The evidence for Christianity in my eyes

By Neil Meyer

For me the evidence for Christianity hinges on 4 pillars

1) Philosophical arguments for the existence of

If you are interested in the many arguments for God's existence you can visit this link from renowned philosopher Where he gives about 2 dozen arguments for the . Some are very creative. In the words of Dr. Craig it is a tour te force.”

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/theisticarguments.html

A synopsis of the more famous ones are... a) : (From wikipedia)

A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows: 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. A causal loop cannot exist. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation. In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was set forth by [7] ): 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

b) Argument from design http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/design.html (1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable fact that many natural objects appear to have been designed for a purpose: the eye for seeing, the hand for grasping, etc. (2) The only reasonable explanation for this appearance of purpose is that natural things are ultimately the product of an immensely powerful supernatural intelligence, namely God. (IBE) If an hypothesis H is the only reasonable explanation of a remarkable fact F, then it is reasonable to believe that H is true. (3) Therefore, it is reasonable to believe is that God exists.

The argument is certainly valid. The only question is whether we find ourselves with reason enough to believe the premises.

c) : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. in the 11th. century AD. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists. In the seventeenth century, René Descartes defended a family of similar arguments. For instance, in the Fifth Meditation, Descartes claims to provide a proof demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being. Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being—we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being—we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz attempted to fill what he took to be a shortcoming in Descartes' view. According to Leibniz, Descartes' arguments fail unless one first shows that the idea of a supremely perfect being is coherent, or that it is possible for there to be a supremely perfect being. Leibniz argued that, since perfections are unanalyzable, it is impossible to demonstrate that perfections are incompatible—and he concluded from this that all perfections can co-exist together in a single entity. In more recent times, Kurt Gödel, , Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga have all presented much-discussed ontological arguments which bear interesting connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. Of these, the most interesting are those of Gödel and Plantinga; in these cases, however, it is unclear whether we should really say that these authors claim that the arguments are proofs of the existence of God. d) Argument from :

The is an argument for the existence of God miracles (usually taken to be physically impossible/extremely improbable events) to establish the active intervention of a supernatural being (or supernatural agents acting on behalf of that being). One example is the claims of some Christians that historical evidence proves that Jesus rose from the dead, and this can only be explained if God exists. This is also known as the Christological argument for the existence of God. Another example is the claims of some Muslims that the Qur'an has many fulfilled prophecies, and this can also only be explained if God exists. e) The Moral Arguments ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral- arguments-god/ )

Moral arguments for God's existence may be defined as that family of arguments in the history of western philosophical having claims about the character of moral thought and experience in their premises and affirmations of the existence of God in their conclusions. Some of these arguments are on all fours with other theistic arguments, such as the design argument. They cite facts that are claimed to be evident to human experience. And they argue that such facts entail or are best explained by the hypothesis that there is a God with the attributes traditionally ascribed to him. Other moral proofs of God's existence take us away from the patterns of argument typical of natural theology. They deal in our ends and motives. These variants on the moral argument for God's existence describe some end that the moral life commits us to (such as the attainment of the perfect good) and contend that this end cannot be attained unless God as traditionally defined exists Second Hinge for me would be the various ways in which the archeology has corroborated the bible. Know I can see the skeptic telling me that just because the bible is historically accurate does not mean God exists. My response to that is that if the bible is proven to be true on the things that we have been able to check it on then it should be given the benefit of the doubt on the things we are not able to check it on.

Some of the things that archeology has proven to be true include

( http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/archa.htm ) • "In an instant, Biran knew that they had stumbled upon a rare treasure. The basalt stone was quickly identified as part of a shattered monument, or stele, from the ninth century B.C., apparently commemorating a military victory of the king of Damascus over two ancient enemies. One foe the fragment identified as the 'king of Israel.' The other was 'the House of David.'" The reference to David was a historical bombshell. Never before had the familiar name of Judah's ancient warrior king, a central figure of the Hebrew Bible and according to Christian scriptures, an ancestor of Jesus, been found in the records of antiquity outside the pages of the Bible. Skeptics had long seized upon that fact to argue that David was a mere legend, invented by Hebrew scribes during, or shortly after, Israel's Babylonian exile, roughly 500 years before the birth of Christ. Now, at last, there was material evidence: an inscription written not by Hebrew scribes but by an enemy of the Israelites a little more than a century after David's presumptive lifetime. It seemed to be a clear corroboration of the existence of King David's dynasty and by implication, of David himself.

• Bible critics had long scoffed at references in the biblical record to a people called the Hittites (Gen. 15:20, Ex. 3:8,17, Num. 13:29, Josh. 1:4, Judg. 1:26 and elsewhere). Their evaluation was that the Hittites were simply "one of the many mythical peoples" fabricated by Bible writers--or, at best a small and unimportant tribe. But critics were wrong! In the latter half of the 19th century, Hittite monuments were discovered at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria, amply vindicating the Bible narrative. Later, in 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy (ancient Hattusas, capital of the Hittite empire) in Turkey uncovered thousands of Hittite documents, revealing a wealth of information about Hittite history and culture. The Hittites, it is now known, were a very real and formidable power. They were once one of the dominant peoples of Asia Minor and the Near East, at times exercising control over Syria and parts of Palestine. The Bible had been correct after all! Today, books abound on the history, art, culture and society of the Hittites--a strong witness by competent scholars against those critics who had once been so quick to challenge the Word of God!

Here is another great link

( http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/bibleevidences/archeology.htm )

Some quotes from it • It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible1. • When compared against secular accounts of history, the Bible always demonstrates amazing superiority. The noted biblical scholar R.D. Wilson, who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects, meticulously analyzed 29 kings from 10 different nations, each of which had corroborating archaeological artifacts. Each king was mentioned in the Bible as well as documented by secular historians, thus offering a means of comparison. Wilson showed that the names as recorded in the Bible matched the artifacts perfectly, down to the last jot and tittle! The Bible was also completely accurate in its chronological order of the kings. On the other hand, Wilson showed that the secular accounts were often inaccurate and unreliable. Famous historians such as the Librarian of Alexandria, Ptolemy, and Herodotus failed to document the names correctly, almost always misspelling their names. In many cases the names were barely recognizable when compared to its respective artifact or monument, and sometimes required other evidence to extrapolate the reference 2. • ...Archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine 6.

Powerful stuff Further links on the subject can be found here http://www.realtruth.org/articles/438-avtb.html http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/reliability_of_the_bible.htm http://www.gods1son.com/biblevidence.html http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences/4archaeology.html

The historical reliability of the bible goes hand in hand with this so we can discuss this now. “Most people approach history textbooks somewhat uncritically, accepting what they read as accurate and authoritative. And why not? History books place no moral demands on us (not even to learn from history!). However, when a book makes moral and theological assertions (as the Bible does), people become uncomfortable. Faced with demand for an ethical commitment (and having a natural aversion to authority), some people feign intellectual objections, claiming alleged contradictions in the Bible, and generally questioning its reliability. Consciously or unconsciously the reasoning is: if the Bible can be discredited, or at least relegated to the realm of mythology, its demands will have been trivialized. Thus we have the modern battle over the reliability of the Bible. This brief paper is intended to inform and encourage the reader as to the general integrity and reliability of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Let me preface this paper with a summons to intellectual integrity in the form of a question. If it can be demonstrated that sufficient evidence exists (i.e., textual, historical, archaeological) to authenticate the Bible as a thoroughly reliable historical document, will you then accept its ethical and moral imperatives? If not, then don't trouble yourself about reading this paper. Yours isn't an intellectual problem, but rather a volitional problem - a matter of the will. If, however, you are willing to follow the truth, no matter where it leads, then by all mean, read on”. http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html

Lets compare how the bible compares with other works from the ancient world. When you compare the works it almost leads you to believe the devine nature of the works. The fact that so many of these manuscripts have survived the ages to me comprises a

“The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better- preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.” “There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.2" Author Date Earliest Approximate Time Number Accuracy Written Copy Span between of Copies of Copies original & copy died 55 or Lucretius 1100 yrs 2 ---- 53 B.C. Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ---- 427-347 Plato 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ---- B.C. Demosthe 4th Cent. 1100 800 yrs 8 ---- nes B.C. A.D. 480-425 Herodotus 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- B.C. Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Thucydide 460-400 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- s B.C. 480-406 1100 Euripides 1300 yrs 9 ---- B.C. A.D. Aristopha 450-385 900 A.D. 1200 10 ---- nes B.C. Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ---- Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ---- circa 100 1100 Tacitus 1000 yrs 20 ---- A.D. A.D. 384-322 1100 Aristotle 1400 49 ---- B.C. A.D. 496-406 1000 Sophocles 1400 yrs 193 ---- B.C. A.D. Homer 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95% (Iliad) New 1st Cent. 2nd less than 100 years 5600 99.5% Testamen A.D. (50- Cent. t 100 A.D. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) “As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.” “Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.” “Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.” “Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?” Important Contents Date MS Appro Location Manuscrip Origina S x. t l Dat Time Papyri Written e Span p52 circ John Rylands (John circa a John 18:31-33,37-38 29 yrs Library, Manchester, Rylands 96 A.D. 125 England Fragment)3 A.D. Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; Chester Beatty 8:15-25, 27-35; 10:1- Museum, Dublin & P46 circ 11,22,24-33,35; 16:1-23, Approx Ann Arbor, (Chester 50's- a 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., . Michigan, University Beatty 70's 200 Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 150 yrs of Michigan library Papyrus) A.D. Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28 circ P66 Approx John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; 70's a (Bodmer . Cologne, Geneva fragment of 14:29-21:9 200 Papyrus) 130 yrs A.D. Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, circ Barcelona, Approx 25-28 a Fundacion San P67 . 200 Lucas Evangelista, 130 yrs A.D. P. Barc.1 “If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.” http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

3 Hinge for me relies on the Prophecies that the bible has foretold.

Some of them include • The messiah would be preceded by a messenger • Jesus would perform miracles • God promised another prophet like Moses • Jesus would proclaim that he is the messiah • The messiah would be rejected • Daniel Predicted when the anointed one would be rejected

These are just a few of them if you would like to read the various accounts with bible verses I can really recommend the following sites http://100prophecies.org/ http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-prophecy.htm http://www.bible.ca/b-prophecy-60.htm The forth hinge for me would be the eyewitness accounts of Jesus's Resurrection. Know I can see the Skeptic saying “What has Jesus's resurrection have to do with the with the question of whether God exist or not. My reply would be that Jesus's resurrection is key to the whole of Christianity. If you can prove Jesus's resurrection happened than you have proven that God exist and that Christianity is true. The resurrections importance cannot be overstated. So let's begin with the eye witness accounts http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

In the Bible, there are six eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ Resurrection. Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:1-11 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Each one agrees to the claim that there was an empty tomb and that a significant number of people saw the risen Christ. However, upon reading the accounts, you are left with some questions. For instance, was there one angel or two? Or, did Christ first appear to the women or to the Apostle Peter?

The critics and skeptics regarding the resurrection accounts in Scripture is nothing new to Christianity. In fact, during the second century, a man by the name of Tatian attempted to write a substitute to the gospels by harmonizing all of them into one story. His attempt was rejected, because the church fathers knew the gospels were Holy Scripture, inspired by God. For me, I believe the fact that Jesus died and rose again up from the grave, the of Christianity, is based on the truth that Jesus visited so many people. The resurrection appearances of Jesus are clearly at the heart of early Christian . From the disciples in the room, to the two men on the road to Emmaus, and to the 500 people referred to in the Bible, a person can confidently believe that the resurrected Christ was indeed, a true event.

In my experience their has been many objections on the eyewitness accounts on jesus's resurrection and many of them boil down to the fact that the claim is miraculous and goes against a harden . Many an atheist will go on at great length about how improbable the claim is and how unreasonable it is to think it true. Many of these objections to me would have their essence in a naturalistic bias. Fortunately for me as a Christian (Who holds to supernaturalism) there is no reason to accept these critiques for one moment. For the many people will contend the fact about how Jesus Christ entered the world and how he left it,but for me as a Christian it is almost a non issue. If God created the universe and everything in it then virgin birth and bodily resurrection is not beyond his capabilities. If I can bench press 100 kilograms than lifting a 5 kilogram weight should not be improbable for me to lift. The fact of the matter is that for you to be able to disregard the eyewitness accounts you would have to have more evidence to the contrary than for it. More than just “this can't be true because it goes against my world view (naturalism)” or veiled critiques based in a naturalistic bias.

So lets review the evidence http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

• “The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.” This calls into question the denial theorist that would have you believe that the accounts where written centuries after the event happened and can't be taken seriously on that reason • “The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events.” • “By the end of the 19th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.” • “Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." The disparity in when the events happened and when the first extant manuscripts were discovered make the case for disbelieve in the eye witnesses very hard to believe. A question that has to be asked to the non-believer in if the resurrection was a hoax as so many atheist contend where is the archaeological evidence disproving the witnesses. Their was no lack of people and governments hostile to Christianity in the first century AD that would have wanted to squelch Christianity. Where is the evidence to the contrary? • “There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.“ Could it be that the Atheist is believing things without reasons. • “The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance. “ • “A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.” • “But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead.” On the vast amount of eyewitnesses • “Several very important factors are often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.” On not just appearing to friends • Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced. • Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection. • If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

Resurrection as a fact • “Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

I usually ask the non believer on what account to they deny the eye witness accounts of the the bible yet affirm the eye witness accounts of the the holocaust. They are both events that have had a great impact on the lives of the western world's people. This usually has the effect of getting some atheist very angry at me. To me denying one of them is equally as morally deplorable an act. That needs evidence towards the contrary that simply does not exist. As I was challenged by non-believers to give account of the reasons I believe I have made this little document. It was only intended to give a reasons for why I believe. As the bibles commands us to always give a reason for the hope that resides in us. I have done this. It' was done from the viewpoint of a humble layman. I'm sure it is has many faults and would attract critique both fair and unfair, but if it had the effect of making one atheist review his stance on or strengthen but one believer in his than maybe it was not a complete waist of an afternoon

– Neil Meyer Centurion South Africa