COPYRIGHT WARNING

Is there verifiable evidence for the existence of God? Yes. In fact, the evidence is so substantial, so empirical, so undeniable, we can know for certain that God does exist.

When we consider any event from history as a valid occurrence, we must examine the evidence that those who were present during that time, said or wrote, concerning these events. We know that Abraham Lincoln is a genuine person from history, by the 20,000 documents that exist which authenticate his existence.

We know that World Wars one and two took place, because history has recorded these events.

The existence of God has such a large body of empirical evidence that no reasonable person could deny His existence.

The Bible describes a time when God would once and for all, reveal Himself to mankind. He stated repeatedly that He would send His Son to the earth in the form of a man and show every person on the planet that He did in fact, exist.

These predictive words from God, amount to more than 400 separate occasions, with varying degrees of detail.

There are seven Old Testament prophecies that either state or allude to, the fact that the Messiah will be the “Son of God”. The seventh, although not referring directly to the “Son”, is generally understood to be a Messianic prophecy, describing the coming of God’s Son and those who are waiting for Him.

Prophecy 50:
2 Samuel 7:14I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.”

Prophecy 57
1 Chronicles 17:13 “I will be his Father, and he shall be My son…”

Prophecy 63
Psalms 2:7 “I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”

Prophecy 128
Psalms 89:26 “He shall cry to Me, “You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.”

Prophecy 156
Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know?

Prophecy 171
Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God

Prophecy 195
Isaiah 33:2 O LORD, be gracious to us; We have waited for You.

With such a great witness to the Messiah as the “Son of God, why then do so many people today find that it is impossible to believe that Jesus is the “Son of God”?

Clearly it was the intention of the Old Testament scriptures, to inform us that the Messiah would be God’s Son. When Jesus referred to Himself as “The Son of God”, He was firmly stating that He was the one to which the Old Testament prophecies of the Bible were promising. Which Son was Isaiah referring to in chapter 9:6-7, if not God’s Son? In the context of this verse, Isaiah writes that this “Son” is the “Might God”.

When Jesus arrived on the earth, He claimed that He was the Son of God.

Those who heard Him, observed Him, and knew Him well, all testified that He is the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Messiah and He is the Son of God

The angel tells Mary that her Son will be the Son of God:

Luke 1:31-32 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Paul describes Jesus, not as an angel, but the Son of God:

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?

As Jesus is being baptized at the Jordan river, a voice is heard from heaven; “this is my Son.”

Matthew 3:17 “And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

God’s final revelation of Himself is Jesus

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son

When Jesus is questioned by the leaders of Israel, He confirms that He is the Son of God.

Matthew 26:62-64 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

Those who knew Jesus and listened to His words, understood that He had repeatedly claimed that He was the Son of God.

The final scripture above, from John 5:18, clarifies that when Jesus said He was the Son of God, He meant that He was equal to God.

Paul wrote to Timothy and told him that God was manifested in the flesh of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

It is interesting that many people have made the assertion that Jesus never claimed to be God. If a person simply reads carefully through the Gospel of John, it is impossible to miss the fact that Jesus claimed repeatedly to be equal to God. In the above verses from John 10:29-33, the Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus, as they told Him: “we stone You, for blasphemy, because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” .”

Jesus claimed a unique relationship with God, that no other person could claim.

Those who have placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ might say that “God is our Father.” What we mean by this declaration is that we are in a relationship with God by our trust in Jesus Christ. When Jesus states that God is his Father, He meant that He was equal with God.

John 10:30 “I and My Father are one.

This was the reason that the Jews took up stones to kill Jesus. They believed that He had claimed equality with God and was therefore guilty of blasphemy.

John 10:29-33 …Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

When Phillip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus told him,”Phillip, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father;” They are one and the same.

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

These verses of Old and New Testament scripture, serve to prove:

1. God promised to send His Son into the world, as the Messiah.
2. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God.
3. Those who knew Jesus, said that He was the Son of God.

The objection has been made that Jesus is not a real person from history. His life and the words that are written about Him are fabrications and myths. Those who make these assertions claim that the only proof for the existence of Jesus is the New Testament. This is not true. There is a substantial record from secular, non-religious history, that fully validates Jesus as a genuine person from history.

Evidence From The Jewish Talmud

The ancient scribes of Israel who chronicled Jesus in their writings, had no interest in preserving any historical information about Him, nor Christianity. The Jews who recorded their commentary about Jesus in the Talmud, regarded Him and His followers as the latest of many cult religions of their day. These leaders of Israel had no desire to document the existence of Jesus, His crucifixion, nor those who followed Him—yet this is precisely what they accomplished by their adversarial comments regarding His arrest and execution. These records were written during the period of history in which Jesus is reported to have been in Israel, as described by the narrative of the New Testament scriptures.

There can be no greater evidence of genuine testimony than that which originates from a hostile witness. Those who are not sympathetic to the passions or cause of a person or movement, prove by their hatred—the validity of the persons they malign.

The Talmud was not written for Christianity. It is purely Jewish in origin and contains commentary for the Hebrew scriptures. However, the Talmud does contain verifying evidence that the person described as Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament narrative, was in fact, a real person from that period of history.

There can be no doubt that the references in the Talmud to Jesus, as confirmed by noted scholars such as Peter Schäfer, which on some occasions, do not reference Jesus by name, while describing the events and persons who are mentions in the New Testament, are in fact descriptions of the events that transpired in Jerusalem at the time the Gospels depict them. In the Rabbinic literature of the Babylonian Talmud, there are two passages which confirm the New Testament descriptions of Jesus as the son of Mary and her betrothed husband, Joseph, a carpenter. In the portions of the Talmud, Jesus is referred to as: “Ben Stada,” and “Ben Pandera” or “Ben Pantera.”[1]

In the text of Sanhedrin 103a, there is a reference to Psalm 91:10, in context with the poor behavior of a son, “like Jesus the Nazarene,” that is a direct reference to the supposed wrongful actions of Jesus in the gospels, which led to Jesus death.[2]

Psalms 91:10 No evil shall befall you, Nor shall any plague come near your dwelling

This particular Rabbi is referring to Luke 2:46 where Jesus is found absent from the company of His parents, sitting in the temple, teaching the Rabbi’s there.

“Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.

A third interesting text from the Hebrew Torah commentary is in reference to Jesus as a teacher of the law. In Luke 19:47, Jesus is depicted as teaching in the Temple everyday—while the chief leaders of Israel were indignant over his teaching, seeking to find a way to put Him to death.

In the Bavi Sanhedrin text of the Talmud, one of the men who had come to listen to Jesus, R. Eliezar, is chided by the Jewish leadership of Israel in Bavi Avodah Zarah 16b-17a. The Roman governor who examined him asked: ““How can an old man like you occupy himself with such idle things?” R. Eliezer answered: “I acknowledge the judge as reliable.” This Roman judge believed that Eliezar was speaking of him, rather than Jesus teaching, and so he released Eliezar and found him not guilty. When Eliezar returned to his home, one of his servants said to him: “Master, will you permit me to say one thing of what you have taught me?” He answered: “Say it!” “Master, perhaps you encountered heresy and you enjoyed it and because of that you were arrested?” Eliezar answered his servant: “Aqiva, you have reminded me! Once I was walking in the upper market of Sepphoris when I came across one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene, and Jacob of was his name.”[3] “Jacob said to me:

“It is written in your Torah: You shall not bring the hire of the harlot or the pay of a dog into the house of the Lord, your God (Deuteronomy 23: 19). May such money be used for making a latrine for the High Priest? To which I made no reply. Jacob said to me: Thus was I taught by Jesus the Nazarene: For from the hire of a harlot was it gathered and to the hire of a harlot shall it return (Micah 1: 7)— it came from a place of filth, and let it return to a place of filth.” “This word pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for heresy. Because I transgressed what is written in the Torah: Keep your way far from her (Prov. 5: 8).[4]”

Seemingly insignificant passages such as these, found in the Talmud, may appear to the reader as minor mentions of Jesus. The facts are, these tiny references of Jesus, validate that He was in Jerusalem at the time described by the four gospels. That during this time, Jesus was arrested by the Sanhedrin and turned over to Pilate to be crucified. The arrest and crucifixion is also validated in the records of the Roman government, as attested to by Tacitus (See Tacitus as a credible witness).

Since these records of the Jews and the Romans, both hostile and indignant to the cause of Jesus—confirm that He was arrested and crucified, it is certain that the testimony given to us by the New Testament, that Jesus was also risen from the dead on the third day, is also credible.

Evidence From Other Jewish Sources

A surprising source for Jesus’ crucifixion comes from the Babylonian Talmud-Sanhedrin 43a, Soncino edition. This text confirms from the records of the Jews, the gospel narrative of the events that led up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. [5]

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”

About 93 A.D., Renowned Jewish historian Josephus wrote that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the “Antiquities of the Jews,” 18.3.[6]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, …. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles… And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.”[7]

Josephus was born in 37 A.D. and died in 100 A.D. It is certain that he was aware of the writings of the Gospels which described the scourging, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We know today by recent discoveries of New Testament papyrus, dated from the period of time in which Matthew was still alive, that Matthew and Josephus were contemporaries.

Josephus as a Reliable Source

If any of the events that Matthew recorded concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus were untrue, Josephus would have certainly rebutted these statements in his writings. Josephus was not a Christian, nor sympathetic to the Christian church. The fact of his silence in having any contradictory testimony regarding what the disciples wrote concerning Jesus is, in my opinion, substantial confirmation that Josephus did not have any facts in evidence which would discredit the claim that Jesus was not only crucified but also resurrected three days later. To the contrary, Josephus describes the followers of Jesus as claiming that He had “appeared to them alive again the third day.”

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.”[8]

Although this text, referred to as “Testimonium Flavianum,” has been found in all of the writings of Josephus, there has been a massive attack regarding the authenticity of this section of the Josephus records. It is claimed by some that the text—which describes Jesus alive three days after being crucified, is a Christian interpolation.

Sidebar: Is it really a surprise that any secular record which authenticates the testimony of the four gospels in proving that Jesus rose from the dead, would be vigorously assaulted? In every instance where a document of history is presented, which confirms the text of the New Testament—objection is made. Although there is not a single thread of evidence that the Christian church inserted this text into the records of Josephus, this objection continues. Does any intelligent person really believe that every copy of Josephus’ massive “Antiquities of the Jews,” was altered by the Christian church in a effort to deceive the world? Every copy of Josephus, extant today—contains the text which describes Jesus crucifixion under Pilate.

If we examine the entire text from where the above statement about Jesus is located, we notice that the complete context of Josephus’ is concerning some apparent trouble that Pontius Pilate was having with the Jews, regarding Jesus Christ. At the same time that Josephus is writing this text, the records of the Roman Senate, also contained the precise same description: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he expelled them from the City.”[9]

The following is the chapter heading where the text of Josephus describes Jesus’ resurrection is located:

Chapter 3. Sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate concerning Christ, and what befell paulina and the jews at Rome.[10]

One of the most important principles in following a good exegesis of literary sources is in examining the context before and after the statements which are in question. When the subject matter is the same before the questionable text, as well as after, as here in Josephus’ comments regarding Jesus’ Resurrection—we must conclude that the text in question is also valid; otherwise, we must exclude the entire text as an interpolation. This is not possible since the whole text of chapter 3 (including the resurrection) has been part of every extant copy of the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus.

Scholars have stipulated that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, from the record of Josephus and Tacitus. Although the crucifixion and resurrection text are both a part of the same work by Josephus, only the resurrection is excluded as a Christian interpolation. Irregardless of the evidence that is presented to support the resurrection, of which the New Testament is the best and most reliable source, no liberal scholar today, is ever going to concede the facts of the resurrection.

The reasons for a critical rejection of the resurrection is self-evident: if the resurrection is established as a firm fact of history, no person could ever intelligently refute Jesus or His claims upon all humanity.

The existence of a secular record by a non-Christian—Jewish historian, who was also a Roman citizen, describing the followers of Jesus Christ—testifying that He had risen from the dead—is totally unacceptable to the opponents of God, His Christ, and His word.

Despite many objections, there is no conclusive evidence which refutes the entirety of Josephus description of Jesus crucified and risen from the dead.

I have read every opposing opinion on the text of Josephus which claims that the Christian church added the section describing Jesus as risen from the dead. May I say—they are all lacking incontrovertible proof. At the present time, the evidence for the authenticity of the text is greater than the evidence against authenticity. Until such time that it can be proven conclusively that Josephus did not write the text which describes Jesus’ disciples declaring that He had appeared alive to them after three days—we must conclude that Josephus did write the text. The burden for proving otherwise rests on those who oppose the authenticity of the text.[11]

This “Testimonium” is found in every extant copy of this chapter of Josephus in the world today. As mentioned previously, Josephus and Matthew were contemporaries. Matthew wrote his gospel around 60 A.D.[12] Josephus recorded his writings from 66 A.D through 94 A.D.[13]

It is likely that Josephus had personally read Matthew’s account of the resurrection and this text was undoubtably a source for his own description of the followers of Jesus, who testified that He had risen from the dead. Josephus was a historian. He was born in Jerusalem around 37 A.D., and lived until approximately 100 A.D. He recorded events that took place during the same period of time when Matthew recorded his gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

During the interval in which Josephus wrote “The Wars of the Jews” and the “Antiquities of the Jews,” Paul was also writing his letters to the seven churches in Asia, which were widely read by many Jews and Gentiles during the same period. It is probable that Josephus had read portions of Paul’s letters, as they were distributed over a wide area during the life of Josephus. Paul’s credibility as a Biblical scholar of that day, was surpassed only by his teacher; Gamaliel. There is no doubt that Josephus had extreme regard for Paul and the miraculous change which occurred in his life. All of Israel knew that Paul had carried letters to ensure the death of many Christians. When Paul began to write that he had seen the risen Jesus and that he was now one of His followers, Josephus was undoubtably effected by this news.

Finally, there is great evidence that Flavius Josephus is in fact, Joseph ben Gurion, the brother of Nicodemus ben Gurion, the Nicodemus who came to Jesus late one night in the Gospel of John, chapter 3. According to Scholar Mary Ellen Snodgrass, Flavius Josephus was born Joseph ben Mattathias during the time when Jerusalem was occupied by the Roman army. He is the son of Matthias ben Gurion, a priest at the temple in Jerusalem, who instructed Josephus in the Hebrew and Greek languages. In 56 A.D., Flavius Josephus became a member of the Pharisees and served the Emperor Nero in A.D. 64. After a prophecy by Josephus in 69 A.D., Emperor Vespasian granted Josephus as a Roman citizenship.[14]

As a matter of fact, Nicodemus being a secret follower of Jesus, it is certain that this belief was known to his brother, Josephus. The facts of Jesus death and resurrection were undoubtably communicated to Josephus by Nicodemus and remained a part of his understanding of who Jesus was. Though it is clear that Josephus was not a believer in Jesus, nevertheless, in his account of Jesus death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, it is certain that his text was greatly influenced by the first hand testimony of his brother, Nicodemus.

Allegations of Forgery

Critics of this text from Josephus consistently report that the entire section describing the Resurrection of Jesus is a forgery, which was added by Eusebius. There is absolutely no evidence to confirm this allegation—except that no earlier copies of this text before Eusebius have be found. Simply because an earlier copy is absent from the record at the present time, we cannot prove conclusively on this basis alone, that Josephus did not write the resurrection text.

Once again, all of the oldest copies of Josephus’ “Antiquities,” 18.3, contain the description of Jesus’ Crucifixion and Resurrection.

A tenth century version of this text from Agapius, also known as “Mahboub of Menbidj,” a Syrian churchman and historian—also contains the statement that Jesus “was perhaps the Messiah and that He was Resurrected.”[15]

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”[16]

Andreas Köstenberger is the Senior Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina (as of 2013). He writes in the book, “The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament,” that there is very strong evidence that parts of the Testimonium are factual and authentic. When compared with the Greek and Arabic version, discovered in the 70’s by Shlomo Pines, they provide us with proof of the original text.[17]

According to Scholar Robert Eisler, for the first 1200 years of the Christian church, those who were in a position to know whether the Josephus Testimonium was authentic or not—considered the portion which contains a description of Jesus’ resurrection—as authentic and written by Josephus himself—affirmed this conclusion.

Throughout the eleven long centuries which separate the edict of the toleration of Milan (312) from the disruption of the Occidental Church with the Protestant Reform — in other words, the time lying between the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius and that of Cardinal Baronius — not a doubt was cast on the authenticity of Josephus’ precious Testimonium, which was constantly quoted and turned to good account by all Church historians.”[18]

Dr. Eisler has been described by his piers as one of the most astonishing figures in the world of scholarship.[19]

Many respected scholars are in agreement with this assessment of Josephus. When we examine the entire body of evidence that is available today, we must conclude that the Testimonium Flavianum, was written by Josephus and is a true and accurate account of Jesus crucifixion, not a Christian interpolation.[20]

From these facts, it is the opinion of this author, in researching the Testimonium, that since the most credible scholars of prior history have determined that the resurrection portion of Josephus Testimonium was written by him—along with an equal history of the Christian church who also held this document as authentically written by Josephus, and no credible impeachment of these facts existing in evidence—other than conjecture—we must, today, conclude that Josephus wrote the entire text of this chapter, including the statement that the followers of Jesus had declared that He had risen from the dead.

The Record Of Archeology

One of the enduring attributes which sets the Bible apart from all other books who claim divine authority, is the actual confirmation of the words of the Bible by Archeology.

If we can demonstrate that the ancient people and places, which are described in the Bible, actually existed—this provides great credibility for the authenticity of Old and New Testaments.

Robert D. Wilson, Ph.D., February 4, 1856–October 11, 1930, was an American linguist and Biblical Scholar who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects and had memorized the entire Old Testament in Hebrew. Dr. Wilson was able to recite, from memory, every word of the Hebrew scriptures without missing a syllable.[21]

Dr. Wilson demonstrated that the secular accounts of 29 ancient kings from 10 different nations were inaccurate. At the same time, He also firmly established that the names of these kings, as they are recorded in the Old Testament scriptures, matched the artifacts of Archeology empirically.[22]

Today, those who have criticized the Bible for being inaccurate have eaten their own words. The secular record has been proven inaccurate by discoveries of modern archeology, while the Biblical descriptions of archeological artifacts have been proven true.[23]

Previous claims that certain references in the Bible, such as the depiction of King David, Pontius Pilate, and the ancient Hittites—once claimed by critics of the Old Testament as myths, have been proven by archeological discoveries to be absolutely accurate.

Professor Wilson wrote:

“I have come to the conviction that no man knows enough to attack the veracity of the Old Testament. Every time when anyone has been able to get together enough documentary ‘proofs’ to undertake an investigation, the biblical facts in the original text have victoriously met the test”[24]

Today, no credible scholar disputes the accuracy of Biblical accounts of ancient cities, cultures, or people. They are beyond dispute and without impeachment.

Nelson Glueck is considered one of the world’s greatest Archeologists. His work in the discovery of over 1,500 ancient sites led him to the firm conclusion that every reference in the Old Testament scriptures which refers to an ancient city, civilization, or people, were entirely accurate in every regard.

In the words of Dr. Nelson Glueck:

“It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”[25]

The evidence presented to us by the archeological record of ancient history demands a conclusion that the Bible is perfect in all its descriptions of the historical events it reports. Dr. Wilson describes the record of Biblical precision, which accurately describes names, cities, and events of history, as a marvel unequalled by any other literature of antiquity.

“That the Hebrew writers should have transliterated these names with such accuracy and conformity to philological principles is a wonderful proof of their thorough care and scholarship and of their access to the original sources. That the names should have been transmitted to us through so many copyings and so many centuries in so complete a state of preservation is a phenomenon unequaled in the history of literature.“[26]

Those who purport to be “experts” or scholarly authorities on the inaccuracies allegedly found in the Bible should go back to school and learn the important study of Paleography and the ancient languages in which the Bible was written.[27]

Before a man has the right to speak about the history, the language, and the paleography of the Old Testament, the Christian church has the right to demand that such a man should establish his ability to do so.” —R.D. Wilson

In regards to the New Testament and the facts that it reports to us in its narrative: Sir William Ramsey, world famous historian and renowned archeologist, describes the statements of the New Testament regarding the geographical and historical references it makes, as existing without a single error.

I began with a mind unfavorable to (the accuracy of the New Testament) but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”[28]

Dr. Ramsey believed, at the onset, that the accounts which are described in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were inaccurate. Over 100 years ago, he undertook an expedition to Asia to try and refute the New Testament, only to become so overwhelmed by the evidence that he became a follower of Jesus Christ.

“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 historians.”[29]

Archeological Accuracy Points to Literary Accuracy

Since Luke’s description of cities, names, places, and customs are perfect in their historical accuracy, it is certain that his accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are also accurate and reliable.

The fact that Luke has been confirmed as a scholarly historian of specific details regarding the history of the first century, it is certain that he also recorded for us, with the same precision, the specific events which transpired concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Luke’s integrity as a historical scholar demands that we accept, with confidence, his testimony of Jesus’ resurrection, which is the foundation of the entire Christian church.

One of the criticism’s of Luke’s account of Jesus’ life is found in his description of the census that he says was ordered by Caesar Agustus.

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. —Luke 2:1-3

Because no archeological discovery had previously verified that such a census took place, Luke was regarded in past history as having embellished this story. A later discovery regarding the taxes of the kingdom of the Roman government revealed that the tax payers were enrolled every 14 years by the use of a census. Archeology has uncovered facts which verify that Caesar Agustus did conduct the precise census described, during the period of time Luke specified—near the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.[30]

Further, an inscription discovered in Antioch describes Quirinius in 7 B.C., who was the governor of Syria, on two occasions—7 B.C. and 6 A.D.—a fact that is confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus.[31]

An archeological discovery in Egypt, uncovered a Papyrus which specifically describes the details of this census spoken of by Luke, under Caesar Agustus:

Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them.”[32]

In his book, Archeological Confirmation of the New Testament,” Dr. F. F. Bruce describes a problem that was present in Luke’s description of the Tetrarch of Abilene in Luke 3:1.

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene… —Luke 3:1

Previously, there was no record of anyone called “Lysanius” as the tetrarch of Abilene during the time that Luke specified that he was there. In recent history, an archeological discovery made in Damascus, Syria, describes a person called “Freedman of Lysanias the Tetrarch.” Scholars date this inscription at between 14 A.D and 29 A.D.[33] This is the same period of time in which Luke had written of Lysanias.

This is incredible information for the person who is seeking to validate the text of the New Testament as authentic and reliable. If Luke took such care to describe a census, and Lysanius, who could only be verified recently by archeology, he is certainly a writer who records accurate and specific details. It is clear that Luke was seeking to preserve the historical record of that time for future generations. He wanted the reader to know that what he had written, was recorded with great care. This was extremely important to Luke as a historian, as he would also record events of such magnitude that readers in future generations would have a difficult time accepting. As we understand how serious Luke was about the events he has written, he does not appear to us a one who would fabricating a lie, but as a scholar who is honest and has told the truth.

Since Luke recorded events and people, who are much less important than the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus—with such stunning accuracy; it is certain that the the accounts of a world-changing, supernatural resurrection from the dead, are also a accurately documented. When we examine the diligence of Luke in the descriptions he has made regarding the background and symmetry of events that were happening at that period of history, we understand that he is not one to contrive stories. Luke simply recounts to the world what he knew was true—though these events are quite extraordinary—he documented what happened with the precision of an astute historian.

Scholars Who Investigated the Text

An interesting discovery in 1910, by Sir William Ramsey, debunked the secular record of Cicero of the Romans who described Iconium as existing in Lycaonia. Luke describes Lystra and Derbe as residing in Lycaonia.

...they became aware of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region. —Acts 14:6

We see by this example that secular writers are frequently in error while the text of the Bible is constantly found to be accurate in every detail. The secular record has been erroneously held as more reliable and accurate than the Biblical record in past history. This continues to be a common error that is made today. The facts bearing witness—the Bible is always right in matters of history and the secular record is consistently wrong. This truth has been confirmed by archeological discoveries over the entire course of human history—all over the world.

Other noted scholars such as Dr. Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White, a British historian and scholar—regarding Ancient Rome, wrote his doctoral thesis on the treatment of the New Testament from the point of view of Roman law and society.

Dr. Sherwin-White said this regarding the work of Dr. Ramsey’s conclusions on the book of Acts:

“Any attempt to reject its (the New Testament’s) basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”[34]

Dr. Sherwin-White examined the records of Rome and concluded that their own history proved the narrative of the New Testament scriptures regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[35]

What sets the Bible apart from all other books who claim divine authority is the actual confirmation of the words of the Bible by Archeology.

If we can demonstrate that the ancient people and places, which are described in the Bible, actually existed—this provides great credibility for the authenticity of Old and New Testaments.

Robert D. Wilson, Ph.D., February 4, 1856–October 11, 1930, was an American linguist and Biblical Scholar who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects and had memorized the entire Old Testament in Hebrew. Dr. Wilson was able to recite, from memory, every word of the Hebrew scriptures without missing a syllable.[36]

Dr. Wilson demonstrated that the secular accounts of 29 ancient kings from 10 different nations were inaccurate. At the same time, He also firmly established that the names of these kings, as they are recorded in the Old Testament scriptures, matched the artifacts of Archeology empirically.[37]

Today, those who have criticized the Bible for being inaccurate have eaten their own words. The secular record has been proven inaccurate by discoveries of modern archeology, while the Biblical descriptions of archeological artifacts have been proven true.[38]

Previous claims that certain references in the Bible, such as the depiction of King David, Pontius Pilate, and the ancient Hittites—once claimed by critics of the Old Testament as myths, have been proven by archeological discoveries to be absolutely accurate.

The Rise of Christianity

We have in evidence today, the historical account of a massive explosion of the Christian church after the first century, due largely to the facts of the resurrection. If Jesus did not raise from the dead, it is unlikely that many would have followed Him or called Him the Messiah. The church of Jesus Christ became the largest teleological living organism in the history of the world because its leader accomplished something that has never been equalled—He rose from the dead.

If the crucifixion was the final event which took place and Jesus simply died without being resurrected, the Christian church would never have become the greatest living testimony to the facts of His resurrection.

Sociologist Rodney Stark, in his book “The Rise of Christianity,” describes the Christian church as growing by 40% in just the first century alone.[40] This exponential expansion is largely attributable to the facts of Jesus’ resurrection being viewed as authentic—due to the testimony of eyewitnesses who documented these facts immediately after Jesus was raised from the dead.

According to Peter Rogers, in 1 A.D., the population of the earth was about 200 million people.[41] By 300 A.D., the population had grown to over 250 million. Rodney Clark wrote that the explosive growth of the Christian church, by 350 A.D., places the number of followers of Jesus Christ at over 33 million—or 56.5 percent of the total population of the world.[42]

In 250 A.D., the number of Christians was 1,171,356, which was just 1.9% of the population of the world.[43]

In 300 A.D., the number of Christians was 6,299,832, or 10.5 percent of the world’s population.[44]

By 350 A.D., the number of Christians had grown exponentially to 33,882,208, or 56.5 percent of the population of the world.[45]

If the resurrection did not take place as the four gospels describe, then how do we explain the explosive growth of the Christian church to over 33 million believers and 56 percent of the world’s population—just 300 years after the resurrection was first reported?

Today, this phenomenal growth continues. On every continent. In every nation. Amongst all people of the earth; Jesus is continuing to change lives. As I write these words, over two billion people have placed their lives in His hands. This is not the result of blind faith, but due to the massive and overwhelming body of evidence that exists in the world today.

God never required that any person should trust themselves to Jesus, strictly as a byproduct of faith. He intended that we would use our minds and investigate the evidence that He has left behind for us to discover. We understand that this is true by the phenomenal record of facts that any person can investigate for themselves. In my book, “A Universe From God,” I explore the universe as the most stunning evidence for God’s existence. I expend a great deal of text documenting the facts of science, which fully validates God as the true origin of the cosmos.

I began my own search for truth, a little over 40 years ago. As a young man earnestly desiring answers that would define why we are all here on the earth, and what the purpose of human life is all about, I fully devoted myself to fact-finding.

I explored the specifics of science and always arrived at the same point of frustration. Science cannot explain how life began, only what happened after it began. Science can tell us how the universe exists, but not why it exists.

I wanted more. I wanted to know the answers for why human beings and the universe are here. For these answers, I looked to religion. I found that a common thread of difficulty emerged from the exploration of all of man’s religions. All religions of the world have a common theme: what man must do to reach God. Finally, examining the text of the Bible, I found that this religion is singular amongst all others. Man cannot reach God, He is infinite and far above the thoughts and abilities of man to comprehend. If God will be known, it is He who must reveal Himself to us. The Bible claims to be the true revelation of this eternal, transcendent Being.

Further, only the Bible describes man in the true state of his condition that we all observe.

We live in a world that has the appearance of perfection, while some human beings ruin the beauty of life for everyone else. The presence of evil in the world was a great place of difficulty for me. As I continued in my exploration of the Bible, I read the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth. I discovered that He is unlike any person who has existed on the planet. I learned that He claims to be the eternal God who had come to earth to help us with our problem of sin and death. I was horrified that this perfect man, with no sin or imperfection of His own, would be willing to died for someone like me.

I read the text which describes the torture and suffering which Jesus endured. I wondered why a man with the kind of power that He had formerly displayed in other places of the New Testament, did not use this power to free Himself from His oppressors. I learned that Jesus was seeking to represent me at the place of judgement. He said nothing, did nothing—in defense of Himself, because as my representative, I stand guilty and no excuse is valid.

Jesus died to pay for the judgment that I deserved for all my words and actions. Not only me, He did it for the whole world. Even those who would never receive Him, or give Him so much as a “thank you.”

It was the person of Jesus Christ, which ultimately convinced me that the Bible is true, and God must certainly exist.

I set about to learn everything that I could about Jesus and to translate that knowledge into words that anyone could understand. I found that the record of history, fully validates Jesus as a real person of antiquity, and this evidence comes from both secular and religious writers. The Roman and Jewish governments, which had no interest in preserving Jesus as a genuine person of history, did precisely this very thing, when they recorded their words of hatred and abhorrence towards Him, in their chronicles of that time period.

This article is a small part of the great body of evidence that God has left for us to examine.

A Universe Without God is Irrational

There are certain phenomenon that are present in the universe that leave us with little doubt of their origin. Gasses may form stars, and stars form planets; these groups of stars may form galaxies, but what of their origin? We know today that specific and incredible processes were in play during the initial moments of the big bang. The universe did not come into existence by totally naturalistic causes. There is a reason for the order that we observe in the cosmos. Order never comes from chaos. When we behold a magnificent machine we understand that conception, design, engineering, and building were necessary for this device to exist.

Physicists have described the universe as a masterful machine. Some scientists and mechanical engineer’s describe the universe as “indistinguishable from a quantum computer.[46]

The universe contains an organization and symphony of physical constants that have made life possible. The precise requirements that are necessary and provide enough stability for advanced life form to exist, is stunning.

If we modify any of the physical constants of the universe, even slightly, we end up with a completely different universe from the one we presently have.[47]

“On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings.”[48] —Paul Davis, Physicist and Cosmologist

Physicist, Fred Hoyle, described the universe as existing in its present form as though a “superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”

The existence of the universe is an ever-present reminder that we live in a world that was specifically made for us

It is unreasonable to try to explain the universe without God. What we observe is a cosmos of Brobdingnagian size and complexity that could not have come into existence apart from an eternal and infinite mind.

The basic premise for understanding the universe, begins with an acknowledgement of what we can observe: A cosmos so immense and complex, that it necessitates a Creator. Without this basic confirmation, we will never know anything of why and how the universe operates. To try and do so will leave out the most basic questions that must be answered before all others:

One: How did the universe come from nothing?
Two: Where did life come from?
Three: Why does the universe exist at all?

Evolution cannot answer these questions—even after 150 years of Darwinian doctrine. All that evolution can accurately explain, is how life developed after it appeared on earth; it does not tell us how and why life came into existence in the first place.

To imagine that the universe has no first cause is to assume that anything can come into existence without a cause. We do not observe this phenomenon having occurred anywhere in the universe, except during one infinite reality—God.

The Atheists asks the question, “Who created God?”, assuming that His existence necessitated a cause. This is a fundamental error that atheists make in their inability to perceive God. They imagine that God must be created. Those who do believe in God, do not believe in a God who came into existence at some point in time. In this manner, Christians also do not believe in the kind of God that the atheists do not believe in.

The fallacy of insisting that God must have a creator Himself, runs an illogical circle of never-ending god’s who were each made by a god before them. In order for one who is truly God to exist, He must be singular and uncreated.

Let us consider this premise: The term “God,” is defined as a Being who is perfect in every regard. Any being who is not perfect would not be God, with a big “G,” he would simply be one god amongst many god’s, little “g.”

Since there can only be one God (big G), this first premise requires that He must be perfect in every regard, incapable of error or wrongful actions. If God were able to commit error, He would not be perfect, and therefore he could not be God.

Since God is perfect, He must also be eternal. For no created being, who came into existence at some point in time, by the work of one who existed before him, could be perfect, since he has relied upon one before him for his existence. The fact that a god could be created, removes the certainty that he is perfect—lacking the ability to exist before, and apart from, all other things.

In this regard, any created being could not be God (big G).

When atheists ask the question: “who created God?”, they are implying that the kind of God they are thinking of is a created God. In this regard, this kind of being is a logical impossibility.

The fact that a created god requires one before him for his existence, would define his creator as greater than the one he has made. If we continue to follow all of these created god’s back to their source, we never arrive at one who is the original and the source of all others.

If, however, God can be defined as singular, with no beginning; having no creator, and being eternal—this God would be perfect and would fulfill the true definition of God.

This is precisely the definition of the God who is revealed in the pages of the Bible.

“You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. —Isaiah 43:10

Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one. —Isaiah 44:8

Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. —Psalms 90:2

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Psalms 33:6

The God of the Bible is eternal, has no beginning, and was not formed by any god before Him. He simply exists, and always has. This God is perfect, knows all things, is unlimited and does not require an explanation for His existence.

It is interesting to me that many scientists accept the fact that there could be a civilization somewhere in the universe that is so advanced in their intelligence, being thousands or millions of years ahead of us, that they would have the power to create other beings and cause them to live forever. Yet when we present the ultimate Being, who has lived forever, and describe Him as the source of all life, scientists reject this kind of being as impossible. It appears that the objection of an eternal Being with unlimited power and intelligence, stems from a purely religious abhorrence rather than a logical impossibility.

If we will carefully examine the text in the writings of all other religions, we find that their god’s are not like the God of the Bible. The god’s of all other religions are created as god’s, or they were men or women who became a god by their achievements.

This kind of god always fails the test of a true God. For these beings, starting as imperfect, they can never attain the place of perfection—since they first existed as flawed. The true definition of perfection is the eternality of that perfection. As human beings, we are willing to accept imperfection, but the essence of true perfection requires an eternal duration—or it is not perfection.

The God of the Bible is self-existent, having no beginning or end, requiring no first cause. He has always existed and is the source of all life, matter, and energy, even time itself.

Although we may not understand the eternal nature of God, for things which are eternal are difficult for human beings to understand, we do understand the concept of perfection. Although we cannot attain it, we know—instinctively—what perfection is. In understanding God, if we take what we can comprehend: God must be perfect, then we understand that this requires that He is eternal. Perfection requires eternality. Once again, any created being who depended upon a being before him, cannot be God in the sense of perfection. Perfection requires complete autonomy from all other created things.

This is why the atheist question: “who made God,” is flawed. If there is a God, He must be the only one. If there was god before him who made him, he would not be God, only a substandard god—like so many mythical creatures of old.

The God who made the universe and all life was not Himself created; He is eternal. This is the primary difference between a universe that has a beginning and God who has no beginning. The universe came into being; God did not. This is the premise of the entire gospel of John:

In the beginning was the Word (Messiah), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. —John 1:1-3 (NIV)

Only God is self-existent and has no first cause. This is obvious and self-evident by the observable universe. The kind of God who could create the universe would possess a mind of such infinite wisdom, that it would be impossible for a mere human mind to conceive of such an intelligence. We do not know how He was able to build the universe that we see (not to mention what we cannot see); we know only that a transcendent being of infinite power is the only possible source.

To put forth the nauseous ever increasing premise that matter and energy can self-generate themselves into intelligent thinking beings, is utter lunacy. Beginning with the theory of evolution—where all life came from a single cell that mutated randomly by itself, until it became one species that mutated into other species, that mutated into intelligent beings—it is not only the kind of fantasy that we see in Hollywood movies but is insanity at its very essence. Although evolution of one intelligent species into a new intelligent species, has never been scientifically proven or observed—evolution is nevertheless being taught as a certainty in schools and universities all over the world.

Let us remember that in all the history of the human species, no person has ever observed anything coming into existence by itself or from nothing. In spite of this, the scientific world works hard to prove that God does not exist and the universe created itself, rather than to simply acknowledge the obvious: God made the universe. We know that He exists by what He has made. When someone makes anything, the evidence of their existence as an intelligent being is left behind and is verifiable proof that they exist. The impossible universe that we behold is evidence of the greatest intelligent Being in existence.

Science is founded upon the basis of observable, provable data. The facts are that the data that is observable and provable demands that the universe has, as its first cause, an intelligence. Regardless of your term or definition—an eternal mind, Transcendent Creator, Supreme being, or simply God—the fact remains that all the evidence which exists in the universe, demands that its existence is a feat of engineering genius that can only be explained by an unlimited intelligence of immense power.

Many of the world’s greatest minds have conceded that there is no possibility that the universe could have come into existence by itself.[49] The truth is that scientists and astronomers have only seen a glimpse of the total universe; and their knowledge of how it began is, at the present time, a great mystery.

To state that God is not necessary for such a universe as we observe, or that this universe came into being of its own accord—from nothing, is the most absurd theory ever put forth.

It seems that scientists today have lost something of the wisdom that their former colleagues had in times past. The first scientists, men of great wisdom: Isaac Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, William Kelvin, and Max Planck, to name a few, began with the obvious: God must exist as the source of the universe; now let’s try to understand how He did it.

Jesus Claimed That He Is God

More important than the question of His identity as the Messiah, is the belief that Jesus had also claimed that He is the Creator/God of the universe. Paul restated Jesus assertion that He created all things, when he wrote to the church at Colosse:

For by Jesus all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” —Colossians 1:16

The Bible reveals a unique and exclusive relationship between Jesus—who claimed to be the Son of God, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. These three are all designated by the Bible as “One God.” They are eternally existent, with no beginning or first cause. John begins his account of Jesus by stating that in the beginning, Jesus (the Word) was with God and was God.

In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. —John 1:1

When Jesus spoke of His special relationship with God as His Father, He did not describe this association in the same way that we would define our own relationship with God. Jesus calls God: “My Father.”

Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. —Matthew 10:32-33

I and My Father are one. —John 10:30

Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me. —John 14:11

Notice how Jesus distinguishes between His relationship with God and ours, as He speaks to Mary Magdalene.

Jesus said to her, … “I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.” —John 20:17

Jesus did not say that He was ascending to “our Father.” He said your Father. Then He said that He was ascending to My God and your God. We can see here that Jesus believed that His relationship with God was that of a Son, to whom all the scriptures refer to as “One God”? The concept of three distinct persons as “One God” is a difficult concept for us to grasp as human beings.

The reason that some people have difficulty understanding this as a reality, originates from our misunderstanding of what “one” truly is. God is not seeking to violate the laws of mathematics and redefine three as one, He is stating the truth of how God exists as One. For thousands of years, men have pondered this mystery—the answer is as simple as the word “Unity.”

Three-In-One, Illustrated

One occurrence in the New Testament, where the three are easily distinguishable from each other, is Matthew chapter 3—as Jesus has come to the Jordan river at the beginning of His public ministry, to be baptized.

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him. When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” —Matthew 3:13-17

We have the Son coming into the water. The Spirit descending upon the Son. The Father speaking from heaven as the voice from heaven.

What defines these Three are One God, is their Unity of will and purpose in all things.

In this single example, we see that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct and separate persons, who are all called God by the Bible. Although these three are different and distinct from each other, they are One in unity. They are so closely linked together in their agreement in everything, they are really just One. Their complete agreement in all things, while still being distinct persons, is what makes them One God. It is the Absolute Unity of mind, will, and purpose, that makes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: One God.

These three are perfectly united as One God in carrying out their will. Their ultimate aim is to bring the earth into the same conformity of God’s will as the rest of the universe, where God’s word will be settled on earth, as it is in heaven.

In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. —Matthew 6:9-10

Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. —Psalms 119:89

In the Book of Revelation, chapter 5, we see how these three distinct persons are illustrated as “One.”

We have:

Verse 1: Him who sat on the throne.
Verse 6: A Lamb in the midst of the throne.
Verse 6: The Spirit from within the throne.
Verse 7: The Lamb taking the scroll from “Him who sat on the throne.”

1. And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2 Then I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to loose its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it. 4 So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. 5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.” 6. And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7. Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. —Revelation 5:1-7

We see just one throne in heaven. We see One God sitting on a single throne. We see a Lamb coming from the midst of the throne of God. We see Him who sat on the throne, having a scroll in His right hand. We see the Holy Spirit described as the Seven Spirits from within the throne.

However, we might struggle to understand One God as three Persons. Here, we see all Three in Heaven, seated on a single throne.

The Holy Spirit—who is always invisible to us, yet always present, is not declared or recognized. The Holy Spirit is observed as a part of the Lamb as “the Seven Spirits” (seven is completeness). It is the purpose of the Holy Spirit to exalt and magnify Jesus, not to exalt Himself. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is always spoken of as also being God.

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” —Acts 5:3-4

The relationship that Jesus claimed to have with God was that of a Son—equal to God. He made this clear by the language that He used in the four Gospels. When Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus said: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father…”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” —John 14:9

Jesus claimed that to know Him was to know the one true and living God. To see Him was to see God. To believe in Him is to believe in the only Eternal God. Jesus said that unless a person receives Him as the only Savior of the world, they cannot be saved.

He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. —1 John 5:12

When Jesus began His dissertation with the Pharisees on the subject of Abraham, He said something that utterly shocked their sensibilities.

Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death. –John 8:51

If Jesus was seeking to gain their confidence, this sentence immediately turned them on the defensive. To intimate that He had greater authority over Abraham or one of the Old Testament prophets, was utterly offensive.

Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ 53 Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be?” —John 8:52-53

Jesus then directs these leaders of Israel back to His eternity. Jesus informs the leaders of Israel that before Abraham exist, He had always existed as the Great I AM.

In order to explain who He is, He had to define His true origin.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. —John 8:56-59

Whatever courtesies the Jews might have extended to Jesus up to this point, they were now ready to stone Him to death. Jesus had not simply claimed greater authority, above the words of Abraham, He now took for Himself the eternal name for God—“I AM.

By claiming this title, Jesus was stating that He was the voice of God from the burning bush, in the Book of Exodus, that spoke to Moses.

Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” —Exodus 3:13-14

We must pause now to consider where we are in the discussion of “who Jesus is.”

Many people, when they arrive at this destination where they realize that Jesus is claiming to be the eternal God—they can go no further. When a man claims to be God, we have reached the limits of reason.

It was because Jesus claimed to be the eternal God, that many Jews today cannot receive Him as the Messiah. The traditions of the elders in Jerusalem determined that the Messiah would be a ordinary man, like the Old Testament prophets. This is puzzling, since there is such a large body of Hebrew prophecies which describe the Messiah as “God.”

Each person must decide who Jesus is. It is my sincere desire that I might provide sufficient evidence to the reader to make this possible.

The irrefutable evidence that proves the existence of God is Jesus. He came to earth, claimed to be God, and was validated as God by hundreds of witnesses. Jesus possesses all the attributes of God that we would expect if God should show Himself to us. The record of secular and biblical history, fully validates Jesus as a real person of history. The records of the Romans and the Jews, both confirm that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate and He died. The record of the New Testament, written by honest men who were simply seeking to record the true and accurate events of history, validate that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, just as He said He would.

Jesus is empirical evidence that God exists. No person may ever again claim that there is no proof for the existence of God, this is simply not true.

The preceding is from three books by Robert Clifton Robinson

Yeshu Cover    The Prophecies of the Messiah Cover    


NOTES:
[1] Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Kindle Locations 313-318). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Bavli Sanhedrin 103a, presents itself as an exegesis of Psalm 91: 10: Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud (Kindle Location 502). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
[3] Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud (Kindle Locations 769-788). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
[4] Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud (Kindle Locations 788-795). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
[5] 1.Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer (Aug 24, 2009) ISBN 0691143188 page 141 and 9
2.Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 pages 177-118
[6] Theissen 1998, pp. 81-83
[7] “Antiquities of the Jews”, 18.3
[8] 1. Josephus, Flavius (2010-10-07). The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus (Kindle Locations 16454-16459). . Kindle Edition
2. Flavius Josephus, Whiston & Maier 1999, p. 662.
[9] Graves, Robert (2014-03-05). The Twelve Caesars (Kindle Locations 3343-3345). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition.
[10] Josephus, Flavius (2010-10-07). The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus (Kindle Locations 16434-16435). . Kindle Edition
[11] According to the rules for evidence by Dr. Simon Greenleaf.
[12] Thiede, Carsten Peter & D’Ancona, Matthew, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996
[13] The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94). The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation (66–70), Louis Feldman, Steve Mason (1999). Flavius Josephus. Brill Academic Publishers.
[14] Encyclopedia of the Literature of Empire, By Mary Ellen Snodgrass, Pages 156-157.
[15] Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios’ Kitab al-‘Unwan (“Book of the Title,” 10th c.). See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html).
[16] 1.S. Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Jerusalem: Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971), 16.
2.Kellum, L. Scott; Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Quarles, Charles L (2009-08-01). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (Kindle Locations 4903-4904). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition. Arabic version from the tenth century by Agapius, also know as Mahboub of Menbidj, a Syrian churchman and historian.
[17] Kostenberger, Andreas J.; Kellum, L. Scott; Quarles, Charles L. (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. ISBN 0-8054-4365-7.
[18] “The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus recently rediscovered Capture of Jerusalem” and the other Jewish and Christian sources by Robert Eisler, Originally published in German in 1929, Translated by Alexander Haggerty Krappe (Methuen, 1931).
[19] 1. Gershom Scholem (Hebrew: גרשם שלום) (December 5, 1897 – February 21, 1982), was a German-born Israeli philosopher and historian. He is widely regarded as the founder of the modern, academic study of Kabbalah, becoming the first Professor of Jewish Mysticism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
2. Walter Benjamin: The Story of a Friendship (English translation, 1982), p.131.
[20] 1.Of particular interest, is the fact that the Nicodemus The Name Nicodemus is a nickname given to him by the Sanhedrin, meaning: “conqueror of the people,” because of the alleged miracles that resulted from his prayers for people.⁠1
2.There are several reliable sources that state that Nicodemus and Josephus, the Historian, were brothers:
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: There was a man of the Pharisees,…. The Syriac version adds, “there”; that is, at Jerusalem; and who was among those that believed in the name of Christ, upon seeing the miracles he did at the feast of the passover, in that place. This man was not a common and ordinary man, but a man of note and eminence, of dignity and figure; and who was of the sect of the Pharisees, which was the strictest sect for religion and holiness, among the Jews; and which, as corrupt as it was, was also the soundest; as having not only a regard to a Messiah, and to all the writings of the Old Testament, but also believed the doctrines of angels and spirits, and the resurrection of the dead, which the Sadducees denied; but yet they were implacable enemies of Christ; and therefore it is the more to be wondered at, that such an one should come to him, and desire a conversation with him:
Named Nicodemus; frequent mention is made of , “Nicodemon ben Gorion”, the brother of Josephus ben Gorion (p), the writer of the Wars and Antiquities of the Jews; and there are some things which make it probable, that he was the same with this Nicodemus; for the Nicodemon the Jews speak so much of, lived in this age; as appears, not only from his being the brother of Josephus, but also from his being contemporary with R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who lived in this time, and until the destruction of the temple; since these two are said (q) to be together at a feast, made for the circumcision of a child. Moreover, he is represented as very rich, and is said to be one of the three rich men in Jerusalem (r), and who was able to have maintained a city ten years (s); and they speak of his daughter, as exceeding rich: they say, that she had for her dowry a thousand thousand golden denarii, or pence; and that her bed was strewed with (i.e. the furniture of it cost) twelve thousand golden denarii; and that a Tyrian golden denarius was spent upon her every week, for a certain kind of soup (t); and the wise men decreed her four hundred golden denarii, for a box of spices every day (u); and it is elsewhere (w) said, five hundred: and this our Nicodemus was very rich, as appears from his liberality at the funeral of our Lord, John 19:39. Moreover, the Nicodemon of the Jews, is said to be a counsellor (x) in Jerusalem; and so was this, as seems evident from John 7:32 and it may be further observed (y), that the right name of Nicodemon, was Boni (z); now Boni elsewhere (a), is said to be one of the disciples of Jesus, as Nicodemus was secretly, and perhaps at, and after his death openly, as his associate Joseph of Arimathea was; to which may be added, the extreme poverty that his daughter is by them said to be reduced unto; for they report, that R. Jochanan ben Zaccai saw her gathering barley corns from under the horses’ hoofs in Aco (b); or as it is elsewhere said, out of the dung of the beasts of the Arabians; when she asked alms of him, and he inquired of her, what was become of her father’s substance. Now to this low estate, the family of our Nicodemus might be reduced, through the persecution of the Christians by the Jews. The name is Greek, as at this time many Greek names were in use among the Jews, and signifies the same as Nicolas; but the Jews give an etymology of it, agreeably to the Hebrew language; and say, that he was so called, because the sun, “shone out for his sake”: the occasion and reason of it, they tell us, were this (c); Nicodemon, upon want of water at one of the feasts, agreed with a certain man for twelve wells of water, to be returned on such a day, or pay twelve talents of silver; the day being come, the man demanded the water, or the money; Nicodemon went and prayed, and a plentiful rain fell, and filled the wells with water; but meeting the man, he insisted on it that the day was past, the sun being set, and therefore required the money; Nicodemon went and prayed again, and the sun shone out; and they add, that there are three persons for whom the sun “was prevented”, detained, or hindered in its course, (a word nearer his name than the former,) Moses, and Joshua, and Nicodemon ben Gorion; for the two former they produce Scripture, and for the latter tradition: hence it is elsewhere said (d), that as the sun stood still for Joshua, so it stood still for Moses, and for Nicodemon ben Gorion: but to proceed with the account of our Nicodemus, he was a ruler of the Jews; not a civil magistrate; for the civil government was now in the hands of the Romans; but an ecclesiastical ruler; he was a member of the sanhedrim, which consisted of the doctors, or wise men, and priests, Levites, and elders of the people; and so was a dignified person, and as afterwards called, a master in Israel.
(p) Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 25. 1. Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 19. 1.((q) Pirke Eliezer, c. 2. & Juchasin, fol. 23. 2.((r) T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 56. 1.((s) Midrash Kohelet, fol. 75. 4. (t) Abot R. Nathan, c. 6. fol. 3. 2. (u) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 66. 2.((w) Echa Rabbati, fol. 49. 2.((x) Echa Rabbati, fol. 46. 3. Midrash Kohelet, fol. 75. 1.((y) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 20. 1.((z) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 43. 1.((a) Echa Rabbati, fol. 49. 3.((b) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 66. 2.((c) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 20. 1.((d) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 25. 1.
3.If Josephus, the historian, who described Jesus crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and Nicodemus, the Pharisee—are in fact, brothers, this would convey greater evidence to the certainty that Josephus’ account of Jesus death by the Romans, is a true and accurate account of history. Moreover, being in the same family, it is likely that the two brothers often discussed the new sect of believers in Jesus, as well as the events that took place; before, during and after Jesus death and resurrection.
4.Because of the relationship between Nicodemus and Josephus, many critics have sought to discredit—not only Josephus’s account of Jesus crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, additional attacks have been launched against the certainty that these two were brothers. In my research, I have found several well known scholars who have written Bible commentary on the relationship of Nicodemus and Josephus.
5.NICODEMUS nĭk’ ə de’ məs (Νικόδημος, G3773, victor over the people), a Pharisee and later a disciple of Jesus (John 19:38-42). Although the name was common among the Jews of the 1st cent., this is the only man in the NT to bear it (3:1). A Nicodemus ben Gorion, who was a brother to the historian Josephus, a very wealthy member of the Sanhedrin in the 1st cent. has been identified by some with this man in the NT who came to Jesus by night. Nicodemus ben Gorion later lost his wealth and position so that some have attributed this reversal of circumstance to his having become a Christian. https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/nicodemus
6.Pulpit Commentary
The name Nicodemus, if Hebrew in etymology from dam and naki, may have meant “innocent blood;” it Greek, as is more probable, seeing that the plan of bearing Greek as well as Hebrew names was not uncommon, it would signify “Conqueror of the people.” Tradition says that he was baptized by Peter and John, and deposed from his position in the Sanhedrin, but supported by his kinsman, Gamaliel. Each reference to him (John 7:50 and John 19:39) implies a certain timidity, and perhaps unworthy reticence. These are relative terms. Much moral courage must have been required for a ruler of the Jews (a phrase only applicable to a man of high ecclesiastical rank) to have dreamed of doing what he is reported to have done here and elsewhere. The Talmud mentions a Nicodemus ben Gotten, who was also called Bonai, a disciple of Jesus, of great wealth and piety, who survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and therein lost nil his fortune (Lightfoot, in loc.; Delitzsch, ‘Zeitsch. Luth. Theol.,’ 1854). The hint that he was an old man in this year (A.U.C. 781, or A.D. ) renders his survival till A.D. improbable, but not impossible by any means. The identification is not complete. The Talmud does not speak of him as a Sanhedrist, though it gives curious details, which imply that he must have been a priest in the temple, and had the charge of providing the water supply for the pilgrims (Geikie, 1:584; Winer, ‘Real.,’ 2:152).
7.Bible-History.com
NICODE’MUS (nik-o-de’mus; Gk. “victor over the people”).
His family is unknown, though some recognize him as Nicodemus Ben Gorion, the brother of Josephus the historian. This Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin and was counted one of the three richest men of Jerusalem. But it was said that he afterward became poor, and his daughter was seen gathering barleycorn for food from under the horses’ feet. Some have conjectured that this was the result of the persecutions he received for having become a Christian.
Christian tradition has it that Nicodemus was baptized by Peter and John, suffered persecution from hostile Jews, lost his membership in the Sanhedrin, and was forced to leave Jerusalem because of his Christian faith. Further mention is made of him in The Gospel of Nicodemus, an apocryphal narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.
8.Douglas Nicholson,
http://www.lasttrumpet.org/flavius_jewish_sects.htm
“Nicodemus, Nakdimon ben Gurion, also known as Buni was a Pharisee and a student of all the sects was the one of the top richest man in all Jerusalem and also happen to be the brother of “Flavius Josephus” Josephus ben Gorion.”
Matthias Curtus (Greek: Ματθαῖος ὁ Κυρτός, Κυρτός was his Greek epithet as his nickname from the Latin word Curtus, meaning the swollen or the humpback; flourished 1st century, born 76 BC) was an ethnic Jew living in Jerusalem.
9. Family line: Simon Psellus—Matthias—Matthias Curtus—Joseph—Matthias—Joseph ben Gurion (Flavius Josephus).
10.Matthias came from a wealthy family who descended from the priestly order of the Jehoiarib, which was the first of the twenty four-orders of Priests in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was the son of Matthias Ephlias and the daughter of the High Priest Jonathon. Jonathon may have been Alexander Jannaeus, the High Priest and Hasmonean ruler who governed Judea from 103 BC-76 BC. The paternal grandfather of Matthias was Simon Psellus.
11.Matthias was a contemporary to the last rulers of the Hasmonean dynasty, in particular to Hyrcanus II who served as High Priest from 76 BC-67 BC and 63 BC-40 BC. He followed in the footsteps of his father and paternal grandfather and served as a Priest in the Temple in Jerusalem. He married an unnamed Jewish woman through whom he had a son called Josephus. His son would be the paternal grandfather of the Roman Jewish Historian of the 1st century, Flavius Josephus.
11. Josephus mentions Nicodemus in his account of the Jewish Antiquities, Book 14, Chapter 1, verse 37: “In a little time afterward came ambassadors again to him, Antipater from Hyrcanus, and Nicodemus from Aristobulus; which last also accused such as had taken bribes; first Gabinius, and then Scaurus, – the one three hundred talents, and the other four hundred; by which procedure he made these two his enemies, besides those he had before.” E. H. Titchmarsh, (1906–1918). “Nicodemus,”Hastings’ Dictionary of the New Testament.
[21] 1.This includes all the Biblical and cognate languages, i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, the Sumerian/Babylonian dialects, Phoenician, Assyrian, Ethiopic, the various Egyptian and Persian dialects.
2.Nelson Glueck: Biblical Archaeologist and President of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jonathan M. Brown, Laurence Kutler, Hebrew Union College Press, 2006
[22] “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament,” by R. D. Wilson, “Is Higher Criticism Scholarly,” and “Which Bible,” by David Otis Fuller, who studied under Dr. Wilson at Princeton Theological Seminary.
[23] An interesting discovery in 1910 by Sir William Ramsey, debunked the secular record of Cicero of the Romans who described Iconium as being in Lycaonia. Luke describes Lystra and Derbe as being in Lycaonia. Acts 14:6 they became aware of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region.
[24] Quoted in R. Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture
[25] Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, 1960, pageg 31
[26] “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament,” by R. D. Wilson
[27] Paleography is the study of ancient writing systems and the deciphering and dating of historical manuscripts
[28] William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 1982, page 8
[29] William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, page 222
[30] 1.John Elder, “Prophets, Idols and Diggers.” Indianapolis, New York: Bobbs-Merrill,1960. Pages 159, 160
2.Joseph Free,. “Archaeology and Bible History.” Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, 1969, Page 285
[31] Elder, John. Prophets, Idols and Diggers. Indianapolis, New York: Bobbs-Merrill,1960, Page 160
[32] 1.Elder, John. Prophets, Idols and Diggers. Indianapolis, New York: Bobbs-Merrill,1960, Pages 159, 160
2.Free, Joseph. Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, 1969, page 285
[33] F. F. Bruce, “Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament.” Revelation and the Bible. Edited by Carl Henry. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969. Page 321
[34] Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963, page 189
[35] Tacitus’ characterization of “Christian abominations” may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the symbolic ritual as cannibalism by Christians. References: Ancient Rome by William E. Dunstan 2010 ISBN 0-7425-6833-4 page 293 and An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity by Delbert Royce Burkett 2002 ISBN 0-521-00720-8 page 485
[36] 1.This includes all the Biblical and cognate languages, i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, the Sumerian/Babylonian dialects, Phoenician, Assyrian, Ethiopic, the various Egyptian and Persian dialects.
2.Nelson Glueck: Biblical Archaeologist and President of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jonathan M. Brown, Laurence Kutler, Hebrew Union College Press, 2006
[37] “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament,” by R. D. Wilson, “Is Higher Criticism Scholarly,” and “Which Bible,” by David Otis Fuller, who studied under Dr. Wilson at Princeton Theological Seminary.
[38] An interesting discovery in 1910 by Sir William Ramsey, debunked the secular record of Cicero of the Romans who described Iconium as being in Lycaonia. Luke describes Lystra and Derbe as being in Lycaonia. Acts 14:6 they became aware of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region.
[39] Quoted in R. Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture
[40] Stark, Rodney (9 May 1997). The Rise of Christianity. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-067701-5.
[41] Peter P. Rogers, Kazi F. Jalal and John A. Boyd (2008). An Introduction To Sustainable Development. Earthscan. p.53.
[42] Stark, Rodney (9 May 1997). The Rise of Christianity. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-067701-5. page 6.
[43] The Rise of Christianity. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-067701-5. page 7 chart by Rodney Stark.
[44] Ibid, chart by Rodney Stark
[45] Ibid, chart by Rodney Stark
[46] 1.First described as a machine by Johannes de Sacrobosco in “The Universe as a Machine,” (De Spehra Mundi), 1230 A.D.
2.Described by Isaac Newton in his laws of motion with the laws of universal gravitation.
3.Gottfried Leibniz: “The Notion of the World’s being a great Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go without the Assistance of a Clockmaker; is the Notion of Materialism and Fate, and tends, (under pretence of making God a Supra-mundane Intelligence,) to exclude Providence and God’s Government in reality out of the World.”
4.Dennis Richard Danielson, The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from Heraclitus to Hawking, Basic Books, 2001 (p. 246).
5.”The universe is a physical system.…In fact, the universe is indistinguishable from a quantum computer.” Lloyd, Seth (2006-03-14). Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos (p. 54). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[47] 1.Davies, Paul (2008-04-29). The Goldilocks Enigma (Kindle Locations 175-177). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.
2.Peter Ward, Life as We Do Not Know It (New York: Viking, 2005).
[48] Davies, Paul (2008-04-29). The Goldilocks Enigma (Kindle Locations 180-181). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.
[49] See the chapter: “Scientists Who Believe in God.”

Comments
  1. Michael Simon says:

    Thank you so much for your diligent work.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s