Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Something from the mail...
Harlow people, going to be having exams soon... Feeling pretty drain and tired, do pray for me yeah? Thanks a lot. Here is something from my Godsister again. Hope you all enjoy it! :)
The Frogs
A farmer came into town and asked the owner of a restaurant if he could use a million frog legs.
The restaurant owner was shocked and asked the man where he could get so many frog legs!
The farmer replied, "There is a pond near my house that is full of frogs --- millions of them. They croak all night long and they are about to make me crazy!"
So the restaurant owner and the farmer made an agreement that the farmer would deliver frogs to the restaurant, five hundred at a time for the next several weeks.
The first week, the farmer returned to the restaurant looking rather sheepish, with two scrawny little frogs. The restaurant owner said, "Well... where are all the frogs?" The farmer said, "I was mistaken. There were only these two frogs in the pond. But they sure were making a lot of noise!"
[Next time you hear somebody criticizing or making fun of you, remember, it's probably just a couple of noisy frogs. Also remember that problems always seem bigger in the dark. Have you ever laid in your bed at night worrying about things which seem almost overwhelming like a million frogs croaking? Chances are pretty good that when the morning comes, and you take a closer look, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.]
The Turtles
A turtle family decided to go on a picnic. Turtles, being naturally slow about things, took seven years to prepare for their outing. Finally the turtle family left home looking for a suitable place for their outing.
During the second year of their journey they found a place ideal for them at last! For about six months they cleaned up the area, unpacked the picnic basket, and completed the arrangements.
Then they discovered they had forgotten the salt. A picnic without salt would be a disaster, they all agreed.
After a lengthy discussion, the youngest turtle was chosen to retrieve the salt from home. Although he was the fastest of the slow moving turtles, the little turtle whined, cried, and wobbled in his shell. He agreed to go on one condition: that no one would eat until he returned.
The family consented and the little turtle left. Three years passed and the little turtle had not returned. Five years... six years... then on the seventh year of his absence, the oldest turtle could no longer contain his hunger. He announced that he was going to eat and begun to unwrap a sandwich.
At that point the little turtle suddenly popped out from behind a tree shouting, "SEE! I knew you wouldn't wait. Now I am not going to go get the salt."
[Some of us waste our time waiting for people to live up to our expectations. We are so concerned about what others are doing that we don't do anything ourselves.]
The Frogs
A farmer came into town and asked the owner of a restaurant if he could use a million frog legs.
The restaurant owner was shocked and asked the man where he could get so many frog legs!
The farmer replied, "There is a pond near my house that is full of frogs --- millions of them. They croak all night long and they are about to make me crazy!"
So the restaurant owner and the farmer made an agreement that the farmer would deliver frogs to the restaurant, five hundred at a time for the next several weeks.
The first week, the farmer returned to the restaurant looking rather sheepish, with two scrawny little frogs. The restaurant owner said, "Well... where are all the frogs?" The farmer said, "I was mistaken. There were only these two frogs in the pond. But they sure were making a lot of noise!"
[Next time you hear somebody criticizing or making fun of you, remember, it's probably just a couple of noisy frogs. Also remember that problems always seem bigger in the dark. Have you ever laid in your bed at night worrying about things which seem almost overwhelming like a million frogs croaking? Chances are pretty good that when the morning comes, and you take a closer look, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.]
The Turtles
A turtle family decided to go on a picnic. Turtles, being naturally slow about things, took seven years to prepare for their outing. Finally the turtle family left home looking for a suitable place for their outing.
During the second year of their journey they found a place ideal for them at last! For about six months they cleaned up the area, unpacked the picnic basket, and completed the arrangements.
Then they discovered they had forgotten the salt. A picnic without salt would be a disaster, they all agreed.
After a lengthy discussion, the youngest turtle was chosen to retrieve the salt from home. Although he was the fastest of the slow moving turtles, the little turtle whined, cried, and wobbled in his shell. He agreed to go on one condition: that no one would eat until he returned.
The family consented and the little turtle left. Three years passed and the little turtle had not returned. Five years... six years... then on the seventh year of his absence, the oldest turtle could no longer contain his hunger. He announced that he was going to eat and begun to unwrap a sandwich.
At that point the little turtle suddenly popped out from behind a tree shouting, "SEE! I knew you wouldn't wait. Now I am not going to go get the salt."
[Some of us waste our time waiting for people to live up to our expectations. We are so concerned about what others are doing that we don't do anything ourselves.]
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Last update before the examinations...
Harlow, just want to update everyone that this would be the last post until after the examinations as I have 20 days left to the paper. Thanks for popping by and supporting me as well as praying for me! Cheers! :P
Here is something from my Godsister again in the mail... Do ponder about it... Catch "Passion of Christ" if you can. I would highly recommend it! :P
A missionary working among children in the Middle East was driving her jeep down a road when she ran out of petrol. She had no jerrycan in her car. All she could find was a potty. She walked a mile down the road to the nearest petrol station and filled the potty with petrol. As she was pouring the petrol into the tank, a very large Cadillac drew up occupied by wealthy oil sheikhs. They were absolutely fascinated at seeing her pouring the contents of the potty into the jeep. One of them opened the window and said, ‘Excuse me! My friend and I, although we do not share your religion, we greatly admire your faith!’
Some people see becoming a Christian as a blind leap of faith. The type of faith that would be needed in expecting a car to run on the usual contents of a potty. There is indeed a step of faith required. However, it is not a blind leap of faith, but a step of faith based on firm historical evidence. In this chapter 1 want to examine some of that historical evidence. I am told that in a communist Russian dictionary Jesus is described as ‘a mythical figure who never existed’. No serious historian could maintain that position today. There is a great deal of evidence for Jesus' existence. This comes not only from the Gospels and other Christian writings, but also from non-Christian sources. For example, the Roman historians Tacitus (directly) and Suetonius (indirectly) both write about him. The Jewish historian Josephus, born in AD 37, describes Jesus and his followers thus:
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 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 after him, are not extinct at this day.
So there is evidence outside the New Testament for the existence of Jesus. Furthermore, the evidence in the New Testament is very strong. Sometimes people say, ‘The New Testament was written a long time ago. How do we know that what they wrote down has not been changed over the years?’
The answer is that we do know, very accurately through the science of textual criticism, what the New Testament writers wrote. Essentially the more texts we have, the less doubt there is about the original. The late Professor F. F. Bruce (who was Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester) shows in his book Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation by comparing the texts with other historical works.
F. F. Bruce points out that for Caesar’s Gallic War we have nine or ten copies and the oldest was written some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. For Livy’s Roman History we have not more than twenty copies, the earliest of which comes from around AD 900. Of the fourteen books of the histories of Tacitus only twenty copies survive; of the sixteen books of his annals, ten portions of his two great historical works depend entirely on two manuscripts, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh century. The history of Thucydides is known almost entirely from eight manuscripts belonging to C. AD 900. The same is true of the history of Herodotus. Yet no classical scholar doubts the authenticity of these works, in spite
of the large time gap and the relatively few manuscripts.
As regards the New Testament we have a great wealth of material. The New Testament was probably written between AD 40 and AD 100. We have excellent full manuscripts of the whole New Testament dating from as early as AD 350 (a time span of only 300 years), papyri containing most of the New Testament writings dating from the third century and even a fragment of John’s Gospel dating from about AD 130. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, over 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 other manuscripts, as well as over 36,000 citings in the writings of the early church fathers. As one of the greatest textual critics ever, F. J. A. Hart, said, ‘In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings.’
F. F. Bruce summarises the evidence by quoting Sir Frederic Kenyon, a leading scholar in this area:
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established?
We know from evidence outside and inside the New Testament that Jesus existed. But who is he? I heard Martin Scorsese say on television that he made the film The Last Temptation of Christ in order to show that Jesus was a real human being. Yet that is not the issue at the moment. Few people today would doubt that Jesus was fully human. He had a human body; he was sometimes tired (John 4:6) and hungry (Matthew 4:2). He had human emotions; he was angry (Mark 11:15-17), he loved (Mark 10:21) and he was sad (John 11:35). He had human experiences; he was tempted (Mark 1:13), he learned (Luke 2:52), he worked (Mark 6:3) and he obeyed his parents (Luke 2:51).
What many say today is that Jesus was only a human being—albeit a great religious teacher. The comedian, Billy Connally spoke for many when he said, ‘I can’t believe in Christianity, but I think Jesus was a wonderful man.’
What evidence is there to suggest that Jesus was more than just a wonderful man or a great moral teacher? The answer, as we shall see, is that there is a great deal of evidence. This evidence supports the Christian contention that Jesus was and is the unique Son of God. Indeed, he is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity.
What did he say about himself?
Some people say, ‘Jesus never claimed to be God.’ Indeed, it is true that Jesus did not go round saying the words, ‘I am God.’ Yet when one looks at all he taught and claimed, there is little doubt that he was conscious of being a man whose identity was God.
Teaching centred on himself
One of the fascinating things about Jesus is that so much of his teaching was centred on himself. He said to people, in effect, ‘If you want to have a relationship with God you need to come to me’ (see John 14:6). It’s through a relationship with him that we encounter God. There is a hunger deep within the human heart. The leading psychologists of the twentieth century have all recognised this. Freud said, ‘People are hungry for love.’ Jung said, ‘People are hungry for security.’ Adler said, ‘People are hungry for significance.’ Jesus said, ‘I am the bread of life’ (John 6:35). In other words, ‘If you want your hunger satisfied, come to me.’
Many people are walking in darkness, depression, disillusionment and despair. They are looking for direction. Jesus said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life’ (John 8:12). Someone said to me after they had become a Christian, ‘It was as if the light had suddenly been turned on and I could see things for the first time.’
Many are fearful of death. One woman said to me that sometimes she couldn’t sleep and that she would wake up in a cold sweat, frightened about death, because she didn’t know what was going to happen when she died. Jesus said, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die’ (John 11:25—26).
So many are burdened by worries, anxieties, fears and guilt. Jesus said, ‘Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest’ (Matthew 11:28). They are not sure how to run their lives or who they should follow. I can remember, before I was a Christian, that I would be impressed by someone and want to be like them, and then by a different person and follow them. Jesus said, ‘Follow me’ (Mark 1:17).
He said to receive him was to receive God (Matthew 10:40), to welcome him was to welcome God (Mark 9:37) and to have seen him was to have seen God (John 14:9). A child once drew a picture and his mother asked what he was doing. The child said, ‘I am drawing a picture of God.’ The mother said, ‘Don’t be silly. You can’t draw a picture of God. No one knows what God looks like.’ The child replied, ‘Well, they will do by the time I have finished!’ Jesus said in effect, ‘If you want to know what God looks like, look at me.’
Indirect claims
Jesus said a number of things which, although not direct claims to be God, show that he regarded himself as being in the same position as God, as we will see in the examples which follow. Jesus’ claim to be able to forgive sins is well known. For example, on one occasion he said to a man who was paralysed, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven’ (Mark 2:5). The reaction of the religious leaders was, ‘Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ Jesus went on to prove that he did have the authority to forgive sins by healing the paralysed man. This claim to be able to forgive sins is indeed an astonishing claim.
C. S. Lewis puts it well when he says in his book Mere Christianity:
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin.
In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Another extraordinary claim that Jesus made was that one day he would judge the world (Matthew 25:31-32). He said he would return and ‘sit on his throne in heavenly glory’ (v. 31). All the nations would be gathered before him. He would pass judgement on them. Some would receive an inheritance prepared for them since the creation of the world and eternal life, but others would suffer the punishment of being separated from him for ever.
Jesus said he would decide what happens to every one of us at the end of time. Not only would he be the Judge, he would also be the criterion of judgement. What happens to us on the Day of Judgement depends on how we respond to Jesus in this life (Matthew 25:40, 45). Suppose the vicar at your local church were to get up in the pulpit and say, ‘On the Day of Judgement you will all appear before me and I will decide your eternal destiny. What happens to you will depend on how you’ve treated me and my followers.’ For a mere human being to make such a claim would be preposterous. Here we have another indirect claim to have the identity of Almighty God.
Direct claims
When the question was put to him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am. . . and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ The high priest tore his clothes. ‘Why do we need any more witnesses?’ he asked. ‘You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ (Mark 14:61-64). In this account it appears Jesus was condemned to death for the assertion he made about himself. A claim tantamount to a claim to be God was blasphemy in Jewish eyes, worthy of death.
On one occasion, when the Jews started to stone Jesus, he asked, ‘Why are you stoning me?’ They replied that they were stoning him for blasphemy ‘because you, a mere man, claim to be God’ (John 10:33, italics mine). His enemies clearly thought that this was exactly what he was declaring.
When Thomas, one of his disciples, knelt down before Jesus and said, ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28), Jesus didn’t turn to him and say, ‘No, no, don’t say that; I am not God.’ He said, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’ (John 20:29). He rebuked Thomas for being so slow to get the point.
If somebody makes claims like these they need to be tested. There are all sorts of people who make all kinds of claims. The mere fact that somebody claims to be someone does not mean that they are right. There are many people, some in psychiatric hospitals, who are deluded. They think they are Napoleon or the Pope, but they are not.
So how can we test people’s claims? Jesus claimed to be the unique Son of God; God made flesh. There are three logical possibilities. If the claims were untrue, either he knew they were untrue—in which case he was an imposter, and an evil one at that. That is the first possibility. Or he did not know—in which case he was deluded; indeed, he was mad. That is the second possibility. The third possibility is that the claims were true.
C. S. Lewis put it like this:
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.. . but let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
What evidence is there to support what he said?
In order to assess which of these three possibilities is right we need to examine the evidence which we have about his life.
His teaching
The teaching of Jesus is widely acknowledged to be the greatest teaching that has ever fallen from anyone’s lips. Some who are not Christians say, ‘I love the Sermon on the Mount; I live by it.’ (If they read it they would realise that this is easier to say than to do, but they acknowledge that the Sermon on the Mount is great teaching.)
Bernard Ramm, an American professor of theology, said this about the teachings of Jesus:
They are read more, quoted more, loved more, believed more, and translated more because they are the greatest words ever spoken... Their greatness lies in the pure lucid spirituality in dealing clearly, definitively, and authoritatively with the greatest problems that throb in the human breast... No other man’s words have the appeal of Jesus’ words because no other man can answer these fundamental human questions as Jesus answered them. They are the kind of words and the kind of answers we would expect God to give.
His teaching is the foundation of our entire civilisation in the West. Many of the laws in this country were originally based on the teachings of Jesus. We are making progress in virtually every field of science and technology. We travel faster and know more, and yet in nearly 2,000 years no one has improved on the moral teaching of Jesus Christ. Could that teaching really have come from a con man or a mad man?
His works
Jesus said that the miracles he performed were in themselves evidence that ‘the Father is in me, and I in the Father’ (John 10:38).
Jesus must have been the most extraordinary man to have around. Sometimes people say that Christianity is boring. Well, it was not boring being with Jesus.
When he went to a party, he turned water into wine (John 2:1-11). He received one man’s picnic and multiplied it so that it could feed thousands (Mark 6:30-44). He had control over the elements and could speak to the wind and the waves and thereby stop a storm (Mark 4:35-41). He carried out the most remarkable healings: opening blind eyes, causing the deaf and dumb to hear and speak and enabling the paralysed to walk again. When he visited a hospital a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years was able to pick up his bed and walk (John 5:1-9). He set people free from evil forces which had dominated their lives. On occasions, he even brought those who had died back to life (John 11:38-44).
Yet it was not just his miracles that made his work so impressive. It was his love, especially for the loveless (eg, the lepers and the prostitutes), which seemed to motivate all that he did. Supremely it was his love shown on the cross (which, as we shall see in the next chapter, was the chief reason for his coming to earth). When they tortured him and nailed him to the cross he said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’ (Luke 22:34). Surely these are not the activities of an evil or deluded man?
His character
The character of Jesus has impressed millions who would not call themselves Christians. For example, Bernard Levin wrote of Jesus:
Is not the nature of Christ, in the words of the New Testament, enough to pierce to the soul anyone with a soul to be pierced?... he still looms over the world, his message still clear, his pity still infinite, his consolation still effective, his words still full of glory, wisdom and love.
One of my favourite descriptions of the character of Jesus comes from the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham. In his autobiographical The Door Wherein I Went he describes how the person of Jesus came alive to him when he was at university:
The first thing we must learn about him is that we should have been absolutely entranced by his company. Jesus was irresistibly attractive as a man. . . What they crucified was a young man, vital, full of life and the joy of it, the Lord of life itself, and even more the Lord of laughter, someone so utterly attractive that people followed him for the sheer fun of it... the Twentieth Century needs to recapture the vision of this glorious and happy man whose mere presence filled his companions with delight. No pale Galilean he, but a veritable Pied Piper of Hamelin who would have the children laughing all round him and squealing with pleasure and joy as he picked them up.
Here was a man who exemplified supreme unselfishness but never self-pity; humility but not weakness; joy but never at another’s expense; kindness but not indulgence. He was a man in whom even his enemies could find no fault and where friends who knew him well said he was without sin. Surely no one could suggest that a man with a character like that was evil or unbalanced?
His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy
Wilbur Smith, the American writer on theological topics, said:
The ancient world had many different devices for determining the future, known as divination, but not in the entire gamut of Greek and Latin literature, even though they used the words prophet and prophecy, can we find any real specific prophecy of a great historic event to come in the distant future, nor any prophecy of a Saviour to arrive in the human race... Mohammedanism cannot point to any prophecies of the coming of Mohammed uttered hundreds of years before his birth. Neither can the founders of any cult in this country rightly identify any ancient text specifically foretelling their appearance.
Yet in the case of Jesus, he fulfilled over 300 prophecies (spoken by different- voices over 500 years), including twenty-nine major prophecies fulfilled in a single day—the day he died. Although some of these prophecies may have found fulfilment at one level in the prophet’s own day, they found their ultimate fulfilment in Jesus Christ.
I suppose it could be suggested that Jesus was a clever con man who deliberately set out to fulfil these prophecies in order to show that he was the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. The problem with that suggestion is, first, the sheer number of them would have made it extremely difficult. Secondly, humanly speaking he had no control over many of the events. For example, the exact manner of his death was foretold in the Old Testament (Isaiah 53), the place of his burial and even the place of his birth (Micah 5:2). Suppose Jesus had been a con man wanting to fulfil all these prophecies. It would have been a bit late by the time he discovered the place in which he was supposed to have been born!
His resurrection
The physical resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity. But what is the evidence that it really happened? I want to summarise the evidence under four main headings.
1. His absence from the tomb.
Many theories have been put forward to explain the fact that Jesus’ body was absent from the tomb on the first Easter Day, but none of them is very convincing. First, it has been suggested that Jesus did not die on the cross. There was once a headline in Today newspaper: ‘Jesus did not die on the cross’. Dr Trevor Lloyd Davies claimed that Jesus was still alive when he was taken from the cross and that he later recovered.
Jesus had undergone a Roman flogging, under which many had died. He had been nailed to a cross for six hours. Could a man in this condition push away a stone weighing probably a ton and a half? The soldiers were clearly convinced that he was dead or they would not have taken his body down. If they had allowed a prisoner to escape, they would have been liable to the death penalty.
Furthermore, when the soldiers discovered that Jesus was already dead, ‘one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water’ (John 19:34). This appears to be the separation of clot and serum which we know today is strong medical evidence that Jesus was dead. John did not write it for that reason; he would not have possessed that knowledge, which makes it even more powerful evidence that Jesus was indeed dead.
Secondly, it has been argued that the disciples stole the body. Some have suggested that the disciples stole the body and began a rumour that Jesus had risen from the dead. Leaving aside the fact that the tomb was guarded, this theory is psychologically improbable. The disciples were depressed and disillusioned at the time of Jesus’ death. It would have needed something extraordinary to transform the Apostle Peter into the man who preached at Pentecost when 3,000 people were converted.
In addition, when one considered how much they had to suffer for what they believed (floggings, torture, and for some even death), it seems inconceivable that they would be prepared to endure all that for something they knew to be untrue. I have a friend who was a scientist at Cambridge University who became a Christian because, as he examined the evidence, he was convinced that the disciples would not have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie.
Thirdly, some have said that the authorities stole the body. This seems the least probable theory of all. If the authorities had stolen the body, why did they not produce it when they were trying to quash the rumour that Jesus had risen from the dead?
Perhaps the most fascinating piece of evidence relating to Jesus’ absence from the tomb is John’s description of the grave-clothes. In a way, the ‘empty tomb’ is a misnomer. When Peter and John went to the tomb they saw the grave-clothes which were, as the Christian apologist Josh McDowell put it in The Resurrection Factor, ‘like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar’s cocoon’— when the butterfly has emerged. It was as if Jesus had simply passed through the grave-clothes. Not surprisingly, John ‘saw and believed’ (John 20:8).
2. His appearances to the disciples.
Were these hallucinations? The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes an hallucination as an ‘apparent perception of external object not actually present’. Hallucinations normally occur in highly strung, highly imaginative and very nervous people, or in people who are sick or on drugs. The disciples do not fit into any of these categories. Burly fishermen, tax collectors and sceptics like Thomas are unlikely to hallucinate. People who hallucinate would be unlikely suddenly to stop doing so. Jesus appeared to his disciples on eleven different occasions over a period of six weeks. The number of occasions and the sudden cessation make the hallucination theory highly improbable.
Furthermore, over 550 people saw the risen Jesus. It is possible for one person to hallucinate. Maybe it is possible for two or three people to share the same hallucination. But is it likely that 550 people would all share the same hallucination?
Finally, hallucinations are subjective. There is no objective reality—it is like seeing a ghost. Jesus could be touched, he ate a piece of broiled fish (Luke 24:42-43) and on one occasion he cooked breakfast for the disciples (John 21:1-14). Peter says, ‘[They] ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead’ (Acts 10:41). He held long conversations with them, teaching them many things about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).
3. The immediate effect.
The effect of Jesus rising from the dead, as one would expect, had a dramatic impact on the world. The church was born and grew at a tremendous rate. As Michael Green, writer of many popular and scholarly works, puts it:
[The] Church... beginning from a handful of uneducated fishermen and tax gatherers, swept across the whole known world in the next three hundred years. It is a perfectly amazing story of peaceful revolution that has no parallel in the history of the world. It came about because Christians were able to say to inquirers: ‘Jesus did not only die for you. He is alive! You can meet him and discover for yourself the reality we are talking about!’ They did, and joined the church and the church, born from that Easter grave, spread everywhere.
4. Christian experience.
Countless millions of people down the ages have experienced the risen Jesus Christ. They consist of people of every colour, race, tribe, continent and nationality. They come from different economic, social and intellectual backgrounds. Yet they all unite in a common experience of the risen Jesus Christ. Wilson Carlisle, who was head of the Church Army in this country, was preaching at Hyde Park Corner. He was saying, ‘Jesus Christ is alive today.’ One of the hecklers shouted
out to him, ‘How do you know?’ Wilson Carlisle replied, ‘Because I was speaking to him for half an hour this morning!’
Millions of Christians all over the world today are experiencing a relationship with the risen Jesus Christ. Over the last eighteen years I too have found in my experience that Jesus Christ is alive today. I have experienced his love, his power and a reality of a relationship which convinces me that he is really alive.
The evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is very extensive. A former Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, said, ‘In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.’
We saw when we looked, earlier in the chapter, at 2 what Jesus said about himself that there were only three realistic possibilities—either he was and is the Son of God, or else he was a madman or something worse. When one looks at the evidence it does not make sense to say that he was mad or evil. The whole weight of his teaching, his works, his character, his fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy and his conquest of death make those suggestions absurd, illogical and unbelievable. On the other hand, they lend the strongest possible support to Jesus’ own consciousness of being a man whose identity was God.
C. S. Lewis sums it up like this:
We are faced then with a frightening alternative. The man we are talking about was (and is) just what he said or else a lunatic or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that he was neither a lunatic nor a fiend; and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that he was and is God. God has landed on this enemy occupied world in human form.
Hope this would be a good aid to everyone pondering about this! Thanks and keep in touch! :P
Here is something from my Godsister again in the mail... Do ponder about it... Catch "Passion of Christ" if you can. I would highly recommend it! :P
A missionary working among children in the Middle East was driving her jeep down a road when she ran out of petrol. She had no jerrycan in her car. All she could find was a potty. She walked a mile down the road to the nearest petrol station and filled the potty with petrol. As she was pouring the petrol into the tank, a very large Cadillac drew up occupied by wealthy oil sheikhs. They were absolutely fascinated at seeing her pouring the contents of the potty into the jeep. One of them opened the window and said, ‘Excuse me! My friend and I, although we do not share your religion, we greatly admire your faith!’
Some people see becoming a Christian as a blind leap of faith. The type of faith that would be needed in expecting a car to run on the usual contents of a potty. There is indeed a step of faith required. However, it is not a blind leap of faith, but a step of faith based on firm historical evidence. In this chapter 1 want to examine some of that historical evidence. I am told that in a communist Russian dictionary Jesus is described as ‘a mythical figure who never existed’. No serious historian could maintain that position today. There is a great deal of evidence for Jesus' existence. This comes not only from the Gospels and other Christian writings, but also from non-Christian sources. For example, the Roman historians Tacitus (directly) and Suetonius (indirectly) both write about him. The Jewish historian Josephus, born in AD 37, describes Jesus and his followers thus:
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 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 after him, are not extinct at this day.
So there is evidence outside the New Testament for the existence of Jesus. Furthermore, the evidence in the New Testament is very strong. Sometimes people say, ‘The New Testament was written a long time ago. How do we know that what they wrote down has not been changed over the years?’
The answer is that we do know, very accurately through the science of textual criticism, what the New Testament writers wrote. Essentially the more texts we have, the less doubt there is about the original. The late Professor F. F. Bruce (who was Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester) shows in his book Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation by comparing the texts with other historical works.
F. F. Bruce points out that for Caesar’s Gallic War we have nine or ten copies and the oldest was written some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. For Livy’s Roman History we have not more than twenty copies, the earliest of which comes from around AD 900. Of the fourteen books of the histories of Tacitus only twenty copies survive; of the sixteen books of his annals, ten portions of his two great historical works depend entirely on two manuscripts, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh century. The history of Thucydides is known almost entirely from eight manuscripts belonging to C. AD 900. The same is true of the history of Herodotus. Yet no classical scholar doubts the authenticity of these works, in spite
of the large time gap and the relatively few manuscripts.
As regards the New Testament we have a great wealth of material. The New Testament was probably written between AD 40 and AD 100. We have excellent full manuscripts of the whole New Testament dating from as early as AD 350 (a time span of only 300 years), papyri containing most of the New Testament writings dating from the third century and even a fragment of John’s Gospel dating from about AD 130. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, over 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 other manuscripts, as well as over 36,000 citings in the writings of the early church fathers. As one of the greatest textual critics ever, F. J. A. Hart, said, ‘In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings.’
F. F. Bruce summarises the evidence by quoting Sir Frederic Kenyon, a leading scholar in this area:
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established?
We know from evidence outside and inside the New Testament that Jesus existed. But who is he? I heard Martin Scorsese say on television that he made the film The Last Temptation of Christ in order to show that Jesus was a real human being. Yet that is not the issue at the moment. Few people today would doubt that Jesus was fully human. He had a human body; he was sometimes tired (John 4:6) and hungry (Matthew 4:2). He had human emotions; he was angry (Mark 11:15-17), he loved (Mark 10:21) and he was sad (John 11:35). He had human experiences; he was tempted (Mark 1:13), he learned (Luke 2:52), he worked (Mark 6:3) and he obeyed his parents (Luke 2:51).
What many say today is that Jesus was only a human being—albeit a great religious teacher. The comedian, Billy Connally spoke for many when he said, ‘I can’t believe in Christianity, but I think Jesus was a wonderful man.’
What evidence is there to suggest that Jesus was more than just a wonderful man or a great moral teacher? The answer, as we shall see, is that there is a great deal of evidence. This evidence supports the Christian contention that Jesus was and is the unique Son of God. Indeed, he is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity.
What did he say about himself?
Some people say, ‘Jesus never claimed to be God.’ Indeed, it is true that Jesus did not go round saying the words, ‘I am God.’ Yet when one looks at all he taught and claimed, there is little doubt that he was conscious of being a man whose identity was God.
Teaching centred on himself
One of the fascinating things about Jesus is that so much of his teaching was centred on himself. He said to people, in effect, ‘If you want to have a relationship with God you need to come to me’ (see John 14:6). It’s through a relationship with him that we encounter God. There is a hunger deep within the human heart. The leading psychologists of the twentieth century have all recognised this. Freud said, ‘People are hungry for love.’ Jung said, ‘People are hungry for security.’ Adler said, ‘People are hungry for significance.’ Jesus said, ‘I am the bread of life’ (John 6:35). In other words, ‘If you want your hunger satisfied, come to me.’
Many people are walking in darkness, depression, disillusionment and despair. They are looking for direction. Jesus said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life’ (John 8:12). Someone said to me after they had become a Christian, ‘It was as if the light had suddenly been turned on and I could see things for the first time.’
Many are fearful of death. One woman said to me that sometimes she couldn’t sleep and that she would wake up in a cold sweat, frightened about death, because she didn’t know what was going to happen when she died. Jesus said, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die’ (John 11:25—26).
So many are burdened by worries, anxieties, fears and guilt. Jesus said, ‘Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest’ (Matthew 11:28). They are not sure how to run their lives or who they should follow. I can remember, before I was a Christian, that I would be impressed by someone and want to be like them, and then by a different person and follow them. Jesus said, ‘Follow me’ (Mark 1:17).
He said to receive him was to receive God (Matthew 10:40), to welcome him was to welcome God (Mark 9:37) and to have seen him was to have seen God (John 14:9). A child once drew a picture and his mother asked what he was doing. The child said, ‘I am drawing a picture of God.’ The mother said, ‘Don’t be silly. You can’t draw a picture of God. No one knows what God looks like.’ The child replied, ‘Well, they will do by the time I have finished!’ Jesus said in effect, ‘If you want to know what God looks like, look at me.’
Indirect claims
Jesus said a number of things which, although not direct claims to be God, show that he regarded himself as being in the same position as God, as we will see in the examples which follow. Jesus’ claim to be able to forgive sins is well known. For example, on one occasion he said to a man who was paralysed, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven’ (Mark 2:5). The reaction of the religious leaders was, ‘Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ Jesus went on to prove that he did have the authority to forgive sins by healing the paralysed man. This claim to be able to forgive sins is indeed an astonishing claim.
C. S. Lewis puts it well when he says in his book Mere Christianity:
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin.
In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Another extraordinary claim that Jesus made was that one day he would judge the world (Matthew 25:31-32). He said he would return and ‘sit on his throne in heavenly glory’ (v. 31). All the nations would be gathered before him. He would pass judgement on them. Some would receive an inheritance prepared for them since the creation of the world and eternal life, but others would suffer the punishment of being separated from him for ever.
Jesus said he would decide what happens to every one of us at the end of time. Not only would he be the Judge, he would also be the criterion of judgement. What happens to us on the Day of Judgement depends on how we respond to Jesus in this life (Matthew 25:40, 45). Suppose the vicar at your local church were to get up in the pulpit and say, ‘On the Day of Judgement you will all appear before me and I will decide your eternal destiny. What happens to you will depend on how you’ve treated me and my followers.’ For a mere human being to make such a claim would be preposterous. Here we have another indirect claim to have the identity of Almighty God.
Direct claims
When the question was put to him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am. . . and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ The high priest tore his clothes. ‘Why do we need any more witnesses?’ he asked. ‘You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ (Mark 14:61-64). In this account it appears Jesus was condemned to death for the assertion he made about himself. A claim tantamount to a claim to be God was blasphemy in Jewish eyes, worthy of death.
On one occasion, when the Jews started to stone Jesus, he asked, ‘Why are you stoning me?’ They replied that they were stoning him for blasphemy ‘because you, a mere man, claim to be God’ (John 10:33, italics mine). His enemies clearly thought that this was exactly what he was declaring.
When Thomas, one of his disciples, knelt down before Jesus and said, ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28), Jesus didn’t turn to him and say, ‘No, no, don’t say that; I am not God.’ He said, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’ (John 20:29). He rebuked Thomas for being so slow to get the point.
If somebody makes claims like these they need to be tested. There are all sorts of people who make all kinds of claims. The mere fact that somebody claims to be someone does not mean that they are right. There are many people, some in psychiatric hospitals, who are deluded. They think they are Napoleon or the Pope, but they are not.
So how can we test people’s claims? Jesus claimed to be the unique Son of God; God made flesh. There are three logical possibilities. If the claims were untrue, either he knew they were untrue—in which case he was an imposter, and an evil one at that. That is the first possibility. Or he did not know—in which case he was deluded; indeed, he was mad. That is the second possibility. The third possibility is that the claims were true.
C. S. Lewis put it like this:
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.. . but let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
What evidence is there to support what he said?
In order to assess which of these three possibilities is right we need to examine the evidence which we have about his life.
His teaching
The teaching of Jesus is widely acknowledged to be the greatest teaching that has ever fallen from anyone’s lips. Some who are not Christians say, ‘I love the Sermon on the Mount; I live by it.’ (If they read it they would realise that this is easier to say than to do, but they acknowledge that the Sermon on the Mount is great teaching.)
Bernard Ramm, an American professor of theology, said this about the teachings of Jesus:
They are read more, quoted more, loved more, believed more, and translated more because they are the greatest words ever spoken... Their greatness lies in the pure lucid spirituality in dealing clearly, definitively, and authoritatively with the greatest problems that throb in the human breast... No other man’s words have the appeal of Jesus’ words because no other man can answer these fundamental human questions as Jesus answered them. They are the kind of words and the kind of answers we would expect God to give.
His teaching is the foundation of our entire civilisation in the West. Many of the laws in this country were originally based on the teachings of Jesus. We are making progress in virtually every field of science and technology. We travel faster and know more, and yet in nearly 2,000 years no one has improved on the moral teaching of Jesus Christ. Could that teaching really have come from a con man or a mad man?
His works
Jesus said that the miracles he performed were in themselves evidence that ‘the Father is in me, and I in the Father’ (John 10:38).
Jesus must have been the most extraordinary man to have around. Sometimes people say that Christianity is boring. Well, it was not boring being with Jesus.
When he went to a party, he turned water into wine (John 2:1-11). He received one man’s picnic and multiplied it so that it could feed thousands (Mark 6:30-44). He had control over the elements and could speak to the wind and the waves and thereby stop a storm (Mark 4:35-41). He carried out the most remarkable healings: opening blind eyes, causing the deaf and dumb to hear and speak and enabling the paralysed to walk again. When he visited a hospital a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years was able to pick up his bed and walk (John 5:1-9). He set people free from evil forces which had dominated their lives. On occasions, he even brought those who had died back to life (John 11:38-44).
Yet it was not just his miracles that made his work so impressive. It was his love, especially for the loveless (eg, the lepers and the prostitutes), which seemed to motivate all that he did. Supremely it was his love shown on the cross (which, as we shall see in the next chapter, was the chief reason for his coming to earth). When they tortured him and nailed him to the cross he said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’ (Luke 22:34). Surely these are not the activities of an evil or deluded man?
His character
The character of Jesus has impressed millions who would not call themselves Christians. For example, Bernard Levin wrote of Jesus:
Is not the nature of Christ, in the words of the New Testament, enough to pierce to the soul anyone with a soul to be pierced?... he still looms over the world, his message still clear, his pity still infinite, his consolation still effective, his words still full of glory, wisdom and love.
One of my favourite descriptions of the character of Jesus comes from the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham. In his autobiographical The Door Wherein I Went he describes how the person of Jesus came alive to him when he was at university:
The first thing we must learn about him is that we should have been absolutely entranced by his company. Jesus was irresistibly attractive as a man. . . What they crucified was a young man, vital, full of life and the joy of it, the Lord of life itself, and even more the Lord of laughter, someone so utterly attractive that people followed him for the sheer fun of it... the Twentieth Century needs to recapture the vision of this glorious and happy man whose mere presence filled his companions with delight. No pale Galilean he, but a veritable Pied Piper of Hamelin who would have the children laughing all round him and squealing with pleasure and joy as he picked them up.
Here was a man who exemplified supreme unselfishness but never self-pity; humility but not weakness; joy but never at another’s expense; kindness but not indulgence. He was a man in whom even his enemies could find no fault and where friends who knew him well said he was without sin. Surely no one could suggest that a man with a character like that was evil or unbalanced?
His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy
Wilbur Smith, the American writer on theological topics, said:
The ancient world had many different devices for determining the future, known as divination, but not in the entire gamut of Greek and Latin literature, even though they used the words prophet and prophecy, can we find any real specific prophecy of a great historic event to come in the distant future, nor any prophecy of a Saviour to arrive in the human race... Mohammedanism cannot point to any prophecies of the coming of Mohammed uttered hundreds of years before his birth. Neither can the founders of any cult in this country rightly identify any ancient text specifically foretelling their appearance.
Yet in the case of Jesus, he fulfilled over 300 prophecies (spoken by different- voices over 500 years), including twenty-nine major prophecies fulfilled in a single day—the day he died. Although some of these prophecies may have found fulfilment at one level in the prophet’s own day, they found their ultimate fulfilment in Jesus Christ.
I suppose it could be suggested that Jesus was a clever con man who deliberately set out to fulfil these prophecies in order to show that he was the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. The problem with that suggestion is, first, the sheer number of them would have made it extremely difficult. Secondly, humanly speaking he had no control over many of the events. For example, the exact manner of his death was foretold in the Old Testament (Isaiah 53), the place of his burial and even the place of his birth (Micah 5:2). Suppose Jesus had been a con man wanting to fulfil all these prophecies. It would have been a bit late by the time he discovered the place in which he was supposed to have been born!
His resurrection
The physical resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity. But what is the evidence that it really happened? I want to summarise the evidence under four main headings.
1. His absence from the tomb.
Many theories have been put forward to explain the fact that Jesus’ body was absent from the tomb on the first Easter Day, but none of them is very convincing. First, it has been suggested that Jesus did not die on the cross. There was once a headline in Today newspaper: ‘Jesus did not die on the cross’. Dr Trevor Lloyd Davies claimed that Jesus was still alive when he was taken from the cross and that he later recovered.
Jesus had undergone a Roman flogging, under which many had died. He had been nailed to a cross for six hours. Could a man in this condition push away a stone weighing probably a ton and a half? The soldiers were clearly convinced that he was dead or they would not have taken his body down. If they had allowed a prisoner to escape, they would have been liable to the death penalty.
Furthermore, when the soldiers discovered that Jesus was already dead, ‘one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water’ (John 19:34). This appears to be the separation of clot and serum which we know today is strong medical evidence that Jesus was dead. John did not write it for that reason; he would not have possessed that knowledge, which makes it even more powerful evidence that Jesus was indeed dead.
Secondly, it has been argued that the disciples stole the body. Some have suggested that the disciples stole the body and began a rumour that Jesus had risen from the dead. Leaving aside the fact that the tomb was guarded, this theory is psychologically improbable. The disciples were depressed and disillusioned at the time of Jesus’ death. It would have needed something extraordinary to transform the Apostle Peter into the man who preached at Pentecost when 3,000 people were converted.
In addition, when one considered how much they had to suffer for what they believed (floggings, torture, and for some even death), it seems inconceivable that they would be prepared to endure all that for something they knew to be untrue. I have a friend who was a scientist at Cambridge University who became a Christian because, as he examined the evidence, he was convinced that the disciples would not have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie.
Thirdly, some have said that the authorities stole the body. This seems the least probable theory of all. If the authorities had stolen the body, why did they not produce it when they were trying to quash the rumour that Jesus had risen from the dead?
Perhaps the most fascinating piece of evidence relating to Jesus’ absence from the tomb is John’s description of the grave-clothes. In a way, the ‘empty tomb’ is a misnomer. When Peter and John went to the tomb they saw the grave-clothes which were, as the Christian apologist Josh McDowell put it in The Resurrection Factor, ‘like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar’s cocoon’— when the butterfly has emerged. It was as if Jesus had simply passed through the grave-clothes. Not surprisingly, John ‘saw and believed’ (John 20:8).
2. His appearances to the disciples.
Were these hallucinations? The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes an hallucination as an ‘apparent perception of external object not actually present’. Hallucinations normally occur in highly strung, highly imaginative and very nervous people, or in people who are sick or on drugs. The disciples do not fit into any of these categories. Burly fishermen, tax collectors and sceptics like Thomas are unlikely to hallucinate. People who hallucinate would be unlikely suddenly to stop doing so. Jesus appeared to his disciples on eleven different occasions over a period of six weeks. The number of occasions and the sudden cessation make the hallucination theory highly improbable.
Furthermore, over 550 people saw the risen Jesus. It is possible for one person to hallucinate. Maybe it is possible for two or three people to share the same hallucination. But is it likely that 550 people would all share the same hallucination?
Finally, hallucinations are subjective. There is no objective reality—it is like seeing a ghost. Jesus could be touched, he ate a piece of broiled fish (Luke 24:42-43) and on one occasion he cooked breakfast for the disciples (John 21:1-14). Peter says, ‘[They] ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead’ (Acts 10:41). He held long conversations with them, teaching them many things about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).
3. The immediate effect.
The effect of Jesus rising from the dead, as one would expect, had a dramatic impact on the world. The church was born and grew at a tremendous rate. As Michael Green, writer of many popular and scholarly works, puts it:
[The] Church... beginning from a handful of uneducated fishermen and tax gatherers, swept across the whole known world in the next three hundred years. It is a perfectly amazing story of peaceful revolution that has no parallel in the history of the world. It came about because Christians were able to say to inquirers: ‘Jesus did not only die for you. He is alive! You can meet him and discover for yourself the reality we are talking about!’ They did, and joined the church and the church, born from that Easter grave, spread everywhere.
4. Christian experience.
Countless millions of people down the ages have experienced the risen Jesus Christ. They consist of people of every colour, race, tribe, continent and nationality. They come from different economic, social and intellectual backgrounds. Yet they all unite in a common experience of the risen Jesus Christ. Wilson Carlisle, who was head of the Church Army in this country, was preaching at Hyde Park Corner. He was saying, ‘Jesus Christ is alive today.’ One of the hecklers shouted
out to him, ‘How do you know?’ Wilson Carlisle replied, ‘Because I was speaking to him for half an hour this morning!’
Millions of Christians all over the world today are experiencing a relationship with the risen Jesus Christ. Over the last eighteen years I too have found in my experience that Jesus Christ is alive today. I have experienced his love, his power and a reality of a relationship which convinces me that he is really alive.
The evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is very extensive. A former Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, said, ‘In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.’
We saw when we looked, earlier in the chapter, at 2 what Jesus said about himself that there were only three realistic possibilities—either he was and is the Son of God, or else he was a madman or something worse. When one looks at the evidence it does not make sense to say that he was mad or evil. The whole weight of his teaching, his works, his character, his fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy and his conquest of death make those suggestions absurd, illogical and unbelievable. On the other hand, they lend the strongest possible support to Jesus’ own consciousness of being a man whose identity was God.
C. S. Lewis sums it up like this:
We are faced then with a frightening alternative. The man we are talking about was (and is) just what he said or else a lunatic or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that he was neither a lunatic nor a fiend; and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that he was and is God. God has landed on this enemy occupied world in human form.
Hope this would be a good aid to everyone pondering about this! Thanks and keep in touch! :P
