Did Jesus Exist?

This Sunday in Ventura, Atheists United will host author and historian Richard Carrier at the Foster Library, as he endeavors to convince his audience that an actual Jesus never existed. To put it in the exact words of his spokesman: He will be “Suggesting there is a reasonable case to be made that Jesus might not have been a historical person, but was instead a mythical hero character who became "historicized," generally believed to have actually existed, over time like other Greco-Roman gods and heroes.” (emphasis mine)

Brian Parra, AU Hosts Author and Historian Richard Carrier, Ph.D. "Did Jesus Even Exist." Feb 16, 2009. Atheistsunited.org

http://atheistsunited.org/home/press-releases/176-au-hosts-author-and-historian-richard-carrier-phd-qdid-jesus-even-existq

I want you to bypass the poise of the sentence, and pay special attention to what his claim actually is: To show that it is possible that Jesus might not have existed.

I want you to cling to this word for a good reason. An historian seeks to reveal what is MOST PROBABLE. Why do I say this? A historian cannot always PROVE what they put forth as history, can they? They cannot PROVE without any doubt whatsoever that Emperor Nero existed. Indubitable proof might consist of video footage of Emperor Nero, a photograph of him, an autograph by his hand, or something of that nature. But to throw out the possibility of his existence because there is a slight possibility that he did NOT exist is improbable and silly. (Just re-read that last sentence to see what I mean). But that's what historians have at their disposal. They rarely seem to have indisputable proof, but what they do have is evidence which leads them to believe in the event, person, or fact that is most probable, most reliable, and that in which they are able to trust happened or existed.. In the case of Emperor Nero, we don't have video footage of him, but we have writings and histories about him by Roman Historians, Jews, and Christians. We might not have photographs of him, but I've seen sculptures of him that show his likeness. I have read literature dealing with the impact he has had on the course of humanity. It seems highly IMPROBABLE that Emperor Nero was a myth, when so much evidence seems to tell us that he was real. Anyone can stand up on a podium and claim that since none of us saw Nero ourselves, he must not have existed. The rest of us would probably laugh, because while we cannot PROVE that Nero existed, the evidence that he did makes any contrary claim extremely laughable. The burden is on the shoulders of the person on the podium to prove wrong the outstanding evidence we have for Nero.

Did Jesus exist? History seems to divulge sufficient evidence:

1) The first-hand sources of the Gospel writers

2) Multiple attestation by secular historians that were hostile to Christianity (Tacitus 55-120 A.D., Suetonius 117-138 A.D., Josephus 37-97 A.D., Thalus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Lucian, etc...)

3) Oral Tradition

I have not heard Dr. Carrier speak. But I have have heard several arguments that Jesus did not exist and so far, they always seem to be similar:

1) The gospels were written roughly 40 years after Jesus was on the Earth

2) Nothing was written about Jesus by historians during his life, only after the fact

3) There are many historical accounts of Jesus after his death, but no accounts of his life by his contemporaries.

Let me offer some brief answers..

1) The JFK assassination was about 40 years ago. Do we believe the histories of that event, or of his life? What have the videotapes taught you about the culprit? You weren't there, so why should you believe them? Ah! Because others were there, and the transmission of this information through these witnesses serves you well. In the same way, there were eyewitnesses of Jesus life (See #3).

2) Little (if anything) was written about Barack Obama during his appointment to the senate. After the run for the presidency, however, his fame skyrocketed to unprecedented heights. Jesus wasn't a renegade warrior, trying to cause trouble for the Roman Empire. He was not on the scope of their notice until later on (when histories were written by Lucian, Pliny the Younger, etc.). It also does not follow that because someone of importance exists, that every historian or writer must rush to the papyrus and write something, or anything for that matter. [Notice that I am not using the example of Barack (who is alive) to prove Jesus' existence, only to point out that the lack of writings during a persons' lifetime does nothing to disprove his existence]. ---{{thank you frumious, for your submitted corrections. You make me a better thinker every time.}}

3) There were no written accounts by his contemporaries. There was a HUGH oral tradition in play (when things of importance are passed on by word of mouth through trained communities).

It seems as though many atheists when addressing the issue of Jesus' existence, will deny all of this available evidence for the possibility that it might not be true. It's important to remember that simply because something is possible does not mean it's probable. It's possible that I may eat a bucket full of tomatoes right now...but highly, highly improbable because I hate tomatoes. So if anyone writes and asserts that I may have done that sometime in my life, you will know that this is far-fetched.

"But is something like oral tradition reliable when it comes to remembering Jesus' teachings?"

Well, unlike the sketchy method of memorization that we play in a game like Telephone, Oral Tradition can actually be a very reliable method. I guess it would have to be for Jewish culture to preserve their own history.

In a nutshell, here's how it worked:

First of all, the first century Jews lived in an oral culture. A very few percentage of Jesus' followers were literate, so people needed good memories. They memorized much of everything. Jewish boys were required to memorize huge parts of the Old Testament by the time they were 13 years old. Teachers and Rabbi's were expected to hand down their information accurately, and it wasn't being handed down to one person at a time (like in the game of Telephone). "Since they did their work in community gatherings, if they got the story substantially wrong, the community in which they functioned would hold them accountable for their mistake" (Roberts, 73). And since the followers of Jesus believed He had very important things to say, they would have had incredible incentive to pass on this information with great precision and accuracy.

Unconvinced? Consider Jan Vansina, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor and the Vilas Professor in History and Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin. He is a renown historian and anthropologist, and his 1961 book, Oral Traditions, was hailed internationally as a pioneering work in the field of ethno-history. He might know some things.

He has this to say about Oral Tradition:

In order to establish whether an oral tradition contains a kernal of historical truth or not, it is necessary to discover the oldest attested form in which the tradition was handed down. -J. Vansina

Well, history shows us that the gospels were written within a generation of Jesus Christ life, BUT the oral tradition goes back to the very followers and disciples of Christ, eyewitnesses to his life.

Should a tradition contain some internal contradiction, or go against facts established from other sources, it must be regarded as unreliable. [The scholar] then proceeds to examine....and concludes that some second-hand traditional material can be subjected to scrutiny by the methods employed in historical criticism. This amounts to saying that if the reliability of a tradition has been established, it can be regarded as valid source material. -J. Vansina

That's good news. There are no internal difficulties in the Bible that cannot be adequately resolved, and the oral tradition that was later written down by the gospel writers, or by second-hand witnesses (like Luke) does not go against facts or other sources, as seen above.

As was put forth at the beginning, there is PLENTY of reliable evidence that Jesus existed. That's why I believe beyond recognizable doubt that He did. And that's why Paul L. Maier, the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, once said in the case of the historicity of Jesus Christ, that the evidence is "so overpowering, and so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence." Now I have yet to hear Dr. Carrier's presentation. I encourage you to go if you can, and hear for yourself. Perhaps he will bring a different approach to this discussion.

Friends, you may be asked tough questions about your faith in Christ, and even given "proof" to discount what you hold to be true. Don't let this shake you up. Just roll up your sleeves, and assume that if God does exist as we believe to be true, He will provide answers, evidences, and truth for us to discover. You may even find that when all the facts and evidences are examined, it's often the opposing viewpoints to Christianity that require the most faith to believe.


Works Cited:

---

Vansina, Jan, H.M. Wright, Selma Leydesdorff, and Elizabeth Tonkin. Oral Tradition. Pg. 3

Ibid. Pg. 4

Maier, Paul L. Did Jesus Really Exist? Pg. 1

Roberts, Mark D. Can We Trust the Gospels? 73

Church Membership: Why I do not support it

I am a pastor at Reality Carpinteria church. At Reality Carp, we have frequently been asked why we do not have "church membership" by those in the body who wish to be faithful to any pattern of church structure given in Scripture. I think that search is very noble, as we should test what we do against Scripture, and not simply traditions of men. It is for that very reason, that this particular church staff (myself included), has departed from "church membership" as it is traditionally defined, because we have deemed it an invention and precept of men. It is also my stance that this is a non-essential doctrine, that is, it is nothing to divide over, and if it weren't for the honest questions that are asked regarding membership, I would have preferred to leave it be. However, it is an important issue for many people, so allow me to explain my position for your information:

First, I want to clarify what you probably mean by “church membership.” Many churches require those who call themselves a part of the local body to “become” members of that church, by going through a series of requirements, like a believer’s class, counseling, baptism, and then usually followed by signing a paper, in which they are then pronounced “members.” Whatever the process may be, we do not distinguish in this way for the reasons below.

1) We cannot find it instructed anywhere in the Bible. While it is clear that the Church is made up of “individual members” (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:20), nowhere does Scripture command us have anyone sign a paper, or have a membership system in place. So, our main reason is that church membership is not supported by Scripture, and therefore unsupported by this church body.

2) Church membership actually stems from the tradition of the Early Church. In the 1st century, Rome had associations that were legally recognized by the government, some of which were religious. The Jewish religion, for example, was recognized by the Roman government as a legitimate, sanctioned worship structure. Since Christianity came from Jewish roots, the Roman government included it under the umbrella of Judaism, and therefore offered its approval for it. However, this was put to a stop in A.D. 64, during the time of Emperor Nero. Christianity was soon discovered to be completely different from Judaism, and the protective covering was lifted. But what is REALLY interesting is that the Early Church began to mimic Roman associations and pagan societies who had a kind of “belonging” in their groups, and so they adopted church membership in order to bring that same type of belonging to their congregations. So that’s the history of church membership; it did not originate from Scripture, but from the influence of Roman associations and pagan societies.

Now, the last thing I want to address is the question of how we are able to practice church discipline without a membership in place. My answer is: quite well! Now let me first address the texts that deal with it: Matt. 18:17 and 1 Tim. 5:20-21. The latter text is addressed to Timothy in regards to handling an elder in the church who is sinning, so this text does not apply to members of the church. The first text does, and as far as I can see it, this text can be carried out with or without membership. In other words, membership is irrelevant. Allow me to explain…

Church discipline is an authority that is granted to pastors of the church who exercise it whenever the appropriate situation arises, and they do so by the authority of Jesus Christ. What that means is that we as pastors do not need to know beforehand that a congregant has signed a document, before we can exercise authority. To do that is to say that our authority as church elders, and our grounds for practicing church discipline comes from that written document! And that is entirely unscriptural. A pastor’s authority comes from Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd, who has commanded us to shepherd the flock of God among us, exercising oversight (2 Pet. 5:2,4), and it doesn’t matter whether the attendees are members or not. In fact, Paul the Apostle often exercised church discipline with churches that he had never been to. Why? He was given the authority to do so, by Christ Himself. This happens at Reality Carpinteria among the staff, and it happens at Reality Adorn on Friday nights throughout the week. And the protocol remains the same whether the person has been going for years and calls the church their home, or they have been only once and don’t plan on belonging.

-Chris Lazo

Claim: "The Lord Told Me"

It is a trap for a man to say rashly, "It is holy!" And after the vows to make inquiry. -Proverbs 20:25

Be careful with the "Thus saith the Lord" syndrome. We are often quick to claim that God is leading us in a direction that were really captained by our emotions.

Even worse, we use presupposed hermeneutics to guide the coarse of Scripture in our life, determining ourselves what we THINK it ought to mean. This is a subjective reading of the Bible as opposed to an objective one.

Three rules (though far from an exhaustive list) may help us from falling into deception:

1. Private interpretation does not mean that we should rely solely on our own judgments, ignoring the insights and research of others;
2. Private interpretation does not mean that we have the right to "distort" the Bible in accordance with our own conceptions;
3. Private interpretation does not mean that we can ignore the history of interpretation in the church. Dr. Sam Storms

On the other hand, we DO sometimes feel as though the Lord is prompting or directing us through a particular passage or text, do we not? Can the Lord speak prophetically to us through a specific text, or even a subjective impression we got from the Bible? While I do strongly suggest treading lightly in this area (because our subjective impressions can often be faulty; Jer. 17:9), I also believe that it's by using the objective standard of the Word of God, that we are able to steer our less sturdy, subjective leanings along a straight path. A guideline that probably makes the best prescription, was made by Edmund Clowney in a conversation with Wayne Grudem:

The degree of certainty we have with regard to God's will in a situation is directly proportional to the degree of clarity we have as to how the Word of God applies to the situation (Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. 128.)

With that being said, be careful of deceptive teachings, for they are often malefactors of these simple guidelines, and as Jeremiah testifies concerning the heart of God in such matters:

"I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied." -Jeremiah 23:21

double standards & self-refuting claims in an argument

I've been following the response to a post by a friend on Facebook, on Prop 8.

It's an ongoing conversation between those who are voting "no," and those who are voting "yes." Those on this thread who are voting "no" hold the position that Prop 8 is hateful and discriminatory propaganda. That's ok; they are fully entitled to this opinion, and their vote. But observe some of the flimsy reasoning they brandish in their arguments against a couple Christians who are supportive of Prop 8:

1) "Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution."

2) "If I remember correctly, there's an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated.'"

3) "How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?"

4) "I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians."

Now, several others on the thread responded with sound, opposing arguments that need not be refined. Instead of rummaging through the details of the conversation, I want you to take a deeper look into the silly logic behind some of these statements, made above in the four points. Consider the faults in them:

1) Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution.

Well, any vote you or I cast is going to be imposing on someone's beliefs, because not everyone agrees....that's why we vote, hello? Now...if my Christian beliefs (which are the foundation for my moral decisions) are not supposed to be incorporated into the voting process, than what is? How is this person who is voting against the proposition deciding her vote? I imagine it's from her personal beliefs. And I don't think her personal beliefs on homosexuality should be imposed upon the California Constitution.

2) If I remember correctly, there is an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated."

I've heard this pleading of Jesus' command made several times, and while it is a command to be followed, the quoter fails to draw into her conclusion consistent knowledge of the entire council of the Bible. We actually don't need to go very far for you to see what I mean...just finish the verse: "...for this is the Law and the Prophets." -Matt. 7:12 

Hmm...So while Christians are commanded to treat others the way we want to be treated, we are still under the command NOT to practice homosexuality, since that was a command given by the Law the Prophets. In fact, if you were to keep reading down that chapter, you find some rather hard-edged truth-claims being made by Jesus Himself: 

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." -Matt. 7:13

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." -Matt. 7:15

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." -Matt. 7:19

Someone should probably warn Jesus about the way He's treating people. Just kidding. Jesus is obviously not against the Christian warning, proclaiming, or preaching the truth (in love). And His previous statement about treatment has nothing to do with whether we are to speak out the truth or not. That is why Christians are "imposing their beliefs" on the Constitution. Because the Constitution is made up of people's beliefs, and during the voting process, the secular government is ASKING us to share our beliefs! For Christians, we get our beliefs from the Bible. 

{This assertion is also peculiar because the same person who made the first objection (which itself was a double standard) is now using the very Bible she wishes was not being imposed on her, to argue against the Christian voting for Prop 8. But I digress...}

3) How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?

These types of questions that are geared towards coercing your emotional response sometimes work well, but in this case, it does not. Why? Because Bible-believing Christians know that what or how we feel doesn't really matter in light of our clear instruction. Because let's be honest, we DO feel bad when we are prohibited from ANY kind of sin. That's why we needed Jesus in the first place, to help us stop sinning against Him.

To answer her question, I would probably feel the same way the cell phone driver feels when the cop prohibits him/her from using their cell phone while driving. I for one, like using my cell phone while driving, and I don't care if some people get in accidents, because I don't. And I'm sick and tired of people imposing their beliefs about cell phones on me, just because someone got in an accident with one.

4) I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians.

The logic behind this statement is somewhat self-refuting, and collapses upon itself when applied to, say, my position. You see, I (like her) am also deeply offended when others (like her) impose their opinions about me and my religion on me and my fellow Californians. So her statement is nullified by mine. Or the other way around? Ha:) (Silly logic).

...Just kidding, I'm not offended:) I just wanted to prove the point behind a very bad apologetic for Prop 8. And I'm still going to vote against what she is voting for based on my personal beliefs, which came from the Bible which I hold to be true.

Because I'm a Californian. And RockTheVote.com wants me to step up, and claim my voice.

The God-man (The Deity of Jesus Christ)

Christianity teaches that Jesus is God. There are several objections to this claim; we will deal with four of those objections here

Objection 1: Jesus was a prophet or good teacher.

Objection 2: Orthodox Christianity sprang "from the Nicene conference in 325 A.D., when it was decided by vote of the bishops that Jesus was God."

Objection 3: Verses speaking of Christ submitting to the Father, praying to the Father, and attributing to the Father more greatness seem to nullify His deity.

Objection 4: Jesus seems reluctant to be called God.

---

These first two objection must maintain three presuppositions:

1. Jesus never claimed He was God
2. None of His followers ever claimed He was God
3. None of His enemies thought He was claiming to be God

Let’s address each of these assumptions…

JESUS DID CLAIM HIS OWN DEITY:

• He tells the Jews in defense of His authority, that "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working" (John 5:17-18).

The proper study of any literature tells us to exegete the meaning based off what the hearers in that culture understood Him to say…

It says very clearly in the next verse that "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

• In John 8:58, Jesus says to the Jews, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."


Here, Jesus applies the Old Testament name of God that Yahweh used of Himself when Moses asked Him for His Name, to Himself (Ex 3:14). If there was any doubt of this, we but need to look to the listeners of that time to make note of their reaction. Remember, these were adult religious Jews who by the time they turned 13, memorized all of the Old Testament, and would have heard and discerned clearly what Jesus was implying if He claimed deity.

There reaction: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." Jews often stoned those accused of blasphemy. Why would they stone Him for this statement?

• A clearer example of this is in John 10:30-33, when He tells the Jews, "I and the Father are one."

This is a blatant claim to deity

Their response: They "picked up stones again to stone Him..." They stated, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
 The Jews also accuse Jesus of claiming to be God, as well as fully man. It wasn't unclear to them though they might disagree, in fact, they were going to murder Him for it, and eventually did.



• Jesus states in John's vision, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8).

Interestingly, God the Father makes this claim several times:

• "I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last. I am He" (Is. 41:4).
• "I am the first and I am the last, and THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME" (Is. 44:6).
• "I am He, I am the first, I am also the last" (Is. 48:12).


JESUS WAS CALLED GOD OR WORSHIPED AS GOD BY:

• Isaiah (Is 9:6) His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

• Thomas (John 20:28) Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

• Paul (Titus 2:13) Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

• Peter (2 Peter 1:1) ...by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

• John (John 1:1-2, 14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

Who was the Word? Look at vs.14 --> And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.

• The angels (Heb 1:6) He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

…Though it is strictly demanded by Jesus Himself "to worship the Lord Your God only"

 (Matt 4:10).

• God the Father! (Heb. 1:8) But of the Son {He says,} "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Objection 3: Verses that speak of Christ submitting to the Father, praying to Him, or verses that speak of Him attributing the Father to be greater than Him nullify His deity.
For example:
• “And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” –Matt. 26:39
• "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” –John 14:28

But consider this:
This word [greater] is what is called a quantitative term,
not a qualitative term.

A quantitative term describes quantities, levels, positions, etc.

A qualitative term describes qualities, character, nature.

--If I was to say that there is a great amount of water in this cup,

....I would be speaking quantitatively.

--If I was to say that the water in this cup is great,

...I’m speaking qualitatively (because I’m describing the nature,
the quality of the drink...“it is great.”)

In other words, Jesus was NOT speaking about the nature of the Father being greater or better.

He was referring to His humanity, which carries along with it, some limitations. 

That's also a reason Jesus prayed to the Father.

Think about this:

If Jesus was God, why did He...

• Sleep? (Matt. 8:24)
• Eat? (Mark 2:15)
• Drink? (John 4:7)
• Battle anxiety? (Luke 22:44)
• DIE?? (Luke 23:46)

None of these things are needs or limitations that God the Father has, but remember that Jesus (while %100 God) was also %100 human too. And because of His human limitations, He needed to sleep, eat, drink, suffer, and die.

And because He was made in the likeness of men, He needed to pray too (Phil. 2:6-7).


Objection 4: Jesus seems reluctant to be called God.
For example: “As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”
–Mark 10:17-18

But Jesus IS good!

Consider His claim:
• "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.”
–John 10:11

Actually, He's a little more than good. He's perfect:

• “For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” –Heb. 7:26

Jesus wasn't rebuking the young man for calling Him good. He was making sure that the kid new the connotations and truthfulness of the apparent flattery. He was implying Hid Godhood!

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT…
Jesus is described as God by the testimony of Scripture:
• The very exact representation of the nature of God (Heb 1:3).
• The image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15)
• The maker of all things (Col. 1:16)
• Before all things (Col. 1:17)
• The beginning, itself (Col. 1:18)
• The sustainer of all things (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3)
• Unchangeable (Heb. 1:12)
• Eternal (Heb. 1:12)
• The first place in everything (Col. 1:18)
• The fullness of deity (Col. 2:9)
• The head over all rule and authority (Col. 2:10)
• The head of the church (Col. 1:18)
• The mystery (Col. 2:2)
• The treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3)
• The author and perfector of our faith (Heb. 12:2)
• The One who makes holy (Heb. 2:11)
• He is the substance, or the reality (Col. 2:17)


Listen to this description by the Apostle John who saw Jesus in a vision:
{I saw} one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet {were} like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice {was} like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. (Rev. 1:13-16)

It’s no wonder that men who encountered Him fell down like dead men. 

John was in the presence of the powerful Son of God, and he attempts to stretch the limitations of his language to describe what Jesus was like. He basically states that Jesus' face was like a solar flare, the strength of the sun.

The amount of energy released is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time!
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm

John uses a dramatic figure of speech to tell the Church that Jesus' is indescribably glorious!

Indeed, it's no wonder that John tells us later that Heaven "has no need for the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and it's lamp is the Lamb." 

(Rev. 22:5)

Christ is the center of Christianity, all else is circumference. –John Stott

Long live the King.

ad hominem

(Latin, “to the man”)
An argumentative tactic where a person fails to engage the substance of an argument, choosing instead to opt for a personal attack on the character of the one making the argument. A popular and humorous extreme of this would be to respond to someone by saying “Your a monkey’s uncle.” Another example might be saying “Your just a right-winged fundamentalist. How could you know what you are talking about?”1

This is a popular tactic you should be aware of when discussing an imperative issue. Sometimes someone with an opposing viewpoint will use an ad hominem argument. I was recently discussing a theological issue with someone who had strayed far from the truth of Scripture. This particular person's reaction to a very solid case of evidence was to point out my spelling mistakes!

While this is humorous, it is also important to remember that when you are wanting to help another person get back on track (theologically), you might have to remind them of what the issue is at hand.

For example, the validity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When you are presenting evidence for the resurrection of Jesus for that person to observe, he/she may want to go on a tangent about how much trouble Christians have brought onto the world, or question the reliability of Scripture. These are UNRELATED to the issue! Gently and respectfully set aside a later time to discuss these issues, so that the evidence for the issue at hand (resurrection) can be reasoned with.

Stay on topic!!

---

1.http://wordoftheday.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2008/06/24/ad-hominem/

The word "Trinity" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible...

One of the first objections I hear to the doctrine of the Trinity, by everyone from Bart Erhman to the Jehovah's Witnesses, is that the word Trinity isn't even spoken of in the Bible.

They're right.

And neither is the word Bible anywhere in the Bible.

Or omniscience.

Or the Incarnation (meaning God in the flesh).

And yet we teach all of these things, because the word form of these concepts do not need to be present in order for the truth of the concept to be clearly implied or spoken of in Scripture.

And it follows logically from the substantiated claims Jesus made about Himself, and the claims God makes about Himself, that the concept of Trinity is taught in the Bible.