Apologetics Archives - Go Deeper Bible Study

Why are you a Christian? I get the same three answers everywhere I go. I'm just going to tell you what they are. The most popular answer I get is I was raised in the church. That is the number one reason why most people believe anything because their parents did. The second answer I get. Well, I've had some experience that confirmed for me that Christianity was true. I saw a miracle occur. I have had, God has been speaking to me about think whatever. You've had some experience that demonstrates to you that Christianity is true. The third answer is kind of similar to the second answer. I used to be a jerk. Then I met Jesus and not so much a jerk anymore. He changed my life. Those are good answers, but if you ask a Mormon, guess what they say? Same three answers in the same order. As a matter of fact, those are the top three answers from Muslims and the top three answers for Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Why do our answers sound alike? We don't think their system is true. If that's the case, why do ourr answers sound like their's? I think we need better answers. So what I want to do is try to walk through some of that for you. We actually do have better answers even if we're not prepared to give them. There are better answers out there, so I want to teach you about the nature of this evidence. There are two forms of evidence that we use: direct evidence and indirect evidence. That's it. That's the only two forms of evidence on the planet. Direct evidence is eye witness testimony. If you don't have an eyewitness, you don't have direct evidence. DNA is indirect evidence. Fingerprints are indirect evidence. Behaviors that you saw are indirect evidence. Statements from people familiar with the incident or those involved are also indirect evidence. Unless you have a witness who can say, I saw him do it and I'm going to identify him, you have to use indirect evidence. There's another word for that. It's called circumstantial evidence. Don't you hate that word? Haven't you heard people say, "oh, they don't have a very good case?" It's entirely circumstantial. They just have a circumstantial case. It's just a circumstantial case. How many times have you heard that? Circumstantial cases are actually incredibly powerful. You may ask, isn't the case for Christianity built on the eyewitness testimony and the Gospels. Yes, but remember, witnesses lie all the time. How do I know the Gospel authors aren't lying? To prove the case for Christianity, we don't blindly trust eyewitnesses. We must test eyewitnesses. If you test them and they pass the test, that's different, then you can trust them. They've got to pass the test in order to be trusted. What's the test? The tests come down to four broad categories. 1) Was the person was really present to see what it is he said he saw, was he really there? 2) Can his testimony be corroborated in some way? 3) Has he changed his story over time? 4) Does he have a bias? That's it. Were the witnesses present, can this be verified, is their account accurate and are they biased? If they pass the test in these four categories, we can trust them. Let's look at this event called the Ministry of Jesus. It's recorded in the gospels. Then you have a church council where allegedly people came together and said, well, which Gospel accounts can we trust to put in the Canon of Scripture? There's 330 years between those two dates. That's a long time. If the gospels were written late in history over here somewhere, then you cannot trust them as eye witness accounts. They weren't there. The eye witnesses had been dead. To be eye witness accounts, they had to be written early. By the way, if you want to lie about Jesus, let me tell you how you do it. You wait until everyone who knew Jesus is dead. Then you can say anything you want about Jesus. Who's going to know? If you're going to write it early though, when people who knew Jesus were still alive and in the region where he was living, then you've got to be tougher, right? It's tougher to lie if you're going to write it early. There are skeptics out there who are writing books, tons of books, and these are very well read skeptics. These guys sell millions of books. Bart Erhman has about as famous as any skeptic gets on Biblical literature and he's Phd trained as a biblical scholar at Princeton. He's teaches the Bible Department at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. He's not a Christian. He's an atheist. Erhman thinks the New Testament has been changed over time and he thinks that this was written really late. He thinks nobody who was actually alive wrote the gospels. These are late stories. If people like this are right, then we've got a problem because it can't even pass the first test. On the other hand, if they were written while witnesses were alive, then we have good confidence to at least know they passed the first test. So how do we know when it was written? There's a book by Luke called the Book of Acts, The Acts Of The Apostles. Luke was a witness during the time of the Book of Acts. He was a friend of Paul. He even slips into first person in the Book of Acts when he's writing it. But he was not a witness to Jesus. Luke interviewed the witnesses who knew Jesus. He knew those people because they were hanging out in the Book of Acts together. Nowhere in the Book of Acts does Luke ever mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Why wouldn't he mention it? It happened in 70 AD so it's still relatively early in history. Luke could have mentioned it. After all, Jesus predicted it. Why wouldn't Luke mention what he predicted? It makes Jesus look like he's an accurate predictor, a true prophet. Not only that, Luke doesn't mention the siege of Jerusalem. That happened about a year or two before that. The entire city barricaded blockaded by the Roman soldiers. They were starving the city. The Romans stopped all supplies coming in and going out. People tried to escape. The soldiers crucified them on the road out of Jerusalem. It was so bad that Josephus, the historian, the Jewish historian says that when the Roman soldiers finally entered the city, they discovered that children had died and that some parents were eating their kids to stay alive. That's worth mentioning. Yet it's missing from the Book of Acts. If you're writing a history of New York City and you don't put in the twin tower attack, someone's going to say, why would that be missing from your history of New York City? The Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD Not only that, Paul is still alive at the end of the Book of Acts. We know when he dies, he dies in the 60s why not mention how he dies? He's an important guy. Peter's death wasn't mentioned. He's an important person. James, the brother of Jesus is probably the biggest leader in the early church. He is leading the council in Acts 15 yet Luke makes no mention of his death. We know when he died, he died in 61 AD. Luke did mention the death of Stephen. Why would you tell of the death of James, the brother of John, not the brother of Jesus. Luke mentions that death. Why would you mention these minor players? But leave out the three most important players. Well, if this hasn't happened yet, you can't write about it. So let's test this. What if Acts is written before any of this happens? Even if it is just one year prior. I think it is earlier, but I'm going to put it one year prior just to be conservative. Now it's tested. The omission of major events gives us all reason t believe the Book of Acts was written before they happened. Luke wrote two books, the other being the Book of Luke. Which one did he write first Luke or Acts? The Book of Luke was written first. We know that because Luke tells us that in the first verse of Acts. "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up." That's the gospel of Luke. What is the evidence that will help us determine when Luke was written? I believe Luke was written in 53 AD. In 63 AD, we have a letter from Paul to Timothy and in this letter he says, "Timothy, take care of your church leaders. They deserve to be compensated. I know this because my Bible tells me so." "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:17-18 What is Paul referring to as scripture, as his Bible?? As early as 63 AD, Paul references what the scripture says. He says two verses. He quotes, "do not muzzle the ox while as treading out the grain." That is from Deuteronomy. The second verse though is not from the Old Testament. That verse, 1 Timothy 5:18, "the worker deserves his wages" is a New Testament verse. He's using a verse from the Old Testament, and a verse from the New Testament to make his case, but that means that the New Testament has to be available to him. He is quoting the Gospel of Luke. Now I said Luke was written in 53 AD, and 1 Timothy in 63 here's why. There is another letter Paul wrote to the church in Corinth trying to remind them how to properly do the Lord's supper. He planted this church probably two years earlier. By this time, they're already doing the Lord's supper wrong. They're getting drunk before the Lord Supper. He says, "Go back to the way I taught you. I didn't teach you that way," and he reminds them of the way he taught them earlier and he uses one passage about the Lord's supper to do it. It's the only passage in all of scripture that sounds anything like that because he has once again quoting from the Gospel of Luke, the much larger piece of Luke, but that means you've got to have Luke available to quote from it. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood," 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22:19-20 Paul is saying, "I taught you this two years earlier." How early is Luke? Let's go to the first verse of Luke. He's talking to Theophilus here. He wrote both books to Theophilus at one time these two manuscripts were together as Luke-Acts. "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke 1:1-4 Luke says, he had perfect understanding from the very first. Remember he's not an eyewitness in the Gospel of Luke. He's an eye witness in the Book of Acts but he's speaking to the eye witnesses for the Gospel of Luke and he says, "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, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Notice, Luke puts some emphasis on the fact that his Gospel is an"orderly account," he is putting things in order. Why? Because it's appears there is an uncareful or less orderly version of the Jesus story out there. He's drawing his as a contrast. What would that be? What's the other early story of Jesus? It's Mark. Compare Mark to Luke. There is a big difference. Almost two to one in terms of volume and detail. Luke is very careful. Not only that, he uses this optional word as a title, "most excellent." That's a title given to very few people in local cities. Probably Theophilus is somebody important. Notice in the introduction though, the optional word, "orderly" or "in order" the KJV puts it. It means correct chronological order. Why in the world would you have to tell me that you are writing a history of Jesus in the right historical order? Isn't that what histories are? So why is he saying that? Well, if there's another early history of Jesus that's not in the right order, then the contrast becomes important. Is there an account that is not chronological? There is. It's called the Gospel of Mark. Have you ever compared Mark to Luke? The events don't line up in the same order. Well, why is that? Because Papias, a bishop in the first century said that Mark wrote his account at the feet of Peter. As Peter was teaching in Rome, Peter often taught in themes not in chronological order. So it says that Mark's account is according to this ancient document, accurate, if not orderly. He uses the exact same Greek word. So Papias says that Mark is not orderly. And who do you think Luke quotes word for word more than any other source? Mark. Only he's now got it in the right order. But that means that Mark's account has to be first because Luke is quoting him. Check it out for yourself. But that means that Mark's account is pretty early. There is something we need to know when looking at various accounts of things which have taken place. Not all memories are created equal. You may ask, if someone tells a story of something that happened 10, 20 or even 30 years earlier, how do we know they are remembering the story correctly? The Gospels were not written at the time they happened, but years later by people who were there. But remember, Not all memories are created equal. My wife has prepared many meals for me and I can't tell you what she fixed 3 months ago on any particular day. I do however, remember the first meal she made for me. It right after our honeymoon and she made onion pie. I remember because it was awful. We still joke about it. I remember our first kiss, I remember the first bass I caught and a day 4 years later when I was fishing with friends and we had a great day. I can tell you the lure we were using that day. Why do I believe the accounts of what Jesus did to be accuratememories? Because no one had ever did the things he did. No ever fed 5000 men and their families from a few fish and loave. No one ever healed a blind man or even spoke words like Christ spoke. I think we can trust the gospels as being written early and accurately preserving the words of eye witnesses. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus. Mark recorded the memories of Peter, an eyewitness and Luke says he interviewed the witnesses, We have eyewitness accounts, but the next qualification we look for is corroboration of the witnesses' stories. I think verification is important and there is a ton of corroborative evidence both archaeologically, and from first century authors who write about Jesus, who are not even Christians. The third thing we want to ask is has the story changed? You have this event, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then you have the Council of Nicea. No matter how early it's written, how do I know that what was written is what made it into our Bible? How do I don't know it wasn't changed? Perhaps the originals only spoke of a simple preaching Rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth who never did a miracle, never walked on water, never rose from the grave, just a simple first-century rabbi. How do we know it hasn't been extrapolated and exaggerated into the Christ of Christianity from several changes of the original documents? That's the claim some make. We can trace the story from the original writer to the people they gave it to, to the people they gave it to, and see if it changes along the way. The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John. He gave it to three of his personal students, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias. These three students of John wrote down what John taught that. If you didn't have John's Gospel, you could just ask these guys, what did John Teach you about Jesus? Is He less miraculous? Was He really born of a virgin? Are all those things there or are those not there? Well, lucky for us, these guys became leaders in the local churches and we now have the documents that they wrote to local congregations. They are very ancient documents. They're not in your Bible. We have seven letters from Ignatius in which he is describing what the eyewitnesses taught him because he had access to the witnesses. We do have one letter from Polycarp. If you want to know what John was teaching about Jesus, you could just ask his students. Now, these guys had a student too. Ignatius and Polycarp had a student named Iraneaus and he wrote a lot of books and letters. Much of that survives. He even had a list of 24 New Testament books that he was using as his canon. Don't let anyone tell you the Canon is invented at some church council. No, it's quoted immediately. Many people quote different letters of Paul along the way. They quote scripture, and it's listed hundreds of years before any church council. The Canon was not created by a council. The Canon was simply confirmed by the council. It's been in use for hundreds of years. There are many other early writings, too. The story has not changed. Peter taught Eusebius in North Africa. Paul was writing letters in Rome. They're in different parts of the Roman Empire, and it turns out we have good data in all three regions. So if you lost all of your Bible, all of the Gospels and all you had were the writings of the students of the eyewitnesses, everything you know about Jesus from the virgin birth to all the miracles, to the ascension, into heaven, to the seat at the right hand of the father, all of that information can be found. It is the first story and it never changes. Finally, we must determine if the eyewitnesses are biased. Is somebody lying to us about this, are they motivated to lie? So it all comes down to learning what motivates people to lie. And there are only three reasons why anyone lies. These are the same three reasons why anyone commits a theft. The same three reasons why anyone commits a murder. The same three reasons why you have ever done anything you shouldn't do. Any sin you've ever committed, you only committed for one of these three reasons. Did you know that? The three motives behind a crime, or a lie, are simple. The first is just financial greed. People do lots of stupid things for money. The second is sex, relational or sexual lust, usually more relational for women, usually more sexual for men. The third is more nuanced. It's the pursuit of power. Power over a situation, power over another person or to retain power or respect. If you're suggesting that the disciples are lying about Jesus because they are biased, that means they're motivated by one of these three things. So, which is it? What is motivating the disciples? Is it their pursuit of all the cash? No, they all died poor. Was it to get the girls? To impress the ladies? Not likely. They're broke, on the move, being beaten and jailed. But you could argue, and many skeptics have, that they were motivated by the kind of respect and authority that was given to them as leaders in a fledgling religious community. They didn't have power though. They were beaten, jailed and killed. Paul who wrote more new testament scripture that anyone else, is not motivated by money. He's not motivated by sex. He's motivated by power. That's the theory. He wants to be respected by this new religious community. This doesn't hold water. Paul was already respected by his religious community. He says he was of the highest of the high. He was respected so much as a Jewish authority that he could draw papers to have Christians executed and he was out doing that work. But to make the idea Paul is lying work, you must assume that one day, Paul decides, "I'm going to hop out of this position I have here, of authority and power and respect and I'm going to join in with these Christians and I'm gonna spend the next 25 years getting beat to death because someday I hope to return to a position of power, authority, and respect." Paul lost power, respect and authority when he chooses to follow Christ. That's possible, but it's not reasonable. If you are a religious leader in the first century of Israel, you were respected and had power. If you were a Christian, and especially if you are a leader, you know what happened to these guys? They were killed. You could end this story of a resurrected Jesus in the first century, you could end this mythology. Here's how you do it. You get the body of Jesus, you drag it around town, it's game over. No one becomes a Christian or you get one of these guys to recant. It wouldn't be that hard. We know that they were trying, but nobody ever recanted. Now many folks will die for what they believe to be true. That has no evidential power. There are a lot of people who are willing to die for what they don't know is a lie, but the twelve disciples would know if it's a lie. That's very different. Your death, as a Christian willing to die for his faith, has no evidential value as far as making the case for Christianity. But the death of the disciples, without ever recanting that has huge evidential value. They're in a different category. They didn't have anything to gain. So were the witnesses biased? They were biased to the point that they believed the things they wrote or told Luke. But, there is no logical reason for them to lie. The disciples did travel with Jesus for three years. Some were disciples of John the Baptist, before following Jesus. We have one witness though, who is a little different. Matthew is a friend of Jesus. He's not a friend of any of the disciples. He wasn't. Several of the disciples of Jesus were previously the disciples of John The Baptist. They had known each other for years. They were looking for the Messiah. That's not true for Matthew. Matthew is a tax collector who comes into the game of late. Jesus just says, "Hey, come with me." Three years of traveling, watching and learning from Jesus, Matthew writes a gospel. If you're looking for an eyewitness that has little bias, one who wasn't expecting the Messiah, who was the skeptic that's called the Gospel of Matthew. Peter, Andrew, John, James, Philip, and Nathanial all had connections to one another and to John the Baptist. Matthew was an outsider. He followed Jesus and continued to follow Jesus solely on what he saw and who Jesus proved himself to be. We have eyewitnesses. We have accounts written early while witnesses were still alive. If Luke or Matthew or Mark had written something that was not true, there were witnesses to call them out. We have a story that has not changed from the beginning and the witnesses we have do not have a reason to perpetuate lies. The historical accounts of Jesus' life and teachings are accurate and reliable. Christianity is true. It can be tested and proven with eyewitness testimony that withstands scrutiny. Lawyer and scholar, Dr. Simon Greenleaf (1783–1853) wrote "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence," which has been called “the greatest single authority in the entire literature of legal procedure.”[Knott, The Dictionary of American Biography, back cover of The Testimony of the Evangelists.] The U.S. judicial system today still relies on rules of evidence established by Greenleaf. As a legal scholar, Greenleaf tested the claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ with his tests for legal evidence. He wanted to test whether or not the evidence would support it in a court of law. After studying all the evidence, Greenleaf concluded that Jesus’ resurrection was the best explanation for the events that took place immediately after his crucifixion. Greenleaf concluded it would have been impossible for the disciples to persist with their conviction that Jesus had risen if they hadn’t actually seen the risen Christ.[Simon Greenleaf, 1874. The Testimony of the Evangelists. New York, NY: 28.] The case for Jesus’ resurrection was so compelling that Greenleaf had no doubt it would hold up in a court of law. In his book, "The Testimony of the Evangelists," Greenleaf documents the evidence supporting his conclusion. Greenleaf believed that any unbiased person who honestly examines the evidence, as in a court of law, will conclude what he did—that Jesus Christ has truly risen.[Simon Greenleaf, 1874. The Testimony of the Evangelists. New York, NY: 28.] Why am I a Christian? Because it is true. There is no doubt the testimonies of the Gospels are true, no doubt Christ resurrected and no other religion that can stand up to the test the way Christianity does. Why am I a Christian, yes, because it is true. But also, I am a Christian because God has revealed himself to me. He has given me his Holy Spirit and I know him. That is the real reason I am a Christian. But for those who would want to call my experiences with God fantasy, there is material evidence that supports the claims of Christianity. It is true.