Common Questions about Christianity:
Concise Answers to Complex Questions

Part Two: Jesus

1. “What evidence exists for Jesus’ life outside of the New Testament and external to the Early Christian Church’s testimony?”

2. “Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. There is not enough evidence to warrant such a belief.”

3. “The idea that God desires a bloody sacrifice is offensive.”

4. “If Jesus is God, then why didn’t he just come out and claim it?”

5. “One person cannot be both divine and human. It does not make sense to believe that Jesus is fully and wholly divine and human.”

6. “The Apostle Paul is the true founder of Christianity—not Jesus. Paul corrupted Jesus’ teachings and made him into a divine-human messenger.”

1. “What evidence exists for Jesus’ life outside of the New Testament and external to the Early Christian Church’s testimony?”

• Gary Habermas’ The Verdict of History identifies seven external sources (see following discussion) external to the New Testament that discuss Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

• The Roman historian Tacitus (ca. 55-120 CE) in Annals 15.44 (ca. 115 CE) notes that Christians received their name from their founder Christus and Pontius Pilatus put Christus to death during Tiberius reign (14-37 CE). Also, Christus’ death ended the “superstition” for a brief time, but the “superstition” was revived again, especially in Judea (origin of teaching).

• Suetonis, a Roman chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 CE) mentions in Claudius, 25 and Nero, 16 that the ramifications for Chrestus’ teaching led to Jewish disturbances in Rome where they were expelled from the city (cf Acts 18.2). In addition, Christians professed a new and mischievous religious belief.

• Josephus (37 or 38-97 CE) in Antiquities 18.3 (ca. 90-95) reports that James is referred to as “the brother of Jesus,” Jesus is referred to as “Christ,” Jesus was a good man, had many disciples, and was condemned to die by Pilate (crucifixion). The disciples also believed Jesus arose from the dead on the third day and proclaimed his teaching.

• Thallus writes approximately in 52 CE and wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world, most of which is lost. Julius Africanus (ca. 221 CE), who was familiar with Thallus’ work, notes that Thallus writes about the darkness during Jesus’ crucifixion (Africanus challenges this) and that the story of Jesus’ crucifixion reached the Mediterranean region by the middle first century.

• Pliny the Younger was a Roman author and administrator. His 10th book called Letters, X, 96 was written around 112 CE. According to Pliny, Christians met on a “certain fixed day” and sang hymns to Christ as a god. Also, Christian teaching considered “excessive” and a “contagious” “superstition.” Finally, his reference to Christians who “reassemble to partake of food” in an “ordinary and innocent kind” is probably a reference to communion.

• The Talmud (70 to 200 CE) is a Jewish source that combines the Mishnah (oral tradition) and Gemaras, an ancient commentary on the Mishnah. Taken from the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, we learn that Yeshu was crucified, charged with sorcery, and spiritual apostasy (leading Israel astray). Also, it comments that no one came forward to defend Jesus; hence Yeshu was killed.

(top)

2. “Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. There is not enough evidence to warrant such a belief.”

• These earliest Christian believers were monotheistic, law-abiding, Sabbath-keeping Jews who did not believe in a unique resurrection in the middle of history. They believed in a general resurrection at the end of the age. However, something must have happened to cause them to radically change their beliefs. The resurrection explains the origin of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, the changing of the day of worship from the Sabbath to the first day, and the establishment of the church.

• The “natural” theories (swoon, conspiracy, hallucination, legend) do not possess enough evidence to explain the three historical effects: the origin of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, the change of the day of worship from the Sabbath to the first day, and the establishment of the church.

• The swoon theory, that Jesus did not die, but appeared to die, should be rejected because it is ignorant (the Romans knew how to crucify people), lacks common sense (could you fool the disciples after a crucifixion that you conquered death?), needs a continuing story for Jesus (where did he go if he did not die and go to heaven?), and contradicts medical evidence (legs not broken: John 19.31-33; asphyxiation occurred: John 19.34-35).

• The conspiracy theory, that a person or people stole the body, lacks evidence as well. To begin with, no one has confessed under torture (referring to those who concocted the story) that Christ did not rise from the dead. Do you think the disciples were crafty enough to fool everyone or had the power to steal the body? Would you be willing to die for a lie, if you created the story yourself? You might die for a lie not knowing that it is a lie, but probably less likely if you yourself created the story.

• The hallucination theory contradicts our fundamental knowledge and experience of visions. First, hallucinations, by nature are private, individual, and subjective, yet the disciples and many others saw the risen Christ at the same time. Second, the durations of hallucinations are usually short, but Christ’s followers saw Jesus for approximately six weeks. Third, the disciples believed in a “general and end-time” resurrection, but Jesus was resurrected not at the end of the age, but in the middle of history.

• The legend theory should be rejected because there is not enough time, at least several generations, to create such a legend (1 Corinthians 15.3f, for instance may be dated 3 to 8 years after the resurrection; see next point below). Furthermore, we have the presence of eyewitnesses and guarantors in the Gospels and Paul’s letters. Most of these eyewitnesses were probably alive when Paul’s epistles and the Gospels were written. Finally, Paul’s conversion from Saul could not be based on legendary aspects because there was not a long enough time gap between the reported resurrection and his conversion, two years later.

• 1 Corinthians 15.3f belongs to a “resurrection creed” and that existed earlier than Paul, the author (“delivered” and “received” were rabbinic words for passing/receiving tradition). In addition, if 1 Corinthians was written by 55 CE (as many “liberal” scholars have attested), Paul received tradition from Peter and James (35-38 CE), then we are looking at “observations” of a creed that are reported to take place even earlier (35-37 CE).

• If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then many observations follow including (1) all that exists is not necessarily material entities, (2) the universe is not necessarily “closed” to the supernatural or miraculous, (3) a supernatural God “cares” because He acted in a historical time and space in resurrecting Jesus, (4) the power of sin and death can be “defeated,” (5) Jesus was probably the most unique person who has ever lived—more unique than any other religious teacher, guru, or prophet, (6) Christianity is unlikely to be a “by-product” of one’s wish fulfillment or reflection of one’s culture, and (7) it is possible that this one meta-narrative (a universal truth that speaks to the universal “human condition”) is not a “dead” option.

• In summary, the natural theories (swoon, conspiracy, hallucination, legend) do not adequately explain what happened to Jesus’ body. On the other hand, Jesus’ resurrection is the best explanation for the origin of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, the changing of the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, and the establishment of the church. Finally, Jesus’ resurrection challenges us to question various established positions of science, philosophy, and religion.

(top)

3. “The idea that God desires a bloody sacrifice is offensive.”

• The “bloody sacrifice” demonstrates the seriousness of sin in God’s eyes. God has a perfect moral standard and anyone that falls short of this standard receives the penalty of death (Romans 6.23). Because God views sin as “very serious” only a “perfect” substitute could be offered in the place of our sins (a perfect life exchanged for imperfect lives; 2 Corinthians 5.21).

• There is “life” in the blood (e.g., sometimes we say that “a person spilled blood” meaning that he/she died by making a great sacrifice). Anything short of a “sacrifice” would not be sufficient because God through Jesus’ death (and resurrection) offers us the chance to receive eternal life. Without blood, there’s no forgiveness of sins because the blood itself “contains” life (Hebrews 9.22).

• The notion of a “sacrifice” is rooted in a specific historical context. As such, it makes perfect sense for the Old Testament, for instance, to deal with the issue of sacrifice. Many cultures that existed alongside the Israelites made sacrifices to their “gods" during this time period.

• Regarding the historical context of the New Testament, Jesus had to die in a manner that was public (the cross) because God had to show the world the significance of his death (theological reason). Furthermore, Jesus’ death should be understood in conjunction with the Old Testament sacrifices. They were “shadows” that ultimately pointed to Jesus’ death, and his death stands in continuity and fulfillment of Old Testament sacrifices. The crucifixion was not only historically pertinent to Rome’s style of execution, but more importantly, it illustrates the seriousness of sin. If Jesus did not die publicly then people could claim that he didn’t really die, and therefore he didn’t really rise from the dead.

• When soldiers at war die for their fellow soldiers we call them heroes and applaud their “sacrifice.” We thank them for “spilling their blood.” In these cases we don’t claim that the soldiers’ death was “offensive.” Why can’t we say that Jesus is a hero and applaud his sacrifice for the world?

(top)

4. “If Jesus is God, then why didn’t he just come out and claim it?”

• The Jewish culture would understand “God” without any distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit. If Jesus explicitly claimed to be God to a Jewish audience, then he would commit blasphemy (Mark 2.1-12).

• Jesus must make implicit claims to divine status because explicit claims would be misinterpreted to mean he is the same Person as God the Father (cf. John 1.1) where this is a distinction made between God and the Word). Jews would not distinguish between God the Father and God the Son as Christians do.

• From a Christian understanding, when Jesus refers to “God” he is referring to God the Father thereby distinguishing between the persons of the Trinity.

• What Jesus makes implicit (Mark 2.1-12: forgive sins; John 8.58: self-existence; Matthew 5: “It has been said,” “but I said to you”) the Apostle Paul and later New Testament authors make more explicit (e.g., John 1:1, 1:14; 14.6-14; 17.24; Hebrews 1:3; 1.6). Jesus shares the same authority, honor, and glory as the Father in light of Christian practices such as prayer, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.

(top)

5. “One person cannot be both divine and human. It does not make sense to believe that Jesus is fully and wholly divine and human.”

• In order for a person to make this claim he or she must know what it means to be “divine.” If they don’t know what “constitutes” divinity, then how can they claim that God can’t add human nature to his divine person? For example, some may contend that there is no such geometrical figure as a square-circle, but we know what a square is and what a circle is. Surely we cannot claim to “know” what humanity is and especially what constitutes “divinity.”

• If God exists within (immanent and personal) but also necessarily outside (transcendent and infinite) our four-dimensional world (length, width, heighth, time), then isn’t it possible that He transcends our “four-dimensional logic” as well? We are not suggesting that Jesus’ divine and human natures are illogical, but rather a mystery, or perhaps a paradox.

• There are theological reasons for postulating Jesus’ divine nature such as (1) a finite person could not bear the penalty of sins, (2) salvation is from the Lord (Jonah 2.9), and (3) a true mediator between God and man implies Jesus’ divinity (1 Timothy 2.5).

• To add human nature to Christ’s person which has been eternally divine, results in Christ receiving some human “limitations” Phillippians 2.5-11; Luke 2.52 teaches that Jesus developed intellectually, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. 

• Although Jesus possesses two natures, he nevertheless, is one person. He is a “member” of the divine Trinity, God is one in essence, but exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus, who has a “human nature,” could/should pray to the Father and be empowered by the Spirit.

• Concerning the interaction of Christ’s divine and human natures we should note that one nature may think or act (e.g., human: eating, sleeping) without drawing from or affecting the other nature (e.g., divine: God does not hunger, grow weary). 

• Whenever one nature thinks or acts (e.g., human: dying) this process of thinking or acting affects the total person of Christ. Thus, we may say that when the human nature of Christ died on the cross, the divine nature did not die. The total person of Christ was somehow mysteriously affected.

(top)

6. “The Apostle Paul is the true founder of Christianity—not Jesus. Paul corrupted Jesus’ teachings and made him into a divine-human messenger.”

• The resurrection “compelled” the disciples to (re)consider Jesus’ status. Prior to the resurrection they regarded him as a teacher, prophet, miracle-worker, and Messiah. The resurrection, however, made the disciples search for words and titles (e.g., “Son of God”) to explain Jesus’ identity.

• Paul became acquainted with Jesus and his teaching in three ways. First, Paul met the resurrected Jesus (Acts 9.1-9; 1 Corinthians 9.1-2). Second, Paul received revelation from Jesus himself (Galatians 1.16-17). Third, Paul received “Jesus tradition” from the disciples (Galatians 1.18-19; Acts 9.26-30). Thus, Paul was in a good position to know about Jesus.

• Paul and disciples reached a general consensus concerning Jesus’ nature. Paul did not create his own doctrine concerning Jesus’ nature. His christology is based on his own religious experiences with Jesus and interaction with Jesus’ disciples.

• Paul uses “binitarian” language; Jesus shares the same authority, honor, and glory as the Father in light of Christian practices such as prayer, baptism, Lord’s Supper, hymns. Later New Testament authors make Jesus’ divine nature more explicit (e.g., John’s Gospel, Hebrews). This language, however, came about after Paul met Jesus, received revelation from Jesus, received “Jesus tradition” from the disciples, and reached a general consensus with the disciples concerning Jesus’ nature.

(top)

<-- back to list of questions