Did Nazareth Exist During The Life Of Jesus?

Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus? How can we know? What does the evidence say? These are questions to which Christians have been asked to give an answer on a more and more frequent basis by those who profess themselves to be “skeptics” in our world today. It is curious that the first-century historicity of Jesus should be the subject of such contention, since this matter was effectively laid to rest long ago.

There are several reasons which are often given for doubting the first-century historicity of Nazareth, which are largely built around arguments from silence. For one thing, Nazareth is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings. Critics also contend that the biblical geography is in error, as there is no cliff near the synagogue from which Jesus was allegedly thrown, as recounted in Luke 4:24-30.

Generally speaking, caution should be taken when dealing with arguments from silence. The question must be raised as to just how much one would expect the contemporary writers to mention the town of Nazareth. Nazareth was a small and insignificant village, and Josephus had no real reason to mention it. The town’s insignificance is evident in the first chapter of John’s gospel, when Nathaniel asks, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Leaving aside the problems with the argument from silence, it should also be noted that the claim is not entirely correct. In AD 70, at the end of the Jewish war with the Romans, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and this meant that Jewish priests and their families had to be redeployed. An inscription was discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima, which documented that the priests of the order of Elkalir came to live in Nazareth. This has only been confirmed by later discoveries. For example, in 2009, the first Nazarene home to date from Jesus’ era was excavated by archaeologists. The house was a simple structure, consisting of two small rooms and a courtyard.

The claim about the errant geography carries a bit more weight than the argument from silence. The closest cliff from which Jesus might have been thrown is roughly 2.5 miles away from the synagogue, however, and there is no reason why Jesus could not have been taken this far.

In conclusion, the claim that there is no historical evidence for the existence of the town of Nazareth in the first century stands refuted by the archaeological data, and many of the more informed atheist critics, even among those who deny the historicity of Jesus, have advised caution with this argument.

This article was originally published on GotQuestions.org.

/by

Does Isaiah 53 Speak About Jesus? A Response To Critics

I have always viewed the exquisitely detailed Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53 as one of the most powerful and compelling reasons for thinking that Christianity is indeed true. Written some 700 years before Christ’s life on earth, this prophecy details the suffering and redemptive purposes of the Messiah. Moreover, the presence of the entire book of Isaiah in the Qumran scrolls gives us confidence that this prophecy pre-dates the first century by at least a couple hundred years. Its presence among the Jewish Scriptures precludes any possibility of Christian tampering anyway, and such a possibility is uniformly rejected among contemporary scholarship.

So what does this passage say? Can there be any doubt that this passage refers to Jesus? I have entered the full passage below, and followed it with a brief discussion of common attempts to evade this powerful argument. The relevant text begins in Isaiah 52:13, and continues to the end of chaptier 53:

“See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.

Just as there were many who were appalled at him— his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness— so he will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on himthe iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days,and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Some might argue that contemporary Jews argue against this passage being messianic. However, having read the conventional views among them, I think such a view is untenable. Firstly, if the passage — as most contemporary Jews maintain — is really a personification of the nation of Israel, then the passage makes no sense when it says “…for the transgressions of my people [i.e. Israel] he was striken…though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” The term “the servant” is also used of the messiah in other parts of the Bible, such as in Zechariah 3:8 (“I am going to bring my servant, the Branch”)

Moreover, most contemporary Jews are simply not familiar with the chapter – it is curiously avoided in the synagogue readings. We can, however, settle the issue of the passage’s historical Judaic interpretation by going to the ancient sources. Jonathan ben Uziel (early 1st century), for example, in his Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible), paraphrasing Isaiah 53, wrote: “My servant, the Messiah, will be great, who was bruised for our sins.” Furthermore, the Talmud (in the Midrash Tanchumi) states with reference to Isaiah 52:13 that “He was more exalted than Abraham, more extolled than Moses; higher than the angels.”

Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees in John 5, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

The apostle Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:10-12, ”Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.”

Could this passage really refer to anyone besides Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world? Is all this just one big happy coincidence? You decide!

/by

Hell is Not. . .

Hell is not a torture chamber! Hell is not run by Satan. Hell is not a place to see your buddies. Hell is not a place of repentance.Hell is not a place where everyone is punished equally. Hell is not describable with a single reference, picture, or analogy.Descriptions of hell are not always literal. Listen here

/by

Is MacroEvolution True? An Atheist Makes His Case

We have had several conversations on this site over the years on the subject of macroevolution.  Many of the comments affirming macroevolution have come from a very loyal and courteous participant here, atheist “Tim D” (full name Tim Duck).  I offered Tim some posting space (rather than just in the comments section) to make a positive case for the theory that all new life forms arose from a single common ancestor by unguided natural processes.

Just to be clear, the post below is by atheist, Mr. Tim Duck.  He welcomes your comments.

Why I Think MacroEvolution is True

By Tim Duck

Short foreword: a while back I was challenged to write a short article in defense of the theory of evolution by natural selection (sometimes called “Darwinian evolution”) for this site. I felt confident that I could do so, but once I sat down, I found a lot of difficulty stringing all the concepts in my head together into a coherent series of paragraphs, and when I tried, I ended up with 10+ pages. I realized, my mistake was that I was trying to give a comprehensive rundown of all the arguments for and against the theory, from scientific and religious circles, that I have encountered. That’s simply not practical, so instead what I’m going to focus on here is a description of the most fundamental, underlying principles of the theory — the simplest, most basic aspects that come together to form evolutionary theory. This is a straightforward approach that should cover most questions that people would have; and I have been told that if there are any questions not answered herein, that I will have the opportunity to respond to them in the comments section, which I will try to the best of my ability to do faithfully.

Before I can say anything about evolutionary theory, I must ask: What is it, exactly? There’s certainly a lot of confusion on this point — what does evolution say about the origin of the universe? What implications does it have for the existence of god, or of objectively-grounded morality? What does it say about us as humans? These are all interesting questions that we hear a lot, but before we can answer any of them, we must define evolution in a fundamental, principled way. First and foremost, though, we use the tentative definition that evolution is the shift in the genetic “norm” of a population of organisms.

Evolution ultimately starts at the molecular level — DNA. Most people are familiar with the basic features of DNA — you find it in stringy things called “chromosomes” (each one of which is composed of a long series of smaller units called “nucleotides,” which can number 100 thousand to 10 billion) that reside within cell “nuclei,” or cores. DNA contains segments of nucleotides called “genes,” which are responsible for all the traits of a single organism, so any living thing has genes and thus DNA. Without genes and DNA, a discussion of evolution would be moot.

“Nucleotides” are small molecules built up of a sugar (ribose or deoxyribose), a nitrogenous base, and a phosphate group. There are four basic types of nucelotides: adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine (abbreviated “A, G, T, and C”). The sugar (ribose in the case of DNA) forms the “backbone” (and gives the chromosome its Jacob’s-Ladder structure), and the phosphate group accounts for the reaction that binds the nucleotides together.via something called a “phosphodiester bond.” Furthermore, T only bonds with A and G only bonds with C; when we have long strands of these polymers, we have genes, the fundamental unit of DNA.

But what kind of traits do genes determine? Well….everything. Every single physical characteristic of both you and I is ultimately determined at the genetic level — it can be a small trait that is almost universal within a population of humans, such as protein production at the cellular level, or it can be a much “larger” trait (such as eye color or bone structure) that is made up of many smaller traits at the cellular and molecular level. To simplify, you might say that the “gene” is the “unit” of genetic variation — even traits such as hair or skin color can be broken down into smaller individual traits which exist at the genetic level. What this means is, there is not a “hair color gene” or a “bone structure gene,” or a “body type gene.” These larger traits can be thought of as “trait groups,” and ultimately rely on a convergence of smaller gene groups within DNA. So ultimately, if a trait changes somehow from generation to generation, it happens at the genetic level.

The way in which genes do this is not direct, though — a gene does not contain information which says, “this person will have red hair, so work with these other genes to make red hair.” Rather, a gene in itself contains only very simple (I use the word simple here liberally) chemicals which are used to do things like encode proteins. This makes it difficult to see what a gene will do if you only look at it at the genetic level. We are able to identify certain genes (such as those responsible for Alzheimer’s and Tay-Sachs disease) because of a careful, experimental process of elimination and isolation which is far too complicated to go into detail here….but basically, a single gene by itself can only do so much. If it’s defective or mutated, it can cause some serious changes (or even problems), but it won’t cause a human to be born as a gorilla or something silly like that. Most such changes, you might not even notice.

So, skipping ahead for a moment…humans reproduce sexually, of course. At the cellular level, what happens when a sperm and egg cell join together during the process of fertilization and conception is known as “sexual recombination” or “genetic recombination.” This is when trait genes from each of the parents’ DNA are “shuffled” in a way that is basically random, and then combined to form a new sequence that will be the offspring — it is by this process that we inherit certain traits or trait groups from both parents (such as eye color or facial similarity), and yet we don’t usually look exactly like either of our parents; we have traits from both, but not ALL traits from either individual.

So what happens, then, to the genes that we don’t acquire from our parents? If my father has red hair and my mother has blonde hair, and I’m born with red hair, what does that say about my mother’s blonde hair? A number of things can happen. Some genes are called “recessive,” which means, they do not manifest if they are coupled with other “dominant” genes. They must be paired with other similar “recessive” genes before they are manifest — diseases such as Tay-sachs can occur in this way; if both parents have the same recessive gene, then the child has a much higher chance of contracting the disease. In this way, an offspring can spread a gene for several generations without ever directly seeing or feeling its effects. So even if a gene is not active or dominant, it can still be passed on.

Okay, the story so far: (1) all life has DNA, (2) DNA is shuffled randomly during sexual reproduction, (3) this causes a rotation of traits within the offspring. This is the natural process that establishes what we call “genetic norms” in a population — popular traits or trait groups that are almost universal, or at least prevalent, in a population. In humans, for instance, having two arms, two legs, a head, and a torso is considered a “norm.” There are some variations from this norm, such as people with extra or missing parts, but this is the most prevalent template for human development (On a side note, please do not confuse the term “genetic norm” with the term “social norm;” they are two very different concepts!).

This is a microcosm of what happens during evolution, but in this case it doesn’t give us a wide enough pool of genetic diversity to account for rapid or drastic evolution within a population — a single population in a single area, such as humans in a city, probably won’t see much of a drastic change even over long periods of time. So, how do we get from here to “the big picture” of evolution in action? To answer that question, we’ll analyze another objection that’s often raised by critics of evolutionary theory: That’s just microevolution. What evidence do we have that macroevolution takes place?

Going back to the original definition for a moment, you may recall that I said, “evolution is the shift in the genetic norm of a population.” What this means is, at the most fundamental level, there is no difference between ‘macroevolution’ and ‘microevolution.’ Macroevolution just means, “a large shift in the genetic norm,” whereas microevolution means, “a small shift in the genetic norm.” Even if I do offer you a concrete example of each (macro and micro), if we break them both down, we will see that they are identical at the genetic level. The only difference between the two is time — small changes happen all the time and are mostly benign (i.e. they don’t have any visible effect on our bodies), but that is because they are made up of small amounts of genes. Large changes happen less frequently because they must accumulate over time. If small changes can happen, and small changes can accumulate, then it follows naturally that they can accumulate over large periods of time. That is why you only see truly vast differences in traits between species which exist hundreds-of-thousands, or millions, of years apart.

But how does “macroevolution” occur? How do large changes to an organism happen? There is a famous example called the Lenski Bacteria Experiment; I don’t have time to detail it too much here, but basically, 12 “tribes” of the exact same strain of e. coli bacteria were isolated in 12 containers and provided with nutrients, glucose and citrate. Each day, each “tribe” was moved to a new container and provided with new nutrients. Now normally, e. coli can’t digest citrate, and so they only “ate” the glucose, and once the glucose in the container ran out, their numbers would start to dwindle. However, one day, after a significant amount of generations (over 20,000), suddenly, one of the 12 tribe cultures suddenly began to reproduce at an exponential rate, even as the other tribes had run out of glucose and began to dwindle! After subsequent research it was determined that this mutant strain of e. coli had mutated a particular structure within its body which allowed it to process citrate as well as glucose, so it was able to get almost twice as much out of its environment as the other tribes. Through further study they managed to isolate the gene which was actually responsible for the mutation (call it “mutation B”)….and yet, the mutant tribe was not the only tribe with this gene. So what gives? As it turns out, after examining samples saved from each prior generation before the mutation occurred, it was determined that a mutation had occurred around generation 20,000 (call it “mutation A”) which had no significant effect on its own, but that when paired with mutation B, caused the citrate mutation to occur. So the bacteria needed not only to have both A and B, but to have them in a certain order (A, then B). Only then would the new trait manifest.

I use this experiment to demonstrate one important thing: Large mutations are made up of smaller mutations. They also take much more time; most of the cultures in that experiment mutated either A or B on their own, but only the one that mutated first A and then B was able to experience the citrate mutation. In this case the effect seemed small because the organism was single-celled, but this principle applies equally to all organisms; it’s just a combination of a few basic points:

(1) if I have a trait, then like the bacteria culture, there is a chance that I may pass it on to my children. This can be true for more than one trait, of course; I could pass on thousands of traits to my children.
(2) if my child receives a trait from me, he/she could pass it on to his/her children; this is also true for more than one trait, my child could pass on thousands of other traits, some from his/her mother and some from me
(3) if at any point, any traits mutate, those traits will be preserved if they are passed on (i.e. the mutated trait will pass on, not the original unmutated one).

Through this process, a series of small, individual mutations can accumulate over a very long time. Even in a single population this can produce some genetic diversity….but again, not really enough to account for a drastic shift of the sort you might call “macroevolution.” No, what we need is a diversity of two things: (1) population, and (2) habitat. In a small town in Colorado, you’re not likely to find much genetic diversity just by looking at people. You’ll mostly see people of similar ethnicity with similar features. Likewise, in a small village in Egypt or Uganda, you’re not likely to find many different kinds of ethnicity or massive variation. However, if you compare the two — smalltown Colorado with village in Egypt or Uganda — you will see that the two communities are quite ethnically different. There is a definite variation in the norms between these two areas; darker vs. lighter skin being the most noticeable. That is a small difference, but it makes a good segue into the last example I have for now.

Probably one of the most important things to remember about evolution is this: it is about divergence, not progression. To “evolve” does not mean “to get stronger,” or “to get better,” or to “improve.” It simply means to “change.” Divergent species of the same ilk can have their own unique strengths and weaknesses, which better suits them to some situations but may even worsen their ability to deal with others. So there is no such thing as the “ultimate species” in that sense, despite what horror movies about biologists run amok would have you believe. A good example of this is the Pod Mrcaru/Pod Kopiste island lizards. In 1971, a group of scientists transported five couples of Podarcis sicula lizards (native to Pod Kopiste) over to Pod Mrcaru, a nearby island with a slightly different environmental culture, and released them. Another group of scientists came back in 2008 to check on the lizards, performing DNA tests of samples captured from the wild to ascertain that (A) yes, the lizards they were seeing were descendants of the Pod Kopiste Podarcis sicula, and (B) the lizards had spread out and populated the island. The lizards from Pod Kopiste, while bearing almost identical genetic profiles, exhibited a few differences from their “ancestors” on the neighbor island — chiefly, a larger head size. The payoff being increased bite force, the downside being that the head is bigger, and thus takes more power to maneuver, requiring stronger neck and jaw muscles. This resulted in the lizards having a more vegetarian diet, possibly due to their lack of a strong body — chasing mobile prey would be markedly more difficult with a larger head and small body.

There are really more examples I would like to go into, but for the sake of brevity I’m trying to focus only on those absolutely necessary to define evolution….and so in closing, I will come back to my introductory (rhetorical) questions, and address some common errors/falsehoods that are frequently spread about evolutionary theory (and the people who accept it):
-)  Evolution is not a theory of origins; it does not address (or attempt to address) where the universe came from, or where life came from. It is only the study of living things and how they change over time. Abiogenesis is a separate theory that deals will the origin of life, completely independent of evolutionary theory. Within the context of evolutionary theory itself, it is entirely technically possible that someone like a god created the first life. All evolution does is trace what happens after that.

-) If evolution is true, that does not mean that god does not exist. It may challenge some specific claims made by certain interpretations of religions or texts (such that “god created humans in their present state 6000 years ago”), but since evolution does not address any of the fundamental characteristics of god (who is said to be “timeless, spaceless and immaterial”), it can’t be said to challenge them in any real way.

-) If someone accepts evolution, that does not mean they support a “survival of the fittest” worldview. Evolution is a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive theory. It does not tell us what we “should” do in the future, and it does not advise us to “evolve ourselves” such as through eugenics. If someone uses evolution as a basis on which to declare racial superiority or inferiority, then he/she probably knows very little about evolution at all. To say that “evolution is not true because it promotes [x worldview]” is no stranger a statement than to say, “shotguns don’t actually work because shooting someone in the face promotes violence.” Evolution is merely a tool by which we hope to understand the workings of biology a little better.

I guess that’s about it….I know I haven’t addressed *all* of the criticisms that are out there, but I hope I have provided at least a basic groundwork on which to base any further discussion of evolutionary theory. If you have any questions or comments, then perhaps I can tweak things in the future so as to provide an adequate attempt at a follow-up. And of course a thanks to Mr. Turek for inviting me to write this as a guest on his site!

–Tim D.

/by

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy

I often read books merely for content.  It is rare that one provides pleasure as well, and it is the rarest of books that adds relevance and inspiration.  Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, has it all.  Eric Metaxas has done a masterful job in his definitive biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Eric is a great interview as well.  If you want some of the greatest lessons from the book– and many apply to the Christian citizen today– then please listen to my July 9 interview with Eric here (also available on itunes).  And tune in on July 16 when we’ll continue our conversation.

/by

Could God’s Moral Commands Be Improved?

,

When we don’t study the historical and literary context of a passage, we often draw the wrong conclusions.  Such is the case with some atheists who complain about the apparent immorality of God’s commands in the Old Testament.  Dr. William Lane Craig answers several questions about this (and his debate with atheist Sam Harris) on his website (ReasonableFaith.org).  His succinct response is worth repeating here:

Question:

I recently watched your debate with Sam Harris, and had a few questions for you.

First, If morals are determined by God’s edict, then it seems to suggest that they are non negotiable. I say this because a being who is defined as all good would not give us a faulty moral stance and expect us to follow it. So, how do we improve our morals if it is an obvious improvement to not follow the bible? I make claim to the old testament where frivolous crimes carry the punishment of death by stoning. Wouldn’t it be more moral to not stone homosexuals to death, and instead allow them to contribute to society?

Second, In the question and answer section, you make the claim that the bible is a good moral foundation because you can think of no alternative from an atheistic perspective. Is that not a fallacy of an appeal to ignorance?

Lastly, tying the two together, Would you not agree that it is morally reprehensible to refuse to adopt a more moral world view? It seems that the biblical Christian moral foundation can be improved by ignoring bible passages (such as stoning to death for homosexuality), and atheists are just as capable of obtaining such a moral foundation (which incidentally is an improvement on the bible).

William
United States

Dr. Craig responds: I think there are some fundamental misunderstandings lying behind your questions, William, which vitiate their force. Nevertheless, I believe that questions of this sort perplex many. So let’s take them in order.

1. On a Divine Command theory of ethics such as I defended in the debate, God’s commands to us are non-negotiable in the sense that we have a moral obligation to obey God’s commands. To disobey His commands is to fail to discharge our moral duties.

It does not follow from this that moral improvement is impossible. For God’s commands can be contingent upon the realities of the human condition relative to the times and places of the recipients of those commands. Real people in the circumstances in which they exist may not be capable of receiving or carrying out God’s moral ideal for them and so are given commands which may be much less than ideal but nonetheless suited for the reality of their situation.

This is not just a hypothetical possibility. This is what the Bible teaches about God’s commands. One of the clearest examples of this is Jesus’ teaching concerning the Mosaic law on divorce. “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been that way ” (Matt. 19.8) Here Jesus says that the law of Moses did not represent God’s ideal for marriage established at creation but was historically conditioned due to the moral callousness of the persons to whom it was given.

One of the positive features of Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster?, to which I referred in the debate, is his emphasis that Old Testament laws were historically conditioned to a particular people at a particular time and a particular place and were never intended to be timeless ethical principles that would govern all peoples at all times under all circumstances. God gave ancient Israel laws that were suited to their historical circumstances, even if they didn’t express His moral ideal.

Moreover, another important factor you overlook, William, is the distinction between moral law and civil law. Ancient Israel under Moses was a theocracy: God was the head of the government. We don’t live in a theocracy, so many acts which are deeply immoral (like adultery) are not illegal. No such distinction existed in ancient Israel. So adultery was a capital crime. (You’re mistaken, by the way, in thinking that homosexuality as such was a capital crime; what was criminal was sexual activity outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual.) In our sexually promiscuous society such an assessment of adultery’s immorality seems just inconceivable. But I take that to be a measure of how far short we fall of God’s moral ideal for marriage and how seriously He takes chastity and marital fidelity. Even though adultery is not illegal in a non-theocratic society, it remains a sin that that is deeply immoral in God’s sight. Since we live in a non-theocratic society, we should not try to make everything that is immoral also illegal.

2. I’m confident that I made no such claim as you ascribe to me. In the first place, the claim seems to blur the distinction I was underlining all night of the difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology. The question of the foundation of moral values and duties is a question of moral ontology. So the Bible is just irrelevant to that question. The Bible would become relevant only if we were asking the epistemological question as to the content of our moral duties. On that question I do think that the Bible is a useful guide, so long as one uses it correctly (for example, not taking commands issued under a theocratic state out of their historical context and interpreting them as timeless ethical principles). Second, I most certainly do not adopt the Bible as a guide to moral behavior just because I can think of no alternative from an atheistic perspective. I have given evidence for thinking that Jesus of Nazareth is God’s Son and the personal revelation of God, so that one ought to believe what he taught, including his ethical teachings. Finally, third, I can think of lots of atheistic alternatives (like Sam Harris’s view); I just don’t think they’re tenable.

3. I’d agree that if a person is informed about the moral adequacy of competing views and chooses a less moral view over the view he knows to be superior, then that person has acted immorally. But the proper comparison here will not be between Christianity and atheism. For as I argued in the debate, the atheistic alternative is incapable of furnishing a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. That’s why, in response to Sam Harris’ remark, “if there is a less moral framework than the one Dr. Craig is proposing, I haven’t heard of it,” I exclaimed, “The less moral framework is atheism! Atheism has no grounds for objective moral values or duties.” Until you answer the Value Problem, the “is/ought” problem, and the “is implies can” problem, William, you have no grounds for thinking atheism to be capable of securing such a foundation. Now that puts you in a difficult moral situation. For in the absence of answers to those objections, you are by your own lights rejecting a more moral worldview and therefore acting in a morally reprehensible way.

So if there is a comparison to be drawn here, it will be between competing forms of theism. Is Christianity, for example, a moral improvement over Mosaic Judaism? Yes; I have already affirmed that the moral system in ancient Israel was inferior to the revelation of God’s more perfect moral will by Jesus.

/by
The Declaration of Independence: A Theistic Document

The Declaration of Independence: A Theistic Document

In the Declaration of Independence, there are several theistic (not merely deistic) concepts.  These include:  A Creator, God-given moral rights, The Supreme Judge of the World (implying a day of Judgment), Divine Providence (God intervening in the world) and the “sacred honor” of the founders.  Sadly, most Americans have never read the Declaration of Independence. Here’s your chance:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

 

 

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

/by

The Dawkins Dilemma – Part 3

First, my apologies for having been away from the keyboard for the past 5 months. Unfortunately, my work activities have required that situation.

As you may recall, I started a series last autumn examining the veracity of Dr. Richard Dawkins’ “The GOD Delusion”. In two topics that dealt with this I examined how I believe Dr. Dawkins was deliberately manipulating the facts and using “smoke and mirrors” to pursue his own personal agenda.

While I have no ax to grind with individuals espousing their own personal views, I felt it necessary to comment on Dr. Dawkins’ work because of his reputation as a world class scientist and his resultant responsibility to present information in a fair and accurate manner, something he fails to do.

As I’ve cited before, Dr. Dawkins has a specific agenda. He states that very clearly on page 28 of the paperback edition where he writes: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” Now, I have no problem with Dr. Dawkins writing a book that says “I’m and atheist, here’s why, and here’s why you might consider it as well” as long as he presents the facts fairly and accurately.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Dr. Dawkins’ book is overflowing with misleading information, half truths, and embarrassingly shabby scientific reporting (at least for a man of his professional credentials). My intent in this series of posts has been and continues to be to point out these glaring inadequacies.

You see, there are real people making life-altering decisions based on what Dr. Dawkins has written. Many of them blindly accept that since he is this “world-class scientist” he is presenting matters of undeniable fact when, in reality, nothing is farther from the truth.

Unfortunately, Dr. Dawkins seems to get a free pass on most of what he writes. Perhaps a majority of his readers have neither the time nor resources to actually check out what he is saying. Or perhaps it’s because his charming and somewhat amusing writing style coupled with his scientific reputation prevents people from recognizing how they are being mislead in his quest to achieve his stated agenda.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I’m not saying that honest errors and oversights can’t occur. They can and do. However, the quantity and regularity with which misleading information occurs within Dr. Dawkins’ manuscript demonstrates his deliberateness in the process. His method of presenting them confirms this. I’ve already addressed numerous instances of this in The Dawkins Dilemma – Parts 1 and 2, and plan to demonstrate yet more examples of this misleading dialogue in this and future posts.

For example, let’s look at how Dr. Dawkins portrays Thomas Jefferson in his book. Now why Dr. Dawkins feels that Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs are relevant to whether or not God exists, I’m not sure. However, since he brought Jefferson into the discussion, his comments are fair game. Note, I’m not going to discuss Jefferson’s views on different religions (Christianity, Calvinism, Theism, Deism, etc) only the likelihood that he was an atheist, as Dr. Dawkins implies.

Dr. Dawkins first addresses this on pg. 64 where he notes:

“Christopher Hitchens in his biography Thomas Jefferson Author of America thinks it is likely that Jefferson was an atheist, even in his own time when it was much harder:

As to whether he was an atheist, we must reserve judgment if only because of the prudence he was compelled to observe during his political life. But as he had written to his nephew, Peter Carr, as early as 1787, one must not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. ‘If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in this exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you.’

I find the following advice of Jefferson, again in his letter to Peter Carr, moving:

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

On page 122-3, Dr. Dawkins again quotes Jefferson when he says:

“Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity. In the farsighted words of Thomas Jefferson, writing to his predecessor, John Adams, ‘The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.’ “

Sound like pretty compelling stuff? Sure, until you read the actual letters.

Let’s look at the complete letter to John Adams and see what else Jefferson said:

“I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit.”

“He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be”? … “the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world”?… Doesn’t sound much like an atheist to me.

What about the quote Dr. Dawkins mentions above? Well the full quote is:

“The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”

You see, Jefferson wasn’t denying the existence of God or Jesus, but rather criticizing Calvinistic views. Jefferson closes by saying:

“So much for your quotation of Calvin’s `mon dieu! jusqu’a quand’ in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation `Well done, good and faithful servants.’ ”

Again, I’m not discussing Jefferson’s views on different religions only the implied fact that he was an atheist. Again, his own words state “He [Calvin] was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be”. So ask yourself why are Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins trying to convince us that he likely was? What could possibly be driving them to spend time taking quotes out of context in an attempt to prove a point which Jefferson himself so clearly refuted?

I believe that this simple example demonstrates the approach Dr. Dawkins’ takes on the broad spectrum topics he discusses, some of which I’ve already addressed. At best he’s demonstrating incompetence in researching his facts, something which I seriously doubt given his professional background. More likely, he’s deliberately misleading his readers; possibly figuring the vast majority would blindly trust him, never bothering to check the actual facts.

By the way, you don’t have to take my word for any of this, just go to: http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/53/Letter_from_Thomas_Jefferson_to_John_Adams_1.html for the complete text of the letter.

Oh…one more thing… Concerning Dr. Dawkins’ quote I mentioned above…“Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity.”… Where is the substantiating information? Who are these “reputable biblical scholars”? Why hasn’t Dr. Dawkins provided some names or statistical references to actually back up such a bold statement? After all, saying that they “…do not in general regard…” would seem to infer that a majority feel this way so there should be plenty to choose from.

Again, I apologize for my time away from this topic, it was unavoidable. I hope to be able to respond to your comments (job permitting) and continue working our way through Dr. Dawkins’ book.

/by

What’s the Truth About Hell?

On “CrossExamined with Frank Turek” on American Family Radio on June 4 Frank discussed the topic “What’s the Truth About Hell?” With Rob Bell’s recent book, “Love Wins” the questions about eternity and punishment have been “hot” topics in Christianity. A number of these issues were addressed in the ratio show. The audio archive will be posted as soon as it becomes available. However, in the meantime, we found the following video response to “Love Wins” that we thought you might be interested to watch. Matt Slick, of CARM.org gives his analysis of Bell’s book.

/by

Mom Plays God: Brings Good from Evil

It’s often easy to spot militant atheists who attend my presentation called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. They usually sit with their arms folded and scowls on their faces.  During a recent presentation at Michigan State, I knew I’d get push back from one such scowling student sitting to my right.  He looked mad and was mad.  (He wouldn’t even smile at a hilarious Homer Simpson clip!)

He shot his hand up during the Q&A and yelled out, “You mentioned the problem of evil during your presentation but you didn’t answer it!  If there is a good God, then why does evil exist?  Why doesn’t God stop it?”

I said, “Sir, that is an excellent question.  Sometimes I bluntly answer this way.  ‘If God stopped all evil, he might start with you . . . and me because we both do evil every day.’  To end evil on earth God would have to take away our free will.  But if he takes away our free will, he takes away our ability to love as well.  Allow me to show you a video that beautifully illustrates this in less than two minutes.”  I then played this outstanding video which traces evil back to free will.

Most in the audience appreciated the clip and applauded.  But the atheist was unmoved.  “Why do babies die, why do tsunamis occur?  These aren’t the result of free will!” he protested.

“True, they are not the result of someone’s free will today,” I explained. “But Christianity traces all of our trouble back to a free will choice by Adam.  As a result, we live in a fallen world where bad things happen, but God takes the initiative to bring good from evil.  In fact, you can sum up the entire Bible in one word—redemption.  Paradise lost in Genesis is paradise regained in Revelation.  God initiated and achieved this redemption by sending Jesus Christ who suffered and died on our behalf.  So we can question God about suffering as the biblical writers did, but God didn’t exempt Himself from it.  Jesus was the only completely innocent person in the history of the world, yet he suffered horribly for our redemption.  He brought good from evil.”

The atheist didn’t like that either. He interrupted me several times, so I finally asked him, “Are you an atheist?”

He refused to answer but then blurted out,  “It doesn’t matter!”

I said, “It does matter because if you are an atheist (I later learned from his blog he is), then you have no grounds by which to judge anything evil.  Objective evil doesn’t exist unless objective good exists and objective good doesn’t exist unless God exists.  You can have good without evil, but you can’t have evil without good.  In other words, the shadows prove the sunshine.  You can have sunshine without shadows, but you can’t have shadows without sunshine. So evil doesn’t disprove God—it actually shows there must be a God because it presupposes Good.  Evil may prove there’s a devil out there, but it doesn’t disprove God.”

The atheist persisted, “But if God exists, why do some babies die such horrible deaths?”

Well, if the atheist is granting that God exists, then he has a valid question.  While he can’t explain evil and suffering from his atheistic worldview, I need to explain it from mine.

My explanation went this way.  Although I know why evil in general occurs (see the video), I don’t know why every specific evil occurs.  But I know why I don’t know why—because I’m finite and can’t see into the future.  Since God is infinite and can see all the way into eternity, he may allow evil events that ultimately work together for good.  In other words, he can still bring good from evil even if we can’t see how.

To illustrate, I referred back to the classic Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life.”  That’s where George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, falls on hard times, becomes despondent and tries to commit suicide.  He’s saved by an angel and is permitted to see how life in his town would have turned out if he had never existed.  George sees that everything would have turned out far worse without him, and thus realizes that even though evil infects life, good can prevail in the end.  George could only see this with God’s timeless perspective.  Only God can see how trillions of free choices and events can interact ultimately for good even if some of them seem hopelessly negative at the time.  (In fact, that’s one reason why God told Job to trust him.)

At that point, a man sitting ten feet from the atheist raised his hand.

“Go ahead, sir.”

He first looked over at the atheist, then back at me and said, “I know of a young woman who was raped and became pregnant.  The rape nearly destroyed her.” His voice began to crack . . . “But she decided that she would not punish the baby for the sin of the father.  She later gave birth to a baby boy.”  (By this point he was weeping openly.) “And that boy grew up to be a pastor whom God has used to help bring many people to Christ.  He ministers to people to this day. That boy grew up to be me.”

He then looked back at the atheist and said, “My mother turned evil into good, and God can too.”

The atheist left immediately after the event ended, but I did get to meet that brave pastor who spoke up.  His name is Gary Bingham, and he’s the pastor of Hillside Wesleyan Church in Marion, Indiana.  Gary told me that his mom had self-confidence issues for many years but is doing much better since becoming a Christian a few years ago.   I thanked him and asked him to let his mom know that she touched many for good that night.  I hope through this column she has touched many more today.

/by