Resurrection Reported VERY Early

Some people say that the resurrection is myth.  Unfortunately for them, scholars report that the earliest testimony for the resurrection goes back to the very year it supposedly occurred– far too early for mythological development.  New Testament Scholar Craig Blomberg reports that one such scholar is even an atheist. This is from Blomberg’s blog  (HT: Melinda Penner at STR.org):

At the “Earnestly Contending” Apologetics conference at New Life Church in Smithfield, RI, this weekend, Professor Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University, an internationally known expert on the resurrection of Jesus, reported on a forthcoming work of Richard Bauckham, prolific New Testament scholar for many years at the University of St. Andrews.  In it, Habermas explained, Bauckham builds on research by evangelical writer Larry Hurtado and atheist historian Gerd Ludemann, both of whom have argued that belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus must have emerged within two or three years of the death of Jesus (whether or not one believes it actually happened).

The argument goes like this.  1 Corinthians 15:3-6 contains, in credal form, a list of the eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.  By including reference to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, Paul makes it clear he is talking about bodily resurrection.  But verses 1-2 describe that this is information that Paul passed on just as he had received it, using verbs that were technical terms for the transmission of oral tradition.  When would Paul have first learned this information?  Almost certainly as one of the very fundamentals of the Christian faith taught him when he first became a follower of the Risen Jesus–perhaps by Ananias who instructed him while he was still temporarily blind, in Damascus, after the Risen Christ appeared to him en route.

But when one compiles the most probable dates of the relevant events, based on Paul’s own information in Galatians 1-2, if Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30, the most likely date, then Paul’s conversion must have come no more than two years later, in 32.  (See any standard conservative New Testament introduction for how the dates are computed).  But for Paul to have been given an already established creed including resurrection witnesses, known not just in Jerusalem but also in Damascus, some time must have already elapsed for this foundational information to have been crystallized in this form and become widely known in the various locations believers lived and become widely agreed on as the kind of information to be passed on to each new convert.

Ludemann, the atheist, says this means within one to two years from Jesus’ death, it was widely agreed on that Christ had been bodily resurrected.  Bauckham, according to Habermas, apparently moves that date back to within about one-half year’s time, in order for the necessary time to elapse for this to become widely standardized by the time of Paul’s conversion.

One may still choose to follow Ludemann’s antisupernaturalism (we know resurrections can’t happen) and thus opt for some version of the mass hallucination hypothesis.  But the most common skeptical alternative in recent years, that the resurrection stories are just late myths in which beliefs about Jesus’ cause living on became embodied in mythological garb, simply doesn’t have the decades (or sometimes centuries) needed for it to have developed the way all other ancient myths did.  At some point, one has to say that it takes more faith to believe in the alternatives to the historic, Christian conviction at this point than to believe orthodox tradition!

/by

It’s NOT about marriage. It is about normality.

The homosexual movement wants us to believe they want to be married like heterosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact all the research of the homosexual sub-culture indicates a mere miniscule commitment by their population to “monogamous” relationships over any significant period of time. Very few in their movement will honestly say privately that they personally want life-long monogamous family commitments recognized by the world in the same way that heterosexual marriage is now in the larger society.

So what is it that they want? Why their outrage over the failures of their massive and expensive efforts to convince the public to allow them to “marry?” Put simply: their goal is a new level of acceptance that ameliorates their own deep-seated shame at their difference from the norm. Put another way, they want to be normal. They want the government, the IRS, and the rest of the world to say what they know is not really true. They want society to say to them: “You are normal and we accept you as such.”

However, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not morally, physically, sexually, socially, relationally or any other way equivalent. Simple science demonstrates that there cannot be two norms for human sexuality, because only one relationship can result in reproduction. This reality renders any other version of human sexuality abnormal, sub-normal, or at the least, deviations from the norm. That is simple science and unchangeable fact.

No amount of legislative change, judicial fiat, licensing or religious ceremony will assuage or change the underlying discontent and angst that comes from knowing that one differs from the norm. Most of us differ from the norm in some area of our physical, psychological, emotional, financial, social or spiritual makeup. Does that mean we all get to create and enforce laws to make us feel normal? Shall we seek new laws or change the Bible texts to make fat or skinny people feel better about themselves? How about sado-masochists or necrophiliacs? What about sex or drug addicts or alcoholics? There is an indisputable norm for nearly every behavior, and those who deviate always struggle with it.

If the difference from the norm is a lifestyle decision one makes, which all the evidence so far supports with respect to homosexuality and other sexual deviations from the norm, then there is only one escape from the angst. Abnormal sexual lifestyle choices apparently occur most frequently when certain socio-environmental exist in a person’s life. So in spite of what the movement says, one can change their lifestyle by making different choices. Will it be a painful struggle? It is painful for any of us when we try to change ourselves, but no one should ever expect that making new laws or shifting a society will make folks feel whole, healthy and normal. It never has worked for anyone with any of their deviation struggles, nor will it work for homosexuals with theirs.

Please note that I did not quote the Bible once.

/by

Would Jesus Vote for That?

, ,

McCain or Obama?  What principles should Christians use to make their decision?  What issues comprise the “weighter matters of the law” (Mt. 23:23-34)?

That’s what I cover in this program called “Would Jesus Vote for That?”  It will air this Sunday at  6 pm ET and Monday at 2 am and 8 pm ET on DirecTV channel 378.  (A side-by-side comparision of McCain and Obama begins at minute 33.)

http://vimeo.com/2094724&sec=2094724

Frank Turek – Would Jesus Vote for That from Andrew on Vimeo.

/by

Obama is "The Most Extreme Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever"

Ethicist Robert George of Princeton University exposes Barack Obama’s militantly pro-abortion views in an new article found here.  George says that any claim that Barack Obama is the more pro-life candidate is simply “delusional.”  He writes:  “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”

Indeed, Obama said that the first thing he wants to do as President is to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) which would nullify every modest restriction on abortion in the land–including bans on partial-birth abortion, parental notification, and even conscience clauses that allow doctors and nurses to opt out of performing abortions (they would have to perform them or risk firing!).  FOCA would also overturn the Hyde Amendment which would mean that taxpayers would be forced to pay for abortions!  

Read George’s entire article here.

/by

New Book on Same-Sex Marriage

,

My new book Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Will Hurt Everyone is now available as an e-book by clicking on the link.  The paperback is coming soon.  Here is the writeup from the back cover:

Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt?

Using sound reasoning and evidence—not religion—award-winning author Frank Turek shows that everyone will be hurt including children, the nation, and even homosexuals themselves. Turek provides concise answers to objections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people.Turek’s message is direct but respectful. It is correct, not politically correct. And it is a message that we must not ignore.

/by

Hitchens-Turek Debate VIDEO

, ,

The debate is over two hours, so get comfortable. If it gets hung up on our site, you can also view it here: http://www.vimeo.com/1904911.  Please return here to post your comments.  It will be on You Tube soon as well (but there you can only view it 10 minute segments).  Thanks!

Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist? from Andrew on Vimeo.

/by

Hitchens-Turek Debate

,

On Tuesday night, I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of God is not Great:  How Religion Poisons Everything, at Virginia Commonwealth University. The topic was, “Does God Exist?”

Thanks be to God (and to you for your prayers) because I don’t think the debate could have gone much better.  There were several atheists who approached me afterwards to say that I had won.  One young lady actually apologized for being an atheist!  Her position was not well represented, and she said that the arguments for God were.

Hitchens was his usual charming and witty self (I really like him and said as much), but he did not answer any of the eight arguments that I presented for the existence of God.  And as many in the audience acknowledged, he dodged nearly all of my questions.

Here is the introduction of a long e-mail sent to me two hours after the debate by a VCU Philosophy professor who attended (this professor told me that he is completely “non-religious”):

Dear Dr. Turek,  I wanted to say once again that I greatly enjoyed your talk and that, in my judgment, you clearly and unequivocally prevailed against Hitchens. Your two mind-body arguments were, I thought, very good, as were your modernizations of the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. I was also moved by your argument that, given how vanishingly close to zero are the chances of there being any sort of life, let alone intelligent life, it is more reasonable to infer that there is a God than it is to infer that there isn’t — the first an inference, but not the latter, being an ‘inference to the best explanation’, as philosophers of science would say. 

This is from a Christian student who has doubts:

My name is Jeremy and I was at your debate tonight. I will tell you what, you opened up a new can of worms at the VCU campus.  You have opened the eyes of many of the “atheists” that go to VCU and well, you did an amazing job.  You have really opened my eyes up a little bit more to the fact that God exists.  As a Christian, I still have my doubts sometimes.  I am not going to lie.  But by faith I believe.  Something that Mr. God himself Chris does not comprehend. (That was a great closing statement that you made)  But thank you so much for coming to Richmond and actually answering questions and having a reliable debate unlike Chris who beat around the bush and really bashed you when he did not have an answer.  People on the group said you did a good job and you made up some minds. 

Here is an account of the debate from an atheist and a Hitchens fan who was very disappointed:  http://rudyhenkel.livejournal.com/2726.html.  (Note:  This gentlemen erroneously thinks I do this for money.  My honorarium for the debate goes to CrossExamined.org. He also dismisses my arguments without answering them and mischaracterizes a few things, but he tells the truth about Hitchens.)

We video recorded the entire debate, and interviewed many who attended.  As soon as we produce the final version, I’ll let you know where you can see it (we intend to post it on You Tube and put it on our TV show).

Thank you again for your prayers and support.  Our next college event is September 23 at UNC Charlotte. 

 

/by

What Would Barack Do?

On June 28, 2006 Illinois Senator Barack Obama addressed the Call to Renewal’s “Building a Covenant for a New America” conference.  Call to Renewal publishes Sojourners, a magazine of the Christian left that provides sustenance for those committed to the Social Gospel movement, which began in the late 19th century under Walter Rauschenbusch.  Sojourners routinely publishes articles by members of Christianity’s liberal faction such as its founding editor-in-chief Jim Wallis, along with articles by Emergent Church leaders such as Brian McLaren.

Rauschenbusch was greatly influenced by the writings of Charles Sheldon, such as the classic work In His Steps, which gave rise to the modern maxim”What Would Jesus Do?”  While there is nothing inherently wrong with asking such a question, the Social Gospel movement has strayed from evangelical orthodoxy in its focus on social works to the exclusion of foundational Christian doctrines.  A balanced Christian view can be found in the Evangelical Manifesto of May 7, 2008.  See especially page 6:

http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf

It behooves Christian Evangelicals to read Senator Obama’s speech carefully. 

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

About 2/3 of the way through the speech, in a paragraph that begins… “And even if we did have only Christians in our midst…” Senator Obama asks, “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”

If Senator Obama hadn’t presented this speech three months prior to the publication of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion I would have suggested he borrowed from Dawkins.  He presciently iterates the same misguided rhetoric the New Atheists have now brought into the mainstream.  In any case, his comments make it quite clear that he is among those “folks who haven’t been reading their bibles,” at least not beyond a superficial level.  Sadly, Call to Renewal’s Christian left failed to recognize the blatant error in Barack Obama’s remarks.  As Evangelicals, I suggest we share this speech with any Christian friends who find his candidacy compelling.

/by

Life Begins at Conception

George Weigel writing for NewsWeek points out what we’ve known as a scientific fact for decades:  that human life begins at conception and any other suggested point for its beginning is arbitrary:  http://www.newsweek.com/id/155564/output/print.  This is not a matter of religious faith, but cold hard science.

In my opinion, anyone running for President who thinks that such a fact is “above his pay grade” ought not be seeking the highest political pay grade in the world.

/by

Atheist Diversionary Tactics

The new atheists are a tumescent bunch, unquestionably articulate, yet consummately misguided. Their incendiary rhetoric can’t help but stir the emotions of the majority of America’s religious. Yet why do they ultimately choose to target Christianity above all other religious systems, when radical Islam presents the clear and present danger?

They routinely build a straw man version of Christianity based not upon the Ten Commandments and the morality of the Christ, but rather upon Old Testament Levitical laws that have long since been abrogated. They cannot be so naïve as to believe that Christians condone the murder of back talking children. Yet they must presume their audience is just so naïve, since this is exactly the sort of rhetoric they routinely tout.

In the latest books by avowed atheists, such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great and Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, the crux of the problem lies undisturbed. It never seems to surface amongst the pestiferous rhetoric of the atheist leaders.

They call for a secular America that mimics the “least religious societies on earth,” such as Norway, Denmark, Belgium and most of Western Europe, believing that the “end of religion” is an achievable goal. Yet, Western Europe has undergone an unprecedented decline in population that threatens its very existence. Conversely, the Middle East and Africa saw the greatest population growth during the 1990s, in nations that are predominantly Islamic.

The new atheists applaud Western European openness toward matters of gender equality and abortion, yet both of these departures from traditional religious mores have contributed to the dwindling population problem. Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation, submits that “seventy percent of the inmates of France’s jails are Muslim.” He obtusely observes that Western European Muslims are generally not atheists, implying that atheists are not part of the “problem.”

However, by not recognizing the real problem, and by diverting attention toward Christianity rather than Islam, neither are they part of the solution. France’s tolerance has permitted their Muslim population to exceed 10%. Their hospitality has already been reciprocated with Islamic car bombings and gang riots. In America, the Muslim population is generally estimated at less than 2% of the population.

The increase in Europe’s Muslim population, along with population decline among European nationals, is changing the demographic climate in the cradle of continental philosophy. Rather than a progressive transformation toward analytic scientism and a consummately secular society, Europe is slowly and methodically regressing by embracing the ancient Mesopotamian culture that has emigrated from the cradle of civilization.

The new atheists aren’t the only ones with an agenda. While Sam Harris wants to see “the end of faith,” Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to see the end of Israel and the United States. Saudi Arabian oil money is pouring into our nation’s colleges and universities, mosques and Islamic day schools, at an alarming rate. Saudi monies don’t fund new science labs, libraries or gymnasiums, but rather Middle Eastern Studies programs, many of which have become bastions of radical jihadist thought. There is one thing virtually all Muslims have the same opinion upon, radical or otherwise. They agree with Shari’a Law and the emergence of an Islamic caliphate that will rule the entire Middle East and, if possible, the entire globe.

President Bush entered Iraq with the goal of liberating the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, much like President Roosevelt entered Europe to liberate that part of the world from the maniacal control of Adolf Hitler. Our presence in Iraq has two very reasonable purposes: to aid the Iraqis in stabilizing their nation and to keep an eye on their next door neighbor, who unabashedly considers us the “Great Satan.” The new atheists are diverting our attention from America’s real problem by blurring the distinct boundaries between monotheistic religions.

/by