|
| |
Absolute Proof vs. Compelling Arguments
by Phil Maxwell 2001
Suppose a carpenter is accused of robbing a store, and you’ve been selected
for the jury in his trial.
The prosecutor lays out his case first, and it is a compelling array of
evidence. He shows that the man’s fingerprints were found at the crime scene.
Then he documents that the accused went on a spending spree after the crime that
totaled far more money than his modest income would allow. He even brings out a
few letters and tape recordings of some of the carpenter’s own words that
strongly imply that he was in fact the thief.
Finally, after several days, the prosecutor rests his case, knowing by the faces
of the jury and others in the courtroom that he has done a good job of
convincing them of this man’s guilt. But as a jury member, you bear
responsibility for deciding the fate of this carpenter. Your conscience and soul
are on the line, so you struggle to remain open and objective until you’ve
heard the defense…
Strangely, the defense attorney seems unfazed by the compelling case made
against his client. The lawyer calls his first and only witness, a well-known
man of impeccable credentials, and then he plugs in a videotape which the man
attests to having taken himself. The tape shows the actual robbery being
committed, and clearly shows that another man, not the accused, did the crime.
The defense rests his case.
Do you wonder about the carpenter’s fingerprints at the crime scene, where he
got the money he’d spent, his apparently self-incriminating words, and all the
other evidence the prosecutor presented? Sure you do, but you’re present
concern is to judge whether or not he was the thief, not answer all those
questions. To that end, the short and simple defense case was worth more than a
thousand compelling arguments, for it absolutely proved beyond any doubt that
another man and not the accused was the thief. You’re job is completed with a
simple ‘not guilty’ verdict.
Had you been tasked with weighing inconclusive evidence in the balance, you
probably would have convicted an innocent man of a crime he did not commit. But
all the circumstantial evidence and compelling arguments in the world don’t
outweigh a single direct proof to the contrary when it comes to measuring the
truth.
Now put yourself on another jury, and consider the evidence on the question of
whether or not Yahshua (Jesus) is God. You’ve heard all the circumstantial
evidence and compelling arguments about how He did and said things that imply
that He is, in fact, God. You are aware of the fact that most Christian
theologians, Bible scholars, and believers are convinced that He is, too. But
this is your matter to decide, not anyone else’s, and it is important.
Now its time to hear the other side, and I’ll be brief. My witness is a man of
impeccable credentials, the Apostle John, and my evidence is the irrefutable
Word of God that he penned. Here – if you can remain an objective judge in the
face of mountains of evidence, arguments, and opinions to the contrary – you
will find absolute proof that Yahshua’s Father, not Him nor anyone or anything
else, is the only true God. We can deal with the questions raised by other
so-called evidence that He is God separately, but first we must judge this
all-important matter. Fortunately, God did not leave this matter to
discretionary judgment of inconclusive evidence…
These things Jesus spoke; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father,
the hour has come; glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee, even as
Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given
Him, He may give eternal life. And this is eternal life, that they may know
Thee [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast
sent. Jn 17:1-3
John’s Gospel record of Yahshua’s own words is as reliable as a verifiable
videotape, and the proof is absolute: Yahshua, the Son of God, said that His
Father is the ONLY true God! He not only said His Father is the true God, but by
saying ‘only’ He also said that no one else is. Only means ‘only’, even
in the original Greek manuscript of this text, and it necessarily excludes any
and all possibility that anyone or anything else aside from Yahshua’s Father
is the God of the Bible. It most certainly excludes Yahshua as the one who spoke
the words in the first place, just as much if someone said that so-and-so is
their only true wife it would exclude any possibility that they or anyone else
was their wife.
There is nothing lacking in the evidence on the matter at hand. Those who argue
that Yahshua is God have plenty of points that should be investigated, but not
as though they affect the conclusion definitively proven by John’s record of
Yahshua’s words in the above text. Yahshua is NOT the one true God, His Father
and His Father ALONE is.
In the above illustration, we wouldn’t seek to understand the true meaning of
the prosecutor’s evidence as though the question of the carpenter’s guilt
was still open, else we arrive at altogether wrong conclusions. Likewise, to
continue searching for evidence that Yahshua is God after seeing conclusive and
irrefutable proof to the contrary is simply to deny the Word of God, a sure path
to deception.
|
