| Basic Lessons on Evidences | ||
| Apologetics | The Historical Jesus #1 Doy Moyer "Today, one can find evidence virtually everywhere — on every continent, in both Protestant and Roman Catholic circles — that the theologically ‘in thing’ is to contend for a Jesus who was only a man by nature and for a Bible that is virtually silent regarding the classical incarnational Christology of a two-natured Christ — true God and true man in the one person of Jesus Christ. It is very much in vogue to believe that the better case can be made for understanding Jesus as only a man — a very unusual man, of course, with a special mission from God — and to explain the biblical ascriptions of divine qualities to Him in other than ontological terms." (Reymond 2-3) This describes the modern mind-set. Religious scholars teach that Jesus was not God. Part of the reason why the modern trend has been away from belief in the Deity of Jesus is due to the question of the historical reliability of the gospel accounts. Are they true representations of the life and claims of Jesus? Rudolph Bultmann was a liberal scholar who assumed that one must "demythologize" the accounts, thinking that the real truth is hidden in the depths of mythical teaching. Bultmann questioned the idea that Jesus had a Messianic consciousness (Bultmann 26). He thought that such views were superimposed upon Jesus by later disciples. He assumed that the gospel accounts are second-hand information, and that they contain human traditions about Jesus. Bultmann’s "form criticism" took the theological world by storm in the twentieth century (Praamsma 61). A significant development in the modern era of biblical thinking is the popularization of a "new" historical Jesus by the "Jesus Seminar." The Seminar, first convened in 1985 under the leadership of Robert Funk, has met on occasion to consider who Jesus really was and what are His actual words and claims. "Might faith have caused the writers of all four Gospels to embellish on actual fact? Did the politics of the early church cause them to edit or add to Jesus’ story? Which parts of the New Testament were likely to be straight reportage rather than pious mythmaking?" (Ostling and Towle 54-55). They decided, through a process of voting with colored beads, that less than one fifth of the traditional sayings of Jesus are authentic. Their conclusions are published in a work called The Five Gospels. However, one must question the process of voting on the words of Jesus by people who are nearly two thousand years removed from the events. The point is that there is a continued effort to redefine the Jesus of the gospel accounts. This is highlighted by an antisupernatural bias and refusal to consider the gospel accounts as historical documents because of the type of material they contain. "And then they take leaps of faith, often of their own creation" (Woodward 62). There are still good reasons to accept the historical gospel accounts. After reviewing evidence for the reliability of the gospel of Mark, one notes: The supernatural Jesus of Mark’s Gospel, of course, is difficult for many twentieth-century people to accept. It is not the kind of portrait a modern could be expected to accept were there not good evidence in its favor. But the evidence is there. And, rather than adjusting the evidence to make this Jesus more palatable to twentieth-century sensibilities, it seems more reasonable to leave it intact and to simply allow the enigma of this first-century Jew to confront our twentieth-century sensibilities. It just may be that history is, after all, not a closed continuum! (Boyd 243) We should realize that "whether one holds that Jesus was the Son of God and was raised from the dead, or whether one believes that Jesus was a Cynic sage whose body was eventually devoured by wild beasts, faith is necessarily involved" (Boyd 293). There is much speculation, and little objective evidence, that exists on the part of revisionists. Instead, "the Gospels’ narrative is discarded and the pieces of Scripture are reshuffled to reveal the scholar’s own ‘historical’ Jesus" (Woodward 65). It is more reasonable to consider the gospels in their historical light. They claim to be written and confirmed by eyewitnesses (1 John 1:1-3; Luke 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16). Only by demonstrating that these writers were liars, deluded, or somehow otherwise to be discredited can we assume that the gospel accounts are not intended to be historical. The question of whether or not Jesus was the Son of God seems more a philosophical issue today. Many do not believe in Him simply because they think that it is foolish to accept that a man who lived so long ago could be a savior. Some will not accept the concept of the resurrection regardless of how much evidence exists. The Bible anticipates that many would think this way (1 Cor. 1:18ff). Nevertheless, there have been thousands of Christians who have given their lives for their faith in the resurrection, including those who walked with Jesus. They may have been "fools" (for Christ), but they were convinced. Further, it is logical that those who lived with Jesus, and within such a short time after Jesus, would know more about the life and times of Jesus than any modern person. They cannot be discredited because they accepted Jesus as the Son of God; their actions based upon their convictions should give them some credibility because they were honest. Works Cited
Christianity Magazine, December 1997 The Historical Jesus #2 Doy Moyer The Gospel accounts do not provide complete bibliographies of the life of Jesus. They do, however, give relevant events, actions, statements, and teachings of Jesus while He lived on this earth. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the testimony of these records. Not every account puts the same stress on actions and teachings of Jesus as others. Each account was written for an intended purpose and audience. All accounts support the overall biblical teaching about the identity of the historical Jesus. 1. The claims of Jesus. Jesus made many claims that identified Himself with God. Note some of these: a unique relationship with the Father (John 10:30; 5:17-18); authority to forgive sins (Mark 2); sinlessness (John 8:29, 46; 18:23); authority to judge the world (John 5:25-27; 12:48); a message that would never pass away (Matt. 24:35); the only way to salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:12); the author and giver of life (John 5:21; 6:48; 11:25). Jesus claimed the highest loyalty from mankind (Luke 9:23). He told His followers that they must love Him above all else (Luke 14:26; Matt. 10:34-39). He claimed to fulfill all of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah (Luke 24:44). Considering how many prophecies there are about Messiah, this is an amazing claim. These claims demonstrate the biblical teaching that Jesus had a Messianic and Divine consciousness. To dismiss all of these as being superimposed upon Jesus by later disciples (as did Bultmann and many other modernists) is not consistent with the evidence, and portrays later disciples as being more clever and deceitful than would be difficult to imagine. Evidence for such deceitfulness is lacking. The historical Jesus made spectacular claims. 2. The works of Jesus. It was not enough for Jesus to make such great claims. He needed to back up what He said. This was the purpose for His works. Jesus recognized that His own testimony, all by itself, would not be valid. He defended himself by appealing to other witnesses, one of which was His works (John 5:36). Nicodemus confessed, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him" (John 3:2). Later, Jesus told the Jews: "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." John 20:30-31 states that the works Jesus did were intended to spark faith in those who know of them. Peter told some Jews on Pentecost that Jesus was "attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22). It is impossible to separate Jesus from His activities. The miracles and works Jesus did are inseparably connected to his life on earth; and they cannot be dismissed just because they are miraculous. Jesus performed different kinds of miracles, but they can typically be classed under three categories: miracles over nature (e.g., calming the storm), miracles of physical healing (e.g., healing the paralyzed man), and miracles of resurrection (e.g., Lazarus). There were many witnesses to most of these miracles. Even the enemies of Jesus admitted them. Therefore, whatever Jesus claimed was proved by His works. 3. The acceptance of worship. Another important biblical proof of the identity of Jesus is His acceptance of worship. The Bible teaches that the only one who is to be worshiped is God. Jesus recognized this (Matt. 4:10). While it is possible for someone to accept worship who is not God, Jesus’ acceptance of worship shows, at the least, that He thought He was divine. Several examples of this are given in the gospel accounts (e.g., Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 28:9, 17). Of special note are three New Testament passages in this connection: a. John 5:23. Jesus stated that all should honor the Son (Jesus) just as they honor the Father. For one to claim that he deserves the same honor as the Father, he would either have to be God, or he would have to be a liar. b. John 20:28. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples. Thomas was not present at the first appearance, and he doubted whether Jesus had really been seen. When Jesus appeared again, Thomas saw and stated to Jesus: "My Lord and my God." There is no indication that Jesus tried to correct this. Jesus accepted this worship, as well as the reference to His Godhood. In fact, He responded to Thomas, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?" (vs. 29) c. Hebrews 1:6. Referring to Jesus, the text says, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." The angels knew that the only one they could properly worship was God (Rev. 19:10). If they are told, by God, to worship Jesus, then this is clear teaching that Jesus is God. The claims and works of Jesus are inseparable from the historical framework concerning Him. If we will give evidence of the historical Jesus, then these must be taken into account. Even so, there is still one great event we wish to consider, which will be the subject of the next study. Christianity Magazine, February 1998 The Historical Jesus #3: The Resurrection Doy Moyer If there is one event on which all of the biblical teaching about Jesus rests, it is the resurrection. By the resurrection, Jesus was "declared with power to be the Son of God" (Rom. 1:4). This is the one miracle in the Bible which, if historically true, validates the possibility of every other miracle and story as recorded in the Bible. Consequently, it is one of the most hotly debated questions. Revisionists have sought for various ways to explain how the body of Christ was missing from the tomb. "Resurrection is ruled a priori out of court because it transcends time and space. Historians then have to find another reason to explain the origins of Christianity" (Woodward 65). One New Testament scholar argued that the resurrection is an "empty formula" that must be rejected by anyone holding a "scientific world view" (Woodward 62). Thus, some, such as Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, argue that Jesus’ body was buried in a shallow grave and devoured by wild dogs. Some say He only appeared to be dead. Others argue that His body rotted away in the tomb and that the disciples went to the wrong tomb. It is then argued by some that the appearances of Jesus were only psychological experiences, a "mass ecstasy." It is strange that in the search for the "historical" Jesus, scholars will speculate about these things for which they have no concrete, objective historical evidence. Even so, we are expected to forget the biblical evidence and accept the speculations. There is still good reason, however, to argue that there is strong historical evidence for Jesus’ bodily resurrection. To dismiss the biblical evidence out of hand because of an assumption that miracles such as the resurrection could not have occurred does not bode well for honest investigation. Eyewitnesses claim to have seen Jesus alive after he had died. The body was gone from the tomb after the burial, and "no convincing natural explanation is available to account for this fact" (Craig 280). Indeed, any other explanation is one that will necessarily involve unhistorical speculation, for there is no early contemporary, credible evidence that accounts for the facts otherwise. If one is going to search for the historical Jesus, then the gospel records must be brought in for a witness, for there have been "no new data on the person of Jesus since the Gospels were written" (Woodward 70). In other words, no other historical records give the information that the gospel accounts do. It has been noted that "The historical evidence is massive enough to convince the open-minded inquirer. By analogy with any other historical event, the resurrection has eminently credible evidence behind it. To disbelieve it, one must deliberately make an exception to the rules used everywhere else in history. Now why would someone want to do that?" (Kreeft and Tacelli 197) Why, indeed? Briefly, these facts include the following: 1. Jesus was a real person of history who was put to death on a Roman cross. The Roman soldiers were professionals at their jobs of killing. Jesus was even pierced in the side with a spear to make sure He was dead. 2. He was buried in a tomb that was new, observed, guarded, and sealed. These facts make it implausible to think that His body could be mistaken for another, that the disciples all went to wrong tomb, or that the tomb itself could be tampered with. 3. On the third day, the body was missing from the tomb. The seal was broken, the consequences of which were severe for the guards. The stone was moved, which was a difficult feat at best. It would have taken several men to move it, ruling out the idea that Jesus simply revived, moved the stone, and scared away the Roman guards. The grave clothes were even found folded in the tomb. 4. Jesus was then seen alive by hundreds of eyewitnesses. The first of these witnesses were women. This is significant because the testimony of women was not highly regarded in the first century. This shows that if later disciples were just inventing the resurrection story, it would have been very unlikely that they would have included women as the first witnesses. Why do that if no one would believe it? This fact authenticates the accounts because the only reason it would be included is that this is exactly the way it happened (Dunn 65). The facts support the resurrection of Jesus. As noted, no other explanation adequately accounts for the evidence. The evidence is reliable, the documents trustworthy, and the history is impeccable. The resurrection attests to the identity of Jesus. It declared with power that Jesus was the Son of God (Rom. 1:4). The Bible uses the resurrection to buttress belief in Jesus as the Son of God. The disciples, who were greatly dismayed at the death of Jesus, were convinced that Jesus arose and were subsequently willing to die in order to preach it. Of all the miracles and remarkable events recorded in the Bible, the resurrection is the most significant. If it did not happen, then those who commit their lives to Jesus do so in vain (1 Cor. 15:12-19). If it did happen, "that validates his claim to be divine and not merely human, for resurrection from death is beyond human power; and his divinity validates the truth of everything else he said, for God cannot lie" (Kreeft and Tacelli 176). Finally, the resurrection is the basis for hope. Christians have been "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pet. 1:3). Without the resurrection, there is no hope of heaven since there would be no reason to believe that there is life beyond physical death. This is why Paul argued so strongly for it in 1 Corinthians 15. If there is no resurrection, our faith is vain, we are still in our sins, and we are pitiable. But there is a resurrection, attested to by the fact that Christ was raised from the dead and seen alive by hundreds of eyewitnesses. It is because of this great fact of the resurrection, that we, also, must be willing to put our lives into the hands of Almighty God. Works Cited
Christianity Magazine, May, 1998 |