November 2017 - Page 2 of 3

Can There Be One Right Religion?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Recently I was in a conversation with a friend, and he asked how I could say that Jesus is the only way. I simply responded, “I’m not saying it. Jesus said it. Take it up with him.”

He certainly didn’t expect that response. And I didn’t mean to be rude or abrupt. My point was that Jesus was the one who first made the claim, and he has the credentials to back it up. If Jesus is really divine, then he has more credentials to speak on eternal life than anyone. He is the only virgin-born, miracle-working, sinless, resurrected Son of God! You may not like the idea of Jesus being the only way (and there being one right religion), but if he truly is the Son of God and said he was the only way to salvation—can you afford to ignore his claim?

It would be nice if everybody could be right, but as a simple reason and basic common sense tell us, all religions cannot be true in their core beliefs. By its very nature, the truth is exclusive. If 1 + 1 = 2, then it doesn’t equal 3, 4, 5, and every other number. While all religions could possibly be wrong, it is not logically possible for all of them to be right when their claims differ so radically. Either they are all wrong, or only one is right.

The chart below shows that all religions, even by their own claims, differ from one another substantively, having their own specific ideas of who God is (or is not) and how salvation may be attained.

Religion	Beliefs about God	Beliefs about Salvation	Beliefs about other Religions
Buddhism	No God	Enlightenment	False
Hinduism	Many Gods	Reincarnation	All True
Islam	Unitarian (Allah)	The Five Pillars	False
Judaism	Unitarian (YHWH)	The Law	False
Christianity	Trinitarian (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)	Grace	False

Many criticize Christianity for its exclusivity, but Christians are not the only group claiming to have the truth. Notice in the chart above that four of the five religions claims exclusivity. They believe that all other religions are false. Hindus often do not claim exclusivity. In fact, many are happy to say that Christianity is true. But the key is what they mean by it. Hindus believe all religions are true when they are subsumed within the Hindu system. In other words, according to Hinduism, Christianity is one medium by which people can experience reincarnation.

But what Hindus don’t mean is that Christianity is true on its own terms. So, like adherents of all other religions, Hindus actually believe Christianity is false, thereby joining every other religious group (including atheists and agnostics) in the belief that only their own worldview is true.

And yet, in another sense, Christianity is not exclusive at all but is the most inclusive religion. Christ invites all unto himself. Christianity excludes no one who will believe, even though Christ himself offers the only way to be reconciled with God.

If Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is the one right religion. If Jesus did not rise, then Christianity is false, and possibly some other religion is true (see 1 Cor. 15:14-17).

This is why the resurrection of Jesus is the most important historical event for consideration. If you haven’t examined the evidence yet, such as my father and I lay out in the updated Evidence that Demands a Verdict, now may be the time.

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.

November 19, 2017/by Sean Mcdowell

Who Wrote the Book of Revelation?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

As a teenager, I remember being a bit frightened of the book of Revelation. The smell of acne face cleanser filled the room as I dove into mysterious depictions of four-faced angels, beasts from the sea and land, of massive angels, and 100-pound hailstones being hurled to the earth. While Revelation holds mysterious and frightening images of the end-times, the book of Revelation was written to be an encouragement to Christians of all times. But, who was it that penned the word of Revelation? This article will conclude our series titled “Who Wrote the New Testament?” as we investigate the author of the book of Revelation.

Author: Tradition has long held that John the apostle, whom we have seen penned the Fourth Gospel and the three letters attributed to him, wrote the last book of Scripture. If so, John penned much of the New Testament, with only Paul and Luke writing more than him. While there were skeptics, even early on, about the authorship of the text (most likely due to the apocalyptic nature of the book), the general consensus was that John the apostle was the author. Four reasons exist as to why one should accept Johannine authorship of Revelation.

1) The author identifies himself as “John” in Revelation 1:4; 1:9; and 22:8. This does not necessarily indicate that this John was John the apostle. We know of a John Mark, who penned the Second Gospel, and a possible John the Elder (although it is possible that John the apostle was also known as John the Elder in some instances, yet there are reasons to believe that another John could have lived as a church leader, especially since “John” was a popular name).

2) The author of the book clearly had a strong connection with the seven churches of Asia Minor as evident in Revelation 2:1-3:22. Tradition states that John the apostle served as the pastor to the churches in Ephesus.

3) The author’s circumstances greatly match those of John the apostle. Second-century sources indicate that John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. Ignatius (35-107 AD) writes of particular conclusive facts in that “Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain with the sword; John was banished to Patmos; Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews who killed the Lord? But, [in truth,] none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly.”[1] John the apostle’s exile matches what we find of the author of Revelation (1:9).

4) Throughout the text, Old Testament images indicate one who has been thoroughly immersed with a Hebrew education and upbringing. John the apostle matches that requirement.

5) The Lexham Bible Dictionary discusses a finding called the Harris Fragments. Accordingly, these fragments give further insight to the writings of Polycarp (69-150 AD), a disciple of John. The fragments “offer unique insight into reconciling John’s martyrdom and his reported long life and natural death in that:

They support the second-century church tradition that John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, lived a long life in Ephesus after suffering exile on Patmos, and died a peaceful death.
They account for the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy about the martyr’s death that John the son of Zebedee would die.”[2]

From what we have gathered, John the apostle is the clearest candidate for authorship of Revelation. I ascribe to the mentality, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Long-held traditions should only be overturned if there is clear evidence to the contrary. I do not see that with the tradition that John the apostle authored the last book of Scripture. Quite honestly (as you have seen if you have read all my entries on this matter), I do not see any compelling reason to reject the traditional authorship ascribed to any book of the canonical New Testament.

Date: Interestingly, some scholars are dating Revelation earlier than what has been traditionally held due to the thoroughly Jewish imagery found in the text. Those holding an older view for the dating of Revelation promote the late 60s as the time the book was written. However, the view that the book was written later in the first-century, most likely in the late 80s or early 90s holds greater strength.

Purpose: As mentioned at the beginning of the article, Revelation was not given to scare us. Rather, it was written to encourage believers of all times that despite the troubles faced, God will win in the end. Good will triumph evil. The powers of darkness will be confined by the powers of light. Revelation tells us much about God, Christ, humanity, sin, the church, angels, as well as Satan and his demonic forces.

The book hosts an introduction (1:1-8); letters given to the seven Churches of Asia (2:1-3:22); depictions of what will happen in the end-times by three septets—seven seals leading to seven trumpets leading to seven bowls of wrath—ultimately leading to a new heaven and a new earth (4:1-22:5); and a conclusion (22:6-21).

Be encouraged by Revelation! God gave John the apostle this vision for a reason. It was to let us know that the believer should hold an eternal perspective understanding that God has won, is winning, and will win in the end.

For your listening enjoyment, the Gaither Vocal Band performs “John the Revelator.”

Notes

[1] Pseudo-Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians, Chapter III,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 107.

[2] Tracee D. Hackel, “John the Apostle, Critical Issues,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

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 currently a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a 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/2zaWZYj

November 19, 2017/by Guest

¿Escribió Pablo las trece cartas atribuidas a él?

Español

Por Brian Chilton

En el Nuevo Testamento, se atribuyen trece cartas al apóstol Pablo. Pablo es, por supuesto, el individuo que había perseguido a la iglesia, pero se convirtió en un misionero cristiano después de un encuentro con el Jesús resucitado en el camino a Damasco. Pero ¿Pablo realmente escribió las trece epístolas que se cree que fueron escritas por él? Algunos creen que Pablo solo fue el autor de siete de las trece.

Las epístolas son cartas antiguas escritas a individuos o grupos de personas que abordan problemas teológicos y / o problemas doctrinales particulares. Las trece cartas clásicamente atribuidas al apóstol Pablo son Romanos, 1 y 2 Corintios, Gálatas, Efesios, Filipenses, Colosenses, 1 y 2 Tesalonicenses, 1 y 2 Timoteo, Tito y Filemón. De las trece cartas, siete son reconocidas como indiscutibles (es decir, sin debate). Esas siete cartas indiscutibles son Romanos, 1 y 2 Corintios, Gálatas, Filipenses, 1 Tesalonicenses y Filemón. Pero ¿qué hay de los otros seis (Efesios, Colosenses, 2 Tesalonicenses, 1 y 2 Timoteo y Tito)?

Algunos eruditos han llamado a las seis cartas disputadas de Pablo las epístolas “deutero-paulinas”.[1] Algunos creen que estas cartas pudieron haber sido escritas por personas que fueron influenciadas por la doctrina de Pablo y escribieron lo que pensaban que Pablo habría dicho sobre ciertos asuntos.

Los escépticos de las cartas en disputa tienen varias razones para su incredulidad. Primero, afirman que la historia presentada en las cartas disputadas no coincide con lo que se encuentra en el libro de Hechos. Por ejemplo, Pablo deja a Timoteo en Éfeso en 1 Timoteo 1: 3 y deja a Tito en Creta en Tito 1: 5. Tales eventos no se encuentran en Hechos.

El vocabulario, se argumenta, es muy diferente en las cartas disputadas que en las cartas indiscutibles de Pablo. Drake Williams señala que el escéptico argumenta que “Aproximadamente un tercio del vocabulario dentro de las Cartas Pastorales no se encuentra en ningún otro lugar en las cartas de Pablo, y más de 35 nombres no se encuentran en ninguna otra parte de los escritos de Pablo. Sin embargo, muchas de estas palabras se pueden encontrar en escritos del siglo II” (Harrison, Problem).[2]

Además, los escépticos argumentan que el desarrollo de la estructura de la iglesia está más avanzado en las cartas disputadas que en las cartas indiscutibles; las cuestiones doctrinales parecen apuntar hacia una fecha posterior (incluidas algunas alusiones aparentes al gnosticismo); y las diferencias estilísticas entre las cartas indisputables y disputadas ilustran su causa para descartar a Pablo como el autor de los textos en disputa.

A pesar de las objeciones que se ofrecen, uno posee buenas razones para aceptar las trece cartas atribuidas a Pablo como auténticas. Nunca he estado convencido de que las cartas en disputa hayan sido falsificadas. Aquí hay algunas razones.

La aparición del nombre del Apóstol en todas las cartas

El primer punto no prueba necesariamente que Pablo sea el autor de las cartas disputadas. De hecho, los autores de las cartas gnósticas del siglo II erróneamente les atribuyeron origen apostólico. Sin embargo, es bastante extraño que las trece cartas hayan recibido la aprobación de los más cercanos a Pablo si las cartas no hubieran sido escritas o dictadas por él. Las cartas son ciertamente lo suficientemente tempranas como para haber sido probadas en cuanto a la autenticidad, ya que muchos líderes de la iglesia primitiva citaban tanto las cartas en disputa como las cartas indiscutibles, como veremos un poco más adelante.

A veces, los reclamos escépticos pueden ser un poco inconsistentes cuando se aplica la autoría bíblica. Algunos estudiosos niegan la autoría tradicional de los Evangelios porque son anónimos y también niegan la autoría tradicional de las Epístolas porque no son anónimas. ¡Qué extraño!

Circunstancias diferentes cuentan para diferencias teológicas diferentes

Debe recordarse que Pablo encontró varios problemas en diferentes lugares. La iglesia de Corinto enfrentó circunstancias tumultuosas con problemas doctrinales e infidelidad. Por lo tanto, las cartas a Corinto diferirían de las cartas escritas a Galacia donde fueron bombardeadas por individuos que intentaron alejar a los creyentes de la idea de que la gracia de Dios era suficiente para la salvación. Estas diferencias se reconocen entre las cartas indiscutibles. Entonces, ¿por qué uno no explicaría algunas diferencias de énfasis con las cartas escritas a individuos como Timoteo y Tito, especialmente si se tiene en cuenta la idea de que Pablo escribió las cartas posteriores desde una celda de la prisión?[3]

El uso dela cuenta de amanuenses para las diferencias estilísticas

Cuando aprendí por primera vez las prácticas de escritura del amanuense, me di cuenta de que las diferencias de estilo en las diferentes epístolas de Pablo se resolvían fácilmente. Uno puede ver diferencias estilísticas incluso entre las cartas indiscutibles de Pablo por la misma razón. Un amanuense era un escriba que escribía una carta porque el autor le dictaba el mensaje. El amanuense le leería la carta al autor para asegurarse de que el mensaje era el deseado por el orador. Los eruditos han notado que los amanuenses a menudo tenían cierta libertad en la estructura de su escritura, siempre y cuando el mensaje se conservara.

En las cartas indiscutibles, uno encuentra evidencia de la participación del amanuense. Toma Romanos, por ejemplo. La carta comienza diciendo: “Pablo, siervo de Cristo Jesús, llamado apóstol y apartado para el evangelio de Dios” (Romanos 1: 1).[4] Sin embargo, al final de la carta, uno lee: “Yo, Tercio, que escribió esta carta, les saludo en el Señor” (Romanos 16:22). ¿Qué está pasando aquí?

Bueno, es simple realmente. Pablo escribió la carta mientras Tercio era el amanuense. Pablo dictó la información a Tercio, quien escribió el mensaje de Pablo y se lo leyó a Pablo para asegurarse de que encapsulaba el mensaje deseado. En mi humilde opinión, creo que la práctica fue utilizada por el Espíritu Santo para hacer que las epístolas fueran aún mejores de lo que hubieran sido si solo una mano hubiera estado involucrada. Las evidencias de la impronta amanuense se encuentran en 1 Corintios 1: 1 y 1 Corintios 16:21, 2 Corintios 1: 1, Efesios 6:21, Colosenses 1: 1, entre muchos otros lugares.

La ausencia de evidencia no es evidencia de ausencia

El llamado problema con las diferencias históricas entre las epístolas disputadas y el libro de Hechos se resuelve fácilmente cuando uno se da cuenta de que Lucas no proporcionó una historia exhaustiva de la iglesia en su secuela. Es decir, Lucas no documentó cada evento que tuvo lugar en la historia de la iglesia primitiva. De la misma manera, los Evangelios no proporcionan una biografía exhaustiva de la vida de Jesús. Como uno de mis antiguos profesores, el Dr. R. Wayne Stacy denotó: “Los Evangelios nos proporcionan retratos de Jesús en lugar de fotografías”. Me gusta esa analogía. Incluso Juan lo admite cuando escribe: “También hay muchas otras cosas que hizo Jesús, que, si cada una de ellas se escribiera, supongo que ni siquiera el mundo mismo podría contener los libros que se escribirían” (Juan 21:25).

Cuando uno examina Hechos con las epístolas, no hay problema siempre que los dos no se contradigan entre sí. Estas diferencias pueden disiparse fácilmente cuando uno reconoce los vacíos intencionales en la historia de Lucas.[5]

Citas del padre de la iglesia primitiva de las cartas disputadas

La iglesia primitiva aceptó unánimemente las trece cartas como auténticas. El espacio no permitirá un tratamiento completo de este problema. Sin embargo, veamos una carta en disputa: Colosenses. Los primeros líderes de la iglesia unánimemente respaldaron la carta como auténticamente paulina. Ireneo lo endosó en Contra las Herejías 3.14.1; Tertuliano en De Praescr. Haer., 7; Clemente de Alejandría en Strom., 1.1; así como a Justino Mártir en Diálogo con Trifón 85.2 y 138.2.

Evidencia para diáconos y ancianos en cartas indiscutibles

Con respecto al desarrollo de ancianos y diáconos en la iglesia, uno debe considerar el papel del liderazgo en la iglesia más antigua. Jesús mismo dividió a sus discípulos en varios grupos. Eligió setenta y dos (o setenta) discípulos y los envió de dos en dos. De esos setenta y dos, Jesús tuvo doce discípulos primarios. De esos doce, eligió a tres para ser discípulos del círculo interno (Pedro, Santiago y Juan). Por lo tanto, incluso Jesús estableció un sistema para la iglesia al principio. En Hechos 6, los discípulos eligieron siete para servir. Muchos creen -incluyéndome a mí- que estos siete son los primeros diáconos elegidos para servir. Por lo tanto, con el sistema establecido por Jesús y la adición de diáconos en Hechos 6, no es un gran salto implementar los oficios de los ancianos (es decir, pastores) y diáconos en la iglesia. Por lo tanto, la idea de que los oficios de pastor y diácono representan un desarrollo mucho más tardío en la historia de la iglesia es muy exagerada.

El rechazo de las cartas seudónimas por la iglesia primitiva (2 Tesalonicenses 2: 2)

La iglesia primitiva rechazó rotundamente las cartas seudónimas. Irónicamente, 2 Tesalonicenses (una carta que algunos creen que es seudónima) advierte a los creyentes que “no … se alteren o molesten fácilmente, ya sea por una profecía o por un mensaje o una carta supuestamente de nosotros, alegando que el día del Señor viene” (2 Tesalonicenses 2: 2).

Los primeros líderes de la iglesia enfatizaron la autenticidad de los documentos cristianos. Tertuliano, mientras enseñaba sobre su aceptación del complementarianismo, desacreditó una carta que involucraba a Pablo y a una mujer llamada Tecla porque se atribuía falsamente a Pablo.

Eusebio cuenta la historia de Serafión. Serafión fue el obispo de Antioquía. Serafión regañó a la iglesia en Rhosse en Cilicia por su uso del apócrifo Evangelio de Pedro. Serafión escribió: “Hermanos, recibamos a Pedro y a los demás apóstoles como a Cristo; pero rechacemos inteligentemente las escrituras falsamente atribuidas a ellos, sabiendo que tales no fueron transmitidas a nosotros”.[6]

Cercanía en la proximidad

En pocas palabras, las personas más cercanas a la escritura de un documento pueden saber con más certeza quién fue el autor del documento que aquellos después de dos mil años. Esto es especialmente cierto si los lectores antiguos subrayan la veracidad del documento.

Conclusión

Si bien este artículo es mucho más extenso de lo que esperaba, la importancia de establecer la autenticidad de las trece cartas de Pablo no puede exagerarse. ¿Escribió Pablo las trece cartas que se le atribuyeron? Sí. Lo hizo con la ayuda de amanuenses. Con los puntos establecidos en este artículo, uno no debería tener reservas al aceptar las trece cartas. La única carta que a veces se le atribuye a Pablo y que debería ser muy cuestionada por su origen paulino es el libro de Hebreos. Nadie sabe realmente quién escribió el libro. Sin embargo, se acepta como auténtico por razones que discutiremos en un artículo futuro. De hecho, discutiremos los escritores de las Epístolas Pastorales que se encuentran a continuación en nuestra serie sobre los autores del Nuevo Testamento.

[1] Drake Williams, “Paul the Apostle, Critical Issues,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, John D. Barry, et. al., eds (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[2] Ibid.

[3] La idea de que el gnosticismo se encuentra en las disputadas cartas es descabellada en mi opinión.

[4] A menos que se indique lo contrario, todas las Escrituras citadas provienen de la Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[5] Por vacíos, no me refiero a errores. Por el contrario, Lucas no proporcionó una historia exhaustiva y nunca tuvo la intención de hacerlo.

[6] Eusebius, Church History, 6.12.3.

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Liberty University (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics (Apologética cristiana) de la Universidad de Biola. Brian actualmente está inscrito en el programa Ph.D. en Teología y apologética en Liberty University. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 15 años y sirve como pastor en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2yf9YFF

November 16, 2017/by Guest

Can Reason Lead Us To A Relationship With God?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Most atheists feel confident that they have “reason” on their side. As a result, many are surprised when a Christian apologist takes an evidentialist, or reason-based, approach to matters of “faith.” Not long ago, the issue arose in a conversation I was having with a skeptic. I had been laying out the basic philosophical arguments for the existence of a supreme, uncaused being.

Accepting the logic of these arguments, she shifted her challenge, saying: “You want me to use reason to get me to agree that God exists, but then stop using it as soon as I get to that point.” In other words, despite hearing rational arguments about the existence of God in general, she could not fathom that a belief in God in particular – the God of the Bible, for instance – could be based on anything other than wishful thinking. Faith, after all, was simply not rational.

My response went something like this: “Hopefully by now, you see that I am not asking you to abandon reason. The types of argument may vary, and the level of certainty about particular conclusions might also differ, but for everything that historic Christianity affirms, there are good reasons to believe what we believe.” She shook her head in, well, disbelief.

“As it applies to Christianity,” I persisted, “some of what we know about God can be inferred from observations. This is referred to as ‘general revelation.’ Consider what we see of the universe: it is spatially and temporally immense, beyond our ability to understand and grasp; it is well-ordered and predictable, with set laws such as logic and math, physics and chemistry, all operating flawlessly, consistently and seamlessly. It contains examples of breath-taking beauty, such as the inherent beauty of music and nature, and heart-pounding emotion, such as the joy of first love or the miracle of birth. But it is also quite deadly, or at the very least quite inhospitable to humans. Despite its immense size, it appears that we can live only in a sliver of air on a remote planet, and even there, most of the planet is exceedingly dangerous to us. You see, my ability to reason can lead me to some generalities: God must be immensely powerful and intelligent; he must be artistic and love order. He must be capable of great love. But is he … harsh? Uncaring? Why is this creation so dangerous? And, most importantly, what comes next? Reason cannot lead us to any answers here. We see a glimpse of God, but not the full picture.”

She wasn’t sure where I was going, and in a way, neither was I. The next step, to a rational reliance on the words of the Bible, is a big step; in fact, for many, it has been, and remains, too big a step for them to take.

I resumed. “To move to a personal relationship with God – in the specific, not general sense – requires more; it cannot be based completely and exclusively on reason. It does, in fact, depend also on faith, but it is a faith that stems from, and finds support in, reason.”

“You want it both ways,” she countered. “You want to call it reason when it is simply wishful thinking.”

I knew what she meant, and I acknowledged that I was struggling with putting these thoughts into words. “No, there is a difference that you’re not seeing. Believing in unicorns is a function of faith; there is no evidence for them, and no good reason to believe they exist. But if you had actual evidence – from trusted sources – that such animals existed, your “faith” in them might eventually become reasonable. The problem isn’t that believing in exotic animals is irrational; the problem is that believing in such animals when there is no evidence – no reason – to support that belief is irrational.”

I shifted gears a bit, wanting to get on to the point while there was time.

“Now, put yourself for a moment in the position of the creator-God. You want to give people true free will so that they are not mere automatons, and you want them to choose a relationship with you without forcing them to do so. Your problem is twofold: if you make your presence too intrusive, they will believe because they have no real choice, but if you reveal nothing of yourself, they will have no basis to know you. So, what you do is reveal enough of yourself so that they will see your presence. Then you choose a messenger who will convey your intentions. It must be fined tuned this way so that those who respond do so freely and not under coercion. Those who do respond freely will eventually be made perfect; he will work on them to free them from their fallen nature and to remove some of what separates them from him. Those who reject him get what they are seeking – separation from him.”

“Christianity affirms that God chose a particular people to convey this message. He used prophets to speak for him, then sent his son. Much of what I trust in about God comes from the words of that son, Jesus. If Jesus is a reliable source (i.e. that he has a basis to know what he claims to know and that he is honest), then I am justified in trusting what he says. If so, then he is a good source of information about God. If he says that God has offered us salvation and prepared a place for us to spend eternity, I can trust that information if I can trust Jesus. I acknowledge that my confidence that there is a heaven is pure faith – I believe it because Jesus says it. But my trust in Jesus is not based on faith. That would be mere wishful thinking. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead not because the Bible says it, but because the evidence of it is very strong, and the evidence against it is not. I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead because I have faith, or because the Bible said it; I have faith that what Jesus said was true and that the Bible is trustworthy because I first had proof that Jesus did what he claimed he would do. He fulfilled the prophecies of centuries before, died for us and then rose from the dead.”

“But,” she began, again shaking her head ….

Enough for one day, I concluded. The next step would be to show why what we know about Jesus is reliable. But I had places to go, and she needed more time to think about what we had covered so far.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2z0YOHc

November 14, 2017/by Guest

Finding Purpose in Faith

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Many skeptics maintain unquestioned faith that science will solve the world’s problems. Seeing the evidence of chaos throughout the world, often the product of religiously-inspired violence, they conclude that religion is somehow the problem. Authors like Christopher Hitchens capitalize on such assumptions, writing best-selling books that explain how “God is not great” or how religion has “poisoned” everything. By contrast, science has provided “progress,” the sense that things are definitely getting better from a technological sense, as we continue to harness more and more power to make our lives increasingly prosperous and comfortable.

While this faith in science is certainly understandable, it does not survive close scrutiny. This is so because the problems that ail us, the questions we need answered, are questions that science simply cannot answer. After all, science is not philosophy. It does not provide meaning, however much it advances knowledge or power. Modern Americans, of all people, should recognize this limitation. We live in a culture that is deteriorating in many ways. Pleasure seems to be the principal pursuit of a large segment of the population, and despite intense efforts to find nirvana, and despite access to the best “toys” ever made, people seem to be increasingly stressed… and distressed. We seem to be experiencing a huge increase in depression and destructive behavior patterns; addictions to drugs and alcohol, gluttony leading to obesity, gambling, and pornography, to name a few. These pursuits may lessen the emotional pain for a while, but they leave the afflicted even more broken in their wake. What people lack, in increasing numbers, is a sense of belonging; some purpose or meaning to which they can devote their lives and that can make sense of the world.

Science cannot address what is lacking any more than a mechanic can tell me why I no longer enjoy driving my car. He can take measurements and tell me things about functionality and performance. He can modify the car with the latest gadgets to make it run faster, smoother, louder – to make it anything I want it to be. But these measurements and modifications, however important, cannot provide meaning. Because in the end, what I like, what I feel about certain things, persons, places, events – these are a reflection of me, and what is inside me, and not of the things around me.

Human life is exceedingly complex. From mitochondria powering the cells, to the mind that emerges from the gray matter in our skulls, the human body is a marvelously complex product of advanced engineering. But until we understand the purpose for which we are created, until we understand what we are meant to do with these wondrous “machines” that we inhabit, we are like cars driving straight off a cliff. Everything is functioning perfectly, but without a driver behind the wheel, it soon comes to a crashing, and painful, end.

Philosophy is needed to answer these most pressing questions. And a philosophy that has stood the test of time and that provides a robust explanation for life is a good place to start. In the pages of the Bible, the questions that matter most are addressed by the source of all that is. When its lessons are followed, life tends to flourish, not in the sense of a great wealth or fame – not in the sense of the “prosperity gospel” – but in the sense of a lasting joy. Joy in the knowledge of who you are and what you were created for; joy in the sense of homecoming when our days wind down, as they inevitably will. Joy in the prospect of reuniting with our true “soul-mate,” the one we have been seeking, the one for whom we were created and who is even now beckoning us home.

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

November 14, 2017/by Guest

7 Insights from Traveling to Israel

Israel

Last week I had the chance of visiting the beautiful land of Israel. My wife and I went with Israel Collective, an organization dedicated to peace-making in Israel. We saw remarkable sites, met unique people (Israelis, Palestinians, Druze), heard powerful lectures, and ate some of the best food I have ever had—period.

There are so many insights that I could share. And I will probably blog on some of these themes again in the future. But for now, I just wanted to highlight seven big takeaways from my trip:

1. The peace process is inordinately complex

During our trip, we heard a lecture from a Palestinian Muslim reporter who lives in Jerusalem. He gave two reasons (as a Palestinian Muslim) for why the peace process with Israel continues to fail. First, there is a massive campaign to delegitimize Israel within Palestine. The Palestinians are radicalizing their own people against the Jews. Second, there is an absence of leadership among Palestinians who are authorized to make a deal with Israel. The reporter said to us that he has not been able to find one Palestinian leader who has the courage to promote genuine peace and accept the right of Israel to exist. Unbelievable. There is obviously so much more than these two points, and a variety of other perspectives, but anyone who thinks a solution between the Israelis and Palestinians should be easy simply doesn’t understand the complexity of the issue.

2. Modern Israel is a miracle

Virtually all ancient cultures have dissolved (Moabites, Canaanites, Sumerians, etc.). And yet Israel remains. A powerful argument can be made that God has miraculously preserved them to be a blessing to the world. Ezekiel 36:10 says, “And I will multiply people on you, the whole house of Israel, all of it. The cities shall be inhabited and the waste places rebuilt.” Remarkably, Israel is flourishing unlike any nation in the world. They have the highest PhDs per capita, explosive tree growth, business success, are a water superpower, and have developed remarkable technology (such as Waze).

3. Israel deeply cares about human rights

Israel is consistently criticized in the Western media for human-rights violations. In fairness, Israel certainly has not been perfect. But I am not sure there is another nation that cares more about human rights than Israel. Here is one small example. We had a tour of the Israeli security wall from Danny Tirza, a former colonel in the Israel Defense Force’s Central Command. He described how the wall is a barrier to peace, but was necessary when Palestinian terrorists murdered over 1,000 Israelis in the early 2000s. And yet, at the end of the tour, he described how he would love nothing more than to see his government sign an effective peace agreement with their Palestinian neighbors and tear down the divisive wall.

4. The Palestinian people are profoundly oppressed

After meeting some Palestinians in Bethlehem, which is in the West Bank, my heart was broken for their predicament. Unemployment is nearly 30 percent. Many evangelical Christians have experienced persecution from the government. The educational system is limited and extremely prejudiced. And there is a looming sense of hopelessness, especially amongst the young. While many want to blame Israel, the reality is that the corrupt Palestinian government and the leadership of other Muslim countries are using them as a political tool against Israel. Regardless, current efforts to help the Palestinians are simply not working and need radical reform.

5. Judeo-Christianity is a historical religion

While many people think of faith as blind, the Judeo-Christian faiths are uniquely rooted in history. It was amazing to travel throughout Israel and see some of the sites where the biblical stories took place, such as Bethlehem, the Valley of Boaz, the altar of Jeroboam, the tomb of Jesus, the shores of Joppa, the Western Wall of Jerusalem, and more. The Bible does not consist of stories “in a land far, far away.” Rather, it is based on real people, in real time, and real places. While many of the biblical sites have been destroyed, many still endure. And the remains testify to historical nature of both Judaism and Christianity.

6. Food in Israel is amazing

I have travelled to many places in the world and eaten some tasty food. But in my humble opinion, there is no place in the world with better food than Israel. The fruit and vegetables are fresh, the coffee is rich, the bread is soft, and the meat is savory. The people take tremendous pride in their food.

7. You can make a difference

Given the religious differences, the history of tension, and the existing suffering in Palestine and the Gaza strip, it is easy to get discouraged. And yet one of my big takeaways from the trip was seeing different people—lawyers, journalists, pastors, and more—aiming to make a tangible difference towards peace. It was humbling to see people committing their lives towards advancing the good. You too can make a difference. Pray for the people and the land. Consider visiting Israel. Support efforts towards peace. Or educate yourself by reading a good book, such as Reclaiming Israel’s History by David Brog.

November 12, 2017/by Sean Mcdowell

Should We Let Science Influence Our Doctrine Of Creation?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

Science is an amazing thing! It’s enabled us to transcend so many of our previously existing barriers, from being able to walk on the moon to being able to carry on a live conversation with someone on the opposite side of the planet, from helping us know what makes fevers run hot to knowing what makes stars hot, from giving us the flashlight to the strobe light to the blacklight. It’s an amazing thing, but unfortunately, many seem dedicating to pitting science against Christianity and vice versa.On the one hand, you have the atheists who have tried to monopolize science as theirs and nobody else’s (Their symbol is an atom for Pete’s sake). On the other hand, you have Christians who insist that a strict, literal, face value reading of Genesis is the only way to read it, and if you deviate from the 7 24-hour day view, you’re a man pleaser and a compromise.

The Bible and Science both talk about our origins, so it’s no wonder that people would wonder if they’re simpatico. I would affirm that there is no conflict between God’s world and God’s word. There may be a conflict between science and theology, but not between the world and The Bible. Science and theology are both interpretations of God’s world and God’s Word respectively. If the universe and The Bible have the same author, then when both are interpreted correctly, there won’t be any conflict. If there seems to be conflict between our interpretation of Genesis or any other biblical passage with what the scientific evidence seems to be saying, then we should either (1) go back to the biblical passage and re-evaluate whether it seems to be saying what we initially thought it said or (2) carefully consider whether the scientists somehow erred in interpreting the data.

When it comes to apparent conflicts between The Bible and the universe, many Christians will gladly do 2, but scorn anyone who does 1 on the basis that they’re convinced that 2 is not the case. For example, if someone is convinced that the universe and Earth are both billions of years old on the basis of powerful scientific arguments, they may begin to reconsider whether the Callendar-Day view of Genesis 1 is actually correct. Perhaps The Day-Age view, championed by people like Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe, is the correct way to interpret the text. Maybe The Framework Hypothesis, defended by people such as Kirk MacGregor and Brad Kramer is the correct interpretation. Or maybe The Bible isn’t talking about material origins at all, but functional origins, as argued by Old Testament scholar John Walton. I think all 3 of these views have their strengths and weaknesses, and these views are totally compatible with what prevailing scientific thought says about the age of the universe and the Earth.

However, young earth creationists like Ken Ham would object to this. Ken Ham, in particular, would and has argued that we shouldn’t “Take man’s word over God’s word” and that allowing science to influence our interpretation of The Bible is putting God’s infallible word in submission to man’s fallible word. Ken Ham has said specifically “Talking about the six days, what we’re really talking about is does it really matter what God says. It’s an authority issue,” and “There has been a battle ever since the beginning between man’s word and God’s Word,”[1]

I think one can come to The Day-Age view, The Framework Hypothesis, and The Functional Creation view on exegetical grounds alone (see here, here, and here), but let’s leave the question of whether any of these (or others) are exegetically justified aside. The real question here is this: should we give science any voice whatsoever when it comes to formulating a doctrine of creation? After all, if God’s word is infallible and man’s word is fallible, then why should we care what the latter has to say? Should our interpretations of creation passages be hermeneutics-only, completely void of any scientific input? I’d like to argue that the answer is “no” and give a few reasons why.

Everyone Has Already Allowed Science To Color Their Doctrine Of Creation To Some Extent

First of all, for any YEC to say that his theological views on creation are 100% hermeneutics and 0% is outright false. He may not realize it, but he’s already allowed science to color the way he sees the doctrine of creation to some extent. For example, when he reads John 1:3 which says “Through Him [The Word a.k.a Jesus] all things were made through Him and without Him, nothing was made that has been made” what does he think this means? Obviously, it means that anything that exists exists because Jesus Christ created it. But what encompasses “all things”? The YEC will most likely say that it encompasses atoms (and the protons, neutrons, and electrons that comprise them), spiral galaxies, DNA, the bacterial flagellum, and many other things. These exist, and according to John 1:3, anything that exists exists because Jesus created it, so that means Jesus made atoms, spiral galaxies, DNA, and the bacterial flagellum.

However, for most of human history, no one even knew these things existed. Concordism VS. Accomodationism debates aside, no one knew anything about atoms or DNA or even spiral galaxies prior to the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Science discovered these things. The Bible never mentions them. If you believe Jesus created molecules, you’re holding a theological belief affected by scientific data. If you believe the billion trillion galaxies are an invention of God’s, then you’re holding a theological view that most people throughout church history have not held to.[2] If you believe that that the uncannily computer-code like genetic code, known as DNA, was programmed by God, then you are holding a theological view that was not held throughout most of church history. Did Peter believe God created DNA? Did Paul believe God created DNA? Did the apostle John believe that God created the bacterial flagellum? No, because no one knew these things existed until relatively recently.

Or what about the nature of the sky? Some argue that Genesis 1:2 is saying that God created the sky as a solid dome (what the word “firmament” means, raqia in Hebrew).[3] I know many YECs who would say that that can’t be what is being said in the text. Why? Well, because for one thing, The Bible is inerrant. For another thing, we know from science that the sky is not solid. If it were, the astronauts would have crashed into it in the 1960s. If the sky isn’t solid, then that can’t be what The Bible is saying. Is there any reason exegetically to reject the solid dome interpretation of Genesis 1:2? None that I can tell. It seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation to me, at least when viewing The Bible in a scientific void. This is, yet again, another theological view YECs hold on the basis of scientific evidence.

Many young earth creationists, including Ken Ham, are holding beliefs about creation that come from science and science alone. It would, therefore, be hypocritical to try to argue that science shouldn’t affect our views about creation. It would be hypocritical to argue that science shouldn’t have a voice in the creation controversy. It would be hypocritical for a YEC to say that someone is submitting God’s Word to “Man’s Word” when he concludes that God created over billions of years on the basis of science all the while believing that the reason Noah’s Ark could fit all of the animals was that a small number of “kinds” were put on the ark and then rapid micro-evolution occurred post-flood to give us the diversity of animals we see today. Moses wouldn’t have known anything about micro evolution, yet many YECs appeal to micro evolution to explain how billions of species of animals exist while Noah’s Ark could only hold thousands. Should we let science influence our interpretation of the biblical text? Many YECs are already doing this.

By the way, for reasons why the post-flood micro evolution explanation doesn’t work, see this blog post.

The takeaway point is this: Every Christian allows science to affect their doctrine of creation, not just Old Earth Creationists, and Evolutionary Creationists. And I find nothing wrong with that. There is no biblical mandate that says we cannot take extra-biblical information into account in forming a robust view of reality.

The Bible Is Infallible, Biblical Interpretation Is Not

Remember my contrast between The Bible and The universe with theology and science. The latter two are interpretations of the former. Neither are fallible. Young Earth Creationists are quick to point out man’s fallibility and the possibility that the prevailing scientific thought might be wrong, but scarcely do they consider that their interpretation of Genesis 1 may be wrong. It’s true that science is not always right. It’s true that scientists may possibly be wrong about something currently considered a fact. However, biblical interpretation is also fallible. There would not be an Arminianism/Calvinism debate or a pre-trib/post-trib rapture debate, or a Continuationist/Cessationist debate if our ability to interpret scripture was infallible. God’s word is infallible, but we can err when interpreting it.

Yet you can point this out to YECs time and again and they will refuse to recognize that they’re conflating their interpretation of scripture with scripture itself. Many will not see this as a matter of differing interpretations, but a matter of believing God’s word. In their eyes, to doubt the 24 hour day view is to doubt The Bible itself!

However, one could challenge the YEC by saying “you are holding up your fallible interpretation against God’s infallible universe.” But that wouldn’t be very helpful. In the case of God’s world and in the case of God’s word, we are dealing with interpretations. The data cannot be wrong, but our interpretations of it can be.

Should we let science influence our doctrine of creation? God has given us two books: the book of scripture and the book of nature. We should let there be a two-way conversation between God’s two revelations, not a one-way conversation.

To Adhere To A Bible-Only (read that as YECist-Only) Way Of Viewing Science Results in YECs Being Guilty Of The Very Thing They Accuse Secularists Of

To start with a preconceived interpretation of biblical passages and then force-fit scientific data to conform to that interpretation is to fall into the very trap creationists often accuse secular scientists of doing. You can find the claim all over the creationist literature that the primary reasons scientists adhere to an old earth and evolution is because they’re starting with atheistic presuppositions and then they interpret the data in light of those presuppositions, so it’s no wonder that they come to the conclusions that they do. Regardless of whether or not this is true of atheist scientists, for YEC scientists to start off with their interpretation of Genesis and other creation passages and then do science in light of that interpretation commits the exact same error. An old earther or evolutionist can say “Well, it’s no wonder that AIG scientists come to the conclusions that they do. They start off with the presupposition that The Bible teaches the universe is 6,000 years old and then they interpret the scientific data in light of that presupposition.”

I for one am opposed to starting off with any preconceived notions when interpreting scientific data, with the exceptions of presupposing the reliability of logic, our cognitive faculties, and the intelligibility of the universe (the prerequisites to doing science). YECs say “We need to let The Bible speak for itself” all the while not allowing nature to speak for itself. This is hypocritical. When AIG has their scientists agree to a statement of faith that says the universe is 6,000 years old, they are not letting nature speak for itself.

I would argue that once you do that, you’ll find that the heavens are declaring themselves to be billions of years old and that one has to resort to explaining things away and avoiding the plain reading of the data to maintain YECism.

Conclusion

Should we let science influence our doctrine of creation? Why not? We all have already let it interpret our view of the doctrine in many areas, why not let it have a voice in figuring out how long it took God to create and what processes (if any) He used to do so? Additionally, our ability to interpret scripture is just as fallible as our ability to interpret the universe, therefore human fallibility cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring what the science textbooks say on any issue. You wouldn’t just completely ignore a biblical commentary on the grounds of human fallibility. Thirdly, to presuppose any interpretation of the way the universe has to be inevitably leads to biased conclusions. This is true of both naturalists and young earth creationists. Good science is objective science. Good scientists say “Where does the evidence lead?” not “How can we make the evidence fit X”?

Notes

[1] Ken Ham, as cited in “Ken Ham Says That Believing In 6 Days Of Creation Is ‘Litmus Test’ On Biblical Authority”, by Stoyan Zaimov, September 16th, 2016, The Christian Post. http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-ham-believing-6-days-creation-litmus-test-biblical-authority-169673/

[2] Before the invention of advanced telescopes, people believed that our galaxy was the only one that existed. Before that, people didn’t even know that there was such a thing as galaxies at all! It was mainly thanks to modern telescopes that we not only discovered that there were other galaxies out there, but also what types of galaxies exist (such as spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies).

[3] As an accomodationist, I would agree with these scholars. The Bible is filled with what is called “Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology”. That is, the Bible reflects the cosmology of its day. I don’t think this calls the inerrancy of The Bible into question at all, as I don’t think it was God’s intention to teach the recipients of his word cosmology or any other science for that matter. He used the faulty science of the day to express theological truth. For more information on this, see my blog posts: “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context” and “Why Did God Write A Book?”

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

November 12, 2017/by Guest

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Nicodemus” or “The Acts of Pilate”?

4. Is the NT True?, CrossExamined

The Gospel of Nicodemus is an ancient text purportedly written by the man who visited Jesus in the Gospel of John. But is this non-biblical text reliable? Was it really written by Nicodemus? There are four attributes of reliable eyewitness testimony, and the first requirement is simply that the account be old enough to actually be written by someone who was present to see what he or she reported. The Gospel of Nicodemus was written too late in history to have been written by the Jewish man who visited Jesus, and like other late non-canonical texts, this errant document was rejected by the early Church. In spite of this, The Gospel of Nicodemus still references accurate details related to Jesus. Although it is a legendary fabrication written by an author who altered the story of Jesus to suit the purposes of his religious community, much can still be learned about the historic Jesus from this late text:

The Gospel of Nicodemus and the Acts of Pilate (300-375AD)
The Gospel of Nicodemus is a Medieval Latin text that scholars believe to have been written in the middle of the 4th century, reportedly by a member of the “Order of Nicodemus”. It includes, as part of the text, a section entitled The Acts of Pilate and the two titles (for the combined text) are usually used interchangeably. The first two parts of the text attempt to recall the trial and resurrection of Jesus, while the third section (The Acts of Pilate) describes Jesus’ descent to “Limbo”.

Why Isn’t It Considered Reliable?
There appear to have been many documents related to Pontius Pilate in antiquity and some of these are mentioned by the Church Fathers. Justin Martyr (103-165AD), for example, mentions an Acts of Pilate in his first Apology, claiming that information about the crucifixion and resurrection could be substantiated by some sort of report made by Pilate to his supervisors. Tertullian seems also to refer to such a work in a letter defending Christianity to African authorities in approximately 195AD. This document appears to have been lost in antiquity. In addition to these texts recording the supposed activity of Pontius Pilate, there also appears to have existed a hostile pagan version of the Acts of Pilate as described by Eusebius. This hostile Roman account (written around 311AD) was being used in schools under Emperor Maximinus and was disparaging of Christianity, containing a number of outrageous claims related to Jesus. Many scholars believe that the Acts of Pilate we presently have as part of The Gospel of Nicodemus was originally written in response to the hostile “heathen” account described by Eusebius, and, for this reason, scholars date the text very late in history. The first Church leader to mention this version of The Acts of Pilate was Epiphanius in approximately 376AD. It was clearly not written by Nicodemus, Pilate or anyone else who could have witnessed the contents of the book.

How Does It Corroborate the Life of Jesus?
This late piece of fiction is relatively orthodox in its presentation of the life of Jesus and presumes the truth of the canonical Gospels (it simply adds detail and narrative addressing the curiosities of those who were interested in the Passion and the fate of Pilate). Jesus is identified as the “Son of God”, the “Lord Jesus Christ” and the “Christ”. Jesus is described as having disciples (twelve of whom testify for him). The virgin conception of Jesus is affirmed as are the accusations from the Jews about His illegitimacy. The canonical details of the trial, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are acknowledged throughout the text. The characters from the narrative (Pilate, Herod, Annas, Caiaphas and Joseph of Arimathea) are named accurately. Pilate is reluctant to carry out the wishes of the Jews, Jesus is accused of healing on the Sabbath and claiming to be God, Pilate conducts his famous interrogation of Jesus and ultimately washes his hands of the matter just as described in the canonical Gospels. Pilate’s wife warns him on the basis of her dream, but Jesus is ultimately beaten, forced to wear the crown of thorns and then crucified between two criminals; He is pierced in the side and given vinegar to drink with gall. The darkness at the death of Jesus is described as an eclipse. The text also acknowledges that Joseph of Arimathea acquires the body of Jesus and places Him in the tomb. The tomb is sealed but Jesus is resurrected as the canonical Gospels maintain.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

November 11, 2017/by Sean Mcdowell

Questions about Mass Shootings w/ J. Warner Wallace

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

In the wake of the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church mass shooting in Texas, many questions arise, and our national conversation about gun violence intensifies. We grieve with these families and cannot ignore the evil done by the perpetrator. Detective J. Warner Wallace answers some questions about mass shootings and how we should handle the discourse on these delicate issues.

Article: Three Important Questions to Balance in the Wake of Gun Violence

November 10, 2017/by Guest

¿Quién escribió el Evangelio de Juan?

Español

Por Brian Chilton

Durante las últimas semanas, hemos investigado a los autores de los Evangelios y el libro de Hechos. En este artículo, examinamos la evidencia del Evangelio de Juan. ¿Quién escribió el Cuarto Evangelio? Como hemos visto en artículos anteriores, este artículo examinará al autor propuesto, las evidencias internas y externas de la autoría, la fecha y la ubicación y la audiencia prevista para el Cuarto Evangelio.

Autor propuesto por tradición

La tradición de la Iglesia afirma que Juan el apóstol escribió el Cuarto Evangelio mientras pastoreaba como un anciano en Éfeso. ¿La evidencia respalda esta suposición?

Evidencia interna

Internamente, como los otros Evangelios, el autor no tiene nombre. Sin embargo, una lectura clara del Cuarto Evangelio denota que el que se llama el discípulo amado, o el discípulo a quien amaba Jesús, también es el autor del libro. La frase “el discípulo a quien Jesús amaba” aparece cinco veces en el Cuarto Evangelio. Este discípulo tiene un papel prominente incluso al punto que Pedro pregunta sobre el ministerio del discípulo amado en Juan 21. Hijo de Zebedeo, cumple con este criterio al igual que Santiago, el hermano de Juan. Sabemos que Santiago, hijo de Zebedeo, murió en los años 40 d.C. (Hechos 12: 1-5). El amado de Jesús aparece con Pedro en 13: 23-24; 18: 15-16; 20: 2-9; y en el capítulo 21. Juan también se encuentra con Pedro en Lucas 22: 8; Hechos 1:13; 3-4; 8: 14-25; y Gálatas 2: 9. Entonces, solo Juan cumple los criterios necesarios para la autoría del Cuarto Evangelio. La pregunta de Pedro en Juan 21 indica que el autor era anciano y reflexionaba sobre su vida con Jesús y los apóstoles.

Evidencia externa

Al referirse al autor del Cuarto Evangelio, el padre de la iglesia primitiva Ireneo (c.130-202 d.C.) escribe:

Además, enseñan que Juan, el discípulo del Señor, indicó al primer Ogdoad, expresándose en estas palabras: Juan, el discípulo del Señor, deseando exponer el origen de todas las cosas, para explicar cómo el Padre produjo el todo, establece un cierto principio, -es decir, que fue engendrado primero por Dios, a cuyo Ser ha llamado tanto el Hijo unigénito como a Dios, en quien el Padre, después de una manera seminal, dio a luz todas las cosas.[1]

Clemente de Alejandría (hacia 150-215 d.C.), citado por el historiador de la iglesia Eusebio de Cesárea (c. 263-339 d.C.) denota lo siguiente:

De nuevo, en los mismos libros, Clemente ha establecido una tradición que había recibido de los ancianos antes que él, con respecto al orden de los Evangelios, con el siguiente efecto. Él dice que los Evangelios que contienen las genealogías fueron escritos primero, y que el Evangelio según Marcos fue compuesto en las siguientes circunstancias:

Pedro, habiendo predicado la palabra públicamente en Roma, y por el Espíritu proclamó el Evangelio, los que estaban presentes, que eran numerosos, le suplicaron a Marcos, ya que él lo había atendido desde un primer momento, y recordó lo que se había dicho, anotar lo que se había hablado al componer el Evangelio, se lo entregó a quienes le habían hecho la petición; lo cual, llegando al conocimiento de Pedro, no lo obstaculizó ni alentó. Pero Juan, el último de todos, al ver que lo que era corpóreo se exponía en los Evangelios, en la súplica de sus amigos íntimos, e inspirado en el Espíritu, compuso un Evangelio espiritual.[2]

Ignacio de Antioquía (c. 35-108 d.C.) cita el Evangelio de Juan con bastante frecuencia cuando escribe una epístola a los antioqueños. La cita de Ignacio del Cuarto Evangelio ilustra que el libro fue visto de una manera positiva y autoritativa. Ignacio se observa como un discípulo de Juan el apóstol junto con Policarpo. El Martirio de St. Ignacio observa lo siguiente:

Por lo tanto, con gran prontitud y alegría, a través de su deseo de sufrir, descendió de Antioquía a Seleucia, desde donde partió. Y después de una gran cantidad de sufrimiento llegó a Esmirna, donde desembarcó con gran alegría, y se apresuró a ver al santo Policarpo, [anteriormente] su compañero de discípulo, y [ahora] obispo de Esmirna. Porque ambos tenían, en los viejos tiempos, discípulos de San Juan Apóstol. Siendo llevado luego a él, y habiéndole comunicado algunos dones espirituales, y gloriándose en sus ataduras, le suplicó que trabajara con él para el cumplimiento de su deseo; sinceramente preguntando esto a toda la Iglesia (porque las ciudades y las Iglesias de Asia habían acogido al hombre santo a través de sus obispos, presbíteros y diáconos, todos apresurándose a recibirlo, si de algún modo recibían de él algún don espiritual), pero, sobre todo, el santo Policarpo, que, por medio de las bestias salvajes, que pronto desaparecería de este mundo, podría manifestarse ante el rostro de Cristo.[3]

Se podría dar mucho más en cuanto a la evidencia externa. Sin embargo, la información presentada debería ser suficiente para nuestros propósitos.

Fecha

La evidencia sugiere que el Evangelio de Juan fue el último, escrito en algún momento después del año 70 d.C. Parece que Juan pudo haber sido escrito entre mediados de los 80 y principios de los 90, ya que pudo haber servido como pastor de la iglesia de Éfeso.

Ubicación y audiencia

El testimonio de Juan se conserva mientras se desempeña en Éfeso en Asia Menor. Por lo tanto, escribe a la gente de esa área, pero también a las generaciones futuras de la iglesia. Quizás es por eso que Clemente de Alejandría lo llama un “evangelio espiritual”.

Conclusión

Creo que Juan el apóstol escribió el Evangelio por dictado. Es decir, lo más probable es que Juan haya proporcionado el material a un amanuense. El amanuense documentó las palabras del apóstol anciano y agregó la adenda al Cuarto Evangelio y el título “el discípulo a quien Jesús amaba” en referencia al apóstol. Creo que la evidencia es bastante fuerte para Juan, el hijo de Zebedeo, autor del Cuarto Evangelio. Las afirmaciones en contrario[4] aportan más preguntas que respuestas. Por ejemplo, ¿por qué los otros Evangelios no elevan a los otros candidatos sugeridos a una luz más elevada? ¿Cómo es que Juan es un discípulo del círculo interno en los otros Evangelios y está perdido en prestigio en el Cuarto Evangelio si Juan no es el autor?[5] Para reiterar, creo que se empleó un amanuense en la formación del Evangelio. Pero el uso de un amanuense no niega la mano del apóstol por escrito. Entonces, para aquellos que erróneamente afirman que el apóstol no pudo haber formado un documento como este, tal argumento se disipa si se emplea un amanuense. Todavía es muy posible con el conocimiento obtenido por Jesús y su empleo anterior que Juan, hijo de Zebedeo, podría haber escrito todo el Evangelio a mano. Pero, prefiero pensar que se empleó un amanuense.

Notas

[1] Ireneo de Lyon, “Irenæus against Heresies, 1.8.5.” En Los Padres Apostólicos con Justino mártir e Ireneo, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson y A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 328.

[2] Clemente de Alejandría, “Fragmentos de Clemens Alexandrinus”, en Padres del siglo II: Hermas, Tatiano, Atenágoras, Teófilo y Clemente de Alejandría (Total), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson y A. Cleveland Coxe, trad. William Wilson, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 580.

[3] Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson y A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “El martirio de Ignacio”, en Los Padres Apostólicos con Justino Mártir e Ireneo, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, Nueva York: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 130.

[4] Ben Witherington, III sostiene que Lázaro fue el autor del Cuarto Evangelio.

[5] Por ejemplo, parece claro que el discípulo amado fue uno de los más conocidos. Juan el apóstol tiene tal estado.

Brian Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el anfitrión de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría de Divinidad en Teología de la Liberty University (con gran distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Gardner-Webb University (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics de la Biola University. Brian está actualmente estudiando en el Ph.D. Programa de Teología y Apologética en la Liberty University. Brian es miembro de pleno derecho de la International Society of Christian Apologetics y de la Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 14 años y sirve como pastor de la Huntsville Baptist Church en Yadkinville, Carolina del Norte.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2mTUktv

Traducido y editado por Jairo Izquierdo