“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,'” Psalm 14:1
Luigi Cascioli filed a lawsuit against an old schoolmate, now a priest, in 2002 for falsely claiming the existence of Jesus and his birth to Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem. A judge dismissed the case this week, but Cascioli has declared, “this is not the end.” Full Story.
Cascioli has written a book called The Fable of Christ. In it, he claims Jesus never existed but was fabricated out of an exaggeration of a religious zealot named John with a small following of bandits.
Of course, his claims are shaky, and they ignore the substantial extrabiblical evidence for Jesus’ existence and the acceptance of his existence by every world religion and most philosophies — even some atheists.
But it raises a good question for debate. If someone could prove that Christ never existed, or if someone could prove he never resurrected, should Christians abandon the faith?
How much do we accept on faith, and what role does reason play in our belief in Christian teaching?
Indeed, we cannot neglect the role the Holy Spirit plays in the conversion of a soul. But go back to the original question about someone proving Christ never lived or never rose again, what would we do?
Paul says to the Corinthians, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Cor. 15:17-19)
However, he continues, “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead.” And because of this, those in Christ can have the assurance that there IS a resurrection of the dead, and that they will be resurrected to LIFE.
It is no wonder the devil would attack the validity of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Without any one of those, we are of all people most pitiful.
Nevertheless, the question remains that each individual must answer for his or herself. Did Christ really live, die and rise again after three days?
Your conscience demands you come up with a satisfactory answer.
It’s also a good idea to have such an answer when challenges like Cascioli’s arise so our faith is not shaken and we have no need to close our eyes or ears to their claims.
One last thought:
Romans 1:18-22 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
I invite your comments.
Further reading:
The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
More than a Carpenter, Josh McDowell
Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
The Bible (we cannot ignore the testimony of more than 500 eyewitnesses.)
Filed under: Thoughts |
Not Yet Arrived 
I realize that my question creates an apparent contradiction. If it’s even possible for Jesus’ life, death and resurrection to be proven false, then it’s not worth believing, because believing it is the truth requires me to also believe there is no possibility it can be proven false.
Perhaps a better question would have been: What should the Christian response be when someone says they have proof Jesus never lived, or when someone says they have found Jesus’ body? Should we close our eyes and ears and say, “No, I stand on faith,” and ignore it? Or should we investigate the claims and offer a response?
My true intention with this post is to emphasize the importance of approaching what we have been told with honesty and holding every claim of Christianity — and claim against it — up to the closest scrutiny. If Christ’s life, death and resurrection cannot stand up to scrutiny, then he can’t save me from my sins or eternal damnation, and I must search for one who can — just like Paul said!
Please, test and refine your faith, and every claim of the Church, the Bible and Christian teaching. If we expect those of other religions to honestly consider the fallibility of their teachings, we ought to be open to the same consideration. We must always pursue truth. If we’re right, we have nothing to fear, because pursuing truth can only lead us to one place: The Way, the Truth and the Life, Jesus.
It has been said that the only certain barrier to truth is the presumption that one already has it. Am I blind to all contradictory evidence to the Biblical account of Christ because I have been convinced of its truth? I have struggled with this issue from as much a logical perspective as I could muster for many years.
There have been times during intellectual debate with non-Christian friends and acquaintances that I have been challenged, even accused, of strong bias against any contention that the Bible is an unreliable record and it is foolish (re: narrow-minded) to base one’s set of values and beliefs on a single book. Is it? If the saying “the pen is mightier than the sword” indicates that mankind in general acknowledges the superior power of words, how much more effective, then, is the power of the word(s) of God.
(Gotta run…post more later)
(Of course that last line was supposed to be a question…posted toofast 🙂 )
My point is that if the overall truth of words could be measured by their impact and effectiveness throughout human history, then the Bible could easily be shown to be the most true book that has ever been penned. It seems to me that its truth is exactly what is at issue here. Luigi Cascioli’s attempt to take the historical truth of Jesus to a secular court begs the question: Has he ever read the Biblical or even extra-Bibilical historical accounts of Jesus? If he has not, then he will never receive the truth because he is convinced that he already has it. If he is familiar with the historical records, are they somehow offensive enough to him that he wishes them to be false?
If the “stories” that Rev. Enrico Righi is telling are lies, how are they harmful? The Bible’s account of Jesus is only of concern if it is true. Why fight a fairy tale? I think perhaps Mr. Cascioli knows he is not fighting a fairy tale. The words in the Bible cut right to the heart of each man and woman who reads them. Perhaps he is attempting to assuage his guilty conscience by having the Bible declared false by an authority he truly respects – a secular court. It is obvious that he has no respect for the authority of God.
Much more can be said…too little time.
If Jesus was a myth, then how does Cascioli, and all the other Jesus-mythers explain the fact that Christianity started in Jerusalem? A myth might have worked in China, Ireland, or Ethiopia, but not in Jerusalem. If anyone had known that Jesus was a mythical person, they would have been the first to know. How do they explain that no first century historian or rabbi made the claim that Jesus never lived? If Jesus had truly been a myth, it surely would have been exposed early and the religion would have quickly died out, like any other cult of that time. But that did not happen. Explain that!
My mind drifts to two positions as to this question. I definitely think that Christianity rests on a historical claim. It is what makes it unique apart from every other religion. Moreover, the word gospel is a translation of the Greek euangelion, which has not only the meaning “good news,” but also the connotation that the news is of some practical good that was performed on behalf of the people (it was originally used to describe some humanitarian act that a nobleman had performed). Add to all this the Bible verses quoted above, and I think it becomes clear that the truth of Christianity rests on historical claims. If Christ did not die for our sins, then we are not forgiven, and we are to be pitied above all others. Not only because we have dedicated our lives to him, but because, having known something so great, were it to be proved false, there is little hope that we might ever find something as good again, let alone better.
My second thought alights on a passage from C.S. Lewis’ book The Silver Chair, in which a character (Puddleglum, one of Lewis’ best characters in the Narniad) responds, to a witch who has lulled him with magic into disbelieving in Aslan (Lewis’ Christ figure):
“Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things — trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.”
This, to me, seems the better response. And it also raises another question that is very seldom asked? If we pursue evidence, if we pursue facts and truths, and we find them, then well and good! But what if the facts themselves should hide? I think anyone who’s given it a little bit of thought has found that this is often the case. The truth is very seldom readily apparent. So what if we should seemingly find proof against Christ? Then, the question is, not “Should we take refuge in faith, and believe anyway?” but rather, “Should we not doubt our doubts? How do we know that the way things appear to be is really true?”
Finally, I second the recommendation of Mere Christianity (or any of Lewis’ books, for that matter), and add to it G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man.