Christians have been accused of being arrogant because they claim that Jesus is the only way to God. In fact it was Jesus Himself who said, “I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) [1]. Christians are Jesus’ messengers, telling others that we all have a choice to make: submission and ultimate fulfilment, or rebellion and ultimate destruction. Whether or not this is actually true, Christians are stating the facts as we believe them. This is as about as arrogant as saying that murder is wrong or that 2 + 2 = 4. Why is it arrogant to say that there is only one way to heaven [2]?

The usual response, of course, is that “you can’t prove it”. The rebuttal to this is that the evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus is plentiful if you care to examine it. I’ve sketched a few points of evidence in the addendum at the end of the article. And now to return to the subject….

Whether or not people are arrogant is a matter of attitude, not truth. Attitude and truth are two different categories. Arrogance and humility are attitudes, and attitudes don’t affect truth. A person’s attitude doesn’t make them right or wrong; it affects whether or not we like them. Some Christians may be arrogant; others are humble; but both believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Likewise, people of other religious faiths may be kind, generous, sincere and humble, but that makes them neither right nor wrong. Truth is a matter of fact, not attitude.

Evidence supporting the resurrection as the true explanation of the empty tomb:
a. The eyewitness statements found in the Bible.
b. The writings of contemporaries who weren’t Christians: Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger.
c. Archaeological findings, which prompted a previous skeptical archaeologist, whose name eludes me at present, to say that “Luke is a historian of the first rank”.
d. Social tidbits; for example, falling asleep on watch earned a Roman soldier the death penalty; also, the testimony of women was not acceptable in a Jewish law court, yet the Gospel accounts state that women were the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection {3}
e. Psychology: who would deliberately suffer hatred, rejection and death for what they knew was a lie?
f. (Partly following point ‘e’, as it relates to the people of that time.) The changed lives of the people then and now, all over the world.

Christianity isn’t a system of ethics. It isn’t about making bad people good; it’s about making dead people live. Christianity is about God making a round trip to Earth. He took nothing with Him, and all He brought back were the scars we gave Him.


[1] The argument that this only refers to Jesus’ dispensation (presumably until the advent of Mohammed and Islam, some 500 years later) is specious: it overlooks the global and timeless nature of the Gospel: people who were saved before the Cross were still saved through the Cross.

[2] Perhaps the emotional wind and heat that furnishes this accusation arise from the perception that Christians think they are better than non-Christians. Another reason might be because the claim can’t be tested objectively. But the same reason could be used to defend the thesis that murder isn’t wrong!

[3] This is called the criterion of embarrassment: if you’re making up a story, you don’t include details that reflect poorly on you. In this case, having women as the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection would cause contemporaries to reject the evidence as being unreliable. If you were making up the story, you would have someone socially respectable and like Nicodemus, whose word would carry weight, as the first witness.