Behind the Red Curtain

Twelve Brothers
Mar 5, 2020
24 min read

Updated: Apr 4, 2020

If you have been here for any length of time, then you already know where we stand. We not only believe that there is a God but we believe in the GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob specifically. Some of us have always held this view but others have not. I myself did not always hold this theistic view and it took many years before I came to believe in and serve the GOD of the Bible. I would like to share my journey with you here.

Please understand that this is all that this post is: me sharing my personal journey and hoping that my story might help someone find their Way. I'm not a theologian or scientist in any sense.

You could say that my journey began in my early childhood. I did have some Christians in my family but there were others who did not believe in Christianity. These individuals were agnostic. Some considered themselves to be spiritual or they said that they were "open to spirituality," but they never would have described themselves as Christians.

Additionally, I grew up with friends, teachers, and classmates who practiced many different religions and professed various beliefs. There were Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims, a few Wiccan classmates, a Witch, the occasional Hindu, a handful of Pagans, and a Buddhist or two.

Although I technically knew that all of their beliefs differed from one another, I struggled to see how. There appeared to me to be no significant difference from one to another. Most professed belief in at least one God but their concepts of God were different and usually conflicting. Most also believed in the spiritual but again, their view of and relationship with the spiritual varied. Finally, and most confusingly, each person was certain that they had the correct or at least, the most logical, answer. And who was I to disagree?

I knew nothing about theology and almost nothing about the world.

To me, all of these belief systems seemed equally probable and perhaps, equally sensible.

In short, I had many paths set before me but no way to distinguish between them, no way to choose.

Since becoming a Christian, I have learned that this religious confusion is premeditated.

Imagine that you are presented with a piece of candy; it's blue and circular, and you're sure that you would know it anywhere. But then that piece of candy is dropped in a bowl with fifty other pieces of candy and all of them are similar to the first. Some may be a slightly darker or lighter shade of blue. Perhaps some are more oval-shaped than circular.

When you try to distinguish which candy is the original, you struggle. Suddenly, you aren't sure whether the original candy was more of a sky blue or more of a turquoise color. And was it a perfect circle? Or could it have been slightly oval-shaped?

The lines begin to blur.

Now imagine that you learn that the original candy has the power to save your life, to give you immortality and cleanse you of all disease (physical and spiritual). On the other hand, if you choose the wrong candy or if you choose none at all, you will die; though you may not learn this second bit until it's too late.

This is what the fallen angels (satan and his followers) are hoping for: that we will choose the wrong path or choose no path at all, and die from our disease (sin). They want us to suffer their punishment with them.

There is so much more that could be said here about the fallen angels but this is not a post about them. So it will have to wait until later.

This post is my testimony.

GOD and Science

For now, we will direct our focus back to my religious confusion.

I didn't know which religion, if any, was the right one.

It wasn't until I got into the latter years of high school that I recognized that not all religions had an equal probability of being true- not according to the measure that I was then using anyway: science.

My science professors were the first people to point me towards Christianity. Of course, this wasn't intentional; I can think of at least two who would be quite upset to hear this. But nonetheless, it was science that began to direct me towards Truth.

It was probably my junior or senior year of high school when I learned about the Big Bang Theory. I had heard of it before then but I had never fully been taught what it meant: that the universe had a beginning. Time, mass, energy and light had a beginning.

After learning about the Big Bang Theory, I thought of some of my friends who believed in an infinite or eternal universe. Their religions, I decided, couldn't be correct. And just like that, those paths fell away.

Science continued to cut away the excess.

I was taught the Laws of Thermodynamics. The first and second Laws of Thermodynamics, in particular, lend themselves heavily to the idea that the Universe had a beginning: a closed system has an unchanging amount of energy, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it simply changes from one form to another. These laws, if true, suggests that the Universe is not actually a closed system but rather an open system with some unknown source continuously supplying it with energy. How so?

If the universe is continually expanding, but there is no input of energy or mass, then the amount of mass-energy (which, again, is said to be constant in a closed system) would eventually deplete into nothing. If there is no source putting energy and mass into the system (universe) then there is only one other explanation: the spontaneous generation of mass-energy.

Spontaneous generation of matter directly contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics, which, you’ll recall, state that energy cannot be created or destroyed within a system. Therefore, one has to make a choice on which to believe: either the Laws of Thermodynamics are true or the spontaneous generation of matter is possible. Both cannot be true.

I chose to accept the Laws of Thermodynamics as true. This also meant that I believed that the universe was an open system.

But then, of course, there was that unknown source of energy to grapple with.

It might seem to you, particularly if you are familiar with Christian theology, that I was dangerously close to finding GOD. The truth though is that I was still miles away from Him. It took several more years before I came to recognize that He was the one whom I had been studying and pondering for all these years. But even after I recognized Him, I still didn't know Him.

At this point, I was only comfortable conceding to the possibility of a God, or maybe even Gods. I wasn't sure. Also, it hadn't occurred to me that God could be known, that He might be a Person, as opposed to some dispassionate power source.

Still, I knew that there had to be something. Something (or Someone) that existed outside of the universe and had the power to pour necessary mass-energy into it without ceasing. I also realized that this Something was probably behind the Big Bang, the creation of the universe.

My logic went something like this;

If there is a God, then He has to exist outside of the Universe.

Therefore, He could not be dependent on the universe for His own existence.

He would have no need of mass-energy or light. On the contrary, He would have to be the source of these three things. Also, He would be eternal because, as previously stated, time exists within the universe.

I have heard people ask questions like, Who created God? When was God born? Was God born?

These questions imply that GOD had a beginning. But for Him to be the Creator of the universe, He couldn't have a beginning. He couldn't be dependent on time, a facet of the universe.

He would exist with no beginning or end to His existence. His name, I AM, is a clue to His eternal nature. He is pure being, life itself.

These were the kinds of thoughts that kept me up at night but as I said, I still wasn't anywhere near the GOD of the Bible. At this time, I would have been most comfortable calling myself an Agnostic, if I labeled myself at all.

Science continued to point me towards creation and a Creator, but not in the way some might expect.

At university, I chose to study the sciences and I was required to take courses like physics, genetics, evolution, biochemistry, general and organic chemistry, etc... I can't begin to tell you the number of times I regretted my choice in major. I struggled to get B's and A's, and in certain courses (cough cough, calculus), I was ecstatic to get a C. Things got easier for me as the years went on, but not before getting worse.

I had to transfer to a different university, one which only accepted some of my courses as the "correct" versions for my major. I was made to retake Chemistry I, Biology I, and Biology II alongside more advanced coursework like Genetics and Organic Chemistry. I lamented it and I was convinced that this was a con, a way for the university to squeeze a few extra thousands out of me.

While taking Biology 101 and Genetics simultaneously, I began to notice the contradictions between the Theory of Evolution and genetics. In Biology I and Introduction to Evolution, I was taught that organisms change over time by way of natural selection. More specifically, that organisms can and do slowly change from one species into another, over a long period of time, in order to increase their chances for survival within a given environment.

In my Bio 101 classes, I was presented with adaptation as an example of evolution. There are two examples that I recall: one with giraffes with varying neck lengths and another with mice with varying fur colors.

I won't bore you with too many details but I will say this:

I noticed that adaptation and evolution were not actually one and the same, although they were always presented as such.

We were led to believe that if adaptation is true, then it follows that evolution must also be true. I realized that this was not the case.

In adaptation, you have the same species at the end as you had at the beginning. Let me explain what I mean.

For instance, in the giraffe example, all three neck lengths were present to begin with (Short necks, Medium-length necks, Long necks). But as generations passed and the trees grew too tall for the giraffes to easily reach, some giraffes died off; these, of course, were the giraffes with short necks and a portion of the giraffes with medium-length necks. By the end of the experiment, the majority of the giraffe population in this environment had long necks.

In other words, the Long neck version of the gene was selected over the short and medium-length versions.

In evolution, you do not have the same species at the end as you had at the beginning. For example, you may start with an Okapi and end with a Giraffe.

While studying genetics, I began to realize how little sense this made. According to my genetics professors and genetics textbook, genetic mutations were 1) extremely rare, 2) normally weaker than the unmutated version of the gene (i.e. recessive), and 3) usually detrimental to the organism's health, fertility and or chances for survival.

In order for an okapi population to become a giraffe population over time, a number of rather extreme genetic mutations would have to take place. The number of chromosomes would have to somehow increase from 45 to 62. Genes would have to change their loci (i.e. their fixed position on a chromosome) or move to a totally different chromosome altogether. Finally, these genetic mutations would have had to have occurred at a high frequency and then be passed on to offspring at an equally high rate; in other words, the mutated genes would have to be dominant relative to the normal, unmutated genes.

Keep in mind that if the Theory of Evolution is correct, then this type of genetic mutation would have had to occur in all species, not just the okapi.

But this is not at all what we observe in nature.

In fact, we observe the exact opposite. As I said, genetic mutations are rare and when they do occur, they are stamped out, so to speak, by the unmutated genes; and this is assuming that the organism with the mutation(s) is able to reproduce in the first place. Genetic mutations can and do result in sterility. Additionally, they can result in death and or disease, which may culminate in premature death.

I realized that it was almost as if, by design, nature was resistant to genetic mutation.

I couldn't yet call myself a creationist but creation was in many ways more scientifically sound than evolution. With creation, each species is reproducing after its own kind, with little to no genetic mutation hindering the process. Giraffes have baby giraffes. Okapi have baby okapi.

Additionally, nothing in creation contradicted adaptation. I saw no reason why an omnipotent, creative GOD could not have created giraffes with short necks, giraffes with medium-length necks and giraffes with long necks. If anything, an all-knowing and omnipotent GOD would not be limited in His creativity; creating various versions of the same gene would be nothing for Him.

Of course, I cannot prove that creation occurred. I would need a time machine and a camera to do so.

The problem with evolution is similar.

I cannot prove that evolution actually occurred.

If evolution is an actual phenomenon, it takes up to billions of years. It is not observable or testable. In order to prove that evolution happened, I would need a time machine and a camera to document this slow slow process.

Belief in creation takes a leap of faith, but so does belief in evolution.

All of this was going on in my head while I was in my final years of university but I didn't dare say any of it aloud.

Saying that you didn't believe in evolution while surrounded by professors and budding scientists was treated as blasphemy. The Bible, Christianity, and GOD were openly mocked and scoffed at.

To accept the GOD of Christianity was to reject science.

And to reject science was to reject truth.

There was, in effect, a red curtain or a XXX label put on Christianity.

This stirred both shame and curiosity within me.

I was ashamed for having an interest in something that my professors and peers had labeled illogical and backward.

But their contempt also had the effect of making me all the more curious about Christianity.

Why was Christianity so much worse, so much more contemptible, than all of the other religions-

which by the way, were readily accepted on campus, even among the scientists?

Remember, I grew up around people who practiced a variety of religions and I had noticed the similarities amongst them. Christians are not the only theists or creationists. They also are not the only group that believes in spirituality. Finally, if they were backward (I wasn't actually sure if they were), then they were hardly the only ones. I had heard and still hear, many people from other religions preaching things like modesty and heterosexual monogamy.

Why are the Christians the only ones who get flogged and vilified?

There was a hypocrisy on campus.

Moreover, the hypocrisy was widespread and unchallenged.

The Bible and Human Nature

I mentioned earlier that I would have, at that time, labeled myself as agnostic. And by nature of my major, many of my classmates held a similar view. Some were atheists and said that they believed in nothing. Others were agnostic. Most held a hostile view towards Christianity and Christians in particular.

Again, I couldn't understand why, though they tried to explain their disdain.

Some said that it was because Christians were stupid (uneducated, anti-science).

Others said that it was because Christians were judgmental and backward.

I recognized these put-downs as the opinions that they were; and, as is usually the case with opinions and blanket-statements, they made for unsatisfying explanations.

There was one opinion however that I find interesting to think about; some of my atheist friends said that Christians were weak, emotionally fragile, and that they needed to believe in God and heaven as a sort of crutch.

It occurred to me that God could only be viewed as a crutch if one regarded Him as such. To most of my atheist friends, God (who they didn't believe in) was nothing of the sort. To them, the God of the Bible was a tyrant, an all-knowing and all-powerful being whose sole purpose was to interrupt their fun or to judge and condemn them.

If this is your view of God, then there is no way that you could view Him as an emotional crutch. On the contrary, the existence of God would be your biggest fear. Because, if this God exists, then you can no longer be your own god. Your every thought and action would be immediately known- and judged- by a being who has the power to condemn you to eternal damnation. So again, if the tyrant-view (or something akin to it) is your perception of God, then the existence of God is to you, a living nightmare: a truth that you would never want to accept no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

Please note my use of the words view and perception. From what I have learned and experienced since becoming a Christian, both of the views described above are extremes, exaggerations, and or perversions of the truth. GOD is both Love and Justice, unfailingly patient and capable of righteous anger. To put Him on either end of extremes is to reduce His complexity down to something unrealistically simple- and probably incorrect. Think about how complex you are as a human being. Would it make sense for the GOD who created you to be less complex than His creation?

In order to avoid getting too far off-topic, let’s continue discussing the anti-Bible culture on campus.

I realized back then that for some of my atheistic professors and peers, their unbelief was not an intellectual issue.

Nor was their atheism the natural result of education and emotional fortitude.

Rather, they had chosen atheism out of fear and pride- just like the Christians they disdained. They desired to be free to do as they pleased without having to answer to anyone, let alone an all-powerful and all-knowing God.

So, the atheists, even the ones with Ph.D.s, were merely human.

Flawed and biased like the rest of us, with some being emotionally attached to scientific theories- especially those which appeared to be at odds with the Bible.

For them, questioning evolutionary theory runs deeper than a simple scientific discussion. These theories amount to something like a religion on which they are emotionally dependent.

If God is the fragile Christian’s crutch, evolution is the fragile atheist’s.

To be fair, there were some Christians who embodied the stupid and judgmental straw man the atheists spoke of.

I had met them and unfortunately, I could see how they could repel people from Christianity.

Luckily for me, I had also met Christians who were kind and smart, even if they couldn't answer all of my questions. GOD bless them.

Frankly, it wasn’t fair of me to expect them to be able to answer all of my questions. A Christian and a theologian are two different things after all. Additionally, Christians- like atheists- are merely human.

There are bound to be some who aren’t nice and some who aren’t smart.

But one individual’s lack of kindness or intelligence, or ignorance about Biblical theology, does not say anything about Christianity itself.

If you meet a jerk who just so happens to be Australian, does that mean that there is something wrong with Australia? Or with Australians in general?

Is it logical to judge the whole of Australia based on a single individual, for better or for worse?

Personally, I don’t think so. Although, I understand- and have fallen prey- to the temptation to do so.

In the same way, I don't think that it is reasonable or fair to judge a religion based on the individual people who claim to practice it.

It is best to go straight to the source: the Bible in this case. If you are absolutely sure that the Bible encourages people to be hateful, prideful and ignorant then that may be a reason to reject it. If the Bible proves to be untrue, then that is also a reason to reject it.

But I wasn’t sure what the Bible said and I was hesitant to reject it based on hearsay or on the feelings and personal experiences of others (good or bad).

Like many agnostics, I had never bothered to actually read the Bible, let alone study it.

I had no clue about what the Bible had to say about humanity, relationships, morality, etc...

So in order to orient myself, I bought C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity and my eyes began to open.

Thus far, I had been pondering the nature of GOD without considering the nature of humanity.

But of course, the nature of humanity and by extension, the nature of the world at large are just as important.

For the Bible to be true and relevant, it must give an honest depiction of our world and mankind.

By studying C.S. Lewis's work, I came to the realization that it does.

C. S. Lewis’s work opened my mind to two concepts: 1) the reality of good and evil (what he calls The Law of Nature) and 2) the nature of sin.

This is an area of stark contrast between Christianity and other belief systems.

Christianity argues that there is such a thing as good and evil.

Good is a noun, not a vague idea or theory, and it is defined by GOD.

Evil too is a noun, not a vague idea or theory, and it is defined as a perversion of Good.

Something interesting to note is that good and evil do not coexist as equals.

Some religions teach that good and evil are codependent;

that is, without one the other cannot exist.

The Christian argument differs; rather than having a codependent relationship, good and evil have a dependent relationship in which evil is dependent on good for its existence.

Good existed first; GOD is good and GOD's existence is eternal with no beginning or end. Evil is always defined as a perversion of good or a perversion of GOD's law.

The Bible doesn't stop here. There is more to the argument.

The second part of the argument is that GOD's Moral Law is written on our hearts.

In other words, all of humanity knows GOD's definition of good by design.

Unfortunately, as a result of the fall of mankind, our entire world has been contaminated by sin. So although we know GOD's moral law, we struggle to keep it.

C.S. Lewis refers to this paradox as the Law of Nature:

the whole of mankind knows the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, but in their free will they choose not to follow it.

I would like to stop here and define the word sin, or in Hebrew, Khata.

To sin is to fall short, to fail, or to miss the goal.

GOD's law is the standard, the goal, and when we fall short of it, then we have sinned.

Now there are some who contest the Law of Nature. I would like to take a moment to address some of the counter-arguments I have heard.

The first and most obvious argument is that there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong. Humans are mere animals who exist and live to pass on their genetic material.

People who make this argument always contradict themselves eventually by displaying righteous anger.

See how they react when you cut them off in line.

Or break your promise to them.

Or backhand them across the face out of the blue.

See if they still believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong, good and evil.

My guess is that they will quite suddenly change their minds and demand justice, an apology, and or retribution.

But then, if there is no such thing as right and wrong, why should anyone apologize for mistreating them?

Here is the point;

when we get righteously angry, we let the cat out of the bag.

We reveal 1) that we know some unspoken law or rules of fair play and 2) that we expect that everyone else, including the person who wronged us, knows this law too.

Interestingly, we do not lower our standards for people based on factors like nationality or gender.

I expect that people from Zimbabwe know this law as well as people from Japan or Britain. While I was at university, for example, many of my classmates and professors were foreigners and they were held to the same standard as my American classmates and professors. You didn't get a pass for cheating on an exam or slapping another student because you 'weren't from around here.' Additionally, when we get righteously angry, we demonstrate that we have a sense of justice;

we believe, though perhaps to varying degrees, that people should be held accountable for their misdeeds.

Ironically, many of us tend to become quite hypocritical where our own misdeeds are concerned. When we confess our mistakes, we want forgiveness and understanding. Sometimes though, we flat out refuse to admit that our misbehavior is misbehavior at all.

We have some special excuse or reason as to why when we lied or stole or cheated, it wasn’t that bad. We deceive ourselves.

This is why the Bible says that our own hearts convict us. Many of us become indignant at the thought of a righteous GOD judging us for our misdeeds. However we judge other people’s actions all the time and we are far less fair, understanding and forgiving than GOD.

Moving on to the second counter-argument;

we are only 'good' out of instinct (herd instinct, mating instinct, maternal instinct, etc...).

Again, I respectfully disagree.

It is true that we are all to some extent, driven by our instincts. We are physical beings in addition to spiritual.

However, I believe that it is an exaggeration to say that we are governed by instinct.

Oftentimes, there are multiple instincts tugging at us at once and we have to choose which one we will obey.

Here is an example. Imagine that you are a soldier on the battlefield and one of your comrades has been severely wounded. The enemy is nearly upon you.

In all likelihood, there are two instincts clamoring within you at once: one instinct telling you to save your fallen comrade and another telling you to flee and save yourself.

How do you choose which is right?

This is where the Law of Nature, or your conscience, comes into play.

Your conscience is a third voice telling you which instinct is the correct one, the good one, to obey in this instance.

It is not an instinct itself. If I may borrow an analogy from Lewis, your instincts are like the keys on a piano.

The Law of Nature is the sheet music.

It is the thing telling you which keys to play and when.

The Law of Nature is not an instinct any more than the sheet music is a key on the piano.

Additionally, your instincts, like piano keys, are neither good nor bad.

There are times when you should heed certain instincts and times when you should resist them. For example, it is good to heed the maternal or paternal instinct but not to the extent that you spoil your child. It is good to give in to the mating instinct to bond with your spouse, but obviously you should curb this instinct if it means forcing yourself on someone.

Our conscience tells us which instincts to heed and which to suppress and when; but, as I've said, we do not always listen to our conscience.

This brings me to the third argument against the Law of Nature;

humans do evil deeds and our evil behavior proves that we do not know the Law of Nature.

I disagree. All that this proves is that we do not obey the Law of Nature.

You can know the rules and choose not to follow them. In fact, we do this all the time. Many of us do not obey traffic laws consistently for example. You can know that a red light means stop and choose to drive through it anyway.

I would also encourage you to think about some of the worst people you have known or heard of: people who have no qualms about lying, stealing, killing, or otherwise harming others. These people are almost always as hypocritical as they are evil.

If anything, I have noticed that these “bad” people tend to be especially intent on upholding the Law of Nature and they are unforgiving when other people wrong them. I have also noticed that “bad” people project their own evil thoughts and behaviors onto those around them. Cheaters suspect their spouses of cheating. Thieves worry about being robbed.

Not only are they often paranoid and suspicious, they tend to be prone to rage.

They will steal from you, but then get angry if you steal from them.

They have no problem lying to or betraying others but demand honesty and loyalty from the people around them.

They hurt others but are paranoid about others hurting them- and they demand justice if others do so.

In other words, they know the Law of Nature perfectly well and are quick to condemn others for breaking it.... even if they don't keep it themselves.

I recognize that much of what I had to say above was either anecdotal or a matter of personal perspective. Your experiences may be different from my own.

That said, I can't deny that this has been my experience in the world.

Every person that I have known has been morally gray and occasionally hypocritical.

Every person that I have known or observed has expected some degree of fair treatment or justice and became righteously angry when they got less than this.

Hearing Lewis delve into the topics of good and evil, sin and the Law of Nature confirmed what I had already learned about the world.

At this point, not only did the GOD of the Bible seem to be the only god with the potential to be the true GOD and Creator from a scientific standpoint, but also, the Biblical description of the human condition seemed perfectly valid.

What I saw in the Bible was a detailed diagnosis of the problems in our world and better still, a solution.

JESUS CHRIST: The Solution

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

There was one final thing that I had to look into before I could decide to become a Christian: the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The entirety of Christianity hinges on Jesus Christ and the life He lived. Therefore, I knew that if Jesus's story was untrue, then the argument for Christianity would fall apart.

Truthfully, I didn't know anything about Jesus Christ. I had heard of Him. I had heard that He 'died for my sins,' but I had no idea what that meant. And frankly, I had heard this said so many times that it had become an almost meaningless phrase. Almost a year passed before I came to understand what this meant.

First, I had to verify that Jesus's life, as outlined in the four gospels, was true. There were two things that I considered. The first was internal logic and consistency. Naturally, the four gospels could not contradict one another. Also, the information presented within each gospel had to make logical sense.

It was Lee Strobel's work which convinced me that the gospels are both logical and reliable.

The gospels are historical texts which can be analyzed like any other ancient document. When historians, or reporters like Strobel, do take the time to analyze the gospels, they generally find that the case for Christ's life, death and resurrection is extremely strong. Strobel summarizes this case using what he calls The Four E's:

1. Execution: Jesus was dead after being crucified. There is virtually no dispute among historians that Jesus did die.

2. Early: Reports of Jesus's life, death and resurrection date back to within a decade of his death. This is very uncommon among historical artifacts. Compare these early reports about Jesus to biographies about Alexander the Great, which were not written until four centuries after Alexander's death- and yet are regarded as reliable.

3. Empty: The historical record tells us that Jesus's body was placed in a tomb, sealed and guarded. It then mysteriously- or miraculously- vanished three days later. Both Jesus's enemies and followers admitted that the tomb was empty.

4. Eyewitnesses: Over a period of time, Jesus appeared alive to over five-hundred and fifteen people, including skeptics, doubters, men and women alike. Generally, a historian is considered lucky if they can find one or two sources to confirm a fact or historical claim. However, where Jesus's resurrection is concerned, there are no fewer than nine ancient sources confirming and corroborating Jesus's return from the dead. Furthermore, the disciples were so emboldened by Jesus's resurrection that they were willing to lay down their lives for this truth.

I was satisfied with the Biblical evidence I had found. However, I was also curious to know if there were extra-biblical sources that proved Jesus lived, was crucified and was resurrected. There are plenty of sources, even by historian's standards. I will list some here for your reference:

1. Tacitus, Historian (100 AD)

2. Lucien, Greek author (150 AD)

3. Suetonius, Historian (100 AD)

4. Thallus, author (100 AD)

5. Pliny the Younger, representative of the Turkish emperor (100 AD)

6. Celsus, a Roman critic of Christianity (150 AD)

7. Josephus, Roman Jew and historian, (90 AD)

Before you decide that these sources are insufficient, I would ask you to consider a few facts.

First, that Jesus did not write these things about Himself.

This may seem insignificant, but it is anything but. Think about Julius Caesar.

Most of what we know about Julius Caesar was written by Julius Caesar. He was obviously in a position of political power and would have had a vested interest in being portrayed in a certain way. Not only this, but he also would have had control over what information was documented and what went left unsaid. In short, the information that we have about Julius Caesar is heavily biased in his favor. Yet, we accept the information presented about him as historically accurate.

By contrast, Jesus did not hold the political power that Caesar did, nor did He write about Himself in any of the aforementioned sources. Since Jesus was not the author of these sources, we can assume that the writers did not have a vested interest in portraying Jesus as more powerful, wise or benevolent than He actually was. Furthermore, even if these individuals had attempted to lie about Jesus, others would have corrected them without fear of punishment from political authorities. If we can accept the biased information about Caesar as true, then why can’t we accept the information that we have about Jesus?

Second, recognize how difficult it is for historical sources to survive over long periods of time. If you think about your old clothes or childhood toys, odds are they have seen some wear and tear. Historical documents and artifacts are no different from your personal belongings. Many sources do not survive the passage of time. Earlier I mentioned that it is considered lucky when a historian finds one or two eyewitness accounts to corroborate a historical claim. Finding more than two is nothing short of miraculous. Additionally, we can speculate that many of the historical sources in favor of Jesus Christ’s life, crucifixion and resurrection did not survive the passage of time. The fact that we have at least seven indicates that there were once many more.

Third, consider how early these historical sources (Biblical and extra-biblical) are. Many of them date within a century of Jesus's life. Meaning that at least some of these sources were written by Jesus's contemporaries, people who may have seen or spoken with Him. By contrast, sources about other famous figures like Socrates and Alexander the Great did not come to be written until centuries after their deaths. But again, we do not question the existence and lives of these two historical figures. Additionally, we don’t doubt the character of Socrates; we believe that the sources accurately depict how he lived and taught. Why then do we question the existence, life, and character of Jesus? Are the sources pertaining to Him not more impressive, from an academic standpoint?

As you can see, becoming a Christian was primarily an intellectual issue, for me. Initially, Christianity didn’t stand out compared to all of the other religions. Additionally, I did not know if the Biblical claims about human nature were accurate. Finally, I didn’t have the historical facts about Jesus that I needed. Actually, I didn’t have any of the information that I needed about Christianity in order to come to a definite conclusion. Today, I am blessed to be able to say that I do. Now, the Bible not only reflects the realities that I observe in the world around me. It also continues to show me new truths. So, my reader, what is stopping you from believing? Is it a lack of knowledge, like it was for me? Or is it more of an emotional issue? Perhaps you’re up against family tradition or your upbringing? Whatever the case may be, I encourage you to search your heart and seek the truth. I pray that GOD walks with you and enables you to find your way.

Thank you for reading and GOD bless you!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommended Resources: