The Ultimate Proof for God…?

February 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Many people ask if there is one ultimate evidence or proof for God. Is there one proof that explains:

  • Why Christians believe in God
  • Why Christians believe that God created the world
  • Why Christians believe the bible as we have it is the word of God
  • Why Christians believe that all of the men who wrote the bible were inspired by God
  • Why Christians believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be
  • Why Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross for me
  • Why Christians believe Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven
  • Why Christians believe Christianity is the Only true religion?

I believe there are two ways of approaching this question, depending on the person that asks:

  1. If the person does not seem open to the truth and is just looking for reasons to justify their unbelief, no amount of evidence will satisfy them because they do not have a desire to learn truth. They either have a bias or have many presuppositions that will make it near impossible for them to accept things that the theist would offer. For instance, if someone believes in the philosophies of naturalism or materialism, they believe that the natural, or material world is ALL there is. Because of this they may not be willing to accept anything that you may offer that deals with the supernatural, such as miracles. For these  people, I usually do not provide evidence in a way that they can be the judge over God and blaspheme Him in doing so. The reason is: the Bible teaches that everyone is already without excuse for rejecting God, solely on the basis of suppressing the truth of His existence by their sin. This suppression of the truth leads them to ignore the evidence of God’s deity and power in creation, the historical evidence of how God cared for Israel, delivered them from Egypt, and gave them the promised land. Their suppression of the truth leads them to reject the many prophecies in the Old Testament that speak of the Messiah, His deity, the miracles He would do in His life, His sacrificial death in fulfilling the OT sacrificial system, and His resurrection. All of these things are spoken of in the scriptures and were fulfilled in His life. These things were all seen by men (eyewitness testimony). These are great proofs for the existence of God, but they are rejected because of an unwillingness to accept the historical accounts because the miraculous is “impossible” to the skeptic. So the best proof to give these skeptics is to show them that the worldview that they are using to examine the evidence is incoherent and illogical. Both naturalism and materialism are self-refuting. They need to see that their worldview as unbelievers cannot account for the necessary preconditions of life and intelligibility, such as reason, knowing they are in reality, objective truth and morality, the uniformity of nature, and the immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc. All of these laws transcend time and cannot be accounted for from a worldview that rejects the God of the Bible. Since these necessary things for understanding life cannot be accounted for in atheism, atheism is invalidated, and theism is validated. If you have only two options (atheism and theism) and there is not a third option (Law of Excluded Middle), disproving one proves the other. Theism is proved by the impossibility of the contrary. The Christian worldview can account for all these things. For more information on these arguments, you can go to my website for more information (atheism page and presuppositional apologetics page)
  2. If (and only if) a person is actually open to considering the evidence, there are many different things you can share with them, but if you only had one opportunity, I would share with them the following:

The Resurrection: The Ultimate Proof for Jesus, the Authority of Scripture, and Creation

There is one main reason why I have the faith I do: Because I believe that the evidence points to the FACT that Jesus Christ rose from the grave. The Christian faith stands or falls on the historicity of this one event. Did Jesus rise from the tomb, fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies that said He would, along with the prophecies that He Himself made in His life.

If Jesus rose from His tomb:

  • His claims about Himself are true. He really is the Son of the Living God. He really was God incarnate, the One with ALL authority on heaven and earth who will be the judge of all men (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 17:30)
  • He is the lamb of God who died for the sins of the world, including your sins and my sins (John 1:29)
  • The Apostles and Prophets who spoke on His behalf (who gave us the NT) were from God. They were inspired by God, as Jesus said they would be (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15)
  • The Old Testament is shown to be from God also, proven by Jesus’ claims that it was and His use of it with authority.
  • Jesus’ speaking of Adam and Eve as real historical figures, the beginning of time and creation, the flood of Noah, etc. show that those events really did happen as recorded in the book of Genesis.

If Jesus did not rise from His tomb:

  • He is by far the biggest fraud that this world has known. He wouldn’t even be a good man, or a good prophet.
  • His Apostles and Prophets were liars, and were willing to even die for a lie.
  • Everything that we believe from the New Testament (and possibly the Old Testament) is a lie!
  • Our faith is worthless and we are still in our sins.
  • We are wasting our time being Christians if the resurrection didn’t happen! We should as Paul stated just “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

Christianity crumbles if the resurrection did not happen. New Testament preachers of the gospel were more than willing to allow everything to rest on this one event happening.

Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

The evidence that we have is substantial. We have historical eyewitness testimony that must be taken into account by any honest seeker of truth.

  • “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16)
  • “And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe (John 19:35)
  • “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.” (Acts 2:29-32)

Overview of the eyewitness accounts

After Jesus’ death, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea buried the body of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph, a tomb in which no one had ever been placed. A huge stone was put at the entrance of the tomb, a stone that probably weighed somewhere between 1,000-2,000 pounds. A guard was placed at the tomb so that the disciples could not come to steal the body. Yet on that third day of His death, the witnesses aledge that when the women came to the tomb, they found the stone rolled away. His burial garments were in the tomb, but the body was gone. Then an angel appeared to them, asking, “why do you seek the living among the dead. He is not here. He is risen. Go and tell his disciples.” The women went and told the disciples, but the disciples unfortunately didn’t believe them. 2 disciples, one of which was Peter, went to the tomb, finding it how the women said it was.

Then we see Jesus make His first appearances to witnesses. He first appeared to Mary Magdalene. Then to the women that were with her. Then he appeared to 2 men on the road to Emmaus, then to Simon Peter and the other apostles without Thomas on the day of the supposed resurrection.

Then a week later, Jesus appeared again to His disciples with Thomas present. Thomas, who doubted at first, was convinced, fell before Jesus and said, My Lord and My God!” He later appeared to the apostles at the Sea of Galilee and to James His brother, who at one point did not believe in Jesus, but was convinced by the resurrection that Jesus was who he claimed to be. Paul states that at one time over 500 people at once saw Jesus resurrected.

Luke’s account in Acts says that Jesus appeared to them many times over a 40 day period, teaching them about the kingdom of God. Then after this period of time, Jesus gave them the great commission, telling them to proclaim the message of salvation through His death, burial, and resurrection, a message that they were willing to give their lives for! Then, after giving the great commission, they watched as Jesus ascended into heaven.

Paul

There was at least one more appearance according to the testimony. He was on his way to Damascus with letters from the Jewish leaders giving him authority to find Christians in that city and to arrest them and bring them back to Jerusalem. But one the way to Damascus, a bright light appeared, Paul fell to the ground, and Jesus appeared to him, bringing about his conversion. Paul who was an enemy of the Lord, became an Apostle of the Lord, and proclaimed the gospel in much of the known world of his time.

These things are what we see in the testimony of the New Testament.

Skeptics’ theories

But there are modern skeptics that do not want to believe this evidence. They come up with many theories to try to say that Jesus was not resurrected, all of which can be put into 2 categories. There are “occupied tomb theories” and there are “empty tomb theories.” These are the 2 possibilities. Either the tomb had the body or it didn’t.

Occupied tomb theories

The first skeptic response is this:

“Resurrection is not possible. Miracles are not possible.”

We cannot see them now, so they didn’t happen then. Because of this, Jesus never left the tomb.

Resurrection is “unscientific.” It cannot be seen or tested. It is true that we do not see people rising from the dead after three days today. We have no empirical evidence that this is possible. Jesus’ resurrection cannot be perceived with our senses today.

But I’ll tell you, I believe those who make this argument are being intellectually dishonest. It is true that the resurrection is outside of the empirical realm. No one here has ever seen it. But there is still eyewitness testimony that people who believe this are not willing to even look at. They ignore it. They do not discuss it. There is eyewitness testimony, which is evidence. Men who saw Jesus, ate with Him, heard Him teach over a 40 day period after His resurrection. Those things were in the empirical realm. I believe that is intellectually dishonest to say miracles are impossible if many eyewitnesses saw the miracle (even up to 500 witnesses that could have been spoken to at that time).

“All of this was legend.”

Everything that we see is a legendary account that arose over a long period of time.

That’s an easy way to try to dismiss everything. But according to Acts 2, the resurrection was no legend, it was a focal point of the first sermon preached on the day of Pentecost. The resurrection was part of the gospel message from the very beginning. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection was of first importance. It was something he preached everywhere he went. all of the evidence indicates the opposite of this theory that it was a legend.

Also, unbelieving Jews in the first century did not make such a claim. Even the enemies of that time knew that the resurrection was not a legend.

“They went to the wrong tomb.”

Jesus’ body was in a different tomb? Everyone who supposedly saw the empty tomb went to the wrong tomb. Nobody knew the right tomb. Joseph of Arimathea didn’t know the right tomb? The enemies who placed the guard at the tomb went to the wrong tomb? This just doesn’t make sense.

This also doesn’t deal with the post-resurrection appearances

“They eyewitnesses hallucinated.”

More than 500 people all had the same hallucination? Every single person who saw the Lord had hallucinations? And they just stopped after 40 days? How about Paul? he just hallucinated seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus? This doesn’t make sense. It has also been proved that hallucinations can only happen in individual occurrences. It is not possible that 500 people, or even 12 people at once could have the same hallucination.

“ Maybe it was all a case of mistaken identity.”

They wanted to see Jesus so badly, that they just happened to see someone who looked like Him, and after this they went all over the world claiming that Jesus rose from the dead. This does not make sense when looking at the eyewitness testimonies either. They ate with him and spoke with Him on numerous occasions. It was not possible that it was a case of mistaken identity.

All of these occupied tomb theories just hold no water. They all have the same problem, one that I mentioned already. Unbelieving Jews, the enemies of Christ, never made such claims. They knew that the body was not in the tomb that it was put into. These people so badly wanted to disprove the resurrection, but never advocated any of these theories.

It is a historical fact that the tomb was empty.

Empty tomb theories

“Somebody stole the body.”

  • The Disciples Stole the Body: This is what the Jewish authorities came up with. How did they get past the guards? Some say that the guards all fell asleep on guard duty, which would have cost them their lives. So are you telling me that not one of the guards woke up as Jesus’ disciples tip-toed to the tomb, quietly removed the huge stone at the tomb, went into the tomb, unwrapped the body, leaving the wrappings behind, then carried the body out, all of this without waking the guards? That just is not possible. I have seen some heavy sleepers, but this would be ridiculous. Up to the point of Jesus’ death, they did not even understand the importance of the resurrection, nor did they have the courage to do such a thing. Other questions: What did they have to gain by stealing the body and preaching the message that they did? Torture, Imprisonment, death? No one would be willing to die for what they know is a lie! Many people die for what they believe to be true, but not for a lie? How do you explain Paul’s conversion; his willingness to suffer?
  • The Jewish or Roman Authorities Stole the Body: Why? Wouldn’t you make it look like His body was resurrected? Also if they did take the body, why did they not just produce the body when the disciples were out proclaiming the resurrection of Christ? They could have stamped out the church in an instant by doing so! But why didn’t they? Because they didn’t have the body.

“Jesus didn’t die on the cross (the swoon theory- Acoma)”

Jesus, after he was put in the tomb, revived, and somehow got out of the tomb in His weakened state.

Did the Roman soldiers mess up at their job of execution? Were they wrong in coming to the conclusion he was dead when they thrust a spear into his side on the cross? Didn’t anyone, including Joseph and Nicodemus realize as they were preparing His body for burial that He was still breathing? Jesus had to survive massive blood loss, torture, and a stab wound in his side. In addition, while suffering from the wounds on his back, in his side, and in his feet and hands, Jesus had to roll the stone away (which normally would take several men to accomplish).

Conclusions

These are the best theories skeptics have been able to come up with over the past 2000 years, but not a single one of them makes logical sense when you with an open mind consider the evidence. So each one of us need to make a decision. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Was his tomb really empty? What does the evidence say? If you come to the conclusion that Jesus was not raised from the tomb, which one of these alternative theories do you want to defend as you theory? Do you have one that I haven’t heard of yet?

I affirm to you that the evidence proves that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. He is the Christ. He was raised from the dead. This is why I am a Christian. This is why I submit to His authority in every area of my life.

You must make a decision. You are without excuse for your sin and for not obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. Most people think their ticket to Heaven is to be a good person. Would you consider yourself a good person? Have you ever lied? Looked with lust? Hated someone? Stolen? Taken God’s name in vain? If you have done these things once, then you are a liar, an adulterer (Matt. 5:28), a murderer (1 John 3:15), a thief, and a blasphemer (not a good person). God will not overlook your crimes. You are deserving of God’s wrath in His eternal prison of Hell. But this is not what He desires for you. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to this earth to be a sacrifice for your sins. He died for you and was raised from His tomb by God so you can have the hope of eternal life.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

See also: Paul’s Testimony of the Resurrection: Evidence for Christ

Filed Under: Apologetics, Evidences, Historical Jesus Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Evidences Sermons

July 13, 2012 by Leave a Comment

This series of lessons is probably the most helpful series of sermons on evidences that I have ever heard.

Filed Under: Bible, Evidences Tagged With: , , , , ,

Is Our Bible Trustworthy?

July 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The fact that we do not have the original autographs of the New Testament manuscripts has led many to deny that the New Testament that we have is reliable. The phrase, “The Bible’s ntbeen translated and recopied so many times…” has been one of the more frequent objections that are given to accepting the Bible. Many religious groups today also make the claim that the Bible has been corrupted over time, which has led to “new revelations,” such as ones received by Muhammad and Joseph Smith.

If the Bible has been corrupted, then all of these people and religious groups make a great point. We would not know what is and is not reliable. But when these people make this point, they are rewriting history and neglecting all of the evidence that the area of textual criticism gives us.

1. Do we possess copies that are reasonably close to the originals?

Without question, the Bible fares better in this area than most ancient documents. We have copies that are much closer to the originals than any other ancient work by comparison! There is a fragment of the gospel of John that dates to within 50 years of when the gospel was originally written. We have thousands of fragments or full manuscripts that date from 50-1500 years from when the originals were written. Full manuscripts 300 years away from originals. (not a long time to experts)

If these were not “religious” documents, this would lead the document to be credible! No one would reasonably doubt its credibility if it were another historical document. Critics cannot refute this! The Bible is the best attested ancient work ever. Period.

-Livy’s history of Rome – number of manuscripts available – 20

      • Oldest copy made 500 years later

-Julius Caesars Gallic Wars – number of manuscripts available -10

  • Oldest copy made 900 years later

-Annals of Tacitus – number of manuscripts available -2

  • Oldest copy made 800 years after original

-The New Testament – number of manuscripts available -5600

  • full manuscript of 300 yrs. within originals, fragments within 50 yrs.(these numbers only include Greek manuscripts and fragments!)

No one doubts the first 3 as being reliable! The closest work of antiquity to matching the New Testament is Homer’s Iliad. There are about 2500 manuscripts or fragments, and the earliest dating is about 500 years after the original.

2. Did the authors intend to convey reliable history to the readers?

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

Luke leaves no doubt that he desired to leave a precise, detailed account of the gospel (and Acts). The truth is that if the gospels did not contain miracles, no one would doubt whether they were credible or not.

3. Were the authors in a position to know what they were talking about?

The best situation is that the author is either an eyewitness or very close to an eyewitness. The closer to the situation spoken about, the more reliable it will be. Luke had direct contact with eyewitnesses and thoroughly investigated everything. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark is believed to receive his information from Peter, an eyewitness.

Paul wrote 25-30 years after Jesus’ resurrection 1 Corinthians 15, which mentions Jesus’ resurrection. Paul was in a position to know what he was talking about. He was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ!

Once again, if these were not religious, their credibility would not be doubted.

4. Did the authors’ bias distort their historical reporting?

It is true that these men were followers of Jesus that wanted to convert people to Christianity. But does this mean that they fabricated stories such as the miracles to try to convert people? Did they lie? What would be their motivation for doing this?

Asking this same question about other historical documents would render all of history as unreliable because most people wrote history of something they were personally invested in. There is no such thing as a totally unbiased position. So based on this argument, all history is false!

Also, why would the writers fabricate such lies, and then be willing to get into trouble, suffer, or even die for what they know is a lie?

5. Is there “self-damaging” material in the documents?

There is a lot of self-damaging material in the bible, where the authors did not hide facts that made themselves or other followers of God look bad. This shows that the authors’ purpose was not to “sugar-coat” everything and to gloss over problems.

A Few Examples:

  • Jesus’ own family did not believe in Him (Mark 3:21, John 7:5)
  • People in Jesus’ hometown rejected Him (Mark 6:2-5)
  • His disciples were unable at a point to exorcise demons (Mark 9:18)
  • The disciples many times argued amongst each other and did not believe (Mark 9:34)
  • Jesus was betrayed by a close disciple and denied by another (Mark 14)
  • Women were the first witnesses to testify about seeing Jesus alive.

6. Are the documents consistent with other documents that talk about the same events?

Each gospel on its own merits is consistent internally.Each one gives us a separate account of the ministry of Jesus.

The question arises in how the Gospels relate to each other. There are similarities and differences between them. Some have gone as far as stating that any difference between the gospels means there is a contradiction.

For example, one gospel says there were two men/or angels at the tomb after Jesus’ resurrection and another gospel says there was only one. Is this a contradiction? No, it is not. This would be equivalent of someone witnessing a major 10 vehicle accident on the interstate. If that person comes home and tells his wife about two vehicles that got into an accident, and how these vehicles did not even look like cars any longer, did he lie to his wife about what he was an eyewitness of? No. If his wife saw the incident reported on the news along with video footage of the whole accident where she sees there were 10 vehicles involved, will she accuse her husband of lying to her by not mentioning all 10 vehicles? of course not. The man’s eyewitness report and the video footage were not contradictory because there were differences. The same is the case with the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life. There are differences, and the reason is the same as the above illustration. They recorded the events from a different point of view and wanted to stress different facts about the events. Just because there are differences, does not mean that the witnesses contradict each other.

Also, It is important to notice the difference between a difficulty and a true contradiction. A contradiction means that there are mutually exclusive statements that cannot be reconciled because there are no plausible explanations. Such charges against the Bible have not been sustained. All supposed contradictions are dismissed upon looking at the scriptures within context, understanding the culture of the time period, and understanding the genre of the writing.

7. Are the recorded events “believable?”

For this question, presuppositions come into play. If someone has a certain worldview that will not consider the possibility of miracles being able to happen (for example, naturalism or materialism), they view the New Testament as “unbelievable.” The fact that there is credible eyewitness testimony gives us something that is believable.

These questions help to show that the Bible is believable:

  • If there is a God, would he want to communicate with His creation?
  • If there is a God, would He want to be involved?
  • If there is a God, miracles are possible, and believable!

If there is a God, it would not be surprising if He did supernatural things throughout history, whether He is still doing supernatural things or not. If there were not supernatural things spoken of in the Bible then this would be an evidence that the Bible is not from God.

8. Does archaeology support the Bible?

Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist claims: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference.” This is not true of other religions. The Mormon claim for inspiration of the Book of Mormon has been categorically condemned by the Smithsonian Institute because of the fallacies shown by archaeology; this is not so with the Bible. A.N. Sherwin-White, a respected classical historian at Oxford says, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…”

Hundreds of statements in the Bible, which in times past have been held untrue by enemies of the Bible, have recently been proven true by archaeologists. Here are 3 examples:

  • The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered
  • It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls.
  • Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16)

The more that archaeologists find from the past, the more the Bible is proven accurate historically.

 

9. What about the variances and errors in copying?

There are thousands of variants between manuscripts that we have! But is this a big problem? Not really when you consider what is counted as a variant:

  • spelling differences- word missing a letter or has an extra letter
  • nonsense – the scribe made a mistake that is easily seen – “put in a wrong word”
  • words changed with synonyms
  • articles that are or are not missing (the, an, a)
  • word order changed (King Herod vs. Herod the King)

There are very few variants that change the meaning of the text.

A couple of the biggest questions are regarding Mark 16:9-10, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:6-8. The question is if these texts belong. But the issue doesn’t matter. There is not anything that these texts teach that is not taught elsewhere in the bible.

Only about 1% of variants in any way change the meaning of the text, and not one of them affects a common doctrine or belief of Christians!

Filed Under: Bible, Evidences Tagged With: , , , , ,

Did the “Church” Give us the Bible?

July 10, 2012 by Leave a Comment

“When were all these writings put together? The Catholic Church put all of them in one book between the years 350 and 405.” (A Catechism for Adults, p. 10).

Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible and so they can exalt and defend their traditions that are contrary to the Bible. But is this true? Are we indebted to the Catholic Church for giving us the Bible?

The answer to this question is NO. I give three evidences for this:

  1. The underlying principle that determined canonicity of the books is the same principle that stood under the verbal preaching of the apostles while Christianity was in its earliest stages: inspiration. Before any of the books were written, there was inspired oral teaching that came from God. Then this inspired teaching was written down. In reality, the inspired teachings and writings are what gave birth to the church, not the other way around! The church began in Acts 2 because of the Apostles’ inspired teaching. The 4th century councils did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus. They recognized what had already been accepted as inspired writings from God that were to be consider the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The books are NOT inspired because the Catholic Church gave them to us, but because God gave them to us. For the Catholic Church to make this claim is nothing short of pride and when they do it they are putting themselves in the place of God, which is idolatry.
  2. The Catholic Church was not yet in existence when the writers penned the scriptures. They claim that everyone who wrote the scriptures was Catholic. “”All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics” (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14). But they are attempting to rewrite history in saying this! I firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church or its organization and practices? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order?
  3. The Catholic Churches traditions and doctrines contradict the Bible or are absent from its pages, which means that they are not doing all things in the name of Christ (col 3:17). Why is there not a mention purgatory, indulgences, confession to priests prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church not mentioned in the New Testament? If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, “A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher…He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says “he must be married.” Why does the Bible condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6). Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9). Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2). Why does it condemn the making, bowing down to, and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5). Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9). Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).

As I have already stated, the only way to accept the idea that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible is to ignore history. A church that was not present yet can not give anyone anything. This would be like me saying that I gave you a gift before I was born. Manufactured lists of Apostolic Succession cannot prove anything. Many other “churches” have the same lists, all of which are not Biblical. I stand on the truth that the Bible when it was written was inspired of God before any councils, and that it tells us everything that we need to know to be faithful to God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

Sources:

A Catechism For Adults, William J. Conan, ACTA Publications, Chicago, Illinois, 1959.

The Bible is a Catholic Book, Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, St. Louis, 1948.

Filed Under: Bible, Catholic Church, Evidences Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Earliest Manuscripts of the New Testament Discovered?

July 3, 2012 by Leave a Comment

I found this article on the website of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts website. This site is a great resource if you are interested in learning more about manuscript evidence for the Bible.

Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

10 February 2012

Daniel B. Wallace

On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first.These fragments will be published in about a year.

These manuscripts now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts (all fragmentary, more or less) from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, about 33% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. 200–250 CE). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings.The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the original followers of Jesus! Not only this, but this manuscript would have been written before the New Testament was completed.

Filed Under: Bible, Evidences Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The Testimony of Paul: Great Evidence for the Resurrection

June 15, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The gospel repeatedly claims that Jesus did rise from the dead and that this proves His claims to be valid. It then claims to give historical evidence for the resurrection based on the testimony of witnesses. No other major religion in the world claims that its founder arose from the dead, let alone does it offer historical evidence to validate the claim. If the evidence for the resurrection is valid, the result must establish the gospel of Christ as the one true religion. One of the greatest evidences to the resurrection of Christ is the conversion of Saul/Paul and his later testimony of the events of his conversion.Damascus Road

Saul was born a Roman citizen in the city of Tarsus, a city known for its school of literature and philosophy. He was taught in Jerusalem by Gamaliel, a Pharisee and respected teacher of the law (Acts 5:34-35; 22:3) and grew up to become a member of the party of the Pharisees. He would excel beyond his contemporaries, being zealous for the traditions of his fathers. His early life and training certainly put Saul of Tarsus on the “fast track” when it came to his religious faith. It was zeal in defending his faith that led to his brief but fervent career as a persecutor of Christians. Saul was present at the death of the first Christian martyr named Stephen, consenting to his death (Acts 8:1). This was only the beginning of the havoc that Saul would bring to the church over the coming days and months. His goal was to destroy it. He entered the homes of Christians, dragging them out and throwing them into prison (Acts 8:3). He also beat those who he captured (Acts 22:19) and compelled them to blaspheme (Acts 26:11). He would stop at nothing, even going to foreign cities to capture and imprison the saints.

Now, let Saul of Tarsus tell you the rest of what happened:

12 “While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13 at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14 “And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 “And I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 ‘But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17 rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’ 19 “So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should Paul-Preaching-in-Athensrepent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:12-20).

In a matter of three days, this fierce persecutor of Christians… became a Christian, and right away he got to work preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to try to bring men and women to repentance and faith in Christ. Paul would also suffer many things for his faith in Christ, even losing his life as tradition states by being beheaded.

How can this dramatic change in Saul of Tarsus be accounted for? What explanation can be given? The answer lies in the truth of his testimony. He saw the resurrected Son of God.

Luke wrote his books (Luke and Acts) from the perspective of an historian so people could know the historical facts that would convince them regarding the events of the Life of Christ and the work of the apostles (Luke 1:1-4). His reputation as an accurate historian is well established. In addition, Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, so he would have personally heard the accounts of Paul’s conversion and saw the miracles that Paul did to show that his work and teaching were from God. The evidence of Paul’s conversion from persecutor to apostle is overwhelming and proves that Jesus indeed was raised from His tomb and seen by eyewitnesses, “last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me [Paul] also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them” (1 Cor. 15:8-10).

Filed Under: Evidences Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Prophecy: Evidence for Christ

June 15, 2012 by Leave a Comment

This is a great way to start a conversation with someone. Ask someone to read Isaiah 53:4-6. Then ask them who it is talking about. You will get “Jesus” as the answer almost every time. Then you ask them when it was written (over 700 years before Christ was born). You start the conversation by showing great evidence for God’s word, and the person you are talking to makes your point for you in saying that this prophecy is about Jesus Christ. Watch this video then give it a try!

This video is from the Living Waters “Ambassadors Alliance” YouTube page.

Filed Under: Evidences, Instructional Videos Tagged With: , ,

Is Evolution Science? Yes and No

June 1, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Video from Creation Today.

Filed Under: Evidences, Evolution vs Creation, Instructional Videos Tagged With: , , , ,

Did Jesus Really Exist?

March 17, 2012 by Leave a Comment

There are people in this world that will say that Jesus was a mythological figure that never existed in history. He is nothing more than a legend that a group of men in the first century made up to fool the world. But is this true? Is Jesus mentioned in historical writings? The answer is: YES!

  • To begin, we have 27 writings that mention Him, four of which are in depth accounts of His ministry. The New Testament is Historical Literature. Whether you look at it as the word of God or not, it is historical eyewitness testimony of the events of Jesus’ life, death, burial, and resurrection. Many unbelievers like to deny these accounts of Jesus’ life are historical accounts. This is unwarranted. They only do this with the New Testament documents. If they held all of history to this standard, they would need to disregard all of history. There is no justifiable reason to reject the main source documents of Jesus’ life as a historical witness while accepting other primary source documents of other historical events.
  • Tacitus, one of the greatest historians of Rome wrote speaking of how Christians were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in AD64. He wrote concerning the death of Christ
    • “…Christus, from whom the name (Christians) had it’s origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of procurators, Pontius Pilatus…” (Annals 15.44.2-4)
  • The Jewish Talmud, written between 70AD and 200AD speaks of Jesus Christ, although in hostile language. This proves that the enemies of Christ believed that he was a historical figure!
    • “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged [on a cross]. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged [on a cross] on the eve of the Passover.” (The Babylonian Talmud, translated by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281)
  • The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70′s A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, “The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned.” He also speaks of “marvelous deeds” that Jesus did and His resurrection (although there is debate whether this text that speaks of these miracles) .  (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ).
  • Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
  • Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
  • Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus’ teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.
  • We have late first century and early second century writings of the Early Church Fathers which include many references to Jesus and His teachings. the majority of the New Testament could be reconstructed from their writings
  • We have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

The historian, Will Durant, certainly no friend of Christianity, wrote:

  • “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the gospel (1944, p. 557).

These are just a few of the historians that have mentioned Jesus Christ and His disciples. The question must be asked, “How many historical accounts of someone do we need to have to believe He is a real historical figure?” All of the documents outside of the New Testament that talk about Jesus, even if you take away the early church fathers, are enough to show that Christ was doing amazing things, was crucified by Pilate, and the tomb was found empty.

The only reason to reject the existence of Jesus is not a rational one, but an emotional one. There is a lot at stake if the historical accounts of Jesus’ life are true. If Jesus is who He claimed to be (God), there is only One God and One way to eternal life, there is an absolute standard of truth and morality in which we all we be held accountable to, miracles are possible, and the heavens and earth were created by God (not be evolution).

“If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” -F. F. Bruce

Filed Under: Evidences, Historical Jesus Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,