Christianity Superstition

Is Christianity a Form of Superstition?

By Al Serrato

Superstition is as old as man. An incomplete picture of why things work the way they do fuels the imagination to conjure up hidden forces at work behind the scenes. Pull back the curtain and perhaps one will find an “all-powerful” being at work pulling the strings. Accessing – and eventually perhaps cajoling or influencing that being – can easily become the basis for a religious belief system.

Does Christianity fall into this same category? Some unbelievers, observing the behavior of professional athletes, might believe that superstition is at play. Praying and acknowledging one’s deity, they assume, is a way of seeking to influence the outcome of the contest. For some, it seems like a cheap – and silly – trick.

But this is not what Christian players are doing when they acknowledge God, nor is it what a mature devotion to Christianity would include.

Some non-believers who consider this behavior will ask themselves a very basic question: will becoming a Christian “improve” my life? Is it a ticket to greater wealth and prosperity, better relationships, a future filled with every type of goodness and blessing? For many, this seems too good to be true, but they pursue it hoping for the best; for others, it appears to be a shell game or cheap con, and they reject it without ever considering what it really entails.

The nutshell answer is: probably yes. In most cases for most people, developing a relationship with God in which you accept His gift and then living a life that reflects His will, as best you can achieve it, will improve your life in some important and significant ways. But having a “better” life is a by-product of belief and not the main point of devoting one’s life to Jesus.

If prosperity or other rewards become the main point, Christianity begins to be marketed as a product, a method of achieving some desirable end. A person identifies a need in his or her life and Christianity fills that need, the way any product might do. But this is not the message of Christianity. The Bible is not a “how to” manual on achieving financial or worldly success. It does not promise riches in the here and now, nor an end to all hardship… nor a victory in every football contest. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the early fathers of the church, and their followers could have attested. (Except of course for the football part.)

In short, Christianity tells the story of man’s broken relationship with his Creator. It claims to speak the truth about the nature of God and of this broken relationship and what is needed to fix it. The Old Testament provides the backdrop as God prepares a people to serve as the vehicle for redemption. Jesus comes – not to make my life profitable or more fulfilling in some modern sense or to help me nail down a spot in the Super Bowl- but to fulfill the ancient prophecies, to give His life as ransom for us, and to thereby restoring our relationship with the Father.

Christianity should be assessed on its merits – are its claims true? – not on what it can achieve for you. The Apostle Paul said as much when he said that we are to be pitied as fools if Christ did not rise from the dead. Everything rests on that truth claim. Once we see that Christ did rise, and we place our trust in Him, He will do a work in us and will eventually welcome us into His Kingdom. But Paul himself remained physically afflicted, and there is no reason to believe that by following Christ, our problems will disappear.

We will, however, look at them differently, and by living Biblical values, we will probably have a better life than we might otherwise have had – and certainly a more fulfilling one.

 

Original Blog Post: http://bit.ly/2ABUIBT

 

/by
Wrote Letters John

¿Quién escribió las cartas de Juan?

Por Brian Chilton

El sitio web ha dedicado un tiempo considerable a explorar la identidad de los autores de los textos del Nuevo Testamento. Este viaje continúa mientras exploramos las tres cartas atribuidas a Juan. ¿Quién era la persona llamada Juan detrás de estas cartas?

Wrote Letters John

Autor

La iglesia primitiva atribuyó casi unánimemente a las tres cartas de Juan al apóstol Juan. No fue hasta los tiempos modernos que se prestó seria atención a la idea de dos Juanes: uno el apóstol Juan y el otro un Juan diferente conocido como el “anciano”. En Juan 2 y 3, el autor menciona que él es el anciano. Algunos también han contemplado la idea de una escuela juanina que conservó las enseñanzas de Juan y escribió las cartas dando crédito al anciano apóstol.

La confusión entre el apóstol y el anciano se encuentra en la declaración de Papías tal como fue preservada por Eusebio que dice:

Pero no voy a negarme a dejar de lado, junto con mis interpretaciones, las instrucciones que recibí con cuidado en cualquier momento de los ancianos, y que guardé con cuidado en mi memoria, asegurándome al mismo tiempo de su verdad. Porque no me complací, como la multitud, en los que hablaban mucho, sino en los que enseñaban la verdad; ni en aquellos que relataron mandamientos extraños, sino en aquellos que ensayaron los mandamientos dados por el Señor a la fe, y procediendo de la verdad misma. Si, entonces, alguien que había asistido a los ancianos vino, pregunté minuciosamente después de sus dichos: lo que dijeron Andrés o Pedro, o lo que dijo Felipe, o por Tomás, o por Santiago, o por Juan, o por Mateo, o por cualquier otro de los discípulos del Señor, 2025 lo que dicen Aristón y el presbítero Juan, los discípulos del Señor. Porque imaginé que lo que se obtendría de los libros no era tan provechoso para mí como lo que provenía de la voz viva y permanente.[1]

La opinión con el mejor apoyo, sin embargo, es que Juan el apóstol y Juan el anciano son la misma persona.

Las cartas de Juan, particularmente la primera carta, tienen una similitud notable con el Evangelio de Juan. La evidencia de la autoría apostólica del Cuarto Evangelio es bastante fuerte. Por lo tanto, la correlación entre el Evangelio y las cartas demuestra una alta probabilidad de que Juan el apóstol también haya escrito las cartas junto con el Evangelio.

Además de la asociación que sostiene el Evangelio de Juan con las cartas, las fuentes del segundo siglo sugieren fuertemente que Juan el apóstol sirvió como pastor en Éfeso, viviendo hasta el gobierno del emperador Trajano en el año 98. George Beasley-Murray observa:

“Juan, el discípulo del Señor, que se apoyó en su pecho, también publicó el Evangelio mientras vivía en Éfeso en Asia” (Adv. Haer. 3.1, 2). El “discípulo” es claramente el apóstol Juan, quien se identifica con el “discípulo amado” del Evangelio. Ireneo también reconoció la autoridad de la iglesia en Éfeso, ya que “fue fundada por Pablo, y Juan vivió allí hasta el tiempo de Trajano” (3.3, 4). Este testimonio es el más significativo a la vista de la relación de Ireneo con Policarpo, quien fue martirizado en su vejez en 155 d.C.[2]

A la luz de la fuerte evidencia antigua, uno puede afirmar con confianza que Juan escribió las cartas que se le atribuyeron en Éfeso. Es posible que Juan usara un amanuense para escribir el Evangelio y la primera carta y escribiera Juan 2 y 3 con sus propias manos. No obstante, Juan es claramente el autor de los cuatro documentos.

Fecha

Dado que uno puede alinear los documentos atribuidos a Juan y al mismo tiempo señalar que el apóstol ministró en Éfeso mientras vivió hasta el año 98 d.C., el Evangelio y las cartas se pueden vincular con seguridad a mediados de los 80 hasta mediados de los 90.

Propósito

1 Juan fue escrita para guiar a los cristianos hacia la verdadera doctrina y ayudarlos a evitar creencias y acciones falsas. En 1 Juan, Juan se enfoca en la verdad de Cristo (1: 1-4), el estilo de vida del creyente auténtico (1: 5-2: 14), la relación del creyente con aquellos fuera de la iglesia (2: 15-27), junto con una exhortación personal a los creyentes a amarse unos a otros y a brillar la luz de Dios en sus vidas (2: 28-5: 21).

2 Juan es una carta más personal escrita para la iglesia de Éfeso. Juan le ordena a la iglesia que “(1) caminen en la verdad, (2) obedezcan los mandamientos de Dios, (3) se amen los unos a los otros y (4) guarden las enseñanzas de Cristo y no sean engañados por el anticristo”[3] Juan saluda y bendice a los creyentes (1-3), exhorta a los creyentes a amar (4-6), advierte de los falsos maestros (7-11), y planea una visita a las iglesias locales en el área (12-13) .

3 Juan al igual que 2 Juan es una carta personal. Mientras que 2 Juan está escrito para la iglesia, 3 Juan se escribe para tres individuos: Gayo (1), el que recibe la carta; Diótrefes (9), un alborotador en la iglesia; y Demetrio (12), el que lleva la carta a Gayo. En 3 Juan, el apóstol saluda a Gayo (1-2), elogia a Gayo por defender la verdad (3-4), discute los problemas con Gayo (5-12) y discute su futura visita con Gayo (13-14).

Las cartas de Juan son bastante poderosas e importantes para enseñar acerca de la naturaleza de Dios y de la postura del creyente durante tiempos difíciles. Todos harían bien en tomarse el tiempo para leer el Evangelio de Juan y sus tres cartas. El apóstol tiene algunas palabras importantes para toda la iglesia para cada generación.

Notas

[1] Eusebio de Cesarea, Historia de la Iglesia, III, 39.

[2] George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), lxvi.

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

 

Brian Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast.Recibió su Maestría en Teología en la Universidad Theology from Liberty (sobresaliente); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics de la Universidad de Biola .Brian está en el programa Ph.D. en Teología y apologética en la Universidad Liberty. Brian es miembro de pleno derecho de la Sociedad Internacional de Apologética Cristiana y la Alianza Cristiana de Apologética. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 14 años y se desempeña como pastor de Huntsville Baptist Church en Yadkinville, Carolina del Norte.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2KeyLNg

/by
Youth Ministry

Give Them The Keys: Making a Youth Ministry a Youth’s Ministry

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Frank interviews Tim Ramsey about his new book. Imagine joining a sports team but never getting a chance to play or even attend the games. Imagine if all you did was talk about the game, and never got to enjoy the benefits of playing it. Many youth groups are like that. They talk a lot about being part of the Kingdom but never help the students actually get in the game to advance the Kingdom. Tim gives us great tips on how to do youth’s ministry the right way!

Get the book here: http://amzn.to/2j86gtb

Tim Ramsey

/by
Christians Bias Believe

Do Christians Have a Bias to Believe?

By Al Serrato

To the skeptic, most Christians – certainly most who appear willing to “defend” their faith – may seem a bit one-dimensional, perhaps in some cases fanatical. They seem so convinced of their views, regardless of how bizarre some of these views seem to the unbeliever. Many conclude, then, that the believer is simply biased in favor of what he wants to believe. He has accepted a “bill of goods” without having struggled over where best to place his trust.

But this is not an accurate description of the faith journey of many believers. Indeed, most go through a period of doubt in which they struggle with what they were taught in childhood. That was certainly my experience. Having been raised in the Catholic Church, I was taught doctrines and rituals which were both mysterious and comforting. Until I began law school, though, these beliefs went largely unchallenged, leaving me unprepared to defend what I thought was “the truth.” Encountering highly intelligent people who were not afraid to point out why they viewed my faith as foolish, I began to believe that all religions were pretty much the same – they could provide comfort, but they weren’t really true. Truth, after all, was a relative concept, dependent on one’s point of view and cultural narrative. And science had pretty much shown that there isn’t a need for God. While faith might make a good crutch when bad things happen, it probably did more harm than good in the long run, because it was at odds with reason. These conclusions just happened to coincide with an increasing desire to put the restrictions of Christianity behind me and to put aside whatever feelings of guilt would arise from time to time.

As I look back on it now, I realize that despite my upbringing, I did not actually have a bias to believe in Christianity. My bias, as I was discovering, was to take the path of least resistance. As a practicing Christian, I needed to conform my behavior to something outside myself, depriving me of a certain amount of freedom. Removing the restrictions of religion would allow me to remain “moral” but would also allow me to define morality any way I chose. After all, with no law-giver, there was no reason to comply with rules that I did not make for myself.

Since I knew many believers, I would raise these issues with them, hoping that they could respond to my challenges. Most, unfortunately, would talk about faith as a feeling or remind me that the Church’s teachings were infallible. They would suggest that my skepticism was not pleasing to God and raise the specter of eternal punishment. In short, they were telling me that I was wrong, but not why I was wrong. I would just have to take it “on faith.” They were wrong: I wasn’t persuaded by discussions of how faith would make me “feel” (I already felt good in church) or with threats of hell for failing to follow someone else’s rituals. I also wasn’t satisfied with “infallible teachings.” If in fact the world was broken down into “faith” and “reason” – as my law school friends maintained – then I knew I would side with reason.

I thought this conclusion would satisfy me, but in the end, it did not. Two things continued to nag at me. The first was this concept of truth. As a criminal investigator and then a prosecutor, I had chosen a field in which truth actually mattered. After all, it just wasn’t okay to get a conviction if I had the wrong guy. I became increasingly fascinated with and drawn to the concept of objective truth. From my legal training, I also had developed a strong interest in reason. Concepts such as “the reasonable person” standard and proof beyond a “reasonable doubt” showed that the thinkers who laid the foundation for the orderly society we developed put a great amount of stock in the mind’s ability to reason to a just result. I didn’t know how this applied to religion, and I still suspected that no one religion had the corner on truth, but I made a commitment to myself that I would follow truth where it led. In other words, I realized that I had some strong motivations to ignore the truth, especially when it seemed inconvenient, and I made a promise to myself that I would seek the truth and submit to it, to the best of my ability.

The second problem nagging at me was with the notion that only simpletons adhered to religion. As I learned more about history, I realized that some of the greatest and most powerful thinkers in history grappled with the same questions that troubled me and that they concluded that there is, in fact, a God and that he is the God described in the Bible. These included not just philosophers, but also the scientists who essentially developed what we recognize today as Western science. The more I learned, the more I realized that treating religious belief as an “opiate for the masses” just wouldn’t fly. There was something there, and I wanted to find out what it was.

In sum, then, my journey began with faith and that faith ran into a brick wall that I thought was “reason.” It ended with the realization that the dichotomy between faith and reason was in fact false. The two are in fact compatible. Christianity was never based on wishful thinking, nor is it dependent solely on “faith.” Instead, it was based on specific truth claims about events which occurred in history, and which were verifiable. This evidence supports a conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead, providing a rational basis to place one’s faith in his message of salvation.

Sadly, the nonbeliever accuses those who have taken this journey of having a closed mind. Quite the contrary is true: while my mind is open – to receiving and evaluating new evidence – given what I have seen so far, I am not ambivalent. Can the skeptic say the same?

It is also worth noting that remaining perpetually “on the fence” – unwilling to reach a firm conclusion – brings with it risks as well. In my next post, I will attempt to lay out just what those are.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Av6bXX

/by
Josephus Gospels John Baptist

Why Do Josephus And The Gospels Contradict Each Other About John The Baptist?

,

By Evan Minton

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was born in A.D 37. In about A.D 90, he wrote his book “Antiquities Of The Jews” in which he writes a history of the Jewish people. In this work, he mentions several individuals who appear in The New Testament such as Jesus, James’, the brother of Jesus, Caiaphas, King Herod the Great, and John The Baptist, among several others. With regards to John The Baptist, Josephus says that King Herod (Antipas) killed him, just as The New Testament does. Josephus writes “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. …. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt — for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise — believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. And so John, out of Herod’s suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.” (Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119)

Josephus said that the reason Herod killed John The Baptist was that Herod feared that John might lead a rebellion against him, and ergo overthrow him. However, this is not what The Bible says. Read Matthew’s account of John’s death in chapter 14. Matthew says that the reason Herod had John killed was that John was speaking out against Herod Antipas’ marriage because it was unlawful under The Old Testament law. Herodias had divorced her husband and married Herod Antipas. Now, this would have been fine if Herod’s brother had died, but since he was still alive, this was considered adultery. Matthew 14 says that it wasn’t Herod’s idea to have John killed, but that he was instead backed into a corner by promising Herodias’ daughter Salome that if she danced for him, he would give her anything she asked for. She danced, and, at the nudging of her mother, asked for John The Baptist’s head delivered on a platter.

So which is it? Who’s right? Is Josephus right or is Matthew right? Well, we might say; “Well, since The Bible is God’s word, it cannot err. So we must conclude that it was Matthew who is right and Josephus who is wrong”. Of course, this answer won’t suffice for the non-believer who doesn’t believe that The Bible is inspired.

Luke 8, I believe, provides us with the answer. Didn’t you ever wonder how would Matthew have gotten this information in the first place? After all, this happened in the privacy of Herod’s home. None of the disciples were there. Jesus wasn’t there. How did Matthew know what was going on behind closed doors? Luke 8:1-3 says “After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (emphasis mine)

Luke tells us that one of Jesus’ followers had a family member who was the manager of Herod’s household. This would provide a plausible explanation for how Matthew could have known what was happening at Herod’s birthday party. Chuza told Joanna about this incident, and then Joanna told Jesus and the disciples. Matthew would then have this information to later record in his gospel.

What we can conclude, then, is that Matthew is right because he had better source information than Josephus! Matthew was actually told by someone who had a family member who worked for Herod Antipas why Herod Antipas had John The Baptist killed. Josephus was only speculating on Herod Antipas’ motive based on what appeared to be the case to him.

Now, one may object “But couldn’t Luke have simply made this Joanna person up simply to give us an explanation for how they knew about Herod’s motives?” My answer: No. It’s unlikely that Luke made up Joanna or lied about her husband working for Herod Antipas simply to answer the question of how they knew Herod Antipas’ motive. For one thing, this small detail isn’t mentioned in the context of Herod Antipas’ party. Herod Antipas’ party isn’t even mentioned in Luke 7, 8, or 9. If Luke provided this small detail simply to solve the problem, why didn’t he do it in the context of the party? Moreover, scholars have made good arguments that Luke’s gospel was written sometime in the 50s’ A.D when all of the eyewitnesses were still around and could have corrected Luke if he were making this up. Though it’s beyond the scope of this blog post to get into dating arguments. Thirdly, this is what New Testament scholars Tim and Lydia McGrew would call “Undesigned Coincidences”. An undesigned coincidence is when one gospel says something that raises a question, but another gospel mentions an incidental little detail that answers it. From what I recall, Luke never talks about Herod Antipas’ banquet. Matthew does, but Luke doesn’t. Matthew raised a question (i.e “how would he have known what went on at Antipas’ place?”) but Luke answered it (i.e “One of Jesus’ followers had a husband who was his household manager”).

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

/by
Ten Divine Attributes Messiah

Ten Divine Attributes of the Messiah

,

By Brian Chilton

Mark Lowry wrote a beautiful song called Mary, Did You Know. The song features questions that Mark would ask Mary if he had the chance. One of the lines inquires, “Mary, did you know . . . that when you kissed your little baby, you’ve kissed the face of God?”. We are in the season of Advent which anticipates the arrival of Christmas. Although the date of Christ’s birth is debated among scholars, Christmas is a time when we celebrate the birth of Christ, no matter the actual date.

Throughout the millennia, Christians have recognized that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. However, may have sought to dispute the claim, holding that Jesus was merely a good man but not God. Groups like Jehovah Witnesses translate their own versions of Scripture, attempting to write off the divine claims made about Christ. Yet, it is impossible not to see the multiple divine attributes of Jesus throughout the pages of Scripture.

A thorough examination of Scripture indicates that Jesus holds multiple divine attributes normally ascribed to God. At least ten Messianic divine attributes are found in Scripture.[1]

  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of life (Jn. 1:4; 14:6).

The divine attribute of life describes the ability to provide life, even eternal life. This kind of life can only be given by one who oneself is eternal.

  • “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (Jn. 1:4).[2]
  • “Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn. 14:6).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of self-existence (Jn. 5:26; Heb. 7:16).

This means that Christ was uncreated and exists by himself alone, an attribute that only God could hold.

  • “For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself” (Jn. 5:26).
  • “. . . who did not become a priest based on a legal regulation about physical descent but based on the power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of immutability (Heb. 13:8).

Immutability means that one is unchangeable. While finite beings can and do change, a necessary infinite being does not.

  • “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of truth (Jn. 14:6; Rev. 3:7).

Titus 1:2 notes that God cannot lie. It is not that God chooses not to lie, but rather that he cannot because it goes against his nature. To claim that God is truth means that God’s essence is sheer truth and possesses no falsehood. Scripture notes that Jesus holds this attribute.

  • “Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn. 14:6).
  • “Write to the angel of the church in Philadelphia: Thus says the Holy One, the true one, the one who has the key of David, who opens and no one will close, and who closes and no one opens” (Rev. 3:7).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of love (1 Jn. 3:16).

God is understood to be omnibenevolent; that is, all-loving. In God, there is no hate if he can be said to be absolute love. Theologians understand that God’s wrath is rooted in God’s love and his holiness. Scripture notes that Jesus holds the divine attribute of love.

  • “This is how we have come to know love: He laid down his life for us. We should also lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters” (1 Jn. 3:16). See also John 3:16.
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of holiness (Lk. 1:35; Jn. 6:69; Heb. 7:26).

God is absolutely holy. Absolute holiness is an all-encompassing purity, in which no evil is possessed. In other words, God is the absolute good. Scripture claims that Jesus holds this divine attribute of holiness which is necessary if he is to redeem humanity from their sin.

  • “The angel replied to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35).
  • “We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn. 6:69).
  • “For this is the kind of high priest we need: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of eternity as seen in this passage and in Jn. 1:1.

God is understood to be eternal. He has no beginning and no end. The Messiah is said to hold the same eternal attribute.

  • “Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times” (Mic. 5:2).
  • “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn. 1:1).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omnipresence (Mt. 28:20; Eph. 1:23).

Omnipresence is the divine ability of God to be everywhere at all times. While Jesus did become monopresent during his time on earth, he is said to have the divine attribute of omnipresence in his eternal state.

  • “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt. 28:20).
  • “And he subjected everything under his feet and appointed him as head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way” (Eph. 1:22-23).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omniscience (Mt. 9:4; Jn. 2:24, 25; Acts 1:24; 1 Cor. 4:5; Col. 2:3).

Omniscience is the divine attribute of God to know all things. This is an extremely deep concept as God knows all things that could be by his natural knowledge, all things that will be by his free knowledge, and all things that would be by his middle knowledge. Jesus is omniscient.

  • “Perceiving their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why are you thinking evil things in your hearts?” (Mt. 9:4-5).
  • “Jesus, however, would not entrust himself to them, since he knew them all and because he did not need anyone to testify about man; for he himself knew what was in man” (Jn. 2:24-25).
  • “Then they prayed, “You, Lord, know everyone’s hearts; show which of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry that Judas left to go where he belongs” (Acts 1:24-25).
  • “So don’t judge anything prematurely, before the Lord comes, who will both bring to light what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the hearts. And then praise will come to each one from God” (1 Cor. 4:5).
  • “In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omnipotence (Mt. 28:18; Rev. 1:8).

Omnipotence is the divine attribute of God that indicates God’s complete power. God has complete authority and ultimate strength. Jesus holds the same attribute.

  • “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Mt. 28:18).
  • “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the one who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

As I have learned from several of my professors at Liberty University, biblical theology must shape our systematic theology. From Scripture, one can clearly see that Jesus is God incarnate. It is unquestionable. That is why I hold that one must accept the divine aspect of Jesus to truly be part of the orthodox Christian faith.

Gary Habermas Explains the High Christology of the Early Historical NT Texts

Lee Strobel on Jesus’s Self-Identification with God

Notes

[1] Many of these references were found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 309.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

Brian G. 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 enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kMBy9n

/by
Christians Soul Biblical Reasons

Should Christians Reject the Soul for Biblical Reasons?

By Jacobus Erasmus

Question

Dear Dr. Erasmus,

Tim Stratton shared your post, Objections to the Existence of the Soul, to the UK Apologetics and Evangelism Facebook group, of which I am a member. In that group, there is a very knowledgeable Christian who does not seem to believe in the existence of a soul yet says he is not a strict materialist or physicalist. I’m sending you a discussion he had with Lenny Esposito in which Lenny posted about atheism’s weakness regarding the lack of a soul and he took exception to it (click here).

So whilst I am a dualist, I do not know how to respond to his assertions. If you have time, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Kind regards,

David

Jacobus’s Response

Thank you for the email, David. When trying to come to a conclusion about the existence of the soul, the Christian must explore the issue from three perspectives, namely, from (1) a theological perspective (what does the Bible say about the soul?), (2) a philosophical perspective (are there good philosophical arguments for/against the soul?), and (3) a scientific perspective (what does science say about the mind?).

Now, your friend seems to address the theological perspective only and does not engage with any philosophical arguments in favour of the soul. He also fails to recognise that most philosophers of mind agree that science (or neuroscience) cannot address the physicalism-dualism debate. Since science studies the physical, it cannot, by its nature, disprove the immaterial. Moreover, both the physicalist and the dualist agree that there is a strong correlation between the mind and the brain. Thus, the fact that Alzheimer’s disease affects the mind in no way supports physicalism; a correlation relationship is not an identity relationship.

It seems, then, that Jocelyn is more concerned about whether Scripture teaches that humans have souls. He thinks that the Bible does not teach or imply that we have souls. How does he arrive at this conclusion? Simply by analysing the various meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words for “soul” and “spirit”. The problem with this approach is that is confuses words with concepts. The same concept may be expressed in various ways with various words. For example, the concept of the Trinity is expressed in the Bible even though the Bible does not use the exact words “the Trinity”. Hence, we are not merely interested in the meaning of the word for “spirit” but we are mainly interested in whether the concept of dualism is explicit or implicit in Scripture.

Now, it seems that the concept that human beings comprise both material and immaterial parts (or are made up of matter/body and spirit/soul) is made clear throughout the Bible:

First, souls do exist because God Himself is a soul or spirit and so too are the angelic beings. Thus, the existence of souls is not impossible according to Scripture.

Second, in 1 Samuel 28, Saul instructs a medium to call the deceased Samuel from Sheol so that Saul could talk to him. Interestingly, the medium does as she is told, and Saul speaks with Samuel’s spirit.

Third, Paul believed that we, as human beings, can exist without our bodies. For example, Paul writes:

“So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8 ESV).

“…as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell” (Philippians 1:20-22 ESV).

“I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.” (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)

Fourth, while on the cross, Jesus said to the thief beside him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus could not have meant that the thief’s body was going to be in paradise, since a grave is no paradise. Rather, Jesus must have meant that the theif’s soul/spirit will experience joy once his body dies.

Fifth, the disciples believed that spirits exist because they thought that Jesus was a spirit when they saw him walking on water (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49).

Sixth, Jesus distinguished between the body and soul and treated them as two different parts of a human: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell”
(Matthew 10:28).

Finally, Jesus’ human body obviously had a soul/spirit, since it was animated with Jesus’ spirit. Consequently, according to Scripture, a human can comprise both matter/body and soul/spirit.

It is very difficult to align the above passages with monism or physicalism. These passages, I believe, clearly imply the concept of dualism.

Kind regards,

Jacobus Erasmus, Ph.D

Postdoctoral researcher

www.JacobusErasmus.com

https://www.facebook.com/DrJacobusErasmus

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nJ1x2z

 

/by
Letter James Authorship

¿Quién escribió la carta de Santiago?

Por Brian Chilton

Como saben, hemos estado examinando la autoría de las cartas del Nuevo Testamento en las últimas semanas. Hasta ahora, hemos aprendido que existen buenas razones para aceptar a los apóstoles Mateo y Juan como autores del Primer y del Cuarto Evangelio; Juan, Marcos como el autor del Segundo Evangelio, quien a su vez sirvió como conservador del testimonio de Simón Pedro; Dr. Lucas, el amado médico y colega de Pablo, como el autor del Tercer Evangelio; Pablo como el autor más razonable de las 13 cartas que se le atribuyen; y muy probablemente Lucas como el autor de Hebreos. ¿Pero qué pasa con la carta atribuida a Santiago? ¿Quién es el candidato más probable para la carta pastoral? Ese es el tema de este artículo.

Letter James Authorship

Fecha

Curiosamente, la carta atribuida a Santiago es probablemente la carta más antigua de todo el Nuevo Testamento. La evidencia sugiere que la carta de Santiago probablemente fue escrita alrededor del año 48 d.C. ya que la carta guarda más un parentesco con la literatura judía de sabiduría que la literatura cristiana más desarrollada. La relación de Santiago con la iglesia de Jerusalén, así como un enfoque completamente judío, nos lleva a creer que la carta fue escrita antes del Concilio de Jerusalén (c. 48 d.C.).

Propósito

Muchos han afirmado, y con razón, que la carta de Santiago es algo similar a la literatura de sabiduría judía que se encuentra en el Antiguo Testamento. La diferencia clave entre Santiago y la literatura de la sabiduría del Antiguo Testamento es que Santiago contiene exhortaciones clave y elementos proféticos que no se encuentran en la literatura de la sabiduría del Antiguo Testamento.[1]

El libro de Santiago es el más práctico de todos los libros en el NT. Santiago es tan práctico que muchos han sugerido una diferencia entre la teología de Santiago y Pablo. Sin embargo, tales diferencias son bastante exageradas. Pablo se enfoca en la gracia, mientras que Santiago se enfoca en las obras. Sin embargo, los dos son mucho más complementarios de lo que los escépticos sugieren. Santiago sostiene que la fe verdadera y genuina conducirá a la acción como uno debería ser un “hacedor de la palabra y no solo oyente” (Santiago 1:22, CSB). Jesús tiene una perspectiva similar cuando señala que aquel que lo ama obedecerá sus mandamientos (Juan 14:15). Por lo tanto, Santiago y Pablo no presentan versiones alternativas del cristianismo. Más bien, su mensaje de obras posteriores a la gracia es complementario.[2]

Autor

Tres personas son candidatas para la autoría de esta primera carta: Santiago el hijo de Zebedeo, Santiago el hijo de Alfeo (también conocido como Santiago el Menor o Santiago el Joven),[3] y Santiago el hermano de Jesús (también conocido como Santiago el Justo). Santiago, el hijo de Zebedeo, no pudo haber escrito la carta cuando murió en el año 44 d. C. (Hechos 12: 2).

Perteneciente a Santiago el hijo de Alfeo, no hay ningún reclamo en la iglesia primitiva de que él haya escrito la carta. No se sabe mucho sobre el paradero de Santiago, el hijo de Alfeo, después del primer ministerio con Jesús. Se cree que Santiago el Menor fue apedreado por las autoridades judías por predicar a Cristo y fue sepultado en el Santuario de Jerusalén.[4] Se dice que Justiniano exhumó el cuerpo de Santiago y colocó sus huesos en la Iglesia de los Santos Apóstoles en Constantinopla en el 332.[5]

Esto deja solo un posible candidato: Santiago, el hermano de Jesús, también conocido como Santiago el Justo. Santiago no era un creyente en Jesús durante el ministerio terrenal de Jesús (Juan 7: 5). Sin embargo, Santiago comenzó a seguir a Jesús después de la resurrección de Jesús de entre los muertos. Él fue incluido entre aquellos a quienes Jesús se apareció después de su resurrección (1 Corintios 15: 7). Santiago fue uno de los primeros líderes de la Iglesia de Jerusalén (Gálatas 2: 9). Santiago murió más tarde al ser empujado fuera del reborde del templo[6] y apedreado por las autoridades judías.[7]  Con el origen de la carta de Jerusalén y el enfoque en la literatura de sabiduría judía, se identifica a Santiago, el hermano de Jesús, como el autor de la carta.

Notas

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

[2] Ver también las ilustraciones de Jesús para frutos buenos y malos en Lucas 6:43.

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

[4]  Ibid., 148.

[5]  Ibid., 148.

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

[7] “Festo estaba ahora muerto, y Albinus no estaba más que en el camino; entonces él reunió al sanedrín de jueces, y trajo ante ellos al hermano de Jesús, quien era llamado el Cristo, que se llamaba Santiago, y algunos otros, [o, algunos de sus compañeros]; y cuando él formó una acusación contra ellos como quebrantadores de la ley, los entregó para ser apedreado.” Josefo, Antigüedades 20.200, en Flavio Josefo y William Whiston, Las Obras De Josefo: Completas E Íntegras (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 538.

 

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/2Aw0Ksg

Traducido por Jairo Izquierdo

/by

Exposing More Contradictions

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

In this brief podcast, Frank tackles some of the inconsistencies of adhering to a worldview that claims we can choose our own gender. He also educates those who claim that one can be “racist” against Islam (Muslims).

Listen also to Exposing Atheists Contradictions (Part 1)

Contradictions

/by
Christians Moms Guidance Faith

If Christian Moms Looked for Guidance as Much as Encouragement, Kids Would Have a Deeper Faith

By Natasha Crain

I haven’t blogged in a few weeks because I’ve been especially busy since the release of Talking with Your Kids about God. Speaking events and interviews take a lot of time! But it’s been a truly encouraging few weeks, as I’ve had the opportunity to hear from the first readers how the book is already impacting the discipleship of their kids and grandkids (you can read almost 70 excellent reviews on Amazon!).

One of the best parts of the book release experience has been my launch team—a group of people who agreed to read a pre-release copy of the book in exchange for their honest review and to help share about the book on social media. These early readers were passionate about getting the word out after reading it. This led to several of them in our Facebook group asking something to the effect of, “I’ve shared with my personal circle, but how do we get more Christian parents—in churches everywhere!—to understand the need for this knowledge? It seems so hard to get people to care about seriously discipling their kids.”

It was both heartening and discouraging to hear the question. It was heartening because it indicated that they felt the sense of urgency I so passionately wanted to convey in the book. It was discouraging because it reminded me of the challenge I have known so well over my years of writing and speaking—it’s tough to get most Christian parents interested in getting equipped to train their kids with an understanding of apologetics (the evidence for the truth of Christianity).

I’ve reflected a lot on this challenge and could say many things about it, but I wanted to share just one reason for it today, as it relates to moms especially: Christian moms often look for encouragement more than guidance.

If you do a survey of popular books, blogs, retreats, and conferences targeted at Christian moms (and reflecting the market demand for this kind of content), you’ll see a predominant theme of general life encouragement. These messages:

Help us find joy in the midst of our “messy” lives (a favorite descriptor).

Let us know it’s normal to be overwhelmed by laundry.

Inspire us to feel we’re doing an important job with our kids, even when cleaning.

Encourage us to find release from various “traps” in our lives.

Demonstrate how we can make the most of small moments in our day.

Confirm that finding balance is difficult.

Relieve our fears that we’re not as good of a parent as we should be.

Remind us that comparing ourselves to other parents is a bad thing.

Let us know we don’t have to be perfect.

These messages are all important. I know what it’s like to feel discouraged by the day-to-day parenting life, both as a working mom and as a stay-at-home mom. I really do. There is a need for these messages.

But when the predominant messages moms consume are words of general encouragement, we create a self-indulgent culture focused on increasing our satisfaction with life rather than our effectiveness as Christian parents.

One of the greatest areas that suffer when this is the case is our kids’ spiritual development.

How Did We Get Here?

My professional background is in marketing, and one of the things marketers know well is that there’s a key difference between a person’s felt needs and their real needs. A felt need is a need that a person feels, but may or may not be something they really need. A real need is a true need a person has, but may or may not be something they’re aware of or agree with.

Felt needs are powerful drivers of behavior. The fact that there is so much content targeting moms with life encouragement readily demonstrates that moms feel that need and have created a market demand for it. And is there any question as to why? Being a mom is HARD! Most of us are thoroughly overwhelmed. I’m personally overwhelmed by the messiness of my house, the incessant fighting between my kids, the reality of getting older, and a lack of free time, amongst many other things.

While “being a mom is hard” sounds like a rather trite declaration, many studies show that Gen X women are particularly stressed, depressed, overwhelmed, and exhausted, with self-reported well-being declining steadily from age 35 to 50. Two recent articles at Oprah.com and ChristianityToday.com discuss how these facts have led to a new kind of midlife crisis for today’s women who are in the thick of their parenting years.

When we’re in a crisis mode (whether we consciously label these feelings as “crises” or not), we’re at a breaking point. You probably know that point well: the one where you feel that if there is ONE MORE THING you have to do, you’re going to scream, panic, or cry.

It’s natural that in this state of mind we’re most interested in finding help to clear our emotional plate. It’s the strongest felt need. Unfortunately, it’s also natural that in this state of mind we are wholly uninterested in anything that tells us we need to be doing more or doing things better.

Yet, given the world our kids are facing today, they need us to do more than most of us are doing for their discipleship…and they need us to do it better.

A Real Need for Guidance

In the introduction to Talking with Your Kids about God, I suggest that there are two key ingredients to discipling our kids: discipline and direction. Direction is the knowledge of what to do and discipline is the commitment to doing it. Discipline comes from within, but direction comes from intentionally identifying the guidance one needs to best do the job.

So why is there such a need to actively seek guidance when it comes to our kids’ spiritual development?

  1. What’s required in disciple-making changes over time?

Disciple-making has always been the process of helping kids become followers of Jesus. But what is involved in that process differs through time. Parents of kids growing up in the 1600s faced different issues than those raising kids in the 1800s and 2000s. We’re striving to help our kids follow the same Jesus throughout those centuries, but there are different obstacles in the path. Today’s challenges are leading unprecedented numbers of kids away from their faith (at least 60 percent of those raised in Christian homes, according to multiple independent studies). We need to ask what our disciple-making process should look like given today’s spiritual environment. That requires more guidance than our personal intuition.

  1. What “worked” for you may not “work” for your kids.

Many moms I talk to are simply repeating whatever discipleship they received as kids in their own family because they don’t know what else discipleship would look like. Oftentimes, this boils down to a trip to church each week, prayers before bedtime, and maybe an occasional devotional. They assume that because they grew up to love Jesus that this is enough for their kids too. This is a dangerous assumption. Kids today will be challenged more often and more deeply on their beliefs than most of us ever were. You simply don’t know how your faith would have developed in similar conditions.

  1. Today’s challenges are predictable, so there’s no excuse for not equipping your kids to understand them.

When I speak, I often begin by asking the room, “How many of you are here today already thinking that our country is becoming an increasingly secular place and that your kids’ faith will likely be challenged because of it?” Every parent raises their hand. But when I ask, “Now take that a step further: How many of you are confident you know specifically what the challenges are, how to effectively talk about those challenges with your kids, and what that means for you as a parent on a daily basis?” I at most will see a couple of hands go up.

As this shows, most parents get as far as feeling the fear of what their kids will encounter but don’t take the next step of looking for guidance on what to do. My goal at those speaking events is to demonstrate that today’s challenges are highly predictable (as I’ve shown in both of my books), and that if we don’t equip our kids to encounter them, we have quite literally failed them without excuse.

Discipleship is a calling for both moms and dads, so I don’t want anyone to read this and think I’m laying the youth exodus from Christianity solely at the feet of moms. But we, as moms, certainly have part of the responsibility. And our collective thirst for and prioritization of encouragement is, of course, just one of many reasons we aren’t better discipling our kids. However, when we see so many moms gravitating to self-help resources, I can’t help but ask:

What if for every book we read on finding balance, we read one on the evidence for God’s existence?

What if for every small group study we did on anxiousness, we did one on discipleship?

What if for every blog post we read on easing mommy guilt, we read one on a common objection to Christianity?

What if for every encouraging Facebook group we joined, we joined one that discusses apologetics and theology?

I will venture an answer to these and similar questions: Kids today would have a deeper faith. Encouragement is great, but it will never compensate for learning what we need to be effective disciplers of our children.

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

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

/by