|
I came
across this book called "The Case for Christmas" by Lee Strobel the
other day. I thought this was a good a time as any to see what this man
had to say about Christmas. Strobel has a Master of Studies in Law
degree from Yale Law School, was the award-winning legal editor of the
Chicago Tribune and has written a number of best selling books. Strobel
a skeptic and atheist, consults expert testimony as he seeks to ferret
out the truth. So presumably he has found something worthwhile to say.
On the jacket cover he asks "What does Christmas mean to you"? Well
Christmas is not my favourite time of year, because of various things,
but now mostly because it is rammed down our throats by the media, from
October on, and the exhortation to buy, buy, buy just puts me off. Also
there is a vague guilt, or at least there used to be, about not doing
it right, not having the Rockwellian Christmas that I was expected to
provide and therefore letting the family down.
Anyway the book jacket says, and I quote exactly:
Lots of people view it as a warm, vibrant season when decent people
full of the Christmas spirit celebrate what's best about humanity. Yet
when you consider the loneliness, sorrow, personal struggles, and
broken relationships that haunt this brightest of holidays for so many
people, and the consumerism that taints it, you have to wonder: If this
is as good as it gets, what's the point?
Maybe there is a point and we've just been missing it. That child born
in a cattle shed 2000 years ago - what if he really was the Christ of
Christmas? If so then the holiday is hollow without him.
Social reformer, philosopher, teacher, icon of a deluded religious
sect; who was Jesus? If he really was the divine Son of God, as many
believe then the evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It should, for
instance, furnish convincing answers to the point blank questions of a
Yale educated legal journalist.
Lee Strobel in his book explores:
* the credibility and accuracy of Jesus' biographies
* whether archaeology disproves or corroborates the biblical records
* whether Jesus fits the profile of divinity
* Jewish Messianic prophecy; did Jesus and Jesus alone fulfill it?
So I thought I would take a few notes between now and Christmas as see what he comes up with.
In the Introduction of the book 'The Case for Christmas', Lee Strobel
describes himself as not the sort of person who's driven by feelings.
As a journalist, he was far more interested in facts, evidence, data,
and concrete reality. Virgins don't get pregnant, there is no God who
became a baby, and Christmas is little more than an annual orgy of
consumption driven by greed. He states that as a law-trained
newspaperman, he dealt in facts and facts supported his atheism, not
fantasy and fable and that the entire Christmas tale was built on a
flimsy foundation of wishful thinking. Strobel's job with the Chicago
Tribune was to investigate claims to see if they were true, separate
rumours from reality, and determine fact from fiction.
The first question Strobel asks "Who was in the manger on that first
Christmas morning"? He invites us to join him in separating hard
evidence from holiday tradition and sentiment. Which as I read the book
I will attempt to share.
Carrying on with Strobel's book 'The Case for Christmas'. He writes
about eyewitness testimony being crucial to any investigation even in
historical matters. To get answers he arranges an interview with Dr.
Craig L. Blomberg, PHD, considered to be one of the foremost
authorities on the biographies of Jesus. He has a doctorate from
Aberdeen University in Scotland and has served as a senior research
fellow at Cambridge University in England.
Strobel challenges Blomberg with a series of questions:
* Is it really possible to be an intelligent, critically, thinking
person and still believe that the four gospels were written by the
people whose names have been attached to them? To simplify Blomberg's
answer was Yes
* How uniform was the belief that they were the authors? It was not
disputed, there was no reason to attribute authorship to any one else,
and the gospels were based on eyewitness material.
* Some scholars say the gospels were written so far after the events
that legend developed from merely a wise teacher into the mythological
Son of God. Is that a reasonable hypothesis or is there good evidence
that the gospels were recorded earlier than that, before legend could
totally corrupt what was recorded? The standard dating of the gospels
range from AD 70-90 within the lifetime of eyewitnesses of Jesus,
including hostile eyewitnesses who would have corrected any false
teachings about Jesus. The two earliest biographies of Alexander the
Great were written more than 400 years after his death, yet historians
consider them accurate.
* How early can we date the fundamental beliefs of the Christians?
Within two years. The crucifixion was about AD30, Paul's conversion was
about AD32, he met with the apostles about AD35. All within two to five
years of the events themselves.
Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christmas" goes on to investigate the
scientific evidence, and asks the question does archaeology confirm or
contradict Jesus' biographies?
Strobel arranges an interview with John McRay, PHD writer of
Archaeology and the New Testament. McRay studied at Hebrew University,
the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in
Jerusalem, Vanderbilt University Divinity School, and the University of
Chicago where he earned his doctorate in 1967. McRay was a professor of
New Testament and archaeology at Wheaton College for more than fifteen
years.
Strobel asks:
* What can't archeology tell us about the reliability of the New
Testament? McRay answers: Archaeology has made some important
contributions but it certainly can't prove whether the New Testament is
the word of God. If we dig in Israel and find ancient sites that are
consistent with where the Bible said we'd find them, that shows that
its history and geography are accurate. However, it doesn't confirm
that what Jesus Christ said is right. Spiritual truths cannot be proved
or disproved by archaeological discoveries.
* Does archaeology affirm or undermine the New Testament when it checks
out the details in those accounts? There is no question that the
credibility of the New Testament is enhanced, just as the credibility
of any ancient document is enhanced when you excavate and find that the
author was accurate in talking about a particular place or event. For a
long time people questioned the validity of a statement by Josephus,
the first-century historian, that the harbour of Herod the Great was as
large as the major harbour of Athens. People thought Josephus was
wrong, but when we began to do underwater excavation, we found that
Josephus was right after all.
* When archaeologists check out the details of what Luke wrote in his
gospel do they find he was careful or sloppy? The general consensus of
both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as
a historian. He was an educated man and archaeological discoveries show
that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.
* Have you ever encountered any archaeological finding that blatantly
contravened a New Testament reference? Archaeology has not produced
anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible.
Strobel also quotes:
* Australian archaeologist Clifford Wilson, "Those who know the facts
now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably
accurate source book."
* Dr Edwin Yamauchi of Miami University, who earned his doctorate in
Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University and is the author or
several books, "We have better historical documentation for Jesus than
the founder of any other ancient religion."
* Dr. Bruce Metzger, professor emeritus of Princeton Theological
Seminary told Strobel that there is an unprecedented number of New
Testament manuscripts and that they can be dated extremely close to the
original writings. The modern New Testament is 99.5% free of textual
discrepancies.
My thoughts are that these are very educated people, perhaps I need to
listen to what they are saying, maybe I need to check this out some
more. I listen to the news everyday and assume that the truth is being
told to me. I have been educated to believe or disbelieve certain
things, or the media have done a good job to convince me to think a
certain way. Maybe it is time I thought for myself rather than be
influenced by what others think.
The Profile Evidence: Did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God?"
This is an extremely complex and mind-stretching issue writes Strobel,
and interviewed Dr. D.A. Carson, the theologian who is considered one
of the most distinguished thinkers in Christianity. Dr. Carson, is a
research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, he has written or edited more than forty books and earned his
doctorate in New Testament at Cambridge University and taught at three
other colleges and seminaries.
Strobel "There are some verses that seem to strongly suggest the Jesus
was a created being who first came into existence when he was born in
Bethlehem. He is called the begotten Son of God or the firstborn over
all creation. Doesn't this imply that Jesus was created, as opposed to
being the Creator?" Carson an expert in Greek grammar replies "John
3:16 in the King James Version translates the Greek with the words 'His
only begotten Son'. That is not what the words in Greek mean. It really
means 'unique one.'
"What about the term 'firstborn?' "In the custom of the time the word
'firstborn' not necessarily meant being born first or having been
begotten but more the idea of the authority that comes with the
position of being the rightful heir."
"What would be a better translation?" "Supreme heir would be more appropriate."
Strobel quotes Dr. Ben Witherington III author of 'The Christology of
Jesus': "Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God, the anointed one of
God? The answer is yes. Did he see himself as the Son of Man? The
answer is yes. Did he see himself as the final Messiah? Yes, that's the
way he viewed himself. Did he believe that anyone less than God could
save the world? No, I don't believe he did."
Jesus said "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well."
Loose translation; "When you look at the sketch of God from the Old
Testament, you will see a likeness of me"
This has been a very difficult chapter to summarize but I like C.S. Lewis's statement (the author of the Narnia books)
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said
wouldn't be a great moral teacher, he would either be a lunatic
- on the level with a man who says he is aa 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 a madman or something worse ...
but don't let's come up with any patronizing nonsense about
his being a great human teacher. He hasn't left that open to us. He didn't intend to."
Quote from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.
The fingerprint evidence: Did Jesus - and Jesus alone - match the identity of the Messiah?
Strobel interviews Pastor Louis Lapides, a Jewish pastor from Newark,
New Jersey. Lapides earned a bachelor's degree in theology from Dallas
Baptist University and a master of Divinity and master of Theology
degree in Old Testament and Semitics from Talbot Theological Seminary.
He is the former president of a national network of fifteen Messianic
congregations. (Messianic Jews are those who have come to the believe
the Jesus in the long promised Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament)
Lapides explains that in the Jewish scriptures, which is called by
Christians the Old Testament, there are many prophecies about the
Messiah. These predictions formed a figurative fingerprint that only
one person would be able to match. This way the Israelites could rule
out any impostors and validate the credentials of the authentic Messiah
or Christ.
Strobel questions: Was the baby in the manger really the Christ? Did he
fulfill the predictions that were written hundreds of years before he
was born? How do we know he was the only individual throughout history
who fit the prophetic fingerprint?
Lapides explains: There are more than four dozen predictions in all.
Isaiah revealed the manner of the Messiah's birth (of a virgin); Micah
pinpointed his birthplace (Bethlehem); Genesis and Jeremiah specified
his ancestry (a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, from the tribe
of Judah and the house of David); the Psalms foretold his betrayal, his
accusation by false witnesses, his manner of death (crucifixion hadn't
been invented yet) and his resurrection.
Is it possible that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies by accident? Not a
chance, the odds are so astronomical that they rule that out. The
probability of just eight of the prophecies being fulfilled in one
chance in one hundred million billion.
Mathmeticion Peter W. Stoner estimated that the probability of
fulfilling forty-eight prophecies was one chance in a trillion x 12.
Isn't it possible that the gospel writers fabricated details to make it
appear that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies? When the gospels were being
circulated there were people living who had lived through the events
written about, and would have objected if they found any lies. Also why
would the writers of the gospels suffer torture and death for following
Jesus if they knew what they had written was lies. The Jewish community
would be looking for an opportunity to discredit the Gospels by
pointing out any falsehoods. The Jewish Talmud never claimed that there
was any untruth in the gospels.
Couldn't Jesus arrange his life in order to fulfill the prophecies? For
a few of the prophesies yes, but there are many others that would be
impossible.
What about the Virgin Birth? Hundreds of years before Jesus was born in
Bethlehem Isaiah foretold that he would be born of a virgin. Critics
however have said this is a mistranslation. They claim the Hebrew word
used in this prophecy almah merely means young woman and that bethulah
would have been used if the idea of virginity were intended. Researcher
Glenn Miller told Strobel that the latest and most detailed linguistic
studies show bethulah could refer to a widow or divorced woman who was
not a virgin whereas almah is never used of a non-virgin. Miller claims
that almah was the best and only word to use.
When was Jesus born? The exact date is not given but spring is most
likely because shepherds would not have been in the fields in winter.
Around AD 200 theologians concluded Jesus was born in May, others argue
for April or March. For the early Christians this was not a major
issue. In AD 385 a Pope declared December 25 as the day for celebrating
Christ's birth. He chose that date partly to challenge the pagan
celebration of Saturnalia which was characterized by immorality and
disorder.
Conclusion and the verdict of history:
Strobel writes "So while the eyewitness evidence gave me confidence in
the reliability of the Gospels, the scientific evidence corroborated
their trustworthiness, the profile evidence showed that Jesus fulfilled
the attributes of God, and the fingerprint evidence established that
he's the Messiah, but what about the claim of Easter or the return from
the dead that authenticated that claim.
Dr.J.P. Moreland pointed out that the disciples were in a unique
position to know whether the resurrection actually happened, and they
were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming it was true.
Strobel spent two years investigating the identity of the Christmas
child. He became convinced that if one takes the time to investigate
the historical reality the facts were too strong to ignore.
Well that is it, I have summarized the book, it certainly bears
consideration don't you think? Wouldn't it be terrible to find out that
it is true and we had never bothered to find out how it might affect us
|
