Scriptures state in Philippians 2:9-10:”Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (NIV).

Of the Gentile unbelievers who lived in “debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry” (as unbelievers live today), of these I Peter 4:5 states: “But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead” (NIV).

Until Jesus comes again, we need governments to do away with religious vilification legislation so that we can have true freedom of religion to proclaim the gospel and defend the Christian faith against all contenders.

Even if there is vilification legislation, as we have here in Qld., we need to continue to proclaim the Gospel and defend the faith because we know this: At the name of Jesus, at the end of the age, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father (Phil. 2:9-10).

Appendix A

Religion laws don’t have a prayer in a country with robust common sense[49]

Bob Carr
April 18, 2009, Sydney Morning Herald

This week we have heard about an increasing international trend to prosecute religious issues in the courts.

Such legislation may soon be heading to a statute book near you.

Citizens knew in their bones that Australia was one of the freest countries in the world and that we wouldn’t make ourselves freer by inventing new offences.

So why are we even having this debate? The commission says on its website it’s because of “an increased presence of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and other religious communities”.

Another reason nominated by the commission for its inquiry is “the shift away from mainstream Christianity, and the rise of Pentacostalism”. To which I say, “So what?” Or, as the former US president Thomas Jefferson said when petitioned by a group of Methodists to stem the rising number of Baptists in newly minted America, “What business is it of government?” Why should this matter be even brought under the purview of a government-funded inquiry?

If you suspect someone’s on a mission to agitate non-existent problems to find a bigger role for himself, contemplate another reason the commission gives for having this inquiry. It says it wants to assess the effect of Commonwealth and state laws on the “war on terror”.

Leave aside the fact that the Howard government opted not to use the expression and the Rudd Government never has, anti-terrorism laws are neutral on religion. Planning to blow up a building or hijack a plane is guarded against, but the law is silent on the religion of those who might attempt it.

But Tom Calma, one of the commissioners, writes that the terrorism attacks of 9/11 have brought religion squarely back into public debate and it’s important people not be “vilified or alienated because of these beliefs”.

In fact, the Australian responses to September 11 and Bali were restrained, given the scale of the losses and the provocative hatred behind the attacks. Straight after September 11, I visited an Islamic school in western Sydney to make a plea for tolerance. Kerry Chikarovski, the then Opposition leader, rang me urging protection for Islamic women wearing the hijab. Peter Beattie attended a Brisbane mosque. John Howard met Islamic clerics. The same spirit prevailed after Bali.

Calma might ask himself whether a temporarily strained climate would have been improved by a raft of prosecutions for vilification.

Victoria has a religious vilification statute and in 2004 two evangelical pastors were prosecuted for remarks they made in a seminar about Islam. I don’t respect the views of these pastors. The seminar was a fringe event for a fringe sect. Best to ignore it. Instead, the costly and drawn-out legal rigmarole gave Pastor Danny Nalliah the chance to spout in the courts about “Sharia by stealth”. It cost more than $1 million in legal fees.

In 2004 I distributed reports of this outlandish case round the NSW cabinet table, saying to colleagues, “One day we’ll hear an argument for this state having religious vilification … well, that legislation implies prosecution. And that could go anywhere.”

Anticipating this objection, the Human Rights Commission hints it would only recommend civil penalties. This is bogus.

Say that under new laws an Islamic group opted to bring proceedings against a prominent evangelical Christian for comments about Islam. And suppose a court imposed a fine. What would happen if that person said he wouldn’t pay the fine? Put him in jail? The result would be a wave of sympathy for the martyr and hostility against his persecutors – melodrama that did not exist while Nalliah’s opinions were simply treated with benign neglect.

Retaliation would likely follow: militant Christians turning up at mosques with tape recorders to catch an imam “inciting hatred” against their faith, and an action by them in a tribunal or court.

Australia’s treaty obligations oblige us to sign up for this brave new world of religious lawsuits, the commission is arguing. On these pages this week, Jonathan Turley noted that Saudi Arabia was a leading supporter of a new international ban on religious defamation. Well, if a failure to have domestic religious vilification laws means Australians being lectured on religious freedom by Saudi Arabia, I guess we’ll have to bear it with equanimity.

Meanwhile, I stick with Jefferson, who said, “it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” After all, “Truth is great and will prevail if left to itself”.

Bob Carr is a former premier of NSW.

Notes:

[1]Dr. Robert Beckford, “The Hidden Story of Jesus, ” Channel 4 (UK), Faith & Belief, Debates & Controversies, available from: http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/hidden.html [12 April 2009]. This program was telecast on ABC TV Qld, “Compass,” Part 1 on 5 April 2009, Part 2 on 12 April 2009.

[2] He was black.

[3] “Ramadan in 2009 will start on Friday, the 21st of August and will continue for 30 days until Tuesday, the 19th of September” [From Guided Ways, available from: http://www.guidedways.com/kb/article-125.html (cited 13 April 2009)].

[4] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version.

[5] Dr. Mojsov has written the book, Bonjana Mojsov 2005, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

[6] Rex Tauati Ahdar, available from BNET Australia at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6606/is_2_26/ai_n25360048/?tag=content;col1 [18 April 2009].

[7]

The three states are Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria. See respectively, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 124A, s 131A (the religious vilification provisions were added in 2001, titled ” Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 2001); the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) s 19, and; the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) s 8. See generally Garth Blake, ‘Promoting Religious Tolerance in a Multifaith Society: Religious Vilification Legislation in Australia and the UK’ (2007) 81 Australian Law Journal 386, 393-6, cited as endnote 2 in the Rex Tauati Ahdar article in ibid.

[8]

Ibid., p. 1. The Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 2001 (Qld) s124A, s 126A states: ” A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race or religion of the person or members of the group. . . .

[9] Ibid.

[10] Bob Carr, a lawyer & former Premier of New South Wales, “Religion laws don’t have a prayer in a country with robust common sense,” available from: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/religion-laws-dont-have-a-prayer-in-a-country-with-robust-common-sense-20090417-aa4w.html?page=-1 [cited 24 April 2009]. See the full article in Appendix A.

[11] Albert Mohler Jr., 17 April 2009, Albert Mohler Blog, “Should the United Nations protect religions from defamation?” available from: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php [18 April 2009].

[12] UN Watch Briefing – UN Watch, 11 March 2009, “Proposal at U.N. to criminalize defamation of Islam,” available from: http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&content_id={AF491436-ED3D-46F5-8CC4-E14577482787}¬oc=1 [18 April 2009].

[13] Apologeticum, ch. 50, available from: http://www.tertullian.org/works/apologeticum.htm [25 April 2009].

[14] Some of the above ideas on democracy and freedom of religion are based on Mohler Jr., loc. cit.

[15] James W. Sire 1988 (rev.), The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 17.

[16] Another Christian website calls it the “Pagan Copycat Theory.” See: The Divine Evidence, 31 October 2007, available from: http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html [12 April 2009].

[17] Norman L. Geisler and William Watkins 1984, Perspectives: Understanding and Evaluating Today’s World Views. San Bernadino, California: Here’s Life Publishers Inc., p. 21ff.

[18] Ultimate reality is not based on Geisler & Watkins (1984) but from James Sire (1988), p. 25.

[19] Ultimate reality is not from Geisler & Watkins (1984) but from James Sire (1988), p. 25.

[20] Hindu website, “The concepts of Hinduism – Avatar,” available from: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/concepts/avatar.asp [18 April 2009].

[21] Charles Hodge 1979, Systematic Theology Vol. I, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 503-504.

[22] A Manual of Buddhism, “The Buddha’s Enlightenment,” available from: http://www.geocities.com/mkoay.rm/buddha_enlightenment.html [19 April 2009].

[23] Pubbenivasanussati Nana – Reminiscence of Past Births.

[24] Cutupapata Nana – Perception of the Disappearing and Reappearing of Beings.

[25] Based on Josh McDowell & Don Stewart 1983, Handbook of Today’s Religions, Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., San Bernardino, California, p. 307.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] With help from D. A. Carson 1991, The Gospel According to John, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England and William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 491.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Thomas A Kempis 1973, Of the Imitation of Christ, Keats Publishing Inc., New Canaan, Connecticut, pp. 175-176.

[36] Lumbini, available from: http://members.porchlight.ca/blackdog/lumbini.htm [21 April 2009].

[37] The endnote given by Wikipedia was, L. S. Cousins 1996, “The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article,”(Originally published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 6.1 (1996): 57-63.), available from: http://indology.info:8107/papers/cousins/ [21 April 2009].

[38] Gautama Buddha, Wikipedia, available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha#cite_note-1 [21 April 2009].

[39] Alexandra David-Neel 1977, Buddhism: Its Doctrines and Its Methods, New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 15, in Josh McDowell & Don Stewart 1983, Handbook of Today’s Religions, Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., San Bernardino, California, p. 304.

[40] Richard Bauckham 2006, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K., p. 479.

[41] Ibid., inside flap.

[42] Ravi Zacharias 2000, Jesus Among Other Gods, Nashville: Word Publishing, p. 6.

[43] In James W. Sire, loc. cit., p. 214. Keith E. Yandell 1980, The Epistemology of Religious Experience, NY, p. 185. A 1994 revised edition is available from Cambridge University Press.

[44] Ibid., p. 216

[45] Multnomah Press.

[46] An interview with Ravi Zacharias concerning his book, New Birth or Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna (Multnomah 2008), “Ravi Zacharias: Jesus talks with Krishna,” Christian Broadcasting Network, available from: http://www.cbn.com/entertainment/books/RaviZ-QA.aspx [18 April 2009].

[47] Ravi Zacharias 2000, Jesus Among Other Gods, Nashville: Word Publishing, p. 7.

[48] An interview with Ravi Zacharias as in footnote no. 45.

[49] Bob Carr, a lawyer & former Premier of New South Wales, “Religion laws don’t have a prayer in a country with robust common sense,” available from: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/religion-laws-dont-have-a-prayer-in-a-country-with-robust-common-sense-20090417-aa4w.html?page=-1 [cited 24 April 2009].

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

admin — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:05:16 +0000

This is part 4 of a 4 part series. See:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

A. Introduction

Josh McDowell relates what happened after a ‘free-speech’ lecture outdoors at a university. A professor approached him (he had brought his literature class with him) and said,

“Mr. McDowell, you are basing all your claims about Christ on a second century document that is obsolete. I showed in class today how the New Testament was written so long after Christ that it could not be accurate in what it recorded.”

Josh replied, “Your opinions or conclusions about the N.T. are 25 years out of date.”[1]

This professor was basing his opinions on the conclusions of German critic, F.C. Baur, who assumed that much of the N.T. was not written until late in the second century A.D.

However, 20th century archaeology has confirmed the accuracy of the N.T. manuscripts as FIRST CENTURY documents.

B. Some of the main N.T. manuscripts

In this final part of the series, I want to mention some of the main N.T. MSS that have been found along with endorsement from substantial historical and archaeological authorities.

¨The John Rylands papyrus fragment (in John Rylands Library, Manchester, England) was a significant find. It is the earliest known copy of any portion of the N.T. It dates from the first half of the second century, probably A.D.117-138. Written on both sides, it contains portions of 5 verses of John’s Gospel (18:31-33, 37-38). Although it’s only a small fragment, it has proved to be the closest and most valuable link in the chain of transmission. It tends to confirm the traditional date for the composition of John, before the end of the first century. [See photographs in Norman Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 388]

¨ The Bodmer Papyri (in Library of World Literature at Calagny, near Geneva) dates from about A.D. 200 or earlier. It contains 104 leaves of the Gospel of John 1:1-6:11; 6:35b-14:26 and fragments of 40 other pages, John 14-21.

¨ The Chester Beatty Papyri (in Beatty Museum near Dublin) consists of three codices and contains most of the N.T. It dates from about A.D. 250 or later. The University of Michigan owns (30 leaves.)[2]

We must not miss the two major MSS:

(1) Codex Vaticanus (B), dated about 325-350 [a codex is a book form on parchment or vellum (writing material made from animal skins)]. It contains most of the Septuagint (LXX) of O.T., most of the N.T., and the Apocrypha with some exclusions. It’s housed in the Vatican Library.

(2) Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), dated about 340. Regarded as “the most important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy and lack of omissions.”[3] It contains half of O.T., O.T Apocrypha, all of the N.T. except Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Epistle of Barnabas and large portion of Shepherd of Hermas. In 1933, British Government purchased it (from Russia) for 100,000 pounds for the British Museum.

(3) Codex Bezae (about 450 or 550) is the oldest known bilingual manuscript of the N.T. Written in both Greek and Latin. Contains 4 gospels, Acts, 3 John 11-15, with some omissions. It is in the Cambridge University Library.

C. What are the experts saying NOW?

Millar Burrows of Yale University says:

“Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri [discoveries] is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament itself.”[4]

William Albright, who was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist when he wrote this:

“We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics today.”[5]

He explains further:

“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably some time between A.D. 50 and 75).”[6]

Sir William Ramsay is regarded by many as one of the greatest archaeologists of all time.

“He was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. and not the first century as it purports to be. After reading modern criticism about the Book of Acts, he became convinced that it was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (A.D. 50) and therefore was unworthy of consideration by a historian. So in his research on the history of Asia Minor, Ramsay paid little attention to the New Testament. His investigation, however, eventually compelled him to consider the writings of Luke. He observed the meticulous accuracy of the historical details, and gradually his attitude towards the Book of Acts began to change.”[7]

Sir William Ramsay concluded:

“Luke is a historian of the first rank… This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”[8]

Josh McDowell says that “because of the accuracy of the most minute detail, Ramsay finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but was rather a mid-first-century account.”[9]

Even theologically liberal scholar, Dr. John A.T. Robinson came to the amazing conclusion that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[10]

Professor of ancient history, Paul L. Maier, writes:

“Arguments that Christianity hatched its Easter myth over a lengthy period of time or that the sources were written many years after the event are simply not factual.”[11]

Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard University was one of the greatest authorities in the nineteenth-century on the law of evidence in the common-law world.

He “applied to these records [the Gospels] the ‘ancient documents’ rule: ancient documents will be received as competent evidence if they are ‘fair on their face’ (ie. offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in ‘reasonable custody’ (ie. their preservation has been consistent with their content). He concluded that the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law“[12]

D. Testing the Bible and ANY other piece of literature from history

To show that the Bible is an accurate and trustworthy book, I submitted for your consideration three tests:

First: T: The Transmission Test,

Second: I: the Internal evidence test,

Third, E: the External evidence test.[13]

E. A BRIEF test of the Muslim’s Qur’an: Subjecting the Quran to the T.I.E.S. test

The Quran says that it is “infallible” [2:2] and “inspired.”

1. The Transmission Test

We run into unique difficulties when we submit the Quran to the “Transmission Test.” We can find stacks of manuscripts for the Bible, or parts of manuscripts, dating back to the second century after Christ. Muhammed lived from ca. A.D. 570-632.

“Although a standard Muslim claim says the Quran has no textual variations, this is in fact incorrect. No one original manuscript of the Quran ever existed, since Muhammed (c. 570-632 A.D.) didn’t write any of it. Instead various followers wrote scattered revelations on whatever material came to hand, including pieces of papyrus, tree bark, palm leaves and mats, stones, the ribs and shoulder blades of animals, etc. Otherwise, they memorized them. These [kinds of][14] materials were susceptible to loss: Ali Dashti, a Islamic statesman, said animals sometimes ate mats or the palm leaves on which Suras (chapters of the Quran) were written! After his death, Muhammad’s revelations were gathered together to eliminate the chaos. . . .

To solve the problems of conflicting memories and possibly lost or varying written materials, Caliph Uthman (ruled 644-56) had the text of the Quran forcibly standardized. He commanded manuscripts with alternative readings to be burned. But he didn’t fully succeed, since variations are still known to have existed and some still do. The Sura Al-Saff had 200 verses in the days of Muhammad’s later wife Ayesha, but Uthman’s version had only 52.

[Robert] Morey says Shiite Muslims claim Uthman cut out a quarter of the Quran’s verses for political reasons. In his manuscript of the Quran, Ubai had a few Suras that Uthman omitted from the standardized version. Arthur Jeffrey, in his Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran, gives 90 pages of variant readings for the Quran’s text, finding 140 alone for Sura 2.[15]

The major problem with the Transmission Test for the Quran is that the Muslims are not interested in it. Allah revealed it to Muhammed and that’s good enough for them. They argue in circles:

Muslim: Muhammed was the prophet of God.

I ask: Why is this true?

Muslim: The Quran says so.

I ask: Why is the Quran true?

Muslim: Muhammed was the prophet of God.

I ask: Why is this true?

Muslim: Because the Quran says so.

I ask: But why is the Quran true?

Muslim: The Quran is without error.[16]

2. The Internal Evidence Test

This yields more fruitful information. The Quran claims it is [17]free from error, infallible [Sura 2:2][18] It claims that it Consummates All Scriptures[19] and is a continuation of the Bible.[20]

But look what we find?

a. Internal self-contradictions

The Quran claims that it is consistent and without ambiguity (Sura 39:23, 28).[21] BUT we find FOUR different versions (conflicting accounts) of how Muhammed received the Quran.[22] Muhammed says, “[53:4] It was divine inspiration.”

1. In Sura 53:2-18 and 81:19-24, Allah came to Muhammed in the form of a man with the message of the Quran.[23]

2. Sura 16:102 says it was the Holy Spirit who came to Muhammed with the message.[24]

3. Sura 15:8 says that the angels came down to Muhammed.[25]

4. The most popular version is that the angel Gabriel delivered the Quran to Muhammed (Sura 2:97).[26]

Which one was it? You can’t have infallibility, consistency, without ambiguity, and 4 different accounts of how Muhammed received the Quran.

b. Within the Quran you will find examples of:

Convenient revelations.

“When Muhammed wanted his son-in-law’s wife, he suddenly got a revelation from Allah” declaring it was OK. Sura 33:36-38[27]

Legendary Materials;[28]

Arabian Sources;[29]

Jewish Sources;[30]

Heretical Christian sources — Gnostic gospels and their fables.

He has the baby Jesus speaking from the cradle, and Jesus making clay birds come alive (Sura 3:49; 100:110).[31]

Eastern religious sources;[32]

There are major contradictions internally in the Quran.

3. The External Evidence Test

This is where we encounter major problems and I have only the time to give you the tip of the iceberg.

a. Errors in the Quran

How many days of creation? Eight days (Sura 41:9-10, 12) — 4 days + 2 days + 2 days = 8 days.[33] The Bible says 6 days according to Gen. 1:31 and Ex. 20:11

BUT, the Quran ALSO says creation took place in 6 days: [Sura 7:54][34]

One of Noah’s son’s perished in the Great Flood (Sura 11:42-43)[35]

The Bible says that all 3 of Noah’s sons went into the Ark and were saved from the Flood (see Gen. 7:1, 7, 13).

The Quran says that Noah’s Ark came to rest on the hills of Judea (Sura 11:44). The Bible says Mr. Ararat (Asia Minor, in Eastern Turkey), Gen. 8:4.

Many mistakes about Abraham[36]

The Quran says his father’s name was Azar [Sura 6:74][37] The Bible says it was Terah (Gen. 11:27)

It was his son, Isaac, that Abraham went to sacrifice, but the Quran says that it was Ishmail [Sura 37:100-112].[38]

Mistakes about Bible characters.

The Quran “refers to Goliath as Jalut, Korah as Karun, Saul as Talut, Enoch as Idris, Ezekiel as Dhu’l-Khifl, John the Baptist as Yahya, Jonah as Yunus, etc. Muhammed did not have access to the Bible because an Arabic translation of the Bible was not in existence at that time.”[39]

Mistakes about Mary, the mother of Jesus Concerning The Birth of Jesus, the Quran reads:

[19:22] When she bore him, she isolated herself to a faraway place.

[19:23] The birth process came to her by the trunk of a palm tree. She said, “(I am so ashamed;) I wish I were dead before this happened, and completely forgotten.”

[19:24] (The infant) called her from beneath her, saying, “Do not grieve. Your Lord has provided you with a stream.”

[19:25] “If you shake the trunk of this palm tree, it will drop ripe dates for you.”

Mistakes from secular history:

In Sura 105, “Muhammed claimed that the elephant army of Abrah was defeated by birds dropping stones of baked clay upon them.”[40],[41]

BUT, “according to the historical record, Abrah’s army withdrew [its] attack on Mecca after small-pox broke out among the troops.”[42]

Scientific problems

The sun setting in the ocean and found people there” [18:86][43]

Mistakes about Jesus:

Jesus was NOT the son of God, Messiah (Sura 5:17);[44]

To say that Jesus was the son of God was to utter a blasphemy (Sura 9:30);[45]

Jesus was not crucified (Sura 4:157);[46]

He was NOT fully God and fully human. He was just a messenger and his mother, Mary, was a saint (Sura 5:75);[47]

“The utter contradiction between the biblical and quranic view of Jesus cannot be dismissed easily.”[48]

What can we conclude about the Quran?[49]

1. Devoted Muslims believe that the doctrines of Islam came from Allah and have a heavenly source;

2. Middle Eastern scholars have shown that the rituals and beliefs of Islam were there in Arabian culture BEFORE Muhammed had his supposed revelations.

3. Muhammed didn’t preach anything new. “Even the idea of ‘only one God’ was borrowed from the Jews and the Christians.[50]

4. This means that the religion of Islam is not revealed from heaven as it claims, but is an invented religion.

5. “Western scholars have concluded that Allah is not God, Muhammed was not his prophet and the Quran is not the Word of God.”[51]

If you want further information comparing the Bible and the Quran, I’d recommend these references:

1. “The Bible and the Qur’an: An Historical Comparison,” available at http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/contents.htm (Retrieved June 23, 2002)

2. “Is the Quran the Word of God?” available at: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/debate.htm (This is an excellent one by Jay Smith, Hyde Park Christian Fellowship, London, who has debated Muslims and has an active ministry among Muslims.)

3. The book, Islam Unveiled: The True Desert Storm, Robert A. Morey. Shermans Dale, PA: The Scholars Press, 1991.

For people to accept the Bible’s evidences, I put to you that there is a fourth dynamic, rather than a test.

F. Fourth Dynamic

“S” for the Spirit of Conviction from the Holy Spirit of God

Go to the Bible and what do you find?

Ephesians 4:17-19: “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.”

The non-Christians are futile in their thinking;

They are darkened in their thinking;

Because of their ignorance, they are separated from the life of God;

A life of no sensitivity, sensuality, impurity, lust is their lifestyle. [Sounds like the rebels and abusers I deal with daily in my counselling work.]

What is it going to take to get these people interested in what the Word of God says about them, life abundantly in the here and now, and eternal life?

I Corinthians 2:14 gives some profound answers: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

What is the Bible saying?

Unless God opens the eyes of the unbelievers by His Spirit, the Word of God will be foolishness to them. They will not understand the Word. As we witness, as we share about the trustworthiness of the Word of God, we MUST pray that God will open the eyes of the unbeliever by the Holy Spirit.

I Cor. 12:3 says: “. . . no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (NIV).

This led John Calvin to write: “The Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect. Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it. . . Christ, when he illumines us into faith by the power of his Spirit, at the same time so engrafts us into his body that we become partakers of every good.”[52]

As you give reasons for the existence of God; as you show the Bible to be reliable and trustworthy, PRAY, PRAY, PRAY. Pray for God’s Holy Spirit to open the eyes of the spiritually blind person to whom you are witnessing.

G. What can we conclude?

Josh McDowell concludes, and I enthusiastically agree with him: There is “more evidence for the reliability of the N.T. than for almost any ten pieces of classical literature put together.”[53]

Let’s revisit and example I gave at the beginning of this 4-part series:

I said that I believe that the Bible is completely true. It is without error in all that it affirms. Not just in matters of faith and practice. If it speaks about history, science, counselling, marriage, family, sex, the nature of human beings, the nature of society, what’s wrong with our world, how to fix our country and the world, etc. — it gives us the truth about all of these matters. I believe that the Bible is without error in everything that it affirms.

You might ask, “But surely you’re not referring to translations such as the King James Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, etc.? You must be referring to the original manuscripts of the Bible and NOT modern translations.”

I say, “You are correct. I am referring to the originals. Scribes and translators have introduced some variations into later versions.”

You are justified in responding: “We don’t have the originals. You are convinced that some Bible documents that you have never seen (some hypothetical documents), some NT documents that NOBODY has seen for 2,000 years, are completely truthful. Sounds like you are living in fantasyland. Maybe the Mental Health Unit is the place for you.”[54]

How can I possibly state that the original MSS which I have never seen and nobody has EVER seen for about 2,000 years can possibly be true in everything that they affirm?

I trust that the answer to my statements has become clearer. We can reproduce the content of the originals on the basis of excellent MSS evidence. Evidence that is so good that it leaves the other MSS from history for dead. The evidence is outstanding.

Many people have developed arguments against the excellent Bible MSS that they would NOT raise concerning any other document from history.

Surely we are entitled to discuss things that we have never seen first-hand. I have never seen our Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Must I, therefore, assume that Kevin does not exist and that I cannot assess his policies.

I have never seen an atom, or black holes in the universe, or music on a tape, or the wind, or the life principle within me, etc. I have never seen my own brain or anybody else’s brain. Does that mean these do not exist?

All we are asking as believers in the Bible, is to use the standard methods for establishing the reality of any MSS from history and then evaluate those MSS. Surely you and I are entitled to evaluate these MSS. That is all I am asking for in evaluating the MSS of the Bible.[55]

Do you realise that even if we did not have such excellent MSS evidence, we could construct

“Almost the entire New Testament from quotations in the church fathers of the second and third centuries. Only eleven verses are missing, mostly from 2 and 3 John. Even if all the copies of the New Testament had been burned at the end of the third century, we could have known virtually all of it by studying these writings” from the early church leaders.[56]

Some believers back off from stating the teaching that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms (inerrancy) because they think it is unprovable when we don’t have the original inspired writings and this doctrine only applies to the original documents.

I enthusiastically support the conclusion of Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks:

“If we can be this certain of the text of the New Testament and have an Old Testament that has not changed in 2,000 years, then we don’t need the originals to know what they said. The text of our modern Bibles is so close to the original text that we can have every confidence that what it teaches is truth.”[57]

Let’s conclude:

I have not been able to find any Bible verse that says that we MUST have a pure text of the Bible down through history;

There’s a pile of evidence to show that the Bibles we have today, even translations, are “extremely close to the original, inspired manuscripts that the prophets and apostles wrote.”[58] We have excellent evidence to show that the Bibles of today represent the original MSS “with a very high degree of accuracy, like no other book from the ancient world.”[59]

“Such reliability helps support [my] claim that the Bible is valuable as a historical account as well as a revelation from God.”[60]

We can say with confidence: The Bible is God’s Word;

This teaching comes with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. (I haven’t had the time to expound on that teaching);

Jesus confirmed the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament and the promised New Testament.

Of the OT, Jesus said in John 10:35 that it is the “Word of God . . . and Scripture cannot be broken” (ESV). Luke 16:17 (ESV), “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.”

Of the soon to be written NT, Jesus said: John 14:26 (ESV), “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 that I have said to you.” [See also John 16:13.]

“If Jesus, who is God in the flesh and always spoke the truth, said that the Old Testament was the Word of God and that the New Testament would be written by His apostles and prophets as the sole authorized agents for His message, then our entire Bible is proven to be from God. We have it on the best of authority — Jesus Christ Himself.”[61]

Jesus and the apostles gave evidence that the Bible is without error (inerrant) in what it teaches about all matters;

This is even “down to the tenses of verbs and the very last letters of words”;[62]

The Bible you read in English today is God speaking to you.[63]

According to Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Jesus was very clear:

One day you will give an account for your life;

On that day, the crucial question will be, “What place did the REAL Jesus have in your life?”

If what Jesus said is not true, if 80% of what he said was made up by the early church and didn’t even come from the mouth of Jesus;

Then the sooner we conduct the funeral for Christianity the better;

Down through the centuries, many have tried to do that and millions would like to do that today;

If the words of Jesus are not true, we might as well bring pokies into the church buildings; make our auditoriums into bingo halls;

Put the Bible into the museum;

Christian workers, pastors, missionaries should STOP wasting their time;

We should stop the persecution of Christians immediately because this Christianity is a FAKE;

HOWEVER, since Christ’s teaching is the truth, the Bible is reliable and trustworthy Word of God, we must take a very different view.

The REAL Jesus, who lives in you and me and in the church, is the one who radically changes lives. He’s the Jesus of history, who is the SAME as the Jesus of faith.

There is a radical answer to those who come to see me who are rebels, destroying themselves and their families;

There’s a profound answer for the sexually abused, the drug addicted and the blasphemers;

There is NEW LIFE in Jesus Christ – radical new life.

We must KNOW and proclaim REAL Christianity and not that of radical, liberal heretics who only want us to believe 18% of what Jesus said.

I have presented what I believe are some solid reasons for accepting the Bible as a thoroughly trustworthy and reliable book from God to us. Some of you might have thought I was too intellectual. But please remember: God does not promise to reveal himself to us to satisfy intellectual curiosity. If you want to justify your unbelief, you will NEVER discover the God who is real, the Bible that is trustworthy, and the Christ of the cross who is the resurrected Lord.[64]

Conclusion:

Dr Jim Kennedy tells the story of “the man who fell off a cliff, and on his way down, he managed to grab a limb sticking out from the side of the earthen wall. He wasn’t a praying man, but he called out to God anyway and asked for help. Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Just believe — and let go.’ He hesitated for a moment and then said, ‘Uh, is there anybody else up there?’

“The Christian faith doesn’t operate that way. It’s not a matter of looking for a God who requires the least of us or who simply sounds the best of all the choices. Our faith is rational and reasonable. It’s based on well-grounded facts of history. The apostle Peter sums it up by saying, ‘We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty’(2 Peter 1:16).”[65]

Please remember: It is only God by his Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the blind.

An unknown Christian said:

“This Book [the Bible] is the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding; its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable [i.e. unchangeable]. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s character. Here paradise is restored, heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed. Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. Follow its precepts and it will lead you to Calvary, to the empty tomb, to a resurrected life in Christ; yes, to glory itself, for eternity.”

“One measure of your love for God is your love for God’s Word”[66]

Appendix

A criticism that is often made against the Bible is that Christians argue in circles. The charge goes like this: Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and to prove it, they quote a passage from the Bible that says so.

This kind of argumentation is known as begging the question or circular reasoning. Nothing is proved by it. It is based on assuming something is true, but using that assumption as fact to prove another assumption.

But there is no need to do this. Instead of assuming the Bible to be the Word of God, we can begin by:

1. Demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable historical documents.

2. In these documents, Jesus claims to be God in human flesh, and he bases His claim on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. We examine the evidence for the resurrection in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the fact that Christ actually rose from the dead. This demonstrates that He is the unique Son of God, that He claimed to be. If He is God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

4. Since Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17,18; 15:1-4) and the soon-to-be written New Testament.

[Jesus "promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26)." So, "we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God's word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation."[67]]

Note: The above 4 points seem to be an abbreviated version, taken from John W. Montgomery’s points for the “crux validation” of the New Testament:

1. On the basis of accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, the Gospel records are found to be trustworthy historical documents — primary source evidence for the life of Christ,

2. In these records, Jesus exercises divine prerogatives and claims to be God in human flesh; and He rests His claims on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. In all four Gospels, Christ’s bodily resurrection is described in minute detail; Christ’s resurrection evidences His deity.

4. The fact of the resurrection cannot be discounted on a priori, philosophical grounds; miracles are impossible only if one so defines them — but such definition rules out proper historical investigation.

5. If Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament and of the soon-to-be-written New Testament.[68]

Notes:

[1] Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, pp. 41-42.

[2] The above details are from Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968 [1986], pp 388-391.

[3] Ibid., p. 392.

[4] Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones. New York: Meridian Books, 1956,

p. 52, in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p. 42.

[5] William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955, p. 136, in McDowell, ibid..

[6] William F. Albright, Christianity Today, Vol. 7, January 18, 1963, p. 3, in McDowell, ibid., p. 43.

[7] McDowell, ibid.

[8] Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222, in McDowell, ibid.

[9] McDowell, ibid.

[10] Paraphrase of John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1976, by McDowell, ibid., 43-44.

[11] Paul L. Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story. New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 122, in McDowell, ibid., p. 45.

[12] John Warwick Montgomery, Human Rights and Human Dignity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986, p.137, emphasis added. The full details are in Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984. The article, “The Testimony of the Evangelists” by Simon Greenleaf is in Montgomery, The Law Above the Law, Appendix, pp. 91-140. “This article examines the testimony of the evangelists by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice” (Montgomery, The Law…, n1, p. 149). The article is from the Soney & Sage (Newark, N.J.) edition of 1903.

[13]C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History. New York: MacMillan Company, 1952, pp. 143 ff.

[14] The original said “disparate.”

[15] “Is the Bible the Word of God? Appendix A,” Eric V. Snow. Retrieved on June 23, 2002, from: http://www.rae.org/bibref.html

[16] Based on Robert A. Morey, Islam Unveiled. Shermans Dale, PA: The Scholars Press, 1991, pp. 126-127.

[17] Most of this information I obtained from, ibid., “A Scientific Understanding of the Quran, p.125ff.

[18] From An Authorized English Version of the Quran, translated from the original by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D. Retrieved on June 29, 2002, from http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm, “The Heifer,” 2:2, “This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous.” All quotations from the Quran will be from this online edition.

[19] [2:89] When this scripture came to them [the Israelites] from GOD, and even though it agrees with, and confirms what they have . . .

[2:91] When they are told, “You shall believe in these revelations of GOD,” [the Quran] they say, “We believe only in what was sent down to us.” Thus, they disbelieve in subsequent revelations, even if it is the truth from their Lord, and even though it confirms what they have! Say, “Why then did you kill GOD’s prophets, if you were believers?”

[20] [2:136] Say, “We believe in GOD, and in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and all the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them. To Him alone we are submitters.”

[21] Sura 39:23 “GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent . .” Sura 39:28 “An Arabic Quran, without any ambiguity.”

[22] Morey, p. 141.

[23] [53:4] It was divine inspiration. [53:5] Dictated by the Most Powerful. [53:6] Possessor of all authority. From His highest height. [53:7] At the highest horizon. [53:8] He drew nearer by moving down. [53:9] Until He became as close as possible. [53:10] He then revealed to His servant what was to be revealed. [53:11] The mind never made up what it saw.

[24] “The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the submitters.”

[25] [15:7] “Why do you not bring down the angels, if you are truthful?”

[26] Sura 2:97: “Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (Quran) into your heart, in accordance with GOD’s will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers.”

[27] [33:36] No believing man or believing woman, if GOD and His messenger issue any command, has any choice regarding that command. Anyone who disobeys GOD and His messenger has gone far astray.

[33:37] Recall that you said to the one who was blessed by GOD, and blessed by you, “Keep your wife and reverence GOD,” and you hid inside yourself what GOD wished to proclaim. Thus, you feared the people, when you were supposed to fear only GOD. When Zeid was completely through with his wife, we had you marry her, in order to establish the precedent that a man may marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. GOD’s commands shall be done.

[33:38] The prophet is not committing an error by doing anything that is made lawful by GOD. Such is GOD’s system since the early generations. GOD’s command is a sacred duty.

[28] See Morey, 143.

[29] Ibid., p. 144.

[30] Ibid.

[31] [3:49] As a messenger to the Children of Israel: “I come to you with a sign from your Lord – I create for you from clay the shape of a bird, then I blow into it, and it becomes a live bird by GOD’s leave. I restore vision to the blind, heal the leprous, and I revive the dead by GOD’s leave. I can tell you what you eat, and what you store in your homes. This should be a proof for you, if you are believers.

[32] Morey, p. 147;

[33] [41:9] Say, “You disbelieve in the One who created the earth in two days, and you set up idols to rank with Him, though He is Lord of the universe.” 41:10] He placed on it stabilizers (mountains), made it productive, and He calculated its provisions in four days, to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants. . . [41:12] Thus, He completed the seven universes in two days, and set up the laws for every universe. And we adorned the lowest universe with lamps, and placed guards around it. Such is the design of the Almighty, the Omniscient. Ibid.

[34] [Sura 7:54] “Your Lord [Allah] is the one GOD, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority.” [10:3] “Your only Lord is GOD; the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority.”

[35] [11:42] As it sailed with them in waves like hills, Noah called his son, who was isolated: “O my son, come ride with us; do not be with the disbelievers.” [11:43] He said, “I will take refuge on top of a hill, to protect me from the water.” He said, “Nothing can protect anyone today from GOD’s judgment; only those worthy of His mercy (will be saved).” The waves separated them, and he was among those who drowned.

[36] Morey, p. 135.

[37] [6:74] Recall that Abraham said to his father Azar, “How could you worship statues as gods? I see that you and your people have gone far astray.”

[38] [37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.

[39] Morey, p. 137.

[40] Ibid., p. 139.

[41] [105:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[105:1] Have you noted what your Lord did to the people of the elephant? [My addition: the elephant army of Abrah.]

[105:2] Did He not cause their schemes to backfire?

[105:3] He sent upon them swarms of birds.

[105:4] That showered them with hard stones.

[105:5] He made them like chewed up hay.

[42] Morey, p. 139. His footnote reference is: Alfred Guillaume, Islam. London: Penguin Books, 1954, pp. 21f.

[43] [18:86] When he reached the far west, he found the sun setting in a vast ocean, and found people there. We said, “O Zul-Qarnain, you can rule as you wish; either punish, or be kind to them.”

[44] [5:17] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary. Say, “Who could oppose GOD if He willed to annihilate the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth?” To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them. He creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent

[45] [9:30] The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of GOD,” while the Christians said, “Jesus is the son of GOD!” These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.

[46] [4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

[47] [5:75] The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate!

[48] Morey, p. 147.

[49] Based on ibid., p. 153.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] John T. McNeill (ed.), Ford Lewis Battles (transl.). Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, Book 3, ch. 2, No. 34 -35, pp. 582-583.

[53] McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p. 46.

[54]This approach was suggested in Vignette 2, “The Missing Originals,” by Winfried Corduan, Reasonable Faith: Basic Christian Apologetics. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993, p.183.

[55] This solution is suggested in “Response to Vignette 2,” in ibid., pp. 203-204.

[56] Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1990, p. 160.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid., p. 157.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid., p. 144.

[62] Ibid., p. 161.

[63] These points are based on ibid., pp. 157-161, but mostly pp. 160-161.

[64] Some of these points suggested by David Watson, My God Is Real. Westchester, Illinois: Good News Publishers, 1970, p.9.

[65]D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered: Handling Tough Questions About the Christian Faith. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1997, p. 29.

[66] Our Daily Bread, March 11, 1987, “A Book to Be Loved.”

[67] Josh McDowell & Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions. San Bernardion, California: Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, pp. 147-148.

[68] John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1970, n. 58, p. 306. Montgomery writes that this summary is based on his book, Shape of the Past, n. 26, pp. 138-39.

Does God Exist?[1]

admin — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:17:36 +0000

A.W. Tozer: “What we believe about God is the most important thing about us.”[2]

Philosopher, Mortimer Adler: “More consequences for thought and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question.”[3]

A. Why we must start with the existence of God when witnessing to Aussies who do not believe in God.

1. The direct statement of the Bible:

“Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).

2. The Bible’s example of how to reach non-theists:

At the Areopagus (Mars Hill)–Acts 17:16-34, Paul used three principles for sharing the gospel with agnostics (those who did not know if God existed):

(a) Appeal to general revelation (e.g. creation) [vv. 22-29

God is the Creator of the universe (v. 24);
God is the Sustainer of life (vv. 25, 28a);
God is the Ruler of the nations (vv. 26-27);
God is the Father of human beings (vv. 28b-29);

(b) Argue the necessity of judgment [vv. 29-31a]

Judgment is an essential part of the gospel message.

It will be universal (will judge the world – v. 31);

The standard will be righteous (justice v. 31);

It is definite judgment; the day has been set and the Judge has been appointed (v. 31);

Christ’s resurrection is proof that He will be both Lord and Judge (v. 31).

Summary:

There is the God;

There is judgment;

There is the Saviour.

John Stott wrote:

“Many people are rejecting our gospel today not because they perceive it to be false, but because they perceive it to be trivial. People are looking for an integrated world-view which makes sense of all their experience. We learn from Paul that we cannot preach the gospel of Jesus without the doctrine of God, or the cross without creation, or salvation without judgment. Today’s world needs a bigger gospel, the full gospel of Scripture, what Paul later in Ephesus was to call ‘the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27, NEB, RSV).”[4]

B. What are some of the reasons people give for not believing in God?

He’s just a figment of the imagination–he’s an invented fantasy.
He’s a crutch.
How could you possibly believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God with all the evil, illness and suffering in the world?
Surely you can’t discount all the other great religions: Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.?
You can’t trust the Bible.
We live in a modern, scientific age when there is no room for this nonsense about a God whom you can’t see. What you see it what you get.
Evolution is a natural phenomenon, needing no room for a supreme being.
Besides science and the Bible contradict.
Jesus is just another guru.
There are far too many hypocrites in the church. Why would I want to join them?
To believe in God is irrational. I’m a reasonable human being. If you can’t prove it to me, I won’t believe in it. Christianity is unreasonable.
Then there’s this gobble-dee-gook about miracles.
I want no association with those holy-roller yahoos down the road.
God is in the same category as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
I used to believe in those things but now I have grown out of them.

C. What are the practical implications?

1. What difference will it make in life if human beings regard themselves as in charge of their own lives and so in charge of the universe? Or, on the other hand, what if there is a Supreme Being whom we fear, love, is a power to be defied, or is the Lord to be obeyed?

If I am in charge:

what happens when a loved one is murdered in cold blood?
What about disasters like September 11? What about the tsunami in the Indian Ocean?
What can I do about water in drought after the dams, barrages and wells have run dry?
What can I do to stop the horrible crimes in my city or elsewhere in the world?
Do I have the power to change a sexual abuser (perpetrator) into a law-abiding citizen?
Who causes the tides to rise; plants to flower; whales to return to Hervey Bay and turtles to Mon Repos every year?
What makes murder, stealing, lying, etc. wrong?

2. If we acknowledge a divine being/thing, does it matter:

if the divine is just a concept of God (something in our head that is nothing more than an intellectual idea)?
does it matter if the divine is just something for us to speculate or argue about in the smoko room, over a beer at the pub, or in university philosophy classes?
does it matter if the divine is the living God whom people worship in all their acts of worship and who is the Creator and Boss of the universe?

D. People who reject God most often fall into two categories:

1. Atheists

Atheists believe that God does not exist.

Observations:

a. It is always more difficult to prove what is not than what is.

“Say, for example, I call downstairs to my wife in the morning telling her that I can’t find my socks. She says,

‘Fuzzy Wuzzy Was A Woman!’

‘They’re in the spare room.’

I look for a few moments then yell downstairs, ‘No they’re not!’

‘Yes they are,’ she replies.

“It’s much easier for her to prove her case. If she comes upstairs and finds them, she was right. Even if she can’t find them straight away, she may still be right if they are found later. To prove my case I have to search every inch of the room, leaving absolutely no space unexplored. She will only have been proved wrong when I have done all this.”[5]

Atheism is like that. It can only be proved true if every single piece of information in the whole universe is uncovered and all of it at the same time (just in case God hides from us in one place while we are looking in another). This is an impossible task.

Only the most arrogant human beings would claim to know everything. Yet without this knowledge, no atheist can say that he/she is absolutely sure that God does not exist.

The atheist can offer no leak-proof argument that God does not exist.

It’s a statement of faith supported by supposed philosophical arguments, personal experience, the informed opinion of experts, but in the end it falls flat because no absolute proof can be found.

So the statement, “There is no God,” has ‘UNPROVED’ written all over it.

b. Could you imagine living every day under the pressure of somebody finding evidence that God does exist and therefore foul up your entire way of living?

It’s a very insecure position. Like the socks, any moment could prove the wife right. I can only be right at the end of a long search.

George Bernard Shaw, an atheist and the mind behind My Fair Lady, illustrates just how insecure this position is:

“The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. I believed it once. In its name I helped destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now they look at me andwitness the tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith.”[6]

c. Where’s the power?

Since when has atheism changed a drug addict into a decent, law-abiding member of society. How many hospitals, retirement villages, leprosariums, humanitarian projects have been founded and continue, based on atheistic ideals?

Atheism has no moral power to change lives.

2. Agnostics

An agnostic is unsure whether there is a God or not. Maybe, maybe not! Some get quite aggressive about it: “We can’t be certain about anything, so I won’t make a decision either way.” This person is an agnostic who will not budge.

The agnostic sits on the fence.

“Imagine for a moment that you are drowning at sea and two boats arrive to rescue you. they arrive just as you are going down for the third time. You know that one of the boats has a bomb on it and will be blown up within minutes, but you don’t know which boat. Because you know only one of the boats can be trusted, you choose to stay in the ’safety’ of the water. Sure enough, one of the boats sinks like a stone and the other sails off into the safety of a harbour. You drown! You were so right about only one boat being safe, but so wrong about your decision to stay in the water. Dead wrong! At least on the boat you had a fifty/fifty chance of success.”[7]

The agnostic is like that. He ignores the only two options: there is a God or there is not a God. So he always makes the wrong choice.

For people who want moral help, the atheist can say, “Forget it. Stand on your dig and get on with life.” The Christian says the loving, caring God is available now. But for the agnostic, there is only scepticism, confusion and doubt.

At some point in your looking for answers, not knowing is a reasonable place to be for a short time, but its a nightmare to live in.

E. Some Sign Posts to God’s Existence[8]

There are very few things in life that are as certain as 1+1=2. I know my wife loves me because she says so and does loving things to and with me, but I do not have a fool proof way of knowing she absolutely loves me. But I have the kind of proof needed in court, proof beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the kind of proof we need for life.

That’s all we need to know that God exists. God has left sign posts all over the world.

1. Order & design in the universe

If the earth were closer to the sun we would be fried; if further away we would freeze to death.

Think of life itself. Plants give off oxygen that human beings need. Human beings breathe out carbon dioxide that plants need.

Just think of the wonder of what happens when a woman’s egg (ovum) joins with man’s sperm. From that joining comes legs, hair, skin, blood, brain, heart and other organs of the body. Have you ever thought of the complexity of the human eye?

Chance seems a shoddy way to explain it. God’s designer label is spread out across the universe.

“Sir Isaac Newton, one of the great scientists of the seventeenth century, once built a model of the solar system to help him in his studies. One of his atheistic scientist friends came to see him one day and asked who made the model. ‘Nobody!’ Newton replied. When the scientist accused him of being ridiculous, Newton explained that if no one had a problem in realizing that a model needed a maker, why as it such a problem when confronted with the real universe?”[9]

2. Our desires

We get hungry, thirsty and cold. Even a deep search among primitive tribes in the jungle reveals that there is a belief in some kind of God or gods. We have a deep desire for worship.

In spite of Communists banning it, atheists rejecting it, dictators abusing it, intellectuals scoffing at it, and governments suppressing it–it is still there. As maths whiz and philosopher, Pascal, put it back in the 17th century: There’s a God-shaped vacuum in every one of us.

3. We know right from wrong

Don’t we agree that murder, rape, stealing, telling lies, greed, selfishness, and mugging are wrong?

Our daily talk gives it away: “How could he do such a thing to an innocent child?” Why is there such an outcry against juvenile vandalism and graffiti? When teenagers abuse their parents, why the protest?

When a father sexually abuses his 8-year-old, why the fuss if there is no God?

If the atheist is correct and there is nobody we are responsible to, why should we care about values? As Russian author, Fyodor Dostoevsky, said: “If God is dead everything is permitted.”[10]

“In other words, if there is no transcendent standard of the good, then there can ultimately be no way to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, and there can be no saints or sinners, no good men or bad men. If God is dead, ethics is impossible.”[11]

Where do these moral values come from?

4. The purpose of life

What are we on earth for? We have deep needs for purpose. If there is no God, the universe is just a huge accident. Our life is a fluke.

The average atheist lives life without an awareness of the awful consequences of atheism. Living life without purpose drives many people to suicide.

I find that this is the fundamental problem for our youth who are committing suicide. Hopelessness is what dominates their lives. Mum and Dad are splitting up. They go to school, TAFE, university and there still might not be a job for them — on the dole for the rest of their lives. So they get into drugs, sex and thrash music. Nothing worth living for, except this moment. Life is without purpose. Hopeless.

This is the problem in Russia today–hopelessness.

I ask you: What answers can you give that will stop Australia from becoming another Bosnia? What will stop another Hitler from arising on the world stage?

As Ravi Zacharias puts it: “It is evident that life without God is not working. The question really should be, What is going to keep the whole world from becoming another Bosnia?”[12]

5. Somebody made the universe

Everything that is an effect was caused by something. Nothing just happens. We are forced to ask: who or what started the universe in the beginning? Chance or luck cause nothing. They are just a description when we don’t have any other answer.

The other alternative is that God started it. This world is here because God exists and he made it.

6. Many people have met Him

Millions of person have met God and have a personal relationship with Him. They may be doctors or brickies, tribes people from Africa or sophisticated university intellectuals. He has changed crooks into law-abiding citizens. He specialises in taking rebels and making them submit to him. It is very difficult to write all of these people off as fanatics or cranks.

7. Meet Jesus Christ

He said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). God has come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. He lived among us. We know what God is like by seeing Jesus in action–healing, compassion on the destitute, chastising the religious self-righteous, and offering salvation to all by dying as a common criminal for the sins of the world.

I visited a prison and met a prisoner who had a reputation of being the “religious” one in the group. He openly quoted Scripture. When I spoke with him he told me that he had committed his life to Jesus Christ as Lord since he came to prison. He is openly sharing Christ with all the prisoners he meets. He told me of how his wicked life was turned around when he met Jesus Christ personally.

[1]With lots of help from Stephen Gaukroger, It Makes Sense. London: Scripture Union, 1989, chapter 1, “Can I really believe in God?”

[2]In Paul Little, Know What You Believe. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1970, p. 25.

[3]Mortimer Adler, Great Books of the Western World, ed. Robert Maynard Hutching, vol. 2. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952, p. 561. Quoted in Paul Little, Know Why You Believe. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1987, p. 21.

[4]John R.W. Stott, The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks Today). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990, p. 290.

[5]Stephen Gaukroger, It Makes Sense. London: Scripture Union, 1989, p. 8.

[6]G. B. Shaw, Too True to be Good. Constable & Co. Quoted in Gaukroger, p. 9.

[7]Gaukroger, p. 11.

[8]Adapted from Gaukroger, 12 ff.

[9]Gaukroger, p. 13.

[10]In The Brothers Karamazov (1880), quoted in James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, p.118.

[11]Sire, p. 118.

[12]Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994, 51.

Apologetics: A Critical Church Ministry

admin — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:38:50 +0000

A. Introduction

I was talking with a Christian who was devastated by a program he had seen on SBS TV, “Jesus to Christ.”[1]

This show featured some scholars who claimed that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are essentially myth and could not be trusted as historical documents. My friend was so upset by what he heard that he said to me, “I am shocked. My faith has been shaken to the core. I am numb in disbelief. As a Christian, have I been living a fantasy all this time?”

This TV show featured scholars who were doubters about Bible content. If you read Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography[2] by John Dominic Crossan, you will learn that Luke 2:41-52, the story of Jesus’ youthful wisdom, and Luke 4:1-30, Jesus’ wisdom in finding and interpreting a certain passage from Isaiah, is (wait for it): “Lukan propaganda.”[3] It was propaganda made up by Luke.

Crossan also concludes, as “history’s best guess,” that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, but “was born, possibly . . . to Joseph and Mary at Nazareth. . . . He was born into but not necessarily as the first of a large family and had at least six siblings. The rest is mythology, telling us much about Jesus’ later followers but nothing about Jesus’ earlier origins, telling us how future history might be founded but not at all how past history had happened.”[4]

In other words, the early church created some of this information in the Gospels and the Gospels contains myth. It didn’t happen historically but was invented by the Gospel writers or the early church.

When you read or listen to the mass media at Christmas and Easter times, you generally will hear from those who do not believe the Gospel and do not trust the historical authenticity of the Bible. You’ll hear people like Crossan, John Shelby Spong, and others who doubt the Bible. You might get the occasional orthodox believer.

There is a new breed of Bible bashers in the world today. These scholars have been in the closets of academic institutions. But no more! They are taking their message to the world through the popular mass media – newspapers, magazines, television, radio, writing their own books at a popular level, and the Internet. They could have their message of tearing into the Bible in Time magazine[5], any of the leading Australian newspapers, TV current affairs, radio news and talk-back shows.

In building a case to support Bishop Spong’s opposition to fundamentalism, there was an article in The Canberra Times, titled, “The Gospel Truth?”[6] In my view, the journalist used a number of unfair methods to distort the views of Bible-believing Christians. I was living in Canberra at the time, so I submitted an article as a right of reply and The Canberra Times published it as “Distorting the Gospel Truth.”[7]

Use your favourite search engine on the www and make a search for the teachings of Anglican Primate of Australia, Dr. Peter Carnley, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk and Burton Mack. You might be surprised at what you’ll find that is antagonistic to the Gospels and the reliability of the Bible.

Many of these doubters and destroyers come from within the church. How will your faith deal with their destructive claims about God, Christ and the Bible?

There’s a new kind of missionary group that is very active in the world today. Greg Koukl, a Christian apologist, says that they “practice evangelism in reverse. . . They don’t want you to commit your life to the Christ of the Gospels; they want you to surrender that commitment. And they claim to have history, science and scholarship on their side. They call themselves The Jesus Seminar.”[8] This new group has been active since 1985.[9]

When you see these people in the mass media or hear their teaching in some churches or on the www, how will you respond?

What about our youth who may get this doubt and castigation in high school and university classrooms? Has the church adequately prepared its people for this tirade against God, the Bible and Jesus?

These are some of the newspaper headlines these scholars have grabbed:[10]

“Scholars Say Jesus Was Often Misquoted.”[11]

“Jesus Didn’t Claim to Be Messiah, Scholars Say.”[12]

“Lord’s Prayer Not Jesus’s, Scholars Say.”[13]

“Jesus Never Predicted His Return, Scholars Say.”[14]

“Jesus Didn’t Promise to Return, Bible Scholars Group Says.”[15]

This is only a sample, but they could be repeated many times over in our mass media.

What will you do, Christian leader, when one of your flock comes to you with questions from these newspaper articles? What answers will you provide? Are you simply going to say, “Go read your Bible” or “Make sure you are at mid-week Bible study and keep up your devotions and praying”?

When I say that “I believe in Jesus Christ and that the Bible is a dependable record,” which TV news reporter will rush for an interview with me? I’m not waiting. What will happen f you claim to be a Bible scholar and make this kind of statement? “I don’t believe in the traditional, historical Jesus Christ; the Gospels cannot be trusted, contain myth, and were made up by Christians long after the events of the Gospels.” Say that and you will have the media pounding on your doorstep. That’s news and it makes sense for the journalists to be interviewing scholars about a story – with a difference.

Then add the September 11 disaster, the cyclone that devastated Burma, the horror of the earthquake in China, the tsunami, and we have lots of questions being thrown at Christian believers: How can you believe in such a God who allows or sends these? He must be a brute!

This is the kind of world we face in the 21st century.

I consider that we are in a crisis in many evangelical churches because we are failing to equip Christians to answer these questions for themselves and to provide answers for questioners. I had a recent example where I was talking to a man who was an abuser of his wife. I asked him: “Where did you learn to abuse your spouse?” He responded: “I read it in the Book, the one with a cross on it. That’s a violent book!”

This leads to the core of this article:

B. Apologetics is a critical church ministry: We need to be answering Aussies questions about God & the world

I am convinced that as a general rule in Australia, many churches are not equipping their people adequately for the critical ministry of apologetics. Ephesians 4:11-15 provides direction for us. Note these fundamentals in this passage:

These are the ministry gifts of Christ – apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher. They are for what purpose?

They are given “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (v. 12).[16] This includes many ministries but the ministry of apologetics is one of those. This will lead to this outcome:

According to v. 14, it means that we will no longer be children in the faith and tossed about by false doctrine and human cunning, craftiness and deceitful schemes.

Where does this quipping ministry begin? The responsibility lies at the feet of church leaders who are committed to the scriptural ministry of equipping believers for their work of ministry.

1. What is apologetics?

Woody Allen, the USA actor, director, musician and comedian, asked: “Can we actually ‘know’ the universe? My God, it’s hard enough to find your way around in Chinatown. The point, however, is: Is there anything out there? And why?”[17] Woody retorted: “Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends.”[18]

People are asking these kinds of questions:

Is there meaning in life? How can modern human beings find that meaning? I have counselled a number of people on the verge of suicide over the years who are asking that exact question.

Can we ever discover truth in a postmodern world?

How can you know that Christianity is truth, over against, say, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, paganism or spiritism?

How can you know if the Bible is a trustworthy document when compared with any document from history?

Those are the types of questions that the ministry of apologetics seeks to answer.

Apologist Winfried Corduan wrote that “the defense of the truth of Christianity is called apologetics. . . . The Greek word apologia (defense) is the word that would be used to defend one’s case in a court of law. Thus the Christian should be able to state what he or she believes, and why. Apologetics helps the Christian mount a credible case for the truth of Christianity.”[19]

The English word, “apology,” has a different meaning to the Greek noun. The Greek noun, apologia (defense) and the verbal form, apologoumai (I make a defense) appear approximately 20 times in the Greek New Testament.[20]

2. I need to apologise for apologetics [21]

Since I have been promoting the need for more apologetic teaching within the church for a number of years, there has been some resistance among Christians. Objections include these: You can’t argue anybody into the kingdom. Apologetics only caters to pride. Conversion is not about the intellect; it is all about the heart. You are only catering to the intellectuals and this is not for everyday people.

Apologetics is a ministry that defends itself. All who argue against the ministry of apologetics end up using their own kind of apologetic argument.

Ravi Zacharias, one of today’s leading apologists, said it well, “The one who says apologetics is a matter of pride ends up proudly defending one’s own impoverishment. The one who says conversion is a matter of the heart and not the intellect ends up presenting intellectual arguments to convince others of this position. So goes the process of self-contradiction.”[22]

What are our reasons for defending the faith?

C. Reasons for Defending the Faith [23]

I am grateful for the excellent work of apologist and theologian, Dr. Norman Geisler.He gives these reasons for defending the faith and I use his outline:

1. God Commands the Use of Reason

The most important reason for doing apologetics is that God told us to do it. Over and over the New Testament exhorts us to defend the Faith. Let’s look briefly at some primary verses in 1 Peter 3:15-16a:

“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

Note the five straight-forward emphases from these two verses:

a. You are already acknowledging Christ as the Lord in your hearts.

Peter links doing apologetics with Christ’s Lordship in our hearts. Since he is Lord, then we should be obedient to Him as “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4-5). We should be confronting issues in our own minds and entering into private and public discourse with others who have doubts that are preventing them from knowing God. This is included in the ministry of apologetics.

b. “Always be prepared”

It couldn’t be clearer. All believers must be ready and prepared. This is emphasised with the words, “Everyone who asks.” All believers must be prepared for that person who asks about your faith. Too often we miss the subtle ways that people ask or hint. I recall one who asked me, “Why are so many teenagers depressed?” What an opportunity to discuss meaning in life and the Gospel connection!

You may not come across those who ask the tough questions about our faith all that often, but you should be prepared for when they come. Being ready is not just a matter of having the right information available. It is also an attitude of readiness and eagerness to share with others the truth of what we believe.

What will you say if somebody asks you:

“Who made God?” or

You have the meanest most obnoxious God! Look what he did in killing all those people in the Chinese earthquake and causing such destruction. Take a read of the Book of Judges in the OT. He must be a monster! How are you prepared right now to answer these questions?

Scientific, modern human beings can never believe in miracles. That’s out-of-date stuff. That nonsense is for old-timers.

I speak with people who say that Christianity is a myth. Are you prepared to respond?

c. We must be prepared for what? “To give an answer.”

Notice these various Bible translations:

KJV: “and be ready always to give an answer.”

NIV: “always be prepared to give an answer.”

NKJV: “always be ready to give a defense.”

NASB: “always being ready to make a defense.”

ESV: “always being prepared to make a defense.”

NRSV: “always be ready to make your defence.”

Be ready “to give an answer” somewhat disguises the meaning of apologia, which is to give a defense as in a court. The NKJV, NASB, ESV and NRSV provide the more precise translations.

First Peter 3:15 tells us what we are to provide:

d. A defense for the hope you have in Christ;

It is here that we sometimes become stuck. We make assertions like: “I’m a born again Christian” or “my hope for the present and the future is in Christ for eternal life,” but we are not prepared for the resistance:

Who would believe that junk?
The Bible is just like Greek mythology.
As with John D. Crossan, parts of Luke’s Gospel are “Lukan propaganda.”
You believe in God; you believe in fantasy;
You can’t believe in God and Christ and still believe in science.

e. Do it “with gentleness and respect.”

These kinds of questions can naturally cause us to become defensive, sarcastic and antagonistic in our responses.

There’s no place for self-assured cockiness in apologetics. Putting people down is contrary to the way of Jesus. I’m reminded of Col. 4:5-6 and how we ought to do evangelism, apologetics and many other ministries: “Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of your time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (ESV).

This word, “answer”, is used only once by Paul in his epistles but 7 times in the NT[24]and is not apologia, but apokrinomai, which means an answer or reply to something or someone when they ask. [25]

Remember God’s emphasis in Isaiah 1:18: “‘Come now, let us reason together,’says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”

So is the use of reason opposed to the Bible? Hardly!

Paul wrote in Philippians 1:7, speaking of his mission as one of “defense and confirmation of the gospel” (ESV). There’s that word again, “defense” (apologia). He added in Phil. 1:16, “I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (ESV). We are put wherever God has placed us to defend the Gospel as well. We are here to be apologists for the Gospel and that means providing a defense of the faith to those who ask us for reasons to believe in Christ.

You are familiar with Jude 3: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

The people Jude was writing to had been assaulted by false teachers and he needed to encourage them to contend (literally, agonise for) the faith as it had been revealed through Christ. Jude makes a significant statement about our attitude as we do this in verse 22 when he says, “Be merciful to those who doubt.” Apologetics, then, is a form of mercy.

Titus 1:9 makes knowledge of Christian evidences a requirement for church leadership. An elder in the church “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

In 2 Tim. 2:24-25 Paul declares that “the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”

Anyone attempting to answer the questions of unbelievers will sometimes feel wronged and be tempted to lose patience. Avoid quarreling. Our ultimate goal is that they might come to knowledge of the truth that Jesus has died for their sins.

Indeed, the command to use reason is part of the greatest command. For Jesus said, “`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matt. 22:37-38).

Why engage in the ministry of apologetics? Firstly, God commands the use of reason.

2. Reason Demands It

Take a look at yourself. Do you just buy any old or new car? You have your reasons for purchasing this car instead of that one.

Why have you chosen to worship the Lord of the universe as revealed in the Holy Bible, rather than the God of the Quran, the gods of the Hindus, or choosing not to worship at all? Why?

When God created you in his image, he created you with human reason (Gen. 1:27, cf. Col. 3:10). One of the things that distinguishes us from “brute beasts” or “unreasonable animals” (Jude 10, ESV) is our ability to reason and have a relationship with God.

God calls, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). First John 4:6 affirms that “we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” According to Heb. 5:14, mature believers “have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (ESV).

Are we getting the message? A fundamental principle of human reason is that we should have sufficient grounds for what we believe. An unjustified belief is just that—unjustified.

Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”[26] And an unexamined belief is not worth believing. Therefore, God’s requirement is for all of us “to give a reason for our hope.” I understand that this is part of the great command to love God with all of our minds, as well as our hearts and souls (Matt. 22:36-37).

The third reason for engaging in the ministry of apologetics is:

3. The World Needs It

Many secular people I speak with are not prepared to accept our Jesus and the Bible on our say-so. They want to know why you believe that “nonsense.” God made us as rational, reasonable human beings and he wants us to look and examine before we leap.

Please understand that faith is always needed but God wants us to make a step of faith in the direction of evidence concerning Himself. You need to know that this God is the one who matches reality and is not any kind of God. You wouldn’t get into your car and drive it if there was smoke coming from under the bonnet. You have reasons not to drive that vehicle. Evidence and reason are important to establish whether you should drive that car. Evidence and reason are even more important when making the ultimate decision of your life: Will I believe in God? Which god?

There is a fourth reason for engaging in the ministry of apologetics.

4. Results Confirm It

One of the reasons against apologetics that people sometimes give me is that Paul was a failure on Mars Hill (Acts 17). Norman Geisler has correctly diagnosed this situation:

Opponents argue that Paul was unsuccessful in his attempt to reach the thinkers on Mars Hill (in Acts 17), discarding the method and later telling the Corinthians that he wanted to “know Jesus and Him only” (1 Cor. 2:2). However, this interpretation is based on a serious misunderstanding of the text.

For one thing, Paul did have results on Mars Hill. For some people were saved, including a philosopher. The text says clearly “A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others” (Acts 17:34).

For another thing, nowhere in either Acts or 1 Corinthians does Paul indicate any repentance or even regret over what he did on Mars Hill. This is reading into the text what simply is not there.[27]

There are people throughout history and in our contemporary world who were led to faith in Christ through a defense of the faith? I’m reminded of a few examples. Some go way back in the history of the church.

St. Augustine of Hippo[28]

This early church father lived from A.D. 354-430. He “is considered one of the great fathers of the Christian church, and has been of momentous importance in the development of Christian thought.”[29] There were a number of apologetic turning points in his life before he became a Christian.

He was into Manichaean dualism and he was helped out of that cult by a young Christian, Helpidius, who would debate the Manicheans.[30] A defence of the faith helped Augustine out of total skepticism and to see the self-defeating nature of Manichaean religion.

“Dualism claims that there are two essentially different principles of reality. Sometimes these two are represented by pairs of opposites as light/darkness, knowledge/ignorance, spirit/matter (also mind/body), Good/Evil, etc.”[31] But the Manicheans were a major Gnostic religion, started by Mani in 3rd century Persia. They [32]believed in “radical dualism”, that these “two principles are absolutely contrary (neither bipolar nor binary!), i.e. they oppose each other in their very essences and have nothing in common, and they are eternal, non-created and undestroyable.”[33]

Augustine tells that if it were not for his studying Plotinus, “he would not even been able to conceive of a spiritual being, let alone believe in one.”[34] Read of it is Augustine’s autobiography, Confessions.[35]

From the ancient past to the present!

Ravi Zacharias

This contemporary Christian apologist, born in India, now travels the world defending the Christian faith. But it was not always that way. In his teen years he tells of how he would skip school for days on end and turn up for exams and barely scrape through.[36] He wrote: “My relationship with my father left a lot to be desired and my aimless life was a cause of immense frustration to him.”[37]

Ravi’s father found out that he had not been at school one day and Dad’s “torrent of anger” was unleashed on him and the thrashing he received left him “trembling and sobbing.” Had his mother not intervened, he “could have been seriously hurt.”

Ravi explains that “no one who knew me would have ever suspected the depth of emptiness within me. I was one of those teenagers who struggled with much on the inside but did not know where to turn for answers. . . Putting it plainly, life to me just did not make sense.”[38]

That night, in his teens, after a trouncing from his father, Ravi says: “The intense soul search that began that night was ultimately to lead me to the person of Jesus Christ. How that happened in a culture that is rigorously pantheistic and (at least on paper) religiously all-encompassing is a miracle in itself.”[39]

You can read of Ravi’s struggle with skepticism, the meaning of life and how Christ saved this man, in his book, Jesus among Other Gods.[40] The struggle for the meaning of life in a pantheistic culture, led him to “firmly believe Jesus Christ to be who He claimed to be—the Son of the living God, the One who came to seek and to save a lost humanity.”[41]

Ravi Zacharias migrated to Canada when he was 20 years old. Today he, as a Christian apologist,

has spoken in over fifty countries, including the Middle East, Vietnam and Cambodia (during the military conflict) and in numerous universities worldwide, notably Harvard, Princeton and Oxford Universities. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, the President’s . . . cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow.[42]

But this journey began as a troubled teen in India who was on the verge of committing suicide.

Frank Morrison

This “skeptic set out to disprove Christianity by showing the resurrection never occurred. The quest ended with his conversion and a book titled Who Moved the Stone? in which the first chapter was titled ‘The Book That Refused to be Written’”[43]

Norman Geisler tells this story of the impact of Frank Morrison’s book:

Let me tell you just one story about an atheist I had the privilege of introducing to Jesus Christ. After reasoning him from atheism to open-minded agnosticism, he agreed to read Frank Morrison’s book. The evidence for Christ’s resurrection convinced him and we had the privilege of leading him to Christ. He has subsequently raised his family for Christ and is a leader in a church south of St. Louis.[44]

Simon Greenleaf

At the beginning of the 20th century, Simon Greenleaf was the Professor of Law at Harvard University, who wrote a significant book on legal evidence. He was challenged by students to apply the rules of legal evidence to the New Testament to see if its testimony would stand up in court. The result was a book titled The Testimony of the Evangelists in which he reported his own conversion to Christ.[45]

Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig and other apologists report of those who come to Christ as a result of a defence of the faith. Norman Geisler gives another example:

Following a debate on the rationality of belief in Christianity with the head of the philosophy department at the University of Miami, the Christian student leadership held a follow-up meeting. The atheist professor attended and expressed doubts about his view expressed at the debate. It was reported that some 14 people who had attended the debate made decisions for Christ.[46]

These are some of the reasons for the need for a ministry of apologetics in the 21st century. This ministry needs to be equipped and promoted by the local church.

D. Conclusion

I have a very personal application that fired me up in the ministry of apologetics. I was sitting in a doctoral class in a certain USA university. In class, I questioned one of the examples of evolution in a text book. I did not mention a word about Christ or creation, but the professor unleashed his bitterness towards my comments: “Your views are blankety blank” and he swore at me. He later apologised to me privately, but not in front of the class where he assailed me.

I felt spiritually naked that day. I did not know how to respond to him. I had 2 diplomas from Bible colleges, a BA in biblical literature and NT Greek, and a master’s degree in pastoral psychology & counselling, but I did not have one course in apologetics to prepare me for that day.

Since 1984, I have made it my business to prepare myself and others in the defense of the glorious Christian faith. I needed to put I Peter 3:15 into practice:

“”But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

admin — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:09:08 +0000

Part 1 of 4

This is the first part of a 4-part series. See also:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

Why is it necessary for us in the 21^st century to have to address a topic such as this, “Can You Trust Your Bible?” We’ve had this NT for close to 2,000 years and the first books of the OT (Pentateuch: Gen.-Deut. & Job) for about 3,500 years.[1] [Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Malachi, 1 & 2 Chronicles, concluded the OT canon, 400-500BC]. We’ll consider some reasons in a moment.

This series will not deal with:

(1) Which English translation is the best? That would be an interesting topic. We’ll be dealing with the trustworthiness of the OT and NT in the original manuscripts.

(2) We will not be discussing, except in passing, how the books came to be selected for the OT and the NT. That’s the canonicity of the Bible and it will not be our focus.

(3) We also will be learning some general approaches to help with sharing the Gospel with Aussies – including a defence of the trustworthiness of the Bible.

A. What are some of the reasons why we need to defend the Bible today?

For me, these are prominent reasons, but they are not in order of priority:

1. First, when you turn on the TV or radio, or read the newspaper at Easter and

Christmas times particularly (but also at other times), you will be fed loads of doubt about the Bible and its truthfulness. In fact, much of this doubt is being driven by some from within the church who do not believe what the Bible says — liberal church men and women. We’ll look at examples as we go along.

2 Second, this mass media message is impacting on regular people in the church and we MUST provide answers. Shortly, I’ll give an example of a person who came to me very distraught after one of those TV programs.

We live in a mass media culture — and that includes the worldwide web.

Other worldviews can drown us and we MUST provide reasons for the Christian faith, especially for our young people.

It was about 500 years ago that the leader of the Protestant reformation, MARTIN LUTHER, said this:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every point of the Truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that point attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is tested. To be steady in all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if the soldier flinches at that point.”[2]

That’s as relevant as if Luther preached it today. I’d rather be expounding the Scriptures for the people of God, but the Bible is under attack and we must provide answers for the people of God. It would be a disgrace if I flinched at this point.

3. There’s a third, and very important reason, why we must address a subject such as, “Can You Trust Your Bible?” The Bible requires that we provide a defence of the faith in EVERY age of history. We desperately need it today, but we evangelicals have become lazy. Apologetics is not a prominent theological discipline in most of our Bible training colleges.

I Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV).

That phrase in the NIV, “give an answer” is too weak. It is better translated as in the ESV, “make a defense.” Make an “apologia” for the Christian faith. It’s too bad that our English word “apology,” derived from this word, gives the wrong idea for what this wonderful Greek word means for all believers. “Give an answer”, means “give a defense” of the Christian faith — all of us need to be prepared to do that.

This is as Paul did on Mars Hill (the Areopagus), Athens, recorded in Acts 17:22ff. It was there that he used the Greek’s “unknown god” as a starting point for defending the faith (v. 23).

According to Acts 17:17, before Paul got to the Areopagus, he “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.”

How we need Christians to be equipped for that today.

You know, “Thou shalt not think,” is NOT one of the 10 commandments.

4. There’s a fourth reason why a subject like this is needed today. I hear Christian parents saying to their teenagers about the Bible: “Accept it by faith. God requires you to just believe it. Faith is the answer to your doubt. Quit asking questions about the Bible. Just accept it.”

It is my prayer that after this 4-part series, you will never say that again. Here’s why:

a. You are probably familiar with what the Bible says about its own inspiration, but let’s look at these verses again:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is inspired by God and [is] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”. (NASB) ”All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” NIV)

Psalm 119:142, 151:

Your righteousness is righteous forever, and your law is true.

But you are near, O Lord, and all your commandments are true. (ESV)

Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.

You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth. (NASB)

b. But take a look at another “scripture” from another religion.

Many of us are not familiar with these words. They are words from the Muslim’s Koran (Quran):

Sura - 2 The Heifer ( Al-Baqarah)
Order Of Revelation 87, Verses: 286[3]

[2:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[2:1] A.L.M.*

[2:2] This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous;

Three Categories of People
(1) The Righteous

[2:3] who believe in the unseen, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat)*, and from our provisions **to them, they give to charity.

[2:4] And they believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you*, and with regard to the Hereafter, they are absolutely certain.

[2:5] These are guided by their Lord; these are the winners.

__________________________________________________________________
*2:1 These initials remained a divinely guarded secret for 1400 years. Now we recognize them as a major component of the Quran’s mathematical miracle (see Appendices 1, 2, 24, and 26). The meaning of A.L.M. is pointed out in Verse 2: “This scripture is infallible.” This is incontrovertibly proven by the fact that the frequencies of occurrence of these three initials in this sura are 4502, 3202, and 2195, respectively. The sum of these numbers is 9899, or 19×521. Thus, these most frequent letters of the Arabic language are mathematically placed according to a superhuman pattern. These same initials also prefix Suras 3, 29, 30, 31, and 32, and their frequencies of occurrence add up to multiples of 19 in each one of these suras.

I put it to you, the Bible says “all Scripture is inspired by God.”

The Quran says, “This Scripture is infallible.”

Which one are you to believe? If you accept the Bible and reject the Quran, why do you do that? Both books say that they are “inspired.” If you accept both, you are in for massive conflict because the Quran says that:

For the Muslim, Allah is the only true God;

It is blasphemous to believe in the Trinity;
Jesus Christ was a prophet for His people, in His day, but he is not the Son of God or God himself (Sura 4:171);
The prophet Muhammed supercedes Jesus Christ;
Jesus Christ did not atone for anyone’s sins, although Jesus was sinless;
Jesus did not die on the cross;
Many Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was taken bodily into heaven without having died (Sura 4:157);
The Muslim God is unapproachable by sinful people;
Sin and salvation in Islam are associated with works and fate (kismet);
Some Shiite Muslims are restoring Holy War (the Jihad) as a condition of faith — it is their sacred duty to murder anyone who will not embrace the one true faith. (Surely that is what we are seeing with the suicide bombings in the Middle East now).[4]

The Bible says that it is the infallible, God-breathed Word of God.

The Quran says that it is infallible.

How are you going to validate the Bible as a trustworthy word from the Lord Almighty; or the Quran as the infallible Word from Allah?

It will not do to say, “Accept the Bible by faith.” We need some verification to prove that the Bible is the trustworthy word from the Lord almighty.

Take a read of one of the students on a seminary’s Bulletin Board [no longer available to the general public]:

Dear Jamie

I agree that they were fallible humans, but can an infallible God speak to us, give us a message to give to others, and still keep that message infallible. The whole question of infalliblility of scripture is one of faith.

I won’t speak for anyone but me. If the out come of eternity is based on the relationship I have with God, requires that God give me the message in a way I can understand, and trust. If you look at other historical writings, and how the OT and NT were written over thousands of years, by so many different writers, God’s hand must have been on it. Greater minds than mine have argued this question, and I have to stand with those who hold to infallibility.

For me, when the church Canonize the scripture, it wasn’t so we would worship, but so would have a final authority. Something that we could all agree on. As I look on every church body that has pulled away for scripture as final authority, they have fallen away from belief, till the point that some do not believe in God at all (Bishop Pike). The struggle to canonize scripture, was long and hard, yes man did it but I believe God’s hand there helping. Now can I prove anything I just said. No! But that’s the wonderful thing about faith, I don’t have to. If you don’t hold to scripture as the final authorty, than you have to look to the mind a logic, logic will lead you to humanism or to a God who wants to speak to us. Francis A. Schaeffer, “He is there and He is not silent”, is a very good book explaining this process.

God Bless

Larry

B. Here’s where I am going in these four messages with you.

I’m grateful for the time I studied under one of the world’s leading apologists, Dr John Warwick Montgomery. I am deeply indebted to his approach to defending the faith and establishing the trustworthiness of the Bible, especially the Gospel records. He taught me this outline (with some changes) and this is where we are going in these teaching sessions.

But there is no need to do this. Instead of assuming the Bible to be the Word of God, we can begin by:

1. Demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable historical documents.

2. In these documents, Jesus claims to be God in human flesh, and he bases His claim on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. We examine the evidence for the resurrection in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the fact that Christ actually rose from the dead. This demonstrates that He is the unique Son of God that He claimed to be. If He is God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

4. Since Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-18; 15:1-3) and the soon-to-be written New Testament.

5. If we have time, I’ll put the Quran to the same tests that we apply to the Bible.

C. By way of explanation, I need to say that I will be using tests to establish the trustworthiness of Scripture from within the Bible and from outside the Bible.

I have known Christians to get a bit upset with me when I say that I will be using tests from outside of the Bible to prove the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. It’s necessary to do it this way.

Those who study the original languages of the Bible (Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew) have to do this all the time. Nowhere in the Bible do you find the rules of grammar for understanding Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. I had to learn my Greek grammar to interpret the Bible, from outside of the Bible.

For example, we know that the Bible says, “God so loved the world” and NOT “the world so loved God” because of Greek grammar that dictates the translation into English. The Bible in the original language has to be interpreted by learning Greek grammar and syntax from OUTSIDE the Bible.

We have to do the same kind of thing when we set out to prove the trustworthiness of a historical document.

D. Let’s look at some books from history

Here’s a biography of John Macarthur (John Macarthur, M. H. Ellis[6]), not the American preacher, but a famous Australian (1767-1834). MacArthur was the “squire” responsible for bringing “to Australia the first authenticated pure merinos [sheep] and persuaded the British Privy Council that wool would be the basis of future greatness of the colony of New South Wales.”[7]

The author of the biography says, “though the author has worked as far as possible from original documents, he has applied his reference notes wherever it has been feasible to a source more accessible to the ordinary student.”[8] How do I know these original documents by John MacArthur are reliable and trustworthy?

Here’s the book, The Five Gospels (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar[9]) and read p. 5: “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you . . . Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.” How do we decide if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are 82% wrong with the words of Jesus OR the 4 Gospels provide an accurate picture of the life and death of Jesus Christ?

Here we have The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus[10] He was a wealthy Jew who wrote this history in which he “tried to justify Judaism to the cultured Romans by his writings.”[11] He also mentioned James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. . .”[12] Is Josephus writing reliable history? If so, how do we know?

Then I pick up my Bible and read, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). Also, “All Scripture is God-breathed . . .” (2 Tim. 3:16).

Is God’s Word truth and reliable OR are we dealing with mythmaking where 82% of what Jesus said is WRONG? How can be test these documents to see if they are trustworthy? Most of you will never read these books, but the content of them is driving what you are hearing on the mass media today about Jesus.

If I say that I believe the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God, and without error in all that it affirms, no news reporter will show up to interview me.

But the response is totally different if a group of high profile theologians rolls the coloured beads to decide which of the words of Jesus are true. They come up with only 18% of his words in the Gospels are what he said and the rest are inventions by the early church – the mass media will be along in droves. And that’s exactly what is happening. You watch what happens around Easter and Christmas!

We must have answers. Our young people must not be allowed to drown in this sea of attack on the word of God at school and university. We have good answers and we must provide them.

E. Let’s Vote on Jesus

Starting in 1985, a group of Bible scholars got together to decided if the words of Jesus in the Gospels were authentic. “At the close of debate on each agenda item, Fellows of the Seminar [that's what they were called, male & female] voted, using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of Jesus’ words. Dropping colored beads into a box became the trademark of the [Jesus] Seminar . . .”[13]

This is what they found:

The Jesus Seminar colour code roughly translates to:

Red bead: That’s Jesus!

Pink bead: Sure sounds like Jesus.

Grey bead: Well, maybe.

Black bead: There’s been some mistake.

[Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover & The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (Macmillan, 1993, p. 37)]

· A red slip meant that “Jesus undoubtedly said this or something like it.” In brief: “That’s Jesus.”

· A pink slip indicated that “Jesus probably said something like this.” In brief: “Sure sounds like Jesus.”

· Grey: “Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.” In brief: “Well, maybe.”

· A black slip meant “Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.” In brief: “There’s been some mistake.”[14]

After tabulating the results of their voting, the Jesus Seminar asserts, “Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.”[15]

The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew chs. 5-7] took a hiding in the balloting.

· “Blessed are the peacemakers” was given a miss.

· “Blessed are the meek” received “six timid red and pink votes out of 30 cast.”

· Overall, only three out of twelve of the blessings and woes of the Beatitudes from Matthew’s Gospel were accepted as authentic.

· We could ignore this as a party game by liberal scholars, but it is an attitude that is often found in evangelical churches and assemblies. We have to battle a tendency to accept the Scriptures on our terms and not on God’s.

If we are to be Christians of substance, I am convinced that we need to accept the Bible in its entirety as the Word of God. How can we do that? Listen to some thinking from those associated with the church.

F. What Some Theologians Are Saying

Some theologians are leading the push to make Jesus fit into the trendy modern mould of what our modern secular culture wants.

1. Former Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop John Spong (USA)

In his book, Born of a Woman [please note, the book is not titled, Born of a Virgin, and that is deliberate. Spong makes the outlandish suggestion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus illegitimately. The early church as a cover-up invented the virgin birth.

In talking about the birth story of Jesus in Luke 2, Spong asks: "Is it true? . . The answer is, of course, no! . . There was no biologically literal virgin birth. . . In all probability Jesus was born in Nazareth in a very normal way either as the child of Mary and Joseph, or else he was an illegitimate child that Joseph validated by acknowledging him as Joseph's son. All that can be stated definitely is that the echoes of the status of illegitimacy appear to be far stronger in the text then the suggestion that Jesus was Mary's child by Joseph."[16]

2. Barbara Thiering (Australia)

In her book, Jesus: The Man, she claims that Jesus didn’t die on the cross. He was poisoned and then revived. He married and raised three children.

3. Roman Catholic theologian, John Dominic Crossan (USA)

In his book, called The Historical Jesus (1991), he states that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Jesus was buried in a shallow grave; the body was dug up and eaten by dogs.[17]

Please understand that when these liberal theologians like Crossan speak of “the historical Jesus,” they are:

NOT speaking about Jesus as he lived in history;
They are using a technical term, a reconstruction of Jesus;
The “historical Jesus” is the one who can be explained in scientific, historical, purely human categories;
Anything miraculous is myth because supernatural events defy history and cannot be called history. They are mythological.
So, in reality, their so-called historical Jesus is the unhistorical invention of these critics. They are creating Jesus in their own image and calling him “the historical Jesus.”18]

I am convinced that Charles Colson is correct when he states that:

“Taken together, books like these can create a widespread climate of opinion that the Bible is simply a collection of myths and errors. Even evangelical Christians may gradually accept the same principle and begin to separate faith from facts. The Bible is true in its spiritual message, they say, but full of errors in its history.”[19]

There was an SBS television series here in Australia in 1999. It was called, “From Jesus to Christ,” and presented the views of people like those from the Jesus Seminar. After watching one episode of that program, a Christian came to me, utterly devastated. She said something like:

“Have I been deceived?
Have I believed a lie all this time?
The biblical scholars on that program said that the words of Jesus couldn’t be trusted as accurate or truthful.
In fact, they are saying that about 80% of the words that the NT puts in Jesus’ mouth DID NOT come from him at all. The early church inserted them in the Bible because the church wanted us to believe that.
I need some answers. Is this true that the early church put words in Jesus’ mouth? These scholars say it is.”

In the Bible, faith can never be separated from historical facts. To talk about the “Jesus of faith” vs. “the Jesus of history” is nonsensical. Remember what Paul said in I Corinthians 15? “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so it your faith . . . And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (vv. 14, 17). If Jesus was not raised from the dead–historical fact–your faith is worthless.

Besides, if we accept the premise that the Bible is wrong, we become butchers. We start the chopping job. How are we going to decide what is believable and what is to be chucked out? If we start tampering with the Bible, we will be trying to make Jesus to fit what we want. Our prejudices will make Jesus into the image we want him to be.[20]

I’d like to introduce you to a rather different approach to judo.

G. The Judo Technique

I learned this when I was studying Jim Kennedy’s gospel presentation in Evangelism Explosion.[21]

Often as you begin presenting the gospel, the person will say something like, “I don’t believe the Bible. You’ll have to convince me some other way than referring to the Scriptures.” Many people are devastated by this objection. What happens to them? Their attempt to share Christ fizzles.

This need not be the case. I want to encourage you to use this objection as a springboard into the gospel itself. The Apostle Paul, when he preached in Greek cities that had no background in the Bible, appealed to the Scriptures even though the people who listened to him did not believe the Bible.

He proclaimed to them and the Holy Spirit used the proclamation to save some who then came to believe the Bible to be true. When we witness, our primary function is to proclaim the gospel, not defence of the Bible. BUT when people object to the Bible, we DO NEED good answers to respond. And there ARE EXCELLENT answers.

The judo technique works like this. The objection, “I don’t believe the Bible,” is quite an easy one to deal with. Don’t use the approach of a boxer who meets the blow head on and tries to overwhelm the opponent with counter punches. Instead use the technique of the judo expert . The force of the opponent’s blow is used to throw the opponent.

Here’s how it works in presenting the gospel. The person who objects, “I don’t believe the Bible,” usually has some university education, or has been exposed to some course in the Bible, or biblical criticism or something like that.

There is often some intellectual pride that says or infers something like this: “I used to believe those fairy tales when I was in kindy, but now I am an educated person and am far above believing those things.” It is this intellectual pride that can be used to turn this objection into an opportunity for presenting the gospel. I suggest this kind of dialogue with the person who objects.

“You don’t believe the Bible, John? That’s very interesting and it certainly is your privilege not to believe it, and I would fight for that right on your part. However, if the Bible is true then obviously you must accept the consequences.

“But I would like to ask you a question. The main message of the Bible, which has been unquestionably the most important literary work in human history, is how a person may have eternal life. So what I would like to know is: What do you understand that the Bible teaches about how a person may have eternal life and go to heaven?”

He may say that he does not believe in eternal life. To this you might say, “I’m not asking you what you believe, but I am asking you what you understand. It would be a rather unintellectual approach to reject the world’s most important book without understanding even its main message, would it not? What do you understand that the Bible teaches as to how a person may have eternal life? What is your understanding about what the Bible teaches on this subject?”

My experience is that over 90% will respond by saying that it is by keeping the Ten Commandments or following the Golden Rule or imitating the example of Christ, doing good, or something like that.

You might respond something like this: “That is just what I was afraid of, John. You have rejected the Bible without even understanding its main message, for your answer is not only incorrect, but it is diametrically opposite to what the Bible teaches. Now, don’t you think that the more intellectual approach would be to let me share with you what the Scriptures teach on this subject and then you can make an intelligent decision whether to reject or accept it?”

Now the tables have been completely turned. Instead of being superior to the Scripture and even above listening to it, he now finds himself ignorant of even its basic message. Now he must decide whether to listen to the message of the Scriptures or be found to be not only ignorant but also some obscure person who opposes intellectual advancement — and wants to remain in his ignorance.

This is the last thing in the world that his intellectual pride will allow him to be. So, very often he will give you permission to tell him the gospel. It is at this point that you pray with vigour that the Holy Spirit will take the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation, and use it to awaken him from the deadness because of sin.

If he persists that he will not discuss anything further with you until you deal with his objection I suggest the following pre-evangelism approach (apologetics):

H. You need to begin with the existence of God

Hebrews 11:6 (NIV) states. “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

Will you please think through how you could present a case for the existence of the Almighty God who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ – to somebody who doesn’t know the Lord?

What would be your starting point?

Endnotes:

[1] See “History of the Old Testament Canon,” in Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. & expanded). Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, pp. 238-239.

[2] In Michael P. Green (Ed.), Illustrations for Biblical Preaching (#1065). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982, p. 285.

[3] Retrieved on May 7, 2002 from http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm The Glorious Quran, An Authorized English Version: Translated from the original by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.

[4] Based on Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1985, pp. 366-67.

[5] Josh McDowell & Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions. San Bernardino, California: Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, pp. 147-148.

Note: The four points in McDowell & Stewart seem to be an abbreviated version, taken from John W. Montgomery’s points for the “crux validation” of the New Testament:

a. On the basis of accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, the Gospel records are found to be trustworthy historical documents — primary source evidence for the life of Christ,

b. In these records, Jesus exercises divine prerogatives and claims to be God in human flesh; and He rests His claims on His forthcoming resurrection.

c. In all four Gospels, Christ’s bodily resurrection is described in minute detail; Christ’s resurrection evidences His deity.

d. The fact of the resurrection cannot be discounted on a priori, philosophical grounds; miracles are impossible only if one so defines them — but such definition rules out proper historical investigation.

If Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament and of the soon-to-be-written New Testament. [John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1970, n. 58, p. 306. Montgomery writes that this summary is based on his book, Shape of the Past, n. 26, pp. 138-39.]

[6] London: Angus & Robertson Publishers, 1973 (3^rd Ed.).

[7] Ibid., back cover.

[8] Ibid., p. vii.

[9] Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (A Polebridge Press Book).

[10] Josephus: Complete Works (William Whiston, trans.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1960.

[11] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, p. 46.

[12] Josephus, 20.9.1, p. 423.

[13] R. W. Funk, R. W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (A Polebridge Press Book), 1993, p. 34.

[14] Ibid., pp. 36-37.

[15] Ibid., p. 5.

[16] John Shelby Spong, Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992, pp. 157-158.

[17] Section B is adapted from “Color-Coding the Gospels,” in Charles Colson with Nancy R. Pearcey, A Dangerous Grace: Daily readings. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994, 14-15.

[18] George Eldon Ladd in The New Testament and Criticism makes some of these point. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967, p. 195. Ladd was particularly speaking of Rudolf Bultmann, but the application is strong to the Jesus Seminar conclusions.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Based on ibid., pp. 15-16.

[21]Australian Edition published by Evangelism Explosion Ministries Australia, PO Box 1686, Wollongong 2500, 1983, pp. 84-85.

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

admin — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:28:33 +0000

(Part 2 of 4 parts)

This is a 4-part series. Also see:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

A. What are some of the reasons why we need to defend the Bible today?

See “Can you Trust the Bible? Part 1.”

B. Where are we going in this 4-part series?

See “Can you Trust the Bible? Part 1.”

C. You need to begin with the existence of God

Hebrews 11:6 (NIV): And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

D. I asked you to think on evidence for the existence of God.

I suggested taking a look at two passages of Scripture that give us some pointers for the existence of God:

Psalm 19 (Read vv. 1-3)
Romans 1 (read vv. 18-20)

One of the finest defenders of the existence of God is leading apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig. I recommend you read his articles on the existence of God.

Now, back to our topic. What tests do historians apply to any piece of literature of history to determine if it is accurate or reliable?

Military historian, C. Sanders says there are 3 basic principles of checking the authenticity of historical writings (historiography). I’ll use the acronym, T.I.E.S., to help us remember them:

- the Transmission test (sometimes called, the bibliographical test) — NOT biographical, but biblio = books; graphical = writing. The Transmission test. That’s the “T”.
- the Internal evidence test — that’s the ‘I”, and
- the External evidence test — that’s the “E”.[1]
- we’ll get to the “S” later, but I want you to think about what it might be to make it T.I.E.S. What ties this all together?

Let’s subject the N.T. to the

1. TRANSMISSION TEST

The transmission test is an examination of how the documents reached us from when they were written. Since we don’t have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in:

number of manuscripts (MSS)?
time interval between the original and the earliest copy?

a. NEW TESTAMENT

Transmission Test for Historical Documents (incl. New Testament)

Author/Book	Date Written	Earliest Copies	Time Gap (years)	Number of Copies	Percentage Accuracy
Hindu Mahabharata	13^th century BC				90
Plato	c. 400 BC	A.D. c. 900	1300	7	7
Homer, Iliad	900 BC (900-700 BC)	400 BC ?	500	643	95
Demosthenes	300 BC	c. AD 1100	1,400	200	?
Caesar, Gallic Wars	100-144 BC	AD 900	1,000	10	?
Tacitus, Annals	AD 100	AD 1100	1,000	20	?
Pliny Secundus, Natural History	AD 61-112	c. AD 850	750	7	?
New Testament	AD 50-100	c. 114 (fragment) c. 200 (books) c. 250 (most of NT) c. 325 (whole NT)	c. +/- 50 c. 100 c. 150 c. 225	5,366 (Greek) 24,000+ (with other translations)	99*

Comparison of Ancient Manuscript totals (Josh McDowell, Christianity: Hoax or History? Tyndale House Publishers, 1989, pp. 50-51; Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, 1986, p. 408)

My assessment:

I am in total agreement with the late Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, formerly director and principal librarian of the British Museum, who wrote just before his death:

“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”[2]

Please understand:

These people who were used by the Lord to write the NT, were living in a hostile culture. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies. They would dare not manipulate the facts because they would be pounced on at once by those who would be glad to discredit them.

Also remember that a witness must testify of his/her own knowledge. When we apply this to the NT, we see clearly that we have primary evidence from eyewitnesses. I John 1:1, ” That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning the Word of life (NIV).”[3]

In determining if the NT is a trustworthy and accurate document, historians use 3 tests. I am suggesting these 3, PLUS one more that is summarised by the acronym: T.I.E.S.

We’ve looked at the “T,” the transmission of the text, now to the “I”.

2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST

So far, we’ve determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that the text we have is what was originally recorded. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE CREDIBLE, AND TO WHAT EXTENT. This is the second test of historicity given by Sanders. Historical and literary scholarship follows Aristotle’s dictum, “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.”

In the words of leading lawyer, apologist and theologian, John Warwick Montgomery, “This means that one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.”[4]

The historian must examine the ability of the writer or witness to tell the truth. This ABILITY TO TELL THE TRUTH is closely related to HOW CLOSE THE WITNESS WAS TO THE EVENT GEOGRAPHICALLY AND HOW CLOSE IN TIME TO THE EVENTS RECORDED.

The N.T. accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by people who had been either eyewitnesses or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses.

Let’s look at the evidence:

1. Biblical Evidence

Luke 1:1-3 (NIV): 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 also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.

Luke 3:1: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar–when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene–

John 19:35: The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

1 John 1:3: We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:16: We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The internal evidence test reveals we are dealing with eyewitnesses, those who saw and heard. More than that:

Acts 2:22: demonstrated how they appealed to the people who heard their message. “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Note the emphasis:

a. “God did among you through him.” In other words, you were there; you were eyewitnesses of these things;

b. Also, “as you yourselves know.” You know what we are saying is true.

They could not depart from the truth. There were hostile witnesses there to refute them.[5]

Acts 26:24-26: At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defence. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.”

They not only said, “Look, we saw this . . . We heard that.” But the tables were turned in the full view of hostile witnesses, adverse critics. “You also know about these things, you saw them, they weren’t done in a secret corner.”[6]

2. Fulfilled Prophecy[7]

For some key OT prophecies concerning Christ and their NT fulfillment, see “Can you trust the Bible? Part 3.”

3. Literal Interpretation

“Those who accept the Bible as the Word of God are often accused of taking the Bible literally. The question ‘Do you believe the Bible literally?’ is like the question, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ Either a Yes or a No convicts the one who responds. Whenever the question is asked, the term ‘literally‘ must be carefully defined. Taking a literal view of the Bible does not mean that we can’t recognize that figures of speech are used in the Scripture. When Isaiah spoke of “trees clapping their hands” (Isaiah 55:12) and the psalmist of “mountains skipping like rams” (Psalms 114:4, 6), it is not to be thought that one takes the Bible literally views such statements as literal. No, there is poetry as well as prose and other literary forms in the Bible. We believe that the Bible is to be interpreted in the sense in which the authors intended it to be received by readers. This is the same principle one employs when reading the newspaper, [Shakespeare or poet, William Wordsworth]. And it is remarkably easy to distinguish between figures of speech and those statements a writer intends his readers to take literally.”[8]

If you are checking out the reliability of any written manuscript from history, you

need to apply these three tests:

T: Transmission Test

I: Internal Evidence Test

E: External Evidence Test

(continued in Part 3)

[1]C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History. New York: MacMillan Company, 1952, pp. 143 ff.

[2]Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology. New York: Harper and Row, 1940, pp. 288f, in Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Revised and Expanded). Chicago: Moody Press, 1968, 1986, p. 405; also in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter. Eastbourne, Sussex, England: Kingsway Publications, 1977, p. 48.

[3] Suggested by John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1975, p. 88.

[4] John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1965, p. 29.

[5] Suggested by F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1960, p. 46.

[6] Concerning the primary-source value of the N.T. records, the late F.F. Bruce, former Professor [Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis] in the University of Manchester, says:

“The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of the first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. . .

“And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of wilful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.” F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1960, pp. 45-46.

[7] From D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion, third edition, 1983, pp. 86-88 (from Evangelism Explosion Ministries Australia, PO Box 1686, Wollongong, 2500).

[8] Paul Little, Know Why You Believe (rev. ed.). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1967, 1980, 1987, pp. 54-55, emphasis added.

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

admin — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:17:25 +0000

This is a 4-part series. See also:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

INTRODUCTION

Hebrews 4:12 (ESV) says: “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

I was reminded of the truth of this text when I read of

“a short-term missionary [who] gave a report on her experience overseas. She and several others were entering a communist country. At the border the guards asked them, ‘Do you have any guns, drugs, or Bibles?’

“What an interesting combination! Guns are weapons of destruction that kill the body. Drugs can alter and distort the mind. The Bible can expose and destroy all that is false. But it is much more than a threat to atheism. It can enrich life, instill hope, and free the human spirit even when a person is confined [in a prison camp for spreading the Gospel]. No wonder an atheistic government would fear its power and put it in a class with guns and drugs.”[1]

I read the story of “a young boy who was in the habit of going to church. [But he] was unable to attend one Sunday because he was ill. So he went upstairs to his bedroom and read his Bible. He was unusually quiet, and his mother began wondering if he was up to some mischief.

“Finally she called out, ‘What are you doing, Andy?’ He replied, ‘I’m watching Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead!”

What a beautiful answer! He was reading John 11, and his childlike faith made the scene come alive.[2]

Someone has said that there are three stages of Bible study:

First, the “cod-liver oil” stage, where you take it like medicine because it’s good for you.

The second is the “shredded-wheat biscuit” stage — dry but nourishing;

And third, is the “mango and ice-cream” stage — really enjoyable.

Which stage have you reached?[3]

In spite of the fact that it is a VERY OLD book, the Bible is still “the most popular and widely read book in the world with more than one hundred million new copies, in whole or in part, produced every year.”[4]

But at what a price?

On October 6, 1536, William Tyndale was burned at the stake because he

dared to translate the Bible into English so that the common person could read it. In Foxe’s Book of Martyrs it records this:

At last after much reasoning, when no reason would serve, although he deserved no death, he was condemned by virtue of the emperor’s decree, made in the Assembly at Augsburg. Brought forth to the place of execution, he was tied to the stake, strangled by the hangman, and afterwards consumed with fire, at the town of Filford, A.D. 1536; crying at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice, “Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes.”[5]

Why would people like Tyndale and others risk their very lives to translate the Scriptures into the native language of people? We have the Bible in English today, thanks to the work of Christian martyr, William Tyndale, and earlier by John Wycliffe who made his “first version of the New Testament in Middle English” in 1380, “and a second edition appeared in 1388 after his death. . . The first edition was a word-for-word translation of the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate, in places following the Latin so closely that the meaning was obscure.”[6] Wycliffe lived from about 1329-1384.[7]

“There are several major differences between Wycliffe’s translation and Tyndale’s:

“1. Wycliffe’s Bible was a translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate [Jerome lived ca. 340-420], but Tyndale’s went back to the original Greek and Hebrew.

“2. Wycliffe’s Bible was a hand-copied manuscript, whereas Tyndale’s Bible was printed.

“3. Wycliffe translated into Middle English, but Tyndale’s version belongs to the Modern English period.”[8]

“Why would generations of Hebrew scribes meticulously copy the Old Testament Scriptures, repeatedly checking their work letter by letter, even counting the letters to ensure their accuracy?

“The answer lies in the belief that the Bible is the very Word of God, thus necessitating its accurate transmission and its availability to people of any language.”[9]

Why is the Bible considered to be the Word of God and how can we know

its accuracy and trustworthiness? We’re travelling on a journey of attempting to validate the Bible. Can you trust your Bible? Today this is such a critical issue because of the anti-God, anti-Bible culture here in Australia.

It is especially important because Islam is on the march. The Quran, Sura 2:2, says: “This scripture [the Quran] is infallible; a beacon for the righteous.”

2 Tim. 3:16 (ESV) “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Jesus said: John 17:17 (ESV) “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”

Which ones are you to believe? I am not making a blasphemous statement. We must provide answers for this generation:

The Quran says it is the infallible Scripture;

The NT says that all of the Bile is “breathed out by God” (inspired by God). Jesus said, “Your word is truth?”

How do we validate one against the other?

So far, I have suggested two historical tests that historians use for ANY historical document, including the Quran and the Bible, Captain Cook’s writings or the works of Shakespeare.

If we want to test the trustworthiness of any historical document, historians put it through 3 tests (PLUS something that TIES them together) suggested by the acronym: T.I.E.S.

First: T: The Transmission Test,

a. The number of MSS; (5,366 Gk MSS; 24,000+ with other languages). Only one that comes close is Homer’s Iliad, 643 MSS (earliest copy, 500 years after the original writing);

b. Time interval between the writing of MSS and the earliest copy.

c. ca. 114 (fragment), John 18:31-33, 37-38 (written on both sides) — in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England;

d. ca. 200 (books)

e. ca. 250 (most of NT)

f. ca. 325 (whole NT)

g. These NT books were written between 50-100 A.D.

Second: “I” = the Internal evidence test,

A. Listen to the claims made in the document. Do NOT assume error;

B. Those who wrote the N.T. were eyewitnesses who saw and heard OR they got their information from eyewitnesses;

C. There were hostile people around at the time who would refute the information if it were false.

Let’s take a look at test for historical authenticity, No. 3, E:

C. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST

In the External Evidence Test, we look for evidence outside of the Bible that confirms people, places and events in the Bible.

1. Secular Evidence for Jesus

a. Jewish Historian, Josephus, (A.D. 37-100)

Eminent NT scholar, the late F.F. Bruce says:

“Here in the pages of Josephus, we meet many figures who are well-known to us from the New Testament: the colourful family of the Herods; the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and the procurators of Judea; the high priestly families–Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias, and the rest; the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and so on”[10]

Josephus wrote of “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James . . .”[11]

There is also a disputed passage (that I do NOT recommend that you use) in Antiquities of the Jews that reads like this:

“Now there was about this time [he means Pilate's time, AD 26-36] 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 who receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men against us, had condemned him to the cross,[12] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day,[13] as the divine prophets had foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”[14]

Michael Green says “no attempts to impugn its authenticity can be said to have succeeded. It has as good attestation as anything in Josephus, it is included in all the manuscripts. We know that the fourth century Christian historian Eusebius had this quote in his copy of Jospehus. He quoted it twice”[15]

There’s sarcasm here by Josephus when he writes: “if it be lawful to call him a man.” This might be a back-handed hint at Jesus’ claims to be God;

It may have been a Christian insertion by a copyist when he wrote, ” He was [the] Christ,” but it could just as easily refer to the sign that was on the cross when Jesus died, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” or “the King of the Jews” (Mt. 27:37Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38 NIV).

Even if the statement about Christ’s resurrection reflects a Christian insertion (and there is no evidence that it has been fiddled with, based on manuscript evidence), here we have a passage in a leading Jewish historian at the time of Christ who gives “powerful, independent testimony to the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.”[16]

It does seem too extensive and specific to have come from a Jew who was not a follower of Christ, but the manuscript evidence does not support such a claim.[17]

What can we conclude from Josephus?

The stories about Jesus were no myth.

There was so much circumstantial evidence that they even found their way into the apologetic work of the Jewish historian Josephus.

If there was anybody who should have kept his lips shut and his ink pen dry about the person of Jesus, it would have had to be Josephus. But that was not the case.

b. Roman Historian, Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55?–after 117)

A contemporary of Pliny (whom we will meet soon), he is considered the greatest historian of Imperial Rome.

Michael Green explains:

“He tells us how the Christians, hated by the populace for their `crimes’ (alluding no doubt to the Christian emphasis on `love’ which was given a sinister twist by the pagans and construed as incest) were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of AD 64 by the Emperor Nero. `The name Christian,’ he writes, `comes to them from Christ, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate; and the pernicious cult, suppressed for a while, broke out afresh and spread not only through Judea, the source of the disease, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.’”[18]

He wrote of Nero’s attempt to relieve himself of the guilt of burning Rome:

“Hence to suppress the rumor [ie. that Nero had set fire to the city of Rome], he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.”[19]

c. Greek satirist, Lucian (second century)

He alludes to Christ as:

“a man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. . . Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.”[20]

d. Roman historian, Suetonius (about AD 120)

He was a court official under Emperor Hadrian. He made two specific references to Jesus. He wrote: “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chestus [another spelling of Christus or Christ], he expelled them from Rome”[21].

In the Lives of the Caesars,[22] Suetonius wrote: “Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”[23]

e. Pliny the Younger (about AD 112)

He was governor of the province of Bithynia (now in northern Turkey) and was writing to the emperor, Trajan, about his achievements. He gave information on how he had killed multitudes of Christians–men, women and children. He said that he had attempted to “make them curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do.” In the same letter[24] he wrote of Christians:

“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, and never to deny a truth when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”[25]

f. Samaritan-born historian, Thallus (about AD 52)

His work is lost, but a fragment of it is preserved in the second-century writer, Julius Africanus (ca. A.D. 221), who tells us:

“Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness [at the time of the crucifixion] as an eclipse of the sun–unreasonably, as it seems to me.”[26]

It is “unreasonable” because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time as the full moon. It was the time of the Passover (paschal) full moon when Christ died.

g. Mara Bar-Serapion (after AD 73)

In a Syriac manuscript in the British Museum, there is a remarkable letter which this man wrote to his son in prison (although some say it was Mara who was in prison). He compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Jesus:

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and the plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. . . But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.”[27]

h. The Jewish Talmud (completed by AD 500)

The Talmud consists of “two books known as the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud. . . They contain the oral teaching of earlier rabbis (Mishnah), which was an explanation of the law of Moses together with discussions of this teaching (Gemara). Christian scholars find these helpful for knowledge of Jewish interpretations of the Hebrew Bible.”[28]

The Babylonian Talmud[29] contains this explicit reference to Jesus:

“On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.”[30]

In another Talmud section, it was written concerning Jesus: “I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress.”[31] Jewish belief was that Jesus was an illegitimate son and demon-possessed, similar to accusations against him in the N.T.[32]

If we combine this secular testimony to Christ, what picture do we get?

(1) “Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate at Passover time.

He was believed by his disciples to have risen from the dead three days later.

Jewish leaders charged Christ with sorcery and believed he was born of adultery.

The Judean sect of Christianity could not be contained but spread even to Rome.

Nero and other Roman rulers bitterly persecuted and martyred early Christians.

These early Christians denied polytheism, lived dedicated lives according to Christ’s teachings, and worshiped Christ. This picture is perfectly congruent with that of the New Testament.”[33]

2. Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament

While there has been confirmation of the general outline of New Testament history, I will focus on Luke’s writings. There are hundreds of archaeological finds that support specific persons, events and facts presented in Luke-Acts, including some that were once thought to be incorrect.

a. Official titles

We need to especially note Luke’s correct usage of official titles. He calls the rulers of Thessalonica “politarchs” in Acts 17:6, 8.[34] In the NIV it is translated as “city officials.” It means “magistrates” and

“was once dismissed as a mistake of the writer of Acts. . . because the term did not appear in any other context. Seventeen examples from [inscriptions] now are listed. . .[35] The examples cover a century and a half from the beginning of the first century to the middle of the second. One is housed in the British Museum and came from an archway in Salonika. The same inscription, curiously enough, contains names that occur among those listed as members of the Thessalonian church. It is obviously a Macedonian term, and its use conforms to Luke’s consistent practice of employing the correct official terminology commonly accepted. In similar fashion he called the petty officials of the Roman colony of Philippi ‘praetors.’”[36]

Gallio was the “Proconsul of Achaia.”[37]

The grammateus[38] was in Ephesus (Acts 19:35). He was the “city clerk” (NIV) or “recorder.”[39]

The governor of Cyprus was a “proconsul.”

The leading person in Malta was called “the chief official of the island”[40] or “leading man of the island”[41](a title confirmed in Greek and Latin inscriptions).

In Philippi (Acts 16:30) the “magistrates” (NIV) were known as strategoi (in the Greek.). “All of these have been confirmed by inscriptions [outside of the Bible]. The scenes [Luke] paints of Athens, Corinth, Ephesus and the journey to Rome ring absolutely true in the ears of those best able to judge.”[42]

These descriptions were once thought to be part of the fertile imagination of Luke the fantasiser. Now, they have solid historical backing, thanks to the meticulous work of archaeologists.

b. Chronological references

Luke is known to be correct in these references. He refers to “Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene” at the time John the Baptist began his ministry (AD 27), once thought to be incorrect, but now confirmed to be correct by Greek inscriptions. Lysanias was tetrarch between AD 14 and 29. Other chronological references are known to be correct, including those referring to Caesar, Herod, and even Gallio (Acts 18:12-17).

Numerous places in the Gospels, including the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7-11) and the “judgment seat” near Corinth (2 Cor. 5:10) have been verified by archaeology.

Other names of persons mentioned in the N.T. that were thought to be false, have been confirmed through archaeology. Another example:

A first-century marble slab was found at Corinth in 1929 with this inscription, “Erastus, in consideration of his appointment as curator of buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.”[43] It is possible that this person is Erastus, one of Paul’s co-workers from whom Paul sent greetings according to Rom. 16:23. He was the city treasurer in Corinth.[44]

[For other examples, see Michael Green, World on the Run, pp. 40-42]

c. Conclusions

These kinds of archaeological finds cause eminent people to reach some startling conclusions.

A.N. Sherwin-White, distinguished Roman historian, says this about Luke’s writings: “For [the Book of] Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”[45]

Luke is commended by classical historian, G.A. Williamson, for demonstrating “complete familiarity with the thought, expression, and habitual terminology of the speakers, and . . . what memories the people of that time possessed!–if not on written notes, which we have reason to believe were commonly made.”[46]

Thanks to the archaeological efforts of the late Sir William Ramsay, many of the critical views of the N.T. have been overthrown. Ramsay himself was converted from the critical view of liberal theology. He wrote:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Book of Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”[47]

Renowned archaeologist and paleographer[48], William F. Albright, notes: “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are, therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today.”[49]

Let’s recap. If we want to test the trustworthiness of any historical document, historians put it through 3 tests:

First: T: The Transmission Test,

a. The number of MSS;

b. Time interval between the writing of MSS and the earliest copy.

Second: I: the Internal evidence test,

a. Listen to the claims made in the document. Do NOT assume error;

b. Those who wrote the N.T. were eyewitnesses who saw and heard OR they got their information from eyewitnesses;

c. There were hostile people around at the time who would refute the information if it were false.

Third, E: the External evidence test.[50]

We heard from historians of the NT period and after the NT times:

Josephus;

Tacitus;

Lucian;

Suetonius;

Pliny the Younger;

Thallus;

Mara Bar-Serapion;

Jewish Talmud.

The N.T. documents can be relied upon to give an accurate picture of Jesus Christ. Let’s go to those documents and investigate who Jesus Christ is and why He died on the cross.

Conclusion:

The Psalmist loved the Word of God. Listen to some of his words about the Word in Psalm 119:

Psalm 119:11 (ESV) I have stored up [OR, hid] your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.

Psalm 119:16 (ESV) I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.

Psalm 119:97 (ESV) Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.

Psalm 119:103 (ESV) How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

Psalm 119:105 (ESV) Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

“One measure of your love for God is your love for God’s Word”[51]

[1] Our Daily Bread, April 1, 1987, “Guns, Drugs, and the Bible.”

[2] Our Daily Bread, August 5, 1987, “When the Bible comes alive.”

[3] Based on ibid.

[4] Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999, p. 19.

[5] W. Grinton Berry (prepared by), Foxe’s Book of Martyrs,. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, reprint 1978, pp. 151-152. Suggested by Wegner, ibid., p. 19,

[6] Wegner, p. 280.

[7] Ibid., p. 279.

[8] Ibid., p. 287.

[9] Ibid., p. 19.

[10] F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, p. 104.

[11] William Whiston, (transl.), Josephus: Complete Works: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications1867, 1963, (Antiquities of the Jews.XX, IX:1) p. 423.

[12] A footnote is “A.D. 33, April 3.”

[13] A footnote, “April 5.”

[14] Whiston, Josephus, XVIII, III. 3, p. 379. Michael Green, World on the Run, alerted me to this quote. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983, p. 34.

[15] Green, ibid. p. 34.

[16] Ibid.

[17] These points about Josephus are gleaned from ibid.

[18] Michael Green, World on the Run, p. 29, from Tacitus’ Annals, 15.44.

[19] Tacitus Annals, XV, 44; in Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 323. In Whiston,

Josephus, the quote is:

“Nero, in order to stifle the rumour [as if he himself had set Rome on fire] ascribed it to those people who were hated for their wicked practices, and called by the vulgar, Christians: these he punished exquisitely. The author of this name was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was brought to punishment by Pontius Pilate the procurator” (Appendix, Dissertation I, p. 639, emphasis in original).

[20] On the Death of Peregrine, quoted in Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 323.

[21] Life of Claudius, 25.4, in Geisler, ibid., p. 324.

[22] 26.2, in, ibid.

[23] In, ibid.

[24] Epistles X. 96, in ibid.

[25] In ibid.

[26] In ibid., p. 324.

[27] In F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, p. 114. This was suggested by Geisler, ibid.

[28]J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell and Peter Toon, The Concise Dictionary of the Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House, 1989, p. 370.

[29]Sanhedrin 43a, “Ever of Passover,” according to Geisler, ibid.

[30] In Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 324

[31] Yeb. IV 3; 49a, in Geisler, ibid., p. 325.

[32] In Geisler, ibid, pp. 324-325.

[33] Ibid., p. 325.

[34] Greek politarchos, Acts 17:6, 8.

[35] See the American Journal of Theology, July 1898, pp 598-632.

[36] E. M. Blaiklock, “Politarch,” in Merril C. Tenney (gen. ed.), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (vol. 4). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976, p. 815.

[37] Acts 18:12 NIV.

[38] Acts 19:35

[39] Michael Green, World on the Run, p. 41.

[40] Acts 28:7 NIV.

[41] Acts 28:7 NASB.

[42] Green, World on the Run, p. 41.

[43] Ibid.

[44] From ibid., 42.

[45] A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 189, in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1979, p. 55..

[46] G. A. Williamson, The World of Josephus. London: Secker & Warburg, 1964, p. 290, in Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 326.

[47] William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1896, p. 8, in Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 326.

[48] A paleographer is one who studies and gives scholarly interpretation to ancient written documents [based on the definition of "paleography" in William Morris (ed.), The Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc. and Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975, p. 944.]

[49] William F. Albright, “Retrospect and Prospect in New Testament Archaeology,” in The Teacher’s Yoke, ed. F. Jerry Vardaman, p. 29, in Geisler, Christian Apologetics, pp. 326-327.

[50]C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History. New York: MacMillan Company, 1952, pp. 143 ff.

[51] Our Daily Bread, March 11, 1987, “A Book to Be Loved.”

Excellent Questions to Ask about Christianity

admin — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:35:35 +0000

A thoughtful person with whom I dialogued on the www and through email said to me: “If you would like to know why I have rejected Christianity, I will be glad to tell you. Here are some [of my] reasons:”

1. In all of the OT there is not one word about anyone being tortured for eternity for not being a “good” person. Apparently the OT God was satisfied with seeing his enemies lie as carrion upon the fields, but the so-called “good news” of the NT is that this same God will now pursue his enemies beyond the grave with NEVER-ENDING torments in hell. Besides, it seems supremely contradictory to me that the same god who tells us to love and forgive OUR enemies says that he will eternally torment his!!

2. The Jewish people, who started all of this, NEVER expected that the Messiah, when he came, to be the Almighty God. Most Christians have made a god out of Jesus and in so doing realize that they have forfeited the unique monotheism of the OT… But, hold on… they thought they could solve the problem of their celestial mathematics, stating that one plus one plus one is NOT three, but one!

3. Jesus could not have been the Messiah, for the OT clearly states that the Messiah would usher in world peace etc. The opposite happened. But Christians thought they had saved the day with their doctrine of the “second coming.” Without it, Christianity would have died long ago. The parousia teaching is simply that we are to be patient, all the things that Jesus never fulfilled will be taken care of when he comes again. And there is clear evidence that Jesus and his followers thought that he would return in the lifetime of his followers. 2000 years have just about passed and they’re still expecting it!!!

4. The justice system of Christianity is monstrously and fiendishly absurd. Most people would rightfully assume that a FINITE sin does NOT deserve INFINITE punishment. The reward system consists of only two eventual destinations. One, the most blissful and happy, the other, the most horrible and tormenting. Is there nothing in between?

5. Why did Jesus have to die? God’s creation turned out bad, we are told. So what to do! In order to make things right, someone had to be murdered!! If we believe the Trinity doctrine, we are left to believe that God arranged to have himself murdered in order to placate himself! Patently absurd!! The doctrine of the atonement is nothing but a replay of pervious PAGAN religions with their angry gods, need for sacrifices and bloody altars.

6. I believe that a person should be judged by what he/she does… not by what one believes. Most of us acquire our belief orientation as a result of our inherited genes, our parental upbringing and our environment. Besides, a person could spend an entire lifetime doing good works, helping others and giving most of his possessions to the needy, but end up in hell, when he died, if he failed to believe in Jesus! While a person could spend a life of 80 years, killing, committing arson, stealing etc. and end up in heaven for an eternity of bliss, if just a few minutes before he died, he accepted Jesus!

7. NO ONE HAS EVER ASKED TO BE BORN into this world with its many conflicting religions, having to choose the right one, or face never-ending torments in hell!! It seems to me that if your religion is true, the least that your God could do would be to mercifully eliminate all of the non-Christian religions. But… that would still leave literally hundreds of Christian bodies, some of which regard the others as of the devil!!!

8. The Christian religion should really be called PAULIANITY, because Paul was the one who tied in the untimely murder of Jesus with the temple sacrifices of the Hebrews.

9. And I could never accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, because I believe that the all-knowing god could, and would, have caused to be written a book that did NOT need endless apologetics!

10. And finally, I believe that an all-loving God will REHABILITATE instead of eternally damn most of HIS OWN CREATION, the SAME THING, I’ll bet that you’d do with all of your wayward offspring!!

How do we answer these penetrating questions?

I will approach my response in three ways:

Religion & beliefs

Who is Jesus and why did he die?

Problems with the Trinity

Facts about hell

Why the need for apologetics

Anglicans reject Christmas story

admin — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:37:07 +0000

Some Anglican clergy in Australia no longer accept the Christian story. Instead, they regard it as mythical (Cotes, 1997, p. 25). The following are examples of this lack of faith from Cotes’ article.

“True myths” is how she describes the view. What next?

Yet, within the Anglican church in Australia (Sydney diocese) there are committed evangelical scholars who support the authenticity of the biblical revelation (see Barnett 1997, 1999). Barnett (1999) demonstrates “that Jesus of Nazareth, the historical Jesus, became through death, bodily resurrection and ascension the Christ of faith. In our view the Gospels faithfully portray Jesus as the Christ in his historic ministry” (p. 418).

However, according to Cotes, this is what the Anglican clergy believe who contend for the “true myths” of the Bible.

“At least 70 serving priests of the Church of England no longer are willing to pretend that they believe it [the Christmas story in the Gospels] to be true and they have supporters among Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy.”

“They have joined Sea of Faith, an organisation which rejects belief in the traditional Christian story as told in the gospels.”

“Members of Sea of Faith believe instead that `God’ is not a supernatural creator, but a mystical personal experience, a symbol of the highest ideals and aspirations of human beings.”

“The consensus of opinion among most reputable biblical scholars is that the gospel accounts of the Nativity cannot be accepted as historically accurate, and that other explanations can be found for most of the details.”

“The Star of Bethlehem was not in any sense a miracle but a regular astronomical occurrence on which scientifically ignorant people put their own magical interpretation.”

“Yet it’s such a beautifully simple story — surely it must be true?”

“The authors of Mark (the earliest gospel) and John (written at least 100 years after the event)… had no time for sentimentality — or for biography. They were writing theology.”

“Modern scholarship has shown that all the details of the Nativity story can be shown to be the result of theological necessity rather than historical truth. . .”

“Jesus almost certainly was born in Nazareth. . .”

“But even if all the pretty stories people love about Christmas are not true, they don’t necessarily have to be discarded.”

“Myths are very important and the myths surrounding the Christmas story are not just the icing on the cake of the Nativity, nor just as an excuse to indulge sentimental fantasies.”

“They are more than pious fiction, filling the tantalising blanks of a story about which there is no real information.”

“Myths are important because the best of them can be a way of going behind the few facts we have, to suggest ways of seeing than (sic) are different from our modern, purely scientific and biographical approach.”

“The Christmas story is full of images and symbols, rather than verifiable facts, but it’s not necessary for rational Christians to discard them.”

“We can still sing the hymns and worship the Christ Child and tell the stories to our children with a clear conscience, for the stories have their own special kind of truth.”

“The question that Christmas raises is not, `Are the stories true?’ But rather `What do these stories say about God and the link between the physical and the spiritual?’”

“It is not `Who were the Magi and the shepherds?’ but `What do they mean?”

“These are the questions that serious preachers will be examining this Christmas… unhistorical wise men and their improbable ox and ass.”

“The figures at the crib scene are all part of the great imaginative picture of Christmas and behind this structure of imagery is the belief that this unrecorded lowly birth of a child to an obscure carpenter’s wife was, when you consider what developed from it, a decisive moment in history, when something genuinely new began.”

Why don’t they leave the church?

The Anglican creedal statements in the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571, The Church of England, state:

Concerning the God, the Holy Trinity: “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Article I)

The Word or Son of God: “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man. . .” (Article II)

Since the creed of the Anglican Church is contrary to the belief of these 70 priests who deny the content the Christmas story, why don’t they leave the church? Surely when one’s beliefs are counter to the church’s fundamental beliefs, it requires integrity to leave the organisation. What other entity in the world would allow its employees to “sell” another product and yet remain within the organisation?

The New Testament is steeped in authentic history]

While these theologically liberal Anglican clergy deny the historical validity of the Christmas event, another Anglican — a historian, exegete, and evangelical theologian, and former Bishop of North Sydney, Dr. Paul Barnett — provides a counter argument:

“The best context in which to locate Jesus is discovered by text-based historical enquiry; sociological analysis, though useful, has significant limitations at this distance. The ‘markers’ of Luke 3:1-2 — John the baptizer, Herod the tetrarch, Annas and Caiaphas the high priests and Pontius Pilate the prefect — form an encircling context for Jesus. Yet Jesus is connected with each of these; they are not merely part of the landscape background. The Jesus of the gospels is tied into his various contexts, whether Galilean or Judean.
“Because the gospels are self-consciously historical, a better way to begin to investigate Jesus is with the gratuitous information found in the letters. From these a rough grid may be established by which to validate or otherwise the gospels’ accounts. The Jesus of the letters, who dies for sins, who is conscious that he is ’son’ or abba, who prays and who seeks in Scripture the prophecies which he is fulfilling, gives strong affirmation of the integrity of the gospels” (Barnett, 1997, p. 164)

What is happening? “The image of Jesus is being refracted through the spirit of these gentlemen” (M. Kahler in Barnett, 1997, p. 17).

Dr. Paul Barnett, is compelled by the early evidence of Christianity, not as “true myths” (what an oxymoron!), but as genuine history: “I find this logic compelling. The phenomenon of the coming into existence of early Christianity is well attested. Its sudden emergence is as historically secure as any event in Palestine in that century” (Barnett, 1997, p. 19).

Barnett (1999) proceeds to document the “historical secure” event of Christ and Christianity in his 448 pages of documentation and explanation: Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity. He concludes:

“The New Testament writers are not preoccupied with the political and social circumstances of those times; that is a modern concern. Rather, Jesus as the Christ fills the horizons of these writers. Yet their references to the historical circumstances are important, not so much to give a key to unlock a door of understanding that is otherwise closed but to remind us that Jesus was a real person and that his resurrection was historical because it was a bodily resurrection. A Jesus who is disconnected from his times easily becomes a mythical figure, whose incarnation, atonement and resurrection are seen as poetic metaphors.
“Such Gnostic views of Jesus became common a few decades after the New Testament era and for more than a century almost swamped post-apostolic Christianity. In recent times such views have returned with the rise of postmodernism and New Age thinking” (p. 415).

Welcome to Gnostic, postmodern, New Age thinking in modern garb — in the Australian Anglican church! This is the rot that undermined the early church for a century or so after Christ’s resurrection and ascension. I expect that it will do the same to Australia’s Anglican church.

The intrinsic historical nature of Jesus and early Christianity excludes the mythical Jesus of contemporary Anglicanism in Australia (and elsewhere).

References:

Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History. Leicester, England: Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press.
Barnett, Paul (1999). Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
Cotes, Alison (1997). “True Myths?” — a full-page article in the “Monitor” section of the Brisbane (Australia) Courier-Mail, Saturday, December 20, 1997.

Titus 1:9 (ESV): “He (the elder/bishop) must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

Truth Challenge » Apologetics

Why are young people not coming to the traditional church? An apology for reaching young people

Appendix A

Ditch Good Friday as holiday: cleric[3]

Jesus is not unique: An assessment of the ABC TV “Compass” program

A. Introduction

B. Firstly, what does this kind of TV attack do to a new Christian?

C. Secondly, is it a human right not to attack Christianity or any other religion?

D. How do believers tackle any resistance to Christ and Christians?

1. What’s his view of God or ultimate reality?[19]

Appendix A

Notes:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

This is part 4 of a 4 part series. See:

A. Introduction

B. Some of the main N.T. manuscripts

C. What are the experts saying NOW?

D. Testing the Bible and ANY other piece of literature from history

E. A BRIEF test of the Muslim’s Qur’an: Subjecting the Quran to the T.I.E.S. test

1. The Transmission Test

2. The Internal Evidence Test

3. The External Evidence Test

Jesus was NOT the son of God, Messiah (Sura 5:17);[44]

If you want further information comparing the Bible and the Quran, I’d recommend these references:

F. Fourth Dynamic

G. What can we conclude?

Conclusion:

Appendix

Does God Exist?[1]

A. Why we must start with the existence of God when witnessing to Aussies who do not believe in God.

1. The direct statement of the Bible:

2. The Bible’s example of how to reach non-theists:

Summary:

B. What are some of the reasons people give for not believing in God?

C. What are the practical implications?

D. People who reject God most often fall into two categories:

1. Atheists

2. Agnostics

E. Some Sign Posts to God’s Existence[8]

1. Order & design in the universe

2. Our desires

3. We know right from wrong

4. The purpose of life

5. Somebody made the universe

6. Many people have met Him

7. Meet Jesus Christ

Apologetics: A Critical Church Ministry

B. Apologetics is a critical church ministry: We need to be answering Aussies questions about God & the world

C. Reasons for Defending the Faith [23]

D. Conclusion

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

A. What are some of the reasons why we need to defend the Bible today?

B. Where are we going in this 4-part series?

C. You need to begin with the existence of God

D. I asked you to think on evidence for the existence of God.

Plato

My assessment:

2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST

1. Biblical Evidence

2. Fulfilled Prophecy[7]

3. Literal Interpretation

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

INTRODUCTION

C. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST

First: T: The Transmission Test,

Second: I: the Internal evidence test,

Conclusion:

Excellent Questions to Ask about Christianity

How do we answer these penetrating questions?

Anglicans reject Christmas story

Why don’t they leave the church?

The New Testament is steeped in authentic history]

References: