2. UNBELIEVER What evidence outside of scripture proves the reality of the birth, ministry and resurrection of Christ?!! none
MBOFANA Before we even go any further the unbeliever must define evidence, in this case he may demand for historical evidence. He may say “show me historical accounts other than those in the bible where Jesus Christ’s ministry, life & resurrection appear. However, as soon as you show Him such evidence, he will dismiss them just as he dismisses the bible. To him you can never be right, Before we jump to the solution here are a few points worth considering.
1. Every system of learning, understanding, and interpreting man and the universe has its starting point. Biblical Christianity takes all of its knowledge pertaining the origins of the world, what is right and wrong what can be known and not known from within the bible. Science uses and conclusions from repeated experiments/observations to make sense of the world. Most unbelievers will accept that science is the sole basis by which they come to knowledge of anything.
However once questions pertaining things such as what is right and wrong for which science does not have answers, the unbelievers may add naturalism, humanism, skepticsm, rationalism as basis for all other beliefs they may hold. As soon as more worldviews are added, the additional worldviews are contradictory to the unbeliever’s initial worldview and and have conflicting claims, for example: the notion that knowledge of the world can be attained by [ empiricsm] observation by way of the sense of sight, taste, smell, hearing and touch which is the basis of science conflicts with rationalism, which states it that knowledge of how things are in the world can be known without the use of senses.
The pro science unbeliever is an empiricist. Empiricists say that only the senses can prove what is and if it cannot be sensed or observed then it cannot exist, this would mean that our minds, dreams and time do not exist, when this becomes apparent the unbeliever adds rationalism to his set of worldviews since it allows him to come to conclusions about the things that exist aulthough they cannot be sensed, so apparently the unbeliever becomes a rationalist and empiricist, both of which are conflicting.
However when the unbeliever encounters a question ” If the unseen things exist such as the mind, time and dreams exist what makes you say God does not exist?” the unbeliever will immidiately add to his worldview naturalism, essentially this means that Only natural things exist and that all the events in the world are as a result of natural processes upon tangible matter and of course once he says this then he dismisses the idea of God’s existence. However we could ask how then the naturalist came to this conclusion, If all there is, is physical matter then what about morality, and the laws of logic, both of which are invisible? how does the naturalist by naturalism know that murder is wrong?
If naturalism is true then what everyone else believes including naturalists is not a product of sensible thought, in other words mad people who come up with ridiculous ideas and statements are just like everybody else in that even their thoughts are a product of natural processes and therefore are not a product of their own decision.
If its the case therefore the naturalist cannot claim and declare that naturalism is better than any other worldview since even a lunatic is a product of natural processes just as much as the naturalist. Of course If we asserted that the naturalist worldview is a mere product of natural chemical processes the naturalist will protest!
Naturalists assume that the world and everything is a product on material relationships caused by physical laws, for instance the brain is merely working on the basis of processes involving matter, the question is how do these physical processes produce reason? Why do opinions differ, Why do humans even have arguements, why can’t people have similar ideas as they all have similar hearts, ears and eyes. Natural laws cannot explain why we think the way we do, nor can they explain why we can think logically.
Having shown that naturalism is self refuting the unbeliever may add yet another worldview just so as to dismiss God’s existence he may deploy skepticsim and this means he must doubt everything particurlarly the existence of God, but merely doubting isnt proof that God does not exist and besisdes as a UNBEILIVER he must by that very measure doubt many things even his own existence.
Now we realise the unbeliever has a set of worldviews he makes use of to refute Christianity, first of all these worldviews are self refuting secondly they contradict each other and this is the difference with Biblical Christianity, its a coherent system, self evident. Now, what do we do with an unbeliever who demands for evidence of Christ’s birth, ministry and ressurection outside scripture.
Considering what I have explained above Christianity is based on scripture and since this is the basis of the system and source of all propositions, Therefore The unbeliever cannot demand you to prove Christ beyond your source of propositions! It doesnt really matter Josephus, Tacitus or Pliny the younger wrote about Christ, our basis is scripture if the unbeliever is unwilling to accept evidence from within you first principle then thats not your problem but his.