I am currently helping David with some door-to-door work in Belper. Our method is
- Deliver some leaflets through letter boxes. These are well-produced, glossy affairs. They say something about what Grace Church exists for, what the gospel message is in broad terms, and an invitation to take it further with specific ways of doing this.
- Follow up with a visit. This has to be done within a week, usually, since people often forget what comes through the door pretty quickly. Though we work together for encouragement, we go to each door as individuals.
- The visit is low key and friendly, and not a “full-on” evangelistic challenge. We ask if they have seen the leaflet, read it, and what they thought about it. Usually by this stage you know pretty well whether people want to talk further. Most people are not interested, but some do open up a little. Then you can begin to talk about the gospel with them.
Of course, some people like a good bit of banter. This week David and I were out and I met a man who was adamant that there was “not a shred of evidence” for the existence of Jesus, but that there was plenty of evidence for the ancient Egyptian gods! I tried to rectify his view as best I could but he was unmovable. He was willing to believe that Julius Caesar existed, a much less well attested fact, but certainly not Jesus.
In the end I had to accept once again that the real reason that people reject the gospel and the facts surrounding it is not because the facts are not well attested. The real problem is summed up in the natty sentence, The heart of the human problem is problem of the human heart. When people do not want to believe the facts they won’t. And they, quite irrationally, do not want to look any further into it. They are content with the view they have. To accept the gospel means big changes. It has implications on belief, decisions, priorities in life, loves, relationships. In other words, your whole world is turned upside down.
It is good to remember this as we meet people and seek to share the gospel. The human hearts that we meet seem to know instinctively the implications of what we are saying. We are not just offering an interesting leaflet, a thought-provoking sermon or Bible study, or nice new people. We are introducing Christ who gives new life and destroys the old.
Doggie's Breakfast 
The variety of accounts in all kinds of forms from coins to written text from the time period written by those in favour or and against Caesar is phenomenal.
Jesus Christ’s existence is only supported by a few historical accounts (some of which are highly suspect such as the often quoted Josephus) and a religious text (i.e. one written from a particular angle).
Personally I believe someone called Jesus did exist, however it is ridiculous to claim that there is more evidence for his existence than Caesar. Also it’s not very useful to say that he existed, one needs also prove that he was more than a normal person – and for that you have only one religious text as evidence.
Rob said,
“(some of which are highly suspect such as the often quoted Josephus)”
An unfair generalisation. The quotes in secular history that identify the existence of a man called Jesus are not few in number. They are wide-ranging and diverse, and they deserve to be treated with the same integrity with which the same writers’ other historical observations are judged.
It is interesting to note that the external sources that speak of someone called Jesus are not sympathetic, but are mostly Roman, and mention Jesus as a ‘by the way’.
As to Josephus – There are several references within Josephus’ writings that are clear, and it is ‘baby and bath-water’ to label Josephus as suspect because of one quote that isn’t even Josephus at all. The suspect passage has long been considered to contain Christian interpolation, and the discovery in 1972 of the Agapian manuscript has given us an uninterpolated version which is most likely authentic. In either case the existence of Jesus isn’t in question, simply the inclusion of a definite statement about the resurrection.
As to the amount of evidence – I think Stephen was probably referring to the manuscript evidence for Jesus – which considerably outweighs and predates the manuscript evidence for Caesar. There are 9 copies of his Gallic Wars in existence dating from 1000AD, while we have 25,000+ manuscripts pre 1000AD dealing with Jesus.
As to the number of religious texts – you would really have to count them as 66 – each book of the Bible is different and points forward to Jesus, or speaks about him. Even if you discount the Old Testament you have 27 documents that cannot reasonably be called ‘one religious text.’ The historical reliability of the gospels and Acts is well attested.
The fact that they were all written within the lifetime of the eye-witnesses, who would have been able to deny the miraculous accounts, also needs to be considered.
And if the gospels stand as they do, as four independent eye-witness accounts that provide strong evidence of the resurrection, then Jesus is more than just an ordinary individual. He is who he says he is.
Rob,
I was just about to get back to you when I realised that Mark has done a sterling job in my place. (Thanks, Mark!)
I have to come clean, though. When I was speaking to this man I was thinking about the evidence Julius Caesar’s existence not simply about certain events in his life. The truth is I don’t know whether there is more evidence for his existence or not. I’m not sure I would know how to weigh or measure it, anyway.
What was happening was that I was confusing evidence for existence with manuscript evidence for the reliability of the NT when compared with manuscripts describing other events or periods of the time. Mark has given the evidence for this above.
Thanks for sharpening my thinking…
As I said before I think that Jesus probably existed – but I disagree with the statement that there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar, this simply isn’t true.
With respect to the quote from Josephus – yes I do believe that (as scholars of his work have concluded) he was writing about a real historical Jesus, however as you point out Christians at a later point altered his works to put in claims about Jesus that Josephus simply did not make. I think it’s extremely bad form that Christians (and I’m mainly thinking of the Alpha people here) go around trumpeting and quoting Josephus on what is known to be an altered quote.
Going back to my original point – while there is the mention of someone called Jesus by several vague contemporaries of Jesus, the evidence for Caesar is overwhelming. Quite apart from the number of different sources for and against Caesar we have significant evidence in terms of coinage, statues, and so on that exist to this very day (and were made at the time). There is some good information on this site here: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html
The fact that several texts (and I don’t discount them purely for being religious) have been copied far more means very little – it is the number of unique sources and the intent of the writers of those sources that is important. Of those who wrote about Jesus within a reasonable timespan and had actually come in contact with him to some degree there are very few (e.g. the gospel writers), and we are well aware that many of their texts were copies of one another.
The point of everything that I’m saying is not to say that Jesus didn’t exist (I believe that he did) but rather that by saying that there is more evidence for his existence than Caesar Christians do themselves a disservice as it’s quite obvious that it’s not the case. This isn’t a popularity competition, it doesn’t take away from his supposed divinity or anything.
The more interesting question is whether Jesus was the Christ, and for that I think Christians have a much harder time persuading rational people (although you can always fall back on saying that we don’t see things like your religion* because our eyes have been blinded, ho-hum!).
* the kind of thing every religion says, which is of course a nice get out clause.
Also I should add I think it’s quite disingenuous to say that there are 66 books as evidence for Jesus. I know this makes sense for people who are already members of the faith, but it’s not a very objective thing to say is it?
I mean – the Jews certainly don’t agree with you.
I wish I could have been there to hear the conversation!
Rob said
” Also I should add I think it’s quite disingenuous to say that there are 66 books as evidence for Jesus.”
Rob – Do you really think that it is dishonest?
40 different authors, 3 different languages, 1500 years, wide geogaphical location, and different styles of writing. It can hardly be called one book.
As to all 66 speaking about Jesus
Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, “… Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
The Jewish people certainly understood that every book pointed to the Messiah. They just didnt like the fact that the Messiah wasnt political and had to die.
I do agree wholeheartedly with you that Christians need to tightened up their arguments and be intellectually and historically honest and rigorous.
I dont know that I agree with your statement that Christians have a much harder time persuading rational people. Christianity is not irrational. There is ample evidence.
You seem to believe that there is such a thing as neutrality, the concept of unbiased eople sitting down to weigh up the evidence and make up their own minds. People are either for God or against God. There is no such thing as neutrality. Everyone is biased, I just happen to be up front about my biases.
This next bit isnt a get out clause – but I suspect that I’m being bad mannered by writing lengthy responses on someone else’s blog, so I shall withdraw at this point.
By the way Rob, I had a look at your blog, and all I can say is you’ve an excellent taste in mead! Maybe we could share a glass sometime.
Have a look at these.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
Not had a chance to do much more than scan read, but i hope they may be of some use to someone!!
40 different authors, 3 different languages, 1500 years, wide geogaphical location, and different styles of writing. It can hardly be called one book.
Indeed I wouldn’t call it one book. However there are a number problems with your argument. One you neglect to mention that the books have come to be collected together because of a filtering process that rejected any books that had a message that was not considered to be consistent with what the other books said or the religion wanted. Also some of the books are really modifications / additions to earlier books (look at the gospels for instance). As such the ‘remarkable’ harmony between the books is really not all that surprising. Then you have the issue that although you believe they all in some way point to Jesus as the Messiah it is a fact that many people out there who have honestly studied these books do not believe you are right, and by that I mean a number of groups but a super example would be the Jews.
The Jewish people certainly understood that every book pointed to the Messiah. They just didnt like the fact that the Messiah wasnt political and had to die.
Are you sure that’s why? What is it that leads you to think that is the case?
A quick google indicates that many Jews have looked into the Old Testament and have concluded that Jesus is not the Messiah (here is one of many examples: http://www.ohr.org.il/ask/ask00j.htm).
I dont know that I agree with your statement that Christians have a much harder time persuading rational people. Christianity is not irrational. There is ample evidence.
This is borne out of a lot of experience in and out of university watching people accept or reject the gospel message.
You seem to believe that there is such a thing as neutrality, the concept of unbiased eople sitting down to weigh up the evidence and make up their own minds. People are either for God or against God. There is no such thing as neutrality. Everyone is biased, I just happen to be up front about my biases.
It is true that everyone has a degree of bias about certain things. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. What’s important though isn’t that we already have a particular belief but rather that we use reasonable methods to determine what is true – for instance a scientist may strongly believe that X is true but by applicaiton of the scientific method they determine that NOT X is true instead – while they might initially find this unpalatable they are searching for the truth and so that is what they will adopt. Of course ultimately (I have found) Evangelical Christianity rests upon the adoption of the idea that the Bible is totally trustworthy and entirely without error, and this conclusion can only reached through circular reasoning. When in seen next to something like the scientific method the absurdity of this approach becomes all too apparent.
All too often Evangelical Christians use this idea that there are just two sides in the argument, and that if someone rejects what they’re saying it must be because they have chosen to stand opposed to some obvious truth about God. I don’t doubt that many evangelicals honestly believe this, but I just wish they’d see the truth which is that many of us who are not Evangelicals are not so because we have investigated and found Evangelical Christianity not to stand up to the claims that it makes, and for some that there is no compelling argument / reason / evidence that God exists. For some they have put a lot of heartfelt effort and searching into this search and are saddened that they have come up empty, so when Evangelicals say they’re just naturally opposed to God it is a kind of a kick in the teeth that just isn’t deserved. I’m not angry at Evangelicals who believe this though, I don’t think they’re bad people – I just think they’ve been ‘brainwashed’.
By the way Rob, I had a look at your blog, and all I can say is you’ve an excellent taste in mead! Maybe we could share a glass sometime
🙂
Rob,
I am pushed for time at the moment – I have a run of essays to write as well as my other work – so my comment will seem far from adequate, and I cannot promise I can go any further with you. But let me ask an apparently silly question…
How would Macbeth prove the existence of Shakespeare? And if Macbeth adopted the Scientific Method to do so, what kind of answer would he get? What ‘truth’ would it come up with?
WIth that in mind, with your adoption of the Scientific Method and the application of it to God and his existence, can you even pose the problem correctly, let alone get an answer?
(You see the point I’m inviting you to think about – to adopt the SM is to make a priori assumptions about what the truth really is – also a kind of ‘faith’, if you like!)