The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

1071 HEAVEN “When Fred arrived at the Pearly Gates, he was met by an official-looking angelic being who began to process his entry data. Fred was asked for some purely unselfish, kindly deed he had done on earth. Well, Fred thought about it for a minute and then said, “Oh, yes. I think I have something you might be interested in. One day I was walking along and I came upon a little old lady who was being mercilessly beaten up by a huge motorcycle-gang type of fellow. He was smacking her back and forth. Well, I just stepped right up and first I pushed over his motorcycle just to distract his attention. And then I kicked him real hard in the shins and told the old lady to run for help. And then I hauled off and gave the guy a great shot right to the gut with my fist.”

The angel looked at Fred with a great deal of interest and said, “Wow, that’s quite a story. I’m very impressed.” Then taking his clipboard in hand he said, “Could you tell me just when this happened?”

Fred looked at his watch and said, “Oh, about two or three minutes ago.”

Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”

1072 NON-COGNITIVE SKILLS: (a.k.a. CHARACTER STRENGTHS)“Students who persisted in college were not necessarily the ones who had excelled academically [in high school]. Instead, they seemed to be the ones who possessed certain other gifts, skills like optimism and resilience and social agility. They were the students who were able to recover from bad grades and resolve to do better next time; who could bounce back from unhappy breakups or fights with their parents; who could persuade professors to give them extra help after class; who could resist the urge to go out to the movies and instead stay home and study.”

Excerpt From: Tough, Paul. “How Children Succeed.”

1073 DETERMINATION “The most pernicious aspect of procrastination is that it can become a habit. We don’t just put off our lives today; we put them off till our deathbed.

Never forget: This very moment, we can change our lives. There never was a moment, and never will be, when we are without the power to alter our destiny.”

Excerpt From: Steven Pressfield & Shawn Coyne. “The War of Art.”

1074 AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM “The story of the United States is the story of an economic miracle and a political miracle that was made possible by the translation into practice of two sets of ideas—both, by a curious coincidence, formulated in documents published in the same year, 1776.

Adam Smith’s key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit. No external force, no coercion, no violation of freedom is necessary to produce cooperation among individuals all of whom can benefit. That is why, as Adam Smith put it, an individual who “intends only his own gain” is “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

The second set of ideas was embodied in the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson to express the general sense of his fellow countrymen. It proclaimed a new nation, the first in history established on the principle that every person is entitled to pursue his own values: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Excerpt From: Milton Friedman & Rose Friedman. “Free to Choose.”

1075 THAT DAY “What about the day that hasn’t happened yet—the day of Christ’s return? On that glorious day, children will head off to school, loaded down with their homework and their peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Morning rush-hour traffic will choke the freeways. Merchants will be opening their doors to customers. The stock market will be abuzz with excitement and activity. Homemakers will be shopping. Planes will be taking off and landing. Judges will be sitting at their benches, hearing one case after another. Television newscasters will be busily gathering the stories of the day. Then, suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, Christ will split the sky, and God’s great plan for the future will suddenly take center stage. It could be tomorrow. It could be today! But whenever it is, that morning will begin as just another uneventful, ho-hum, no-big-deal kind of day.”

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Esther.”

 

/by
Moms Kids Secular

For All the Moms Overwhelmed by Raising Christian Kids in a Secular World

By

I don’t normally write just to moms—my readers are both moms and dads—but in honor of Mother’s Day this one is specifically for all the moms out there.

For the past few days, I’ve been sick with some kind of flu/cold combination.

Yesterday, I pulled myself out of bed while feeling like I had a thousand pounds on top of me. As every mom knows, being sick doesn’t exempt you from getting the kids to school. So, I plodded down the stairs in my signature “I’m sick” robe and went to work making lunches.

After I finished making a hot dog and beans concoction, my daughter informed me she left her lunchbox at school…which had her thermos in it. The thermos was the only container that would have worked for what I had just made. I had to start all over and quickly get a sandwich together instead.

In stomped my younger daughter, who was devastated that she went to bed the night before with three braids in her hair, yet didn’t have the waves she hoped for in the morning. She blamed me for not braiding correctly and, in a huff, accidentally knocked a full glass of water all over the floor.

Not to be outdone, my son yelled from upstairs that he didn’t have a clean uniform to wear.

It was like the opening scene of a bad 1980s sitcom about wacky family life.

Rather than laugh, however, I lost it. I wasn’t sure if I felt more like yelling or crying, so it all just came out at once. But in the midst of the pandemonium, I suddenly had this thought:

This is the kind of day that makes moms think the stuff I write about is impossible to do.

Teach my kids how we know the Gospels are based on eye-witness testimony? I can’t even get lunch right.

Engage in nuanced conversations about evolution? My son doesn’t even have a clean shirt.

Discuss the evidence for God’s existence? My daughter just wants wavy hair.

Whether we’re sick or just getting through a normal day, it takes a lot to keep the family ship moving. When you’re already overwhelmed by daily life, reading my blog and/or book may seem like a giant “piling on” of what else should be happening.

If that’s how you feel, this post is for you. Here are the four things I think overwhelmed moms most need to hear.

1. We don’t have to be perfect parents before we’re ready to seriously disciple our kids.

Logically, you know this. You know that no human is perfect, and therefore you’re not perfect. But sometimes we subconsciously think that we need to achieve some critical mass of parental goodness (like not flipping out every time our kids leave socks all over the house) before we can begin to approach the “next level” of parenting—serious discipleship. Deep conversations about faith, not just mealtime prayers.

The thing is, that kind of discipleship is not the next level. We often inadvertently see it that way because it’s not necessary in order to keep kids physically alive, but that’s dangerous thinking. We need to adjust our mentality to accept that serious discipleship keeps our kids spiritually alive and is foundational level parenting.

Take this to heart: You are enough. In all your imperfections, God still calls you to be the most important spiritual influence in your kids’ lives.

2. The challenges of a secular world are not a giant, undefinable snowball—they are predictable, making your job manageable.

When you’re scrolling through social media, reading articles, listening to the television, and so on, it can seem like you’re on the receiving end of a secular avalanche. You may see the latest crazy news and feel like it’s an impossible task to prepare your kids spiritually for all they’ll encounter. Where do you even begin?

But hear me out: Virtually all of those challenges in some way roll back to questions about the core case for Christianity:

  • The evidence for God’s existence.
  • The exclusive nature of religious truth claims.
  • The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.
  • The evidence for the reliability of the Bible.

You don’t need to feel like you have to be an expert on every single challenge you encounter. If 500 people challenge you on 500 different claims that oppose what the Bible says, that’s primarily just one subject area you need to grasp: What is the evidence for the reliability of the Bible?

If you’re new to these subjects, grab a copy of my first book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side. It’s an easy-to-understand introduction with mercifully short chapters for parents. For other resources,  check out all the reading plans I have here.

Preparing your kids for a secular world is manageable when you make use of resources to help you get focused on key areas. You just need to make the time.

3. You have the needed time. Really. You do.

When I speak to parents at churches and conferences, I often start by showing a picture of my family from five years ago. My twins were three and my youngest was one. I say, “When this picture was taken, I didn’t know anything about anything I’m talking about today.” I want parents to know anyone can equip themselves with this understanding when they put their mind to it.

But it comes down to this: I made time to learn once I experienced first-hand how important this knowledge would be for my kids. (If you’re newer to my blog, you can read my story here.)

I read some 200 books during that time, with three kids under five. When did I do it? Times like these:

  • The first 15 minutes after I woke up in the morning.
  • While drying my hair (if you read books electronically, this is easy to do).
  • While waiting in lines (do you know how much time you spend in lines at places like the grocery store?).
  • While waiting for my kids to be done with extracurricular activities (e.g., gymnastics).
  • While waiting for dinner to cook.
  • In the last 15-30 minutes before I went to sleep at night.

When something is important, you make time. You just do. And I’m not even suggesting you read 200 books. Read these 5 to start and see where that takes you.

4. Your kids’ failure to show interest in deep conversations is not your failure.

Let’s say you’ve taken all this to heart, gotten up to speed on a variety of important subjects, and are ready to give your kids a big shot of knowledge for their secular immune system. You pick a night to start a discussion…and your kids couldn’t be less interested. They’re inattentively rolling around on the floor, hitting each other, insulting each other, rolling their eyes, or flat-out asking, “Why do we have to do this?”

It can feel like the ultimate failure.

But it’s totally normal.

I’ve had lots of nights like this, and they make you want to stab your eyes out. I know. It doesn’t mean you’re doing something wrong. It means your kids are…kids.

Don’t get discouraged and turn it into an excuse to go back to basic survival mode. Expect it. And press on (just maybe not that night). It’s the consistency of conversations over time that will make the greatest impact on your kids’ faith.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qJdy68

/by
Minimal Facts Divine

Does The Minimal Facts Approach Dishonor God’s Word?

By Evan Minton

The Minimal Facts Approach is an approach to establishing the truth of Jesus’ resurrection using two criteria; (1) they must be facts that have a lot of evidence in their favor, and (2) these facts must be universally or nearly universally agreed upon by scholars and historians who study the subject, even the skeptical ones. Then, once the facts are established as facts, we then examine which explanation best explains them, and it turns out that only the He-Is-Risen hypothesis best explains all of them. These facts are (1) Jesus’ death by crucifixion, (2) Jesus’ empty tomb, (3) Jesus’ post-mortem appearances to His disciples, (4) Jesus’ post-mortem appearance to Paul, and (5) Jesus’ post-mortem appearance to James.

We establish these 5 facts by looking at secular historical documents as well as applying the standard historical “criteria of authenticity” to The New Testament documents. In doing so, we can establish the truth of Jesus’ resurrection in an evidential and non-question-begging way. I make the case for the resurrection in “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1” and “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 2”, but if you think those are too lengthy, I have an abridged version of that first article titled “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection”. So, check those out if you want to go into the arguments and evidence. I also argue for the resurrection in chapter 8 of my book “Inference To The One True God”. 

One objection to this method of establishing Christianity’s central doctrine that I have encountered a few times is this: it dishonors God’s holy inspired word. Some Christians don’t like the minimal facts approach because it treats The New Testament documents as if they were ordinary documents written by ordinary people rather than inspired scripture. We don’t argue that Jesus’ tomb was empty “because The Bible says so” but rather, for example, “The tomb was likely empty because all 4 gospels mention women as the chief witnesses. They wouldn’t have done this if they were making it up because it was commonly thought that women were untrustworthy witnesses, to such an extent that they weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. If they were making up this narrative, they would have had males the first one on the scene. Therefore, by the principle of embarrassment, we can conclude the tomb was empty.” As you can see, these two approaches are very different. The former takes the words of the New Testament at face value and concludes they’re true because The New Testament was inspired by God, whereas the latter approach has to apply some historical method to determine whether or not it’s true. This makes some Christians uncomfortable because it seems to suggest that God’s Word cannot be trusted to give us truthful information. It seems to treat the holy scriptures as just common literature which may or may not be true, or which may be true in some places but false in others.

The conclusion reached is that we, therefore, shouldn’t try to prove the resurrection (fideism), or if we do try to prove it, to prove it some other way that doesn’t demean The Bible (presuppositionalism). How might evidentialist Christian Apologists respond to this objection? Do we really demean God’s holy word when we argue for Jesus’ resurrection this way?

The Minimal Facts Approach Meets The Unbelievers Where They Are 

 It is very important that we reach unbelievers in a way that will be most effective to them. The Minimal Facts Approach reaches unbelievers where they are epistemologically. The non-Christian does not accept The Bible as God’s holy and inspired word and because of this, he, therefore, does not consider it authoritative, infallible, or inerrant. Therefore, it’s useless to just quote a passage from it and expect him to say “Well if it’s in The Bible, it must be true!” He doesn’t accept The Bible as authoritative, so he isn’t going be persuaded by this.

To help you get in their shoes: imagine if a Muslim tried to convince you of Islam by citing from the Quran. You wouldn’t be persuaded, would you? Why? Obviously, because you don’t think the Quran is inspired! You think it’s a fabrication by Muhammad. Well, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and other non-Christians see The Bible the same way. If a Muslim were to convince me of Islam, he would have to take an approach to proving his religion that didn’t presuppose the inspiration of his holy book.

The Minimal Facts Approach does this. When we argue for the 5 minimal facts undergirding the inference to the resurrection, we don’t quote from The New Testament as inspired scripture. We do use The New Testament, but not as scripture. We use it as we would any other ancient document that claims to tell of historical events. We proceed to use the “criteria of authenticity” that historians use on many non-biblical documents, and we’ll see what we can affirm as true by that method. Principles such as multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, the principle of early attestation, the principle of dissimilarity, and so on. These are principles that historians use on secular documents all the time, in order to discern whether or not what they record is true.

Many non-Christians have come to faith through this approach, such as Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace, and Frank Morrison, just to name a few. These men went on to share this evidence they discovered with unbelievers they witnessed to.

We believe all of The Bible is inspired, but we pretend the gospels and epistles aren’t for the sake of the argument. The Christian Apologist is basically saying “Even if I conceded these weren’t inspired, I can still establish that the resurrection of Jesus is true.” All we are doing is simply meeting the unbeliever where he is.

This approach of meeting unbelievers where they are epistemologically is biblical. I noticed that Paul dealt with the unbelieving Jews in Berea and the unbelieving Pagans in Athens quite differently in Acts 17. With the Jews, he used scripture to reason with them, using arguments from fulfilled prophecy to prove to them that Jesus really is the messiah. With the Pagans, he didn’t use The Old Testament prophecies as evidence at all. Instead, he used philosophical arguments, and he appealed to their own Greek poets and pagan authors to establish his points. Click here to read the passage. 

In 1 Cortinthians 9:20-23, Paul wrote: “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

 The Apostle Paul saw the importance of changing his tactics depending on who he was witnessing to. We should too. When I’m witnessing to atheists, agnostics, or other people who don’t believe The Bible is inspired, I employ arguments that don’t hinge on that presupposition. However, if I’m witnessing to a heretic who does believe scripture is inspired but has interpreted some passages in such ways as to come up with heretical doctrines (e.g Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons), then I will appeal to scripture to make my points. In the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’ll even refute their doctrines using the New World Translation (a twisted translation, but the only one they accept). I change my approach based on who I’m talking to. The Message doesn’t change, but the method of conveying the message does.

Conclusion 

 The Bible is the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17). It brings no shame to a sword just because you swing it differently in different battles. Sometimes you need to slash vertically, sometimes you need to slash horizontally, other times you need to stab. You need to wield a sword in the most effective way you can to deal with the particular fighting style of your enemy. This holds true for literal swords, one would think it would hold true of “The Sword Of The Spirit” (i.e The Bible) as well. Depending on our audience, we will either use The Bible as inspired scripture or as a collection of ancient writings which we will apply the historical method to.

When we use The Minimal Facts Approach, we are not at all suggesting that we distrust God’s word. Rather we are acknowledging that our audience distrusts God’s word, and we respect that, and we witness to them with that fact in mind.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r3yJTa

/by
Student Apologist Listener

How to Become a True Student and a Better Apologist

By Michael C. Sherrard

This is a bit exaggerated, but I’m not sure that anybody is actually interested in learning anything anymore. We live in a political and religious playground filled with thumbs in ears and shouts of “nah nah nah nah, I can’t hear you.” Most people are guilty of this. You are likely guilty of this. Of course the extreme examples are the “safe spaces” on college campuses and the slanderous biased media reporting. But there is also the simple thing that you do everyday: you don’t listen. Nobody listens. If you heard me, you know this is true.

Rather than listen, what do you (and everyone else) do when someone else is talking? You’re thinking about what to say next. This is true of conversations of agreement and disagreement. As a pastor and a teacher, I’m routinely amazed and frustrated by the inability of one to actually hear what I’m saying, be it a friend or a foe. Stop doing this. Listen. You don’t really know as much as you think you do, and you don’t actually know the position one holds until you hear it from them. Develop the discipline to hear, really hear what someone is saying. It is respectful, and it is prudent for only in actually understanding a position can you engage it.

Understand that when you stop listening you do so because you have assumed something, and living in a land of assumptions is dangerous. You have either assumed that you perfectly understand the position being talked about or that you perfectly understand the way someone holds the position. Both are likely not to be true. And this is quite arrogant. This kind of arrogance is the luxury of the expert, not the student. And I suppose that is the problem. Everyone today thinks they are an expert. But the true expert only became such because of their ability to be a true student.

True students understand the value of listening. Arrogant, simple minded folk think they are always to be the teacher. You know, that guy you sat next to in college. The one who thought he should be teaching the class and took every chance to do so. You know, Frank, who now works at Chili’s. That’s who I’m talking about. But I digress.

“When everyone thinks they are the teacher, no-one ever learns. And if that does not describe our world today, I don’t know what does.

What is needed in this highly charged political atmosphere is a bit of humility, humility expressed in the form of listening with the goal of understanding. Persuasion is still needed, but let persuasion come after understanding. If all commit to this, we will have truly safe spaces. They won’t be safe because of the absence of opposing viewpoints, but safe because of the presence of humility and respect and true learners. A world that freely discusses important issues and listens is a world where progress is possible and freedom reigns.

Those of you who seek defend the truth of the gospel will become a much better apologist if you learn how to listen. You will continue to grow in knowledge as you will learn how and why people hold their beliefs, not just what their beliefs are. People do not hold beliefs as nice and neat as your textbook. So embrace the mindset of a student and listen as much as you speak, and you will become more effective making the case for our reasonable faith.

Read “4 Ways to Become a Better Listener and a Better Apologist.“

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r3YZx5

/by
Phobia LGBT Jihad

Phobiaphobic

By Tim Stratton

It seems commonplace today for entire groups of people to be painted with a broad brushstroke and labeled as being afraid or fearful. The word “phobia” or “phobic” is often attached to the end of another word which is supposed to represent a group who is scared of other people.

So, what does it mean to be “phobic”? Consider Merriam Webster’s definition of phobia:

an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Oxford Dictionaries defines phobia as:

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
‘she suffered from a phobia about birds’

Most have heard of certain types of fears. Here is a list of common phobias:Arachnophobia — Fear of spiders

Claustrophobia — Fear of being enclosed in a small space

Acrophobia — Fear of heights

Given these definitions, one whose fears do not follow logically or is an irrationally fearful person is “phobic.” Thus, this label can be used to communicate a psychological disorder with the person who was shot with the “label gun.”

Homophobia

We hear this quite often when Christians are typically labeled as “homophobes.” The one wielding the “label gun” is attempting to communicate to others (reading their labels), that Christians have an irrational fear of gay people. To be clear: as a Christian I am definitely not fearful or scared of homosexuals or anyone in the LGBT community. In fact, I do not know any Christians who are literally scared of gay people just because they are gay.

Christians do not hold an irrational fear of homosexuals; rather, most simply point out that the homosexual lifestyle is not intended by God — it is not the intended purpose of creation. Thus, the gay lifestyle “misses the mark,” and this is what it means to be sinful. These claims are not based in fear or hatred; they are grounded in love. Read my articles on this particular topic here, here, and here.

Logically demonstrating and pointing out that a person is living a sinful lifestyle should not be conflated with an irrational fear of the person. In fact, if anything is irrational, it is committing the logical fallacy of conflating a belief that a person is in sin, with fear of the person living in sin. This is unreasonable.

Islamaphobia

It is also quite popular today for Christians to be labeled as “Islamaphobes.” Is it irrational to fear Muslims? In one sense, perhaps, but in another sense, definitely not! The first thing we must realize is that it is vital to distinguish between irrational fears and healthy fears.

To be clear, although our world has been wrought with terror attacks from practicing Muslims since 9-11, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists who wage jihad like those in ISIS. Thus, it seems irrational — in this sense — to fear all of those who are Muslim. After all, just because some Christians are mean to non-believers, it does not follow that all Christians act in a similar fashion.

There is a huge and vital difference, however, between these propositions. We are discussing ideologies. Specifically, we are discussing the teachings and commands of Mohammad and of Jesus — they differ drastically!

So, if one believes that Christianity it true, and they are not living consistently with the teachings of Jesus Christ (what Christianity is based on), if they come to think they should start living consistently with what they believe, then they will start loving all people from their neighbors to their enemies. The obedient Christ follower will make a daily attempt to not be mean and to love and respect all people as Jesus commanded. So, unless one fears being treated with love and respect, it would be nonsensical to fear a person who believes that Jesus’ commands correspond to reality and that our actions ought to correspond to reality too.

However, if one believes that Islam is true, then even if they were not living consistently with the teachings of Mohammad — and were not violent terrorists trying to kill all the infidels (they are peaceful) — it is still quite rational to have a healthy fear of this Muslim. Why is this? Because if he or she believes Islam is true and then starts to understand all that Mohammad actually commanded, and then decides to start living consistently with what they believe, then it follows that there is a good chance that they will harm you, or anyone else who is not a Muslim.

The Conflation of Ideas & Race

I will get back to that topic shortly. Before I expand on this, however, it is important to point out that many today seem to imply that if one is fearful of what Islam teaches, then you must be a racist (another label)! Those who assert this are once again guilty of the logical fallacy of conflation. Namely, conflating the beliefs of an individual with their DNA. These are two completely different issues that should not be conflated.

Allow me to make my point: regarding Islam — I am “Islamaphobic” (in a sense)! This is because I have an educated understanding of what Mohammad actually taught and commanded. Thus, all “good” Muslims (the ones who strive to live according to Muhammad’s teachings) should be feared because they want to convert or kill everyone who is not a Muslim.

Now, this has nothing to do with race (and to conflate this with race as mentioned above is a logical fallacy)! After all, if a white guy became a Muslim who believed he should “kill the infidel” as Mohammad commanded, then I would be just as “Islamaphobic” of that white guy because he wants to kill me. It is healthy and rational to fear those who want to kill you! This is about ideas — not race!

Thank God most Muslims are “bad Muslims” and do not follow all the teachings of Mohammad. However, as David Wood has shown, it does not take much to get an inconsistent Muslim (one who is peaceful) to become a consistent and “good muslim” (one who wants to kill you)! That is what scares me — but that is a healthy fear based on what Mohammad actually commanded.

The Jihadi Triangle

Consider the “Three Stages of Jihad” from David Wood:

As stated above, most Muslims are peaceful (thank God), but this is because they lack one of three essential ingredients that a seemingly “good” Muslim ought to possess:

1- Belief
2- Knowledge
3- Obedience

The foundation of the Triangle of Jihad is a simple belief that Islam is true. This belief does not have to be justified as one can hold this belief merely because their father told them that “there is no God but Allah.” This foundation is not sufficient for Jihad and terror, but it is a necessary condition.

The second part of this triangle is knowledge. That is, the individual believes that Islam is true and now they study the Qu’ran and the Hadith to understand exactly what Mohammad taught and commanded. Basically, this is an educated Islamic believer.

The final part of the triangle of jihad is obedience. An educated Islamic believer who has reached the decision that he ought to be obedient to Allah’s prophet is one who everyone should fear! This individual believes that Islam is true, understands that Mohammad commanded Muslims to kill everyone who is not a Muslim, and they believe they should obey Mohammad’s teachings, and thus, they want to kill you!

Conclusion

It is vital to note that Jihad all starts with one simply believing that Islam is true. So, even though it seems safe to say that Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Cat Stevens, Dave Chappelle, or Lindsay Lohan (the latest convert?) probably will not attempt murder, they do possess the first necessary condition that logically leads to the other two lines of the jihad triangle. Let’s hope these Muslims never gain an understanding of what consistent Islam entails.

Bottom line: it is not a phobia if a fear of something or someone is justified and thus, a rational fear. In fact, it seems irrational to not possess a healthy fear of a person whose worldview entails your demise.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

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

/by
Hitler Christianity History

So What If Hitler Was A Christian? (Would Hitler’s Christianity Hurt Historic Christianity?)

By

The holocaust, masterminded by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime, devoured 11 million lives, among them were 6 million Jews, and the other 5 million comprising of people with mental and physical disabilities, communists, resistance fighters, Slavic people, homosexuals, priests, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and anarchists etc.

The antagonists of Historic Christianity argue that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, thereby accusing Historic Christianity as the primary cause for the holocaust. The defenders of Historic Christianity counter-argue to deny Hitler’s Christianity; instead suggesting that he may have been an atheist and that his non-Christian worldview was the primary cause of the holocaust.

If Hitler was a Christian, would Hitler’s Christianity hurt Historic Christianity? In order to think through this theme, let us consider the case for Hitler’s Christianity, the case for Hitler’s non-Christianity, and the interpretation of Hitler’s apparent Christianity.

Hitler Was A Christian

Richard Dawkins argues that Hitler was not an atheist but a Catholic Christian. Dawkins quoted Hitler’s 1922 speech wherein he referred to Jesus as “my Lord and Savior.”1

Popular atheist author Michael A. Sherlock in his article, “The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot” argues for Hitler’s Christianity, “…Hitler was a Christian.  This undeniable fact couldn’t be made any clearer than by his own confessions…

To begin, here are just a few of Hitler’s Christian confessions:

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!  was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.  How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.  To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.  As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” [3]

“The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defense of its own teaching.” [4]

“His [the Jew’s] life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as is character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews…” [5]

Over and above these solid testimonies, there are other equally strong pieces of evidence that indicate that Hitler was a Christian, like the fact that his soldiers all wore the slogan, ‘Gott Mit Uns’ (God with us) on their belts, that his birthday was “celebrated from the pulpits until his death,” as Hitchens so eloquently put it, and that the Nazis published their own slightly revised Christian bible. [6]…”2

Hitler Was Not A Christian

As much as the atheist argues for Hitler’s Christianity, there is enough evidence to argue that Hitler was not a Christian.

Hitler and his Nazi regime were much influenced by the ideology of German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Hitler was consumed by the idea of “Superman” (who has a great “will to power” and would reign over other humans) that was taken from Nietzsche’s work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.”

Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche was married to Bernhard Förster, a prominent leader of the German anti-Semitic movement. Elizabeth was a friend of Hitler. Elizabeth influenced the Nazi regime to an extent that Hitler was influenced by the Nietzschean ideology.

Hitler was so fascinated by the Nietzschean ideology that he had copies of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” given to all his soldiers between 1933 and 1945. Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar at the invite of Elizabeth and proudly posed for photographs of him staring at the bust of Nietzsche.

When Hitler began his career, Germany was mostly a Christian nation. So Hitler often referred to himself as a follower of Christ. However, Hitler either imprisoned or executed more than 6000 clergymen on the charge of treasonable activity.

Significantly, after establishing the “National Reich Church” that projected Hitler as superman / god, Hitler banned the Bible and the cross. Bibles were replaced with copies of Mein Kampf and the cross was replaced with swastika.

Hitler also printed his version of the Bible, wherein words such as Messiah and Hallelujah were altered. Ten Commandments were revised to 12 Commandments. Hitler demanded worship; the Lord’s Prayer was revised, “Adolf Hitler, you are our great Fuhrer. Thy name makes the enemy tremble. Thy Third Reich comes; thy will alone is law upon the earth. Let us hear daily thy voice, and order us by thy leadership, for we will obey to the end, even with our lives We praise thee; hail Hitler Fuhrer my Fuhrer, given me by God. Protect and preserve my life for long. You saved Germany in time of need; I thank you for my daily bread; be with me for a long time, do not leave me, Fuhrer my Fuhrer, my faith, my light – hail, my Fuhrer.”3 This was recited by the Hitler Youth.

Hitler systematically gained control over the Protestant churches in Germany to make them an instrument of the Nazi regime. In response, the “Confessing Church” movement gained momentum within the German Protestant Churches to resist Hitler’s attempt.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian, pastor and a founding member of the “Confessing Church.” Bonhoeffer and other leaders of the Confessing Church opposed the Nazi regime and sought to establish the true identity of the Church. Ultimately, Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging.

Think about this; had Hitler been a genuine Christian what was the necessity for a Christian rebellion against Hitler? Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity fervently opposed Hitler to an extent that they risked their own lives. They were either imprisoned or executed for their anti-Hitler rebellion.

Would Hitler’s Christianity Hurt Historic Christianity?

When our atheist friend argues that Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian, should the defenders of Historic Christianity negate that argument to begin a street fight with the atheist? Debunking Hitler’s Christianity need not be the one and the only option for us.

The other option is to ask a question, “If Hitler was a Christian, was he a genuine Christian?” The atheist primarily posits Hitler’s self proclamation as evidence to his Christianity. Self proclamation is inadequate to one’s identity as a Christian. A genuine Christian not only proclaims himself to be a Christian, but also obeys Christ through his deeds.

Genuine Christians do not kill as Hitler did. The very extermination of the 11 million people screams against Hitler’s so-called Christianity. Hitler’s execution of the leadership of the confessing church that included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actually sought to establish the true identity of the church, is most surely not a genuine Christian’s deed.

Friedrich Nietzsche was not a Christian; he constantly attacked the Christian ideals. A genuine Christian would not follow the Nietzschean ideology.

Significantly, a genuine Christian would not elevate himself into a position of “Superman” demanding worship of any form whatsoever. On the other hand, Hitler, so fascinated by Friedrich Nietzsche, and so desperate to be a superman, demanded that people revere him.

Therefore, however which way we may want to think, Hitler, even though he may have been a self-proclaimed Christian, was not a genuine Christian. So Hitler’s Christianity does not harm Historic Christianity, and any claim to Hitler’s Christianity can and should be ignored completely.

Endnotes:

Websites cited were last accessed on September 8, 2016.

1https://whydoyoubelieve.org/2016/09/01/hitlers-religion-christian-apologetics-faces-the-hitler-question/

2https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

3http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/churchhistory/godandhitler/

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q8wBYJ

/by
Worldview Assertions Philosophy

The Difference Between What A View Asserts And Implies

By Luke Nix 

Introduction

In any discussion in which we are defending a particular view, we must present both a positive case and the negative case. The positive case shows the evidence for the view we are defending, while the negative case shows the problems with the alternative being presented. Both are necessary in the overall case. The negative case is necessary because the adherent of the other view needs a logical reason to abandon their view for an alternative. The positive case is necessary because if an adherent is provided a logical reason to abandon their view, the other view being presented may not be the only option. The way that a view is shown to be incorrect is that its claims are put to the test against reality and reason. If the claims are found to not reflect reality or they are not logical, then the view is false. However, the claims of a view can be of (at least) two different types that require a different approach. Today I want to discuss the differences in the assertions and the implications of a view or model. Understanding the differences will help us be more aware of how to properly address them in other views, and the understanding will also assist us in our formation and critique of our own views. This applies to worldviews, scientific models, philosophical theories, and really anything view that makes claims about reality, regardless of which area of reality it is.

Assertions are propositions that a view or model explicitly claims to be true. When we are talking about worldviews, a worldview’s assertions are the collection of propositions that it claims are true about reality. This collection is explicitly stated and defended by the adherents to the particular worldview that makes those claims.

When critiquing a worldview, it is important that we properly understand the assertions of that worldview. If we fail to understand the assertions correctly, then we run the risk of arguing against a misunderstanding of the worldview- a strawman. If we argue against a strawman, then we have not shown the worldview we are attempting to critique as having any issues. Thus our critique has not provided the adherent of that worldview a valid reason to reject it in favor of an alternative. Our critique simply does not apply to the debate at hand, and we sound like some crazy person who has decided to just start telling a story that has no applicability to the discussion at hand. Unless we are willing to take the time to properly understand what a worldview asserts, there is really no point in attempting to argue against it.

Some assertions are essential to the worldview, so if they are shown to be false, the entire worldview falls apart. While other assertions are not so essential to the worldview, and if they are shown to be false, they can either be adjusted or removed altogether. What gets really interesting and often causes great disagreements among adherent to the same worldview is that they do not always agree upon what is essential to the worldview and what is non-essential. For details on this, see my post “Zombies of Christianity.”

Testing the assertions of a worldview or model is a direct way to test for its ability to accurately describe reality (truthfulness). If one of the essential propositions is found to be false, then the whole worldview or model may be rejected and an alternative needs to be found. If an assertion that is non-essential is found to be false, the worldview or model simply needs to be adjusted to accommodate the new data; however, that adjustment must not violate (it must be logically consistent) with the rest of the worldview or model. Sometimes what seems to be a minor adjustment affects the whole worldview or model, but not necessarily to the point of changing the essentials. As long as the essential assertions are not compromised, the main worldview or model remains intact, just with some different details. For those who are committed to a basic worldview (such as mere Christianity), the discovery that they need to adjust the details of their theology, science, or another part of the worldview does not undermine the historic event of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so there is no need to be afraid or even resistant to change the detailed assertions of our worldview when the evidence demonstrates a non-essential detail to be incorrect.

What Are Implications?

While attacking the assertions of a worldview or model is a more direct challenge, one can use a more indirect method that is just as powerful. Many critiques of worldviews or models come in the form of critiquing, not the assertions of the view but, the implications. Implications are the collection of propositions that the assertions of a view necessarily leads to when the logic is carried to its end (or just a few steps from the assertion). Implications are not explicitly claimed by the worldview or its adherents, and in some cases, certain implications are not even held by the adherents because the adherents have not worked the logic through to discover them.

Necessary implications can be discovered using the assertions of the view and deductive reasoning. Any sound conclusion that results yet is not explicitly claimed, is an implication of the view. Since implications are necessarily dependent upon the assertions, it is, once again, extremely important to ensure that we properly understand the assertions of a worldview before attempting to deduce its implications.

As I mentioned earlier, implications can be used to critique a worldview indirectly but just as conclusively as testing assertions. If a validly concluded implication is false, then that indicates that one of the premises in the deductive argument is false. If that premise is an assertion of a worldview, then that worldview has been demonstrated logically to be false (as it is currently held- both essentials and non-essentials included). If an adherent wishes to maintain that worldview consistently, the false assertion would either need to be adjusted, so as to not lead to the false implication, or it would need to be removed from the worldview altogether. Of course, this flexibility would only apply to assertions that are not essential. If the false premise is an essential assertion, then the worldview has been completely falsified, and even the basic worldview cannot be believed reasonably, only emotionally- against reason, logic, and evidence.

Now, as I mentioned, not all implications are held by adherents to different worldviews or models. So it is extremely important to understand what an adherent believes. They may very well agree that a particular implication is false, but they may insist that they are being consistent. This is usually an opportunity to get them to go into further details of their worldview or model. If they are correct that they are being consistent with rejecting the implication, then it is likely that there is another assertion (or collection of assertions) that place a nuance on the “false” premise that adjusts it to avoid the implication (see my post “Providing Alternative Explanations“). The newly discovered nuances of the view may also make the implication not one that is necessary but one that is optional, which, of course, the adherent would simply avoid. Now, clarification does not always undermine a false implication; the adherent may simply not understand the deductive argument, or they are more committed to the false assertion than they are committed against the implication- they may be actually willing to accept the implication as true, which would demonstrate that they are actually more committed to a view than committed to truth.

Conclusion

The differences in assertions and implications are important to analyzing and addressing both properly. In our own views, the understanding will help us identify where a view can be flexible to follow the evidence where it leads. This allows us to adjust our own views as necessary and allows us to be more reserved and pointed, where applicable, in our claims of showing an opposing view to be inaccurate (which helps keep discussions cordial and respectful). In my discussions with people about different views, I try to identify if what I’m arguing against is an assertion or an implication; simply saying something like “I know you may not hold to this particular claim, but if you allow me to show you how your view logically leads to it by necessity, you may be able to more clearly see why I reject that view and why I think you should also, based upon your rejection of it.” In the effort to be more careful thinkers, recognition of the distinction between assertions and implications will also help in our effort to be more persuasive presenters and defenders.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r59CLN

——————————

/by
Pablo Islam Jerusalén

¿Por qué la relación de Pablo con la iglesia de Jerusalén presenta un problema para el Islam?

En un artículo anterior, ofrecí una simple razón por la cual el Corán no puede ser la palabra de Dios, ya que la proposición de que el Corán es la palabra de Dios implica una necesaria contradicción. Aquí, voy a presentar una razón igualmente convincente para rechazar el Corán como la palabra de Dios.

Pablo Islam Jerusalén

Como he aludido en mi post anterior, el Corán sostiene que los discípulos de Jesús eran musulmanes. Según la Sura 3:52,

“…cuando Isa [Jesús] sintió incredulidad en ellos, dijo: “Quiénes son mis ayudantes en el camino de Allah?” Los discípulos dijeron: “Nosotros somos ayudantes de Allah. Creemos en Alá; así que sea nuestro testigo de que somos musulmanes.”

De acuerdo con el Corán, no hay duda de que los apóstoles eran musulmanes, bajo Jesús. Pero, qué pasaría si pudiéramos establecer que la enseñanza de los apóstoles difiere radicalmente de las enseñanzas de Mahoma y el Corán? Aquí hay un argumento para reflexionar:

Premisa 1: Si los discípulos originales de Jesús rechazaron las principales enseñanzas islámicas, el Islam es falso.

Premisa 2: Los discípulos originales de Jesús rechazaron las principales enseñanzas islámicas.

Conclusión: Por lo tanto, el Islam es falso.

Para que un musulmán escape de la conclusión, él o ella tiene que rechazar una de estas dos premisas. ¿Qué posibles rutas de escape podrían estar disponibles? Una ruta de escape podría ser decir que los discípulos de Jesús fueron engañados o [que estaban] de alguna manera equivocados —o tal vez corrompieron el verdadero mensaje de Jesús en algún momento después de esto. O tal vez incluso los 12 discípulos de Jesús ni siquiera están en mente aquí. Esta ruta de escape, sin embargo, es bloqueada por la Sura 61:14,

Oh, vosotros que creéis, sois partidarios de (la religión de) Alá, así como Isa, hijo de María, dijo a los Discípulos: “¿Quiénes son mis partidarios de Allah?” Los Discípulos dijeron: “Somos partidarios de (la religión de) Allah”. Así creyó un grupo de los hijos de Isra’il, y otro grupo no creyó. Entonces apoyamos a los que creyeron en contra de su enemigo, y se convirtieron en vencedores.

Por lo tanto, tal especulación se ejecuta en el siguiente problema: los apóstoles de Jesús fueron los vencedores que subieron al dominio debido al apoyo de Alá para ellos, indicando que su mensaje fue aprobado por Alá. Esto queda claro también cuando leemos en la Sura 3:55:

Cuando Allah dijo: “Oh Isa, yo te tomaré en tu totalidad y te elevaré hacia Mí, y para limpiarte de los incrédulos, y para colocar a los que te siguen por encima de los que no creen hasta el Día de la Resurrección.

En forma silogística, el argumento puede resumirse de la siguiente manera:

Premisa 1: Hubo vencedores que subieron al dominio quienes Alá apoyó (Sura 3:55, Sura 61:14).

Premisa 2: O los vencedores fueron los apóstoles de Jesús o no fueron los apóstoles de Jesús.

Premisa 3: Si no fueron los apóstoles de Jesús, entonces veríamos los registros de estos vencedores no apóstoles.

Premisa 4: No vemos tales registros.

Premisa 5: Por lo tanto, es falso que los vencedores no fueron apóstoles.

Conclusión: Por lo tanto, los vencedores fueron los apóstoles de Jesús.

Por lo tanto, cuando leemos la Sura 3:52, podemos estar seguros de que se está refiriendo a los discípulos. Allah bendijo a estas personas. Fueron los apóstoles los que Alá trajo al dominio y vindicó.

Pero ahora un musulmán podría preguntar: “¿Cómo sabes que los apóstoles rechazaron las enseñanzas islámicas básicas?”

Es a esta pregunta que ahora vuelvo mi atención.

Considere a Pablo, el apóstol.

Ahora bien, entiendo que el apóstol Pablo no fue uno de los discípulos originales de Jesús, sino que se convirtió al cristianismo siguiendo una visión de Jesús en el camino a Damasco en Hechos 9. Pero voy a argumentar que Pablo fue aprobado por los discípulos originales de Jesús. Esto sugiere fuertemente que su visión acerca de la naturaleza de Dios e identidad y misión de Cristo coincidió con la de los discípulos. En cualquier caso, aun en ausencia de la evidencia que estoy a punto de presentar, si tomamos en serio la Sura 3:55 y la Sura 61:14, entonces la enseñanza de Pablo debe haber sido consistente con los discípulos, porque el cristianismo que prevalecía es lo que los musulmanes polemistas consideran que es el cristianismo paulino —y el Corán nos dice que los verdaderos seguidores de Jesús fueron los que lograron el dominio y se convirtieron en los vencedores.

¿Estoy presentando una idea absurda con esta disputa? No; de hecho, estoy en buena compañía. Considere las siguientes citas de respetados comentaristas coránicos:

El renombrado comentarista del siglo XIII, Al-Qurtubi, dice de Sura 61:14:

“Se dijo que este versículo fue revelado acerca de los apóstoles de Jesús, que la paz y la bendición sean con él. Ibn Ishaq declaró que de los apóstoles y discípulos que Jesús envió (para predicar) se encontraban Pedro y Pablo que fueron a Roma; Andrés y Mateo que fueron a la tierra de los caníbales; Tomás que fue a Babel en las tierras orientales; Felipe que fue a África; Juan fue a Dacsos, que es la tribu a la que pertenecían los durmientes de la cueva; Jacobo fue a Jerusalén; Bartolomé fue a las tierras de Arabia, específicamente Al-Hijaz; Simón que fue a los bárbaros; Judas y Barthas que fueron a Alejandría y sus regiones circundantes”.

Allah los apoyó (a los apóstoles) con evidencia para que prevalecieran (thahirin) lo que significa que se convirtieron en el grupo al mando. Tal como se dice, “Un objeto apareció en la pared” lo que significa que es claramente visible (alu-wat) en la pared. Alá, que es glorificado y exaltado, conoce mejor la verdad y para Él es el regreso y la retirada.

El Sirat Rasul Allah de Ibn Ishaq (traducción al español, página 653), la biografía más antigua de Muhammad, dice lo siguiente:

“Aquellos a quienes Jesús hijo de María envió, los discípulos y los que vinieron después de ellos, en la tierra fueron: Pedro el discípulo y Pablo con él, (Pablo pertenecía a los seguidores y no era un discípulo) a Roma. Andrés y Mateo a la tierra de los caníbales; Tomás a la tierra de Babel, que está en la tierra del oriente; Felipe a Cartago y África; Juan a Éfeso, la ciudad de los jóvenes de la cueva; Santiago a Jerusalén, que es Aelia la ciudad del santuario; Bartolomé a Arabia, que es la tierra de Hijaz; Simón a la tierra de los bereberes; Judá, que no era uno de los discípulos, fue puesto en lugar de Judas”.

O considere la Historia de Al Tabari (Volumen IV, página 123):

“Entre los apóstoles, y los seguidores que vinieron después de ellos, fueron el apóstol Pedro y Pablo que era un seguidor y no un apóstol; fueron a Roma. Andrés y Mateo fueron enviados al país cuyo pueblo es caníbal, una tierra de negros, pensamos; Tomás fue enviado a Babilonia en el este, Felipe a Qayrawan (y) Cartago, es decir, África del Norte. Juan fue a Éfeso, la ciudad de los jóvenes de la cueva, y Santiago a Jerusalén, es decir Aelia. Bartolomé fue enviado a Arabia, a saber, el Hijaz; Simeón a la tierra de los bereberes en África. Judas no era entonces un apóstol, así que su lugar fue tomado por Ariobo. Él ocupó el lugar de Judas Iscariote después de que este último había perpetrado su hecho”.

Así, Al-Qurturbi, Al Tabari e Ibn Ishaq todos son llevados a alabar al apóstol Pablo como una consecuencia directa de estos versículos.

Hay varias razones historiográficas independientes para pensar que la enseñanza de Pablo fue aprobada por los discípulos originales de Jesús. Entre ellos se encuentran los siguientes:

Razón 1: Los individuos en la iglesia primitiva, quienes son comúnmente asociados con los apóstoles (Policarpo, Clemente e Ignacio) hablan aprobando sus cartas.

Razón 2: La iglesia primitiva nunca muestra el conocimiento de una disensión fundamental entre Pablo y Pedro sobre asuntos pertinentes a la cristología y la naturaleza de Dios, a pesar de que a menudo lo mencionan junto al apóstol Pedro.

Razón 3: Pablo nos dice en Gálatas 2 que subió a Jerusalén con Bernabé para confirmar que el evangelio que estaba predicando a los gentiles era el mismo que el suyo. Es improbable que haya inventado esta historia para apoyar su propia autoridad apostólica, porque en el mismo capítulo también menciona la disputa que ocurrió entre Pablo y Pedro en cuanto a la circuncisión cuando Pedro vino a Antioquía.

Razón 4: Pablo hace un comentario desinteresado sobre el Apóstol Santiago en Gálatas 1: 18-19:

Después de tres años subí a Jerusalén para visitar a Cefas y permanecí con él quince días, pero no vi a ninguno de los otros apóstoles, excepto a Santiago, hermano del Señor.

Mire el comentario desinteresado de Pablo sobre Santiago. Si Pablo era un verdadero Apóstol inventando historias, no esperaríamos que él mencionara a Santiagp de pasada sin hacer un punto. El hecho de que Pablo simplemente menciona a Santiago en esta manera de hablar, persuade a los historiadores de que Pablo estaba recordando los hechos reales acerca de su asociación con la iglesia primitiva y los Apóstoles.

Razón 5: Pablo escribe en 1 Corintios 15: 9-11,

“Porque yo soy el menor de los apóstoles, indigno de ser llamado apóstol, porque perseguí a la iglesia de Dios, pero por la gracia de Dios soy lo que soy, y su gracia para mí no fue en vano. He trabajado más duro que cualquiera de ellos, aunque no fue por mí, sino por la gracia de Dios que está conmigo. Y si yo o ellos, así predicamos y creíamos”.

Así Pablo parece endosar a los otros apóstoles e incluso llega a decir que se considera menos que el más pequeño de ellos. Pablo parece asumir que los cristianos corintios también creyeron que su mensaje era consistente con los otros apóstoles. Esto sugiere fuertemente que Pablo y los otros apóstoles generalmente acordaron los temas centrales de la fe.

La teología de Pablo estaba radicalmente en desacuerdo con la enseñanza central islámica, ya que Pablo afirmó no sólo la deidad de Cristo, sino también la crucifixión y la resurrección (todas ellas expresamente rechazadas por el Islam).

Para los propósitos de la discusión, apelaré solamente a las obras incontestadas de Pablo, las obras que todos los historiadores cristianos y no cristianos conceden por unanimidad fueron escritas por él.

En Filipenses 2: 5-11, Pablo cita lo que es probablemente un himno cristiano temprano:

“Haya, pues, en vosotros este sentir que hubo también en Cristo Jesús,  el cual, siendo en forma de Dios, no estimó el ser igual a Dios como cosa a que aferrarse, sino que se despojó a sí mismo, tomando forma de siervo, hecho semejante a los hombres; y estando en la condición de hombre, se humilló a sí mismo, haciéndose obediente hasta la muerte, y muerte de cruz. Por lo cual Dios también le exaltó hasta lo sumo, y le dio un nombre que es sobre todo nombre, para que en el nombre de Jesús se doble toda rodilla de los que están en los cielos, y en la tierra, y debajo de la tierra;  y toda lengua confiese que Jesucristo es el Señor, para gloria de Dios Padre”.

La crucifixión de Jesús ya está en desacuerdo con la teología islámica (ver Sura 4: 157-158). Además, existen al menos tres razones por las que este texto enseña la deidad de Cristo:

Razón 1: Se dice que Cristo estaba “en la forma de Dios” y luego “tomó la forma de un siervo” —él está poniendo a los dos en la misma categoría, ya que utiliza la palabra griega morphé (que significa “forma”), En ambas cláusulas.

Razón 2: El contexto del pasaje nos instruye a emular la humildad de Cristo. Pero no es un acto de humildad por parte de una criatura el no buscar ser como Dios.

Razón 3: Los versículos 10 y 11 se enlazan con Isaías 45:23: “Ante mí [es decir, Yahweh] toda rodilla se doblará, toda lengua jurará lealtad.”

Para dar otro ejemplo, Pablo parece expandirse sobre el shema (de Deuteronomio 6: 4) en 1 Corintios 8: 6, identificando a Jesucristo como el Señor del shema:

Pero para nosotros hay un solo Dios, el Padre, de quien son todas las cosas y por quien nosotros somos, y un solo Señor, Jesucristo, por medio del cual son todas las cosas y por el cual somos.

Esto sugiere, por extensión, que los discípulos de Jesús también afirmaron la deidad de Cristo. También parece improbable que hubieran llegado a una conclusión tan radical si Jesús mismo no se hubiera identificado de esta manera, especialmente dadas (1) las expectativas mesiánicas judías; (2) el concepto judío de Dios; y (3) las connotaciones de crucifixión a un judío.

Para concluir, no hay razón para pensar que los discípulos de Jesús eran musulmanes como el Corán sostiene y en cambio tenemos todas las razones para pensar lo contrario. Esto presenta otro desafío formidable a la religión islámica y da una orden aún más racional para su rechazo.

 

Traducido por Jairo Izquierdo.

/by
Resurrection Jesus Easter

A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection

By Evan Minton

I’ve always struggled with brevity some of my apologetic presentations. The trick is to keep it a decent length while simultaneously not skimming on important facts. A handful of my blog posts are kind of long due to my struggle, but fortunately, the vast majority of them are at a length you would want a blog post to be. Given that it’s Easter weekend, I thought I would rewrite one of my articles on the resurrection specifically for the person who wants to get his information quickly. That said, I’ll still leave the longer ones up for those interested in a more in-depth study.

In this blog post, I plan on giving an overview of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Contrary to popular opinion, belief in Jesus’ resurrection isn’t something one has to believe on blind faith alone, one can confirm the resurrection on the basis of powerful historical evidence. The resurrection is important because if Jesus has risen from the dead, then God has put His stamp of approval on everything Jesus said and did. God agrees with Jesus’ ministry. This means that we can put great stock into anything Jesus taught about, such as His claim to be God, the existence of angels and demons, the existence of Heaven and Hell, and that He Himself is the only way to get to Heaven. It gives good reason to believe The Bible is divinely inspired, for Jesus Himself quoted from the Old Testament and taught that it is the word of God, and He commissioned apostles who would go on to write The New Testament. After all, who would be in a better position to know whether or not the Old Testament is divinely inspired than God Himself, and since God chose Matthew, Paul, Peter, etc. it makes sense to think that God put His stamp of approval on their teachings as well. So, if Jesus rose from the dead, that gives good grounds for believing in the inspiration of The Bible and for accepting whatever The Bible teaches.

Historical Method, Not “Using The Bible To Prove The Bible”
I want to make it clear that while I’ll be appealing to The New Testament at certain points in this article, I won’t be “quoting from The Bible to prove The Bible”. No, instead I’ll be applying the historical method to the New Testament documents to determine certain aspects as fact just as I would any other ancient document. Historians apply what is known as “the criterion of authenticity” to secular documents all the time in order to determine whether something is historical or not. That’s what I and many other Christian Apologists do with The New Testament. We apply historical principles like multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, the principle of enemy attestation, etc. to the gospels to argue that X, Y, and Z are more likely to be historical than not. And by the way, even non-Christian historians, like Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann, take this approach with The New Testament when trying to gather information about the historical Jesus, and have come to many of the same conclusions that Christian historians have via the same arguments. They are certainly not presupposing The Bible’s divine authority when they argue, for example, that Jesus’ tomb was most likely empty because it would have been embarrassing for the gospel authors to have women as witnesses to the empty tomb.

When I argue for Jesus’ empty tomb, or for the postmortem appearances, I do not quote the New Testament as scripture and declare that since it’s in The Bible, it must be true. Rather, I presuppose that The New Testament documents are purely human documents for the sake of the argument, I apply the same principles or criteria of authenticity to the text, and when one does that one comes up with certain pieces of data which I think can only make sense in light of the hypothesis: God raised Jesus from the dead.

Two Step Process To The Resurrection Inference 
In the case for the resurrection, there are two steps.

1: What Are The Facts To Be Explained?
2: What Is The Best Explanation Of The Facts?

Fact 1: Jesus Died By Crucifixion

*Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion is multiply attested in 7 independent documents. 4 of those sources are secular, 3 of them are from The New Testament.
Secular Sources — Josephus, Tacitus, Mara-Bar Sarapian, Lucian Of Samosata.
NT Sources — The Synoptic Gospels, The Gospel Of John, Paul’s Epistles.

This makes it overwhelmingly more probable that Jesus’ crucifixion is an event of history. It is statistically impossible for 7 independent sources to all make up the same story. Denial of crucifixion’s historicity entails that 7 sources fabricated the same lie independent of each other.

*Jesus’ crucifixion is attested to by sources hostile to Christianity (i.e Tacitus and Lucian). 
These sources would have nothing to gain by saying Jesus’ crucifixion really happened if it didn’t.  In fact, they are ridiculing Christianity in the very same context of their passages referring to the crucifixion of Jesus.

*Historical Fit makes it plausible that Jesus died by crucifixion.
Secular History attests to the fact that Romans crucified people in the first century. That Jesus was crucified fits well with what we know of first century crucifixions.

Fact 2: The Empty Tomb

*The Jerusalem Factor
If Jesus’ body was not absent from the tomb, the enemies of Christianity could have easily stomped out the movement by removing Jesus’ body from the tomb and showing it to everyone. If they did that, Christianity would have died before it even began. It did not die back then. We can infer from this fact that they did not take Jesus’ body out of the tomb in order to parade it down the street to prove to everyone that the resurrection claims of the disciples were false. Why didn’t they do this? Most likely because Jesus’ body was not even in the tomb to be taken out.

*All four gospels feature women as witnesses to the empty tomb.
Women were considered second class citizens back then and their testimony was considered worthless. The empty tomb narrative is most likely historical because it would have been awkward for the early church to have women as the chief witnesses when their testimony wasn’t considered valid back then. They would have made males the first ones on the scene if they were just conjuring up this narrative. So, by the principle of embarrassment, we know that the tomb of Jesus was empty.

*The enemies of Christianity claimed that the disciples stole the body. This presupposes the empty tomb.
Even though our knowledge of this claim comes from Matthew 28, we can still count this as enemy attestation. Matthew said they were spreading the story “to this day”, which means if Matthew said the pharisees were saying this when they really weren’t, he would be easily found out by those alive “to this day”. Matthew wouldn’t open himself up to such easy falsification. Secondly, people don’t usually respond to accusations unless someone actually made that accusation of them. For example, you wouldn’t deny stealing your friend’s car unless he accused you of stealing it.

Fact 3: Jesus’ Post-Mortem Appearances To The Disciples 

*Paul’s List Of Appearances In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Gives Us Powerful Reason To Believe These Appearances Occurred. 
Paul’s citing an early creed that he himself received. We know this is a creed because he says “For what I received, I passed onto you as of first importance” This is ancient rabbinic language employed whenever oral tradition was being passed on. Plus, Paul’s word usage in verses 3-8 is foreign to Paul in the rest of his epistles. On top of that, Paralellism (long sentence followed by a short sentence followed by a long sentence again) implies that this is a creed since this structure was common to oral tradition to contribute to easy memorization.

Paul most likely got the creed from Peter and James during his fact-finding mission that he recounts in Galatians 1:18-19, which would mean this creed goes back to eyewitnesses of the resurrection. That this is when Paul received this creed is plausible from the fact that Peter and James are two individuals explicitly named, plus Paul’s use of “historieasi” which indicates they were talking about recent events.

Therefore, the creed goes back to within only a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. This list of appearances is so early that anyone skeptical about them could question the witnesses to see if the creed were accurate. If these people did not see Jesus as the creed claims, then the cat would be out of the bag and Christianity would be discredited. Many scholars have noted that Paul’s mentioning of many of the witnesses still being alive is most likely a challenge from Paul to question these witnesses, as if Paul were essentially saying “Don’t believe me? Go talk to them yourselves! Go ask them yourselves!”

*The Appearance Narratives In The Gospels Provide Multiple, Independent Attestation Of The Appearances. 
The appearances to the disciples are mentioned in 3 independent sources.

1: 1 Corinthians 15
2: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
3: The Gospel Of John.

It is highly unlikely that three independent sources would all fabricate the same lie. Given that we have at least three sources for the post-mortem appearances to the disciples, we have good grounds for confirming that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.

Fact 4: The Post-Mortem Appearance To Paul

*Saul Of Tarsus was hired by the Jewish Sanhedrin to persecute Christians by beating them, throwing them into prison, stoning them to death, etc. 
The Principle of Embarrassment makes it highly likely that he was indeed a persecutor. People don’t make up horrible things about themselves, and usually, don’t admit them even if they’re true. Yet in 3 different epistles, Paul says that he was a harsh persecutor of Christians before his conversion (see 1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13, 1 Timothy 1:13).

Multiple Attestation — Both Paul’s epistles and the book of Acts say that Paul was a persecutor of the church.

*Saul Converted To Christianity all of a sudden and became an active evangelist who suffered for his faith. 
Multiple Attestation — Paul attests to his own suffering for the sake of the gospel in his epistles. The book of Acts also records Paul’s suffering.

The early church fathers, Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, and several others record the account of Paul’s martyrdom under the emperor Nero.

*Saul — who later became known as Paul — claimed that he went from being a Christian destroyer to being a Christian maker because the risen Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. This is the most reasonable explanation for why he went from being someone who killed Christians to being a Christian himself virtually overnight. 

Fact 5: Jesus’ Post Mortem Appearance To James

*Jesus had a brother named James who did not believe He was God incarnate or the messiah during Jesus’ lifetime. 
Multiple Attestation — The Gospel Of John (chapter 7) and The Gospel Of Mark (chapter 3) both attest to Jame’s skepticism. Very unlikely that they both fabricated the same lie independent of each other.

The Principle Of Embarrassment — Casts Jesus in a bad light given the stigma back then of any Rabbi whose family opposed his teaching. Casts James in a bad light, particularly in John 7 because in John 7, James and Jesus’ other brothers are trying to goad Him into a death trap by showing himself publicly at a feast when they were well aware that the Jewish authorities were seeking to kill Him. Why would John paint James and Jesus’ other brothers in such a bad light if this is not what actually happened?

*A short time after Jesus’ death, James came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead
Multiple Attestation — The book of Acts as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians (Galatians 2:9) reveals that James had become a leader of the church in Jerusalem.

*James was Martyred for his Christian faith
Multiple Attestation — Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement Of Alexandria all record that James were murdered by the Jewish Sanhedrin for his belief in Jesus as the risen Messiah.

*The Most Likely Explanation for why James went from being a skeptic to being a believer virtually overnight is because the risen Jesus appeared to him as 1 Corinthians 15:7 says. 

Conclusion
This is the historical evidence for the 5 facts undergirding the inference to the resurrection. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these 5 facts. It meets all 6 of the standard criteria for confirming a historical theory.

1: It has great explanatory power.
2: It has great explanatory scope.
3: It is plausible.
4: Not ad-hoc.
5: It is in accord with accepted beliefs.
6: It outstrips rival theories in criteria 1-5. None of the naturalistic theories raised over the last 2,000 years to explain these 5 facts are tenable. They all fail.

For a more in-depth treatment, check out chapter 8 of my book “Inference To The One True God”, and the longer article this one is based on, “The Miminal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1”. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q4d761

/by
First-Century Gospels Jesus

Is the Late First-Century Too Late for Eyewitnesses of Jesus to Have Lived?

By Brian Chilton

The more I study the New Testament documents, the more I am convinced that the documents, particularly the Synoptic Gospels, are earlier than expected. Scholars like W. F. Albright and John A. T. Robinson—both who are not necessarily conservative in their approach but respected in their field—date the NT texts much earlier than even most conservative scholars do. Norman Geisler notes,

“Known for his role in launching the “Death of God” movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held. Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from before 40 to after 65. This would mean that one or two Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testament documents beyond reasonable doubt.”[1]

Even so, most conservative scholars would date the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the Apocalypse (i.e., Revelation) to the latter quarter of the first-century. Is this too late for eyewitnesses to have survived? Can we legitimately expect that eyewitnesses of Jesus in the 30s lived into the 80s and 90s? Actually, the answer is a surprising and resounding, yes! New Testament scholar, Craig Blomberg, explains,

“Many babies, children, and young adults in the ancient world died because of rampant disease without modern medicine. An ‘average’ is not a maximum upper limit; it is a figure arrived at by adding a group of numbers together and dividing by the number of elements in the group. Records from all over the ancient world describe a considerable number of people living into their fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, and occasionally beyond 100 [Pirke Aboth 5.24]. The percentage of the population in any given place and time that did so was noticeably smaller than it was in developed countries today, and that percentage shrank even faster from one decade of life to the next than it does today. But nothing precludes Matthew, Mark, and Luke from having lived into their seventies.”[2]

Scholars unanimously agree that the New Testament was completed by the end of the first-century. Therefore, even if it is true that a large portion of the New Testament was completed in the late first-century, it is completely possible that a large body of Jesus’s eyewitnesses were still alive to check the veracity of the documents. Consider this: if the apostle John was 20 when Jesus died and resurrected in AD 33, then he would have been a mere 72-years-old in AD 85, the date when most scholars hold that the Fourth Gospel was written. With Blomberg’s research, it is completely feasible to accept that John could have lived to that age. Thus, we have further reasons for accepting the New Testament’s reliability as eyewitnesses could have lived even towards the end of the New Testament’s completion.

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

/by