"THE CASE FOR CREATION"
The Historical Case For Creation
INTRODUCTION
1. In this series, we are have briefly considered...
a. The Biblical Case For Creation
b. The Philosophical Case For Creation
c. The Scientific Case For Creation
2. Now we shall consider The Historical Case For Creation...
a. Which examines historical evidence for the resurrection of
Christ
b. Then considers the implication of the resurrection to the
issue of creation
[So we begin by first considering...]
I. THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
A. THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS...
1. Only the most ignorant or prejudiced skeptic would question this fact
2. Because unbiased sources attest to the historicity of Jesus
a. Roman historians
1) Tacitus (112 A.D.) in his "Annals"
2) Pliny the Younger (112 A.D.) in his letter to the emperor Trajan
3) Seutonius (120 A.D.), a court official under Hadrian
b. Jewish sources, while denying His deity, attest to His historicity
1) Flavius Josephus (b. 37 A.D.), Jewish historian makes
several references to Jesus
2) The Talmud (books of Jewish law) speak frequently of Jesus
c. Samaritan historian, Thallus (52 A.D.), tried to explain the
darkness at the crucifixion
3. So overwhelming is the evidence, even atheistic historians
admit Jesus lived
a. "One is obliged to say, 'Here was a man. This part of the
tale could not have been invented.'" - H. G. Wells, Outline Of History
b. Will Durant spent two chapters on Jesus in his book, The
Story Of Our Civilization
-- Fact #1: Jesus actually lived as a person of history
B. THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT...
1. Its authors claim to write as historians or as eyewitnesses to real events
a. Luke, the physician
1) His gospel (Luke) and history of the early church (Acts)
compose over a third of the New Testament
2) He wrote as one describing historical events - Lk 2:1-4; Ac 1:1-3
b. John, the beloved disciple
1) His gospel (John) was written as an eyewitness account
- Jn 20:30-31; 21:24-25
2) In his epistle (1st John), he claimed to be an eyewitness- 1Jn 1:1-4
c. Paul, the Jewish rabbi
1) Half of the books of the New Testament are his personalletters
2) He claimed to have been an eyewitness, along with others- 1Co 15:3-8
2. As a historical document, it's evidence is remarkable!
a. Written soon after the events it records
1) "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was
written between the forties and eighties of the First
Century A.D." - Nelson Glueck, former president of the
Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College
in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist
2) "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer
any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament
after 80 A.D." - W. F. Albright, Biblical archaeologist
b. Noted for historical accuracy in areas that can be tested
1) "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological
discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference."- Glueck, ibid.
2) "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are
his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of
the true historic sense...in short, this author should be
placed along with the greatest of historians." - Sir William Ramsay
c. Manuscript attestation for the New Testament unsurpassed
1) In the number of copies for the purpose of comparison
a) Over 4,000 Greek manuscripts, 13,000 copies of
portions of the New Testament
b) Contrast that with other historical documents
(Caesar's Gallic Wars, only 10 Greek manuscripts;
Annals of Tacitus, 2; Livy, 20; Plato, 7; Sophocles,100)
2) In the time between the originals and earliest copies
a) Fragments exist that are within 50-100 years; complete
copies that are within 300-400 years after the
originals were written
b) Compare this with manuscripts of other classical histories
1/ Histories of Thucydides - 1300 years
2/ Histories of Herodotus - 1350 years
3/ Caesar's Gallic War - 950 years
4/ Roman History of Livy - 350 years (the earliest
copy is only a fragment)
5/ Histories of Tacitus - 750 years
6/ Annals of Tacitus - 950 years (there are only two manuscripts)
d. Variances between the ancient copies are minuscule
1) Only 1/2 of one percent is in question (compared to 5
percent for the Iliad)
2) Even then, it can be stated: "No fundamental doctrine of
the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading...It
cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the
text of the Bible is certain: especially is this the
case with the New Testament." - Sir Frederick Kenyon,
authority in the field of New Testament textual criticism
3. "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much
greater than the evidence for many writings of classical
authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of
questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of
secular writings, their authenticity would generally be as
beyond all doubt." - F. F. Bruce
-- Fact #2: The reliability of the New Testament as a historical
document is very strong
C. THE STRENGTH OF THE APOSTLES' TESTIMONY...
1. Demonstrated by the nature of their testimony
a. Their testimony appealed to empirical evidence
1) Evidence derived from experiment and observation rather than theory
2) For forty days they were given infallible proofs - Ac 1:3
3) They ate and drank with Jesus - Ac 10:41
4) They saw, heard, and touched Him - Jn 20:24-28; 1Jn 1:1-2
b. There is no way they could have been deceived or deluded
1) If all they had were individual dreams, visions, or
hallucinations...perhaps
2) But they testified that Jesus appeared to them in groups
as well as to individuals
2. Demonstrated by their transformation
a. Prior to the resurrection, Jesus' disciples were afraid and without hope
1) They fled at his arrest - Mk 14:50
2) Peter cowardly denied Him three times - Mk 14:66-72
3) The women mourned His crucifixion - Lk 23:27
4) After His death, the disciples were sad - Lk 24:13-17
5) After His death, the disciples hid behind closed doors,
for fear of the Jews - Jn 20:19
b. After the resurrection, they fearlessly praised God and proclaimed Jesus!
1) Praising God in the temple - Lk 24:52-53
2) Proclaiming Christ, despite persecution - Ac 5:28-32, 41-42
c. This transformation in their lives is strong evidence for
the resurrection, as admitted by an Orthodox Jewish scholar:
1) "If the disciples were totally disappointed and on the
verge of desperate flight because of the very real reason
of the crucifixion, it took another very real reason in
order to transform them from a band of disheartened and
dejected Jews into the most self-confident missionary
society in world history." - Pinchas Lapide, former
Chairman of the Applied Linguistics Department at
Israel's Bar-Iland University (TIME, May 7, 1979)
2) He concluded that a bodily resurrection could possibly
have been that reason!
3. Demonstrated by their high moral standard
a. They taught others to live holy lives - 1Th 4:1-7; Ep 4:25
b. They lived their own lives in unimpeachable way - 1Th 2:3-12
c. Does this sound like people who propagate lies when they know better?
4. Demonstrated by the price they paid
a. The apostle Paul's hardship were many - 2Co 11:23-28
b. The apostles endured much suffering because of their
testimony - 1Co 4:9-13
c. All but one died a martyr's death because of their testimony
d. Even Jesus' brother, James, was thrown off the temple and
then clubbed to death for his testimony
e. There was no motive for them to persistently lie about
Jesus' resurrection!
-- Fact #3: The testimony of the apostles is very strong
D. THE NEW TESTAMENT IS EITHER TRUE OR A CONTRIVED LIE...
1. The writers of the New Testament leave us no alternative
a. They are either eyewitnesses or false witnesses - 1Co 15:14-15
b. Events occurred as described, or they are cunningly devised
fables - 2Pe 1:16-18
2. We cannot say they might have been sincerely deceived
a. Especially in reference to the resurrection of Jesus
1) They claim they ate and drank with Him afterwards - Ac 10:39-41
2) They claim they saw and touched Him - 1Jn 1:1-4
b. They leave us no room saying they were mistaken or deceived!
1) Some sympathetic skeptics have tried to offer this as an alternative
2) That perhaps in their grief and loss over the crucifixion
of Jesus they hallucinated or had grief-inspired visions of Jesus
3) But hallucinations and visions are highly individualistic experiences
a) One person might see the hallucination or vision
b) But several or many people don't see the same vision
at the same time!
4) The resurrection appearances of Jesus include those
witnessed by many at the same time - cf. 1Co 15:4-8
-- Fact #4: The New Testament is either true or a cunningly devised fable
[With these historical facts before us, we are now ready to consider...]
II. THE IMPLICATION OF THIS EVIDENCE
A. WE ARE FORCED TO MAKE A DECISION...
1. Concerning Jesus
a. We can't deny that He lived
b. Therefore we must decide who He is
1) Is He what His followers claimed, the Son of God? - cf.Mt 16:13-17
2) Or is the New Testament's representation of Him false?
2. Concerning the evidence of the New Testament as a historical document
a. We can't deny the overwhelming evidence for the New
Testament
b. Therefore we must decide concerning its historical reliability
1) Will we accept it on the same basis we accept other
historical documents?
2) If so, then will we either accept it at face value, or
reject it and along with all other historical documents
whose evidence are much less?
3. Concerning the testimony of the apostles
a. We can't deny that they testified to the resurrection of Jesus
b. Therefore we must decide whether their testimony is reliable
1) Did they lie, or did they really see, touch, and eat with
a resurrected Jesus?
2) Or were they charlatans who suffered and died, knowing it
was all for a lie?
4. Concerning whether the New Testament is true
a. We cannot say that it was simply a sincere but mistaken
effort to explain who Jesus was
b. Therefore we must decide whether it is true, or a carefully contrived lie!
-- We cannot avoid making a decision regarding the evidence!
B. THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR DECISION...
1. If we decide the New Testament is a carefully contrived lie
a. We must concede that a book with the world's highest
standard of morality was composed by a group of liars,
frauds, and deceivers!
1) For what book contains a higher standard of love and morality?
2) E.g., Jesus' Sermon On The Mount, and Paul's Discourse On Love
b. We must concede that a book with overwhelming evidence as a
historical document was carefully put together to deceive
1) Known historical names, places and events were carefully
intertwined with bold-faced lies
2) Solemn affirmations concerning its truthfulness are made,
intended to deceive those to whom such affirmations were made
c. Is it reasonable or logical to draw such a conclusion?
2. If we decide the testimony of the New Testament is historically true
a. Then everything that Jesus taught is true
b. Including His implicit and explicit testimony to the reality of creation!
1) He spoke of the beginning of creation - Mk 10:6
2) In which God created mankind and all things - Mk 10:6; 13:19
c. Creation may be hard to fathom, but if one rose from the
dead, anything is possible!
-- The historical evidence for the resurrection also supports the
case for creation!
CONCLUSION
1. Four facts contribute to faith in the resurrection of Jesus...
a. The historicity of Jesus
b. The historical reliability of the New Testament
c. The strength of the apostles' testimony
d. The New Testament is either true or a carefully contrived lie
-- In view of the first three, what reasonable conclusion can we make
of the fourth?
2. With the same type of evidence used to establish any fact of history...
a. It is reasonable to believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the
dead
b. Which in turn makes it possible to believe in creation as the
origin of life
c. For He who rose from the dead testified to the reality of the
Creation
3. Thus we add "The Historical Case For Creation" to...
a. The Biblical Case For Creation
b. The Philosophical Case For Creation
c. The Scientific Case For Creation
Our next four lessons will address various matters related to the issue
of Creation, beginning with...
"The Days Of Creation"
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011
