Mulled Vine

Introduction

The “Blind Men And the Elephant” is an old Indian parable from the Buddhist Canon which tells of a group of blind men that encounter an elephant for the first time in their lives. Each man touches a different part of the elephant and they end up disagreeing violently about the nature of the elephant.

Original version: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/258/parable.html Modern version: http://www.constitution.org/col/blind_men.htm

This parable is often used as an analogy about religion, the point being that since God is infinite and we are finite, we are limited in how we perceive Him, and are thus bound to have different, but equally valid perceptions of Him.

Is this a valid analogy? Is Christianity just one of many possible routes to God?

The thing about this analogy is that there is in fact a correct reality (the elephant) and that the blind men were all incorrect (to varying degrees) about their perception of that reality. In other words, not all perceptions are equally valid. Furthermore, if a sighted man came along, and was able to prove his seeing credentials, then we might be inclined to give his description of the elephant more weight. Christianity differs from other religions because its Founder claimed (uniquely) to be sighted.

So what about Jesus’ credentials? Why is Jesus more believable than the mystic down the road who claims to have seen “God” in the form of a giant bunny rabbit? Let’s take a brief look at the evidence.

Jesus man of history?

The primary evidence for Jesus is the Gospels, but there is some mention of Him in other sources of the time. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 38-100) in particular explicitly mentions Jesus and some of the events of the Gospels but this text is heavily disputed by scholars, particularly as there is unfortunately some evidence of tampering at a later date.
The Gospels themselves, however, apart from references to the supernatural, fit all the criteria for excellent historical works, and dismissing them because of the supernatural indicates a prejudiced materialist agenda.

Jesus son of God?

Did Jesus actually claim to be the son of God? Assuming the Gospel accounts are correct then the answer is a resounding “yes!” Apart from his numerous miracles, and the subtle indicators of his divinity (“Your sins are forgiven … who can forgive sins but God alone?), there were explicit statements like “I and my Father are one” in John 10 which caused the Jews to want to stone Him for blasphemy.

But Jesus did not only claim to be God, he backed it up with a consistent moral character, teaching that amazed those who heard, and many miraculous deeds. Jesus was neither liar nor lunatic, but Lord.

Credibility of the witnesses?

Ok, so the Gospel accounts are quite convincing, but how do we know that the witnesses were not superstitious fools or manipulative liars? Perhaps Jesus was just a wise man, deified by his followers either unintentionally or deliberately?

It is unlikely that the witnesses would have been prepared to die for a deliberate falsification, particularly in view of the kind of deaths the Romans were particularly fond of (crucifixion, human torches, being fed to the lions, etc). And as for being superstitious fools, it is true that they lived in more superstitious times than now, but some of the miracles such as the feeding of the five thousand, and the resurrection are too practical (free of smoke and mirrors) to be anything but miracles. The resurrection in particular is an important miracle, not just because of what it means for us but because death and life are not something that people (especially seasoned Roman soldiers) are easily confused about.

Credibility of the Bible?

But isn’t the Bible full of contradictions, and anyway we don’t have the original documents so how do we know that the Gospels were not simply later inventions by the Church?

It is true that there are many difficulties in the Bible, apparent contradictions, but most of these are fairly easily to resolve. In fact, the differences in the Gospel accounts, for example, lend more weight to their being authentic witness accounts than a concoction. Ask any solicitor in court whether they are more likely to believe multiple accounts that agree in every detail or ones that differ slightly? As for being made up, there is strong evidence for the Gospels being written 30-40 years after the events when many of those who witnessed the events would have still been alive to counter any fraudulent claims. It is true that we don’t have to originals, but we do have over 5000 copies all in general agreement with each other. This is more documentary evidence by far than we have for any other ancient historical figure!

Conclusion

All religions undoubtedly have some element of truth about God in them, but it is impossible for us to know conclusively whether God exists and what He is like unless He takes the initiative and reveals Himself, and this is precisely and uniquely what He did in Jesus: our sighted Saviour.