Letter to Muslims at Christmas

The Christmas festival has begun and whilst people will be getting drunk, opening presents, partying, there are the people of God who will be celebrating Christmas similar to the secular world (without drunkenness) but we will be putting the whole reason we celebrate Christmas at the centre of it. His name is a man you call Prophet Jesus. To a Christian he is our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the great I AM who came into this world to die for our sins and bring us into a relationship with God.
The whole reason I am writing this letter is we both believe in Jesus in similar ways like the virgin birth, his miracles, messiah, prophet etc. But we also have differences such as we believe he was crucified, rose again, was the divine Son of God (God).
Christmas makes me think of Islam; you may think I am crazy for thinking this, but on a secular basis without Christ being at the centre it really does. The worrying part of Christmas is children believe if they are good they will get a reward (presents) from Santa, but if they are bad; then they will not get a reward. This is very similar to Islam, because if you are a good Muslim you will reach Jannah (heaven), but if you are a bad Muslim then you shall not be rewarded Jannah.
Good and bad deeds is how the world goes round, it is the world view on how life should be, but is it justice? A court case is justified by a wrong doing not a good deed, you could of done many good deeds, but stealing that £5000 from a bank is going to cost you.
This same framework is similar to the God of the Bible. If you do nothing wrong then yes you can go free and heaven is it at your feet, but if you do just one thing wrong you are under the wrath of God and he is the judge who will being justice.
Jesus tells us a parable of a young rich man who wanted know how to get eternal life if heaven.

Luke 18

18 uAnd a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to vinherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: w‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, x“All these I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him,“One thing you still lack. ySell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have ztreasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 23 aBut when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, b“How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus is teaching us that to get into heaven we have to be perfect under the law of God, but we are not perfect, as Romans 3 teaches

23 for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Therefore we are all under the wrath of God. Justice is not about good and bad deeds, as it is not fair. Some people may have more opportunities to do good than others, meaning more chance of them having more good deeds than bad deeds to reach heaven. With the change is subjective moral values in different cultures over time, good deeds change on a human basis, but that does not mean its good to God, so how do we know what is good and bad? unless we just use what the law of God teaches period.
Sin has to be punished, like a person being justified in a court room, pleading for justice, they have to be justified for their wrong doing. What they have done good, does not come into play. The God of the bible does not just sweep sin under the carpet , it is very serious.
So what do we do if we have all fallen short and punishment is at are doorstep? JESUS CHRIST are redeemer paid the price for us. The divine Son of God entered his own creation, taking on the form of a man, being in the very nature man and God (philipians 2) to die for our sins ( bad deeds), so that we could go to heaven.
Jesus voluntary gave up his life (philipians 2), he was not forced by the father and the father did not kill him.   Justice of Sin has now been vindicated through the blood of Christ for past, present and future sins, so that when God judges us for who ever believes in him he will see Jesus and what he did for you and me.

Romans 3

For there is no distinction: 23 for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 gand are justified hby his grace as a gift, hrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God jput forward aska propitiation lby his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in mhis divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Christmas is about celebrating the birth of our Lord and Saviour who has shown grace, truth and most important his love for us, it is the greatest gift gift you could have for Christmas and it is free.

Romans 10 v 9

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

All to the glory of God, Amen

Speakers corner: Muslims and liberal scholarship

Last Sunday I made a visit to see my Friend and visit Hillsongs churh morning service, which I enjoyed very much, the worship was great.

Me and Ken then decided to go to speakers corner in Hyde Park in the afternoon. I got talking with an ex christian who became a Muslim. His name was Paul and he stated to me he had his own blog, which I have now looked at and he was the head of an Islamic Dawa centre for arranged debates with Muslims and other faiths.

He started out with the a liberal question where did jesus teach he would die for the sins of the world and his view on how to get to heaven. Where he got liberal was when he said but you can't use Johns gospel, because its authorship and historical Jesus is very skeptical among scholars. I stated I would discuss the gospel of john with him as a separate question, but would answer his question without the use of John and use his liberal standard.

He pointed me to the rich man in matthew 19 quote

6 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

He stated as we can see eternal life is by works and you don't need Jesus to die for the sins of the world if you can get salvation by other ways. 

I stated yes you can get to heaven by works, BUT you cant achieve it through works, because this is God's standard the lAW. If you break just one of the the laws you have fallen short of gods standard and you can not enter as we read in Romans 3:23. Only because the man stated he had not done any of things means he is telling the truth. Jesus then states now go and give up everything you have and you shull have treasure in heaven and THEN come follow me. Paul stated but notice you can get treasure in heaven before following jesus. I stated the verse is not complying that interpretation, Jesus is stating the rich things he has are worthless, as treasure in heaven is eternal. the follow me part is issuing the statement o and also come follow me, not the fact when you do these things you get treasure in heaven first and then you have to follow him, Jesus is this using an example of how hard it is for a rich man to reach heaven due to material works, as he says you can't serve two masters. Paul still did not accept it, but we moved on.

I then told him old testament does not teach works get you into heaven, this issue of good and bad deeds is not biblical. I showed him Habakkuk 3 regarding Yahweh is my salvation, not the law. 

If we look at post Resurrection claims of jesus in matthew 28 baptise in the name of the 3 persons, is 1. showing the triune god and 2. why would jesus say this? knowing that when you are baptized it is the cleansing of sin, by being washed by water and bought back up in a new life. 

luke 24

47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

this is Jesus speaking declaring what the Christ had to do. But he stated in post resurrection that he came to die for the sins of the world, now when we look at pre Resurrection, he had not yet died for the sins of the world. The Jewish law and customs are still to be practiced. 

He then started bring scholarship to the table quoting various liberal scholars on how jesus never claimed to be god and doubts within the authenticity of the beloved disciple john son of Zebedee. 

He did quote a few conservative scholars such as  F F Bruce and James Dunn on the gospel of John. He stated that they both doubt the authenticity of johns gospel, because it came after the synoptics and is completely different to the synoptics, as the synoptics show a jesus who preaches the coming kingdom of god and that he is a prophet. But John on the other preaches a divine jesus and only once does he mention the kingdom of god.

I was a bit lost at the start, because I didn't quote know what method for the histrocial jesus he was using, but in fact it was quite conservative, compared to liberal scholarship like John D Crossan who use the non existant gospel Q, gospel of thomas, gospel of hebrews. John Crossan uses two major stepping stones multiple addestation, so if a saying of jesus or something of jesus is in Mark and John that is two sources, but if it is in Mark and Mtthew thats one source, because Matthew used Mark as a source. the other major one is  Embarassment, so if it just embarrasses doctrine and something that looks like the early church would not make up, as it lowers Jesus for example.

However John bought another more conservative method the synoptics contain a more historical jesus than John and jesus shows himself to be a prophet within the eynoptics.

I advised him to read the pre existant son by Simon Gathercole professor of new testement studies at Cambridge University. Simon uses the synoptics, to show Jesus is god, pre existent and divine in the synoptics.

Gathercole mentions The son of God on page 273 and devotes  a whole chapter to it.

matthew 16

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven

Jesus accepts the title the son of god. This is different to Marks gospel where he states you are the christ, some may see its an evolution, but is there any evidence? no. If mark is earlier than matthew, which is not what Papias believed in 125 AD, we see mark is a less detailed account, maybe due to the audience he was targeting in his community, which was Jews. It could also be due to the lack of papyri, or as we just see mark is a lazy writer and shows noo detail what so ever. Matthew applies Jesus full sayings or a more explained saying by showing us more context of what Jesus said. differences in accounts don't mean its an evolutionary account.

Jesus accepts the title son of god at his baptism in mar by his father in heaven, this is my son in whom i am well pleased. But does this son of god title just render Galatians 4 that hes just a son of god, just a child of god that we can all become.

Gathercole argues against this; saying jesus is described as the monogonese the unique son. Galtians 4 even tells us to become a son of god you have toa ccepted christ as the son of god.

Gathercole argues this using matthew 11 a verse that ud expect to find in John that is in the synoptics. 

 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 

jesus showing himself as the unique divine son and the only to come to the father is through the son, not a son and it is by the son we see the father, this is not a mere prophet.

In all four gospels Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath in mark 2 for example.

Now how can a prophet as cliamed by Gathercole aswell be a prophet?

exodus 20

⁸ “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. ⁹ Six days you shall labor and do all your work, ¹⁰ but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God

Notice this was a devotion to yahweeh and Jesus is claiming to Kyrios meaning of lord in greek of this day. Gathercole argues saying by no means can it be a polite address or courtly usage on page 244, but it used as a much higher authority. 

In mark 1 verse 3 God makes the promise to his son to send John to prepare the way of the LORD. As Gathercole argues this a direct messianic passage of Isaiah 40 v 3 prepare the way of yahweeh. 

Gathercole takes this further by using Mark 12:35 - 37 where Jesus cites Psalm 110 v 1 yahweeh says to yahweeh, here Jesus is the second Lord and the reference is is merely to the fact that Jesus is Davids LORD. This is no prophet.

I will use one other high christology claim of christ towards his divinity.

Jesus Calimed to be the Son of Man everywhere in the gospels, it was the title he used the most to himself in the gospels. In Mark 2 when I quoted Lord of the sabbath he claims it here For the Son of man. In hebrew son of man is Ben ha Adam, meaning son of humanity. People may jesus think jesus is just calling himself a son of a man, but in fact he is applying daniel 7 to himself and shows it in graver detail at his trial. He states in all the synoptics for you shull see the son of man on the clouds of heaven seated at the right hand of god. this is no prophet lets read Daniel 7 

13 “I saw in the night visions,

and behold, with the clouds of heaven

there came one like a son of man,

and he came to the Ancient of Days

and was presented before him.

14 And to him was given dominion

and glory and a kingdom,

that all peoples, nations, and languages

should serve him;

his dominion is an everlasting dominion,

which shall not pass away,

and his kingdom one

          that shall not be destroyed.

This is no prophet but the etnerla son of God. Gathercole argues saying this also shows his pre existance, if Daniel had already seen it.

Gathercole also argues that his main objective with this is to show jesus is pre existant in the synoptics.

The transfiguration in all synptic accounts but ill use mark 9. Gathercole argues this shows jesus transcending the heaven Earth divide. 

And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one [1] on earth could bleach them. 

Notice Jesus was a normal earthly looking man and then transformed as to what he will look like when in heaven, showing the heaven and earth divide, that he pre existed.

Many people use the heaven hierarchy, as to refer to jesus as not god. mark 13 32 states no one knows the hour nor the angels, not even the son but the father only. Jesus using his human nature he does not know, as  he is dependant on this spirit, but he also shows his divine nature, as Gathercole argues, he shows Jesus is showing some rank, by first naming man, then angels, the himself then the father. Jesus places himself between the angels and the father, showing he is a heavnely rank above the angels, showing himself to be god and pre existant.

Gathercole then argues the fact of the heavenly council, which is only things you could know if you pre existed. 

In luke 10 18 Jesus states to have seen Satan fall like lightning, as we see satan has already fallen in the old testement and is tempting people job 1 v 7. This shows jesus must of been there since the beginning.

In luke 10 20 jesus knows whos name are in the book of life, something he would only of known if he pre existed.

Gathercole also points out matthew 11, which i stated earlier that jesus has some sort of special authroity, that its only by him who can reveal the father, which shows his pre existance.

My last point on this Gathercole points out that spiritual beings like demons call jesus the son of god earlyy in his ministry, before anyone knows who he is, as we see in matthew 4 with satan. Now this could only be if jesus pre existed, as Demons and satan are fallen angels from heaven, showing they knew jesus before, as they knew who he was. 

I could go on for much longer, but showing like i have that jesus is god in the synoptics alone proves that he is pre existant, as jews believe there is no god but god and that he is not created.

I will now be talking about the gospel of John, which quite frankly like John a lot of liberal scholars claim its an evolutionary story of jesus, elavating him above the historical jesus.

As Gathercole has shown we still see a divine, pre existant jesus in the synoptics.

So why is John so different? 

The main reason along the side of conservative mainstream scholarship is John if written after the synoptics,which is the most common, targets his gospel against mystism and gnostics. Even though this had a counter fit, as the gnostics started using John out of context, as D A Carson (Ph.D University of Cambridge) shows John wanted to show a different side to Jesus. Remember Jesus ministry was 3 years, he would of said a lot more than what is contained in the synoptics and John brings another side to Jesus. 

Regarding the dating of John scholars use to believe John dated the last quarter of the second century, until P52 was discovered, which is a small papyri fragment of John 18 that dates to 125 AD, it turned scholarship and on its head. The second century dating has now been abondonded and majority of scholars date John to the late half of the first century.

CArson holds the view John probably write his gospel in 80 AD. There is good evidence, as Carson shows for a pre 65 AD dating to Johns gospel .e.g. John 21 19, is that you have peter by his death glorified god when chapter 21 was composed, well Peter died in the year 64.

The silnece of the destruction of the temple is another example of a pre 65 AD date, as it was destroyed in the year 70. 

Another point is the Pool of Bethseda mentioned in John 5 v 2. John describes the pool in detail as though he has seen it himslf. Carson points this out that Jhn writes in the present tence with historic force compared to the other gospel writers. The pool of Bethseda were changed by Herod Agrippa in 44 AD into a new wall which blocked the pools and he placed a roadway along the dam, and expanded the asclepieion into a large temple to Asclepius and Serapis. The pool was completely destroyed in 70 ad by the destruction of jersualem. For John to be talking about this, he is eaither writing, as D A carson suggests, as if its present but hes writing in the future of the event, as though he was there and has seen it himself or the view that John is writing,as though its still there in the present. This is also good evidence to show John was the beloved disciple, as his grave detail of jerusalem before the year 44 AD.

There is good evidence to also show a later date, as New testement scholar Robinson states that John write under the reign of emperor Domitian who reinged AD 81 - 96. But even Robinson states there is no evidence to this. \there is also strong evidence to show Jjohn was the last of the apostles and to write his gospel, as we see in Irenaeus and Eusebius. Irenaeus also states John lived to a very long life, Irenaeus states even surviving into the reign of Emperor Trajan in 98 - 117 ad. 

There is other evidence to show on bboth sides of the dating period, but carson raises the issue we have no actuall date, just inbetween the year 70 - 100. I would argue against that saying most likely the year 60 - 95.

I will do a more in depth commentry on Johns gospel regarding its history, its authentitcity, the beloved disciple and the evangelists jesus within 1st century palestineian juadism and ggreeco roman world.

God bless (sorry for spelling and grammar mistakes).

Did Jesus rise again: a brief outline tothe case for the ressurrection

Did Jesus Rise again: A brief outline for the case for the resurrection


The resurrection of Jesus is the heart of the Christian faith, as without it the Christian faith becomes nothing more than a hoax.

Defending the Christian faith within many topics has become more and more needed due to the increase in attacks on the gospel. From liberal scholars such as Bart Ehrman – atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Muslims such as Zakir Naik.

I will be working on four facts to Jesus that is rarely disputed by scholars

1.      Jesus was sentenced to be crucified by Pilate

2.    1. On the Sunday morning after his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his female followers.

3.    2. Various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

4.    3. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite having nearly every predisposition to the contrary.

A liberal scholar named John Dominic Crossan believes Jesus rose again spiritually, but may have been left on the cross to hang and eaten by dogs.
I first of all want to examine his statement and whether or not it can be applied to Jesus. William lance craig a philosopher and lecturer in theology at the Talbot school of theology states, If we look at what happened to the body after the cross, then yes we would have to go on the customary that the body is usually hung up on the cross, but that is not what is being explained in the bible.

1 corinth 15, which scholars date within 2 – 10 years of the risen lord, states that jesus was buried in a tomb. The gospels also confirm this early creed in there writings. If we look at without even using the burial statement from the bible, which is enough proof; we can still be certain he was buried. Due to the Sabbath being the next day he would more likely be buried as now work can be done on the Sabbath. All scholars agree even liberals that Jesus having a notice above his head saying Jesus king of the Jews is historical and can be trusted, meaning he may have been taken down due to his authority. JDC is clearly using an assumption without using any source of evidence.
JDC also argues that Jesus may have risen spiritually. In response to this we need to customise ourselves with the jewish primary objective of how they viewed the resurrection. As Dr Craig points out in the Case for Christ After the flesh rotted away they would gather the bones and store them in a box, for when God would raise the dead back to life on the final day of Israel. This would completely contradict the Jewish custom of a resurrection.

Did the Disciples steal the body?

Liberals and atheists throughout the centuries have stated the disciples may have stole the body. This has been refuted many times on the contrary that the disciples then went and preached jesus rose from the dead and were killed for this belief, yet in there heart they knew they stole the body ( makes no sense). But anyway let’s examine.

Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever, investigated the writings of Luke in an apparent effort to undermine the Gospel writer's credentials as a historian, and to discredit the entire New Testament. After 30 years of study, however, Ramsay concluded, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians

. The large stone was moved, in spite of the Roman guards and seal

Jesus' tomb was secured in three ways:

(a) A large stone was rolled against it. It was customary to roll big stones against tombs; the stones were generally too big to be moved by just a few men, so levers were used to move them. Some have estimated that the stone that sealed Jesus' tomb weighed 1-1/2 to 2 two tons (1,361-1,814 Kilograms), which is the approximate weight of a midsize car.

(b) A Roman guard unit--which usually consisted of four soldiers--was stationed at the tomb. Roman guards were strictly disciplined fighting men held to the highest standards. Failure often required death by torturous and humiliating methods.

(c) The Roman seal was affixed to the stone that secured the tomb. The seal stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. Breaking the seal meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.¹

On resurrection Sunday morning, the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was that the large stone was moved.³ Certainly the entire guard unit would not have fallen asleep with torture and death as the consequences. But even if the guards did fall asleep, how could thieves have sneaked by the guards and moved the massive stone without waking them up?

2. The tomb was empty

Jesus' tomb was near Jerusalem (John 19:42). Had the tomb not been empty, claims of the resurrection, which were first made in Jerusalem, could not have been maintained for even one hour-- people in Jerusalem could have gone to the tomb to check for themselves.³

Both Jewish and Roman sources and admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth jeshu."³

3. Jesus' burial wrappings were in the tomb

The linen wrappings in the tomb amazed the disciples. Jesus had simply moved through the wrappings, apparently without a struggle, and laid the face cloth aside. Had Jesus' body been stolen, the thieves would not have taken the time to remove the wrappings or fold the face cloth.

4. There were many witnesses to Jesus' appearances

In studying an event in history, it is important to know how many participants or eyewitnesses were still alive when reports about the event were published. If the number was substantial, the event can be regarded as fairly well established, because the eyewitnesses could have refuted an inaccurate report. For instance, if several people witness a murder, and the police report about it contains numerous lies, the eyewitnesses can refute it.³

The apostle Paul wrote that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. What's more, most of the 500 were still alive when Paul was proclaiming the resurrection, so skeptics could simply question the eyewitnesses:

1 Cor 15:3-6 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep

5. New Testament accounts were circulated among people who were alive at the time of the resurrection

Archaeological discoveries have confirmed that New Testament accounts of the resurrection were written within the lifetimes of people who were alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have denied the accuracy of the Gospel writers' accounts

6. The followers of Christ were persecuted and killed for proclaiming the resurrection

Jesus' disciples fled when Jesus was arrested and taken away for trial prior to being crucified. They were apparently afraid that they would be imprisoned or killed for of their association with Jesus. Peter even denied that he knew Jesus. After Jesus was crucified and buried, they remained in hiding, afraid and depressed, until Mary and others came to tell them that Jesus had risen from the dead. Why would these men, who had displayed such cowardice, risk their lives in going from city to city proclaiming the resurrection, if they did not truly believe that Jesus had risen from the dead? They certainly gained nothing for doing so. The disciples did not receive wealth or prestige for preaching the resurrection; there were no material benefits whatsoever. In fact, they were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to lions, tortured, and crucified for their preaching.³

Was jesus resurrection a hallucination?

Dr Arif Ahmed who is a philosopher at Cambridge university debated Gary Habermas on the resurrection of Christ and stated it could of been a hallucination, but only because many people saw him does not mean it never happened, as they could of.
Dr Gary Collins one of the most influential and qualified psychologists with a phd and teacher for twenty years and holds the chair for the national psychologists states:

Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a given group of people. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce an hallucination in somebody else. Since a hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it.

Gary Habermas also states in his book the case for the resurrection, hallucinations are usually caused by drugs or body deprivation. With the sceptics’ of James and Thomas it also so slim for the chance of a hallucination, as the person needs to be expecting or anticipating a resurrection. On this point The disciples never got to grasp who Jesus was and not for once did they believe he would actually come back to life, they even questioned Mary when she told them.

The facts that point to a resurrection

1.      The disciples died for this belief and a risen Jesus and risked there lives preaching and gave up everything. They even died for there faith. People may say so did muhammads followers or muslims today. But the fact is these muslims have never seen Muhammad and muhammads followers followed a man who did no miracles and stated he seen an angel in a cave, when they never witnessed it themselves.

2.      Many people sceptics such as paul and james converted and preached and died for their faith. James and paul have not been questioned on being people who  never lived, as we find james in the jewish Talmud and Pauls expansion of writings.

3.      Many people from many nations left their faith in rabbinic Judaism and paganism to follow jesus even to death.

4.      1 corinth 15 is an early creed that dates to within a decade of jesus, making it the most historical fact to the belief in early Christianity to jesus.

5.      The change in social structure, as J P Moorland reports the jewish life was a way of life to a jew and to leave the Sabbath, jewish customs, the law, circumcision and believe in monotheistic but Trinitarian god, which the nature of GOD. The jews were tortured by hitler and crusades, they wouldn’t leave the law for anything but many did and fled the persecution of jews and romans in the first century for this carpenter boy from Nazareth, makes no sense.

6.      The sudden eruption of the church proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus.

Using liberal arguments to prove the resurrection

Many liberal scholars and even some conservative use many methods to get the historical Jesus. The most reliable method used in terms of the liberal perspective is the multiple attestation, which is used by  D.B Martin and Bart Ehrman, who believe jesus to be an apocryphal prophet.


Multiple attestation. When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is often the case that oral accounts pre-date written sources. Multiple attestation is not the same as independent attestation. If one account used another account as a source, then a story present in all of these is in fact attested in only one independent source. Some scholars think that Mark's account was used as a source for one or more of the other accounts.

Now by using this sequence both Bart and D B martin believe that is more than source that is from Mark and John that is two sources, but is mark and matthew that is one source, as they believe matthew and luke copied mark and gospel q along with L for luke and M for Matthew, which is what is contained by oral tradition that is not in Q or Mark.
So lets continue

All gospels agree with Jesus claiming to be the son of man, the lord of the Sabbath and feeding the 500, proving jesus deity as the son of man is a messianic passage of Daniel 7 and claiming to be lord of the day of god, which is for him not man is blasphemy.
Other things that also should therefore be taken into consideration is if we are going to use this as finding the saying o the historical Jesus, why can’t we show consistency and use it for everything else. The gospels all quote joseph of aromethia, the king of the Jews above Jesus head, both Bart and D B Martin say this is historical. Both mark and john use jesus saying I AM in mark 14 and John 8, which is ego eima in greek, which is the name used by Yahweeh in exodus 3 14, in Hebrew meaning esher or esher eyer esher  (I AM who I AM). Therefore jesus is claiming to be GOD.
Now how we can use this for the resurrection by using consistency, as William Lane Craig says we must therefore accept the core belief to be true, as all gospels show the death, burial, empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus, therefore this must also be historical when being consistent.
Even the skeptic Michael Grant in his book a historians review of the gospels, true, the discovery of the empty tomb is described somewhat different as it may seem, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient source, the evidence for the empty tomb is plausible and that the tomb was indeed found empty.
We can also be sure it wasn’t legendary due to the amount of manuscripts we have, the dating of the new testament to the 1^st century and 1 corinth 15 , which date so early. As the Greco – roman scholar A.N Sherwan White from Oxford University puts it: it would have been without preceding dent in history for any legend to have grown up that fast and significantly disort the gospels.

Even with this brief review for the case of the resurrection, we can be sure that Jesus rose again; as it is by grace we have been saved.

To conclude as N>T Wright of Durham university puts it, if Jesus never rose again, Christianity would not be here Period.

May God bless you all

My testimony

Just over a year on December 21st 2010 my life compltely changed, as I had accepted jesus christ as my lord and saviour.
I grew up with atheist parents with the odd one or two people in my family who were religous but mainly believing in the old testement not the new testement. At around about 10 I found out my auntie became a believer in christ alongside my grandmother, which shocked me as not knowing who this jesus was it started to come to my mind to who this person was. After talking to my auntie she told me he was the messiah the saviour that she had been looking for and that god had promised throughout the old testement.

When I was at secondary school I completely lost faith in God and went my own way, as my father sated it is the best way, as god does not exist. During my time at seondary school on some afternoons the christians would meet up and discuss this jesus, which made me angry, so me and my friends would go into the room where they were preaching and we decided to throw anything we could get are hands on at them and give them abuse; yet what was amazing they did nothing; they just carried on preaching and watching.

When I was at university I randomly decided to study Christianity and Islam. Throughout my studies I found some unbelievable evidence that just couldn't be put to one side, as the evidence to this man Jesus was incredible, as writings outsde the bible from jewish and roman sources quoted him. After a while I came to believe that there could actally be a god and soon later after really enhancing my studies on Islam came to believe that this belief was not true, due to errors on the christian belief and historical errors, sch as the denial of jesus dying on a cross, which through my study was one thing I considered to be an historical fact.

Throughout my study not everything I thought was reliable was actually unreliable and it was not until I accepted that it actually daunted on me; but God really spok to me and showed me the correction.

Then on December 21st 2010 I thought to myself how on earth did this movement just begin if jesus never rose again? I mean why would they die for a lie? These 12 disciples apart from 1 and thousands upon thousands of christians killed for this belief, as it was illegal under roman law to be a christian. This study on the evidence completely changed me and that night I prayed and accepted christ into my life not knowing anything on what would happen to me after.
The next day I felt like I had completely changed and was in another world. When I loooked at the people I knew it felt weird and strange and was just completely confused, it was like I was an alien, but I felt amazing and at ccomplete rest. I knew from that moment on that this change in my life was me being born again through the blood of christ and the hly spirit was within me, that was the change and I just wanted to tell everybody about it.

Even though I had gained so much, I also lost a lot. Just a couple of months later I lost my girlfriend partially because of the beief in christ. My friends at home didn't really want to know me anymore. My family were not as close to me and thought I was weird and an idioit. At home now I am not allowd to play gospel music out loud. I can't leave bibles out they have to be put away (hidden). I'm not allowed to talk about God to my brother or sister. I'm not allowed to talk about God to my friends if the family can hear me otherwise I will be told to hang up the phone. On a daily basis I am moked by certain family members for believng in Jesus. I lost a lot of my life. From having loads of friends to none. From having an amazing girlfriend to loosing an amazing girlfriend. To have lost close faimly relationships with my parents and other family members and to be moked by your own family even tough they still teat me the same they aren't as close with me and just completely mock what I believe. It has put much sufferng to my life and a very hard first year and harder years to come.

YET MY LORD I REJOICE IN YOU, MY SALVATION IS IN YOU AND I TAKE UP MY CROSS AS YOU TOOK UP YOUR CROSS TO DIE FOR ME . I GIVE YOU MY LIFE TO YOU AND FOREVER I WILL PREACH AND DEFEND YOUR GOSPEL BY YOUR WILL THROUGTH ME BRINGING YOU THE GLORY.  MY LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. GLORY BE TO THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB. FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPRIT MY GOD.