"Jesus Didn't Exist"

Those of you who have taken the time to talk with atheists and skeptics about the historicity of Christianity have probably engaged someone who has made the claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Generally, when this claim is made we Christians fall all over ourselves attempting to provide evidence to the contrary. We do all the heavy lifting, fruitlessly providing evidence to the contrary. I have to admit that I have done exactly this on more than occasion.

I have recently been reminded of a better option. Do nothing. Don’t engage in the debate on the terms of the one making the ridiculous claim. One of the most important tactics to remember when debating with anyone, no matter what the topic, is, “The one making the claim bears the burden of proof.” When the atheist makes the claim that Jesus never existed, in total contradiction to all the available evidence and virtually the entire community of ancient historians, it’s up to them to support their claim, not for us to refute it.

Instead of immediately jumping into the debate with research and evidence, just sit back and ask, “What’s your proof?” There is none. This is just a claim that atheists make without any support at all, generally because it gets Christians riled up and distracted doing all kinds of leg work to refute the claim. Chances are, you won’t make any headway trying to convince an atheist that their claim is bad by providing evidence, but you might actually get him to back away from such a claim by forcing him support it himself.

Are Prophesies Always Fulfilled Literally?

I recently got into a discussion about Biblical prophecy with an acquaintance who happens to be a dispensationalist. The conversation got started when he told me that prophesy “is always fulfilled literally.” To clarify the point he provided an example: If a prophet declares that it’s going to rain on Tuesday, and it doesn’t rain on Tuesday, then he is a false prophet. He can’t suddenly say, “Well, when I said rain I was referring to spiritual raining down of God’s blessings; not actual rain!” He worried that if fulfillments aren’t “literal” then we have no objective way of determining the truth or untruth of any prophesy.

I don’t think that this is the case at all. We simply have to look at a few prophesies given in the Old Testament whose fulfillment is explicitly recorded elsewhere in the Bible to see that his point is mistaken. Let’s take a look at just a few examples of such prophesies:

Isaiah 22:20-23
Then it will come about in that day, That I will summon My servant Eliakim to the son of Hilkiah, And I will clothe him with your tunic And tie your sash securely about him. I will entrust him with your authority, And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. I will drive him like a peg in a firm place, And he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house.

The fulfillment, according to the vision of John, is expounded upon in Revelation 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this…

Although the passage in Isaiah was made about the man Eliakim, in Revelation 3 Jesus claims this prophesy for Himself! This is clearly not a literal fulfillment of Isaiah’s words. Isaiah made his prophesy about someone other than Jesus; in fact, without the passage in Revelation, there would be no reason why anyone would even think to apply Isaiah 22:22 to Christ at all. None of the things which Isaiah predicts for Eliakim ever literally occur during the ministry of Jesus: Jesus never literally had the key to the house of David, nor did He literally shut or open anything of note during his time on earth.

Despite this, Jesus Himself claims that He presently holds the key of David and is the one who opens and the one who shuts. This isn’t about some future time, Jesus says these things are true about Himself now. It seems that the proper understanding of this passage is a spiritual one, not a literal one.

Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

There are several places in the New Testament where the Apostles point out this fulfilled prophesy (Romans 9:33, 10:11, 1 Peter 2:6, Acts 4:11), yet if I were to apply a literal standard to this passage I could not apply this passage to Christ. Jesus was never a literal stumbling stone, certainly not in the wooden sense that my acquaintance forcefully advocated to me.

The fulfillment of this passage is spiritual: Christ is the spiritual foundation of the present spiritual Kingdom of God. For the Jews (and many others today), Christ was and is a stumbling stone in a spiritual sense – they do not want to believe that He is the Messiah they are waiting for. It’s a spiritual hang-up, not a physical one.

Isaiah 8:7-8
And I will wait for the Lord who is hiding His face from the house of Jacob; I will even look eagerly for Him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.

The author of Hebrews references this passage and applies it to Jesus in 2:13. While many actual children came to Jesus during His earthly ministry, they are not what the prophesy is referring to. God does not have physical children in view here, but spiritual Children, the author of Hebrews make this clear in vs. 14 and 15:

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

We become His children when God becomes our Father through our love of Christ, as Christ Himself stated in John 8:42.

I could give more examples of spiritual fulfillments from the prophesies which the Apostles tell us are fulfilled in Christ, but I think these three make my point clearly.

When my acquaintance provided the example of a prophesy for rain on Tuesday, he was articulating a standard which would require that all outsiders would be able, with simple observation, to independently confirm or refute the accuracy of the prophesy. The point of bringing up these three passages from Isaiah is that, in each case, there is nothing for the observer to observe. Without the divinely inspired writing of the Apostles these passages would have no concrete, observable fulfillment that contemporaries of Jesus could have confirmed or denied. That said, the lack of an observable fulfillment does not make these prophesies any less true or any less fulfilled than Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.

So, Where Does This Get Us?

Over the last three posts I have provided three classic cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Over the course of the next several posts I will probably provide you with some more philosophical arguments for God built upon foundations than origins. However, that can come latter. Right now I want to reset just a little bit.

After those three posts you may be saying to yourself, “That was interesting, but what was the point of that? Where does that get us?” If you look back at my original post that begun this topic, you’ll notice that I proposed to examine several points:

1. Is it reasonable to believe that God exists?
2. If such a God did exist, could He communicate with us?
3. Is belief in miracles reasonable?
4. Is the Bible trustworthy?
5. Is the resurrection reasonable?
6. Does the Biblical worldview comport with reality?
7. How does Christianity fare against the other leading worldviews of today?

I believe that those arguments, in part, establish my first point that belief in God is reasonable. I only say ‘in part’ because taken individually they are generally written off by skeptics as mental exercises with little merit. But when presented in groups, especially when you have several arguments which support the conclusion from several different premises, they become far more compelling and more difficult to ignore.

Simply put, the point of thinking about these arguments is that they lead to the conclusion that there must be a being who has the creative abilities that we ascribe to God, based not on passages in the Bible but on reason and observation.

Does this mean that we can throw out the Bible, and follow God solely through reason and observation? Absolutely not. But what it does begin to show is that Christians, whether we know it or not, have good reasons to believe what we believe.

In the next post we'll start examining whether such a God, since it appear probable that He does exist, would or could communicate with His creation.

Why Does Anything Exist?

The final philosophical cosmological argument that I will present here is the Leibnizian Argument. Developed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), I find this the most compelling of all the cosmological arguments.
While many people equate this with the Thomist arguments the metaphysic undergirding this argument is completely different. Instead of asking the question “Did the universe begin to exist,” like the Kalam argument, or “Is there a necessary cause,” like the Thomist argument, the Leibnizian asks the simple question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

In my opinion, this line of reasoning makes the most direct observation of all the cosmological arguments; No fact can be real or existent, no statement true unless there is a sufficient reason why it is so rather than otherwise. In essence, why are we here? Why is anything here at all? Since it is far simpler that nothing should exist (seeing that non-existence requires no explanation, whereas existence requires one), why then does so much exist? This is the question for which Leibniz was searching for an answer.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument:

(1) Something exists.
(2) There must be a sufficient reason or rational basis for why something exists rather than nothing.
(3) This sufficient reason cannot be found in any single thing or in the whole aggregate of things or in the efficient causes for all things.
a. Things in the world are contingent, that is, determined in their being by other things such that if matter and motion were changed, they would not exist.
b. The world is simply the conglomeration of such things and is thus itself contingent.
c. The efficient causes of all things are simply prior state of the world, and these successive states do not explain why there are any states, any world, at all.
(4) Therefore, there must exist outside the world and the states of the world a sufficient reason for the existence of the world.
(5) This sufficient reason will be a metaphysically necessary being, that is, a being whose sufficient reason for existence is self-contained.

At first glance, this argument is harder to follow than the previous two that I posted, however, lets walk through it quickly, and it should become clear.

The first and second points are obvious, clearly something exists rather nothing, and we know that things that exist require reasons for their existence (whether we know what those reasons are or not). Point (3) begins clearly enough, with the observation that the reason for the existence of everything cannot be found in any one thing that exists, or even in the total collection of things that exist.

The sub-points of (3) are where the argument generally becomes confusing; however, if you keep in mind that the sub-points are only there to justify the point that they go with, it may be easier to follow. Essentially, what these points attempt to justify is that the necessary cause (remember the Thomist Argument in the last post) cannot be found in the universe, or in the total collection of things that make up the universe. These arguments don’t look at the reason for any one thing, but ask instead why anything exists rather than nothing. Thus, since the argument concludes that the reason for the existence of anything (and everything) can’t be found with the physical universe we must look beyond into the non-physical world, to find the necessary reason why we, and everything else, exist.

I will leave it up to you to decide what one should call a non-physical, necessary being, who is the reason for everything that exists.

We Require a "Necessary" Cause

As I hinted at in the last post, there are many different cosmological arguments that have been made over the years, some more persuasive than others. It probably won't come as a shock to anyone to discover that Thomas Aquinas is responsible for several of the most well known arguments.

All of the Thomist arguments are variations on a common theme, Thomas Aquinas was looking for a "first cause" for the universe, but not in a time related sense. He was looking for a "First Cause" in terms of rank. What this means is that the thing that causes must be"big enough" to adaquetely explain the resulting thing that is caused. If the thing that is caused is everything that exists, then it's cause must truly be substantial. In the case of the Thomist arguments, that thing which causes everything else must be so big, so all encompassing, that it transcends the status of "possible" and thus must have the status of a "necessary" thing.

What does this mean?

Everything you see around you is "possible," but not "necessary." Is the world such that the specific chair you are sitting in, or even you yourself, HAVE to exist? Certainly both you and the chair are "possible" since you and it exist, but could the world have been otherwise such that you or that chair did not exist? Of course it could. That is what is meant by "possible," but not "necessary." Is there anything that is absolutely necessary, such that there could be no conceivable world where that thing did not exist? That is the definition of a "necessary" thing, or being, and the question that Thomas Aquinas was trying to answer.

Below is the Thomist argument that I find most compelling:

(1) We see in the world things that exist but do not have to exist, that is to say, their existence is not necessary but merely possible, for we see them coming into and out of being.

(2) All things cannot be merely possible things, because:

(a) If a thing is merely possible, then at some time it did not exist.

(b) And if all things were merely possible, then at some time all things did not exist: there was nothing.

(c) But if at one time nothing existed, then nothing would exist now because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence.

(d) But this contradicts observation.

(e) Therefore, all things cannot be merely possible things; there must be something that is necessary.

I have to add a brief comment about point (b). The argument rests on this point, and this will probably be the area where the natural materialist picks his fight. However, because of the nearly universal acceptance of the "Big Bang," natural materialists will not be able to make a strong case that there was a moment in the past when nothing existed. While there have been a few attempts to incorporate the "Big Bang" into theories of an eternal universe (these theories paint a picture of a universe expanding and then reversing to collapse on itself, which in turn causes another "Big Bang," which is followed by another outward expansion, repeated endlessly into eternity) such theories have mostly received little attention and cannot be confirmed, verified, or even refuted in any way, due to our inability to see beyond the Planck Boundary. Such theories with so little to offer scientifically will never rise to a level of importance beyond "sideshow curiosity," and are thus unimportant.

That said, I think the rest of the argument is beyond reproach.

So, if the argument is true then there is such a "necessary" thing. What does that mean? It means that whatever this "necessary" thing is, it is responsible for everything else that exists. Most of us would call such a necessary thing, or being, God.

In the Beginning...

Over the next several posts I would like to present what I consider to be several compelling philosophical arguments for the existence of a God.

Let’s get started with the classic cosmological arguments. What is a cosmological argument, you ask? A cosmological argument makes the case for God from “universal causation;” that is, it is an argument based on the beginning of the universe. It will probably make more sense once you’ve seen one.

Cosmological Arguments – The Kalam Argument

The Kalam argument was originated by medieval Islamic theologian Al-Ghazali, and is probably the most well known of all the philosophical arguments for God.

(1) Everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its origin.
(2) The world began to exist.
a. There are temporal phenomena in the world
b. These are preceded by other temporal phenomena
c. The series of temporal phenomena cannot regress infinitely because an actually existing infinite series involves various absurdities.
d. Therefore, the series of temporal phenomena must have had a beginning.
(3) Therefore, the world has a cause for its origin: it’s creator.

In plain English, this argument begins with the recognition that nothing comes into being without a cause. That chair you’re sitting on, the computer you’re reading this on, even the rock used in the foundation of your house, all have a cause, whether we can discover it or not.

The next step recognizes that the universe has a beginning before which nothing existed.

The four sub-steps following (2) establish the heart of the argument. In case you didn’t know, “temporal phenomena” are simply occurrences in time; your alarm clock going off on Monday morning would be an example. In fact, everything that happens in this universe is an example of “temporal phenomena.” As we work our way backward through time, we discover that every event was preceded by other events, creating a long series of events over the course of time.

For a moment, suppose the universe had no beginning. If this was the case, then the series of “temporal phenomena,” would stretch away into the past forever – an infinite series of events. The problem is, while infinity may be useful in math, it is actually an “irrational number,” that is, a number that can’t exist. It’s literally absurd.

Allow me to demonstrate: The planet Mercury orbits the Sun once every 88 days while the planet Neptune orbits the Sun once every 60,189 days. Working under the assumption that the universe has no beginning, which planet, Mercury or Neptune, has accumulated more complete orbits of the Sun to date? The natural response would be to say Mercury (after all, it orbits the Sun approximately 684 times for every single orbit of Neptune), but that answer is wrong. Given an eternally existing universe, the correct answer would be “neither,” both would have completed an infinite number orbits.

Because of such absurdities as this one, Al-Ghazali came to the conclusion that the series of “temporal phenomena” must have a beginning, and that beginning had to be the advent of the universe. Going back to (1), everything that begins to exist must have a cause, now having established that the universe itself began to exist, we realize that it too must have a cause and that cause could only be God.

Belief in Unicorns = Belief in Christ?

Do you ever wonder what sets Christianity apart from other belief systems? Is Christianity truly more worthy of consideration than other religions we simply call myths today? What got me thinking about this was a conversation I recently heard on Dennis Prager’s radio show on May 13^th, 2008. During the third hour Mr. Prager was dialoging with callers about the lack of doubt among atheists on the question of God’s existence when an atheist called up and said (I'm paraphrasing), “Of course we don’t have any doubt. Do you ever doubt the non-existence of unicorns? No you don’t. We see the existence of God the same way you see unicorns.”

This got me thinking. Is what the atheist caller said valid? What would you say to such a person? For the one who doesn’t already follow Christ, is there any reason why Christianity should be given more consideration than other religious systems, such as ancient paganism? After thinking about it for the last several weeks I have come to a conclusion:

Whether you believe in Christianity or not, there are good, objective reasons why this system stands alone on the world stage as being worthy of consideration.

There are a number of reasons that I make such a claim, although I will not be able to touch on them adequately in this post. I guess that means that I will be starting another series to flesh out my thoughts on why Christianity should be considered before other systems, and even if rejected, cannot be put in the same class as unicorns, ancient pagan religions, or even other modern alternatives.

Regarding religious systems, you’ve probably heard people say things to the effect of, “Religions are matters of faith, and matters of faith cannot be proved or disproved.” If what such a claimant means is that it may not be possible to prove the existence of God conclusively enough to sway the hardened skeptic, then I have to agree. However, all religious systems make claims about history and the way the world is that can be checked against what we know about these subjects. If we begin checking such claims and find that, over and over again, the claims don’t comport with reality, then we probably have good reason to reject the system making the claims.

For instance, Hinduism makes the basic claim that the world is an illusion and that we are all figments in the imagination of the divine unconsciousness. Because of this basic Hindu claim, I feel safe in rejecting Hinduism as a whole because the system simply doesn’t agree with reality. If you and I are only figments of some cosmic unconsciousness then why are we aware of ourselves? When you dream, the characters in your dreams don’t have individual consciousness or awareness, they don’t think they exist nor do they know they don’t exist.

To make this as simple as possible, ask yourself this question: Does Mickey Mouse know that he’s a cartoon character? No. In fact, there isn’t even a “he” there, the cartoon character is a figment of the imagination, transferred to film, of Walt Disney. As you and I are aware ourselves we can safely say that we are not figments of anyone’s imagination; or as René Descartes would say, “Cogito ergo sum” (best known as, “I think therefore I am,” but better translated as, “I am thinking therefore I exist”).

Over the next several weeks, I will be attempting to build a case for the reasonableness of Christianity, starting with it’s most basic claims and building upon each post with more and more specific and detailed claims that Christianity makes about world around us. My current schedule (as I’m making it up in head as I write this) will look something like this:

1. Is it reasonable to believe that God exists?
2. If such a God did exist, could He communicate with us?
3. Is belief in miracles reasonable?
4. Is the Bible trustworthy?
5. Is the resurrection reasonable?
6. Does the Biblical worldview comport with reality?
7. How does Christianity fare against the other leading worldviews of today?

Anyone who has done much reading in the area of theistic Philosophy will recognize these questions and will probably be familiar with most of the answers. However, I hope that my presentation might be somewhat unique in that I am attempting to put these questions together in such a way as to build a progressive case for the validity and the truthfulness of Christianity as opposed to it’s competitors today and other myths.

I have my work cut out for me.

New "Documentary" Questions the Resurrection

Academy Award winning director James “Titanic” Cameron’s latest work, “The Lost Tomb of Christ,” will be airing March 4th, 2007, on the Discovery Channel. In it the director and creator of the FOX series “Dark Angel” and the "Terminator" movies, claims that 10 ancient ossuaries, or small caskets used to store bones, discovered in Jerusalem approximately 25 years ago may have contained, among others, the bones Jesus of Nazareth.

I read about this “documentary,” for the first time only this morning (February 26, 2007) in a brief article by Marshall Thompson of the Associated Press entitled, “Scholars, Clergy Slam Jesus Documentary.”

According to this article, Mr. Cameron even goes so far as to suggest that one of the other ossuaries found with the one which allegedly contained the bones of Jesus, was inscribed with the words “Judah, son of Jesus,” thus “proving” that Jesus even had a son.

Apparently, the Cameron piece is not the first work to cover these particular ossuaries. Ten years ago the BBC ran a similar documentary making the same claims. Mr. Thompson writes in his article that Amos Kloner, the first archeologist to examine the burial site where these ossuaries where found is saying the same now regarding the Cameron work that he when the BBC produced their piece.

“They just want to get money for it,” states Mr. Kloner, adding that the idea does not hold up to archeological standards.

So far, there appears to be little to no scholarly support, from any arena, for the ideas and theories of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” as they were put forward in the press release issued by the Discovery Channel.

This is nothing new. It seems like we Christians are taking these types of hits from such high-profile sources about every 3-6 months these days. Fortunately, this new “documentary” sounds like a lightweight hit piece; I’ll be looking forward to finding out more about it as the broadcast date approaches.

I only have two real comments at this time, the first about the documentary, and the second regarding the one pastor’s response to the show as he is quoted by the AP writer, Mr. Thompson:

First, even if the ossuary bears the name “Jesus” (transliterated, of course), it does not prove anything. The name “Jesus” was one of the more common names of that time among the Jews; it was, after all, the contemporary equivalent of the more ancient form of “Joshua,” arguably the most revered Jewish leader of the Nation of Israel next to King David. This “Jesus” is just one among hundreds or thousands of other individuals of the same name that lived in early first century Israel.

Frankly, if James Cameron is trying to make the case that this ossuary is that of Jesus of Nazareth, he is either very ignorant, has a great deal of prejudice against Christianity, or has some other evidence that this article fails to mention. I will withhold judgment on which it is until after the documentary is broadcast.

Second, Attallah Hana, orthodox clergyman in Jerusalem made the following statement as reported by AP writer Marshall Thompson:“The historical, religious and archaeological evidence show that the place where Christ was buried is the Church of the Resurrection…[this documentary] contradicts the religious principles and the historic and spiritual principles that we hold tightly to.”

The article demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the point that (hopefully) most Christians will make about this documentary in his selection of this one statement from Mr. Hana. This statement is simply explicatory; describing the nature of the claim Mr. Cameron is promoting, rather than addressing the substance of the claim. Christians (I hope) shouldn’t care whether the documentary “contradicts the religious principles…[that Christians] hold tightly to;” I hope we would care whether the claims are true or not. If they are true then I for one want to know, as I would rather not waste my time following a false religion. If they are not true (and I would bet a great deal of money that all such claims Mr. Cameron will make in the documentary are not only false but rather silly and ridiculous as well) then we should let everyone know exactly why the documentary is wrong and then go about our business, as the documentary will be forgotten in less than two months time (although, rabid anti-Christians will continue to tout the documentary as proof of the bankruptcy Christianity for months, and possibly years to come).

Let’s not get worked up about this, if it’s stupid (as it probably will be) then we Christians can pretty much ignore it. If it has some substance, then we can do what we did with the “Da Vinci Code” and methodically take it apart with good scholarship. Either way, it should be interesting coming from a skilled filmmaker like James Cameron. I’ll keep you updated as I find out more.