I’m on a kick of finding interesting quotations. Here goes another batch on the resurrection of Jesus. Some good things . . .

Easter says you can put truth in a grave, but it won’t stay there.  – Clarence W. Hall

In truth, faith needs apologetics. It needs it to answer both the negative arguments of the resurrection and to construct positive arguments in favor of it. Apologetics will not create faith, but perhaps, for some, it will pave the way for it or make it possible. What is destructive of genuine Christian faith, in my opinion, is not apologetics, but unfounded beliefs, unjustified commitments. Unsound arguments are irrational leaps of faith. It is the aim of apologetics to prevent Christian faith from amounting to anything like that. – Stephen T. Davis

I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world-and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible. – Charles Colson

The Gospels were written in such temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events. Anyone who cared to could have checked out the accuracy of what they reported. The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred. – William Lane Craig

The truth of the resurrection gives life to every other area of gospel truth. The resurrection is the pivot on which all of Christianity turns and without which none of the other truths would much matter. Without the resurrection, Christianity would be so much wishful thinking, taking its place alongside all other human philosophy and religious speculation. – John MacArthur

It will not do … to say that Jesus’ disciples were so stunned and shocked by his death, so unable to come to terms with it, that they projected their shattered hopes onto the screen of fantasy and invented the idea of Jesus’ ‘resurrection’ as a way of coping with a cruelly broken dream. That has an initial apparent psychological plausibility, but it won’t work as serious first-century history.

We know of lots of other messianic and similar movements in the Jewish world roughly contemporary with Jesus. In many cases the leader died a violent death at the hands of the authorities. In not one single case do we hear the slightest mention of the disappointed followers claiming that their hero had been raised from the dead. They knew better. ‘Resurrection’ was not a private event. It involved human bodies. There would have to be an empty tomb somewhere.

A Jewish revolutionary whose leader had been executed by the authorities, and who managed to escape arrest himself, had two options: give up the revolution, or find another leader. We have evidence of people doing both.

Claiming that the original leader was alive again was simply not an option. Unless, of course, he was. —N.T. Wright (from Who Was Jesus?)

Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. – Ben Witherington III

Let us ban together to invent all the miracles and resurrection appearances which we never saw and le us carry the sham even to death! Why not die for nothing? Why dislike torture and whipping inflicted for no good reason? Let us go out to all nations and overthrow their institutions and denounce their gods! And even if we don’t convince anybody, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of drawing down on ourselves the punishment for out own deceit. – Eusebius

Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception than any and all others, before them or after them, or they have truly stated astonishing things which they saw and heard. – Simon Greenleaf

It is of the very essence of Christianity to face suffering and death not because they are good, not because they have meaning, but because the resurrection of Jesus has robbed them of their meaning. ― Thomas Merton

The evidence for our Lord’s life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece as carefully as every judge summing upon a most important case. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. – Thomas Arnold

I went to a psychologist friend and said if 500 people claimed to see Jesus after he died, it was just a hallucination. He said hallucinations are an individual event. If 500 people have the same hallucination, that’s a bigger miracle than the resurrection. – Lee Strobel

I love studying astronomy. The last few years have brought some comforting news in this field for theists (those who believe there’s a God).

Consider the beginning of the universe. All research points to the truth of the Big Bang as the starting point for everything–space, time, matter, and energy. First there was nothing–absolutely nothing. Then, the universe exploded into being. Doesn’t that suggest Genesis?

But I love the reaction of God-doubters. They now have to create a story that eliminates God from this picture. Here’s where Stephen Hawking, a brilliant physicist, enters the scene.

In a desperate attempt to explain how a finally tuned, infinitely complex universe with highly intelligent, mindfully self-aware human beings can “appear spontaneously from nothing,” Hawking latched on to something called “M-theory,” which argues that multiple universes are created out of nothing with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. In a recent speech, Hawking mentioned that he felt “fortunate to be living in this state of existence.”

This is also known as the “multiverse” theory. There are so many problems with this idea. First, there’s no proof for it–none, absolutely none. Secondly, there can’t be any proof since these other universes can’t be seen or detected from our universe. Third, even if the theory proved true, you haven’t solved the problem. What is throwing off these universes? the creator of all the universes still has to be beyond the physical, natural world. Let’s see . . . that makes the creator a part of (watch this) the supernatural world. Hmm . . . what have we been talking about over the last couple of thousand years as inhabiting the supernatural world? Oh yeah–God.

I love Christian apologetics, which has to do with rational defenses for Christianity. There has been a  tremendous outpouring of books on the topic, so it can tough to decide which ones should be on your shelf. Here are some of my favorites.

1. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
   All of Lee Strobel’s books are required reading for two reasons. First, they are good introductions to the subject and provide a good overview of the material from some of the best scholars in their fields. Second, the writing style is very accessible, taking you alongside a journalist in his investigation of the evidence for Christianity. In this particular title, Strobel focuses on the life and identity of Jesus.2. The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
   This book is just as readable as The Case for Christ, but this one delves into the evidence for the Creator. Another thing that makes this good reading for the beginner is this: whatever areas you find particularly interesting can be pursued further by reading the sources interviewed in the book.

   3. The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
   In The Case for Faith, Strobel moves from making a positive case for Christ and a Creator to defending Christianity from some common criticisms and objections. This one deals with the hard faith questions such as the problem of pain and suffering and issues of doubt. Again, all three of the Lee Strobel books are a great starting point for the beginner.

   4. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell
   No doubt about it–this is a strangely-shaped book (tall and thin). This book, filled with tons of graphics,  will introduce you to the wide landscape of apologetics by outlining, diagramming, and illustrating all of the key arguments for the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, the beliefs of other world views, and common objections. This is very helpful in providing visual categories for the content you are taking in.

   5. Love Your God With All Your Mind by J.P. Moreland
   Moreland is one of my favorites in the field. He’s thoughtful and clear–not always the case with deep thinkers. In this book you’ll be challenged to live a vibrant life of intellectual engagement with your faith. This is a classic book that every apologist should read, and that’s why it finds itself firmly in the foundational books recommended here.

   6. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictionsby Greg Koukl
   Koukl is probably my favorite apologist, with a radio show and great live presentations. This book will train you not only to use apologetic content in everyday life, but it will also train you to be a better, more critical thinker. This is another “must read” book, and mastering its contents early in your apologetic studies will put feet to your faith.

   7. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesusby Mike Licona & Gary Habermas
   The resurrection of Jesus is central to Christianity. This book equips you to understand and defend the resurrection from an historical perspective. Not only does the book have useful diagrams, summaries, and an accessible style, but it also comes with a CD-ROM with interactive software for teaching you the material. This is an essential book for the apologist.

   8. Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow
   Now it’s time to look at some of the most common objections that have come against Christianity since the rise of the new atheism. There’s no better book at dealing with these in a concise yet dense way, while providing additional reading suggestions and introducing some of the key apologists that deal with these questions.

   9. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist by Geisler & Turek
   Geisler and Turek have authored a great apologetics book that also takes a step-by-step approach to showing that Christianity is true—and it’s filled with lots of information. This gives the growing beginner a ton of good content, while strengthening the framework of a cumulative case for Christianity. This book will help to grow your overall general apologetic knowledge as well.

10. Cold-Case Christianity by Wallace
11. Warner Wallace, a former cold-case detective who has been featured on TV, does an excellent job investigating the claims of the gospels. He shows you how his skills play a huge role in deciding the case for Christianity is as convincing as any case he worked on as a detective.

The next section of Greg Koukl’s book Faith Is Not Wishing deals with an issue we hear often, especially from the new atheists. It has to do with the idea that there is a conflict between faith and science. Critics of Christianity say science tells us what’s real while religion tells us fairy stories that can be comforting but have nothing to do with the real world. Greg, instead, argues that the object and domain of science should be the natural, physical world, but the goal of science should not be to produce naturalistic explanations, but rather to follow the evidence wherever it leads to find truth. In other words, science should be about getting the right answers, not the right kind of answers (materialistic ones).

Even some Christians find comfort in the idea of science and religion as occupying two complementary but totally separate realms. Natural science studies the physical universe while the non-physical realm belongs to religion. Science cannot tell us of the ultimate origin of the universe nor discuss the governance of the universe.

Greg says that, at first glance, the two-realms of view is inviting, but he sees problems with it. Why should we accept the view that science reigns supreme in the area of the empirical?

For thousands of years science was viewed differently. The old tradition had one aim– to identify ideas worth believing. But by the modern era there was a shift in science from a general methodology aimed at determining truth to one that was solely empirical. Science became the final measure of all truth.

Greg sees three errors in the view that religious theories should not intrude in science. First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Some metaphysical issues might have empirical support. Think about near-death experience research or conclusions on the existence of a creator based on Big Bang cosmology or the fine-tuning of the universe.

Secondly, it commits the straw man fallacy by assuming that those who advance intelligent design make no use of scientific methods. This is simply not true. Those who promote intelligent design are quite happy to present an abundance of properly gathered scientific evidence for their viewpoint if they’re allowed to. Instead, what they run up against are major scientific journals which summarily disqualify them.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific view (materialistic macro- evolution) does not have religious significance. But this is false. Any view about ultimate origins has metaphysical ramifications. In this case, if evolutionary naturalism is a true description of how life developed on earth, then the only room for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

Christianity is, by its very nature, wedded to the physical realm known by the senses. But modern man apart from religion lives in a two-story house where nature/science/reason occupy the bottom floor while meeting/value/freewill are in the second floor. Because modern individuals are told there should be no interaction between the upper story and the lower story, people try to live in the lower floor. But human dignity and purpose are crushed in the gears of nature’s determinism. So people without religious beliefs must take a leap apart from reason into the upper story of meaning and significance. They pay a heavy price for this – schizophrenia and loss of rationality.

But Greg suggests an alternative – restore to the scientific process the classical emphasis on truth. Science and theology can still have their separate domains, but they need not be arbitrarily isolated from one another. After all, early scientists believed they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him” and saw no problem merging the two. It may be the case that physical phenomenon might be caused by an agent rather than a prior physical event. Though science is restricted to examining physical effects, when causes are inferred, there should be no limitation to the physical world.

Those who believe in intelligent design claim that issues like origin and governance can be properly inferred using empirical methods. For example, take a look at forensic medicine. Medical examiners use scientific methods to determine if an individual died of natural causes or by foul play. It may have been a heart attack or an intelligent agent may have been involved. In the same way, scientific evidence could, in principle, indicate that creation was the result of an agent rather than chance physical factors. Think about the old movie Contact in which researchers use scientific methods to infer intelligent causes. I wonder what Carl Sagan would say if he knew his book and movie were used to justify respect for intelligent design.

Last time I only finished half of one of Greg Koukl’s chapters in Faith Is Not Wishing. He was discussing a complaint often brought against Christianity – historical bloodletting in the name of God. Is Christianity a blood-thirsty enterprise?

In the last blog I covered two of Greg’s points. First, the crimes leveled against Christianity have been exaggerated. Secondly, the greatest evil in the world actually came from the ones who denied God’s existence. Consider Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Enough said.

Another point Greg brings up has to do with the teachings of Christ. It certainly is true that there has been oppression and bloodshed as a result of Christianity, but the question is simple – did this come because it is a religious duty of Christianity or a logical application of the teachings of Christ? If not, then any violence done in his name cannot be laid at his feet. Critics can’t hold Christianity responsible when so-called Christians violate the written instructions. Jesus spoke often about the need for us to love, and this extended to even our enemies (John 14:15 and Luke 10:29-37). You can’t find any Christian teaching that mandates forcible conversion to the faith or coerces adherence to biblical doctrines.

Greg claims that Christianity has actually been the greatest force for good in the history of the world. After all, it is part of the Judeo-Christian morality that says human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have transcendent value.

Greg specifically lays out four areas where Christianity has transformed the world for the better. First is education. Modern education owes its origins to Christianity. Think of the Reformation – the goal was to get the Bible into the hands of the common man. To do this, primary public education was important. It’s hard to believe, but most of the Ivy League schools were started with theological intentions. Missionaries spread out around the world, creating literate societies wherever they went.

A second area where Christianity has improved things has to do with human rights. William Wilberforce, a Christian, spent a lifetime working to abolish slavery in England and the British Commonwealth. It was Christian missionaries who entreated European powers to intervene in Africa to stop the slave trade carried on by the Arabs.

A third positive result of Christianity has been acts of mercy. Think of Mother Teresa, a humble Christian who spent her life serving the poor people of Calcutta. William Booth started the Salvation Army, and Chuck Colson began Prison Fellowship. George Mueller started orphanages all over 19th-century England. Many historians acknowledge that evangelist John Wesley’s preaching saved England from a bloody revolution like that in France. Most of the social reforms in England between 1787 in 1850 were the outcome of evangelical Christians trying to help the poor.

Finally, Christianity has done wonderful things through its missionaries. They have tackled social evils throughout the years. In India, for example, they worked tirelessly to stop child marriage, the immolation of widows, temple prostitution, and untouchability. They opposed foot binding, opium addiction and the abandoning of babies in China. In the continent of Africa they opposed polygamy, the slave trade, and the destruction of twins. All over the world they have opened schools, hospitals, clinics, medical colleges, orphanages, and leprosaria. Missionaries often protected indigenous peoples against their own governments or rapacious business interests.

Does Christianity have a perfect record? Of course not. But Greg has pointed out the true record of the followers of Jesus, and it’s much better than some would tell you.

I love history. It was my minor in college, so I was especially interested in reading Greg Koukl’s chapter called “Christianity’s Real Record ” in his book Faith Is Not Wishing. He deals with the question of whether followers of Christ actually have been the cause of great evil in the world.

Current critics of Christianity and religion in general see a history littered with examples to support their point of view. They bring up witchhunts, crusades, and religious jihad. For example, Thomas Friedman, a popular New York Times columnist, said our battle is not really against terrorism but against any religion that claims to be true, which he calls “religious totalitarianism.”

What is his solution? Pluralism, the idea that “God speaks multiple languages.” But Greg points out the self-defeating nature of Friedman’s argument. Friedman’s claim that God is a pluralist is, in fact, a narrow, exclusivist religious claim that he thinks is true. He’s dogmatic about this doctrine of God, and is also militant about it since he believes people who disagree with him should be silenced.

Friedman actually misdiagnoses the problem, according to Greg. Friedman sees it as religious dogma, but everyone, including Friedman, is dogmatic about issues of truth. The problem is not religious dogma, but religious error. The problem with Muslim terrorists is not fundamentalism, but that their fundamental beliefs are simply false.

Another key problem with Friedman is his complaint that religion has been responsible for more devastation than anything else in history. But the crimes themselves have been exaggerated. In some cases, conflicts that appear to be religious in nature are actually political or cultural wars that divided along religious lines (Northern Ireland is a prime example). Yes, people did die in the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious wars of the Reformation, and the Salem witch trials. However, the numbers of deaths are far smaller than what some people have suggested. In addition, the Crusades were a defensive war, the Spanish Inquisition involved the government more so than the church, and the Salem witch trials were stopped by Christians.

Friedman’s look at history is incorrect also because the greatest evil in the world actually comes from those who deny God’s existence. The greatest evil has always resulted from a denial of God, not pursuit of him. Greg points out that noted radio talk show host Dennis Prager has said, “In the 20th century alone, more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies – Nazism and communism – then by all religions in history.” Think about communist China, the USSR, and Cambodia – millions were slaughtered in each of these countries where people in charge were convinced that there is no God to whom they must answer.

The above represents only half of Greg’s chapter on Christianity’s real record. I’m going to save the other half for a future blog.

We have discussed four chapters in Greg Koukl’s book Faith Is Not Wishing. Probably the biggest attack on Christianity is the problem of evil – this is what Greg tackles next.

The problem of evil drove Einstein away from the God of the Bible. It was part of the inspiration for the atheism of British philosopher Bertrand Russell. For so many people it has been the number one complaint against Christianity.

Some people suggest God would like to do something about evil but is unable to do so. Rabbi Harold Kushner delivered this answer in this popular book Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People? This God cannot inspire a rescue. There’s not much comfort to be gained from worshiping a God like this.

Back to Bertrand Russell for a minute. He wondered how anyone could talk of God while kneeling at the bed of a dying child. This, of course, is a powerful image, which seems devastating to the Christian worldview. But there’s a simple response – what is the atheist Bertrand Russell going to say to that dying child? Too bad? Tough luck? That’s the way it goes?

Greg brings up an important point. If God does not exist, the one thing we can never do is call something evil or tragic. When we use terms like this, we require some transcendent reference point, some way of keeping score. If there is no standard, then there is no good or bad. As C. S. Lewis said, “My argument against God was that the universe seems so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

In fact, if there is no God, it’s hard to even make sense of the notion of evil. Instead, all we can say is that stuff just happens. We can say we don’t like this stuff, but we can’t call it evil.

We still have a key question – where was God? Why didn’t he intervene in evil situations? But Greg says we don’t really want God to end evil, not all of it. How much evil happens every day unnoticed and unlamented because we are the perpetrators, not its victims? Think of adultery, lying, abortion, and other evils that occur on a day-to-day basis. We actually don’t want God to be sniffing around the dark recesses of our own evil conduct. As somebody once said, if God heard your prayer to eliminate evil and destroyed it all at midnight tonight, where would you be at 12:01?

So why doesn’t God stop the evil? The answer is the same one when we ask another question, “Why doesn’t God stop me every time I do wrong?” We end up with an obvious point – human moral choice give us dignity but at the same time make serious evil possible.

Actually, suffering, tragedy, and evil function as warning signals. The pain we see tells us that our world is broken, that something is amiss. If God took away the pain, we would never deal with the disease. And the disease will kill us, sooner or later.

Greg points out that God has done something about evil, the most profound thing imaginable. He has sent his Son to die for evil men. God offers us mercy instead of the punishment we deserve.

Eventually, God will get rid of evil. Until then, he has a different strategy. It’s called forgiveness. That’s something we can access right now.

This is my fourth blog dealing with Greg Koukl’s book Faith Is Not Wishing. I’m spending time on this book because so many of his chapters reference common criticisms leveled at Christianity. For example, this chapter concerns people who have never heard the gospel, ones who are basically good and sincerely worship God in their own way. Would God send them to hell for not hearing about Jesus?

Greg admits that it is the most taxing objection he faces and also the most odious to others. To non-Christians, it’s a despicable doctrine. After all, if hearing the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation, entire cultures would be sent to hell, meaning God becomes a petty racist. Is that fair? Is that just?

Paul argues against works salvation by saying there is a single common denominator for people of all ages and cultures – faith. We think of Old Testament believers like Melchizedek or Rahab. In the New Testament we encounter Cornelius and Lydia, non-Jews who are shown grace. In Romans 2, Paul says God “will render to every man according to his deeds… For there is no partiality with God.”

Greg points out that most people in the world worship something beyond themselves with complete sincerity. Is this enough? Has God said that this is adequate? No. In his sermon on Mars Hill, Paul indicates that worshiping in ignorance is not adequate (Acts 17:23). He also indicates in Romans 10:2 that the Jews were zealous for God, but their zeal was not based on knowledge.

But what of the good person? God won’t reject him or her? And actually, the Bible agrees: If a man keeps God’s law, he’ll have no problem with God. But here’s the key question: Where is such a person? When measured by God’s standards, we fall so far short. Where is the good Buddhist, the good Hindu, or the good Muslim? Actually, where is the good Christian? They don’t exist. God’s absolute standards silence every claim to self-righteousness. This is bad news because it makes the whole world accountable to God. This is critical to Greg’s presentation here – People are not ultimately condemned for their rejection of Christ; they’re punished for breaking God’s law.

He says we make a big mistake when we think people are basically good and would turn to God if they had the chance. Romans 1:18-19 tells us that people reject the light given them not out of ignorance, but out of willful suppression of truth. We run from God, not towards Him.

If this is the case, then God must make the first move to block man’s retreat. Again, this is important because it means that no “heathen in Africa” begins a genuine search unless God has first moved in him to do so (John 6:44).

Here’s Greg’s message up to this point. First, God only punishes those who are guilty. Second, guilty people don’t seek God; they run from him. Third, God takes the initiative to pursue us out of love.

How does God pursue us? It certainly possible that in isolated situations he communicates directly. This he did with Abraham. There are so many stories coming today out of restrictive Muslim countries of people having dreams and encountering Jesus in them. This happens all around the world. Greg tells the story of an Indian who was a member of the Brahman caste. He had experienced astral travel to other planets, had psychedelic experiences, and received yogic visions. He found that each step closer to his Hindu gods was actually a step farther from the true God that he sought in his heart. When confronted with the utter emptiness of life and the shallowness of religion, he cried out, “I want to know the true God, the Creator of the universe.” God responded by bringing the gospel to him through the witness of a young woman. Usually, however, the message of the true Savior comes on the lips of a preacher who comes bearing the good news (Romans 10:14-15).

We know based on the Bible and cultural stories that anyone seeking God in truth will find him and be accepted by him. God does not condemn anyone for rejecting a Jesus he’s never heard of. Rather, men are held accountable for their own moral crimes against God and for rejecting the Father, whose voice is heard everywhere.

The third chapter in Greg Koukl’s book Faith Is Not Wishing has a intriguing title: “Was Jesus a Fraud?” He’s referring to the fact that some people believe the story of Jesus was just a recycled version of ancient pagan religions. This has been a recent criticism that many skeptics are using to challenge Christianity. Is Jesus just a copycat messiah?

Greg starts by looking at the ancient historical accounts of the life of Jesus. The authors do not appear to be writing fairy tales for future generations. For example, the opening words of the author Luke talk about compiling an account handed down by eyewitnesses. He’s referring to the use of oral tradition, a huge part of the Jewish society of the time. He and the other gospel writers are aware that they are relating a remarkable story, but they are obviously convinced that the events in these accounts really happened. Their accounts include vivid details of observers who witnessed the events or, in Luke’s case, a chronicler who had obtained the information from people who are actually there. C. S. Lewis once remarked that he knew myths from his literary studies, and the gospels do not read as myths.

One internet documentary has challenged the authenticity of these gospel accounts. It’s called Zeitgeist: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. According to this account, the Egyptian sun god Horus was born on December 25 of a virgin. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, and three kings followed it to locate the new-born savior. At the age of 30 he was baptized and began his ministry. Horace had twelve disciples and performed miracles. After being betrayed, he was crucified, buried for three days, and then resurrected. Sound familiar? The documentary claims other gods followed this same structure, including Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithras. Osiris, another Egyptian god, also follows this pattern of a dying and resurrected god.

What’s the Christian response? First, the facts listed above in the previous paragraph are almost all false. For example, Osiris did not rise bodily from the dead, and neither Horus, Mithras, or Krishna were born of a virgin. In addition, the dating of these myths causes a big problem for skeptics because most of them actually postdate the time of Jesus.

But what about the myths of dying and rising gods which predate the Christian era? Claims made regarding Jesus of Nazareth are distinct from them in three critical ways – Jesus was a real human whose resurrection happened at a particular place and time on earth, the mythical deities were tied to the repeated seasons of the agricultural cycle (Jesus’s resurrection was a one-time event), and Jesus died as a vicarious sacrifice for sins. Greg spends time on the first point above – the historicity of Jesus. Scholars both liberal and conservative overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a man of history. For example, Will Durant, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, says this about the gospels: “No one reading the scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them… After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character, and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.”

So, there are plenty of reasons to reject the complaint of critics who say Jesus was a fraud.

Another chapter in Greg Koukl’s book called Faith Is Not Wishing has an intriguing title – “Is God Just a Crutch?” Greg deals well with that attack on theism.

Atheists like to talk a lot about emotional and cultural factors that might induce somebody to become committed to Jesus. They claim the concept of God is a crutch. But Greg points out that no one can refute an idea by showing the psychological reasons a person happens to believe it. You can’t refute someone’s views by faulting his feelings. This is the key to his entire chapter.

Of course, this game can be played the other way around. Maybe it’s the atheist who uses his or her beliefs as a crutch, an invention of that person’s non-religious wishful thinking. In fact, it was Aldous Huxley who said he bought into atheism because it gave him the freedom to do what he wanted in the area of sexuality.

The key here is simple – objections about the believer, rather than the belief are not valid. Whatever cultural, emotional, psychological, or historical reasons people have tell you only about their cultures, emotions, history, or psychological states.

When someone focuses on the origin of a belief, not its content, this is called the genetic fallacy. Very well-known thinkers have committed this error – Sigmund Freud, Frederick Nietzsche, and Karl Marx all said God was nothing more than a psychological projection. Psychological motivations give you information about the person who believes, but they tell you nothing about the truth of his or her beliefs. Psychological motivations have nothing to do with whether a belief is true or not.

If someone says to us that Christians just want a father figure, there’s a simple answer. We say, “Maybe we do and maybe we don’t, but what does that have to do with whether God exists or not?” As C. S. Lewis said, “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.”

So we have to start with reasons first, rather than misleading talk about motives or desires. The atheist needs to give the Christian a convincing argument that God does not exist before asking why the Christian would believe in such a fantasy. Of course, it’s easier for the atheist to ignore the argument and fault the feelings.

What I find interesting is Greg’s final comments in this chapter. If men were to invent a God, he asks, what would he be like? Would we create a God like the one in the Bible? Wouldn’t we want Him to reflect our desires by dismissing our shortcomings? But the God of the Bible is so unlike us. His wisdom confuses us and his purity frightens us. He makes moral demands that we can’t possibly live up to. He does not come running to us when we call on him.

If somebody insists that Jesus is a crutch, there is an element of truth to this. After all, crippled people need crutches. At least he is a crutch that we can lean on. What is the atheist putting his trust in? Can his crutch hold him?