For information about other International English books visit our web site at:
www.gospelpublishingmission.org

Copyright © 1977, 2004, 2009 by Josh McDowell. All rights reserved. Josh McDowell Ministry, P.O. Box 131000, Dallas, TX 75313-1000 USA www.josh.org

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture references are from the Holy Bible, New Life Version, Copyright © 1969, 1976, 1983, 1986, 1992, 1997, Christian Literature International. P.O. Box 777, Canby, OR 97013. Used by permission.

Translated from the original text into International English by:
Joseph E. Taylor, Editor-in-chief
Ralph L. Woodworth, Ph.D, Editor/Translator

Cover art by Robert Scott / Clear Graphics
(859) 363-3955

More Than A Carpenter

IN INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH

Published by Gospel Publishing Mission
Box 1065, Hobe Sound, FL USA 33475
All rights reserved.

ISBN 1-933716-10-X
ISBN 978-1-933716-10-7 (13 Digit)

ISBN (MOBI) 978-1-933716-18-3

eBook conversion by Oxford eBooks
www.oxford-ebooks.com

Dedicated to honor the memory of

Dr. & Mrs. Ralph Woodworth

The re-writing into International English of this revised edition of More Than A Carpenter was their last completed project for Gospel Publishing Mission. As a team, their writing excellence was without equal. They worked carefully to perfect their gift of expressing thoughts with words to honor Christ and not themselves. Only in heaven will we learn of the thousands of souls they influenced for Christ.

Chapter 1
My Story

Thomas Aquinas wrote that there is in every soul a desire for happiness and meaning. As a boy I wanted to be happy. I wanted my life to have meaning. I often thought about those three important questions that many people have wondered about: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? I wanted answers, so I set out to find them.

Where I was brought up, everyone seemed to be religious, so I thought I might find my answers in church. I started going to church every time the doors were open. But I must have gone to the wrong church because I felt worse in church than I did outside of it. From growing up on a farm, I learned that when something does not work you stop doing it. So I stopped going to church.

Then I thought that education might have the answers to my search for meaning, so I went to a university. I soon became the most unpopular student with the teachers. I would find them in their offices and ask them my questions. They soon got tired of trying to answer my questions and started to hide from me. You can learn many things at a university, but I did not find the answers I was seeking. I learned that both the teachers and my fellow students had as many questions as I did. And no one seemed to have any answers.

One day I saw a student wearing a T-shirt that read, “Do not follow me, I am lost.” That seemed to me to be a picture of everyone at the university. I decided that education was not the answer.

I began to think maybe I could find happiness and meaning in life by becoming popular. I would find a great cause and make it the most important thing in my life. I thought that in that way I would become known to everyone at the university. The most popular people in the university were the student leaders. They also were the ones who controlled the money. So I got elected to some student offices. It was great knowing everyone at the university. I enjoyed making important decisions. It was great spending the university’s money to get the speakers I wanted. It was great to spend the students’ money for parties.

All that was great, but the excitement did not last. When I would get up on Monday mornings, I usually had a headache because of the night before. I hated to have to face another five days of classes. I suffered Monday through Friday, living only for the parties on Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday.

I did not let people see that my life was without meaning. I was too proud for that. Everyone thought I was the happiest man at the university. They never knew that my happiness was false. It depended on what was happening in my life. If things were going great, I felt great. If things were going terrible, I felt terrible. I just did not let it show.

I was like a boat out on the ocean, thrown up and down by the moving of the water. I had no direction or control. But I could not find anyone who could tell me a better way to live. I was unhappy. No, it was worse than that. There’s a strong term that describes the life I was living: hell.

About that time I saw a small group of people that seemed different from others. There were only eight students and two teachers in the group. They seemed to know who they were and where they were going. And they had strong beliefs. It is unusual to find people with strong beliefs.  I like to be near them. I think well of people who believe in something and take a stand for it, even if I do not agree with their beliefs.

It was clear to me that these people had something I did not have. I could not understand why they were so happy. And their happiness did not come and go like mine did. They were always happy. Their joy seemed to be deep down inside of them, and I wondered where it came from.

Then I saw another thing about these people. The way they felt about each other was different. They really loved each other. And not only did they love each other, but they loved the people outside their group as well. I do not mean they just talked about love. They got involved in people’s lives, helping them with their needs and problems. It was all so foreign to me, yet it drew me to them.

Like most people, when I see something I want but do not have, I start trying to find a way to get it. So I decided to make friends with these unusual people.

About two weeks later I sat at a table talking with some of the members of this group. Our talk turned to the idea of God. I sat back in my chair and said, “Christianity, ha! That is just for weak people who are not very good thinkers.” I really wanted what these people had. But I was too proud to let them know how much I wanted and needed what they had. I did not want to talk about God, but I could not stop either. So I turned to one of the students, a nice-looking woman (I used to think no Christians looked nice). I said, “Tell me, why are you so different from all the other students and teachers here at the university? What changed your life?”

She looked me right in the eye, very serious, and said two words I never expected to hear in a serious talk at a university: “Jesus Christ.”

“Jesus Christ?” I said. “Oh, do not give me that kind of foolishness. I am fed up with religion. I am fed up with the church and the Bible.”

Immediately she answered back, “I did not say religion. I said Jesus Christ.” Her words made me think of something I had never thought about before. Christianity is not a religion. Religion is people trying to work their way to God through good works. Christianity is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ.

I was not about to accept that idea, though. Not for a minute. Surprised by the young woman’s words, I told her I was sorry for the way I had acted. “But I am sick and tired of religion and religious people,” I explained. “I do not want anything to do with them.”

Then my new friends threw me a question that really surprised me. They asked me if I would make a full and careful examination of the things the Bible says about Jesus Christ. It says He is God’s Son. It says He came in a human body and lived among real men and women. It says He died on the cross for the sins of all men. It says He was dead for three days and then came back to life. It says He is still alive and can change a person’s life even today.

I thought that was a joke. Everyone with any sense knows that Christianity is based on a story someone made up a long time ago. I thought that only a fool could believe the story that Christ came back from the dead. I used to wait for Christians to speak out in class so that I could show what fools they were. I thought that if a person had any brain at all he could not believe such things.

But I agreed to do as my friends said just to prove them wrong. I was sure the Christian story would not stand up to evidence. I was planning to be a lawyer, and I knew something about evidence. I would investigate the claims of Christianity fully and then come back and show my friends that their religion was not true.

I decided to start with the Bible. I knew that if I could find clear evidence that the Bible could not be trusted, Christianity would fall. Sure, Christians could show from the Bible that Christ was born of a woman without a man. They could show that He did impossible works and that He rose from the dead. But what good was that? If I could show that the Bible could not be trusted, I could show that Christianity was false.

I took the task seriously. I spent months in study. I even left school for a time to study in the great libraries of Europe. And I found evidence, much evidence. I found evidence I would not have believed had I not seen it with my own eyes. Finally I could come to only one judgment: the Bible is the most trustworthy book ever written. And if the Bible can be trusted, what about this man Jesus? I had thought of Him as just a carpenter in a small town in a small country under foreign control. I had thought of Him as a man caught up in his own dreams of greatness.

I had to admit that Jesus Christ was more than a carpenter. He had to be all that the Bible says He is.

Not only did my study turn me around, but it also answered the questions that started me on my search for happiness and meaning. I will tell you about that at the end of this book. First, I want to share with you the most important parts of what I learned in my months of study. Then you, too, may see that Christianity is not just a story passed along to simple people. It is solid truth. And I guarantee that when you accept that truth, you will be at the beginning of finding the answers to those three questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going?

Chapter 2
What Makes Jesus So Different?

Some time after I learned about the Bible and Christianity, I was riding in a taxi in London. I happened to say something about Jesus. The driver said, “I do not want to discuss religion, especially Jesus.” I could not help but think about the time the young woman told me that Jesus Christ had changed her life. The very name “Jesus” seems to trouble people. It makes them angry or makes them want to talk about something different. Most people do not object if you talk about God, but if you talk about Jesus, people want to stop talking.

Why do the names of Buddha, Mohammed or Confucius not trouble people the way the name of Jesus does? I think the reason is that these other religious leaders did not claim to be God. It did not take long for people who knew Jesus to understand that this carpenter was making surprising claims about Himself. It became clear that those claims set Him apart as more than just a prophet or a teacher. He claimed to be God. He claimed for Himself the power to forgive sins, something the Jews knew that only God could do.

For many people today Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God is just too much. In our culture, no religion has the right to make such claims. People do not want to believe it. Yet the issue is not what we want to believe but who did Jesus claim to be and is His claim true? That is what I wanted to learn when I set out to prove the Bible could not be trusted.

I started by exploring all I could about the New Testament to see if its claims could be true. I began to study to see just exactly what was meant in the claim that Jesus Christ is God.

Augustus H. Strong described God as the “endless and perfect spirit in whom all things have their beginning, existence and end.”[1] This way of describing God is accepted not only by Christians but by all who believe in one God, including Muslims and Jews. All three of these religions teach that God is personal and that the universe was planned and created by Him. They say that God still rules the universe.  But Christians add something more to describe God. They say that God became a Man in Jesus of Nazareth.

The words “Jesus Christ” are not a first and last name. They are a name and a title. The name “Jesus” comes from the Greek form of the Hebrew name Jeshua or Joshua, meaning “Jehovah Savior” or “the Lord saves.” The title “Christ” comes from the Greek word for Messiah (or the Hebrew Mashiach, see Daniel 9:26) and means “set apart for holy use.” Two offices, king and priest, are involved in the use of the title “Christ.” The title says that Jesus was the priest and king promised in the Old Testament. This is important to correctly understand about Jesus and Christianity.

The New Testament clearly describes Christ as God. Most of the names given to Christ are names that belong only to God. For example, Jesus is called God in this sentence: “We are to be looking for the great hope and the coming of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus” (Titus 2:13; see also John 1:1; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20-21). The Scriptures describe Jesus as being self-existent (John 1:2; 8:58; 17:5; 17:24), everywhere present (Matthew 18:20; 28:20), all-knowing (Matthew 17:22-27; John 4:16-18; 6:64) and all-powerful (Matthew 8:26-27; Luke 4:28-41; 7:14-15; 8:24-25; Revelation 1:8) and as having life that never ends (1 John 5:11-12, 20). All these are true only of God.

Jesus received honor and worship that only God should receive. When Satan came to tempt Him, Jesus said, “The Scriptures say, ‘You must worship the Lord your God. You must obey Him  only’” (Matthew 4:10). Yet Jesus received worship as God (Matthew 14:33; 28:9). Sometimes He even said that people should worship Him as God (John 5:23; Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 5:8-14). Most of the first disciples of Jesus were very religious Jews who believed in one true God. Yet as the following examples show, they accepted Him as God in human form.

The apostle Paul was highly trained to be a teacher of the Jews. He is the last person we would expect to call Jesus Lord and worship Him as God. But that is exactly what Paul did. He called Jesus God when he said, “Feed and care for the church of God. He bought it with His own blood” (Acts 10:28).

After Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He was, Simon Peter confessed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Jesus did not say that Peter was wrong. In fact, He said, “Simon, son of Jonah, you are happy because you did not learn this from man. My Father in heaven has shown you this” (Matthew 16:17).

Martha, a close friend of Jesus, said to Him, “Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God” (John 11:27). Then there is Nathaniel, who did not believe anything good could come out of Nazareth, the hometown of Jesus. He said to Jesus, “Teacher, you are the Son of God. You are the King of the Jews!” (John 1:49). While Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was being killed, he cried out and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). The writer of the book of Hebrews called Christ God when he wrote, “About His Son He says, ‘O God, Your throne will last forever’” (Hebrews 1:8).

Then we have Thomas. When Jesus came back from the dead, Thomas would not believe the report of the other disciples. He said, “I will not believe until I see the marks made by the nails in His hands. I will not believe until I put my finger into the marks of the nails. I will not believe until I put my hand into His side” (John 20:25). He was saying, “Look, not every day does someone raise himself from the dead or claim to be God in human form. If you expect me to believe, I need evidence.”

Eight days later, Jesus appeared without warning. “He said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger into My hands. Put your hand into My side. Do not doubt, believe!’” (John 20:27). Jesus accepted Thomas’ saying to Him, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). He did not blame Thomas for his worship, but He did blame him for his unbelief.

At this point someone might object that all these claims are made by others about Christ, not by Christ about Himself. They might say that the people who lived at the time of Christ did not understand Him just as many people today do not understand Him. Maybe people said He was God, but He did not really claim that for Himself. Well, when we go deeper into the pages of the New Testament, we find that Christ did make this claim for Himself. There are many places where Christ claimed to be God, and their meaning is clear.

A certain businessman searched the Scriptures to see if Jesus claimed to be God. At the end of his search, he said that anyone who reads the New Testament must see that Jesus claimed to be God. He said that if they did not see that, they would be as blind as a man standing outdoors on a clear day and saying he cannot see the sun.

In the Gospel of John we have a report of a dispute between Jesus and a group of Jews. The dispute started when Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath. (Jews were not allowed to do any work on the Sabbath.) The Jews accused Jesus of breaking the law of the Sabbath. “Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is still working all the time so I am working also’” (John 5:17). So the Jews tried to kill Him, both because He healed on the Sabbath and because He called God His Father. They understood that would make Jesus equal with God.

You might say, “Look, Josh, I cannot see how this proves anything. Jesus called God his Father. So what? All Christians call God their Father, but that does not mean they are claiming to be God.”

The Jews of Jesus’ time heard in Jesus’ words a meaning that is not clear to us. Whenever we study a document, we must consider the language, the culture and especially the person or persons involved. In this case, the culture was Jewish, and the people involved were Jewish religious leaders. Something about what Jesus said really made them angry. What could He have said to make them so angry that they wanted to kill Him? Let us look at the story to see how the Jews understood what Jesus was saying.

Their problem was that Jesus said “My Father,” not “our Father.” By the rules of their language, when Jesus said “My Father” He was claiming to be equal with God. The Jews did not speak of God as “my Father.” Or if they did, they would always add words such as “in heaven.” However, Jesus did not add those words. He made a claim the Jews could not misunderstand when He called God “My Father.”

Jesus made the situation worse when He said, “My Father is still working all the time so I am working also.” The Jews understood that Jesus was making His work equal with God’s work. Again they understood that He was claiming to be God’s Son. As a result, they hated Him all the more. Until that time they had been seeking only to punish Him, but soon they began to plan to kill Him.

Not only did Jesus claim to be equal with God as His Father, but He also said that He was one with the Father. During the Feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem, some of the Jewish leaders came to Jesus and asked Him if He was the Christ. Jesus ended His answer to them by saying, “My Father and I are one” (John 10:30). “Again the Jews picked up stones to throw at him. Jesus said to them, ‘Many good things have I shown you from My Father. For which of these things are you going to throw stones at Me?’”(John 10:31-32).

One might wonder why the Jews objected so strongly to what Jesus said about being one with the Father. The way the words are in the Greek language gives us an answer. A.T. Robertson, the greatest Greek expert of his day, wrote that in Greek the word “one” here does not mean one in person or one in purpose. It means one in nature. Robertson said that is the high point of Christ’s claims about the relationship between the Father and Himself [the Son]. That is what excited the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger, Robertson added.[2]

It is clear that in these words the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. Thus, Leon Morris, former head of Ridley College, Melbourne, wrote that the Jews could only think of Jesus’ words as words against God, and they took the judgment into their own hands. Morris pointed out that the Law said that words spoken against God were to be punished by death by stoning (Leviticus 24:16). But these men were not allowing the law to be enforced in the way the Law itself said it should be. They were not preparing a charge against Jesus so that the court could take the necessary action. Morris ended by saying that in their anger the Jews were preparing to be the judges and to carry out the death sentence themselves.[3]

We should ask if the Jews stopped to consider if Jesus’ claim was true.

Jesus often spoke of Himself as being one in nature with God. He said, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also” (John 8:19). “Anyone who sees Me, sees Him Who sent Me” (John 12:45). “Whoever hates Me, hates My Father also” (John 15:23). “All people will honor the Son as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father Who sent Him” (John 5:23).

These verses show that Jesus knew that He was more than just a man. He claimed to be equal with God. Those who say that Jesus just knew God better than others need to consider what He said. He said that if you refuse to honor the Son, then you are certainly not honoring the Father who sent Him.

When I was speaking to a class at a university in West Virginia, the teacher spoke out. He said that the Gospel of John is the only Gospel that has Jesus claiming to be God. And John was the last Gospel written. Mark, the first Gospel written, never makes that claim. The teacher was suggesting that John had added the claim that Jesus never made about Himself. But the teacher simply had not read Mark carefully.

I turned to the place in Mark’s Gospel where Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins. “When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the sick man, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven’” (Mark 2:5, see also Luke 7:48-50). Isaiah 43:25 says that only God can forgive sins. When the teachers of the Law heard Jesus forgiving the man’s sins, they asked, “Why does this Man talk like this? He is speaking as if He is God! Who can forgive sins? Only One can forgive sins and that is God!” (Mark 2:7). Jesus asked them, “Which is easier to say to a sick man, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or ‘Get up, take up your bed, and start to walk’” (Mark 2:9)?

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary says that this is a question that cannot be answered.[4] A man can say both things, but only God can do either of them. A false man, of course, would find the first easier to say since no one could see if what he said was true. Jesus healed the sick man so that men might know that He had the right to forgive sins also.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote that no man has either the power or the right to forgive sin. No one can forgive sin except the One against whom all have sinned, Chafer said. When Christ forgave sin, He was not doing something that belongs to men. Since no one but God can forgive sins, it is certain that Christ is God since He forgave sins, Chafer said.[5]

This idea of forgiveness troubled me for a long time because I did not understand it. One day in a university class I used Mark 2:5 in answering a question about Jesus as God. A student objected to my claim that Christ’s forgiveness of sin shows that He is God. He said that he could forgive people without any claim to be God. People do it all the time, he said.

As I thought about what the student was saying, the answer suddenly came to me. Yes, one can say, “I forgive you,” but only if he is the one who has been sinned against. If you sin against me, I have the right to forgive you. But if you sin against another person, I cannot forgive you. The sick man in the story had not sinned against the man Jesus. He and Jesus had never even seen each other before. The sick man had sinned against God. Then along came Jesus and said, “Your sins are forgiven.” Jesus forgave sins against God and so Jesus was claiming to be God.

Another situation in which Jesus claimed to be the Son of God was at His trial. The record of that trial has some of the clearest claims Jesus ever made to be God. The High Priest “stood up in front of the people. He asked Jesus, ‘Have You nothing to say? What about the things these men are saying against You?’” (Mark 14:60). When Jesus said nothing, the High Priest asked Him,

‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Holy One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am! And you will see the Son of Man seated on the right side of the All-powerful God. You will see Him coming again in the clouds of the sky’ (Mark 14:61-62).

A careful study of Christ’s answer shows that He made three claims. He claimed to be the Son of the Holy One. He claimed to be the One who would sit at the right side of the All-powerful God. And He claimed to be the Son of Man, who would come again in the clouds of the sky. Each of these claims could be true only of God. Together the three claims make a very strong case. The Jewish leaders understood all three points. The High Priest answered by tearing his clothes and saying, “Do we need others to speak against Him?” (Mark 14:63). They had heard it for themselves from Jesus’ own mouth.

Sir Robert Anderson was once head of criminal investigation at Scotland Yard. He pointed out that no evidence is stronger than the words of hostile witnesses. That is why the fact that Jesus claimed to be God is proven by what His enemies did. We must remember that the Jews were not a tribe of unlearned men. They were a highly educated and very religious people. It was upon this very charge that His death was ordered by their highest religious court. That court included the most important of their religious leaders, including men like Gamaliel, a great Jewish teacher of that time.[6]

It is clear, then, that this is the truth Jesus wanted to tell about Himself. We also see that the Jews understood that He was claiming to be God. At this point they faced two possibilities. Either He should be killed because of His false claim to be God or He really was God. His judges saw the issue so clearly that they demanded that He be killed. Then as He was dying they cried out against Him, saying, “He trusts God. . . . He has said, ‘I am the Son of God’”(Matthew 27:43).

H.B. Swete, a former teacher of religion at Cambridge University, explained what it meant for the high priest to tear his clothes. He said that the law did not allow the High Priest to tear his clothes for his own troubles (Leviticus 10:6; 21:10). But when he was acting as a judge, Swete said, custom demanded that he tear his clothes if he heard anyone speaking against God. Even if the Jewish leaders had no evidence before, now they did not need to look for any. The Prisoner had proven Himself guilty by making the claim in their own hearing, Swete said.[7]

We begin to see that Jesus’ trial was not like other trials. Irwin Linton, a lawyer, pointed out that as a criminal trial Jesus’ trial was different from all others. Other criminal trials examine only the actions of a person, Linton said. This trial examined who Jesus was. “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” (Matthew 22:42).[8]

William Jay Gaynor, a judge on New York State’s highest court, gave a talk on the trial of Jesus. In that talk he said that the crime for which Jesus was tried and found guilty was the crime of speaking against God. That is made clear in all four Gospels. Jesus had been claiming to have power that belongs only to God. It is a crime against God for any man to speak like that.[9]

By itself the trial of Jesus makes it clear that He claimed to be God. His judges understood that He was making that claim. On the day of Christ’s death, His enemies admitted that He claimed to be God in human form. The chief priests,

the teachers of the Law, and the other leaders made fun of Him also. They said, ‘He saved others but He cannot save Himself. If He is the King of the Jews, let Him come down from the cross. Then we will believe in Him. He trusts God. Let God save Him now, if God cares for Him. He has said, ‘I am the Son of God’ (Matthew 27:41-43).

Chapter 3
Lord, Liar, or Insane?

Many people think of Jesus as a good man or as a wise teacher who spoke many deep truths. But they do not want to think of Him as God. Wise men of the world often say that is the only acceptable way to think about Jesus. Many people simply accept what those worldly wise men say. They never trouble themselves about the falseness of that way of thinking.

Jesus claimed to be God, and to Him it was of greatest importance that men and women believed Him to be God. Either we believe Him or we do not. He did not leave us any room for other ways of thinking. Anyone who claimed what Jesus claimed about Himself could not be just a good man or a wise teacher. That possibility is not open to us.

C. S. Lewis, a former teacher at Cambridge University, once thought that men could not know God. Later he came to understand that he had to accept the claims of Christ. He wrote that he was trying to keep anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Jesus.  He said that people often say, “I am ready to accept Jesus as a good Man and a great teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God.” But Lewis said that is the one thing we must not say.

Lewis wrote,

A man who was just a man and said the sort of things Jesus said about Himself would not be a good man or a great teacher.  He would either be insane – on a level with the man who says he is a soft-boiled egg – or he would be Satan. You must choose. Either this Man is the Son of God, or He is insane or something worse.

Then Lewis added,

You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as an evil spirit, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any foolishness about His being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not mean to. [1]

Cambridge University teacher F.J.A. Hort spent twenty-eight years in a careful study of the New Testament. He wrote that Christ put so much of Himself into what He said that His words have no meaning apart from who He is.[2]

Kenneth Scott Latourette, an expert in church history at Yale University said “It is not His teaching that makes Jesus so remarkable, although that would be enough to make Him famous. It is His teaching joined with the Man himself. The two cannot be separated.” Latourette went on to say that it must be clear to any honest reader of the Gospels that Jesus thought of Himself and His message as the same thing. He was a great teacher, but He was more. His teachings about God, the kingdom of God and about the way people live were important. But they could not be separated from Him without making them false, Latourette said.[3]

Jesus claimed to be God. His claim is either true or it is false. He once asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15). Every one of us should give careful thought to our own answer to that question. There are several answers that could be given.

First, what if His claim to be God was false? If it were false, then either He knew it was false or He did not know it was false. If He knew it was false, He was a liar. If He did not know it was false, He was insane. We will consider each possibility by itself and examine the evidence for it.

Was Jesus a Liar?

If Jesus claimed to be God when He knew He was not, He was lying. But if He was a liar, He was not a good Man because He taught others to be honest whatever the cost. Worse than that, if He was lying, He was an evil spirit because He told others to trust Him for their salvation. If He knew He could not do what He said He would do, He was evil for giving His disciples a false hope. Last, He would also be a fool because His claim to being God led to His death on the cross. He could have saved Himself from the cross by admitting that He was not God.

People say that they believe Jesus was a good moral teacher. Think about it. How could He be a good moral teacher and lie to people about who He was? That was the most important point in His message.

To think of Jesus as a liar does not agree with other things we know about Him. Neither does it agree with the results of His life and teaching. Wherever Jesus is preached, lives are changed for the better. Nations are improved. Men who steal stop stealing. Drunkards stop drinking. Liars stop lying. Men filled with hate begin to love others.

William Lecky was one of Great Britain’s most famous students of history. He also was a fierce enemy of Christianity. But even he saw the effect of true Christianity on the world. He wrote that Christianity has given the world an example that has made the hearts of men beat with a great love through all the changes of eighteen hundred years. He said that it has shown itself able to act on all ages, nations and conditions. It has been not only the best example of a good life, Lecky said, but the strongest reason to live such a life. He said that the simple record of those three short years of Jesus’ ministry has done more to make men new and better than all the books of the world’s wise men.[4]

Philip Schaff was a student of church history. He said that if the claim that Jesus was God is not true, it is either fighting against God or it is insanity. To think that Jesus was lying to Himself in a thing so important is impossible, Schaff said. After all, in all other things His mind was so clear and sound. He was always able to deal with any difficulty that came along. He was able to answer the hardest questions, even questions that were asked especially to trap Him. He was always calm and in control of Himself in the face of suffering. He told His disciples about His coming death on the cross. He told them He would come back to life in three days. And it happened just as He said it would. How could He be a mad man or a rebel against God? Schaff said, “It would take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus.”[5]

In another place Schaff gave a strong argument against Christ’s being a liar. He wrote that we cannot possibly think that a person could act like a different person in every situation. That is especially true when one is so completely different from the other. How could an evil, dishonest man make himself seem like a good man all the time for three years? How could he even get the idea of acting like the best, most holy person ever known among men? How could such an evil man do the wonderful things Jesus did for people? Would an evil man go so far as to give his life for people when he knew that they had already made up their minds to oppose him?[6]

Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar. Let us look at another possibility.

Was Jesus Insane?

If we find it impossible to believe that Jesus was a liar, then can we believe that He was mistaken when He claimed to be God? After all, it is possible to be both honest and wrong. But we must remember that it is not normal for someone to think he is God when he is not. That would be true especially among the Jews, a people who believed so strongly that there is only one God. Is it possible that Jesus Christ was insane?

Today we would treat someone who believes himself to be God the same way we would treat someone who believes he is some great person from the past. We would call him insane and lock him up so that he would not be able to hurt himself or other people. Yet in Jesus we do not see the actions that go along with being insane. If He was insane, the way He lived and spoke certainly was not what we would have expected.

Arthur Noyes and Lawrence Kolb described an insane person as one who is out of touch with the real world. He wants to escape from the world as it is. Let us face it, for a man to claim to be God would certainly be an escape from the real world. In light of other things we know about Jesus, it is hard to imagine that He was sick in His mind. Here is a man who spoke some of the wisest words ever spoken. His words have set free many people who were sick in their minds.[7]

Clark H. Pinnock asked if Jesus could have been wrong about His greatness. Did He lead people wrong without meaning to do so? Was He sick in His mind? But the skill and depth of His teaching show the complete soundness of His mind. “If only we were as sane as He!” Pinnock said.[8]

A student at a university in California told me that his psychology teacher said in class that all he has to do is take up the Bible and read parts of Christ’s teaching to many of the people who come to him for help. That is all the help they need.

Psychologist Gary R. Collins explains that Jesus was loving but did not let His love keep Him from what He needed to do. He did not think too highly of Himself, Collins says, even though there were often many people around Him who worshiped Him. He kept His balance even when there were many demands made on Him. He always knew what He was doing and where He was going. He cared deeply about people, including women and children, who were not seen as important in that time. He was able to accept people while not accepting their sin. He treated people based on their real need at the time. Collins said, “All in all, I just do not see any sign that Jesus was suffering from any known sickness of the mind . . . . He was in much better mental health than any other person I know – including me!”[9]

Psychiatrist J.T. Fisher believes that Jesus’ teachings were deep. He said that we could take all the most important books ever written about mental health. Take the most important things from each book. Put them all together and have the most skilled writers put them down on two or three pages. What we would have would be a poorly written and incomplete version of the Sermon on the Mount, Fisher said. And it would not be nearly as good as what Jesus gave, he added. “For nearly two thousand years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to what the world needs and wants,” Fisher said. “Here . . . is the plan for the most pleasing and satisfying kind of life.”[10]

C.S. Lewis wrote that it would be hard to explain the life, teachings and influence of Jesus in a better way than the Christian church has. Lewis said that no one has ever been able to explain the conflict between the level of His teachings and His claim that He was God if He was not God. Still people who do not accept the claims of Christ keep coming up with new ways of trying to explain that, Lewis said.[11]

Philip Schaff asked if such a mind as Christ had was likely to be mistaken about His own nature and mission. That would not be possible, Schaff said.[12]

Was Jesus Lord?

I cannot believe that Jesus was either a liar or insane. The only other possibility is that He was – and is – the Christ, the Son of God, as He claimed to be. But many people cannot seem to bring themselves to accept Christ’s claims as true.

When I discuss the material in this chapter with most Jewish people, what they say is interesting.

I share with them the claims Jesus made about Himself and then put to them the possibilities.

When I ask if they believe Jesus was a liar, they give me a sharp “No!” Then I ask, “Do you believe He was insane?” They say, “Certainly not.” “Do you believe He is God?” Almost before I can finish the question, I hear, “No! No! No!” Yet one has no other possibilities.

The issue with these three possibilities is not which is possible, for it is clear that all three are possible. The question is, Which is most likely to be true? You cannot say that He was simply a great moral teacher. That is not a possibility. He is either a liar, insane or God. You must choose which you will believe. What you believe about Jesus must be more than just an act of the mind, though. As the Apostle John wrote, “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” and, more importantly, that by believing in Him “you will have life that lasts forever” (John 20:31).

The evidence clearly shows that Jesus is God.

Chapter 4
What About Science?

Many people try to put off giving their lives to Christ thinking that a thing is not true unless they can prove it scientifically. They think that since we cannot scientifically prove that Jesus was God or that He came back from the dead, then we should not accept Him as Saviour.

Often in a university class someone asks me, “Can you prove it scientifically?” I usually say, “Well, no, I am not a scientist.” Then I hear the class laughing. Someone will say something like, “Then do not talk to me about it,” or “See, you take it all by faith” (meaning without thinking).

Once on an airplane on my way to Boston I was talking with the passenger next to me about why I believe Christ is who He claimed to be. The pilot, walking through the airplane and talking with the passengers, heard part of what I was saying. “You have a problem with your belief,” he said.

“What is that?” I asked.

“You cannot prove it scientifically,” he replied.

I am always surprised when people say such things. We all accept as true many things that we cannot prove by scientific methods. We cannot scientifically prove anything about any person or anything that happened in the past, but that does not mean that proof is not possible. We need to understand the difference between scientific proof and legal-historical proof. Let me explain.

The scientific method involves seeing, measuring and describing what happens and then doing it again to see if the same thing happens.[1] Dr. James B. Conant, former president of Harvard University, said that science is a series of ideas about the way things may work. These ideas are connected with one another and are proven to be true by seeing experiments many times that produce the same results each time.[2]

Testing the truth of an idea by the use of controlled experiments is one of the main tools of the scientific method. For example, someone claims that Ivory Soap does not float. I claim that it does float. So to prove my point, I take the other person to water and put a piece of Ivory Soap in the water. We see that the soap is floating. The experiment proves that Ivory Soap does float. At least it floats sometimes and under some conditions. As we repeat the experiment at different times and under different conditions, we strengthen the proof that Ivory Soap floats.

If the scientific method were the only method we had for proving facts, you could not prove what you did last night or that you had lunch today. There is no way you could repeat those things in a controlled situation. To prove what you did last night or that you had lunch today, another method of proof is needed.

The other method of proof is the legal-historical method. It is based on showing something is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, we make a judgment on the weight of the evidence and have no good reason to believe our judgment is wrong. Legal-historical proof depends on three kinds of evidence. Those are the evidence of what people say, the evidence in writing and the evidence of things we can see and touch, such as a gun or a book. Using the legal-historical method, you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you went to lunch today. Your friends saw you there, the server remembers seeing you, and you have the bill showing what you had to eat.

The scientific method can be used to prove only things that can be done many times. It cannot prove that certain things happened in the past or that they did not happen. The scientific method cannot answer such questions as: Did George Washington live? Did Martin Luther King Jr. work to have all people treated the same way? Who was Jesus of Nazareth? Does Barry Bond hold the baseball one-season home-run record? Was Jesus Christ raised from the dead? These questions must be answered by the legal-historical method. Then the main question becomes: can we trust the evidence for things that happened in the past?

Chapter 5
The Problem of the New Atheism

As I (Sean) sat down at the local coffee house, I looked across the room and saw a young woman reading a book. The words on the front of the book were: “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” I asked her what the book was about. She told me that religion has been the greatest evil in world history. She said that science has proven that there is no good reason to believe in God. She said that people can be good without God.

Was she right? Would the world be better if everyone believed in atheism, that there is no God?

Atheism is not new. About a thousand years before Christ, King David wrote about a person who says in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). There have always been people who say there is no God, and there probably always will be people who say that. These people have never had much influence on other people until now.

In 2006 and 2007 three books were published. The writers of these books are called new atheists. Their books have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Their influence has gone out in other ways also. They have spoken in public about what they believe. They have been on the radio and television.

They have made many Christians doubt their faith. The new atheists want to take away any reasons for religious belief. They want to influence believers to leave their faith. A growing number of Americans now call themselves atheists. But is the new atheism really new?

There Is Nothing New

Things may seem new, but that does not mean that they really are new. There is nothing new in science or history that proves that Christianity is false. Still there are a few things that make the new atheists different.

First, they are not sorry to live in a world without God. Old atheists knew what would happen in a world where people did not believe in God. One atheist in the past said that the death of God meant the loss of purpose, joy and everything that makes life good. The older atheists understood that the belief in God is what made our way of life possible. But the new atheists really celebrate the idea that there is no God. They think that life can continue as it always has and even get better if we simply do away with the idea of God.

Second, the new atheists are different from the old atheists because they want to remove all religious faith from the world. They believe that religion is man-made and is harmful to everything.

Third, the new atheists direct their strongest attacks against Christianity. They criticize other religions but clearly their real target is Christianity. Atheist Richard Dawkins even said that his main target is the Christian church.[1]

It is important to keep these words of the Bible in mind: “He who tells his story first makes people think he is right, until the other comes to test him” (Proverbs 18:17). That is, when we listen to only one side we are more likely to believe that side is right. When we hear the other side of the question, we may change our mind. We know this is the truth, not only because it is in the Bible, but because we have found it to be true in our own experience. The new atheists can seem to be right until we hear the other side. Here is the other side.

Is Atheism More Reasonable?

The new atheists really believe that atheism is right. Atheist Christopher Hitchens said that religion is based on “faith alone” but atheism needs no faith because it is based on the evidence of science.[2]

We will consider the question of whether atheism (believing there is no God) or theism (believing there is a God) best explains science. But first we will consider a question that must come first: Why does the world make any sense at all?

Albert Einstein once said that one of the hardest things to understand about the world is that the world can be understood. He knew something important about science: that science depends on first accepting certain ideas about the world. These ideas include that there is a real world, this world can be known and there is order in the world. Science can do nothing unless it accepts these ideas as true.

This creates a hard problem for the atheist. If the mind developed by chance, as Charles Darwin taught, why should we trust it at all? Why should we believe that the human brain, if it came about by chance, can put us in touch with the real world? Science cannot answer these questions because science must begin by accepting that the human brain does put us in touch with the real world.

Even Darwin understood this problem. He said, “The terrible doubt always comes: Can the human mind be trusted when it has developed from the mind of lower animals? Would anyone trust an animal’s mind, even if that animal could think?”[3]  The new atheists place great trust in their own powers of reason. But the way they think about the world should make them doubt those very powers.

Paul Davies said,

Atheists claim that the laws of nature do not make sense. They say the world is without reason. As a man of science, I find that hard to accept. There must be a reasonable, unchanging ground in which the orderly nature of the universe is based.[4]

Atheism has no such reasonable ground. But theism, belief in God, does. A reasonable universe is what we would expect of a God who exists.

Is Science at War with Religion?

The new atheists want you to think that science has been at war with religion for hundreds of years. Although many people have accepted that as true, it is not true. Religion has not been holding back the efforts of science.[5] In fact, modern science is based on the Christian way of thinking about the world. Christians believe that there is order in the universe. They believe in human reason. They believe that God is glorified in our understanding what He has created.

Most early men of science felt that they had to study the world because of their Christian way of thinking. Alfred Whitehead said that modern science came mostly from the idea that God is a reasonable God.[6]

Modern science did not develop out of nothing. It came largely from the force of Christianity. It is not surprising that most early men of science believed in God. For many of them belief in God was their main reason for studying the world. Francis Bacon believed the world was full of things that God meant for us to explore. Johannes Kepler said that the main reason for studying the world should be to discover the reasonable order that God has put upon it.[7]

Atheist Hitchens said that these early scientists had to speak of God because everyone in their day was religious. If they had not spoken as Christians, the other people of their day would not have accepted them.[8] But if religious believers get no credit for the good things they do, why are they blamed for bad things done in the name of God?

Is Atheism More Scientific?

What makes the new atheists so sure of themselves is that they believe science is on their side. Sam Harris said, “There is no basis for belief in the God of the Bible in our growing understanding of the world that comes from science.”[9] Hitchens seems to be saying that the more science learns, the less reason there is to believe in God.[10]

But is this the whole story?  No, the evidence for design in the universe has really increased in recent years.[11] One of the best known atheists of the past fifty years, Antony Flew, recently changed his mind about God for this very reason. His many books and talks had set the direction for modern atheism. Then in 2004, Flew announced that God must exist. His words shocked the world. Why did he change his mind? He wrote, “The short answer is the picture of the world that has come from modern science.”[12] Atheists can say that science is on their side, but the evidence shows that this is not true.

Consider two problems that have never been explained by science but point strongly toward God.

The mystery of when life begins

One of the hardest problems for science today is to say when life begins. Men of science really believe this is a mystery that cannot be solved. George Whitesides of Harvard once said that the question of when life begins has not yet been answered.[13] Sam Harris agrees that no one really knows when life begins.[14]

The problem of when life begins is really a problem of information. All living things are made up of cells. At the center of each cell is something called DNA. In 1953 scientists began to understand that the DNA contains all the information to say what that cell will become. That is why Nobel prize winner David Baltimore spoke of the science of living things as “a science of information.”

How much information is found in living things? Richard Dawkins said that the information in one cell of the smallest living thing is greater than all the information in the Encyclopedia Britannica.[15] But DNA does more than just store information. It also works with that information much like a computer. But that computer is greater than any computer man has ever made.[16]

Atheists admit that they have no idea about how life first began. Dawkins said that it was unlikely that life could just begin by itself. Then he went on to say that it was just luck.[17] Is that the best he can do? Could life really begin just by luck?

Understanding the amount of information that is in DNA was one of the reasons Anthony Flew changed his mind about God. He said, “The only acceptable reason we can give for life as we see it on earth is that it was created by a very wise Mind.”[18] When we look at a set of books such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, we understand that it was created by some great minds. The best way we can explain the human DNA is to say that a great Mind made it. We call that great Mind “God.”

Making the universe a perfect place for man

Imagine that you are walking through the mountains and come to a house. There is no one there, but the door is open. You look inside and see all the foods you like best. The books you like best are on the table. You listen and can hear music, the very music you like best. You look around and see that everything is just the way you like it. You might begin to think that someone was expecting you to come.

In recent years scientists have begun to see that that is just the way it is with the universe. It seems that the universe was made especially for man. Freeman J. Dyson said: “As we look out into the universe and see all the things that work for our good, it seems as if the universe must have known we were coming.”[19]  Fred Hoyle said: “A common sense understanding of the facts says that a great Mind has been at work in the universe. There are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”[20]

There are nineteen conditions that must be met for life to exist on earth. For example, gravity (the force that keeps people and things tied to earth) must be exactly as it is. If gravity were just a little stronger, every living thing would have the life forced out of it. If gravity were a little less, things would float off into space. The chance that all nineteen of these conditions would be exactly right for life on earth is very, very small. In fact, that chance is so small we cannot even think it is possible.

Paul Davies said that we cannot explain the universe without explaining what seems to be this planning of a great Mind.[21] The best way of explaining why the universe is the way it is, is because a Creator (God) made it that way.

Does Atheism Produce a Purer Life?

The new atheists attack what they call the evils of religion. They call the God of the Bible evil. They say that a pure life can exist without God. Dawkins said, “We do not need God in order to be good, or evil.”[22] The new atheists call religion evil while they call science good. But that creates a problem for them. If there is no God, where do we get our ideas of the pure life? Who makes the rules? Who decides what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil?

The problem for atheists is that it is difficult to say what is evil if there is no rule from outside of ourselves to say what is good. That is, there can only be evil if there is first good. But if there is no God to say what is good, how can there be good? Or if there is no God, what reason does a person have to be good? Even J.L. Mackie, an atheist, understood that there could be no idea of good apart from the idea of an all-powerful God.

We might put the argument this way: If the idea of good exists, there must be a God. Good does exist. So, there must be a God. We know that good exists. For example, most people agree that it is good to take care of young children and protect them from harm. Hurting small children just for fun is evil.

Many atheists are kind and loving people. They may be hard workers. But that is only because they choose to be that way or because that is their nature. There is nothing in their belief that demands that they be such people since they do not believe in God.

Is Christianity an Evil?

The old atheists believed that religion was false. The new atheists believe it is not only false but also evil. Sam Harris called religion “the greatest cause of human conflict.”[23] The new atheists point to many times in the past when people who were called Christians did terrible things. They say that these things show how evil Christianity is.

It is true that people have done terrible things in the name of Christ. But why should Christianity be blamed when people who are called Christian do the opposite of what Jesus taught? Did Jesus teach that we should burn people who do things by the power of Satan? Did He say that the church should torture those who spread false teaching? Certainly not. In fact, He taught just the opposite. He taught that we should love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). He said we should help those who are rejected by others (Matthew 8:3). He taught that we should lay down our lives for others (John 15:13). If people really lived as Jesus taught, conflict would be a thing of the past.

In the book What’s So Great about Christianity? Dinesh D’Souza has shown that the new atheists lie to make Christians look bad and atheists look good. For example, Sam Harris wrote about the one hundred thousand people that died in the Salem witch trials. In fact, the number was less than twenty-five.[24] Compare that with the numbers that have died under atheism.

Remember that we are not talking about whether atheists are good or bad people. Many of them are very good people. The question is whether atheism itself is good or bad. When we look at the question in that way, we understand that no other way of thinking has caused so many deaths. Just in the twentieth century the atheistic nations of Communist Russia, Communist China and Nazi Germany have been responsible for the deaths of more than one hundred million people.[25] David Berlinski said that one of the main reasons for that was that the leaders did not feel responsible to a higher power. Berlinski said that Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not believe that God was watching what they were doing.[26]

Christians have done some bad things, but Christianity has done much more good. Christianity has built hospitals and led in the effort to end slavery. It has led in the fields of education and science. It has been a world leader in the cause of freedom.

In Closing

The only thing really new about the new atheists is how they present their ideas. There are no new discoveries in science to prove that God does not exist. In fact, just the opposite is true. The more we learn of how the cell in the human body works, the more we see the hand of God.

About three thousand years ago the psalmist said it best: “The heavens are telling of the greatness of God and the great open spaces above show the work of His hands. Day to day they speak, and night to night they show much learning” (Psalm 19:1-2). This psalm says so clearly that God can be known through the things He has made. But He is known best through Jesus Christ. That is not something we accept through blind faith. We accept it because of the strong evidence.

Can we prove that Jesus is the Son of God? We cannot do that by science, but there is much evidence through the legal-historical method. Then the question is: Can we trust the evidence in the New Testament?

One thing about the Christian faith that has especially appealed to me is that it is not based on blind faith but on solid evidence. Every time we read that a person in the Bible was asked to have faith, we see that it is an intelligent faith. Jesus said, “You will know the truth” (John 8:32). He did not say that you did not need to know it. Someone asked Christ, “Which is the most important commandment?” He answered, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). That is, He said that we must love God with our minds as well as with our hearts and our souls.

The trouble with some Christians is that they seem to love God only with their hearts. The truth of Christ never gets into their minds. We have been given minds to know God as well as hearts to love Him and wills to choose Him. We need to use all three in order to have a full relationship with God and to glorify Him.

I do not know how it is with you, but my heart cannot be happy in what my mind cannot accept. My heart and mind were created to work together. No one has ever been asked to close his mind in order to trust Christ as Saviour and Lord.

In the next four chapters we will look at the legal-historical evidence for why we can trust the Bible.

Chapter 6
Can the Bible Be Trusted?

Almost everything we know about Jesus comes to us from the New Testament. In the past two hundred years many men have claimed that the New Testament cannot be trusted. They keep coming up with new ideas that have no solid evidence in history. Good evidence has shown that every one of their claims is false.

When I was speaking at Arizona State University, a teacher brought his class to hear me. He came to me after my talk and said,

Mr. McDowell, you are basing all your claims about Christ on a document from A.D. 180 that is no longer accepted. I showed in class today that the New Testament was written so long after Christ lived that it could not be true in what it said.

I answered,

I understand what you are saying, and I know the writings on which you base it. But the fact is, those writings have been proven wrong by more recently discovered documents. Those documents clearly show that the New Testament was written within a few years of the time of Christ.

That teacher’s ideas about the New Testament came from the writings of Ferdinand Christian Baur. Baur thought that most of the New Testament was not written until nearly a hundred and fifty years after the time of Christ. He said they came from the stories that had developed during that period.

In the last hundred years, however, new evidence has been found that shows that the New Testament can be trusted. We now have copies of parts of the New Testament that are much nearer to the time of Christ than the copies we had before. The Rylands copy of the Gospel of John is from A.D. 130. The Chester Beatty Papyri comes from A.D. 155. And the Bodmer Papyri II comes from A.D. 200. These are all copies of New Testament books that had been written years earlier.

Millar Burrows was a teacher at Yale University for many years. He said that by comparing the newly discovered copies with what we know of New Testament Greek we can be sure that the copies are good copies.[1] That makes us believe more firmly that the Bible can be trusted.

William F. Albright was the world’s leading archaeologist of Bible lands in his day. He wrote that we can be very sure that no book of the New Testament was written after about A.D. 80. That was 50 to 70 years earlier than some men once thought.[2] Albright said that every book of the New Testament was written by a Jewish Christian between A.D. 40 and A.D. 80.[3] That was within 50 years after the death of Christ.

Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists that ever lived, studied under men who taught that the book of Acts was written about A.D 150. Ramsay accepted the idea that Acts did not agree with the history of its time and so it could not be trusted. Since it could not be trusted, no student of history should pay any attention to it, Ramsay thought. In his study of the history of Asia Minor, Ramsay did not consider the New Testament. His study, however, forced him to consider the book of Acts. When he saw how careful Luke was with the details of history, he began to change his thinking. He finally decided that Luke was one of the very best writers of history.[4] Because Luke was so careful about even the smallest details, Ramsay finally agreed that Acts was not written as late as A.D. 150, as he had been taught.

Many liberal scholars are being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament. What the late Anglican bishop John A.T. Robinson wrote in his book Redating the New Testament is surprising. He said that his study led him to feel sure that all of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.[5]

Those who judge the Bible on the basis of how the language is used are called form critics. The form critics say that material was passed by word of mouth until it was written down in the form of the Gospels. Today they admit that the time between what happened and when it was written down was much shorter than they used to think. But they still say that the Gospels took the form of “folk writing.” That means that they do not believe that most of what is written in the Gospels is true.

Even if the form critics are right, the time was not long enough for what they claim happened. Given a culture such as the Jewish culture, 150 years would not be enough time for the story of Jesus to develop if it were not true. Simon Kistemaker, who was a teacher of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, wrote about that shortness of time.  He said that usually folk writing takes hundreds of years to develop.[6]

A.H. McNeile, a teacher at the University of Dublin, said that the idea of the gospel being passed down by word of mouth cannot be true. He pointed out that form critics do not deal with the tradition of Jesus’ words as carefully as they should. In the Jewish culture it was important that a teacher’s exact words be kept and passed down. For example in 1 Corinthians 7:10 Paul gave the exact words of Jesus. Then in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 7:25 Paul was careful to say that he was not giving the exact words of Jesus.

It was usual for a Jewish student to learn the exact words of his teacher. A good student was like “a cup that does not lose even the smallest bit” (Mishna, Aboth, ii, 8). C.F. Burney  (in The Poetry of Our Lord, 1925) said that much of the Lord’s teaching was in an Aramaic form that makes it easy to remember.[7] It is impossible that in such a culture a tradition of stories that were not true could have developed in such a short time.

Other great students of the Bible agree. Paul L Maier, teacher of ancient history at Western Michigan University, wrote: “The argument that the church developed its Easter story over a long period of time is simply not true. Neither is it true that the documents were written many years after the things happened.”[8]

Albright wrote that only teachers who have no understanding of history can create such an idea as that which form critics have of the gospel tradition. Albright’s own opinion was that twenty to fifty years was too short of a time for Jesus’ exact words to be lost.[9] Jeffery L. Sheler, religion writer for US News & World Report, wrote that the Bible still agrees with the history of its time.[10]

Dan Brown has claimed that more than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament.[11]

Other people have claimed the more reasonable number of twenty. Some people think that these other gospels should be accepted as Scripture along with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They claim that that would give us a truer idea of who Jesus was and what He taught. Those claims cannot be accepted when we examine them closely.

The most serious charge against these other gospels is that they were all written long after the time of Jesus and the apostles. The four Gospels of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of the apostles. That is, they were written when both the friends of Jesus and His enemies were still living. His friends could add their witness to what was written while His enemies could offer proof against the Gospels if they had any. Most students of the Bible have decided that we cannot accept any of these other gospels as equal with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Often non-Christians tell me that we cannot trust what the Bible says. “Why, it was written more than two thousand years ago,” they say. “It is full of mistakes and stories that do not agree.” I tell them that I believe I can trust the Scriptures. Then I describe an incident that took place during a talk in a history class. I told that class that I believed there was more reason to trust the New Testament than almost any other ten pieces of writing from ancient times put together.

The teacher sat at the side of the room laughing. I asked him what he was laughing about. He said, “I cannot believe you would be so foolish as to claim in a history class that the New Testament can be trusted. That is insane!”

Wanting to find common ground for talking about the issue, I asked him a question. “Tell me,” I said, “as a teacher of history, what are the tests you use to see if a piece of writing can be trusted?”  I was surprised that he did not have any such tests. I should not have been surprised, though, because I have never gotten an answer to that question.

“I have some tests,” I said. I told him that I strongly believe we should test the Scripture by the same tests we use with all documents from the past. Chauncey Sanders, an expert in history, gives these three tests: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.[12] Let us examine each test.

Bibliographical Test

The bibliographical test is an examination of the way ancient documents reach us from the past. In other words, since we do not have the exact documents the writers wrote, we have to ask some questions. How sure can we be that the copies are the same as what the writers wrote? How many copies do we have? How well do they agree? How much time passed between the time the writers wrote and when the copies were made?

We can see the great amount of evidence for the correctness of a copy of the New Testament by comparing it with copies of other important writings of the past.

We have only eight copies of the history of Thucydides (written 460-400 B.C.). Those copies come from about A.D. 900. That is thirteen hundred years after Thucydides wrote. The copies of the history of Herodotus are also late and rare. And yet, as F. F. Bruce, a teacher at the University of Manchester, wrote, no expert would say that the work of Herodotus or Thucydides should be doubted because the copies are so late.[13]

Aristotle wrote one of his books about 343 B.C., and yet the earliest copy we have is from A.D. 1100. That is fourteen hundred years later. And only five copies exist.

Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 B.C. and 50 B.C. We have only nine or ten copies, and they come from a thousand years after his death.

Bruce Metzger was the author or editor of fifty books on why we should trust the New Testament. He said, “Consider Tacitus, the Roman who wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome about A.D. 116. His first six books exist today in only one copy, and it was made about A.D. 850. Books seven through ten are lost. Books eleven through sixteen are in another copy from the 1200s.”[14]

Metzger said that we have only nine copies of The Jewish War by Josephus and they were made between A.D. 900 and A.D. 1200. There is one copy from the 500s, but it is in Latin. There also are parts of The Jewish War in Russian from the 1200s or the 1300s.

Compared to these other writings from the past, there are a very large number of copies of the New Testament books, Metzger said.

When I first wrote this book in 1977, we had forty-six hundred copies of the Bible in Greek. That is far more material than exists for any other book from ancient times. However, as of this writing, even more copies of the Bible in Greek have been found, and there are now more than fifty-six hundred of them.

Daniel Wallace, a teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary, is one of the world’s leading experts on copies of the New Testament in the Greek language. He says that more than two hundred copies of parts of the Bible were found in 1975 when a small room of St. George’s Tower in the Sinai was discovered.  Ninety of those copies are from the New Testament. Some of those copies are very old. They all confirm that the way the New Testament has come down to us has kept it pure. In addition to the copies, there are fifty thousand very small pieces of copies.  About 30 separate New Testament copies have been identified in those small pieces, and experts believe there may be many more.[15]

Jacob Klausner said that if we had ancient material like those for the Gospels for the history of Alexander or Caesar, we would have no doubts about those men.[16] Then why should we have doubts about Jesus?

Sir Frederic Kenyon was one of the world’s leading experts on examining the copies of ancient books. He said that the time between the writing of the books of the New Testament and the time the copies were made was very short. In fact, he said, that time was so short that it can make no difference at all. There can be no doubt but that the New Testament we have is the same as what the writers wrote, Kenyon said.[17]

Others agree. Stephen Neill has studied the history of the New Testament period carefully. He said that “we have far better evidence for accepting our copy of the New Testament than for any other ancient writing.”[18]

Craig Blomberg was a teacher of New Testament at Denver Seminary. He explains that the copies of the New Testament “have been kept in far greater number and with much more care than have any other ancient documents.” Blomberg said that we can be sure that 97 percent to 99 percent of the  New Testament is exactly as the writers wrote it.[19]

J. Harold Greenlee, a teacher of New Testament Greek, agreed. He said that since experts accept the text we have of other ancient books they should accept the text of the  New Testament as well.[20]

Using the bibliographical test for the New Testament shows that we have more reason to trust it than we have to trust any other piece of writing from ancient times. After more than 130 years of work by the form critics, we can be sure that a pure New Testament text has been established.

What About Differences in the Ancient Bibles?

Bart Ehrman wrote a book called Misquoting Jesus. In the book he said that there are as many as four hundred thousand differences among the ancient copies of the New Testament. With that many differences, he said, there must be so many mistakes that we cannot now know exactly what the writers wrote. That means that we cannot trust the New Testament to really tell us about Jesus or His teaching.

But by far most of those differences are not important. For example, one copy might call the writer of the fourth Gospel “John” and another give his name as “Johnn.”

Or some copies may call Jesus “Lord” in a certain place while other copies may use “he” in the same place. Clearly such differences make no difference in the meaning. Still some differences do make a difference. For example, some copies give 1 John 1:4 as “that our joy might be full” while others give it as “that your joy might be full.” That does change the meaning, but it does not change any main teaching of the Bible. In fact, there are no differences that change any of the main teachings of the Bible.[21]

Internal Evidence Test

The bibliographical test shows only that the New Testament we have now is what was written at first. We must still see, not only if we should trust it, but also how much we should trust it.

John W. Montgomery reminds us that Aristotle said that we should believe what a document says about itself unless there is good reason not to do so. Most students of history have accepted that as a good and fair rule. Montgomery went on to say that this means that we must listen to the claims of the document. We should not think the writer is lying or making mistakes unless we can prove that he has said things that are not true.[22]

Louis Gottschalk was a teacher of history at the University of Chicago. He explained his method in a book used by many writers of history. Gottschalk pointed out that it is helpful to the reader if he knows that a writer was in a position to know the truth. That is true, Gottschalk said, even if there is some reason to doubt the truthfulness of the document.[23]

Being able to know the truth is closely connected to the witness’s nearness to the things recorded both in distance and in time. The New Testament was written by men who were there. They had seen and heard Jesus or were told by people who had seen and heard Him. Consider these words from the New Testament:

Many people have written about the things that have happened among us. Those who saw everything from the first and helped teach the Good News have passed these things on to us. Dear Theophilus, I have looked with care into these things from the beginning. I have decided it would be good to write them to you one after the other the way they happened (Luke 1:1-3).

Experts agree that Luke got the facts of history right. “The general opinion of both liberal and conservative teachers is that Luke is very careful as a writer of history,” explained John McRay, a teacher of New Testament at Wheaton College. “Luke writes well and his writing is easy to read. His use of the Greek language is about as good as the best of the Greek writers. He writes as an educated man. Discoveries in archaeology are showing over and over again that Luke is correct in what he has to say.”[24]

Peter wrote: “We had nothing to do with man-made stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His coming again. We have seen His great power with our own eyes” (2 Peter 1:16).

John wrote: “We are preaching what we have heard and seen. We want you to share together with us what we have with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).

Another time John wrote: “The one who saw it is writing this and what he says is true. He knows he is telling the truth so you may believe” (John 19:35).

In Acts Luke wrote: “After He had suffered much and then died, He showed Himself alive in many sure ways for forty days. He told them many things about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).

Again Luke reported the words of the apostles, “For we must tell what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).

Lynn Gardner examined just the writings of those who saw and heard Jesus (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude). He said that compared with the evidence of other ancient books, “We have a far better record for our understanding of Jesus.”[25]

Because the writers of the New Testament were writing close to the time of the things they reported, we can expect that their writing is correct. They still remembered clearly. However, the writer of history must deal with witnesses who tell things that are not true, either on purpose or accidently.

Norman Geisler started Southern Evangelical Seminary and was its first president. He said that both the great number of the independent eyewitnesses and the kind of men they were prove that their reports can be trusted.[26]

The things the New Testament reports of Christ were being talked about during the lives of those who lived at the same time He lived. If the things the Bible tells about Him were not true, those people could have known so. In preaching the gospel, the apostles appealed to common knowledge about Jesus. They did that even when they were talking with those who opposed them most strongly. Listen to what they said: “God worked through Jesus while He was with you. You all know this” (Acts 2:22).

As Paul was speaking for himself: Festus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Paul, you are crazy! All your learning keeps you from thinking right!’ Paul said, ‘Most respected Fetsus, I am not crazy. I am speaking the truth! The king knows about all this. I am free to speak to him in plain words. Nothing I have said is new to him. These things happened where everyone saw them’ (Acts 26:24-26).

One has to be careful when he says to his enemy, “You also know this.” If the enemy does not agree with what is said, he will certainly say that he does not.

F. F. Bruce said,

It was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the New Testament writers had to record. There were other witnesses who were not friendly toward Jesus. They, too, knew the main facts of His life and death. If the disciples said things that were not true, those others would be only too happy to correct them. One of the strong points in the preaching of the apostles was the appeal to the knowledge of the hearers. The apostles not only said, ‘We have seen these things’ (Acts 5:32), but also, ‘You all know this’ (Acts 2:22).[27]

Lawrence J. McGinley of Saint Peter’s College spoke about the value of a hostile witness:

Eyewitnesses were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed. Among these eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new church. Yet the tradition claimed to tell a series of well-known acts. It did that at a time when false sayings could, and would, have been disputed.[28]

That is why David Hackett Fischer, teacher of history at Brandeis University, said that the eyewitness report of the apostles is the best evidence.[29]

Robert Grant of the University of Chicago said that when Matthew, Mark and Luke were written there were eyewitnesses. This means that the Gospels must be considered as trustworthy reports of the life, death and rising again of Jesus.[30]

Will Durant spent his life in studying and writing history. He said that the writers of the New Testament included many things that they would not have included if they were making up the story of Jesus. Consider these things: “Several of the apostles asked Jesus to put them in the highest places in His Kingdom. That made some of the other apostles angry.”

When Jesus was arrested, His disciples ran away.

At the time of Jesus’ trial Peter denied that he even knew Him.

Jesus failed to do any wonderful works in Nazareth, His hometown.

Some of the people who heard Jesus teach thought that He was insane.

Early in His ministry Jesus seemed to be unsure of His mission.

Jesus said that He did not know the future.

Sometimes Jesus seemed to be bitter.

When He was on the cross, He cried out that God had left Him.

Durant wrote,

That a few simple men should have made up such a Man as Jesus would be a wonder. It would be a far greater wonder than any of the wonderful works recorded in the Gospels. After years of form criticism, the life and teaching of Christ remain clear enough. And they show that the story of Jesus is the most interesting story in the history of the western world.[31]

External Evidence Test

The third test is that of external evidence. The issue here is to see if other material confirms or denies what the documents say. In other words, what other material agrees with what the New Testament says?

Louis Gottschalk said that “agreement with other known facts is often the most important test of evidence.”[32]

Two disciples of the Apostle John confirm the internal evidence that is given in John’s writings. The first disciple of John was Papias, bishop of Hierapolos (A.D. 130). In his Church History Eusebius gives this from Papias:

The Elder [the Apostle John] used to say this also: ‘Mark wrote down carefully all that Peter told that Christ said and did. However, he did not write them in order. For Mark did not travel with Jesus and never heard Him speak. Later, though, he traveled with Peter. In his preaching and teaching Peter told things that Jesus said and did. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way the things as Peter told them. Mark was careful to put down everything he heard Peter say, but he did not put down anything false.[33]

The second disciple of John was Polycarp. Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna and was a Christian for eighty-six years. One of Polycarp’s disciples was Irenaeus, later bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180). Irenaeus wrote of what he learned from Polycarp:

Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews [that is, Jews] in their own language when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and starting the church there. After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark, the disciple of Peter, handed down to us in writing the main points of  Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, wrote his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.[34]

Archaeology often provides powerful external evidence. It does this by providing evidence that what the Bible says really did happen. Archaeologist Joseph Free wrote that archaeology has proven the Bible correct in many points where the critics had said it was wrong.[35]

We have already seen how archaeology caused Sir William Ramsay to change his early ideas about Luke. Ramsay learned that the book of Acts gives a true record of the lands of the Bible and of the people who lived there.

F.F. Bruce said that “where people thought that Luke was not careful about facts, it has been shown that he is in full agreement with the known facts. So we may say that archaeology has proven the New Testament record to be true.”[36]

A.N. Sherwin White, a student of Greek and Roman history, wrote that “the confirmation that the book of Acts is good history is too great to be denied.” He went on to say that “any attempt to say that Acts is not good history, even in the smallest points, must now appear foolish. For many years those who study the history of Rome have accepted Acts as good history.”[37]

After trying to prove that the books of the Bible cannot be trusted, I have been forced to say that they are completely trustworthy. If a person rejects the Bible as poor history, then he or she must reject all the writings of ancient times. No other document has as much evidence to prove that it can be trusted.

Many people want to use one test for the Bible and a different test for all other writing. But we must use the same test for both. Having done this myself, I am sure that the Bible is trustworthy in its witness about Jesus.

Clark H. Pinnock, teacher of theology at Regent College, wrote,

No other document from the ancient world has as much good evidence to prove that it can be trusted as the Bible has. No honest person can dismiss a book of this kind. Any person who considers the evidence for the Bible and still doubts it, came to the question with his mind already made up.[38]

Douglas Groothuis, teacher of philosophy at Denver Seminary, points out that “the New Testament is better confirmed by ancient copies than any other piece of ancient writing.”[39]

Chapter 7
Who Would Die for a Lie?

Those who say that Christianity is not true often forget one area of evidence. They do not consider how the lives of Jesus’ apostles were changed. The changed lives of these men give us solid evidence for the truth of Christ’s claims.

Since the Christian faith is based on history, what we know about it must come from witnesses. Without witnesses, we have no way of knowing of anything that happened in the past. How could we know that Napoleon lived? No man now living was alive in his time. We have not seen him or met him. We must depend on witnesses.

Here is the problem: can we trust the witnesses for the Bible? Since what we know about Christianity is based on witnesses from so long ago, can we be sure that what they said is true? Did people remember Jesus’ words and acts clearly enough until those things were written down? Can we trust them? I believe we can.

I can trust what the apostles said because eleven of them died for what they believed. They believed that Christ was God. They believed that He came to life again after His death. These men were put into prison and beaten. Finally they were killed by some of the most cruel ways known at that time.[1] Six of them died on crosses: Peter, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the zealot. Four of them were killed with weapons of war: James, Thomas, Matthew and Thaddaeus. Only John died a peaceful death. But even he was sent into exile when he was an old man.

People often say, “These men died for a lie. Many people have done that. So what does it prove?” Yes, many people have died for a lie, but they did so believing it was the truth. What was the case with the disciples? If Jesus did not rise from the dead, clearly the disciples would have known it. I can find no way that these men would have not known if Jesus had remained dead. That means that they not only would have died for a lie, but that they would have known it was a lie. It would be hard to find eleven men anywhere in history who would die for a lie that they knew was a lie.

Let us look at three facts that help us understand why we can believe that the witness of the apostles is true.

They Were Eyewitnesses

The apostles wrote and spoke as eyewitnesses to the life and teaching of Jesus. Peter said: “We had nothing to do with man-made stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His coming again. We have seen His great power with our own eyes” (2 Peter 1:16). The apostles certainly knew the difference between the truth and a lie.

John said that what they knew of Christ was based on personal witness.

Christ is the Word of Life. He was from the beginning. We have heard Him and have seen Him with our own eyes. We have looked at Him and put our hands on Him. Christ Who is Life was shown to us. We saw Him. We tell you and preach about the Life that lasts forever. He was with the Father and He has come down to us. We are preaching what we have heard and seen. We want you to share together with us what we have with the Father and with His Son Jesus (1 John 1:1-3).

Near the end of his Gospel John said, “Jesus did many other powerful works in front of His followers. They are not written in this book” (John 20:30).

Luke said,

Many people have written about the things that have happened among us. Those who saw everything from the first and helped teach the Good News have passed these things on to us. Dear Theophilus, I have looked with care into these things from the beginning. I have decided it would be good to write them to you one after the other the way they happened (Luke 1:1-3).

Then in the book of Acts, Luke described the six weeks after Jesus rose from the dead.

Dear Theophilus, in my first writings I wrote about all the things Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day He went to heaven. He spoke to the missionaries through the Holy Spirit. He told those whom He had chosen what they should do. After He had suffered much and then died, He showed Himself alive in many sure ways for forty days. He told them many things about the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3).

They Had to Be Sure

When Jesus was arrested, the apostles ran away (Mark 14:50). They thought that His mission had failed when He died on the cross. When they were told that His body was missing, they did not believe it (Luke 24:11). Only after they had clear evidence did they believe that He had risen from the dead.

Thomas was not there when that evidence was given, and he would not believe the others. He said he would not believe that Christ was raised from the dead until he had put his finger into Christ’s wounds. Later Thomas was killed because he was preaching that Christ rose from the dead. Was he believing a lie? He was sure he was not.

After Jesus was arrested, Peter said several times that he was not His disciple. He said that he did not even know Jesus. But something happened to Peter. Not long after Christ’s death, Peter was standing in Jerusalem and preaching that He was alive again. He knew that he could be killed for saying such a thing. Later Peter was put to death on a cross. What could have made such a coward so brave? Why was Peter now willing to die for Him when he ran away before? Was the apostle believing a lie? That cannot be true.

We find the reason for the change in Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:5. There we are told that after Jesus was raised from the dead, “He was seen by Peter.” Peter saw Jesus after He rose from the dead, and he believed. He believed so strongly that he was willing to die for his belief.

The best example of a man who believed against his will was James, the brother of Jesus. While James was growing up, Jesus was just his older Brother. Then when Jesus began His ministry, James could not believe that his Brother was the Son of God (John 7:5). James must have felt shame when his Brother was going around making such wild claims. What would you think if your brother went around the town claiming to be the Son of God?

But something happened to James. After Jesus was killed, James was preaching in Jerusalem. His message was that Jesus died for our sins and was alive again. In time James became a leading man in the Jerusalem church and wrote a book, the Epistle of James. He began that book by writing, “This letter is from James. I am a servant owned by God and the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1). Later James was stoned to death on orders from the high priest.[2]

What could have changed James from being ashamed of his Brother to being willing to die because he believed that his Brother was the Son of God? Had James believed a lie? J. P. Moreland, a teacher at the Talbot School of Theology, answered that question. He said:  “Why did James’ life change? Paul tells us that the Jesus who had come back from the dead appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:7). There is no other way to explain what happened to James.”[3]

If it was not true that Jesus had come back from the dead, the apostles would have known it. Were they telling a story they knew to be a lie? Such a possibility does not agree with what we know about the kind of men the apostles were. They condemned lying and taught others that they should always tell the truth. They urged people to learn the truth. Edward Gibbon, no friend of the Christian church, wrote The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In it he gave five reasons for the rapid growth of the church. One of those reasons was the pure and careful life of the first Christians.[4]

Michael Green of Oxford University said that the belief that Jesus was alive,

was what turned the defeated followers of a Teacher who had died on a cross into brave witnesses. This was the one belief that separated the followers of Jesus from the Jews. You could put them in prison, beat them and even kill them, but you could not make them deny their conviction that ‘on the third day He rose again.’[5]

They Became Brave

The brave lives of the apostles immediately after they came to believe that Jesus was alive makes it highly unlikely that it was a lie. They became brave almost immediately. Peter, who had said that he did not know Christ, stood up and told everyone that Jesus was alive even though he knew he might die for it. The officials arrested the followers of Christ and beat them, yet they were soon back on the street speaking out about Jesus (Acts 5:40-42). Remember that the apostles did not speak their brave words only in small towns. They preached in Jerusalem, where the danger was the greatest.

Jesus’ followers could not have faced torture and death unless they really believed that He had come back from the dead. They all agreed on the message. The chances against such a large group of people agreeing on anything so dangerous are great. If the story was not true, it is hard to explain why at least one of them did not break down under the pressure.

Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher, wrote,

The charge that the apostles were lying is insane. Let us follow the charge to its reasonable end. Let us picture the apostles meeting after the death of Christ and entering into an agreement to say that He had risen. That would have been an attack upon both the government and the religious officials. The heart of man is given to change. It is affected by promises and tempted by material things. If any one of those men had given in to temptations, if any had given way to fear of prison or torture, they all would have been lost.[6]

J.P. Moreland explained,

When Jesus was put to death, His followers were defeated and afraid. They no longer believed that Jesus had been sent by God because they believed that anyone who was hanged on a tree was cursed by God. They had been taught that God would not let His Christ suffer death. So they all ran away. The dream was all but ended. Then after a short time, we see them leaving their jobs, meeting together, and setting out to spread the message. That message was that Jesus was the Christ who died on the cross, returned to life and was seen alive by them. And they were willing to spend the rest of their lives preaching that message, without anything to be gained by it as far as men could see.

They faced a hard life. They often went without food, had no place to sleep, were beaten and put into prison. And finally most of them were tortured and put to death.  Why would they do it? Did they do it because they hoped to do someone some good? No. They did it because they were sure that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. What you cannot explain is how this group of men came up with this belief if Jesus had not come back from the dead. There is no way to explain it.[7]

Michael Green asked,

How did they turn so quickly into such a heroic group? Where did they get the spirit to brave any enemy? How could they give themselves to such a hard life and even prison and death? What drove them to go everywhere preaching Jesus and His returning from the dead?[8]

One writer described the changes that took place in the lives of the apostles:

On the day Christ died they were filled with sadness. On the first day of the week they were happy. When Christ died they were without hope. On the first day of the week their hearts were filled with hope. When they first heard that Jesus had risen from the dead, they could not believe it. But once they were sure it was true, they never doubted again. What could explain the surprising change in these men in so short a time?

Just the fact that His body was missing could never have changed them. Three days are not enough time for a folk story to develop that would so affect them. It is a problem that must be explained. Think of the kind of men and women these were who gave the world the highest teaching it has ever known. Even their enemies admit that they lived out that high teaching in their own lives. Think of how they were hiding in an upper room one day and a few days later they were preaching a message that no fear could silence. Then tell me that remarkable change was based on nothing more than a lie that they were trying to press on the world. That simply would not make sense.[9]

Kenneth Scott Latourette wrote,

The effects of the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples were . . . of greatest importance. They had been defeated men and women who looked back on the days when they had hoped that Jesus ‘was the One Who was going to make the Jewish people free.’ Now they were changed into a company of excited witnesses.[10]

N.T. Wright was a teacher of New Testament at Oxford University in England. He said,

The student of history has to ask, ‘How do we explain the fact that this talk of the kingdom spread so rapidly with Jesus as the Christ, even though Jesus had been put to death on the cross?’ The answer has to be because He was raised from the dead. There can be no other answer.[11]

Paul Little was a teacher of evangelism at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He asked,

Were these men, who helped change our world so completely, the greatest of liars or were they insane men who had accepted a lie? Both of those possibilities are harder to accept than to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. And there is no evidence for either of them.[12]

The bravery of the apostles even to death cannot be explained away. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that Origen reports that Peter was nailed to the cross with his head pointing down. Herbert B. Workman, an expert in church history, described the apostle’s death:

So Peter, as our Lord had said he would, was dressed by another, and taken out to die along the Aurelian Way. The place was close to the gardens of Nero on the Vatican hill. There so many of his Christian brothers had already suffered a cruel death. At his own request he was put head downward, as not worthy to suffer like his Master.[13]

Harold Mattingly, who taught at the University of Leeds, wrote, “The apostles Peter and Paul ended their witnesses with their blood.”[14] Tertullian wrote that “no man would be willing to die unless he knew he had the truth.”[15]

Simon Greenleaf, a teacher of law at Harvard, taught for years on how to break down a witness and see if he was lying. He wrote,

History gives hardly any examples of such brave and heroic men. They [the apostles] had every possible reason to examine carefully what their faith was based on and the evidence of the great facts and truths they preached.[16]

History teacher Lynn Gardner asked,

Why would they die for what they knew to be a lie? A person might be mistaken and die for a lie. But the apostles were in a position to know the facts about Jesus’ coming back from the dead, and they still died for it.[17]

Tom Anderson is the former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association. He said,

What if the stories of hundreds of people seeing Christ alive after His death are false? Do you not think that someone would have reported seeing Christ’s body? But no one ever has. No one has ever given any evidence that Christ remained dead. That silence is one of the great evidences that Christ did rise from the dead.”[18]

The apostles went through their own test of death to prove the truthfulness of what they were teaching. I believe I can trust what they said more than I can trust the word of most people I meet today. I am sorry to find so many people who lack enough conviction even to walk across the street for what they believe, much less to die for it.

Chapter 8
What Good Is a Dead Christ?

People have died for causes they believed were good. In the l960s many Buddhists burned themselves to death in order to make the world look at the situation in Southeast Asia. In the early 1970s a student in San Diego burned himself to death to show that he opposed the Vietnam War. In September 2001 several Muslims crashed large airplanes into the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon. They wanted to hurt a nation they consider an enemy to their religion.

The apostles thought they had a cause worth dying for. But they were surprised and terribly disappointed when their Master died on the cross. They believed He was the Christ and would not die. They were sure He would set up the kingdom of God and rule over the people of Israel. His death destroyed all their hopes.

In order to understand why the apostles thought Christ would not die, you must consider what the Jews expected of their coming Christ. From the time they were children, Jews were taught that Christ would be a king that would defeat all their enemies. He would free them from the Romans and make Israel an independent nation. A suffering Christ was “completely foreign to the Jewish idea of Christ.”[1]

E.F. Scott, a teacher at Union Theological Seminary, explained why the Jews expected Christ to come at that time.

The period was one of emotional unrest. The religious leaders found it almost impossible to calm the deep emotions of the people. Jews everywhere were waiting for the coming of the promised Saviour. That excitement had probably been increased by things that had happened in recent years.

For more than forty years the Romans had been taking away the freedoms of the Jews. The actions of the Romans only made the Jews more loyal to their own country. The dream of freedom and of a Saviour-king who would win that freedom took on new meaning in that troubled time. But in itself it was nothing new. Behind the excitement of the Jews that we can see in the Gospels there was a long period of hopeful waiting.

To most of the Jews the Christ remained what He had been to Isaiah and the people of his day more than seven hundred years before. He was the Son of David who would bring victory and plenty to the Jewish nation.[2]

Joseph Klausner, a Jewish expert, wrote that the Jews expected that Christ would be more than a great ruler. He also would be a man of pure actions and thoughts.[3]

Jacob Gartenhaus, who started the International Board of Jewish Missions, wrote, “The Jews awaited the Christ as the One who would free them from the Romans . . . . hope in the Christ was mainly for freedom for their country.”[4]

The Jewish Encyclopedia says that the Jews:

waited for the promised Saviour of the house of David who would free them from the hated foreigners. He would put an end to the godless Roman rule and would establish His own rule of peace and fairness in its place.[5]

The Jews were taking hope from the idea of the promised Saviour. The apostles believed just as other Jews did. As Millar Burrows of Yale University Divinity School said, “Jesus was so different from what the Jews expected the son of David to be. His own disciples found it almost impossible to connect the idea of the Christ with Him.”[6]

The disciples did not like to hear Jesus talk about His coming death on the cross (Luke 9:22).

A.B. Bruce said that there,

seems to have been the hope that Jesus was too concerned about the situation and that His fears would turn out to be wrong. The idea of a Christ being put to death on a cross was a terrible shame to the Jews, including the apostles. It would continue to be a shame to most of the Jewish people after He had gone to heaven.[7]

Alfred Edersheim was right in saying that “Christ was completely different from His times.”[8]

He was not at all what the people of His day expected.

We can see in the New Testament how the apostles thought about Jesus. They thought that everything about Him was just what they expected of the Christ. But when Jesus told them that He had to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die, they simply could not understand it. That did not fit with what they expected of Him. James and John even asked Him to promise to give them the most important places in His kingdom (Mark 10:32-38). Were they thinking of a suffering Christ who would die on a cross? No. They were thinking of Jesus as a King. He told them that they did not know what they were asking.

Because of their training in the Jewish idea of the Christ, the apostles thought only good things were going to happen to Him. Then came His death on the cross. All hope that Jesus was their Christ died on that cross. They were sure that all those years with Jesus were for nothing.

George Eldon Ladd, former teacher of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote,

This is also why His disciples ran away when He was arrested. Their minds were so completely filled with the idea of a Christ who would defeat all His enemies. When they saw Him beaten and hanged on a cross to die, all their hopes for Jesus were destroyed. It is a fact that we hear only what we are prepared to hear. That is why the apostles did not understand Jesus’ words about His coming suffering and death.[9]

But a few weeks after his death the disciples were in Jerusalem, preaching Jesus as Saviour and Lord. They said that He was the Christ the Jews had been expecting. The only way I can explain that change is found in 1 Corinthians 15:5: “Christ was seen by Peter.” Later, Paul tells us, He was seen of all twelve apostles. What other reason could have made the apostles go out and suffer and die for a Christ who had died on a cross for them?

These men learned the truth that Jesus is the Christ of the Jews, the Saviour of the world.

The Jews did not understand that. Their loyalty to their nation led them to look for a Christ for their nation only. What came instead was a Saviour for the world. He came to do more than free one nation from being slaves of another nation. He came to free all men from being the slaves of sin. The apostles’ dream had been too small. Finally they saw the larger truth.

Yes, many people have died for a good cause, but the good cause of the apostles died on the cross. At least, that is what they first thought. Only seeing Christ after He came back from the dead made them understand that He was truly the Christ. They witnessed to that not only with their mouths and their lives but also with their deaths.

Chapter 9
Did You Hear What Happened to Saul?

A Christian friend of mine named Jack has spoken at many universities. When he got to a university one morning, he learned that the students had made plans for him to have a public debate that night with a popular teacher. The teacher did not believe there is a God and was hostile to Christianity. Jack was to speak first. He discussed the evidences that prove that Jesus came back from the dead. He also told about how Paul became a Christian. Then he told about how Christ had changed his own life when he was a university student.

When the teacher got up to speak, he was very nervous. He could not deny the evidence for Christ’s rising from the dead or for the change in Jack’s life. So he attacked the great change in the life of the Apostle Paul. He used the argument that people often become so involved in what they are fighting against that they end up accepting it.

My friend smiled gently and said, “You had better be careful, friend, or you might become a Christian.”

The story of the Apostle Paul is one of the most powerful witnesses for Christianity. Saul of Tarsus was perhaps the most hostile enemy of the early church. He had been very active in the Jewish cause and a real leader. His birth in Tarsus gave him the chance to get the best education of that day. Tarsus was a university city known for its great teachers and culture. Strabo, a Greek teacher, praised Tarsus for its strong interest in education and the search for wisdom.[1]

Saul’s father was a citizen of Rome and so that great honor belonged to Saul as well. Saul seemed to be well-trained in Greek thought and culture. He had a great command of the Greek language and could reason well. He often used the words of important writers and thinkers that many people did not even know.

In one sermon Paul used the words of three Greek writers: Aratus, Epimenides and Cleanthes (Acts 17:28). In a letter he gave the words of Menander: “Do not let anyone fool you. Bad people can make those who want to live good become bad” (1 Corinthians 15:33). In a later letter Paul again used the words of Epimenides: “One of their own teachers said, ‘People of the island of Crete always lie. They are wild animals. They are lazy. All they want to do is eat’” (Titus 1:12).

Saul’s education was Jewish and took place under the demanding teaching of the Pharisees. When Saul was about fourteen, he was sent to study in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, one of the greatest Jewish teachers of the time. Paul said that he was not only a Pharisee but also the son of Pharisees (Acts 23:6). He could say: “I had learned more about the Jewish religion than many of the Jews my age. I had a much stronger desire than they to follow the ways of our early fathers” (Galatians 1:14).

To understand why Saul became a Christian, it is necessary to see why he was so opposed to Christianity. It was his love for the Jewish Law that made him fight against Christ and the early church.

Jacques Dupont wrote that Saul’s:

offense with the Christian message was not with the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Christ. It was the claim that Jesus saves from sin apart from the Law. Saul was hostile to the Christian faith because of the importance he gave to the Law as a way of salvation.[2]

The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Christians were opposed to everything Saul believed about God.[3] He wanted to destroy the Christian church (Acts 8:3; Galatians 1:13). So Saul began to seek the death of all Christians (Acts 26:9-11). He went to the high priest and asked for letters to be written to the Jewish places of worship in Damascus. He wanted those letters to allow him to arrest any Christian men or women he found there and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial. The high priest had the letters written, and Saul set out for Damascus.

Then something happened to Saul. As he was getting near Damascus, a bright light from heaven shone on him. The light was so bright that Saul fell to the ground. He heard a voice from heaven saying, “Saul, Saul, why are you working so hard against Me?” Saul said, “Who are you, Lord?” The voice answered, “I am Jesus, the One whom you are working against.” Saul was surprised and afraid. He said, “What do you want me to do, Lord?” And the Lord said, “Get up! Go into the city and you will be told what to do” (Acts 9:1-6).

The bright light from heaven left Saul blind. Those who were traveling with him had to lead him into Damascus. For three days and three nights, Saul had nothing to eat or drink. He spent all that time in prayer. God spoke to Ananias, a Christian man in Damascus and told him to go to where Saul was staying. God told Ananias to lay his hands on Saul so that Saul would no longer be blind. When Ananias learned that it was Saul that God was sending him to, he was too afraid to go. But God told him, “Go! This man is the one I have chosen to carry My name among the people who are not Jews and to their kings and to Jews” (Acts 9:8-12).

So Ananias went to the house where Saul was staying.

He put his hands on Saul and said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus has sent me to you. You saw the Lord along the road as you came here. The Lord has sent me so you might be able to see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ At once something like a covering fell from the eyes of Saul and he could see. He got up and was baptized (Acts 9:17-18).

As a result of this experience, Paul considered himself to be an eyewitness of Christ’s coming back from the dead. He later wrote, “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1). He compared seeing the Lord on the Damascus Road with Christ’s showing Himself  to the other apostles after His death. “Last of all, Christ showed Himself to me as if I had been born too late” (1 Corinthians 15:8).

Not only did Saul see Jesus, but he could not refuse to do what Jesus told him to do. He did not preach the gospel because he chose to do so but because he had to. “I cannot be proud because I preach the Good News. I have been told to do it” (1 Corinthians 9:16).

Remember that when Saul met Jesus it was completely unexpected. Paul wrote, “All at once, about noon, I saw a bright light from heaven shining around me” (Acts 22:6). He had no idea who this heavenly Person could be. When the voice announced that He was Jesus, Saul was greatly troubled and began to shake with fear.

We might not know all the details of what happened to Saul on the road to Damascus, but we know this: The experience completely changed every area of his life.

First, Paul’s nature was changed completely. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that before he became a Christian he was bitter and proud. He would not accept people who did not agree with him. After he became a Christian, Britannica pictures him as kind and loving.[4]  Kenneth Scott Latourette says, “What brought Paul’s life together, however, was a deep religious experience. That raised him from an almost sick nature to a man of long-lasting influence in the world.”[5]

Second, Paul’s relationship with the disciples of Jesus was changed. They learned that they did not need to fear him. “For some days he stayed with the followers in Damascus” (Acts 9:19). And when he went to Jerusalem to meet the other apostles, they accepted him (Acts 19:27-28).

Third, Paul’s message was changed. Though he still loved his Jewish nation, he had changed from a bitter enemy to a preacher of the Christian faith. “At once Saul began to preach in the Jewish places of worship that Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). What he believed about God had changed. His experience forced him to agree that Jesus was the Christ. That was in direct conflict with his beliefs as a Pharisee. His new understanding of Christ meant a complete change in his way of thinking.[6]

Jacques Dupont said that after Saul “had insisted that no man who had died on a cross could be the Christ, he came to accept that Jesus was the Christ. That made him rethink all his ideas about the Christ.”[7]

Also, Paul could now understand that Christ’s death on the cross was not a curse of God as he had thought. Instead it was God making the world right with Himself through Christ. Paul came to understand that through His death on the cross Christ took the curse of sin on Himself for us (Galatians 3:13). He saw that “Christ never sinned but God put our sin on Him. Then we are made right with God because of what Christ has done for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Instead of seeing the death of Christ as a defeat, Paul saw it as a great victory. That victory was made complete when Christ rose from the dead. The cross was no longer a rock of offense but the heart of God’s message of salvation. Paul’s missionary preaching can be given in these few words: “He showed them that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. He said, ‘I preach this Jesus to you. He is the Christ’” (Acts 17:3).

Fourth, Paul’s mission was changed. He was changed from being a hater of the Gentiles to being a missionary to the Gentiles. He was changed from a defender of all things Jewish to an evangelist to those who were not Jews. As a Jew and a Pharisee, Saul looked down on the Gentiles as not as important to God as the Jews. The Damascus experience changed him into the apostle to the Gentiles, not to make Jews of them but to bring them into wonderful freedom in Christ. Paul knew that the Christ who had appeared to him was in fact the Saviour for all people.

The change in him was so deep that “all who heard him were surprised and wondered” (Acts 9:21).  They knew that Saul was the man who had beaten and killed so many disciples in Jerusalem. They knew he had come to Damascus to arrest the disciples there and take them back to Jerusalem. “But Paul kept on growing in power. The Jews living in Damascus wondered about Paul’s preaching. He was proving that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 9:22).

Philip Schaff wrote,

When Paul became a Christian it was the turning point in his personal history. But it also was a turning point in the history of the church and in the history of mankind. It was the most important thing to happen since the day of Pentecost. It made sure the worldwide victory of Christianity.[8]

During lunch one day at the University of Houston, I sat down next to a student. As we discussed Christianity, he said that there was no historical evidence for Christianity or Christ. I asked him why he thought that. He was a student of history and one of the books he was studying was of the history of Rome. It had a whole chapter about the Apostle Paul and Christianity. The student had read the chapter and found that it started by describing the life of Saul of Tarsus and ended describing the life of Paul the apostle. The book said that what caused the change was not clear.

I turned to the book of Acts and explained Christ’s appearing to Saul on the Damascus Road. The student saw immediately that this was the most reasonable way to explain Paul’s great change. That bit of missing evidence made the pieces fall into place for this young man. Later he became a Christian.

Elias Andrews was the head of Queens Theological College. He said: “Many have found in the great change in Saul the strongest evidence of the truth and the power of Christianity. They also see in Paul the worth and place of the Person of Christ.”[9]

Archibald McBride, a teacher at the University of Aberdeen, wrote of Paul: “The things Paul did make the things Alexander and Napoleon did seem unimportant.”[10]

Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian leader, said that Paul “was a prisoner seven times; preached the gospel in the East and the West; came to the limit of the West; and died a martyr under the Roman rulers.”[11]

Many times Paul said that the living Jesus had changed his life. He was so sure that Christ had risen from the dead that he, too, died for what he believed.

Gilbert West and Lord George Lyttleton were both educated at Oxford. Together they set out to destroy the Christian faith. West was going to show that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Lyttleton was going to prove that Saul of Tarsus never became a Christian. Both men had a complete change of heart and mind and became excited followers of Jesus.

Lord Lyttleton wrote: “The change in Saint Paul alone proves that Christianity was from God.”[12]  He said that if Paul’s twenty-five years of suffering and service for Christ were true, then his change was real, for everything he did began with that change. And if Paul’s change was real, then Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything Paul was and did came from his having seen the risen Christ.

Chapter 10
Can You Keep a Good Man Down?

A student at the University of Uruguay asked me, “Why could you not find some way to prove that Christianity is false?”

I answered, “For a very simple reason. I was not able to explain away the fact that Jesus Christ did come back from the dead.”

I spent more than seven hundred hours studying this issue. I decided that the story that Jesus came back from the dead is either the most cruel lie ever told or it is the most important fact in history.

The fact that Jesus came back from the dead takes the question “Can Christianity be believed?” out of the area of philosophy and makes it a question of history. Is there enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe that Christ came back from the dead?

Here are some of the issues and claims that are important to the question. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jewish teacher who claimed to be the Christ the Jews were expecting. He was arrested, judged to be a criminal and put to death on a cross. Three days after His death, some women went to the place where His body had been placed and found that the body was not there. Christ’s disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He had appeared to them many times before going to heaven.

Christianity spread through the Roman Empire and has continued to have a great influence through the whole world for nearly two thousand years.

The big question is: Did Jesus really come back to life after His death?

The Burial of Jesus

After Jesus was condemned to die, His clothes were removed and He was whipped. The Romans usually whipped a man before they hanged him on a cross.

Alexander Metherell is a medical doctor. He made a careful study of Christ’s whipping by the Romans. He explained,

The soldier would use a whip made of several long pieces of leather twisted together with metal balls. When the whip hit the body, the balls would cause painful injuries. The next time those spots were hit, they would break open and be even more painful. The whip also had pieces of sharp bone, which would cut the body.

Sometimes the victim’s back would be cut so much and so deeply that part of the bone could be seen. The whipping would go all the way down the back from the shoulders to the back of the legs. It was just terrible. One medical doctor who studied Roman beatings said, ‘As the beating continued, the cuts would tear deep into the body.’ Eusebius described beating by saying, ‘The most inner parts of the body were laid open and could be seen.’

We know that many people would die from this kind of beating even before they could be put on a cross. At the least, the victim would experience great pain and go into shock.[1]

John Dominic Crossan said that the death of Jesus “is as sure as anything can ever be said about something in the past.”[2]

After His death the body of Jesus was prepared for burial in the usual Jewish way. A long piece of cloth was wound around and around His body. About seventy-five pounds of sweet-smelling plants were mixed together to make a thick liquid. This was poured into the cloth as it was being wound around the body (John 19:39-40). After the body was placed in a tomb cut into solid rock, a very large stone was rolled against the opening. The stone (weighing about two tons) was so big that large wooden bars had to be used to move it into place (Matthew 27:60).

A group of  Roman soldiers was placed in front of the tomb to guard it. Fear of punishment among these men kept them awake to their duty, especially during the night.[3] The soldiers put the stamp of the Roman government on the tomb.[4]  The stamp was there to warn anyone to not take the body. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb’s opening would have to break the stamp. That would have brought the full weight of Roman law upon him.

Yet even with the Roman soldiers and the Roman stamp, the tomb was empty.

The Empty Tomb

The followers of Jesus claimed that He had risen from the dead. They said that He appeared to them over a period of forty days. He showed Himself in many ways so that they could be sure it was really Him (Acts 1:3). The Apostle Paul said that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred of His followers at one time. Most of those were still alive when Paul wrote and could confirm what Paul said (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Arthur Michael Ramsey used to be the archbishop of Canterbury. He wrote: “I believe that Christ rose from the dead, in part because a series of facts cannot be explained in any other way.”[5]  Too many people knew about the empty tomb for it to be denied.[6]  Paul Althaus said that the claim that Christ rose from the dead “could not have been kept up in Jerusalem for even one hour if the empty tomb had not been established as a fact.”[7]

Paul L. Maier said that if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is clear that Jesus’ tomb was really empty. Maier adds that no piece of evidence has yet been discovered that would show that the tomb was not empty.[8]

How can we explain the empty tomb?

Based on a very great amount of historical evidence, Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God. There may be problems in believing that. But the problems in not believing are even greater.

The situation at the tomb after Jesus rose is important. The Roman stamp was broken, which meant that whoever broke it would be hanged on a cross upside down. The great stone was moved away from the tomb, looking as if it had been lifted up and carried away.[9]  The Roman soldiers had run away. Later the Emperor Justinian, in his Digest 49:16, gave eighteen offenses for which a Roman soldier on guard could be put to death. These included sleeping on duty or leaving one’s position.

The women came and found the tomb empty. Afraid, they hurried back to tell the men. Peter and John ran to the tomb. John arrived first, but he did not enter. He looked inside and saw the clothes that had been wound around Jesus’ body, but the body was not there. The body of Christ had passed right through the clothes. Let us be honest. Seeing a sign like that would make anyone a believer.

Five Ways Men Have Tried to Explain the Empty Tomb

People have different ways they think explain the empty tomb. Those ideas are so foolish that they only help us be more certain that the way the Bible explains it must be the right way.

The Wrong-Tomb?

Kirsopp Lake thought that the women who said the body was missing had gone to the wrong tomb by mistake. If so, then Peter and John must have gone to the wrong tomb also. We can be certain, however, that the Jewish officials who had asked for that Roman guard would not have been mistaken about the tomb. The Roman guards also would not have been mistaken, for they were there. If a wrong tomb was involved, the Jewish officials would have lost no time in showing the body from the right tomb. That would have stopped for all time the story of Jesus rising from the dead.

A Dream?

Another way to explain the empty tomb is to say that the disciples were dreaming when they thought they saw Jesus. This idea runs against everything we know about dreaming, either dreaming when we are sleeping or when we are awake. How could a number of people have the same dream? And how could they have that dream several times over forty days? There is no evidence for this idea, neither does it fit with the way the apostles were thinking and acting at the time. If this idea is true, where was the body of Jesus at the time? Why did not those who opposed Him produce it?

Jesus Did Not Really Die?

More than a hundred years ago Karl Venturini made this idea popular. Some people today still  think it is the correct answer. It claims that Jesus did not really die. He had lost so much blood and was so tired that He passed out. Everyone thought He was dead, but later He woke up and the disciples thought He had come back to life.

David Friedrich Strauss did not believe that Jesus came back from the dead. But Strauss proved that Venturini’s idea cannot be right. Strauss said that a man in Jesus’ condition would be weak and sick. He would be in great need of medical help. Such a man could not make the apostles think that He had won the victory over death. He could not make them think that he was the Prince of Life. Yet that was the whole base of their future preaching.[10]

The Body Was Taken?

Another idea says that the disciples stole the body of Jesus while the soldiers were sleeping. That idea was first put forward by the priests. They even paid the soldiers to say that that was true and promised them their protection (Matthew 28:11-15). But can we believe that the disciples who ran away when there was hope of saving Jesus became so brave as to attack a guard of Roman soldiers after Jesus was dead? They were in no condition to attempt anything like that.

J.N.D. Anderson said that for the disciples to steal the body would be so different from everything we know about them. They were not criminals. Neither would it explain the change in the lives of the apostles when they learned that He was alive, Anderson said.[11]

The Body Was Moved?

Other people say that the Roman officials or the Jewish officials moved Christ’s body. That is no more reasonable than the idea that the disciples stole the body. If the officials knew where the body was, why did they not explain that they had taken it? That would have put an end to the disciples’ preaching that Jesus had come back from the dead.

John Warwick Montgomery said that we cannot believe that the Christians could have preached such a story among those who could have proved it wrong by producing the body of Jesus.[12]

Evidence that Jesus Rose from the Dead

Thomas Arnold of Oxford wrote a famous History of Rome. He knew well the value of evidence in confirming historical facts. He said,

For many years I have been used to studying the histories of other times. I have learned to examine the evidence of those who have written about them. I know of no one fact in history that has better and fuller evidence than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again. Any fair person would have to accept that fact.[13]

Brooke Foss Westcott, a teacher of religion at Cambridge University, said,

Taking all the evidence together, it is clear that there is no incident in history better proven than the fact that Christ rose from the dead. The only reason why a person would not accept that is that he had his mind made up before looking at the evidence.[14]

William Lane Craig said that when you use the usual rules of historical judgment, the best way of understanding the facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead.[15]

Simon Greenleaf was one of the greatest legal minds America has ever had. He was a famous teacher of law at Harvard University. Greenleaf wrote a book in which he examined the legal value of the apostles’ witness to Christ’s rising from the dead. He said that it is impossible that the apostles could have kept on preaching that Christ rose from the dead if it were not true. They had to know it as certainly as they knew any other fact, Greenleaf said. He said that by the rules of legal evidence the fact that Christ rose from the dead is one of the best-documented facts in history.[16]

Sir Lionel Luckhoo is considered by many to be the world’s most effective lawyer. He has won 245 decisions of “not guilty of murder” without losing even one case. Luckhoo carefully studied the historial facts of Christ’s death and return to life. He said, “Without any question the evidence for Christ’s rising from the dead is so great that it leaves no room for doubt.”[17]

Frank Morison, another lawyer, set out to prove that Christ did not rise from the dead. He thought the life of Jesus was one of the most beautiful lives ever lived. But when it came to His rising from the dead, Morison thought that someone had added that to the story. He planned to write about the last few days of Jesus’ life without including anything about His rising from the dead. He thought that if he wrote the story well it would show that Christ did not rise. However, when he used his legal training to study the facts, he had to change his mind.

Instead of writing a book to prove that Christ did not rise, Morison wrote Who Moved the Stone? He called the first chapter “The Book That Refused to Be Written.” The rest of the book shows from the evidence that Christ did rise from the dead.[18]

George Eldon Ladd said: “The only reasonable way to explain these historical facts is that God raised Jesus in bodily form.”[19]  Believers today can be sure that their faith is based on the solid fact of the risen Christ and the empty tomb.

Gary Habermas, a famous teacher at Liberty University, debated Anthony Flew. Flew does not believe that there is a God.  The question they debated was “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” A man with special training in debate was the judge. At the end of the debate, the judge said:

The historical evidence, though not perfect, is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to agree that Christ did rise from the dead. Habermas does provide ‘highly probable evidence’ for the historicity of the fact ‘with no good evidence against it.’[20]

After examining the evidence, Lord Darling, former chief justice of England, said that “there  is such a great amount of evidence that no intelligent group of men in the world could fail to agree that Jesus rose from the dead.”[21]

Most important of all, each believer can experience the power of the risen Christ in his life today. First of all, he can know that his sins are forgiven (Luke 24:46-47; 1 Corinthians 15:3). Second, he can be sure he has eternal life and that, like Christ, he will live again after this life (1 Corinthians 15:19-26). Third, he can be freed from an empty life and be changed into a new person in Jesus Christ (John 10:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

What do you think about the empty tomb? What will you do about it?

Chapter 11
Will the Real Christ Please Stand Up?

There were many ways for Jesus to prove that He was Christ. One of the most important is often not even considered. That is the fulfillment of prophecy in His life.

Over and over again Jesus pointed to the Old Testament prophecies to prove His claims. Galatians 4:4 says, “At the right time, God sent His Son. A woman gave birth to Him under the Law.” Here we see a prophecy being fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Jesus kept on telling them what Moses and all the early preachers said about Him” (Luke 24:27). “Jesus said to them, ‘These are the things I told you while I was yet with you. All things written about Me in the Law of Moses and in the Books of the early preachers and in the Psalms must happen as they said they would happen’ (Luke 24:44).

He said,

If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me. For Moses wrote about Me” (John 5:46). He said, “Your father Abraham was glad that he was to see My coming. He saw it and was happy (John 8:56).

The apostles and the writers of the New Testament also appealed to fulfilled prophecy to prove that Jesus was Christ.

In this way, God did what He said He would do through all the early preachers. He said that Christ must suffer many hard things (Acts 3:18). Paul went in as he always did. They gathered together each Day of Rest for three weeks and he taught them from the Holy Writings. He showed them that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. He said, ‘I preach this Jesus to you. He is the Christ’” (Acts 17:2-3). First of all, I taught you what I had received. It was this: Christ died for our sins as the Holy Writings said He would. Christ was buried. He was raised from the dead three days later as the Holy Writings said He would’ (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

An Address in History

In the Old Testament there are sixty main prophecies about Christ. About 270 times things are said about Him that are connected to those prophecies. These were all fulfilled in one person, Jesus. It is helpful to think about all the things fulfilled in Christ as His “address.” Let me explain. You have probably never thought about how important your own name and address are. Yet those details set you apart from all other people who live on the earth.

With even greater detail, God wrote an “address” in history to set apart His Son, the Saviour of mankind. It sets Him apart from all other people – past, present or future. The details of this address can be found in the Old Testament, written over a period of a thousand years. The Old Testament speaks of His coming more than three hundred times. What are the chances of all these being fulfilled in one person? The chances of just forty-eight of these being fulfilled in one person are one in 10^157 (this number is written 10 followed by 157 zeros).

The chance of any one man fitting God’s address for Christ is made harder by another fact. All the prophecies were made many years before His birth. Some might think that these prophecies were written after Jesus lived. They might say that someone wrote them to make them agree with the life He lived.  But we know that the Old Testament was written first in Hebrew. Yet two hundred years before the time of Christ it was rewritten from Hebrew into Greek. This proves that the prophecies were written down at least two hundred years before the time of Christ.

Certainly God was writing an address in history that only His Christ could fill. About forty men have claimed to be Christ. But only Jesus pointed to fulfilled prophecy to prove His claims.

What are some of those prophecies? What had to happen before Christ was born? And what had to be true at the time of His birth?

To begin, we must go back to Genesis 3:15. There we find the first prophecy in the Bible about the coming of Christ. God was speaking to Satan when He said: “I will make you and the woman hate each other, and your seed and her seed will hate each other. He will crush your head, and you will crush his heel.”

This prophecy could be talking of only one Man in all of Scripture. No other but Jesus could be called the seed of a woman. All others came from the seed of a man. This seed of a woman would come into the world to destroy Satan (bruise his head). Isaiah 7:14 adds that Christ would be born of a virgin. His birth was normal except that He had no earthly father. That is how He would be the seed of a woman and not the seed of a man. That detail was beyond human planning and control.

In Genesis 9 and 10 God made the address more detailed. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. All the people of the world come from these three men. God said that Christ would come through the family of Shem. In that way God removed two-thirds of all people from the line of Christ.

Hundreds of years later, in the year 2000 B.C., God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees. God said that Christ would come through Abraham’s family. All the families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 17:1-8; 22:15-18). Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. God said Christ would come through Isaac (Genesis 17:19-21; 21:12).

Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. God chose the line of Jacob (Genesis 28:1-4; 35:10-12; Numbers 24:17). Jacob had twelve sons. Their families became the twelve tribes of Israel. God said that Christ would come through the tribe of Judah. And of all the family lines within the tribe of Judah, God chose the line of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1-5). Jesse had eight sons. God rejected seven of Jesse’s sons and chose David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5).

So, the Messiah must be born of the seed of a woman, the line of Shem, the race of the Jews, the line of Isaac, the line of Jacob, the tribe of Judah, the family of Jesse and the house of David.

In Micah 5:2 God rejected all the other cities of the world and chose Bethlehem as the place where Christ would be born. Bethlehem had a population of less than one thousand people at the time of Jesus’ birth.

Then through a series of prophecies God even gave the time when Christ would live. For example, Malachi 3:1 said that Christ would come while the Temple of Jerusalem was still standing (see also Psalm 118:26; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 11:13; Haggai 2:7-9).[1]  This is very important when we consider that the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and has not since been rebuilt.

Several prophecies in Isaiah and the Psalms describe the way people would think in that day and how they would treat Christ. His own people, the Jews, would reject Him. The Gentiles would believe in Him (Psalms 22:7-8; 118:22; Isaiah 8:14; 49:6; 50:6; 52:13-15).  A “voice” would prepare the way before Him (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1). That was John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3).

Look at how the New Testament points to certain Old Testament prophecies that make Christ’s address even more detailed. Matthew tells about the things that happened because Judas betrayed Jesus (Matthew 27:3-10). He says that these things were prophesied in the Old Testament (Psalm 41:9; Zechariah 11:12-13).[2]  In those places God said that Christ would be betrayed by a friend for thirty pieces of silver. They also said that the money would be thrown onto the floor of the Temple. Those things all came true in Jesus.

A prophecy made in 1012 B.C. also says that Christ’s hands and feet would be nailed to a cross (Psalm 22:6-18; see also Zechariah 12:10; Galatians 3:13). That was written eight hundred years before the Romans began to use a cross as a way of putting criminals to death.

These are just a few of the many prophecies that make up the address of Christ.

Did It Just Happen that Jesus Fulfilled These Prophecies?

Someone might say, “You could find some of these prophecies fulfilled in Abraham Lincoln, Anwar Sadat, John F. Kennedy, Mother Theresa or Billy Graham.”

Yes, we might find one or two prophecies fulfilled in another person. But we could not find all 60 main prophecies and 270 sayings connected to those prophecies. In fact, for years the Christian Victory Publishing Company offered $1,000 to anyone who could name another person who could fulfill only half of the prophecies discussed in Messiah in Both Testaments by Fred John Meldau. No one ever claimed the prize.

Could one person fulfill all of the Old Testament prophecies? H. Harold Hartzler of the American Scientific Affiliation wrote the foreward of Science Speaks by Peter W. Stoner and Robert Newman. Hartzler said: “This book has been carefully read by a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group. It has been found to be generally dependable and correct.”[3]

In that book Stoner shows that it could not just happen that all these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus. He used modern science methods to consider just eight of the prophecies. He said, “We find that the chance that any man might have lived and fulfilled all eight prophecies is one chance in 10^17.”[4] That is one in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.

To help us understand this very large number, Stoner said that 10^17 silver dollars would cover the state of Texas two feet deep. Put a mark on one silver dollar, Stoner said, and mix that silver dollar in with all the others over the whole state. Tie a piece of cloth over a man’s eyes and tell him that he can travel any where in the state and take up one silver dollar. What chance would he have of taking up the one silver dollar with your mark on it? Stoner said, “That is the same chance the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man.” But they all came true in Christ.[5]

Another Objection

Some claim that Jesus tried to fulfill the prophecies so that people would believe He was Christ. We might think we could believe this until we remember that many details of the coming of Christ were completely beyond human control. One example is the place of His birth. When Herod asked the Jewish religious leaders where Christ would be born, they knew the answer. “In Bethlehem” (Matthew 2:5). It would be foolish to think that as Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, Jesus, from inside His mother, would say, “You had better hurry or we will not get there before I am born.”

Look at these prophecies. If Jesus were only a man, half of them were beyond his power to control: the time of His birth; His betrayal by Judas and the amount of money Judas received for betraying Him; the way He died; the way the people acted at His death; the way the soldiers played a game of chance for His clothes; the way the soldiers did not want to tear His coat. If He were just a man, He could not have caused Himself to be born of the seed of a woman, in the lineage of Shem, descending from Abraham, and all of the other things that led to His birth. It is no wonder Jesus and the apostles appealed to fulfilled prophecy to prove His claim that He was the Son of God.

Why did God go to the trouble of prophesying all those things about Christ? I believe He wanted Christ to have all the proof He needed when He came into the world. Yet the most exciting thing about Jesus is that He came to change lives. He alone fulfilled the hundreds of Old Testament prophecies that described His coming. And He alone can fulfill the greatest prophecy of all for those who accept it – the promise of new life. “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you” (Ezekiel 36:26). “If a man belongs to Christ, he is a new person. The old life is gone. New life has begun” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Chapter 12
Is There Not Some Other Way?

When I was giving a series of talks at the University of Texas, a graduate student came to me. He asked, “Why is Jesus the only way to God?” In my talk I had shown that Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. I had shown that what the Scriptures say could be trusted. And I had shown that there was enough evidence to prove that Jesus is Saviour and Lord. Yet the student still had questions: “Why Jesus only? Is there not some other way to God?”

Like this young man, many people are looking for another way. “What about Buddha? What about Muhammad? Why not simply live a good life? If God is such a loving God, will He not accept all people just the way they are?” These are the questions I often hear.

People seem to be offended by the claims that Jesus is the only way to God and the only way to find forgiveness of sin. These people simply do not understand the nature of God. We can see that misunderstanding in a question they usually ask: “How can a loving God allow anyone to go to hell?” I often turn the question around and ask, “How can a holy and just God allow a sinful person into His heaven?”

Most people understand that God is a loving God, but they do not go beyond that. He is a God of love but He is also a God who is just and holy. He cannot welcome sin into His heaven any more than you would welcome a dirty, wild animal into your home. This misunderstanding about the nature of God has caused many problems.

We know God only through the things we know about Him. However, those things are not parts of Him in the same way that things are true about you. You may have learned to be kind to people and made kindness part of who you are. But that is not the way it is with God. When we say that God is love, we do not mean that God learned to love. We mean that it is His nature to love. He cannot be God without loving. When we say God is holy or just, we mean that those things belong to His nature. He is that way because He is God, not because He learned to be holy and just.

Here is the problem: If God’s nature is love, how can He possibly send anyone to hell? The answer is simple; God does not send anyone to hell. People go to hell because of their own choices.

To explain, we must go all the way back to the beginning. The Bible teaches that God created man and woman so that He could share His love and glory with them. But Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God. That rebellion is what we call sin. God loved Adam and Eve very much. Even though they had rebelled against Him, He wanted to save them from the terrible path they had chosen. Because God is not only loving but also holy and just, sin cannot exist where He is. His very nature would destroy the sinners. That is why the Bible says, “You get what is coming to you when you sin. It is death” (Romans 6:23).

So how could God save the man and the woman He loved and still remain just? God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit developed a surprising plan. God the Son would take upon Himself a human body. He would become the God-man Jesus Christ. We read of this in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. There it says that “Christ became human flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). Also Philippians 2 tells us that Christ left behind His glory as God and took on a human form (Philippians 2:6-7).

Jesus was the God-man. He was just as much Man as if He had never been God and just as much God as if He had never been Man. Being Man did not make Him any less God, and being God did not make Him any less Man. By His own choice He lived a life without sin, always obeying the Father in everything. Because He never sinned He was not under the sentence of death. When He died He did not die for His own sins but for the sins of the whole world. God accepted His death for the death we owed for our sins. The just nature of God was satisfied. At that point God’s loving nature was set free and He could accept us as His children. He could offer us what we had lost through sin.

I often ask people, “For whom did Jesus die?” Usually they answer, “For me” or “For the world.” And I will say, “Yes, that is right, but was there any other for whom Jesus died?” They usually admit that they do not know. I will say, “He also died for God the Father.” Paul explained that in Romans 3:25. There the apostle talked about our sins being paid for with Christ’s own blood. When Jesus died on the cross, He died for us. But He also died to meet the holy and just demand of the very nature of God.

Several years ago I heard a true story that shows how what Jesus did on the cross met our sin problem. A young woman was arrested for driving too fast. The police officer took her before the judge. The judge read the charge and asked, “Guilty or not guilty?” The woman answered, “Guilty.” The judge told her she must pay $100 or spend ten days in jail. Then he did a surprising thing. He stood up, took off his robe, stepped down from his place, took out his money and paid the young woman’s fine.

Why would he do that? He did it because he was her father. He loved his daughter, yet he was a just judge. She had broken the law, and he could not simply say, “Because I love you so much, I forgive you. You may go free.” Had he done that, he would not have been a just judge. He would not have been following the law. As a judge he had to find her guilty. But as her loving father he could pay her fine.

In a small way this shows what God did for us through Jesus Christ. We sinned, and the Bible says that we must die. When God looks at us, He must find us guilty. And yet, because He is also a loving God, He was willing to come down from heaven in the form of the Man Jesus and die in our place.

At this point many people ask another question, “Why could God not just forgive without demanding any payment?” An officer in a large company once told me, “My workers often damage equipment, waste materials and break things. I just forgive them. Are you telling me that I can do something God cannot do?” That officer was not thinking about what that forgiveness cost his company. His company paid for his workers’ failures by fixing and replacing damaged or wasted things. Wherever there is forgiveness, there is a price.

For example, let us say that my daughter breaks a lamp in my home. I am a loving and forgiving father, so I say, “Do not cry. Father loves you and forgives you.” Usually the person who hears that story will say, “That is exactly what God should do.” Then comes the question, “Who pays for the lamp?” The fact is, I do. Forgiveness always has a price.

What if someone insults you in front of other people and later you tell him, “I forgive you.”

Who pays the price of that insult? You do. You have the pain of the lie and the loss of favor in the eyes of those who heard the insult.

That is what God has done for us. He has said, “I forgive you.” But He paid the price for the forgiveness Himself through the cross. It is a payment that Buddha, Muhammed, Confucius or any other religious leader cannot offer. Neither can anyone pay the price by just living a good life. I know it sounds hard, but we must say it simply because it is true. There is no other way but Jesus.

Chapter 13
He Changed My Life

What I have told you in this book is what I learned after studying the evidence for Christianity. You would think that after finding such proofs as these, I would have immediately become a Christian. But I really did not feel ready to take that important step. With my mind I understood the truth. I had to admit that Jesus Christ must be exactly who He claimed to be. I could clearly see that Christianity was not a lie or a mistake. I could see that it was solid truth. I knew the truth, yet my will was pulling me in another direction.

There were two reasons why I did not want to become a Christian. First, I wanted to enjoy life. Second, I did not want to give up control over my life to anyone, not even to God. I knew that Jesus was standing at the door of my life and waiting for me to let Him come in. But I kept that door shut and locked. I did not care if He did walk on water or turn water into wine. I did not want anyone around who would always be pointing out what I was doing wrong. I could not think of any faster way to ruin my good times. I called them good times, but I was really unhappy. My mind was telling me that Christianity was true, but my will was saying “no” with all the energy it had.

Then there was the question of control. At that time the idea of becoming a Christian made me feel worthless. I had just proved that all my earlier thinking had been wrong and my Christian friends had been right. Every time I got around those Christians, the conflict inside of me would start all over again. If you have ever been with happy people when you are very unhappy, you know how their joy can make you feel even worse. Sometimes I would just get up and run away from where they were. It got so bad that I would go to bed and would not be able to get to sleep for six hours. I could not stop thinking about the problem. I had to do something before it drove me insane.

I always tried to keep an open mind, but not so open that I could not think right. As G.K. Chesterton said, “The purpose of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to close it again on something solid.” I opened my mind, and I finally closed it on the most solid truth I had ever experienced. On December 19, 1959, at 8:30 p.m., during my second year at the university, I became a Christian.

Someone asked me, “How do you know you became a Christian?” My answer was simple: “It has changed my life.” It is this change that makes me so sure that I have become a child of God. That night I prayed four things to establish a relationship with the living Christ, and I am thankful that that prayer has been answered.

First, I said, “Lord Jesus, thank You for dying on the cross for me.” Second, I said, “I confess those things in my life that are not pleasing to You and ask You to forgive me and make me clean.”  God tells us that, “Even though your sins are bright red, they will be as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). Third, I said,

Right now, in the best way I know how, I open the door of my heart and life and trust You as my Saviour and Lord. Take control of my life. Change me from the inside out. Make me the kind of person you created me to be.

The last thing I prayed was, “Thank You for coming into my life by faith.” That faith was based on evidence, the facts of history and God’s Word.

I am sure you have heard people speak of the great flood of emotion that hit them when they had their first experience with God. Well, it was not that way for me. After I prayed, nothing happened. I mean nothing. In fact, after I became a Christian, I felt worse. I really felt that I was about to be sick. Oh no, what have I gotten into now? I wondered. I really felt I had done something very foolish, and I am sure some people think I did!

The change was not immediate, but it was real. In six to eighteen months, I knew that I had not done something foolish. My life was changed. At about that time I was in a debate with the head of the history department at a Midwestern university. I was telling him about my new life. He stopped me and said, “Are you trying to tell me that God has really changed your life? Give me some details.” After listening to me explain for forty-five minutes, he finally said, “That is enough!”

One change I told him about was that I was no longer so restless. Before I became a Christian, I always had to be busy. I would be at a girl’s place, at a party or just running around with friends. I would walk from one place to another with my mind filled with many conflicting thoughts. I would sit down and try to study but could not do it. But after I gave my life to Christ, a kind of peace settled over me. Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean that there were no more conflicts. What I found was not so much that there were no more conflicts but that I could now deal with the conflicts. I would not trade that peace for anything in the world.

Another area that began to change was my anger. I used to get angry if anyone just looked at me in a way I did not like. I still have the marks on my body from a fight in which I almost killed a man my first year in the university. My anger was such a part of me that I did not even think about trying to change it. But one day there was a crisis that would have made me angry in the past, but it did not this time. My anger was gone! It was not my doing. As I have been telling you, Jesus changed my life. By changed I do not mean perfect. In fact, I went fourteen years without getting angry, but when I did get angry, I am afraid I made up for all those years.

Jesus changed me in another way. I am not proud of this, but I tell about it because many people need the same change. I want to show those people how that change can happen. It happens through a relationship with the living Christ. The problem was hatred. I had a great load of hatred. People did not always see it, but it kept wearing me down on the inside. I was angry with people, with things, with issues. I did not feel good about myself. Every time I met anyone different from me, I hated that person to some degree.

I hated one man more than any other person in the world – my father.  I hated him as much as one person can hate another person. I was ashamed that he was the town drunk.  My high school friends would laugh about my father’s drinking. They did not think it troubled me because I laughed with them. I was laughing on the outside, but I was crying on the inside. I would come home and find that he had beaten my mother so badly that she could not get up. When we invited friends over, I would take my father out to the barn and tie him up. I would put his car where it would not be seen, and we would tell our friends that he was not at home.

About five months after I became a Christian, a love from God entered my life so strongly that it took that hatred away. I was able to look my father in the eyes and say, “I love you.” And I really meant it. After some of the things I had done to him that really surprised him.

After I started attending a private university, a serious car accident put me in the hospital. When I was able to leave the hospital and move home, my father came to visit me. Surprisingly, he was not drunk that day. But he seemed uneasy, walking about the room. Then he cried out, “Son, how can you love a father like me?” I answered, “Six months ago I hated you.” Then I told him of my study about Jesus Christ and what I had found. I told him,

I have placed my trust in Christ, received God’s forgiveness, invited Him into my life, and He has changed me. I cannot explain it all, but God has taken away my hate and given me love in its place. I love you and accept you just the way you are.

We talked for almost an hour, and then I had one of the greatest experiences of my life. This man who was my father looked at me and said, “Son, if God can do in my life what I have seen Him do in your life, then I want to be a Christian too.”

Usually after a person accepts Christ, the changes in his life come over a period of days, weeks, months or even years. In my own life the change took about six to eighteen months. But the life of my father changed right before my eyes. It was as if God reached down and gave him a new life. Never before or since have I seen such a quick change. My father was tempted to drink only once after that day. He got the drink as far as his mouth before he pushed it away. Forever. It is clear to me that a relationship with Jesus Christ changes lives.

There was another person I needed to forgive. His name was Wayne. He worked for my parents when I was growing up. When my mother had to be gone from home, she told Wayne to take care of me. Before she left home, she would say to me: “You obey Wayne and do everything he tells you to do. If you do not, I will beat you when I get home.” Believe me, I never wanted to get a beating from my mother.

While my mother was gone, Wayne used me sexually. That went on from the time I was six years old until I was thirteen. When I told my mother what Wayne did, she would not believe me. One day when I was thirteen I told Wayne, “If you ever touch me again, I will kill you!” He never touched me again. But I hated him. I wanted him to suffer in hell for what he had done to me.

When I became a Christian, I knew I had to forgive Wayne. I went to him and said: “What you did to me was evil. But I have become a Christian. I know that Jesus died for you just as much as He did for me. I forgive you.” That was one of the hardest things I have ever had to do. I know I never could have done it by myself. If anyone has ever hurt you and left you with bitter hate in your heart, you do not have to live with that hate. You can get the victory over your past with God’s help.

You can laugh at Christianity, but it works. It changes lives. I should say, Jesus Christ changes lives. Christianity is not a religion. It is not a system. It is not a way of dealing with other people.  It is not a way of thinking about life. It is a Person. If you trust Christ, start watching for changes because Jesus Christ is in the business of changing lives.

So, as you can see, finding my faith in Christ has been a process, beginning with careful study and growing into the experience of a changed life. Many people today seem to want that kind of experience – they want the new life I have found. But they are not willing to put Christianity to the hard test of serious study. Maybe part of their problem is that they just do not want to say they know something is true in a day when speaking of truth is not popular. Or maybe it comes from a fear that their study would raise doubts instead of leading to the truth of Christ’s claims.

Will serious study injure one’s faith in Christ? Edwin Yamauchi does not think so. He is one of the world’s leading experts in ancient history. He has a master’s degree and a doctor’s degree from Brandeis University. He has spoken many times at meetings of historians and at more than a hundred universities, colleges and theological schools. Yamauchi said: “The historical evidence has made me even more sure that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who loves us and died for us and was raised from the dead. It is that simple.”[1]

Bruce Metzger was a leading expert on ancient copies of the Bible. Someone asked him if his study of the New Testament and its times had weakened his faith. He answered: “It has built it. I have asked questions all my life. I have studied the ancient copies very carefully. Today I am completely sure that my trust in Jesus has been well-placed . . . very well-placed.”[2]

In writing this little book, I have tried to show you that the claims of Christ stand firm as solid historical facts. They are proven by the evidence of history, prophecy and reason. Knowing the facts will give you a solid place to stand as you experience Christ’s claims. You too can enjoy the kind of changed life that I have experienced along with millions of other Christians.

Even though the claims of Christ can be clearly proven, Christianity is not something you can force on another person. You have to live your life, and I have to live mine. All of us are free to make our own choices. All I can do is tell you what I have learned. After that, what you do is up to you.

Perhaps the prayer I prayed will help you:

Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for me. Forgive me and make me clean. I trust You right now as my Saviour and Lord. Make me the kind of person You created me to be. I pray in Your name, Amen.

Notes

Chapter 2: What Makes Jesus So Different?

[1] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1907), 1:52.

[2] Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932), 5:186.

[3] Leon Morris, “The Gospel According to John,” The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 524.

[4] Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, eds., the Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1962), 943–44.

[5] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary Press, 1947), 5:21.

[6] Robert Anderson, The Lord from Heaven (London: James Nisbet, 1910), 5.

[7] Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1898), 339.

[8] Irwin H. Linton, The Sanhedrin Verdict (New York: Loizeaux Bros., 1943), 7.

[9] Charles Edmund Deland, The Mis-Trials of Jesus (Boston: Richard G. Badger, 1914), 118–19.

Chapter 3: Lord, Liar, or Insane?

[1] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960), 40–41.

[2] F. J. A. Hort, Way, Truth, and the Life (New York: Macmillan, 1894), 207.

[3] Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), 44, 48.

[4] William E. Lecky, History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne (New York: D. Appleton, 1903), 2:8–9.

[5] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 109.

[6] Philip Schaff, The Person of Christ (New York: American Tract Society, 1913), 94–95.

[7] Arthur P. Noyes and Lawrence C. Kolb, Modern Clinical Psychiatry (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1958). (5th  ed.)

[8] Clark H. Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case (New Jersey: Craig Press, 1967), 62.

[9] Gary R. Collins, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1998), 147.

[10] James T. Fisher and Lowell S. Hawley, A Few Buttons Missing (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1951), 273.

[11] C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 113.

[12] Schaff, The Person of Christ, 97.

Chapter 4: What About Science?

[1] The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropaedia, 15th ed., s.v. “scientific method.”

[2] James B. Conant, Science and Common Sense (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951), 25.

Chapter 5: The Problem of the New Atheism

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2nd ed. with Preface (New York: Mariner Books, 2008), 58.

[2] Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007), 122, 5.

[3] From a letter to W. Graham (July 3, 1881), quoted in The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters (1892, reprint, New York: Dover, 1958).

[4] Paul Davies, “What Happened Before the Big Bang?” in God for the 21st Century, ed. Russell Stannard (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2000), 12.

[5] John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford, England: Lion Hudson, 2007), 22-25.

[6] Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925), 17.

[7] Cited in John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker, 20.

[8] Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great, 63-67.

[9] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2006), 72.

[10] Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great, 151.

[11] William A. Dembski and Sean McDowell, Understanding Intelligent Design (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2008).

[12] Anthony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 88.

[13] George M. Whitesides, “Revolutions in Chemistry” (Priestly Medalist address), Chemical & Engineering News 85

(13) (26 March 2007): 12-17, available online at
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/85/8513cover1.html
(last accessed April 23, 2007).

[14] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 71.

[15] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1987), 17-18.

[16] Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (Boulder, CO: Blue Penguin,
1996), 228.

[17] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 168.

[18] Anthony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God, 132.

[19] Freeman J. Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 250.

[20] Quoted in Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 118.

[21] Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007), 149.

[22] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 258.

[23] Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the End of Reason (New York: W.W. Norton, 2005), 35.

[24] Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007), 207.

[25] Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianity, 214.

[26] David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Crown Forum, 2008), 26.

Chapter 6: Can the Bible Be Trusted?

[1] Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? The Significance of Archeology for Biblical Studies (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), 52.

[2] William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955), 136.

[3] William F. Albright, Christianity Today (January 18, 1963), 3.

[4] Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 222.

[5] John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976).

[6] Simon Kistemaker, The Gospels in Current Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 48–49.

[7] A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 54.

[8] Paul L. Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story in Words and Pictures (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 122.

[9] William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, second edition (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1946), 297–98.

[10] Jeffery L. Sheler, Is The Bible True? (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), 41.

[11] Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (NewYork: Doubleday, 2003), 231.

[12] Chauncey Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 143 ff.

[13] F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1964), 16.

[14] Bruce Metzger, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 60.

[15] Personal correspondence from Dan Wallace, January 6, 2003.

[16] Jacob Klausner, quoted in Will Durant, Caesar and Christ: The Story of Civilization, Part 3 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), 557.

[17] Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Row, 1940), 288–89.

[18] Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 78.

[19] Craig L. Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994), 226.

[20] J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 16.

[21] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006), 215.

[22] John Warwick Montgomery, Where Is History Going? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), 46.

[23] Louis R. Gottschalk, Understanding History (New York: Knopf, 1969), 150.

[24] John McRay, quoted in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 97.

[25] Lynn Gardner, Christianity Stands True (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1994), 40.

[26] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 316.

[27] F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 33.

[28] Lawrence J. McGinley, Form Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narratives (Woodstock, Md.: Woodstock College Press, 1944), 2,5.

[29] David Hackett Fischer, Historian’s Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, quoted in Norman L. Geisler, Why I Am a Christian (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 152.

[30] Robert Grant, Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 302.

[31] Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, 557.

[32] Gottschalk, Understanding History, 161.

[33] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 39.

[34] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.

[35] Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History (Wheaton, Ill.: Scripture Press, 1964), 1.

[36] F. F. Bruce, “Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 331.

[37] A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 189.

[38] Clark H. Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1968), 58.

[39] Douglas R. Groothuis, Jesus in an Age of Controversy (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1996), 39.

Chapter 7: Who Would Die for a Lie?

[1] Although the New Testament does not record the deaths of these men, historical sources and longstanding tradition confirm the nature of their deaths.

[2] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, xx, 9:1.

[3] J. P. Moreland, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 248.

[4] Edward Gibbon, quoted in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), Chapter 3.

[5] Michael Green, “Editor’s Preface” in George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), vii.

[6] Blaise Pascal, quoted in Robert W. Gleason, ed., The Essential Pascal, trans. G. F. Pullen (New York: Mentor-Omega Books, 1966), 187.

[7] J. P. Moreland, quoted in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 246–47.

[8] Michael Green, Man Alive! (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968), 23–24.

[9] Quoted by J. N. D. Anderson, “The Resurrection of Christ,” Christianity Today (March 29, 1968).

[10] Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1937), 1:59.

[11] N. T. Wright, Jesus: The Search Continues. Transcript of this video can be read by searching for “Jesus: The Search Continues” at the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute Web site: www.johnankerberg.org.

[12] Paul Little, Know Why You Believe (Wheaton, Ill: Scripture Press, 1971), 63.

[13] Herbert B. Workman, The Martyrs of the Early Church (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1913), 18–19.

[14] Harold Mattingly, Roman Imperial Civilization (London: Edward Arnold Publishers, 1967), 226.

[15] Tertullian, quoted in Gaston Foote, The Transformation of the Twelve (Nashville: Abingdon, 1958), 12.

[16] Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 29.

[17] Lynn Gardner, Christianity Stands True (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1994), 30.

[18] Personal correspondence from Tom Anderson, January 6, 2003.

Chapter 8: What Good Is a Dead Christ?

[1] Encyclopedia International (New York: Grolier, 1972), 4:407.

[2] Ernest Findlay Scott, Kingdom and the Messiah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), 55.

[3] Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 23.

[4] Jacob Gartenhaus, “The Jewish Conception of the Messiah,” Christianity Today (March 13, 1970): 8–10.

[5] Jewish Encyclopaedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906), 8:508.

[6] Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Secker & Warburg, 1958), 68.

[7] A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971), 177.

[8] Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 29.

[9] George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 38.

Chapter 9: Did You Hear What Happened to Saul?

[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Paul, Saint.”

[2] Jacques Dupont, “The Conversion of Paul and Its Influence on His Understanding of Salvation by Faith,” Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 177.

[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Paul, Saint.”

[4] Ibid.

[5] Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1953), 76.

[6] W. J. Sparrow-Simpson, The Resurrection and the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968), 185–86.

[7] Dupont, “The Conversion of Paul and Its Influence on His Understanding of Salvation by Faith,” 76.

[8] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), 1:296.

[9] Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Paul, Saint.”

[10] Archibald McBride, quoted in Chambers’s Encyclopedia (London: Pergamon Press, 1966), 10: 516.

[11] Clement, quoted in Philip Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church (New York: Charles Scribner, 1857), 340.

[12] George Lyttleton, The Conversion of St. Paul (New York: American Tract Society, 1929), 467.

Chapter 10: Can You Keep a Good Man Down?

[1] Alexander Metherell, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 195–96.

[2] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperOne, 1995), 145.

[3] George Currie, The Military Discipline of the Romans from the Founding of the City to the Close of the Republic. An abstract of a thesis published under the auspices of the Graduate Council of Indiana University, 1928, 41–43.

[4] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: R. R. Smith, 1931), 239.

[5] Arthur Michael Ramsey, God, Christ and the World (London: SCM Press, 1969), 78–80.

[6] James Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1916), 2:340.

[7] Paul Althaus, quoted in Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), 100.

[8] Paul L. Maier, “The Empty Tomb as History,” Christianity Today (March 28, 1975), 5.

[9] Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernadino, Calif.: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1973), 231.

[10] David Friederick Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 1: 412.

[11] J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale Press, 1969), 92.

[12] John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1972), 78.

[13] Thomas Arnold, Christian Life – Its Hopes, Its Fears, and Its Close (London: T. Fellowes, 1859), 324.

[14] Brooke Foss Westcott, quoted in Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe (Wheaton, Ill.: Scripture Press, 1967), 70.

[15] William Lane Craig, Jesus: The Search Continues. Transcript of this video can be read by searching for “Jesus: The Search Continues” at the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute Web site: www.johnankerberg.org.

[16] Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 29.

[17] Sir Lionel Luckhoo, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for
Christ, 254.

[18] Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone? (London: Faber and Faber, 1930).

[19] George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 141.

[20] Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), xiv.

[21] Lord Darling, quoted in Michael Green, Man Alive! (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968), 54.

Chapter 11: Will the Real Christ Please Stand Up?

[1] For a more complete discussion of the Daniel 9 prophecy, see Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Nelson, 1999), 197–201.

[2] Matthew attributes the passage he quotes in 27:9-10 to the prophet Jeremiah, but the passage actually occurs in Zechariah 11:11-13. The apparent discrepancy is resolved when we understand the organization of the Hebrew canon. Hebrew Scriptures were divided into three sections: law, writings, and prophets. Jeremiah came first in their order of prophetic books, and thus Hebrew scholars often found it an acceptable shortcut to refer to the entire collection of prophetic writings by the name of the first book – Jeremiah.

[3] H. Harold Hartzler, from the foreword to Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks (Chicago: Moody, 1963).

[4] Stoner, Science Speaks, 107.

[5] Ibid.

Chapter 13: He Changed My Life

[1] Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 90.

[2] Bruce Metzger, quoted in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 71.

About Josh Mcdowell

Josh McDowell received a master’s degree in theology from Talbot Theological Seminary in California. In 1964 he began working for Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC). Later he became an international traveling speaker for CCC, dealing mostly with issues young people face today.

Josh has spoken to more than ten million young people in eighty-four countries. He has spoken at more than seven hundred universities and colleges. He has written all or parts of more than seventy books and study books with more than thirty-five million copies in print worldwide. Josh’s most popular books are Beyond Belief to Convictions, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Handbook on Counseling Youth, Right from Wrong, and the Right from Wrong study book series.

Josh has been married to Dottie for more than thirty years and has four children. Josh and Dottie live in Dallas, Texas.

CONTENTS
Indicia
Dedication
Chapter 1. My Story
Chapter 2. What Makes Jesus So Different?
Chapter 3. Lord, Liar Or Insane?
Chapter 4. What About Science?
Chapter 5. The Problem Of The New Atheism
Chapter 6. Can The Bible Be Trusted?
Chapter 7. Who Would Die For A Lie?
Chapter 8. What Good Is A Dead Christ?
Chapter 9. Did You Hear What Happened To Saul?
Chapter 10. Can You Keep A Good Man Down?
Chapter 11. Will The Real Christ Please Stand Up?
Chapter 12. Is There Not Some Other Way?
Chapter 13. He Changed My Life
NOTES
About Josh McDowell