Did Jesus Really Exist?
Topic: Book Reviews
by Face on September 6, 2005 12:21AM (PDT)

After my post on The God who wasn't there, Revevangelist asked if I would address the accusation made in this movie that Jesus never existed. I haven't yet seen the movie (although I hope to in the next couple of weeks), so I can't respond to the specific arguments at this time, but I can give a couple of general pieces of information that might be helpful.



I compiled the facts below from Gary Habermas's book, The Historical Jesus. For these reasons and more (including both biblical and non-biblical reasons), there are very few scholars who attempt to argue that Jesus was simply a legendary character created decades after his supposed life, death, and resurrection.



? Cornelius Tacitus, the well-known and respected ancient Roman historian who lived in AD 55-120, records in his great work, the Annals, the fact that Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the great fire that occurred in Rome around AD 60. Tacitus goes on to explain who Jesus was and how and where Jesus was executed. This is an extraordinary piece of information. Though Christianity began in Jerusalem (an amazing fact in itself, since those who lived in Jerusalem were in a position to know for a fact whether or not Jesus had existed), a mere three decades after Jesus there was such a large number of his followers that they had spread as far as Rome--and there were enough of them to get even the emperor's attention! To understand how unlikely it is that such a thing could happen if Jesus had never actually lived, imagine the following scenario: Suppose you decide you would like to start your own religion, so you invent the story of an amazing man named Hobart. You head off for Los Angeles and start proclaiming that a few years earlier, Hobart had--in that very city--done countless miracles and caused such an uproar that, eventually, the city officials got involved and held a public execution; but then Hobart--amazing as he was--rose from the dead. How many followers would you get? You would be lucky if you got one! Everyone in Los Angeles would remember perfectly well that no such man had existed and none of those things had taken place. You would never gain enough followers to get any sort of movement started. Such a plan is obviously ridiculous and doomed to failure. And yet, to claim that Jesus never existed, one would have to assume this very scenario occurred successfully in first century Jerusalem--a city with significantly fewer people than Los Angeles!



? Tacitus was not the only ancient historian to discuss the existence of Jesus. Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote about Jesus around AD 90-95. In addition, Roman historian Suetonius (c. AD 120) and The Talmud (Jewish oral tradition and commentaries compiled AD 70 to 200) both refer to Jesus as a real, historical person. Just as one wouldn't question the ability of an historian living today to know about the existence of President Roosevelt, so it is also probable that all these ancient historians, writing just as near to the time of Jesus, were correct in their assessment that Jesus did, in fact, exist.



? Even more impressive than the evidence of the ancient historians is the pre-biblical creed recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - 5. This creed states that Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins, he died and was buried, and then he rose from the dead on the third day and was seen by eyewitnesses. It's clear from the style and wording of the creed that it did not originate with Paul, the author of 1 Corinthians. In fact, it's generally accepted--even among skeptical, non-Christian scholars--that Paul received this creed from someone else in Jerusalem between only two to eight years after Jesus' death! (See The Risen Jesus & Future Hope, pp. 17-19 for details on how this creed was dated.) Since the creed was already established when Paul received it, we know it was formulated even earlier; and the beliefs would, of course, pre-date even the creed, bringing us back to the time of the crucifixion itself. Regardless of whether or not the claims about Jesus in this creed are true, it's unreasonable to believe that such a creed would be created and accepted in Jerusalem right at the time of Jesus if he never even existed.

article on the A-Team Blog

"Do Mormons Worship a Different Jesus or Not?"
Topic: Book Reviews
From the Front Lines

A Review of Robert Millet’s A Different Jesus?
by Rev. Keith Gibson

Over the last several years Mormons have increasingly attempted to portray themselves as just another Christian denomination. BYU professors such as Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet have attempted to recast the Mormon Church in a more Evangelical light. The most recent example is a book by Dr. Millet entitled A Different Jesus? which was unfortunately published by the Christian publishing company, Eerdmans. In this book, Millet does a very nice job of presenting a softer, gentler version of classic Mormonism. He makes frequent references to his “Christian brothers” and “Christian friends of other denominations”. Dr. Millet demonstrates that he is very familiar with a number of Christian thinkers. Further, he tries to downplay and reinterpret early statements Joseph Smith said he heard directly from God such as, “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;” “that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”; “they teach for doctrines the commandments of men; having a form of godliness but they deny the power thereof”, stating they referred only to the anti-Mormons of Joseph’s day and not to Christians in general. Additionally, Dr. Millet seems very likeable and sincere throughout the book. He discusses how it pains him when he is accused of not being a Christian. Overall, the book is a good resource on current LDS theology and thought. However, the danger is that its attempt to mainline the Mormon Church could prove persuasive to an uninformed reader.

By far the most damaging sections of the book, however, do not come from Millet but from Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw. This is the same Dr. Mouw who recently apologized to the LDS people on behalf of Evangelicals everywhere for what he perceives as the spreading of false reports by counter-cult ministries. Dr. Mouw contributed both a forward and an afterward for the book. In the afterward, Dr. Mouw comes to the following conclusion, “I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation.” (emphasis added). This disastrous statement is tantamount to declaring Bob Millet and Mormons like him to be Christians.

At the risk of placing myself outside the camp of the “open-minded”, I would like to evaluate this conclusion. Mouw’s statement is patently shocking to most of us familiar with the classic LDS theology which Bob Millet affirms on every page of the book, despite his gentle style.

Let us examine the Jesus Dr. Millet affirms in his book. The Mormon Jesus:

• Is the literal first spirit offspring of the Father who is also an exalted being and who was not always God

• Is a separate being from the Father. Jesus and the Father are very close, but they, along with the Holy Spirit, are completely separate personages and not part of the Trinity .

• Is the spirit brother of the rest of mankind who are also the spirit children of the Father

• Attained divine status as he grew over time in his premortal existence until he became “like unto God”

• In his incarnation differs from other men in that he is the literal offspring of a union between the Father and Mary

• Is the spirit brother of Lucifer

• Presented his plan for the salvation of humanity before the divine counsel (of the gods) and was chosen to be the redeemer

• Was subject to sickness

• Provides a salvation that is based on faith plus works and not faith alone


Does this sound like the Jesus of the Bible? These differences are substantive. Dr. Mouw seems to minimize these differences. He states, “…reading this book has made it even clearer to me that many—not all but many—of the arguments that I as a Calvinist evangelical have with Mormons are not too far removed from the arguments that I have pursued with theologians who represent traditions that are clearly in the Christian mainstream.” One wonders how Dr. Mouw could possibly be serious in this comment. I understand the desire of one academic to be congenial to a fellow scholar, but this goes well beyond the bounds of being congenial. It is true that Joseph Smith relied heavily on the Arminian tradition for much of his theology, but there is no traditional Christian denomination that holds to any of the doctrines we have just sited.

This is more than perspective. These doctrinal differences go to who Jesus is in His essence. Let me illustrate the difference. I am approximately 5’ 9”. Now to someone who is 6’5” I might be considered short and to someone 5’1” I might be considered tall. This is a difference of perspective. Each person is viewing the same Keith Gibson from their own vantage point. But both would agree that I am a male. Maleness is not a perspective. It is a part of my essence. Anyone speaking of a Keith Gibson who was not male would be speaking of a different Keith Gibson.

In the same way, speaking of Jesus as having a beginning is an issue related to His essence. This is a different Jesus altogether than the eternal Jesus, the second person in the Godhead that the Bible presents. One wonders when the differences will become big enough for Dr. Mouw to consider them significant. I asked him this very question in an email correspondence but received no response.

Dr. Millet’s book can be very valuable for anyone wanting to understand current trends and thought within Mormondom. His style is easy to read and his arguments are well thought out. Since I do not know Dr. Millet personally, I will not attempt to make any judgments concerning his motives. However, it might be good to allow a Mormon General Authority to answer Dr. Millet’s question. In an interview with the LDS “Church Times,” current President and Prophet of the Church, Gordon B. Hinkley, stated that the LDS

do not believe in the traditional Christ. No I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. (Church News, June 20, 1998)

I appreciate President Hinckley’s candor and most certainly agree with his assessment. The Jesus of the Bible and of the historic Christian faith is a different Jesus from the one proclaimed by Mormons. It is for this reason that we strive to reach the Mormon people with the truth of the Biblical Jesus. The salvation of 12 million Mormons is at stake. The gospel demands that we are clear on this issue. In answer to the question, “Do Mormons worship a different Jesus?”, the Christian must resoundingly answer, “Yes!”

Keith Gibson is the founding pastor of Word of Life Community Church in Kansas City, MO, and director of ARC’s Kansas City office.