Hi Sandman,
Originally posted by Sandman
I'll bite. What evidence do you have?
This is a difficult question to answer for a number of reasons, amongst them the fact that this dialogue seems to be out of the scope of the current thread and because I know full well that the presentation of any quantity of "evidence" is not in and of itself going to cause anyone to accept the truth claims of Christianity and become Christians. The principle that raw evidence is powerless to convince and convict is reinforced within the New Testament where, for instance, Jesus did miracles in order to validate his claim to be God and thus able to do the things that only God can do, and yet those opposed to him ultimately refused to accept the testimony of those miracles:
"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, "Why are you reasoning in your hearts?
"Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise up and walk'?
"But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" -- He said to the man who was paralyzed, "I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house."
Immediately he rose up before them, took up what he had been lying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God."So while I want to fulfill your request, I understand that producing evidence for the Christian faith isn't going to be like fulfilling a request to prove that white light is actually composed of various constituent colors, where I can pull a prism out of my pocket and have you look, see, and accept in a matter of moments.
Another problem is simply to know where to begin, there's so much that could be covered and I already write too darn much here anyway (I could easily win the O'club Golden Turkey for boring and long-winded posts.)
Let me focus briefly then on two particular areas which are of criticial importance, the historicity of the scriptures and the reality of the resurrection.
How do we know that Socrates existed and that he did and said the things that are claimed for him? After all we've never met him, or met anyone who did. All we have to go by really is manuscript evidence, and that is all second hand as Socrates wrote down none of it himself. However, very few credible historians doubt that Socrates actually existed or speculate that he was merely the projection of a few figures who wanted to believe in a wise "Socrates figure." They look at the manuscript evidence that was copied for thousands of years, and the mentions by contemporaries and conclude there was a Socrates.
However, the manuscript and historical evidence for the existence of Socrates , the details of his life, and the content of his teaching is actually
much weaker than the evidence for the Life and work of Jesus in the New Testament (hereafter NT). In the case of Socrates, all we have are copies of various works, few of them dating back to even the Roman era. We have far more manuscripts of the NT dating back much further, and they all tell the same story of Jesus Christ. In fact we have remnants from the gospel of John (the Chester Beatty Papyri) that date back to the early 2nd century, or only a few years after they were original written. To quote William Albright "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80". Additionally these copies claim to be as Luke puts it an "account... of all that Jesus began both to do and teach" and not "once upon a time" stories. Peter is among the many NT authors who hammers that principle home to the reader: "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."
Additionally, Jesus is mentioned by contempory historians such as Josephus who wrote about him saying:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." and while we are dependent on later copies to learn about Socrates, we have copies of the words above dating to the early 300s.
What is clear from this manuscript evidence, and the irrefutable evidence of existence of contemporary followers who believed His testimony, is that Jesus existed and that people wrote about his life and works. But at this point someone might counter -
"ok, he might have been real and had followers like Socrates or Caesar but why should I believe what his followers wrote about him? What if they were making up tall tales?" Well there are a lot of answers to that line of reasoning amongst them that these things were written
while surviving eyewitnesses were still alive who would have been able to directly refute them if they were untrue. Peter, in his preaching on Pentecost is able to appeal to the senses of the crowd in Jerusalem saying:
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know --" This was no gnostic "secret revelation" approach, no "trust me, the archangel Gabriel revealed these thing to me in a cave" religion, this was a "Hey, you yourselves heard this man Jesus and saw the things He did."
Additionally there is the fact that His followers understood that the keystone to the whole Christian arch was the Resurrection. If it didn't
really happen then as Paul puts it
"And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty." In support of that central fact, we not only have the lives and testimony of the men who were there to see it, and who were content to die because of it, we have certain facts:
1) The empty Tomb - not even the Jewish authorities disputed this, they claimed that the disciples stole his body. That however flies in the fact of the realities.
2) Caesar's seal was broken - a death penalty offence
3) The Roman Guard fell asleep and then fled - also death penalty offences
The idea that the disciples stole the body is preposterous, if the Romans or Jews moved it, they would have produced it in a heartbeat the moment the resurrection story began circulating. There is also the attestation of the witnesses who saw Him and so on.
Lastly Sandy, I know this will probably carry no weight at all, but I'll mention it anyway. I grew up reading history, I took my M.A. at St. Andrews in History prior to becoming a Christian. I've also read through most of the main religious works of the world's religions and I'll tell you, that the NT is vastly different from all of them. The NT is written as a historical record, and is intended to be understood as a summary of facts. The gospel of Luke, for instance, is far closer in structure and presentation to Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars" than it is to the Quran, the Baghavad Gita, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Men will dismiss the NT as supernatural nonsense, but that has always been the case because it goes contrary to all our natural presuppositions.
Anyway, enough about the authenticity of the NT, I have to get back to writing about the contents.
- SEAGOON
PS: For a good summary of historical evidence for the reliability of the New Testament, click here:
The Historical Reliability of the NT
