Here's an extended outline of how I reach the conclusion that Jesus is God. That is, the evidence I rely on that God must exist, that the Bible is reliable, and that Jesus is God.
Its quite a tome,
so skip right over it if you aren't in for a long read. Sorry about the length, but some things require more than a few words to explain. But here's what I think, and why I think it. In the latter part I have sourced from equip.org, to which I have given attribution.
At a minimum, I hope that one will conclude there exists a rational basis for the conclusion I have reached, even if you don't share in that conclusion. That is, to dispel the mythology that one must divorce oneself from reason and science to acknowledge God's existence, and that Jesus is God.
1)
There is compelling evidence that God must exist
All theories regarding the creation of the universe fall into one of 4 categories:
- the universe always existed
- the universe never existed
- the universe came into existence without a creator
- the universe came into existence because of a creator
The first two theories have no philosophical or scientific support. That does not mean that one of them is not correct. But absent support, or with minimal support, an unbiased observer would not determine that either was the most plausible of the 4 theories. In an age of relative scientific enlightenment, we also know that if the universe existed forever, it would have expended all of its energy because we know that closed systems always move from higher to lower energy states (order to disorder). And a universe which had existed forever would have had forever to become disorganized. But thats not what we see.
That leaves 3 and 4: created without a creator, or created by a Creator. And I am speaking about what is most plausible, not what I can prove with certitude. For no proponent of any theory can do that. Yet.
So is it plausible that once upon a time, there was no space, time, matter or energy (literally nothing, which is hard to imagine) and,
without a cause, it sprang into existence from nothingness. This is the theory which non-believers hold to, though they never state it in these terms. They do not so state it because it runs afoul of our experience and knowledge. We know that every effect (the universe in this case), must have a cause equal to or greater than itself. The computer screen you are looking at did not spring into existence from nothingness without a cause, nor did anything around you which you can see or touch. Our experience reveals to us over and over and over that nothing in the physical world can create itself, without a cause, from nothingness. But this is what those who are averse to the notion of God must revert to, because the alternative is to acknowledge God.
Our observation of the world around us leads us to conclude that there must have been a "big bang". But what caused the big bang? An astute non-believer would hypothesize that a so-called "singularity" caused the big bang. A singularity is an infinitely small, infinitely dense point of space-time. Setting aside the issue that there is no evidence of a singularity or that such a thing is anything more than science fiction, the question then is what caused the singularity? And then what caused that cause, and so forth. We end up with an infinite regression of finite causes which never addresses the question of a source. The only palatable means of answering that question is to posit that there must be an un-caused first cause. We call that God. God is much more than merely just "a cause", but we I will characterize him as that for purposes of this post.
Having determined that God must exist - in large part because the alternatives are not plausible - 2)
the question then is why is God the God of the Bible, and not the god of Islam or Mormonism or Buddism.
The answer is evidence. And faith in that evidence. Stated differently, why does one believe the Bible is true and correct in its assertions?
Here is a synopsis of why I believe what the Bible expresses is true, as expressed by
Hank Hanegraaff:
a) Manuscript evidence:
Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manuscript copies of the original documents penned by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External.
The bibliographic test considers the quantity of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the original documents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious textual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger bibliographic support than any classical literature including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.
We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.
The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident.
The eyewitness document test, sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of or interviewed eyewitnesses of the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israels final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.
The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and carefully investigated everything (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples were eyewitnesses of [Jesus] majesty and did not follow cleverly invented stories (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers.
The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again.
Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome all writing before A.D. 250 shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bibles manuscript reliability.
b) Archaeology
Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of solid archaeological evidence.
For years critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent whi1e he was away from Babylon.
One of the most well-known New Testament examples concerns the Books of Luke and Acts. A biblical skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament. However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as one after another of the historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.
- continued
