I’d like to ask the question, "Is there anything that a thinking person can believe today?" If there are one billion people that believe in the religion of Islam, if there are hundreds of millions more that believe in Hinduism and Buddhism, if there are four thousand religious cults in America, all claiming to be "the way", then how in the world can anybody know if there is any truth about God? What does Christianity offer that proves it is true and different from all the rest? How can you really know that Christianity is true?

You can know because of two reasons.

First, you can know Christianity is true because it is based on a real person who actually lived. But this person is unlike any other. Let me give you my conclusion first of who I believe this person is. Let’s say Jesus Christ was present right now and I wanted to introduce Him to you. I would say, "Ladies and gentlemen, here is Jesus Christ." He could come out here on stage, look at you, smile and snap his fingers. When He did, this room would disappear. He could snap his fingers again and the world would disappear. He could snap his fingers the third time and the sun would stop shining and the stars would disappear. You and He would be standing in outer space together. Then He could smile at you and say, "Don’t worry," snap his fingers and bring it all back together again. This is who I think the evidence will reveal Jesus Christ is. He is God.

In saying this, I want to make sure you realize that Christianity is not a philosophy, a system of ethics, or moral principles. Rather, Christianity is a relationship with a real person, a very special person, Jesus Christ.

You know, it’s interesting, if you take Muhammad out of Islam, you can still have the Islamic religion. If you take Buddha out of Buddhism, you can still have Buddhism. If you take Gandhi out of Hinduism, you can still have Hinduism. But if you take Christ out of Christianity, you destroy Christianity. Christianity rests solely on the person of Jesus Christ who constantly pointed men to Himself. It was not uncommon for Jesus to ask people, "Who do you say that I am (Matthew 16:15)?"

Second, you can know Christianity is true because it offers proof in historical fact. It is one thing to make a religious claim; it is a totally different thing to demonstrate that claim. For Christianity, if certain events took place in history, then the Christian faith is true. If they didn’t take place, it is false. If it can be shown that Jesus claimed to be God, lived a sinless life, and after being crucified on the cross rose from the dead, then the Christian faith is vindicated.

Let me illustrate. How many of you believe that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States? Would you put your hand up? Great! It looks like 100%. How many of you have met President Lincoln personally? Interesting. I don’t see one hand. But if you never met Lincoln personally, how do you know that he was the President of the United States?

Well, one day you were awake in history class, and you can remember your teacher saying something about people who heard Lincoln speak, people who wrote about him both pro and con. Eyewitnesses of his time recorded what he said and did, and this has come down to us as historical evidence. Among other things, this evidence proves to us that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States, and that he was shot in Ford’s Theater, and didn’t die by slipping on a banana peel in Peoria.

How do we know Jesus Christ actually lived, said, and did certain things? It is because we have accurate historical information that has come down to us, just as we have of Abraham Lincoln or any other historical figure.

Going back in history, we find people such as Napoleon, Charlemagne, and Julius Caesar. And right about the time of Julius Caesar, we know another person lived by the name of Jesus Christ.

The Encyclopedia Britannica lists 11,000 words about the person of Jesus Christ and never hints that he didn’t exist. In fact, there are more words listed about Jesus Christ than any other person in the encyclopedia. (Buddha has 4,000 words and even Hitler has only 5,000 words.) Why? Because the scholars at the University of Chicago are such warm evangelicals? No! It is because every writer of history, every skeptic, every professor of philosophy who has ever written a book concerning the first 100 years A.D. has been forced to include the person of Jesus Christ in his book because of the historical evidence.

Now where do we find this historical information? Well, did you know that there were nine men who wrote about Christ? Who were they? That’s right, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, Peter, Jude and the author of Hebrews.

Luke said he obtained his information from those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. Mark received his information from the Apostle Peter, with whom he traveled, and we know Peter was an eyewitness of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Matthew, James and John were also apostles and eyewitnesses. James was Jesus’ own brother (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). Paul personally met Christ on the road to Damascus and, therefore, he also was an eyewitness.

In fact, if you have a Bible, I’d like you to turn to the New Testament to see for yourself why these men wrote their books.

First, let’s look at Luke 1:1-4. Luke states, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us..." (emphasis added). When Luke talks about "the things that have been fulfilled among us," he is speaking about what Jesus said and did. Notice he says, many have already drawn up accounts, that is, they had already written down what they had seen of Jesus’ life, and Luke had access to that written material.

Why is this important? Because today non-Christian university professors are telling students the Gospels are only the reflections of the Church long after Jesus died. Professors wrongly assume that because the Church loved Jesus, it elevated Him from a mere man to the status of the Son of God. They believe the Gospels were not accounts composed of eyewitness testimony, but the slowly evolving oral tradition invented by the Church many years after Jesus lived.

Luke blows this assumption right out of the water by declaring the eyewitness testimony did not remain oral, but was written down. And not just a few people wrote accounts, but "Many have undertaken to draw up an account," and these accounts "were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" (Luke 1:1-2, emphasis added). Luke states the information he has put in his book is based on both the "oral" and "written" testimony of those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ own life.

He goes on to say, "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also for me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus (The word "excellent" probably indicates a Roman governor.), so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3-4, emphasis added).

Luke, a physician by training, states his qualifications for writing his book as being: (1) he carefully investigated everything from the beginning; (2) he had not uncritically accepted the apostolic eyewitnesses and those who had written down their testimony; but, (3) he had personally checked out the written and oral information.

Luke plainly says the purpose of his book is so that Theophilus will be able to know "the certainty" of what he had already been told about Jesus.

In brief, Luke claims to be writing an accurate account of Jesus’ life based on eyewitness testimony which he double-checked and carefully evaluated before recording.

Now turn to 1 John 1:1-3. Here the Apostle John also claims to be an eyewitness and has written about what he, himself, saw. He declares:

The Apostle John doesn’t want anyone to miss his point. He goes to great effort to emphasize the fact that the apostles actually heard Jesus with their own ears, they saw Him with their own eyes, they touched Him with their own hands. They were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life.

Now turn to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, where the Apostle Paul testifies of the information he put into his book:

Here Paul claims to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ Resurrection and assures us he is in agreement with those who first saw Jesus and testified about him. Their eyewitness testimony, along with his own witness, is what he is passing on to others.

Now turn to 2 Peter 1:16 where Peter refutes modern day liberal scholarship by asserting, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (emphasis added).

From these statements, it should be obvious that these men all claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, or are basing their books on information given by eyewitnesses.

But, you might ask, "How can we know that these books weren’t written by people 100 or 200 years after Jesus lived? What about those scholars who say these books are nothing more than legend or myth? And if the accounts really were written by the disciples of Jesus, how do we know they really told the truth? Isn’t it possible that because they were his friends, they exaggerated and "padded" the case?

At this point, I am reminded of Professor Avrum Stroll, Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia, who in a debate with trial attorney and Christian scholar, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, stated:

Even such a critic as "Death-of-God" theologian John A. T. Robinson has admitted that, in his view, all the books of the New Testament were written and in circulation between 40 and 65 A.D.4 If Albright and Robinson are correct, and if Jesus died about 30 A.D., it means that some books like Mark were on the newsstands in Jerusalem about 10-15 years after Jesus’ death. Indeed, all of the books of the New Testament were written by either a contemporary or an eyewitness of Christ.

Thus, we know that we have accurate information about Jesus’ life. Why? Because if these books came out that early, the majority of friends and enemies of Jesus would still be living who could remember back to when the events had actually happened. If you had been a Christian who followed Jesus, you would naturally have been motivated to check what the authors said about Jesus. You would never have accepted any Gospel account which went against what you remembered and knew was true.

On the other hand, the enemies of Christ were also still living. They would have been only too happy to point out any errors in these accounts. Christians in the first 300 years A.D. did reject many books about Jesus, but neither friend nor enemy refuted the accounts we know today as the New Testament.

An example from the book of Mark will illustrate the opportunities both friends and enemies of Jesus would have had in pointing out any errors the authors might have recorded. Most scholars concede that Mark was the earliest of the Gospels to be written, usually dating it between 40 to 50 A.D.

Mark 2 records a day in the life of Jesus, a day which took place in a real town, Capernaum. Jesus was preaching. Mark records that certain teachers of the Law were present at the meeting and the place was crowded with people. Four men approached the house carrying a paralyzed man. When the four couldn’t get in, they tore up the roof above where Jesus was preaching to lower the paralytic through the hole.

If your pastor was preaching and somebody tore up the roof right above him, do you think you would remember that meeting?

The four men let the paralytic down and Jesus said to him in front of the whole crowd, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Instead of saying, "You are healed," Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven." Everybody present oohed and aahed on hearing Jesus say this. There was tension in the air.

The religious leaders angrily said, "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7). Here in the earliest Gospel account Jesus didn’t back away from their challenge to His being God, but countered with a question. He asked them, "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, Arise, take up your pallet and walk’" (Mark 2:9)?

What is going on? Jesus knew they did not believe He was God, nor that He had power to forgive sins. In their minds He was guilty of blasphemy and deserved to be stoned to death.

Josephus tells us about a man called Theudas who claimed to be a prophet. To give proof of his claim, he took a large group of the Jews out to the Jordan River and commanded the river to part. After a few hours of shouting at it, the river still didn’t part. The Roman procurator found out about this man and sent soldiers to kill him.5 It was a serious thing to claim you were God—either in front of the Jews or the Romans.

When Jesus told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven, He was claiming He had the power to do what only God was supposed to be able to do (to forgive sins, Isaiah 45:21). When Jesus asked them which would be the easiest thing for Him to do in that situation, He wanted them to realize something. If He were not God, it would be easy for Him to say to the man, "Your sins are forgiven." Then He could turn to the audience and say, "Did you see that miracle?" Of course, no one can see sins being forgiven, so they wouldn’t know if it had happened or not. That would have been the easy thing for Him to say.

On the other hand, if He were a fraud and had no power, the last thing He would want to say would be, "Take up your bed and walk." If the paralyzed man did not get up and walk, the people would have known that Jesus was a fraud and stoned Him for blasphemy.

Jesus did not back away from this tense confrontation with the religious leaders concerning who He was. He said, "‘So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,’ He said to the paralytic, ‘Take up your bed and walk.’" The man picked up his bed and went out and they were all amazed.

Now if you want empirical evidence, here it is. In essence, Jesus was saying in order for you to know that I am God and have the power to forgive sins, something that you can’t see, let me give you a demonstration in an area you can see, by making the paralytic walk. That’s exactly what He did. This is recorded in Mark 2, one of the earliest accounts in Christianity and shows Jesus was identifying himself as God.

Now when the book of Mark was published and circulated, approximately 40-50 A.D., don’t you think all the people still living in Capernaum, all the people still living that had been in that room, would have remembered what happened? If this event had never happened, wouldn’t they have been quick to point that out? Of course, they would! This shows Mark’s account is not a myth and the events really happened.

Here is a more contemporary illustration showing you why the Gospels are true accounts, and the disciples did not invent what they said.

Let me ask you, "Where were you when you heard the words, "The President of the United States has been shot’," referring to John F. Kennedy? Can you remember what you felt, what you were doing, whom you were with? Do you remember seeing Jackie Kennedy coming off of the airplane with her pink dress all splattered with the President’s blood? Sure you do! Will you ever forget watching the President’s casket being drawn by the horses down Pennsylvania Avenue while John-John and Carolyn walked with their mother behind the casket? When they got to the cemetery, do you remember seeing John-John salute the flag draped casket? Sure, you can remember all of that. In fact, you can bring back the very emotions you felt at that time.

Now, what if somebody came out with a book and said, "Here is the way Kennedy really died. He was riding down the streets in Dallas in his limousine and there was an Indian standing on the sidewalk holding a bow and arrow. The Indian took the bow and shot the arrow and struck Kennedy right in the head. That’s how he died." Many of you would say, "No. That is not how Kennedy died." Why? Because you were an eyewitness via television, or maybe you were actually standing on the streets in Dallas.

But how long ago did President Kennedy die? Do you know that it happened in 1963, over 40 years ago? And yet you haven’t forgotten! Listen, the Gospel of Mark was on the newsstands in Jerusalem only 10-15 years after Jesus passed off the scene. That’s much earlier than 40 years. People were still living who could read the accounts and remember the events they had witnessed of Jesus’ life. Not everyone had died when Jesus died. People on both sides, those that were for Jesus, and those that were against Jesus would have been able to testify for or against the information in these books. That’s why we know we have accurate historical information about Jesus.

F. F. Bruce, one of the foremost contemporary experts on The Dead Sea Scrolls, who was the Ryland’s Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, wrote about this fact in his book. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?:

Someone else might ask, "But don’t a lot of contemporary scholars say the apostles really didn’t write these accounts?" They do, but they are wrong. Why? Because we have external verification which confirms that the apostles did write these books.

For example, you will find in the writings of two of the Apostle John’s students, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 60 to 130), and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (A.D. 70 to 156), solid verification of who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

On the basis of information Papias obtained from the Apostle John, he wrote that Mark

Papias also tells us that, "Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew [i.e., Aramaic] language."8 The scholars who wrote the 20,000 study notes for the NIV Study Bible state about Matthew, "The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was the author of this Gospel."9

Polycarp (A.D. 70 to 156), Bishop of Smyrna, was martyred in 156 A.D. after being a Christian for 86 years. Polycarp had been a student of the Apostle John. A student of Polycarp was Irenaeus (A.D. 125 to 200), Bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus had often heard from Polycarp the eyewitness accounts of Jesus received from John and others who had been personally acquainted with Him. We know this from Eusebius’ Church History, Book III, chapter 39. And what does Irenaeus tell us about the authors of the Gospels? He testifies that,

These quotes from people who were acquainted with the Apostles are powerful evidence that the authors of the Gospels and their books take us right back to the very time that Jesus lived.

Another way of verifying when the Gospels were written is to begin with the Apostle Paul. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus (Acts 8:1) and we know that Paul died under Nero, about 64 to 65 A.D. Thus all of his 13 New Testament books must have been written before he died.

This also means the book of Acts had to be written before 65 A.D. Why? Because the book of Acts does not record Paul’s death. Yet the life of Paul is a central part of Acts, and the book of Acts ends with Paul alive and well, teaching the Gospel (Acts 28:30-31). If Paul had already died, it is inconceivable that his traveling companion, Luke, would not have recorded it In a manner of speaking, Acts is Paul’s biography. When somebody dies, death is very important to his biography; it ends it! So Acts must have been written before 65 A.D.

But Acts is actually part two of Luke’s writings. His Gospel must have been written before Acts. In Acts 1:1, notice what Luke says, "In my former book [speaking of the Gospel of Luke], Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach." Now, if Acts is written before 65 A.D., then Luke’s Gospel is earlier. And if Luke and Matthew used Mark’s Gospel, as many scholars say, then Mark is earlier still. If Jesus died about 30 A.D., the Gospels are right up against the time the events happened. Anybody that says it isn’t so is not dealing fairly with the evidence.

There is so much more. I’ll give you just one more illustration that proves we have accurate historical information about Jesus. It has to do with archaeology.

Sir William Ramsay was one of the world’s foremost biblical archaeologists. He studied under Baur, the founder of the German Tubingen School of Theology which dated the New Testament to the second century. Initially, Ramsay was convinced that the New Testament documents were written a hundred years after Jesus lived. According to his assumptions, someone other than Luke had to have written his two books.

But Ramsay himself went to the Holy Land. After years of painstaking archaeological research and geographical investigation of Luke’s Gospel, he changed his mind. Every place he looked he found that Luke had recorded accurately all the names he, Ramsay, was discovering on the stones. The archaeological digs showed Luke was correct and Ramsay’s assumptions were wrong.

Ramsay came to the conclusion, via the evidence from archaeology, that Luke and Acts could not have been written by somebody a hundred years after the fact; rather, they had to be written by somebody right on top of the scene. How else could anyone have known the authentic names and places that Luke did? He had to be present at the time of the events.

Ramsay tells how he came to change his mind in his book, Saint Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen:

After a lifetime of archaeological research, Ramsay concluded: "Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."13

If Luke is accurate in those things we can check, then we should trust him in those things we can’t check. So, in brief, we have accurate information recorded for us by the apostles who wrote the Gospels. We know that Mark got his information from Peter, who had personally accompanied Christ for three years. Luke got his information from the Apostle Paul, also a contemporary of Christ and one familiar with the events surrounding Jesus. We know that Matthew, John, Peter, and James were all Apostles and eyewitnesses. We can verify that the time period in which they wrote was very early, not late, and that their writings came out among those who could remember back to when they had witnessed the events recorded in the accounts. This is one reason why it is a historical fact that Jesus lived and taught what the New Testament says He lived and taught.

Now, if we have accurate historical information about Jesus, then we must ask the following questions. What did Jesus think and teach about Himself? What did He want us to know about Himself? What did His friends and enemies say about Him?

Some theologians say, "Jesus never claimed that He was God." Let’s see if that is true. In order to answer the question who is Jesus Christ, we will examine three areas: His claims. His character, and His works.

You don’t need to know any Greek or Hebrew to figure out who Jesus claimed to be. Listen to these statements that Jesus made and see if there is any doubt in your mind who He was claiming to be. He said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12).

Now, Mom and Dad, if your son or daughter walked into the kitchen for breakfast one morning and said, "Hey, folks, I’m the light of the world!" Would you think that such a statement was a little egotistical? Sure, you would. You would laugh and tell your kid to sit down and eat his breakfast. What if he continued and said, "Wait! Wait! I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. In other words, if you die and you believe in me, don’t worry, because I’ve got the power to bring you back to life and enable you to live eternally." Wouldn’t you think such statements were a bit unusual? They are, but that is what Jesus said (John 11:25).

In fact, in these next statements, notice the emphasis Jesus put on the personal pronouns. He kept on referring men to himself. He said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6, emphasis added). He said, "Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28, emphasis added). He said, "Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."(John 8:56). He said Moses had written about Him and the entire Old Testament bore witness to Him (John 6:46-47, Luke 24:27, 44).

Jesus also said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment" (Matthew 22:37-38). Yet He commanded men to love Him in the same way.

He taught that if a man loved his father or mother or son or daughter more than Him that he could not come and follow Him (Matthew 10:37, cf. John 14:15, 21). Jesus taught that God the Holy Spirit was to bear witness of Him and to glorify Him (John 16:14). He said that when He would be lifted up from the earth—on the cross—that He would draw all men to Himself (John 12:32).

Jesus said that to know Him was to know God (John 14:7); to see Him was to see God (John 8:19; 14:7); to believe in Him was to believe in God (John 12:44-45; 14:1); to receive Him was to receive God (Matthew 10:40); to hate Him was to hate God (John 15:23); to honor Him was to honor God (John 5:23). Thus, to deny Him was to deny God (1 John 2:23).14

In Mark 2 Jesus reveals He could forgive men’s sins. In John 11 He said He could give all men eternal life. In Matthew 25—listen to this one—He taught that someday He was coming back at the end of the world and that He alone would sit down and judge the world. He would raise the dead and all the nations would be gathered before Him. He would sit on His throne in glory and He would judge and separate men one from another as a shepherd separates his sheep from his goats (Matthew 25:31-46; see John 5:25-34).

In addition, Jesus said men’s eternal destiny would depend on how they treated Him. Did they believe on Him? Did they acknowledge Him? Did they confess Him? To those who acknowledged Jesus before men, He said He would acknowledge them before God in heaven (Matthew 10:32). To those who denied Him, He said He would deny them before God in heaven (Matthew 10:33). For a man to be excluded from heaven on the last day all he would have to do is to not have believed in Jesus. On that day Jesus would say, "I never knew you," and "depart from me... into the eternal fire" (Matthew 7:23; 25:41).

And there is more. He said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The word "one" in the Greek (hen), according to Greek authority A. T. Robertson, means not just one in the sense of agreement, but that He and God are one essence of being.15

In John 10 Jesus was once again about to be stoned for His claims. He asked, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me" (John 10:32)? And they said, "...because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (John 10:33). It is clear His enemies understood Him as saying He was God.

In John 8:58 Jesus said, "before Abraham was born, I am"—"ego eimi." Was Jesus’ grammar bad? No, Jesus was referring back to Exodus 3:13-14. The religious leaders he was addressing were familiar with the Scriptures where Moses was standing at the burning bush and received instruction from God to go to Pharaoh, to take Israel out of Egypt. In brief, Moses says to God, "They are going to ask me, ‘Who sent you?’ What should I tell them? What is your name?"

In Exodus 3:14-15 we read: "God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I AM has sent me to you." ...This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.’"

Yet Jesus quietly picked up the name "I AM" and applied it to Himself on numerous occasions such as in John, chapter 8. In essence, He was saying, "I am the One; I am the ‘I AM’ that brought your forefathers out of Egypt." When they heard Him say this, they picked up stones to kill Him. There can be no doubt that in these statements Jesus was claiming He was God! This is why He said we must believe in Him if we were to have our sins forgiven: "…unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

But in addition to His claims, what was His character like? Isn’t it true that we usually don’t like to associate with people who are egotistical? "Big talkers" are usually stuck up and proud. What do you think it would have been like to be around a person who claims He is "the light of the world," the "judge who will come back at the end of the world" and determine the eternal destiny of every person who has ever lived? What kind of personality do you think he would have?

Isn’t it interesting that the majority of scholars, and even some skeptics, think that Jesus was the humblest, most loving person who ever lived? Some say that Jesus gave us the greatest example of a man serving His fellow man.

In the documents we find the common people loved him. Even publicans and sinners invited Jesus to dine with them. Yet, this man, who claimed to be the God of the universe, washed the feet of the disciples. What do we do with such a man? His personality was absolutely unique.

Concerning his character, if you want to have a short conversation with a friend over coffee some day, just ask him, "What did Jesus do wrong?" It will be a short conversation. Why? Because Jesus didn’t do anything wrong. In fact, He challenged his enemies by saying, "Which one of you convicts me of even a single sin" (John 8:46)? Would you ever say something like that to your friends, let alone to your enemies? When Jesus asked this question of his enemies, there wasn’t one thing they could bring against Him. He lived a perfect life!

From Jesus’ teachings we pick up the fact that He knew He was different from us. He said, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 8:23). He taught that all other men were sinners (John 15:19). He alone was sinless. All other men were lost sheep. He had come as the good shepherd to seek and to save them (John 10:1-18). All other men were sick with the disease of sin. He, alone, was the doctor who had come to heal them (Matthew 9:12; Luke 5:31). All other men were plunged into the darkness of sin and ignorance (John 3:19-20). He was the bread of life and the light of the world (John 6:48; 8:12). All other men were dead in trespasses and sin. He, alone, could be their life now and their resurrection hereafter (John 11:24-25).16

If you examine some of the greatest Christians who have ever lived in church history, you will notice one thing about their lives. The closer they came to God, the more they saw their own sin.

Look at Augustine in his diary. After he became a Christian and began walking with God, he was aware of his own sinfulness. Just like the Apostle Paul he said, "O wretch that I am."

Listen to Billy Graham. You will hear him humbly admit that many times he has failed and sinned. The same can be said about Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, D.L. Moody, and other great Christians down through church history. All of these people have admitted the closer they walked with God the more they saw their own sin.

Now apply this to Jesus. Liberal scholars say that Jesus was just another man and not God. He was special only in the sense that he was closer to God than anyone else. But if this is so, then shouldn’t we see Jesus confessing his sins to God like other godly men have done? If he got closer to God than any man who ever lived, where are Jesus’ prayers in which he says, "O Father, forgive Me." Isn’t it amazing that we don’t read of one prayer in which Jesus confesses His sins?

Was it because Jesus was unaware of sin? No! He recognized the sinful hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the religious leaders of His time, and spoke out against it. He called them "whitewashed sepulchers," "blind guides," and "sons of the devil" (Matthew 23; John 8:44). They looked good on the outside, but on the inside, they were full of sin.

He was also aware of the sins of his disciples and wasn’t afraid to correct their ambition and pride (Mark 10:35-45). But when He turned that spiritual insight, that moral radar, on His own life and actions. He did not see one sin that needed to be confessed. And if He had no sin, then He is different from all the rest of us. He is in a class by Himself. His character is absolutely unique.

What did Jesus’ friends and enemies say about Him? His friends, the disciples, lived with Him night and day for over three years. They ate, worked and slept together. They knew what He was like.

Peter described Him, "As a lamb without blemish or spot, one who committed no sin and no guile was found on his tips" (1 Peter 1:19; 2:22). John said of Him, "...and in Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5). The Apostle Paul was trained in the Jewish moral law, but

said of Jesus, "He knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The writer of Hebrews said He was, "holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners" and "one who has been tempted in every way, Just as we are— yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15; 7:26).

Pilate after examining Him, could find no fault in Him, and washed his hands of Jesus’ blood (Matthew 27:23-25; John 18:38). Herod tried Him, only to conclude the same (Luke 23:13-15). Judas, the disciple who betrayed Him, agonizingly confessed, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood" (Matthew 27:4). The penitent thief on the cross said, "This man has done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:41). The Roman Centurion who watched Jesus suffer and die declared, "Certainly, this man was innocent" (Luke 24:47).

In His character Jesus was humble, and not proud. He was "Lord of all," yet He washed the feet of the disciples. He made friends with those who were simple fisherman, and was loved by those who were outcasts. As the torturous nails were pounded through His hands, He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). There has never been anyone like Jesus. There never will be.

Third, let’s look at the works Jesus did. Anybody can claim to be God. What proof did Jesus give that He was God? In the Gospel accounts we find Jesus saying over and over again that He would go to Jerusalem, be murdered on a cross by the authorities, and three days later, He would rise from the dead. (See Q. 53)

Some critics say this was written into the accounts by His disciples at a later time. Do you know why this isn’t true? When you examine the records describing when Jesus was on trial for His life, you will see that the witnesses who testified against Him referred to the fact that He said He would destroy the temple and raise it up again "in three days" (Mark 14:57). If the enemies of Jesus had not actually made these statements at his trial, this would have been another way to discredit the Gospel accounts when they were first circulated. But, nobody denied that they had accused Jesus of saying He would raise up the temple "in three days."

The Gospel writers give us the actual words and context for Jesus’ statement that was used by His enemies, "the temple He had spoken of was His body" (John 2:21). After its destruction, Jesus said He would raise it up "in three days" (John 2:19).

Those who testified against Jesus had to base their accusations on something He had truly said. If they didn’t, they could have lost their own life in testifying falsely at a trial weighing a life and death matter. Under the Jewish laws found in the Mishnah, if a person gave false testimony at such a trial, he could be put to death. The point is, they correctly remembered Jesus had actually spoken the words "in three days." They also were correct in testifying He was speaking of the temple. They were wrong concerning which temple He was speaking about—either one would be a spectacular miracle. But their words are proof that Jesus did predict in advance He would be killed, and come back to life again "on the third day." No one else in human history has ever made such a claim.

It would be like somebody in this audience saying, "John, I’m not feeling too good. In about 30 seconds I’m going to fall out into the aisle and die. I will be stone cold dead for a few days, but just let me lie there. On the third day I will wake up and come back to life again." I would say, "Well, I’ve never seen that happen before but I am willing to watch. Should I hold my breath?"

Jesus was nailed to a cross, a spear was put through His side, and He was pronounced dead by a Roman centurion. After being taken down from the cross, seventy-five pounds of spices were wrapped in the layers of bandages around his body like a cocoon and He was put into a tomb. A two-ton stone was rolled in front of the entrance to the tomb and sealed. Guards were placed at the sealed tomb to watch it. But in spite of all this, a few days later, something amazing happened. The tomb was empty and the disciples who had been proven cowards by running away when Jesus was captured and crucified were found standing in the very city that had witnessed Jesus’ murder claiming that, "Jesus is alive" and "we have seen Him!"

How could the disciples get away with saying the tomb was empty and that they had seen Jesus? One thing is for sure, the tomb must have been empty.

It would have been ridiculous for the apostles to be proclaiming a Resurrection when just a few blocks over, anybody could check to see if Jesus’ body was still lying there. But instead of checking out the evidence and concluding the apostles were crazy, more than three thousand Jews believed what they said! More amazing, even "a large number of Jewish priests" believed them (Acts 6:7). Not only did they accept what the apostles said, they switched religions by believing on Jesus.

No skeptic or philosopher has ever claimed that Jesus’ body was still in the grave at the very time the apostles were saying they had seen Jesus alive. The question that must be answered is, "What happened to the body?"

If you think about this, there were only three parties who had interest in the tomb and the body of Jesus. They were the government, the religious leaders, and the disciples. We know that the disciples were cowards and had fled. They never expected Jesus to rise, so they would never have stolen the body.

How about the government? Would Pilate have wanted to steal the body of Jesus? No way. Pilate wanted Him to remain in the tomb. That’s why he put a guard there.

What about the Jewish leaders? They, for sure, wanted Jesus’ body to remain in the grave. They were the ones who had asked the government to put the soldiers there. They had no motive to steal the body from the tomb, and every reason to keep it under lock and key in the grave.

How did they discover the tomb was empty? The New Testament documents tell us the soldiers came to the Jewish leaders and told them. The religious leaders probably went over and examined the tomb before they paid money to the soldiers to tell a lie to the public. The religious leaders paid the soldiers to say, "While we were sleeping, the disciples came and stole the body away" (Matthew 28:13-15).

But they concocted the story so fast that they didn’t realize that there was a flaw in what they had said. If the soldiers were sleeping, how did they know it was the disciples who came and stole the body?

If you say to me, "John, last night while I was sleeping, my next door neighbor, Harry, broke into my house and stole my television set," I’d ask you how you knew it was Harry. So, the first historical fact we must deal with is that the tomb was empty on the third day, just as Jesus had predicted.

Then, second, what changed the disciples from cowards into courageous preachers? What convinced them to go out and stand in front of the very city that had murdered Jesus and say, "He’s risen; He’s alive"? Tradition tells us that all but one of the disciples was martyred for what he believed. What reason did the apostles give for being willing to die for their beliefs? The disciples said that what changed them was the fact that they had seen Jesus alive after His crucifixion and death.

The main response of skeptics today to what the disciples testified is that they were having visions and hallucinating. Yet psychologists tell us that the New Testament accounts do not fit the characteristics of hallucinations. For example, people don’t have group hallucinations. You might be sitting in this auditorium having a dream all by yourself, but the guy sitting next to you, if he’s having a dream; he is not seeing the same thing you are.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul records that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time. He concludes by saying, if you want to go and check it out, many of those same people are still alive and will testify to the fact that they saw Jesus. In addition, Paul claims he personally had witnessed the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:6). Among others we could list, the women as a group saw Jesus, and also the apostles as a group saw Jesus—on at least three separate occasions.

Some people picture that these folks were all sitting in a dark room with a small candle burning when suddenly the wind blew out the candle and they all saw Jesus. If it had happened that way, I would doubt, too. But the accounts say the disciples saw Jesus down at the Sea of Galilee in the bright morning sun. Others met and saw Jesus on a busy road. Others saw Him in a crowded room where they were having dinner.

Let me ask you, what do you think changed the disciples into courageous preachers of Jesus’ Resurrection? One critic has said, "It will take more faith to believe any other theory than what the disciples actually said."

Now, take all that we have talked about and put these pieces of evidence together. We have accurate historical accounts about the life of Jesus Christ In those accounts we find Jesus claimed He was God and lived a perfect life, yet He was humble and loving. Jesus predicted that He would rise from the dead on the third day, thereby giving us proof that He was God. After His death, on the third day, the tomb was empty and Jesus’ body was gone. The disciples stood in Jerusalem and said they had repeatedly seen Jesus alive and 3,000 people believed them and converted to Christianity, then 5,000 people believed (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7). What conclusion do you come to about Jesus? Who do you think He is?

Your answer matters. Some day you are going to die. What will happen at that moment? Jesus Christ taught that if you believe in Him, He will forgive your sins and give you eternal life (John 3:16-18; 36; 5:24; 6:47). He is the only religious leader who has ever given us proof that he could conquer death and the grave by coming forth from the dead on the third day. What will you do with Jesus? You can’t just ignore Him. He won’t go away. He never will.

Return to The Easter Topics Page

Return to The Perilous Times Main Page

Notes: