In this post, and the next couple of posts, I will attempt to comment on 4 (maybe more) common misconceptions that could stand in the way of someone accepting Jesus as their savior.

Misconception 1: Christianity must be proven scientifically; could be stated as “I’ll accept Christianity when you prove it with the scientific method.”

Just so we’re on the same page, a simple definition of the scientific method is the repeatable testing of a previously developed hypothesis in a controlled environment; it depends on things we can observe, in the present, with our senses.

In our Missouri-esk ’show me’ culture, science has almost become a religion of its own and we tend to think that if something can’t be “proven” scientifically, then it can be regarded as false or at least unknowable.  You can see this concept in practice with an argument like this: “I’ve never seen or heard of anyone who has risen from the dead, therefore Jesus, if he even existed, could not have risen from the dead.”

Unlike any other major world religion that I’m aware of, the central claims of Christianity can be tested.  But because those claims are historical events, they, like all historical events, are outside of the realm of what can be tested by the scientific method.  After all, we can’t take Jesus and kill him, then bury him and see if he resurrects over and over again, any more than we can set Abe in the Ford Theater to see if Booth will shoot him over and over again.  So, how do we test historical (those that occurred before… right…now!!) events?  They,  are tested, or verified, by what Josh McDowell has called The “Legal-Historical” method.  This method of proof looks at written testimony, oral testimony and any available physical testimony, and uses them all to determine whether the tested scenario is, beyond a reasonable doubt, true or false.  Although you may not realize it, we use this method all the time.  Parents can back me up here!  We use a combination of “physical evidence” (youngest daughter holding a red marker), “oral statements” (big sister tattling) and “written testimony” (red marker marks on the furniture) to lead to the conclusion of what most likely happened.  More seriously though, the use of this method enables us to know with some certainty the truth about our country’s origin, have a functional justice system and have at least some hope that what we read or hear in the news has some modicum of truth to it.

Go ahead… lose yourself in this courtroom drama as I attempt to show that scientific (physical) evidence is not very useful, by itself, in determining the truth about events from the past.

… the defense enters a not guilty plea, and calls a witness to the stand who testifies that the accused was out of town on the day in question, so he (the accused) could not be guilty of the crime.  During his cross examination, the prosecutor submits as evidence the results from the lab, hot of the printer, that clearly show that the defendant’s DNA was found on the samples gathered from the victim, by the police.  Feeling that he has the jury sold, he says to the witness, while scanning the faces of the jury  “One last question. Were you with him while he was supposedly ‘out of town’”?  “No?!?” He exclaims in faux shock, after the witness responded.  “Then obviously you don’t really know where he was, do you?”  Then quietly as he confidently strolls back to his seat, he says “you can’t trust him anyway, they’re best friends.”

Gauging by his smugness, there was no doubt, in his mind at least, that he had successfully undermined the credibility of this witness.  … After nearly falling asleep while the prosecutor described, in his closing arguments, the minuscule likelihood that the DNA could possibly be anyone’s but the accused, and that the DNA results support the victim’s accusation, the jury almost collectively jumped out of the jury box when the court room doors banged open, Perry Mason style! (google it yougens)  An assistant for the defense sprints toward the defendant’s table and chucks a folder at the lawyer.  The lawyer peeks inside… a DVD!?! a scrap of paper and a few black and white photos?!?!?  Hoping his assistant hasn’t been smokin’ wacky baccy, again, he asks the court to play the video.   It’s a recording of man who is a friend of both the victim and the accused,  stating (oral testimony) that the victim and the accused have been in a short term, intimate, relationship just prior to the incident.  Nodding in approval toward his assistant, he sees his assistant excitedly pointing to the piece of paper.   He looks… Bingo!!!  There’s an ATM receipt (written testimony) from the defendants card documenting a withdrawal in his mom’s home town, and photos from the ATM machine timestamped the same day and time as the alleged crime.  CASE CLOSED!!!  Not Guilty!!!

DISCLAIMER: Sadly, no lawyers where harmed in the making of this short story.

So, other than my impeccable ignorance of courtroom procedure, what I attempted to demonstrate, with this beautifully written short story, is that while the DNA results can show that it’s highly likely that something happened between the victim and the accused, the actual relevance of that bit of evidence, in relation to reaching a satisfactory conclusion to the trial, was next to nil.  Scientific facts, on their own, can’t tell us much about the past, whether yesterday or two millennia ago.

So while archeology, textual criticism and other scientific disciplines can be useful in strengthening the case, for or against the claim, of an ancient historical event being true, they just don’t carry near the same evidential weight as a trustworthy written testimony.  And while you can’t prove, absolutely, the veracity of anything historical, the amount of written testimony we have regarding the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus far exceeds that available for any other known ancient historical event.  If we can not “know” that these events (in the life of Jesus) happened, then it is impossible to “know” anything about anything, that happened in the past, and we might as well stop wasting our time trying.  So the question then becomes, can we trust that the Bible we have today is an accurate copy of the original “books”?  Can we trust what was written in those books, are accurate recordings of real historical events?

Down the road at some point, Lord willing, I plan to try and give my take on those two questions.  But suffice it to say for now, that the trustworthiness of the Bible is in a category of its own, compared to all other ancient documents.

I’d love to discuss this further, so please feel free to comment.

The second misconception I plan to get into is stated like, “I can’t accept Christianity, because there isn’t enough evidence for me to be 100% sure that it is true.”

Lord Bless you,

joel