Apologia

Did Jesus Exist?

2009-03-05T16:41:00.000-08:00

This Sunday in Ventura, Atheists United will host author and historian Richard Carrier at the Foster Library, as he endeavors to convince his audience that an actual Jesus never existed. To put it in the exact words of his spokesman: He will be “Suggesting there is a reasonable case to be made that Jesus might not have been a historical person, but was instead a mythical hero character who became "historicized," generally believed to have actually existed, over time like other Greco-Roman gods and heroes.” (emphasis mine)

Brian Parra, AU Hosts Author and Historian Richard Carrier, Ph.D. "Did Jesus Even Exist." Feb 16, 2009. Atheistsunited.org

http://atheistsunited.org/home/press-releases/176-au-hosts-author-and-historian-richard-carrier-phd-qdid-jesus-even-existq

I want you to bypass the poise of the sentence, and pay special attention to what his claim actually is: To show that it is possible that Jesus might not have existed.

I want you to cling to this word for a good reason. An historian seeks to reveal what is MOST PROBABLE. Why do I say this? A historian cannot always PROVE what they put forth as history, can they? They cannot PROVE without any doubt whatsoever that Emperor Nero existed. Indubitable proof might consist of video footage of Emperor Nero, a photograph of him, an autograph by his hand, or something of that nature. But to throw out the possibility of his existence because there is a slight possibility that he did NOT exist is improbable and silly. (Just re-read that last sentence to see what I mean). But that's what historians have at their disposal. They rarely seem to have indisputable proof, but what they do have is evidence which leads them to believe in the event, person, or fact that is most probable, most reliable, and that in which they are able to trust happened or existed.. In the case of Emperor Nero, we don't have video footage of him, but we have writings and histories about him by Roman Historians, Jews, and Christians. We might not have photographs of him, but I've seen sculptures of him that show his likeness. I have read literature dealing with the impact he has had on the course of humanity. It seems highly IMPROBABLE that Emperor Nero was a myth, when so much evidence seems to tell us that he was real. Anyone can stand up on a podium and claim that since none of us saw Nero ourselves, he must not have existed. The rest of us would probably laugh, because while we cannot PROVE that Nero existed, the evidence that he did makes any contrary claim extremely laughable. The burden is on the shoulders of the person on the podium to prove wrong the outstanding evidence we have for Nero.

Did Jesus exist? History seems to divulge sufficient evidence:

1) The first-hand sources of the Gospel writers

2) Multiple attestation by secular historians that were hostile to Christianity (Tacitus 55-120 A.D., Suetonius 117-138 A.D., Josephus 37-97 A.D., Thalus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Lucian, etc...)

3) Oral Tradition

I have not heard Dr. Carrier speak. But I have have heard several arguments that Jesus did not exist and so far, they always seem to be similar:

1) The gospels were written roughly 40 years after Jesus was on the Earth

2) Nothing was written about Jesus by historians during his life, only after the fact

3) There are many historical accounts of Jesus after his death, but no accounts of his life by his contemporaries.

Let me offer some brief answers..

1) The JFK assassination was about 40 years ago. Do we believe the histories of that event, or of his life? What have the videotapes taught you about the culprit? You weren't there, so why should you believe them? Ah! Because others were there, and the transmission of this information through these witnesses serves you well. In the same way, there were eyewitnesses of Jesus life (See #3).

2) Little (if anything) was written about Barack Obama during his appointment to the senate. After the run for the presidency, however, his fame skyrocketed to unprecedented heights. Jesus wasn't a renegade warrior, trying to cause trouble for the Roman Empire. He was not on the scope of their notice until later on (when histories were written by Lucian, Pliny the Younger, etc.). It also does not follow that because someone of importance exists, that every historian or writer must rush to the papyrus and write something, or anything for that matter. [Notice that I am not using the example of Barack (who is alive) to prove Jesus' existence, only to point out that the lack of writings during a persons' lifetime does nothing to disprove his existence]. ---{{thank you frumious, for your submitted corrections. You make me a better thinker every time.}}

3) There were no written accounts by his contemporaries. There was a HUGH oral tradition in play (when things of importance are passed on by word of mouth through trained communities).

It seems as though many atheists when addressing the issue of Jesus' existence, will deny all of this available evidence for the possibility that it might not be true. It's important to remember that simply because something is possible does not mean it's probable. It's possible that I may eat a bucket full of tomatoes right now...but highly, highly improbable because I hate tomatoes. So if anyone writes and asserts that I may have done that sometime in my life, you will know that this is far-fetched.

"But is something like oral tradition reliable when it comes to remembering Jesus' teachings?"

Well, unlike the sketchy method of memorization that we play in a game like Telephone, Oral Tradition can actually be a very reliable method. I guess it would have to be for Jewish culture to preserve their own history.

In a nutshell, here's how it worked:

First of all, the first century Jews lived in an oral culture. A very few percentage of Jesus' followers were literate, so people needed good memories. They memorized much of everything. Jewish boys were required to memorize huge parts of the Old Testament by the time they were 13 years old. Teachers and Rabbi's were expected to hand down their information accurately, and it wasn't being handed down to one person at a time (like in the game of Telephone). "Since they did their work in community gatherings, if they got the story substantially wrong, the community in which they functioned would hold them accountable for their mistake" (Roberts, 73). And since the followers of Jesus believed He had very important things to say, they would have had incredible incentive to pass on this information with great precision and accuracy.

Unconvinced? Consider Jan Vansina, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor and the Vilas Professor in History and Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin. He is a renown historian and anthropologist, and his 1961 book, Oral Traditions, was hailed internationally as a pioneering work in the field of ethno-history. He might know some things.

He has this to say about Oral Tradition:

In order to establish whether an oral tradition contains a kernal of historical truth or not, it is necessary to discover the oldest attested form in which the tradition was handed down. -J. Vansina

Well, history shows us that the gospels were written within a generation of Jesus Christ life, BUT the oral tradition goes back to the very followers and disciples of Christ, eyewitnesses to his life.

Should a tradition contain some internal contradiction, or go against facts established from other sources, it must be regarded as unreliable. [The scholar] then proceeds to examine....and concludes that some second-hand traditional material can be subjected to scrutiny by the methods employed in historical criticism. This amounts to saying that if the reliability of a tradition has been established, it can be regarded as valid source material. -J. Vansina

That's good news. There are no internal difficulties in the Bible that cannot be adequately resolved, and the oral tradition that was later written down by the gospel writers, or by second-hand witnesses (like Luke) does not go against facts or other sources, as seen above.

As was put forth at the beginning, there is PLENTY of reliable evidence that Jesus existed. That's why I believe beyond recognizable doubt that He did. And that's why Paul L. Maier, the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, once said in the case of the historicity of Jesus Christ, that the evidence is "so overpowering, and so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence." Now I have yet to hear Dr. Carrier's presentation. I encourage you to go if you can, and hear for yourself. Perhaps he will bring a different approach to this discussion.

Friends, you may be asked tough questions about your faith in Christ, and even given "proof" to discount what you hold to be true. Don't let this shake you up. Just roll up your sleeves, and assume that if God does exist as we believe to be true, He will provide answers, evidences, and truth for us to discover. You may even find that when all the facts and evidences are examined, it's often the opposing viewpoints to Christianity that require the most faith to believe.

Works Cited:

Vansina, Jan, H.M. Wright, Selma Leydesdorff, and Elizabeth Tonkin. Oral Tradition. Pg. 3

Ibid. Pg. 4

Maier, Paul L. Did Jesus Really Exist? Pg. 1

Roberts, Mark D. Can We Trust the Gospels? 73

Church Membership: Why I do not support it

2008-12-27T16:49:00.000-08:00

I am a pastor at Reality Carpinteria church. At Reality Carp, we have frequently been asked why we do not have "church membership" by those in the body who wish to be faithful to any pattern of church structure given in Scripture. I think that search is very noble, as we should test what we do against Scripture, and not simply traditions of men. It is for that very reason, that this particular church staff (myself included), has departed from "church membership" as it is traditionally defined, because we have deemed it an invention and precept of men. It is also my stance that this is a non-essential doctrine, that is, it is nothing to divide over, and if it weren't for the honest questions that are asked regarding membership, I would have preferred to leave it be. However, it is an important issue for many people, so allow me to explain my position for your information:

First, I want to clarify what you probably mean by “church membership.” Many churches require those who call themselves a part of the local body to “become” members of that church, by going through a series of requirements, like a believer’s class, counseling, baptism, and then usually followed by signing a paper, in which they are then pronounced “members.” Whatever the process may be, we do not distinguish in this way for the reasons below.

1) We cannot find it instructed anywhere in the Bible. While it is clear that the Church is made up of “individual members” (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:20), nowhere does Scripture command us have anyone sign a paper, or have a membership system in place. So, our main reason is that church membership is not supported by Scripture, and therefore unsupported by this church body.

2) Church membership actually stems from the tradition of the Early Church. In the 1st century, Rome had associations that were legally recognized by the government, some of which were religious. The Jewish religion, for example, was recognized by the Roman government as a legitimate, sanctioned worship structure. Since Christianity came from Jewish roots, the Roman government included it under the umbrella of Judaism, and therefore offered its approval for it. However, this was put to a stop in A.D. 64, during the time of Emperor Nero. Christianity was soon discovered to be completely different from Judaism, and the protective covering was lifted. But what is REALLY interesting is that the Early Church began to mimic Roman associations and pagan societies who had a kind of “belonging” in their groups, and so they adopted church membership in order to bring that same type of belonging to their congregations. So that’s the history of church membership; it did not originate from Scripture, but from the influence of Roman associations and pagan societies.

Now, the last thing I want to address is the question of how we are able to practice church discipline without a membership in place. My answer is: quite well! Now let me first address the texts that deal with it: Matt. 18:17 and 1 Tim. 5:20-21. The latter text is addressed to Timothy in regards to handling an elder in the church who is sinning, so this text does not apply to members of the church. The first text does, and as far as I can see it, this text can be carried out with or without membership. In other words, membership is irrelevant. Allow me to explain…

Church discipline is an authority that is granted to pastors of the church who exercise it whenever the appropriate situation arises, and they do so by the authority of Jesus Christ. What that means is that we as pastors do not need to know beforehand that a congregant has signed a document, before we can exercise authority. To do that is to say that our authority as church elders, and our grounds for practicing church discipline comes from that written document! And that is entirely unscriptural. A pastor’s authority comes from Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd, who has commanded us to shepherd the flock of God among us, exercising oversight (2 Pet. 5:2,4), and it doesn’t matter whether the attendees are members or not. In fact, Paul the Apostle often exercised church discipline with churches that he had never been to. Why? He was given the authority to do so, by Christ Himself. This happens at Reality Carpinteria among the staff, and it happens at Reality Adorn on Friday nights throughout the week. And the protocol remains the same whether the person has been going for years and calls the church their home, or they have been only once and don’t plan on belonging.

-Chris Lazo

Claim: "The Lord Told Me"

2008-11-27T19:39:00.000-08:00

It is a trap for a man to say rashly, "It is holy!" And after the vows to make inquiry. -Proverbs 20:25

Be careful with the "Thus saith the Lord" syndrome. We are often quick to claim that God is leading us in a direction that were really captained by our emotions.

Even worse, we use presupposed hermeneutics to guide the coarse of Scripture in our life, determining ourselves what we THINK it ought to mean. This is a subjective reading of the Bible as opposed to an objective one.

Three rules (though far from an exhaustive list) may help us from falling into deception:

1. Private interpretation does not mean that we should rely solely on our own judgments, ignoring the insights and research of others;
2. Private interpretation does not mean that we have the right to "distort" the Bible in accordance with our own conceptions;
3. Private interpretation does not mean that we can ignore the history of interpretation in the church. Dr. Sam Storms

On the other hand, we DO sometimes feel as though the Lord is prompting or directing us through a particular passage or text, do we not? Can the Lord speak prophetically to us through a specific text, or even a subjective impression we got from the Bible? While I do strongly suggest treading lightly in this area (because our subjective impressions can often be faulty; Jer. 17:9), I also believe that it's by using the objective standard of the Word of God, that we are able to steer our less sturdy, subjective leanings along a straight path. A guideline that probably makes the best prescription, was made by Edmund Clowney in a conversation with Wayne Grudem:

The degree of certainty we have with regard to God's will in a situation is directly proportional to the degree of clarity we have as to how the Word of God applies to the situation (Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. 128.)

With that being said, be careful of deceptive teachings, for they are often malefactors of these simple guidelines, and as Jeremiah testifies concerning the heart of God in such matters:

"I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied." -Jeremiah 23:21

double standards & self-refuting claims in an argument

2008-11-02T21:05:00.000-08:00

I've been following the response to a post by a friend on Facebook, on Prop 8.

It's an ongoing conversation between those who are voting "no," and those who are voting "yes." Those on this thread who are voting "no" hold the position that Prop 8 is hateful and discriminatory propaganda. That's ok; they are fully entitled to this opinion, and their vote. But observe some of the flimsy reasoning they brandish in their arguments against a couple Christians who are supportive of Prop 8:

1) "Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution."

2) "If I remember correctly, there's an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated.'"

3) "How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?"

4) "I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians."

Now, several others on the thread responded with sound, opposing arguments that need not be refined. Instead of rummaging through the details of the conversation, I want you to take a deeper look into the silly logic behind some of these statements, made above in the four points. Consider the faults in them:

1) Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution.

Well, any vote you or I cast is going to be imposing on someone's beliefs, because not everyone agrees....that's why we vote, hello? Now...if my Christian beliefs (which are the foundation for my moral decisions) are not supposed to be incorporated into the voting process, than what is? How is this person who is voting against the proposition deciding her vote? I imagine it's from her personal beliefs. And I don't think her personal beliefs on homosexuality should be imposed upon the California Constitution.

2) If I remember correctly, there is an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated."

I've heard this pleading of Jesus' command made several times, and while it is a command to be followed, the quoter fails to draw into her conclusion consistent knowledge of the entire council of the Bible. We actually don't need to go very far for you to see what I mean...just finish the verse: "...for this is the Law and the Prophets." -Matt. 7:12

Hmm...So while Christians are commanded to treat others the way we want to be treated, we are still under the command NOT to practice homosexuality, since that was a command given by the Law the Prophets. In fact, if you were to keep reading down that chapter, you find some rather hard-edged truth-claims being made by Jesus Himself:

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." -Matt. 7:13
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." -Matt. 7:15
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." -Matt. 7:19

Someone should probably warn Jesus about the way He's treating people. Just kidding. Jesus is obviously not against the Christian warning, proclaiming, or preaching the truth (in love). And His previous statement about treatment has nothing to do with whether we are to speak out the truth or not. That is why Christians are "imposing their beliefs" on the Constitution. Because the Constitution is made up of people's beliefs, and during the voting process, the secular government is ASKING us to share our beliefs! For Christians, we get our beliefs from the Bible.

{This assertion is also peculiar because the same person who made the first objection (which itself was a double standard) is now using the very Bible she wishes was not being imposed on her, to argue against the Christian voting for Prop 8. But I digress...}

3) How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?

These types of questions that are geared towards coercing your emotional response sometimes work well, but in this case, it does not. Why? Because Bible-believing Christians know that what or how we feel doesn't really matter in light of our clear instruction. Because let's be honest, we DO feel bad when we are prohibited from ANY kind of sin. That's why we needed Jesus in the first place, to help us stop sinning against Him.

To answer her question, I would probably feel the same way the cell phone driver feels when the cop prohibits him/her from using their cell phone while driving. I for one, like using my cell phone while driving, and I don't care if some people get in accidents, because I don't. And I'm sick and tired of people imposing their beliefs about cell phones on me, just because someone got in an accident with one.

4) I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians.

The logic behind this statement is somewhat self-refuting, and collapses upon itself when applied to, say, my position. You see, I (like her) am also deeply offended when others (like her) impose their opinions about me and my religion on me and my fellow Californians. So her statement is nullified by mine. Or the other way around? Ha:) (Silly logic).

...Just kidding, I'm not offended:) I just wanted to prove the point behind a very bad apologetic for Prop 8. And I'm still going to vote against what she is voting for based on my personal beliefs, which came from the Bible which I hold to be true.

Because I'm a Californian. And RockTheVote.com wants me to step up, and claim my voice.

The God-man (The Deity of Jesus Christ)

2008-10-11T10:48:00.000-07:00

Christianity teaches that Jesus is God. There are several objections to this claim; we will deal with four of those objections here

Objection 1: Jesus was a prophet or good teacher.

Objection 2: Orthodox Christianity sprang "from the Nicene conference in 325 A.D., when it was decided by vote of the bishops that Jesus was God."

Objection 3: Verses speaking of Christ submitting to the Father, praying to the Father, and attributing to the Father more greatness seem to nullify His deity.

Objection 4: Jesus seems reluctant to be called God.

These first two objection must maintain three presuppositions:

1. Jesus never claimed He was God
2. None of His followers ever claimed He was God
3. None of His enemies thought He was claiming to be God

Let’s address each of these assumptions…

JESUS DID CLAIM HIS OWN DEITY:

He tells the Jews in defense of His authority, that "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working" (John 5:17-18).

The proper study of any literature tells us to exegete the meaning based off what the hearers in that culture understood Him to say…

It says very clearly in the next verse that "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

In John 8:58, Jesus says to the Jews, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Here, Jesus applies the Old Testament name of God that Yahweh used of Himself when Moses asked Him for His Name, to Himself (Ex 3:14). If there was any doubt of this, we but need to look to the listeners of that time to make note of their reaction. Remember, these were adult religious Jews who by the time they turned 13, memorized all of the Old Testament, and would have heard and discerned clearly what Jesus was implying if He claimed deity.

There reaction: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." Jews often stoned those accused of blasphemy. Why would they stone Him for this statement?

A clearer example of this is in John 10:30-33, when He tells the Jews, "I and the Father are one."

This is a blatant claim to deity

Their response: They "picked up stones again to stone Him..." They stated, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."  The Jews also accuse Jesus of claiming to be God, as well as fully man. It wasn't unclear to them though they might disagree, in fact, they were going to murder Him for it, and eventually did.  

Jesus states in John's vision, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8).

Interestingly, God the Father makes this claim several times:

• "I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last. I am He" (Is. 41:4).
• "I am the first and I am the last, and THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME" (Is. 44:6).
• "I am He, I am the first, I am also the last" (Is. 48:12).

JESUS WAS CALLED GOD OR WORSHIPED AS GOD BY:

Isaiah (Is 9:6) His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Thomas (John 20:28) Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Paul (Titus 2:13) Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

Peter (2 Peter 1:1) ...by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

John (John 1:1-2, 14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Who was the Word? Look at vs.14 --> And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.

The angels (Heb 1:6) He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

…Though it is strictly demanded by Jesus Himself "to worship the Lord Your God only"

(Matt 4:10).

God the Father! (Heb. 1:8) But of the Son {He says,} "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Objection 3: Verses that speak of Christ submitting to the Father, praying to Him, or verses that speak of Him attributing the Father to be greater than Him nullify His deity.
For example:
• “And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” –Matt. 26:39
• "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” –John 14:28

But consider this:
This word [greater] is what is called a quantitative term,
not a qualitative term.

A quantitative term describes quantities, levels, positions, etc.

A qualitative term describes qualities, character, nature.

--If I was to say that there is a great amount of water in this cup,

....I would be speaking quantitatively.

--If I was to say that the water in this cup is great,

...I’m speaking qualitatively (because I’m describing the nature,
the quality of the drink...“it is great.”)

In other words, Jesus was NOT speaking about the nature of the Father being greater or better.

He was referring to His humanity, which carries along with it, some limitations.

That's also a reason Jesus prayed to the Father.

Think about this:

If Jesus was God, why did He...

Sleep? (Matt. 8:24)
Eat? (Mark 2:15)
Drink? (John 4:7)
Battle anxiety? (Luke 22:44)
DIE?? (Luke 23:46)

None of these things are needs or limitations that God the Father has, but remember that Jesus (while %100 God) was also %100 human too. And because of His human limitations, He needed to sleep, eat, drink, suffer, and die.

And because He was made in the likeness of men, He needed to pray too (Phil. 2:6-7).

Objection 4: Jesus seems reluctant to be called God.
For example: “As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”
–Mark 10:17-18

But Jesus IS good!

Consider His claim:
• "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.”
–John 10:11

Actually, He's a little more than good. He's perfect:

• “For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” –Heb. 7:26

Jesus wasn't rebuking the young man for calling Him good. He was making sure that the kid new the connotations and truthfulness of the apparent flattery. He was implying Hid Godhood!

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT…
Jesus is described as God by the testimony of Scripture:
• The very exact representation of the nature of God (Heb 1:3).
• The image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15)
• The maker of all things (Col. 1:16)
• Before all things (Col. 1:17)
• The beginning, itself (Col. 1:18)
• The sustainer of all things (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3)
• Unchangeable (Heb. 1:12)
• Eternal (Heb. 1:12)
• The first place in everything (Col. 1:18)
• The fullness of deity (Col. 2:9)
• The head over all rule and authority (Col. 2:10)
• The head of the church (Col. 1:18)
• The mystery (Col. 2:2)
• The treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3)
• The author and perfector of our faith (Heb. 12:2)
• The One who makes holy (Heb. 2:11)
• He is the substance, or the reality (Col. 2:17)
 
Listen to this description by the Apostle John who saw Jesus in a vision:
{I saw} one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet {were} like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice {was} like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. (Rev. 1:13-16)

It’s no wonder that men who encountered Him fell down like dead men.

John was in the presence of the powerful Son of God, and he attempts to stretch the limitations of his language to describe what Jesus was like. He basically states that Jesus' face was like a solar flare, the strength of the sun.

The amount of energy released is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time!
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm

John uses a dramatic figure of speech to tell the Church that Jesus' is indescribably glorious!

Indeed, it's no wonder that John tells us later that Heaven "has no need for the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and it's lamp is the Lamb."

(Rev. 22:5)

Christ is the center of Christianity, all else is circumference. –John Stott

Long live the King.

ad hominem

2008-10-09T18:04:00.000-07:00

(Latin, “to the man”)
An argumentative tactic where a person fails to engage the substance of an argument, choosing instead to opt for a personal attack on the character of the one making the argument. A popular and humorous extreme of this would be to respond to someone by saying “Your a monkey’s uncle.” Another example might be saying “Your just a right-winged fundamentalist. How could you know what you are talking about?”1

This is a popular tactic you should be aware of when discussing an imperative issue. Sometimes someone with an opposing viewpoint will use an ad hominem argument. I was recently discussing a theological issue with someone who had strayed far from the truth of Scripture. This particular person's reaction to a very solid case of evidence was to point out my spelling mistakes!

While this is humorous, it is also important to remember that when you are wanting to help another person get back on track (theologically), you might have to remind them of what the issue is at hand.

For example, the validity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When you are presenting evidence for the resurrection of Jesus for that person to observe, he/she may want to go on a tangent about how much trouble Christians have brought onto the world, or question the reliability of Scripture. These are UNRELATED to the issue! Gently and respectfully set aside a later time to discuss these issues, so that the evidence for the issue at hand (resurrection) can be reasoned with.

Stay on topic!!

1.http://wordoftheday.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2008/06/24/ad-hominem/

The word "Trinity" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible...

2008-10-08T13:55:00.000-07:00

One of the first objections I hear to the doctrine of the Trinity, by everyone from Bart Erhman to the Jehovah's Witnesses, is that the word Trinity isn't even spoken of in the Bible.

They're right.

And neither is the word Bible anywhere in the Bible.

Or omniscience.

Or the Incarnation (meaning God in the flesh).

And yet we teach all of these things, because the word form of these concepts do not need to be present in order for the truth of the concept to be clearly implied or spoken of in Scripture.

And it follows logically from the substantiated claims Jesus made about Himself, and the claims God makes about Himself, that the concept of Trinity is taught in the Bible.

Polygamy and the Bible

2008-10-02T09:49:00.000-07:00

Does the Old Testament condone polygamy through instances of it in the lives of men like Abraham, Solomon, and David?

The answer is: "No," it does not.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are pretty straight forward on the structure of a relationship; it needs to be a covenantal marriage between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). The Old Testament is even more direct with Solomon, when God previously prohibits the kings of Israel from "multiplying wives" for themselves (Deut. 17:17). We can also follow along the story of Abraham to see that he indeed departed from the will of God's plan when he disregarded the promise of a future Isaac, and took up Hagar as his wife to birth Ishmael. Even further, the New Testament not only reiterates this, but it reinforces this truth through Jesus' own words (see past NT references), and through the requirements of a church pastor, who must be the husband of "one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2).

Concerning the acts of polygamy in the OT, this is actually a beautiful thing about the Bible: it doesn't embellish or exaggerate the accounts of holy men of God. Rather, it shows them as the sinners they are. Even Abraham sinned. The Old Testament only record these sins without ever condoning them. In actually, it blatantly opposes them, and shows the characters as they really are: humans in need of a Savior.

A brief definition of theology

2008-06-24T16:34:00.000-07:00

It comes from the Greek words "Theos" meaning 'God,' and "Logos" meaning 'discourse,' or 'explanation.'

Theology means the study of who God is

Here are some types of theology:

-Old Testament theology (This seeks to understand the theological message as given by various parts or the whole of the Old Testament. For example, "What do the Psalms teach about prayer?" or what can I learn about sacrifice from the Old Testament?)

-New Testament theology (This seeks to understand the theological message as given by various parts or the whole of the New Testament books. For example, "What does James or Romans teach about prayer?" or "What is the progression of the New Testament understanding on the doctrine of grace?")

-Historical theology (This traces the progression of Christians understanding of a doctrine throughout history. For example, the difference between Medieval and pre-reformation doctrines of salvation).

-Biblical theology (This traces the historical development of a doctrine. For example, the core doctrine of the Trinity as i made its way from Genesis 1 to the Council of Nicaea).

-Apologetic theology (This is the study of defending the faith. For example, how can we trust the Bible?)

-Systematic theology (This seeks to develop a clear, summarized understanding of a doctrine through the entire lens of Scripture. For example, "What does the whole Bible teach about the subject of sin?")

Beyond Relativism

2008-05-12T12:15:00.000-07:00

An Analysis of The New Reformation

No doubt, Evangelical Christians are known for their stamina as it pertains to the doctrine of inerrancy. Recently, I (Chris Lazo) was given an article written by Carl Rashke in his book The New Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity. The chapter I was given to read was entitled Beyond Inerrancy. Most of the arguments have to do with truth, and its knowability. I will briefly discuss the assertions that are made by the author, and attempt to draw a reasonable, biblically sound philosophy for my disagreement with it.

The chapter starts of with a short history of the doctrine of inerrancy, following the Reformation all the way through to the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy established by Evangelicals in 1978. Rashke quickly points out differences in interpretation and philosophy by various scholars and theologians, concluding that the Bible is simply a 'dialog' between God and humanity. This, he reasons, requires the need for an 'interlocutor' (a conversationists) to exegete the meaning of Scripture, which Rashke asserts, 'cannot possibly be construed as "propositional,'' (1) and 'is not logical' (2).
This is, of course, not the normal way to exegete the meaning out of ANY text, much less the Bible. It is widely known that the basic methodology behind expounding the meaning of ancient (or any) literature is to first explain the relation of the meaning between the author and his/her original recipients. For the Bible student, this is hermeneutics 101. We know that while the Bible is timeless in it's truth and message, it was inspired by God through the instrument of human authors. So before we suggest that timeless truth, we must first unpack the original meaning before we can apply it to ourselves. The proper method of interpreting Scripture is not to be a conversationalist, but to understand the conversation itself. And these conversations were full of propositional truth-claims made by various authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Rashke to assert that they were wrong in these claims is literary deconstruction at best, but not basic Bible interpretation.

Rashke reasons that the Bible cannot be interpreted with any reasonable attempt at an objective truth because 'the idea of God as an entity knowable by propositional analysis is metaphysical' (3)
D. A. Carson labels this as 'hard postmodernism,' meaning that unless we have infinite (omniscient) knowledge about anything, we cannot know anything about anything (4). It's an all-or-nothing logic. This type of reasoning states (more simply) that you and I can make no propositional statement that all dogs must relieve themselves. Rashke would reason that our ability to discern this otherwise simple truth is hindered by our inability to omnisciently know every dog that has ever existed or will exist to judge whether or not they indeed need to relieve themselves. Actually, Rashke goes even farther by contending that we must know everything there is about every dog that has ever existed in order to justify any truth-claims about dogs. Now while I have garnered enough first-hand empirical evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt that all dogs urinate and all cat's are generally four-legged, it is not animals that concerns him. He uses this logic concerning humans, and God himself. He holds that 'any predictive statement we might make about a person cannot possibly exhaust the reality of who he or she is from God's point of view' (5). Again, this is all-or-nothing logic, and it misses the mark entirely. This insists that since we cannot know humans from God's point of view exhaustively, we cannot know either humans or God at all. And yet the foundation for Rashke's argument is based on a truth-claim that he considers to be propositional. So what is it Carl? Either we cannot know the truth (except for THAT truth that we cannot know any truth), or we CAN know truth, and you are wrong. Either way, his argument is self-refuting, unable to stand under the collapsable weight of it's own truth-claim.

Keeping in step with the relativistic model, Rashke denounces the doctrine of inerrancy as a late Christian invention. Although scholars as far back as Augustine speak of the infallibility of Scripture, Rashke points out that the concept of infallibility 'was never intended to guarantee a precise, literal, "factual" truth of every single biblical sentence' (6). He continues by denying that it was ever the 'rudimentary Augustinian and Reformed presumption' that the Scripture could only be saving if it were also free from 'logical discrepancies' (7).
Really? So it was not a 'rudimentary Augustinian presumption' of an error-free Bible, when Augustine claimed:

I have teamed to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely "free from error" (8).

And it was not a claim to inerrancy when Martin Luther stated repeatedly that,

'the Scriptures have never erred,’ and ‘the Scriptures cannot err' (9).

And what do you make of the other famous reformer, John Calvin, when he claimed that even error itself would never be eradicated from the heart of man,

"until true knowledge of God [through Scripture] has been implanted in it (10)."

Even Wesley opted to toss out the Bible if even one true mistake were found in it. Why? Because a God who errs in something so paltry as a fact of science, history, or geography cannot be an omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful God, regardless of His inerrant track record pertaining to doctrine and faith. The reformers new this. Rudimentary presumptions? Yes there were. Many of them. Ridiculed scholars like Hodge and Warfield simply believed what the Bible had to say. Let's not cry 'naive' simply because they have more faith in God's Word than we do.

Rashke then suggests that we obstruct the Words of God by placing them in 'the same epistemological box as our consensual, or commonsense, experience of the everyday world' (11). Basically, we cannot know Scripture. He then compares the doctrine of inerrancy to a modern form of gnosticism, insisting that inerrancy by nature is limited to a small group of 'privileged individuals,' who were 'segregated by masses of humanity' (12). He ends with a jab aimed at inerrancy claiming use of the second-century theologian, Irenaeus, who Rashke notes, 'spilled considerable ink both profiling the heretical teachings of the gnostics and refuting them' (13).The only separation of the 'masses' that would result from the doctrine of inerrancy, is that the masses would be offended by the content of a literally interpreted doctrine, such as Hell, judgment, or the cross. This should not surprise us, Jesus already warned us that it would be offensive.
Gnosticism, on the other hand, was a heretical sect of Christianity that prided itself on 'secret knowledge,' which was granted to random individuals who possessed it, not intellectuals. It is in fact, the intellectually diligent student of the Word who gleans the most from it. The doctrine of inerrancy actually provides some stringent guidelines to channel the intellect to a biblically sound conclusion.
Incorporating a powerful quote by an incredible theologian like Irenaeus doesn't make Rashke correct. In fact, it wounds his cause, considering Irenaeus was an apologist who was refuting heresies based off what he (Irenaeus) believed to be propositional truth. Rashke's quotation exposes the self-refuting nature of his claims, yet again.

In his mission to undermine the need for inerrancy, Rashke claims that salvation is based not through an inerrant text, but by a relationship with Jesus.
I would very much like to inquire of Rashke where he found out about this relationship with Jesus. And assuming he read it in the Bible, I do hope the salvation of his soul is founded on more than a mythologically loaded story line. Propositional truth would be nice, especially when my eternity hangs in the balance.
I do understand some of the hang-ups that come along with the doctrine of inerrancy. For example, some people misunderstand its implications in assuming a 'literal' interpretation of the text. This meaning, so often tied to inerrancy, is routinely misconstrued. Inerrancy still takes into account allegory, figures-of-speech, hyperbole, the recording of error, grammatical errors, cultural nuances, etc. This is acceptable. It would make more sense to believe that inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is true in all that it affirms.

Rashke begins to close his arguments by reasoning that inerrancy is without a needed result since Jesus Himself is the fullness of Scripture. He states, "If that were not the case, then Jesus would not have gone to the cross. He would have simply written a better book" (18).
While it is true that Jesus is the fulfillment of Scripture (Matt. 5:17), and He is indeed, the "Living Word," it is very Marcion-like to truncate the rest of Scripture's role as God's written revelation. Remember, God's written word was vital of the entire ministry and coming of the Living Word. Before His appearance, 'the Law provided the foundation for Christ, the historical books showed the preparation for Christ, the poetical works aspired to Christ, and the prophesies displayed an expectation of Christ' (19).
During and after His ministry, 'The Gospels recorded the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Christ, and in Revelation is found the consummation of Christ’ (20).

There is much more to be stated concerning both inerrancy, and Carl Rashke's false assertions (which are propositional truth-claims, which he is opposed to). But I conclude that for the evangelical Christian, the claims noted are suffice in which to make a reasonable judgment. The difference between liberal theology of the Bible and those who treat it as God's actual word to us, is simply a viewpoint of Scripture, and Rashke has a low view of the Bible. I sometimes like to think of inerrancy as simply a 'naive' trust in what God has to say. Rashke's level of trust in it can be portrayed through his description of the doctrine of inerrancy:

"heresy" (14),
"meaningless" (15),
"thouroughly misplaced" (16),
and "idolatry" (17).

And you know what, he could be right (I emphatically doubt it, considering the wealth of objective, propositional evidence to support the contrary). But when I get to heaven and face God, I would rather tell Him that I believed every word He wrote me, and err on the side of naivety, than to pick and choose what I like and inform God that Rashke was more believable.

(1) Rashke, Carl. The New Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity 118.
(2) Ibid. 119
(3) Ibid. 119
(4) Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. 105.
(5) Rashke, Carl. The New Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity 119.
(6) Ibid. 122
(7) Ibid. 123
(8) Letters, LXXXII.
(9) Works of Luther, XV:1481; XIX:1073.
(10) Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 6.
(11) Rashke, Carl. The New Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity 127.
(12) Ibid. 127
(13) Ibid. 127
(14) Ibid. 131
(15) Ibid. 136
(16) Ibid. 134
(17) Ibid. 135
(18) Ibid. 134
(19) McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 23-24
(20) Ibid. 23-24

Is the New Testament Reliable?

2008-04-21T09:11:00.000-07:00

How can we trust the Bible when we don’t have the originals??

What do we have? Manuscript copies
WE MUST EXAMINE 2 THINGS:
1. Reliability of the copies
2. Time interval between the originals and the extant (existing copies)

Let's first examine the RELIABILITY.

There are 4 things that need to be analyzed before coming to a conclusion on the reliability of the New Testament:
1) Antiquity (how old are the manuscripts we are dealing with?)
2) Multiplicity (how many manuscripts do we have to deal with?)
3) Trustworthy scholarly methods (What do we do with the manuscripts?)
4) Quality and Quantity of the variants (judging the differences between the manuscripts)

Antiquity
The New Testament has manuscripts that are very old. For example..
• The oldest extant manuscript that we have is P52 (John Rylands Manuscript, which is a papyrus fragment measuring only 2.5 by 3.5 inches and containing only a few verses from the Gospel of John (18.31-3, 37-8). [1]
• The oldest extant manuscript we have of the entire New Testament is Codex Sinaiticus which also contains portions of the Old Testament. This MSS is from the fourth century. [2]

BUT THESE ARE STILL SO FAR REMOVED FROM THE ORIGINALS?? HOW CAN THIS BE GOOD ANTIQUITY?

Well, let's compare the antiquity of the New Testament to the antiquity of some other ancient classical literature:

([3]Click for bigger image)

‘If someone were to claim that we can’t have confidence in the original content of the Gospels because the existing manuscripts are far too removed from the autographs, then that person would also have to cast doubt upon our knowledge of almost all ancient history and literature.’ [4]

Multiplicity
There are 5,700 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament alone! If you count all the translations, there roughly 25,000 total!!
Compare this to some other Greek writings:
([5]Click for larger image)

Trustworthy scholarly methodology
The methodology being incorporated is the science of textual criticism. The scholars involved in this science seek to recover what the original document actually said, with the greatest accuracy possible.
‘Though there is certainly a measure of subjectivity in text criticism, it is by far the most objective discipline in New Testament studies. If you were to take two different teams of text critics and ask them to work independently on a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, they would agree more than 99 percent of the time' [6]

Quantity & Quality of variants- There are a lot of variants…

Bart Ehrman said this:

‘What can we say about the total number of variants known today? Scholars differ significantly in their estimates- some say there 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.’ [7]

Do not be shaken by this.
• THERE A LOT OF VARIANTS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF MSS!
Listen to F.F. Bruce on this subject: 'if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.’

For example, I found a few manuscript copies of this sentence in my backyard:
o Jesus Christ Loves Joseph Smith
o Jesus Christ Loves Joseph Smiht
o Jesus Christ Love Joseph Smith
o Jesus Christ Loves Joe Smith
o Chris Jesus Joseph Smith

They seem to differ in several areas. In fact, if you only found the last manuscript (#5), you would think it was referring to five different people. But with five copies, we are then able to compare them to each other and accurately conclude that the original did indeed say: Jesus Christ Loves Joseph Smith.

No imagine the accuracy you would have with 5,700 Greek copies! (and many more translations).

• MOST OF THEM ARE INSIGNIFICANT.
Bart Ehrman will tell us this himself in the same book in which he remarked about the quantity of variants:
‘Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant. A good portion of them simply show us that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can do today' [8]

• THESE THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT DO NOT CHANGE DOCTRINE:
o Mark 16:8 – John 7:53-8:11 – John 5:3b-4 (Most of these passages were not found in the earliest and best manuscripts)

• WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE!
It's not like there are a bunch of unidentified variants floating around the Bible. They are carefully noted and documented even in your own study Bible.

• THE BIBLE IS INCREDIBLY ACCURATE IN ITS MSS!
Remember, those significant variants only make up less than 1% of the Bible. That means that the Bible you know have in your hands is 99.5% accurate in what it says! And the other half of a percentage does not change any doctrine that Christianity adheres to at all.

Works Cited
1~ Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament. 55.
2~ Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament. 62.
3~ Price, Randall. Searching for the Original Bible.
4~ Roberts, Mark D. Can We Trust the New Testament Gospels? 30-31.
5~ Roberts, Mark D. Can We Trust the New Testament Gospels? 31.
6~ Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament. 51.
7~ Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. 89-90.
8~ Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. 10-11.

Inerrancy of Scripture

2008-04-06T17:13:00.000-07:00

When all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with social, physical, or life sciences. (1)

This is the common definition among evangelical scholars on inerrancy.
Now here is the biblical grounds for it:
1) God cannot err or lie
• ‘God is not a man, that He should lie.’ –Numbers 23:19
• ‘…God, who cannot lie…’ –Titus 1:2
• ‘…it is impossible for God to lie…’ –Hebrews 6:18
2) The Bible is the Word of God.
• ‘…no prophesy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ -2 Peter 1:21
• ‘I received it (the gospel) through a revelation of Jesus Christ.’ –Gal 1:12
• '...you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God...' -1 Thess 2:13
• ‘All scripture is inspired by God and profitable…’ 2 Tim 3:16
(The evidence of its inspiration is through its uniqueness)

Therefore it follows that if 1) God cannot err or lie, and 2) the Bible is God's Word, then 3) the Bible cannot err.

STUMBLING BLOCKS TO INERRANCY:
1) Supposed 'myths' in the Old Testament
2) Wasn't it invented recently?
3) Doesn't the Bible contradict science?
Answer...
Jesus (who as God, cannot be mistaken) ‘fully accepted as factual even the most controversial statements in the Hebrew Bible pertaining to history and science.’(2) Here are some examples:
1. Jonah in the belly of a whale; Jonah being a type of Christ. Types/antitypes must both be historically factual (Matt 12:40).
2. The flood. ‘For in the days before the flood…’ Again, Jesus affirms Himself to be the antitype of Noah, giving certainty to the historicity of the event (Matt 24:37-39).
3. The exodus and the manna. Jesus accepted this as a historical fact when He said, ‘Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died’ (John 6:49)
4. The accounts of Adam and Eve. Jesus affirms what it says in Genesis 2:24, when He reiterates, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ (Matt 19:5) Additionally, Adam is said to be a type of Christ, by Paul (Romans 5:14).

The doctrine of inerrancy was not invented recently. It has been a core belief of many influential church fathers. Hear what some of them have to say
• Augustine (A.D 354 - 430)
‘I have teamed to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. (3)
• Aquinas (C. 1225 – 1274)
‘Nothing false can underlie the literal sense of Scripture.’ (4)
• Luther (1483 - 1546)
‘The Scriptures have never erred,’ and ‘the Scriptures cannot err.’ (5)
• Calvin (1509 – 1564)
‘Error can never be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God [through Scripture] has been implanted in it.’ (6)
• Wesley (1703 - 1791)
‘Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there is one falsehood in that book it did not come from the God of truth.’ (7)

The Bible does not contradict science, but rather, it has been shown to affirm it.
For example, the Bible teaches facts thousands of years in advance before science affirmed them...
• Exact order of events in creation (Universe, earth, land & sea, life in sea, land animals, humans) -Gen 1
• Stars are countless – Jeremiah 33:22; Heb 11:12
• Human bodies made from the earth –Gen 2:7; Eccl 12:7
• Rain water returns to its source (Eccl 1:7; Gen 2:6-7)
• Earth is round and hangs in space (Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7)
• Life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11)
• Sea with paths/boundaries (Ps 8:8; Proverbs 8:29)
• Laws of sanitation (Lev 12-15)

If the doctrine of inerrancy is so simple, why is the definition so complicated? Because humans are complicated. We tend to misunderstand these definitions, for example, when we apply inerrancy to
1) The copies (inerrancy only applies to the originals; the autographs (2 Tim 3:16 - All 'graphe' is God-breathed...)
2) Hermeneutics (When our interpretation errs)
3) What the text affirms, or what it simply states and records. (8)

Some additional misunderstandings about inerrancy include (9)
• Rules of grammar
• Figures of speech
• Techy scientific language (sunrise, sunset, sun stood still)
• Verbal exactness in citations or quotes (There are no quotation marks in Greek)
• Exhaustiveness in comprehensiveness (Partial accounts are permitable)

INERRANCY PART 2
'Errors and Contradictions'

‘If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, “The author of this book is mistaken;” but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.’ (10)
-Augustine

HERE ARE A FEW SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE. ALL OF THEM HAVE REASONABLE, LOGICAL SOLUTIONS. MOST OF THEM ARE ERRORS ON THE PART OF THE INTERPRETER OF THE PASSAGE...
• Two angels or one? (Matt 28:5; John 20:12)
Answer: 2 angels. Matthew only mentions one.

• Age of Ahaziah?; 2 Kings 8:26; 2 Chr 22:2
Answer: Copyist error. It happens.

• Was Jesus walking TO Jericho or AWAY from Jericho? Luke 18:35; Matt 20:29-34
Answer: A German archeologist, Ernst Sellin between 1907-1909 discovered that in Jesus’ day there were called the ‘twin cities of Jericho.’ The one destroyed by Joshua, and the newer version was the Roman one. Jesus was walking away from one Jericho, and towards another Jericho.

• What was Peter’s confession? The gospels record three different sayings...
1. You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Matt 16:16)
2. You are the Christ (Mark 8:29)
3. The Christ of God (Luke 9:20)
Answer: The gospel writers paraphrased Peter's sentence (as was common and accepted in the first century), but maintained the truth of his message, that Jesus is the Christ. There is no error or contradiction.
Also...
-Peter spoke Aramaic, while the gospels were written in Greek. When languages get translated, they sometimes get jumbled in their grammar.
-Sometimes writers selected and abbreviated according to the theme of their book, or emphasis, BUT- they never created, only reported
-They were in accordance with journalistic standards of the day, and even today, for that matter
-Whenever there were multiple reports, they always gave the essence of what was told

• Jesus tells us not to call someone a 'fool,' yet does it later on (Matt 5:22; 23:17)
1. Words can have different meanings depending on the context (ex: dog)
2. Matthew 5 is in the context of someone who uses ‘fool’ in anger. Neither Jesus nor Paul said ‘fool’ or ‘foolish’ in anger.
3. In Matthew 5, Jesus only condemned calling a brother a fool, not an unbeliever. (A fool has said in his heart…-14:1)
Answer: Jesus did not sin, nor contradict His own specific command.

• How did Judas die? By hanging, or by his innards spilling out? (Matt 27:5; Acts 1:18)
These are partial accounts of the same event.
Answer: both.

• What was the time of the Passover meal? Matthew says the night before the crucifixion, John says the following night, the day of the crucifixion (Matt 26:18; John 18:28)
1. The Passover meal, historically, was eaten on two different days…because they disagreed on when a day began!
-Flavius Josephus tells us this.
-Mishna- compilation of writings of first/second century Jewish scholars tells us this also.
2. Northern Israelites believed that the day began with the rising of the sun (6am). Southern Israelites believed the day began at the setting of the sun (6pm). Romans had an even different calendar; they believed the day began at 12am!!

• When was the timing of Christ’s crucifixion? Mark leads us that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, when John tells us He was still before Pilate in the 6th hour!! (Mark 15:24; John 19:14-16)
1. Mark being from Northern Israel, started his day at 6am. So the 3rd hour would be 9am. Referring to Jewish time system.
2. Early church fathers (Eusebius) tell us that John wrote his gospel while he was in the city of Ephesus, the Roman capital of the province of Asia. So he would be referring to the Roman time system, which began at 12am.
Answer: John was using a different time system than Mark. No contradiction, only perfect harmony.

Works Cited
1- Feinberg, Paul D. Meaning of Inerrancy, in Norman L. Geisler’s Inerrancy. 294.
2- Archer Jr., Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. pg 21.
3- Letters, LXXXII.
4- Summa Theologica, 1, 1, 10, ad 3.
5- Works of Luther, XV:1481; XIX:1073.
6- Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 6.
7- Journal VI, 117.
8- Feinberg, Paul D. Meaning of Inerrancy, in Norman L. Geisler’s Inerrancy. 296.
9- Feinberg, Paul D. Meaning of Inerrancy, in Norman L. Geisler’s Inerrancy. 298.
10- Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 11.5 in Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology, vol. 1. pg 512.

Skepticism

2008-03-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

This is a definition of Skeptic as given by the Oxford English Dictionary:

An ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

I wonder... is the philosopher's knowledge concerning their belief that knowledge is not possible, possible?

Canon of Scripture

2008-03-27T21:03:00.000-07:00

DEFINITION OF CANON:
‘The word canon derives, quite literally, from the Hebrew term qaneh (“reed” or “stalk”), which indicated a type of rod or stick used as a means of measurement’ (1).

For example, we see this term being used in...

-1 Kings 14:15 ‘For the LORD will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; and He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the LORD to anger.’

-Job 40:21 'Under the lotus plants he lies down, in the covert of the reeds and the marsh.'

-Ezekiel 40:3 '...with a line of flax and a measuring rod in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway.'

'Canon,' a plant, would later become to be known as a measurement tool in a carpenter's belt, and later, as a standard of measurement for Holy Scripture. Today, when we speak of canon, we are referring to a 'list of books accepted as Holy Scripture' (2)

WHEN was the OT canonized?
•‘The 39 books in our Old Testament were already accepted as Scripture by the time of the writing of the New Testament, since no other texts but these are cited as Scripture.’

• ‘Some scholars suggest that the final ordering of the books too place around 70 AD’

• Then it was finalized at the council of Yavneh (Jamnia) in AD 90. (3)

WHEN was the NT canonized?
The oldest known list (canon) of the New Testament books is called the Muratorian Fragment
-170 AD.

But the need for some kind of canon was already recognized by early Church Father’s in their writings:
• Clement of Rome (AD 95)
• Ignatius of Antioch (AD 115)
• Polycarp (AD 108)
• Irenaeus (AD 185)
• Hippolytus (AD 170-235) (4)

Then Emperor Constantine came along.
Constantine becomes emperor of Rome in AD 311
• Converts to Christianity
• Issues the edict of Milan (AD 313) giving freedom of religion.
• Christianity becomes the state religion
• Constantine orders the burning of heretical books (AD 325)
By the time the Council of Nicaea had been and Constantine had issued his Edict Against Heretics (AD 325), the books condemned as heretical were already clearly differentiated from the books recognized by the church as Scripture.

The first official indication of a definitive list (including the Apocrypha) occurred at the
1. Council of Laodicea (AD 363), later affirmed by
2. The Council of Hippo (AD 393), followed by an undisputed decision at
3. The Council of Cartharage (AD 397), and again in AD 419 (5)

THE DA VINCI CODE (NYT Best Seller) mentions Constantine at the Council of Nicaea.
In a dialog between two fictional characters, Teabing describes to Sophie what went down at Nicaea...

Teabing:
"During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicaea. At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon - the date of Easter, the role of bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus.”

Sophie:
"I don't follow. His divinity?"

Teabing:
"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet; a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal."

Sophie:
"Not the Son of God?"

Teabing:
"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”

DAN BROWN CLAIMS THAT THIS BOOK HE AUTHORED IS BACKED UP BY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE FACTS!!
No, Dan Brown. They are not. Just ask world renowned biblical scholar (and agnostic) Bart Ehrman:

'Once again, there are elements of both fact and fiction in Teabing's view. Constantine did call the Council of Nicea, and one of the issues involved Jesus' divinity. But this was not a council that met to decide whether or not Jesus was divine, as Teabing indicates. Quote the contrary: everyone at the Council-and in fact, just about every Christian everywhere-already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God. The question being debated was how to understand Jesus' divinity in light of the circumstance that he was also human’ (6)

A rather knowledgeable scholar (who as an agnostic, has no bias rooting in favor of the Christian cause) declares that the council did not exist to decide on the divinity of Christ or His Scripture, but rather, they already believed these things. They were assembling in order to better understand how He could be both divine, and fully human.

The confusion surrounding Christ's hypostatic union was started by a man named Arius, the father of Arianism.
• Arianism is the heresy that denies the full divinity of Jesus.
• Named after Arius, who was born about 270 and died in 336. He was a priest in charge of one of the principle churches in Alexandria and he appears to have believed that the Son of God was not eternal but was created before the ages by the Father as an instrument for making the world
• Arius’s teaching was opposed chiefly by Athanasius, a deacon at Alexandria, and was eventually condemned by the First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea in 325.
• It became an article of ‘Nicene’ orthodoxy that the Father and the Son were equally eternal, and the famous term homoousios (‘of the same substance’) was used to express this belief. (7)

THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA REJECTED ARIANISM IN THE YEAR 325 AD, PUTTING THE WORDS INTO THE CREED WE SAY TODAY:
“very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father’ (8)

It was a debate between two pastors, and the church agreed that Arius was ill in his doctrine. Constantine had no part in this other than to preside over the meeting. Whatever motives Constantine had, the purpose of the Council of Nicaea was not to ‘invent’ the deity of Christ, or to decide on the canon of Scripture.

THESE BELIEFS WERE ALREADY LONG IN PLACE!

NEED FOR CANON:
1. Heretics
2. False writings appear under names of Apostles
3. Missionaries needed to know what books to translate
4. Edict of Diocletian in AD 303 (which forced persecuted Christians to want to know which books were worth dying for)

CRITERIA OF CANON:
• Was it written by a prophet, Apostle, or someone associated with one?
• Was author confirmed by miracles?
• Did the book’s message tell the truth about God?
• Did the book contain God’s power?
• Was it excepted by God’s people (and/or Apostles)?

Apocrypha = 12-15 Jewish writings
‘Believers in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, nearest [Israel], tended to agree with the Jews in that area. In the West, however, Christians under the influence of Augustine, the well known bishop of Hippo, usually received the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture…
During the sixteenth-century Reformation most protestants accepted the view of early eastern Christians and rejected the Apocrypha as canonical. The Roman Catholic church, following Augustine, accepted the books. And that is how the churches differ to this day.’ (9)
How does the Apocrypha hold up against these criteria?

~Was it written or supported by a prophet, Apostle, or someone associated with one? No.
1) The Jews (who wrote much of the Apocryphal writings) did not accept their own writings as divinely inspired.
2) Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted a single verse from an apocryphal writing (though they quoted the Old Testament nearly three hundred times)
3) The apocryphal writings were never declared authoritative or inspired until A.D. 1546, and only by the Roman Catholic church, at the Council of Trent. (Even then, it was only part of an effort by the Catholic church to counter the Reformation by Martin Luther. (10)

Was it accepted by God’s people? No.
Many of our renown church fathers rejected the Apocrypha as inspired:
-Josephus, the Jewish historian (born AD 37/38), did not deem the Apocrypha ‘worthy of equal credit’ to the Scriptures.
-Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC - AD 40)
-Melito of Sardis (AD 170) gave the oldest list of the OT, but names none of the apocryphal writings. He includes all we have today, except the book of Esther.
-Eusebius affirms most of the books of our present OT canon, but no Apocrypha.
-….Origen does the same.
-…so does Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.
-…and Cyril of Jerusalem.
-Jerome, the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha. (The Roman Catholic church then snuck it into the Latin Vulgate after Jerome died) (11)

~Does the message in the Apocrypha tell the truth about God? NO! There are theological errors in the apocryphal writings.
• The book of Wisdom teaches the creation of the world out of pre-existent matter (11:17)
• Ecclesiasticus teaches that the giving of alms makes atonement for sin (3:30)
• In Baruch, it is said that God hears the prayers of the dead (3:4)
• Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach a morality based upon expediency
• In 1 Maccabees, there are historical and geographical errors.
• Judith and Tobit contain historical, chronological, and geographical errors.

Gnostic gospels?

They too, like the Old Testament apocryphal writings fail to pass the tests...
• They are not written by apostles
• They are not confirmed by any miracles
• They are unorthodox
• They are powerless
• And have been rejected by God’s people early on

Why can’t we add more books to the Canon?
BECAUSE JESUS CLOSED IT.

Jesus was the full and complete revelation of the Old Testament (Matt 5:17) - ‘Do not think I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.’ (Heb 1:1-2) - God now speaks to us through His Son. (John 14:9) - ‘He who has seen Me has seen the Father. (Col 2:9) - ‘in Christ all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form’
Jesus chose, commissioned, and credentialed twelve apostles (cf. Heb. 2:3-4) to teach this full and final revelation that He gave them (Matt. 10:1f), and before He left this world He promised these apostles to guide them into all truth, saying, ‘the Holy Spirit…will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you’ (14:26), and whe n he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth’ (John 16:13), and that it is the ‘Spirit of [their] Father who speaks in [them] (Matthew 10:20). That’s why the church is said to be built on the ‘foundation of the apostles and the prophets’ (Eph 2:20). Because the Apostles lived and died in the first century, and an apostle had to be an eyewitness of Christ (Acts 1:22). (12)

Works Cited:
1~Price, Randall. Searching for the Original Bible, 139.
2~Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture.
3~Price, Randall. Searching for the Original Bible, 148.
4~Price, Randall. Searching for the Original Bible, 152-154.
5~Price, Randall. Searching for the Original Bible, 154.
6~http://www.beliefnet.com/story/168/story_16806_1.html
7~Thompson, Michael B. Heresies and How to Avoid Them, 15.
8~Thompson, Michael B. Heresies and How to Avoid Them, 19.
9~Shelly, Bruce, L. Church History in Plain Language, 60.
10~Charlie Campbell (alwaysbeready.com)
11~Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 56-59.
12~Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology Vol.1, 533-534.

The Uniqueness of the Bible: What separates it from all other books?

2008-03-20T17:26:00.000-07:00

Other books claim to be inspired by God…
o Qur’an
o Book of Mormon
o New World Translation
o Science and Health and the Key to the Scriptures
o Hindu Vedas

QUR’AN
o ‘We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption).’ -Sura 15:9
o ‘Nay, this is a Glorious Quran, (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved!’ -Surah 85:21-22
o ‘And if ye be in doubt as to that which We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a Sura like it, and summon your witnesses, beside God, if ye are men of truth: but if ye do it not, and never shall ye do it, then fear the Fire prepared for the infidels…’ 2:23-24
o ‘This Book have we sent down to thee that by their Lord’s permission thou mayest bring men out of darkness into light, into the path of the Mighty, the Glorious’ -14:1
o The Qur'an is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saas). What makes the Qur'an different from the Sunnah is primarily its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Qur'an has not been expressed using any human's words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by no one but Allah.
-USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

BOOK OF MORMON
o “…we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.”
(History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION
o ‘Society president F.W. Franz (who headed the secret committee of seven translators of the NWT) testified in a court case on November 23, 1954 in Scotland that the ‘translations and interpretations came from God, invisibly communicated to the publicity department by angels of various ranks who controll[ed] the translators’
-Cited by Gruss, Apostles of Denial. Op. cit., pp. 32-33, 219; (Gruss saw and read the transcript himself.)

SCIENCE AND HEALTH
"Another essential is a love for Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures and for it's author, Mary Baker Eddy....She [Eddy] wrote: 'I should blush to write of "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" as I have, were it of human origin, and were I, apart from God, its author.'"
Christian Science Sentinel | Oct 23, 2006, pg 21. (Emphasis mine)

ALL THESE BOOKS CLAIM TO BE INSPIRED BY GOD.

WHAT MAKES THE BIBLE DIFFERENT?
1) Circulation
2) Continuity
3) Prophesy
4) Changed lives

CIRCULATION
According to the United Bible Societies’ 1998 Scripture Distribution Report, in that year alone member organizations were responsible for distributing 20.8 million complete Bibles and another 20.1 million testaments. When portions of Scripture (i.e., complete books of the Bible) and selections (short extracts on particular themes) are also included, the total distribution of copies of the Bible or portions thereof in 1998 reaches a staggering 585 million- and these numbers only include Bibles distributed by the United Bible Societies!
-Translation
[Few] books see translation figures rise into the teens. According to the United Bible Societies, the Bible (or portions of it) has been translated into more than 2,200 languages!’ representing communication for ‘over 90 percent of the world’s population.

-Uniqueness through Persecution
Diocletian’s edict:
‘In March of the nineteenth year of Diocletian’s reign, when the festival of the Savior’s passion [Easter] was approaching, an imperial edict was announced everywhere ordering that the churches be demolished and the Scripture destroyed by fire. Any [Christians] who held high places would lose them, while those in households would be imprisoned if they continue to profess Christianity. Such was the first decree against us.’ -Eusebius

(Chp. The First Martyrs in Asia Minor)…
‘…A certain man was brought into a public place and ordered to sacrifice. When he refused, he was hoisted up naked and lashed with whips until he should give in. Since even this failed to bend him, they mixed salt with vinegar and poured it over the lacerations of his body where the bones were already protruding. When he scorned these agonies too, a lit brazier was applied, and the rest of his body was roasted by the fire as if meat for eating- not all at once, lest he find to quick a release, but little by little. Still he clung immovably to his purpose and expired triumphantly in the middle of his tortures.’ –Eusebius 8.6.303

“The noted French infidel Voltaire, who died in 1778, declared that in one hundred years from his time Christianity would be swept from existence and passed into history.
Only fifty years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used Voltaire’s press and house to produce stacks of Bible.” -Geisler and Nix

CONTINUITY (Unity despite its diversity)
1. Written over a period of around 1500 years (1400 B.C. – A.D. 100)
2. On 3 different continents (Asia, Africa, Europe)
3. Composed of 66 different books
4. By some 40 different authors from every walk of life
• Kings, military leaders, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, tax collectors, poets, musicians, statesmen, scholars, and shepherds. For example:
o Moses, a political leader and judge, trained in universities of Egypt
o David, a king, poet, musician, shepherd, and warrior
o Amos, a herdsman
o Joshua, a military general
o Nehemiah, a cupbearer to a pagan king
o Daniel, a prime minister
o Solomon, a king and philosopher
o Luke, a physician and historian
o Peter, a fisherman
o Matthew, a tax collector
o Paul, a rabbi
o Mark, Peter’s secretary

5. In 3 languages (Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic)
6. Hundreds of different topics
7. In a variety of different literary styles (history, poetry, didactic, parable, allegory, apocalyptic, epic, romance, personal correspondence, memoirs, satire, biography, autobiography, law, and prophesy)
8. …and different perspectives
• A Shepard’s (David in Psalm 23)
• Prophetic (book of Kings)
• Priestly (book of Chronicles)
• Historical ((Luke-Acts)
• Pastoral (Pauline epistles)
9. …Different emotions (By Paul, for example…)
• Great sorrow over Israel (Romans 9:2)
• Great anger over error of Galatians (Galatians 3:1)
• Loneliness (2 Timothy 4:9-16)
• Depression (2 Corinthians 1:8)
• Joy (Philippians 1:4)

10. Some authors in isolation from one another (first 4 points) (last 5 points)
• Ezekiel and John wrote in exile
• Esther wrote from foreign lands
• Hebrews was written in the East
• 2 Timothy was written in Rome
• Moses wrote in the wilderness
• Jeremiah wrote in a dungeon
• Daniel wrote on a hillside and in a palace
• Paul wrote in prison
• Luke wrote while traveling

There is continuity in a central theme: the person of Jesus Christ…with a single unfolding drama: the story of redemption.

THE STORY OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:
‘The Law provides the foundation for Christ, the historical books show “the preparation for Christ, the poetical works aspire to Christ, and the prophesies display an expectation of Christ.
THE CONTINUATION OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
The Gospels record the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Christ, and in Revelation is found the consummation of Christ.’

PROPHESY
There are over 1817 predictive prophesies in the Bible (1239 in the OT, 578 in the NT).
o Messianic Predictions (191 of these, all literally fulfilled in His lifetime)
Below are only 19 of the 191 Messianic prophesies.
1. Birth (Gen 3:15 → Matt 1, Luke 2, Gal 4:4)
2. Virgin Birth -700 years in advance- (Is 7:14)
3. Place of Birth (Micah 5:2 → Matt 2:1-6)
4. Ancestry through Abraham (Gen 12:1-3 → Matt 1:1)
5. Of the House of David (2 Sam 7:14 → Matt 1:1)
6. Of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10 → Luke 3:23, 34)
7. Cleanser of the Temple (Mal 3:1-3 → Matt 21:12)
8. Heralding His Coming (Is 40:3 → Matt 3:1-3)
9. Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Is 11:2 → Matt 3:16-17)
10. He will Preach to the Poor and Brokenhearted (Is 61 → Luke 4:17-20)
11. He would perform miracles (Is 35:5-6 → Matt 9:35)
12. Rejection by His people (Ps 118:22)
13. Suffering and Death (Isaiah 53:2-12 → Matt 26-27; Mark 15-16; Luke 22-23; John 18-19)
14. The piercing of His hands and feet (Ps 22:16 → Luke 23:33)
15. The piercing of His side (Zech 12:10 → John 19:34)
16. The casting of lots for His garments (Ps 22:18 → John 19:23-24)
17. That Christ would die in 33 A.D. (Daniel 9:4-26)
18. Christ’s Resurrection (Ps 2:7/Ps 16:10) Paul used these in Acts 17, Peter used Psalm 2 in Acts 2:30-31.
19. The Ascension of Christ (Ps 110:1 → Matt 22:43-44; Acts 2:34-45)

Mathematicians have calculated the probability of sixteen predictions being fulfilled in one man (e.g. Jesus) at 1 in 1045 (1 followed by 45 zeros – 1 to the quattuordecillionth power
1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

o Non-messianic Predictions
1. Daniel 2:37-42 (The succession of 4 world empires: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome); a prophesy so concise and accurate that negative critics claimed it was written after the fact)
2. Isaiah 44:28-45:1 (The king of Persia, Cyrus, is identified 150 years before he was born)
3. Isaiah? (The return of Israel to the land, which happened in 1948)
4. Ezekiel 44:2; Matthew 21 (Ezekiel predicted the Golden Gate would be closed one day and not reopened until the Messiah returned). This happened in 1543 when Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent closed the gate and walled it up because the road was no longer being used for traffic. It remains sealed to this day)
5. Ezekiel 26:3-14 (Predicts the destruction of Tyre, hundreds of years in advance). An important sea port in the Eastern Mediterranean, it was one of the greatest cities in the ancient world (Geisler, BECA. 614). Partially fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar, but literally and fully fulfilled by Alexander the Great when he took ‘the stones, dust, and timber from the ruined mainland city’ and built a causeway to the Island, where not only was the city never rebuilt, but the island is literally used today as a ‘place to spread fishing nets’ (Geisler, BECA. 614)
6. Jeremiah 49:16-17 (Predicts the desolation of Edom, an impregnable fortress inside of a rock). This was fulfilled in A.D. 636 by muslims, and is deserted to this day.
7. Ezekiel 36:33-35 (Flourishing in the deserts of Israel). I’ve seen this myself!

Prophesy sets the Bible apart from all literature…

o The Bible is absolutely unique in presenting these prophesies, which it records in specific detail, beginning more than 3000 years ago.

o About 30 percent of the Bible is devoted to prophesy.

o Compare that to the absence of prophesy in the Qur’an, the Hindu Vedas, the Baghavad Gita, the Ramayana, the sayings of Buddha or Confucius, the Book of Mormon, Science and Health, etc…
-Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast; pg19-20.

And don’t forget this evidence…

CHANGED LIVES

Works Cited:
1- McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 25-26
2- McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 27
3- Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology, V1. 555.
4- (same as above)
5- McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 21
6- (same as above)
7- (same as above)
8- McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 20
9- (same as above)
10- (same as above)
11- (same as above)
12- McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 23
13- Zacharias, Ravi, and Norman Geisler. Who Made God? 119
14- Zacharias, Ravi, and Norman Geisler. Who Made God? 119
15- Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology, V1. 555.
16- McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 21
17- McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 23-24
18- Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. 609-610.
19- Eusebius, HC, 8.2.4 (Persecution)

Jesus: God or prophet?

2008-02-29T21:48:00.000-08:00

Below is footage of a debate I put together from yesterday between apologist Jon Rittenhouse and Dr. Jamal Badawi, concerning the diety of Christ. Rittenhouse makes some great points about the claims Jesus made, the worship He received, and what others around Him understood of His claims. A lot of Rittenhouse's arguments are steeped in his firm knowledge and study of the Greek language (which is the language of the New Testament). Badawi's expertise is in the Quran, not the New Testament. However, when Badawi opposes the validity of Rittenhouse's claims and Greek scholarship (which are so thouroughly supported, it's embarrassing), he uses "Christian sources" in order to rebut them. These Christian sources include literature by the Watchtower Society.

Word of Faith pt. 1

2008-02-23T10:09:00.000-08:00

"The life you want... your best life now... look great feel great..."

Not exactly the headliner you would expect from three very influential pastors (including pastors of the two largest congregations in America).
I've always wanted to ask Creflo, Joel, or Joyce what they think about Paul's exhortation to be heirs with Christ, on the condition that we suffer with Him (Romans 8:16-18). I've heard countless statements by faith-teachers that monetary blessings are ours in abundance. But I rarely hear any of them teach a sermon on Jesus' sufferings that are ALSO "ours in abundance" (2 Pet 1:5)?

Christianity is not a gumball machine. In my recollection, we have been purchased by Jesus' blood (Acts 20:28), making us bond-slaves of God (1 Pet 2:16). We are not our own, we have been bought with a price in order to glorify God (1 Cor 6:19, 20). Although we have access to every spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph 1:3), our purpose in life is to glorify God (Rom 15:5-9). The height of humanistic tendencies is our pursuing of the best possible life for ourselves, or to feel good.

Here is our instruction for these, Christian:

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Amen.

A brief glimpse at Christian Science

2007-12-28T10:49:00.000-08:00

I was sitting in Starbucks on Victoria and State Street last night, and on my way there, I passed by the Christian Science Reading Room on the corner. I grabbed a couple free articles they have on the wall, and strolled into Starbucks to examine them. I've noticed that if any group has a tendency to veer off course, doctrinally, it is usually in the way of the person of Jesus Christ, or the authority of Scripture. Everyone seems to have the same interpretation of "God" (for example, Russian President Putin claimed to be a believer his recent headliner in Time Magazine), but do they have the same interpretation of Jesus, who Christians hold to be God in the flesh? Many people, even non-believers, will have something good to say about the Bible, but do they believe it to be entirely true and sufficient?

Here is an excerpt from one of the articles, entitled Some Essentials For Being A Christian Science Practitioner:

"...as the first tenet of Christian Science states, '...we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal life.'"

Ok, good! It seems that Christian Scientists and Christians have the same view of God's Word...right? Let's read the next paragraph:

"Another essential is a love for Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures and for it's author, Mary Baker Eddy....She wrote: 'I should blush to write of "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" as I have, were it of human origin, and were I, apart from God, its author.'" [1]

Uh oh.
You could have gone through this entire magazine and gotten a basic perception that Christian Science looks to be pretty right on, because for the most part, a lot of what they teach on the surface of the magazine is similar to what we teach. Except for that one little part where they just claimed that there is something ELSE essential for living other than God's Word...or where they claim that Mary Eddy Baker's book is authored by God.

The Word of God is not sufficient? Doesn't 1 Timothy 3:16,17 teach us that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work?"
So if the Word of God is adequate for EVERY good work that we need to accomplish in this life, then what do we need Mary Eddy Baker's book for? We don't. Of course, she claims that it's inspired by God, but is it?
Last time I checked, we were not supposed to add words to God's words as Mary Eddy Baker has.
Deuteronomy 4:2 states that "You shall not add to the word which I [God] am commanding you."
In chapter 12:32 He reiterates that "you shall not add to nor take away from it [His words]."
In Proverbs 30:6 we are told not to "add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
God seemed to know that there would be the temptation to add words, because He waited until the one of the last verses in the very last chapter of the last book of the Bible, where in Revelation 22:18, 19 He states, "if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book."

That's interesting that God says he'll add plagues to those who add to His words, because in another paragraph of this article, it is told that to believe that sickness is real, is to believe an error, which Mrs. Eddy labels "animal magnetism." [2]
She must have skipped over that verse in her newly revised version.

The inerrant and sufficient Word of God states that there exists "Satan, who deceives the whole world" (Rev 12:9) This is contrary to Christian Science that teaches God as the "only real power that exists." Jesus has conquered death on the cross, and we should, as Christians be living in that realization, but the Bible also clearly teaches that we have a common enemy who is the "god of this world" [2cor4:4] who seeks to deceive.

Don't let Christian Science deceive you.

1. Christian Science Sentinel | Oct 23, 2006, pg 21.
2. Christian Science Sentinel | Oct 23, 2006, pg 28.

The Legitimacy of New Testament Canon

2007-11-20T22:23:00.000-08:00

During my year and a half working at an art institute, I was often faced with direct accusation against my Christianity, and most of them were founded on supposed problems with the Bible. We as evangelical Christians hold the Bible in high regard, and it is important for us to know for ourselves why Scripture holds true. It is not simply literature for the soul, but it is the very written Word of God, living and active in its content. One of the things that is often assaulted is the canonicity of Scripture, or the collection of chosen books.

Canon: noun
1. A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
2. A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine: the formation of the biblical canon.

Canon comes from the Greek word for reed, which was used as a measuring rod, and came to mean “standard.”

The need for canonicity was significant in the face of false teachings facing the early church by heretics such as Marcion in A.D. 140, and further attempts to squeeze in spurious writings in some Eastern churches. In addition, an edict of Diocletian (A.D. 303) called for the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians. Christians needed to know which books were worth dying for.

It is of utmost importance to regard canon as a tool ordained by God, and used by the church. We did not invent it, but rather, it has been there all along. We do not dictate the canon of scripture, it instructs us. We handle it.

Right now, we are looking at New Testament canon. As stated earlier, there was developing a dire need to separate the God-ordained Scripture from the imposters. The questions arise, “How was it determined which authors were legit?” “How do we know so-and-so writer was authoring Scripture but this one was not?”

The ultimate (and simple) answer lies in Jesus Christ. Because we know that Jesus is God, we know that what He says is truth. It was Jesus Himself that decided on the writers of the New Testament (the Bible is after all, a revelation of Him), and He gave us guidelines for determining the legitimacy of the authors:
-First of all, Jesus made it clear that the New Testament would only be authored by his chosen apostles, and that they would be equipped by the power of the Holy Spirit to do so. He did this when He instructed them saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.”
-He gave the apostles His stamp of approval when He told them “It is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you,” and that the “Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
-We know what the requirements are for being an apostle, because Jesus gives an examination by stating that it was those who walked with Him, and were witnesses to the things that He did, including especially the resurrection. Peter (Jesus’ right-hand man) put forth specific requirements, when Joseph and Matthias were considered for apostleship. They were to be men that had accompanied the twelve from Jesus’ baptism by John to when He was taken up from them. And they HAD to be witnesses to His resurrection. This was of utmost importance. We can see how imperative this was, as the resurrection of a dead man was a strong case to make to unbelievers, and needed to be attested to. As atheist Carl Sagan would declare, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Paul who saw the risen Lord, is one of these apostles, and here he also affirms the canonicity of the New Testament. He points out that the revelation and mystery of Christ, has been revealed to His holy apostles (of which Paul is one) and prophets in the Spirit. He also tells us that while Christ is the cornerstone of the church, it was the apostles that the church was built on. We can also see evidence of the Holy Spirit upon this, as people were continually devoting themselves to the apostles teaching.
I have heard leaders and teachers say that they are apostles of God, but this is contrary to Scripture. The Word of God tells us that He gave some as apostles, but not all are apostles. It is impossible for any today to become apostles, given the requirements of the first chapter of Acts. These are false apostles.

The Apocrypha is a collection of 14 books of Jewish history and tradition that the Roman Catholic church decided to include into their version of the Bible at the Council of Trent in 1545. Why don’t Christians consider it to be canon? Simple…
-The Jews never even considered it to be Scripture, and never included it in their bible
-The acceptance it did enjoy was only local and temporary
-No major church council included it Scripture
-It contains errors
-Neither Jesus nor the New Testament quoted it even thought they quoted the Old Testament hundreds of times.
-The Christian churches that eventually accepted it, did not until many centuries later.
-Many of the Apocryphal writings were written after the end of the first century, including the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (A.D. 108), the Didache (A.D. 100-120), the seven Epistles of Ignatius (A.D. 110), the Second Epistle of Clement (A.D. 120-140), the Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 115-140), the Apocalypse of Peter (A.D. 150), and the Epistle of the Laodiceans (4th century?).

The church preserved the whole New Testament
Luke refers to possibly Matthew and Mark.
Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke.
Peter refers to a collection of Paul’s letters.
Jude had access to Peter’s second letter.
John’s book of Revelation was circulated throughout Asia Minor.

The church fathers of the second to fourth century made some 36,289 citations from the New Testament, including every verse except for eleven of them!

Summary
And so we know that Jesus Christ limited the New Testament writings to A.D. 50 – 90 by the choosing of His apostles who walked with him during His ministry, and were all witnesses to His death and resurrection. New Testament writings HAD to have come from the first century, and by those with divine credentials. These were the disciples, including Paul.

Zeitgeist

2007-11-20T22:22:00.001-08:00

Zeitgeist means “The spirit of the age,” and is a recent documentary that has had many people in doubt of their faith in Jesus Christ. It makes claims that Christianity is wrapped up in ancient mythology whose origin far precedes that of the account of Jesus. Many similarities are brought up and compared between the details of Jesus’ life and that of a plethora of mythological gods. The emphasis of the film attempts to tie Jesus character as no more than just a role in the zodiac, and they even go so far as to question whether he really existed.

It is a 2 hour long movie, and the past 2/3rds of it have to do with government propaganda, which is out of the scope of this blog. I have watched the movie, and have done some research into most of the claims contained within. I started with ancient Egyptian mythology, and their god, Horus. The first claim of the movie is that the story of Jesus Christ was similar to that of the Egyptian sun god, Horus, who likewise:

-Was born on December 25th,
-Was born of a virgin,
-His birth foretold by a star in the east,
-Was visited by three kings,
-Began teaching at the age of 12,
-Was baptized into ministry at the age of 30,
-Had 12 disciples,
-Was betrayed and crucified,
-Was resurrected.
-His nickname was the “Lamb of God.”

They also claim that the history of the sun god, Horus, was dated before that of the birth of Jesus Christ. The implication being that Christianity is unoriginal, and was plagiarized from other more ancient religions.
Many people have watched this movie without giving any thought to its validity or credibility (Just like they did with Da Vinci Code). But if you look into it, you will find that once again, deception cannot hold its own weight against the truth of the Word of God.

I will give you a brief example of what I have found, and then I will give you a few incredibile resources with which to dig deeper, should you have any questions about the movie.

First of all, you can scratch off several of these claims immediately, due to bad research and credibility on their part.
-There is no mention of December 25th as being the birthplace of Jesus in the Bible.
-There is no mention whatsoever of the number of men that came to visit Jesus, and there was certainly no mention of three. In addition, they were not kings, but magi (wise men specializing in astrology, astronomy, and natural science- Matthew 2:1).

Secondly, a lot of these claims are not backed up by a credible source. You would think these claims would be heavily documented, but even if you were to conduct a Google search on Horus, or “Egyptian Mythology,” you would have a difficult time finding any evidence for most of the claims made concerning his similarity with Jesus. Most of the sites that do have agendas directly related to the movie and cause of Zeitgeist.

WHAT WE DO KNOW FOR CERTAIN:
-Jesus never disappeared before coming back on the scene to minister, he worked humbly as a carpenter, and studied the scriptures (Luke 2:49). Further more, there is no evidence stating that Horus was baptized or taught in a temple.
-The only outside research I could find on Horus’ 12 disciples falls far short of Zeitgeist claim. There is only record of four disciples.
-Horus was never crucified. There is research done on kingdavid8.com by a man who found the unofficial story of Horus’ death in which “he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.”
kingdavid8.com
-None of these titles that they claim for Horus:
"Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," "Son of Man," "Good Shepherd," "Lamb of God," "Word made flesh," and "Word of Truth" are found in Egyptian mythology.
-And lastly, he was not born of a virgin as the movie claims.
Think about this…his mom (Isis) was married to his dad (Osiris). As mythology will tell you, Osiris was killed and his body dismembered. Isis then had to put his body back together in order to have intercourse with it. Isis was not a virgin. Mary was, by the power of the Holy Spirit of the one true God.

Do you see the deception? This is simply one small story in a web of intricately twisted lies. The problem: a tremendous lack of credibility, and bad research….just like Da Vinci Code. You can see the ease with which a simple individual after God’s heart can unwind the lies. If there are further questions, if you have seen the movie, or if you know someone who has, be confident in God’s sovereignty and ability to protect His Word, and search the Scriptures (and history) to find the truth (2 Tim 2:15). BUT PLEASE- At least research these claims, before you consider them truth.

I have one thing to add. Even if the claims were absolutely true…what is the difference between Horus and Jesus that makes His claims credible? Jesus was an actual historical figure who died and rose from the dead, backed up by a ridiculous amount of evidence and eye witness reports. Horus is a painting on a wall.

Below are some excellent resources for further examination.

Online:
Charlie H. Campbell: Zeitgeist
Ronald Nash
Kingdavid8.com

Books:
The Case for the Real Jesus – Lee Strobel.
The Gospel and the Greeks –Ronald Nash