<![CDATA[
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#FF0000" vlink="#0000FF" background="offwhite1.jpg">
<center><img SRC="whojesus-head.gif" BORDER=0 width="288" height="192"></center>
<p>(The purpose of this page is to present the evidence that the
only rational decision about Jesus Christ is to accept that He is God who
became a man and who rose from the dead.)
<center>
<p><font size=+1><a href="CDS.html">(This information is now available
on audio CD!)</a></font></center>
<p><a NAME="Preface"></a><b><font size=+3>Preface</font></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>[If there is anything of ultimate value in this
paper, it is because my thoughts were led and moved by the Holy Spirit
of God (i.e., the credit all goes to Him). However, I do not claim to be
perfectly yielded to Him. Therefore, errors may appear! I will do my best
to correct any real errors as they are brought to my attention.]</font></i></b>
<br>
<br>
<p><a NAME="Introduction"></a><b><font size=+3>Introduction</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>To many millions of us around the world, there can
scarcely be imagined a question of more fundamental importance than, "Who
is Jesus?" Since there are millions of us who sincerely believe that the
Lord Jesus Christ is the central figure of all history and that one's eternal
destiny depends on the answer to this question, it is at least worth some
serious consideration.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>First, consider some of the possible answers to the
question. If you asked average people from various walks of life the question,
you might expect to get many different answers. But, in the end, the vast
majority of those answers could probably be paraphrased into one of the
following.</font></b>
<ol><b><i><font size=+1>"He is the only begotten Son of God, God who came
in the flesh, who arose from the dead, who lives and to whom I have given
my life as my Lord and Master."</font></i></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>"He is the only begotten Son of God, God who came
in the flesh, who arose from the dead, who lives--but I am not yet willing
to submit to His Lordship."</font></i></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>"He did rise from the dead, but He is not really
Creator God."</font></i></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>"He was a great teacher, a good man, and a powerful
moral leader. But even though he was a great leader, he was only a man.
He died like any other mortal. When he died, he stayed dead."</font></i></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>"He was a bit of a kook. He was probably a fanatic
and an egomaniac. He died like any other mortal. When he died, he stayed
dead."</font></i></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>"There is really no way to know who He was. He may
not have even existed. Our concepts of Him are based on myths constructed
by the early church, probably a few hundred years after His death (if He
ever really lived)."</font></i></b></ol>
<p><b><font size=+1>The purpose of this paper is to attempt to demonstrate
that the only
<i>rational</i> choice of answers to the question is the
first response. One of the other responses may be more emotionally or philosophically
satisfying to some people, but to make that choice, they must be willing
to sacrifice reasonableness and rationality. I am, of course, fully aware
that many people are quite content to admit that what they believe is irrational.
My goal here is to try to make those who <i>claim</i> rationality, but
who choose to respond with answers two through six to be a little less
comfortable with their position. Said another way; it takes a certain amount
of faith to respond with any of the six answers. But response number one
is made with faith that is based on evidence.<a NAME="fn1" HREF="#ref1"></a><sup><a href="#ref1" NAME="fn1">1</a></sup>
Responses numbers two through six are based on a blind leap into the dark
in the face of powerful evidence to the contrary.</font></b>
<br>
<br>
<p><a NAME="Two"></a><b><font size=+3>Response Number Two</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>"<i>He is the only begotten Son of God, God who came
in the flesh, who arose from the dead, who lives--but I am not yet willing
to submit to His Lordship."</i></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>There are many people who respond this way. They claim
to believe that Jesus is essentially who the Bible claims Him to be, but
they are not willing to submit to His Lordship. Often this is because they
are "comfortable" with their lifestyle, and are afraid that He will "mess
it up" by requiring them to do things they really don't want to do (e.g.,
go to church, tithe, quit drinking or smoking, abandon pornography, etc.).</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>That may be a common response, but it doesn't take
much thought to recognize that it is totally irrational. If Jesus is God,
Who loved us enough to die for us, does it really make any sense that we
would refuse to submit to Him? God, by definition, is the One who knows
us completely. He made us. He is the One with perfect wisdom and insight
about our lives. He is the One who loves us more than any human knows how
to love. And He is the One who has the power to do whatever is best for
us.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>He has the <i>wisdom</i> to <i>know</i> what is best
for us, the
<i>love</i> to <i>want</i> what is best for us, and the <i>power</i>
to
<i>do</i> what is best for us. Does it make any sense at all to say,
"Yes, but I'd rather stumble through life in my own ignorant powerless
way?"</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Many choose that way. But it is based on a blind faith
(with absolutely no evidence) that somehow their lives will turn out better
if they "do it their way" than if they submit to the Lordship of Jesus
Christ.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1> </font></b>
<p><a NAME="Three"></a><b><font size=+3>Response Number Three</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>"He did rise from the dead, but He is not really Creator
God."</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>This response is an answer that some would give whom
I would classify as "cultists." It is a curious response. They seem to
accept the authority of the Scriptures which tell us of His resurrection,
but not the authority of the Scriptures which tell us of His Deity. There
is an abundance of clear Biblical evidence that teaches His Deity.<a NAME="fn2" HREF="#ref2"></a><sup><a href="#ref2" NAME="fn2">2</a></sup></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>It is irrational to accept the clear Biblical evidence
for His Resurrection, but to deny equally clear Biblical evidence for His
Deity. Those who do this are starting with a theological presupposition
that requires them to "explain away" clear Biblical teachings in order
to maintain a presupposition (<i>viz</i>., that Jesus is not God).</font></b>
<br>
<br>
<p><a NAME="Four"></a><b><font size=+3>Response Number Four</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>"He was a great teacher, a good man, and a powerful
moral leader. But even though he was a great leader, he was only a man.
He died like any other mortal. When he died, he stayed dead."</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>This response is also irrational when you consider
the statements that Jesus made. There are numbers of statements made by
Jesus that make nonsense of the claim that He was a "great teacher" and
a "good man" but not God.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>When people respond with response number four, they
are usually thinking about statements made by Jesus such as, "<i>Love one
another</i>." Or "<i>Do unto others as you would have them do unto you</i>."</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>But the same Jesus also made statements like these:</font></b>
<blockquote><b><i><font size=+1>"But that ye may know that the Son of man
hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,)
I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house."
(Luke 5:24)</font></i></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father,
which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them
out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." (John 10:28-30)</font></i></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)</font></i></b>
<p><b><i><font size=+1>"But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again
the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the
Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
(Mark 14:61-62)</font></i></b></blockquote>
<b><font size=+1>There are many other such quotes. Statements like these
caused C.S. Lewis to write:</font></b>
<blockquote><b><i><font size=+1>"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying
the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to
accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to
be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a
man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a
poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your
choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or
something worse. You can shut Him for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill
Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.
But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great
human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."<a NAME="fn3" HREF="#ref3"></a></font></i></b><sup><a href="#ref3" NAME="fn3">3</a></sup></blockquote>
<b><font size=+1>So, many may "like the sound" of response number four.
They may claim to believe it. But the evidence doesn't support them. Of
course, they may claim that the more "grandiose" statements attributed
to Jesus were not uttered by Him at all, but were added later. The problem
is that such a claim is not based on any evidence. It is based on an irrational
desire to hold on to a position that just "feels" correct to some people.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>People who wish to use this response must also deal
with the powerful evidence that points to the fact that Jesus really did
rise from the dead.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Eventually, when forced to think more deeply about
their position, some of these people revert to response number six.</font></b>
<br>
<br>
<p><a NAME="Five"></a><b><font size=+3>Response Number Five</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>"He was a bit of a kook. He was probably a fanatic
and an egomaniac. He died like any other mortal. When he died, he stayed
dead."</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>There are not many people who will claim to believe
this. Probably because it doesn't sound "nice." But, in fact, it is more
believable than response number four. However, there are problems with
this view.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>First of all, it is impossible to believe that a kook
and a lunatic could have given us moral teachings that are universally
recognized as profoundly sane and powerful. To believe such is totally
irrational.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>If you study the history of the church, from the beginning
it has been a powerful force for good in society. Large numbers of hospitals,
schools, and ministries to the poor have, throughout history, been established
in His name. It does seem a bit irrational that these many establishments
for good in our society have been erected in the name of a kook and an
egomaniac.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Of course, people who wish to use this response must
deal with the powerful evidence that He really did rise from the dead.</font></b>
<p><a NAME="Six"></a><b><font size=+3>Response Number Six</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>"There is really no way to know who He was. He may
not have even existed. Our concepts of Him are based on myths constructed
by the early church, probably a few hundred years after His death (if He
ever really lived)."</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>The problem with this response is the very existence
of the early church and the abundance of the manuscript evidence that supports
the New Testament documents.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>A person who holds to this position may reject the
resurrection on philosophical grounds (<i>e.g., </i>"<i>It doesn’t fit
my view of the universe that a man can rise from the dead</i>.") But he
has a severe problem dealing with the historical facts. It can be shown
that the historical reliability of the events recorded in the New Testament
is based on evidence that is overwhelmingly stronger than that of other
events which most people accept as real historical events.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>The individual who wishes to maintain that the New
Testament documents are historically inaccurate, must also, of necessity,
reject all these other historical events, if he wishes to remain rationally
consistent. He is reduced to the absurd claim that we know nothing at all
of ancient history because we cannot trust the documents.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>He may say, "I am willing to accept historical documents
as essentially reliable until they fly in the face of my philosophical
presuppositions, then I refuse to believe them." But in doing so he must
accept the arbitrariness of the basis for what he accepts as "history."
In other words, he must accept his own inconsistency in regard to how he
treats the evidence that exists.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Alternately, he may claim that he is prepared to accept
that all history is "myth." He may choose to reject all evidence of a historical
nature and claim that we really don't know <i>anything</i> about the past
because the documents are all unreliable. But in choosing this path, he
is placing himself at odds with the conclusions of historical researchers,
both Christian and non-Christian.</font></b>
<p><a NAME="Nature"></a><b><font size=+3>The Nature of the Evidence</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Obviously the New Testament claims that Jesus rose
from the dead. The question is, can these documents be trusted? Can we
be sure that they were not written many years later by religious zealots
who tried to fabricate a myth in order to have a kind of religious control
over the minds of the people? How can we be sure that they were not fabricated
much as the Greeks fabricated stories about their fabulous gods and goddesses?</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>One of the things that separates the New Testament
documents from mythology is the nearness of the documents to the events.
Mythology is created by storytellers who weave fanciful tales of events
"long ago and far away."</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>A key question to be answered when evaluating the accuracy
of historical documents is, "How close, in time, are these documents to
the events that they describe?" On this score, the events recorded in the
New Testament turn out to be the best-attested events in ancient history.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>For example, historians regard letters as evidence
with excellent reliability. And historians, both Christian and non-Christian,
agree that at least several of Paul's letters (including First Corinthians)
were written within twenty-five to thirty years of the crucifixion of Christ.
In his first letter to the Corinthian church, Paul writes:</font></b>
<blockquote><b><i><font size=+1>"For I delivered unto you first of all
that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according
to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third
day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of
the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;
of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."<a NAME="fn4" HREF="#ref4"></a></font></i><sup><a href="#ref4" NAME="fn4">4</a></sup></b></blockquote>
<b><font size=+1>Therefore, anyone who comes to the evidence without a
philosophical presuppositional bias against the resurrection would conclude
that this is strong evidence that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead.
Here is a letter, written about twenty five years after the resurrection,
which essentially invites the readers to go hear the testimony of some
250 people who had seen the Risen Lord! And the evidence (both internal
and external) for the integrity of the letter is unquestioned.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Both the internal evidence and the external evidence
overwhelmingly support the integrity of the New Testament documents. These
matters have been studied intensely for centuries now, and all the manuscript
discoveries and the archaeological discoveries have continued to strengthen
that support. By the middle of the 20<sup>th</sup> Century, the evidence
was so well established that one scholar (Sir Frederic Kenyon--whose expertise
in the study of ancient manuscripts was unquestioned) said:</font></b>
<blockquote><b><i><font size=+1>"The interval then between the dates of
original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small
as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that
the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written
has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of
the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."<a NAME="fn5" HREF="#ref5"></a></font></i><sup><a href="#ref5" NAME="fn5">5</a></sup></b></blockquote>
<b><font size=+1>If one is interested in pursuing a more in-depth study
of the reliability of the New Testament, there are valuable books that
will help him begin the study.<a NAME="fn6" HREF="#ref6"></a></font><sup><a href="#ref6" NAME="fn6">6</a></sup></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Ultimately the reliability of the manuscripts and the
incredible willingness of the early followers of Jesus to go to horrendous
deaths (rather than simply renounce their testimony that they had seen
Him--alive from the dead) must be dealt with by those who choose not to
believe. The very existence, power, and shockingly rapid growth of the
early church in the face of fiery persecution also provides powerful evidence
for the Resurrection of Jesus.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Then why are not all persuaded? The answer is simple
and has already been stated. It has nothing to do with the evidence or
the lack of evidence. It is a matter of minds that are closed to the possibility.
When one approaches the evidence with the presupposition that, whatever
one finds, dead men do not rise from the grave, then no amount of evidence
will be persuasive.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>The honest thing for these people to say would be something
like, "I may not be rational, and my position may not be supported by the
evidence, but I simply refuse to believe what is indicated by the evidence."</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Each of us must choose. We may choose the way of faith,
based on the evidence. Or we may choose a blind leap in the dark, in spite
of the evidence. Which do you choose? We must each answer the question
posed by Jesus Himself, "But Whom do you say that I am?"<a NAME="fn7" HREF="#ref7"></a><sup><a href="#ref7" NAME="fn7">7</a></sup></font></b>
<p><a NAME="Notes"></a><b><font size=+3>Notes</font></b>
<p><a NAME="ref1"></a><b><font size=+1>1. For those who might be interested
in further evidence, see my paper entitled <i>Help for Skeptics</i>.</font></b><a href="#fn1">(go
back)</a>
<p><a NAME="ref2"></a><b><font size=+1>2. (e.g. John 1:1-14; Colossians
1:12-17; John 10:30; John 12:45; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy
3:16; Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8; John 14:7-9; etc.).</font></b> <a href="#fn2">(go
back)</a>
<p><a NAME="ref3"></a><b><font size=+1>3. (C.S. Lewis, <i>Mere Christianity</i>,
pp. 55-56)</font></b> <a href="#fn3">(go back)</a>
<p><a NAME="ref4"></a><b><font size=+1>4. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7</font></b>
<a href="#fn4">(go back)</a>
<p><a NAME="ref5"></a><b><font size=+1>5. Frederic Kenyon,<i> The Bible
and Archaeology</i>, p. 288; quoted on page 20 of <i>The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable?</i> By F.F. Bruce</font></b> <a href="#fn5">(go
back)</a>
<p><a NAME="ref6"></a><b><font size=+1>6. For example: <i>The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? </i>and <i>The Books and the Parchments</i>
by F.F. Bruce;
<i>Protestant Christian Evidences</i> by Bernard Ramm; <i>Evidence
that Demands a Verdict</i> and <i>More Evidence that Demands a Verdict</i>
by Josh McDowell.</font></b> <a href="#fn6">(go back)</a>
<p><a NAME="ref7"></a><b><font size=+1>7. Mark 8:29</font></b> <a href="#fn7">(go
back)</a>
<p><b><font size=+1> </font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Steve Hall</font></b>
<br><b><font size=+1>June, 2000</font></b>
<br><a href="mailto:steve@aboundingjoy.com">steve@aboundingjoy.com</a>
<p><font size=-2>© 2000 Steve Hall. Permission is hereby granted to
quote from these web pages, in part or in full, as long as the following
statement is included: "© 2000 Steve Hall (steve@aboundingjoy.com).
Quoted by Permission."</font>
<center>
<p><b><font size=+2><a href="index.html" TARGET="_top">Go to Abounding
Joy Home Page</a></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+2><a href="mailto:steve@aboundingjoy.com">Send us email!</a></font></b>
<p><a href="Maintoc.html" TARGET="_top">Go to Main Table of Contents</a>
<br><a href="Maintoc.html" TARGET="_top">(For browsers without frames)</a></center>
</body>
]]>