Why I Believe

During the process of working on my NaNoWriMo project for this year, I
had asked my Senior Pastor a question that one of my characters poses to a
minister in my story. Long and short of the question was: Why do we
believe?

The following is excerpted from his answer:

As you know, we live in a world that would lead us to believe that all
religions lead to the same place. Many would insist that it doesn't matter
what you believe because ultimately, we all die and go to heaven (90% of
Americans believe this). However, my observation is that many of our
mainstream institutions of higher education speak out of both sides of
their mouths. At the same time they teach that all roads lead to God --
they often offer a disclaimer in regard to Christianity. They warn about
the close-minded teachings of the Bible... after all, it has so many errors
and contradictions and focuses too much on the supernatural... in short,
the Bible is not something intellectual people can place [their] faith in.
I would disagree wholeheartedly!

Peculiar: Over 1/3 of the world has based their eternity on the Bible.
Are we all so shallow? Or is there a vacuum in my life that all the
relationships, money, prestige, etc cannot fill but the love of Jesus can?

How is it that the Bible can be so easily discredited by so-called
intellectuals... and yet millions are reading it and following the
teachings of Jesus Christ? Could it be that Rick Warren's quote is true?
”Some people are so open-minded that their brains fall out.”

In a court of law, we are not required to prove that something actually
took place. It is impossible to prove that anything in history has taken
place. Instead, we must look at the past through the eyes of reliable
witnesses and evidence on-hand. These witnesses must simply prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the evidence is legitimate. With this in mind, let us
take a look at the first 4 books in the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, and let us consider if these eye-witnesses to the life of
Jesus Christ are indeed reliable testimonies (records) of someone/something
that actually happened in history just over 2,000 years ago.

I would argue that the Gospels are a reliable record of actual events
and actual conversation. If this is true, then what the Bible says about
Jesus is true. If what the Bible says about Jesus is true, then in fact, He
must be the Son of God based upon the claims He made, the miracles He
performed, and the fact that he was crucified on a cross and later He
raised from the dead. If all of this is true, then what Jesus said about
the rest of the Bible and God must be true as well.

Although this may be considered simple from our intellectual friends,
we have a choice to make. We can put our trust in a man with a PhD or we
can put our trust in the man who healed the sick, raised the dead, and
predicted his own death and resurrection. (For me personally, I think I'll
go with the guy who raised from the dead.)

Serious Question: Can we trust what these books say about Jesus?

Lesson from History: Whenever we talk about historical events, we
cannot prove what has happened in the past, it is not a matter of proving,
it is a matter of looking at the evidence. Like in the courtroom
illustration given earlier, you present evidence and the jury uses that
evidence to come to a conclusion. So, whenever we look at the past, we must
ask what the evidence is pointing toward. (The trustworthiness of any
account is based on the reliability of evidence, not the proof.)

Illustration: One of my coworkers comes up to me and tells me they had
attended my church's Christmas Pageant. I tell him that I didn't see him
there, so he wasn't there. He shows me the bulletin from the program, but
he could have swiped that before or after the fact. “I have the recorded CD
of the pastor's message.” (still doesn't prove anything, that wasn't
available till after) “I saw your friend Spencer, he will tell you I was there!” (he could have asked Spencer to lie about it)

Science reminds us that you can only prove what is observable and
repeatable. You cannot observe what has happened in the past so you make
decisions based upon the evidence available to you in the present.

The second step in proving the reliability of history: When drawing
conclusions about evidence, probability takes precedence over possibility
(We must look at what is most probable -vs- what is possible.)

Back to our illustration: My coworker could have stolen or forged one
of the church's bulletins. He could have stolen the pastor's CD. He could
have even convinced my friend Spencer to lie for him. These things are
indeed possible. But what is probable, is that my coworker was at church
for the Paegent.

This might be why in legal terms we speak of Probable Cause rather than
Possible Cause.

Another Illustration: You are sitting at a stoplight, when a car behind
you locks on his brakes and slams into the back of your car. The front of
his car has wedged under the back of yours, lifting your rear wheels off
the pavement.

The police come. The man driving the second car claims that you
suddenly put your car into reverse and backed into him! True, this is
possible. It is also possible that a helicopter with a giant magnet flew
overhead, picked up your car and dropped it on top of the other car!
Now, in light of the evidence presented (skid marks matching his car,
no skid marks matching yours, your car on top of his ...)what is the
PROBABLE cause of the accident? (I'd say the other driver didn't use his
brakes soon enough and wound up underneath your car)

As I stated earlier, you can not prove anything from history, simply because proof is a term used in science and math for things that you can observe the result and repeat the action getting the same result.

Example: My friend Mr. Van Ostrand likes to take small chips of dry ice and put them with a small amount of water into a closed two liter soda pop
bottle. He observed that doing so creates carbon dioxide gas. He also
observed that doing so inside of a closed two liter bottle will create
enough pressure inside the bottle that within a few minutes the bottle
explodes!

Mr. Van Ostrand explained to me what he did, what he observed and how I
could duplicate his experiment. From Mr. Van Ostrand's experience I not only got a wonderful lesson about the explosive pressure that can be created by
carbon dioxide, but also a good lesson in safety practices and how to keep
from blowing a finger off. (drop the bottle and get AWAY)

History cannot be proven because it cannot be duplicated.

Like the court of law, we must rely on determining which resources are
the most trustworthy. The question then is, how do you determine whether an
ancient manuscript is trustworthy?

1. You look at the actual manuscript, determine its date of writing and
how widely it was distributed (how many copies are there)

2. What do you know about the author of the manuscript? (is this person
reliable, do they have a motive for their writings, were they paid by
someone to write it, etc)

Most of us during our High School education had the joy(??) of studying
Ancient Roman History. You will have likely read something that sounded a
bit like this:

Caesar realized that he could not win power without a royal army, so he made himself pro-council of Gall, a region of present-day France. In his 10 years as pro-council, Caesar brought all of Gall under Roman rule and showed his superior ability as a military leader. Caesar issued written reports about his campaigns and victories to keep the people of Rome informed. Students of Latin can still read these clearly detailed reports in what is known as the Gallic Wars

Where did the textbook get these details?

(story continues)

Pompey meanwhile grew jealous of Caesar's rising fame. To head off his rival, Pompey made himself sole pro-council. Then he persuaded the senate to order Caesar to return to Rome without his army.

Where did they get their information?

Answer: From ancient manuscripts.


Many High School history texts refer to the Gallic Wars. It is
interesting to me that this work is a manuscript with only ten known copies
to exist, and the author was hired (and presumably paid) by the emperor to
write a history about him! (can you see where there might be a just a
little narcissistic favoritism going on here?) Also, of the ten copies, the
earliest copy is from around 900 AD!

Question: Would you expect Rome to keep a good record of history? Would
you expect those records to be preserved? Would you expect these documents
would be considered so valuable to the empire that they would do all they
could to preserve them?

Question: Would you expect anyone to keep such detailed records and
protect with any measurable quality the writings about a common man from
Galilee, a carpenter's son? He didn't lead any campaigns, he didn't write
anything, and yet there are four detailed accounts of his life.

Reality: We have more written records about the life of Jesus Christ
than we have about the Roman emperors of his day!

Roman history is based on a few copies of records nearly 900 years old.

The Gospel manuscripts (unlike the Gallic Wars) we don't have ten
copies -- we have hundreds of copies!! Some of the earliest pieces of the
Gospel writings do not come from 900 years after the fact, they come from
within the lifetimes of people who were THERE. (some from as little as 10
years after Jesus' death)

Why in the world would there be such emphasis on the life of one Jewish
carpenter? Even if he was a fake, even if he was a rebel, even if he was a
prophet ... why in the world would there be such desire for detailed
information about a three year span of one man's life?

These records have survived through the ages, not because of Roman
protection, but because of its historical value.

A critic might ask: But aren't those copies of copies? What about the
mistakes and errors that would come from copying these manuscripts?

Good news: Unlike secular history (if only there was the documentation
for any other time in ancient history like there is for the time of the
Gospels!), there are amazingly few discrepancies in the Gospel accounts.
True, there are some differences, but few discrepancies.

Pastor Walt teaches that in Bible College, an example of the
differences that you might face as a student learning Textual Criticism are
things such as:

[in] the Bisintine manuscripts, the text says 'spirit' while the Western manuscripts say 'Holy Spirit'. Which one did the author intend? This is one of the toughest areas to have to face in Textual Criticism!

Reality: If you were to take a letter and copy it, you might make a
mistake, maybe transpoes a letter, but by the end of the day you've not
changed the meaning of the letter. It doesn't suddenly mean something else
entirely. And if it did, wouldn't you dispose of it?

Using an example I read somewhere, let us say that you were to receive
an letter from a reliable source. Maybe Western Union comes to your door
with a telegram (I know, I don't think they still DO telegrams, but for the
sake of my example ... lets assume they do!) The telegram informs you:
You haew von a milion dolars.

The sentence has 23 letters and four misspellings. There are plenty of
errors there. But I bet you could figure out what you needed to do next
don't you? Hope they sent directions to pick up your check!

The Western Union people could have likely had several people copy your
message. But by the end of the day, it doesn't change the meaning of what
is said. In that sentence, errors make up just over 13% of the total
message. But you still understand what it is telling you. You can go to a
bookstore and purchase a Greek New Testament. The footnotes will give you
all the variant readings (singular -vs- plural, etc but nothing significant
in regards to either history or theology)

Because of the volume of copies available, it is very easy to check
from one to another to find where errors may have occurred in the
duplication process and errors could be weeded out.

The thing is, if it is that obvious that the Gospel manuscripts are
accurate, why don't secular historians use them as a historical reference?
If they were recorded by more reliable sources, been more widely
distributed and more accurate, surely they would be invaluable as a
reference tool?

Problem: There is a prejudice against things that are supernatural.
Historians give little or no credit for things that happen by means they
cannot either comprehend or explain. Without my faith, I would find it hard
to believe that a man could walk on water. It would be nearly impossible to
conceive that a multitude of over 5,000 people could be fed on the contents
of a little boy's lunch pail -- and have baskets full of leftovers after
the fact!
The blind are cured of their blindness?
The lame are told to get up and walk?
The dead are brought back to life?
All four of the Gospel manuscripts give credence to such supernatural
acts, and so secular historians cannot trust them.

This however, is not a problem with the Gospels. It is a problem with
our society's orientation. I admit, I've never seen a blind person's eyes
being cleared after having mud rubbed in them and a command to go and wash. I've not seen a man walk across the waves of a sea without even getting the hem of his garments wet. My Mom, nor my Grandma or anyone else I know hasn't seen it happen. The secular historian would surmise that if it cannot happen in the present day, it could not have happened in the past. I on the other hand would surmise that if the man who walked on water was also the man who told the lame to walk and made the blind to see, and told the dead man to Come Forth! then maybe it wasn't something wrong with the accuracy of the manuscripts. Maybe it was something right about the man who proclaimed to one and all that He was the only son of the Living God.

I've not seen these miracles performed. But I know a man who has fallen
from the roof of a five story building. The doctors told his wife to gather
his family and make sure his affairs were in order, because there was
little hope of his surviving the night. With nearly every bone in his body
broken, several organs injured and his head swollen as large as the pillow
it rested upon. His family gathered and the word went out to their
community ... Pray. The man not only survived. He was in church less than
nine days later giving praise to the King of kings and Lord of lords who
had given his life back to him! He wasn't rolled out on a gurney. He wasn't
wheeled out in a wheelchair. He walked out of the hospital and straight to
the church he and his wife were attending. I have not only met this man. He
is my Pastor, mentor and I am blessed to consider him a personal friend.
Walt Weaver.

Question: Why would you take the word of someone who was paid by a
Roman emperor and who wrote history for that emperor over the record of the
Gospels? Tasadus was a fine historian. But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
each died a martyr's death because of their witness and what they had
written. Even under the threat of being martyred, ten of eleven disciples
were willing to die for what is recorded in these manuscripts. But
so-called intellectuals would tell us that these Gospels cannot be trusted
because the writers experienced and believed in the supernatural?

To reject the Gospels is comparable to saying, "I don't believe the
Holocaust happened." Even though we have pictures, witnesses, written
records and even still a couple of survivors. It is hard to believe that
people could have that sort of hatred of someone. I have never experienced
that sort of hatred of someone simply because of their ethnicity or
beliefs. My family has never experienced that sort of hatred. But sadly, we
know it has happened and we weep for those who died.

I guess I will simply conclude that the world will tell you their
reasons why they do not accept the witness of the Gospel manuscripts. They
will tell you that any reasonable thinking person cannot believe in fairy
stories. But I will tell you that these aren't fairy stories. That the
supernatural is actually quite natural. And history has shown us that there
is a man who died so that we might live. You can read about it if you want
to.