There are only a handful of religions rooted in historical events rather than in philosophy. When something is historical, we can examine it by looking at events, documents and other historical records. Out of all of the religions in the world, only one provides a concrete, objective means for testing to see whether or not it is true: Christianity.
The means for “knowing” any other religion is true is always subjective. You are told that your bosom will burn or that you will just “feel” in your heart that it is right. There are endless problems with making your feelings the standard for what you believe. The Bible sums up the problems by saying,
“He who trusts in his own heart is a fool” – Proverbs 28:26
We must not base truth on what we feel. It must be the other way around. We must begin with something objective and concrete. Then, if it is shown that it is true, one would be justified in any strong feelings toward it. Feelings are important, but we must begin with facts.
Only Christianity provides a way to do this. Only Christianity gives a test based upon a historical event. Only Christianity says, “If you can prove this historical event to be wrong, then you have disproved the whole of Christianity.”
What is the test? If Jesus literally and historically rose from the dead, then Christianity is true. If He did not, then it is false.
“…if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless..” – 1 Corinthians 15:17
Here is how we can know that Christianity is true:
1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is true.
2. We know Jesus rose from the dead because the tomb was empty.
3. Therefore, Christianity is true.
As you share this with others, the premise that you may be questioned about is “We know Jesus rose from the dead because the tomb was empty.” Be encouraged about this. No one has ever disproved this statement. There are several alternate explanations for why the tomb was empty, but it is undeniable that it was indeed empty. None of these alternate explanations [1] explain all of the facts. The only explanation that accounts for all of the facts is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
Why is Christianity true? The tomb is empty and remains empty today.
———
[1] Research some of these alternate explanations: swoon theory, wrong tomb, legend theory, the disciples stole the body, wrong Jesus theory.
I think that’s a tautology and not a very good one at that. I also have some issues with your agrument that christianity is the only religion that is proveable in history. Buddahist would be very surprised to hear that Buddha wasn’t a historical figure and the same goes for Islam also. In fact in many ways Buddhaism and Mohammed are more physically “proveable” than Jesus.
Thank you for the comment. You are confusing apples with oranges. With your comment, on the one hand, you have Christianity and on the other hand you mention two men, Buddha and Muhammad. I believe that Buddha and Muhammad actually existed. That is not the issue. The issue is that Buddhism is philosophical, meaning it is based upon certain statements given by Buddha and based upon his experiences. Islam is not testable because the entirety of the Qur’an was revealed by an “angel” in a cave to 1 man. How could you disprove this? Christianity is based upon a public historical event. This would be like saying, “If we can prove that the constitution wasn’t written, then America isn’t a nation.” I hope this helps.
Eric: “2. We know Jesus rose from the dead because the tomb was empty.”
And you know the tomb was empty because of a story? I’m afraid that doesn’t stand up very well. I applaud the demand that a worldview must be based on evidence, but keep in mind that you don’t say, “If you can’t prove it wrong, I’m entitled to hold it.” We must go where the evidence leads, and that a man resurrected is not where the evidence points. It’s possible but not probable.
I’ve discussed this in more detail here.
And you believe that the evidence leads us to conclude that Jesus was a legend? How could a legend like that develop within 30 years? If someone told me that John Lennon rose from the dead in 1980, wouldn’t it be easily disproved if false?
Thanks for commenting, Bob. I can see that your naturalistic presupposition is driving you to look for a natural explanation, though there is not one that can account for all of the evidence. Only Jesus actually rising from the dead actually accounts for all of the evidence. Your belief that Jesus was a legend should help you fit in well with the Alincolnists https://www.facebook.com/alincolnism
Eric:
Naturalistic explanations do the job, so that’s why I give them priority. If an alternative approach were viable, I’d consider that as well.
Seems to me that Jesus as legend best explains the evidence (and no need to handwave into existence a supernatural being)
Bob, Are you truly suggesting Jesus as legend, or Jesus ‘as the Christ’ as legend?
I personally find it difficult that people can reasonably conclude that Jesus (as a true person of history) is a legend. Secular history has much to say about Jesus’ existence, his life, ministry, the fact that the early church worshiped him as a god. The evidence as such is undeniable.
Within the first century or so after Jesus there are 10 sources which mention Him. There are only nine which mention Tiberius Caesar, yet no one denies that Tiberius was a real person. I can accept the reality that people will choose to deny Jesus’ deity, but his existence? Really?
Peter:
There are extra-biblical sources that mention believers. They give no aid to the Christian argument. “There are people who worship a man call Jesus” doesn’t help show that the miracles are true.
Bob, you are trying to change the subject. The issue is whether or not Jesus is a legend. His miracles are a different topic. Are you honestly saying, against history and scholarship, that Jesus is a legend?
Bob, you are trying to change the subject. The issue is whether or not Jesus is a legend. Miracles are a different topic. The question is, “Do you honestly, against history and against scholarship, believe that Jesus is a legend?”
Eric: That’s not the subject I’m talking about. I’m not talking about the Christ Myth theory. I’m saying that the supernatural tales about Jesus are a legend.
Yup, we can question whether the ‘I cannot tell a lie’ story about George Washington is true without questioning his existence. Or for a sillier example, we can dispute the veracity of the “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” film without saying Lincoln didn’t exist.
There may well have been an itinerant Rabbi called Jesus who lived around that time, but that doesn’t mean all the stories in the bible about him are true, and it lends no credence whatsoever to the miracle stories.
“There are only nine which mention Tiberius Caesar, yet no one denies that Tiberius was a real person.”
The impact Jesus made is all down to what his followers did after he died. Tiberius on the other hand conquered Pannonia, Raetia, Dalmatia; he have detailed information about his family; we know the exact dates of his birth, death and reign; we have busts made of him when he was still alive; the account of his life from Tacitus is incredibly detailed – six books dedicated entirely to his reign.
We have no equivalents for Jesus. We don’t know when he was born or died; we know next to nothing about his family; we have no contemporary portraits or direct quotes; there are large periods of his life that we know nothing about.
Andrew: That’s a great example. To take another, how do we know Alexander the Great was a real person, since our best biographies date from long after he died? Well, there are all those cities named “Alexandria.” There are coins with his name and likeness. Stele and monuments, too. And I imagine we can find histories from the standpoint of the conquered people that document the warfare.
The Jesus claims look pretty paltry by comparison.