Truth Magazine

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: What chance does a person (a man) have of going to heaven who cannot talk? I had an operation several years ago and lost my voice. I would like to have you comment on this.

Reply: There is no reason why you cannot go to heaven like anyone else. The matter of going to heaven is not dependent upon soundness of body. Being blind, deaf and/or mute will not keep one from going to heaven. Whatever one’s physical condition may be, if he has obeyed the gospel and is living and worshiping as God directs in His Word, this is what counts.

Paul was afflicted with a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7). What this affliction was, we do not know, nevertheless, Paul was a faithful .preacher and servant of God, in spite of his handicap. God provided him strength (v. 9) to accomplish what he was able to do (Phil. 4:13). Any Christian, whether handicapped or not, should determine to do the very best possible service to the Lord.

There is much that you can do, even though you are not able to speak. You can point to the Scriptures as you are teaching others, you can write down passages for others to read, you can distribute Bible tracts and you can give out printed invitations to services and gospel meetings, to mention a few things. You have great opportunities, other than speaking, to lead precious souls to Christ. You need not be concerned about going to heaven simply because you have lost your voice.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 199
April 7, 1983

By Gainesville, Florida

Chuck Lucas: Our next speaker, brother Yater Tant.

Yater Tant:

An old man, going down a lone highway,

Came in the evening cold and gray

To a chasm, vast and deep and wide.

Through which flowed a sullen tide.

The old man crossed in the twilight dim,

The sullen stream had no fears for him,

But he paused when safe on the other side

And built a bridge to span the tide.

`Old man,’ said a fellow pilgrim near,

`You waste your strength in laboring here,

Your journey will end with the ending day,

You never again will come this way.

You’ve crossed the chasm deep and wide,

Why build you this bridge at even tide?

The traveler lifted his old gray head,

`Good friend, in the way I’ve come,’ he said,

`There followeth after me today

A fair-haired youth who must come this way

This stream which has been as naught to me,

To that fine lad may a pitfall be,

He, too, must cross in the twilight dim,

Good friend, I am building the bridge for him.’

I don’t know whether you know that old man or not, but I know him. As a matter of fact, he is in the audience; he goes under several names. One of them is Richard Whitehead. And another is Alonzo Welch. And one not quite so old is the one you just listened to. And, sometimes, he might be known as Yater Tant.

Now, before I start, when I talked to brother Bartley, and brother Whitehead (I would have mentioned Bartley but he’s not old enough yet), they told me I’d have twenty minutes. I said, “There’s no way, no way, that I can do anything in twenty minutes. But, if you will permit me to bring an editorial that I have written, this will set forth some of my basic convictions.” Brother Bartley said, “These people are interested in knowing anything that will be helpful. They’re open-minded, they’re receptive, and they’ll read anything you want to bring.” So, I went down in my pocket and went to the bank and came up with about eight-hundred dollars, eight-hundred and fifty (850), and printed fifteen hundred copies of the June issue of Vanguard. They’ve been distributed. Now then, I want to know how many of you have not read the editorial that was in that issue. Let’s see your hands. Read it. Read it.

I taught school down at Stephen Austin University for several years, and I had the practice with some of my classes of giving a very exhaustive and exhausting examination the first week. And the students would come to me and say, “Professor, we haven’t been over this material, we don’t know this.” I said, “I didn’t give this examination to find out what you know, but what you don’t know, so I’ll know what to teach you.” And I want to know, I want to know if you have read this.

I want to recommend to you two more things. Let me first ask, how many of you can give a real logical, biblical answer as to what is wrong with the missionary society? Let’s see your hands, how many? Not even the preachers? Well, don’t be ashamed about it. I was forty years old, I’d been preaching for twenty-two (22) or three (23) years, before I ever really understood the whole thing. And the thing that helped me was a little tract by Earl West entitled Congregational Cooperation. Brother West teaches up at Harding Graduate School. I want to recommend that to you. I want to recommend another writing: The Emergence Of The Church of Christ Denomination by David Edwin Harrell. He is the head of the history department at the University of Arkansas. And, incidentally, both of these things will be published in the Vanguard within the next few months. And in all these papers, these fifteen-hundred Vanguards, that, presumably you’ll have a chance to read, you’ll find an envelope. If you want to get the paper, put your name in that envelope, put your money in it and send it to me. Now, I know a lot of you are students. If you don’t have the money, put your name in anyhow, and a little note, “I can’t pay for it,” and I’ll send you the paper. But you’ve got to promise me that you’ll read it, and give it to two or three others. I’ll come up with the money to do it. Incidentally, brother Whitehead, when he invited me, said, “We’ll take care of your expenses.” I think he meant my travel expenses. Alright, let’s get down to business (audience laughter).

There are three basic convictions which I hold, which I presume all of us hold, which will forever make division impossible, if they are properly understood and applied. Number one, we accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God. We all agree on that, don’t we? (“Amen” from a number of the audience.) Alright. Number two, we accept the Bible as a total revelation of the will of God for us. Everything we need to know or to believe or to practice is therein set forth. Everybody agree to that? (“Amen” from the audience.) Number three, the Bible can be understood insofar as it effects our obedience to God. Everybody agree to that? (“Amen” from the audience.) Alright. Now then, if these three basic convictions are firmly held, understood, and applied, division becomes impossible. (“Amen” from the audience.) And if it has happened, one or the other, or maybe all three of them have been abandoned. Now, let me go on from that.

These three basic convictions must be followed by four basic areas of total commitment. Some people are frightened of that word “Total Commitment.” And some have made some derisive remarks about it. John Whitehead told me that there’s an elder down here somewhere that boasted that there was not one ounce of total commitment in the church where he was an elder (audience laughter). Well, when I see that brother in heaven, I want to ask him about that. Oh, he’ll go to heaven. I may not but he will. Like my father was in a debate with a Baptist preacher one time many years in Texas, and he kept saying something about what my father said, “When we get to heaven we’ll ask Paul about this passage, and we’ll ask Peter or John.” Finally the Baptist preacher stood up and wanted to quit the debate. He said, “Elder Tant has agreed that I’m going to heaven.” And he said, “I was born a Baptist, I’ll die a Baptist, and my Baptist doctrine will take me to heaven.” My father said, “Yes, brother, I think you’re going to heaven.” He said, “When the Lord takes a look at the arguments you’ve been making in this debate, He gonna poke you in through the fool hole” (audience laughter). Not a very elegant way of saying it, but, I think, my brother who boasted that there was not an ounce of total committment in his congregation, I think he’ll be in heaven.

“What are these basic committments? Number one, a committment to Jesus Christ as Lord of our lives. (“Amen” from the audience.) Now there’s a difference between that and a conviction that He’s the Son of God; the devils have that. The devils have that (Luke 8:28); “What have I to do with thee, Jesus thou son of the most high God,” a devil said that. Matthew 8:29, “What do you want with us, son of God,” a devil said that. They believed that He was the son of God. There’s a difference in believing in the divinity of Christ, and making a committment of your life to him as the Lord of your life. (“Amen” from the audience.) That’s essential, that’s essential. His will expressed in His word comes to us with all authoritv. In Matthew 7:29, He spoke as one having authority. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” In John the sixth chapter, when many of the disciples turned back and walked with him no more, he turned to His immediate group and said, “Would you also go away?” and Peter responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” We must have that basic understanding, that committment that the word of God comes to us with absolute and total authority. The third thing, we must be unequivocallv committed to the fact that unity is possible. (“Amen” from the audience.) Christ prayed for it in John chapter 17. The apostle Paul enjoined it in 1 Corinthians 1. And Christians through the centuries have practiced it.

We can be united, but some things are absolutely essential to that. Number one, if we are to have that unit v, there must be communication. There must be communication. We must talk to each other. We must associate with each other. Let me show you what happened. A hundred years ago, the Firm Foundation was started in Austin, Texas, for the very purpose, according to Austin McGary, of combating what he called “Lipscomb’s Heresy.” Brother Lipscomb taught that if a man has been immersed into Christ, he is a child of God. If he’s been immersed in order to obey God, he is a child of God. A. MeGary said, “That’s not so. He must know what he’s being baptized for. He must understand he’s not a Christian, he’s not in Christ, his sins are not forgiven, until he’s baptized into Christ.” McGary said, “The question is a very simple one. Is baptism for those who know what they’re doing, or is it for those who don’t know what they’re doing?” My father was with McGary. As he expressed it, he was on the “cow-catcher of the re-baptism train.” But at the very height of the controversy, brother Lipscomb invited my father to the Nashville Bible School, which is now David Lipscomb College, to give a series of lectures setting forth his conviction on the matter of baptism, or re-baptism. About the same time he asked my father to become an associate editor of the Gospel Advocate, knowing that their convictions were the very opposite on this question. But, they loved one another, they loved the Lord, and the church did not divide. There was communication. Oh, they debated it, hot and heavy. They discussed it, and sometimes they discussed it with considerabe heat. But through it all, kind of like the fights you have with your wife sometimes, it can get real hot, but it never even enters your mind that you’re going to split. Somebody asked one of the columnists in the lovelorn sections, “Has it ever entered your mind to get a divorce from your husband?” And she said, “No, not really. Murder once in a while, but never divorce” (audience laughter). I think we need to have that attitude in the church. No matter how angry we get, or how stirred up, and we do get stirred up, it never even occurs to us that we are going to quarantine one another.

Sixty years after that re-baptism controversy was settled, a question developed over the contribution of churches to Christian schools. It was debated pretty hot and heavy, and then from that it went into the question of the church contributing to benevolent organizations. I went to brother Goodpasture, who was editor of the Gospel Advocate, and pleaded with him to let men of capability, who had the respect of the brotherhood, discuss the question openly in the Gospel Advocate. I went to brother G.H.P. Showalter with the same plea. Men who are respected, C.R. Nichol, Foy Wallace, and others of recognized ability could discuss the issue. And the answer was “No, no.” And then in 1954 a quarantine was initiated against all those who questioned church contributions to the benevolent associations. Now if we are ever to get together, we must associate and talk and study. I’d like to recommend to you highly that some effort be made to lift that quarantine. There are about 1800 “Anti” congregations. I know 400-500 faithful gospel preachers. I’d like to think that some of these men could be invited into other, what would you call it, “segments” of the brotherhood, like the “main-line” churches, and the Crossroad churches, for a brotherly discussion of these matters. Men like Homer Hailey, or Robert Turner, or Ed Harrell, or Marshall Patton, who won’t come in with the idea that they’re going to blast you, but for a prayerful study. We have enough in common that if we are determined to be together, nobody will have to give up one iota of the truth that he holds. (“Amen” from the audience.) We can compromise our matters of judgment, and our opinions, but not the truth, not the truth. I don’t ask you to give up any truth you hold, and I’ll certainly not give up any I hold. But if we have the right spirit and the right’ attitude, we can find a solution to our problems.

So, a committment to Jesus as Lord, a committment to the Bible as final authority, a committment to the belief that unity is possible, and then, a total committment to the mighty task of evangelism are necessary. You find me a church that is really committed and working in the field of evangelism, and there’s not much chance for the devil to get in there and cause much trouble. We have a preventative, that total committment. Jim Cope wrote me some time ago, and said, “What is your judgment of the biggest problem the church is going to face in the next twenty years?” I replied, “There are all kinds of problems. Secularism, paganism, but the biggest problem that I see is apathy. Just indifference. Unconcern. I live in Birmingham, Alabama. About 75 years ago, not quite that far back, Studard Kennedy, who lived in Birmingham, England, wrote a little verse that’s become a classic of its sort. I quoted it when I was here three years ago. I’ll repeat it. It’s worth it. He said,

When Jesus came to Golgotha, they hanged him on a tree. They drove great nails through hands and feet, they made a Calvary.

They crowned Him with a crown of thorns, red were His wounds, and deep,

For those were crude and cruel days, and human flesh was cheap.

But, when Jesus came to Birmingham, they merely passed Him by.

They never harmed a hair of Him, they merely let Him die.

For men had grown more tender, they would not give Him pain.

They simply passed down the street, and left Him in the rain.

Still, Jesus cried forgive them, for they know not what they do.

And still it rained the winter rain that drenched Him through and through.

The crowds went home, and left the street without a soul to see,

And Jesus crouched against the wall, and cried for Calvary.

The spikes of the Roman soldiers through His quivering flesh,

Were less agonizing than the brutal indifference

Of those for whom He had died.

I think if Jesus should look out from the battlements of heaven today, and see His broken, divided, alienated, separated body, the church, He might crouch against the jasper walls of heaven and cry for Calvary. The spikes of the Roman soldiers would be less agonizing, less hurtful, than the division of His people. In the name of God, my brethren, I challenge you, let’s do something about it. (“Amen” from the audience.) I ask you to join with me in a crusade, a holy crusade, to bring peace to the troubled people of God. I hope I get an invitation to go among the “main-line” churches of Christ, the Crossroads churches of Christ, and the “anti” churches of Christ. And I may not live to see it. I enter my 75th year before this year is out. I may not live to see it, but I pray that the time will come before this century closes when there will be no Crossroads church of Christ, no “main-line” church of Christ, no “anti” church of Christ, but we will be Christians, children of God, one Lord, one faith, one body. (“Amen” from the audience.) I’m ready for that crusade, I hope you are. (“Amen” from the audience and then loud applause.)

Chuck Lucas: Brother Tant had asked me earlier, if we might be able to sing a song that is not in our books. And I don’t know how many of you even know this, but I got together rather hurriedly a group of brothers, and they have learned this song. They’re going to lead us in it, and if you know it, feel free to join in. It’s called, “Shall I Crucify My Saviour.” Certainly an appropriate thought after brother Tant’s remarks.

(Song is sung, followed by an audience ovation.)

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 196-198
April 7, 1983

By Mike Willis

For many months now, brother Yater Tant, editor of Vanguard, has commended and defended the Crossroads church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida for its evangelistic program, in spite of the criticisms which have come from various sources who had no opportunity for collaboration but whose testimony agrees and confirms each other. For information regarding the different commendations of Crossroads, please read the following comments in Vanguard: Vol. VI; No. 4, pp. 2-3; No. 12, p. 12; Vol. VII, No. 1, p. 12; No. 12, pp. 2-3; Vol. VIII, No. 10, p. 2; No. 11, pp. 2-3.

During this same period, brother Tant has been appealing for some kind of unity with liberals through a “box in the vestibule” approach to support orphan homes, colleges, old folks homes, recreation, and other things in which the liberals are involved. The January 1982 issue of Vanguard contained an “open letter” to Reuel Lemmons and Guy N. Woods in which this appeal for unity was made. On August 13, 1982, brother Tant addressed the subject of unity at the Crossroads church in Gainesville before an audience of 4,000 people. His speech is presented in this issue.

I would like to present the following background in order that you might better perceive the impact of the Crossroads speech in August. Many of our readers are not aware of the Crossroads church. Consequently, some background is needed in order to fully grasp the impact of the sermon preached.

The Crossroads church is a big, liberal church. Here are some things in which they are involved by financial support and other forms of fellowship:

(1) The sponsoring church arrangement (for example, they sent $600.00 to support the Alan Cloyd restoration ministry in 1982).

(2) A Christian Family Services program which solicits contributions from individuals all over America in order to operate a facility for the adoption of children.

(3) It plans to develop and maintain Fanning Springs Development, a retreat to accommodate 250 people.

(4) It plans to build residential housing for homeless children on Riegel Ranch, a church owned property of 120 acres.

(5) They send the Crossroads Singers all over the United States to perform before and entertain both secular and religious assemblies. They also advertise to sell their records at Christmas time.

(6) They sponsor many recreational outings, including the purchase of block seating for University of Florida football games, an annual “Play Day,” and other such activities.

(7) They use their building for such activities as girl scouts meeting places.

In short, the Crossroads church in Gainesville has been in the vanguard of the movement to pervert the mission and the organization of the church (by their participation in social welfare work, recreational activities, and sponsoring-church projects).

On top of these objectionable matters, the Crossroads church of Christ has become involved in a system of evangelism which is objectionable even to those brethren who accept and agree with them in the matters listed above. The liberal brethren have criticized the Crossroads church and its satellites for the following activities: (1) its prayer-partner system of confession of sins; (2) its disruption of the eldership when it moves into a congregation; (3) its refusal of baptism to adults who request it but whom they judge not to be ready for baptism; (4) its making loyalty to the Crossroads evangelistic methods a condition of faithfulness to the Lord and for fellowship; (5) its participation with the Christian church in growth seminars; and other things. These things stand as barriers to the fellowship of the Crossroads brethren and the mainstream of the liberals.

On 5 December 1979, brother Tant visited the Crossroads church and was invited to speak at their services on Wednesday night. He said virtually nothing which his audience could perceive as pertaining to the issues of the past 30 years and, therefore, received a blanket endorsement from Chuck Lucas, the Crossroads preacher. The liberal convictions and practices mentioned above have continued to this day. For this compromising appearance at Crossroads, brother Tant has been criticized by numbers of brethren. His reply was something to this effect: “But because I respected the Crossroads elders, and did not seize the `golden opportunity’ . . . to `teach the truth’ to the 1,000 who were present the Wednesday night, I now have an invitation to speak to an audience of 5,000, and specifically offer what I believe to be the scriptural way to achieve unity.” The speech reproduced was presented on August 13, 1982 at the Crossroads church to approximately 4,000 people from all over the country.

If you were given the opportunity to address a congregation so steeped in liberalism as the Crossroads church is, what would you say? Would you tell them that unity could be attained and maintained between every child of God so tong as all were content to “walk in the light”? Would you call upon them to repent of their sins of having perverted the mission and organization of the church? For the sake of scriptural unity, would you appeal to them to quit driving the wedge of unscriptural practices between us? Would you imply that these brethren were already in fellowship with God or that their sins had broken their relationship with God? Would you say that liberal preachers who offer no prospect of repentance are building beautiful bridges for the unity of God’s people?- Just what would you say?

Fortunately, we do not have to wonder what brother Tant had to say. Reproduced in this issue is his speech and you can judge for yourself whether or not he preached what these brethren needed to hear.

Do the actions of brother Tant identify with brother Paul in the synagogue and marketplace of Athens (Acts 17) or at Ephesus and “almost throughout all Asia” where he preached “they are no gods that are made with hands” (Acts 19:26)? Would he, having the opportunity, speak of some as being “reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim. 3:9)? Paul did! “The faith” is under attack at Crossroads, brother Tant.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 194-195
April 7, 1983

By C. G. “Golly” Caldwell

“Some writers may toy with the fancy of a `Christ-myth,’ but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is an axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not the historians who propagate the `Christ-myth’ theories” (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove: Intervarsity press, 1972, p. 119; quoted in Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1972, p. 83).

Growing out of modernistic, liberal biblical criticism over the past one hundred years or more, some have claimed that much of the history of the New Testament is “myth.” Others have said that the historical figure named “Jesus” and the Jesus presented in the Bible as the object of faith are not the same person. Some have even denied that Jesus lived at all.

To take the position that Jesus never even existed is to deny the overwhelming historical evidences contained both in biblical and non-biblical literature. I believe that Jesus lived because: (a) the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be successfully refuted; (b) the testimony of historians establishes at least the historical presence of Jesus; and (c) the testimony of reason when applied to the generally accepted character of mythology disputes the argument that the story of Jesus is myth or legend.

Eyewitness Testimony

The writers of the New Testament have testified that they saw Jesus, heard Him, and touched Him (I John 1:1; et al.). If there were eight or more independent writers who were responsible for twenty-seven independent letters or books which were all authenticated as having been written within a certain period of ancient history, and if each writer claimed to have personally seen Julius Caesar, would any serious historian question that Julius Caesar was an actual historical figure? Honorable historical research would demand that the historian presume that the eyewitnesses were telling the truth unless it could be established that they lied or until they were discredited as witnesses. We even insist upon those guidelines for accepting evidence in courts of law.

Were the New Testament writers lying? There were simply no reason for them to lie. They could not expect to receive spiritual reward for lying and from a physical point of view their reward was ridicule, persecution, and martyrdom. These men and their teachings were rejected by Jews, Greeks, and Romans alike. They gave up virtually all material gain and most of them died for a lie . . . if they lied! It is incredible to believe that they suffered so much for a known untruth. On the other hand, these men were honest to a fault. They did not hesitate to tell of their own mistakes and stupid blunders. They even told of their lack of trust in Jesus and lack of conformity of His teachings. They were not fanatics. Their words were intelligible and presented with quiet dignity and simple forthrightness. They gave their testimony from an objective point of view with strong conviction of its truthfulness.

Can the New Testament writers be discredited? That too is impossible by any acceptable standards of ethical inquiry. There are multiple witnesses and their testimony is never contradictory. It is true that some tell some things and others provide additional information, but they all testify as eyewitnesses to His presence and each witness complements, rather than disputes, the testimony of the others. When they do speak of the same events, they independently confirm what the others affirmed. Their written works were penned over a period of several decades and, therefore, no claim can be made that they got together and conspired to perpetrate a fraud. These men simply told it as they saw it. Not one of them can be justly discredited. Remember, to deny the fact that Jesus lived would require not only that one of them be discredited, but that they all be discredited!

The Testimony Of Historians

The ancient historians also testify to the presence of Jesus among the Jews in the first century A.D. Statements from Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin, Origin, and a host of others could be produced in abundance. It is sometimes said, however, that these men were believers in Christ and, therefore, their testimony is not convincing. Friendship does not deny truthfulness but we will turn our attention to the so-called “non-Christian” writers who also affirm that Jesus lived.

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in A.D. 37. He was commander of Jewish forces in Galilee and was captured by the Romans. He wrote his Antiquities Of The Jews about A.D. 66. One major reference to Christ (Antiquities, Book XVIII, chapter III, page 11) has been disputed. If the reader is interested in a defense of its authenticity he should read William Whiston, “Dissertation I” in the appendices to his translation of The Works of Flavius Josephus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), Volume 4, pp. 244-265. The following quotation is not, however, so hotly contested. It is found in a discussion of the high priest Ananus who ordered James the brother of Jesus put to death:

. . . so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James …. (Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX, page 140).

Mara Bar-Serapion, who lived about A.D. 73, wt ote a letter to his son from prison. That letter is now in the British Museum. In it he asked:

What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished.

The Talmud, writings of the Jewish fathers and definitely opposed to the Christians, was written over a period of several hundred years (probably between A.D. 100 and 500). It speaks of the Romans handing Jesus on a cross:

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth). . . they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover” (Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a).

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and governor of Asia in A.D. 112. He alludes to the death of Jesus in a discussion of Nero’s reactions to the Christians in Rome at the time of the infamous fire which was blamed on the disciples:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberias: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also (Annals XV, 44).

Justin, sometimes called Justin Martyr, addressed a defense of Christianity to emperor Antoninus Pius in which he called upon the emperor to examine the records in the imperial archives which had been placed there by Pontius Pilate to document the activities in Judea during his administrations there. Justin said:

That he performed these miracles you may easily be satisfied from the `Acts’ of Pontius Pilate (Apology, 1, p. 48).

Tertullian (A.D. 197) also mentions the writings of Pilate which were known, read, and reacted to by the emperor Tiberias:

Tiberias accordingly, in those days the Christian name made its entry into the word, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal (Apology, V, 2).

Even Lucian, the second century satirist who spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians did not deny his existence:

. . . the name who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world … . Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by defying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws (The Passing Peregrius).

Again, let us ask: If a multiple of eyewitnesses affirmed that they saw Julius Caesar, his admirers and followers testified that he dwelt in Palestine, and even those who opposed him recognized that he existed, would we deny that he ever even lived? The evidence is simply overwhelming! These are the same ancient historians who are responsible for our knowledge of the ancient world. If they were irresponsible in reporting about Jesus, can we accept their credibility in reporting on other historical figures? Denying the fact that Jesus lived undermines the trustworthiness of our knowledge of essentially all other characters of history in that time period.

The Most Reasonable Position

Beyond the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the historians, the unbiased student is challenged by the appeal to sound reasoning. Jesus was not only in the minds of a few ancient eyewitnesses but he will always be in the minds of millions of believers. Why is that so? Is it reasonable to believe that the first century evangelists invented Jesus? Is it reasonable to believe that the story of Jesus is simply myth when not one essential element of the story conforms to the nature of all known myths?

For the New Testament writers to have invented a character so perfect as Jesus is incredible. Not only would they have had to invent the man, but they also would have to invent His teachings. The great philosophers of the ages had been unable to construct a system of life that truly met man’s needs. To imagine that a few religionists whose lifetime vocational backgrounds included fishing and taxcollecting would be able to invent His timeless guide to living is unreasonable. They would become not only the greatest dramatists in history creating a character who was so real to be believed by millions for thousands of years, but the greatest theologians and philosophers as well.

These facts are doubly impressive when set against the character of known mythological development. Atticus Haygood in a little book called Man Of Galilee (1889), pointed out several characteristics of ancient myths and showed that the story of Jesus does not qualify as a myth by any scholarly standards:

1. “Myths originate and, as conceptions are complete before written history.” Centuries of Hebrew history were less than forty years from completion.

2. “About all myths there is something grotesque.” In appearance, Jesus was just a man.

3. “Myths reflect their time, place, and race.” Jesus was a “Jew only in blood; he is not a Jew in thought in character.”

4. “In all nations myths defy chronology.” The story of Jesus is set in a definite time frame of Roman and Jewish history.

5. “Myths defy topography as they do chronology.” Almost every story in the life of Jesus is set in specific location.

6. “Myths are not completed at once. They require long time – ages . . .”

7. “All myths belong to the infancy, never to the age of any nation.”

It is clear that the story of Jesus does not conform to any of the standard guidelines to the establishment of mythological legend. If the New Testament writers had created a character to be idolized by the Jews, Jesus would absolutely have been a different person altogether. He was not what Jews had hoped for or expected. He was not the dramatic, regal figure who would save their nation. His teaching went against all that the prominent religionists among them believed. His practice violated their traditions.

All evidence and reason affirms that Jesus lived. I do not believe it as the result of some existential “leap of faith.” I believe it on good, solid historical evidence.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 193, 213-214
April 7, 1983