Letter James Authorship

Who Wrote the Letter of James?

,

By Bryan Chilton

As you know, we have been examining the authorship of the New Testament letters over the past few weeks. Thus far, we have learned that good reasons exist to accept the apostles Matthew and John as authors of the First and Fourth Gospels; John Mark as the author of the Second Gospel, who in turn served as a preserver of Simon Peter’s testimony; Dr. Luke, the beloved physician and colleague of Paul, as the author of the Third Gospel; Paul as the most reasonable author for the 13 letters attributed to him; and most likely Luke as the author of Hebrews. But what about the letter attributed to James? Who is the most likely candidate for the pastoral letter? That is the topic of this article.

Date:   Interestingly, the letter attributed to James is most likely the oldest letter in the entire New Testament. Evidence suggests that the letter of James was probably written around the year A.D. 48 as the letter holds more a kinship with Jewish wisdom literature than does further developed Christian literature. James’s tie with the Jerusalem church as well as a thoroughly Jewish focus leads one to believe that the letter was written prior to the Jerusalem Council (c. A.D. 48).

Purpose: Many have claimed, and rightfully so, that James’s letter is somewhat similar to the Jewish wisdom literature found in the Old Testament. The key difference between James and the wisdom literature of the Old Testament is that James contains key exhortations and prophetic elements which are not found in OT wisdom literature.[1]

The book of James is the most practical of all the books in the NT. So practical is James that many have suggested a difference between the theology of James and Paul. However, such differences are quite exaggerated. Paul does focus on grace while James focuses on works. Yet, the two are far more complementary that skeptics suggest. James holds that true, genuine faith will lead to action as one should be a “doer of the word and not hearers only” (James 1:22, CSB). Jesus holds a similar outlook as he notes that one who loves him will obey his commandments (John 14:15). Therefore, James and Paul do not present alternate versions of Christianity. Rather, their message of works subsequent to grace is complementary.[2]

Author:           Three people are candidates for authorship of this early letter: James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphaeus (also known as James the Less or James the Younger),[3] and James the brother of Jesus (also known as James the Just). James the son of Zebedee could not have authored the letter as he died in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2).

Pertaining to James the son of Alphaeus, there is no claim in the early church that he wrote the letter. Not much is known pertaining to the whereabouts of James the son of Alphaeus after the early ministry with Jesus. It is thought that James the Less was stoned by the Jewish authorities for preaching Christ and was buried in the Sanctuary in Jerusalem.[4] Justinian is said to have exhumed the body of James and placed his bones in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople in 332.[5]

This leaves only one possible candidate: James the brother of Jesus, also known as James the Just. James was not a believer in Jesus during Jesus’s earthly ministry (John 7:5). However, James did start following Jesus after Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. He was listed among those to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7). James was one of the first leaders of the Jerusalem Church (Galatians 2:9). James later died by being pushed off the temple ledge[6] and stoned by the Jewish authorities.[7]  With the Jerusalem origin of the letter and the focus on Jewish wisdom literature, James the brother of Jesus is identified as the author of the letter.

Notes 

[1] CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1965.

[2] See also Jesus’s illustrations to good and bad fruit in Luke 6:43.

[3] William Steuart McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, revised ed (Carol Stream: Tyndale, 1973), 138.

[4] Ibid., 148.

[5] Ibid., 148.

[6] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.12-16.

[7] “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” Josephus, Antiquities 20.200, in Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 538.

About the Author:

Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2uYK9VZ

 

/by
God Darwin Evolution

Did God Use Evolution? Is the Earth Old? New Book Review

Questions related to origins are some of the most divisive in the church today: How old is the earth? Is there good evidence for intelligent design? Did God use evolution?Sadly, rather than discussing differences in a sober and gracious manner, conversations are often characterized by defensiveness, misunderstanding, and personal attacks. What a shame!

But this need not be the case. The recent book Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation?demonstrates that leading voices in the origins debate can come together and wrestle over big questions of faith and science with both “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

This book is the culmination of a decade-long formal conversation between scientists, philosophers, and theologians from the old-earth creationist organization Reasons to Believe (RTB) and evolutionary creation (theistic evolution) organization BioLogos, as well as a group of Southern Baptist (SB) seminary professors.

One of the Southern Baptist moderators describes the major purposes of the book as demonstrating that “two creationist organizations can strongly disagree with one another while treating one another with Christian charity, respect, and a willingness to seriously consider the merits of an opposing position.”[1] This mission was clearly accomplished in the book.

If you are interested in questions of the interaction between science and faith, then this book is a must-read. Even if you hold to a young-earth position, which is not represented in this book, you will find the give-and-take invaluable.

While much could be said about the book, the most valuable part to me was that it surfaces key underlying assumptions that drive how both sides interpret the evidence. RTB and BioLogos frequently agree on the scientific facts, but their conclusions vary because they bring different philosophical and theological lenses to the data. Let me offer a couple examples.

The Interaction Between Science and Scripture

First, both organizations approach the philosophical question of the interaction of science and Scripture differently. RTB holds a soft-concordist view, which means they believe there is some overlap between biblical claims and science. Specifically, they believe science confirms some Scriptural claims such as the origin of the universe (Gen 1:1) and the unique creation of Adam (Gen 2:7).

On the other hand, BioLogos writer Jim Stump looks at the natural world through two different lenses—scientific and personal (chapter 6). Thus he doesn’t expect any overlap between scientific claims and Scripture because, from his perspective, the two operate on different levels of explanation.

There are also theological differences at the heart of how they interpret the interaction between Scripture and science. Writing for BioLogos, John Walton argues that God does not convey more meaning in Scripture than the original authors intended (except when NT authors add meaning to OT writers, which is an example of further divine inspiration). Thus, he is not tempted to look for modern scientific claims in ancient Scripture.

On the other hand, RTB philosopher Ken Samples argues that there can be deeper truths in Scripture beyond the intention of the original authors. Thus, he (and the RTB team) is inclined to look for scientific clues that find modern confirmation. In both cases, their underlying assumptions shape how they reconcile the interaction between science and Scripture.

Common Descent or Common Design?

Second, the two organizations have different assumptions about how God acts in the natural world. BioLogos is committed to natural mechanisms as driving the evolutionary process. Answering a question related to the size of their “tent,” BioLogos president Deborah Haarsma responds:

“Someone who disagrees with common ancestry would be outside the BioLogos tent. However, we welcome debate within BioLogos on questions currently debated in the scientific community, such as the relative importance of various natural mechanisms in evolution and whether genes or organisms are most central to the evolutionary story.”[2]

In contrast, RTB scholars believe that science can validate God’s direct involvement in physical history. Astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink explains:

“RTB affirms that just as the descriptions of the exodus and the battle of Jericho (Josh 6) give details that archaeologists and historians can validate, the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, Job 38-41, Psalm 8, and elsewhere describe physical events that scientists can validate.”[3]

As a result of these differences, they tend to evaluate the evidence for evolution differently. For instance, Darrell Falk argues that one of the most compelling arguments for evolution is the genetic “scars” that exist in humans and chimps in the same location in the genome, which he says can only be explained by common ancestry.

In contrast, Fuz Rana believes genetic scars can also be explained by common design. He gives the example of a scar found on the tip of your finger because of a common initiation rite. In this case, the cut serves a common function for all club members, even if it seems purposeless and accidental to outsider observers. He interprets genetic “scars” through the same design framework.

My point is not to the debate the issue here (my own perspective is much closer to RTB, which I have laid out in my book with William Dembski, Understanding Intelligent Design). Rather, to simply highlight how powerfully assumptions shape—not determine—how people interpret the data.

Much more could be said about this book. I enjoyed the chapters on the historical Adam, human evolution, methodological naturalism, natural evil, and more. In these cases, as the two above, the discussion clarifies underlying assumptions. To me, this is worth the price of the book.

Given both the quality of the content, and the generous spirit of interaction in this book, I hope it is just the beginning of many more common projects yet to come.

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

[1] Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation? Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos, ed. Kenneth Keathley, J.B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 7.

[2] Ibid., 21.

[3] Ibid., 114.

 

/by
Secular Case Religious Liberty

A Simple Case for Religious Liberty

As John Stonestreet and I argue in our book Same-Sex Marriage, we are currently undergoing one of the most sweeping social revolutions in world history. Until theObergefell v. Hodges SCOTUS decision in 2015, the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman was the understanding of virtually every civilization throughout history. But this has all changed.

Now that marriage has been redefined, the law, our educational system, and other social customs have begun to change as well. As a result, there is a great tension between belief in religious liberty and claims of discrimination. Can Catholic adoption agencies operate according to their convictions that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, or is this discriminatory towards gay couples who want to adopt? Should the law coerce people to use the preferred gender pronoun of people with gender dysphoria?

Is Liberty Worth Protecting?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not religious liberty is worth protecting. Does the state have interest in preserving religious liberty? In my experience, few people (including religious people) understand why religious liberty is so valuable for both the government and society.

I was recently reading Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, which is a thoughtful and respectful dialogue between Ryan T. Anderson/Sherif Girgis and John Corvino. In their opening remarks, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis offer a brief case for the state’s interest in preserving religious freedom. It is the best I have heard.

A Simple Case for Religious Liberty

While this section certainly won’t end debate, it is the starting-point of an argument that must be heard. Many questions remain, but nevertheless, here is the beginning of a simple case for religious liberty:

For all their differences, this splendid range of people from every corner of every culture across thousands of years would [Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Muslims, etc.] agree that much hangs on exploring religious questions and living by the answers. Even those who end up atheists or agnostic are compelled to search by a sense of the value of achieving harmony with whatever ultimate source of meaning there might be.

As a basic human good, religious consists of efforts to align your life with the truth about whatever transcendent source (or sources) of being, meaning, and value there might be. It’s about efforts to honor or find harmony with that source—call it “divine.” Relationship with the divine, like human friendship, must be freely chosen to be authentic. To coerce is to produce a counterfeit. So respect for your basic interest in religion demands respect for your freedom in pursuing it. For this basic good, religious liberty is a precondition.

And hence the state, which exists to protect the ability of people to pursue all the basic goods, must never directly attack this freedom. It must never require or forbid an act on religious grounds—for example, on the ground that its religious rationale is true or false, or that the associated religious community should shrink or grow. But the same basic good also requires the state to avoid needless incidental limits on religious freedom. These arise where your faith calls for you to shape your whole life by the divinity’s demands: in preaching and conversion, pilgrimage and prayer, building and worship, ritual, ascetical struggle, charitable work and Sabbath rest. All of these might conflict with legitimate laws. The state can’t avoid a conflict every time. It has to protect the wide range of basic goods for all of society, even at the expense of some instances of them, religion included. But because religion, like moral integrity, is itself one of the basic goods to be protected, the state should avoid imposition on wherever reasonably possible.[1]

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

[1] Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis, & John Corvino, Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 130-131.

 

 

/by

Why Apologetics Won’t Work

By Dan Grossenbach

If apologetics is so great and its arguments compelling, why isn’t everyone convinced of Christianity? This is where the doctrine of election debate between Calvinists and Arminians normally comes in, but I think both sides are overlooking a simpler and self-evident truth of human nature – one they can both agree on. People aren’t robots. Each of us view new truth claims through a unique lens formed by our conditioning, cares, and community.

I’ve been writing, debating, and teaching apologetics for 15 years and I’m often asked by my students why their friends aren’t compelled by the same arguments they are. Those in my Reason Why class love apologetics for how it’s played a role in their spiritual development so they naturally want the same thing for their friends. Discovering the gospel is true based on independent evidence changes everything. Faith of wishful thinking becomes faith based on reality and the focal point of our life. Despite this, apologetics doesn’t play the same role for everyone.

It took me a while to realize this. At first, I thought everyone would openly consider the evidence and either confirm or change their beliefs accordingly. Not so. I’ve learned how we respond to our beliefs aren’t a matter of evidence and reason alone but just a part. Failure to appreciate this really frustrated me at first. I got discouraged when a powerful case for Christianity and logical fallacies were shrugged off so quickly by my friends. Once I understood other factors at play in worldview development, I became a better apologist. I now shake my head wondering why I didn’t see this earlier. The very same factors for those I’m trying to reach were there for me too. My life conditioning, my cares, and my community were far more important than the evidence ever was.

Conditioning

I once was interviewed by a news reporter about hosting Dr. Gilbert Shapiro, the leader of a local atheist group, to speak at our church. I pointed out how Dr. Shapiro and I each have been conditioned throughout our lives to form a perspective on things that matter. We may even come to the same conclusions at times, such as the value in protecting orphans and feeding the poor. Christians and atheists may agree on many things – even that there’s an underlying truth regardless of what either of us believe. I say God exists and Dr. Shapiro thinks He doesn’t. We both can’t be right. There’s a truth behind it all that we should be seeking. I see the world through the lens of of my life which makes sense of everything for me. Dr. Shapiro does likewise.

Atheists, like all of us, can grow accustomed to their understanding that we live in a world without God. In a guest lecture at our church, Dr. Shapiro told us “things are exactly as we would expect them to be if God does not exist.” Growing up in a traditional Jewish family, he couldn’t reconcile a God who would allow the holocaust. In tears, he described an emotional experience he had touring a Nazi concentration camp years earlier. “That could have been me!” he lamented from our stage. For him, his personal experiences made it harder to fit God into his worldview. Absent any contrary influence, this view is strengthened over time so that everything he experienced going forward was made to fit into an atheistic worldview thereby reinforcing his view.

With this information, I could put myself into his shoes, at least a little. If I shared the kind of life experiences Gil had, perhaps I might share this perspective. At the very least, I could sympathize with it. The knee jerk reaction to disagreement on such core beliefs might be to lodge arguments. No doubt, there are plenty of good ones to use, but they only work as far as prior conditioning of life experiences will allow.

Cares

We crave what we care about and avoid what bothers us. Yet somehow we expect people to set aside their cares when we share reasons to believe the gospel. When there’s a conflict between reality and our cares, the cares often trump our quest for truth. Part of being human is having personal tastes or aversions that make up our personality. Taken to excess, we slide into addiction on the one hand (desire) or paranoia on the other (aversion). Both cripple our choices and distract us from reality.

I see this as a daily part of my job as a criminal investigator. People living a stable life one day before that extra dose of drugs lose all control the next. The decisions they make going forward are less about reality and more about craving the high and avoiding the crash. You don’t have a drug problem? Not to worry, we all have something far worse: a sin problem.

It’s no coincidence God called the forbidden fruit-bearing tree the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Get 2:16-17). Foreknowing their choice, God knew in advance their free-will would teach them a valuable lesson:  the world has natural laws that operate independent of what we want or believe. Namely, acting contrary to God’s will is the knowledge of evil.

This wasn’t just a truth lesson on the existence of evil, but specifically how choosing desire over godly obedience leads to terrible things. It was clear to them God could be trusted and was the source everything needed for human flourishing. Despite knowing this, Adam and Eve chose their desire for the forbidden fruit anyway. If it were only about knowledge of the truth, humans may have permanently changed course after seeing the tragedy of this bad decision. We would have learned the lesson and never been fooled by our desires again. Clearly that’s not the case because we’ve followed their lead ever since. We procrastinate, smoke, gamble, eat junk food, get drunk, overspend, fail to plan, lust, lie, cheat, gossip, or do countless other self-deprecating things knowing well aware of the consequences. This only can happen if humans have the capacity for choosing desire over truth. We all do it, so why expect our friends to fall at the cross when we give them the knowledge we think they need? That’s not to say arguments aren’t worth making. They are, but give it some time and understand the power of desire when you do.

Community

We’re all influenced by people closest to us and surround ourselves with people we admire. From childhood, our conditioning and cares are shaped by our parents, teachers, coaches, and peers. As we grow older, relationships become bound together by common values and beliefs. Eventually, we raise or mentor young people and we become leaders in the community that once shaped us.

I interviewed the local Mormon stake president on stage at our church recently and we’ve met a few times since then. He joined the Mormon church with his parents as a teenager and raised four kids and now has four grandchildren (all Mormons) in addition to his prestigious position as the leader of several LDS churches in a relatively large town. Do you think he has any motivation to skirt around difficulties involving his worldview? The fear of losing his entire community is very real.

How about you? Imagine what would happen to your relationships if you were to leave your church to join Mormonism. Do you remember how your friends in high school and college influenced you in the groups you were in? The pressure of acceptance or fear of rejection in a community is so strong it actually causes us to see the world differently than it really is. We deny truth because community matters more.

It’s no wonder occasionally a conservative Christian is willing to change their view on biblical passages because someone close to them, especially a son or daughter, announces their same sex attraction. A recent Barna study reveals how a shockingly high proportion of Christians hold to beliefs such as new age spirituality or secular scientism which directly conflict with core doctrine of the faith they claim to hold. They are part of a Christian community while rejecting it’s core beliefs. The contradiction is valued less than the power of peer influence. As long as we recognize there’s more at play than reason alone, this won’t catch us off guard in our mission to evangelize the lost and build up the saints.

Conclusion

When I look back at my return to Christianity, it was apologetics that sold me only after I had the conditioning, cares, and community lined up for that to happen. Growing up in a pleasant Christian home, it was easier for me to return to the faith I was already fond of. Some people experience the opposite. For them, harsh memories associated with Christianity (or Christians) repel rather than attract them. Our apologetics training normally doesn’t account for the intangible and moving targets involved with raw human emotion. This must change.

I find apologetics to be much more successful when learning about the person before making a case. For me, Paul’s illustration in 1 Cor 13 is helpful here. Whenever I’m tempted to focus solely on an argument before considering the person’s circumstances, I envision myself frantically banging a gong until they agree with me. That’s not love. Jesus didn’t shy away from debate and was blunt about the consequences of error. Yet, he cares about people enough to get to know them – even today. During his earthly ministry, he related to each person on an intimate level and it changed them (John 4:4-26, Mark 10:17-27, Luke 18:19). Arguments work, but it’s only part of the process.

Dan Grossenbach (M.A. – Biola, 2008) teaches apologetics at Catalina Foothills Church, is a Veritas Forum board member (University of Arizona chapter), Ratio Christi chapter advisor (U of A), and works full time as a federal criminal investigator in Tucson, Arizona.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2uxv8dz

 

 

/by
Freedom Obedience Star Wars

Freedom Through Obedience: A Lesson from Star Wars

,

Personal autonomy has become the reigning virtue of our day. If it feels true to you, then it must be true for you. As SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy famously said, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” On this view, freedom entails obeying only the self.

But the Star Wars franchise portrays a different kind of freedom, a freedom that is found through obedience. For instance, in episode IV (the first Star Wars film) Obi-Wan Kenobi sneaks Luke Skywalker, R2-D2, and C-3PO past a small group of stormtroopers. When the stormtroopers stop them for inquiry, Ob-Wan simply waves his hand and says, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” One of the stormtroopers repeats the phrase and they obey.

In The Empire Strikes Back, Luke learns the powers of the Force by submitting to Yoda. Luke realizes he cannot learn the Force alone and that he must obey his Master. And in the climactic scene of Return of the Jedi, Darth Vader ultimately saves his son Luke through not obeying the Emperor and fatally heaving him into a chasm in the Death Star.

In his excellent book Movies are Prayers, Josh Larsen describes how the newest Star Wars hero, Rey, learns freedom through obedience in The Force Awakens (2015):

Interestingly, Rey initially refused to acknowledge the power of the Force when she encountered it earlier in the film, after discovering the lightsaber that once belonged to Luke Skywalker. Her journey, then, is one in which she learns that submitting to the Force leads to flourishing. In both that mind-control showdown with Kylo Ren and a climactic lightsaber duel with him, it isn’t until Rey closes her eyes and prayerfully steps outside of her own self that the Force fully flows through her. In following the Force, she is freed. In trying to bend the Force to his own will, Kylo Ren suffers (p. 124).

Star Wars, of course, is fiction. But it is based upon a premise that runs against the prevailing virtue of our day—personal autonomy. Star Wars portrays freedom as being found through submitting to proper authority and objective reality, not through defining one’s own existence. On this view, freedom is not found through following one’s feelings, but submitting one’s feelings to reality. In other words, freedom is found through obedience.

Biblical Freedom

This is the paradox of freedom. And it is the view of freedom portrayed in the Bible. In his final speech to the Israelites before they enter the Promised Land, Moses sums up what God desires of them:

And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding you today for your good? (Deuteronomy 10:12-13).

In other words, the Israelites would only be free if they obey God by “walk[ing] in His ways,” which were given for their good. The Israelites would find freedom if they submitted their lives to God’s direction rather than their own.

The idea of freedom through obedience is counterintuitive for those raised in a culture that values personal autonomy. But Star Wars subversively portrays a truth we intuitively grasp—that obedience is required for genuine freedom. That is why King David said, “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Ps. 19:7).

 

 

/by
dating gospels

Sí, la cosmovisión cristiana es apoyada por la evidencia

Richard Dawkins, una vez famoso dijo: “La fe es la gran mentira, la gran excusa para evadir la necesidad de pensar y evaluar las pruebas. La fe es creer a pesar de, incluso debido a, la falta de pruebas”. También citan de él: “Muchos de nosotros veíamos la religión como un sinsentido dañino. Las creencias podrían carecer de todas las pruebas de apoyo, pero pensemos, si la gente necesitara una muleta para el consuelo ¿dónde está el daño? El 11 de septiembre cambió todo eso’’. Dawkins no es el único ateo que cree que el cristianismo no puede ser apoyado por evidencia. Sam Harris dijo: “Cuando consideramos la verdad de una proposición, o uno está comprometido en una evaluación honesta de la evidencia y argumentos lógicos o no lo está. La religión es un área de nuestras vidas donde la gente se imagina que algún otro estándar de integridad intelectual se aplica”. Declaraciones como éstas, mientras son retóricamente poderosas, exponen una falta de comprensión sobre la naturaleza de la evidencia. Dawkins y Harris no son profesionales elaborando casos y no están familiarizados con las amplias categorías de pruebas que usamos en juicios criminales y civiles todos los días. Los detectives y los fiscales entienden que cualquier cosa puede ser evaluada evidencialmente. Sólo hay dos categorías de evidencia, y los Creadores de Casos Cristianos utilizan ambos tipos de evidencia al hacer un caso para el cristianismo:

dating gospels

Categoría uno: evidencia directa

El testimonio de un testigo ocular.

Categoría dos: evidencia indirecta (circunstancial)

Todo lo demás.

Los jueces ayudan a los jurados a entender la diferencia entre estas dos formas de evidencia. En California, los jueces proporcionan las siguientes instrucciones a los miembros del jurado:

Los hechos pueden ser probados por evidencia directa o circunstancial o por una combinación de ambos. La evidencia directa puede ser un hecho por sí mismo. Por ejemplo, si un testigo testifica que vio llover afuera antes de entrar al juzgado, ese testimonio es una evidencia directa de que estaba lloviendo. La evidencia circunstancial también puede ser llamada evidencia indirecta. Las pruebas circunstanciales no prueban directamente el hecho que se ha de decidir, sino que es prueba de otro hecho o grupo de hechos de los que ustedes pueden lógicamente y razonablemente concluir la verdad del hecho en cuestión. Por ejemplo, si un testigo testifica que vio a alguien entrar con un impermeable cubierto con gotas de agua, ese testimonio es evidencia circunstancial porque puede apoyar una conclusión de que estaba lloviendo. (CalCrim Sección 223).

¿Empiezas a entender la diferencia? La gran mayoría de los casos que ocurren en América son principalmente circunstanciales. De hecho, ninguno de mis casos sin resolver se ha beneficiado de pruebas directas. Cuando no tienes un testigo ocular que pueda identificar a tu sospechoso, tienes que construir el caso de forma acumulativa de todas las pruebas indirectas que tienes.

Si eres como otras personas en América, probablemente piensas en pruebas circunstanciales de manera despectiva. No puedo decirle cuántas veces he oído a alguien decir, “Oh, eso es sólo un caso circunstancial”. La evidencia indirecta obtiene una mala crítica en la prensa estos días. Tal vez por eso la gente está confundida acerca de su valor en los juicios criminales. Los jueces instruyen a los jurados de que tengan cuidado de no pensar negativamente en pruebas circunstanciales. De hecho, a los jurados se les dice que den a las pruebas circunstanciales el mismo peso en sus consideraciones:

Las pruebas directas y circunstanciales son tipos aceptables de evidencia para probar o refutar los elementos de un cargo, incluyendo la intención y el estado mental y los actos necesarios a una convicción, y ninguno es necesariamente más confiable que el otro. Ninguno tiene derecho a un peso mayor que el otro. Ustedes deben decidir si un hecho en cuestión ha sido probado basado en toda la evidencia. (CalCrim Sección 223).

Personalmente, me gustan los casos circunstanciales mejor que los casos directos. ¿Sabes por qué? Porque los testigos a veces mienten. Hay veces en que un testigo está indebidamente motivado. Tal vez quieren mentir para que puedan proporcionar algunos detalles importantes y estar en la fecha y lugar citados, o tal vez quieren mentir para ayudar a un amigo que ha sido acusado. Aunque puedo interpretar mal las pruebas indirectas, nunca me mienten intencionalmente. Por esa razón, a menudo prefiero reunir casos circunstanciales que casos directos basados únicamente en testigos oculares.

Como resultado, el argumento del cristianismo se basa en pruebas directas e indirectas. Los evangelios son relatos de testigos oculares. Son pruebas directas, aunque sería prudente ofrecer una advertencia. Los escépticos a veces afirman que no debemos pensar en los relatos evangélicos como evidencia directa, ya que no podemos interrogar a los testigos (escritores) como nosotros podemos hacerlo con los testigos en juicios penales. Después de todo, las normas de las declaraciones “de oídas” nos impiden presentar declaraciones de testigos oculares que no pueden ser examinadas a través del interrogatorio. Pero ya he escrito sobre por qué esta importante regla simplemente no se puede aplicar a los relatos históricos como los Evangelios (por lo que no voy a discutir este punto aquí). Lo más importante es simplemente esto: ¿son confiables los relatos del Evangelio? En realidad, podemos abordar esta cuestión más crítica aplicando la misma plantilla crítica que aplicamos a otros relatos de testigos oculares. He tratado de demostrar este proceso en  Cold-Case Christianity (Cristianismo Caso Sin Resolver) .

Como todos los buenos casos probatorios, el caso del cristianismo es un caso acumulativo construido con evidencia directa e indirecta. Podemos evaluar indirectamente las afirmaciones de los Evangelios examinando las pruebas internas del lenguaje, el uso del pronombre y las descripciones de la geografía, la cultura y la política. También podemos evaluar la evidencia de la arqueología y las primeras descripciones paralelas reacias  ofrecidas por los no cristianos y los creyentes judíos. Además, podemos evaluar indirectamente la datación temprana de los Evangelios y trazar su transmisión con la evidencia que encontramos en los escritos de los primeros Padres de la Iglesia. Todas estas piezas de evidencia indirecta son importantes para nuestro caso.

Un último punto importante necesita hacerse sobre la naturaleza de la evidencia que utilizamos para hacer casos penales. Los programas de televisión como CSI han dado falsamente al público en general la idea de que debemos tener pruebas científicas y forenses (como ADN, serología, huellas dactilares o evidencia científica, material) para hacer un caso convincente. Nada más lejos de la verdad. En mis casos sin resolver, rara vez he tenido este tipo de evidencia (recuerda que hay una razón por la que mis casos no fueron resueltos originalmente). Más que nada, mis casos se hacen con la evidencia de declaraciones y comportamientos. A veces la declaración más simple o acción puede ser la clave para condenar a un sospechoso. La evidencia científica es grandiosa cuando la tienes, pero rara vez la tengo. He aprendido a examinar todo y no pasar por alto nada.

Cuando Dawkins y Harris dicen que nosotros, como cristianos, creemos en algo para lo cual no hay evidencia de apoyo, simplemente traicionan su ignorancia sobre la naturaleza de las pruebas y la forma en que los detectives y los fiscales construyen casos. Todo tiene el potencial de ser usado como evidencia. La evidencia indirecta es tan poderosa como la evidencia directa, y la evidencia científica y forense suele ser un lujo innecesario. Hay solo dos categorías de evidencia, y los Creadores de Casos Cristianos utilizan ambos tipos de evidencia al hacer un caso para el cristianismo.

 

J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2uUuw4G

Traducido por Ruth Hernández

Editado por Jairo Izquierdo

/by
Personal Apologetics John 4

Making Apologetics Personal: A Quick Lesson from John 4

It’s no secret that I love apologetics. I love to read apologetics blogs, study apologetics books, and have apologetics conversations. But there is a constant temptation I have to battle that I believe is common among many apologists: the temptation to simply study apologetics but not put it into practice.

Let me state something clearly up front so I am not misunderstood: Studying apologetics has tremendous value in its own right. After all, learning how to defend the faith can bring both clarity and confidence in God and Scripture. Nevertheless, apologetics does not primarily have an inward focus in the life of the believer. It has an outward focus aimed at graciously answering tough questions that trouble both believers and non-believers in their understanding of God and salvation (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3).

So, why would someone study apologetics but never put it into use? There are probably a myriad of reasons. But I suspect one reason is that its much easier, and more comfortable, to discuss apologetic matters in the abstract. It is less risky to debate the age of the earth or presuppositionalism with a fellow believer than to discuss the evidence for the resurrection with a non-believer. After all, what is there to lose in an “in-house” discussion? As easy and tempting as this can become, Jesus took another route.

Jesus obviously knew the Scriptures well and was eager to discuss them. But he regularly puts his knowledge into practice. In John 4, for instance, Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well. Wanting to keep religion as an abstract matter, she raises the question as to whether one should worship in Jerusalem or Samaria. Yet Jesus declined to entertain the question merely as a theoretical exercise. He made the issuepersonal by discussing her five husbands and how God wants her to worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:24).

My point is not that we should necessarily confront other people in their sin, as Jesus did in John 4. There is a time and place for that, as Scripture teaches (e.g., Matt 18:15-20). Rather, my point is that we apologists must not solely remain in the realm of speculative discussion—we need to “get in the game” and find a way to apply apologetics to life. The greater point of apologetics is not simply to learn the material for its own sake, but for the sake of changing lives. Jesus refused to keep religious issues entirely in the abstract. He made them personal. And so should we.

Pastor Dan Kimball wrote an insightful (and convicting) chapter in Apologetics for a New Generation called “A New Kind of Apologist.” He tells the story of how apologetics played a key role in his conversion to Christianity. As a new Christian, Dan was eager to share his faith, so he quickly began to immerse himself in apologetics. He read books, went to conferences, watched videos, studied debates, and more. But ironically, he noticed a disturbing trend: The more he studied apologetics the less he was really doing apologetics and evangelism. In other words, his study of apologetics actually drove him further away from the practice of it.

Fortunately Dan noticed this trend early in his journey and did a 180. As a pastor, he still studies apologetics, and writes apologetics-related books, but always with an eye for how he can apply it to life and ministry. Like Jesus in his conversation with the woman at the well, Dan refuses to keep apologetics in the theoretical realm. He wants to make it personal. And this is what I try to do as well. How about you?

 

 

/by