I was having a debate with a young Jesus mythicist (who finally admitted that Jesus probably did exist as a historical person) who made the following true remark:
Anyone can write anything they want in a book. It does not make it true.
That is correct. That is why we look to historians who are experts in ancient history to answer questions about what really happened in the first century. We ought to consult someone who knows something about methodology in determining reliable historical records and so on.
However, if we want to know if Jesus is the Son of God, historians cannot help us. That is a question for theologians. Credentialed historians should tell us if Jesus existed. Theologians should tell us if the Bible presents Him as the Son of God. They can explain to us what the scriptures actually say.
The problem, of course, is that liberals use whatever suits their argument. They often use history to comment on His deity and theology to comment on His historicity. That is backwards.
Not only do the Historical Critics deny Jesus was divine, but they deny that the Gospel writers themselves thought of Him as divine. The convolutions they have to go through to get the Gospel writers to say what they want them to say are astounding. If my skeptical friends were simply to study this without an agenda, or without setting out to prove or disprove Christian doctrine, they’d realize how bad liberal theology really is.
To get some background in this, I’d like you to watch two videos we made:
If you like the videos, you might consider ordering The Real Jesus DVD.
Obviously, I haven’t read every work by every liberal critic from the Enlightenment onward. I have read a good deal of the Church Fathers who wrote closest to the time of the New Testament to see what they thought about the writings that were penned very close to their own generation.
The skeptical scholars almost ignore the Church Fathers. I would think they would at least say Jesus was an observant rabbi who convinced His followers that He was the Messiah and then Jesus’ theology was preserved in the form of Gospels and Epistles.
But they don’t even go that far.
Instead they say that the Gospels were written too late to be by people who knew or heard Jesus. That makes no sense. In fact, I consider this to be absurd. It would be like a church group today not being able to personally know their founders who lived in the 1950s and ’60s. Obviously, some would be alive still who would remember them well. But the liberals pretend that there is a vast wall of ignorance that can be erected over a 40 to 50 year period.
I simply don’t get the logic of this argument.
They treat a few decades as though there were centuries of darkness between the time of Jesus’ disciples and the writings of the New Testament that were then delivered to the next generation.
Conservatives have often conceded to dates for New Testament books that are a decade or two later than the traditional view of 20 to 35 years after Jesus, simply because it matters so little to our case. Forty to sixty years later is still fairly close.
But in fact, the liberals offer no shred of evidence against the idea that most of the New Testament could not have been written very early on by the very authors whose identities were known and agreed upon by all who received the writings.
In the 1800s, liberal Historical Criticism emerged with the presupposition that the New Testament was written in the second century — even the late second century. That view has since been shattered by real documentary evidence. Now the latest they can go and still be taken seriously is a window of 70 to 100 AD — usually placing the three synoptic Gospels prior to 85 AD.
Unbiased liberals who have looked at the internal, external and documentary evidence have often come to the conclusion that the entire New Testament could have been composed between 40 to 70 AD. There is certainly no evidence against it.
And yet some still act as if those few decades were a wall of silence that denies the possibility of much factual transmission of history.
John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, for instance, proposes that Jesus was a nobody who just happened to stumble into Jerusalem one day with the idea of revolution and that He accidently got crucified and had no idea upon His death that He had founded what would become a world religion. The Gospels then developed somehow as a collection of Jesus’ sayings — 80 percent of which He never said — and Jesus himself would be startled and upset if He knew what His followers had come up with.
I don’t claim to be a scholar, but I recognize this as some of the worst and most biased scholarship ever concocted. It is not convincing because there is not a shred of literary evidence for this in any of the New Testament writings and even among the surviving works of the church fathers up until 115 AD, which is fairly voluminous.
In my world, if I read a book that says that Ronald Reagan was shot near the heart early during his presidency and emerged from the ordeal thinking that God had spared his life in order to defeat communism, I would believe the testimony. If this story were to be reported by a PBS special I saw on television, I’d believe it all the more since it has the quality of being “admission against self-interest” since PBS is not known for their pro-Reagan ideology. I might reserve judgment about whether God really spoke to Reagan, but I’d at least believe the external evidence that Reagan fought communism and the Soviet Union fell.
In their world, Ronald Reagan’s fight against communism was the imaginary quest of a B-Movie actor in the 1950s, who never really became president. The myth of the fall of communism in the Soviet Union was a symbolic narrative composed by a committee of politicians in the Kremlin in the 1960s who admired American movie stars. The later books and television specials that contain the history of Reagan’s presidency were produced and edited by Reaganites who lived after his death. In retelling these fictional romance stories, they developed the myth among their cult.
That in a nutshell is essentially the conservative vs. the liberal view of Jesus.
Further, like those who would want to discredit Ronald Reagan for any positive achievement, the liberals simply hate Jesus.
It would be as if there were a large group of Elizabethan scholars who hate Queen Elizabeth and William Shakespeare and who never write anything except extreme skepticism portraying these legendary figures as fools who somehow got credit for building an empire and penning the greatest dramas ever written.
Occasionally, there is a scholar who still insists Shakespeare never wrote any of his plays or that Elizabeth was an incompetent villain, but these are the minority simply because no one goes into Elizabethan studies with a hatred for the major figures. Despite their obvious flaws, the scholar usually finds quite a few admirable qualities in these personalities.
But there are liberal scholars who detest Jesus of Nazareth. The contempt drips from their writings. I noticed that when I was quite young and I found it odd.
Skepticism serves a purpose in study. However, these people have set out not as scholars, but as fundamentalist atheists with an ax to grind. When I first saw the obvious bias as a college student, it actually served to pique my interest a bit.
Could it actually be that they despise the Son of the Living God, the King of kings, precisely because He is shrouded in the heavens in glory and when they lift their eyes to view His majesty it only exposes their pride-ridden hearts?
I thought it was a distinct possibility. Today I find much of what liberals say either comical or sadly shameful.
It’s the reason why I don’t usually have conversations with too many young postmodernist Jesus mythicists. Not only are they biased, they are also ignorant. They believe the “scholarship” of hack writers who take positions that are even more extreme than the “uber-liberals” of the Jesus Seminar.
Occasionally I will have an extended conversation with someone who is reasonable and is willing to look into the rich cache of Christian literature, which is uninterrupted and consistent from the time of the first Gospels and Epistles to the time when Christianity took hold of the Roman Empire.
I tell them that I cannot “prove” God to them any more than the Word of God has already proved Him. But I think it would be impossible that Christianity could have become so wildly successful so quickly if the Gospel were not true at the core.
It’s an unlikely story, but it is much more unlikely that it did not happen.
«- The Personhood Movement: A Multi-Pronged Pro-Life Strategy
- Real Jesus
-» The Mount Olivet Discourse and Vaticinium Ex Eventu
Your comments are welcome!
“Here I stand … I can do no other!”
With these immortal words, an unknown German monk sparked a spiritual revolution that changed the world.
The dramatic classic film of Martin Luther’s life was released in theaters worldwide in the 1950s and was nominated for two Oscars. A magnificent depiction of Luther and the forces at work in the surrounding society that resulted in his historic reform efforts, this film traces Luther’s life from a guilt-burdened monk to his eventual break with the Roman Catholic Church.
Running time: 105 minutes
Special offer: Order 5 or more for $5 each.
Watch a clip from Martin Luther.
$9.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
Exposing The Occult Roots of Abortion
This presentation looks at the spiritual roots of abortion and exposes the myths surrounding child killing. Little known historical facts about abortion and how they relate to modern feminism are presented logically and accurately. Has been effective in converting many to a pro-life position.
Massacre of Innocence goes where no pro-life presentation has gone before in “tearing the lid off abortion” to reveal the spiritual realities we must battle if we will bring an end to this crime. The presentation is absorbing, fast-paced, informative and incredibly devastating to any attempt to justify abortion.
“… an extraordinary statement … a powerfully articulate presentation about what abortion really means, and why a great and moral nation like the United States must not allow the slaughter to continue.”
— Congressman Robert K. Dornan
Running time: 85 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
What is true Revival and Spiritual Awakening?
Discover the answer in this eyewitness account by Dennis Kinlaw, President of Asbury College, Wilmore, Kentucky, who recounts the story of a visitation of the Holy Spirit in 1970. This is the presentation that has continued to spark the flames of Revival in the hearts of people around the world. Contains eyewitness footage from the Revival at Asbury College in 1970 in Wilmore, Kentucky.
Certain to challenge you to greater holiness and a deeper commitment to full-scale revival. Original news and private footage has been included. If you are a student who longs to see a spiritual awakening at your school, you must see this video!
“This simple video does a wonderful job of conveying something of God’s heart and power, Everyone we have ever shown this to has received an immediate impartation of faith for revival and the power of prayer.”
— Bob and Rose Weiner, Weiner Ministries Int’l
Running Time: 40 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
“When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.” – President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters Convention, January 1981
Ronald Reagan became convinced of this as a result of watching The Silent Scream – a movie he considered so powerful and convicting that he screened it at the White House.
The modern technology of real-time ultrasound now reveals the actual responses of a 12-week old fetus to being aborted. As the unborn child attempts to escape the abortionist’s suction curette, her motions can be seen to become desperately agitated and her heart rate doubles. Her mouth opens – as if to scream – but no sound can come out. Her scream doesn’t have to remain silent, however … not if you will become her voice. This newly re-mastered version features eight language tracks and two bonus videos.
“…a high technology “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” arousing public opinion just as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 antislavery novel ignited the abolitionist movement.” – Sen. Gordon Humphrey, Time Magazine
Languages: English, Spanish, French, South Korean, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, Japanese
Running Time: 28 minutes
$17.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
Download the Free Study Guide!
Just what is Calvinism?
Does this teaching make man a deterministic robot and God the author of sin? What about free will? If the church accepts Calvinism, won’t evangelism be stifled, perhaps even extinguished? How can we balance God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility? What are the differences between historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism? Why did men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards and a host of renowned Protestant evangelists embrace the teaching of predestination and election and deny free will theology?
This is the first video documentary that answers these and other related questions. Hosted by Eric Holmberg, this fascinating three-part, four-hour presentation is detailed enough so as to not gloss over the controversy. At the same time, it is broken up into ten “Sunday-school-sized” sections to make the rich content manageable and accessible for the average viewer.
Running Time: 257 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)