Chapter 11, He Changed My Life

   Chapter 11 is the story of how Jesus changed Josh's life. He quoted Thomas Aquinas, "There is within every soul a thirst for happiness and meaning." As a teen, Josh wanted to be happy and to have meaning in his life. He wanted answers to the questions, "Who am I?" "Why in the world am I here?" "Where am I going?" He wanted to be free. Not to do anything he wanted, but to do what he knew he should. He wrote that freedom is, "to have the power to do what you know you ought to do." Most people don't have that power. It only comes through trusting in Jesus!
   Josh first went to church to find meaning in life, but was sorely disappointed, since he went to a ritualistic church.
   Next, he sought prestige and ran for freshman class president and won. "It was neat knowing everyone on campus, having every one say, 'Hi, Josh', making the decisions, spending the university's money, the student's money, to get speakers I wanted. It was great, but it wore off like everything else I had tried."  Again, he was disillusioned. Others thought he was happy, but he was miserable. He was very sincere about finding the truth, meaning and a purpose in life.
    Then he noticed a small group of students and 2 faculty members who were very different than the others. They were happy and loving. They lived what they professed. They had what Josh wanted! So, he asked a young lady what made them different. She answered, "Jesus Christ". He said, "Oh, for God's sake, don't give me that garbage. I'm fed up with religion; I'm fed up with the Church; I'm fed up with the Bible. Don't give me that garbage about religion." He certainly had a low opinion of the "Church", but she said, "I didn't say religion, I said Jesus Christ." He didn't know the difference before. Many people today don't know the difference either. He wrote, "religion is humans trying to work their way to God through good works. Christianity is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ offering them a relationship with Himself."
   Josh mentioned a person who said, "Anyone who walks into a church becomes a Christian." Josh asked, "Does walking into a garage make you a car?"
   His new Christian friends challenged him to examine the claims of Christ intellectually. So he did in order to refute their faith. His problem was that in his mind he discovered that it was true instead. His will would not accept it until he was so miserable he had to pray and accept Jesus as his personal Savior.
   It took him some time, but he began to experience changes in his life in a few months. He had an auto accident and his dad visited him. He explained that he'd hated his dad with a passion because he was a drunk who beat his wife and shamed his sons. Yet, when his dad visited him, he told his dad that he loved him because Jesus changed him. 45 minutes later his dad trusted Jesus as his Savior!
   In the last paragraph Josh offers a prayer to use in trusting Jesus as your Savior.
   "Perhaps the prayer I prayed will help you;" "Lord Jesus, I need you. Thank you for dying on the cross for me. Right this moment I trust you as Savior and Lord. Make me the type of person you created me to be. In Christ's name. Amen."

Sincerely,
Rick

Chapter 10 - Isn't There Some Other Way"

   Josh began by relating a question from a student at the University of Texas who asked, "Why is Jesus the only way to a relationship with God?" Josh answered that most people don't realize that God is not only loving, but also just and holy! He is just and MUST follow through with the penalty for sin-death. He is perfectly holy (without sin) and cannot allow sin in His presence! He cannot forgive until the sin is paid for and the payment recognized as being on the sinner's behalf. That begins the relationship with God - When the sinner admits his/her sin and accepts that Jesus died in his/her place, and recognizes Him as Ruler of the sinner's life - the desire to obey Him and His word - the Bible.
   God may personify love, but love is something God does. He also judges, lives in holiness, and hates sin.
   Jesus died for us individually, but He also died to satisfy God's justice - "The soul that sins, it shall die!" He died that death in our place - for us.
   To illustrate what God did for us, Josh wrote of a young lady who was given a ticket for speeding. She plead "Guilty", before the judge who fined her $100. He, then, took off his robe, went down in front  and paid her fine. He was her father, but he had to follow the law. Yet, because he loved her, he paid her fine. That's what God did for us through Jesus' death on the cross.
   "Why couldn't God just forgive?" Because the debt HAD to be paid before He could forgive. Josh argued that there is always a payment for forgiveness. It doesn't matter what the offense is, forgiveness must be paid for. Whether a lamp is broken or a speeding law is broken, or one is a rebel against God - wanting to do things my way - not God's way. A payment must be made to be able to forgive.
   If a child broke a lamp and parents forgive, they must take the loss or buy a new lamp. Forgiveness must be paid for - there is NO other way!

Sincerely,
Rick

Will the real Messiah please stand up?

   I am sorry for not posting for 2 months or so, but our computer was down and in the "shop" for that time.

   The fulfilled prophecy in Jesus' life proves His Messiahship and Sonship. Jesus referred to them many times. He taught the disciples after His resurrection.(Luke 24:27) "And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures." Some other references are: Luke 24:44, John 5:46, and 8:56.
   The apostles referred to several references, too. Acts 3:18, 17:2-3. I Cor 15:3-4. Josh wrote, "In the Old Testament there are 60 major messianic prophecies and approximately 270 ramifications that were fulfilled in 1 person, Jesus Christ. It is helpful to look at all these predictions fulfilled in Christ as His address. You've probably never realized how important the details of your name and address are - and yet these details set you apart from the four billion other people who also inhabit this planet."
   Josh wrote that the chance of 1 man fulfilling only 48 of these prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 157th power. The prophecies were all given at least 400 years before their fulfillment in Christ. Those who doubt it must admit they were given at least 150 years before, since they are included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was written around 150-200 BC.
   God made sure that no one could fill the prophecies on his own.
   Josh wrote, "Certainly God was writing an 'address' in history that only the Messiah could fulfill. There have been approximately 40 major claims by men to be the Jewish Messiah. But only one - Jesus Christ - appealed to fulfilled prophecy to substantiate His claims, and only His credentials back up those claims."
   In Genesis the Messiah was prophesied to be born of the "seed of a woman". All people are born of the seed of the man, but Jesus was born of a virgin when God intervened. The Messiah must be of the line of King David; His hands and feet would be pierced; He'd be born of a virgin; He'd be born in Bethlehem; He'd be betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver, which would be thrown on the floor and used to buy a potters' field; He'd be crucified.
   Josh wrote, "The precise lineage; the place, time and manner of birth; people's reactions, the betrayal; the manner of death. these are just a fragment of the hundreds of details that made up the 'address' to identify God's Son, the Messiah, the Savior of the world."
   Josh closed the chapter by dealing with 2 objections to Christ fulfilling these prophecies. He quoted Peter W. Stoner from his book, saying that the chance of 1 man fulfilling 8 prophecies is equal to covering Texas 2 feet deep with silver dollars and mark one. Then tell a blind man to find that 1 marked dollar. That equals the chance that 1 man could fulfill 8 prophecies - There were 300 + prophecies about Christ!
   Josh closed with, "Why did God go to all this trouble? I believe He wanted Jesus Christ to have all the credentials He needed when He came into the world. Yet the most exciting thing about Jesus Christ is that He came to change lives. He alone proved correct the hundreds of Old Testament prophecies that described His coming. And He alone can fulfill the greatest prophecy of all for those who will accept it - the promise of new life: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you....Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."
   I believe that with all the things happening in our world today, Jesus will come for His church soon! No date setting will prove to be correct, but He could come any time. PLEASE, If you have never trusted Christ as your Savior (Messiah), do so today before Christ comes and it is too late to avoid the coming tribulation period of 7 years! Confess that you're a sinner and believe that Jesus died on that cross for you, Ask Him to come in and control your life - be your Lord!

Sincerely,
Rick

Chapter 8 Can You Keep A Good Man Down? (continued)

   Josh wrote next about "The Swoon Theory". He easily proved it untrue. A man whipped and crucified and a spear thrust into His side as was done to Christ could in no way present himself as risen from the dead and inspired his followers to courageously and enthusiastically preach that he was resurrected! It would never happen.
   The next theory Josh mentioned was "The Body Was Stolen". He wrote that the disciples who were hiding "for fear of the Jews" would not have been brave enough to challenge the Roman guards to take the body from the tomb; let alone to preach fearlessly that He was alive from the dead!
   Josh also dealt with the thought that the authorities moved the body. If they'd moved it they would have shown where it was! He wrote, "Why didn't they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would certainly have destroyed Christianity."
   The last topic Josh covered in this chapter is "Evidence for the Resurrection". He quoted several history professors about the overwhelming evidence there is to prove the resurrection of Christ. Professor Thomas Arnold was quoted, "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 has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." He also quoted English scholar Brooke Foss Westcott who said, "Taking 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."
   He quoted another lawyer, Frank Morrison, who "set out to refute the evidence for the resurrection. He thought that the life of Jesus was one of the most beautiful lives ever lived, but when it came to the resurrection he thought someone had come along and tacked a myth onto the story of Jesus. He planned to write an account of the last few days of Jesus. He would of course disregard the resurrection. He figured that an intelligent, rational apprroach to Jesus would completely discount His resurrection. However, upon approaching the facts with his legal background and training, he had to change his mind. He eventually wrote a best-seller, "Who Moved the Stone?". The first chapter was titled, "The Book That Refused to Be Written." and the rest of the chapters deal decisively with the evidence for Christ's resurrection."
   Josh closed the chapter with this paragraph. "What is your evaluation and decision? What do you think of the empty tomb? After examining the evidence from a judicial perspective, Lord Darling, former Chief justice of England, concluded that 'There exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.'"

Sincerely,
Rick

"Can You Keep A Good Man Down?"

   Josh started off chapter 8 with a question a student at the University of Uruguay asked him, "Why can't you refute Christianity?" His answer, in the book, was, "After more than 700 hours of studying this subject and thoroughly investigating its foundation, I came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted upon people, or it is the most important fact of history."
   He posed the question, "Is Christianity valid?" He said it is a question of history - Not philosophy. So he listed a number of historical facts about Jesus and asked, "Did the resurrection actually happen?"
   He, then, wrote about the customs of burial; including how the Jews wrapped the body with cloths and covered them with a plaster of spices that dried solid making a cocoon. This cocoon was left intact in the tomb when Christ arose! That seems to be why the 2 disciples believed when they went to the tomb to see if it was true that the body was gone. He mentioned how a 2 ton rock was pried to cover the opening and a Roman guard placed before it to keep the disciples from stealing the body. These soldiers were under threat of death if they allowed the tomb to be robbed. Read it in Matt. 28, Luke 24, John 20:1-10.
   He wrote about the empty tomb next. If Jesus' body wasn't missing, all the authorities would have to do was to parade it through the streets and the new sect called "The Way" which became Christianity would have been stopped right then.
   The witnesses which numbered over 500 said that Jesus showed Himself to them by "Many infallible proofs". The fact that the empty tomb had been confirmed even by His enemies and His many appearances to them for 40 days gave the disciples confidence to preach His resurrection with faith and conviction.
   Josh quoted Paul L. Maier, "If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."
   The Roman soldiers said the tomb was empty. The women said it was empty and the men who went to see for themselves found it empty. With that many witnesses we can be sure the tomb was empty! No one ever showed the body of Jesus to prove that He was still dead! But He arose from the dead! He is alive!
   It is impossible to believe that the women, disciples, and the Roman guard were all at the wrong tomb! Remember - they all said the tomb was empty. The Jewish authorities would certainly have corrected that mistake! Why didn't the authorities just show the body in the correct tomb? The answer is because Jesus arose from the dead and lives again! Praise His Name!
   With all the evidence in favor of the resurrection of Christ and NONE opposed, why is it so hard for people to believe that it's true? There may be questions in the minds of people and opposing opinions but there is NO evidence against Christ's resurrection.
   Why don't you believe in Jesus now, as God's Son, Who died in your place to pay your debt of sin so you can believe and go to heaven with Him when you die!
   "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."

Sincerely,
Rick

"Did You Hear What Happened to Saul?"

   Josh started chapter 7 with a story about a friend who spoke at several universities. When he arrived at one, he was surprised to find out that he was scheduled to debate with the "University Athiest". The philosophy professor was very antagonistic to Christianity.  Josh's friend, Jack, was to speak first. "He discussed various proofs for the resurrection of Jesus, the conversion of the Apostle Paul, and then gave his personal testimony about how Christ had changed his life when he was a university student."
   When the professor spoke he was very nervous. Since "He couldn't refute the evidence of the resurrection or Jack's personal testimony," he turned to the subject of the Apostle Paul's radical conversion to Christianity. "He used the line of argument that 'people can often be so psychologically involved in what they're combating that they end up embracing it.'" At that point Jack said, "You'd better be careful, sir, or you're liable to become a Christian."
   Josh wrote that one of Christianity's most powerful testimonies is the testimony of the Apostle Paul. He was called Saul of Tarsus and, at least, one of the most ferocious opponents of Christianity. He was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews", zealous for the Mosaic law. He was taught by Gamaliel, one of the foremost teachers of the law. He called himself a "Pharisee of the Pharisees" and spoke of his zeal to persecute the infant Church.(Phil 3:3-9, Gal 1:14)
   Paul was no dummy. He knew many of the writers of his day, including philosophers and poets. He was on his way to Damascus to arrest more Christians (believers of "The Way") when Christ appeared to him and asked him why he was persecuting Christ. Paul asked what Christ wanted him to do and never sought to arrest any more believers, but started teaching the doctrine he was trying to destroy! (Acts 9:1-31) In I Cor 9:1 He compared Christ's appearance to him with Christ's postresurrection appearances among the apostles (also in 15:8). Paul felt that he had to preach the gospel. (ICor9:16)
   Josh continued, "We might not know all the details, chronology, or psychology of what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus, but we do know this: it radically affected every area of his life."
   Josh mentioned that the "Encyclopedia Britannica" called Paul "...an intolerant, bitter, persecuting, religious bigot - proud and tempermental" before he met Christ. After Christ they described him as, "...patient, kind, enduring, and self-sacrificing."
   After his conversion Paul could"...now understand that Christ's death on the cross, which appeared to be a curse of God and a deplorable ending of someone's life, was actually God through Christ reconciling the world to Himself." (Gal 3:13, II Cor 5:21) "Instead of defeat, the death of Christ was a great victory, being capped by the resurrection. The cross was no longer a 'stumbling block', but the essence of God's messianic redemption."
   "Paul's missionary preaching can be summarized as 'explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead...This Jesus Whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ, ' he said." (Acts 17:3) He originally didn't like Gentiles, but after he met Christ he became a missionary to the Gentiles. He also went from fighting the Church to being one of the most important writers of the New Testament Church.
   Josh quoted Elias Andrews as commenting, "Many have found in the radical transformation of this 'pharisee of the pharisees' the most convincing evidence of the truth and the power of the religion to which he was converted, as well as the ultimate worth and place of the person of Christ." And Paul died a martyr for Christ.
   Josh closed chapter 7 with a story about 2 professors who were going to destroy the basis of the Christian faith, but both men "became ardent followers of Jesus". They wanted to prove that the resurrection of Christ and the conversion of Paul to Christ were both deceptions, but the truth they found proved that both were true. Paul suffered for Christ for 25 years. (IICor 11:23-33) May God bless you with the same truth and understanding.

Sincerely,
Rick
  

What Good Is A Dead Messiah?

   In chapter 6 Josh wrote about the "dream" of both the disciples and the nation of Israel. The "dream" was that One would come Who would free them from Rome and be their King. They based their "dream" on Old Testament prophecies, but did not take note of the parts that said He would suffer and die. The nation, in Christ's time, wanted deliverence as soon as possible. Rome had limited their freedom for more than a generation and they wanted to be free.
   Josh wrote that that was "...why the cross was so incomprehensible to (the disciples)." He quoted several sources who wrote about the same topic. One, A. B. Bruce wrote, "The grave communications by Jesus about being crucified were not at all welcomed by His disciples(Luke 9:22)." Bruce continued, There "...seems to have been the hope that He had taken too gloomy a view of the situation, and that His apprehensions would turn out groundless...a crucified Christ was a scandal and a contradiction to the apostles; quite as much as it continued to be to the majority of the Jewish people after the Lord had ascended to glory."
   The responses of the disciples to Christ's statements about His coming death were never in agreement with Him. They were looking for that King Who would bring in the Kingdom and give them freedom from Rome.
   When Jesus was arrested, the disciples scattered because that wasn't in their plan. Then, shortly after Christ's crucifixion, the same men became fearless preachers that Christ was, indeed, the Messiah, Saviour and Lord! What changed their minds? What changed their lives so dramatically? It was the resurrection! They saw Christ, alive! One at a time, few at a time, some at once, and over 500 at one time saw Christ, alive "...by many infallible proofs being seen of them 40 days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."(Acts 1:3) It certainly wasn't any kind of hallucination! They changed because they actually saw Jesus, risen from death and were instructed by Him to go and teach the world!(Acts 1:8) Let us believe and go and do likewise!

Sincerely,
Rick

"Who Would Die for a Lie?" continued.

   We will continue chapter 5 of "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell.
   The bold preaching of the disciples right after they had been filled with the Holy Spirit while they were waiting in Jerusalem as Christ told them to do, proves that they were sincere. They were not perpetrating a lie. Peter, who had denied Christ before, now preached boldly in His Name. When some of the disciples were arrested and beaten they went back to preaching because the truth must be made known to all men.
   Josh wrote, "Their friends noticed their buoyancy and their enemies noticed their courage....Jesus' followers couldn't have faced torture and death unless they were convinced of His resurrection....If they were deceivers, it's hard to explain why one of them didn't break down under pressure."
   He quoted Michael Green saying, "How have they turned, almost over night into the indomitable band of enthusiasts who braved opposition, cynicism, ridicule, hardship, prison, and death in 3 continents as they preached everywhere Jesus and the resurrection?" Josh, then, quoted an unknown writer who wrote, "On the day of the crucifixion they were filled with sadness; on the first day of the week with gladness. At the crucifixion they were hopeless; on the first day of the week their hearts glowed with certainty and hope. When the message of the resurrection first came they were incredulous and hard to be convinced, but once they became assured they never doubted again. What could account for the astonishing change in these men in so short a time? The mere removal of the body from the grave could never have transformed their spirits and characters. Three days are not enough for a legend to spring up which would so affect them. Time is needed for a process of legendary growth. It is a psychological fact that demands a full explanation. Think of the character of the witnesses, men and women who gave the world the highest ethical teaching it has ever known, and who even on the testimony of their enemies lived it out in their lives. Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence--and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication they were trying to foist upon the world. That simply wouldn't make sense."
   Paul Little is quoted, "Are these men, who helped transform the moral structure of society, consummate liars or deluded madmen? These alternatives are harder to believe than the fact of the resurrection, and there is no shred of evidence to support them."
   Harold Mattingly was quoted, "The apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, sealed their witness with their blood." Tertullian was quoted, "no man would be willing to die unless he knew he had the truth." Simon Greenleaf, who lectured in how to break down a witness and determine whether or not a witness is lying, concluded as quoted, "The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted."
   Josh concluded chapter 5 with, "The apostles went through the test of death to substantiate the veracity of what they were proclaiming. I believe I can trust their testimony more than that of most people I meet today, people who aren't willing to walk across the street for what they believe, let alone die for it.
   My question is, "How could a good man go to his death for a lie"" I'm sure evil men wouldn't want to if they could choose not to. Millions have depended on the testimonies of these men and women and have not been disappointed.

Sincerely,
Rick

"Who Would Die For A Lie?"

   Chapter 5 of "More Than A Carpenter" is titled "Who Would Die for a Lie?". Josh began this chapter telling that an often "overlooked" challenge to "Christianity is the transformation of Jesus' apostles." If you read the last chapters of the gospels, you will see that Jesus' disciples hid for fear in a locked room hiding from the authorities. The question of this chapter is: "What changed these fearful men into fearless preachers of the Gospel of Christ?"
   Josh mentioned his definition of history as being: "A knowledge of the past based upon testimony." That is really the way we know anything about the past.(except maybe archaeology) With this definition we must know the testimony is true. In chapter 4 we proved the reliability of the Bible and that is where we find most, but not all of the witness.
   Josh wrote, "I can trust the apostles' testimonies because, of these 12 men, 11 died martyrs' deaths on the basis of 2 things: the resurrection of Christ, and their belief in Him as the Son of God." He, then, gave a list of how they died:
       1. Peter - crucified upside down.
       2. Andrew - crucified.
       3. Matthew - killed with a sword.
       4. John - natural death after torture.
       5. James, son of Alphaeus - crucified.
       6. Philip - crucified.
       7. Simon - crucified.
       8. Thaddaeus - killed by arrows.
       9. James, 1/2 brother of Jesus - stoned to death.
     10. Thomas -  thrust through with a spear.
     11. Bartholomew - crucified.
     12. James, son of Zebedee - killed with a sword.
   Some would say, "A lot of people have died for a lie." But they didn't know it was a lie or didn't intend to die for it-i.e. criminals. Josh's response was, "Therefore these 11 men not only died for a lie - here is the catch - but they knew it was a lie. It would be hard to find 11 people in history who died for a lie, knowing it was a lie." Remember, the disciples were eyewitnesses of what happened.
   In II Pet 1:16 Peter essentially said, we didn't make up this story, but were "eyewitnesses of His majesty". In I John, John, as an eyewitness, mentioned that they had seen, touched, heard, and handled Christ and seen His "eternal life" and that they fellowshipped with Christ and the Father(God).
   In beginning the Gospel of Luke, the author told that he investigated the story and got eyewitness accounts so that he could tell the story as it happened. In Acts Luke wrote, "To these He also presented Himself alive, after his suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of 40 days...."
   John wrote in Jn 20:30, "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book." The apostles repeatedly testified about the resurrection of Christ.
   Josh correctly pointed out that the disciples were skeptical at first. Remember Thomas who refused to believe unless he could put his finger into Christ's nail pierced hands and his hand into His side? After proof from Christ, he said, "My Lord and my God!"
   Peter fearfully denied Christ 3 times and doubted His resurrection, but believed after Christ appeared to them after His resurrection. He preached fearlessly from then on.
   Jesus' brothers didn't believe while Christ was teaching (Jn 7:3-5), yet, after His resurrection His brothers were waiting in the upper room with the disciples(Acts 1:13-14). It is believed that James, Jesus' 1/2 brother, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem and was martyred by the high priest. He, also, wrote the book of James.
   Josh asked, "If the resurrection was a lie, the apostles knew it. Were they perpetuating a colossal hoax? That possibility is inconsistent with what we know about the moral quality of their lives."
   He quoted Edward Gibbon from "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". "This was the one belief that separated the followers of Jesus from the Jews and turned them into the Community of the Resurrection. You could imprison them, flog them, kill them, but you could not make them deny their conviction that 'on the third day he rose again'."
    Then Josh mentioned the bold actions of the disciples after the resurrection, but we'll wait and review that next time.
   Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,
Rick

The Internal Evidence Test

   I AM sorry! I wrote this blog, but never posted it. It should have come before the third test which was "The External Evidence Test".
   We continue in chapter 4 of "More Than A Carpenter". Josh started off with, "The bibliographical test has determined only that the text we have now is what was originally recorded. One has still to determine whether that written record is credible and to what extent. That is the problem of internal criticism, which is the second test of historicity listed by C. Sanders."
   Josh mentioned that we must give an author the benefit of the doubt until the author disqualifies himself with inaccuracies and/or contradictions. If the author lived close to the events he is more able to tell the truth. The New Testament was written by eye witnesses or those who wrote about others who told them of their own experiences with Christ. He, then, quoted a number of passages in which the authors tell why and how they got their information and the historical data to write their books or letters.(Luke 1:1-3, II Pet 1:16, I John 1:3, John 19:35, Luke 3:1) In giving historical data we can find out if their facts are true. There have been times when the Bible was thought to be wrong, but archaeology proved it to be correct.
   The writings about Christ were circulated while those who knew the facts were alive and could have approved or denied what the writers said. The disciples even confronted their enemies about things that had happened. If they didn't have their facts right the enemies would have let it be known.
   Josh, again, lists 2 passages showing that the disciples, indeed, did refer to the facts before their enemies. He listed Acts 2:22 and 26:24-28.
   Josh wrote about some other authors who agreed that the disciples had mentioned the facts of Christ's life not only to friendly audiences, but also to those who were enemies. He closed the section on "The Internal Evidence Test" with a quote from Will Durant who was trained in historical investigation. He said, in essence, that the fact that the authors mentioned embarassing facts about Christ and themselves is proof that they didn't invent the story. He suggests that it would be a greater miracle than Christ's if those few men could have made up such a fantastic story in such a short time.
   If one is really open to the truth, the Bible has been proven to be true. No other book has been gone over so critically and been proven true in all aspects. May God bless you with the knowledge of the Truth as you read the New Testament.

Sincerely,
Rick

The External Evidence Test

   External evidence is the 3rd test to prove the reliability of the Bible - or any writing. When the Bible is compared to archaeology and reliable historical documents, it passes the test with flying colors! The external evidence must agree with the internal evidence found in the document being tested. With the Bible, it does.
   Josh quoted Gottschalk as saying that, "Conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or of more witnesses."
   Two friends of the apostle John confirm the internal evidence of his writings. John, himself, is quoted by Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, as confirming Mark's Gospel as being an accurate compilation of the apostle Peter's teaching; "...for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."
   Josh wrote, "Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons" (and student of Polycarp, a disciple of St. John) "wrote: Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews (i.e. Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church there....Mark...handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John...himself, produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."
   Again, Josh quoted Joseph Free, an archaeologist, who wrote, "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which having been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts." Remember that Sir William Ramsay was convinced that the Book of Acts was true and very accurate when he, in doubt, studied the facts of archaeology.
   Josh quoted 2 more historians who point out the great accuracy of Luke's books. Then he mentioned his own unbelief and, then, acceptance of the Bible as factual. Josh wrote,  "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious. Having done this, I believe we can say, 'The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable in its witness about Jesus.'"
   Josh, then quoted Dr. Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology at Regent College, who stated: "There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest (person) cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational (i.e., antisupernatural) bias."
   In conclusion, the only way to continue as a nonbeliever in the accuracy of the Bible is to refuse to examine or believe the evidence. I believe that would prove that one is simply prejudiced against the Bible and refuses to believe the facts.

Sincerely,
Rick

The External Evidence Test

   We continue in chapter 4 of "More Than A Carpenter". Josh started off with, "The bibliographical test has determined only that the text we have now is what was originally recorded. One has still to determine whether that written record is credible and to what extent. That is the problem of internal criticism, which is the second test of historicity listed by C. Sanders."
   He mentioned that we must give an author the benefit of the doubt until the author disqualifies himself with inaccuracies and/or contradictions. If the writer lived close to the events he is more able to tell the truth. The New Testament was written by eye-witnesses or those who wrote about those who told him of their experiences with Christ. He, then, quotes a number of passages in which the authors tell why and how they got the historical data to write their books or letters. (Luke1:1-3, II Pet.1:16, I John 1:3, John 19:35, Luke 3:1) Since they gave historical data we can find out if their facts are true. There have been times when the Bible was thought to be wrong, but archaeology proved it to be correct.
   The writings about Christ were circulated while those who knew the facts were alive and could have approved or denied what they wrote. The disciples even confronted their enemies about things that had happened. If they didn't have the facts right their enemies would have let it be known, but they didn't dispute what was said.
   Josh, again, lists 2 passages showing that  the disciples, indeed, did refer to the facts in front of their enemies. He listed Acts 2:22 and 26:24-28.
   Josh wrote about some other authors who agreed that the disciples had mentioned the facts of Christ's life not only to friendly audiences, but also to those who were enemies. He closed the section on "Internal Evidence Test" with a quote from Will Durant who was trained in historical investigation. He said, in essence, that the fact that the authors mentioned embarrassing facts about Christ and themselves is proof that they didn't invent the story. He suggests that it would be a greater miracle than Christ's if those few men could have made up such a fantastic story in such a short time.
   If one is really open to the truth, the Bible has been proven to be true. No other book has been gone over so critically and been proven true in all aspects. May God bless you with the knowledge of the Truth as you read the New Testament. See the Truth for yourself!

Sincerely,
Rick

The Bibliographical Test

   As we continue in chapter 4 of "More Than A Carpenter", we will look at the "bibliographical test". Josh defines this as, "...an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and extant copies?"(the copies we have today)
   The writings of secular authors aren't questioned nearly as harshly as the Bible is. The earliest MSS can be up to 1400 yrs after the original, but they are thought to be good copies. Added to that, there may be only a few copies, but their authenticity isn't questioned.
   There is a super abundance of copies of the New Testament. There are over 20,000 copies! They are from only 130-155 AD. No secular work has copies so close to the original that I know of.
   Josh quoted Sir Frederic Kenyon, "Who was the director and principal librarian at the British Museum and second to none in authority in issuing statements about manuscripts, concludes: "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."
   Josh closed this "test" with, "The application of the bibliographical test to the New Testament assures us that it has more manuscript authority than any piece of literature from antiquity. Adding to that authority the more than 100 years of intensive New Testament textual criticism, one can conclude that an authentic New Testament text has been established."
   I believe the evidence that we have the same text that was originally written is overwhelming. We have a Bible that we absolutely CAN BELIEVE!

Very Sincerely,
Rick

Are the biblical records reliable?

   In chapter 4 Josh examined the biblical manuscripts with 3 tests: the bibleographical test, the internal evidences test, and the external evidence test.
   First, he told how archaeologists have helped to prove the reliability of the New Testament. The critics of the Bible are almost innumerable, but many who wanted to prove it unreliable found it to be true as they continued to investigate history.
   Josh wrote, "There seems to be a constant barrage of accusations that have no historical foundation or that have now been outdated by archaeological discoveries and research." He told how at a lecture, a history professor who brought his class to hear the lecture, said, "You are basing all  your claims about Christ on a second-century document that is obsolete. I showed in class today how the New Testament was written so long after Christ that it could not be accurate in what it recorded."
   Josh told him, "Your opinions or conclusions about the New Testament are twenty-five years out of date." He mentioned that the theory was the conclusion of a German critic, F.C. Baur, who felt that the New Testament was written late in the second century. In the 19 hundreds his theory was proven wrong by archaeology's discoveries of manuscripts that were proven to be from earlier times. Josh quoted Millar Burrows of Yale, as saying, "Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri (discoveries) is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament itself." Josh, then, commented, "Such findings as these have increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible." Archaeology has done the same thing for the Old Testament. He, then, quoted William Albright, "...who was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist," as writing, "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...given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." Mr. Albright also said in an interview for 'Christianity Today', "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D."
   Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists, "was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid second century A.D. and not the first century as it purports to be." He didn't think Acts was "...a trustworthy account of facts of that time." He didn't consider it worth studying, but his investigation forced him to do so. As he studied the accuracy of the historical details, his attitude toward Acts and Luke, the author, changed. He said, "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Ramsay was impressed with the accuracy of the smallest details of the book. Josh, then, wrote, "Many of the liberal scholars are being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament. Dr John A. T. Robinson feels that all of the New Testament was written before 70 A.D.
   In 1977, when Josh wrote this book, Form Critics were saying that the New Testament books were embellished as they were handed down by memory-word of mouth. but archaeology has proven the time the books were written was so soon after the actual happenings, that no legends, tales, or myths could have been inserted into the naratives. It normally takes a long time for that to happen. Those critics look for what they want to see, but they're having to admit that they are wrong. They don't consider the intricate process Jewish transcribers went through to copy the Old Testament. Certainly the early Church leaders would have been very careful to be sure they preserved the original words without any corruption of the text. Josh quoted A. H. McNeile saying that "...it was customary for a student to memorize a rabbi's teaching." Another writer theorized that Jesus taught in a poetical form making it easier to memorize.
   Next time we will look into the 3 tests used to prove the reliability of the Bible. Josh wrote that many history professors don't test any other manuscripts as the Bible has been tested. Yet the Bible passed all the tests with flying colors!

Sincerely,
Rick

What about science?

   In chapter 3 of "More Than A Carpenter" Josh wrote about proving the truth about Christ, His life, death,and resurrection. He began with the refusal of many people to believe what can't be proven scientifically. It seems to be a fad today to have to prove everything in that manner. He mentioned being in a philosophy or history class and being asked, "Can you prove it scientifically?" He usually says, "Well, no, I'm not a scientist." Of course, the class would laugh, thinking that was a problem for Josh and say, "Don't talk to me about it." Or, "See you must take it by faith"(meaning blind faith). He, then, mentioned a pilot who asked the same question. Josh wrote, "...so many who hold to the opinion that if you can't prove it scientifically, it's not true. Well that's not true!"
   Josh went on to explain the difference between proving a scientific hypotheses and proving a historical event. In science one has a theory and must prove it by making the idea happen in the lab. To prove something historically one must work in a similar way as to prove a crime. The crime cannot be repeated because it can only happen 1 time in that specific time and place. So the authorities must use a different method to prove who did it. They must use the "legal-historical proof which is based on showing that something is fact beyond a reasonable doubt."
   He told the students that they couldn't prove scientifically that they were in class that morning. They would have to get classmates and the professor to witness it and show their notes to prove that they were there. He wrote, "In other words, a verdict is reached on the basis of the weight of the evidence. That is, there's no reasonable basis for  doubting the decision. It depends on 3 types of testimony: oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits (such as: a gun, bullet, notebook)."
   The scientific method cannot be used to prove an historical event or prove or disprove questions about a person. You can't use it to prove that anyone lived or what they did--that includes Jesus Christ.
   One must use the legal-historical method to prove anything about Christ. If you took the case of the resurrection to court, the evidence of the witnesses--both friendly and His enemies--would testify by historical records that there was no body in the tomb that Sunday morning after the crucifixion.
   Josh, then wrote about the Christian faith NOT being blind faith, but faith based on evidence which proves the truth about Christ beyond reasonable doubt. Jesus said, "You shall know the truth," and Josh added "not ignore it." He, then, mentioned the "greatest commandment." "To love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind." We are not to simply believe emotionally, but to take the evidence we search out and prove to our mind that it is true. Then, and only then, should we believe. BUT when there is no longer reasonable doubt--we must believe the truth. We must use our mind, heart and will to believe. The will acts on what our mind and heart have discovered. Josh concluded with, "My heart and mind were created to work in harmony together. Never has an individual been called upon to commit intellectual suicide in trusting Christ as Savior and Lord."
   Next time we will look at the reliability of the Biblical records.

Sincerely,
Rick