The truth about Jesus Christ <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By Steve Cornell, senior pastor <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Millersville Bible Church
        It is in indisputable fact of history that there existed in the first century a man identified as Jesus of Nazareth. We possess detailed accounts of his birth, his life, his contemporaries, and his death. We know when he lived:  5/6 BC through 30/32 BC. We know where he was born: the town of Bethlehem. We know where he spent most of his life: in Nazareth of Galilee. We know about many historical figures of the same period of history. We know of more details surrounding the death of Jesus Christ than any other person in the ancient world.  We know of the events leading up to his death: his betrayal, arrest, religious and civil trial. We know what was said to him by the leaders of Israel and Rome, by the crowd and by those who were crucified with him. We know what he said to these people as well as what he said to his followers. We even know the name of an obscure person who carried his cross, and the names of those who assisted in his burial. 
It is undeniably clear that the crucifixion of Christ was the most famous death in history. Scholars debate its significance but they cannot debate that it happened. Yet did this same Jesus who was crucified by Rome rise from the dead? The same New Testament that records his death documents his resurrection. It also assures those who believe in him that because he broke the power of death, they will break its power one day. It records Jesus saying, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies." (John 11:25). Yet is the resurrection a reliable fact of history?
The answer to this question largely depends on the historical reliability of the New Testament. Again, scholars do not debate that the gospels document Jesus' resurrection. But they differ on the meaning and reliability of the record. Is it possible to trust the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts? Among possible answers, two extremes emerge. Some simply say, "Of course the New Testament is reliable-it's inspired of God." At the other end, radical critics, because of their anti-supernatural bias, dismiss the historical integrity of the gospels.
Those who take the first extreme are accused of circular reasoning because they only affirm what is already taught in scripture. The radical critics are accused of inconsistent application of the standard methods of historical enquiry. They "bow to the pressure of consensus, reiterating what is most academically respectable without ever seriously grappling with unfashionable alternatives" (Craig Blomberg). Between the extremes, a reasonable case can be made for the historical reliability of the New Testament. If the rules that guide standard historical scrutiny are applied to the New Testament, a solid case can be made for its trustworthiness. 
When evaluating the integrity of documents, historians look for internal and external evidence. This would include the following seven considerations:
1.      Eyewitness perspective- Does the author claim to be an eye witness or that he uses eye witness sources?
2.      Self-damaging material- Are the heroes of the account only presented in a positive light? When the gospels recorded a woman as the first witness of the resurrection, they risked rejection of the account. In the culture of that time, a woman's testimony was not considered credible. Why would they risk a potentially damaging detail like this if the account was an intentional fabrication?
3.      Specific and irrelevant material- Authentic documents, unlike fabricated ones, tend to include details that are not necessary to the main story. Falsified accounts tend to generalize.
4.      Reasonable consistency and differences- Are the four gospel accounts consistent on the major points? Minor differences are expected in authentic accounts. If the four gospels were later products of the early church, a greater effort would have been made to iron out all differences.
5.      Features of mythology- C. S. Lewis, once said, "…as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of things" (God in the Dock).
6.      Confirmation- Do contemporary documents or archeological finds substantiate or falsify the material?
7.      Character and motivation- Is there anything about the character or motivation of the author that would indicate that he fabricated the material? Would the author's gain something from their story? "The idea of a crucified god really did not make sense in the first century. It's not a message you make up if you're going to start a religion in the first century A.D." (Ben Witherington). We also know that the early disciples suffered great persecution for their message.
        Using the common rules for authenticating historical truth yields a firm case for the reliability of the New Testament documents. The good news is that we have reliable evidence for belief in the resurrection of Jesus. This means we have a strong basis for expecting that those who turn to Jesus for salvation will also be raised from the dead. Jesus said, "I was dead, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I hold the keys that unlock the prison of death and the grave" (Revelation 1:18). Those who trust in him have reliable evidence for believing that they will be freed from the power of death.
Consider the way C. S. Lewis presented the identity of Jesus: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic –on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."