Breaking News: Jesus Did Not Exist (Part II)

Christ and the Rich Young Ruler, by Heinrich Hofmann, 1889. Courtesy Wikipedia.

Paragraph 5

Even if Mark did indeed omit the account of Christ’s resurrection, virtually every book of the New Testament claims this fact. Omission is not disagreement, nor is it relevant to Mr. Sosa’s thesis.

Paragraph 6

Again, the article’s author is merely grasping at straws now. Among the people that discovered Jesus’ empty tomb, Mary Magdalene is mentioned in all four Gospels, and Mary the mother of James was mentioned in three of the four. Since these four accounts were written by four different authors, it’s reasonable to expect different attentions to details. But again, omission is not contradiction.

Paragraph 7

Poor debaters like to throw the dogs off their trail by claiming that their arguments are already “established,” irrefutable facts, regardless the number of holes. This paragraph could have easily been omitted, not that it would have saved the rest of the article’s downward spiral.

Paragraph 8

How many days after His resurrection did Jesus ascend into Heaven? Mr. Sosa is right that, on the surface at least, Luke and Mark claim that Jesus ascended the same day that He rose from the dead (their accounts are nearly identical; Matthew makes no mention of the ascension). But what the article fails to mention is that while the Book of Acts claims that Jesus ascended into Heaven after 40 days, it is widely believed that its author is Luke himself. If that is the case, then I would be more likely to believe that the seemingly rushed endings of the two Gospels were not meant to be taken as a literal timeline of events. This might warrant some more research.

Paragraph 9

In this paragraph, the author again states his opinion that the issues he has brought up are “problematic” to the existence of Jesus. I hope I have shown that that is not necessarily the case. The rest is a side-swipe at Jesus’ moral character and teaching, for which he only refers to a list of Jesus’ supposed self-contradictions, written by “a new convert to Islam.” Most of the items in this list are taken out of context and are easily explained, without any hand-waving or fudging of the text. If you have studied the Bible enough to reconcile God’s commandment to not kill, with His commands to destroy various nations in and around the land of Canaan, you would see right through this list. Perhaps that’s a topic for another post.

Paragraph 10

Unnecessary paragraph, strictly expressing the author’s opinion, without any further . Moving on....

Paragraphs 11 and 12

Dr. Erhman is an avowed agnostic, who is against organized religion, particularly the Big Three monotheistic ones, so he is naturally biased (as are Mr. Sosa and myself). Consider this: Ancient Babylon’s Hanging Gardens are considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, despite the lack of documentation on when and where they existed. Jesus has far more supporting evidence, from multiple authors, most of whom happen to be found in a collection of work that we call The Bible.

Paragraph 13

As I quoted at the beginning of my rebuttal, most scholars agree that there is more than enough evidence to prove that Jesus did indeed live and was crucified, in the timeframe described in the Bible. I have not researched the reliability of documents by Justin Martyr, but my reading into Tacitus' and Josephus’ accounts of the one called Jesus confirms that most experts agree that at least some measure of their writing concerning Jesus is genuine.

I will not attempt to read Dan Barker’s books, going under the assumption that if he indeed managed to prove that God and Jesus never existed, I would have read about it on Yahoo News.

Paragraph 14

I was taught in school to always end my persuasive essays with an excellent clinching paragraph. This is not it. Instead, we are presented with more opinion and a reference to an article about Jesus-like copy-cats, none of whom (1) fulfilled dozens of verifiable Old Testament prophecies and (2) influenced an entire globe for nearly two millennia... and still counting.

Like Mr. Sosa, there is so much more that I could write, but my rebuttal is already longer than the original article. If you need more of a convincer, please also see Wikipedia’s “Jesus of Nazareth” article. In the meantime, I will humbly allow the Apostle Paul to conclude my rebuttal and will continue to pray that the Lord will move the hearts of Chris Sosa and atheists/agnostics like him, as He did my own heart.

“Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Philippians 1:15-18).

Breaking News: Jesus Did Not Exist (Part I)

Christ and the Rich Young Ruler, by Heinrich Hofmann, 1889. Courtesy Wikipedia.

Apparently, Jesus never existed... ... or at least that’s what Huffington Post blogger Chris Sosa claims. This is interesting to me, because even as an atheist, I took the historical existence of the man called Jesus of Nazareth as a foregone conclusion. In fact, here is an excerpt from the introduction to Wikipedia’s “Historicity of Jesus” article (copied on 9/4/2014):

“The majority viewpoint among scholars is that Jesus existed, but scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the parts of his life that have been recorded in the Gospels. Scholars who believe that Jesus existed differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30–36 AD, that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate and that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere. The theory that Jesus never existed at all has very little scholarly support.”

What I find even more interesting is that Mr. Sosa chose not to attack Jesus’ divinity, which may be easier fodder for an atheist than Jesus’ mere existence. At any rate, for the sake of some who may actually believe his arguments, and as an exercise in apologetics, I would like to spend a little time analyzing the article.

Paragraph 1

Sosa first tries to dismiss the teaching of Jesus by implying that (1) they originate only from Him (yes, my use of capitalization betrays my bias), and (2) their application in moral discussions is a recent development. However, Jesus and His followers made it very clear that the Gospel is really just an extension of the Mosaic Law, found in the Old Testament. Jesus said:

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment...” (Matthew 5:21-22).

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40).

And His moral teachings are the basis for our own laws, as evidenced by the writings of our nation’s founding fathers. See William Federer’s “America’s God and Country” for details. In fact, until the last 50 years, there wasn’t really much of a need to invoke Christian morality, because the vast majority of Americans already subscribed to it, even if they weren’t Christian.

Paragraph 2

I assume this is Sosa’s disclaimer that he could be wrong, and that Jesus actually existed? I’m not really sure what he’s trying to say here. Is the difference between a Jesus and the Jesus rooted in the number of followers He garnered?

Paragraph 3

This is a thesis paragraph of sorts. While subsequent paragraphs will be discussed in greater detail below, I wish to address the generalizations that Sosa makes here. He claims that the four Gospels and Paul’s letter’s (others wrote letters, too, so are they included in this generic statement?) depict contradicting portraits of Jesus. But the only contradictions provided regard relatively minor details surrounding His birth, death, and resurrection. None of the New Testament books disagree about the most basic facts: that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified and died, that He physically rose from the dead, and that He ascended back into Heaven. His recorded teachings also contain no contradictions worthy of Mr. Sosa’s explicit mention.

Paragraph 4

The Gospels of Luke and Matthew clearly disagree about key events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Timing issues aside, the two don’t directly contradict one another. Luke records the taxing and the manger scene, but omits any references to the famous Wise Men, Herod’s infamous slaying of children, or the young family’s flight to Egypt. Matthew, on the other hand, recounts the latter three, but does not mention the taxing, the manger scene, or even the Star of Bethlehem. Interesting how popular culture mashed all these elements together, into one seemingly cohesive account.

Reading the Wikipedia article on Quirinius (Cyrenius), I concede that the timing of Herod’s reign and Cyrenius’ taxing appear incompatible, but I think this is the only valid point Mr. Sosa manages to make; hardly a smoking gun for the non-existence of history’s arguably most influential person.
While the Gospels of Mark and John begin at the start of Jesus’ ministry, Luke and Matthew both agree on the essentials of Jesus’ birth, many of which were prophesied in the Old Testament: born in Bethlehem, to a virgin named Mary, who was married to Joseph, both of whom were of the tribe of Judah and descendants of King David.

By the way, there are plenty of historical figures whose exact birthdates (or birth-years, even) are unknown. The ancient world wasn’t nearly as into record-keeping as we are today. Unless you were born into a ruling family, your existence typically went undocumented and unnoticed. Jesus was born the son of a Jewish carpenter, shunned political office and fame, and had followers who were zealously persecuted both by the Jews and the occupying Romans. It’s no wonder that there are few records of Him, outside of the Bible, during the first couple centuries AD (in case you were wondering, AD is short for Anno Domini, which is Latin for Year of Our Lord).

To be concluded...

God's Not Dead

We just watched God's Not Dead last week, a well-made independent movie about a college student's efforts to convince his atheistic philosophy professor and the rest of the class that God is indeed real.

I knew almost nothing about the movie, coming in, and was pleasantly surprised, as I was watching the opening credits, that it featured not one, but two former superheroes that I used to watch regularly in the 1990's: Kevin Sorbo (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys) and Dean Cain (Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman). It was fun seeing them again, despite the fact that they portrayed the movie's two biggest jerks.

My purpose with this post is not to review the movie ((I highly recommend you go see it!) or to summarize the logical arguments for the existence of God (I covered that already in my previous posts), but rather to touch on something far more real: how do we, as Christians, react when disasters strike in our lives?

I hope I'm not revealing any major spoilers for you, if you haven't seen the movie yet, but in a tense moment, a major character reveals that it was a loved one's premature death that drove them to abandon their faith in God.

For some reason, despite scriptures to the contrary, mainstream churchgoers have the impression that if they serve Christ, their lives should be peaches and cream. No troubles should ever touch them, and they should be happy all the time. If God truly loves His children, should He not protect them from hardship, sorrow, and pain?

Despite my mother's and wife's health issues, I feel tremendously blessed to not have had people in my life dying prematurely, or touched by cancer, or worries about losing our home. And yet I know that there are brothers and sisters in Christ who have had to face these things. Think about this: if I do not abandon my faith when I hear about brothers and sisters who are going through tragedies right now, why should I doubt God when tragedy comes knocking at my own door?

Case in point: Many of you know about the tornado that struck Arkansas last week, killing 15 people. A news article described a mother who not only suffered two broken legs and a broken pelvis, but also lost her two young sons. Her husband is suffering from head trauma, and all that is left of their beautiful home is the concrete foundation. She has suffered all this loss, that to many of us is unphathomable, and yet her faith in Christ is unshaken. Her friend, who is a photographer and a blogger, came to visit her and took her picture, as she lay there in her hospital bed, bruised, bloodied, and broken. She asked her, if she could use the picture in a future post, after her friend recovered from her injuries. Instead, the woman in the hospital bed urged her friend to post the picture now, in order to "show them what my God can overcome." That's faith in action; a faith that not only does not abandon God when He allows tragedy to strike in our lives, but a faith that shouts from the housetops that victory over all adversity can be found only in Him. It's the faith that no matter what happens, God's wonderful plan for His children will not be derailed, and we can overcome it all, through Christ who has already overcome the world, through His death and resurrection.

Creation vs. Evolution (Part 1)

This post was written on the occasion of the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, which my wife has just blogged about and which you may view here, for a limited time (forward past the 13-minute countdown at the beginning). The image above was captured during Ken Ham's presentation.

As a born-again Christian with a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, I firmly believe that science and God’s Creation go hand-in-hand. And although Christians disagree about how literally to interpret the first two chapters of Genesis, at the core of our faith is the undeniable fact that we are all the result of God’s design, not the product of random natural processes.

We know and respect two organizations that promote this worldview: The Discovery Institute in Seattle and Answers In Genesis in Kentucky. The former is a leader in the field of Intelligent Design (ID), which holds that the Laws of Nature are too perfect and the intricacies of life too complex to be the result of random chance. I think that, for the most part, the group agrees with the generally accepted age of the Earth and the universe.

Answers In Genesis, headed by Ken Ham, a former science teacher and devout Christian, goes a step further to claim that God created everything about 6000 years ago, in six literal, 24-hour days. Many find this ludicrous, but until my wife and I read some of their literature, we did not know that there is actually quite a bit of evidence that agrees with that premise, and there are many respected scientists in a diverse range of fields, who also hold to this belief.

 “What’s the big deal?” you ask. “Aren’t science and religion incompatible anyway? You can’t prove or disprove the existence of God using scientific methods, so why even argue about it?” The fact is that there are many staunch atheists in the scientific community, who believe that God is merely a man-made notion, created to explain the unexplainable. They believe that if they can prove that we all came to be here through purely natural processes, then there would no longer be a need for anyone to believe in God.

Rainbows, for example, seem so magical that it’s easy to believe they’re put there by our Creator, to reassure us that the Great Flood will never again be repeated. Oh, but what they really are is light passing through tiny water droplets, resulting in a prism-like effect. Ah, since we now know how rainbows work, then "clearly" the Genesis account of Noah’s Flood must be baloney. Yeah, sure.

Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is man’s attempt at providing a Godless alternative to how we got here. And since the process would require great spans of time to take life from an amoeba to an intelligent human being, a young earth would blow the whole thing out of the water.

Why are atheists so against anyone believing in God? I’m not sure. I was once one myself (not a god, but an atheist), and although I thought religious people were wrong to believe in anything supernatural, I still respected their beliefs and did not try to dissuade them. Yet, I did not realize at the time that if God did indeed exist and if He did create me, then I also had the responsibility to obey and follow Him. His moral law would also apply to me, and I would indeed suffer the consequences if I did not accept His gift of Salvation. But if atheists can prove that God did not create us, then we have no obligation to Him (were He even to exist), and there is no moral standard by which we need to live. I think that at their core, atheists do not want to be held accountable for what they do.

Detecting Antichrists

(Edited for clarity on 9/3/2009)

Every night (except when I'm so dog-tired that I can barely muster to find the bedroom), I read a few Bible verses to our son. It's a moment of quality father-son time, that I would not trade for anything. Lately, we've been reading 1 John, which I like to call "the opposites letter", on account of all the contrasts that it contains. The start of chapter 4 hit a chord in me, and I'd like to talk about it a bit.

[1] Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

First of all, we must always be on our guard, because false doctrines and false teachers are everywhere, some so cunning that, if it were possible, they could deceive the very elect (paraphrased from the Bible). Like the famous Bereans, we need to be comparing what we see and hear with the Word of God. That means not only having the Bible handy, but internalizing its contents, so that we are walking Bibles. This is especially important, as there seems to be a church on every corner, and religious people all around us.

[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God....

Here's a litmus test that tells you whether or not a person, organization, or doctrine is of God. Sounds a little simplistic, if taken at face value, but when you look at it a bit closer, you'll find so much more.

What does "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" mean? Just that there really was this historical guy named Jesus, who walked around Galilee, 2000 years ago? Even many atheists will agree to that. But the "Christ" is not a last name, but a title. A title reserved for the Messiah, the one that scriptures prophesied that would come and bring salvation. The Holy One of God, God Himself, come in the flesh, to die on the cross for our sins. There's a lot there! And there are so many who deny this truth, try to water it down, or add man's ideas to it. God's not into that; no, He tells it like it is, and so do His people. Those who don't, simply aren't of Him.

[3] ... and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Many Christians are into "The Antichrist" that's supposed to come at the end of the world, only to be defeated by Jesus. I can understand where that idea came from, but there's nothing in the Bible that confirms that any one personage carrying that title will ever come. Only 1 and 2 John even mention the word "antichrist", and he makes it clear that they are already here today (from his time, even) and are very, very common. By his definition, an antichrist is one who denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22, 2 John 1:7). Jews are antichrists (how's THAT for political incorrectness???). Muslims are antichrists. Atheists are antichrists. Hindus and Buddhists are antichrists. The various end-times beasts and false prophets mentioned throughout the Bible are antichrists. I think even some "Christian" sects are that way or extremely close. And, of course, there are those (such as the Catholics and Mormons), who although will verbally agree that Jesus is Christ, they have added so many rules, traditions, and doctrines, that Jesus simply gets lost in the shuffle.

But a true Christian is one whose entire being depends on this simple truth: Jesus is Christ.

[4] Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

So need we fear the falsehoods out there? Naaah! Jesus has already overcome it, and through Him, we are overcomers, too! How do we overcome? Not by beating everyone else over the head with a family-sized Bible, but by not being tainted by their lies. By being a shining example, in spite of them and by not failing to teach our children to walk in God's truth.

[5] They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

How true this is! Here is a phrase software engineers like to use: You put garbage in, you get garbage out. For a computer program, this means that if you feed it incorrect data, you will get incorrect results, no matter how well-written the program itself is. Humans work the same way. We were created in God's image, but if we gorge on the sinful things of the world, that's exactly what we'll be spewing back out. But if Jesus and God's Word are what we put in, then that's what will be on our minds and lips.

[6] We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

We have a choice of what we put into our minds. People of the world like to listen to the things of the world, and people of God like to listen to Him. Worldly people will not want to hear what you have to say (even those who claim to be Christian). Here's a funny one for you: will a TV set ever listen to what you have to say (no matter how much you yell at it)? Where does it fall in, according to John?

The rest of the chapter is totally awesome too, but I'll stop here, for now.

My Testimony: The Early Years

This blog's new incarnation is approaching the one-year mark, and I recently realized that I've never shared how I came to the Lord. Let's fix that right now.

I was born in Romania, in a non-religious home. I think my parents did a good job teaching me right from wrong, but I had very little knowledge of the Bible or its Magnificent Author. As a teenager in the U.S., I was pretty much an atheist.

My first real exposure to the Christian religion (but not really Jesus) started when a high school classmate invited me to a Young Life event. I had no idea what Young Life was; I thought it was just a party. We did volleyball and lots of fun competitive games, and at the very end, one of the leaders gave a short message. I liked it and went back the following week, but with each successive event, less and less time was spent on fun and more on the Bible. I started to realize that the games were a way to get young people to come and hear the good news.

Unfortunately, while they taught about man's sinful nature, I only remember a "believe only", watered-down version of Salvation. I "decided" to follow Jesus, but did not repent of my sins nor gave my life to Him. Aside from their organized events, I didn't read the Bible, much less study it. I prayed to God, but He didn't seem to respond back. I continued in my sinful ways, unaware that Jesus had so much more in store for me.

The one unforgettable experience I had, in my one-year foray into Young Life, was a summer camp in British Columbia. There, at the Malibu Club, is some of the most beautiful country that God has ever made! But aside from the fun and challenging activities (especially the zip line that I almost chickened out on), I did not grow at all spiritually. I can't blame the staff; I wasn't ready. I now think that God was preparing me, but He was not calling, yet.

After I returned home, they kept asking me to come to other events, throughout the week: church, Bible studies, picnics, etc... I went more out of a sense of obligation, than anything else. Oftentimes, I would make up excuses, when I really didn't feel like going. The last event I think I ever attended was a mini-camp, ironically not far at all from where we now live. The last evening, I took a walk with my counsellor, and we chatted for a while. I mentioned that while the Bible has great teachings, I didn't take everything in it literally. I said that since men wrote it, it must have many mistakes. He didn't take that very well. It wasn't so much WHAT he said, as HOW he said it. He said that I couldn't follow Jesus if I didn't believe the ENTIRE Bible as true. Of course, I see that now (thought there are many parts that are symbolic, not to be taken literally), but his reaction was the last straw for me. From that point on, I saw religious people as no different from anyone else, except that they were stuck following a bunch of rules and doing boring things, like going to church and reading outdated writings. I felt sorry for them. I think that was the last time I had anything to do with Young Life.

As I got into college, I not only finalized my decision that there was nothing to Christianity (or any religion, for that matter), but also that I would never let any girl change my mind.

By the way, the picture of the guy on the zip line isn't me, unless I fainted on the way down! No, if it was me, you'd see a guy desperately clutching the rope. I think I'm getting better about it now, nearly 20 years after the fact, since a new friend has introduced me to rock-climbing. But that's a story for another time.

And the War Wages On...

And the assault continues. TIME reports that Richard Dawkins and the Humanist Association (you can look them up on Wikipedia), have placed atheist ads on London buses. But Christian groups are fighting back with their own ad campaign, aimed at poking fun at the atheist ads.

Dawkins is a world-(in)famous atheist and author, who is quoted at the end of the article as saying, "If more people think for themselves, we'll have fewer religious people." You know, the guy's absolutely right, though he doesn't know it. Jesus doesn't want (as my dad says) "religious drones;" He wants people who will make the willful decision to love and serve Him. The Bible shows time and time again that tradition and mindless religion only lead to idolatry and sin. But the Apostles and prophets invite us to "come and let us reason together", and to reach a full understanding of salvation. The Bible says time and time again, that we are to serve God with not just our bodies and hearts, but with our minds, too! That means He's not afraid of being exposed as a fraud by the thinkers or philosophers or logicians. If anything, an honest search for the truth will only further confirm not only God's existence, but also His omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and infinite love.

Christians do indeed think for themselves, Mr. Dawkins. If you begin to do the same, perhaps you will also become one, someday. Better not wait to find out on the other side!

:)