Why Casting Alternative Jesuses is a Very Silly Venture

"But who do you say that I am?"  (Matthew 16:15)

The cast from “Saturday Night Live” is lobbing Christianity a slow, underhand pitch with their recent (February 16) vignette about Jesus breaking out of the tomb only to avenge Roman soldiers with an automatic rifle.  Should Christians respond?  By all means!  Well, not by all means.  The last thing we should do is react with a sense of horror and an expression of personal hurt.  Jesus said, “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).  We need to remember the obvious, namely that Jesus is not hurt by such caricatures.  And our egos rest on the approval of our Master, not on secular popularity polls.  The real vulnerable in this entire scenario include both the proponents of the vignette who are damning themselves by their willfull ignorance (Romans 1:18) of factual matters, and the naïve “sheeple” who measure “truth” merely by following the latest fads.  The relevant facts about Jesus of Nazareth are neither private nor secret, but a matter of public knowledge that can be researched by every person who approaches questions of truth with an open mind.  We Christians are being given a huge opportunity to advance the extraordinary case for Jesus Christ, if only we will accept this privilege.

I just yesterday observed an extensive debate on the existence of the God of the Bible between Christian apologist, and Biola University professor, Dr. William Lane Craig, and atheist philosopher and Purdue University professor, Alex Rosenberg.  I was astonished to hear Rosenberg’s objections to the Christian claims about Jesus of Nazareth that Dr. Craig laid out. 

Rosenberg dismissed Christianity firstly on the grounds that Mormonism and Islam both rest on extremely flimsy support, so by his “logic” the Christian message must therefore be equally suspect.  Yet this “argument” in fact represents an utter lack of basic inquiry of the actual facts of the case.  It also commits the genetic fallacy. 

Secondly, Rosenberg dismissed Christianity on the grounds that since its supporting documentary evidence was written only by people who embraced the faith, then, “Why then should we believe them?”  Interestingly, later in the debate he described, with much pain, that almost every family member of his parent’s generation except his own parents were killed in the holocaust.  Now we must all surely be horrified at such evil.  But I, for one, do not deny the first-hand descriptions from the holocaust survivors because they were written by the victims.  To the contrary, I trust them far more than I do the literature produced by the wicked proponents of that murderous regime.  Not only is truth not necessarily dispassionate.  The proclamation of the truth at times absolutely demands passion.

Rosenberg thirdly cast doubt on the New Testament documents because they were penned at least three decades after the fact.  Yet in fact that time frame is utterly small compared to the accounts of other famous people from ancient history that people universally deem trustworthy.  For the present I will limit my examples to just two:  Everything we know first-hand of the life of Roman Emperor Tiberius Caesar, who reigned at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, is found in only four ancient primary sources.  Jesus of Nazareth, by contrast, is referenced in 27 separate works by 10 authors in the New Testament.  In addition, almost everything we know about Alexander the Great comes from the book, “Plutarch's Lives,” who lived almost four hundred years the time of that personality.  (see Greg Boyd. Jesus Under Siege. (Victor, 1995), p.75.  See also Will Durant. “Alexander the Great.” The Story of Civilization. v.II (Simon and Schuster, 1939), p.538f. Excepting one reference to Vetruvius, the oldest ancient author cited (often) is Plutarch (1^st Cent. A.D.)).

Today’s blog is not founded on the determination that the playwrights from “Saturday Night Live” actually believe the vignette they created.  Their production is rather a springboard into the larger question: “Is it wise to misrepresent the story of Jesus in such a careless manner?”  I am not by any means a humorless blogger!  I am not above finding humor in the context of my own faith tradition.  But there are some matters that are of absolutely foundational importance.  As I referenced earlier, the Apostle Paul writes that God will not hold people guiltless who persistently and casually dismiss the claims of the One who came to be the Savior of the world (Romans 1:18f).  I will not prejudice your exploration of that question by demanding that you come to the same conclusions about Him as I do.  I can assure you that I for my part will continue to unfold the case for the New Testament claims about Jesus of Nazareth in the weeks that lie ahead.  But what I do urge is that you do your own exploration with an open mind, as Plato wrote, "follow[ing] the evidence where it leads."  The consequences of the outcome to this question are far too great to be casually dismissed before a thorough investigation.

I encourage you to consider my article, “Hoax? Myth? Or Literally True?” which can be downloaded from my website at www.christianityontheoffense.com.