Q: If Jesus is the only way to heaven then why was he crucified so long after the beginning of history? If He is the only way why wasn't he sent to earth after the first sin to be crucified for the sins of the world?
A: You ask a big question, but allow me to make it a bit bigger. Why was Jesus sent at that particular time, and not either earlier or later? Romans 5:6 says, "You see, at just the right time, ... Christ died for the ungodly." But while the Bible does not say why this was the best time, we can speculate.
Not too early: Someone once asked me, "Why doesn't God just come down and show Himself to everybody? I answered that if God came down in all His glory, we would be destroyed. But God is Almighty, and He could come down veiling enough of His glory so that His direct presence would not destroy us. If He came down in a way that forced us to believe, then how would we have faith, or free will to make a decision that was not under compulsion. But if God came down in a way where part of His glory was veiled, and He gave evidence of who He was, but not in such a way that it was so obvious everyone would have to believe whether they wanted to or not, how many times would God have to do that? What if He did it just once, 2,000 years ago?
90% of the population after: We guess there have been about 32 billion (+/- 6 billion) people who have ever lived on the earth. Over 90% of them have lived after the time of Christ.
Fair to the ones before: God looks at people based on the truth that they have; sin is not counted where there is no law (Romans 4:!5; 5:13). So people who lived before Christ, such as Abraham, David, etc. could be saved through Christ, even though Christ had not come yet.
More peaceful time: At the time of Christ was a period of relative peace compared to the times before with the Roman conquests, and the times after, with Roman and Parthian wars, and the European barbarians invading the Roman Empire. See www.BibleQuery.org/History/Calamities/Wars.htm for more on the wars of those times if you are interested.
Best time for expansion: The Romans built extensive roads, and it Jesus had come prior to this time, it would have been much more difficult to spread the gospel to different lands.
Preservation of materials: If it had been a lot earlier, we might have a lot fewer manuscripts showing the reliability of the New Testament. If it had been centuries later we might have more, but even so we have over 10,000 Greek manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. The earliest by the way is the John Rylands papyrus, dated from 110-138 A.D.. Here are other manuscripts we have.

110/117-125/138 A.D.	p52 (=John Rylands papyrus)	John 18:31-33, reverse 18:37-38 -4 verses
100-150 A.D.	p104	Matthew 21:34-37,43,45(?) -5.5 verses
100-150 A.D.	p46 (=Chester Beatty II)	70% of Paul and Hebrews -1,680 verses
c.125 A.D.	p87 - handwriting like p46.	Phm 13-15,24 (part),25b with gaps -4 verses
2nd century	Magdalen papyri	Mt 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33 -10 verses
100/125-150/175 A.D.	p66(=Bodmer II) p14/15,p75	92% of the Gospel of John -808.5 verses
125-150 A.D.	p64, p67 (same manuscript)	(p67) Mt 3:9,15; 5:20-22,25-28 -19 verses (p64) Mt 26:7-8,10,14-15,22-23,31-33
Early to mid 2nd century	p4 - handwriting like p64, p67	Luke 1:58-59; 1:62-2:1,6-7, etc. -95 verses
c.170 A.D.	Uncial 0212	Diatessaron pieces: Mt 27; Mk15; Lk23; Jn19
c.175 A.D.	p90	John 18:36-19:7 -12 verses
177 A.D. - 97% (855/878) of the Gospel of John, 70% of Paul and Hebrews (persecution of Aurelius)

Just using manuscripts we still have that were written before the persecution of Marcus Aurelius in 177 A.D. we have 97% of the Gospel of John (855/878 verses) and 70% of Paul and Hebrews.
Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (323-326 A.D.) book 1 ch.2 p.84 gives a different but complementary answer. He simply says the Gospel was not preached earlier because sinful mankind was not ready for it yet. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series vol.1 p.84
A related question is that for even people who lived after Jesus, if they died before hearing the gospel, then it is the same to them as if they lived before Jesus. What about them? See www.BibleQuery.org/Doctrine/NeverHeardTheGospel/WhatAboutThoseWhoDiedBeforeHearingTheGospel.htm for more on that.

Q: Who exactly killed Jesus?
A: As to who killed Jesus, there are two answers.
1. Some Roman soldiers under Pontius Pilate killed Jesus. Now there are good and bad people in all ethnic groups, and just because an Italian governor ordered Jesus’ death is no excuse to have hate toward any Italians. Also, an evil Jewish High priest (installed by the Romans) had Jesus arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. They turned him over to the Romans. By the way Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, Jude, James, were all Jewish. To say that a particular small group of Jewish people were evil is not more anti-Semitic than to say that Hitler and his henchmen were evil is anti-German. (I’ll be the first the say that all Nazism was an extremely evil tool of Satan, and I am part German. I will also point out though, that many German Americans became soldiers and fought against Hitler.) Likewise many some Jews were evil, but others like Peter and Paul were good. Even some Jews who did not become Christians, such as Josephus, had respect for Jesus and his half-brother James.
2. The other answer, equally important, is that you, I, and everyone else all killed Jesus. Jesus knew what was happening, and Jesus could have high-tailed it out of the Garden of Gethsemane. Nobody would have killed Jesus, because He easily could have escaped and disappeared. But, Jesus deliberately chose to stay and die horribly on that cross as a sacrifice for our sins. So if you want to blame somebody for the cruel, unfair death that gave us the wonderful gift of eternal life, blame Jesus!
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2 NIV)

Q: When did people start dating events by the year Jesus was supposedly born?
A: Prior to this, people generally dated events by the year of a king’s reign. Other people dated things from the supposed year of Adam’s creation, September 1, 5509 B.C.
The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.786 says that in Jesus’ time Romans kept years in terms of "A.U.C." or years from the founding of the city [of Rome]. Rome was founded in 753 B.C. On p.787 Asimov says that it was erroneously thought that Christ was born in 1 A.D. by the astronomer Dionysius Exiguus of Rome. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.49 says that dating things from the time of Christ’s birth was introduced by Hippolytus of Rome in the 3rd century. This was not universally accepted, as some Byzantine scribes did not do so until the 14th century. Also, The First Apology of Justin Martyr ch.46 p.178, while not an official dating system, mentioned that Jesus was born 150 years ago.

Q: In the NT, how did we get the terms "Old and New Testaments"?
A: Tertullian was apparently the first to coin these words, in Latin, in 207 A.D. in his work Against Marcion Book 4 chapter 6.

Q: How do I defend this statement: The Gospels contain some truth however second century scribes added insertions to create a Jesus that the first century Christians never knew. In other words the physical Resurrection and Jesus as the "Son of God" was added later far from the events that took place.
A: Let me first rephrase your question, and then answer it. Skeptics frequently say writers did not write what they wrote, even when there is no basis whatsoever for saying it. So how would an objective person know whether the phrase "son of God" was not known to first century Christians or not?
a) First realize that the burden of proof is on those who question the truthfulness of the copy. If they cannot produce any evidence, then we can stop right here.
b) Second, they would have to add the phrase "Son of God" in a lot of places, for it is common in the New Testament. Besides Mk 1:1, it is in these places in just the gospels, Revelation, and non-Pauline letters.
Mt 3:17; 17:5; Mk 1:11; Lk 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17 (The Father is saying, "This is my beloved Son")
Mt 4:3, 6; 8:29; 14:33; 16:16; 26:63; 27:40,43,54
Mk 3:11; 5:7; 15:39
Lk 1:32,35; 4:3,9,41; 8:28; 22:70
Jn 1:18,34,49; 3:16,17,18,35; 5:23 (implied); 5:25; 6:69; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4,27; 17:1 (implied); 19:7; 20:31; 1 Jn 1:3,7; 2:22,23 (implied); 3:8,23; 4:9,10,14,15; 5:5,9,10 (2 times), 11,12,13 (2 times), 20; 2 Jn 3,9; Rev 2:18.
c) However, we do not have to stop here. What evidence for Christians believing Jesus was the son of God could we have, since we do not have copies of the Bible until 117 A.D.? We have the early church fathers.
"But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: Thou are my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee." 1 Clement ch.36 p.15. Clement of Rome wrote 97/98 A.D., we are very sure of the date. The first century ended at the end of 100 A.D., so this refutes the claim.
Mention of "His Son, according to the relation/economy subsisting between them." Letter to Diognetus ch.8 p.28 (c.130 A.D.)
"Gave his own Son as a ransom for us…" Letter to Diognetus ch.8 p.28 (c.130 A.D.)
"He who, being from everlasting, is to-day called/esteemed the Son" Letter to Diognetus ch.11 p.29
"through His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ" The Martyrdom of Polycarp ch.20 p.43
"Jesus Christ… being both the Son of man and the Son of God" Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians ch.20 p.58 (We do not know when Ignatius, disciple of the apostle of John wrote this, but he died either 107 or 116 A.D.)
Jesus declared Himself to be the son of God. Letter of Barnabas ch.7 p.141 (100 A.D.) See also ch.5 p.139,140, ch.12 p.145
"God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God,…" The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians chapter 12 p.35. We do not know when Polycarp wrote this, but he was martyred in 155 A.D. Irenaeus, writing 182-188 A.D., mentions Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians in Against Heresies Book 3 ch.3.4 p.416.
"Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, … in order that He might cleanse us through His blood, … presenting us as pure sons to His Father." Irenaeus (wrote 182-188 A.D.) in Fragment 39 p.575
Did They Believe Jesus was God?
The real issue here is whether or not early Christians viewed Jesus as God. Here is evidence that they did:
Ignatius (died 107 or 116 A.D.) wrote frequently of Christ as God. For example, he wrote of "the blood of God" in chapter 1 of his letter to the Ephesians.
Letter to Diognetus (c.130 A.D.) a disciple of the apostles (chapter 100 in his Letter to Diognetus chapter 7 wrote of Christ sent as King, God, man, and savior.
Justin Martyr (wrote 135-165 A.D.)
"The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, …" Dialogue with Trypho ch. 61. See ch.55,56,59,62-64,66,74-78.
Melito of Sardis (died 180 A.D.) said of the crucifixion that "God is murdered".
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (168-181/188 A.D.) "For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son?" Letter to Autolycus book 2 ch.22.
Irenaeus (wrote 182-188 A.D.) wrote in Against Heresies 3:19:2, "Jesus is Himself in His own right, ...God, and Lord, ..."
Even the enemies of Christianity bear witness that Christians worshipped Jesus as God.
Pliny the Younger (governor and persecutor of Christians in 112 A.D. writing to Emperor Trajan) "They [Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds…"
Lucian (2nd century satirist) "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…You see, these misguided creatures…" (Death of Peregrine 11)
This is significant, because an official Roman query states that Christians worshipped Christ as God as early as 112 A.D.

Q: Apart from Biblical manuscripts, what evidence is there that early Christians believed Jesus died as a ransom for our sins?
A: While the burden of proof is on those who allege corruption to provide some evidence of their allegation, here is evidence from early Christian writers that early Christians believed that Jesus died as a ransom to atone for our sins.
"how precious that blood [of Jesus] is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world." 1 Clement ch.7 p.7 (97/98 A.D.)
"Gave his own Son as a ransom for us…" Letter to Diognetus ch.8 p.28 (c.130 A.D.)
"…Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] ‘whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave.’" Letter from Polycarp to the Philippians ch.1 p.33 (Polycarp was martyred c.155 A.D.)

Q: Apart from Biblical manuscripts, what evidence is there that early Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead?
A: The burden of proof is for those who think these were additions to the Bible to show some evidence that it was added later. However, here is evidence from early Christian writers that early Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead.
"Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead." 1 Clement ch.24 p.11 (97/98 A.D.)
Jesus rose from the dead. Letter of Barnabas ch.15 p.147 (c.100 A.D.)
"…Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] ‘whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave.’" Letter from Polycarp to the Philippians ch.1 p.33 (Polycarp was martyred c.155 A.D.)
"Jesus Christ, … in His suffering and in His resurrection." Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians ch.20 p.57
Jesus’ birth, passion, and resurrection. Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians ch.11 p.64
Irenaeus’ Against Heresies 5:7:1. (wrote 182-188 A.D.) "In the same manner, therefore, as Christ did rise in the substance of flesh and pointed out to His disciples the mark of the nails and the opening in His side (now these are the tokens of that flesh which rose from the dead) so "shall He also," it is said, "raise us up by His own power."

Q: In the NT, why should we believe the Trinity, since the word is not found in the Bible?
A: The words "Old Testament", "New Testament", "atonement", and "Lord’s Supper" are not found in the Bible either, but we believe in those concepts, too. It is best not to quarrel about words, but to look at what is taught. If the concept of the Trinity is taught in the Bible, we should believe it. If the concept of the Trinity is against the Bible, we should not believe it. Agreed?
For what the concept of the Trinity entails, see the discussion on Matthew 28:19.
As a side note for Mormons, the term "eternal progression" is not in the Book of Mormon.
As a side note for Muslims, while the Qur’an has terms for one (wahed, wihdanea, ahd, fard, wahdo), the word Tawheed, (oneness), a central theological principle in Islam, is not in the Qur’an itself, either. However, just as you cannot use that fact to prove or disprove Tawheed to Muslims, you cannot use the absence of a technical theological word in the Bible to be proof or disproof of the Trinity. Other Muslim concepts that are not in the Qur’an are:
The Qur’an never says that Ishmael was almost sacrificed by Abraham. Rather, it mentions an unnamed son.
The modern Muslim idea that Mohammed was sinless is not in the Qur’an.
For Sunni Muslims, the entire concept of the Sunna, and following the accepted hadiths, some of which are acknowledged by Muslims as contradictory, is not in the Qur’an.
The idea that non-Muslims should be killed if they come to Mecca is not in the Qur’an.
The idea that Jews should be expelled from Mecca / Saudi Arabia is not in the Qur’an.
For Shi’ite Muslims, the whole concept of Imams, and all you basically have to do is obey the Imam to obey God is absent in the Qur’an. Of course, the martyrdoms of ‘Ali and Husain are not in the Qur’an.
Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an have the term "monotheism", but that does not prove that is wrong.

Q: In the NT, where did we get the term "Trinity"?
A: The first person we know of to use the term Trinity was bishop Theophilus of Antioch (168-181/188 A.D.) in his Letter to Autolycus 2:15.
Tertullian (200-220 A.D.) was the second we have record of using the term "Trinity", in his letter Against Praxeas.
Novatian (210-280 A.D.) from Rome wrote a 32-chapter book, Treatise on the Trinity.
Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193-217/220 A.D.) also spoke of "the Holy Trinity" in Stromata 5:14.
Hippolytus (225-235/6 A.D.) in Against the Heresy of One Noetus says, "And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified."
Origen (225-254 A.D.) mentions the Trinity in de Principiis Book 1 ch.3.7 p.255.
Near miss in Justin Martyr (wrote his First Apology 147-151 A.D.) "…and we reasonably worship Him [Jesus], having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, and we will prove." First Apology of Justin Martyr ch.13 p.166-167
Near miss in Athenagoras (wrote 177 A.D.) "Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognize also a multitude of angels and ministers,…" A Plea for Christians ch.10 p.133
Conclusion: These five references, from Antioch, Rome, Rome again, and Alexandria respectively, show that the term "Trinity" was widespread more than a hundred years prior to the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D.
As a side note, a "near miss" is that while Ignatius (died either 107 or 116 A.D.), the disciple of John the apostle, does not use the term "Trinity", he often calls Jesus God. In the Second Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians chapter 9 says "An ye are prepared for the building of God the Father, and ye are raised up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross; and ye are drawn by the rope, which is the Holy Spirit; and your pulley is your faith, and your love is the way which leadeth up on high to God" (Ante-Nicene Fathers p.101)
Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D.) in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew chapters 57-65, also gives a very good explanation of the Trinity, and why we should worship Jesus, without actually using the word Trinity.

Q: In the NT, how do we know the books we have are the correct ones?
A: As General Introduction to the Bible p.423-425 points out, every single New Testament book was referred to prior to 150 A.D., with the exception of Philemon and 3 John.
Irenaeus (wrote 182-188 A.D.) made about 1,800 quotations and references from the New Testament, (except Philemon and 3 John) and his writings show the books in his New Testament were the same as ours today.
Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193-217/220 A.D.) made about 2,400 quotations and references of every New Testament book except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and possibly 3 John.
Cyprian (wrote 248-258 A.D.) made about 1,030 quotations and references from the New Testament. His quotes include every book except Philemon and 2 John, and possibly 3 John, which are the three shortest books in the New Testament.
For the preceding, see General Introduction to the Bible p.425-427 for more info.

Q: Which early church writers quoted from which books of the New Testament?
A: Here is a list of what I have found.

Early Christians Tell Who Wrote the N.T.

Cr 1 Clement (of Rome) (16 pgs) 97/98 A.D.
Ba Epistle of Barnabas (13 pgs) c.100 A.D.
Ig Ignatius (21 pgs) c.110-117 A.D.
Pa Papias disciple of John (2 pgs) 110-113 A.D.
-Wrote 6 volumes which have been lost
Di Didache (Teach. of 12 Disc.)(6 pgs) < 125 A.D.
Dg (anonymous) to Diognetus (6 pgs) c.130 A.D.
Po Polycarp, disciple of John (4 pgs) c.150 A.D.
Jm Justin Martyr (119 pgs) 138-165 A.D.
He Shepherd of Hermas (47 pgs) 160 A.D.
Th Theophilus [Antioch] (33 pgs)168-181/188 A.D.
-his harmony/commentary on the gospels is lost
Ae Athenagoras (34 pgs) c.177 A.D.
Mu Caius’ Muratorian Canon (3 pgs) 170-217 A.D.
Ir Irenaeus (264 pgs) 182-188 A.D.
Te Tertullian [Rome] (830 pgs) 200-220 A.D.
Te5 5 Books in Reply to Marcion(24 pgs)c.207 A.D.
Ca Clement of Alexan. (424 pgs) 193-217/220 A.D.
Hi Hippolytus, (233 pgs) 225-235/6 A.D.
Or Origen (622 pgs) 225-254 A.D.
Nv Novatian (39 pgs) 250-257 A.D.
an Anonymous against Novatian(7 pgs) c.255 A.D.
And Treatise on Rebaptism (11 pgs)
Cp Cyprian (270 pgs) 248-258 A.D.
Not shown are Melito of Sardis (d.177/180) [Mk,Lk,1Cor,1Th,Heb] and Julius Africanus (232-245 A.D.).
W = Books and quotes mentioned by name or by writer
J = Books only mentioned as the words of Jesus / Savior
B = Mentioned as scripture or by the apostle(s).
Q = quote of 1 or more verses. ½ = quote of ½ a verse
A = Allusion. 4G = Mention of 4 gospels, - = no reference

Writer	Cr	Ba	Ig	Pa	Di	Dg	Po		JM		He		Th		Ae		Ir	Mu		Te		Te5		CA		Hi		Or		Nv		an		Cp
New T.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-		-		-		-		W	-		W		W		W		W		W		W		W		-
Gospels	-		-	-	-	W	-						W				W	W						W		-		W		-		-		-
Mt	J	Q	Q	W	Q	A	Q		J		Q		Q		Q		W	4 G		W		W		W		J		W		J		J		W
Mk	J	½	-	W	-	-	½		J		-		-		-		W			W		W		W		W		W		-		W		W
Lk	½	Q	-	-	Q	-	Q		J		Q		Q		Q		W	W		W		W		W		J		W		W		J		W
Jn	-	A	A	½	-	A	-		J		-		W		-		W	W		W		W		W		W		W		W		W		W
No gospels referenced besides 4. Irenaeus explicitly says there can be only 4. Origen also said only 4.
Acts	¼	A	-	-	-	-	½		A		½		Q		-		W	W		W		-		W		Q		W		¾		W		W
Rom	Q	-	-	-	-	-	Q		-		-		Q		-		W	W		W		-		W		W		W		W		-		W
1 Cor	W	-	¼	-	-	-	Q		W		-		Q		B		W	W		W		-		W		B		W		W		-		W
2 Cor	-	A	A	-	-	-	A		-		-		Q		-		W	W		W		-		W		W		W		W		-		W
Gal	-	-	-	-	-	A	¼		-		-		-		-		W	W		W		W		W		W		W		W		-		W
Eph	-	-	W	-	-	-	Q		-		-		Q		-		W	W		W		-		B		B		W		W		-		W
Php	-	-	-	-	-	A	W		-		-		-		-		W	W		W		-		W		W		W		B		W		W
Col	A	A	-	-	-	-	-		-		-		-		Q		W	W		W		-		W		W		W		B		-		W
1 Th	A	-	Q	-	-	-	Q		-		-		-		-		W	W		W		-		W		W		W		-		-		W
2 Th	-	-	-	-	-	-	½		-		-		-		-		W	W		W		-		B		W		W		-		-		W
1 Tim	A	A	¼	-	-	A	Q		-		-		Q		Q		W	W		W		-		W		W		W		W		-		W
2 Tim	-	-	-	-	-	-	Q		-		-		-		-		W	W		W		-		W		Q		W		-		-		W
Titus	Q	-	A	-	-	-	-		-		-		-		½		W	W		W		-		W		½		W		Q		-		W
Phm	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-		-		-		-		-	W		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-
Heb	Q	Q	-	-	-	-	-		-		½		Q		-		W	-		Q		-		W		A		W		-		-		A
Jms	Q	A	-	-	-	-	-		-		Q		-		-		Q	-		Q		-		Q		-		Q		-		Q		-
1 Peter	Q	-	-	A	½	-	Q		-		½		-		-		W	-		W		-		W		Q		W		-		-		W
2 Peter	A	A	-	-	-	-	-		-		-		-		-		¼	-		Q		-		½		W		?		-		-		W
1 John	-	-	½	A	-	-	½		-		-		Q		-		W	W		W		-		W		W		W		W		W		W
2 John	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-		-		-		-		W	W		A		-		W		-		-		-		-		W
3 John	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-		-		-		-		-	-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-
Jude	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-		-		-		-		A	W		W		-		W		W		W		-		Q		-
Rev	Q	-	-	?	-	-	-		W		-		Q		-		W	W		W		W		W		W		W		-		W		W
Writer	Cr	Ba	Ig	Pa	Di	Dg	Po	JM		He		Th		Ae		Ir		Mu	Te		Te5		CA		Hi		Or		Nv		an		Cp
Time	97/98 A.D.							150 A.D.				168 A.D.							200 A.D.						225 A.D. 258 A.D.
Pages	151 pages									124 pgs						267 pgs			835 pgs				424		225		622		57 pgs				270

Q: Were there any writings that are thought to be from Jesus himself? I thought I had heard of some that the church denounced.
A: The Book of Revelation is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" so some see that it is claimed to be (verbally) by Jesus, though of course it was John the apostle that wrote it down. We have to agree with Ephesians 4 that says "the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone." Christianity "goes to the teaching of Jesus" through the prophets and the apostles (including Paul) that Jesus selected.
Other than Revelation, in my studies I am not aware of any ancient writings that claimed to be authored by Jesus himself. There are some modern writings that claimed to be lost works of Jesus, but of course the early church never denounced these, as they have not been written yet.
What you might be thinking of is a number of works that claimed to be by various apostles and others that were frauds. The Gnostics in particular used the Gospel of Thomas, except that they had different versions of it. In addition, here is a partial list of other books that were frauds and the church rejected:
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (its modern name)
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of Thomas (Gnostic) (140-200 A.D.)
The Report of Pontius Pilate
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Letter of Pontius Pilate concerning our Lord Jesus Christ = The Acts of Pontius Pilate (not existing today, but mentioned by Justin Martyr (138-165 A.D.) and Tertullian (200-240 A.D..)
The Acts of Barnabas (different from the Medieval forgery the Gospel of Barnabas)
The Acts of Philip
Acts of Andrew and Matthias
Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Book of John concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary
The Passing of Mary
One of my "favorites" is the Acts of Peter. If I recall correctly, Peter went to an inn and his room had many bedbugs, which prevented him from sleeping, and he had to preach the next day. Thus he commanded the bedbugs to leave the room, and they obliged. The next morning he opened the door, and there was a line of bedbugs waiting to go back into the room. Peter commanded them to go back into the bed, and they did.
One reason we can be sure of the writings that were genuine, as well as the teachings and character of Jesus, apart from the Bible, is the early Christians.
Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthians in 97/98 A.D. His basic message was "why aren’t you doing the things Paul told you to do 50 years ago?" Clement’s letter is very insightful, and it is so good that a few Christians mistakenly thought it should be a part of Scripture. I have found no false things in the letter except for one point. Clement apparently believes the legend of the Arabian phoenix living for a 1,000 years, then burning itself to death, and then rising from the ashes, to be true. Ignatius also wrote extensively, and he was a disciple of the apostle John. Papias was another disciple of the apostle John who wrote many volumes, unfortunately all of them have been lost. We only have some excerpts preserved by Eusebius (fl.325 A.D.). The martyr Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was another disciple of the apostle John, and he had a disciple, Irenaeus (wrote 182-188 A.D.), who wrote the work Against Heresies documenting the over 30 differing schools of Gnostics. He made about 1,800 quotations and references from every book the New Testament, (except Philemon and 3 John) and his writings show the books in his New Testament were the same as ours today.
We have a third category of literature, and that is more recent works that have succeeded in being thought genuine in the eyes of some. One such collection of works are called The False Decretals. These were written right before the Reformation, probably originating in Spain. They said things like Peter passed down the keys of Heaven to a "Pope" after him. Another work is the Gospel of Barnabas which was written by what was thought to be a disgruntled monk who converted to Islam. It fails to recognize that the culture of Jesus’ time was not the culture of Italy in the Middle ages, with knights, shoelaces, and such. Furthermore, while it has teaching that Christians consider heresy, it has teaching that orthodox Islam would consider heresy too. Nonetheless, since it has Jesus prophesying Mohammed coming after him, I have heard it is the #1 selling religious book in some Muslim countries.
While the early post-apostolic church did not "write" scripture, we are indebted to them for recognizing for us what was scripture. Every single book in the New Testament was referred to by the early Church fathers, prior to 150 A.D., with the possible exception of two very short books, Philemon and 3 John.
Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193-217/220 A.D.) made about 2,400 quotations and references of every New Testament book except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and possibly 3 John.
Cyprian (wrote 248-258 A.D.) made about 1,030 quotations and references from the New Testament. His quotes include every book except Philemon and 2 John, and possibly 3 John, which are the three shortest books in the New Testament.
Irenaeus in Against Heresies p.428 chapter 11 v.8 (written 182-188 A.D.) says that like the four zones of the world and the four principal winds, there are neither fewer or more than four gospels. He mentions them in other places as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
See A General Introduction to the Bible and The Origin of the Bible for more info.

Q: Since God does not have a physical body, how can Jesus be the Son of God? Muslims claim this is a key error of Christianity.
A: Christians do NOT believe Jesus was the Son of God in a crude physical or sexual sense. Rather this term is an expression of deep meaning of how Jesus is different from every created being. Shi’ite Muslims have a slightly similar concept. When they say ‘Ali is the finger of God, they do not believe that God has ten fingers like people do. Rather, this is an expression with a deeper meaning for them.

Q: I am bothered by an answer that you gave in your Bible Query saying that Jesus is God and that is simply not true. Jesus never claimed to be God. He is the son of God, the Messiah. It is wrong for you to mislead others because you sacrifice their salvation. Please read these scriptures and please change your answer.
John 14:1-4 shows a difference between Father and Son.
In Luke 18:19 Jesus says himself that no one is good but God alone when someone calls him good. He separated himself again.
In Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 Christ himself says that no one knows when the end will come only God and not even him.
In Matthew 23 8-10 Christ himself makes the distinct difference between a teacher, a leader, and the Father.
Matt 5:16 says that the Father is in Heaven.
Acts 4:12 says that salvation is through Christ, but God gave Christ to us.
Hebrews 13:21, 1 Peter 2:19-25, 1 John 2:2-6 and 1 John 2:23 all divide God and Christ. God is the Father, the Giver, the Creator. Christ is the Messiah, the Sacrifice, the Son.
In Ex 20:3, Dt 6:4-5, Dt 32:39 God says that you should no other Gods except Him. It is a sin to make Christ a God or call Christ God. God is God alone and Christ is the Messiah. He is the lamb of God. He is God’s son who was created in order to set an example of what a perfect person should be. Human kind needed a flesh example of perfection and love. Jesus is that example. He was a perfect human with divine knowledge and God lived within him. When he said that the Father and I are one he said that was because he dwelled in God and God dwelled in us. It was in perfect union with God and he was sent to us to let us know that we could be in perfect union with God also. He never claimed to be the heavenly Father and it is a great sin to mislead others into thinking so. There are many scriptures that makes a huge division between God and Christ yet I cannot recall reading one scripture anywhere that Christ said that he was God.
A: I appreciate your frank message. I certainly do not want to mislead others about their salvation. Hopefully we will be "bothered" where we are in falsehood, and find rest when we agree in the truth. You brought up so many points in your short message. I would like to take your 11 points one at a time, so that we can see where can agree or disagree with each other.
1. We must have no other gods, as you mentioned, as Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 6:4-5; 32:39 command. Romans 1:23,25 says that one of the sins of godless people was that they worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator. We should not worship or serve as a God any angel or other created being. Assuming Jesus was not God, and someone called Jesus God, do you agree that this would be a very serious sin?
2. Thomas the disciple called Jesus God in John 20:28. Thomas even went further than that. John 20:28 actually says that Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus replied to Thomas, "Because you have seen men, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus has no hint of rebuke toward Thomas. Indeed, the only remotely negative thing Jesus said is that those who have not seen Jesus in person and believe (this about Jesus) are more blessed than those who have seen Jesus and believe this. Now either
a) Thomas was wrong, and he sinned by calling Jesus God, and perhaps Jesus sinned by accepting this and not rebuking Thomas, or
b) Thomas was right, and Jesus was right to affirm what Thomas said.
Do you agree that Thomas must have been right here?
3. Distinct but not Separate: Some things can be separate, with no commonality. Some things can be distinct, with some things different and some things common. For example, the three leaves of a clover are distinct, in that they are three lobes. Yet they are not separate, because they are joined in the middle. (This illustration first came from Patrick of Ireland, a really exemplary believer who lived about 400 A.D.) Anyway, I agree that many of the verses you bring up do show a difference between the Father and the Son. Proving the Father and Son are two distinct persons does not mean they are totally separate. At the very least, they share a name, for we are baptized in the name (not names) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19.
The Christian writer Ambrose of Milan (c.378 A.D.) in his work, Of the Holy Spirit Book 1 chapter 13, wrote more on the sharing of the divine names. See The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2nd Series p.110-111 for more info.
a) They have the same nature (Philippians 2:5)
b) They are the same honor (John 5:23)
c) The Father and Jesus "own" all in common. John 16:15;17:10.
d) On earth the Father lived in Jesus. John 10:38;14:10-11.
e) On earth Jesus was in the Father. John 10:38;14:11
f) If you really know Jesus, then you know the Father and have seen the Father. John 14:7-9
g) No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. John 14:6;6:45;~8:24; Acts3:12
h) Both are rightfully worshipped (Hebrews 1:6)
i) Both are rightfully called God (John 1:1; 20:28, Hebrews 1:8,9)
j) Both are prayed to (Acts 7:7:59-60)
k) Everything in the world was created through both of them (John 1:3, 10, Colossians 1:16)
l) The fullness of deity is in Jesus (Colossians 1:19).
m) They are one in spirit, love, and purpose. To truly obey one is to obey the other.
So do you agree that they are distinct, but they do have some things in common where they are not separate?
4. Oneness Pentecostalism is wrong: The previous point is important, because there is a heresy called Modalism, of which Oneness Pentecostalism is one modern form, which teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in every way. The verses of Jesus’ baptism, as well as the verses you brought up (John 14:1-4, Matt 5:16, 1 John 2:23, etc.) prove that Oneness Pentecostalism is wrong. I think we can agree on that.
5. Christ our Teacher does not disprove the Trinity: I disagree somewhat with your conclusion on Matthew 23:8-10, because since Christ is our Teacher, does that mean we are to refuse to learn anything from the Holy Spirit or what God the Father has revealed in nature of God’s word? Of course we can agree that is not the case. However, I think you were trying to strengthen your point that there is a difference between the Father and the Son, and I already agree with that.
6. Salvation is a work of God! By the way, from Acts 4:12 and 1 John 2:2-6, is our salvation a work of man or a work of God? Our salvation is a gift from God. It would be a work of man, since Jesus was a man, if Jesus was merely a man.
7. Jesus and God: I think I sufficiently showed that while the Father and Jesus are different, that is not a problem. However, this does not yet answer the distinction between Jesus and God that Hebrews 13:20-21 and other verses show. (I do not think 1 Peter 2:19-25 shows this, but other verses do, so this is a moot point.). Remember that the term elohim (God/god) has at least four different meanings in the Bible. Jesus acknowledged there was more than one meaning in John 10:34-39, where He quotes Psalm 82:6. Here are the meanings in the Bible:
Those who are called gods, even idols. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6; Genesis 31:30,33
The Father. Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:2-3,17, Hebrews 1:9 (2nd occurrence) etc.
Jesus. Hebrews 1:9 (1st occurrence); John 1:1,19: Hosea 1:7; Isaiah 7:14; 1 John 5:11,12 vs. 21; Colossians 2:9 and Matthew 1:23
The Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9-16; Luke 1:35; 1 John 4:12,13,15-16; 1 Corinthians 3:16 vs. 1 Corinthians 6:19; Acts 5:4
8. Verses showing Jesus is God: You say you cannot recall one scripture where Jesus said that He was God. Besides Thomas saying so in John 20:28, the writer of Hebrews saying so in Hebrews 1:8,9, and John the apostle called Jesus God in the end of John 1:1. Jesus Himself claimed to be God in John 8:58. Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!". The word "I am," was the divine name of God. Now the Jews either understood Jesus’ communication correctly when they picked up stones to stone Him, or else the misunderstood Jesus’ communication. Do you agree?
9. Only God is good: In Luke 18:19, since the man threw around the word good so casually, and did not recognize Jesus as God, Jesus questioned why He was throwing that word "good" around so freely. Jesus called Himself the good shepherd in John 10:11. You yourself mentioned that Jesus was an example of perfection and love, and a perfect human. Since Jesus was good, and Luke 18:19 was not a denial that Jesus was good, Luke 18:19 was not a denial that Jesus was God either. Do you agree?
10. Jesus, on earth, did not know when He would return. In Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36, you observe that not even Jesus knew the time when He would return. That is true of Jesus, - on earth. Philippians 2:7-8 said that Jesus voluntarily emptied Himself when He came to earth. On earth, Jesus did not utilize His own power or knowledge, but depended on God the Father. Jesus even prayed that His glory would be restored to Him in John 17:5.
11. The early Christians taught that Jesus was God too. It is wrong to mislead others about the truth (or falsehood) of Jesus’ divinity. You would think that such an important thing would be made clear by the apostles. Jesus being God is not just "some novel thing" modern people thought up. Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, in his letter to Polycarp (ch.3) writes about the Lord’s second coming: "Look for Him that is above the times, Him who has no times, Him who is invisible, Him who for our sakes became visible, Him who is impalpable [beyond touch], Him who is impassable [beyond passion], Him who for our sakes suffered, Him who endured everything in every form for our sakes." So Ignatius understood that God the Son was the visible, temporal appearance of the invisible, timeless God the Father. In Ephesians 7 Ignatius talks of Christ as God Incarnate. He goes on to say that Jesus was "sprung from Mary as well as God first subject to suffering then beyond it"
Likewise Hippolytus (225-235/6 A.D.) also wrote about this. Here is what He said in Against the Heresy of One Noetus chapter 14. says "If, then the Word was with God and was also God what follows? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods but of one; of two Persons however and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One but there are two Persons because there is also the Son; and then there is the third the Holy Spirit."
Do you agree that apart from the Bible, the teaching that Jesus is God was given as early as the disciples of the apostles?
Finally, if I am not mistaken, I think I answered every single point you brought up. Please let me know if I missed anything, or if you thought my logic was wrong on any points. I agree with you that it would be a sin to call Christ God, if Christ was not actually God. However, do you agree it would be a sin to say Christ is not God if in fact Christ was God?

Q: How can the Father, Son, and Spirit all be God, since the Old Testament so strongly emphasized there is only One God?
A: First of all, the complete description of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not only something God has not revealed to us yet, but if He had completely revealed it, probably would be beyond our understanding. Imagine for a second that there were beings living in a two dimensional world, and you could communicate with them. How would you describe yourself? For starters, you might say that you were something they could understand, but not completely understand. For example, you would poke four of your fingers into their world, and say those four circles they saw actually are connected. The skeptics on that two-dimensional world could travel around each of the four circles, and since the fingers did not connect according to their understanding, conclude you were lying. On the opposite extreme, others could say that since they were connected, the distinctness of the four fingers was an illusion, and you really did not have any distinct fingers. Others might want to have a picture you, so they would draw strange pictures of four circles, or else four connected circles. You would tell them not to bother with the pictures, as they would not be even close to an adequate representation of you.
We may not be able to comprehend everything about the Triune God, but fortunately we do not have to try. We only have to learn what the Lord has revealed: There is only One God, we are only to worship, glorify, pray to, God, not any creatures that God created. Yet Bible shows both angels and men worshipping, glorifying, and praying to Jesus is worshipped in a proper way.
Here is a diagram that might help. Draw a circle in the center, labeled "God". Draw three circles around that circle, labeled as "The Father" on top, and "The Son" and "The Spirit" on each side. Connect each of the outer circles with the center circle using three lines. Label each line "is". Connect each outer circle with the other outer circles, and label the three lines "is not".
As mentioned in my previous email, sometimes when the word "God" is used in the Bible, it refers to God the Father. As you point out, when Jesus prayed to God, and in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was NOT praying to Himself. I find it somewhat humorous that I am reading your letter about this right now, because just two days ago I was writing a short article mentioning the false teaching Oneness Pentecostalism, where I make the very same point you are making. The word "God" does mean "God the Father" in many places in the Bible, including the phrase "your God" in Hebrews 1:9, as well as the phrase "when God" in Hebrews 1:6.
However, the word "God" means "God the Son" in many places too. Let’s look at Hebrews 1:8-9 again. Hebrews 1: says "But about the son he says, Your throne, O God,…".
I do not think people just began worshipping Christ out of any error, because the sinless angels themselves worshipped the Lamb (Jesus) in Revelation 5:12, saying "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" Also, John the Apostle had a disciple, Ignatius. Ignatius left some writings, and he emphasized apparently what he had been taught, that Jesus was God.
Now in your previous letter, you stated that Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 6:4-5, 32:39 prove that we should worship no other gods. In your latest letter, you have trouble struggling to get past the point in the Old Testament that there was only One God. Well, please don’t get past that. Hang on to that truth! Yet, even the Old Testament hints that this is not the end of the story. Psalm 110:1 (the Old Testament verse most often quoted in the New Testament) says "The LORD says to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." (NIV) Who is this "Son", this "second one" we should also call Lord? Of course, this is Jesus.
I suspect that the point at which you are confused is this: when the words "God" and "Lord" are used in the Bible, of the True God and true Lord, does the Bible always use these in the same way, or are these words like "judge" and "perfect" that have a couple of different meanings depending on the context. As long as you think "God" (when not referring to idols) always has the same meaning, and "Lord" always has the same meaning, you will be confused when you read certain verses. I suggest that "God" and "Lord" have different meanings depending on the verse.
Now we come to a paradox. Since there is only One God to be worshipped, and angels and men properly worshipped Jesus, how can that be? The only answer that addresses all of the "Jesus-glorifying verses" is that Jesus is One True God worthy of worship.
A closely-related issue is the Bible saying that for us there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5). Yet is our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 12:3; John 20:25,28), or is our Lord the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), or is our Lord the Father (Hebrews 7:21, 1 Peter 1:25, etc.)
1 Corinthians 7:35 says we are to have undivided devotion to the Lord. Does this mean we are to be devoted to Jesus, and forget about God the Father? - Of course not. The only answer is that God the Father is our "One Lord", but Jesus Christ and the Spirit also are part of our "One Lord".
Here is another paradox in the Bible. Since Jesus is the One True God, yet Jesus prayed to "His God", who is the God that is worthy of our worship? There are four possibilities:
Only the Father. This cannot be correct, or else the angels were wrong to glorify Jesus, Stephen was wrong to pray to Jesus, Thomas was wrong to call Jesus ‘My Lord and My God’ and Jesus was wrong not to correct Him.
Only Jesus. This cannot be correct, or else Jesus praying to God [The Father] and calling Him God would be wrong.
Both are God and there are at least two gods. This cannot be correct, for God intended the Old Testament to emphasize to us that there is only One True God.
Both are God, and there is only One True God. This answer is the most difficult to accept, because there is no exact analogy on earth. Your analogy of you and your parents is OK up to a point, but I do not like that as it makes "God" sort of a family surname, and I believe the Three are One in a much closer way than that. Yet not having a perfect analogy to God on earth, does not disqualify this answer as being correct. In fact, no other answer that I have seen not just "explains away all the Bible verses" but rather includes all the Bible verses. The concept of the Trinity emphasizes the distinctness of the Three, it also emphasizes the inseparability of the Three, and yet it also emphasizes there is only One God.
There is one thing you can say for idol gods. These "little guys", pretenders with petty whims and all-too-human foibles, are much simpler for the natural man to understand than the Holy, Almighty God who fills the heavens and the earth. I do think that over time many people have veered away from what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. Here is another diagram for you. Draw a triangle, and label the three points as "One God", "Three Persons", "Equal Nature". Now outside the triangle, on the line outside of "One God", write the opposite heresy "polytheism". Likewise outside the triangle on the line opposite "Three Persons" write "Oneness heresies". Finally on the line opposite of "equal nature" write "Ebionites". The Ebionites were an early heresy that tried to combine the Jewish customs with Christianity. They recognized Jesus as the Messiah, did not recognize him as God.
Now one issue that needs to be brought up is: given that they are inseparable in some ways, and distinct in other ways, how are they inseparable, and how are they distinct?
They are one in love, purpose and obedience. In other words, you cannot obey one while disobeying another.
They are one in name, as we discussed.
They are one in nature. Neither the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit are created beings. Similar to the fact that I can create objects, but my children came from me and my wife, the Son was begotten of the Father, not created by Him.
Is the Father greater than the Son? We have to answer that question in three different contexts.
Nature and Honor: The Father and the Son are co-equal. Philippians 2:6 shows they have the same nature. John 5:23 "that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."
On earth, Jesus was less than the Father. Jesus voluntarily emptied Himself of much of His glory (Philippians 2:7 John 17:5). Jesus learned obedience (Hebrews 5:8), got tired (John 4:6), did not know everything such as the hour of His return (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32), etc.
Even in Heaven, the Father has a greater role than the Son. For example, in marriage the husband and wife are equal and have equal value, but they have different roles, and the husband has the role of the leader the wife should obey. Also in a family the parent has a different role than a child. Thus even in Heaven, as the Father is the head of a son, God is the head of Christ. (Yes, god here refers to God the Father). (1 Corinthians 11:3) God the Father is also called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ in Ephesians 1:17. We have not said much about the Spirit so far, but the Holy Spirit has a role of interceding to the Father for