SCIENCE, LOGIC AND 

THE THINKING CHRISTIAN

BY B. D. MCLAUGHLIN, Sc.D.

Copyright 1988 by B.D. McLaughlin

May be distributed if no changes are made

SCIENCE, LOGIC AND THE THINKING CHRISTIAN

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

PREFACE

In this book, answers are given to 10 questions. I believe a

sound, logical basis has been provided for each answer. If you

read this book and question the logical basis for one or more of

the answers, you could do me a favor by writing a letter

delineating what you believe to be the flaws in my thinking. If,

on the other hand, you cannot reject my logic, then reading this

book will accomplish one of two things. If you are a Christian,

you will become a stronger apologist. If you are not a

Christian, you will re-examine your beliefs.

The logic used in this book is based on the concept of

thesis/antithesis. Any simple sentence (subject/predicate) may

be called the thesis. The negative of that sentence is called

the antithesis. Given any thesis and its antithesis, one is

true, the other is false. In addition, thesis A can be connected

to thesis B to form the complex sentence "if A then B." In such

a sentence, A and B may be different ways of stating exactly the

same idea. If so, the sentence "if A then B" is called a

tautology and is always true. Conversely, A and B may express

different ideas. In that case, the sentence "if A then B" cannot

be regarded as true unless the truth of B can be independently

established whenever the truth of A can be verified.

Another type of logic, called dialectic, is often used by

intellectuals. This type of logic is based on the concept of

thesis/antithesis/synthesis. In dialectic reasoning, both the

thesis and its antithesis are false. Considered together,

however, they lead to another statement called the synthesis.

The synthesis is not viewed as true in an absolute sense, but

merely "more true" than either the thesis or the antithesis.

Dialectic reasoning is totally inconsistent with rational human

consciousness; it should be rejected as intrinsically unsound.

The 10 questions, with which this book is concerned, are given in

the following list:

(1) Is the Christian description of the beginning of the

universe consistent with the scientific description?

(2) Does the universe exist primarily to serve as a home for us?

(3) What is the origin of the moral law written on each of our

hearts?

(4) Did life arise spontaneously from non-living matter?

(5) Is "survival-of-the-fittest" a rational basis for the

concept of biological evolution?

 

(6) Are Christians supposed to think about the basis for their

beliefs?

(7) Are each of the known Greek manuscripts and manuscript

fragments, of a particular New Testament book, "pure"

representations of a unique autograph?

(8) Did the New Testament autographs provide an accurate account

of what a man named Jesus said and did?

(9) Who was Jesus?

(10) Were the autographs, for the book referred to as the

Christian Bible, inspired by God?

Are you one of these individuals whose heart can be reached only

by a path that goes through your head? If so, this book was

written for you. An appeal is made, not to your emotions, but

rather to your cold, hard logic. In some cases, a question

cannot be answered with certainty. In those cases, however, so

much evidence can be amassed in support of a particular answer

that a final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to

large and blind.

B. D. McLaughlin, Sc.D.

A Humble Servant of Jesus Christ

20 Hartford Rd.

Sewell, NJ 08080

CHAPTER I

THE BEGINNING

Is the Christian description of the beginning of the universe

consistent with the scientific description? This question can be

answered with certainty. To answer it, examine the basic

scientific and Biblical facts about the beginning.

Science says:

-- The universe began at a definite point in time.

-- Verification of any type of existence prior to the

beginning of the universe is beyond the domain of

science.

-- Since the beginning, the universe has evolved in a

qualitatively understood manner for about 18 billion

years.

The Bible says:

-- The universe began by "ex nihilo" creation (bara) at a

definite point in time (Gen 1:1, Heb 11:3).

-- God existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

-- Since the beginning, indefinitely long periods of time

(yom) have elapsed.

Although science and the Bible do not say exactly the same thing

about the beginning of the universe, there is clearly no

inconsistency; therefore, the answer to the question is "yes."

Claims of inconsistency generally originate with Christians who

advocate one of the following concepts:

(a) The "big-bang" theory cannot explain the bringing of

the universe into existence from nothing (ex nihilo)

because it requires the pre-existence of space, time

and energy/matter.

(b) Biblical genealogies can be used to construct

chronologies of personalities from Adam to Noah and

Noah to Abraham. Also, each creation day (yom),

described in Genesis, was 24 hours long. It follows

that Adam was created no more than six to ten thousand

years ago and the universe was created no more than 144

hours earlier.

Concept (a) is scientifically unsound; concept (b) is

theologically unsound. Both concepts have served as needless

barriers to the acceptance of Christian beliefs. At no time has

either concept represented the thinking of mainline science or

mainline Judeo-Christian theology. (1,2)

CHAPTER II

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

Does the universe exist primarily to serve as a home for us?

This question cannot be answered with certainty. However,

considerable evidence can be amassed in support of a "yes"

answer. Consider the following facts.

Life is possible only because the universe has been expanding and

is continuing to expand at precisely the critical rate required

to avoid recollapse. If it had been expanding any faster,

regions which had developed slightly higher than average

densities would have continued to expand indefinitely and would

not have formed stars and galaxies. If the universe had been

expanding any slower, it would have recollapsed long before the

elements of life could have been generated in stars by

nucleosynthesis. The numerical value of expansion rate is called

the Hubble constant (H) and is approximately 15km/sec/million

light years.

Life is possible only because the gravitational constant (G), the

quantum of angular momentum (h), the speed of light (c) and the

elementary unit of electrical charge (e) have the precise values

required for the evolution of a very particular kind of universe.

This universe contains short-lived, metal scattering blue stars

and long-lived, evenly burning, slowly turning stars like the

sun.

Life is possible only because of the delicate balance between the

strong force that binds nuclei together and the enormous

repulsive force between protons.

Life is possible only because the electromagnetic coupling

constant and the ratio of electron mass (m) to proton mass (M)

are precisely what is required to allow the formation of chemical

compounds.

Life is possible only because the weak-interaction coupling

constant has precisely the proper value. If it were slightly

smaller or larger, helium production would either be 100% or

zero. In one case there would be no water, in the other an

entirely variant stellar evolution.

Since H and c have precisely the proper values to permit life, it

follows that the characteristic length or "radius" of the

universe (c/H) could not be changed without precluding our

existence.

Since the universe is expanding at the critical rate to avoid

recollapse, its density must be equal to 3c^2H^2/8(pi)G. The

quantities c, H and G have precisely the correct values to permit

life; therefore, the density of the universe is exactly what is

required to permit our existence.

 

This list could be continued but it is already long enough to

justify a conclusion: not one of the fundamental properties of

the universe could be changed without eliminating the possibility

of life. Could this be what the Bible refers to when it says

God's eternal power and divine nature are clearly evident in the

things He has made (Rom 1:20)? Did a Supreme Being deliberately

create the universe in such a way that the slightest change in

any one of its properties would preclude our existence? The only

serious alternative offered, to date, is based on the idea that

not just one but rather an ensemble of universes exists; each

member of the ensemble is self-contained and unaffected by the

rest. In this ensemble of universes, only our universe and those

similar to ours contain living creatures. The rest are lifeless.

The ensemble concept makes our universe just one of many and

thereby avoids the need for us to occupy a special place. Aside

from the fact that no supporting evidence exists for the ensemble

concept, is it really more difficult to believe in God than in an

ensemble of universes? (3,4,5)

CHAPTER III

THE MORAL LAW

What is the origin of the moral law written on each of our

hearts? This question presupposes that you and I have identical

codes of conduct embedded deep in our subconscious minds; we can

try to suppress or ignore this code but it is there nonetheless.

This deeply embedded code of conduct is the little voice inside

which, for example, tells you not to:

-- steal from, double-cross or murder persons who treat you

with kindness.

-- abuse your children, elderly, sick or disabled.

-- admire selfishness

If you question the existence of this code of conduct or "moral

law," try to locate a stable society, anywhere in recorded

history, which espoused the three items listed above.

The origin of the moral law cannot be determined with certainty;

but, once again, the evidence points strongly in a particular

direction. Three origins have been suggested:

(1) The words "moral law" encompass certain types of behavior

which have developed in us by the process of biological

evolution. The details of this development process are

covered by such theories as "kinship" and "reciprocation"

and may even employ the principles of game theory. The

types of behavior classified as "moral law" accomplish no

purpose other than to enhance the survivability of the human

race.

(2) The "moral law" is learned social behavior passed from

adults to children; collective human intelligence has

recognized that certain restrictions on social behavior

result in a more pleasant society for all.

(3) The "moral law" is really God's commandment to love your

neighbor as yourself (Mat 22:36-40). This commandment

embodies the sum total of the law given to us by God (Rom

13:8-10; Gal 5:14). To make sure no one missed the

instructions, he wrote his law on everyone's heart (Rom

1:19,32; 2:14,15).

Which of these explanations is consistent with the facts?

 

Consider, for a moment, the following groups of people in our

society; assume these people are institutionalized with no means

of support beyond public charity.

-- Elderly (with no relatives) suffering from severe

Alzheimer's disease

-- Orphan babies with AIDS

-- Orphan babies with Down's Syndrome

Preserving the lives of these individuals causes a drain on the

resources of society and in no way enhances the survivability of

the human race. Would you like to have them killed? If a little

voice inside you is saying, "These people need love and

compassion," that voice does not have biological evolution as its

origin. Mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection

cannot explain love.

Collective human intelligence has clearly recognized that certain

restrictions on social behavior result in a more pleasant society

for all; the existence of civil and criminal law reflect this

recognition. However, in your daily life, cheating would often

be more pleasurable than truthfulness. On those occasions when

you know you won't be caught, do you really refrain from cheating

because you know, in the long run, society will be a better place

for it? If so, you are an unusual person. Cultures which use

the "good of society" as a basis for morality are generally rife

with crookedness. If confronted with opportunities to:

-- keep $10,000 cash you found in a wallet on the sidewalk.

-- commit adultery while away from your spouse

-- conceal $15,000 of your income from the IRS

Would what's "good for society" be an important consideration

when making a decision? Is your innermost, secret character

based on learned social behavior about what's "good for society?"

There is no evidence to support such a premise.

This leaves God as the most likely source of that little voice

telling you right from wrong.

CHAPTER IV

BIOCHEMICAL EVOLUTION

Did life arise spontaneously from non-living matter? This

question can be answered with certainty.

Every living creature contains at least one blueprint which

furnishes instructions for making all the creature's

biochemicals. This blueprint is a long chain of chemical units

called nucleotides. The chain is neither ordered nor random but

is, instead, complex; information is stored by means of a linear

sequence. In a living creature, a complex polynucleotide is

never constructed from nucleotide building blocks without the

assistance of another kind of chemical called an informed enzyme.

The informed enzyme is a long chain of chemical units called

amino acids. This chain is also complex and also stores

information by means of a linear sequence. In a living creature,

an informed enzyme is never constructed from amino acid building

blocks without a complex polynucleotide to provide the code.

Thus, we are faced with the catch-22 of life's origin. The

complex polynucleotide, which is the blueprint for all the

biochemicals of a living creature, cannot be constructed without

an informed enzyme; but the informed enzyme cannot be constructed

without a complex polynucleotide to code for it! If life

developed spontaneously in a primordial soup of nucleotides,

amino acids and nutrients, then either the first complex

polynucleotide or the first informed enzyme was formed purely by

random chance. The probability of such an event is virtually

zero.

By way of illustration, consider a racemic mixture of all 20 L-

amino acids and the corresponding 19 optical isomers. What is

the probability that these 39 different kinds of amino acids will

assemble themselves into a particular kind of primitive complex

amino acid chain called cytochrome-c? This particular chain has

101 amino acid sites. If each of the 39 types of amino acid has

the same probability of being incorporated into the chain, then

the number of sequences which can be formed is simply 39 raised

to the 101 power or 4.98E+160. Given a more than generous

estimate of the number of synonymous amino acid residues for each

site in the cytochrome c chain, the number of cytochrome c

sequences which can be formed has been estimated to be 12E+63.

Therefore, the probability of producing a cytochrome c chain by

random chance is 2.4E-97. If the primordial soup contained E+44

amino acid molecules (a gross overestimate) which combined,

broke-up, and recombined in groups of 101 every second for a

billion years, the probability of finding one molecule of

cytochrome-c during that period is (2.4E-97)(3.15E+58) or 7.56E-

39. This is the probability that a sequence of honest coin

tosses will produce 126 heads in a row. Keep in mind that

cytochrome-c is only a primitive protein which contains nowhere

near the information found in an informed enzyme.

 

The cytochrome-c illustration was based on the assumption that

amino acid chains were formed in a prebiotic soup by a specific

chemical process: random formation and destruction of full length

chains each second for a billion years. If the illustration had

been based on path independent thermodynamic concepts, the

computed probability would have been virtually the same.

The only way to achieve probabilities significantly larger than

zero is to assume that spontaneous generation of life did not

occur by random chance. In other words the chemical bonding

preferences of nucleotides or amino acids caused them to

spontaneously form complex sequences. Unfortunately for those

who would prefer to view first life as the inevitable consequence

of nature's laws at work over vast spans of time, the concept of

"directed chance" or "biochemical predestination" has neither

experimental nor theoretical support.

A conviction that complex amino acid or nucleotide chains

appeared spontaneously in the primitive milieu on earth is

clearly based more on faith than science. The scientific answer

to the question asked at the beginning of the chapter is "no."

(6,7)

CHAPTER V

SURVIVAL-OF-THE-FITTEST

Biological evolution presumably functions by mutation, genetic

drift, migration and natural selection. Natural selection is

supposed to operate through differential reproduction or

"survival-of-the-fittest." Is "survival-of-the-fittest" a

rational basis for the concept of biological evolution? This

question can be answered with certainty.

Consider the following two theses:

A = a creature is the most fit

B = the creature will, all things being equal (ceteris

paribus), live the longest and have the most offspring

The principle encompassed by the phrase "survival-of-the-

fittest" can be expressed using the sentence "if A then B."

In such a sentence, A and B may be different ways of stating

exactly the same idea. If so, the sentence "if A then B" is

called a tautology and is always true. Conversely, A and B may

express different ideas. In that case, the sentence "if A then

B" cannot be regarded as true unless the truth of B can be

independently established whenever the truth of A can be

verified.

If the particular sentence with which this chapter is concerned

is viewed as a tautology, then it is just as devoid of scientific

content as the sentence "if a man is married then the man is a

husband." Conversely, if A and B express different ideas, then

circumstances must be found such that the truth of A and the

truth of B can be independently tested before the truth of "if A

then B" can be evaluated. Herein lies the problem. The truth of

"a creature is the most fit" cannot be tested for any creature

under any circumstances because the overall "fitness" of the

creature can neither be measured nor computed. Since the truth

of A is untestable, it follows that the truth of "if A then B" is

likewise untestable. Therefore, the answer to the question

addressed in this chapter is "no."

Although deficiencies fatal to the theory of biochemical

evolution are gradually being recognized by the scientific

community, our inability to measure or compute the "fitness" of a

creature has not yet been viewed as fatal to the theory of

biological evolution. Investigators generally settle for

measuring small numbers of morphological, physiological or

behavioral "traits" and insinuate that, if all other aspects of

"fitness" are fixed, these traits alone will suffice.

Unfortunately, no theory is available which shows how the vast

majority of aspects may be fixed while a chosen few are free to

vary. A change in a single trait may alter 1000 aspects

important to the overall "fitness" of an organism. What sort of

interfering parameters might exist cannot even be imagined due to

the absence of a theory for reducing the organism to a calculable

whole.

If the concept of natural selection is clearly untestable, why

does the theory of biological evolution continue to dominate the

field of biology? Partly because the concept's untestability

makes it immune to falsification. Partly because the concept has

become integrated into the common working knowledge of the

biological community and has become the context within which that

community understands the world. Partly because the alternative

appears to involve God. (8)

CHAPTER VI

BASIS OF CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

Are Christians supposed to think about the basis for their

beliefs? This question can be answered "yes" with certainty

because not every basis provides a suitable foundation for the

Christian faith.

Beliefs are generally based on:

-- Blind faith in a learned person (authority figure)

-- Intuition or "feeling"

-- Personal experience

-- Thinking (logic, reason)

Which are acceptable; which are not?

If the dentist informs you that one of your fillings is cracked

and you allow him to replace it even though you don't have a

toothache, then your belief in his truthfulness is based on blind

faith in a learned person. In our complex technological society,

we must base some decisions on blind faith because we can't

become experts on everything. However, we don't generally use

blind faith as a basis for our beliefs if a mistake could be life

threatening or financially ruinous. When a false belief can have

grave consequences for ourselves or our loved ones, we may

consult available experts or "learned persons" but, ultimately,

we weigh the evidence ourselves and personally make a decision

about what is true or what represents the best course of action.

Consider, for a moment, the interesting possibility that you, as

a person, may continue to exist after the death of your physical

body. Consider the additional possibility that this existence

may be either meaningful or meaningless depending on what's in

your heart when you die. Given these premises, a false belief

about what should be in your heart will have grave consequences.

If you deal with this possibility like you deal with other

important issues, you will not blindly accept the opinion of a

learned person. You might consult a parent, teacher, pastor,

priest, rabbi, mulla or guru but, ultimately, you will personally

weigh the evidence and personally make a decision. Blind faith

in a learned person is not an acceptable basis for any religious

belief because the stakes are too high.

Intuition or "feeling" is equally unacceptable as a basis for

Christian beliefs because a very basic Christian belief is that

the human heart is too deceitful to be trusted (Ps 14:1; Prov

12:15, 14:12; Is 32:6; Jer 17:9). The Bible never encourages us

to trust our emotions. On the other hand, a personal experience

is quite acceptable as a basis for certain Christian beliefs

provided the experience is real and consistent with scripture.

What about "thinking?" Many people believe the Bible teaches us

to replace thinking with blind faith. If that were the case, the

Bible would be encouraging us to do something inconsistent with

our own common sense. In truth, the Bible encourages us, from

cover to cover, to think! The following examples will illustrate

this point.

Deut 18:21-22 - We are encouraged to use simple logic to

distinguish between a false prophet and a prophet

of God. "If a prophet makes one mistake then the

prophet is not getting his or her information

from God" or, what is the same thing, "If a

prophet is of God then the prophet always speaks

the truth."

Is 1:18 ------- We are told God wants to reason with us.

Hos 4:6 ------- We are informed that we can be destroyed by lack

of knowledge.

Luke 7:19-23 -- John the Baptist sends two of his followers to

Jesus with the following question, "Are you the

Expected One, or do we look for someone else?"

Instead of saying, "Yes, I am the one you have

awaited," Jesus performs miracles in full view of

John's followers. After a while, Jesus sends the

followers back to John with information obtained

by first hand observation. Jesus says for them

to tell John what they've seen so he can deduce

the answer for himself.

Rom 1:20 ------ We are invited to look carefully at each of the

things around us -- an incredible level of

information stored in the most primitive DNA, a

universe expanding at the critical rate to avoid

recollapse, abstract thought along with love in

the mind of man -- and try to explain these

things without invoking the existence of God.

1 Cor 14:20 --- Christians are advised to think like adults.

1 Thes 5:21 --- Christians are advised to carefully examine

everything.

1 Pet 3:15 ---- Christians are advised to always be ready to

defend their beliefs by providing a sound basis.

1 John 4:1-4 -- Christians are advised to test every prophet to

determine if he or she speaks for God.

 

Jude 3 -------- Christians are encouraged to contend earnestly

for the faith.

Clearly, the fundamental beliefs of Christianity should be based

on sound thinking supplemented by personal experience. Christian

beliefs should never be based on blind faith or intuition. What

about your beliefs? What exactly do you believe and why do you

believe it?

CHAPTER VII

PURITY OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXT

Are each of the known Greek manuscripts and manuscript fragments,

of a particular New Testament book, "pure" representations of a

unique autograph? This question cannot be answered with

certainty since no autographs have been found. However, the

available evidence supports a "yes" answer.

By 1968, the existence of 5358 Greek New Testament manuscripts

and manuscript fragments had been documented by scholars. Among

these, more than 200,000 variants have been detected. To put

this in perspective, the following facts should be considered:

-- If a single word is misspelled in 3000 manuscripts and

manuscript fragments, this single word is listed as the

cause of 3000 variants.

-- The more than 200,000 variants can be assigned to about

10,000 locations in the New Testament; serious

controversy exists concerning the legitimacy of words

found at approximately 400 of these locations.

Because the New Testament contains roughly 200,000 words and only

400 are the subject of serious controversy, it must be concluded

that the Greek New Testament text, derived from all 5358

manuscripts and manuscript fragments, is more than 99% "pure."

This compares with a 95% "purity" for the Iliad based on 643

manuscripts and a 90% "purity" for the Mahabharata (the national

epic of India). Even the Koran, which originated in the seventh

century A.D., suffered from a large collection of variants that

necessitated the Orthmanic revision.

The New Testament has not only survived in more manuscripts than

any other ancient writing but it has survived in a much "purer"

form than any other great book. In addition, it is interesting

to note that not one shred of Christian doctrine hangs on

debatable text.

The documented high degree of agreement, among the Greek

manuscripts and manuscript fragments of a particular New

Testament book, cannot logically be viewed as accidental. More

likely it implies that each manuscript and fragment reflects a

unique autograph as its ultimate source. (9)

CHAPTER VIII

ACCURACY OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXT

Did the New Testament autographs provide an accurate account of

what a man named Jesus said and did? This question will be

addressed with the help of a logic tree.

 

***************

* *

* *

* *

JESUS JESUS

DID NOT DID

EXIST. EXIST.

*

*

*

*****************************

* *

* *

* *

NEW TESTAMENT AUTO- NEW TESTAMENT AUTO-

GRAPHS PROVIDED GRAPHS PROVIDED

ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF INACCURATE ACCOUNT OF

WHAT JESUS SAID AND WHAT JESUS SAID AND

DID. DID.

*

*

*

*****************************

* *

* *

* *

INACCURATE ACCOUNT OF INACCURATE ACCOUNT OF

JESUS WAS ACCIDENTAL. JESUS WAS DELIBERATE.

One and only one of the four statements located at branch tips

must be true.

(1) Jesus did not exist.

(2) The New Testament autographs provided an accurate account of

what a man named Jesus said and did.

(3) The New Testament autographs accidentally provided an

inaccurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did.

(4) The New Testament autographs deliberately provided an

inaccurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did.

 

The subsequent paragraphs of this chapter will examine the

likelihood that statements (1), (3) and (4) represent truth. The

falsity of these three statements and, therefore, the truth of

statement (2) cannot be established with certainty. However, so

much evidence can be amassed in support of this position that a

final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to large and

blind.

(1) JESUS DID NOT EXIST.

The existence of a man named Jesus was claimed by:

-- Josephus, the first century Jewish historian

-- Tacitus, the first century Roman historian

-- The first century authors of the Gnostic gospels

-- The first century authors of the New Testament

autographs

These four sets of authors did not share a common background,

philosophy or religion. Why would they independently invent or

perpetuate the invention of a fictitious character who would have

been a virtual contemporary for each of them? Furthermore, even

if one or more of them did invent such a character, why wasn't

the hoax unmasked by eye-witnesses; why didn't someone stand up

and say, "This man Jesus never existed"? I can't think of any

good reasons. Can you?

(3) THE NEW TESTAMENT AUTOGRAPHS ACCIDENTALLY PROVIDED AN

INACCURATE ACCOUNT OF WHAT A MAN NAMED JESUS SAID AND DID.

Consider the following:

-- The contents of the New Testament autographs must have

been completely consistent with the beliefs of the

Christian community at the time the autographs were

circulated. Otherwise, the autographs would have been

rejected just like the Gnostic gospels and other

"heretical" writings were rejected.

-- The New Testament autographs must have pre-dated the

oldest known manuscript fragments.

The oldest known manuscript fragments have been placed in the

early second century A.D. This most likely means the actual

Greek autographs were known to some portion of the Christian

community during the first century. Furthermore, the fact that

the autographs were accepted by their readers as statements of

truth means that those autographs accurately described the

beliefs of the Christian community at that time. How then, could

first century Christians, including those who wrote the

autographs, have developed, totally by accident, inaccurate

beliefs about what Jesus said and did when eye-witnesses were

available to challenge those beliefs. I can't think of a way.

Can you?

 

Clearly, the idea that New Testament autographs accidentally

provided an inaccurate account of what a man named Jesus said and

did is viable only if the events in the life of Jesus had been

recorded long after the death of all eye-witnesses. For example,

if the events in His life had been handed down by word of mouth

until 300A.D. and then finally began to be written down in what

we now refer to as New Testament autographs, it is reasonable to

believe that what He said and did could have become distorted.

What was recorded would have been consistent with the beliefs of

the Christian community of 300A.D. but those beliefs would have

been erroneous.

(4) THE NEW TESTAMENT AUTOGRAPHS DELIBERATELY PROVIDED AN

INACCURATE ACCOUNT OF WHAT A MAN NAMED JESUS SAID AND DID.

This means the New Testament autographs contained deliberate lies

set forth by certain individuals in the first century Christian

community. Since eye-witnesses were alive to challenge these

lies, the hoax could not have been perpetrated without the

"clout" of the disciples. The disciples must have been at least

willing conspirators if not the actual originators of the fraud.

Since individuals do not usually conspire to defraud without

anticipating some kind of gain, it is reasonable to ask, "What

did the disciples get for their trouble?" There is no record to

indicate they achieved wealth or political power. Instead, the

disciples, along with the rest of the first century Christians,

received persecution, torture and death as a reward for their

beliefs. Yet no disciple ever recanted his story. When, in

recorded history, have sane men ignored personal gain and freely

chosen persecution, torture and death to preserve what they knew

to be a lie?

If you can rationalize the idea that eleven men, and their

associates, risked their lives, with no hope of personal gain, to

promulgate what they knew to be a lie, then another question must

be asked. Why did anyone believe them? History confirms that

Christianity became a powerful evangelical force during the first

century. Were all the converts more gullible than you? Were

they so dumb they could be convinced without evidence that a poor

carpenter rose bodily from the dead after spending three days in

a tomb? If these converts were only of average intelligence,

they would have demanded something more than the claims of a rag-

tag bunch of amateur preachers. Surely they would have demanded

something like the personal word of a trusted friend who

witnessed a miracle or even saw the resurrected Jesus with his

own eyes.

Some autographs even offered bold challenges daring skeptics to

refute the lies (Acts 2:22; 26:24-28; 1 Cor 15:3-7). These

challenges were thrust in the face of Jew and Roman alike. Yet

no one stepped forth to unmask the hoax. Why?

 

Finally, if you and your associates decided to concoct a hoax,

focusing on a person claiming one-ness with God, would you agree

to the fabrication of details that made this person seem

susceptible to the same human frailties as you and I? If you

personally were going to play the part of a disciple in this

hoax, would you tolerate the fabrication of details that made you

look selfish and petty? Such details were incorporated into the

New Testament autographs:

-- Certain disciples argued about who among them should be

most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom

(Mark 9:33-37).

-- The disciples deserted Jesus after his arrest

(Mat 26:56).

-- After the arrest of Jesus, one of the disciples denied

even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).

-- Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).

-- Jesus could not perform miracles in a certain geographic

location (Mark 6:1-5).

-- Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the nature of

his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).

-- Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events

(Mark 13:32).

-- Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).

-- Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross

(Mark 15:34).

If you were fabricating events for a text which you planned to

stuff down the throats of gullible people, would you include

these nine items?

I contend that statements (1), (3) and (4) on our logic tree must

be viewed as false based on all available evidence. Therefore,

the question asked at the beginning of this chapter can be

answered "yes" with near certainty. (10,11,12)

CHAPTER IX

THE IDENTITY OF JESUS

Who was Jesus? Once again, the question cannot be answered with

certainty but so much evidence can be amassed in support of a

particular answer that a final step of faith is small and guided

as opposed to large and blind.

Let us begin by trying to find out who Jesus claimed to be.

Based on chapter VIII, "who he claimed to be" was accurately

recorded in the New Testament autographs. Based on chapter VII

we can learn the content of these autographs using the Greek text

derived from more than 5000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments.

Finally, if we consult a translation faithful to the Greek text,

we don't even need to learn Greek.

The fifth chapter of John tells us Jesus broke the fourth

commandment by healing a man on the Sabbath; He then encouraged

this man to likewise violate the Sabbath by telling him to pick

up his bed and carry it away. When confronted by the Jews, Jesus

said He was working because his Father was working. To the Jews,

this meant Jesus was making himself equal with God.

In the eighth chapter of John, Jesus claimed to have existed as a

person since before Abraham was born.

The tenth chapter of John indicates Jesus claimed to be one with

the Father; the Jews understood this to mean Jesus was making

himself out to be God.

When Jesus appeared to "doubting" Thomas, as recorded in the

twentieth chapter of John, Thomas addressed him as God; Jesus

accepted this greeting.

Jesus healed a paralytic in the second chapter of Mark but,

before the physical healing, He forgave the man's sins. Scribes

in the audience asked themselves, "Who can forgive sins but God

alone?"

In the fourteenth chapter of Mark, the high priest asked Jesus if

He was the Son of God. Jesus replied, "I am."

These examples show who Jesus claimed to be; Jesus claimed to be

God! He was executed, not for any crime against man, but for

blasphemy. Was the claim of Jesus true or false? This question

will be addressed with the help of a logic tree.

 

 

**********************

* *

* *

* *

JESUS' CLAIM TO JESUS' CLAIM TO

BE GOD WAS TRUE BE GOD WAS FALSE

*

*

*

*****************************

* *

* *

* *

JESUS REALIZED JESUS DIDN'T REALIZE

HIS CLAIM TO BE GOD HIS CLAIM TO BE GOD

WAS FALSE WAS FALSE

One and only one of the three statements located at branch tips

must be true.

(1) Jesus' claim to be God was true.

(2) Jesus realized his claim to be God was false.

(3) Jesus didn't realize his claim to be God was false.

The subsequent paragraphs of this chapter will examine the

likelihood that statements (2) and (3) represent truth. The

falsity of these two statements and, therefore, the truth of

statement (1) cannot be established with certainty. However, so

much evidence can be amassed in support of this position that a

final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to large and

blind.

(2) JESUS REALIZED HIS CLAIM TO BE GOD WAS FALSE

This means Jesus was a blasphemous, pernicious, hypocritical,

foolish liar!

-- Blasphemous because His claim would have been an insult

to God.

-- Pernicious because He asked others to trust Him alone

for their eternal destiny.

-- Hypocritical because He told others to be honest

whatever the cost.

-- Foolish because it was His claim to be God that led to

his crucifixion.

 

If you believe the New Testament autographs provided an accurate

account of what Jesus said and did then you can study the

character of Jesus using a good translation of the derived Greek

text. In those pages, you will discover the most pure and noble

person in recorded history. How could a deceitful, selfish,

depraved man have flawlessly lived the life of a pure and noble

person? I don't know of a way. Do you?

 

(3) JESUS DIDN'T REALIZE HIS CLAIM TO BE GOD WAS FALSE

This means Jesus actually believed He was God even though He

really wasn't; in other words, Jesus was insane! I challenge you

to read chapters 5, 6 and 7 in the Book of Matthew and conclude

you have read the words of a madman. I challenge you to pick up

a red-letter addition of the New Testament, read all the

teachings attributed to Jesus and conclude you have read the

ravings of a lunatic.

I contend that statements (2) and (3) on our logic tree must be

viewed as false based on all available evidence. Therefore,

statement (1) can be viewed as true with near certainty. The

final step of faith required to believe that Jesus was God is

small indeed.

Notice our logic tree offers only three alternatives: (1) Lord,

(2) Liar and (3) Lunatic. One and only one of these three L's

was an accurate description of the man Jesus. What about that

other option selected by most people in the world today?

"Jesus was clearly a fine, articulate fellow offering lofty

principles, sound teaching and great leadership but, just

as clearly, Jesus was not God."

The fact that Jesus claimed to be God makes this belief

irrational. Neither a deceitful liar nor a crazy person can be

viewed as a great moral leader of men.

Finally, if Jesus' claim to be God was true when He walked the

earth 1960 years ago, then surely He is still God today. (12)

CHAPTER X

SOURCE OF THE BIBLE

Were the autographs, for the book referred to as the Christian

Bible, inspired by God? By Christian Bible we mean the 39 books

of the Old Testament (corresponding to the 24 books of the Jewish

Scriptures) and the 27 books of the New Testament.

The autographs for the 39 Old Testament books were written over a

period of approximately 1000 years by many different authors. If

what these documents taught was not inspired by God then

somewhere, among the high purity manuscripts existing in the

first century, we would have expected God incarnate to identify

at least one accidental or deliberate false teaching. Curiously,

Jesus viewed the manuscripts to which he had access as being

completely free of false teaching (Mat 5:18; 21:42; 22:29; Luke

24:44; John 5:39). The probability that the mere teachings of

fallible men could be judged inerrant by God must indeed be

small. Clearly, in the opinion of Jesus, the Old Testament

autographs were inspired by God.

What about the New Testament autographs? Jesus clearly implied

that the teachings of the disciples and their colleagues "would

be" inspired by God (Mat 28:18-20; John 14:26; Acts 9:15).

What you believe about scriptural inspiration is determined by

the importance you attach to the opinion of Jesus. If you

believe Jesus is God, then the answer to the question asked at

the beginning of this chapter is "yes."

 

EPILOGUE

If, after reading the previous ten chapters and studying the

indicated references, you view my logic as flawed then I would

appreciate an opportunity to examine your logic. I am not

interested in protecting unsound thinking even it's my own; I am

interested only in the truth. Please read no further but,

instead, commence immediately to formulate a basis for the

"correct" answers to the ten questions I have posed.

Conversely, if you accept my logic, please continue reading;

particularly if the first five chapters have shaken your trust in

the materialistic/humanistic answers to important questions and

the last five chapters have shaken your rejection of

Christianity. In the next few paragraphs I'm going to delineate

some important truths growing out of the beliefs that Jesus is

God and the Bible was inspired by God. These paragraphs are

directed at your heart since I am assuming your head has already

been reached.

The one true God, existing as three eternal distinct persons,

created the universe as a home for man and then created a man and

a woman to live on the earth. God loved the man and woman and

wanted them to return that love. They chose to reject God and

desired to become gods themselves. Their disobedience ushered

them and all their descendants onto the path of sin. Humanity

has paid a great price for their decision: aging, disease,

suffering, hatred, despair, loneliness, war, jealousy, murder,

grief, death and, worst of all, separation from our creator. You

see, God is holy and cannot fellowship with sinful creatures like

you and I.

God was faced with a dilemma. On one hand sin was preventing Him

from fellowship with his creatures; on the other, God loved each

individual so much He could not bear the thought of separation.

But sin could not simply be overlooked; a price had to be paid

for every crime. Unfortunately, if you and I paid the price for

our own crimes, our souls would spend eternity in Hell. God

found the solution to this dilemma.

Two of the three persons who are God have a Father/Son

relationship. The Father sent the Son to earth to be incarnated

as a man. If this man could live a sinless life culminating in

execution for crimes He didn't commit, that punishment would pay

the price for every sin throughout the history of the human race.

This is exactly what transpired about 1960 years ago. Jesus paid

the price for the sins of every man and woman who ever lived.

But there's a catch. No one has been or will be simply handed

the gift of redemption automatically. The gift cannot be

received by you until your heart is right with God and getting

your heart right with God is very difficult. You can't do it by

joining a particular church, faithfully attending all church

activities, tithing, dedicating your life to Christian service,

becoming a pastor, living what you and your friends consider to

be a holy life, making life-risking sacrifices for Jesus or

exercising some spiritual gift. All these things are far too

easy. To get your heart right, you must make something like the

following statements to God and mean them to the depths of your

soul:

(1) God, I am a sinner. Perhaps I have not murdered children or

stolen from the poor but, to a holy God, my heart is black

as coal. I can never stand before You justified by my own

merit.

(2) I ask Your forgiveness for my sins.

(3) I believe You love me so much You chose to pay the price for

my sins; I can stand before You justified only because Jesus

Christ died on the cross for my redemption.

(4) I accept the gift of redemption and invite You to come into

my heart, become Lord of my life and lead me down the path

of repentance.

 

THINK ABOUT IT DEAR READER...THINK ABOUT IT.

REFERENCES

1. Weisskopf, V.F., The Origin of the Universe, American

Scientist, September-October (1983) pp. 473-480.

2. Wiley, H.O., Christian Theology, Vol. 1, Beacon Hill Press of

Kansas City, (1940) pp. 455, 458.

3. Hawking, S.W., The Anisotropy of the Universe at Large Times,

Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational

Data, M.S. Longair (ed.), Copyright 1974 by IAU, pp. 283-286.

4. Wheeler, J.A., The Universe as a Home for Man, American

Scientist, November-December (1974) pp. 683-691.

5. Neidhardt, W.J., The Anthropic Principle: A Religious

Response, J. American Sci. Affiliation, Vol. 36, No. 4,

December (1984) pp. 201-207.

6. Yockey, H.P., A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous

Biogenesis by Information Theory, J. Theor. Biol., Vol. 67

(1977) pp. 377-398.

7. Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. and Olsen, R.L., The Mystery of

Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical

Library, New York (1984).

8. Brady, R.H., Dogma and Doubt, Biol. J. Linnean Soc., Vol. 17

(1982) pp. 79-96.

9. Geisler, N.L. and Nix, W.E., From God to Us, Moody Press,

Chicago (1974) pp. 180-181.

10. Josephus, Complete Works, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18,

Chapt. 3, Para. 3, Kregel Pub., Grand Rapids (1981).

11. Pagels, E., The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, Random

House, New York (1981).

12. McDowell, J., More Than a Carpenter, Living Books, Tyndale

House, Wheaton (1977).


Index - Evolution or Creation

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231