Life Christian Fellowship @ USC » common questions

Q: God of OT vs. God of NT?

simon — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:43:07 +0000

Many people make the comment that God depicted in the Old Testament (OT) seems different than the God of the New Testament (NT) — often, one’s impression is that the OT God seems more violent and punitive, sometimes putting people to death, and this seems in contrast to the image of Jesus, the “nice guy.”

Are these two contrasting depictions of the God the Creator? Did he change?

First of all, let me start with this: Jesus was no “Mr. Nice Guy” — there are times he smashed tables at the market in the Temple courts; he would be quick to call out the religious leaders “brood of vipers;” even to one of his own disciples he uttered the words, “Get behind me Satan” (!). I happen to think the “nice” image of Jesus has more to do with our association of him to the pleasant environment and the nice folks in churches than than on the Scriptures.

Remember the writings of the NT covers a very brief span of 50-60 years or so during pax romana. Judea was under Roman rule, and within this particular corner of the world at this particular time, there were no wars to deal with. In contrast, Abraham lived some 4000 years ago, where tribal wars was the way of life, not only for the Hebrews, but for all the cultures in the region. It was either kill or be killed. Such was the ancient, barbaric culture that God had to deal with, with a small, fledgling group of nomadic sheepherders — they did not fully understand God, and often the only “language” they understood was magnificent display of power and authority (think Red Sea, Jericho). The point here is God gradually revealed himself over many generations, until we have the full revelation of His character in Jesus (“anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”).

An example I’d like to use is this. When my son as younger, barely walking and too young to even speak, I still needed to teach him right from wrong, and also to let him know that I am his Father. So when he does something seriously wrong (like smack his friend in the head with a metal box). How did I communicate with him? – with the a language he would understand — I’d often raise my voice, and sometimes even resort to spanking when he refused to acknowledge he did wrong. Now that my son is older and I am able to communicate with him and reason with him at his level, I find I no longer have to spank him. I’d like to think my standards and who I am have not changed much, but from my son’s perspective, he may remember the spankings from years ago and think that I used to be a violent man and now I am reformed. It is my hope that my son would see me as a whole person, not just a person who used to beat up his kids.

Q: Are there external documentations on Jesus and early Christians?

simon — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:23:21 +0000

Roman coin showing Emperor Trajan

Whenever I tell people the New Testament is the best record we have of Jesus’ life, his teachings and his character, almost without fail someone asks for evidence for Jesus outside the Bible because they don’t feel(?) the Bible is reliable. To me such request is akin to saying, “Teach me what Abraham Lincoln was like, but I don’t want to read anything written by his close friends.”

Nevertheless, there are well-known (in the academia, anyway) references to Jesus in the ancient writings. In the preserved works of Roman history, documenting day-to-day events of the empire, all written by Roman officials (who, at the time were hostile to Christians and Christianity) we see examples that support the Bible accounts of Jesus and of early Christians.

[read the full version of the post here]

Q: Aren’t you a Christian because of your parents?

simon — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:50:57 +0000

Another form of this question might be “Aren’t you a Christian because you live in America?” — the questions express the view that my beliefs are the result of sociocultural influences.

Let me start out by saying just because you’re influenced to believe something, it doesn’t mean that “something” is necessarily fake. I try my hardest to influence my boys to believe eating vegetables and brushing their teeth every night are good for them.

On the other hand, my parents‘ belief or disbelief about God doesn’t make me a Christian. Sure, they can be positive influences (in my case, however, my father did not like it when I started going to church at the age of 18), but ultimately we all need to make our own informed choices after doing some serious thinking.

I often ask two questions to people who tell me I’m a Christian because my parents made me: “are you a non-believer because you’ve thought it through seriously, or because of your sociocultural background?” And, “how many books have you read on (non-)existence of God before you concluded God does not exist?”

Recommended reading to get you thinking on your own: The Evidence That Demands a Verdict (McDowell) and The Case for Christ (Strobel) — both are books by two individuals (one a historian and the other a journalist) who set out to disprove Christianity, but in the process came to a conclusion that Jesus was who he said he was.

Q: aren’t all religions the same?

simon — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:10:00 +0000

“There are many roads to the top of the mountain, and [your religion here] is one of many ways to God.” Chances are you have heard similar statements like this, but is it really that simple?

I believe all people of different faiths (and of no faith) should be treated with respect and dignity, and I am pretty sure most people in other faiths would agree with me. When it comes to statements like the one above, however, most people of faith would disagree with it. A few may even find the statement insulting.

The fact is, each of the world’s major religions has its unique set of core beliefs regarding 1) the nature/identity of God or gods, 2) the origin of man, 3) the path to salvation /enlightenment /deliverance and its meaning, and 4) the afterlife. We can talk about the specific differences, but the point is, they are not all the same.

Jesus himself made it quite clear that there are not many ways to God, but only one — himself (“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” NIV Jn14:6). He leaves no doubt that his teachings are quite different from other religious traditions.

External Documentation on Jesus & Early Christian (full)

simon — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 05:10:00 +0000

Some may feel this entry is too long… But I find stuff like this fascinating…

Whenever I tell people the New Testament is the best record we have of Jesus’ life, his teachings and his character, almost without fail someone asks for evidence for Jesus outside the Bible because they don’t feel(?) the Bible is reliable. To me, such request is akin to saying, “Teach me about President Lincoln, but I don’t want to read anything written by his closest friends.”

Nevertheless, there are well-known (in the academia anyway) references to Jesus in the ancient writings. In the preserved works of Roman history, documenting the day-to-day events of the empire (all written by people unaffiliated with and often hostile to the Christian church), we see examples that support the Bible accounts of Jesus and of early Christians:

Josephus, Flavius (A.D.37 – A.D.~100)
Josephus (Wiki) was a Jewish historian and soldier. After having been defeated by the Romans, he found favor of Roman general Flavius (hence he was known as Flavius Josephus). Under the patronage of the Empire, he wrote comprehensive historical works of Jews and Judaism.

In Antiquities, Book 18, Ch.3, Part 3, he writes about Jesus and his followers causing “trouble”:

Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today.

Also in Antiquities, Book 20, Ch.9, Part 1, the execution of James, the brother of Jesus (and the author of the book of James in the New Testament), is mentioned:

…so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…

Tacitus (A.D.55 – A.D.117)
Tacitus (Wiki) was a Roman senator, consul, governor and historian. His surviving major works include The Annais and The Histories.

In The Annais, book 15, he writes about Nero’s persecution of the Christians after Jesus was condemned to death by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (see Luke 3:1). You can sense the disdain he had for Judea:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular

Suetonius (A.D.69 – A.D.140)

Suetonious (Wiki) was a Roman historian and a friend to Pliny the Younger (below). With Pliny’s help, he found favor in the eyes of emperor Trajan and served under him in various posts. He’s best known for The Lives of the Caesars.

In The Lives of Caesars — Claudius, Sec.25, he writes Claudius banned the followers of Christ from Rome:

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus

In The Lives of Caesars — Nero, Sec.16:

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class mf men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Celsus (2nd century, A.D.), as quoted by Origen

Celsus (Wiki) was a Greek philosopher and a staunch opponent of Christianity. He viewed Christianity as a threat to the stable pagan communities. His original work is lost, but much of his work is quoted in the rebuttal to his work, Contra Celsus, by Origen (Wiki), penned some 70 years later.

..[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having “invented his birth from a virgin,” and upbraids Him with being “born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.”…

(note Celsus in effect acknowledges the claims of virgin birth and the miracles Jesus performed)

Pliny the Younger (A.D.62 – A.D.113) & Emperor Trajan (A.D. 53 – A.D. 117)
The snail-mail exchanges between Pliny the Younger, the governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113, and emperor Trajan are well preserved. In this exchange, he consults Trajan on whether his dealings with troublesome Christians were conducted in a manner to his approval:

Pliny to Emperor Trajan:

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.