November 2018 - Page 3 of 3

5 Things Christian Parents Must Do to Raise Godly Children in a Secular World

En los últimos años, he tenido la oportunidad de hablar en varias conferencias cristianas y en iglesias acerca de la importancia de que los padres les enseñen apologética a sus hijos (cómo presentar defensa de la verdad de la fe cristiana). Cuando doy una charla, a menudo empiezo haciendo las siguientes dos preguntas.

Primero, les pregunto a los padres: “¿Cuántos de ustedes han venido aquí sabiendo que nuestro mundo se está volviendo muy secular y que, por esta razón, es probable que la fe de su hijo sea desafiada de alguna manera?”

El cien por ciento levanta la mano… todo el tiempo.

Segundo, les pregunto a los padres: “¿Cuántos de ustedes podrían afirmar que tienen la confianza de que saben específicamente cuáles serán esos grandes desafíos en cuanto a la fe?, ¿cómo tratarlos eficazmente con sus niños, y cómo se traduce eso en las responsabilidades parentales en el día a día?”

El cero por ciento levanta la mano… todo el tiempo.

Durante estos últimos cuatro años en los que he escrito en mi blog acerca de la crianza en los hogares cristianos, he tenido la oportunidad de recibir comentarios de cientos de padres. Esta brecha entre 1) saber que nuestro mundo secular afectará la fe de nuestros hijos y 2) comprender lo que eso significa exactamente para los padres, es casi universal, y con frecuencia, esto provoca temor y frustración: los padres saben que hay un problema, pero no saben cómo solucionarlo.

Esta brecha me llevó a escribir: “Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith” (Mantener a tus hijos del lado de Dios: 40 Conversaciones para ayudarles a edificar una fe duradera). Con este libro, deseo ayudar a los padres a identificar y a comprender 40 de los desafíos más importantes en cuanto a la fe que necesitan abordar con sus hijos para que tales desafíos ya no se vean ambiguos e inmanejables. Pero una vez que los padres logran tener este entendimiento crítico, sigue presente la pregunta: ¿cómo se traduce eso en las responsabilidades parentales?

Aquí hay cinco puntos clave a tener en cuenta.

Los padres deben comprometerse a profundizar continuamente en el entendimiento del cristianismo.

En un mundo secular, los niños con frecuencia se enfrentarán a desafíos en cuanto a su fe: especialmente de los ateos verbales. Los ateos a menudo están bien preparados para presentar sus argumentos en contra de Dios, y del cristianismo en particular. Desafortunadamente, muchos padres cristianos no están igualmente preparados para enseñarles a sus hijos a defender la verdad del cristianismo y proclamar sus creencias. Las preguntas que aparecen a continuación son de suma importancia para que los niños entiendan hoy, pero pocos padres están equipados para tratarlas de manera proactiva: ¿Qué evidencias hay en cuanto a la existencia de Dios? ¿Por qué un Dios Bueno permite la maldad y el sufrimiento? ¿Cómo un Dios amoroso puede enviar gente al infierno? ¿Es la fe en Dios contraria a la razón? ¿Cuáles son los hechos históricos de la resurrección con los que casi todos los eruditos están de acuerdo? ¿Cómo pueden creer los cristianos que los Milagros son posibles? ¿Cómo sabemos que la Biblia que tenemos hoy dice lo que los autores escribieron originalmente? ¿La Biblia apoya la esclavitud, la violación y los sacrificios humanos (como alegan los escépticos)?

En el pasado, cuando la sociedad era más cristiana —al menos nominalmente—, es posible que los padres podían evitar tratar las preguntas más difíciles de la fe con sus hijos (¡no que lo hayan hecho!). Pero los desafíos del presente requieren mucho más de los padres cristianos fieles. Debemos conocer cuáles son los grandes desafíos, equiparnos para hacerles frente y comprometernos a profundizar continuamente el entendimiento de nuestra fe para que podamos guiar a nuestros hijos debidamente.

Los padres deben hacer intencionadamente un “espacio espiritual” en sus hogares.

Por supuesto, no basta profundizar tu propio entendimiento del cristianismo. De alguna manera debes traspasar tu entendimiento a tus hijos, y ese traspaso requiere de un tiempo apartado cuidadosamente. El tipo de conversaciones de fe que necesitamos tener con nuestros hijos hoy (al igual que las preguntas que aparecen en el punto 1) no van a suceder simplemente de manera significativa, a menos que te hagas un espacio espiritual para ellas. Por espacio espiritual, me refiero a un tiempo exclusivo para comprometerse como familia a crecer en el entendimiento y en la relación con Dios. No hay ninguna razón por la que un momento como éste no debe programarse, al igual que todas las demás actividades (menos importantes) de tu vida. Si actualmente no lo estás haciendo, comienza con unos 30 minutos por semana. Es una cantidad de tiempo razonable para cualquier familia, y siempre puedes desarrollarlo a partir de allí.

Los padres deben estudiar la Biblia con sus hijos. De verdad.

Aun cuando has de saber que el estudio de la Biblia es importante, las estadísticas muestran que probablemente no lo estés haciendo: Menos de 1 de 10 familias cristianas estudian la Biblia juntos en una semana determinada. Si tus hijos perciben que has puesto la Biblia a un lado de las cosas importantes, tienen muy pocas razones para verla como el libro de autoridad tal como lo afirmamos nosotros como cristianos. No tiene ningún sentido que digas que la Biblia es la Palabra de Dios si no la tratas como tal.

Mientras tanto, la Biblia es el punto de ataque favorito de los escépticos y nuestros hijos tendrán una enorme oportunidad de oír que es un libro antiguo e irrelevante, lleno de inexactitudes y contradicciones. Si no estudias tu Biblia con tus hijos regularmente, llegará un buen momento en que a ellos ya no les importará lo que tiene para decirles. (Lee mi artículo: “Don’t Expect Your Kids to Care What the Bible Says Unless You’ve Given Them Reason to Believe It’s True” para ver más sobre este tema) [No esperes que a tus hijos les importe lo que la Biblia dice a menos que les hayas dado razones para creer que es verdad].

Los padres deben, proactiva y regularmente, preguntarles a sus hijos qué tipo de consultas tienen sobre la fe.

En un mundo secular, donde los niños constantemente oyen sobre las cosmovisiones que compiten entre sí, te garantizo que continuamente surgirán las preguntas. Pero hay muchas razones por las que los niños no las hacen: a ellos les pueden estar pasando demasiadas cosas, tienen temor a tus reacciones o tal vez, ellos simplemente no están suficientemente interesados como para hablar de ellas.

En nuestra casa, hemos implementado una “noche de preguntas” programada para ayudarles en este respecto. Puedes leer sobre cómo empezar la tuya en mi artículo: “How to Get Your Kids to Ask More Questions about Their Faith” (Cómo hacer que tus hijos te hagan más preguntas acerca de la fe).

Los padres deben hacer a sus hijos las preguntas difíciles que a ellos no se les ocurren.

Si regularmente animas a tus hijos a que te hagan preguntas sobre la fe (ver el punto 4), tendrás un montón de conversaciones geniales. Pero muchas de las preguntas que son importantes para que tus hijos entiendan a la hora de prepararse para enfrentarse al mundo secular son aquellas que tal vez jamás se les han pasado por la mente. Por ejemplo, a la mayoría de los niños no se les ocurre preguntar cómo sabemos que la Biblia que tenemos hoy dice lo que escribieron los autores originales. Pero eso no quiere decir que sea menos probable que se van a encontrar con escépticos que les dirán que la Biblia no es para nada confiable por esa misma razón. Así como no esperamos que nuestros hijos nos hagan preguntas sobre la Segunda Guerra Mundial antes de decidir qué, cómo y cuándo enseñarles acerca de ella, no debemos esperar a que nuestros hijos tengan que enfrentar los desafíos para empezar a hablar de ellos. Indudablemente, van a oír acerca de estos temas de los escépticos en algún punto, así que no hay razón para que no los escuchen de nosotros primero.

Recursos de mayor impacto:

Natasha Crain es una bloguera, autora y oradora nacional que siente pasión por equipar a los padres cristianos para educar a sus hijos en la comprensión de cómo presentar un caso y defender su fe en un mundo cada vez más secular. Es autora de dos libros de apologética para padres: Talking with Your Kids about God (Hablando con tus hijos sobre Dios) (2017) y Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (Manteniendo a tus hijos del lado de Dios) (2016). Natasha tiene un Maestría en marketing y estadísticas en la UCLA y un certificado en apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Ex ejecutiva de mercadotecnia y profesora adjunta, vive en el sur de California con su esposo y sus tres hijos.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2ST55uL

Traducido por Natalia Armando

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

November 7, 2018/by Guest

Redeeming the Kavanaugh Debacle

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Michael Sherrard

People are hurting. People are angry. And truth be told, fear is the likely emotion consuming many right now– fear of losing position and power, fear of retaliation, fear of exploitation. Some fears are appropriate and some fears misplaced, but all fears can become something dangerous if left alone. Christians, now, is the time to quench this spirit of fear and to bring comfort and peace into the midst of this politically hostile mess created by those lacking restraint and discernment. I think we have a tremendous opportunity to redeem this time by forging unity in the fire that has been stoked by the Kavanaugh confirmation, and even more, I think there is a chance for the Gospel to be heard.

It is often difficult to find common ground with opponents. Some issues are polarizing with little common interest. This is not true of the Kavanaugh case. Let me explain. On one side of the fight is a group that is passionately proclaiming that victims of sexual abuse should feel free and safe to come forward and report that they have been attacked. Now, who in their right mind could disagree with this? Is there really anyone in this country that thinks we should create an oppressive society that blames victims and generally distrusts them? Of course not, except for villains and tyrants and middle school bullies. We agree.

Similarly, on the other side of the fight, there is a group passionately proclaiming that we should not allow anyone’s life to be ruined or suffer a severe penalty because of an accusation that cannot be verified. Does anyone disagree with this? Is there really anyone in this country that thinks we should create a whimsical court of public opinion where we feel obligated to choose sides based on who we think is more believable? Surely not, except for villains and tyrants and middle school cool kids. Again, we agree.

I think this is amazing. In one of the most heated political battles among many recent heated political battles, there is an opportunity for unity. Let’s redeem this pain. Let us join together and fight to ensure that we have a world of justice and equity where victims are safe to name their attacker and citizens are protected from false accusations. Are we too stupid of a people to figure this out? Or are we too selfish to pursue what is commonly good instead of using every public event to advance our personal agenda?

Christians, let’s be the peacekeepers here. This is an occasion to put on display the teachings of Jesus and the fruit of His Spirit. Love your political opponent by being self-controlled, patient, gentle, and kind as you listen to another’s point of view. Being heard is a joyful experience that results in peace. Give this gift to others and build bridges instead of lighting them on fire. Take a deep breath, control your emotions, and forge unity with those that are on the other side. Imagine the gift of hope we can give this world right now if we are able to do this. Think of the public good God will have accomplished through us, and think of the gospel implications.

Let us live in such a way that we earn the right to be heard. When we have a well-earned platform, make much of Jesus. Stop griping and complaining that the world is going to Hell. Instead, take advantage of every opportunity to make sure that it doesn’t. I think this is our time to let the light of Christ shine through our patience, discernment, and gentleness. May this be so in all of us.

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yIjd1m

November 6, 2018/by Guest

How the Most Important Attribute of God Relates to Christian Apologetics

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

Many issues that surround Christian apologetics are philosophical in nature. Thus, if we are going to be good apologists we need to be good philosophers. Evangelical apologists and philosophers typically follow the analytic tradition in philosophy, which seeks to answer individual questions or problems, but it lacks a systematic approach to philosophy. For example, instead of starting with a complete philosophical system from which to make sense of things, analytic philosophers tend to take issues individually without trying to connect them with other issues. A systematic approach tries to tie everything together. There are several weaknesses to taking such an aggregate approach to philosophy. One is that positions on certain issues have a tendency to become ad hoc (sort of made up as they go). A systematic approach is more complete and consistent.

Generally, systematic approaches start with metaphysics (one’s view of reality, what it means to be real, etc.). Without going into all of the underlying metaphysics, which would be another article (book!) in itself, I am going to argue that divine simplicity, which is born out of an Aristotelian metaphysics that was adapted for Christian theology by such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas, is a foundational starting point for our view of God but also offers invaluable help to the practice of Christian apologetics. (I have written an article explaining what divine simplicity is, so if you don’t know, you may want to read the article before proceeding.)

Divine Simplicity Strengthens Christian Apologetics in these Areas:

God’s Existence

When arguing for God’s existence, we are making philosophical claims and arguments. Natural science cannot lead us to God without using philosophical categories and moves. (See my article that argues philosophical arguments for God are better than “scientific” ones.) Those who hold to Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics argue that any God arrived at via theistic proofs that do not demonstrate a simple God does not arrive at God period. The reason is that the ultimate cause for all finite being cannot itself be caused, or it wouldn’t be the ultimate cause. There also can’t be an infinite regress of causes in this regard as that is tantamount to having no cause at all. Only a simple God is really God because only a simple God is not composed of parts that need to be put together.

Of course, the notion of divine simplicity doesn’t prove his existence, as that would be circular. My point is that a God that is composed is no God at all. Simplicity then is a conclusion arrived at via metaphysical demonstration regarding God’s existence. (See Thomas Aquinas’ First Way to see how this simple being that is pure existence, or Pure Act, is demonstrated.)

God-talk

If God is thus a simple being, he is very unique. In fact, there is nothing like him. Created being is not like uncreated being. The former is limited, changing, temporal, etc. (except for angels which are in a different category). God is unlimited, unchanging, and eternal. This means that the way we talk about God is not like how we talk about the things in the world. We can know the things in the world directly (for the most part). We know God indirectly through creation. As Paul says in Romans 1, we know about his invisible qualities via the visible creation. Thus, our knowledge of God is not direct, and we must understand that our language does not track him like it tracks the created world. So terms that are applied to creatures don’t mean the same thing when applied to God. In fact, in some ways, they don’t even mean the same thing when applied to other sensible things. For example, when I say something like “my cheeseburger is good,” “my shoes are good,” “my car is good,” or “John is good,” I don’t mean exactly the same thing by “good” in each statement. To be a good cheeseburger is different than to be a good pair of shoes, or car, or person. This is because the concept of “good” is contracted to the referent in question. In other words, the objects have different natures and when I say “x is good” I’m saying that x is a good example of what it means to be a part of that category of things. But the only way we can say something is good is by being able to know the nature of the thing in question. We know cheeseburgers, shoes, cars, and people. However, we don’t have such knowledge of the infinite, uncreated being of God. What does it mean to be a good God? Well, whatever it means, it doesn’t mean that God is good by doing something. He does not measure up to some standard in the way that humans do. To be a good human means that we act the way a human should act. But there is no such scenario with God if he is simple. Humans actualize a potential to be good or virtuous. But God exists necessarily if simplicity is true. He can’t actualize anything since that would make him composed and thus not simple. This way of talking and “knowing” God has profound effects on many issues, including how we understand his attributes, how he relates to us, and the problem of evil.

God’s Attributes

Divine simplicity is foundational for the rest of his attributes. If he is not simple, then he can change, be in time, be affected, etc. In other words, process theology would be true since God would be in a process. This is a flat denial, explicitly or implicitly, of classical/orthodox Christianity. If God is simple, then he is metaphysically perfect, eternal, unchanging, and impassible. Other areas, such as divine omnipotence and omniscience are influenced by simplicity. Whatever divine knowledge would be, if God is simple, then his knowledge could not be passive since that would mean that his knowledge is changing, which requires a composition of what he actually is as opposed to what he could be (e.g., learning new truths). Christian apologetics seeks to defend the traditional God of Christianity. A God of process theology is no such God.

Such a view of God also defends classical theism from views that are held by evangelicals and otherwise mainline Christians. For example, it is in vogue to argue that if God knows changing things like what is going on in the world, then his knowledge is changing and he is thus temporal, changeable, and possible. However, if God is simple, then such cannot be the case. But this view of knowledge supposes that God knows in roughly the same way that humans know. Humans have to “look outside” of themselves and passively receive sense impressions. However, if God is pure act, then he cannot receive anything or be changed in any way. It is this notion of God being a pure act that argues against the notion that God is a bystander just watching the world or creating it and letting it exist on its own apart from him. Such a view is deism. God does not stop being the cause of things after the come into existence. He is the sustaining cause and keeps them in existence. Thus, he doesn’t have to look outside himself in any way. He knows all of creation by knowing himself as the cause of all else that exists. Thus, to know something that is temporal does not make it such that his knowledge must be passive and temporal. Rather, his knowledge is active and even causative. Such distinctions change the contours of philosophical theology, which has an application in apologetics.

Problem of Evil

How can a good God allow evil? This is one of the hardest questions to answer, and it is also probably the most frequently asked question too. Much of the time the question of evil and suffering is brought up against God’s existence since it doesn’t seem like a good God could allow so much evil. One major aspect to this issue is what is known as theodicy, or the justification of God regarding evil. Most evangelicals seem to want to justify God in the face of evil and thereby offer some kind of theodicy. However, if God is simple and a completely different kind of being than humans, we should ask if God is, in fact, a being that can even be good in the moral sense. If he is not a moral being, then offering a theodicy to justify God is a waste of time and also wrongheaded. If simplicity is true, then God is metaphysically perfect in that he is a complete unlimited existence that lacks nothing; but he is not subject to moral standards. He transcends those types of categories. This does not solve every aspect of the problem of evil, but it should show that the argument that a good God wouldn’t allow evil is on the wrong track since God is not subject to moral categories. (See this article on why God is not a moral being and this article on how God is good.)

Conclusion

I hope I have demonstrated that divine simplicity is important not only to a correct philosophical theology but also to apologetics. There are many objections to divine simplicity. I have explained and responded to some of those objections here, so I won’t re-write that material. There are only two views of God: classical theism that maintains divine simplicity, and process theology that denies it.

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

November 6, 2018/by Guest

Uncovering Jerusalem with Archaeologist Eli Shukron

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Frank sits down in his studio with the famous archaeologist Eli Shukron. They talk about Eli’s story and his amazing archaeological discoveries. These discoveries not only authenticate the historical accuracy of the various biblical accounts related to these artifacts and locations but also illuminate the stories we find in the Scriptures. Don’t miss this insightful and fun listen. Enjoy!

November 5, 2018/by Guest

Does The Bible Promote Slavery?

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

“Consult the Bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves.” ¹ This provocative statement by atheist Sam Harris is meant to cast shade on the God of the Bible. After all, if civilized humanity overwhelmingly condemns slavery, why should we worship a God who thinks it’s acceptable?

The question of slavery and the Bible is a bit more complicated than Sam Harris makes it out to be. Unfortunately, Harris and others aren’t interested in providing context or nuance in their books. Instead, they “quote mine” verses and then spin them in such a way to make the slavery laws look as ridiculous and backwoodsy as possible. Furthermore, they assume that biblical slavery and pre-Civil War slavery are essentially the same institutions.

In the remaining space, I’ll attempt to provide some context and nuance for slavery in the Bible. I can’t address everything — which would require much more than a blog post — but I hope to provide some clarity on the issue by looking at eight key points.

1. Slavery Was Pervasive Throughout The Entire Ancient World

It’s estimated that of all the people in the first century Roman Empire, 85 to 90 percent were slaves.² We also know from the Code of Hammurabi (1700 BC) and another ancient Near Eastern law codes that slavery was pervasive in earlier times.

Not only was slavery the norm, but it was also corrupt and extremely harsh. We see this in how the Egyptians treated the Israelite slaves — forced hard labor, whippings, and killing young children. As you’ll see below, Israel’s slavery laws were a vast improvement on this horrendous institution.

2. God Outlawed The Slave Trade

Exodus 21:16 states, “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Unlike other ancient cultures and the antebellum South, God forbade Israel from kidnapping individuals and forcing them into slavery. God was so serious about this offense that this act was punishable by death. Already, we can see that Biblical slavery was significantly different from the slavery we think of today.

3. Slavery Was More Like Indentured Servitude

In colonial America times, many foreigners couldn’t afford the fare to cross the Atlantic. So they’d contract themselves — agree to work for a set period of time — until they paid back their debt to the one who paid for their passage.

In the same way, ancient Israelites often times found themselves in financial trouble. In order to get themselves out of debt, they’d agree to become someone’s servant — or slave — until they could get themselves back on their feet.

Leviticus 25:39 describes this when it says, “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner.” Furthermore, verse 47 even reports that Israelites became slaves of foreigners living in the land. It states, “If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner…”

Unlike antebellum slavery where the owner had complete ownership over the slave, biblical slavery was more equivalent to an employer/employee relationship. This setup provided financial security for people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to survive on their own. By agreeing to become someone’s slave, they received regular food, shelter, and clothing.

And to give you an idea of how different this institution was from slavery in the South, Israelites often times sold themselves back into slavery after they had gained their freedom because it provided a better life for them.³

4. Masters Couldn’t Harm Their Slaves

Horror stories of slave abuse and mistreatment abound from the antebellum South. God, however, established laws that forbade owners from physically harming their slaves. In Exodus 21:26-27, we read that if a master injured his slave, that slave was to go free. Additionally, if the owner killed his slave, he received the death penalty (Ex 21:20).

Israel’s anti-harm law was a vast improvement on slavery throughout the rest of the world. Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna reports, “This law — the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters — is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation.”⁴ The Hammurabi Code, by contrast, permitted masters to cut off their disobedient slave’s ears.⁵

5. Slavery Was Only For Seven Years

“If any of your people — Hebrew men or women — sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh you must let them go free (Deut. 15:12). That is to say, Israelite slavery was never intended to be a life-long ordeal. At most, God allowed for them to sign a seven-year contract to work for their master while they paid off their debts, but that was to be the maximum.

Again, this doesn’t sound anything like slavery in the South where it was “once a slave always a slave.” As I mentioned earlier, many times slaves would voluntarily go back into slavery after they gained their freedom because it provided a better lifestyle for them. The key, however, was that it was voluntary.

6. Runaway Slaves Received Safe Haven

Unlike slavery in the South which legally required runaway slaves to be returned to their masters, God ordered the Israelites to give runaways safe haven. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 orders, “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.”

Not only is this different from the South, it’s a huge improvement upon other the Hammurabi Code which demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves.⁶

7. Slavery Is Not God’s Ideal

Contrary to what Sam Harris thinks, God doesn’t want us to have slaves. Just because the Bible describes slavery and regulates the already existing institution doesn’t mean God thinks it’s ideal. Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:8 with respect to divorce. He says, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.” In other words, God allowed for divorce under certain circumstances and even gave laws related to its practice, but that doesn’t mean God was happy with it. After all, Jesus previously said, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Mt 19:6).

In the same way, just because God established laws regulating the already existing institution of slavery doesn’t mean he approved of it. Rather, it seems that God gave laws that sought to mitigate slavery and undermine it altogether.

For example, because poverty was the main cause of slavery, God made laws that benefited the poor. He decreed that landowners leave the crops on the edges of their fields for the needy (Lev 19:9-20), ordered the wealthy to never charge interest on loans to the poor (Ex 22:25), and permitted the poor to sacrifice less expensive animals (Lev 5:7). Additionally, God ordered that lenders cancel all debts every seven years (Deut 15:1-3).

8. The Full Personhood Of Slaves

Israelites were to treat slaves as people, not property. Job refers to this when he declares, “If I have denied justice to any of my servants, whether male or female… what will I do when God confronts me?… Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?” (Job 31:13-15)

Job understood full well that his slaves were God’s image bearers as he was (Gen 1:26-27). Furthermore, slaves received a day of rest on the Sabbath (Deut 5:14) and were participants in Israel’s religious life (Deut 12:12). Paul even writes in the New Testament that both slave and free are one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). “We have in the Bible,” Muhammad Dandamayev observes, “the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters.”⁷

Slavery And The Bible

I hope it’s clear by now that God isn’t pro-slavery. The slavery in the Bible — though not ideal — is a far cry from the slavery that comes to our mind when we think of the word. Those who have used the Bible to justify slavery in the past have, therefore, distorted Scripture’s teachings.

It’s interesting to note that modern abolitionists and civil rights leaders like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. have led the charge against slavery and racial injustice by appealing to Scripture’s teaching that every person bears God’s image. Rather than promoting slavery, it seems the Bible was the foundation for abolishing it.

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Jzf9oc

November 4, 2018/by Guest

Book Review: The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

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

By Luke Nix

Introduction

In my late teens and early 20s, I was wrestling with many questions about what I believed. I had several challenges to my Christian faith that ranged from the philosophical to the scientific to the historical. One of the challenges that would not go away, due to some college professors and some friends, was the challenge to the historical Jesus and the gospels. Of all the worldviews one can hold, Christianity can be easily falsified by simply demonstrating that a single person did not actually exist in history: Jesus of Nazareth. Did he really exist in history? If so, what can we really know about him? Does that match was the Bible claims? Was there any evidence that Jesus actually came back to life after being dead? How do we know that the right books were included in the New Testament? Why not the books are known as the “Gnostic Gospels” too?

When I was looking for some answers to these questions, I came across the work of Dr. Gary Habermas. The first book of his that I read was the one I present to you today: The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Reading through this book provided the answers to more than just the questions that I was asking but also to questions that I did not know would eventually come too. This was well over a decade ago, and it is time for me to revisit the book and publish a proper review of this most important work. The review will follow my usual chapter-by-chapter summary style and conclude with my thoughts and specific recommendations.

Part 1: Contemporary Challenges to the Historicity of Jesus

Chapter 1: The Modern Quest for the Historical Jesus

In the introductory chapter, Habermas introduces the reader to the historical quest to discover the historical Jesus. He goes over some of the history of the studies, what different scholars proposed at different times regarding Jesus’ historicity and how to handle the different miracle-claims of the New Testament. He describes the popularity of the liberal approaches of the fictitious lives of Jesus and the idea that the gospel accounts were purely mythologies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the deemphasizing of the historical Jesus in the early twentieth century. He brings the reader “up to speed” by describing the re-emphasis on the necessity of the historical Jesus near the mid-1900s and onto today. While most scholars today recognize that Jesus was a historical figure, there is a small group that still does not. Habermas reminds the reader that the popularity of a particular position does not provide legitimate evidence, in or of itself, for the historicity of Jesus, so this book will examine the evidence that has convinced the majority of scholars that the historical Jesus existed, and it will make the case that the historical Jesus is the Jesus of Christianity.

Chapter 2: Did Jesus Ever Live?

Even though most scholars reject the idea that Jesus never lived, the idea that he did should not be taken for granted in an investigation about the historical Jesus. Habermas addresses the two most common theories to explain the records of the New Testament without Jesus living in history. The first view addressed is that of G.A. Wells, while the second view is more modest and is promoted by Michael Martin.
G.A. Wells dates the gospels in the late first century to early second, and Paul’s letters earlier. He believes that the gospels were too late to contain accurate historical information, so he leans on Paul for historical information of Jesus. He holds that Paul’s writings include very little information about the historical Jesus and concludes that Paul neither knew or cared about the historical Jesus. Wells believes that, at best, Jesus was a much earlier historical figure that legend grew around, and at worst, Jesus was based upon pagan mythologies. Of the many issues with Wells’ view, Habermas address five of them. He provides textual and historical evidence that Wells is incorrect on issues of Paul’s lack of record of and/or concern with historical information about Jesus, the idea that Jesus may have lived prior to the first century AD, Jesus’ connection to pagan mythologies, the late dating of the gospels, and his overall historical methodology.
Recognizing the failure of the more extreme views of G.A. Wells, Michael Martin softens some of the positions to make them more compatible with the textual and historical evidence. For instance, Martin grants that some historical data can be gleaned from the Pauline epistles, but he does not allow for much. He does retain the late dating of the gospels, and he adds that extrabiblical sources either do not contain historical data of the historical Jesus or that the information is inaccurate. Habermas addresses each of these claims briefly as they were either addressed in the section on G.A. Wells or will be covered in greater detail later in the book.

Chapter 3: Limitations on the Historical Jesus

Even though the extreme view that Jesus never existed in history is widely rejected among scholars, many do still believe that what can be known about the Jesus of history is greatly limited. This view is born out in a few different ways. Habermas describes these various attempts to limit historical investigation of the Jesus of history and demonstrates how each of them fails, thus leaving wide open a historical investigation of the life of Jesus as a person that actually existed in the past.

The first view that Habermas addresses is the idea that the gospels record what early Christians believed about Jesus, not necessarily what actually happened. This view removes the gospels from the historical investigation because they would not be claiming to record what actually happened but just what a group of people believed. Habermas explains that this view fails on four accounts. The first is that it removes all historical grounding for the origin of Christianity (from where did the recorded beliefs come?). The second is that without even attempting to investigate the claims of the gospels as historical claims, it rejects them as mythological (how did they come to the conclusion that the gospels recorded beliefs and not events?). The third is that the view assumes that, unique among all historical authors, the early Christians’ records were to not be trusted to be true because they believed their records to be true (how does belief of an event necessitate an incorrect recording of that event?). And fourth, the view holds that due to the few copies of the gospels, we cannot trust that we have what the early Christians originally wrote (given the mountain of copies compared to other ancient writings, how then are we to trust that we know what other ancient writers originally wrote?).

Another optional view is that while the Gospels do record historical events, the only historical events that are correct are ones that are not miraculous. Habermas addresses four ways in which this view fails as well. The first here is that it presumes to reject the miracle claims without even investigating whether they happened or not. Such a priori assertions exhibit neither good scientific investigation nor good historical investigation. The second problem is that the view does not even allow for the investigation of miraculous events because they are miraculous. However, if an event takes place in reality, that it happened can be investigated independently of its source or cause. Third, when the second problem is removed, investigation of Jesus’ being seen after his death and burial is well established, and no naturalistic explanation can account for the event. If no naturalistic explanation can account for an event that has been historically investigated and confirmed happened, then only a non-natural or supernatural explanation (miracle) is possible; thus miraculous events were recorded in the gospels. Fourth, if it can be established that Jesus did rise from the dead (to be investigated later in the book), then his metaphysical (and theological) teachings and actions must be considered relevant to the reader.

Chapter 4: Reinterpretations of the Historical Jesus

Many scholars grant the failures of the views critiqued in the previous chapter, yet they still wish to reject the Christian worldview. So many have attempted to reinterpret the historically established events of Jesus’ life. Habermas investigates these attempts in this fourth chapter.

The majority of these proposed alternate lives of Jesus depend upon the idea that Jesus did not die by crucifixion as recorded in the gospels. Many offers that Jesus merely appeared to be dead and after being removed from the cross and placed in the tomb, he recovered enough to escape and went on to live a secret life. While there are numerous versions of this “swoon” theory, all of them fail on three major accounts. The first is that Roman crucifixion was extremely brutal and would have left Jesus in such horrific condition that he could not escape from a sealed tomb, much less, convince anyone he had “overcome” death. Second, crucifixion caused death by asphyxiation due to the inability to breathe while hanging from the cross when the muscles are relaxed. This means that it was not possible to appear dead on the cross without actually being dead. Third, the Roman executioners ensured Jesus’ death by thrusting the spear into his side and puncturing his heart. Even if faking death on the cross was possible, this final blow would have killed Jesus immediately. Because of these reasons, the swoon theories have all been rejected by scholars.

Even though the failure of this foundation of the alternate lives of Jesus theories is enough to reject those theories, they fail on other accounts as well. These theories, of course, come in many different versions. Some hold that the Gospels and Paul recorded incorrect information and the real events of Jesus post-crucifixion life is unknown, and others hold that Jesus traveled to other places in the world. All of the theories fail for multiple reasons. They contradict already established historical records (the Gospels). They appear late. They have no historical grounds. And the arguments require multiple fallacies to come to their conclusions. Along with those commonly held failures, Habermas also discusses several additional failures that are unique to the various theories. He ends by stating that, because of the incredible list of reasons that these theories fail, they are not taken seriously by historians today, but they needed to be addressed due to their continual recurrence within popular culture.

Chapter 5: The New Gnosticism

One of the more popular challenges in historical Jesus studies comes from the discovery of several texts dated from the mid-to-late second century to the early third century. These are the Gnostic writings, with The Gospel of Thomas probably being the most familiar to the public. Some scholars believe that these text raise a power challenge against orthodox teachings about Jesus due to their traditionally early dating. The Gospel of Thomas is dated as early as AD 140 (all the others are date much later). Supporters of the Gnostic view attempt to date the tradition that is contained within the Gospel of Thomas in the first century, and they contend that due to the early sourcing, it should at least be held on the same authoritative level as the Gospels. Now, the significance of this dating is that, if the dating is correct, then it is possible that there were multiple expressions of Christianity at the time. The competing claim is that the New Testament that we have today is incomplete and that these Gnostic writings are the “lost books” of the Bible that tell a very different story about the historical Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas lacks mention of the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, so the Gnostics claim that these events did not take place (what makes the view incompatible with orthodoxy). They claim that what is known as orthodoxy today merely won a “cultural war” among the different views and is not a reflection of actual events in history.

Having presented this strong challenge of the Gnostic view against the orthodox view of the historical Jesus, Habermas turns to a four-pronged critique of the view. First, even if The Gospel of Thomas is accurately dated early at AD 140 and its tradition is still earlier, the gospels have all been dated a minimum of half a century earlier than even that, which places their source material closer to the events they record than the source material of the Gospel of Thomas. This means that the Gnostic gospels and the Gospels were not co-circulating at the earliest times; the Gospels were present at least fifty years before the Gnostics showed up and (as will be seen later) within only a few years of Jesus’ death. Secondly, Habermas presents four standards of ancient historiography that establish the accuracy of the Gospels’ historical records. This serves to hold authority over later writings that present contradictory stories (the Gnostic writings, in this case).

Thirdly, based upon the testimony present in various books of the New Testament and in the writings of the apostolic fathers, we can see that the canon of Scripture was well established prior to the dates of many of the Gnostic writings. This means that Christians had recognized the earliest writings as accurate and authoritative before the greater body of Gnostic writings (and their contradictory content) were even present. Fourthly, even though the death and Resurrection of Jesus are not mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas, that is not evidence that it did not happen, especially when we have four earlier records that record that they did happen. Interestingly enough, proponents of the Gnostic view hold that the proposed document “Quelle” or “Q”, that is the source for the similarities among the synoptic Gospels, did not contain information of Jesus’ death and crucifixion, but this is speculation as both the existence and content of the document are hotly debated. Even if they were right about the content’s absence, its absence still would not argue against its actually taking place. For these four reasons, scholars generally do not consider Gnosticism a viable alternative view for the historical Jesus; Gnosticism or elements of it is vastly more popular among non-scholars.

Chapter 6: The Jesus Seminar and the Historical Jesus

Another way to dismiss the historical Jesus (as recorded in the gospels) is put forth by people in the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar tends to see their position as a compromise between those who reject all historicity of the records in the gospels and those who take every word of it historically. Their position begins philosophically with, not just the rejection of the supernatural, but the very incompatibility of the supernatural with reality. Using this filter, they reject all records in the gospels that include any kind of non-natural event, including all experiences with Jesus after his crucifixion; however, they do tend to believe that the events that required no such non-natural mechanism are historically accurate.
Habermas explains that the Jesus Seminar does not really offer as much of a “compromise” position as they like to think. The primary reason for this is before any investigation on their part has begun, they have already ruled out even the possibility of many of the historical events taking place. They have already rejected the only explanation of the events, so they are unable to perform an unbiased investigation of the historical data. With this critique in place, some Seminar scholars have pulled back on some of the extreme conclusions and have opted for agnosticism on the historicity of different non-natural events. These more moderate Seminar scholars offer several naturalistic explanations for the records of the non-natural events; however, Habermas shows how they fail to account for the historical data and/or commit various fallacies. He also demonstrates how their hypotheses are often contradicted by the historical evidence. Ultimately, he concludes that the various positions offered by Jesus Seminar scholars are not historically viable and should be rejected.

Part 2: Historical Data for the Life of Jesus

Chapter 7: Primary Sources: Creeds and Facts

Having surveyed and dismantled the many different attempts to separate the historical Jesus from the Jesus of the gospels, Habermas now turns to an investigation of what can be known about the historical Jesus and early Christian theology apart from the New Testament gospels. He begins by evaluating the creeds, hymns, and traditions that were closest to the death of Jesus. These sources originated prior to the formation of the New Testament and are recorded within it. Several, among many others, can be found in the following passages of the New Testament:

1 John 4:2
2 Timothy 2:8
Romans 1:3-4
1 Timothy 3:16
Phillippians 2:6
Romans 10:9
1 Corinthians 11:23
1 Timothy 6:13
1 Peter 3:18

Taking the reader through the many early sources, Habermas demonstrates over forty different characteristics of Jesus Christ that were both believed by the early Christians and passed down through the centuries to today. In this exercise, Habermas demonstrates that the Jesus of Christianity is indistinguishable from the Jesus believed by the earliest Christians. These orthodox beliefs were not the product of any single or series of events that took place over time; the beliefs appeared early and suddenly.

Habermas also spends a considerable portion of the chapter evaluating the creed in 1 Corinthians 15. This creed is often considered to be one of the most important because it ties the beliefs of the earliest Christians to eyewitness testimony of those who walked with Jesus and had experiences of the risen Jesus. Because of this eyewitness connection, this early creed not only opens the door to historical testing of the events surrounding Jesus and the claims that He and the early Christians made, but it compels such testing. Thorough testing has been performed on at least twelve unique claims of the historical Jesus regarding the most important event: the Resurrection. That testing has revealed the facticity of those twelve claims; however, Habermas believes that only four of them are sufficient to establish the historicity of the Resurrection event. He spends a small portion of the chapter explaining this “minimal facts” apologetic, but for those who wish to go deeper into this specific historical event, check out Habermas’ book “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope” along with his many other writings at GaryHabermas.com.

Chapter 8: Archaeological Sources

Archaeology has provided evidence of the historical context surrounding the life of Jesus, has provided corroboration for several of the historical claims within the gospels, and may even provide compelling evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. One of the most contested (non-miraculous) events recorded in the gospels is that of the census described by Luke. Habermas explains how archaeology has not only helped answer some of the questions this event but has also provided calibration tools for identifying the year of Jesus’ death. Archaeology has also yielded much information about the ancient practice of crucifixion that corroborates reports in the gospels. For instance, the skeleton of “Yohanan,” a crucifixion victim, was discovered in 1968. This particular discovery has provided information regarding the condition of the victim as they were nailed to a cross, the excruciating way a victim was nailed to a cross, many painful events that happened to the body while on the cross, and the ultimate cause of death. This data has given medical and historical researchers ways to test the claims surrounding Jesus’ mode of execution and have found them to be accurate.

Probably the most controversial archaeological find surrounding the historical Jesus is the Shroud of Turin. Tradition has it that this linen is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Many visual commonalities provide a powerful case for this claim, including the blood stains that are common to victims of a crucifixion and other stains that are unique to Jesus’ crucifixion. The absence of evidence of bodily decomposition suggests that the victim was not in the cloth for long. And some Christians believe that the “scorch” marks that are inconsistent with foreign materials provide evidence of a resurrection. However, carbon dating has seriously challenged the identification of the Shroud with the first century AD, but even these studies have come under scrutiny due to lack of peer review and blind testing, possible contamination, and inconsistency with other pieces of evidence. Habermas explains that even if the Shroud is not that of Jesus, it could still be that of a victim who suffered a remarkably similar fate, thus still providing powerful evidence of the practice of crucifixion. He also explains that if the Shroud is, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus, archaeologists have powerful tangible evidence not only Jesus’ mode of death but the historical event of His Resurrection as well.

Chapter 9: Ancient Non-Christian Sources

Of all the figures in ancient history, Jesus is the most mentioned. The mentions not only come in ancient Christian writings but also in those of non-Christian sources. Habermas takes the reader through the different ancient historians’ and other writers’ material that mentions Jesus. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger are just a few. As Habermas describes these writings (and several others) and how they have been preserved in antiquity, he quotes directly from them, highlighting not just the mention of Jesus but also all the information about Jesus’ life, His teachings, and His death that are recorded.

He also discusses the most controversial of them all: Josephus. He quotes the disputed and undisputed texts along with a proposed “original version” of the disputed text that would be more consistent with Josephus’ worldview as a Jewish historian. Habermas takes the undisputed portions along with the proposal to demonstrate several facts recorded by Josephus regarding Jesus. Habermas even cautiously uses Gnostic writings to help support certain claims about the historical Jesus that are found in other non-Christian sources. Habermas concludes from all these ancient non-Christian sources that even if Christian sources (discussed in the next chapter) are disregarded, it is established that the Jesus of the Bible existed in history and many true things can be known about Him.

Chapter 10: Ancient Christian Sources (Non-New Testament)

Of course, the ancient writings of the historical Jesus are not limited to non-Christian sources. Many Christian sources outside the New Testament were also composed and circulated. These authors included Clement of Rome, Ignatious, Justin Martyr, among others. These early sources give historians an understanding of early Christian doctrine and what the early Church believed about the historical Jesus. Habermas discusses each author that builds a total description of Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection that echoes the claims of the New Testament. These records indicate that the early Church already believed what was written in the New Testament; they did not wait to see who the “winners” were regarding orthodoxy.

Many people believe that the fact that these writers were Christian made them unjustifiably biased in their beliefs and that makes them unreliable sources. However, because much of their beliefs about the historical Jesus were based upon the material in the New Testament (only one generation removed, in some cases), which was shown to be trustworthy in the previous chapters, these early Christian authors were certainly justified in their beliefs. Because they were justified in believing what they recorded, their records stand firmly as a testimony of the beliefs of the earliest Christians.

Chapter 11: Summary and Assessment

Having concluded a survey of the historical evidence that could speak to the historical Jesus and various challenges to his existence, Habermas succinctly summarizes what can be known from the historical evidence alone. He lists out 129 things that can be known about the historical Jesus relating to His life, work, death, and resurrection. These facts are gathered from 45 different ancient Christian and non-Christian sources. The sheer number of ancient sources that give pertinent information about the life of Jesus is more than enough to conclude by the standards of historiography that the historical Jesus is the same Jesus that is recorded in the Bible. If the Jesus of the Bible is to be separated from the Jesus of history, the entire enterprise of ancient historical studies is called into question.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus was an exciting read! I came to the book originally with many questions about what could be truly known about the historical Jesus, but as I read through it, my questions were answered. As my original questions were answered, more questions formulated in my mind that Habermas seemed to almost anticipate. It has been over a decade since my initial read through the book when these questions were answered. It was refreshing and encouraging to read through it again because over the last decade, some curiosities have come up that I had forgotten were addressed in the book. When these come up in conversation, I am now more prepared to “give a reason for the hope that I have” (1 Peter 3:15).

When I first read the book in my early 20s, it was very understandable at that time (it answered my basic questions), yet it is comprehensive and deep enough to have addressed the more nuanced challenges that I have been exposed to over the years. Habermas really made the historical facts come to life for me and give me a more connected feeling to the actual events of history. This not only excited me but gave me a profound sense of satisfaction that my belief is justified true belief, justified by the evidence of history.

If you are having serious doubts about the historical Jesus, you definitely need to get this book. And if your church has a library, it needs to be on the shelf for those who have these deep questions and are honestly looking for answers. For any Christian who regularly discusses the truth of Christianity (that should be all of us), you also need this book. It will give you a resource to always be prepared to answer both the basic and the deeper challenges of those who are skeptical of the historical foundations of our worldview. Nearly two thousand years ago, the Apostle John proclaimed, “The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth,” and history bears a fantastic witness to this truth.

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

November 4, 2018/by Guest

El cristianismo es verdadero, aunque algo de la Biblia no lo sea

Español

By Frank Turek

Is Christianity true just because the infallible Bible says it is? No. Christianity would still be true even if the Bible had never been written.

Let me explain.

It is a common belief prevailing among some Christians today that what we know about Christianity is dependent on an infallible Bible. This is true, but we know that there are several non-Christian writers from the ancient world who make brief references to first-century events and the beliefs of early Christians, corroborating what we read in the New Testament. We also know that there are a growing number of archaeological finds that support characters and events in Christian history.

But some of us mistakenly think that Christian beliefs cannot be sustained unless the Bible is without error. That would mean that the Christian faith is a house of cards ready to collapse if a verse or reference in the New Testament is found to be false.

While I think these are good reasons to believe in an inerrant Bible , inerrancy is an unnecessarily high standard by which the central event in Christianity is set: the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity is dependent on that historical event. If Christ rose from the dead, then the game is over—Christianity is true. On the other hand, if He did not rise from the dead, then, as a first-century eyewitness by the name of Paul admitted, Christianity is false.

But you don’t need infallible sources to establish that the Resurrection really happened, or any other historical event of that significance. For example, if I find an error in the stat line of a football game, should I assume that every game, story, and stat line in the newspaper was a complete fabrication? So why do some people do that with the New Testament? Why do they assume that unless every word is true, then most of it is false?

They assume this because they are confusing the fact of the Resurrection with reports of the Resurrection. Conflicting reports of a historical event are evidence that the event actually occurred, not the other way around. In other words, to return to our sports analogy, the only reason there is an error in the stat line is because the game was played and someone attempted to report on that game. Neither the stat line nor the error would exist unless the game was actually played. After all, who reports on a game that did not actually take place?

The same is true of the documents that comprise the New Testament and the Resurrection. Even if one were to find an error or disagreement among the multiple accounts of the Resurrection story, the fact that there are multiple eyewitness testimonies shows that something dramatic really did happen in history, especially since the people who wrote it had everything to lose by proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead.

That is, all of the New Testament reporters (except Luke) were observant Jews who would pay dearly for proclaiming the Resurrection. Why would Jewish believers in Yahweh, the people who thought they were “God’s chosen people” for two thousand years, make up a Resurrection story that would get them excommunicated from the “chosen people” club, and then beaten, tortured, and murdered?

Answer: They wouldn’t. They saw something dramatic that they didn’t expect. They then proclaimed it, changed their lives because of it, and later wrote about it, despite the fact that doing any of that would kill them.

So Christianity is not true just because the Bible says it is true. Christianity is true because an event occurred. It is true that we would not know much about Christianity if the reports of the Resurrection had never been written, but the Resurrection preceded the reports of the Resurrection.

When my friend Andy Stanley asks, “Do you realize there were thousands of Christians before a line of the New Testament was ever written?” Paul was a Christian before he wrote a word of the New Testament. So was Matthew, John, James, Peter, etc. Why? Because they had witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

Contrary to what some skeptics may think, the New Testament writers did not create the Resurrection—the Resurrection created the New Testament writers. In other words, the New Testament documents did not give us the Resurrection. The Resurrection gave us the New Testament documents! There would be no New Testament unless the Resurrection had occurred. The Jewish witnesses would never have made that up.

This is why the core beliefs of Christianity—what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity— are true, even if the reports were flawed. Getting details wrong in reporting the Resurrection doesn’t change the larger point that the Resurrection actually happened. In fact, if all the records agreed on every detail, we would rightly assume that they colluded. Actual eyewitnesses never describe the same historical event in the same way.

For example, survivors of the Titanic disagreed on how the ship sank. Some say it broke in two, then sank. Others say the ship sank as a whole. Does that disagreement mean we shouldn’t believe the Titanic sank? Of course not. They all agree on that! They were just looking at the same historical event from different points of view.

Likewise, all the writers agree that the Resurrection occurred, but they differ on minor details (Who arrived at the tomb first? Did you see one or two angels? etc.). And these differences are not necessarily contradictions, but the natural result of viewing the same historical event from different points of view.

The historical documents we have collected, and put into a collection we call the New Testament, are simply what their name implies: they are testimonies or reports of what honorable people have witnessed, and they had no reason to make things up. In fact, given who they were and how they suffered, they had every reason to say it wasn’t true. And there are a number of other excellent reasons that show that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.

So, inerrant Bible or not, the Resurrection we celebrate on Sunday actually happened about 1,985 years ago. That means you can trust that one day you will be resurrected like Jesus if you trust in Him.

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly television show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations nationwide. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case.

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

Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

November 2, 2018/by Frank Turek

5 cosas que los padres cristianos deben hacer para criar hijos piadosos en un mundo secular