Burden of Proof

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   In the religious realm, there is a long succession of people who while appealing to a previous belief system, announce that they have new and better knowledge that improves or replaces its predecessor. Starting with Jews and the Bible, one can follow this road from Christians to Gnostics to Islam, Mormonism, Bahai, Jehovah�s Witnesses, Christian Science and others. 

One distinction in this succession is that Jesus recognized the burden of proof that was required to justify the new �truths� He was revealing. Others have simply claimed that they had a new revelation without accepting the burden of proof. Another distinction with Jesus is that He did not challenge what the Bible said. He claimed to fulfill it in fact and said that God�s Word (the Tanach or Old Testament) would not pass away until all be fulfilled. He only had two areas where His teaching actually differed from what the average Jew believed at that time and He told His disciples to listen to what the Priests and Scribes said � but not follow their hypocritical practices. (The two differences Jesus had with the Jewish leadership were � the idea that the Law could not be accomplished by human efforts and, the Messiah would be God�s Son who would suffer and die for their failure to satisfy the Law.) 

It is interesting that in the Bible the first one to challenge God�s Word was Satan and he claimed the same thing that many others have echoed since then: �Has God really said such and such? No he hasn�t, just listen to me. You won�t die if you do!� He offered no reason to Eve that he should be trusted rather than God. It seems that humans since that time still don�t need much reason to abandon God�s Word for the word of someone else. But there should be a reason to trust someone new - especially when that person wants us to reject what we believe God has said in the past. On the one hand they want us to grant them the respect that belongs to a fellow believer but on the other hand, they want us to reject our beliefs. Why would we grant them the status they want?

If this isn�t sinking in, let me illustrate: Someone comes up with a unique belief that was never believed before and they claim the Bible substantiates their authority to have this unique belief. If that is true, it would give them some credibility, right? On the other hand, part of their unique belief is that the Bible can�t be trusted! This is not just a circular argument, it is a self-stultifying one. The picture it conveys is someone sitting on a tree limb while they are sawing that limb off. 

There are lots of variations on this presumptive illogical claim. Maybe you have heard some yourself:

"Christianity started out right, but then - according to my standards � it failed to do what it was supposed to do. Since the very things I'm asserting were wrong are evident, and since these are the things my group does right, it's obvious that my group is the restoration or replacement of true Christianity."

"Don't trust anyone but us."

"If you let us interpret the Bible for you, we'll show you that we alone are right."  

I stated that Jesus accepted the burden of proof when He came. He performed miracles, fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies and then � after being killed � rose from the dead. Moses demonstrated some credentials with the signs God provided but Jesus performed greater miracles and He said Moses foretold His coming. Other Old Testament prophets exhibited credentials from God and Jesus exceeded their works as He fulfilled the prophecies they gave. 

So - when Jesus presumes to tell people what Moses really meant, we should listen. When a mere human with lesser credentials (e.g.- Mohammed) presumes to tell us what Jesus really said or meant, why should we listen to them?

Apollos