Hard Questions

There are a great many questions used both to try and attack Christianity, and also in earnest examination of the claims of Christ. The answering of these questions is called "Apologetics" and many difficult questions are covered in a multitude of easily found books. However, in my own attempt to better understand these issues, and to have a more ready response for inquirers, I've tackled a few of the more common ones, and written up brief responses. Here are my current ideas.

You asked why I say that Jesus Christ is the only what to God. I say this, because it what Jesus Himself said. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." The consistent claim throughout the New Testament is that Jesus Christ is the only means by which a person can have a relationship with God. I say that Christ is the only way to God, because that is what He said Himself. And his teachings, recorded by four different authors, from four different perspectives, support His claims that He is the only way to God.

It is the Father's desire that all people be saved. However, He has given us the free will to resist His desires, and so not all will be in heaven for they chose to resist the desire of God. [Check this]

It's sometimes wondered why some other philosophy isn't just Jesus' claims stated in different language. I think its helpful to consider a hypothetical example. Suppose I have an apple - a fruit characterized by its red, thin-skin, and white-flesh. It has certain characteristics that differentiate it from all other fruits. Suppose I have a Russian friend, and he tells me he needs a fruit called "Yabloka". I have no idea what he means at first, but he describes this fruit as a red, thin-skinned, white-fleshed fruit, and I come to understand that he desires an apple. The same fruit is described by two different words. Suppose later, my fruit tells me he wants the fruit "Apelseen". At first, I may think he again desires an apple, especially given the similarity in the two words. However, he describes it as an orange, thick-skinned, orange-fleshed fruit. I understand that he wants an orange. He has asked for something very different from an apple.

So it is with a philosophy. If your philosophy merely uses different language to describe the same teachings and philosophy that Jesus taught, namely: repentance of sins, and acceptance of God's Son as Savior, then it is indeed Christ's teachings in a different guise. We are speaking of apples in different languages, perhaps, but the meanings are the same. However, if your philosophy actually communicates very different tenets as essentials, then you are, obviously, describing something besides what Christ communicated. I am telling you that you need an apple, and you are saying that you've got an orange, and asking why it won't do.

Some people think that believing that Jesus is the Son of God is irrational. But something is irrational when it opposes logic or reason. To ignore the historical record of Jesus, his teachings and his public ministry; to ignore the claims He made about being the Son of God; to ignore His compelling support for those claims (his death and resurrection) — that is irrational.

Something is rational when it is reasonable, or logical. Jesus is established without a doubt as being a historical figure. We have accurate accounts of His teachings and ministry, especially during the last three years of His life. It is clear to a serious reader that His teachings are relevant to the "human condition" — He deals with the meaning of life, and how to deal with the trials of daily life. It is also obvious that he claims to be more than just a good teacher, rather, the Son of God, and Messiah — the bridge between man and God. When someone claims to know the meaning of life, and provides compelling evidence that they know what they're talking about, it's probably a good idea to check out what they're saying. True faith is not blind faith; it is choosing to believe God based on reasonable evidence. It is rational to believe in Jesus, and it definitely is rational to seriously consider His claims.

Jesus is relevant to people in both a long-term and short-term view. In the ultimate long term sense, He is the bridge between you and God. John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." Through faith in Him, you are forgiven of your sins, and absolved from the punishment all people deserve for rebelling against God. Moreover, you gain fellowship with God and eternal life. Jesus is also relevant in our daily lives. He promises fellowship with God here and now. Through this fellowship with God, he promises that God will lead you in your decisions to what He desires for you. Jesus promises satisfaction and true contentment: To one woman living in the desert community, he described himself as living water that would flow from her heart always. To another group of people, he likened himself to the bread of life: spiritual nourishment that would never rot, or leave you starving. He also offers help in the very practical aspects of our life. Speaking of food and shelter, he said to seek the kingdom of God as your first priority, and all these things would be given to you. We are promised that God will replace anxiety with peace through Jesus if we bring Him our concerns and stresses.

The apostle Paul writes that through our relationship with God, God will cultivate in us love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. I don't know anyone who doesn't desire more of one of those attributes in their life.

This is all possible because Jesus was not just a man who died, but the Son of God who died and rose from the dead, and who lives today ministering on behalf of His believers, with God in heaven. Jesus is very relevant for our lives: for our living in the here and now, and for what happens after we die.

I don’t know.

What I do know is that Jesus, the Son of God, as he approached His impending crucifixion, said "…My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death…My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt." (Matt 26:38, 39) At that moment God the Father could have re-written history. The entire creation of man could have been purged from existence, and re-built without evil, suffering, pain and sin. God could have saved His Son from perhaps the worst events a Father can face – the destruction of his own son.

He didn’t.

Instead, Jesus died a painful physical death.

Instead, Jesus suffered the full wrath of God as punishment for the sins all people. Moreover, God the Son was separated from God the Father, the divine relationship broken as it must if the Son bears the sins before a Holy Father. Breaking off a romantic relationship is emotionally difficult. Divorce or the dis-inheriting of a child from the parents is extremely emotionally and spiritually distressing. Indescribable must be the pain of Son when His relationship from the Father is severed.

Christ suffered that man might be reunited with God. From this singular event, I am convinced that God is fully cognizant of the full measure of pain and suffering that we face, and He does not cast it upon us wantonly, or allow us to endure it flippantly. It is both given purposefully and allowed strategically for reasons that I often cannot fathom. But it is certainly within control of a Sovereign Creator.

A loving God created man and woman and placed them in a paradise. He gave them everything they needed. There was only one rule given: do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Devil tempted Eve who broke the rule, and then tempted Adam, who also chose to disobey God. These were the first acts of wrong-doing committed by humans. God cast them from the garden and altered their world and aspects of their very being as punishment. All people have then followed in the likeness of Adam and Eve. We rebel against God in the same fashion, and suffer the same consequences: an imperfect world and an imperfect nature. From this broken world populated with imperfect people, suffering naturally arises:

The natural processes of this flawed world bring about disasters both large and small.

The devil himself seeks to destroy people in all respects — our bodies, minds, spirits and relationships, especially with God.

We cause ourselves to suffer.

People oppress & abuse others.

It seems to me that most suffering comes from people acting in foolish and evil ways. To stop suffering, God would either have to obliterate all humans, or to remove our free will. But rather, a loving God has allowed suffering because He has allowed us to exercise our will. When we act out our desires, we usually rebel against Him — but we also have the freedom to choose to seek God and His perfect ways.

suffer: to undergo or feel [great pain, anxiety, or sorrow]

A significant portion of suffering is the mental anguish portion of it. My experience is that my perception of physical pain is greatly tempered by my mental state. Recently I injured myself learning to inline-skate down steep hills. I was in pain, but I didn't suffer, because I knew I might hurt myself and so was mentally prepared and didn't fell sorry for myself; in fact I was bragging about my cool injury to friends later that day. A while back I had a close female friend. I enjoyed spending time with her, and was finding myself very attracted to her, romantically, and thought she felt that same towards me. Unexpectedly, she severed the friendship. I was caught completely off-guard; I was bitter, resentful, frustrated, and full of self-pity. I had suffered no physical injury, but I experienced far more suffering than when I tore the skin off my thigh skating. The difference was my attitude towards the events.

God tells us that while we may experience pain, we can avoid a great deal of mental suffering if we trust Him. The apostle Paul writes, "Be anxious for nothing, but in all things, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be known to God, and the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guards your hearts in Christ Jesus." The disciple James writes, "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance." But in the final analysis all believers share the "hope of eternal life." To the extent to that I am able to keep in mind God's promise of eternal, perfect, life, and to trust Him until that time, I am able experience pain physical distress without mental anguish.

God created man with free-will, and so with the capacity to choose whether to live in accordance with God's terms on His world. Is free will truly free if there is nothing to test its freedom? God allowed their will to be expressed in a decisive manner. Adam and Eve, when faced by a creature opposed to God, exercised their free will, and chose to act in a manner contrary to what their Creator said was acceptable. They knew there would be consequences, and they suffered them. Though rather than dying immediately, as they might have expected, God allowed them to live for a time longer, but outside the paradise of the His garden. With their decision to oppose God, evil entered mankind. With God's decision to allow them to live, and have children, rather than die immediately, the human race was allowed to continue, along with the evil brought about by the first man and woman. Since then, every person has had the innate tendency toward evil, but has also had the free will to choose whether to act on it. You, each day, choose whether to act in evil ways towards your own body, others, and God. You can decide whether God should bear the responsibility for allowing evil to exist.

It can be hard to believe that there really will be a hell, but Jesus, speaking of the final judgment of all mankind, said that God, his Father, would state to those who are not his followers, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." Elsewhere, Jesus says that the angels will, "...take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire..." Jesus speaks of a final judgment for all people, and condemnation and suffering for those who reject him as the Son of God. According to Jesus, there is going to be a hell.

The real question, though, is why is there going to be a hell? Perhaps we should consider: Why wouldn't there be a hell? God created mankind for His pleasure and gave them a wonderful world in which to live. However, since roughly day one, people have gone about rebelling against God, ignoring His will, and blatantly doing what they can to oppose Him. Sometimes this opposition is extremely intentional; sometimes we might try and plead ignorance. Yet, even when we plead ignorance, we still have this nagging conscience letting us know that we are opposing the good will of God.

Throughout the continual rejection of God by His people, He has offered His presence to those who would accept it. Still, we reject Him. In the final analysis, God requires justice, and punishment must be provided for everyone who broke His laws, which is everyone. Balancing justice with mercy and love, God allowed His Son, Jesus, to die in our stead, serving as due for the rebellion. Those who accept forgiveness through Jesus' sacrifice will not be punished. Those who reject it will be punished themselves. Hell is the place of punishment for all who rebelled against God and rejected His offer of forgiveness through Jesus' death.

What we need to understand is that this punishment is not just being sent to your room by your parents, or academic probation for a semester. Hell is existence without any measure of love, joy, or peace. It is the complete absence of any comfort. It is excruciating, unceasing, torment.

There will be a Hell because people have rebelled against God and rejected his merciful offer of forgiveness through His Son.

As a scientist, the question of whether science contradicts Christianity has particular interest to me. It's most helpful to consider the goals and information of the biblical authors as compared to contemporary scientists. The goal of the biblical authors, generally, was to write historical narrative or in order to teach the readers about God and His will for them. The goal of scientists is to explain how physical processes operate in the universe. As for information, the biblical authors had their own observations, and claimed supernatural revelation from God. Scientists (much to their dismay) have only their own observations. The apparent conflict between science and biblical accounts is most likely just the result of the having the same phenomena described by people with different information sources and goals.

One example is the different but complementary descriptions of light we get from biblical authors and scientists. In describing light, the bible states that God created light; a historical event. Its goal is satisfied using its unique source of information, God. Science, on the other hand, with its wealth of observations within the material universe cannot address the origin of light. It, rather, seeks to quantify and explain the physical attributes of light, such as its method of propagation and speed. Using its information sources, science satisfies its own goals. We are left with two, complementary and harmonious descriptions of light.

Another example is the differing descriptions of the disease leprosy. The biblical authors describe the symptoms and characteristics of leprosy in order to properly communicate their historical story. The descriptions are observational and sufficient for the historical narrative. Scientists, on the other hand, use observations of leprosy to try and explain the viral origin or transmission mechanisms of leprosy. Their observations and descriptions are expected to be far more detailed given the goal of their work (and considering the tools scientists have to work with, unavailable to biblical authors). We find, as expected, that the amount of detail is different between medical and biblical documents. However, they are not in conflict, and both are used for different purposes.

In conclusion, biblical authors and scientists have different goals when making and presenting observations about the physical world. Though the precision and amount of detail may vary on common topics, they do not conflict, and so Christianity and science are not contradictory.

The historical reliability of the New Testament documents is foundational to the Christian faith (1 Cor 15:13-19), for its authors depict Jesus as a man interacting with real people in real places nearly 2000 years ago. Examining what they wrote, we find the authors support their reliability claims with accurate historical details, and are well supported by other sources. The following document provides a summary of key points regarding the historical reliability of the New Testament, and is meant to be shared with friends to encourage discussion about biblical issues. It should be noted that the Old Testament documents are also considered historically reliable by the same principles.

The linked handout illustrates the following outline briefly explaining why the New and Old Testaments can be considered historically reliable documents.

New Testament Historical Reliability Handout (PDF, 50 kB)

Internal Evidence

The authors claim to be telling the truth, and basing it on first person and researched accounts.

Luke 1:2 "...just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us..."

John 19:35 "And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true..."

External

Extra-biblical authors support the historical and cultural events listed in the narrative. Archaeological finds support it as well.

Roman writer Tacitus reports that Jesus had his public career during the reign of Emp. Tiberius (Luke 3:1) and that Pontius Pilate was Roman governor when Jesus dies (Matt 27:2)

Archaeology shows that the Romans held a census every 14 yrs (Luke 2:1)

Bibliographic

We have a great many manuscripts of the writings (far more than for any other ancient document). We have very early copies (within 40 years of original writing) (far earlier than any other ancient document). We have writings of authors who heavily quoted the original writings.

Thus, we learn that the Bible, and specifically the collection of 27 books that we call the New Testament, are written by a various different authors who accurately described the social and political environment of their time, and carefully recorded the actions and teachings of Jesus.