Apologetics

---

Catherine Giordano, in her essay, Did Jesus Exist or Is It All Myth, prior to offering the skeptical findings of “Bible” scholars states: “Full disclosure: I am not a Biblical scholar. However, I have done some reading on what biblical scholars are saying. It is a very complex field of study, but I will try to report on the main reasons for skepticism about the existence of Jesus. The arguments and evidence could fill books-and they do-but I will just hit the highlights. I refer you to the books for the details. We cannot use the Bible as an historical reference since the Bible is what is being examined. Additionally, the Bible shows itself to be an unreliable document because it reports myth as truth, and even when dealing with known facts of history, geography, and science it gets some of those facts wrong.”

Her post on the Facebook page Apologists vs. Atheist has already had several criticisms from Christians and atheist as well. Therefore, addressing every argument she proposed isn’t really necessary. Most arguments she proposed have already been addressed in an evidential apologetic manner.

She readily admits that there are differences among biblical scholars, “Many biblical scholars question whether or not a historical Jesus ever existed. Other biblical scholars are convinced that there was an actual Jesus although he was fully human and did not perform miracles. And, of course, most Christians believe that the entire Jesus story as told in the Bible is completely true.” Before reading my response, her post can be found at the following http://catherinegiodano.hubpages.com/hub/Did-Jesus-Exist-or-Is-it-All-Myth

First, it must be understood that facts, evidence, history, and science are all a matter of secondary importance. Catherine has made it clear before offering any of her historical research, that she has presuppositions that are antithetical to Christian theism. For me to reason with Catherine relating to the existence of Jesus, without first asking what pre-conditions must exist to give historical facts meaning and intelligibility would be futile. Also, to proceed in that fashion would presuppose that Catherine, and myself, have the same method of reasoning; which is impossible due to our presuppositions. I do not agree with the assumption that autonomous reasoning and biblical reasoning are the same in methodology. Unbelievers since the creation of the world have suppressed the clear knowledge of God made known to them through natural revelation (not natural law). As a consequence of this suppressed truth their minds have been darkened, their wisdom rendered foolish, and intellectual endeavors resulting in futility (Rom. 1:18-23). “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot (Rom. 8:7).” Any effort at acquiring knowledge according to the Bible must first begin with a submission of every area life, including intellectual activities to the Lordship of Christ. “That their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:2-3).” “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1:20).”

In conclusion, to begin a survey of the historical evidence of Jesus without establishing which worldview can make sense of facts and evidence, would be to assume the myth of neutrality that Catherine insists must be presupposed by not allowing the Bible to be examined. Catherine claims that the Bible shows itself to be unreliable, because it reports myth as truth. Ironically, it is Catherine’s belief in the “myth” of neutrality that is unreliable, not the infallibility of the Bible. As Dr. Cornelius Van Til said, “To be without bias is to have only a particular kind of bias.”

When dealing with ultimate authorities or final reference points in epistemology, reasoning circularly is not fallacious; but rather, consistent. If two philosophers were to debate the validity of the laws of logic, would they not have to employ the laws of logic? For arguments sake, imagine if I was to reverse this “myth of neutrality” upon Catherine. For example, assume the issue before us was proving that man is actually self-sufficient in his reasoning, the final reference point or ultimate authority by which all facts must be filtered through. However, for Cartherine to prove this premise, she must begin with the presupposition that man is not self-sufficient in his reasoning, and must interpret all facts from an antithetical point of view, specifically Christian theism. The antithetical presupposition of Christian theism being that an accurate interpretation of facts relies upon an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and sovereign God that has created and established those facts in an orderly system. Facts under this presupposition are not isolated particulars without any, causal relation. Brute facts cannot coexist with an eternal God that has created and pre-interpreted those facts. Catherine must relinquish her autonomous reasoning in order to interpret any fact aright, and rely upon the interpretation already given to them. She must think God’s thoughts after Him analogically. Granting that this scenario did, in fact, prove that finite Catherine must be the ultimate authority rather than the infinite God of the Bible, that conclusion would be inconsistent with her initial presupposition. Hence, one’s logical conclusion must be consistent with his/her presuppositions, and method of reasoning. For me to reason neutrally would inevitability result in a metaphysical/epistemological contradiction within my own worldview (network of presuppositions that determine how life is interpreted and experienced). If I am to love Christ with all my mind, this includes reasoning with unbelievers. Whether I eat or drink, I am commanded to do so to the glory of God; this covers every area of life.

So, when Catherine says that the Bible cannot be used as evidence for the existence of Jesus, she strips away the very thing that makes Jesus (as Christianity teaches), Jesus. Jesus was both fully God and fully man. The rejection of the ontological trinity by covenant-breakers explains the philosophical dilemma of the one and the many that has puzzled the great philosophers throughout history. The Bible does not teach that God must be proved by historical research, empirical science, or the laws of logic; but, rather God proves history, science, and the laws of logic. Without the God of the Bible being true, no such fields of study would have meaning or intelligibility. Even more, such fields wouldn’t be possible! Catherine commits the logical fallacy of building a straw man out of Jesus by misrepresenting His divine attributes. Quoting Catherine, “If we wish to know Jesus, the man, we must begin with the assumption that Jesus is not divine, nor the Son of God, and had no supernatural powers whatsoever.” To remove the supernatural attributes of Jesus prior to investigating the evidence of His existence is investigating a rather conspicuous straw man. Regardless of the conclusion, the historical facts surveyed concerning this straw man would not have any negative or positive effect upon the teachings of Christianity, due to the fact it is a misrepresentation of what Christianity actually teaches concerning the deity of Christ. John 1:1-3, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” The Bible teaches that God and His revelation are self-verifying and self-attesting. God needs no qualifications. If autonomous reasoning could prove the existence of God, then God ceases to be God and man assumes that role by default. Secondly, the assumption that Caroline insists must be assumed to really know whether Jesus existed is arbitrary and unproven. To know, is to speak of epistemology. To exist, is to speak of metaphysics. However, to assume that a man who performs signs and wonders cannot actually exist, begs the question that is actually at hand.The real question is, how did Caroline determine that this limitation of metaphysics must be presupposed to arrive at a true knowledge of Jesus’ existence? This is an unwarranted and unproved assumption that is nothing more than prejudicial conjecture.

Catherine goes on to say, “Some scholars say Yeshua ben Joseph existed, but the stories about him are mythological history.” I appreciate the fact that Catherine has admitted that she is not a Bible scholar; neither am I. She has also stated she is just trying “to hit the highlights,” for the skepticism regarding the existence of Jesus. However, even in doing so, logical fallacies cannot be used for the sake of highlights. If the books she mentions contain nothing more than the arbitrary summations she presents, reading them in full would be a waste of time. On the contrary, if the scholars do offer more than the hear-say that Catherine mentions, she is belittling their research and argumentation by reducing their academic works to illogical absurdities.

Quoting Catherine, “Another hypothesis is that there were many Jewish preachers travelling about Bethlehem at that time, and their lives were made into a composite that was called Jesus… I have even heard the theory that the story of Jesus arose from a play given by a travelling theatre troupe. It’s an interesting theory because it would have been a way to spread an anti-Roman message under the guise of harmless entertainment.” Again, hear-say, and prejudicial conjecture do not formulate cogently inductive arguments. All Catherine has presented are theories, hypotheses, and supposed probabilities that essentially prove nothing. I could be just as arbitrary by asserting, “I heard a theory that theories don’t exist; therefore there is a possibility they do not.” What has happened? Nothing. Besides, any message (whether it be for entertainment sake or what have you) that did not pay homage to Ceasar as King, would have been sufficient grounds for punishment in the first century Roman Empire.

Caroline says, “The story of Jesus closely corresponds to the ‘Mythic Hero Type’ found in the myths of all cultures. The birth of a divine hero is supernaturally predicted, and he is conceived in a supernatural way. As an infant, he escapes attempts to kill him. As a child, he shows precious wisdom. As a young man, he is given a mission. He defeats monsters, and/or demons and is hailed as a king. His success is short lived-he is betrayed, falls out of favor, and is executed, often on a hilltop. Finally, he is vindicated after his death and taken up to heaven. Countless myths tell this story with slight variations.” So, simply due to close resemblances in the Bible’s teachings on Jesus, and other culture’s mythological teachings, the existence of Jesus must therefore be concluded as false? This is yet another arbitrary conclusion. Just because the biblical accounts of Jesus resemble “Mythic Hero Archetype” myths does not logically lead us to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist.

Again Catherine fabricates an illogical conclusion, “The Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, made many prophecies about the Messiah to come. Did Jesus fulfill those prophecies? Of course he did. It is only natural that the people who told the story of Jesus would make the story conform to the prophecies.” In other words, it is undeniable that the prophecies of the Bible were indeed fulfilled by Jesus. So, we have two and only two explanations before us (1) Jesus is exactly who the Bible says He is, and did in fact exist. However, this is the UNNATURAL OPTION! (2) The NATURAL conclusion is that the Bible was forged so it would conform to the prophecies. You desperately begged the question. Why would it be unnatural for the prophecies to have been fulfilled other than your preconceived subjective bias toward the infallibility of the scriptures? Where is the conclusive evidence that the Bible is, in fact, a forged collection of historical writings?

Catherine states, “All the things we think we know about the life of Jesus don’t begin to be written down until about 100 years after the presumed date of Jesus’ death. The details appear in the four gospels, Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, but they were not written by them. The writers are apostles (messengers) and not disciples. The Gospels show evidence of being revised throughout the next centuries and into the Middle Ages. None of the original documents survive. We have only copies of copies, and the copies often differ from each other.” The majority of this statement has already been refuted on the Facebook page and isn’t worthy of criticism in my opinion. This argument really shows one’s lack of familiarity on the subject. However, lets apply this logic to the writings we have of the philosopher, Plato. It is believed he lived around 350 B. C. The earliest manuscript discovered of his was around 900 A. D. by E. B. Clarke. According to your line of argumentation, I think it is safe to say Plato didn’t exist either. Presuppositions go a long way; farther than we won’t them to sometimes.

What must be understood is that facts are not self-evident truths needing no qualifications. Facts require interpretation. Catherine’s final reference point in determining the truth of any fact is her autonomous reasoning. However, I believe that for facts to be made meaningful, the God of the Bible must be presupposed as the creator and sustainer of those facts. I am God’s creature. God being the creator gives intelligibility and meaning to all facts. Without presupposing God as the creator of facts, facts stand alone in impersonal contingency. However, facts in the Christian worldview are correlative parts that form a coherent system. Catherine says that the Bible gets facts wrong when dealing with known facts; such as history, science, and geography. I would argue that according to Catherine’s worldview any given fact could not be truly known or accounted for. For science, history, or geography to have intelligible meaning, one must presuppose the God of Christian theism.

Catherine mentioned the Bible as contradicting known facts and has attempted an a posteriori use of historical research to prove this. However, much of the supposed known facts are nothing more than assumptions and hypothesis. Deducing hypothesis and assumptions is equivalent to an a priori knowledge, consequently, displaying her metaphysical and epistemological tensions inherent in her worldview. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that goes beyond the physical. It deals with abstract principles, reality, existence, etc. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with one’s theory of knowledge. Catherine presupposes that historical observation and science prove that Jesus didn’t exist. To limit true knowledge to the phenomenal, by necessity asserts what cannot be known of the metaphysical. This presupposition predicates what cannot, and therefore, must be true of metaphysics. It is never a question of metaphysic or no metaphysic, but which metaphysic will one choose.

Myths that contain supernatural events, signs, wonders, etc are precluded from the outset as unknowable on the grounds of a non-observable, non-sensible, and naturalistic presuppositions. Note, presuppositions by their inherent abstract nature, are neither observable, sensible, or material. These presuppositions are unwarranted, unproven, and arbitrary.

Without interpreting facts under the roof of Christian theism there is only contingent factuality left to historians and scientist of any religion. Any assertion of factuality is a metaphysical assertion by nature. In other words, the actuality of factuality is to assert the existence of facts. This is irreconcilable concept in an empirical, naturalistic, or strictly phenomenal worldview. Without presupposing God as the creator and providential sustainer of facts, history would be impersonal, random, and lacking observable cause/effect relationships conducive to historical research and social theory. Ironically, the historian would have no rationale for denying a cyclical view of history taught by the ancient Greeks that Catherine is so critical of for their mythology.

Consider Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen’s remarks in his article Revelation, Speculation, and Science: “The pitting of science against revelation is certainly odd. For, a certain state of affairs is needed for the scientific endeavor to be meaningful or fruitful. The scientist must believe that the state of affairs is conducive to science, or he would not venture into the scientific enterprise. He must believe that there is a world of things and processes that can be known, and that he himself sustains a relationship to this world that allows him to know these objects and events. But then, what reason can the scientist give for his belief that the state of affairs is actually conducive to science? Why is the world such as it is and not otherwise? ”

If the naturalistic scientist follows his presuppositions to their logical end, he would be left with no other answer than pure chance. Chance is unforeseen, random, chaotic, and most importantly irrational. For a scientist to make any assertion of factuality or reality, he cannot give any rational reason as to why this fact is intelligible. Essentially, the scientist is borrowing presuppositions from the Christian’s worldview (uniformity in nature which the scientific method hinges upon) to practice his science; then in foolishness within his heart says there is no God. For any atheist to assert rationality to the irrational universe he lives in is to attempt to rationalize the irrational. If the naturalistic scientist were to be consistent with his presuppositions and give an honest profession it would be similar to what the skeptic philosopher David Hume stated: “But our belief in that causal relation is based on past observations, and our confidence that it will continue tomorrow cannot be justified by the past. So we have no rationale basis for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet we do believe it! “

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE