Why I'm a Christian

All of the experiences I had with church told me that you'll feel what is right. That faith without evidence is the sign of a true Christian.

The fact is, the Bible does not ask us for "blind faith". God is demonstrated in all aspects of life.

Evidence in the creation - This gets into the topic of evolution. Were we created, or did we evolve? This argument may sound a bit juvenile, but here goes:

Archeologists love to find tools or other signs of intelligence in an excavation. Why? Because tools, cave paintings, and the like had to have been "created" by a higher intelligence. If you find, let's say, a mouse trap, have you ever considered that it created itself? That possibly those mechanisms just formed, over billions of years? Maybe a certain area of the earth has become overcrowded with mice, so wouldn't the proper evolutionary process be for something that can control the mouse population to be formed (cats don't count, some of them are lazy and they can't keep up with this many mice).

Let's take this to the point of being a little, okay a lot, ridiculous. If evolution created this world, if nothing around us had a Divine Creator, then why isn't New York City overrun with mousetraps? The mouse trap is a simple machine, humans can create it, why can't it evolve? Wouldn't it help the other creatures in that area, wouldn't there be a need for such a thing, something that can just stay in the back alleys, the sewers, and survive off of the massive rodent population?

- And my point is proven about cats - New York City is full of them yet there are still multitudes of rodents (before anyone asks, I have nothing against cats).

Now, have you ever looked around and wondered at the complexity of everything in this world? Remember the term "simple cell"? Science has found that the cell is far more complicated than anything any person has EVER created or even thought about creating. Look around again - a person's eyes - even more complex than just one cell - how could that have evolved? Evolutionary science states that small changes occurred during each evolutionary step until a fully formed human came to being. Small steps could never have even created one cell, so how could it have formed the eyes? In order for one eye to be formed, the skull would have to make an opening for it - why would this "hole" in the skull form if this step of the evolutionary process doesn't know that the eye will be there later? Wouldn't a hole in the front of the skull be a deformation, a weakness?

Just for arguments sake, let's say that one of our "ancestors" did form this hole in the skull, the place for an eye to evolve. This ancestor will mate with another of our ancestors - now what? Some of the offspring will have the start of what one day could be one eye, while some will not. The further down the chain from this initial ancestor you get, the more watered-down the effect of the space for the eye becomes in the population (keep in mind there still is not an eye there). So in order for this scenario to work, at least 2 of our ancestors, each having a space for the eye to later form, must have gotten together to create offspring. But wait a minute - we can't even figure out how one cell could be formed, let alone how enough cells could form/change to create this "evolutionary step". Then compound that by the idea that 2 people (or whatever they were) had this change at the same time. Remember also that hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of years are still needed before that eye can form. Each generation will once again either continue to water-down the evolutionary step, or more ancestors need to be evolving the exact same things at the exact same times with each generation. Now think about the rest of the body, teeth for eating, ears for hearing, the different organs that, as a human today you could not live if you didn't already have them all intact and functioning. Each of these are so complicated, how could the process even begin if the end of the process is unknown?

If a play from Shakespeare cannot accidentally come into being by having 20 monkeys randomly type for 20 years, how could all of this occur? The play, as amazing and masterful as it is, cannot compare to the intricacies and complexities of even one cell.

Lets move onto something a little(?) less controversial:

Evidence in history - Throughout many historical documents, there are references to Jesus, to God, and to events that take place in the Bible.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37 - c. 100) was a first-century Jewish historian who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works, including the "Antiquities of the Jews" (c. 94), give an important insight into first-century Judaism. The "Antiquities" give a detailed account of the Jewish culture, beginning with the Creation according to Genesis. He includes information about Jesus as well:

The Greek version of "Antiquities of the Jews", 18.63-64:
3.3 "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Many argue that since other early historians, such as Origen, don't mention this passage that it was added into the Antiquities later on.

Origen Adamantius (185-254 AD) was an early Christian scholar and theologian who wrote "Against Celsus". Celsus was a pagan philosopher who denied that Jesus was the Son of God. "Against Celsus" was Origen's point by point rebuttal - he demonstrated that the Old Testament did contain accurate prophesies concerning the Christ. He spoke of miracles and the evidences for the resurrection. He also compared pagan mythology with the Bible, and "demonstrated not only the independence of the scriptural narratives of miracles and resurrection but also their superiority as truth." - "Notable Christain Apologist: Origen" by Ted Cabal, found in "The Apologetics Study Bible", p. 1387.

Cornelius Tacitus (56 - 117 AD) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. He wrote the "Annals", a historical work that's among the first-known secular-historic records to mention Jesus, which Tacitus does in connection with Nero's persecution of the Christians.

There are also many Biblical texts, such as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that attest to the life of Jesus. Unfortunately, many unbelievers attack these Scriptures because they are anonymous. The Gospel of Matthew does not name its own author, however "According to the sources available, the early church was in unanimous agreement that the Apostle Matthew was the first to write a Gospel..." - The Apologetics Study Bible, p. 1401, and by 180 AD authorship of this Gospel was given to Matthew. The Gospels of Mark and Luke were also given their authorship between 130 and 180 AD. John never signs or writes his name in his Gospel, but he does refer to himself as the "one Jesus loved", and it mentions that the writer is the brother of James and the son of Zebedee (which matches early church tradition).

But, in case someone still doesn't want to count those Scriptures, how about these:

1. Many letters from the Apostle Paul were written to the separate churches, each one undeniably speaking of Jesus as Lord, and each one signed by Paul. 1 Corinthians (c. 54 AD), 2 Corinthians (c. 54-55 AD), Galatians (two theories, either 49 AD or 57-58 AD), Ephesians, to name a few.

2. The Book of James, written by the half-brother of Jesus (mid-40's AD).

3. 1 Peter, written by the Apostle Peter.

All of these are New Testament Scriptures that speak of Jesus, that He is the Son of God and the Savior of man, and they attest to His existence. One important note to make here, while today we look at the Scriptures as a whole, that they cannot prove God or Jesus because they are "biased", we have to remember that these works started out as single letters or manuscripts, by different authors. It was hundreds of years later before the canon was put together and these Scriptures became unified into one Book, which means that within the Bible itself are several authors that give historical account of Jesus.

One of the most fascinating arguments I have found to Christianity is that the story of Christ "has already been done". They claim that many other god-type figures have the same story, but they happened before the time of Christ. Here are a few examples of the figures they claim refutes Christianity.

1. Chrishna or Krishna (oldest known writing, a poem in the Smriti, first written about 500 BC). 2. Horus 3. Orpheus(oldest known writings Pindar, Pythian Odes, 4.176, 462 BC). 4. Osiris (Egyptian god of the dead, was known for his compassion, which is the only real similarity to Jesus).

5. Buddha - Different Buddhist sects actually consider different people to be Buddha -Gautama Buddha - founder of Buddhism (died around 486 BC), Amitabha - principal Buddha of Pure Land sect, Vairocana - embodiment of Dharmakaya, and Dipankara - First Buddha of the current world age.

6. Bacchus/Dionysus (father was the god Zeus). 7. Apollo - greek god of healing. 8. Hercules - greek god famous for his strenth. 9. Adonis - 600 BC - the greek god of rebirth and vegetation. The earliest writings for the greek gods were Homer's 'Iliad' written around the 8th century BC (for the older gods). Many of these gods' religions were considered to be cults and mystery religions. Theses gods had Mt. Olympian gods as their parent(s), and superhuman abilities - but their stories still don't come close to the story of Jesus.

10. Ormuzd (Indo-Iranian cultures - the one uncreated god - oldest known writing dates to sometime before 1010 AD) - This god is more paralleled to God than Jesus. 11. Mithras - another mystery religion from the Roman Empire, dates from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. - each of these came well after the time of Jesus.

Unfortunately, the people who use this as negative evidence against Jesus obviously haven't read their Bibles, especially the old testament. How were God's people to know that a Savior was coming? By Scripture, by the foretelling of the Son of God. Many texts, including the ones below, predate the early writings for almost all of the gods listed above.

Isaiah (around 730 BC) chapter 52:13 - 53:12 tells of the Servant that will live, teach, and then suffer for mankind. Zechariah (520 BC) 9:9 (NIV) reads:
"Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king [a] comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Matthew later quoted this when describing Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (Mt. 21:4-5).

As for the gods that are not predated by these Sciptures - Every one of the "deities" listed here, except Buddha, are mythological - none of them were real people - there is no historical evidence that they ever existed. It strikes me that so many people have a problem with excepting Jesus as real, yet they will use examples against Him that are obvious myths. How can a myth compare to a real entity, a true person?

Buddha, as the only real god-figure to come before Jesus, is still predated by the Old Testament. His only real "similarity" was his compassion; his teachings and life story are not even close to the story of Jesus.

Many of the gods listed above were not written about until hundreds, sometimes thousands of years after their "time". Around the mid-40's AD historians were already writing about Jesus - that's about 10 - 20 years after His death. In fact, if you include the passages from the Old Testament, Jesus was written about before His time.

Another interesting note - many of the myths surrounding these other "gods" changed over time. The story of Osiris changed repeatedly concerning who his parents were, whether or not Anubis was his son or Set's son, and the list keeps going. Dionysus had two different versions of his birth. In the Hellenic era, one Greek religious sect merged Osiris and Dionysus into one deity. Apollo's final form also came as a merge between himself and the Greek god Paean. There has only been one Jesus, and he has not changed.

There is much debate about whether the Bible we have today can be trusted as being accurate.

Accuracy of the Bible -
This section was taken from an article entitled "Is the New Testament Trustworthy?" by Darrell L. Bock, which is in the Apologetics Study Bible, p. 1452.

"...[T]he biblical text we have today basically reflects the text as it was originally produced. The NT [New Testament] has far better manuscript evidence than any other ancient document. Where most classical works, such as those of Plato, Herodotus, and Aristophanes, have from one to 20 manuscripts, the NT has about 5,400 Greek manuscripts that we can compare to determine the original wording, not to mention more than 8,000 ancient Latin manuscripts."

Does Science Disprove Christianity -
Many people believe that science and religion are at odds with each other. Some Christians are afraid of science, that it will uncover things that will completely destroy their Christian foundation. The interesting thing about science is that it has yet to disprove the Bible. On anything. In fact, for some years there has been a notion that the Bible was inaccurate on the story of David and Goliath. Goliath, the champion from Philistine, could not have existed. Neither could the other soldiers, because archeology had yet to discover a place that could have been "Philistine". But in 2007, under the sands of the Negev Desert, Philistine was discovered.

This is just one example. For the sake of keeping this lens short (which already isn't going to happen) feel free to comment below if you know of more examples.

"Jesus appears to not have taught anyone anything that was not already present in the common culture of the time. This shows us that not only did Christianity follow on, as expected, from previous thought in history but that we do not even need to believe in God or supernatural events in order to account for the history of Christianity." - website entitled "Jesus did not exist" - http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html.

This site and others like it are where I've found many complaints about Christianity. As for this quote, that Christianity stemmed from the Jewish religion, they're absolutely right. Christianity did not start its own religion, it is not simply about Jesus and His teachings. It's about a reconciliation with a God that cannot accept sin - the God of the Jewish Torah (and the Christian Old Testament). The Torah describes a savior that is coming. The main difference between the Jewish religion today and Christianity is that Christians believe that Jesus was that Savior. Where did Christians come from? They started out as Jewish people who believed that Jesus was the Son of God, and eventually people from other nations and religions converted to Christianity as well.

As far as the quote on whether or not God was needed for Christianity, this quote is absolutely wrong. If we believe that Jesus is our Salvation, what is He saving us from? Some would answer that He's savings us from hell, but my answer is that He is saving us from a God that cannot accept sin. If we believe that He died for our sins, what does that matter if we do not consider the God that judges sin? Anyone who looks at Christianity as being only about compassion and turning the other cheek, while these are very important attributes to the Christian faith, has missed the point.

I started this lens as a means of describing the arguments for Christianity that persuaded me that it was true. Through my research, I found SO MUCH opposition to Christianity that this lens almost became a defense rather than just listing my own reasons. The most intriguing thing to me is that some people have no problem with any type of religion EXCEPT Christianity. They don't just reject the notion, they vehemently deny it. They are angry with anyone who could believe it. Why? Isn't this the time of "live and let live"? That seems to be the argument for people who do not want to hear about Christianity. So why can't they let Christians believe as they choose rather than trying to tear down our beliefs? Do they feel threatened?

I guess this wouldn't bother me so badly if they actually made a valid point. Every time I found an argument against Christianity, while it sounded persuasive at first, the arguments always fell through, and with very little research. This is why I feel that Christians should always study and seek truth. If you have a question about anything I've wrote here, seek another opinion, and then seek another opinion on that opinion. Don't find one person's viewpoint and stick with it - that's what leads Christians to distrust and fall away, like I did after my first church.

I will end this lens by saying that I am, by no means, a theologian. This lens is not meant to be a definitive study (though it feels like that's what I was trying to make). It is simply meant to bring a new perspective, and hopefully to make people test everything, and to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good (1st Thessalonians 5:21).

If you feel I've missed something, or if you just have an opinion, feel free to leave your comments.