Tim Maas Retired Quality Assurance Specialist with the U.S. Army

Unlike other religions that arise from human wisdom or philosophical principles, Christianity is based on historical events, both in the Old and New Testaments. The accuracy of those accounts is validated by fulfillment of prophecies (including over 300 specific prophecies about Jesus alone) that were made hundreds or thousands of years before the events that they foretold. Purely from the standpoint of probability, the possibility of these fulfillments being random or mere coincidence is astronomically infinitesimal. 

In addition, there are verses such as the one cited in the question (and others like it in the gospels), in which Jesus makes claims about Himself that could only be true of God; and which, if Jesus were not God in human flesh, would not even make Him a "great teacher" (as even many non-Christians are willing to call Him), but either a lunatic, or else the greatest fraud, liar, and imposter the world has ever known.

However, the paramount evidence of the truth of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This event (which was verified by hundreds of witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8); by the willingness of Jesus' followers to die for their personal testimony to it; and by the growth of the Christian church from an obscure sect in Palestine to the state religion of the Roman Empire) validates all the claims that He made about Himself as the absolutely unique Son of God and the Savior of humanity -- the only means that a holy God has provided to make it possible for a sinful mankind to be reconciled to Him, and to live eternally in His presence.

I would invite you to read the book Mere Christianity by the English author C.S. Lewis (the author of the Chronicles of Narnia, as well as a former atheist who converted to Christianity) for further discussion of this issue. It is fully viewable at no charge online at the following web address: 

https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf

February 01 2017 • 1 response • Vote Up • Share • Report

Ryan A

History is full of men who have claimed that they came from God, or that they were gods, or that they bore messages from God - Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Christ, Lao-tze, and thousands of others, right down to the person who founded a new religion this very day. Each of them has a right to be heard and considered. But as a yardstick external to and outside of whatever is to be measured is needed, so there must be some permanent tests available to all men, all civilisations, and all ages by which they can decide whether any one of these claimants are justified in their claims. These tests are (1) reason and (2) history. Reason, because everyone has it, even those without faith; history, because everyone lives in it and should know something about it. Only Christianity can truly withstand these two tests.

Reason dictates that if any of these men actually came from God, the least thing that God could do to support His claim would be to pre-announce His coming. If God sent anyone from Himself, or if He came Himself with a vitally important message for all men, it would seem reasonable that He would first let men know when His messenger was coming, where he would be born, where He would live, the doctrine he would preach, the enemies He would make, the program He would adopt for the future, and the manner of His death. By the extent to which the messenger conformed with these announcements, one could judge the validity of his claims. Reason further assures us that if God did not do this, then there would be nothing to prevent any impostor from appearing in history and saying, "I come from God," or "An angel appeared to me in the desert and gave me this message." In such cases there would be no objective, historical way of testing the messenger. We would only have his word for it, and of course he could be wrong.

Buddha had no one to pre-announce him and his message or tell the day when he would sit under the tree. Confucius did not have the name of his mother and his birthplace recorded, nor were they given to men centuries before he arrived so that when he did come, men would know he was a messenger from God. But, with Christ it is different. Because of the Old Testament prophecies, His coming was not unexpected. There were no predictions about Buddha, Confucius, Lao-tze, Mohammed, or anyone else; but there were predictions about Christ. Mohammed and others came and said, "Here I am, believe me." They were, therefore, only men among men and not the Divine in the human. Christ alone stepped out of that line.

It is true that the prophecies of the OT can be best understood in the light of their fulfillment. If one searches out the various Messianic currents in the OT, and compares the resulting picture with the life and work of Christ, can one doubt that the ancient predictions point to Jesus and the kingdom which He established?

February 03 2017 • 2 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Jeff Bont

If I may add to this discussion, I would like to say that, of the many ancient historians that modern historians rely on for their information, at least 13 of them cite Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among these were Josephus, Pliny the Elder, and Tacitus. None of these men were Christians. In fact, they were all known to be very much Anti-Semitic, and Anti-Christian. They had nothing to gain but recording what they did. Yet, they did record Jesus as being a Jewish Rabbi, and one who did miracles, as well as one who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. If these men all validate Jesus as being real, and they are counted as accurate by modern day scholars, then the evidence that Jesus existed in History is profound. And, if he lived, then, based on his claims, as C.S. Lewis points out; he was either a liar, insane, or who he said his was; Yeshua the Son of God. On this do we have our hope and assurance. And on this can we stand.

June 30 2017 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report