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.