The Clash of Christianity and Culture

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Detective and apologist J. Warner Wallace hosts this episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast. During this episode he discusses the following topics:

How Media Consumption Threatens the Future of Christianity (It’s Not What You Think).
Why Young Ex-Christians Are Ex-Christians, According to the Latest Research.
Three Reasons Why All Americans Should Want Their Politicians to Be Religious.
The Good News for Christians From An Otherwise Bleak Pew Study.

Don’t miss this special edition of the Cross Examined Show!

Keep us busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by
Argumentos que un cristiano no debe usar para defender su fe_ el aire no lo puedes ver, pero lo sientes

Argumentos que un cristiano no debe usar para defender su fe

Por Carlos E. Rodríguez

¡Dios les bendiga!

Mi interés en este blog es proporcionar, para el cristiano, herramientas para defender su fe cristiana. Aunque, también quiero hacerle ver al ateo lo errada que está su cosmovisión, y que la existencia de Dios puede ser probada más allá de toda duda razonable.

Hace unos meses desarrollé una serie de posts para recomendar a nuestros lectores y amigos ateos que no usen los argumentos que señalamos, por ser falaces, ya que no dicen nada ni aportan a este tema. Ahora, comienzo con una nueva serie, pero esta vez hablando de los argumentos que un teísta cristiano no debe de usar, por cometer falacias lógicas. Aunque soy cristiano, esto no me hace ser ciego y reconocer que muchos usan argumentos que no son muy buenos. Por esto escribo esta serie: para mejorar estos fallos y ayudarles a presentar una mejor defensa del cristianismo.

El argumento que veremos hoy es usado por cristianos cuando se les pide evidencia sobre la persona de Dios. Se les pide que presenten una evidencia física. Los cristianos suelen responder (no todos):

  1. Si Dios no existe, entonces el aire tampoco, pues no lo puedo ver aunque sí sentir.
  2. No puedo ver al aire, aunque sí sentirlo.
  3. Por lo tanto, Dios existe.

Los problemas que tiene este argumento son varios, y graves.

Lo primero es que comete un error de categoría. Debo reconocer que no todos los cristianos están preparados para responder este tipo de peguntas, y no por falta de lectura apologética, sino por no entender algunas cosas sobre Dios. Dios es un ser inmaterial, es espíritu, y por lo tanto, no puede ser medido por ningún método científico, pues este solo trabaja con realidades materiales que se pueden medir. Este es su límite. No se puede esperar que este método haga más de lo que puede hacer. Así, como la pregunta es: ¿tienes evidencia de la persona de Dios? ¿Dónde está? ¿Lo puedo ver? La respuesta no puede ser este argumento, pues supone que Dios es material. La respuesta debe ser: “Dios, su persona, no puede ser conocida empíricamente como un objeto que se estudia, pero sí podemos usar la ciencia para ver sus efectos, los cuales son señales que apuntan a él como mejor explicación. Ejemplo de esto: la creación del universo, la moral objetiva, el ajuste fino del universo, etc”. De esta manera, se responde satisfactoriamente la pregunta. Además, después de esta respuesta, se puede invitar a considerar experimentar a Dios a través del testimonio interno del Espíritu Santo.

Con esto dicho, vemos que el otro problema es que esta analogía es falsa. Compara a Dios con el aire, es decir que Dios es material, lo cual es imposible. Si se persiste en esto, el ateo de seguro respondería: “el aire se puede medir, Dios no”. Con esta respuesta por parte del ateo pone en jaque mate al creyente, pues la conversación se basará en el error de que Dios debe ser medido como objeto o experimentado como objeto material, para así ser real y creíble.

Entonces, por ser una falsa analogía y un error de categoría, insto a los creyentes a dejar de usar este pésimo argumento para demostrar la existencia de la persona de Dios. Lo mejor que puedes hacer es presentar las causas que tienen como mejor explicación a Dios, como las ya expuestas, y otras más. Y, si la persona tiene aún más interés en conocer, puedes invitarle a experimentar en su vida la realidad de Dios a través del testimonio interno del Espíritu Santo, que no es un modo de demostrar la verdad del cristianismo, sino de saber que es verdad, pues hay muchos que saben que es verdad a través de este testimonio interno, aunque no sepan demostrar la verdad del cristianismo. Así que aconsejo que, si su oyente quedó convencido por las evidencias, solo así, invítelo a dar este otro paso.

 

Carlos Enrique Rodríguez Alcántara es de República Dominicana, bloguero, predicador, maestro, conferencista y apologista. Esposo de Carolina. Miembro de la Iglesia Roca de Salvación Central, en donde ha sido director de educación y sub-director de educación del concilio. Tiene un grado asociado en teología de ESFOTEBIC. Certificado en filosofía, filosofía y ciencias (con honores) y pensamiento crítico por la universidad de Edimburgo, además de filosofía, ciencia y religión por la misma universidad.

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

/by
Lógica 08 Lógica de predicados de primer orden cuantificación universal y existencial

Lógica 08: Lógica de predicados de primer orden: introducción

Veamos el siguiente silogismo:

  1. Todos los hombres son mortales.
  2. Sócrates es un hombre.
  3. Sócrates es mortal.

Por lógica de predicados de primer orden nos referimos a las oraciones que predican alguna propiedad de un sujeto. Cabe destacar que la formalización en la lógica de predicado es diferente de proposicional, porque si quisiéramos usar la lógica de predicados para nuestro argumento tendríamos algo como esto:

  1. P
  2. Q
  3. R

Por lo que es imposible que pudiéramos validar nuestro argumento por medio de las reglas hasta ahora aprendidas. Pero la formalización en lógica de predicados no es complicada, y en este artículo te enseñaré a cómo hacerlo.

Volvamos a nuestro argumento del inicio. la segunda premisa es una proposición singular; afirma que el individuo Sócrates (término sujeto) posee la propiedad de ser humano (término predicado). Usamos letras minúsculas para denotar a los individuos en las proposiciones singulares, de la a a la w, tomando la primera letra del nombre del individuo para denotarlo y los llamaremos constantes individuales. Y utilizando el mismo principio, utilizamos letras mayúsculas para designar los atributos. De esta forma, Sócrates se simboliza con s, mientras que los atributos de “humano” y “mortal” con H y M.

La razón por la que usamos las letras de la ‘a’ a la ‘w’ para los individuos es porque la letra x se utiliza para simbolizar el patrón común de todas las proposiciones singulares: los individuos que tienen cierto atributo. En este caso, distintos individuos pueden poseer el atributo humano, así que para simbolizar “Algo es humano” utilizamos Hx. Expresiones de este tipo son consideradas funciones proposicionales, que contienen variables individuales que se convierten en proposiciones cuando estas variables son reemplazadas por constantes individuales. Por ejemplo, la x en la función proposicional Hx (algo es humano) puede ser reemplazada por s, obteniendo ahora la proposición singular Hs (Sócrates es humano). A este proceso se le llama instanciación, y la proposición singular obtenida se le considera instancia de sustitución. Es importante recordar estos conceptos, ya que los veremos más adelante cuando lleguemos a las reglas de inferencia para las proposiciones cuantificadas.

Una proposición general es del tipo “Todo es mortal” y “Algo es mortal”. Esta se distingue de la proposición singular en que no contienen nombres de individuos (ej. Sócrates es mortal). Mientras que una proposición singular se obtiene por instanciación, las proposiciones generales se obtienen por el proceso llamado generalización o cuantificación. Nuestro primer ejemplo, “Todo es mortal”, se parafrasea de la siguiente forma

Para toda cosa individual, esta es mortal.

Luego, utilizamos la x para referirnos a esa cosa individual

Para todo x, x es mortal.

Ahora, usamos nuestra notación para formar el enunciado

Para todo x, Mx.

Por último, la expresión “Para todo x” es un cuantificador universal y se simboliza ∀x. Ahora tenemos ya nuestra forma lógica de nuestra proposición general:

∀xMx

Lo mismo hacemos para la proposición general “Algo es mortal”:

Existe al menos una cosa que es mortal.

Existe al menos una cosa tal que esta es mortal.

Existe al menos un x tal que x es mortal.

Existe al menos un x tal que Mx.

“Existe al menos un x tal que” es un cuantificador existencial y se simboliza como ∃x. Ahora ya podemos tener nuestro símbolo para la presente proposición general:

∃xMx

De esto observamos que

  • La cuantificación universal de una función proposicional es verdadera si y solo si todas sus instancias de sustitución son verdaderas (ej. Todo perro tiene pulgas).
  • La cuantificación existencial de una función proposicional es verdadera si y solo si tiene al menos una instancia de sustitución verdadera (ej. Al menos un perro tiene pulgas).
  • Si hay al menos un individuo, entonces toda función proposicional tiene al menos una instancia de sustitución (verdadera o falsa).
  • Si la cuantificación universal de una función proposicional es verdadera, entonces su cuantificación existencial también lo es (ej. Si todo perro tiene pulgas, entonces algún un perro tiene pulgas).

Ahora, la negación de ∀x Mx (Para toda cosa individual, esta es mortal) es ∃x ¬Mx (Algo no es mortal), y la negación de ∃x Mx (Existe al menos una cosa que es mortal) es ∀x ¬Mx (Nada es mortal). Estableciendo la letra griega ? para representar cualquier símbolo de propiedad, podemos establecer las relaciones entre la cuantificación universal y existencial con el siguiente diagrama:

De nuestro diagrama observamos lo siguiente:

  • (∀x ?x) y (∀x ¬?x) son contrarias; es decir, ambas pueden ser falsas, pero no pueden ser verdaderas. Ejemplo: Todos los perros tienen pulgas y Ningún perro tiene pulgas. Si estas proposiciones fuesen falsas, se sigue que al menos un perro tiene pulgas.
  • (∃x ?x) y (∃x ¬?x) son subcontrarias; esto es, que ambas pueden ser verdaderas, pero no falsas. Ejemplo: Algún perro tiene pulgas y Algún perro no tiene pulgas. Si ambas fuesen verdaderas, esto solo quiere decir que estamos hablando de diferentes perros; pero si ambas son falsas, significaría que es verdad que Todo perro tiene pulgas y que Ningún perro tiene pulgas, lo cual ya vimos que no puede ser el caso.
  • Luego (∀x ?x) y (∃x ¬?x) son contradictorias; por lo que una de ellas debe ser verdadera y otra falsa. Ejemplo: Todos los perros tienen pulgas y Algún perro no tiene pulgas. Es claro que ambas ni pueden ser verdaderas ni falsas al mismo tiempo y en el mismo sentido.
  • (∀x ¬?x) y (∃x ?x) igualmente son contradictorias. Ejemplo: Ningún perro tiene pulgas y Algún perro tiene pulgas.
  • Las subalternas (∀x ?x) y (∀x ¬?x) implican la verdad de (∃x ?x) y (∃x ¬?x) respectivamente, porque si es verdad (falso) que Todos los perros tienen pulgas, entonces Algún perro tiene pulgas también es verdad (falso); de la misma manera, si es verdad (falso) que Ningún perro tiene pulgas, entonces también Algún perro no tiene pulgas será verdad (falso).

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernández es Director de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined.  Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y lingüística.  Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

/by
Cómo sabemos que Jesús realmente murió

¿Cómo sabemos que Jesús realmente murió?

A recent podcast listener offered the following objection: Couldn’t the disciples have been wrong about Jesus’ death? After all, when Paul was stoned by the Jews of Antioch and Iconium (in Acts 14 ) they dragged him out of the city and left him for dead. “ But the disciples surrounded him and he got up and went into the city ” (verse 20). If the disciples were wrong about Paul, couldn’t they have been wrong about Jesus too? As I always say, anything and everything is possible, but not everything is reasonable. There are good reasons to believe that the disciples were not wrong about Jesus’ death:

  1. Prolonged contact

Unlike the contact with Paul after his stoning, the disciples had intimate and prolonged contact with the body of Jesus. We tend to read the following verses very quickly:

Mark 15:43-46

“ Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the council… bought a linen cloth, and taking it off, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock…”

But stop and think about it for a minute. The disciples had to remove the nails, take the body down, carry it a distance to the tomb, prepare the body thoroughly with ointments and spices used on such occasions, wrap the body, and then place it in the tomb. While we can read the procedure in minutes, it takes much longer to actually complete. Surely the disciples were also deeply grieving over Jesus’ death. In all this prolonged contact with his body, do we really think that they didn’t go out of their way to prove to themselves that he wasn’t really dead? During all this time, is it reasonable to believe that they wouldn’t have noticed the three uncomfortable characteristics of dead bodies? I’ve been around enough dead people to recognize the characteristics that appear when a heart stops beating:

Temperature drop

When the heart stops beating, the body begins to grow cold. In the time it would take to prepare Jesus for the grave, the disciples would certainly have noticed this characteristic of death.

Rigidity

When blood is not circulating, the body begins to stiffen. Dead bodies begin to feel and behave differently than unconscious bodies with a beating heart.

Lividness

Gravity begins to act on the lack of blood circulation. When the blood remains in those extremities closest to the ground, the pigmentation is noticeable.

In all the time it took to prepare Jesus’ body, with all the time the disciples had in contact, is it reasonable to think that they would not have repeatedly checked to see if he was still breathing and that they would not have noticed the three uncomfortable characteristics of dead people?

  1. Unexpected corroboration

John , a disciple of Jesus, grew up as a fisherman. I doubt he had any medical training. However, look at what he reports in his Gospel:

John 19:32-34

“ The soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance, and immediately blood and water came out .”

John seems to record an aspect of Jesus’ body that is common when people are fatally wounded. Critical injuries typically cause people to go into circulatory shock, a condition I commonly see at the scenes of assaults or accidents. When people die from their wounds, their death is usually accompanied by Pericardial or Pleural Effusion , a condition that causes water to accumulate around the heart or inside the lungs. It appears that the illiterate fisherman is reporting this condition in his Gospel.

Do you think he could have done this intentionally in an effort to mislead us, or is it more reasonable to attribute his description to a true observation?

  1. External confirmation

History tells us that Roman soldiers were to pay a terrible penalty if they allowed a capital criminal to escape or avoid the sentence to which he was sentenced. For this reason, Roman soldiers were ruthless and meticulous in carrying out their orders with precision . Look again at how the Bible describes the death of Jesus:

John 19:31 – 33

“ Then the Jews, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath day (for that Sabbath day was a high day), begged Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they did not break his legs .”

According to non-Christians at the scene, Jesus was dead on the cross.

  1. Connection with eyewitnesses

Look at the description of Jesus’ burial given in Mark’s Gospel. Note Joseph of Arimathea’s description:

          Mark 15:42-46

“When evening came, (for it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,) Joseph of Arimathea, a distinguished member of the council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God, came and went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that he was already dead; and when he had brought the centurion, he asked him if he were already dead. When the centurion had informed him, he gave the body to Joseph. Joseph bought a linen cloth, took it off, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of rock. He rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.”

It appears that Mark is describing the same scene as John, but Mark includes a character that John omits. Why does Mark, writing many years before John, include Joseph? It stands to reason that Joseph was still alive when Mark wrote his account; Mark may be including Joseph so that early readers can contact Joseph as a living eyewitness who not only saw the crucifixion, but also touched and wrapped Jesus’ dead body.

The experience the disciples had with Jesus was very different from the experience the disciples had with Paul at the time of his stoning. The disciples simply “stood around” Paul after the stoning; they did much more with Jesus’ body after his crucifixion.

 

J. Warner Wallace is the author of Cold-Case Christianity, has a career spanning more than 25 years as a police officer and detective, holds a Master of Divinity from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and is an adjunct professor of apologetics at BIOLA University.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2Sa4Df1

Translated by Raul Jaramillo

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by

Objections to the Resurrection with Gary Habermas

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Frank raises some significant objections to the resurrection of Christ, but his guest is none other than the foremost expert in the topic, Dr. Gary Habermas. Listen to Gary’s answer to the following questions:

• Anything is more possible than a resurrection
• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
• Hallucinations!
• Don’t all religions have miracles claims? Aren’t they self-cancelling?
• Why do we have to rely on historical data? Why doesn’t the resurrected Jesus just appear to everyone now?

Check out Gary’s premium course: http://bit.ly/2Gm3laj

Have you heard some good objections to Christianity? Send them to Frank so he can answer them live. Email him at Hello@CrossExamined.org

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by
What the Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Means for Christian Parents

What the Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Means for Christian Parents

,

By Natasha Crain

I was tempted to not write anything at all about the same-sex marriage ruling.

So much has been written on this in the last week that I don’t see how one more person’s take could possibly be valuable [Note: this post first appeared in 2015, but it’s evergreen…. keep reading!].

And, valuable or not, no matter what I say, I won’t be fired up enough for some people and I’ll be too fired up for others.

But then I started getting messages from people asking how parents should respond; what they should tell their kids; what it means for the future. I realized that to not comment would be sheepish avoidance of a topic that’s important right now to so many readers of this blog.

So, for those who would like to know what I think the same-sex marriage ruling means for Christian parents, I humbly offer these thoughts.

Getting Back to Basics

I have many wonderful memories of lake fishing when I was a kid. I loved sitting on the shore watching my big red cork out on the water, anxiously awaiting the moment when it would suddenly plunge under—a sign that a fish had grabbed the bait.

But the cork can also go under if the hook suddenly gets stuck on an underwater rock. When that happens, you end up reeling in weeds instead of a fish. As a kid, that was horribly disheartening. I remember crying to my grandpa one day, “BUT THE CORK WENT UNDER! That means there should be a fish!”

He patiently explained that the cork only suggests what is going on below the water, but you can’t count on it. You have to reel in the line to see what the cork is actually tethered to: the desired fish or a pile of weeds. Ultimately, that’s what mattered… not that the cork made you think there was a fish.

Our kids’ view of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is a lot like this. There are a lot of parents really concerned right now about how to manage the cork—their kids’ view on these questions—but still not thinking deeply about how to ensure the cork is actually tethered to the right thing—a robust understanding of their faith.

How do I know that? Research shows that fewer than 1 in 10 families read the Bible or pray together outside of meal times in a given week and that only 12% of kids have regular conversations about faith with their mom.

Maybe if I flip those statistics around, you’ll feel the greater force of it: About 90% of Christian parents are not even studying the Bible with their kids, praying with them outside of meal times, or having conversations about faith.

Does it really matter what your kids think about same-sex marriage if you’re not putting in the work to tether that view to a deep understanding of their faith? How effective can you be in discussing individual issues if your kids don’t have a strong worldview foundation to guide that thinking?

My honest answer to the question, “What does the same-sex marriage ruling mean for parents?” is this: It’s just another wake-up call that Christian parents need to get “back to basics” if they want their kids to have a lasting faith in a challenging secular world.

What Are the Basics?

By “basics,” I don’t just mean the things that kids learn by default after a few Sunday school exposures—that God exists, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, and the Bible is God’s word.

Those are just a bunch of assertions.

When you live in a world that is hostile to your assertions, the “basics” have to start looking very different. The basics now have to include (1) the evidence for your assertions, and (2) a deep understanding of why those assertions even matter (application).

Here are the six basics I believe every parent today should be working on with their kids.

  1. There is a good reason to believe God exists (evidence).

If someone said to your kids tomorrow, “There’s no evidence for God!” would your kids (1) know that strong evidence (outside the Bible) does exist, (2) understand that evidence, and (3) be able to articulate that evidence? (For example, see my posts on three of the most significant arguments for God’s existence: the cosmological argument, the design argument, and the moral argument.)

If not, do you want to start working on that this week? Lee Strobel’s The Case For A Creator is a great introduction. There’s even a kids’ version. Get both and study together.

  1. If God exists, that matters (application).

Many people believe God exists but don’t have a deep understanding of why that fundamentally matters to our view of the world.

Here’s the thing. If a moral law-giving God exists, He is the objective standard of morality. The existence of divine laws means it’s possible to break them—to sin. That means our actions can be right or wrong, regardless of our personal opinions.

If God does not exist, there are no objective standards of morality (no divine law-giver). With no moral laws to break, sin is a meaningless concept. Nothing can be absolutely right or wrong, and everything is a matter of personal opinion.

The question of whether or not sin is a real concept is the foundational divider on moral issues, and at its most basic level, it’s a question of whether or not God exists. If a moral law-giving God exists, it matters tremendously, as sin becomes real, and sin becomes a problem that must be dealt with.

  1. There is a good reason to believe Jesus was resurrected (evidence).

If someone said to your kids tomorrow, “There’s no evidence that Jesus ever lived, and even if he did, science conclusively shows he could not have come back to life. In addition, it’s clear the resurrection was just a story copied from pagan myths?” would your kids be able to respond?

If not, do you want to start working on that this week? Read The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona to understand the historical evidence for the resurrection and discuss with your kids. Here is an article on the evidence for Jesus’ existence, and here is everything you need to know about pagan copycat claims.

  1. If Jesus was resurrected, that matters (application).

First Corinthians 15:14 says that if Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain. It all comes down to that. Throw it all away if the resurrection didn’t actually happen. If it did, it confirmed that Jesus was God, and that means we need to hang on His every word and those words must define our lives (see number 5 for why we should trust the Bible as a reliable record of what He said).

In other words, if our creator actually lived on Earth, it should automatically be the most important thing in our lives to know Him and live for Him. I went to church every week growing up and believed that Jesus was resurrected, but really couldn’t have told you why that mattered to my life so much. Don’t take it for granted that your kids get this. Understanding why the resurrection matters changes everything.

  1. There is a good reason to believe the Bible is God’s word (evidence).

If someone said to your kids tomorrow, “The Bible is a book of fairy tales written by ancient people who didn’t know how else to explain their world…” would your kids be able to confidently explain why there is a good reason to believe it’s actually the reliable word of God?

If not, do you want to start working on that this week? Read Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace as a starting point to learn about the reliability of the Gospels specifically.

  1. If the Bible is God’s word, that matters (application).

If I had to name a single takeaway I’ve had from watching the online comments from the week, it would be this: Many Christians and nonbelievers have a profoundly limited understanding of the Bible.

I’m not a Bible scholar and have much to learn, but there are some basic things every Christian should know.

For example, how many times have you seen someone comment this week, “But God loves EVERYONE!”? (usually with 48 exclamation points and even more caps for emphasis). Of course God loves everyone. No one (except crazy fringe groups like Westboro Baptist) is saying otherwise. However, it’s really Bible 101 to understand that God loves everyone but hates sin…and that the Bible identifies what sins there are.

Or how about the nonbelievers posting verses from the Old Testament that only applied to the theocracy of Israel and asking why Christians don’t follow those laws (as if that’s a big “gotcha”)?

Or how about Christians saying “who are we to judge others?” Christians are to judge! (If you’re unclear about what the Bible says on judging others, here is a brief article.)

If the Bible is God’s word, it’s really, really important that kids know how to study and use it appropriately.

But how is that possible if 90% of Christian parents don’t study the Bible with their kids on a regular basis? What good does it do to point out verses on various aspects of morality if your kids have no passionate conviction that the Bible is actually God’s word?

In my opinion, those are the basics. Does it look like a lot? No one ever said basics are easy. They’re just fundamental.

But What About Same-Sex Marriage?

This post is not meant to trivialize the need to discuss same-sex marriage with your kids. It’s a big deal and has the potential to fundamentally change the social structure. It is something to discuss with your kids.

But how our kids develop their views on any question of morality—premarital sex, adultery, pornography, or anything else—should be the outcome of what is already a deeply held Christian worldview. 

How you should talk to your kids about same sex-marriage is really no different than how you should be talking to them about any other moral issue…

There is a good reason to believe God exists.

If God exists, that matters.

There is a good reason to believe Jesus was resurrected.

If Jesus was resurrected, that matters.

There is a good reason to believe the Bible is God’s word.

If the Bible is God’s word, that matters.

 …And here’s what the Bible says about (x, y, and z).

…And here’s where our society (legally and/or culturally) differs with the biblical worldview.

If you’re jumping straight to what the Bible says on something—without having done the foundational work of the basics above—you’re managing the cork without caring if there’s actually a fish underneath.

Imagine how much our world would change if every Christian had a deep understanding of these “basics” and could engage nonbelievers at the foundational worldview level, rather than one cork issue at a time.

It can.

It starts with you: The parents raising the next generation.

May we all help our kids become true fishers of men.

What conversations have you had with your kids about the ruling? What struggles do you have in addressing it?

 

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/2GfBmJw

/by
Christians Persons of Faith or Knowledge

Christians: Persons of Faith or Knowledge?

By Tim Stratton

We expect people in positions of authority to have training and experience in their respective fields. For example, I want my pilot to have knowledge of the helicopter in which I am a passenger, just as I want my surgeon to be proficient, and to know what he/she is doing before I go “under the knife!” Guessing, flipping a coin, or relying on luck just doesn’t cut it. We expect people to have knowledge.

This seems to be the expectation of all who are labeled as experts or leaders in our society today, save one… the church! Why, when it comes to Christianity, are many satisfied to merely rely on our emotions or what we arbitrarily think? Is the Christian faith something more than this? Is it something we can actually know is true, rather than simply following an emotion or a “greatest desire?”

Sadly, knowledge of God is not just something unbelievers assume impossible, but many Christians have bought into this lie and are now living that misguided stereotype. Most people in our society think religion isn’t something we can know. That is why people adhering to religion are typically labeled “persons of faith” as opposed to a “person of knowledge.” Should this be the case?

Dallas Willard provides a working definition of knowledge:

“We have knowledge of something when we are representing it as it actually is, on an appropriate basis of thought and experience.”[1]

Basically, Willard is saying that we have knowledge of something when we have proper justification or warrant for our beliefs and that our beliefs regarding it conform to reality. A statement is true when it corresponds to reality, and reality is the way things are. Therefore, knowledge must be aligned with the truth (based on evidence or insight).

Willard notes that rational people are those who base their lives upon knowledge. This is important when considering the faith of a Christian. When one has knowledge of God and the truth of His word, he can easily step out in faith. Acting in faith is not a “blind leap” as society believes. Rather it’s committing to an action for which you may not know the outcome, basing your decisions on evidence and a justified trust in God through knowledge.

Can we have real knowledge of God? A cumulative case of evidence appealing to logic, science, and history pointing toward God’s existence and the truth of Christianity says we can. Moreover, we can also have knowledge of God through a personal relationship with Him, supported by the evidence just mentioned.

With a cumulative case of logical arguments in mind, a Christian should be a person of faith. . . because he or she is primarily a person of knowledge. Christians put their trust in what they know is probably true. This is what William Lane Craig refers to as “reasonable faith.”

I am not proposing that we can know Christian theism is true with 100 percent certainty. However, we can gain knowledge of God with extremely high degrees of certainty. This includes not only knowledge of a powerful and personal Creator of the universe, but also in the particular truth of Christianity through evidential and spiritual means.

In conclusion, Christians aren’t merely people of faith, but people of a faith that is justified by logic, data, and evidence. This is in stark contrast to the blind faith of many atheists based on mere presuppositions and baseless personal opinions. When Christians attain this knowledge of God and Scripture, their faith will grow extremely strong which will be evident in their prayer lives, their Christian walk, and their commitment to fulfilling the Great Commission. Evangelism will quickly transform from something that Christians are scared of into something they eagerly anticipate. This is because when one possesses knowledge, one has things they know to share with others. When Christians share their faith, rooted in knowledge of reality, these evangelical encounters will quickly multiply with awesome results.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

Notes

[1] Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge, Harper Collins, New York, NY, 2009. This article was inspired by this book.

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at Northwest University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2MS51c4

/by

How old is the universe and other big questions?

Podcast: Play in new window

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

How old is the universe?
Is it illogical for God to Create out of nothing?
Did the law of cause and effect apply to the beginning of the universe?

Frank answers more questions from YOU, our amazing audience. Want your questions answered during our podcast. Email Frank at Hello@CrossExamined.org

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

 

 

/by
Why Should We Trust the Extra-Biblical References to Jesus

Why Should We Trust the Extra-Biblical References to Jesus?

,

By Jeremy Linn

We received a great question on our Instagram page this week:

“How do we know that the extra-biblical sources which mention Jesus are trustworthy? Josephus, Tacitus, and the rest weren’t eyewitnesses; they never knew Jesus.”

The questioner here is referring to ancient historical accounts – especially written by the historians Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus – which mention Jesus and give us some information about him. Josephus describes Jesus as the brother of James in his work Antiquities of the Jews and also provides the most well-known extra-biblical reference to Jesus. Tacitus makes reference to Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate in his work Annals.

As the questioner stated, Josephus and Tacitus both were not eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus’ life. Josephus was born a few years after the events of Jesus’ life and was mostly involved in Jewish political matters (and not in the early Christian church). Tacitus also lived after Jesus – a few decades later – and focused on the politics and history of Rome (an area not heavily reached by the Christian church at the time).

Since these two historians were not eyewitnesses, how can we know to trust their references to Jesus? There are a few things we need to consider when answering this question:

  1. Ancient accounts of historical events were often written by people who lived after the events happened

In other words, they were not eyewitnesses of the events. Still, in these cases, we can still learn basic facts about the events which took place. For example, the earliest source we have about the events of Alexander the Great was written by a historian who lived around 300 years after the life of Alexander. Even with this time gap, we can consider many facts about Alexander to be reliable and true.

  1. Almost all ancient historical accounts were written within a culture focused on oral tradition

This focus means the details of the events were transmitted verbally within a community that could check the facts of the events with each other. This method of transmitting information becomes powerful when multiple people witness an event, as all the eyewitnesses can work together to reach a reliable account of the events that took place.

This oral focus gives us a primary reason why the writing of historical events tended to happen later – there was little need to immediately preserve events through writing when people were used to preserving events orally within their community. It also explains how a written account written years after a historical event can still be reliable – a reasonably accurate oral tradition could have already solidified by the time the events were written down.

  1. The works of Josephus and Tacitus are generally reliable. 

Tacitus is praised by historians for being a reliable source on the history of ancient Rome. Josephus’ reliability has been called into question because of his tendency to exaggerate and because of a strong bias towards Jews. However, he has provided us with valuable information about historical figures like Herod the Great, and information about the inner workings of Jewish ritual and culture. Overall, Josephus is reliable in providing basic historical facts about the lives of Jews.

Once we establish the general reliability of these authors, we can turn to the reliability of specific historical accounts they wrote, and specific passages within those accounts.

  1. There is no reason to question Tacitus’ reference to Jesus being killed under Pontius Pilate. 

The language used in passage 15.44 – saying that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate, is consistent with other works of Tacitus. There is nothing out of the ordinary noted in this passage which would make us think the text was tampered with. And we even have archaeological evidence for the existence of Pilate – through an inscription found 50 years ago, and a ring found this year.

  1. We can find basic facts about Jesus in the works of Josephus. 

The references to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities get a bit more complicated. There is one reference to Jesus as the brother of James, which appears in every copy we have of the Antiquities. The reference doesn’t seem to be out of the ordinary in terms of the flow and style of the writings of Josephus. It is reasonable to consider this passage reliable.

However, in the most well-known reference to Jesus called the Flavius Testimonium, there is some commentary we would not expect Josephus to make based on his other writings and based on the fact he is a Jew. For example, one copy of the Antiquities includes the comment that Jesus was “the Christ,” which would be highly unlikely for him to say (after all, that would make him more of a Christian than a Jew!).

The inclusion of this commentary makes us question the details given in the passage, and brings up the possibility of an error in copying the passage or an intentional change in the passage by readers who lived after Josephus. That doesn’t mean we need to throw out the entire passage – it just means certain details are in question. When we eliminate the questionable details, we can still pull basic facts about Jesus in the passage, such as he was someone who did “marvelous works.”

  1. These references are not the only sources we have on Jesus. 

Let’s say we do throw the references in Tacitus and Josephus out. We still have the letters of Paul, the synoptic gospels, the writings of early Church fathers, and a few other extra-biblical references that provide some information on Jesus. Even the Gnostic gospels from the 2nd Century point us to some very basic facts about Jesus (such as his existence!)

The references in Tacitus and Josephus give us a greater sense of confidence in Jesus’ existence, and some key facts about his life – especially his ability to do things that people considered to be miraculous or at least “wonderous.” The references also point us to his death, an event that most Muslims and some skeptics deny. And through other extra-biblical sources, we can see that early followers revered Jesus highly and elevated him to the status of God.

Again, I didn’t intend for this post to provide the definitive answer for the reliability of extra-biblical references to Jesus. But these six considerations will definitely give you something to think about. No matter how we view the references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus, one thing is for sure – we have a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and the basic claims that Christians make about his life.

 

Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FZeFc9

/by
Historical Bias, Objectivity, and the Truth of Christianity

Historical Bias, Objectivity, and the Truth of Christianity

,

By J. Brian Huffling

“Historians are biased and choose what they report. As such, history can’t be known.” That’s a typical objection to the ability to know history. If such objections prove that we can’t know history, then we can’t know that Christianity is true since it is known through history and historical claims. In his prologue, Luke says,

“In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4; emphasis added).

The above passage demonstrates that Luke was writing as an historian. Words such as the ones underlined show his desire to write the truth of the events he wanted to convey. So, if history can’t be known, then we can’t know that Christianity is true. Let’s look at a typical objection.

Bias is probably the most popular objection to knowing history. It is claimed by some that historians are biased. It is not always clear what the objection is really getting at, but usually it is something like the historian holds certain views that in some way make his reporting subjective or unfair. For example, an historian may be writing about a religious issue and if he is part of that religion he is likely going to be accused of being biased. The disciples are often said to be biased regarding the events of the life of Jesus, particularly his resurrection. Since they knew him and had a vested interest they must have made up the claims of the resurrection.

Ironically, there are many assumptions (i.e., biases) about the nature of bias. It is more often than not used in a negative way and is equated with subjectivity and falsity. But why should this be the case? Why should the notion of either bias or subjectivity be equated with something being false? People could be biased because of evidence. If the disciples really did see Jesus alive after he was dead, then the reason they were biased was because of evidence and proof. But this bias would not be based on any subjectivity since their knowledge was based on objective and empirical evidence. Further, someone could have a subjective view of something and still be correct. There is nothing about being biased or subjective that guarantees that the belief is false. Such is an assumption in itself.

Consider this popular argument against objectivity:

  1. To be objective one must be free from bias.
  2. No one is free from bias.
  3. Therefore, no one is objective.

This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. But is it sound (i.e., is the argument valid and the premises and conclusion true)? Well, if no one is free from bias that means the one making this argument is not free from bias. But statements like “No one is . . .” is a universal statement that applies to everyone everywhere. But aren’t universal statements objective? What else would ‘objective’ means other than something that is universal and not simply limited to the subjective beliefs of an individual? This whole line of argument is self-defeating. In other words, when using the argument’s criteria, the very argument itself fails. The objector, in this case, is objective in trying to argue that no one is free from bias and that no one is objective. However, the only way to make such universal statements is for the objector to make objective statements. If they were subjective, then they wouldn’t necessarily be universal. If they weren’t universal, then maybe some people aren’t biased. But this contradicts the argument. Assuming the argument holds water because no one really denies that people are biased, it shows that one can be biased and objective. (Note, it is not guaranteed that one is going to be objective and biased, just that it’s logically possible. The objection is thus deflated.)

This raises another question that is rarely asked and usually assumed: What does it mean for something to be ‘objective’? By now it should be clear that it can’t mean free from bias since we’ve just seen that a person can be both biased and objective. So being free from bias is not necessary to be objective (in fact I would agree that everyone is biased in a general sense). So what does it mean? Most people think that it means being detached from a given circumstance so that one can see it as an objective outsider. In his fascinating work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, drawing on other work on this topic (such as Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History), Richard Bauckham makes the surprising and unfashionable statement:

“A very important point that . . . for Greek and Roman historians, the ideal eyewitness was not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen” (page 9).

He further notes that many historians wanted someone who was involved in the events in question because that person would have a vested interest. They wanted someone who was involved and really there.

This counters the usual desire or assumed need for detatchment, but it does not say what objectivity is. Objectivity is arriving at conclusions that are based on evidence and principles that have their foundation in external reality. Everyone can use and measure truth claims based on external (objective) reality. Put negatively; it is the opposite of one making conclusions that arise simply out of one’s subjective mind. Such evidence based on reality and the principles that follow is mind-independent. Since reality is objective, that is, everyone can know it (as long as their faculties are working properly), the conclusions based on reality can also be objective. When one uses universal (objective) principles to ascertain the truth of a conclusion, one can be objective. Such principles are the laws of logic (or being). One such law is the law of non-contradiction. It declares that if two statements are mutually exclusive one must be true and the other must be false. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus died. Islam counters that Jesus did not die. These statements are mutually exclusive—one must be true and the other false since there is no third option. Thus, they are contradictory. (This is contrasted with statements that can both logically be false, such as “Buddhism is true” and “Atheism is true.” Such statements that can both be false are called ‘contrary.’) Regarding this principle and its application to historical objectivity, Maurice Mandelbaum says,

“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge, 150).

The law of non-contradiction is based in the nature of reality. It is not just a principle of thought, but of being. A tree cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Such first principles of thought and arising out of the nature of reality since something can’t simultaneously be and not be. It is not simply a made-up principle. In fact, it is undeniable since to deny it would require using it.

Thus, if one’s conclusions are based on external and objective reality and evidence, and the principles from such reality, those conclusions can be objective. There is, in a sense, an objective apparatus giving us the possibility of being objective. Again, this is contrasted with something arising only from one’s (subjective) mind rather than from external (objective) reality. There is, therefore, nothing about biases that preclude one from making objective historical statements. Biases do not guarantee subjectivity or falsity.

Back to Bauckham’s point regarding bias, it is often the case that people are indeed biased, but biased because of the evidence. They have seen so much evidence, that they are convinced that what they are saying is true. This, however, is not subjective bias or assumption, but rather the careful examination of objective reality and the evidence that all can investigate.

When looking at historical questions, such as the resurrection, one should not base his conclusions on notions such as the alleged bias of the ones making claims. Rather, one should examine the evidence for the claims to discover their veracity. We can recognize bias in every area and by all people. However, that alone is not enough to show that a person’s claim is false. To be good and responsible historians and investigators, we must follow the evidence.

(I would like to thank Norman L. Geisler for his direction regarding my MA thesis topic which was on this issue, as well as Thomas A. Howe to whom my thoughts and work are indebted greatly.)

 

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

/by