One of my primary contentions in Uninvented is that the Bible is impossible to have been made up as merely human invention. I challenge the assumption (never argued for but always assumed) of over 200 years of biblical criticism that not only could the Bible be made up, but it would be relatively easy to do. Like all Christians I never believed the Bible was made up, but in the back of my mind I thought, sure, maybe it could be. I had no idea until I started diving deep into the apologetics literature as I was studying for my first book, The Persuasive Christian Parent, how difficult it would be to argue that the Bible is mere human imagination, so much fiction. Unfortunately, most Christians have no idea why. Having recently read through the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) I was again reminded how compelling the uninvented argument is.
First, even the most dedicated heathen who reads it must admit it comes from the mind of a compelling figure. Note this sermon could not be the product of a committee, but clearly comes from the mind of one man who said things unlike any other in the history of the Jewish religion, or any other religion. In other words, these words could not have been placed in Jesus’ mouth. He says things that would have been so absurd to both Jews and pagans at the time that they would have been literally inconceivable, meaning unable to be conceived. I make this argument consistently in the book. If people can’t imagine something, if it is beyond their ability to even think it, how do they make it up? They don’t! The Sermon on the Mount is one of many examples of Jesus’ teaching first century Jews could not imagine. Skeptics often say the Bible is just another ancient legend or myth, but in the gospels and Acts we’re not dealing with pagan legends and myths, but with Jewish people in a thoroughly Jewish context. The question before us, then, is could a Jewish person, not the divine Son of God, say things like we read in the Sermon on the Mount.
In the book I do a chapter on Jesus’ teaching because it is such a powerful example of how difficult it would be, I believe impossible, to make Jesus up. I’ll comment on a few things in the Sermon below, but in that chapter I discuss how strange and disturbing, especially to Jews, was Jesus teaching that they should eat his flesh and drink his blood, and that it is “real food” and “real drink” (John 6). These are things a lunatic says, if the one who said them is not who he claims to be. Most non-Christians, however, ignore such difficulties, and use the “pick and choose” method. As a perfect example of this, in the chapter I quote Jewish historian Geza Vermes who says, “No objective and enlightened student of the Gospels can help but be struck by the incomparable superiority of Jesus.” He then quotes from another Jewish author:
In his ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew ethical code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables.
Then Vermes adds:
Second to none in profundity of insight and grandeur of character, he is in particular an unsurpassed master of the art of laying bare the inmost core of spiritual truth and of bringing every issue back to the essence of religion, the existential relationship of man and man, and man and God.
There is a lot of fly food in those sentences made to smell like roses. The only way anyone can make such breathtakingly inane comments is by dealing with a partial Jesus, a Jesus who doesn’t say things like eat my flesh and drink my blood. To harbor such thoughts, a person would have to ignore a large portion of what Jesus actually said according to the gospels.
As for the Sermon, Jesus says things equally as incomprehensible but on the surface less radical, until you realize what he’s actually saying. Start with the Beatitudes. They seem innocent enough, and anyone can embrace them, but the last one is not so easy to accept:
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Then in the next sentence he tells these people that because of this “great will be their reward in heaven.” Who says something like that? A good moral teacher? Hardly. If Jesus was a mere human being, and not God in flesh come to save us from our sins, then he was some kind of megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. It’s even harder to believe someone would put those words in Jesus’ mouth, but to critics, neither of these are even an issue. They would be wrong, and the burden of proof is on them.
In this he compares himself with the prophets, implying he is greater than they were, but he then says something implying he is greater than both the law and the prophets:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Such a statement would have been stunning, and controversial, to any first century Jew. For someone to say he could fulfill all the law and the prophets was absurd. God through Moses had instituted the system of animal sacrifice to pay for the sins of all the people which indicates no person could fulfill all of it. Who says such a thing? And as I said, it is even more difficult to believe someone would invent those words and put them in Jesus’ mouth. Remember, we’re talking about first century Jews. Critics for over 200 years basically ignored this most salient fact, the Jewishness of Jesus’ world.
In the same vein, he says numerous times in the Sermon, “You have heard it said, but I say to you . . .” Implying that his authority far exceeded the religious professionals of the day. In fact, he was claiming ultimate authority to be the final arbiter of what God’s law meant. I try to imagine the religious Jews of the time trying to wrap their minds around the implications of that. There was no expectation this would be the Messiah’s role, so unless Jesus was actually the divine Son of God, this makes no sense. We must insist this has to be explained one way or another. Our Jewish scholars I quote above pass over such difficulties with fly food inanities.
We could continue to explore the difficulties, but the important point to take away is that we only have two choices when we come to Jesus and his teaching. As we might say today, it’s a binary choice, a one or a zero. Yet since Jesus walked the earth it seems everyone wants a piece of Jesus, every religion and philosophy, just not the whole Jesus. That Jesus, the one we read about in the gospels, is a real conundrum. He was either in the famous trilemma who he and his followers said he was, Lord, or a lunatic or a liar. Saying he was a good moral teacher is not an option. Good and moral people do not say the things he said. Not only this, but his closest followers claimed he was the divine Son of God who rose from the dead and ascended to sit at the right hand of God. Then they were persecuted and many gave their lives for it. People don’t do that for what they know to be a lie.
The argument from Jesus, we might call it, is the most powerful argument we have Christianity is true. And he told us he is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6).
Recent Comments