Seeing AND Believing
Many
might
see
the
gospel’s
greatest
weakness
as
requiring
people
to
believe
its
claims
simply
because
an
ancient
written
record
says
that
they
are
true.
For
instance,
why
should
anyone
believe
that
Jesus
rose
from
the
dead
because
the
New
Testament
authors claim He did?
While
it
is
the
height
of
naiveté
for
a
person
to
believe
everything
he
hears
or
reads,
it
is
also
foolish
to
discredit
anything
one
hears
or
reads
simply
because
it
is
information
not
received
firsthand.
Perhaps
most
of
what
people
know,
they
know
by
having
heard
or
read
it.
Though
the
physical
sciences
can
confirm
claims
by
experimentation,
they
ask
students
in
the
beginning
to
rely
on
the
claims
of
earlier
scientists
and
then
build
on
them.
No
one
goes
“back
to
square
one”
to
move
forward
but
trusts
the
knowledge
and
the
reports
of
others
he has good reason to believe.
Of
course,
witnesses
can
lie
for
enrichment
or
just
the
feeling
of
power
it
gives
them
to
be
able
to
impress
and
control
others.
Therefore,
testimony
must
be
tested,
and
one
important
way
to
do
that
is
to
require
multiple
witnesses.
The
Old
Testament
mandated
at
least
two
witnesses
in
capital
cases
(Deut.
17:6).
Luke
was
not
a
witness
to
most
of
what
he
recorded,
but
he
was
careful
to
interview
those
who
were
witnesses
(Lk.
1:1-3).
Yet,
Thomas
rejected
the
testimony
of
the
other
ten
apostles
to
Jesus’
resurrection
and
required
seeing
the
risen
Jesus
to
believe,
thus
prompting
the
blessing
of
Jesus
on
those
who
believe credible witnesses.
In
any
event,
it
is
important
not
to
dismiss
a
report
just
because
one
was
not
a
witness
to
its
claims.
Indeed,
living
would
hardly
be
possible
without
relying
on
reports
from
others.
Juries
do
not
actually
see
whether
the
accused
committed
the
crime
but
must
reach
their
verdict
by
evaluating
the
testimony
of
witnesses.
Otherwise,
nothing
of
history
could
be
known
with
certainty,
since
it
essentially
consists
of
records
of
what
others
have
said
happened.
It
is
critical,
then,
to
assess
the
quality
of
the
testimony
of
witnesses.
Questions
must
be
asked,
such
as:
how
many
witnesses
are
there?
Do
they
have
a
reputation
for
honesty?
Do
they
have
any
apparent
prejudice
or
motive
to
lie?
Is
their
testimony
consistent?
Do
they
agree
with
one
another
and
with
any
physical evidence available?
The
Bible
does
not
rely
on
hearsay
or
a
chain
of
oral
tradition
as
the
basis
for
calling
upon
people
to
believe
what
it
reports.
Instead,
it
relies
on
credible
eye-witness
testimony
(cf.
1
Jn.
1:1-4;
2
Pet.
1:16-18).
The
New
Testament
is
the
report
of
those
who
claimed
to
have
been
in
prolonged
and
intimate
contact
with
Jesus
after
He
had
risen
from
the
dead
(Acts
10:41).
Hence,
the
more
relevant
question
is
not
why
people
today
should
believe
the
New
Testament
claims
about
Jesus,
but
why
those
who
claimed
to
be
the
original
witnesses,
as
well
as
those
who
heard
their
reports,
believed
them.
Skeptics
would
have
people
today
believe
that
the
original
witnesses
and
the
first
generation
of
believers
who
heard
and
read
their
reports
were
willing
to
suffer
poverty,
ostracism,
torture,
and
even
death
for
something
they
knew
to
be
a
lie.
The
only
credible
explanation
for
the
faith
of
the
original
believers,
such
as
Thomas,
is
that
they
were
witnesses
of
the
gospel’s
claims.
This
fact
allows
later
generations to trust their reports.
Believing is not always seeing.
“Jesus
said
to
him,
‘Because
you
have
seen
Me,
have
you
believed?
Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed’” (John 20:29).
Copyright © 2017 - current year, Gary P. and Leslie G. Eubanks. All Rights Reserved.