Why Christianity (Presentation).pptx

Why Christianity?
What Better Explains Reality? Atheism or Christianity?

In this
presentation,
we will show
the following:
Does truth exist?
Does God exist?
Are miracles possible?
Is the New Testament true?
Did Jesus had risen from the dead?

Take note:
• If the answer is yes to these questions, then we have good
reason to believe that the entire Bible is true. But if the
answer to any one of these questions is no, then much of
the Bible is false. Here’s why:
• Truth: The Bible can’t be true if there is no objective
truth. Of course, if there is no objective truth, then no
book written by an atheist could be true either!
• God: There can’t be a “Word of God” if there is no
God. But if God exists, then it’s possible the Bible is
true.
• Miracles: In an age of scientific enlightenment, can we
really believe in miracles? If not, then we can’t believe
the Bible either.
• The New Testament: Skeptics say that the New
Testament was written well after the time of Jesus by
gullible and religiously-biased people who told
embellished stories and contradicted one another
while doing so. However, if the documents are
historically reliable, then one can make a good case
that the entire Bible is true.

Introduction:
Major
Religious
Worldviews
• Theism = God made all (Judaism, Christianity,
Islam)
• Pantheism = God is all (Buddhism, Hinduism,
New Age)
• Atheism = No God at all (Humanism)
• Religion is a combination of fact and faith. We
gather enough information to come to a
conclusion and let faith fill the gaps in our
knowledge.

Does Truth Exist?
What better explains reality?

Does Truth Exist?
• Truth = telling it like it is
• Truth is an absolute, not relative. We cannot make everything true because it seems like the nice
thing to do.
• A prevailing view in our culture is that there is no truth. Logically, this statement contradicts itself. If
there is no truth, this statement is false.
• We discover truth. We don’t invent it. Gravity was true before Newton discovered it.
• Truth does not change; however, our beliefs about truth may change as we gain knowledge.
• Religious beliefs cannot all be true because many of them are contradictory.
• We should treat people of different beliefs with respect. That doesn’t mean we ought to accept the
impossible notion that our contradictory beliefs are equally true.

• Pluralists say we should not question religious beliefs. That stance is an
absolute moral position that they try to impose on others. It contradicts
their claim of “tolerance,” especially since it violates Christian beliefs
• ‣ 1John 4:1
• ‣ Gal 1:8
• ‣ 2Cor 11:13
• We should respect the right of others to believe what they want; however,
we should love them enough to humbly tell them the truth.

Any teaching is worth trusting only if it points
to the truth.
• Law of Noncontradiction
• Road Runner Tactic = turn a statement on itself to expose the self-defeating way
it contradicts itself
• Examples:
• David Hume states that something can only be meaningful if it’s empirically
verifiable or true by definition. There is no way to verify that statement
empirically and it not true by definition. Hume’s statement is self-defeating
• Immanuel Kant claims there is no way to know anything about the real world. He
contradicts himself because his statement refers to the real world. How can he
know it exists? His statement is self-defeating.

• Law of the Excluded Middle
• Something either is or is not. God exists or He does not.
• Deduction = process of lining up premises in an argument and arriving at a
valid conclusion [logic]
• Induction = drawing general conclusions from specific observation [scientific
method]
• Most conclusions based on induction are not absolutely certain, though they
can be highly probable if the amount and validity of the observations is high.
• We can use induction to investigate God. What observable effects do you see
that suggest there must be preexisting supernatural intelligence?

• Let’s quickly address some of the more common self-defeating
statements we hear in our relativistic culture. In order to expose their
faults, we will simply apply each claim to itself. That is, we’ll see if
the statement meets its own standard.
• There are no absolute truths!
• Are you absolutely sure? Isn’t that an absolute truth?
• All truth is relative!
• Is that a relative truth?
• It’s true for you but not for me!
• Is that true for everybody?

• You can’t know truth!
• Then how do you know that’s true?
• No one knows the truth!
• Then how do you know it’s true that no one knows the truth?
• In order to know that no one has the truth, the skeptic would have to know the truth himself! He can’t
know a claim is not right unless he knows what is right. So when someone says, “No one knows the
truth,” you might ask the person, “How do you know no one knows the truth? Have you quizzed
everyone in the universe exhaustively? Don’t you have to know the truth yourself and know what
everyone else does and doesn’t know in order to make that judgment?”

• You should doubt everything!
• Should I doubt that?
• Why are skeptics skeptical about everything but skepticism? If you’re skeptical about skepticism,
you’re back to knowing something for sure. Now, everyone has doubts. I certainly have them about
Christianity from time to time. But when I evaluate my doubts, I realize that they are more emotional
than intellectual. In other words, I don’t doubt because of a lack of evidence but because of my
changing feelings. Christian apologist Greg Koukl says, “Before my first cup of coffee in the morning,
I’m an atheist! After my first cup, I’m an agnostic. And after my second cup, I’m a Christian again!”
• Thankfully, the facts don’t change with my fluctuating feelings. In light of the excellent evidence for
Christianity, I’ve come to the conclusion that I should start doubting my doubts.

• You can’t know the real world!
• Then how do you know that about the real world?
• All truth comes from science!
• Is that a scientific truth?
• All talk about God is meaningless!
• Is that talk about God meaningless?
• Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote a five-hundred-page book filled with talk about God to tell us
that all talk about God is meaningless.

• All truth depends on your perspective!
• Does that truth depend on your perspective?
• You’re just playing word games with me!
• Is that just a word game you’re playing with me?
• You ought not judge!
• Isn’t that a judgment? Why are you judging me for judging?

• Did Jesus command us not to judge? No. Jesus said, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in
the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured
to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the
plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’
when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own
eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
• Is Jesus telling us not to judge? No, He’s commanding us to take the speck out of our brother’s eye—
that involves making a judgment. He simply tells us to get our own house in order first so we judge
rightly, not hypocritically. In other words, Jesus isn’t telling us not to judge; He’s telling us how to
judge. Elsewhere Jesus tells us, “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

Does God Exist?

Cosmological Argument
EVERYTHING THAT HAD A BEGINNING HAD A
CAUSE. LAW OF CAUSALITY IS THE BASIS OF
SCIENCE. THINGS DON’T HAPPEN WITHOUT A
CAUSE.
THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING.
(BASED ON SCIENTIFIC
OBSERVATION)
THEREFORE, THE UNIVERSE HAD A
CAUSE.

SURGE
S = Second Law of Thermodynamics: The
universe is running out of energy (entropy).
The First Law of Thermodynamics states
that the total amount of energy in the
universe is constant. That means if the
universe is eternal, the energy would have
run out by now. It has not; therefore, there
must have been a beginning.
U = Universe is Expanding: The universe
(space) is expanding from a single point
(Hubble observation). There must have
been a beginning.
R = Radiation from the “Big Bang”: Penzias
and Wilson discovered cosmic background
radiation in 1965. It proved that the
universe is not in an eternal steady state.
G = Great Galaxy Seeds: In 1992, COBE
(Cosmic Background Explorer satellite)
discovered ripples in the temperature of
the cosmic background radiation. The
ripples indicate that matter congregated by
gravitational attraction to form galaxies.
The infrared pictures from COBE show this
matter from the early universe. George
Smoot calls it the “seeds” of the galaxies.
E = Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity:
General Relativity states that time, space,
and matter are interdependent. In other
words, they came to be at the same time.
“The astronomical evidence leads to a
biblical view of the origin of the world” -
Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard
Institute of Space Studies.

The Empire Strikes Out
• To counter the Big Bang Theory, some atheists propose flawed theories such as these:
• Cosmic Rebound Theory suggests the universe has been expanding and contracting forever. There is no
evidence for this and it doesn’t explain how things started.
• Imaginary Time is something Stephen Hawking proposed to explain how the universe might not have a
beginning. This has no supporting evidence and is purely conjecture based on wishful thinking.
• Uncertainty Theory tries to cast doubt on the Law of Causality by citing Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle. This is poor logic. Heisenberg’s Principle describes our inability to predict the location and
speed of electrons at any given time. It does not suggest the movement of electrons is uncaused.
• Conclusion
• The Cosmological Argument is true. The universe had a beginning; it must have a Beginner.

Who Made God?
• The Law of Causality does NOT say everything needs a cause, only those things
that came to be need a cause. God did NOT come to be. He has no beginning.
• First Cause
• From the evidence, what caused the universe must be:
• self-existent, timeless, non-spatial, immaterial
• unimaginably powerful
• supremely intelligent (precision of design)

Teleological
Argument
• Every design has a designer.
• The universe has a highly
complex design.
• Therefore, the universe had a
Designer.
• Anthropic Principle = the
universe is extremely finetuned
to support human life

Anthropic Principle 101
• Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability of 122 critical constants
occurring in any planet in the universe to support human life (things such as
oxygen levels, transparency of the atmosphere, the moon-earth gravitational
interaction, carbon dioxide levels, gravity). He says it is one in 10138. Scientists
think there are about 1022 planets in the universe. The chances of the earth
occurring in its current state are, in effect, zero.
• “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no
blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” Fred Hoyle (astronomer, atheist)

God? Look to the Heavens
• The Bible tells us to look to the heavens to get an idea of what God is like.
• The heavens declare the glory of God (Psa 19).
• Lift your eyes to the heavens (Isa 40:25-26).
• Looking at the heavens can give us a sense of
• God’s majesty and infinity (Psa 103:11).
• Christians have good reasons (based on observation) for believing what they do.

Origin of the First Life
• The supreme problem for Darwinists is explaining the origin of the
first life. Naturalistic macroevolution claims that first life
generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals. The problem
is that the DNA of a one-celled amoeba has as much ordered
information as there is in 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia
Britannica. How likely is this to happen spontaneously?
• We can’t directly observe the origin of the first life.
• We can use forensic principles to discover the likely cause. The
central principle in forensics is the Principle of Uniformity =
causes in the past were like causes we observe today. Today, when
we see the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias of ordered
information, we don’t assume it happened spontaneously. There is
always an intelligent cause for complex design.

• Many scientists have attempted to combine chemicals to get a
DNA molecule with no success. Darwinists insist there is no
intelligent design, that it only “appears” that way.
• Another issue is that DNA relies on proteins for its production
and proteins rely on DNA for their production. Neither could
be first.

Good Science vs Bad Science
• The creation-evolution debate is not about Bible vs. science, it is about good
science vs. bad science. Bad science only considers one option and rules out
others before looking at the evidence. This is what Darwinists do. They allow their
ideology to overrule observation and reason. That’s bad science.

• Time Won’t Help
• Darwinists say if we give natural forces billions of years, they would create life. This is faulty
reasoning. Nature brings things to disorder as time passes (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
• Not a Chance
• Chance is not a cause. Flip a coin. The chance it will come up heads is 50%, but what ‘caused’
it to come up heads. The primary cause was an intelligent being who decided to flip a coin.
Chance is not science.

Materialism
Cannot Explain
Reason
• Our ability to reason came from one of two places.
• preexisting intelligence
• mindless matter
• Scientific observation demonstrates that an affect cannot be
greater than its cause. You can’t give what you don’t have.
Chemicals can’t explain all of human thought.
• Conclusion
• Concluding that life is the product of an intelligent
Designer makes sense because it is based on multiple
pieces of evidence and reason.
• “The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from
nonliving matter is simply a matter of faith in strict
reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.” Hubert
Yockey (physicist, information scientist)

Evolution in Analysis
• Microevolution has been observed but it is not evidence for macroevolution which has never been observed. The
reasons include:
• Genetic Limits: We have observed no incidents of changes that cross species.
• Cyclical Change: Changes within types appear to shift back and forth within a limited range but never goes
outside species. Natural selection may explain the survival of a species, but never the arrival of a species.
• Irreducible Complexity: In 1859, Darwin did not have the technology available to see that irreducible
complexity is present in cells and living things. He stated that his theory would break down if that was true.
Living things cannot survive slow trial-and-error changes to their organs because in transitional states, the
organs would not perform their necessary functions.
• Non-viability of Transitional Forms: Changes between species that Darwinists suggest, would put creatures in a
form that would impair their survivability (scales to feather, etc).
• Molecular Isolation: Darwinists think the similarity of DNA in all living creatures implies a common ancestry
but could as easily imply a common Designer. At the molecular level, the basic types of animals are in
molecular isolation from one another. There are no Darwinian transitions, only distinct molecular gaps.

Fossil Records
• Darwin hoped that, over time, geologists would discover intermediate links between species. Instead,
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (evolutionist) says the history of most fossil species reveals:
• Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change, only limited and directionless change.
• Sudden Appearance: In any local area, species appear all at once and fully formed (no steady
transformation).
• Fossil evidence is open to many interpretations and cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships.
• This is why the claimed “missing links” are being exposed as mistakes or frauds.
Motivation
• Scientists on both sides may have a difficult time being neutral. They may have to work hard to be
objective in looking at the evidence.

Why Try to Shut Out God?
• Why would anyone want to eliminate God as a possibility in creation? Here are
some reasons:
• Fear that admitting God’s role will diminish their authority as a scientist.
• Fear of loss of control.
• Fear of losing financial security and recognition.
• Fear of acknowledging that God defines right and wrong. Fear of moral
constraints.

Moral Argument
• Most humans have a sense that they
ought to do good and shun evil. It’s
like a Moral Law.
Moral Law Argument
• 1. Every law has a law giver.
• 2. There is a Moral Law.
• 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law
Giver.

How do we know a moral law exists?
• Moral laws are practically undeniable. Even those who deny there are values still value their right to deny it.
• We know by our reactions there is a Moral Law. Relativists claim there is no absolute moral standard for what is fair,
right, and just; however, if you treat them unfairly, they will object.
• The Declaration of Independence refers to ‘unalienable Rights’ and that these rights are ‘selfevident’ truths.
• How do we know there is evil in the world? We can only detect it because there is a standard for comparison.
Otherwise, there is no difference between Hitler and Mother Teresa.
• If you claim something is wrong, then by definition, you have an idea of what is right, a Moral Law.
• In a world without a Moral Law, there are no rights. Since we inherently know that issues of life and liberty are more
than mere preference, there must be a Moral Law.
• If there were no Moral Law, we would not make excuses for doing wrong. When someone insists we should be
‘tolerant,’ it implies that those we are to tolerate must be doing something wrong; otherwise, their behavior would
not bother us.

Confusing Absolute and Relative
• Changing Behavior: What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not.
• Changing Perceptions of the Facts: We can recognize the same Moral Law and react differently
based on the facts we think we know. Hindus and Christians know murder is wrong. Hindus refuse
to eat cows because they think human souls may live in them and to do so is murder. Christians do
not think human souls live in cows and have no moral issues eating cows.
• Relative Culture and Relative Means: Cultures differ in how they implement moral laws.
Sometimes people agree on a value, but disagree on the best way to attain it. For instance, most
agree it is good to assist the poor; however, how best to do that is hotly debated.
• Moral Disagreements: Sometimes a circumstance involves more than one moral law and people
stress over which one should take precedence.

Darwinist Dilemma
• Darwinists see the Moral Law in action, though they fight the idea of a
Moral Law giver. Instead they claim that morality evolved. Logically,
this is a problem since morality is not material. It also can’t be simply
instinct since we have competing instincts.
• Our instinct for survival is stronger than the one to help. Why do
people sometimes run toward a dangerous situation to help another
person? Why do we have an urge to protect the weaker? From a
material point of view, the powerful could survive longer by always
taking advantage of the weaker.

Ideas have consequences.
• If there is no Moral Law, then ‘inferior races’ have no right to exist and there is
nothing wrong with murder. What the Darwinists assert is not something they back
up with evidence. Atheists cannot justify why anything is morally right or wrong.
To be an atheist means having the faith to believe that there is no moral difference
between a murderer or a missionary, a teacher or a terrorist, Mother Teresa or
Hitler. The only other option is to claim morality sprung into existence out of
nothing or admit there is a Moral Law Giver.

Other Arguments for God’s Existence
• The Argument from Reason: The fixed immaterial laws of logic, and our ability to use reason to discover truths
about reality, are best explained by a transcendent Mind. Certainly no material explanation could account for such
immaterial realities.
• The Argument from Information: The living world is filled with complex biological information billions of letters
long, sequenced according to specific genetic codes. Our repeated and uniform experience shows us that codes and
even the simplest forms of information are caused by minds, not natural forces.
• The Argument from Intentionality: As a person, you have the ability to make freewill decisions—to intend to do
things. This cannot be explained by mere materials but by the existence of a Mind in whose image our minds are
made.
• The Argument from Final Causality: The entire natural world experiences goal-directedness: from the laws of
nature to unconscious living things. This points to a sustaining Intellect holding the universe together and directing
unconscious processes and subjects toward their ends. (This is what Aquinas called his “Fifth Way” of arguing for
God

Conclusion
• What can we learn from these nine arguments? If we reason from effect to cause, we can see that the cause must be
• Spaceless, timeless, and immaterial because space-time and matter were created. Therefore, the cause must transcend space-
time and matter (i.e. must be beyond nature, or be supernatural).
• Self-existent and fully actualized (infinite) because a timeless being has no beginning and was not caused by another.
• Simple in essence because an infinite being can’t have parts (a being with parts would be limited and require assembly by
another).
• Personal in order to choose to create (since an impersonal force has no capacity to choose to create anything).
• Powerful in order to create the universe out of nothing.
• Intelligent in order to: design and sustain the universe and its processes with such extreme goal-directed precision; author
highly complex information; provide His creatures with the ability to reason.
• Morally perfect as the ground of objective moral values.
• Let’s add up the attributes of this Being. We have a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, self-existent, infinite, simple, personal,
powerful, intelligent, morally perfect, purposeful Creator who sustains His creation continually. These are the attributes of the God
of the Bible discovered without reference to the Bible.

Are Miracles Possible?

Are Miracles Possible?
• How can we know which is true? How will God let us know? Because His felt
presence would overrule human will, He will not use it to communicate to us. He
will not ravish. He will only woo (Isa 45:15). By written language, He can
communicate with us without forcing Himself on us. To authenticate His message,
He uses miracles as a form of authenticating seal.
• Miracle = a special act of God that interrupts the normal course of events

Miracle: What is this?
• Atheists are given a pass for believing without evidence that the universe, life, the genetic code,
consciousness, etc. all arose by mindless, repetitive natural forces, which have no explanation
either. Meanwhile, Christians are mocked for believing in the Virgin Birth, Jesus walking on water,
the Resurrection, and Jonah and the great fish. Yet those biblical miracles are nothing compared to
the greatest miracle in the Bible. The greatest miracle in the Bible is not Jonah and the fish, Jesus
walking on water, being born of a virgin, or even the resurrecting from the dead.
• The greatest miracle in the Bible is the first verse: “In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth.” If that verse is true, then every other verse in the Bible is at least believable.
• If there is a God who created the universe out of nothing, then He can do whatever He wants that’s
not logically impossible inside the universe. Jonah, water walking, and resurrections are easy for
that kind of Being.

Objections to Miracles
• Natural laws are immutable. (Benedict Spinoza, Jewish pantheist, 1670s) The
problem is, if God exists, miracles are possible because God created the universe
out of nothing.
• Miracles are not credible. (David Hume, atheist, 1700s) He reasons that we should
only believe those things which occur regularly, not those things that occur rarely.
This is poor logic. If true, it would mean we should not believe the universe exists
since it was a rare, one-time occurrence. We also should not believe Hume exists
since his birth was a rare, one time occurrence.

• Some deny miracles have occurred because biblical miracles are not readily
apparent today. But that’s a theological objection that misunderstands the purpose
of miracles. The primary purpose of miracles in the Bible is to confirm new
revelation from God. They are called “signs” for a reason. They were never done
for entertainment, but to let people know that the person through whom the
miracle was done actually speaks for God. When sign miracles were done through
people in the Bible, they were clustered around Moses, Elijah and Elisha, and
Jesus and the apostles. Those people had new revelation that needed new
confirmation—the miracle confirmed the message; the sign confirmed the sermon.

• The second problem with the “we don’t see miracles today” objection is that
miracles have to be extremely rare if they are going to have their intended effect.
If people were walking on water or resurrecting from the dead regularly, the
miracles of the Bible wouldn’t get our attention and achieve their primary purpose.
We would think they were some kind of natural phenomena, not direct acts of
God.

• In fact, even in the Bible miracles are relatively rare. There are approximately 250
occurrences of miracles in the Bible.
• From Abraham to the apostles is about 2,000 years. If you were to spread those
miracles out evenly, there would be one miracle every eight years (and even less
frequent for miracles done before crowds).
• The main point is that miracles are still rare even in the Bible. Most events in the
Bible were natural, regular events like they are today, which enabled miracles to
stand out when they occurred.

Criteria for a True Miracle
• Instantaneous beginning of a powerful act (Cosmological Argument), something
for which there is no natural explanation.
• Intelligent design and purpose (Teleological Argument), to confirm or bring glory
to God.
• Promotion of good or right (Moral Law), not connected to error or immorality.

Types 101
Anomaly: freaks of nature, not connected with a
truth claim
Magic: sleight of hand, illusion, misleading the mind
Psychosomatic: psychological
Satanic Sign: associated with occult, false
prophecies, glorifies creature
Providence: events that God causes indirectly using
natural laws; answered prayer, unlikely events

Timing of Miracles
• Miracles occur when God is confirming new truth (revelation) and confirming a
new messenger of that truth (Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, apostles). Because the
Bible is complete, God is not confirming a new revelation today. He is not likely
to perform miracles now. Certainly, He can whenever He likes; however, He
performs them for a purpose and has already achieved His main purpose for
miracles.

• Since the primary purpose of miracles is to confirm new revelation, and since
miracles have to be rare to have their intended effect, it’s no wonder that miracles
are not as frequent today. Since the revelation of the Bible is complete, the
primary purpose for sign miracles doesn’t exist today.
• Now, that’s not to say that miracles can’t or don’t occur today. God may have
more narrow reasons to do miracles today—say, to heal a specific disease in a
specific circumstance, or to provide a vision to someone seeking Him. He has the
power to do that at any time.

• Miracle claims must be investigated on a case-by-case basis in order to discover
their veracity. Many in academia won’t investigate them because they assume
miracles have not occurred for the same reason they assume intelligent design
isn’t possible—their materialistic worldview rules out miracles before they look at
the evidence. That’s just more of the same philosophical game-rigging we’ve seen
before. But the creation of the universe shows that such an anti-supernatural bias
is unreasonable. A God who has the power to create the universe certainly has the
power to intervene in it. As C. S. Lewis put it, “If we admit God, must we admit
miracle? Indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain.”

Is the New Testament True & Reliable?

Non-
Christian
Sources
Affirm the
NT
The New Testament documents have more manuscripts, earlier
manuscripts, and more supported documents than the best ten pieces of
classical literature combined. From those sources, we can see:
• 1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
• 2. He lived a virtuous life.
• 3. He was a wonder worker.
• 4. He had a brother named James.
• 5. Many people of the time claimed he was the Messiah.
• 6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
• 7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
• 8. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.
• 9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
• 10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
• 11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
• 12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshipped Jesus as
God.

Common Objections
• History cannot be known: If that is true we can’t depend on anything we have
heard from history.
• Converted people are not objective. It’s true they are not neutral, but that doesn’t
mean they can’t be objective.

Are the NT Documents Early?
• 25 of the NT books were quoted by Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp (95-110AD).
• Most of the 25 books quoted were written before 70AD, otherwise they would have
mentioned the destruction of the Temple in 70AD or the loss of their country.
• Many NT books were composed before 62AD. Acts ends with Paul under arrest. Clement
and others record Paul’s execution during the reign of Nero which ended in 68AD. Paul
quoted Luke 10:7 sometime between 62-65AD (1Tim 5:18).
• Scholars agree that Paul wrote 1Corinthians between 55-56AD. 1Corinthians 15:3-8
contains the earliest most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection.

• Classical scholar and historian, Colin Hemer, identified 84 facts in Acts 13-28 that
have confirmation from the fields of history, archaeology, geology, and sociology.
The book of Luke also records 35 miracles.
• Craig Bloomberg confirms 59 details in the book of John through history,
archaeology, and non- Christian writings.
• The New Testament is a collection of writings from independent eyewitnesses.
Each major author includes early and unique material. Their accounts describe the
same events with a divergence of details as naturally happens with independent
eyewitness accounts. There are at least six independent sources for the
Resurrection.

10 Reasons why NT is Reliable
• The NT writers included embarrassing details about themselves such as times
when they were slow to understand Jesus, afraid, doubtful, and uncaring.
• The NT writers included embarrassing details about Jesus such as His family
thinking He was crazy, people deserting Him, people calling Him demon-
possessed, and Him being crucified.
• The NT writers included difficult sayings from Jesus such as the Beatitudes.
• The NT writers carefully distinguished their words from Jesus’ words.
• The Resurrection details were not ideal for credibility. Women were the first
witnesses. In that culture, women were not considered good witnesses.

• The NT writers included more than 30 historically confirmed people in their writings.
• The NT writers included divergent details which complemented one another.
• The NT writers challenged people to look at the facts.
• The NT writers described miracles in a succinct, unembellished way (John 20:31).
• The NT writers abandoned their long-held practices such as animal sacrifice, circumcision, and the
Sabbath.
• Beyond a reasonable doubt, the New Testament writers recorded what they saw. The minimal
consensus of scholars is that the disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Skeptics claim
they were deceived. Here are some of their theories and why the theories are flawed.

About Jesus Christ

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
• Gary Habermas has completed the most comprehensive investigation to date on
what scholars believe about the Resurrection. Habermas collected more than 1,400
of the most critical scholarly works on the Resurrection written from 1975 to
2003. In The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, Habermas reports that virtually all
scholars from across the ideological spectrum—from ultra-liberals to Bible-
thumping conservatives— agree that the following points concerning Jesus and
Christianity are actual historical facts:

Evidence for the Resurrection
• Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
• He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
• Soon afterwards the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope.
• Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.
• The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
• Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing
to die for their belief.
• The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.
• The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the Resurrection took place in the city of
Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.

Evidence for the Resurrection
• The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
• Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshiping.
• James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted when he believed he also
saw the risen Jesus.
• Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) became a Christian believer, due to an experience that
he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

The acceptance of these facts makes sense in
light of what we’ve seen so far. The evidence
shows:
• The New Testament Story Is Not a Legend—The New Testament documents
were written well within two generations of the events by eyewitnesses or their
contemporaries, and the New Testament storyline is corroborated by non-Christian
writers. In addition, the New Testament mentions at least 30 historical figures who
have been confirmed by sources outside the New Testament. Therefore, the New
Testament story cannot be a legend.

shows:
• The New Testament Story Is Not a Lie—The New Testament writers included
divergent and embarrassing details, difficult and demanding sayings, and they
carefully distinguished Jesus’ words from their own. They also referenced facts
and eyewitnesses that their readers either already knew or could verify. In fact, the
New Testament writers provoked their readers and prominent first-century
enemies to check out what they said. If that’s not enough to confirm their
truthfulness, then their martyrdom should remove any doubt. These eyewitnesses
endured persecution and death for the empirical claim that they had seen, heard,
and touched the risen Jesus, yet they could have saved themselves by simply
denying their testimony.

shows:
• The New Testament Story Is Not an Embellishment—The New Testament
writers were meticulously accurate, as evidenced by well over 140 historically
confirmed details. They recorded miracles in those same historically confirmed
narratives, and they did so without apparent embellishment or significant
theological comment.

Is the NT True?
• So Is the New Testament True?—If most scholars agree with the twelve facts stated above
because the evidence shows that the New Testament story is not a legend, a lie, or an
embellishment, then we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the New Testament writers
accurately recorded what they saw. Does this mean that all of the events of the New Testament are
true? Not necessarily. The skeptic still has one last out.
• The last possible out for the skeptic is that the New Testament writers were deceived. In other
words, perhaps the New Testament writers simply were wrong about what they thought they saw.
• Given the characteristics of the New Testament that we have already reviewed, it does not seem
plausible that the New Testament writers were deceived about everyday, non-miraculous events.
They have been proven right about so many historical details. Why doubt their observations about
everyday events?

Objections Answered
• Hallucination: It is beyond reason that 500 people would see the same hallucination over a 40-day
period. How can a physical touch be hallucination? Also, the Roman authorities would have
displayed the dead body to stop the claims of sightings. They couldn’t, because the tomb was
empty.
• Witnesses went to the wrong tomb: Many people knew the location of the tomb. They would have
checked to point out the mistake. Also this does not explain the sightings.
• Swoon, apparent death: The professional Roman executioners knew Jesus was dead. Also, Pilate
doublechecked Jesus’ death before he released the body to Joseph of Arimathea. If Jesus was not
dead when they put the body in the tomb, He would have bleed to death quickly.
• Disciples stole the body: They would have had a difficult time getting past the guards. Also it
wouldn’t explain the sightings.

• A substitute took Jesus’ place on the cross. Muslims claim that Jesus only appeared to be on the
cross; someone took his place (Qur’an, Sura 4.157-158). There is no evidence for this claim. How
would John, Jesus’ closest friend, and Jesus’ mother not recognize Jesus? Also this would not
explain the empty tomb or sightings.
• The disciples’ faith led to them believing in the Resurrection: The sequence was opposite. Many
did not believe in the Resurrection until after it happened.
• The NT writers copy pagan resurrection myths: These myths are about reincarnation into different
bodies, not about resurrection. The NT writing are full of facts and eyewitnesses. The style is not
mythological with fictional characters. Instead, there are real people supported by historical fact.
The issue atheists appear to have is philosophical, not factual. Christians don’t have enough faith to
believe that all the NT writers were deceived since evidence contradicts such a belief.

Who is Jesus?
Who in all the history of the world meets these criteria?
• 1. Is from the seed of a woman (Gen 3:15)
• 2. Is from the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:3-7)
• 3. Is from the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10)
• 4. Is from the line of David (Jer 23:5-6)
• 5. Was both God and man (Isa 9:6)
• 6. Was born in Bethlehem (Mic 5:2)
• 7. Was preceded by a messenger, visited the Jerusalem Temple before it was destroyed in 70AD (Mal 3:1)
• 8. Died in 33AD (Dan 9:24-26)
• 9. Rose from the dead (Isa 53:11, Zech 12:10)
• Jesus claimed to be God (Mark 14:61-64). (also John 8:56-59, John 5:21, John 17:5, John 14:6).

Attributes of God Yahweh Jesus
The First and the Last Isaiah 44:6 Revelation 1:17-18
The Forgiver of sins Psalm 51:4 Mark 2:1-12
The final Judge Joel 3:12; Psalm 9:7-8 Matthew 25:31-32
The Truth Psalm 31:5 John 14:6
The One who raises the dead I Samuel 2:6 John 5:25-29; 11:25-27
Does God share His glory? Isaiah 42:8 John 17:5
Other Claims of Jesus Christ
The Lord of the Sabbath Mark 2:28 He could answer prayers John 14:13-14
The Lord of David Matthew 22:41-45 He is omnipresent Matthew 18:20
Jesus seen Abraham John 8:39-58 He has authority over all Matthew 28:18-20
Greater than God’s temple Matthew 12:6 He owns everything John 16:15
Has absolute relationship with
God
Matthew 11:27 Jesus was worshipped John 5:21-23

Did Jesus Claim to be God?
God in the Old Testament Jesus Comparison to Himself
I AM (Exodus 3:14-15; Isaiah 48:12) I AM (John 8:58; John 8:18, 24)
The Shepherd (Psalm 23:1) The Shepherd (John 10:11)
The Light (Psalm 27:1) The Light (John 8:12)
Ruler of all (Isaiah 9:6) Ruler of all (Matthew 28:18)
Judge of all nations (Joel 3:12) Judge of all (John 5:12)
The Bridegroom (Isaiah 62:5; Hosea 2:16) The Bridegroom (Matthew 25:1)
God’s Word never pass away (Isaiah 40:8) Jesus’ words never pass away (Mk. 13:31)
First and the Last (Isaiah 48:12) First and the Last (Revelation 1:17-18)

Did Jesus Claim to be God?
God in the Old Testament Jesus Comparison to Himself
The Sower (Jeremiah 31:27; Ezra 34:9) The Sower (Matthew 13:3-9)
The Shepherd (Gen 49:24; Psalm 23:1) The Shepherd (John 10:11)
The Rock (Psalm 18:2) The Rock (Matthew 7:24)
The Bridegroom (Isaiah 54:5, Hosea
2:16)
The Bridegroom (Matthew 25:1)
In 20 of Jesus’ 52 parables, He identifies Himself as God. Some examples:

Jesus’ Miracles
Jesus demonstrated sovereignty over:
• Birth defects (John 9:1)
• Disease (Matt. 8:2, Luke 7:1, Mark 3:1, Matt. 8:28, etc.)
• Nature (Mark 4:35, Matt. 14:25, etc.)
• Poverty/Lack/Need (John 2:1, Mark 6:30, etc.)
• Satan/demons (Luke 8:26, 13:11, etc.)
• Space/time (John 1:48)
• Death (John 11:43, Mark 5:22, Luke 7:11)

The Testimony of the New Testament Writers
Witness Verse Statement
John John 1:1-3,14 God became flesh
Thomas John 20:28 “My Lord and my God!”
Paul Romans 9:5 Jesus is God over all
Paul Philippians 2:5-8 Jesus set aside His right as God
Paul Colossians 1:16-19, 2:9-
10
Created all things including
angels; all fullness of Deity
dwells
Paul 1 Timothy 6:15, Deut
10:17
Jesus is King of kings, Lord of
Lords
Peter 2 Peter 1:1 Jesus is our God and Savior
Writer of Hebrews Hebrews 1:8, 13:8 Has everlasting throne and is
immutable

Does the New Testament Claim Jesus is God?
1. Jesus’ words clearly demonstrate
He believed He was God.
2. Jesus’ miracles showed His
sovereignty over all creation.
3. Jesus’ actions of forgiving sins,
accepting worship, etc., show He
believed He was God.
4. The testimony of the New
Testament writers point to Jesus
being God.

Objections to the Deity of Christ
• Jn. 14:28: “The Father is greater than I”
• Mt. 19:17 “No one is good but One, that is, God.”
• Mt. 24:36: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of
heaven, but My Father only.”
• Jn. 17:3: Jesus prayed to the Father, saying, “this is eternal life, that they
know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
• Jn. 10:34: Jesus said, “You are gods” [in a derivative sense], not in an
absolute sense.

Response to Objections
1. The Father is greater as God than Jesus is as man. Also, the Father is greater in office
but not in nature.
2. Jesus did not deny He was God, He simply ask the man if he realized what he was
saying.
3. Jesus did not know the time of His Second Coming as man, but He did know it as
God.
4. He said the Father is the only true God, but he did not say that only the Father is God
(cf. Gen. 7:23; Jn. 8:9).
5. Jesus was God in the absolute sense (Jn. 1:1,2; 8:58; Jn. 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8).

The Bible…
according to
Jesus
Jesus said the Bible:
• Is divinely authoritative: On 92 occasions,
Jesus and His apostles supported their
positions by quoting the Old Testament.
• Is imperishable: Mat 5:17
• Is infallible: The Scripture cannot be
broken (John 10:35).
• Is inerrant: Errors come from not knowing
the Scriptures (John 17:17).
• Is historically reliable: Mat 12:40
• Is scientifically accurate: John 3:12
• Has ultimate supremacy: John 5:39-40

• Could Jesus have been wrong? No. He taught what the Father told Him to teach
(John 8:28). Regarding the New Testament, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would
remind us what He said (John 14:25-26). (also John 16:12-13, Eph 2:20, 1Cor
14:37, Gal 1:11-12, 1The 2:13, Luke 4:14-30, Isa 61:1-2)

Based on the evidence, we showed that:
• Truth exists, and we can know it
• God exists through the following scientific and philosophical evidence:
• Argument from the beginning of the universe
• Argument from the design of universe and of life
• Argument from objective moral values
• Miracles are possible
• The New Testament is true and reliable
• Jesus had risen from the dead, claimed to be God, affirmed the OT and promised the NT

If life is a puzzle,
the Bible is the
box top that
shows how the
picture fits
together.
• Where did we come from? We are created beings made in
the image of God (Gen 1:27). Also Psa 139:14
• Who are we? We are creatures of supreme worth who God
endowed with rights and responsibilities (John 3:16-18).
also John 1:12, Gal 4:5
• Why are we here? This temporal life is the choosing ground
for the eternal one (John 15:8). also Isa 43:7
• How should we live? We should love God and others (Rom
5:8). also 1John 4:19-21, Mat 28:19
• Where are we going? God wants everyone to be saved from
the eternal punishment we all deserve (1Tim 2:4 and 2Pet
3:9); however, He cannot force us to love Him. We must
choose for ourselves who we serve and what is our ultimate
destiny (Josh 24:15 and John 3:18).

Answering Atheistic
Objections
ANALYZING ARGUMENTS FROM ATHEISTS
From 10 ANSWERS FOR ATHEIST by Alex MacFarland

Objection 1: Belief in God is delusional
• A “delusion” is a mental disorder that is contradicted by reality. Belief in
God is based on good arguments and reasons supporting His existence,
so it’s not at all delusional.

Objection 2: We can’t trust the Bible
because it’s been translated so many
times.
• It’s a misconception to think that the Bible has been corrupted over the
centuries. While it’s true the Bible is available in hundreds, if not
thousands, of languages, those translations are based on reliable
manuscripts that are nearly identical to one another in what they say. In
other words, we can look at ancient copies or fragments of the New
Testament and compare them with more recent manuscripts and see that
they are nearly identical. The few differences that exist are minor (called
variants), and they don’t impact any key doctrines.

Objection 3: How can you believe in Christianity, when
modern science knows that miracles are impossible?
• The Bible is full of miracles, from creation to the resurrection of Jesus and
much more. Much of modern science begins with the assumption that
miracles are not possible, because many scientists are committed to
naturalism as a worldview. This is the belief that only the material world
exists. If this is true, then God doesn’t exist and can’t perform miracles. But
this is an assumption on the part of naturalistic scientists, not a fact. If it
can be demonstrated that the theistic God exists, then it’s possible that He
can perform miracles. The evidence for the resurrection of Christ, by the
way, is staggering.

Objection 4: Isn’t belief in Christianity just a crutch for weak people
who can’t handle the truth about a universe without God?
• If Christianity is true, it’s not a crutch but reality. Christianity isn’t just a
made-up religion designed to psychologically help people through life. Its
foundations rest on the existence of a real, loving God and what He has
done through the historical person of Jesus Christ. Humanity has a serious
problem and needs help, so in that sense God has come to help us along.
Our need is very real.

Objection 5: The Bible is full of mistakes,
contradictions and other errors and can’t be
trusted.
• Could you point out some of the mistakes, contradictions and other errors
that are bothering you? If so, we can discuss them one at a time and find
out if there really are true problems with the text. If I’m able to show that
these alleged errors can be answered, will you take the Bible seriously and
look carefully at what it has to say? (Note: Bringing up alleged errors in the
Bible is a favorite pastime of critics of Christianity, so Christians need to be
prepared to interpret difficult passages and give good answers.)

Objection 6: We’re all just doing the best we can to get through life
and are sincere in our beliefs, even if those beliefs reject the
existence of God. If God really existed, He would accept
everyone.
• God has given us enough revelation so that we can know He exists and so
that we can know and accept Jesus. People can be sincere but also
sincerely wrong. God is willing to accept everyone who comes to Him with
true repentance, through Jesus. Some people will reject God and will
stubbornly refuse to worship Him. God can’t accept those people, because
they don’t want acceptance.

Objection 7: God is just a psychological projection—something t
make people feel good. Belief in God is just wis fulfillment, not
reality.
• Just because people desire that God exists is not an argument that He
doesn’t exist. That desire had to come from somewhere, and it can
actually point us to the reality of God and our real human need for Him to
satisfy our deepest spiritual longings. There’s good evidence to show that
God exists and isn’t just a psychological projection.

Objection 8: If God is really all-powerful, can He make a rock so
big that He can’t lift it? If He can, then He isn’t allpowerful. If He
can’t, then He isn’t all-powerful, either.
• This is a flawed question that ignores what is really meant by God’s
omnipotence (being all-powerful). God can do anything that is consistent
with His nature but not things that are logically inconsistent. For instance,
He can’t make a square circle or a triangle that has four sides. This
question is akin to the fallacy of the complex question, like when someone
asks, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” No matter what one
answers, the person answering loses because the question is loaded from
the start. God is allpowerful, but He is not a God of nonsense.

Objection 9: Naturalistic evolution is true, so there’s no need for
God to fill the gaps of our knowledge anymore. The universe
came about on its own, and evolution helped us along.
• Naturalistic evolution presupposes that God does not exist, but there are
many reasons in favor of the existence of God. Besides, it makes more
sense to posit a universe that is intelligently designed than a universe that
is not. If God does not exist, we face too many problems. Where does
morality come from? Why are we personal beings when naturalistic
evolution says we are the result of an impersonal and undirected process?
How can we even trust our reasoning abilities if they’re the result of
random, impersonal forces? A purely naturalistic universe just doesn’t add
up. But if God exists, then it all makes much more sense.

Objection 10: God isn’t the best explanation for the universe or
intelligent life. What if there are many universes and we just
happened to live in one that got lucky?
• Multi-verse theory is pure speculation; it has no basis in scientific fact. In
reality, it contradicts Occam’s razor—the principle that in general simple
explanations are the best explanations. Multi-verse theory is incredibly
complex. It’s been dreamed up as an escape hatch for those who’d rather
not face the reality of the existence of God.

Objection 11: What if intelligent life on Earth came from sentient
beings from space? Then we don’t need God to explain how life
on our planet got started.
• This is known as directed panspermia. For the sake of argument, let’s say
it’s true. Space aliens seeded the Earth somehow or helped life evolve into
intelligent life. Think about this and you’ll see that this doesn’t solve the
problem of the origins of life; it just puts it back somewhere else. How did
the space aliens originate? Did another intelligent alien race help them
along? If we follow this line of reasoning, we’ll continue going back and
back and back in time; but at some point, we’d have to acknowledge that
the first life must have come about somehow. Isn’t God a better
explanation than time and chance?

Objection 12: No matter what explanation Christians give for the
alleged resurrection of Jesus, we know that miracles just don’t
happen. People die and they stay dead.
• This is a clear example of presuppositions influencing thinking to the point
where real evidence is just dismissed rather than considered. It’s like
Hume defining miracles out of existence. The fact remains, if God exists,
then miracles are possible. Defining miracles out of existence because
one doesn’t like them in one’s world-view is hardly being open minded or
impartial when it comes to the facts.

• Besides, the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is extensive, while the objections to it
are all severely flawed. Specifically, the evidence consists of the empty tomb, which even
liberal scholars acknowledge; the many postresurrection appearances of Christ, which at
one time included more than 500 people at once who saw the risen Jesus (see 1 Cor.
15:5-8); the radically changed lives of the early Christians; and the explanation the
resurrection offers in support of the rise of Christianity despite severe persecution.
Christians did not go to the wrong tomb, which could easily have been proven, or
hallucinate (500 people do not hallucinate the same thing at the same time!), and neither
did the disciples lie about seeing Christ. If they did, they would hardly be willing to die for
a lie. We also know that the body wasn’t stolen, as the disciples had no motive to do so,
and neither did the political leaders of the day.
• When it comes down to it, the bodily resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for what
happened on the first Easter morning.

Objection 13: We’re here, so given enough time and chance, a
godless universe somehow resulted in what we see now—a
planet full of life. God isn’t necessary after all.
• This objection fails to see all the remarkable fine tuning that must take
place in order for life to exist on our planet, much less for life to exist at all
in the universe. Some intelligent design proponents liken this objection to a
man sentenced to die by firing squad. Somehow after the order to fire is
given, all the men discharge their weapons at the prisoner, but not a single
shot hits him. He’s standing there, stunned but alive. Behind him is a
perfect bullet pattern on the wall, outlining where he was standing. The
guard congratulates him and says, “Hey, it looks as if the firing squad had
orders to miss!” The prisoner shakes his head and says, “No, it was just
dumb luck. If they hadn’t missed, I wouldn’t be here to comment on my
good fortune.”

• As William Dembski and Jonathan Witt state in their book Intelligent
Design Uncensored, “What type of cause has the demonstrated power to
produce the fine-tuning pattern? … We wouldn’t be here to observe the
pattern if the pattern didn’t exist. That’s the firing-squad fallacy: pointing to
a necessary condition for observing X when what’s being sought is a
sufficient cause for X. Instead of offering a sufficient cause for the origin of
the fine-tuning pattern, opponents of intelligent design change the subject.”

Objection 14:
• Atheism faces the facts about evil and suffering. These things just happen
in a random universe without real purpose. Christians really have to
stretch to make God fit into a universe where evil and suffering are
commonplace and happen to anyone and anywhere for no reason at all.

Response
• Evil and suffering are real, so it’s appreciated that atheists acknowledge
this, but Christianity also faces the facts about evil. Since there is good
evidence for the existence of God, as well as for Christianity, it follows that
God has good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist. God may
use evil to shape our character, get our attention, allow us true human
freedom, and more. Moreover, just because we may not see a reason for a
specific evil does not mean that God has no reason for it. We’re not in a
position to see the broad plan of God and what He has in mind.

Objection 15: Because faith and reason contradict one another, I
can’t bring myself to believe in God or Christianity. Any religion
that calls me to abandon my thinking doesn’t get my vote!
• Faith and reason don’t contradict one another. Instead, they work together.
We’re called not only to have faith but also to use our minds and think
through questions. A glance at the history of Christianity will show many
great philosophers and theologians who left their mark because they were
moved to use their minds in search for truth. Christianity doesn’t call
anyone to abandon his or her thinking. It calls us to use our intellects in the
pursuit of truth.

Objection 16: What if we only think things are designed by an
intelligent designer because they have the appearance of design
but really aren’t designed? How would we know the difference?
• We can infer that there is a designer to the universe based on the “fingerprints”
that God has left us in His creation. Whether it’s marveling at celestial objects or
being amazed by the details involved at the microbiological level, these intricate
objects cry out for an explanation that involves more than chance. Intelligent-
design proponents have come up with ways of determining if something just
appears to be designed but really isn’t, or if something really shows evidence of
design because it has been designed. The concept of specified complexity, for
example, helps determine if something is designed or not. Just like a mousetrap
needs every single part to work, so too do certain kinds of microbiological
machines (bacterial flagella, for example). Without all the parts working together,
the machine would not work. This suggests design is a far better answer than
chance.

Objection 17: Other
religions claim to be
the true way, too.
They also talk about
miracles. If that’s the
case, what makes
Christianity so
special? It seems just
like any other religion,
making claims without
any real evidence
supporting those
claims.
• Other religions may make claims, but
they’re not as rooted in historical claims and
miraculous events as Christianity is. The
resurrection of Jesus, for instance, is crucial
to Christianity. Even Paul the apostle
acknowledged this in 1 Corinthians 15,
noting that unless Christ really rose from the
dead, the faith of the Christian is in vain
since they are still in their sins. Christianity
doesn’t make claims without any real
evidence. There’s an abundance of
evidence for the historical claims of
Christianity.

Objection 18: The Bible includes a lot of unscientific statements, like the belief the sun
revolves around the earth or the world is flat. If we can’t trust the Bible to be right about
simple science facts, then we can’t trust what it says about God and truth.
• It’s a misconception to say that the Bible contains lots of scientific errors.
These alleged discrepancies are easily cleared up by following basic
principles of interpretation. When the Bible speaks of the sun rising or the
corners of the earth, it’s using figures of speech—the same figures of
speech people still use today despite the fact that we know the sun doesn’t
revolve around the Earth and that the Earth isn’t flat. The Bible isn’t a
science textbook, but it doesn’t contradict science, either.

Objection 19: There is no scientific evidence to support life after
death. The physical body is all that exists. The brain is just an
organ. There is no evidence of a soul.
• There is much that science can’t explain. It has limits. Human beings are
both material and immaterial beings. Human consciousness is a puzzle for
atheistic naturalism to explain, yet we know we have consciousness. The
mind, too, poses problems for science. Where exactly does consciousness
reside? The claim that the physical body is all that exists is based on the
presupposition that atheism is true and that, as a result, there is nothing
supernatural. If this claim is false, then matter is not all that exists.

Objection 20:
• Isn’t religion akin to child abuse? After all, Christians are teaching children
all kinds of false beliefs that will cause them to grow up in fear of a God
who doesn’t really exist, cause them untold amounts of unnecessary guilt,
and cause children to become harmful members of society.

Response
• This objection is based on the assumption that God does not exist and that
Christianity is false. If God exists and Christianity is true, then teaching the
message of Christ to children is not abusive but a matter of responsible
parenting. Consider the consequences of rejecting God’s truth. If the
claims of Christianity are true, then the eternal destiny of every human
being hangs in the balance. Nurturing children in the truth about ultimate
reality is not abusive but a benefit. Besides, if atheism is false and atheists
are teaching their children atheism, how is that not abusive? We’re not
saying it is, but atheists can’t have it both ways.

Objection 21: People can be good without God, so God is
superfluous—unnecessary to the ongoing productivity and
progress of the human race. Christian morality is no better than
any other morality.
• It’s true that people can be “good” without necessarily believing in God, but
where do they get this concept of “good” and what real meaning does it
have unless it is rooted in an authoritative, transcendent source? Without
God, “good” and “evil” are relative terms, not absolutes. Human morality is,
broadly speaking, the same throughout history and human cultures
because God has instilled in us moral awareness rooted in God’s
standards. The fact that certain moral principles are also found in other
belief systems is to be expected. This is part of God’s general revelation.

Objection 22: How do you know Christianity is true if
you haven’t tried other faiths or worldviews such as
atheism?
• One doesn’t have to try every belief that exists in order to know which
beliefs are false and which are true. We can apply a variety of worldview
tests to determine if certain belief systems are sensible and worth our time
or not. For instance, we can ask whether or not a worldview is coherent
and internally consistent, whether it is practical and relevant, if it
reasonably answers questions that matter, and whether or not it can stand
up to competing ideas. If there’s good evidence for believing God exists,
then there’s no point in trying beliefs such as atheism, secular humanism,
agnosticism or nihilism.

Objection 23:
• Christians like to point to all the former atheists and agnostics who have
become Christians, as though this somehow proves Christian theism is
true. But what about all the former Christians who have left their faith and
become atheists or agnostics?

Response
• It’s true that conversion from one worldview to another is not an ultimate
test of the truth or falsity of any given worldview. What matters far more
are the reasons for abandoning one belief system and for embracing
another very different one. Both sides—atheist and Christian—can point to
adherents that used to belong to another worldview. What we need to
examine are the reasons and evidence those converts followed to arrive at
their conclusions. Are their reasons valid? Do they make sense? Are they
based on misconceptions or misunderstandings?

Objection 24: Truth is relative, so if something is true for you, that’s
fine; but no one can claim to have a corner on the truth. To say
that truth is absolute is just plain false!
• Relativism sounds so tolerant and seems to foster such unity that we
sometimes fail to see that it has no foundation. The entire objection,
especially the second sentence, is meant to be taken as an absolute truth
claim! Even the relativist cannot escape the reality of absolute truth. If any
belief system is so clearly self-defeating, it’s relativism. It’s just not livable,
either. What if a male pedophile says that his truth leads him to abuse
children? What’s to be done if someone disagrees with him (as society
does)? Should we tolerate child abuse, theft or murder just because those
who commit those acts find them true for themselves? Of course not!

Objection 25:
• It’s clear that the God of the Old Testament is morally corrupt and
egomaniacal, while the God of the New Testament is loving and embraces
all kinds of people. Given such a great discrepancy in the Bible, it’s no
wonder people reject its claims.

Response
• It’s a misconception to say that the God of the Old Testament and the God
of the New Testament are at odds. The biblical writers shared truths about
one God, not many. God is holy, compassionate and loving; but He is also
just and, as such, requires punishment for wrongdoing. Even the New
Testament, for instance, records instances of God’s wrath and punishment
in places like Revelation. So, in truth, there is no discrepancy between
how God is depicted in the Old and New Testaments. It’s a matter of rightly
interpreting the facts we have about God, rather than trying to force
discrepancies and contradictions that really aren’t in the text at all.

Objection 26: Christian belief is simply a matter of social of
parental conditioning. If a Christian were born in India, he or she
would just as easily become a Hindu and defend that religion.
• In logic, a concept called a counterexample is used to refute a claim. All it
takes is one exception and the hasty generalization or claim is defeated. In
the case of this objection, all it takes is one person, born and raised in
India, to grow up as a non-Hindu to refute the claim. As it turns out there
are many non-Hindus in India. Moreover, what about atheists who were
raised in a Christian home—how did they beat the odds, so to speak?
Although it’s statistically true that one will grow up with the faith one is
brought up with, how does that fact relate to questions of truth? What
matters are the reasons for why we believe what we believe, not whether
or not we were raised in an environment that predisposed us to certain
kinds of belief. Show me the evidence and I’ll sift through it and see if it
makes more sense than other explanations.

Objection 27: Lots of people never even had an opportunity to
hear the gospel—what happens to them? It’s not fair for God to
send them to hell.
• Scripture makes clear that we are condemned by our actions, and we
know this in our hearts (see Rom. 2:14-15). Even if we’ve never heard the
gospel of salvation, we are not being treated unjustly if we are condemned
for those sins. In short, none of us is ever condemned to hell because we
never heard the gospel; we are condemned for our own sins. Each of us is
offered a way out for our sins; none of us is unaware that God exists or
that we are accountable to Him (see Ps. 19; Rom. 1:18-2:12). Whether it is
in faraway jungles or in the world’s urban centers, God sends light to every
person. The problem is that people reject the light they have been given.
That is the condemnation: “The light shines in the darkness, but the
darkness has not understood it” (John 1:5).

Objection 28: Christians are so judgmental, yet Jesus told His
followers, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Who says you can
judge others and their beliefs?
• This objection is itself making a judgment. Judgment is inescapable. We all
make judgments every day. There’s even a saying, “Use your best
judgment.” What about judges who are paid to judge legal cases? The fact
is, we can’t escape making judgments. It’s true that Jesus said, “Do not
judge,” but when you look at that verse in context, you’ll find that He was
talking about judgments that are hypocritical (Matt. 7:1). Furthermore,
Jesus also said, “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right
judgment” (John 7:24). It’s not that we shouldn’t judge but that we should
do so wisely, in the right context, in the right spirit and at the right time. If a
critic thinks Christianity is wrong, then he or she, too, is being judgmental.

Objection 29: What about people who claim they’ve seen Big Foot,
the Loch Ness Monster or even Elvis Presley alive and well?
What’s so different about Christianity’s claim that Jesus is alive?
• Philosophers sometimes say that knowledge is justified true belief. In other
words, it takes more than outlandish claims to result in true beliefs that
correspond to reality. To say that claims of the resurrection of Jesus are in the
same category as supermarket tabloid claims is a false analogy. There’s a wide
difference between the evidence for, say, Sasquatch and the evidence for the
Resurrection. The claims of Christianity are based on verifiable history, reliable
documents, eyewitness testimony, and more. There’s much more to the
Resurrection story, too. Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster and Elvis Presley
haven’t inspired new religions in the face of severe persecution, inspired radical
devotion (okay, maybe Elvis has!) or made their mark on the world in profound
ways. The fact is, outlandish claims are not in the same category as the
resurrection of Jesus, and they don’t have the evidence substantiating the claims.
Belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a justified true belief, not an unsubstantiated
claim.

Objection 30: How can you say that Jesus changes
lives? How is that even possible and how would you
know?
• Jesus is alive today. He rose from the dead and inspired the rise of a world
religion. His followers faced persecution and martyrdom rather than
renounce what they believed to be true. What happened to them that so
turned them from being a frightened band of misfits into bold proclaimers
of the truth? The best explanation is that they truly saw the risen Jesus,
and He made a profound and real difference in their lives. The “good
news” is that Christ continues to change lives for the better. He changed
mine and He can change yours. Are you willing to investigate His claims
and make a decision? The evidence is there. You just need to take the
time to examine it carefully.

Resources
• I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST (Norman Geisler and Frank Turek)
• STEALING FROM GOD: WHY ATHEISTS NEED GOD TO MAKE THEIR CASE (Frank Turek)
• WHAT’S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY (Dinesh D’Souza)
• COLD CASE CHRISTIANITY (J. Warner Wallace)
• THE CASE FOR CHRIST (Lee Strobel)
• REASONABLE FAITH (William Lane Craig)

Why Christianity (Presentation).pptx

More Related Content

Similar to Why Christianity (Presentation).pptx

More from Roel Agustin

Recently uploaded

Why Christianity (Presentation).pptx