Why do the Gospels differ on the Resurrection

Why do the Gospels differ on the Resurrection?

The variations of the eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of Christ are often cited as contradictions, but this argument should be easily dispelled if we just take a moment to think about what is being communicated. Just as we saw earlier, doctrine spread throughout scripture is not intended to be taken out of the context of the scripture as a whole and we must also use this line of reasoning when looking at the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. This applies to the resurrection or any of the events of Jesus’ life. If you have four people describing the same event, why should it be thought to be a contradiction if each gives details that one or more of the others do not mention? If one disciple said that Jesus was resurrected the third day and the next said the fourth day, then we would have a contradiction; however, if one account gives details that add to the picture, this is not a contradiction at all.

Think for a moment about the criminals crucified with Jesus. In Matthew 27:38-44 the priests were mocking Jesus and saying, “He could save others, but cannot save Himself”. They challenged Him to prove that He was the son of God by coming down off the cross and then they will believe Him. The book of Matthew states that the thieves crucified with Him cast the same words at Him. Luke gives another account from testimonies of other eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Luke was not an eyewitness. He interviewed a large number of witnesses and compiled their testimonies into a letter sent to Theophilus detailing the life of Jesus which we now call the book of Luke. Historically we know that Theophilus was an officer in the emperor’s court at Rome, so it is likely that the books of Luke and Acts were presented as testimonies for the apostle Paul’s trial when he was imprisoned around 69 AD. Look at his account of the crucifixion in Luke 23:39-43

³⁹ And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

⁴⁰ But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

⁴¹ And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

⁴² And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

⁴³ And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Is this contradicting what Matthew saw and wrote? Or could this be more than one eyewitness account which adds details to what Matthew stated? Roman guards prevented anyone from approaching the cross without the governor’s approval, but large crowds were close enough to witness the execution. The execution was intended to be a public spectacle in order to deter ‘would be’ offenders. Matthew was obviously close enough to hear the thief who mocked Jesus but not close enough to hear the words of the thief on the cross on the other side of Jesus. Other disciples were close enough to hear the words of the second thief and Luke compiled both of their testimonies into his gospel. I see no reason for the Christian to be disturbed by these two accounts. Both agree on the details even if both could not hear the thieves.

The same argument applies to Jesus’ trial when Barabbas was released. Matthew calls Barabbas a notable prisoner. Mark 15:7 says that Barabbas was an insurrectionist who committed murder, but John 18:40 states that he was a robber. I suppose it could be argued that this was a contradiction if you could make the argument that no murderer would ever be called a robber. Is it possible that someone who was trying to raise an insurrection against Roman occupation to commit murder and steal from those he considered the enemy? Of course he would. The addition of details is not to contradict, but to supplement what has already been stated. We can also understand the events around the resurrection by using simple logic and reasoning. Look at one account that is touted as a contradiction by atheists concerning the stone rolling away as described in these three passages:

Matthew 28:² And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Mark 16:³ And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

⁴ And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

Luke 24:² And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

John 20:¹ The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Clearly Mark, Luke and John use the same description, but Matthew adds the actual event where the stone was rolled away. Matthew does not say that Mary and Martha witness the stone being rolled back, he explains the event that took place beforehand in order to explain why Mary and Martha found the tomb already opened. Nothing stated by Matthew disagrees with the other eyewitness accounts. Matthew explained the events of the soldiers and their interaction with the priests after the resurrection. This addition of information is a valuable part of the gospel for Matthew’s knowledge of the testimony of the soldiers informs us of things we would not have otherwise discovered.

Let’s look at another example. Matthew above states that the angel of the Lord rolled the stone away and sat on it. This is what was seen by the soldiers. Mark 16:5 states that the women who first visited the tomb saw a man in white apparel inside the tomb. Are these contradicting testimonies? Luke 24 states that those at the tomb found two men in white clothing. Does that agree or disagree with Matthew and Mark? Could there have been one angel on the stone and one in the tomb and at one point both stood by them to testify that Jesus had risen?

If you take the time to examine these testimonies it should be obvious that they could be put into a timeline to explain a chain of events from the soldiers witnessing the opening of the tomb to the disciples seeing Jesus in their midst. The Bible tells us that there were several trips to the tombs by Mary, Martha, the disciples and others. If you try to cram every event into one visit, it would appear to be contradictory, but then again, one trip to the tomb is contradicted by the Bible. If we realize that all four gospel accounts are describing various details given by many people as they ran excitedly to and from the tomb and brought others to see, nothing falls out of place. None of these accounts dispute each other; they add missing details to paint a fuller picture of that glorious resurrection day.

Who created the Creator?

Richard Dawkins makes it clear that when viewing the evidence, it is not an option to consider a Creator. Any number of scenarios are acceptable including believing in a multiverse where any number of universes coexist in which alternative images of ourselves also exist, but considering the option that we are created by God is not even allowed into the equation. Consider this quote from Dawkins:

The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a ‘crane’, not a ‘skyhook’, for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity. (The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins)

Dawkins also states, “We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion”. He argues this case by presenting a statistical scenario that he conjured up and presented as scientific evidence. The musings of the mind of an atheist do not qualify as evidence, doesn’t eliminate creation from the record, and surely doesn’t safely remove the possibility of design. Dawkins adopts the mindset of Charles Darwin. If you are inspired to read ‘The Origin of the Species’, do so with an observant mind. While he presents a very creative argument that sounds like it could be reasonable if the facts agreed, he also acknowledges that the facts don’t agree. Darwin spends page after page in each chapter presenting a long, drawn out argument to explain away the evidence that contradicts his theory and explain why there is no evidence to support his theory. Evolution survives by pressuring others to conform to group think and by using smoke and mirrors to give the illusion that it has a factual basis.

The roots of this movement acknowledge that facts are either lacking or contradictory, but craft deceitful arguments to give the illusion of truth while drawing attention away from evidence. Truth is not determined by persuasive sounding arguments; truth is either based on fact or it is not truth. Charles Darwin presents three main points in almost every chapter of his book. He presents his idea of origins, he follows up by explaining why we should not be concerned by a lack of evidence, and finally he explains why that even though his theory contradicts the facts we should not rely on observable science. In other words, he explains away the observable facts, explains away the lack of evidence and attempts to convince the reader that his theory should be more persuasive than what we see or don’t see. The whole weight of evolution is carried solely by his ability to persuade. The same holds true in evolutionary science today. Creation does not dispute the evidence. If anything, evolution disputes the evidence and only allows exhibits that can be forced into the evolutionary model. Any contradictory evidence is excluded as unreliable. The weight of every argument is carried on the shoulders of assumptions and not evidence.

Let’s think for a moment about the problem of ‘who created the Creator’. According to Dawkins, the perfectly engineered designs found throughout nature can’t be attributed to a Creator (or designer) solely for the reason that, in Dawkins ideology, the existence of a Creator is ‘highly improbable’, but a crane without a creator is not. Let’s look at the probability for design for a moment. One of the most amazing feats of engineering is the light of the firefly. When creating light, energy loss is science’s greatest challenge. The heat created by a light bulb is lost energy. An incandescent light bulb ranges in efficiency from 1.9% for a 40 watt bulb to 2.2% for a 500 watt bulb. The energy efficiency is based on how much of the energy applied results in light and how much results in heat. A Florescent bulb ranges between 8 – 18%. The highest light efficiency achieved by human engineering is the low pressure sodium lamp which achieves between 15 – 29% light efficiency[i]. The other 70-85% of energy is lost as heat. The firefly holds the record with a 96.5% efficiency[ii].

The greatest design by the most advanced technology and the most gifted minds on man still falls 70% short of what nature produces millions of times a year. The light bulb was first publicly displayed in 1879 and in 130 years science has not achieved a fraction of what was designed into nature. So the question is, if the greatest minds, the best designers, and the most advanced science cannot achieve the advanced technology of the firefly, how can anyone claim that there is no designer who may be greater than man. Is it more probable to believe that nature happened upon such a perfect design even though man cannot even approach unto that great light built into such a tiny creature, or is it more probable that this technology was designed by our Creator? In Dawkins case, we have an atheist who created his own probability scale and then points to what came from his own imagination as evidence that supposedly ‘safely proves’ that a Creator is improbable. This statement is absurd at best. Perhaps this is why the Bible says that only a fool says in his heart that there is no God[iii].

The question isn’t one of probability, but reality. Ultimately, when the evolutionists rolls back the clock as far as possible, they are faced with the question, did the first known matter create itself, or was it created by something else. Why does the atheist find it easier to believe that matter created itself than believing that God created matter? Why is it considered absurd to believe in a Creator because you can’t fathom His origin, but it is not considered absurd to believe matter always existed or it created itself? I have a more probable theory; perhaps the Bible holds more answers than the probability formulas of atheists. Look at Hebrews 11:

³ Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

When we boil down the argument, the atheist is saying that because God cannot be seen and His eternal existence can’t be understood by the human mind, He is excluded from the realm of possibility, yet they believe the universe’s beginning had an eternal existence without beginning and this is acceptable. In either case, the beginning goes beyond man’s understanding but God is not an acceptable option because God conflicts with the moral views of atheism. The bottom line of the argument is not a question of God’s existence, but whether or not God will be allowed to rule over their lives. The concept of a God who governs mankind is abhorrent to the atheist mind. In the ‘God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins favorably quotes a speech by Nicholas Humphrey given before Amnesty International in 1997. He was asked by Amnesty International:

[S]hould campaign against hurtful or damaging speeches or publications. His answer was a resounding no to such censorship in general: ‘Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with.’ But he then went on to shock his liberal self by advocating one important exception: to argue in favour of censorship for the special case of children… …moral and religious education, and especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed – even expected – to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas – no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no God-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.

So you can see that the Bible is so abhorrent to the atheist that it is considered to be on par with physically and mentally abusing children. Throughout his books, Dawkins refers to belief in God as the virus of the mind that must be eradicated from society. As should be apparent, the battle lines are being drawn. While I do not believe all religion will be assaulted, I do very much believe that biblical Christianity will be tried as we approach the closing chapters of human history. The Bible warns that in the last days religion will abound, but the church will be tried through the fire of persecution. We as Christians should be prepared and stand firmly upon the faith found only in scripture. Even those who are not as radical as Dawkins are repeating his ideas. There are fewer things considered to be a greater threat to a man-centered global society than biblical Christianity. A leader in the ‘spiritual but not religious’ movement favorably quotes the ‘God Delusion’ as evidence against the Old Testament[iv] and against biblical Christianity. They are for spirituality, but against the authority of the Bible. In her writings from ‘The Book of Co-creation’, Barbara Marx Hubbard writes the following:

Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend… One-fourth is destructive…they are defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’. …Now as we approach the quantum shift from the creature-human to the co-creative human – the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers – the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. …Fortunately, you are not responsible for this act, we are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for the planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death”.

…

"This act is as horrible as killing a cancer cell. It must be done for the sake of the future of the whole. So be it; be prepared for the selection process which is now beginning. We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow; something must be done before the whole body is destroyed.... The destructive one fourth must be eliminated from the social body."

Barbara Marx Hubbard is respected in many ‘new thought’ groups and has co-founded several globalist groups that are striving for a one world government. She is an adamant evolutionists and echoes many of the same ideas as Dawkins – especially the concept of raised consciousness. Hubbard and Dawkins both believe that anyone who does not buy into their ideology of evolution needs to either ‘have their consciousness raised’, or they are a threat to society. Barbara Marx Hubbard doesn’t mind quoting the Bible when it is convenient, but she completely rejects the doctrines of scripture. One of her books teaches how to interpret the New Testament through evolution[v].

So we can see the problem is not a question about God’s existence, but rather it is a desire to fit everything within a humanistic world view and reject anything that does not fit. Richard Dawkins and Barbra Marx Hubbard have different approaches, but they ultimately reach the same destination. Dawkins views all religion as a threat to the evolutionary world view while Hubbard attempts to customize religion to fit that same world view. Any who will not conform will be viewed as a threat.

We are going back to the pluralistic practices of Rome. In ancient Rome, all gods were accepted and all worshippers were free to exercise their religion but with one condition – they had to acknowledge Caesar as lord of all. Those who refused to bow to the Emperor were persecuted and often killed. Now we see the world mindset returning to that ideology. All religions are welcomed as long as evolution is acknowledged by all. Both Dawkins and Hubbard explain why evolution is so important. They believe that man is evolving to a higher state of consciousness and humanity as a whole is one entity. In order to evolve, the entire meme (or common way of thinking) must be in agreement. They believe we must all evolve together. Those who hold to biblical traditions are believed to be stuck in the past and preventing the entire human race from taking that next evolutionary step.

The Bible and Christianity is only acceptable to the new thought as long as the Christian is willing to compromise their way of thinking to conform to that new thought. Of course we as Christians know that the compromises they are asking will indeed take us outside of true Christianity. So we are faced with a choice. We must stand by faith upon the word of God, or stand with the world to become one with the new order. We have not seen the real battle yet. In most wars propaganda precedes the invasion. If you can break the will of the enemy or even persuade them to defect, the battle is that much easier. Many, many churches and Christians have already begun to defect simply because they either do not know the truth of scripture or they love the praise of man more than the praise of God[vi].

Do sins in the name of God disprove God?

Several years back an atheist gave me a website with an article against Christianity. He said that if I read this article I would not be a Christian by the end. Of course I read the article and I am still a Christian. The article itemized a plethora of atrocities done in the name of God. It spoke of the crusades, inquisitions, murders of abortion doctors, sex scandals in the church and numerous other failings of men under the name of God. So does the sins of man disprove the truth of the Bible? This objection is answered in Jeremiah 17:9-10

⁹ The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

¹⁰ I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Anyone who knows the scriptures also understands that many who act in the name of God are not acting according to the will or word of God. We as Christians are warned against wolves in sheep’s clothing that will arise from among the church members to draw people away from God. Everyone who takes the name of Christ does not have the Spirit of Christ. Does a murderer of an abortion doctor disprove God or the Bible? Look at 1 John 4:7-8

⁷ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

⁸ He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1 John 3:15b

…you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Murder is not an act of love so regardless of what someone calls themselves, if they murder or show hatred, they are not of God. Jesus said that we are commanded to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us, so even if someone is the enemy of Christianity, we are still commanded to do good to them. It is indeed possible to confront error without hating those who live according to that error. God will raise up judgment if He desires to do so in this life.

The truth is that when the culture within the church accepts sin, the true men and women of God are made manifest because they refuse to turn from truth and conform to sin. Even today there are many practices within the church that contradict the Bible but are acceptable in the worldly culture around us. Many flaunt the name of Christ while openly doing the things that disgrace Him. Anyone can claim to be a Christian but the Bible states that if we claim to be of Christ and disobey the Bible, we are a liar. Look at 1 John 2:3-6

³ And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

⁴ He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

⁵ But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

⁶ He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

This is very strong language and may sound harsh, but keep in mind that one of the Ten Commandments states, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain”. Most think this only means to use His name in profanity, but that is the least of our problems. The weight of this commandment is to take His name upon ourselves and then live in a way that contradicts His name. Anything done under the banner of His name that is contrary to His word is taking His name in vain. As Christians we should always be aware that every action is a reflection upon His name. The world stumbles over the hypocrisy of those who claim to be living under the banner of Christianity. When this hypocrisy becomes part of the church culture, only those who stand upon the truth of the word will remain faithful. Unfortunately those who do not go along with unbiblical cultural shifts within the church are often labeled as legalists or considered to be ‘unspiritual’ and we will often be persecuted from within the church if we truly hold to the Bible. This will be especially true in the last times when the church departs from the faith[vii].

Far from being exempt from failure, leaders have often been catalysts for the departure from the scriptures. The failure of ungodly leaders does not disqualify the scripture in any way. Look at how Jesus addressed this very thing in Matthew 23:1-3

¹ Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,

² saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.

³ "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

…

¹⁵ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

…

²⁷ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

²⁸ "Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Many who hold positions in church leadership are far from God’s call to become shepherds who lead others into a deeper fellowship with God. A main point we should note is that Jesus identified the authority given by scripture and affirmed it in spite of the failure of the Pharisees. They read the Law of Moses to the people, but only kept the things that gave an appearance of righteousness to the public. Many falsely accuse those who hold to biblical Christianity as being ‘a Pharisee’; however, this is incorrect. A better comparison would be someone who is spiritual, but not obedient to the word of God. As Jesus stated, the word was affirmed in spite of their failures and they were condemned for not obeying the word. They said, but did not do. God’s people are instructed to observe the word of God even if the Pharisees did not do so. They were also warned to not imitate the works of the religious leaders who departed from the truth. The Pharisees were full of hypocrisy and even though they appeared to some to be righteous outside, they were filled with iniquity and corruption in their hearts. Even so, this does not change the word of God or our responsibility to obey out of faith. The hypocrisy of others does not excuse us from our responsibility to walk in the truth. A Pharisee was not someone who kept the word of God, but they were those who had an air of spirituality but did not live by the commandments of God.

More times than I would like to admit, the church follows the culture rather than influencing the culture. One of the more striking examples was the Holocaust. During the height of Hitler’s persecution against the Jews, Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave a speech at a church convention. He spoke against the atrocities against the Jews and was met by outrage. Before his speech ended, every pastor walked out of the auditorium in protest and he was left giving a speech to an empty room. Throughout history people who claim to know God act in opposition to His word. Our lives reflect His word or the absence of it.

It is interesting that in order to disprove the Bible, atheists present men and women who act contrary to the Bible. They are Christians in title only but are not truly disciples of Christ. In the book of Acts believers were first called Christians at the city of Antioch. The title ‘Christian’ was not a name that the church took upon themselves, it was a title that the world around them put upon them. The culture observed that they imitated Christ and since this was all their lives reflected, the world called them Christians which means ‘follower of Christ’. Today people label themselves as Christians and the world around them questions the contradiction. Rather than reflecting Christ, the world questions why they do not follow Christ since they claim His name.

It would be an honor if critics pointed to our obedience to God and called us evil, but unfortunately they are usually pointing out the contradictions. Evil is evil even if someone is taking God’s name in vain by claiming to be of Him. Atrocities and sins within the church do not contradict the Bible, but rather show that a person or group of people have abandoned true faith which produces works of obedience.

Conclusion

Many questions presented by atheism are intended for nothing more than to antagonize the church. You should not think it necessary to answer every objection presented. The truth is that once we answer the challenges that are presented as the greatest difficulties, we should have no problem giving the scriptures the benefit of the doubt on the petty stuff. The atheist who has determined in his or her heart to find a reason not to believe will never cease looking for perceived faults in the scriptures and those claiming the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus made the comment that if someone will not believe the word already written in the scriptures through the prophets, neither will they believe even if someone were to rise from the dead[viii].

Look at the miracles of Jesus and how few they persuaded to come to true faith. The enemies of Christ declared that His works were by the prince of the devils[ix]. The very people who were fed by the miracle of feeding five thousand with a few loaves and two fish walked away from Him in disbelief when they were offended at the gospel [x]. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, some who witnessed it ran to tell the leaders who opposed Jesus[xi]. When the Pharisees saw this miracle, they were troubled and determined to put him to death[xii]. The enemies of Christ also conspired to put Lazarus to death because many believed on Christ because of this amazing miracle[xiii]. When Jesus was in the tomb, the Jewish leaders requested and were granted a platoon of Roman soldiers to guard the tomb to make sure the disciples did not steal Jesus’ body and claim a resurrection[xiv]. When Jesus arose, the soldiers witnessed it[xv] and went to the Pharisees to tell them of these things. Even though the resurrection was not in dispute, they paid large sums of money to the soldiers to hide the resurrection and claim they failed in their duties and slept, which gave the disciples the opportunity to steal the body[xvi].

I mention all of this to bring out one important point; those who were determined not to believe refused to accept any evidence regardless of how infallible it may have been. The enemies of Christ did not dispute the miracle of Lazarus being raised from the dead but instead chose to try to slay him to cover up that evidence. The platoon of soldiers were not disciples and their eyewitness account was not disputed; however, the enemies of Christ took counsel together to come up with a plan to hide the evidence and introduce what was known to be false in order to persuade others not to believe. If someone has determined to reject the Lord, all the evidence in the world will not change their heart. Even the resurrected Christ could not turn the hearts of those who hated Jesus, so it should not surprise us that atheism cannot accept any evidence that supports the gospel.

The Bible does indeed instruct us to be prepared with a well reasoned answer for the hope we have in the gospel[xvii]; however, the burden of converting the heart to the faith belongs to God alone. Do not get caught up in trying to persuade those who refuse to see with more evidence or answering the endless questions launched by critics. The fact is that most who are rejecting the gospel will not stop to consider any answer regardless of how well reasoned it is. While you are answering, they often are not listening but are preparing to launch the next objection. If the conversation can be flooded with more questions than can be reasonably answered, they do not have to face reality. When truly confronted, the atheist will mock or withdraw – unless God touches their heart with the gospel. In conclusion of this topic, I would like to present a few passages to consider. First look at Titus 3:10-11

¹⁰ A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

¹¹ Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

This should be applied to any discussion about truth. If someone has reasonable questions and is willing to listen and consider the answers, it is good to continue a discussion. There will be times when someone is truly skeptical and will ask honest questions and raise sincere concerns that should be addressed. Keep in mind that our culture is desensitized to the gospel by misinformation from both atheism and false religions – some of which claim to be Christian. In these cases, answering questions can remove objections and open the door to the gospel. It is also important to realize that apologetics cannot save anyone. We cannot debate someone into the faith. Our goal is to present the gospel by which God has chosen to save those who believe. Our discussion should always remain within sight of the instruction of scripture found in 1 Corinthians 1:

¹⁸ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
…
²¹ For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

²² For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

²³ But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

²⁴ But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Our modern era is no different than it was in the day of the apostles; some seek signs and some try to find truth in the wisdom of the world. What appears wise to the fleshly mind cannot save, for the wisdom of God is revealed through the cross of Jesus Christ and our redemption and reconciliation to God that is found through His sacrifice on our behalf. For the unredeemed, the evidence can remove the objections that stand as a barrier that deception has erected, but it cannot save. The gospel alone can change the heart. For the believer, the evidence can refresh us so that we are not burdened by the constant declarations against the scriptures. Doubts become burdens we carry and when we see the things that are given for our confidence, many will unload their burdens of doubt. Evidence does not build faith; it merely removes the barriers and burdens that draw our focus away from faith. It is one of the ways we cast off the weights and snares that entangle us so we can run with confidence and endurance[xviii].

You may recall the OJ Simpson trial and the fiasco that happened in that courtroom. This court case was the longest jury trial in California’s history. The court case was 371 days long with a jury that was sequestered for 265 days. Many put a lot of the blame for the failed process on the judge who lost control of the courtroom. The strategy of the defense was to create confusion by bombarding the case with so many objections that the jury would be confused and opposition would become frustrated. At one time the judged stated from the bench, “This is the thirteenth time I have had to warn the defense…” In a normal courtroom a second or third warning would have been followed up by a contempt of court. There were 433 motions filed during the course of the trial and each motion took the focus away from the trial and had to be ruled on. From jury selection to deliberation, three hundred and seventy days had elapsed, yet when the jury received the case, it took merely four hours to deliberate a year’s worth of evidence.

Even with a strong case against OJ, the jury was so frustrated and taxed from the battle that they had no heart left to deliberate. After being separated from freedom for almost a year, who could rationally enter into a just debate over the evidence? With their wills broken, the jury chose the easiest verdict which would allow them to end the trial.

This serves as a proper example for the Christian to examine in light of the doctrines of atheism. The evidence is so overwhelmingly against the claims of atheism that they have no hope of winning an honest debate with an examination of the evidence. For this reason, they bombard the jury of popular opinion with so many objections that control is often lost and rational conversation is not possible. They know that if they can tax people to the point where there is no will to debate, most will side with the mountain of objections without taking time to see if it is truly based on evidence. Unfortunately, the most vocal group has become the accepted norm, regardless of the lack of evidence. If the Christian enters into the arena of answering every objection, it will become an endless attempt to answer every absurd motion.

In the ‘Christ Conspiracy’ by Dorothy Murdock, she presents a non-stop barrage against the Bible. When examining the claims, every so-called proof against the scriptures fell short. The evidence is either fabricated, paraphrased or is so vaguely referenced that the source cannot be located. Rarely does this book provide specific sources or direct quotes. Murdock provides only the first initial and the last name of those she supposedly quotes from, but does not provide any specific sources. It becomes very difficult and often impossible to verify her sources. Of the ones I researched, one hundred percent fell short and some were blatantly dishonest. At what point does the ranting become irrelevant? There must be a point when we cease arguing against such people. If she has proven to be unreliable by changing dates, giving false geographies, misquoting sources and presenting material that is shown to be a complete fabrication, is the Christian to be worried about the remaining mountain of objections? How many lies have to be exposed before we discredit the entire testimony?

If these books provided direct quotes and verifiable sources, it would be something to discuss, but there is a reason that these books fail to provide direct quotes or note their sources – they know that if an easy path is provided, it will be easy to invalidate their claims. Secrecy is the protection of their argument. Like Darwin trying to persuade that his interpretation is right even though the evidence does not match his conclusion, these critics of the Bible expect the reader to accept their interpretation of the so-called evidence even though the truth compels us to the opposite conclusion.

As Christians we must realize that our goal is not to win every debate, but guide those who are willing to be rational into an honest view of the truth of the Bible. We should attempt to reveal the misconceptions, misinformation and assumptions that masquerade as evidence so that if someone is willing to hear, we can share the gospel. We should also explain that it is not reasonable to answer every objection as we explain that if the greatest arguments presented from the world’s leading atheists fail, the truth of God is not what should be in question. If the truth of God has withstood the heaviest blows atheism has to offer, then we can have confidence in the message of the cross by which we stand and which also calls the atheist into a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The Gospel Message

Perhaps you have never considered the message of God’s love in the Bible. Everything in scripture is intended to reveal the love of God to you and call you into a relationship with Jesus Christ. Many think that Christianity is for those who are godly, but in truth the gospel calls those who are ungodly to come and find the love of God. The Bible tells us that the gospel is given to the ungodly. Look at these passages:

Romans 4:4-5 ⁴ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

⁵ But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Romans 5:6 ⁶ For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Works cannot merit God’s favor and the Lord states that our best righteous acts are unacceptable to God (Isaiah 64:6). The reason is that man cannot produce anything of God. He that works does not receive grace for he is too far in debt. Salvation is for the UNGODLY and Jesus justifies those who put their trust in His completed work. Jesus completed the requirements of the law and because He is God in the flesh, He was without sin and is able to redeem those who are under sin. He took upon Himself our sins and to those who receive the gift of salvation, they become the children of God and receive His righteousness. Look at 2 Corinthians 5:

²¹ For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It is not your righteousness that makes you holy, it is the righteousness of Jesus credited to your life. He was credited with your sins and you are credited with His righteousness when you receive the gift of salvation by faith. Trust in Him and confess Him as Lord and you will be saved according to Romans 10:9-10

⁹ that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

¹⁰ For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Mere religion cannot save, but the one who believes and confesses Jesus Christ will have salvation. If you believe and confess Him, you will be justified through Christ and find the salvation of God. It is God who calls you by His sovereign will and no one decides to become a Christian by their own will[1]. He will hear your prayer and Jesus has promised that all who are drawn and come to Him will be received[2]. If God is calling you, do not push aside His love but confess Jesus as Lord today.

Eddie Snipes

Exchanged Life Outreach

http://www.exchangedlife.com

<<Click Here to Sign up for Weekly Messages>>

Return to the Bible Studies Page