Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category


Dillon:  We don’t really know much of anything about Jesus.   Everything Christians think they know comes from propaganda accounts written centuries later.  Actually, I don’t think there’s even any way to know if Jesus was a real, historical person.

Sarah:  The idea that Jesus might have been a myth has been pretty well discredited.  That was a common hypothesis back in the 18th and 19th centuries, but that was only because people didn’t have easy access to all the historical evidence that proves Jesus was a real person.

Dillon:  So you think you can prove Jesus was real?

Sarah:  Well, I don’t know if “prove” is exactly the right word.  It depends on how strict you’re going to be.  I mean, if you want to get really technical, I can’t “prove” to you that I exist.  Anything I say or do to you could be brushed aside as part of a dream or a hallucination.

Dillon:  I’m not going to be that difficult!

Sarah:  Ok, good!  So then, we can use the word “prove” in the normal, everyday sense?

Dillon:  I don’t know…maybe.  What do you mean?

Sarah:  I just mean that we normally use the word “prove” when enough admissible evidence has been presented to convince reasonably unbiased reviewers that the assertion in question is most probably accurate.

Dillon:  Um…you sound like a lawyer.

Sarah:  Sorry…I’m a pre-law student.  Kinda comes with the territory.  But it’s still a pretty good definition, isn’t it?  That’s how we use it in the courts.  To “prove” something is to convince an unbiased jury that a lawyer’s assertion is correct.  So if a lawyer says a guy did X, then we consider his case “proven” when the unbiased jury sees enough evidence to convince them that guy actually did X.

Dillon:  But the jury could be wrong.  Maybe there’s some other piece of evidence they aren’t considering that would change their minds.  Like maybe the guy was actually in the hospital in a coma when the crime was committed.

Sarah:  Sure, that’s why we say nothing can ever be absolutely, 100% proven.  There’s always the possibility that there’s some unknown piece of evidence that would change our view of the facts.  But, the more evidence we have and the more it supports our conclusion, the less likely it becomes that there is some unknown piece of evidence out there that would completely change things.  For instance, if we have video footage of the guy at the crime scene and his fingerprints on a meter receipt dated just minutes after the crime, it’s pretty unlikely that we’re going to find evidence that he was actually in a coma at the time.

Dillon:  Ok, fair enough.  So can you prove that Jesus was real using that definition of “prove”?

Sarah:  Yeah, I think so.  First, we have Jewish records that talk about him.  A Jewish historian named Josephus, writing at the end of the first century A.D., mentions him by name and even talks about events in his life and names family members.[1]  Several Jewish rabbis from the 2nd and 3rd centuries also talk about Jesus.  They’re pretty good evidence because they’re what we might call “hostile witnesses”.  They clearly don’t like Jesus or his followers, but they acknowledge his existence.  We also have Roman witnesses like the historian Tacitus who write at the end of the 1st century or beginning of the 2ndHe not only mentions Jesus but also says that he was executed by the governor Pilate.[2]  At least three other Roman writers mention Jesus as well.[3]

Dillon: Huh.  I didn’t know any of that.  Ok…that seems like pretty good evidence that Jesus existed.  Do those guys tell us anything about what Jesus was actually like, though?

Sarah:  Not really.  I mean, some of the Jewish sources mention a few details about his teaching, but not much.

Dillon:  Ok, so there’s enough evidence to say that Jesus was a real person, but Christians don’t just say that he existed.  They also say that he did a bunch of crazy stuff and act like they know all about him.  But they don’t, really.  They’re just guessing.

Sarah:  I don’t think that’s true.  First, a surprising amount of what Christians say about Jesus is at least corroborated by the Jewish and Roman sources.  Those sources confirm the time period when Jesus lived, the names of several of his followers and family, key elements of his teaching…they even confirm that he did miracles!

Dillon:  Sorry, but I have a pretty hard time believing that.

Sarah:  Ok, I might have gotten a little carried away there, but Josephus called him a “wise man who performed surprising works.”[4]    

Dillon:  That’s not necessarily a miracle.

Sarah:  No, but it seems like a pretty likely reference to miracles, doesn’t it?  Besides, the Jewish Mishna accused him of practicing magic and sorcery.  The Mishna even claims that’s why he was executed…for practicing magic.[5]

Dillon:  Is magic the same thing as miracles? 

Sarah:  No, from a Jewish perspective, magic was from the devil.  But remember:  hostile witnesses.  They wanted to discredit Jesus and his followers, so they attributed his miracles to evil forces.  But what’s interesting is that they didn’t call him a fraud.  They admitted that he did supernatural works…they just claimed his power was from the dark side.

Dillon:  Ok, that’s interesting.  But it’s still just some really big-picture stuff.  Is there really any way to know what Jesus was like or even exactly what he taught?  I still think the Christian belief about Jesus is wishful thinking.  It’s not like we have detailed accounts of his teaching from his contemporaries.  All the detailed “accounts” came long after the fact.

Sarah:  But we do have detailed accounts from his contemporaries.  There’s one account from a Jewish tax collector, one from a medical doctor who interviewed eyewitnesses and two from his closest friends.

Dillon:  Now wait a minute.  You’re talking about the Gospels, aren’t you?

Sarah:  Sure.  Matthew was written by a Jewish tax collector, Luke by a medical doctor who conducted interviews, Mark wrote down Peter’s recollections of Jesus and John wrote from his own experience.

Dillon:  But those books were written long after the fact!

Sarah:  That’s simply not true.  I mean, sure, there are some people who argue that the Gospels were written hundreds of years later, but the evidence says otherwise.  All the Gospels are mentioned by name and quoted by various writers by the end of the 1st century or the beginning of the 2nd century, so the Gospels had to have been written earlier.  Most scholars, even very critical ones, agree that they were written between the 60’s and the 80’s…early 90’s at the latest and that’s only for John.

Dillon:  But didn’t Jesus die in like the 30’s?

Sarah:  Yes, but there were still eyewitnesses alive in the period scholars agree the Gospels were written, so the writers still had access to the first-hand accounts.  Besides, in an oral culture, keeping a story accurate over a couple of decades was no big deal.  So there’s no reason to think that a 30 year gap between the events and the recording of them would be a problem.

Dillon:  Ok, but that’s not the big problem.  The big problem is that the Gospels were all written by Jesus’ followers!

Sarah:  Yeah, so?

Dillon:  It means they’re biased!

Sarah:  Ok, let’s just say for the sake of the argument that they are biased.  What does that mean?

Dillon:  It means that we can’t trust what they say about Jesus!

Sarah:  That’s not fair at all.  If a reporter who supports the president quotes him, does that mean that we can’t trust the reporter’s quote?

Dillon:  No, but he might be tempted to edit it a little.

Sarah:  Why?

Dillon:  To make the president sound better!

Sarah:  So…our hypothetical supporter feels free to “improve” the president’s actually statements?  But if he doesn’t like what the president says and feels like he has to alter it before the public sees it, then why would he support the guy in the first place? 

Dillon:  Hm.  So are you saying that being a supporter means he’s actually more likely to report the president…or Jesus…accurately?

Sarah:   I’m just saying it’s possible.  A true loyalist is likely to revere what his hero says and be careful to faithfully report it.  If he doesn’t think what the guy says and does is worth reporting then he isn’t really a supporter…and the bias you’re so worried about goes away. Just because someone’s a supporter doesn’t necessarily mean that their accounts can’t be trusted.  Isn’t it more likely that someone’s enemies are likely to distort what they actually said and did?

 Dillon:  Well…yeah, of course. 

Sarah:  So just because the Gospels were written by supporters of Jesus doesn’t necessarily mean that their accounts can’t be trusted.  It’s ok to have a healthy skepticism when investigating things, but you can’t start with an unjustified assumption of inaccuracy. 

Dillon:  Ok, I see your point.  It’s probably not fair to assume that Gospels are all false.  And your point about someone’s enemies being more likely to distort things is interesting.  So are the statements in the …what did you call it, the Mishna?…about Jesus being a sorcerer distortions?

Sarah:  Well, I’m not sure if they’re distortions but they’re certainly a different perspective!  But isn’t it interesting that both the Gospels and the hostile Jewish writings agree that Jesus did things that could only be explained by him having supernatural power?  They call it different things – maybe that’s where bias comes in – but they agree that those kinds of things happened.

Dillon:  But don’t all the details of Jesus’ life and teaching come from the Gospels?

Sarah:  Sure, but who else would report all the details?  Jesus’ enemies weren’t going to take the time to write detailed accounts of someone they wanted to make go away.

Dillon:  What do you mean? 

Sarah:  I just mean that Jesus and his followers were a thorn in the side of the Jewish leadership of the 1st and 2nd centuries.  They caused a significant split within Judaism.  Huge numbers of faithful Jews accepted Jesus as the Jewish Messiah while others didn’t, so there was a lot of religious tension going on.  For the Jewish leaders, the best thing to do would be to not stir the pot and let things settle down in the hopes that everyone would just forget about this Jesus guy.  In fact, the book of Acts reports that they adopted exactly that strategy.[6]

Dillon:  Didn’t really work out for them, though, did it?

Sarah:  Nope.  Jesus and his followers didn’t go away.  In fact, this whole thing we call Christianity just got bigger and bigger.  But that’s not really my point…

Dillon:  I think I see what you’re saying.  People with a vested interest in getting Jesus to disappear from the limelight wouldn’t have written detailed accounts about him.

Sarah:  And would you trust them if they did?

Dillon:  No, probably not.  I mean, it doesn’t make any sense to trust what a man’s enemies say about him over what those who love him say.  There’s probably going to be some bias on both sides, but his enemies would be somewhat more likely to twist things or make stuff up.

Sarah:  Yeah, there probably is going to be some bias.  But bias doesn’t necessarily mean inaccuracy, at least in the case of supporters.  And when claims about things like basic teachings and miracles are confirmed by other sources – even hostile ones – isn’t that pretty good evidence that those things actually happened?

Dillon:  I’ll have to think about it.  I see what you’re saying.  Maybe the Gospels can tell us a lot about what Jesus was actually like.

Sarah:  That sounds pretty good.  I mean, I think everything the Gospels say about Jesus can be trusted, but “a lot” is way better than “nothing”!  Why don’t you read one of the Gospels from this new, slightly less skeptical, perspective and we can talk about it later.  Would you be open to that?

Dillon:  Sure.  That might be fun.  Which one should I read?

Sarah:  Well, a lot of people recommend John as the first Gospel to read, but given what we’ve been talking about, I think I might recommend Luke.  He’s kind of a “give me the facts” guy and I think you’ll appreciate his approach.

Dillon:  Ok, Luke it is.

[1] Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18 3:3; 20 9:1.

[2] Tacitus, Annals, book XV

[3] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars (cf. Claudius, sec. 25 and Nero, sec. 16); Julius Africanus, Chronography, XVIII, Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10:96-97.

[4] Antiquities, 18 3:3

[5] Sanhedrin, 43a

[6] Acts 5



One of the gulfs that divides the Christian and non-Christian cultures is the issue of whether human beings are born good, bad or neutral.

Over the centuries, many non-Christians have argued that human beings are born good and it is only society that corrupts them.  However, since Freud, non-Christians have more often argued that humans are born morally neutral and we learn concepts of morality from those around us.  In other words, there are no in-born moral impulses of any kind.  We enter the world as blank slates, waiting for those around us to inscribe the arbitrary moral code that will guide us later in life.

Christians on the other hand, have long maintained that human begins are born sinful, inheriting an irresistible tendency towards evil, though this should not be misunderstood as a belief that all human beings are as evil as they could possibly be.  Different people will give in to this sinful impulse in different and varying degrees.  The key is simply that no one will ever be able to…or even have any natural interest in…completely avoiding the not-good impulses which come from this sin nature.

I have maintained for several years now that these options are overly simplistic.  I’m not an optimist about human nature.  I do not believe we are born good or even neutral.  However, I also believe that the standard Christian belief that we are born sinful is too simplistic a position as well.  The main problem with this view is that holding it consistently requires that we deny that any non-Christian can do any good and I just don’t believe this is true.  (Psalm 14:3 – “no one does good” – need not be taken as a doctrinal declaration but as a poetic description of general tendency)  In fact, I have seen non-Christians do great good.  I have seen non-Christians be altruistic and make great sacrifices for others.  Now, I’m not saying that these acts can earn them salvation.  I believe, as Isaiah 64:6 says, that even our righteous deeds are like filthy rags…even the good that we do is tainted by our sin and so is useless as evidence of our “goodness”.

Instead, I believe human beings are born deeply conflicted.  We have a sinful nature from birth that cannot be completely suppressed or denied and yet, we have impulses towards good that exist simply because we are made as the Image of God (Gen 1:26-28).  Apart from Christ, our capacity for good will always be overshadowed and poisoned by our sin nature, but most people will experience the ongoing frustration that comes from experiencing these two contrary impulses.  This is one of the things that leads people to seek for a Redeemer.

Anyway, just this morning I read an article about a psychology study that seems to support my belief on this issue of our inborn moral nature.  In a recent study at Yale, babies between 6 and 10 months of age were shown a little moral drama involving geometric shapes in which one shape “helped” another climb a hill while another shape thwarted their efforts.  After watching the little show, the infants were allowed to choose from the various shapes.  Over 80% of them chose the shape that was acting as the helper!  This study was repeated numerous times with different shapes playing the different parts and it made no difference.  Whatever shape was seen to be helping the climber was selected by more than 80% of the infants.  This strongly suggests that these very, very young children have an in-born sense of justice that motivates their behavior.  In another study at Yale, babies watched a puppet pass a ball to two other puppets.  One puppet returned the ball and the other ran away with it.  Then these babies had the chance to “punish” one puppet by taking away a piece of candy from a pile associated with it (the puppet).  The vast majority of the babies chose to take a treat away from the puppet who had absconded with the ball.  Some babies even smacked the bad puppet!  Again, these babies seem to be acting out of an in-born sense of justice and perception of right and wrong.  The idea that we are blank-slates with no inherent moral compass does not bear up well in light of these studies.

But anyone who has worked with children also knows that this in-born moral compass doesn’t exactly dictate saintly behavior, either!  Selfishness, dishonesty and downright meanness are evident from a very early age, in  spite of our best efforts to teach them to act otherwise.  On the whole it seems clear that, while we do have an in-born moral compass, we also have an in-born distortion to it that twists our behavior into sin.

So rather than saying we are inherently good or inherently evil, wouldn’t it just be better to acknowledge the messy reality?  We are inherently conflicted and only Christ can straighten us out.


Growing up in the church, I heard a lot about “slippery slopes”.  But you know what I never heard anyone say?  What every mountaineer knows:  sometimes you have to tie on the crampons, rope up and traverse a slippery slope to get to solid ground.

The church’s ability to regain its voice in the marketplace of 21st century culture requires that we be willing to traverse the slippery slopes represented by such things as the role of science or sexuality or the nature of truth, authority and meaningful discourse.  I am not suggesting for a moment that we give in to gravity and abandon ourselves to a downward slide into relativism.  Nothing could be less faithful to Christ or more enervating to His people in the long run.  I am only suggesting that the solid ground from which we can extend a helping hand may only be accessible after a very frank examination of what we have been doing and whether or not it actually represents the One in Whose name we claim to speak.