Why Should We Believe the Easter Story?: The Historicity of Christ

One of the surest ways to differentiate history from mere opinion is to listen to those whose own worldview is not sympathetic to the worldview of those whose history they are speaking of. The words of the historian W.E.H. Lecky, who was no believer in revealed religion, have often been quoted:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the ample record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortation of moralists. This has indeed been the wellspring of whatever is best and purest in the Christian life."

But are the exemplary life and moral teachings of Jesus- on their own- sufficient to explain his significance in the history of mankind? C.S. Lewis, an atheist from adulthood up to the age of 31,who spent his life involved in literature was more certain of the truth of Christianity when comparing Gospel literature with ancient mythologies. He said in his book "Mere Christianity":

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

According to Lewis- liar, lunatic or Lord, those are the clear alternatives for evaluating the claims of Jesus- what then will it be?

And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Mathew 28:17-18

 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Mathew 15:24-258

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:27-28

From the verses above it was quite clear what it was to be for those who unashamedly worshiped Jesus knowing full well if he were not God then this was indeed blasphemy.

Jesus is accorded the status of a prophet in the teaching of Islam, but is he divine? How can Jesus- on the one hand be held to be a prophet- and on the other hand not be accorded the dignity to the words and actions of a prophet that they deserve? What is a prophet of God? Does he not- at the very least- speak the word of God, the truth? Now if he is a true prophet- would he not be horrified, or angry that others would come and worship him as the one true God? As a true prophet (yet still only a man) who speaks on behalf of the only true God- is it conceivable that he would not only allow others to worship him but treat it as the reverence he is due if he was merely a man? Even an honest man would not allow himself to be worshipped as the following verse shows- but a true prophet? Peter who knew that to worship a mere man was an insult and blasphemy corrected Cornelius when he fell down and worshipped him:

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Acts 10:25-26

 The global acceptance by religious groups and secular scholars alike concede he is a great moral teacher but in the popular secular mind at street level there still lies a cloud of doubt as to whether he really existed at all.

L.T. Jeyachandaran writes:

'Jesus lived in an obscure part of the globe under Roman rule 2000 years ago. He did not travel more than 200 miles on a single journey in his lifetime; he never wrote a book and did not speak a foreign language. He lived under the stigma of an illegitimate birth, was in public ministry for only three years, and died a criminal's death. Yet his influence has spread far and wide throughout the world. Christians claim that this man was unique, and the evidence seems overwhelmingly to sustain it. Even those who would rather dismiss him have difficulty denying his incomparable mark on human history. As biblical scholar F.F. Bruce notes,

 "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar."

 Jesus’ life in and of itself is distinctive; that he remains a life of influence is truly exceptional.'

Historian and scholar John Dickson, PhD of Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia  expounds on the reasons for confidence in the reality of Christ, and how he is firmly anchored in History- not only in the minds of His followers- but in mainstream academic circles whether religious or not.

Many, who accord the existence of Jesus as real, and his moral life exemplary but do not give credence to His own claim to be the Son of God take this stance because of the Nicene Council. This council, it is often claimed, provided a crucial step in the "evolution" of the Christian faith.The fallacy that the Nicene council first "gave" Jesus the title of divine status (ie that Jesus is God) around 300 years after his death through Constantine' s political prowess and ambition has been ruled out as the clear archaeological evidence Dickson points outs shows. This evidence predates the Council of Nicea by around 100 years.

What is also compelling, is the evidence of an early oratory Creed drawn from St Pauls' first letter to the Corinthians.

Book Review: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible by Gerald Schroeder, Dec 1, 1991

This is an interesting book and very accessible to someone like myself having an interest in the relationship between science and Christianity but not by any means a scholar. In the ongoing ideological battle to win minds the strident new atheists (or perhaps more properly the new anti-theists) continually push the supposed divide between faith and science. Science is reality, faith is the fairy tale, so we are told. Science deals with facts and logic, faith deals with fancy and feeling at best and is irrational at worst or unscientific. People of faith do not justify their beliefs they just blindly believe the script. This is how faith is caricatured. Science is the salvation of our time so we are asked to believe, religion is what holds us back, and religion is a disease. Science is the way to find truth and reality and whatever science doesn’t prove, isn’t real. Faith is a leap in the dark.

There has been a big push by the "new atheist" movement especially the "four horsemen  of the Apocalypse" to  put distance between science and religion in general and Biblical religion in particular. The aim of this book which is to refute this perception of an ever widening gap between the rationality of science and the implausibility of Biblical accuracy succeeds admirably.

In a clear and forthright manner Schroeder points out that there is no antithesis between science and the Bible and even points to areas where scholars of the early traditions anticipated- sometimes by hundreds of years- what science has recently discovered.  He makes clear what Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has recently pointed out in his work, that the real point of difference lies not between science and religion but between scientific naturalism and Christianity. 

While being respectful of the "young earth" creation movement we are left in no doubt as to where his position as a scientist leads him. One of the subjects gaining special significance and which is a bone of contention between Christians is the idea of a six day Creation. His treatment of cosmic time is especially helpful and the fact that time is not such a steady state system eternally fixed the way many perceive goes a long way to reconcile the difficulties. I personally have a much better grasp of Einstein's theory of relativity as a result of his book. 

Another particularly important aspect of this book is that a God-inspired view of evolution is neither            irreconcilable with the Bible nor is it incompatible with science. In other words the belief in evolution does not compel the scientist to discard the need for God in creation, or in sustaining the Universe.

Another area I was particularly pleased to see made manifest was the fact that many of the early scientists, and those philosophers from whom the empirical method developed into what we now see as the "scientific method" were inspired by their belief in a God of order, and thereby expected in nature what was seen in God through their theology. This belief in the uniformity and intelligibility of nature came about as a result of faith in a rational and benevolent Creator.

Although the subject of this review is the book "Genesis And The Big Bang" the author Gerald Schroeder has written another book along similar lines called "The Science of God: The convergence of scientific and Biblical wisdom".

To see an interesting summary of that book the reader is invited to visit an on-line slide show prepared by Sarah Salviander Phd.

Sarah is a research scientist in the field of astrophysics. Her research interests are quasars and supermassive black holes. She received a Bachelor’s in physics (minor in mathematics) from Eastern Oregon University and a Ph.D. in astrophysics from UT-Austin. A lifelong agnostic, Sarah became a theist as an undergraduate physics student, when she came to believe that the universe was rather too elegantly organized to be an accident. As a doctoral student, she discovered the works of Israeli physicist and applied theologian, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, which convinced her of the reliability of the Bible, and led to her conversion to Christianity. Her presentation can be accessed here:

SixDay Science:Faith in Science | Science in Faith