Forgery in the Bible: Were 1 and 2 Timothy really forged?

Forgery in the Bible: Were 1 and 2 Timothy really forged?

,

By Erik Manning

2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is “God-breathed.” Of course for Christians, this would include 2 Timothy, as well as the rest of the pastoral epistles. Skeptics find this verse to be ironic because many biblical critics think that the pastoral epistles were forgeries.

These letters claim to be written by the Apostle Paul, but they allegedly were really written sometime in the early 2nd-century, long after Paul was dead. Apparently, the forger wanted to address some doctrinal issues, and their own name wasn’t authoritative enough, so they borrowed Paul’s. So the “God-breathed” New Testament apparently contains some pious lies.

But are the critical arguments against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles really an open and shut case? Not really. In fact, there’s some very good evidence that Paul did write these letters, and the arguments of the critics aren’t really all that strong.

This will be a 2-part series. First, we’ll first look at the positive case for Pauline authorship before digging into the critics’ objections in the next post.

The witness of the early church fathers

If there was anyone in a spot to know who wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy, it would have been the church father, Polycarp. In his letter to the Philippian church written in about 110 AD, Polycarp quoted 1 Timothy 3:8, 6:7, 6:10, and 2 Timothy 2:12. He also mentions Paul by name four times in his letter, including some indications that he was familiar with the apostle’s martyrdom.

On the significance of these early patristic quotes, here’s Biblical scholar Kenneth Berding. He makes two main observations in regards to Polycarp’s use of 1 and 2 Timothy:

“Observation #1:  The first is that Polycarp clusters allusions to Paul’s writings around each of the three times that he mentions Paul’s name explicitly (in chapters 3, 9, and 11).  You see, Polycarp is like some elderly Christians you may have met in your life who are so immersed in the Bible that they almost talk like the Bible.  Polycarp had huge sections of the Old and New Testaments committed to memory.  His letter could almost be described as a pastiche of allusions to various writings, about half of which are originally Paul’s.  (His connection to Paul in this letter makes sense, of course, since he is writing his letter to a Pauline congregation….the Philippians!)  Polycarp pretty randomly mixes allusions to Paul’s writings (half of his total allusions) with allusions to other writings (e.g., Psalms, Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John).  But there is one significant exception:  when he mentions “Paul,” he clusters allusions to Paul right after the mention of his name.  He does this all three times he mentions Paul, showing that this is a pattern.

Observation #2:  In the first “cluster” of Pauline allusions are two clear allusions to 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 6:10 and 6:7 found in Pol. Phil. 4.1) and in the second “cluster” is one clear allusion to 2 Timothy (2 Tim. 4:10 found in Pol. Phil. 9.2).  There are none from the Pastoral Letters in the third cluster.

The implication of the first observation is that Polycarp considers the phrases in each cluster to be Pauline.  The implication of the second observation is that Polycarp considers the phrases which he quotes from 1 and 2 Timothy also to be from Paul.

This, of course, doesn’t prove that Polycarp is correct in his assessment.  But, as Koester writes, Polycarp was “doubtlessly the most significant ecclesiastical leader of the first half of II C. E.”

Critics say that the writer of the Pastorals was addressing Gnostic heresies of the late first and early second-century, so they were written around 110. But Polycarp was writing around the same time and seems convinced Paul wrote the letters. Irenaeus of Lyons tells us that Polycarp knew some of the apostles, in particular, John, whom Paul met. (Galatians 2:9). And he was familiar with Paul’s death, so this theory that the pastorals were written in the early 2nd-century is pretty strained.

Writing some 40-50 years later, Irenaeus explicitly mentions that Paul is the author of the Pastoral Letters. In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes regarding heretics and says: “Paul commands us, ‘after a first and second admonition, to avoid” (Titus 3:10). Irenaeus also writes that Paul says to avoid those who use “novelties of words of false knowledge” (1 Tim 6:20).

Furthermore, the author of the Didache (a very early Christian writing dated to the late 1st-century) clearly quotes 1 Timothy 3:4. The Pastorals are also quoted by Clement of Alexandria (180 AD), Tertullian (220 AD) and Origen (230 AD). The witness of the early church is pretty clear. They quoted the pastorals as authoritative, and they believed the letters genuinely be from the Apostle Paul.

Undesigned Coincidences

If you’re forging a letter from someone and you want to make it believable, you’re going to color it with some overt connections with their previous letters and life-details. Some critics say this exists when the writer of Timothy talks about Paul’s former life as a church persecutor. (1 Tim. 1:13-16) But there are some less obvious interconnections in the pastorals that seem very unlikely to be intentional. These point to Paul being the genuine author of the letters.

These come in the form of undesigned coincidences. What the heck is an undesigned coincidence anyway? An undesigned coincidence (named by J.J. Blunt and first popularized by William Paley) happens when one account of an event leaves out a piece of info which is incidentally filled in by a different account, which helps to answer some natural questions raised by the first. You can read more about them here.

Lydia McGrew has recently revived and updated this older argument in her fantastic book Hidden in Plain View. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in defending the reliability of the New Testament.  For our purposes, we’ll look at three undesigned coincidences where Acts and 1 and 2 Timothy seem to incidentally interlock.

Timothy’s Upbringing

The first is about Timothy himself. 2 Timothy 1:5 says “I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.”. 2 Timothy 3:15 gives us some more details about Timothy’s upbringing: “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 

So Timothy was steeped in the Jewish scriptures and in the faith. These details fit well together with what we read in Acts 16:1-3: “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

In Acts, we learned Timothy’s father was Greek and apparently drew the line at circumcision, but his mother was a Jewish convert to Christianity. That’s why he would’ve been familiar with the scriptures since he was a child. 2 Timothy mentions his grandmother but not his father. Neither group of details seems to be in connection with the other. McGrew concludes that “this undesigned coincidence has the ring of truth. Timothy’s father was a Greek, and his mother was Jewish, he was raised from childhood in the knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, and both the author of 2 Timothy and the author of Acts knew about him and described him accurately.” (HIPV, 200) 

Timothy’s familiarity with Paul’s trials

2 Timothy 3:10-11 says: “You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.” This raises an interesting question. Paul went through a lot of persecutions, so why mention Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra as ones that Timothy would be familiar with?

In Acts 16:1, we read that Timothy was known as a believer when Paul came to Derbe and Lystra. Both cities are near Iconium, so Timothy must have been from one of them.

In the run-up to these verses, Acts gives us the rundown on the persecution of Paul experienced during his first missionary journey in Antioch (13:44–52), Iconium (14:5), and then Lystra (14:19). Paul was stoned and thought dead in Lystra in particular, so surely word got around about this event. It must’ve made quite an impression on a young believer like Timothy. Furthermore, Paul calls Timothy his “beloved child” (2 Timothy 1:2), suggesting he played a role in him becoming a Christian.

McGrew sums up this undesigned coincidence as follows: “Notice how indirect all of this is. One infers from II Timothy that Paul had some special reason to mention those persecutions to Timothy and to say that they were known to Timothy. One notes the point in Acts 13–14, where the narrative describes persecutions in those towns. One then infers from Acts 16 that Timothy was already a disciple from that region and had been converted during Paul’s previous visit to the region, described in Acts 13–14, during which the persecutions took place.” (HIPV, 203)

The Roster of Widows

For our last undesigned coincidence, we notice that in 1 Timothy 5:9-10 there are some instructions on how to help widows: “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” 

The conservative dating of 1 Timothy is in the early 60s, three decades after some of the stories related in Acts, which includes details of a ministry devoted to assisting widows. With that in mind, check out Acts 6:1-4: “Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

So Paul implies that this listing of widows has been a tradition that’s been well-established, and he’s laying out some specifics how Timothy is to carry it out in his neck of the woods. We’d expect this kind of clarification if this practice had been carried out for a while and there needed to be some further practical instructions given since some women were abusing the system. (1 Tim 5:13-14)

Here’s William Paley’s summary on this particular undesigned coincidence: “Now this is the way a man writers, who is conscious that he is writing to persons already acquainted with the subject of his letter; and who, he knows, will readily apprehend and apply what he says by virtue of their being so acquainted: but it is not the way in which a man writes upon any other occasion” (Horae Paulinae, pp 300-301)

Personal References

There are a lot of personal references made in the pastorals. The writer mentions a lot of individuals that he had a connection with during his missionary journeys. In 1 Timothy 1:20, he names Hymenaeus and Alexander as false teachers.

In 2 Timothy, he not only mentions Eunice and Lois by name (which we touched on earlier) but he also blesses Onesiphorus for his kindness that he showed him at Rome and Ephesus (2 Tim 1:16-18) He talks about a number of disciples forsaking him during his trials, such as Demas, Crescens and Titus.  (v. 4:10-11) He mentions Mark and Luke and asks Timothy to bring him his scrolls. (v11-13) He then asks Timothy to greet Priscilla and Aquila. He mentions Erastus and says he left Trophimus sick in Miletus. (v. 19-20)

In Titus 3:12, he asks Titus to join him once Artemas or Tychicus arrive to replace him. He also mentions some fellow workers, like Apollos and Zenas the lawyer (Titus 3:12-13)

If such allusions to people and circumstances were spun out of thin air by a forger pretending to be Paul, you’d think that such a sham would be easily exposed. But as we said earlier, none of the church fathers doubted the letters’ genuineness.

Paul wrote the Pastorals

There’s some very good evidence for the genuineness of Paul’s letters to Timothy that seems to go ignored by critics. They tend to focus on more granular internal inconsistencies and quibbles about grammar, which we’ll discuss in my next post. But as we’ve seen, the witness of the early church strongly favors that Paul wrote these letters based on their statements and use of the letters. And the internal evidence of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the pastoral letters is another strong argument in favor of the genuineness of the letters. The claim that Paul wrote these letters stands on solid ground.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (Mp3)

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

/by
4 Ways Parents Bore Their Kids Out of Christianity

4 Ways Parents Bore Their Kids Out of Christianity

By Natasha Crain

The highlight of my summer was a family RV vacation to Kings Canyon National Park. Behind our campground flowed a gorgeous river that I returned to multiple times over the course of our trip. Each time I went, I sat and pondered the “big questions” of life. There’s something about the majesty of creation that bubbles up a deep sense of awe about who God is, what he has done, who we are, and the meaning of life.

But this sense of awe also led me to reflect on how so many kids are apathetic about their worldview. A common thread I hear from parents is that their kids just don’t care about their spiritual beliefs, or just don’t care about Christianity specifically. There are certainly many kids who explicitly reject Christianity today, but I just as often hear about kids who are ambivalent.

How does ambivalence happen? As I sat by a river contemplating that question, a thought struck me:

Kids are being bored out of Christianity.

And they’ve been bored out of it by the Christians around them. Since parents are the primary spiritual influencers in the lives of kids, I want to suggest four ways we sometimes let this happen.

1. Parents rely on Sunday school for their kids’ spiritual development.

The vast majority of Sunday school programs don’t exactly challenge kids to think deeply about their faith. It’s Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, Jesus’s birth, Jesus’s miracles, and Jesus’s resurrection… repeat. Oh, and how could I forget Jonah! Always a Sunday school favorite.

But hearing the same stories over and over each year without going deeper is hardly different than reading kids the same book over and over and expecting them to really engage.

That’s boring.

When parents aren’t having rich conversations about faith with their kids at home—conversations that help them see the relevance of all those Sunday school lessons—Christianity can start to feel like nothing more than the sum of a handful of Bible stories. That’s pretty easy to leave behind when kids leave home.

2. Parents treat spiritual beliefs as subjective truths.

There are a number of Christian parents who treat spiritual beliefs as a matter of subjective truth—this is what works for them, but something else may work better for their kids. This usually sounds like some version of, “I want my kids to have their own faith journey, and that might not be Christianity for them. I just want them to be happy people with good values.”

Of course, every kid will be on their own faith journey (that goes without saying), but in this context, the parent is suggesting that it doesn’t matter where the child ends up because all beliefs are equally valid. Happiness and good “values” (however the parent defines those) are prioritized over their kids’ pursuit of objective truth—what is true about reality for everyone.

But Christianity is either true or false; it can’t be true for one person and not another. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then he was who he said he was and Christianity is true. If he wasn’t, our faith is in vain, and Christianity is a false worldview (1 Corinthians 15:14).

How does all this lead to boredom? If it doesn’t really matter what you believe, there’s no need to really put effort into determining what’s “true”—true in such a case is just whatever you stumble into thinking works for you over the course of your life. Why bother caring so much about the belief system your parents happen to adhere to?

3. Parents live their lives in a way that’s indistinguishable from those of nonbelievers.

Even for those parents who recognize that Christianity is a matter of objective truth with far-reaching implications, it’s easy for daily life to not reflect that in an obvious way to kids. Parents get busy, and family spiritual disciplines (e.g., Bible reading and prayer), church, serving, and meaningful faith conversations go out the window before anyone really notices what happened.

If the only detectable difference between the lives of a Christian family and those of nonbelieving families is that the Christian family occasionally attends church, kids will (rightly) question what difference being a Christian really makes. And if they don’t know why it matters that much, they won’t be motivated to really commit their own lives to the Lord. They’ll be bored by occasionally listening to “Christian stuff” that doesn’t translate into anything they see as meaningful.

4. Parents don’t teach kids what big faith questions they should be asking.

As I’ve written about before, I grew up in a Christian home and spent hundreds of hours in church. I never rejected my faith, but when I left home for college, it didn’t even occur to me to find a church or join a Christian college group. As far as I had thought through faith, I was saved, I would live my life without doing anything too bad, and go to heaven someday.

In other words, I had some rough “basics” down, yet it was hardly an invigorating faith. No one had ever challenged me to think about big, deep, meaningful questions that would become increasingly relevant as I got older. Things like: How can I be confident that God exists? Why is there so much evil in a world created by a good God? Why is God so “hidden?” What happens to those who haven’t heard about Jesus? Why do some prayers go unanswered? (You can look at the tables of contents in my books for 70 such questions kids should be thinking about.)

No one ever put these kinds of questions in front of me to say, “Hey! Here are some really big questions you should be thinking about when it comes to your faith—questions that have compelling answers and will lead you to a deeper conviction of what you believe!”

Instead, I just kept learning the “basics”—important basics, but only the basics. I wasn’t even aware that there could be so much more richness to my faith. I believed Christianity was true, but it was a boring kind of true. Familiar and comfortable like an old chair.

Plenty of kids today walk out of faith with a big yawn for this reason. Maybe they aren’t explicitly rejecting Christianity in this case, but they’re intellectually bored enough by it that they have no problem relegating it to a small corner of their lives until they feel the need to dust it off again.

Unfortunately, that perceived need often arises in the midst of a life crisis that finally prompts them to ask these questions. And those who have never really taken the time to work through them before will be woefully unprepared. What in the past was boredom can easily then turn to rejection in the darkest of times?

Spiritual apathy may seem less immediately troubling to parents than a child’s outright rejection of faith, but the end result is often the same. Boredom can end up being a quiet faith killer that parents unintentionally foster in their own home.

Need help fighting spiritual boredom? In my next post, I’ll offer ideas for reinvigorating your family’s spiritual life.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Talking with Your Kids about God: 30 Conversations Every Christian Parent Must Have by Natasha Crain (Book)

Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith by Natasha Crain (Book)

Courageous Parenting by Jack and Deb Graham (Book)

Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download

Forensic Faith for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)

God’s Crime Scene for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)

 

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/2lNA3Iq

 

 

/by
Métodos de apologética y una defensa a favor de la apologética clásica

Métodos de apologética y una defensa a favor de la apologética clásica

Por J. Brian Huffling

En el 2004, comencé a cursar una maestría en Apologética Cristiana en el “Southern Evangelical Seminary”. Realmente no conocía mucho del tema, solo quería saber cómo defender la fe cristiana y tener una mejor justificación para mis propias creencias. Me di cuenta que tanto cristianos como no cristianos mantenían debates acerca de la veracidad de la fe, pero no tenía idea que los cristianos debatían entre sí acerca de cómo –e incluso si– se debía practicar la defensa de la fe. Existen distintas perspectivas acerca de si se debe hacer apologética o no, y de la forma en que se debe llevar a cabo. Este artículo describirá, brevemente, diversos métodos de apologética y presentará un argumento acerca de la superioridad del método clásico.

Diversos Métodos

Apologética Clásica

La apologética clásica ha sido conocida como el método de dos pasos. El primer paso, es demostrar la existencia de Dios mediante las pruebas teístas tradicionales (los diversos argumentos cosmológicos, los argumentos del diseño, los ontológicos, etc.). Este método se apoya en la posibilidad de la teología natural —la habilidad que tiene el razonamiento para demostrar la existencia de Dios. Este primer paso no demuestra que el cristianismo sea cierto, sino el monoteísmo.  El Segundo paso es demostrar la veracidad del cristianismo al presentar, por ejemplo, (aunque no necesariamente de esta manera exacta), que los milagros son posibles, la Biblia es confiable, Jesús afirmó y demostró que Él era Dios, etc. Se conoce como el método “clásico” porque ha sido el método clásico y tradicional utilizado a través de los tiempos. Entre algunos defensores se encuentran Agustín, Anselmo, Tomás de Aquino, William Paley, integrantes de la Universidad de Princeton tales como B. B. Warfield, Norman Geisler y R. C. Sproul (entre muchos otros). Algunos libros clásicos de apologética son: “Christian Apologetics” (La Apologética Cristiana) de Norman Geisler y No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo de Frank Turek y Norman Geisler.

Apologética Evidencial

Los apologistas evidenciales no pretenden demostrar que Dios existe. Algunos lo hacen porque no creen que la teología natural sea posible; otros piensan que simplemente es mucho más fácil empezar con la defensa bíblica. Van directamente a las evidencias para demostrar que el cristianismo es verdadero a partir de campos como la historia y la arqueología. Para ellos, esto evita los argumentos y las objeciones filosóficas difíciles. La gente, comúnmente, es más propensa a entender la historia y cosas por el estilo. La idea es; si podemos demostrar que la Biblia es confiable y que Jesús fue resucitado de entre los muertos, entonces una persona razonable se convencerá de que el cristianismo es verdadero. Eso incluiría la existencia de Dios. Entre los defensores de esta perspectiva se encuentran Joseph Butler, Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas y Michael Licona, entre otros. Algunas de las obras de la apologética evidencial son The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (La defensa de la resurrección de Jesús) de Gary Habermas y Michael Licona, y Nueva Evidencia que demanda un veredicto de Josh McDowell.

Apologética Presuposicional

La apologética presuposicional es directamente contraria a la apologética clásica, ya que sus seguidores rechazan la idea de que podemos razonar en cuanto a la existencia de Dios. Los apologistas presuposicionalistas argumentan que debemos presuponer la verdad del cristianismo y demostrar que todas las demás cosmovisiones (y religiones) son falsas. Los presuposicionalistas llegan al punto de concluir que uno no puede razonar del todo (ni dar cuenta de su capacidad para razonar) sin el cristianismo ser verdadero. Ellos afirman que debemos argumentar de manera trascendental, al demostrar que la racionalidad en sí presupone la veracidad del cristianismo y que cualquier cosmovisión ajena a él, fracasa. El conocido presuposicionalista Greg Bahnsen dijo en su debate con R. C. Sproul que él no podía saber que su auto estuviera en el estacionamiento de la playa, sin presuponer la existencia del Dios Trino. En un debate que mantuve con un presuposicionalista, fui desafiado a explicar cómo podía saber que el árbol está fuera de mi ventana sin presuponer la veracidad del cristianismo. Los que apoyan este método alegan que debemos defender el cristianismo en base a la imposibilidad de lo contrario. En otras palabras, debido a que se ha comprobado que las demás cosmovisiones y religiones son falsas, el cristianismo debe ser verdadero. Los defensores de este método son Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Gordon Clark, John Frame y K. Scott Oliphant. Algunas obras de la apologética presuposicional son “Christian Apologetics” (La apologética cristiana) de Cornelius Van Til y “Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended” (La apologética presuposicional: afirmada y defendida) de Greg Bahnsen.

Caso Apologético Acumulativo

Algunos apologistas afirman que debemos tomar lo mejor de todos estos métodos y utilizar el enfoque del caso apologético acumulativo. Es decir, debemos tomar los mejores argumentos de cada método y usarlos enfocándonos en la idea principal. Paul Feinberg toma esta postura en “Five Views on Apologetics” (Cinco perspectivas de la apologética). Este es un buen libro para buscar más información sobre esta perspectiva.

La superioridad de la apologética clásica

Con este breve resumen, uno puede preguntarse, ¿qué método es mejor?, o ¿por qué no utilizar el caso apologético acumulativo y tomamos lo bueno de cada modelo? Ahora, estaré argumentando sobre la superioridad del método clásico.

En primer lugar, la Biblia dice que podemos conocer acerca de Dios por medio de la naturaleza. Pablo, en Romanos 1:19-20 dice:

“1:18 Porque la ira de Dios se revela desde el cielo contra toda impiedad e injusticia de los hombres que detienen con injusticia la verdad; 1:19 porque lo que de Dios se conoce les es manifiesto, pues Dios se lo manifestó.  1:20 Porque las cosas invisibles de él, su eterno poder y deidad, se hacen claramente visibles desde la creación del mundo, siendo entendidas por medio de las cosas hechas”

Por lo tanto, no solo podemos conocer que Dios existe por medio de la naturaleza, sino que también podemos tener una idea de cómo es Él. Si Dios puede darse a conocer por medio de la naturaleza, entonces existe la posibilidad de que tal conocimiento se pueda usar en forma de un argumento lógico. La única pregunta que nos queda es, “¿Estos argumentos son sólidos?” Bueno, esa ya es otra pregunta, pero al menos, desde el punto de vista bíblico, parecen ser posibles. Por lo tanto, resulta difícil ver cómo alguien puede alegar que la Biblia no enseña la teología natural.

Además, parece que muchos de los argumentos teístas son sólidos desde un punto de vista racional. Por ejemplo, si el universo es un ser contingente y no puede dar razón de su propia existencia, y una causa que produce un efecto no puede continuar hasta el infinito, entonces parece que, en algún punto, debemos llegar a una causa que no sea contingente, sino necesaria. Tal causa debe ser Dios.

Segundo, la apologética clásica comienza un paso antes de argumentar a favor de Dios; comienza por conocer la realidad y la naturaleza de la verdad absoluta. En una era de relativismo, debemos responder objeciones tales como: “Bueno, eso puede ser verdad para ti, pero no para mí”. Además, la apologética clásica trata con asuntos filosóficos básicos de la metafísica (la naturaleza de la realidad) y la epistemología (cómo conocemos la realidad) de una manera más sólida e intencionada que en los otros métodos.

Tercero, la apologética clásica utiliza las evidencias a favor del cristianismo en un contexto teísta. Como lo afirma Norman Geisler: “No puede haber actos de Dios a menos que haya un Dios que pueda actuar”. Además, como ha dicho C. S. Lewis, si Dios existe, entonces no podemos rechazar la posibilidad de los milagros. Establecer la existencia de Dios, antes de pasar a los milagros, nos ayuda a que estos datos tengan más sentido. También, los milagros son señales de algo. No fueron solamente maravillas; ellos demostraban o señalaban hacia algo. Por ejemplo, los milagros que Jesús realizó demostraron quien él dijo ser. Como lo dijo Nicodemo, solamente alguien que tuviera el poder de Dios tenía la capacidad de hacer las obras que él hizo. Finalmente, por muy tonto que pudiera sonar, alguien podría afirmar que los eventos como el de la resurrección pudo haber sido llevado a cabo de una forma sobrehumana, como por los extraterrestres. Sé que es ridículo, pero es una objeción que se debe vencer si no se ha establecido la existencia de Dios. En resumen, las evidencias en favor de la Biblia y el cristianismo están allí, pero cobran más sentido y son más poderosas después de haberlas colocado en un contexto teísta.

Cuarto, la apologética presuposicional tiene muchos problemas. Los mismos presuposicionalistas admiten que su postura es circular. Sin embargo, ellos alegan que todas las perspectivas son circulares. Por ejemplo, dicen que la noción de que no podemos evitar el razonamiento es circular, pues cualquier intento de rechazar esa postura requeriría el uso de la razón. Sin embargo, ese no es un problema circular, pues es básicamente innegable que razonar sea inevitable en las discusiones o en los argumentos. Uno no usa la razón para probar la razón; sino que simplemente está diciendo que es inevitable e innegable. Sin embargo, asumir que una postura es verdadera y demostrarla desde esa misma postura es la definición de la circularidad. Además, alegar que podemos demostrar que el cristianismo es verdadero en base a la imposibilidad de lo contrario es simplemente un error. La contrariedad es una relación lógica entre dos afirmaciones. De este modo, cuando nos referimos a las afirmaciones que son contrarias, estamos hablando de la naturaleza de la lógica. Las afirmaciones (y únicamente las afirmaciones) son opuestas cuando ambas pueden ser falsas, pero ninguna de las dos puede ser verdadera. Por ejemplo, las afirmaciones “El cristianismo es verdadero” y “El ateísmo es verdadero” son opuestas ya que ambas pueden ser lógicamente falsas. Pero, debido a que ambas pueden ser falsas, jamás podríamos probar la verdad del cristianismo al demostrar la falsedad de sus contrarios. Además, el presunto argumento trascendental para el cristianismo auténtico nunca ha sido articulado, menos aún, defendido. Créeme, si existe un argumento que garantice una victoria sin importar que… yo lo quiero. Desafortunadamente, no existe. Nadie se ha dado por vencido. A Bahnsen se le ha dado muchas oportunidades en su debate con Sproul, pero no tuvo éxito.

Entonces, ¿por qué no tomar lo mejor de todos los métodos y utilizar el enfoque del caso apologético acumulativo? Porque lo mejor de cada método ya es propio del modelo clásico. El modelo clásico es más exhaustivo que los demás, coloca los milagros y las evidencias en un contexto teísta y evita los problemas del presuposicionalismo. De este modo, la apologética clásica es el modelo más sólido y el más completo.

Entre las obras sobre apologética se incluyen: “Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith” (La fe tiene sus razones: enfoques integradores para defender la fe cristiana), de Ken Boa y Robert Bowman (este es mi favorito) y “Five Views on Apologetics” (Cinco perspectivas sobre la apologética).

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D., cuenta con una Licenciatura en Historia de la Universidad de Lee, una Licenciatura en Apologética (con 3 especializaciones), Filosofía y Estudios Bíblicos del Seminario Evangélico del Sur (SES, por sus siglas en inglés), y un Doctorado en Filosofía de la Religión de la misma institución. Es el Director del Programa de Doctorado y Profesor Asociado de Filosofía y Teología en el SES. También dicta cursos en la Academia En Línea de Apología. Anteriormente, ha enseñado en el Instituto de las Artes de Charlotte. Ha prestado servicios en la Infantería de Marina, en la Armada y actualmente, sirve como capellán de reserva en las Fuerzas Aéreas en la Base Aérea Maxwell. Entre sus aficiones se incluyen el golf, la astronomía casera, las artes marciales y la guitarra.

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

Traducido por Leonardo Padilla

Editado por Billy Morales Mujica

/by
12 Reasons to Trust The New Testament

12 Reasons to Trust The New Testament

,

By Bob Perry

If you claim to believe the Bible, you better be able to trust that what it says is true. Trusting the Bible means knowing two things. First, that the original authors recorded historically accurate information. And, second, knowing that the Bible we have today contains what the original authors wrote down. “Textual criticism” is the science that analyzes these kinds of issues. It’s a complicated discipline. But the conclusions we can draw from it are simple to understand. Here are 12 reasons you can trust the New Testament manuscripts.

Multiple, Independent Sources Contributed to It

We tend to think of the Bible as a book. And it is … today. But that book is a collection of letters, poems, and historical documents that span thousands of years of human history. There are really 66 books in the Bible. They were written by about 40 different authors (35 of which we are very confident of). And they offer us a remarkably coherent story from beginning to end. We should judge the new testament manuscripts just like we would any other historical document. And one mark of reliable documentation is that it comes from multiple, independent sources.

We Have Thousands of New Testament Manuscripts

When you have lots of copies of a document, it is easy to compare them and see where variations in the text may occur. For instance, we have about 1800 known copies of Homer’s Iliad. This is by far the most copies of any ancient document. By comparison, the next closest is the writings of Demosthenes at 400 copies. Then there are the writings of Julius Caesar (10 copies), and the Roman historians Tacitus (20 copies) and Pliny (7 copies). No one disputes the authenticity of these manuscripts.

But when it comes to the New Testament, we have 5824 copies in the original Greek. When you count other languages (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic), there are more than 20,000!

New Testament Scholar Daniel Wallace puts it this way:

“The average classical Greek writer has less than 20 copies of his works still in existence. Stack them up, and they’re 4 feet high. If you stack up copies of the New Testament manuscripts, they would be over a mile high.”

The Manuscripts Were Written Early

We have good evidence to suggest that most of the New Testament was written before 70 A.D. This is not a unanimous conclusion by any means. But it is reasonable. And it is based on historical facts.

After a Jewish uprising against the Romans that began in 66 AD, the Roman Emperor dispatched his General, Titus, to the region to gain control. A conflict ensued that lasted nearly four years. Finally, in 70 AD, Titus surrounded the city of Jerusalem and attacked. In the end, he destroyed the city and burned the Jewish Temple to the ground.

These are not minor incidents. The Temple was the center of the Jewish culture and the home of Judaism. Yet none of the New Testament authors even mention these events. In fact, John 5:2, contains the following passage: “Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate, a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.”

John’s description of the Temple is in the present tense. This suggests he wrote these words before the Temple was destroyed. And most scholars believe John’s was the last Gospel written. The other Gospels and the Book of Acts were penned well before it.

The Documents Are a Collection of Eyewitness Accounts

There is no denying the New Testament reads like a collection of eyewitness accounts about the life and teachings of Jesus. But that doesn’t mean it is. Details count. And details are exactly what the New Testament provides.

In his book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, Frank Turek lists 84 specific details documented by classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer. And these occur just in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts. They include the names of people, places, and other details that have been confirmed by history and archeology.

Likewise, the Gospel of John contains 59 confirmed details. None of them are the kind of detail someone would fabricate. And there is no other set of ancient manuscripts that contain this level of historically verifiable authenticity.

Non-Christian Sources Confirm the Most Important Details

There are 10 non-Christian sources who mention Jesus within 150 years of his life. These people have no motivation to confirm anything about him. But they verify every detail of what the New Testament says about his life, death, and resurrection. By contrast, only 9 non-Christian sources who mention the Roman Emperor of that time, Tiberius Caesar. And, if you count Christian sources, Jesus gets 43 mentions. Tiberius only gets 10.

There is no reason these non-Christian sources would confirm details contained in the New Testament unless they were actually true.

We Can Reconstruct It Using Just Quotes of Early Church Fathers

Writing between about 95 – 110 AD, three leaders of the Christian Church cited nearly the entire New Testament. These early “Church Fathers” (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) quoted every book in the New Testament except Jude and 2 John. And since they were quoting the New Testament letters, this serves as further evidence that those letters must have existed well prior to 100 AD.

Historical and Archeological Evidence Corroborate It

There are 30 characters mentioned in the New Testament whose names and positions have been verified by history and archeology.

For instance, we have the actual burial box (“ossuary”) that contains the bones of the High Priest, Joseph Caiaphas, who sentenced Jesus to death. And we have the infamous “Pilate Stone.” This engraved sign authenticates the name and title of the Roman Prefect who released Jesus to his trial by the Jewish authorities.

There are plenty of other examples where archaeology has corroborated the claims of the New Testament, including:

  • The Pool of Siloam (John 9:1-12) uncovered in 2004.
  • The Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9) excavated in 1888.
  • Syrian Governor Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3) name discovered on a coin and a statue
  • King Lysanias (Luke 3:1) listed on an inscription near Damascus

It Fulfills Ancient Prophecies in Amazing Ways

There are 9 specific Old Testament prophecies that foretell the origin, nature, and life of Jesus of Nazareth. These were written between several hundred and a couple of thousand years before his birth. Yet, they predict the events of his life with deadly accuracy. Daniel 7, Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53 all contain prophecies about his birth, death, and resurrection. These are so accurate many thought they were written after the fact. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 put that notion to rest.

In all, Bible scholar J. Barton Payne identified 71 Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

It Contains Embarrassing Details

If you were going to make up or embellish a story about a heroic figure and his henchmen, you certainly wouldn’t include details that embarrassed them. But that’s just what the New Testament manuscripts do. His followers are bumbling fools and cowards who doubt his teachings. His disciples — even his own family — consider Jesus to be out of his mind and a deceiver. Some call him a “drunkard” and “demon-possessed.” But, most amazingly, he suffers the worst kind of defeat any devout Jew could ever imagine. He is hung on a tree (the ultimate curse in the Jewish culture) and killed.

These are not the kind of things that anyone would use to convince you that their hero was a God. They are the kinds of things that a writer includes because he is documenting events that actually occurred.

It Includes the Difficult Sayings of Jesus

Along the same lines, the New Testament writers make Jesus a very difficult figure to serve. He sets new — and unattainable — standards for justice, judgment, lust, marriage, finances, and love. Try to imagine a salesman or storyteller who exhorts you to follow him by imposing those kinds of standards on others. It just makes no sense. Unless the writers were telling the truth.

A “Chain of Custody” Confirms The Content of the Originals

The Monastery of Saint Catherine contains the oldest known complete copy of the New Testament. This manuscript is called Codex Sinaiticus because the monastery was located on the Sinai peninsula. Scholars have dated it to 350 AD.

That’s great. But how do we know it contains what the original authors wrote?

J. Warner Wallace, a retired Los Angeles cold-case detective, applies his methods for evaluating evidence to the biblical manuscripts. In his book, Cold-Case Christianity, Wallace connects the dots between the New Testament authors (Paul, John, Peter, Mark) and their students that leads directly to Codex Sinaiticus. Wallace shows that we have a reliable chain of evidence between the words of the oldest copy of the New Testament and the men who wrote the words contained in it.

It Contains “Undesigned Coincidences” That Verify Its Authenticity

One of the most powerful ways to tell if a story is authentic is to compare how different eyewitnesses tell it. If the accounts are exactly the same, you suspect collusion. If they’re wildly contradictory, you suspect that somebody is lying or that the story just isn’t true. But when two accounts tell the same story from different points of view, that is the hallmark of authenticity. This is especially true if one version inadvertently provides complementary details to another. Some scholars call these “undesigned coincidences.”

As an example, compare Matthew’s account of Jesus’ appearance before the Sanhedrin in Matthew 26:67-68. After they spit in his face, strike him with their fists, and slap him, they say, “Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?” That’s a weird question to ask someone who you just slapped across the face.

Until you read Luke’s account.

In Luke 22:64, we find out that before the Jewish leaders began questioning Jesus, they blindfolded him.

This is a “coincidence” that no one planned. It’s a powerful indication that the accounts are real. And the Bible is littered with these kinds of harmonizing features. Links to detailed resources about these “undesigned coincidences” are available below.

The New Testament Verifies the Old Testament

The reliability of the New Testament is beyond dispute. And that means we can trust its purpose — to give an account of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is exactly who he said he was. His resurrection confirmed it. And Jesus certifies what the Old Testament says. That means the Old Testament is also reliable for many of the same reasons.

There are plenty of resources (some offered below) that give more detail about these issues. Check them out. Study them.

You can have confidence in the fact that there are plenty of reasons we can trust the New Testament. And knowing why that is true goes a long way toward helping you own your faith.

Resources

Books on “Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences”

Lydia McGrew, Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts

Eric Lounsbery, J. J. Blunt’s Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences

Books On the Reliability of the Bible

Walter C. Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant?
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust The Gospels?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (Mp3)

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

/by
Jesus’s Understanding of Human Nature in Luke 17

Jesus’s Understanding of Human Nature in Luke 17

By Brian Chilton

Some have claimed that Jesus was not a theologian. Granted, he did not sit down and write out a systematic theology book. However, the teachings of Jesus denote a deep theology that resonated with his understanding of God, Jesus’s own identity, God’s judgment, and of God’s salvific plan. In addition, one can see Jesus’s understanding of humanity and its relationship to God.

One such example of the latter is found in the Gospel of Luke 17:1–4. Jesus emphasizes the importance of rebuking those who offend while also maintaining a forgiving spirit when repentance is sought (Luke 17:3). In verse 1, Jesus implicitly reveals his understanding of humanity. He states, “Offenses will certainly come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to stumble” (Luke 17:1–2, CSB). In these statements of Jesus, three theological truths pertaining to the sinfulness of human nature and its effects can be found.

  1. Humans are imperfect until eternity. One must ask, why is it certain that offenses should come? To answer this question; first, Jesus knew that on this side of eternity that people are imperfect people. Offenses will come because people are broken souls who cannot live up to the standards of God’s law. Millard Erickson notes concerning sin that “A common element running through all the various ways of characterizing sin is the idea that the sinner has failed to fulfill God’s law” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 528). Everyone has a sinful nature which means that everyone does wrong. Even Christians, though they are saved, are prone to sinful behaviors. The difference is that Christians are saved by God’s grace. Paul, the apostle, noted, “For I do not do the good that I want to do, but I practice the evil that I do not want to do” (Rom. 7:19, CSB). Why? Paul says that it is the “sin that lives in me” (Rom. 7:20, CSB). Therefore, if all of us are sinful by nature, then we will eventually offend someone, whether it be intentional or not, and will suffer from offenses, whether it is intentional or not. Thus, in this world, we cannot live without the presence of any offenses. The question is, how do we deal with offenses when they come.
  2. Humans are inclined to rebellion. Second, Jesus knew that people are inclined to rebellion against God. Erickson notes that the “essence of sin is simply a failure to let God be God” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 530). Human beings want to be in control of their own domain. For that reason, people generally don’t like the idea that something, or rather Someone, exists that is higher than their own perceived sense of authority. Think about it. If God exists, then God is higher than any human position in business or government. Even Presidents and dictators are under the authority of this Supreme Being. Rather than accepting God’s authority, people rebel against it. Because of that rebellion, people commit evil acts against God and others. That brings us to our last assessment of Jesus’s teaching on human nature.
  3. Humans are ill-fated for destruction. Third, Jesus observes that human beings are headed for destruction due to their rebellious path. Offenses bring judgment. Jesus argues that a person who willfully hurts another person or leads a person to sin would be better off to jump into the ocean with a millstone tied around one’s neck than to face the day of judgment. Millstones were used to grind grain. They were circular stones that were attached to animals that guided the stones around and around as they ground the grain placed under the stone. Millstones could weigh around a ton or more! Can you imagine? To put a modern spin on the illustration, a person who abuses and hurts others would be better tied up by the mafia and thrown in the Hudson Bay rather than facing God on Judgment Day. Al Capone has nothing on God. All kidding aside, human beings are self-destructive. Societies destroy other societies. Nations rise up against other nations. In our modern state, we have weapons now that could obliterate life on earth. The only salvific means for humanity is found in God.

While only a couple of verses and a couple of statements in length, Jesus unveils a deep theology pertaining to the sinful nature of humanity and the certain destruction that comes by one’s rebellion against God. Hope is found. Forgiveness with God and with others is possible. Jesus teaches that a person should be willing to rebuke an offender but be willing to forgive just as God forgives them. As we look at our world with all the shootings, all the killings, and all the hate, we wonder how it is that we can bring peace. The answer is found in God. We will never see complete peace on this earth. Having the peace of God does not even indicate that all conflicts will cease. But it does denote that a person can have the peace and serenity of God in one’s life despite the chaotic circumstances that abound.

Sources

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the soon to be released book The Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for nearly 20 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

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

/by

What’s an easy way to do evangelism? With Dr. Rice Broocks

Podcast: Play in new window

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

About 70% of young people leave the church after they leave home, and only 3% of churches grow through evangelism.   Why aren’t we sharing the world’s most important truth?   One reason is that we simply don’t know how to share the truth without sounding like a religious nut.  It’s awkward in our culture.   But there’s an easy way to share Christ.

Dr. Rice Broocks, author of God’s Not Dead (the book that inspired the movie), joins Frank along with Addison Tweedy of ThinkEvangelism.org, to show you the SALT method of sharing the world’s most important truth.

Start a conversation

Ask questions

Listen

Tell the story

It’s time to be salt and light with the SALT method.  There’s even an app that will help you do this.  Go to the app store and download “The God Test”.  You can also invite Rice, Addison, or someone from their team, to your church by going to www.ThinkEvangelism.org.

In the second half of the show, Frank answers a question about how to answer a scientist who won’t trust the Bible because she says that the Bible teaches that the earth is young.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

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

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

 

/by
5 Steps Every Christian Should Take When Talking with Skeptics about Miracles

5 Steps Every Christian Should Take When Talking with Skeptics about Miracles

,

By Jeremy Linn

When talking with skeptics about the resurrection of Jesus, it seems obvious to go straight to the historical evidence for the resurrection. But for many skeptics, there is an intellectual barrier that needs to be broken down before historical evidence can even be considered.

The barrier is: A strong skepticism towards miracles.

I came across this barrier in a discussion I had with a skeptic about Jesus’ resurrection. When the discussion began, I immediately started talking about historical sources that provide the best evidence for the resurrection. The skeptic responded back with a request for empirical evidence in order to show an event like the resurrection – a miracle – could actually happen.

At this point, I knew we would need to talk about miracles before getting any further in our discussion about historical evidence. I requested permission to turn the conversation towards miracles. When the skeptic agreed, I ran through five steps – all of which are important to incorporate conversations with skeptics about the topic of miracles:

1. Define what you’re talking about

Both people involved in a discussion need to agree on the definition of keywords they will use in the discussion before significant progress can be made in the discussion. With the topic of miracles, a keyword that needs to be defined is, of course, “miracle.” The agreed-upon definition of miracle will impact discussion on the possibility of them occurring, evidence needed to verify them, and other topics that could come up in the course of conversation.

In my discussion with a skeptic, I asked immediately for a definition of a miracle, knowing the definition would impact the rest of our discussion. The skeptic did not have a definition for a miracle in mind and asked me to provide my own definition. He agreed to use my understanding of miracles – which involves natural laws as we understand today being altered or broken into by a supernatural force – as a starting point for our discussion.

2. Understand what evidence is required by the skeptic

With the definition of “miracle” set, it’s now time to understand what type and degree of evidence for a miracle the skeptic would require. This step provides an excellent opportunity to listen as you ask a question like, “What evidence would you need in order to be convinced that a miracle occurred?” The key here is to understand and ask clarifying questions if needed, rather than to assess or go on the attack.

In my conversation with a skeptic, it took a while to get to the specifics of what “convincing evidence” for a miracle would look like. For this skeptic, the only acceptable evidence would be repeatable events, tested and verified by a team of scientists multiple times under the same conditions. Now I understood exactly what evidence would be required for the skeptic, and could continue on to the next step.

3. Assess if the required level of evidence is reasonable

This step helps you determine which direction to take at this point in the discussion. If the skeptic’s requirement for evidence exceeds a level that is reasonable or even possible, then the skeptic likely won’t be convinced no matter what evidence is presented. In that case, it may not be worth continuing discussion about evidence for miracles. Instead, the discussion may need to turn to the nature of evidence itself.

In my discussion, I didn’t know exactly how to assess the requirement for a team of scientists to repeatedly test miracle events – it’s a requirement I had never heard before. But upon later reflection, it became clear that the requirement in not reasonable. If a repeatable event was tested and verified by groups of scientists over time, that event would be considered by the skeptic to be a natural event – not a miraculous one. Thus, the potential for miracles is immediately ruled out by the skeptic’s requirement.

4. Provide any case examples that could satisfy the requirement of evidence

If the skeptic does provide a requirement for evidence that appears reasonable, then you can provide some case examples which may satisfy the requirement. There are a few ways to approach this part of the discussion. One way is to bring up a miracle account that is based on eyewitness testimony and ask how the skeptic would explain the details of the account. Many eyewitness accounts are provided in books like Miracles by Craig Keener and The Case for Miracles by Lee Strobel. For another idea, you could point the skeptic to miracle accounts that include medical documentation people can view for themselves, such as the miracle story of Sean George.

In my discussion with a skeptic, I didn’t provide specific miracles examples since I didn’t come prepared with examples. That is one thing I would change in my next discussion about any topic related to miracles – to have specific examples written down or memorized so they can be used when needed.

5. Don’t expect the evidence will immediately convince the skeptic

This “step” may be more of a principle to keep in mind as you enter into a discussion about miracles. Even if a skeptic requests a specific level of evidence, and you provide satisfactory examples, don’t expect the skeptic to suddenly embrace the miraculous. Factors beyond evidence can hold someone back from accepting the reality of miracles – factors like a naturalistic bias, a difficult emotional experience in the past, or a negative perception of the supernatural.

Ultimately, God is the one to change someone’s mind and heart regarding spiritual topics such as miracles. We have a role to play in this process, but our goal is not to convince a skeptic by our own power. Our goal is to listen, to understand, and to be open to God using us in leading a skeptic one step closer to the truth.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural by Lee Strobel Kindle Edition

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Defending the Faith on Campus Complete Package by Frank Turek DVD

 

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.

 

/by
There Is No Rise Unless He Is Risen

There Is No Rise Unless He Is Risen

,

By Alex McElroy

If you are creating a building, the structure is important, but the foundation is most important. If a rock goes through the window, it can be replaced. If there is a leak in the roof, it can be patched. However, if there is a crack in the foundation, the building will be condemned. The foundation is the most vital part of the structure. In the Christian worldview, that foundation is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What happens if that foundation is removed? Would Christianity exist without it? The answer is no. Christianity would not have expanded if the earliest and closest followers of Jesus weren’t certain that He was no longer dead but alive. There is no rise in Christianity if He is not risen.

It often seems like skeptics feel that simply disbelieving in or disagreeing with the resurrection is enough to invalidate it. I was with Vince Vitale, Director of RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries), and heard him say, “Disagreement is ok but disagreement without an alternative is empty.” Because Christianity does exist many have engaged in revisionist history to explain away the obvious reasons, among which are that people who knew Jesus Christ believed that they had encountered a risen Christ days after they saw Him die. The underlying premise being, we know there was no resurrection, so why did these Jewish men make up this claim and start a new religion? The fact is – they wouldn’t. The first-century Jews who became the earliest followers of Christ, later called Christians at Antioch had nothing to gain by ‘inventing’ a religion.

The non-Christian may assume that they wanted a Messiah so badly that they picked this guy, Jesus. However, the Jewish people were good with God. They thought of themselves as God’s chosen nation. Nobody makes up a conspiracy in order to have a worse life full of familial abandonment, torture, financial struggle, and eventual martyrdom.

Therefore, the question isn’t just ‘did Jesus Christ rise from the grave’ but why does Christianity exist at all? The rise of Christianity is foundationally centered on the claim that Jesus is risen. Christians didn’t create an event and then write about it. The event created Christians.

Is He Risen

In The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus, Prof. Gary Habermas writes, “There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus’ resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead. This conclusion has been reached by
data that suggest that (1) the disciples themselves claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and (2) subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples were radically transformed from fearful, cowering individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold proclaimers of the gospel of the risen Lord. They remained steadfast in the face of imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom. It is very clear that they sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead.”

In first Corinthians, a letter that even the harshest critics and the most liberal theologians agree is most assuredly a Pauline epistle, the Apostle Paul writes, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.  After that, He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remains to the present, but some have fallen asleep.  After that, He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.  Then last of all, He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”

When people lie, they don’t place such an enormous burden of proof on themselves as Paul did. Paul claims that as he is writing, there are close to five hundred people alive and well who can verify or refute his statement. Furthermore, this passage is an early Christian creed who some say can be dated to within 8 months of Jesus’ crucifixion.

The Rise Occurs Because He Is Risen

This brings us to what is probably the most difficult issue for the skeptic to explain away. Why was this belief in Christ being God in the flesh and the savior of the world being preached from Jerusalem to Rome before any New Testament documents existed? In almost all other religions, the text creates the followers. Think of the Book of Mormon, the Quran (although Mohammed did have adherents before his death), or the Sutras and The Tripitaka. The earliest Christians had no text to follow because none had yet been composed. However, Christianity spread far and wide in spite of that.

Furthermore, why were people who knew Jesus in the flesh and would certainly have recognized if someone else was impersonating Him be willing to die for their belief that they had seen, encountered, ate with and learned from a risen Christ? Not just to die, but to die in horrible ways.

Additionally, the geographic distance that separated the earliest and closest followers of Jesus prevented them from knowing if their peers had given up “the lie.” All of them died a martyr’s death in places such as India, Africa, Italy, and other territories, fully convinced that the message they were sharing was true. Under the torture and oppression that each of them experienced, someone would have caved had this actually been a conspiracy.

Jesus’ claim was also easily falsifiable, which means that Christianity could easily have been stamped out at the outset. All the Sanhedrin or Jewish authorities had to do was go to His tomb, get His body, and drag it through the streets. The only logical reason why they didn’t do this is because His body wasn’t there. This has caused some to speculate that the body was stolen or that He wasn’t fully dead and somehow got up at night moved the boulder and walked out of His tomb, a beaten and bloodied mess. And that he did this in front of Roman guards. This seems unlikely at best.

If He Is Risen

I understand that belief in a bodily resurrection can be difficult. However, if we compile the evidence as any good detective would do and that evidence points to the most reasonable explanation being a bodily resurrection (assuming one does not have an unfounded disbelief in the miraculous), it seems logical to accept what the evidence suggests.  Here, that is that Jesus of Nazareth walked out of His tomb alive and well.

Some may not like the implications of the fact of the resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the grave, solidifying His claim of being our Savior and God incarnate, then that means He deserves our love, loyalty, and life. Much more evidence could and has been offered through a myriad of historians and theologians, but many still remain unconvinced. At the end of the day, belief in a risen Christ may not be a head issue, but a heart issue.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? By Dr. Gary Habermas (book)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

 

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah.  Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years.  In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

/by
¿Cómo sabemos que la Biblia no ha sido cambiada? Parte 1: el problema del problema

¿Cómo sabemos que la Biblia no ha sido cambiada? Parte 1: el problema del problema

Por Carlos E. Rodríguez

¡Dios nos bendiga!

Uno de los temas más mencionados en casi cualquier escenario es el de la Biblia. Se habla sobre su contenido y sobre su composición. Sin importar la temática del espacio, se suele hablar de su relevancia en la actualidad y hasta de su supuesta creación por un grupo elitista para gobernar a las masas pobres e ignorantes, buscando siempre tenerlas bajo control. Para bien o para mal, siempre hay una opinión acerca de este libro, y siempre viene dada por un experto o por quien solo repite lo que oye de otros o ha leído. Dentro de este mismo contexto suele surgir la famosa pregunta: ¿cómo sabemos que la Biblia no ha sido cambiada? ¿Cómo podemos estar seguro que lo que está escrito en ella no fue lo que un grupo planificó decirnos con unos fines específicos? ¿No parece la sospecha obvia, dado el hecho de que la historia nos enseña como algunos han usado su contenido para someter otros?

Es bueno tener dudas, lo malo es aceptar como verdad lo que no lo es. Con relación a si la Biblia ha sido cambiada o no, tenemos muchas creencias que no están basadas en hechos reales o evidencias verídicas. Más bien, muchas preguntas son el fruto de mitos populares que se basan en la ignorancia de muchos factores. Por ejemplo, se supone que el texto debió haber sido cambiado porque muchos años de escribir y transcribir “debe” provocar cambios en el contenido. Este debe es una suposición a priori, nada que ver con alguna evidencia. No es que en el proceso de copiar los manuscritos no se pudieron cometer errores de transcripción, esto es posible y hasta tenemos evidencias de ellos; pero esto es muy diferente a suponer a priori que el contenido del texto bíblico ha sido cambiado. Y es aquí donde comienzan a surgir algunas preguntas con respecto a esta suposición: ¿a qué se refiere el que hace la pregunta con cambios en la Biblia? ¿A cualquier variación o a un cambio a propósito de algo que afectaba la fe de la iglesia de ese momento o la comprometía de alguna forma? Si se refiere a cualquier tipo de variación en el texto esto no es ningún problema, pues estos cambios son de esperar en el simple paso de traducir de un idioma a otro. Aunque es de esperar variaciones por el paso de una lengua a otra, el contenido sigue siendo el mismo, lo que varía es la forma de transmitirlo. Si alguien cree que esto supone un problema me imagino que esa persona tiene una solución para comunicar un texto escrito en 3 idiomas antiguos (hebreo, arameo y griego) en el idioma de cada quien sin hacer una traducción. De lo contrario, ya debe de saber por qué esto no es un inconveniente. Con relación al otro aspecto, esto trae más problemas de los que nos podamos imaginar. Si con cambios hablamos de pasajes o textos completos que afectaban la fe y/o comprometían a la iglesia de alguna forma, entonces lo primero que necesitamos es preguntar: ¿Dónde están esos textos sin cambiar a partir de los cuales se plantea la sospecha de que la biblia ha sido cambiada? ¿Cómo se llaman esos manuscritos? ¿A qué familia pertenecen? No tenemos tales textos, no existen. Aclaro, es normal que surja la duda y se haga la pregunta, el problema es hacer de una sospecha sin fundamento una postura sólida. Sin evidencia textual que sirva como prueba para sostener esta creencia, la misma solo es una suposición sin fundamento real. La misión del creyente consistirá simplemente en mostrar la integridad de los textos más antiguos y compararlos con nuestros textos actuales. De esta simple forma habrá derrumbado esta duda justificada hasta cierto punto. De hecho, es lo que haremos paso a paso en esta serie. Lo que se busca  ver en forma general es que:

  1. Lo que se dijo es lo que tenemos en el texto.
  2. Lo que tenemos en el texto actual no ha cambiado con lo que tenemos en los textos antiguos.
  3. Las traducciones y versiones de la biblia no son prueba de cambios en el segundo aspecto ya mencionado.

Viendo todos estos tópicos, más las implicaciones que conllevan cada uno, podremos concluir satisfactoriamente que no existe razón para suponer que el texto ha sido cambiado para ocultarnos algo que podría derrumbar la fe actual que profesamos, en el peor de los casos.

El problema del problema

Aunque nuestro plan es ver todo esto paso a paso, ya de entrada podemos ofrecer un argumento para descartar estos tipos de cambios. Los no creyentes enemigos del cristianismo son los que usualmente plantean esta duda a un nivel de hecho incuestionable. Es normal escuchar afirmaciones como: sabemos que toda la biblia ha sido cambiada a conveniencia de ustedes. Lo curioso de esto es que no se ofrecen evidencias que apoyen este tipo de afirmaciones. De la misma manera, son los mismos no creyentes antagónicos al cristianismo quienes afirman incansablemente: no puedes confiar en la biblia, pues está llena de errores. Luego de, pasan a mencionar algunos de esos errores que prueban que no podemos confiar en el contenido del texto, como: Jesús llamando a la semilla de mostaza la más pequeña de las plantas, cifras dispares, el caso de Josué y el sol que se detiene, cuando es la tierra que gira a su alrededor, etc. Todos estos, y unos cientos más de ejemplos, son las pruebas traídas a la mesa por el no creyente para probar que la biblia no es confiable, pues está llena de errores. Bien, todo bien hasta aquí, no tengo espacio para responder todo esto; pero, son justamente todos estos problemas los que usaré para demostrar que es imposible sostener que la biblia ha sido cambiada a la luz de estos supuestos errores actuales. Quien afirma que la biblia ha sido cambiada, y que esto supone un problema, pero también afirma errores en el texto actual; tiene un problema más grande que el que señala, puesto que si el texto bíblico ha sido cambiado: ¿por qué entonces seguimos encontrando esos errores que el no creyente señala? ¿Por qué no fueron suprimidos por las mismas personas que cambiaron los textos que suponían un problema para la iglesia de la época? La solución a este problema no es decir que no se sabe o que se les pasó, puesto que, si no se les pasó otros, en más de cientos de años; no hay forma que estos pasen desapercibidos. A menos que el no creyente guste en sugerir que la iglesia no leía la biblia y eran otros los que encontraban los problemas en la misma, y en esa medida era que se cambiaban. Esto no solo es imposible de probar, sino que es afirmar algo gratuitamente.

Las 2 acusaciones por parte de los no creyentes nos proveen de un argumento con el cual podemos demostrar, de entrada, que la biblia no ha sido cambiada. Podemos argumentar diciendo que:

  1. Si la Biblia ha sido cambiada entonces la Biblia no puede contener errores.
  2. La Biblia contiene errores.
  3. Por lo tanto, la Biblia no ha sido cambiada.

Para defender las premisas de este sencillo argumento solo basta repetir las mismas acusaciones de los antagonistas. Ellos dicen que la biblia ha sido cambiada, y para defender la premisa 1 solo tenemos que usar sus propios argumentos. Para defender la premisa 2 solo será suficiente señalar los mismos errores actuales que señalan los no creyentes. De esta manera, tenemos un argumento lógicamente valido con premisas verdaderas que nos lleva a concluir que es imposible que la Biblia haya sido cambiada dado los errores que son señalados. Si por alguna razón el no creyente sugiere que el argumento no es válido por la falsedad de alguna de sus premisas, entonces ya sabe por qué lo que afirma está bastante errado. Este argumento es válido en la misma medida en que el no creyente sostenga cada una de estas premisas.

Conclusión

No podemos afirmar de forma segura que la Biblia ha sido cambiada. A lo sumo, podemos tener alguna sospecha o duda justificada, la cual se puede responder mirando la historia del proceso de producción del texto. Lo que sí no podemos hacer es sostener esta duda como una postura sólida, pues no lo es. Los que creen que sí, también sostienen que el texto está lleno de errores. Bueno, ambas afirmaciones son contrarias, y si son unidas correctamente podemos formar un argumento para descartar de entrada que no hay cambios en el texto, basados en la imposibilidad de que existan errores tomando en cuenta “los cambios sufridos”.

 

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.

/by
Why the Gospel of Thomas isn’t in the Bible

Why the Gospel of Thomas isn’t in the Bible

By Ryan Leasure

There’s a common refrain among liberal scholars that says the church suppressed dozens of Gospels. The reason they say? It’s because those books share scandalous information about Jesus that the church wanted to hide. They didn’t want the world to know sketchy details like Jesus tortured other kids as a child or that he had a wife.

Of all these “suppressed” Gospels, far and away the poster child is the Gospel of Thomas. Liberal scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagels faun over this work. The Jesus Seminar even published a book titled The Five Gospels, which includes the canonical four-plus Thomas.

Yet there’s a bit of irony here. If these scholars would treat the canonical Gospels with half the amount of charity they give to Thomas, they’d all be Christians! Instead, they date Thomas very early and the canonical Gospels late. They claim Thomas’ view of Jesus is reliable, while the canonical Gospels contain myths and legends.

By contrast, I’m going to demonstrate, in the remaining pace, that the Gospel of Thomas is unreliable, was never considered as Scripture by the early church, and thus shouldn’t be included in our canon.

The Gospel of Thomas

In 1945, some farmers in Nag Hammadi Egypt were digging and came across an earthenware jar in the ground. The farmers, hoping to find treasure, were deeply disappointed when they found a bunch of texts instead. Little did they know those texts would be more valuable than any treasure they could hope to find.

Among the cache of texts was one that begins, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down,” and ends with “The Gospel According to Thomas.”

Unlike the canonical Gospels, Thomas doesn’t follow a narrative structure. It doesn’t report major parts of Jesus’ life — his birth, death, and resurrection. Instead, Thomas contains 114 esoteric sayings of Jesus, purporting to record the secrets Jesus taught to his disciples.

Canonical Attributes

Before we can answer why Thomas doesn’t belong in the canon, we need to know what the early church looked for in a canonical book. In sum, the church looked for three different attributes — apostolic authority, divine qualities, and corporate reception.1 These three attributes formed a type of canonical grid by which to test a book.

By apostolic authority, the church only received books that could be traced to apostolic eye-witness testimony. This would include books written by both apostles and their close associates. For example, the church obviously received John’s writings because he was one of the apostles. But they also received Mark, based on the fact that he was Peter’s close associate.

By divine qualities, the church looked for books that gave evidence of God’s fingerprints. One such piece of evidence was consistency with other authoritative books. Since Christians believe the Holy Spirit inspired all the biblical texts, they knew none of them would contradict each other.

By corporate reception, the church only received books that the universal church also received as authoritative. In other words, if only one pocket of Christianity affirmed the authority of a book, that book was rejected. The reception had to stretch across all of Christendom.

So does the Gospel of Thomas possess these canonical attributes? Let’s test it by putting it through the canonical grid.

Apostolic Authority?

Did an apostle or close associate write the Gospel of Thomas? In a word, no. In fact, the consensus among scholarship is that the book dates to the middle of the second century — long after the apostles had died out. That is to say, Jesus’ disciple Thomas did not write this book.

A few reasons exist for dating this work late into the second century. First, the text reflects a type of Gnosticism (more on that in a minute) that wasn’t prevalent until the middle second century.2

Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas demonstrates a deep dependance on large parts of the New Testament. It quotes or alludes to all four Gospels, Acts, most of Paul’s letters, and Revelation.3 Only someone who had access to all these works could pen this work, and we know that it took time for these works to circulate the Roman Empire.

Even more, some scholars suggest that Thomas relied heavily on the Diatessaron — a four Gospel harmony produced by Tatian around AD 170.4 If that’s the case, Thomas dates even later.

Even if Thomas is independent of the Diatessaron, it’s mid-second century dating would have ruled it out for canonical consideration. Take the Shepherd of Hermas — a mid-second century work — for example. The early church loved this book. But as the Muratorian Fragment states, the church rejected its canonical authority because it was written “quite recently, in our own times,” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.5

Strike one for Thomas.

Divine Qualities?

What about divine qualities? Does Thomas show God’s fingerprints and align with other authoritative books? Again, the answer is no. Thomas was one of several Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi discovery.

Gnosticism was polytheistic. It taught that the god who created the world was evil, and by extension, his entire creation was evil too. Salvation, then, was the liberation of the soul from the physical realm into a spiritual realm. One can achieve this salvation only through a secret knowledge (gnosis in Greek).

This secret knowledge, according to the Gnostics, comes from Jesus. Of course, Jesus was radically different from the god of the Old Testament. Jesus was a warm and inviting god while the one of the Old Testament was hostile and angry.

Furthermore, since everything physical is evil, Jesus didn’t really have a physical body. He only appeared to have a human body, and thus he didn’t die on the cross — a view known as Docetism.

The Gospel of Thomas makes no qualms about its Gnostic leanings with all its emphasis on learning the secrets of Jesus. The prologue begins, “These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke.” Moreover, the first saying states, “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.” Again, the Gnostic salvation came through obtaining a secret knowledge.

Of course, the early church rejected Gnosticism as heretical. Orthodoxy taught salvation by faith. Thomas taught salvation came through knowledge of secret information.

Thomas also veers away from orthodoxy in how it views women. At the close of the book, Jesus states, “Look, I will guide her (Mary) to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

This statement clearly contradicts how Jesus views women in the canonical Gospels. Furthermore, it contradicts Genesis 1, which declares that God made both men and women in his image. Thus, women are not inferior, as the Gospel of Thomas suggests.

Strike two for Thomas.

Corporate Reception?

Did the universal church affirm the authority of Thomas? There’s not a shred of evidence to suggest that it did. If you think about it, since Thomas lacks the first two attributes — apostolic authority and divine qualities — the early church had no motivation to think it was Scripture.

Their rejection of this book is evidenced in two ways. First, the early church never includes Thomas in any of its early canonical lists. In all the lists, we have four, and only four, Gospels.

Second, the church specifically rejected Thomas as heretical. Meaning, it didn’t even come close. This rejection is contrasted with other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache, that at least gained a hearing. The church enjoyed these books as they promoted Christian orthodoxy, but as I alluded to earlier, the church didn’t receive them as Scripture because they lacked apostolic authority.

Thomas was so far out in left field that it wasn’t even up for discussion. Eusebius, for example, includes Thomas in the “heretical books” section and suggests that it “ought not to be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”6

Strike three for Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas Rejected

Despite the best efforts of some, Thomas doesn’t even come close to Scripture. It wasn’t backed by apostolic authority. Its contents contradict the orthodox texts. And the church never even came close to considering it as authoritative.

Unlike the real Thomas, we have good reasons to doubt here.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (DVD)

 

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: 

 

/by