Evidence for Jesus
Some would like to avoid the difficult trilemma posed by C.S. Lewis, but the person who is honest with the evidence about the essential integrity and authenticity of the New Testament gospels cannot easily dismiss it. If logically speaking Jesus was either liar, lunatic or Lord, what convincing evidence is there to compel us to choose the third option?
First, there is his exemplary life. Christians believe he was sinless. Muslims agree. It is hard to find a person who would not say he was a good man. So it is difficult, if not absurd, to argue that Jesus, a good man, was a liar, a liar of such proportions as to deliberately mislead people regarding his very identity and so pull off the greatest religious hoax in history.
Second, there is his inspiring teaching. Even a non-Christian leader such as Gandhi was greatly inspired by Jesus’ teaching, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. Mother Teresa was inspired by his teaching to give her life sacrificially to serve the poor in India. His teaching was insightful and penetrating. He made effective use of parable and paradox and he was fearless in exposing the hypocrisy and evil intent of human hearts. It is inconceivable that the one who taught in such an insightful and inspiring way could be dismissed as a lunatic.
Third, there are his miracles. His healings showed his power over disease. He healed all manner of sickness and disability, including lepers, the deaf, the lame and the blind (see Mark 1:29-34; 1:40-45; 2:1-12; Matthew 20:29-34). His exorcisms demonstrated his power over the devil and the spirit world (Mark 1:21-28). And on three occasions he raised the dead back to life, showing his power even over death (see Matthew 9:18-26; Luke 7:11-17; John 11:1-44).
He also did miracles that showed his power over nature, such as walking on water, calming the storm and feeding the 5,000 (John 6:1-24; Luke 8:22-25). These miracles were witnessed, not just by his 12 disciples, but by large crowds, sometimes whole villages or crowds numbering in the thousands. In fact, the best explanation as to why such large crowds followed him is that they heard about his miracles and wanted to see for themselves. None of Jesus’ contemporaries, even his enemies, questioned whether he did such miracles, because everyone knew that he did. Jesus himself appealed to these miracles as evidence to back up his claims about himself. After Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), some of the Jews wanted to stone him because he, a mere man, claimed to be God. Jesus responded by saying, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” (John 10:32).
The Possibility of Miracles
Many today find it hard to believe in miracles and may think that Christians or others who do believe in them are ignorant or naïve. But the possibility of miracles has been defended by such academics as Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis (C.S. Lewis, Miracles) and by such scientists as Francis Collins, former director of the human genome project (Francis Collins, The Language of God). You might think it is unscientific to believe in miracles, but it is simply outside the scope of science. Science deals with how things predictably, repeatedly behave according to the laws of nature, and miracles, by definition, are extraordinary occurrences that are exceptions to the law of nature. Scientists can discover and explain to us the laws of nature, but they cannot authoritatively tell us that exceptions are impossible. The alleged occurrence of miracles can only be supported or disparaged by means of history, not science. And how do we know anything happened in history?—it is because the event was seen by eyewitnesses and was recorded by a reputable historian. The miracles of Jesus were seen by thousands of eyewitnesses and were recorded by reputable historians. Remember that Luke was acknowledged by Ramsay, an expert and former skeptic, as a historian of first rank.
If one says that he refuses to believe in miracles because miracles are impossible, then he is simply stating his assumption as his conclusion. Can a scientist state a hypothesis as his conclusion without seeing first whether the hypothesis adequately explains the data? If the data does not fit the hypothesis, then the scientist needs to alter the hypothesis. Likewise, one cannot simply throw out data, in this case eyewitness accounts of miracles, because it does not fit one’s belief.
Next page: The Resurrection
For further study: (click and read)
(1) C.S. Lewis, Miracles (pdf)
(2) John Stott, Basic Christianity pdf (part 1: Christ's Person)
(3) David Larson, chapter on "Is Jesus God in Human Form?"
Book Resources:
(1) Francis Collins, The Language of God (section on Miracles)
(2) Lee Stroebel, The Case for Christ
(3) Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter