Atheists claim reason this season by attacking historical fact.

Often I find myself wondering how in the world atheism passes as a more "intelligent", "scientific", and "reasonable" alternative to belief in intelligent design, a higher power, or God.

Atheists love to attack organized religion, Christianity especially, as being an ideology of fairy tales followed by a group of stupid, uneducated, unreasonable people.

We see this come to a head every Christmas season with relentless attacks on nativity scenes, school programs, and general professions of faith. Here is an example of the latest atheist attack on the Christian faith during Christmas time.

The latest atheist billboard above in New York City.

"This season celebrate REASON!"


Yes, let us celebrate reason shall we?

Too many times I find atheists to be without question the most unreasonable people of all, many times refusing to accept the fact Jesus Christ even existed or was crucified 2000 years ago. No amount of intellect, college education, big words, or placement of glasses below the eyes can account for such inane stupidity.

Let me get to the elephant in the room.

Fact: Time, Space, Matter, and Life all exist.

Where did it come from? A higher power or God? Or did it just become itself from absolutely nothing? Which is more reasonable?

To look at our universe and absolutely refuse to believe it was the result of intelligent design is beyond unreasonable. It is a very insult to your intelligence. To surmise that our incredibly complex world, and all the life in it, came from a long string of chemical accidents, or total chance, is backwards, bleak, and downright scary. Above all, it makes no sense.

I am here not only to argue for the case of intelligent design, but for Christianity.

Historical evidence proves the existence of Jesus. Historical evidence also proves the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Before I give you historical evidence think about this. If Jesus Christ was never crucified and rose from the dead, would it make sense that millions of people in the Roman Empire in the ensuing decades chose to worship him to the point of horrible torture and death and continue to to this day? Use your reason now...

Think of the 12 disciples. They spent their entire adult lives following Jesus. Listening to him teach. Witnessing his miracles. Each one of them, except for John, died some of the most excruciatingly painful deaths one could imagine because of their commitment and faithfulness to Jesus after he was crucified. Why would they go to such lengths if Jesus had not risen from the dead? What's more, why would they lie and write about it? Reason now...

Napoleon Bonaparte said...

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him."


He was absolutely right. This is what separates Jesus from every other historical figure in history, including Mohammad. And it is what separates true Christianity, a spiritual relationship not a religion, from all of the world's organized religions.

Said Thomas Arnold of Oxford, "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Scottish scholar Frederick Fyvie Bruce said, "If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."



Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

And have you ever heard of Simon Greenleaf? A professor of law at Harvard and an expert on evidence, he was also an agnostic who sought to disprove the validity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. He wrote a book called An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In it he came to the confident conclusion...

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."


How about Flavius Josephus? He was a secular historian in the Roman Empire around the time of the crucifixion. He wrote, "When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned [Jesus] to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him."

The authenticity and historical accuracy of the Bible is as solid as any other historical document. To dismiss the existence of God, and the truth found in the Bible is as unreasonable as it gets. To refuse belief in the Bible is to believe its entire message from cover to cover is one elaborate, well planned out hoax spanning thousands of years. Reasonable? I think not.