Zondervan has produced an incredible collection of short and relevant online courses in apologetics. They include courses on evangelism in a skeptical world, tactics for defending and discussing your faith well, cultural apologetics, and many more.
Take a look at the trailer for Searching for God:
Several weeks ago, I had a great time being interviewed by Matt Pierce for his upcoming documentary Anchor.
As Matt shared with me what he was doing, I thought his vision for the documentary was fantastic and deserves to be known more widely.
Anchor is a documentary that explores the atheist and Christian perspectives on the big questions of life. Matt’s aim is to present both sides fairly and accurately, and so he has been going around the country and interviewing expert representatives from each view.
I enjoyed the interview because it was an opportunity to talk in detail about various apologetic questions, which is something I really enjoy. In my time, I was able to talk about things such as “why should we believe the Bible?,” “why doesn’t God save everyone?,” “what is the meaning of Christianity?,” and more.
While being fair to both sides, Matt’s documentary shows the supremacy of the biblical worldview — not by through wishful thinking and ignoring facts, but through reason and evidence.
This is the most powerful way to show the truth of Christianity in my view: dealing fairly and honestly with other perspectives and exploring the issues rationally, rather than implying that people should have a blind faith (which I believe is disrespectful; it’s also unnecessary, because the evidence favors Christianity).
You can learn more about the film at its website and see the documentary below.
Also, Matt is mostly funding this documentary himself, and so it’s worth considering whether you might want to help support this important film by making a donation on the website.
This is a great video summarizing the Kalam cosmological argument, which shows how science helps demonstrate that it is fully rational to believe in the existence of God.
The Kalam cosmological argument was initially developed in the middle ages, but it has been updated and refined in an incredibly insightful way in recent years by William Lange Craig, perhaps the best Christian apologist of our day. (I highly recommend his book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
Briefly, the argument is this:
The chief contribution Craig has made in updating the argument is in showing how scientific discoveries of the last 100 years, from the theory of relativity to the realization that the universe is expanding, decisively demonstrate that the universe is not eternal, but does in fact have a beginning. And if it had a beginning, where did it come from? As the video shows, the best explanation is a Creator — that is, God.
And for some very enjoyable, short apologetics videos answering tough and interesting questions about evidence for the faith, check out Dr. Craig’s Youtube Channel drcraigvideos.
(HT: Apologetics 315)
And the New York Times obituary.
As we look ahead to Easter on Sunday, it is worth remembering that there is good historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Here’s an article I wrote in college (since posted to the DG site) summarizing some of the best of that evidence.
The article looks at three facts that virtually all critical scholars accept, and argues that the resurrection is the best (and only, really!) plausible explanation for them. These three facts are:
Here’s what I find stunning: These are not three marginal facts. They include the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances. It is remarkable that the evidence for these realities is so good that even most critical scholars accept them. And, as I show in the article, if you accept these two realities, the only solid explanation is that Christ actually rose from the dead.
For further resources on evidence for the resurrection and Christianity, I would recommend William Lane Craig’s book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
Of course the ultimate ground for our faith is not historical evidence, but the self-authenticating testimony of Scripture. But since the Christian faith is a historical faith, such that if Christ was not resurrected there is no Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:14), we should look at and be aware of the testimony of history. It is very encouraging as believers to see the strong historical evidence, and also helpful to share with those who are investigating the claims of Christianity.
The founder of every major world religion is dead, except for one. Here is an article I wrote in college that covers six pieces of historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. These six facts are acceptable by virtually all scholars–including critical scholars–who address the resurrection.
Here is a harmony of the resurrection accounts I wrote in college after reading John Wenham’s excellent book Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? Wenham shows how every detail of the accounts fits together consistently. I tried to do the same in a short article so that people didn’t have to read the whole book. I think I might differ from Wenham in a few points as well.
Some people say it is not necessary for the resurrection accounts to harmonize. I would agree that it is not necessary for us to give much thought to the issue of integrating the accounts if we don’t want to. We don’t all need to be experts on how the resurrection accounts harmonize. But to hold that they contain actual conflicts would be contrary to the meaning of inerrancy. Plus, there’s no need to argue that they don’t need to be consistent with one another when in fact it can be shown that they are entirely consistent.
Dinesh D’Souza’s new book Life After Death: The Evidence is out. Sean McDowell reviews the book in a recent post. Here are the first two paragraphs of his review:
Is death the end, or is there something more? Does life continue after the grave? According to Dinesh D’Souza, in his new book Life After Death: The Evidence (Regnery Press, 2009) this is the ultimate question that any of us will face. “Death is the great wrecking ball that destroys everything, “ says D’Souza, “Everything that we have done, everything we are doing now, and all our plans for the future are completely and irrevocably destroyed when we die” (3).
Nevertheless, some people still find this question uninteresting and unimportant. D’Souza finds this attitude “utterly incomprehensible.” After all, if you found out that you had six months to live, undoubtedly you would make some big changes in the way you live now. According to D’Souza, ignoring the question of mortality is “the product of deep denial” (5).
Christianity Today has an article on it as well.
I enjoy D’Souza’s writing. I first came across him through his book on government Letters to a Young Conservative and his biography Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. He has also written What’s So Great about Christianity, among others. I haven’t read this one yet, but I’m looking forward to it.
I would also recommend checking out JP Moreland and Gary Habermas’s Immortality: The Other Side of Death. Those who aren’t convinced will find a really strong case. But you don’t have to be skeptical to find it useful. I found that book to be incredibly helpful on two fronts: (1) the excellent defense of substance dualism that it makes (which I summarized here) and (2) Habermas’ chapter demonstrating that the resurrection of Christ can be demonstrated historically even if we limit ourselves to 12 historical facts accepted by critical scholars.
Is it pseudo-science to claim that scientific evidence demonstrates the existence of God? Does science give good reasons to believe that God exists? The only way to answer this question is to examine the evidence. Too often people are willing to use science to criticize religion, but then are unwilling to honestly consider an attempt to use science to give evidence for religion. Such a double standard is simply inconsistent. We must give up any a priori presuppositions that science can have nothing to do with religious faith (other than “disprove” it), and let the evidence speak for itself.
Before beginning, let me first remove a few possible misunderstandings. First, I am not out to deal with the red-herring religious disputes over the age of the earth–a belief in an old earth is perfectly consistent with an ordinary manner of interpreting the Bible.
Second, the Cosmological argument does not “propose some sort of creation science whereby God becomes a part of a scientific theory.”[1] The role of science in the argument is simply to show that the universe had a beginning–which is religiously neutral. The questions raised by this are logical and philosophical in character, not scientific. Science need not deal with the religious implications of a beginning of the universe, but as human beings we must surely examine the questions raised by the scientific evidence that the universe has not always been here. The Cosmological argument applies here by, after examining the scientific evidence, taking a look at its meaningful ramifications; but it does not try and mold science to fit into a specific world-view.
Third, this argument does not claim to offer absolute proof for God’s existence. It is simply attempting to show that His existence is abundantly pointed to by the evidence. With this in mind, let us begin our investigation.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is really very simple:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. Philosophical analysis reveals that this cause must be God.
5. Therefore, God exists.
If each premise is true, it is clear that the case for God’s existence has been established. So the task that we must place before ourselves is to answer the question, Are there good reasons to believe that each of these steps is true?
The philosophical argument for a beginning of the universe
The first branch of the philosophical argument is as follows:
1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
This is obvious, for “the past did not spring into being whole and entire but was formed sequentially, one event occurring after another,” as Craig puts it.
2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.
This is because you can always add ONE MORE, but as long as you can add one more, it is not infinity. One might say that this is true only in finite time, but if there was an infinite amount of time this task could be accomplished. However, the problem has to do with the nature of an actual infinite itself, not how much time one has. The objection does not work because it simply postulates “one actual infinite to resolve problems with another actual infinite…but this merely shifts those problems from one actual infinite to another,” which begs the question.[4] Even if one had been counting forever, it would still be impossible for him to finish writing down all of the negative numbers and ending at -1.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
4. Therefore the universe had a beginning.[5]
The second branch of the philosophical argument that the universe began to exist is that it is impossible for an actual infinity to exist in reality (potential infinities are possible, an example of which is simply being able to begin counting and then continue forever). However, if the universe had no beginning, then this would entail an actual infinity of past events. Since this is impossible, the universe must have had a beginning. Why can’t an actual infinity exist? This is because the existence of an actual infinity in reality would lead to irreconcilable contradictions. Mathematician David Hilbert has shown this very well in his thought experiment that came to be labeled “Hilbert’s Hotel.”[6]
These two independently established philosophical arguments in themselves give a strong case for the beginning of the universe. But the Cosmological argument is able to be made even stronger. We will now turn to the scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe.
Scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe
Agnostic and internationally known scientist Robert Jastrow, in his book God and the Astronomers, lists “five independent lines of evidence” that the universe had a beginning. They are, “the motions of the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the laws of thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the Universe and the life story of the stars.”[7] Those who argue for the Cosmological argument point to this evidence as well, but classify it somewhat differently. For our purposes, we will first look at the evidence for the Big Bang (supported by such things as the motions of galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, and the abundance of helium) and how it points to a beginning of the universe. Then, we will examine some of the alternatives to the Big Bang model. Third, we will examine the implications of thermodynamics, and then briefly look at “the life story of the stars.”
Evidence for a beginning from the Big Bang. In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered a red shift of light from distant galaxies, which meant that the galaxies were moving away from us. Furthermore, the speed at which the galaxies are moving away is proportional to their distance from us. This meant that the universe is expanding the same in all directions, which is what happens in an explosion.[8] Growing evidence served to confirm Hubble’s’s conclusions, and also showed that at an earlier time in the universe galaxies were traveling away from each other at greater speeds than they are now. This meant that the universal expansion is actually slowing down from an initial, powerful “surge.” Therefore, modern science had further confirmation that the universe is not simply expanding, it is exploding.
According to Craig, “the staggering implication of this is that some point in the past the entire known universe was contracted down to a single mathematical point, from which it has been expanding ever since” and which also marks the origin of the universe.[9]
Einstein’s general theory of relativity also gives good evidence for an expanding universe. His equations showed that if the universe’s density is lower than a certain amount (the critical density), the universe should be expanding with time. If the mass in the universe was greater than this amount, the universe would eventually stop expanding and fall together on itself. At first Einstein tried to avoid such conclusions about an expanding universe and added his famous “cosmological constant” for this purpose in his 1917 paper, “Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity.” But in 1922 mathematician Alexander Friedmann found an error in Einstein’s attempt to establish that the universe was static, and showed that the universe must either be expanding or contracting. Astronomer William de Sitter, who worked independently of Friedmann five years before, also found that on the basis of Einstein’s equations the universe must be expanding. Later, Einstein admitted his error and called his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.”[10]
George Lemaitre, the father of the Big Bang theory, and many other theorists such as George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, predicted that the heat from the big bang must still exist since it would have nowhere to escape (since there is nowhere “outside” the universe). Thus, if this radiation could be found, it would serve as overwhelming confirmation of the Big Bang.
In 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two physicists at the AT&T Bell laboratories, discovered microwave background radiation of approximately 3 degrees Kelvin from every point in the sky–indicating that its source was the universe itself, not any part of the universe.[11] This was the “primordial fireball”–the remnant of the Big Bang predicted by theorists. While critics dismissed Penzias and Wilson’s 1965 discovery as a failure because the measured temperature was lower than predicted (three degrees Kelvin as opposed to five), the significance of the discovery is that the radiation was there at all. And further analysis confirmed that the radiation was from the Big Bang, as it was found to match with “the pattern of intensities at different wavelengths and frequencies of radiation that matches the pattern of the radiation produced in an explosion.”[12] In fact, the radiation was eventually found to match perfectly with the spectrum predicted for the cosmic explosion of the Big Bang.[13] Additionally, the temperature was extremely even, evidencing a common origin. This is extraordinary evidence for the Big Bang–the evenness of the temperature, the conformity to blackbody radiation, and its emission from all parts of the universe.
But this background radiation also posed a big problem to theory. It appeared to be too smooth; it would have to be slightly rippled to account for a type of explosion that could produce galaxies. But a revolutionary discovery in 1992 solved this problem, when NASA’s COBE satellite team discovered the ripples in the cosmic background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory.
Finally, the Big Bang theory predicts that the universe should contain about three-quarters hydrogen and one-quarter helium (and a small amount of the other elements). Observation of the stars has confirmed this prediction.[14]
We have seen the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. This means that at, as we quoted Craig in saying earlier, at “some point in the past the entire known universe was contracted down to a single mathematical point [called a singularity’], from which it has been expanding ever since.” But the ramifications of this are not simply that the universe exploded a long time ago, but that the universe exploded into existence a finite time ago. Craig shows how this is drawn from the fact of the “single mathematical point” from which the universe exploded. He points out that as we trace the universe’s expansion back in time,
the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand…This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of `infinite density’ is synonymous to `nothing.’ [This is because] there can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle’s words, the universe was shrunk down to nothing at all.'[15]
In other words, the universe exploded from a mathematical point of infinite density. But since a state of infinite density is equivalent to nothing, this is equivalent to saying that the universe exploded into existence from nothing. But is it justified to say that a point of infinite density is “synonymous to nothing”? Secular physicist Barry Parker confirms that this singularity of infinite density would have zero dimensions.[16] As Craig points out, this is because if it did have size it would be capable of increasing in its density, and thus would not be infinitely dense. Physicist Harold Fritzsch also points out that time and matter both cease to exist in singularities.[17]
The implications of this are clear. Craig quotes “four of the world’s most famous astronomers” about how the Big Bang reveals a beginning to the universe: “The universe began from a state of infinite density….Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole.”[18]
So, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe did not simply start its expansion 15 billion years ago; space, time, and matter themselves sprang into existence at that time. British physicist P.C.W. Davies explains why this is so: “If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning or even the concept of space time, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space time itself.”[19]
Another pair of scientists has also concluded that “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, and, if the Universe originated in such a singularity, we would truly have creation ex nihilio [out of nothing].”[20]
Do alternative models disprove the Big Bang? Christopher Isham has said: “Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.”[21]
Those who argue for the Cosmological argument are aware of scientific models other than the big bang. But the alternative models are not convincing; the best explanation seems to be the Big Bang. Most scientists agree that the other models fail, including Robert Jastrow. We will now look at the reasons scientists reject these other theories so that we do not simply need to take the authority of others.
The Steady State Modeldenies that the universe had a beginning, instead claiming that the universe has always existed in the same state. The average density of the universe remains constant because new matter continually comes into existence to counterbalance the expansion and fill the voids left by the retreating galaxies. Jastrow describes it this way: “such a world exists in a state of perpetual balance, forever expanding, forever ageing, and yet forever renewed.”[22]
This theory, according to S.L. Jaki, never had “a single piece of experimental verification.” Jastrow points out that the steady state model was convincingly “refuted” by the 1965 discovery of the “cosmic fireball radiation” which points conclusively to an explosive beginning of the universe–a big bang.[23] In the steady state model, this cosmic fireball could never have existed because in it the universe is supposed to be from eternity.
Additionally, this theory cannot account for “the fact that a count of galaxies emitting radio waves indicates that there were once more radio sources than there are today. Therefore, the universe is not in a steady state after all.”[24] According to Jastrow, “adverse evidence has led to the abandonment of the Steady State theory by nearly everyone, leaving the Big Bang theory exposed as the only adequate explanation of the facts.”[25]
The next model is the oscillating model. This is the theory that the universe is continually expanding, collapsing again, then expanding again, and repeating this cycle eternally. Craig brings out two “very well-known difficulties” with this theory. The first problem is that the oscillating model contradicts the known laws of physics. The late Yale professor Tinsley reports that “even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seem to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end.”[26]
The second problem with the oscillating model is that the observational evidence contradicts it. Craig shows two pieces of this observation evidence which contradict the oscillating model. First, matter appears to be evenly distributed throughout the universe. There is no way for this to be on the oscillating model, because if the universe were to contract black holes would begin to suck everything up. “But when the universe (supposedly) rebounds from its contracting phase, there is no mechanism to `iron out’ these lumps and make the distribution smooth.”[27]
Secondly, it appears as if “the force of the expansion is greater than the force of gravity so that the expansion will never stop but will just go on and on forever.” Density is the main factor in determining the strength of gravity. If the universe is expanding at a speed beyond the “escape velocity” that will allow it to overcome the force of gravity, then it will keep expanding forever. In order for the universe to re-contract, it must be expanding at a speed slower than the escape velocity. Craig points out in one of his articles that “recent work on calculating the speed and deceleration of the expansion confirms that the universe is expanding at, so to speak, `escape velocity’ and will not therefore re-contract.” Measurements indicate that there is not enough density in the universe to provide the gravity necessary to re-contract the universe.
Jastrow elaborates on how calculation of the rate of expansion reveals that there is not enough density to provide the gravity necessary for re-contraction. If the universe has slowed down a lot over the eons, then it indicates a high density that would be able to make the universe re-contract. But if the universe has only slowed down a little, it indicates that there is not a significantly high density to bring about re-contraction. Jastrow relates that the rate of expansion of the universe has not slowed down very much over the billions of years–the “Hubble age” is only slightly more than the “true age,” revealing only a slight decrease. The implications of this are that “there is a relatively low density of matter in the Universe”–a density level that is “not sufficient to halt the expansion” and make the universe recontract. This yields “the result that the Universe will expand forever.”[28] This method seems to be highly accurate because it does not require the direct observation of matter, or even direct knowledge of the density of every form of matter (such as that of neutrinos), as it calculates the density from velocity instead.
Other forms of calculating the density of the universe confirm that there is not enough density to bring about re-contraction. Goldsmith points out that observational evidence indicates that the luminous matter in the universe amounts to less than 2 percent of the critical density needed for re-contraction.[29] In a frantic search to account for this extra matter needed to provide the density for re-contraction, there are two theories of extra-ordinary, non-luminous matter posed to account for it.
The first theory is hot dark matter. This theory holds that subatomic particles such as neutrinos, which are not thought to have any mass, may have mass after all. This mass could perhaps bring us to the critical density. However, Fritzsch makes it clear that there is no good evidence that neutrinos have mass, and they have always behaved as if they do not have any mass.[30] Further, if neutrinos had mass it would predict a large-scale structure of the universe that is inconsistent with observational evidence. Further, even if neutrinos did have mass, it would not be enough to bring the density up to the re-contraction point. According to Fritzsch, the mass of a neutrino would be between 1 and 30 eV,[31] but a mass of 50 eV is needed for re-contraction.[32]
The second theory is cold dark matter. This matter could only exist in intergalactic space, for otherwise it would “disrupt the measured motion of galaxies.” However, “the existence of vast amounts of exotic matter in intergalactic space is incompatible with the recent measurements by the COBE satellite of the primordial fluctuations in the microwave background radiation.”[33] No one can find where this cold dark matter could come from; appealing to its existence to solve the problem therefore has no more basis than saying that the dragon in my garage is immaterial and invisible. Perhaps more astonishingly, Goldsmith points out that even if we were to add the mass of luminous and the alleged dark matter (either cold or hot) together, we would still have only about 5 percent of the critical density needed to re-contract.[34] Craig quotes two scientists, Sandage and Tammann, as concluding: “Hence, we are forced to decide that…it seems inevitable that the universe will expand forever.”
Sandage and Tammann later relate their discovery that, based upon the observational evidence, it seems that even high density universes would be unable to re-contract. “Hence, the one certain conclusion is that in all models of either high or low density, …the Universe will not stop its expansion. This means it has happened only once. The creation event was unique.”[35]
Quantum models are the remaining significant alternatives. The first of these are vacuum fluctuation models, which state that our universe is simply a “mini-universe” which sprang into existence from within the steady state of a much larger universes; likewise, there are probably many such “mini-universes” beyond our own which have sprung into existence. However, such models do not have a very wide following and have been abandoned by many of their originators. Craig details many problems with such theories, but the problem which is easiest to explain is that the vacuum fluctuation models have been shown to be contrary to observational cosmology.[36] On the vacuum model, there is no way to tell exactly where a “fluctuation in the primordial vacuum will occur which will grow into a universe.”[37] Such fluctuations could occur simply anywhere in space. Thus, throughout an infinite past history of time a universe will spring into existence at every point and, as they expand, they will collide with one another. We simply do not observe anything of the sort in nature.
Another set of Quantum models are the quantum gravity models. Perhaps that advocated by Stephen Hawking has drawn the most attention. “Hawking’s theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. …This remaining universe has a certain probability very high–near a hundred percent–of coming into existence uncaused.”[38] Hawking’s theory is consistent with evidence such as the expansion of the universe, the evenly-distributed matter on a large scales, the inflation near the beginning of the universe, and the COBE satellites discoveries.
Hawking’s theory claims that the universe need not have a cause because “the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused.”[39] It doesn’t need a cause because it comes into existence due to its natural, mathematical properties, not a supernatural force.
Hawking says of his view, “The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time…There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time…The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE… What place, then, for a creator?”[40]
Craig and others give a complicated and many faceted critique of this theory, but I will try and put it into the most concise and simple language that I can. The main problem is that Hawking’s theory only works with imaginary numbers. While imaginary numbers are fine to work with in equations, one learns in any advanced math class (I myself learned this in High School) that it is always necessary to convert the imaginary numbers back to real numbers in order to have a meaningful result that corresponds to reality. The fatal problem with Hawking’s use of imaginary numbers is that he does not re-convert them back to real numbers. When Hawking’s equations are actually taken through the necessary step of converting back to real numbers, his theory evaporates. As Hawking himself admits, “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities…when one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities [and thus the need for a beginning].”[41] Hawking himself says that “in real time, the universe has a beginning.”[42]
Second, Hawking’s concept of “imaginary time” is unintelligible. It makes no more sense than an imaginary elephant in my garage, or an imaginary volume of liquid. “Thus, Hawking does not really eliminate the singularity [and thus beginning of the universe]. He conceals it behind the physically unintelligible artifice of imaginary time.”[43]
Third, Hawking’s use of imaginary numbers makes time a spatial dimension, “which is just bad metaphysics.”[44] Space and time are necessarily different things–space being defined by a relation of betweenness, and time by a relation of earlier/later than. Time made out to be a dimension of space, as Hawking makes it, would thus cease to be time. Because of the commonality between Hawking’s model and all other quantum gravitational models, the critique given to Hawking applies to the other models as well.
Now that we have seen the fatal flaws in the alternative models, it should be even more clear that the Big Bang is very likely an accurate account of the universe’s origin. While this in itself makes the Cosmological argument very convincing, the case is made even stronger by giving thermodynamic confirmation for the beginning of the universe. This line of evidence is independent of the Big Bang theory and thus serves to greatly strengthen our case–in other words, even if the Big Bang theory was wrong, the evidence from thermodynamics would still stand.
Thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that a closed system will tend toward a state of maximum entropy. When we apply this to the universe as a whole, it means that the universe will eventually run down, and come to a state of thermal equilibrium. This is called heat death, and there are two forms of it.
A hot death would occur if the universe were to re-contract. We have already seen the evidence against this, but even if it were possible, black holes would suck up everything around them as the universe contracted. As the universe got even smaller, the black holes themselves would have to merge with one another. Thus, everything in the universe would finally coalesce into one large black hole from which it would never be able to re-emerge (since nothing can escape a black hole).
If the universe continues to expand forever, however, it will experience a cold death. This means that it will simply keep expanding until everything finally cools off and all matter attains thermal equilibrium. No change would ever be possible from this condition.
In light of this, Craig asks a potent question: “if given enough time the universe will reach a heat death, then why is it not in a state of heat death now, if it has existed forever, from eternity? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium.”[45] In the words of theoretical physicist Paul Davies: “The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist.”[46]
The oscillating model is one attempt to escape this conclusion. However, we have already seen why it cannot work. Further, even if it were true, it would still point to a beginning of the universe. “For as several scientists have pointed out, each time the model universe expands it would expand farther than before. Therefore, if you traced the expansions back in time they would get smaller and smaller and smaller” which amounts to a time when it had to begin.[47] In fact, it is estimated that “on the basis of the current level of entropy in the universes that it could not have gone through more than 100 previous oscillations.”[48]
One objection to this is that there is a continuous creation of energy from nothingness. However, “there is no scientific evidence for continuous creation of matter or energy, even if such a notion could be squared with the highly rational principle that something cannot come from nothing without a cause.”[49] Craig brings out the ramifications of thermodynamics: “whether you choose a re-contracting model, an ever-expanding mode, or an oscillating model, thermodynamics implies that the universe had a beginning…Prior to the creation, the universe simply did not exist.”[50]
The life of stars. Jastrow points out that stars burn hydrogen and convert it to heavier elements, making it impossible for the hydrogen to be restored to its original state. Thus, the amount of hydrogen in the universe is continually decreasing and cannot be replenished. The further back in time we go, the more hydrogen there will be. Finally, “the astronomer comes to a time when the Universe contained nothing but hydrogen….This point in time must mark the beginning of the universe.”[51] Further, if the universe was eternal, it would have run out of hydrogen long ago.
Summary. Now let’s take a step back and summarize the arguments for the beginning of the universe. We have given five reasons to conclude that the universe had a beginning: the philosophical argument for the impossibility of an actual infinity resulting from adding one event after another, the philosophical argument for the impossibility of an actual infinity at all, the scientific arguments for the Big Bang theory, the unconvincing nature of theories other than the Big Bang, the scientific evidence from thermodynamics, and the scientific evidence from the life of stars.
It should be noted that an argument is stronger when it has more independent premises supporting it. In regards to our argument for the beginning of the universe, all five of our lines of evidence are independent–they do not depend on each other for their truth. This means, for example, that even if one could refute the Big Bang, the evidence from thermodynamics would still require a beginning of the universe. But even if one could also refute the evidence from thermodynamics, one would still have to refute both of his philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe and the evidence from the life of stars. Thus, the five independently established cords to this argument make it very, very strong.
It therefore seems clear that the universe must have had a beginning, and it therefore requires a cause. There is simply one last step to the argument: What is the nature of this first cause?
First, it is evident that this cause is supernatural. Having established that the physical universe came into existence a finite time ago means that the cause of this beginning could not itself be physical (i.e., natural)–because nothing physical existed yet. Thus, the cause must be supernatural–not part of the physical universe. From this it also follows that the cause is independent of its creation–it is self-existent, rather than dependant upon creation for existence.
This leads to the second thing–this cause must be infinite. For if it were not infinite, it would be limited by some other thing, and thus it would no longer be independent.
Third, this cause must be eternally existing outside of time and space. Many people object to the Cosmological argument asking, what caused God? It is unjustified to make Him the only exception to the rule, they say. However, this is to misunderstand the argument. The argument is not that everything that exists has a cause, but that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The reason God does not require a cause is because He never began to exist. It is the definition of God that He is the uncaused first cause of all things–for without this Being there would be an infinite regress of causes, a sure impossibility. It reminds me of the child who asked, “What holds up the earth?” The parent responded, “A giant elephant.” “But what holds up the elephant?” probed the child. “Why, another elephant,” the parent replied. “But what about that elephant–what holds it up?” The parent responded, “It is elephants all the way down.” Surely that is absurd! Likewise, there must be an immutable, eternal first cause in order to escape the contradictions of an infinite regress of causes, and this is included in what we mean by God.
Fourth, this cause must be personal. This is because bringing the universe into existence a finite time ago required a choice on the part of the cause. Once there was nothing, then suddenly there was something. An act of the will on the part of the cause is what made the difference between there being nothing and suddenly there being something. The capability of making willing choices is a property of persons. Therefore, the cause is personal. Furthermore, it is a commonly known fact that causes must be greater than their effects. Personality is greater than non-personality. Therefore, the Creator of this world must be personal because He is the cause of personality.
Fifth, the Creator must be omnipotent in order to bring the universe into existence from nothing.
Sixth, the anthropic principle indicates that the Creator is loving. Scientific discoveries have revealed the intricate “fine-tuning of the universe, which bespeaks intelligent design.” Stephen Hawking wrote “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present state.”[53] Slightly faster than the critical rate and matter would have dispersed too rapidly to allow stars and galaxies to form. Hugh Ross notes that “the universe, our galaxy, and our solar system exhibit more than sixty characteristics that require exquisite fine-tuning for their very existence, and also for the existence of life.”[54]
Seventh, “since he brought the universe into being without any antecedently determining conditions and fine-tuned it with a precession that literally defies comprehension, he must be both free and unimaginable intelligent.”[55] In other words, the Creator must be sovereignly free and omniscient.
It is these seven core properties which constitute the center of what we mean when we say “God.” Thus, it seems that philosophical analysis confirms what we had suspected–the universe was caused by God. As Craig says in his article “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe,” “On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial … Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time.”[56]
One may object that it is invalid to conclude from this all that there is only one cause of the universe–i.e., one God. However, the inference to one God as the only cause of the universe “seems justified in light of the principle, commonly accepted in science, that one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. One is justified in inferring only causes such as are necessary to explain the effect in question; positing any more would be gratuitous. Since the universe is a single effect originating in the Big Bang event, we have no grounds for inferring a plurality of causes.”[57]
Second, it may simply be that there really is an ultimate cause behind the apparent indeterminacy, but we are simply unaware of what the cause is. Third, even if quantum mechanics shows that there are events at the subatomic level that do not have causes, it does not follow from this that “events above the subatomic level do not have causes…When an apple falls something caused it. When an event as massive as the big bang occurred, something caused it. It is an unwarranted extrapolation to argue from the microlevel to the macrolevel.”[59]
But what if one argues that the origin of the universe was at the microlevel? First, it should be pointed out again that our knowledge of the quantum level may be incomplete such that there really are causes, we are just not aware of what they are. Second, “not all philosophers and physicists are agreed as to how to interpret quantum mechanics….in the absence of a clear consensus on quantum interpretation, it seems reasonable to hold to the well-established law of cause and effect.”[60] Third, we have already seen that it is false to claim that quantum effects occur from nothing because they space (which is something) in order to occur. Said Fred Hoyle, “The physical properties of the vacuum would still be needed, and this would be something.”[61] The universe, on the other hand, came into existence from absolutely nothing–space-time itself was created at its beginning.
The other main objection to the need for the Big Bang to have a cause is that, if there was no time before it, it could not therefore have a prior cause. The answer to this, however, is what is called simultaneous causation–the case then cause A and effect B occur together, at the same time, instead of the effect being before the cause. An everyday example of this is a heavy item resting on a cushion being the cause of a depression in the cushion. “We should therefore say that the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not temporally prior to the Big Bang.”[62]
So when we speak of God existing “prior” to the first moment of time, “we do not mean temporally prior to time, but outside time altogether….[we are] not treating God as a thing existing at a temporal location.”[63]
MP
Too often it is claimed that the New Testament cannot be trusted to give us an accurate picture of what Jesus said and did. It is held that the Gospels are simply legends which grew over time and have no basis in historical fact, thus casting considerable doubt on the truth of the Christian faith. This view, however, cannot be maintained in light of the historical evidence.
In order to show that we can trust the New Testament, we will walk through three steps. Our first step will demonstrate that the Gospel writers were in a position where they could write accurate history about the life of Jesus. The second step in our walk will show that, in addition to being able to record an accurate portrait of what Jesus said and did, the Gospel writers intended to convey what Jesus really said and did. If the Gospel writers had the ability to write accurate history, and if they had the intention to write accurate history, we can safely conclude that they did write accurate history. But we do not need to stop there. The third step in our journey through the reliability of the Gospels will allow us to verify our conclusion that the Gospels contain accurate accounts of the events they describe.
Because of these three lines of evidence, we will see that we can safely say that the New Testament can be trusted to tell us what Jesus really said and did.
To show this, we will establish four points. (1) The Gospels were written by their traditional authors, who (2) used first-hand, eyewitness testimony in their accounts. Furthermore, (3) the Gospels are early and therefore too close to the events they narrate for unhistorical legends to replace the hard-core facts. Finally, (4) the words of Jesus were preserved carefully during their oral transmission before being written down in the Gospels.
The Gospels Were Written by their Traditional Authors
This means that the Gospels were written by the people whose names they bear. Several lines of evidence support this, but we will focus on only a few. First of all, even though the authors of the Gospels did not sign their names to their work (the early Church gave each Gospel its name), this does not mean that their authors were not known or that the Church was wrong. In fact, if it was not widely known in the early church who wrote the gospels, we would expect there to be differing traditions among the early Christians about who did write them. Instead, there were no dissenting traditions in the first century of church tradition, but all agreed that the Gospels were authored by the people whose names they bear. The people who were closest to the actual composition, and therefore were in one of the best positions to know, unanimously agreed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John authored the four gospels.
Second, since Mark and Luke were not apostles, and Matthew would have been the most “suspect” of the apostles since he had been a tax-collector, it seems unlikely that the early church would have invented these claims, especially if their goal was to enhance their credibility. In contrast, the later apocryphal gospels, which were not reliable records of Jesus’ life but later forgeries, attributed themselves to less suspect writers in order to enhance their credibility. The names of Peter, James, Philip, Thomas, and even Mary were attached to these gospels to give them status, even though they had nothing to do with their composition.
To put it another way, if the Gospels were simply creations of imaginative, anonymous Christians, then how did the early church come to establish that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John really were the authors? Why did they not assign the Gospels to what would be considered less suspect writers?
In the case of the Gospel of John, B.F. Westcott has set forth a classic case demonstrating that it was authored by the one traditionally believed to have written it, the apostle John. His argument has never been refuted, but it has often been ignored. Westcott argued that the author must be a Jew because of his detailed knowledge of Hebrew feasts, customs, and Scriptures. The author must also be a Palestinian, he argued, because of his impressive grasp of the local geography and topography of the area.
He then narrows the possibilities down even further–the author must also have been an eyewitness because of his repeated and compelling references to details of people, time, and places. Such incidental details are characteristic of eyewitness reports. Not only must the author be an eyewitness, however, but he must also be an apostle because of the intimate acquaintance with the actions and thoughts of Jesus and the twelve. Having established these features, Westcott is then able to zero in on the apostle John as the one was able to meet all of these aspects, being the beloved disciple of 13:23; 19:26; and 21:20.
Additionally, John the Baptist is just called “John” in the fourth Gospel, whereas in the synoptic Gospels he is called “John the Baptist” to distinguish him from the apostle. Only if the apostle John wrote this to people who knew he was the author can this be explained.
The Authors Used Firsthand Testimony
Since we have established that the Gospels were written by their traditional authors, we will now establish that the writers were able to record reliable history. This is demonstrated because the authors were either writing as eyewitnesses themselves, or recording eyewitness testimony.
John was an apostle and therefore was also eyewitnesses. We have already seen the evidence that the author of John was John the apostle confirming this. Eusebius, from whom we know much of church history, attests that Matthew the apostle, who was also an eyewitness, wrote Matthew: “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that…the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III. 24).
Mark, although he was not an apostle, also recorded firsthand testimony because he received much of his information from the apostle Peter, an eyewitness. Irenaeus, who was a Bishop in A.D. 180 and a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the apostle, attests to this: “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching” (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III. 1.). Internal examination also confirms that Mark is recording the testimony of an eyewitness.
Luke was a companion of Paul, so he received much of his information from Paul and the other apostles during his extensive contact with them. This is confirmed by the external evidence (evidence outside of the New Testament) of Irenaeus: “Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher” (Euseubius, III. 24). Finally, Luke himself testifies that he wrote his Gospel based upon eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4).
The Gospels are Early
It can also be shown that the gospel writers were able to record reliable history even without accepting the traditional authorship. With the exception of John, each of the Gospels date around A.D. 60. This puts them so close to the events that they narrate that there was simply not enough time for legends to replace the hard-core of historical fact. The early composition also puts the writers in a position where they were able to be accurately informed of the events they are narrating because many eyewitnesses were still alive to confirm or deny the reports.
How do we know that the Gospels were written so early? One reason is that Acts does not record the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in A.D. 70. Since Jerusalem is a central location in the book of Acts, this can only be explained if Acts was written before Jerusalem fell. Furthermore, both Peter and Paul are central figures in Acts, yet neither of their deaths are recorded. Again, the only way to explain this is if they had not yet been martyred when Acts was written. Since Paul died in 64, and Peter died in 65, Acts must have been written in the early 60s. Since Luke and Acts are a two volume set written by Luke (see Acts1:1, 2), and Luke was written first, it would have been even earlier, possibly between 57 and 62.
The early church believed that Matthew was the first Gospel written. Many of today’s critics say that Mark wrote first. But either way, almost everyone agrees that they were both written before Luke. This puts their composition in the late 50s.
So, we see that even if one does not accept the traditional authorship of the Gospels, they are still written too early for legend to prevail over truth. Eminent historian of Roman times A.N. Sherwin-White has studied the rate at which legends developed during this time period, and found that even fifty to eighty years is not enough time for legend to remove the core historical facts. Even the late dating of the Gospels done by many critics meets that standard. Furthermore, 1st century Judaism was not a myth-friendly environment!
Since the Gospels are early compositions, they are near enough to the events that they narrate that they are able to accurately convey the facts. That their authors were eyewitnesses and those who recorded eyewitness testimony adds force to the fact that they were able to record reliable information.
The Words of Jesus Were Accurately Preserved before they were Written in the Gospels
Several lines of evidence show that the oral transmission of Jesus’ sayings before they were written down in the Gospels was highly accurate and done with great care. First, it is important to note that ancient Jewish culture was an oral culture where people relied on their memory, unlike our culture today which is mostly a literary culture. Jews of that day were able to memorize vast amounts of material, and it was customary for a Jewish student to memorize their rabbi’s teaching. Recent studies in ancient Jewish culture have confirmed that memorization was an important part in Jewish learning.
Because of the high esteem that students in ancient Judaism held for their rabbi’s teachings, they frequently regarded them as “sacred tradition” and memorized them in detail to pass on with little or no alteration. It was said that a good pupil was “like a plastered cistern that looses not a drop” (Mishna, Aboth, ii, 8). Surely the disciples, who were Jews, would have given the words of the one who they considered to be God’s long awaited Messiah no less care!
Furthermore, a number of recent scholars have solidly argued that many of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels have a mnemonic form that makes them suited for memorization. In other words, Jesus’ teachings were most likely in a form that was easy to memorize and retain.
A common objection is that oral traditions attract unhistorical embellishments as they are transmitted over time, much like we see in the “telephone game.” The Gospels, however, were simply written too early for legend to overcome the hard-core historical facts. There was not enough time for Jesus’ words to be imbellished. Also, a study of the use of the Gospels in later Gnostic and aberrant Jewish Christian sources, as well as their use by the more orthodox church fathers, suggests that it was actually common for the length of narratives to be abbreviated and streamlined in transmission, not imbellished.
Apostolic control of the oral traditions would have also served to keep them accurate. The apostles, who had themselves been eyewitnesses and been the first to memorize Jesus’ teachings, would have not allowed for any departure from the facts.
And even if there would have been any tendency to distort the words of Jesus, the presence of hostile eyewitnesses during the short period of oral transmission before the Gospels would have served as a corrective on any intention to depart from the facts. False statements could and would have been challenged by those who were only too glad to do so in order to discredit Christianity.
The idea that the early Church willfully manipulated Jesus’ words cannot be held in light of the historical evidence. A lack of reference within the gospels to later church controversies (such as speaking in tongues and circumcision) indicates that the early church did not change or add sayings of Jesus as they desired to suit their purposes. If the teachings of Jesus were largely the invention of the early church, or if the early church purposely altered His teaching during the oral transmission, they would have had Jesus address such hot topics of their day. This tells us that the Jesus of the Gospels was not manufactured to meet the needs of the early church.
Lastly, a refusal to eliminate the “hard sayings” of Jesus (such as Matt. 10:5-6 and Mark 13:30) further shows that the early church did not feel free to rewrite the story of Christ’s life apart from the constraints of historical fact. If the early church actively distorted the sayings of Jesus, as is often claimed, then why did they not eliminate such difficult sayings? And as we saw earlier, why did they not invent sayings that would have suited their purpose and solved the current controversies of the day? There is therefore no ground for believing that the early church manipulated and changed the teachings and life of Jesus.
Since the Gospels faithfully preserve even the difficult aspects of Jesus’ teaching and life, and refuse to add to Jesus’ words to suit their purposes, we have good reason to believe that they are just as faithful in preserving other less controversial aspects of His ministry. Since the early church did not invent/distort the words of Jesus, then the only other option is that they recorded what He actually said.
This is forcefully supported by the careful preservation of the oral tradition that existed before the gospels, which we just examined. Also, analysis of the kind of writing that the gospels are (its “genre”) suggests this. Formally, the gospels parallel other historical and biographical literature of the day.
The presence of details which actually go against the purpose of the account also supports that the writers intended to be accurate. For example, a woman’s testimony was not considered very trustworthy in that day. They could not even testify in a court of law. Yet, the gospel writers have women as being the first witnesses to the resurrection. There is also much material in the Gospels that is embarrassing to Jesus’ disciples. They are portrayed, in each account, as unbelieving, cowardly, and dull. This shows the integrity of the writers to tell it like it was.
Finally, the gospel writers claim to be writing accurately. This is the strongest testimony of their intentions because it comes from their own mouths. Luke writes at the beginning of his Gospel:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4).
Here Luke explicitly says that his purpose was to record actual historical events (thus, the NT is not, say, a grand fictional story such as The Lord of the Rings or an allegory like Pilgrim’s Progress) and that had a strong concern for accuracy. First, he speaks of others who had written a narrative “of the things that have been accomplished among us.” So the purview of Luke consists of things that have actually happened–things that “happened” among them. Second, he notes that those who had compiled these narratives before him sought to to write in accord with what was “delivered” or “passed on” by those who were “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” That can only be a reference to those who walked with Jesus–namely, his disciples. The mention of them as eyewitnesses underscores the important value Luke held in conveying things accurately in his Gospel–that is, he is aiming to record events passed on by direct eyewitnesses. Third, note that Luke affirms not only the concern for accuracy these others had, but explicitly reinforces his own concern for accuracy as well, saying that he has “followed all things closely for some time past.”
One might ask who these people are that compiled these narratives of the events of Jesus’ life that he refers to. He is likely referring in part to the other Gospel authors, especially Mark and Matthew (as John was likely written last). Also, many NT scholars have pointed out that the Gospels used source material. As we saw above, for example, the words of Jesus were preserved before being written in the gospels. Some of these sayings were likely written into the narratives of which Luke speaks, which were then incorporated into the final form of the Gospels as we have them now. Regardless, the point cannot be missed: Luke shows a strong concern for accurately recording historical events as they occurred, and shows that this was a common and pervasive concern within the early church.
The other apostles echo this concern for accuracy. John declares “and he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe” (John 19:35). And Peter is very clear when he says “For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). They knew the difference between fact and fiction.
Because the writers were seeking to convey real events, this means that if in any way they willfully manipulated the facts, they were intentional deceivers. And because the apostles were present to ensure that the oral tradition did remain pure, any tampering would have been willful. For example, if Jesus’ tomb was not empty, the gospel writers were intentionally lying when they say that it was empty. This means that if the gospels are not accurate records of the sayings and doings of Christ, then they are simply a colossal fraud. Yet, no reputable critical scholar today holds that the early disciples were intentional deceivers.
External evidence from non-Christian writers and archeology almost always confirm this. Wherever the Gospels can be checked for accuracy against external evidence, they have passed the test. That’s why scholar F.F. Bruce has said “Archaeology has served to confirm the New Testament record.” The renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek has said “It…may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”
Sir William Ramsey, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists to ever live, first thought that the book of Acts was not a trustworthy account. But after observing the intricate accuracy of the book through his research on the history of Asia minor, he was forced to conclude that “Luke is a historian of the first rank…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”
Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn’t exist at the time of Jesus, until archeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospels’ portrayals of the temple, Pilate’s court, Jesus’ crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on.
Where the gospels cannot be tested against external evidence, we are still not without reason for confirming their accuracy. First, since the gospels have been shown to be true where we can test them, it is most likely that they are also true where we cannot test them. Second, as Gregory Boyd points out, the application of the standard criteria of authenticity makes it probable that a substantial majority of the details in the Gospels do describe what Jesus and the apostles actually said and did.
After examining the evidence, we can conclude that the Gospel writers had the ability and the intention of recording reliable information, and so therefore did record reliable information. We further examined how external evidence, in each area that can be checked, almost always serves to reinforce this conclusion. Therefore, we can confidently conclude that the Gospels present a true, undistorted picture of the life and teachings of Jesus. We can trust the New Testament.
Craig, William Lane, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton Illinois: Moody Press, 1984).
Boyd, Gregory A., Jesus Under Siege (Wheaton Illinois: Victor Books, 1995).
McDowell, Josh, He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical Jesus (Nashville Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993).
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, by the Lockman Foundation.