My Redeemer > Books > Evidence that Demands a Verdict > Introduction p.2
I John 1:1-3
"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what he have seen with out eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life - and the lie was manifested, and we have seen and ear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us - what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ".
Luke 1:1-3
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus".
The Cambridge Ancient History, writing about Luke's concern for accuracy, says:
"He is naturally concerned to state a good case for the religion he professes - and that not merely because he believed it to be true )and there was no inducement in those days to profess Christianity unless one was passionately convinced of its truth)..." 4/258
Acts 1:1-3
"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of GOD."
I Corinthians 15:6-8
"After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also".
John 20:30,31
"Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of GOD; and that believing you may have life in His name".
Acts 10:39-42
"'And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. GOD raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by GOD, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by GOD as Judge of the living and the dead.'"
I Peter 5:1
"Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed".
Acts 1:9
"And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight."
John Montgomery writes that "the inability to distinguish Jesus' claim for Himself from the New Testament writers' claim for Him should cause no dismay, since (1) the situation exactly parallels that for all historical personages who have not themselves chosen to write (e.g., Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Charlemagne). We would hardly claim that in these cases we can achieve no adequate historical portraits. Also, (2) the New Testament writers...record eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus, and can therefore be trusted to convey an accurate historical picture of Him." 11/48
The apostles were witnesses of His resurrected life:
Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39; 10:41; 13:31; 22:15; 23:11; 26:16; I Corinthians 15:4-9; 15:15; I John 1:2
Firsthand Knowledge
The writers of the New Testament appealed to the firsthand knowledge of their readers or listeners concerning the facts and the evidence about the person of Jesus Christ.
The writers not only said, "Look, we saw this or we heard that...," but they turned the tables around and right in front of their most adverse critics said, "You also know about these things...You saw them; you yourselves know about it."
One had better be careful when he says to his opposition, "You know this also," because if he is not right in the details, it will be "shoved right back down his throat."
Acts 2:22
"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested t you by GOD with miracles and wonders and signs which GOD performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know..."
Acts 26:24-28
"And while Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, 'Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad." But Paul said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do." And Agrippa replied to Paul, 'In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.'"
The Historical Prejudices
"If one were to study historically the life of Jesus of Nazareth, he would find a very remarkable man, not the Son of GOD". It is sometimes stated to me this way: "Following the 'modern historical' approach one would never discover the resurrection." Do you know, it is true. Before you jump to a conclusion, let me explain. For many today, the study of history is incorporated with the ideas that there is no GOD, miracles are not possible, we live in a closed system and there is no supernatural. With these presuppositions they begin their "critical, open and honest" investigation of history. When they study the life of Christ and read about His miracles or resurrection, they conclude that it was not a miracle or a resurrection because we know (not historically, but philosophically) that there is no supernatural. Therefore, these things cannot be. What men have done is to rule out the resurrection of Christ even before they start an historical investigation of the resurrection.
These presuppositions are not so much historical biases but, rather, philosophical prejudices.
Their approach to history rests on the "rationalistic presuppositions" that Christ could not have been raised from the dead. Instead of beginning with the historical data, they preclude it by "metaphysical speculation."
John W. Montgomery writes:
"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." 12/139-144
I quote Montgomery quite extensively on this issue because he is the one who has stimulated my thinking about history.
Montgomery says:
"Kant conclusively showed that all arguments and systems begin with presuppositions; but this does not mean that all presuppositions are equally desirable. It is better to begin, as we have, with presuppositions of method (which will yield truth) rather than with presuppositions of substantive content (which assume a body of truth already). In our modern world we have found that the presuppositions of empirical method best fulfill this condition; but note that we are operating only with the presuppositions of scientific method, not with the rationalistic assumptions of Scientism ('the Religion of Science')." 12/144
Huizenga's comments are cited by Montgomery concerning historical skepticism ("De Historische Idee", in his Verzamelde Werken, VII [Haarlem, 1950], 134ff.: quoted in translation in Fritz Stern [ed], The Varieties of History [New York: Meridian Books, 1956], p.302).
Huizenga states:
"The strongest argument against historical skepticism...is this: the man who doubts the possibility of correct historical evidence and tradition cannot then accept his own evidence, judgment, combination and interpretation. He cannot limit his doubt to his historical criticism, but is required to let it operate on his own life. He discovers at once that he not only lacks conclusive evidence in all sorts of aspects of his own life that he had quite taken for granted, but also that there is no evidence whatever. In short, he finds himself forced to accept a general philosophical skepticism along with his historical skepticism. And general philosophical skepticism is a nice intellectual game, but one cannot live by it." 12/139,140
Millar Burrows of Yale, the American expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls cited also by Montgomery, writes:
There is a type of Christian faith...rather strongly represented today, [that] regards the affirmations of Christian faith as confessional statements which the individual accepts as a member of the believing community, and which are not dependent on reason or evidence. Those who hold this positions will not admit that historical investigation can have anything to say about the uniqueness of Christ. They are often skeptical as to the possibility of knowing anything about the historical Jesus, and seem content to dispense with such knowledge. I cannot share this point of view. I am profoundly convinced that the historic revelation of GOD in Jesus of Nazareth must be the cornerstone of any faith that is really Christian. Any historical question about the real Jesus who lived in Palestine nineteen centuries ago is therefore fundamentally important." 11/15,16
Montgomery adds:
Historical events are "unique, and the test of their factual character can be only the accepted documentary approach that we have followed here. No historian has a right to a closed system of causation, for, as the Cornell logician Max Black has shown in a recent essay ["Models and Metaphors" (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), p.16], the very concept of cause is 'a peculiar, unsystematic, and erratic notion,' and therefore 'any attempt to state a "universal law of causation" must prove futile.' " 11/76
The historian Ethelbert Stauffer can give us some suggestions on how to approach history:
"What do we [as historians] do when we experience surprises which run counter to all our expectations, perhaps ll our convictions and even our period's whole understanding of truth? We say as one great historian used to say in such instances: "It is surely possible." And why not? For the critical historian nothing is impossible." 11/76
The historian Philip Schaff adds to the above:
"The purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself." 17/175
Robert M. Horn is very helpful in understanding people's biases in approaching history:
"To put it at its most obvious, a person who denies GOD's existence will not subscribe to belief in the Bible.
"A Muslim, convinced that GOD cannot beget, will not accept as the Word of GOD, a book that teaches that Christ is the only begotten Son of GOD.
"Some believe that GOD is not personal, but rather the Ultimate, the Ground of Being. Such will be predisposed to reject the Bible as GOD's personal self-revelation. On their premise, the Bible cannot be the personal word of 'I AM WHO I AM' (Exodus 3:14).
"Others rule out the supernatural. They will not be likely to give credence to the book which teaches that Christ rose from the dead.
"Still others hold that GOD cannot communicate His truth undistorted through sinful men; hence they regard the Bible as, at least in parts, no more than human." 8/10
A basic definition of history for me is "a knowledge of the past based on testimony." Some immediately say, "I don't agree." Then I ask, "Do you believe Lincoln lived and was President of the United States?" "Yes," is usually their reply. However, no one I've met has personally seen and observed Lincoln. The only way one knows is by testimony.
Precaution: When you give history this definition, you have to determine the trustworthiness of your witnesses. This will be dealt with in chapter four.
Which Leap?
Often the Christian is accused of taking a blind "leap into the dark." This idea often finds itself rooted in Kierkegaard.
For me, Christianity was not a "leap into the dark," but rather "a step into the light". I took the evidence that I could gather and put it on the scales. The scales tipped the way of Christ being the Son of GOD and resurrected from the dead. It was so overwhelmingly leaning to Christ that when I became a Christian, it was a "step into the light" rather tan a "leap into the darkness".
If I ahd exercised "blind faith", I would have rejected Jesus Christ and turned my back on all the evidence.
Be careful. I did not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was the Son of GOD. What I did was investigate the evidence and weight the pros and cons. The results showed that Christ must be who He claimed to be, and I had to make a decision, which I did. The immediate reaction of many is, "You found what you wanted to find". That is not the case. I confirmed through investigation what I wanted to refute. I set out to disprove Christianity. I had biases and prejudices not for Christ but contrary to Him.
Hume would say historic evidence is invalid because one cannot establish "absolute truth". I was not looking for absolute truth but rather "historical probability."
"Without an objective criterion," says John W. Montgomery, "one is at a loss to make a meaningful choice among a prioris. The resurrection provides a basis in historical probability for trying the Christian faith. Granted, the basis is only one of probability, not of certainty, but probability is the sole ground on which finite human beings can make any decisions. Only deductive logic and pure mathematics provide 'apodictic certainty,' and they do so because they stem from self-evident formal axioms (e.g., the tautology, if A then A) involving no matter of fact. The moment we enter the realm of fact, we must depend on probability; this may be unfortunate, but it is unavoidable." 12/141
At the conclusion of his four articles in His magazine, John W. Montgomery says, concerning history and Christianity, that he has "...tried to show that the weight of historical probability lies on the side of the validity of Jesus' claim to be GOD incarnate, the Savior of man, and the coming Judge of the world. If probability does in fact support these claims (and can we really deny it, having studied the evidence?), then we must act in behalf of them." 11/19
Intellectual Excuses
The rejection of Christ is often not so much of the "mind," but of the "will"; not so much "I can't," but "I won't".
I have met many people with intellectual excuses, but few with intellectual problems (however, I have met some).
Excuses can cover a multitude of reasons. I greatly respect a man who has taken time to investigate the claims of Christ and concludes he just can't believe. I have a rapport with a man who knows why he doesn't believe (factually and historically), for I know why I believe (factually and historically). This gives us a common ground (though different conclusions).
I have found that most people reject Christ for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Ignorance - Romans 1:18-23 (often self-imposed), Matthew 22:29
2. Pride - John 5:40-44
3. Moral problem - John 3:19,20
I was counseling a person who was fed up with Christianity because she believed it was not historical and there was just nothing to it factually. She had convinced everyone that she had searched and found profound intellectual problems as the result of her university studies. One after another would try to persuade her intellectually and to answer her many accusations.
I listened and then asked several questions. Within 30 minutes she admitted she had fooled everyone and that she developed these intellectual doubts in order to excuse her moral life.
One needs to answer the basic problem or real question and not the surface detour that often manifests itself.
A student in a New England university said he had an intellectual problem with Christianity and just could not therefore accept Christ as Savior. "Why can't you believe?" I asked. He replied, "The New Testament is not reliable." I then asked, "If I demonstrate to you that the New Testament is one of the most reliable pieces of literature of antiquity, will you believe?" He retorted, "NO!" "You don't have a problem with your mind, but with your will," I answered.
A graduate student at the same university, after a lecture on "The Resurrection: Hoax or History?", was bombarding me with questions intermingled with accusations (later I found out he did it to most Christian speakers). Finally, after 45 minutes of dialogue, I asked him, "If I prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ was raised from the dead and is the Son of GOD, will you consider Him?" The immediate and emphatic reply was, "NO!"
Michael Green cites Aldous Huxley, the atheist, who has destroyed the beliefs of many and has been hailed as a great intellect. Huxley admits his own biases (Ends and Means, pp. 270ff.) when he says:
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." 8/36
Bertrand Russel is an example of an intelligent atheist who did not give careful examination to the evidence for Christianity. In his essay, Why I Am Not a Christian, it is obvious that he has not even considered the evidence of and for the resurrection of Jesus and, by his remarks, it is doubtful as to whether he has even glanced at the New Testament. It seems incongruous that a man would not deal with the resurrection in great detail since it is the foundation of Christianity. 8/36
John 7:17 assures one:
"If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of GOD, or whether I speak from Myself."
If any man comes to the claims of Jesus Christ wanting to know if they are true, willing to follow His teachings if they are true, he will know. But one cannot come unwilling to accept and expect to find out.
Pascal, the French philosopher, writes:
"The evidence of GOD's existence and His gift is more than compelling, but those who insist that they have no need of Him or it will always find ways to discount the offer." 13/n.p.
| Home | Site Index | Bible Index |
| Kingdom Dynamics | Truth in Action | Links |
