An inclusive invitation that is exclusive...

This week we are addressing the third of these eight common questions skeptics pose as a challenge to Christianity, which is “Is Jesus the only way?" In other words, do Christians believe that there is only one way to God and that everyone who is not a Christian is condemned by God?”

Yesterday we looked at the five most common objections to the claim that Jesus is the only way to experience a right relationship with God. We discovered that there is absolute truth and that everyone believes in absolute truths. And because every religious system believes in its exclusive truth, then only one of two things can be true: either every religious system is wrong or one religious system is right.

The timeless reality is that the message of Christianity is distinctive and unique from every other religious system because it is a message about a unique person-Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is unique in His activity in history that provides humanity the opportunity to experience a relationship with God. Jesus is unique in who He is as God in a bod. And Jesus is unique in that Jesus Himself is the personification of truth.

We see this reality revealed for us in a section of an account of Jesus life in the Bible called the gospel of John. In this section of the gospel of John that we are going to jump into, Jesus is engaged in the final conversation that He would have with His closest followers before His arrest. In this conversation, Jesus has basically told His closest followers that He was leaving them and that where He was going, they could not follow.

Now, at this point, I want us to take a minute and imagine ourselves as one of Jesus closest followers. You left everything, family, friends, career, in order to follow Jesus. And now Jesus is going to bail on you after you have left everything to follow Him because you had come to believe that He was the fulfillment of a promise that God had made to send a rescuer, a deliverer, a Messiah? Imagine yourself as one of Jesus closest followers.

Now what would you be thinking and feeling? “What! What do you mean that we cannot follow you? We left everything to follow you. We leveraged everything to follow you.” As a disciple, your world has been turned upside down. This morning, place yourself in the shoes of one of the disciples. Let’s walk together in those shoes as we see what Jesus has to say next, beginning in John 14:1:

            "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe

            also in Me. "In My Father's   house are many dwelling

            places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to

            prepare a place for you. "If I go and prepare a place for

            you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that

           where I am, there you may be also. "And you know the

           way where I am going."

Jesus explained to the disciples that instead of being disturbed, they should believe in Jesus words. Now when Jesus uses the word believe here, this word is the same word that is also translated trust in our English Bibles. This word literally means to entrust oneself with complete confidence in someone or something. Jesus is saying “You need to trust Me. Just as you are to place your confident trust in God, you need to place your confident trust in Me”.

Jesus then provided the reason why they were to place their confident trust in Him: ^“In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.” Now the disciples had heard this kind of language before.

You see, in Jesus day, this language was used to describe what would happen in a wedding. After becoming engaged, the bridegroom would then go and prepare a place for he and his wife to live, with his family. The bridegroom would basically build an addition on his parent’s house for them to live in. After the addition was completed, bridegroom would then come back in a loud parade-like celebration that would stop at the bride’s house, where they would have the wedding ceremony and reception. The bridegroom would pick the bride up, and take her to be with his family. When Jesus uses the phrase “receive you to myself”, this phrase literally means to take someone into a close association with oneself. Jesus is saying “I am going to take you to myself”.

Now imagine yourself as a disciple. Jesus is using language of getting married, but Jesus does not have a girlfriend. And besides, He is not talking about marrying a girl. Instead, He is talking about you. Jesus has just told you that His Father’s house has many dwelling places and that He is going to prepare a place for you to be able to live in a close intimate association with Him. And if that was not enough, Jesus says that you know the way to His Father’s house. What would you be thinking? We see what Thomas was thinking in verse 5:

Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"

In this question, we see Thomas reveal the confusion that the disciples were feeling. Imagine yourself as Thomas. Earlier Jesus stated that where He was going that they could not come; now Jesus is saying that they know the way where He is going? So which is it? “Jesus, I’m confused. So, can I or can’t I come with you? Jesus, how am I supposed to know the way, when you have never told us the way you are going? And where are you going?”

 You see, Thomas, as the rest of the disciples are thinking of a literal road to a literal house where they never have been, so how are they supposed to know the way there. Jesus, however, is talking about something all together different, as we see in His response in verse 6-7:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

You see, Jesus was not talking about an earthly way to an earthly house. Instead Jesus was talking about the way that one could experience the relationship with God that they were created for, but had been separated from, as a result of selfishness and rebellion. Jesus is saying “I am the way of life; I am the source and embodiment of truth; I am the source by which you can experience forgiveness and the relationship with God that you were created for forever. And there is only way to experience that forgiveness and relationship. No one comes to experience that forgiveness and relationship with God apart from placing their trust in Me. You need to trust Me. Just as you are to place your confident trust in God, you need to place your confident trust in Me. If you really understood who I was as both life and the source of life, you would really understand who God was”.

You see, up to this point, the twelve disciples had not fully grasped the full significance of who Jesus was. The disciples had not fully wrapped their minds around who Jesus was and how He was connected and related to God. However, Jesus explains to the disciples that would change. As this conversation continued, Jesus would continue to blow up their categories when it came to who He was and how He was connected to God. Jesus begins to demolish their categories as another of the disciples asks a question in verse 8:

 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

In other words, Phillip asks “Jesus all you have to do is take us to God and we will be good. So just take us to God already, then things will be clear”. We see Jesus response in verse 9-11:

 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?  "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

In other words, Jesus says “Phillip, where have you been these past three years? How is it that you have not come to the knowledge that I am God. Phillip, I am God in a bod. You see Phillip, I do not need to take you to God, because I am God who has come to you to reveal and explain myself to you.”

When Jesus uses the phrase “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” Jesus is revealing the reality that He is God in a bod. Jesus Christ is the second member of the Triune God. Jesus has the same nature and essence as God the Father. Jesus then backed His statement by explaining that His message and teachings are not of His own initiative. In other words, Jesus is not coming up with what He is saying. Instead, it is God the Father abiding in Me that initiates both His message and His miracles. Now when Jesus uses the word abide here, this word means to not leave a certain sphere of existence, to remain connected.

Jesus here is revealing the reality that He and God the Father are distinct but inseparably related and connected with one another. That is why earlier in the gospel of John, in John 1:18, John stated that the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. Jesus came to earth to reveal and explain God to humanity and to rescue humanity from their selfishness and rebellion.

Now here is a question to consider: What kind of man would make such an arrogant and audacious claim? As C.S. Lewis famously pointed out: Jesus does not allow us to think of Him as simply a good moral teacher. For Jesus claimed to be much more than that. Jesus claimed to be God. And because Jesus claimed to be God  only one of three things can be true of Jesus:

Either he knew that he was not God and deceived people, which would make him a liar, which is not something that a good person would do, or He believed He was God, but he really wasn’t, which would make him a coo-coo for cocoa puffs lunatic, which is not something that is good, or He really was “God in a Bod”, the Messiah, the promised one who provides the one way to be right with God and to enable us to have the relationship with God that we were created for.

So, are Christians being arrogant for believing that there is no other way to God but through Jesus? Or are Christians responding and recognizing the incredible lengths that God has gone to provide us an opportunity to experience forgiveness and the relationship with Him that we were created for through Jesus?

Friday we will answer this question....

“Is Jesus the only way?"

At the church where I serve we are in the middle of a sermon series entitled Skeptic. During this series we are spending our time looking at the eight common questions that skeptics pose as a challenge to the Christian faith. And as we go through this series, our hope and prayer is that we would address these eight common questions that skeptics pose to challenge Christianity in way that answers these questions and that equips us to have confidence and convictions about the nature and character of God and His activity in the world around us.

This week I would like for us to spend our time together addressing the third of these eight common questions skeptics pose as a challenge to Christianity. And that question is this: “Is Jesus the only way? In other words, “do Christians believe that there is only one way to God and that everyone who is not a Christian is condemned by God?”

For the person who asks this skeptical question, the objection to the idea that Jesus is the only way to experience a right relationship with God goes something like this: How can you believe that there is only one way to God and that everyone that is not a Christian is going to Hell because they do not adhere to their religious dogma? How narrow minded and judgmental is that? How can there be only one way to God? I mean, just look at all the different religions out there? Isn't it arrogant to claim that Christianity has the sole grasp on religious truth and a way to experience a relationship with God?”

And this is how Christianity is often perceived in our culture today. And unfortunately, sometimes much of this conversation rings true. Unfortunately, there are Christians who are judgmental, intolerant, close minded, bigoted, and mean spirited. And unfortunately, there have been times in history where Christianity has wrongly attempted to impose their views upon others by force.

In addition, in many ways, there is nothing more offensive to our modern, pluralistic ears than the Christian claim that Jesus Christ alone provides the way to God. And how Christians often articulate that claim often doesn't help, does it? Unfortunately, Christians also fail to represent Jesus well when they talk to others about Him. And these two factors often lead to several objections to the claim that Jesus is the only way to experience a relationship with God.

Today I would like for us to address the five most common objections to the claim that Jesus is the only way to experience a right relationship with God. The first objection to the claim that Jesus is the only way to God sounds something like this: Well Dave, who can know "the truth" about something so vast and mysterious as God? If God is so vast and mysterious as you say, isn't it better to simply understand that people are doing their best to grasp some aspect about the truth of God? Aren’t you being arrogant by claiming that you can know that there is only one way to God and that way is Jesus, if God is so vast and mysterious?

If that objection resonates in your mind, I just want to let you know that you are raising an interesting objection. And if we were having a conversation in the Courtyard coffeehouse, here would be my response: Isn’t is arrogant to claim that the truth about God is much greater than anyone can grasp?

To make the claim that the truth about God is beyond what anyone can grasp is actually an arrogant claim because they are claiming that they are the ones who can see more about God. You see, those who claim that the truth about God is greater than anyone can grasp are actually claiming that they have a knowledge about God that is superior to all others. Those who claim that the truth about God is greater than anyone can grasp are actually claiming that they know absolutely what everybody else only knows partially.

The second objection to the claim that Jesus is the only way to God also addresses the issue of arrogance. This objection sounds something like this: Well Dave, isn’t it arrogant to claim that Christianity has the sole grasp on religious truth and the way to experience a relationship with God? Isn’t it arrogant to say that Jesus is the only way?

If that objection resonates in your mind, here would be my response: The claim that Jesus is the only way to God is only arrogant if it is not true. You see, whether a claim is true or not makes the difference as to whether that claim is arrogant or not.

And intuitively we know this to be true, right? No one claims that someone is arrogant if they claim that water is wet? No one claims that someone is arrogant if they claim that 2 + 2 = 4. And while people can come off as arrogant by how they communicate what they claim to be true, which is wrong, the timeless reality is that whether a claim is true or not makes the difference as to whether that claim is arrogant or not. So the real question is this: is the message of Christianity true? Is the message of Christianity really distinctive from other religions and true as opposed to other religions?

Now this leads to a third objection to the claim that Jesus is the only way to God, which sounds something like this: Well Dave, aren't all religions basically the same? And isn't it more Christian to be humble about other religions and recognize that there may be many paths that lead to God and that ultimately all those paths eventually end up at the same destination, which is a relationship with God?

If that objection resonates in your mind, here would be my response: Anyone who follows any religious system does not believe that all religious systems believe and teach the same thing.  While there is some truth in most religions at a base level, the higher you go in learning the specifics about them, the more contrasts and differences you see in major foundational issues. For example, Muslims know that they differ significantly with Christians and Jews. Buddhists and Jews have a radically different view about the nature of God.

In addition, every religious system believes that they are exclusive. Even atheism, which is a religious system by the way, has a system of beliefs that must be trusted in as being true and right. And because two competing truth claims cannot be equally true; and because every religious system believes in its exclusive truth, then only one of two things can be true: either every religious system is wrong or one religious system is right.

Now that leads to a fourth objection to the claim that Jesus is the only way to God. This objection, when articulated, sounds something like this: Aren’t religious belief culturally conditioned? Shouldn't Christians realize they are Christians because they were brought up in Christian families in America? If they would have been brought up in Morocco, they would be Muslim. If they would have been brought up in India, they would be Hindus. Isn’t religion a result of culture and geography?

If that objection resonates in your mind, here would be my response: If what you are saying is actually true, then aren’t your claims about religion culturally conditioned? For example, pluralism, or the idea that there are many ways or paths to God, is a relatively new phenomenon and has not been popular historically in the world at large. So should someone who is a pluralist be a pluralist because that has not been a culturally evident reality until recently. How can one say that all claims about religion are historically and culturally conditioned except the one that they are making right now? The fact that someone claims to be a pluralist discredits the very claim that religion is culturally conditioned.

The fifth objection to the claim that Jesus is the only way to God sounds something like this: Well Dave, Not only is the Christian claim of the only way to God arrogant: it is also divisive. Isn't religion the cause of the deepest conflicts in the world today? Don't we need to find ways to unite people instead of dividing people? But instead of uniting people, Christians seem to do the opposite with their judgmental, intolerant, close minded bigoted views. And they can be so mean spirited. Can't we just coexist? What about being more tolerant?

If that objection resonates in your mind, here would be my response: When you are arguing for Christians to be tolerant, aren’t you making a claim of having absolute truth? You see, the reason that the argument for tolerance is actually a claim of absolute truth is due to the fact that the definition of tolerance has changed recently in our culture.

Historically, tolerance has been defined as having the right to be wrong. However, in the post-modern, pluralistic culture that we live in today, tolerance is defined as affirming that everyone is right and that nobody is wrong, no matter what they believe or do. So for the pluralist, for the person who believes that there are many ways or paths to God, to dismiss the Christian claim of truth under the banner of tolerance is to make their own claim to absolute truth. And for those who claim that there is no absolute truth, I have a simple question for you: do you believe that absolutely?

You see there is absolute truth. And everyone believes in absolute truths. Now, the problem with this definition of tolerance and the call not to judge is that two competing truths cannot both be true at the same time. For example, take gravity. Now one person could claim that gravity exists; another could claim that gravity does not exist. But both truths cannot be equally true: either gravity exists, or it does not exist.

You see, only in the moral or spiritual realm would anyone think to live life in a way that believes that two competing truths can be equally true. And because every religious system believes in its exclusive truth, then only one of two things can be true: either every religious system is wrong or one religious system is right.

And the timeless reality is that the message of Christianity is distinctive and unique from every other religious system because it is a message about a unique person-Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is unique in His activity in history that provides humanity the opportunity to experience a relationship with God. Jesus is unique in who He is as God in a bod. And Jesus is unique in that Jesus Himself is the personification of truth. We see this reality revealed for us in a section of an account of Jesus life in the Bible called the gospel of John.

Tomorrow we will look at this account together…

Jesus is the God of history who entered into history to explain God and explain to us how we can experience a relationship with God...

Last week, we started addressing the question “Who was Jesus and how can we know?” In other words, “How can we really know who Jesus was? What sort of historical evidence do we have?” We looked at the first type of historical evidence that we have concerning Jesus as a historical figure, which comes from the accounts of Jesus life that are recorded for us in the letters that make up the Bible. We discovered that all of the accounts of Jesus life were written within 30 years of Jesus death, which is hardly enough time for legends to develop.

We looked at another skeptical objection that is often raised, which is that the manuscripts, or copies of these accounts of Jesus life have been corrupted or altered and therefore cannot be trusted as being reliable. We discovered that if you are going to maintain that Homer wrote Iliad and that we can trust that work; if you are going to maintain that we can trust the accuracy of Caesar’s the Gallic Wars, then we must hold the same view of the letters that make up the New Testament of the Bible.

Another skeptical objection is that the writers of these accounts of Jesus life were only concerned about was making sure that people believed Jesus spiritually, not who Jesus was in history. In other words, the Bible is about religious and spiritual stuff and is not accurate historically. However, we discovered that one gospel writer, Luke, is universally recognized, by skeptics and followers of Jesus alike, as being a scrupulously accurate historian. One archaeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, without finding a single error.  As a matter of fact, many have credited the gospel of Luke as being one of the most beautiful and historically accurate pieces of literature ever written.

We discover that when we read the accounts of Jesus life is that the story of Jesus in history is a part of a much larger story of God’s activity in history. In the Old Testament of the Bible, we discover that God had promised a man named Abraham, who was the person from which the Jewish nation descended from, that through his offspring that all the nations would be blessed. In addition, God had promised the Jewish nation’s most famous king, King David, that one of his descendants would be the Messiah. So the Jewish people were looking for the descendant of Abraham, from the line of David that would be the promised Messiah who would bring the Jewish people back to God and back to prominence in the world as He ushered in the Kingdom of God here on earth.

And throughout Jesus life, Jesus repeated talked about the kingdom of God. However, how Jesus talked about the kingdom of God and His role in the kingdom of God was very different than what the Jewish people had come to believe about the kingdom of God. You see, the Jewish people of Jesus day believed that the Messiah would be a political and military leader who was going to kick the Romans out and bring them back to God and back to prominence in the world.

However, Jesus seemed to have no interest in bringing judgment on the Roman Empire. As a matter of fact, Jesus had no interest in even judging people from within the Jewish nation that lived in rebellion against God. Instead, Jesus seemed to be saying the He came on a different mission, to provide a different and deeper deliverance. And Jesus unwillingness to follow the script when it came to what the Jewish people expected Him to do as the Messiah was not the only problem. In addition, Jesus had the audacity to call God His Father. Jesus had the audacity to claim that He was equal to God.

Jesus was eventually arrested, tried, convicted, and crucified. And for Jesus closest followers, at that moment, all their hopes and dreams for a new kingdom of God died with Jesus. It seemed that all that Jesus had promised concerning the opportunity to enter into a new covenant, or agreement, with God that would result in a right relationship with God died with Jesus. Like all the would-be Messiah’s before Him, Jesus was now dead.

And if that is how the story had ended, if that is what happened in history, there would be no Christian church, there would be no Christians. But that is not what happened. Instead, shortly after His crucifixion and burial, Jesus followers were proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead.

Now, a natural objection that any skeptic could make at this point is this: Well, Dave, that is what his disciples said. How do we know that they were telling the truth? How do we know that they did not just make all of it up? If that skeptical question or objection is running through your mind, my response would be this: When people make up a story that they are a part of, do they tell the story in a way that makes them look better or worse than what actually happened?

When we look at the accounts of Jesus life, death, and resurrection as contained in the letters that make up the Bible, we discover that these accounts do not place His followers in the best possible light. Actually, the accounts do the exact opposite

In addition, all that the enemies of these early followers of Jesus had to do to silence them and destroy their new movement in history that we know today as the church would be to produce Jesus dead and decaying body for everyone to see. After all, they knew where Jesus was buried, as they had the tomb guarded by Roman Soldiers. You see, these early followers of Jesus viewed Jesus as a historical figure who was crucified and killed in an event from history, and who was raised from the dead as a historical event. These early followers of Jesus talked about Jesus resurrection of the dead as a historical reality that was witnessed by other people who lived in history.

You see, for Paul and other followers of Jesus, Christianity was not simply about doctrine, theology, or philosophy. Instead Christianity, at its core, was about an event that occurred in history. We see this reality revealed for us in a section of a letter that was written to an early church that is recorded for us in the New Testament of the Bible called the book of 1 Corinthians. So let’s look at this section of this letter beginning in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,  

In these verses we see Paul remind a first century church that was located in Corinth Greece that what was of first importance; what is the closed handed and non-negotiable center of the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ, who is God in an bod, entered into humanity and allowed Himself to be treated as though He lived our selfish and sinful lives so that God the Father could treat us as though we lived Jesus perfect life. Jesus Christ died after being crucified. Paul then states that not only that Christ died for our sins; Paul also states that He was buried. Now the reason that Jesus was buried was because He was dead. Jesus was crucified by professional executioners and these men knew a dead person when they saw one.

When Paul uses the phrase according to the Scriptures, he is reminding us that Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection was predicted and proclaimed in the Old Testament. When Paul talks about resurrection here, he is referring to a literal, physical, bodily resurrection. Jesus died on the cross, was buried in a tomb dead as a door nail, and was brought back to life as a result of God’s transforming activity.

You see the core message of the gospel; the essence of Christianity is not about theology. The core message of the gospel and the essence of Christianity revolves around an event that occurred in history. What makes the Bible so compelling and different than other religious literature is that Christianity is rooted in history. These are real events that occurred in real time and at real places that you can visit today.

What we believe about God, or our theology, flows from events that occurred in history. And as Paul continued his letter to this early church, we see Paul point to those who were witnesses to the resurrection. So let’s look at the response of each of these witnesses, beginning in 1 Corinthians 15:5:

            and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Now it is important to understand that when Paul uses the word appeared, he is not referring to seeing Jesus is a dream or vision; this word refers to an actual visual encounter with the Risen from the dead Jesus Christ. Paul then provides a list of people who had an encounter with Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

First, in verse 5, Paul lists Peter, who had denied Jesus three times while he stood outside his trial. Paul then lists the remaining eleven disciples. And while one could easily argue or question the truthfulness of the testimony of his closest followers, as Paul continues by expanding the scope of who had an encounter with the risen Lord in verse 6:

After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

Here we see Paul explain that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people at one time, most of who were still living. Paul is saying to the church “if you do not want to believe me or the disciples, then go ask these five hundred people. Do you think five hundred people would have the same dream or vision at the same time?” Paul’s point here is that there were people who were still alive that could testify as to the reality of the resurrection.

You see, this letter to this early church was not written hundreds of years after the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. This letter was written within 25 years of the events that took place that first Easter Sunday outside of the city of Jerusalem. And while some had fallen asleep, in other words died, the vast majority of those who had this encounter with Jesus were still alive and could be questioned by any skeptic who did not necessarily buy the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. And as Paul continued his list of people who had this encounter in history with the resurrected Jesus, we find a most convincing name mentioned next in verse 7:

            then He appeared to James,

Paul then explains that James, the half-brother of Jesus, the same James who had mocked Jesus claims during His life on earth, he saw the resurrected Lord. The same James who became the Senior Pastor at the church that was located in Jerusalem.

Now here is a question that would help provide us some perspective on how significant James is to this claim that Jesus rose from the dead: What would your half-brother have to do in order for you to believe that He was God? What would cause someone to worship His brother and serve as a leader in His new movement called Christianity? But not only did Jesus appear to James, Jesus also appeared to another group of people:

then to all the apostles;

Paul then explains that Jesus also appeared to all of the Apostles, which we read about in another letter in our Bibles, called the Book of Acts, in Acts 1:1-11. It is important to understand that these appearances did not occur decades or years after Jesus crucifixion, they occurred within 40 days of His crucifixion. In addition, these appearances occurred in Jerusalem, within sight of the very place where Jesus was killed and buried. Paul then concluded his list with an autobiography, which we see in 1 Corinthians 15:8-11:

and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Here we see Paul refer to his own encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road, which we read about in Acts 9. This morning, think of it this way: what else do you think would cause someone like Paul who persecuted the church to become the greatest missionary of the early church? What else would cause someone who zealously opposed the movement known as Christianity to become the very person who wrote the majority of what we know as the New Testament in our Bibles? Paul’s point is that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical reality that was witnessed by hundreds of people over forty days’ time.

Again, all that was needed to stop the fledgling movement that was Christianity was to produce Jesus dead and rotting corpse for all to see. They did not have to travel far. And they did not need to search for where Jesus was buried, as Jesus tomb was just outside the city of Jerusalem and had been previously guarded by Roman soldiers. And for 2,000 years people have been trying to find Jesus corpse, with absolutely no success, because the reality is that Jesus has been raised from the dead by God’s supernatural activity. And it was the reality of God’s activity through an event that occurred in history that resulted in the transformation of lives and the spread of the claims of Christ and the message of the gospel throughout history.

What I find so interesting is that virtually no one denies that Jesus existed. Both secular and religious historians agree that Jesus was a historical person. This leads us to the second type of historical evidence that we have concerning Jesus as a historical figure, which comes from the writing of historians who lived in the first century.

For example, The Jewish historian Josephus wrote a non-biblical historical account in the first century A.D. that substantiated that Jesus did live and was said to be the Christos, or Messiah. In addition, the Roman historian Tacitus referred to the death of Jesus by crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate and the existence or early Christians in his historical work, the Annals, which was written within 80 years of Jesus death. 

You see, the vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus is a historical figure. And the vast majority of people, across continents and cultures, across various religious systems, believe that Jesus was a good moral teacher that had many great things to say about life. And it is here that we discover the timeless answer to the skeptical question “Who was Jesus and how can we know?” And that timeless answer is this: Jesus is the God of history who entered into history to explain God and explain to us how we can experience a relationship with God.  

The timeless reality is that people do not differ when it comes to whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. Where people differ when it comes to Jesus is not about His life; where people differ when it comes to Jesus is not about His death; where people differ when it comes to Jesus is whether or not He was raised from the dead. Throughout history, humanity has disagreed as to whether Jesus was really brought back to life and lives for all eternity as God in a bod. And just as it was for Jesus closest followers, Jesus still asks a timeless question that requires a response. And that question is this: Who do you say that I am?

You see for Peter to proclaim that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, he was proclaiming that Jesus was his Lord and Leader. Peter was pledging his allegiance to trust and follow Jesus. And that is why this timeless question that is asked by Jesus to all humanity is so personal. That is why this timeless question that is asked by Jesus is the most important question that any human being will ask and answer.

The possibility that God has acted in history through Jesus in a way that provides us the opportunity for forgiveness and rescue so that we can experience a relationship with God places us face to face with the reality that we have to take what Jesus said seriously when it comes to how one experiences a relationship with God.

And it is this reality that leads us to the next skeptical question that we will look at this week…

The story of Jesus within the story of God...

This week we are addressing the second of these eight common questions that those who are skeptical pose as a challenge to Christianity, which is: “Who was Jesus and how can we know?” In other words, “How can we really know who Jesus was? What sort of historical evidence do we have?”

We discovered that the first type of historical evidence that we have concerning Jesus as a historical figure comes from the accounts of Jesus life that are recorded for us in the letters that make up the Bible.  And while one may object by saying that you can’t use the Bible to prove things in the Bible, all of the accounts of Jesus life were written within 30 years of Jesus death, which is hardly enough time for legends to develop. After all, people were still alive who could confront any falsehoods that would have been stated in the accounts. By contrast, some of the other gospel accounts of Jesus life that we hear about, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were written in the early second century or later.

Another skeptical objection that is often raised is that the manuscripts, or copies of these accounts of Jesus life have been corrupted or altered and therefore cannot be trusted as being reliable. However, we discovered that if you are going to maintain that Homer wrote Iliad and that we can trust that work; if you are going to maintain that we can trust the accuracy of Caesar’s the Gallic Wars, based on manuscript evidence, then we must hold the same view of the letters that make up the New Testament of the Bible.

Another skeptical objection is that the writers of these accounts of Jesus life were only concerned about was making sure that people believed Jesus spiritually, not who Jesus was in history. Again, one archaeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, without finding a single error.  As a matter of fact, many have credited the gospel of Luke as being one of the most beautiful and historically accurate pieces of literature ever written.

So if these writers were interested in proclaiming who Jesus was in history, then what do they say about Jesus? What we discover when we read the accounts of Jesus life is that the story of Jesus in history is a part of a much larger story of God’s activity in history. In the Old Testament of the Bible, we discover that God had promised a man named Abraham, who was the person from which the Jewish nation descended from, that through his offspring that all the nations would be blessed.

In addition, God had promised the Jewish nation’s most famous king, King David, that one of his descendants would be the Messiah. So the Jewish people were looking for the descendant of Abraham, from the line of David that would be the promised Messiah who would bring the Jewish people back to God and back to prominence in the world as He ushered in the Kingdom of God here on earth.

And throughout Jesus life, Jesus repeated talked about the kingdom of God. And when Jesus asked His closest followers “Who do people say that I am?” Peter responded by proclaiming that He believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s promise to send the Messiah.

However, how Jesus talked about the kingdom of God and His role in the kingdom of God was very different than what the Jewish people had come to believe about the kingdom of God. You see, the Jewish people of Jesus day believed that the Messiah would be a political and military leader who was going to kick the Romans out and bring them back to God and back to prominence in the world.

However, Jesus seemed to have no interest in bringing judgment on the Roman Empire. As a matter of fact, Jesus had no interest in even judging people from within the Jewish nation that lived in rebellion against God. Instead, Jesus seemed to be saying the He came on a different mission, to provide a different and deeper deliverance. And Jesus unwillingness to follow the script when it came to what the Jewish people expected Him to do as the Messiah was not the only problem. In addition, Jesus had the audacity to call God His Father. Jesus had the audacity to claim that He was equal to God.

Jesus challenged the Jewish religious system and its misguided and corrupt leaders and proclaimed that He was able to rebuild and restore that broken system in three days. In the last week of His life, as Jesus and His disciples celebrated the Passover, Jesus changed the script. Instead of celebrating the Passover like it had always been done, Jesus took the unleavened bread and said "this is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me". Then Jesus took the wine and went off the script again. Jesus made an incredibly strange statement: "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

After celebrating the Passover feast and after praying for His followers throughout history, Jesus and His closest followers went to a garden called the Garden of Gethsemane. Judas, who was one of the twelve disciples, but who had chosen to reject and betray Jesus, completed His act of betrayal by leading between 300 and 600 Roman soldiers to the garden in order to arrest Jesus. Jesus was then summarily tried, convicted, and crucified.

And for Jesus closest followers, at that moment, all their hopes and dreams for a new kingdom of God died with Jesus. It seemed that all that Jesus had promised concerning the opportunity to enter into a new covenant, or agreement, with God that would result in a right relationship with God died with Jesus. Like all the would-be Messiah’s before Him, Jesus was now dead. And if that is how the story had ended, if that is what happened in history, there would be no Christian church, there would be no Christians.

But that is not what happened. Instead, shortly after His crucifixion and burial, Jesus followers were proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead. Now, a natural objection that any skeptic could make at this point is this: Well, Dave, that is what his disciples said. How do we know that they were telling the truth? How do we know that they did not just make all of it up?

If that skeptical question or objection is running through your mind, my response would be this: When people make up a story that they are a part of, do they tell the story in a way that makes them look better or worse than what actually happened? For example, think of fishing stories. Do people say I caught a fish that was two inches long and weighed six ounces, when in actuality that had caught a 18 inch 5 pound fish? No, they don’t; usually the story works the other way right. Usually the story goes something like this “I caught a fish that was this big, when I reality it was only this big. And over time the fish gets bigger right. The fish gets bigger because the fish story is designed to make us look better that what we really are and to put us in the most positive light, right.

So do the accounts of Jesus life, death, and resurrection as contained in the letters that make up the Bible make His followers look better than they really are and put His followers in the best possible light? When we look at the accounts of Jesus life, death, and resurrection as contained in the letters that make up the Bible, we discover that these accounts do not place His followers in the best possible light. Actually, the accounts do the exact opposite. Let me give you a few examples for you to consider.

First, none of the accounts of Jesus life, death, and resurrection portray Jesus closest followers standing outside the tomb on the first Easter morning, waiting for Him to rise from the dead. There wasn’t a crowd outside the tomb having a countdown as the sun rose that first Easter Sunday. Instead, the accounts of Jesus life portray His followers as hiding in a locked upper room in fear of their lives.

In addition, the accounts of Jesus life tell us that the first people to see Jesus after He was raised from the dead were women. Now the reason why this matters is because in the Jewish culture of the first century, the testimony of women had little to no standing in a court of law. So to fabricate and make up such a story would not increase its acceptance and credibility, it would do the opposite. Such a story would decrease its credibility.

In addition, all that the enemies of these early followers of Jesus had to do to silence them and destroy their new movement in history that we know today as the church would be to produce Jesus dead and decaying body for everyone to see. After all, they knew where Jesus was buried, as they had the tomb guarded by Roman Soldiers.

You see, these early followers of Jesus viewed Jesus as a historical figure who was crucified and killed in an event from history, and who was raised from the dead as a historical event. These early followers of Jesus talked about Jesus resurrection of the dead as a historical reality that was witnessed by other people who lived in history. You see, for Paul and other followers of Jesus, Christianity was not simply about doctrine, theology, or philosophy.

Instead Christianity, at its core, was about an event that occurred in history. We see this reality revealed for us in a section of a letter that was written to an early church that is recorded for us in the New Testament of the Bible called the book of 1 Corinthians.

Tomorrow we will look at this section of this letter...

Who was Jesus and how can we know?

At the church where I server, we are in the middle of a sermon series entitled Skeptical. During this series we are spending our time looking at the eight common questions that skeptics pose as a challenge to the Christian faith. And as we go through this series, our hope and prayer is that we would address these eight common questions that skeptics pose to challenge Christianity in way that answers these questions and that equips us to have confidence and convictions about the nature and character of God and His activity in the world around us.

This week I would like for us to address the second of these eight common questions that those who are skeptical pose as a challenge to Christianity. And that question is this: “Who was Jesus and how can we know?” In other words, “How can we really know who Jesus was? What sort of historical evidence do we have?”

The first type of historical evidence that we have concerning Jesus as a historical figure comes from the accounts of Jesus life that are recorded for us in the letters that make up the Bible. In the letters that make up the Bible, we have four accounts of Jesus life that were all written within the lifetime of those who knew Jesus.

Two of the accounts of Jesus life, called the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of John, were written by individuals who were His closest followers and were eyewitnesses to all that Jesus said and did in history. The other two accounts of Jesus life, called the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Luke were written by two individuals who were closely associated with two of the undisputed leaders of the new movement that Jesus started in history, which we know today as the church: Mark, who was closely connected with Peter, and Luke who accompanied the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys.

Now, you might be reading this and immediately a skeptical objection has been raised in your mind.  And if we were to have a conversation, that objection would sound something like this: Dave, you can’t use the Bible to prove things in the Bible. And anyways the accounts of Jesus life in the Bible are not historically reliable. What is written in the Bible is myth and legend that were written hundreds of years later.

If that skeptical objection resonates with you, I just want to let you know that you are not the first person to raise that objection. And if we were having a conversation, my response would be this: Most scholars and historians believe that the gospel of Luke was written in the early 60’s A.D. Since Luke drew some of his information from the gospel of Mark, it makes sense that Mark must have come even earlier, most likely in the mid 50’s.

In addition, the gospel of Matthew mentions the Temple tax as though it was still being collected, which suggests a date before 70 A.D., when the Temple was destroyed. Also none of the accounts of Jesus life mention the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D., which would most certainly be mentioned if it had occurred prior to writing the accounts, as it was something that Jesus had predicted would occur.  

Thus, all of the accounts of Jesus life were written within 30 years of Jesus death, which is hardly enough time for legends to develop. After all, people were still alive who could confront any falsehoods that would have been stated in the accounts. By contrast, some of the other gospel accounts of Jesus life that we hear about, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were written in the early second century or later.

Another skeptical objection that is often raised is that the manuscripts, or copies of these accounts of Jesus life have been corrupted or altered and therefore cannot be trusted as being reliable. If that skeptical objection resonates with you, and if we were having a conversation, my response would be this: would we agree that the same standard should apply to all documents when it comes to their genuineness and accuracy. Because, if we do, then let’s look at some examples of literature from history.

Take for example Julius Caesar’s book, the Gallic War, which is a primary source for historians when it comes to Caesar’s military campaigns in what is now France, which was written in 50 B.C. The earliest Greek manuscript that we have of any part of that book dates to about 900 A.D.

By contrast, most scholars and historians believe that all of the letters that make up the New Testament of the Bible were written by 95 A.D. The earliest fragment that we have from the gospel’s dates to about 125 A.D., which is a span of between 30-35 years. In addition, we have almost the entire New Testament preserved in Greek manuscripts from the second century, and at least 48 manuscripts that come before 300 A.D. All together we have over 5,700 Greek manuscripts of the letters that make up the New Testament.

The next greatest manuscript evidence for any ancient work is Homer’s Iliad, of which there are fewer than 650 manuscripts that come a full 1,000 years after the original writing. So if you are going to maintain that Homer wrote Iliad and that we can trust that work; if you are going to maintain that we can trust the accuracy of Caesar’s the Gallic Wars, then we must hold the same view of the letters that make up the New Testament of the Bible.

Another skeptical objection is that the writers of these accounts of Jesus life were only concerned about was making sure that people believed Jesus spiritually, not who Jesus was in history. In other words, the Bible is about religious and spiritual stuff and is not accurate historically. However, notice how Luke starts his account of Jesus life in Luke 1:1-4:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

The writer of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts was a doctor named Luke. Luke was hired by a man named Theophilus, who was a wealthy Roman official, to research and to provide an accurate and orderly account about the origins of Christianity. As a doctor, Luke was a very educated man and was thus well qualified for the task that he was given.

And as a result of the generosity of Theophilus, Luke, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, spent several years involved in intensive research and investigation that produced this two-volume set that we now have as a part of our Bibles today. Luke traveled throughout the regions where Jesus lived and ministered, investigating and interviewing individuals who were witnesses to the events that occurred during Jesus life.

Luke interviewed Mary, the mother of Jesus, along with the disciples and other close followers of Jesus. Luke is universally recognized, by skeptics and followers of Jesus alike, as being a scrupulously accurate historian. One archaeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, without finding a single error.  As a matter of fact, many have credited the gospel of Luke as being one of the most beautiful and historically accurate pieces of literature ever written.

So if these writers were interested in proclaiming who Jesus was in history, then what do they say about Jesus? We will answer that question tomorrow…