Did We Really Not Have A New Testament Canon Till The Fourth Century_

Did We Really Not Have A New Testament Canon Till The Fourth Century?

,

By Ryan Leasure

Is it true the New Testament documents weren’t Scripture until the fourth century? That is, the books weren’t authoritative until church councils conferred authority upon them? Liberal scholars make this suggestion since it removes any supernatural explanation for the New Testament canon. To them, a scriptural authority can be explained merely on human terms.

Some of our Roman Catholic friends make a case for the fourth century also, but for other reasons. For them, ultimate authority resides in the church. Therefore, without the church’s stamp of approval, the New Testament wouldn’t carry any authority.

But is this an accurate representation of the New Testament documents? Were they not Scripture until the church pronounced authority on them in the fourth century? In order to answer this question, we need to look at how the early church viewed these documents.

Fourth Century Church Councils

For starters, let me say that no fourth-century councils gave authority to the New Testament documents. The Da Vinci Code was wrong when it said that the Council of Nicea (AD 325), under the direction of Constantine, formed the New Testament canon. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon.1

In fact, we have no church-wide council from the fourth century that determined which books should be included in the New Testament canon. What we have are; instead, regional church councils affirming the books which had already functioned as Scripture for the church. In other words, these church councils didn’t grant authority to any New Testament books. Rather, they merely recognized which books were already authoritative. This distinction is crucial.

Perhaps you’re wondering what took so long? Why didn’t the church make a list much earlier? One explanation is that for the first three centuries, Christianity was, for the most part, an illegal religion which faced ongoing persecution. In fact, in AD 303, Emperor Diocletian ordered all Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods or else face imprisonment or extermination. Moreover, he ordered them to hand over all their Scripture to be burned.

For these reasons, the church couldn’t organize empire-wide councils to affirm the New Testament canon. Furthermore, they couldn’t circulate their books lest the Roman officials confiscate them. Once Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century, the church could disperse their books freely. At this juncture, all the churches had exposure to the various documents, and therefore, affirmed the authority of the twenty-seven books.

Second Century Church Leaders

The church’s affirmation of the New Testament canon in the fourth century, however, didn’t come in a vacuum. Christians had long viewed these books as authoritative. In fact, a number of second-century leaders affirm the New Testament’s authority in their writings.

Irenaeus (Ad 180)

More than any other church father, Irenaeus addresses canonical issues. For example, he declares that among the many so-called gospels, only four of them carry authority. He writes:

It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds.2

Irenaeus elsewhere indicates why these four gospels, and none other, are canonical. He affirms the four Gospels’ because they alone are backed by apostolic authority, while the others were written by second century Gnostics. Given that he was a disciple of Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally, his knowledge of their authorship carries significant weight.

Theophilus Of Antioch (Ad 177)

As bishop of Antioch, Theophilus equates the Old Testament prophets with the Gospels in his writings.

Concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.3

Not only does he elevate the Gospels on par with Old Testament Scriptures, Theophilus affirms divine inspiration for the Gospels.

Justin Martyr (Ad 150-160)

Justin Martyr, writing earlier than Irenaeus and Theophilus, addresses the Gospels or the “memoirs” of the apostles on several occasions. On one instance, he talks about their role in worship.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.4

This quote speaks volumes. Justin indicates that the early church thought so highly of the Gospels that they included them into their worship service right alongside the Old Testament Scriptures.

Polycarp (Ad 110)

Polycarp was a student and companion of the apostle John. In one of his writings, he explicitly designates Paul’s writings as Scripture when he states:

As it is written in these Scriptures, “Be angry and do not sin and do not let the sun go down on your anger.”

Writing early in the second century, Polycarp quotes from Ephesians 4:26 and calls it Scripture — long before the fourth-century councils.

A number of other early sources — Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and the Epistle of Barnabas — discuss the New Testament canon as well.

The New Testament Writers

So far, we’ve determined that the second-century church regarded the New Testament writings as authoritative Scripture. But can we go back even further? I believe we can by looking at the New Testament writings themselves.

2 Peter 3:15-16

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

In this text, Peter equates Paul’s writings with the Old Testament Scriptures.

1 Timothy 5:18

For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

In this passage, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and Luke 10:7 “The worker deserves his wages,” and calls them both Scripture. In other words, Luke’s Gospel was on the same authoritative level as the Old Testament.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

In this letter, Paul gives the impression that he is consciously aware that his writings carry authority from God.

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

Scripture From The Beginning

Contrary to the skeptic and the Catholic view, the New Testament writings carried Scriptural authority from the time of their composition. New Testament scholar N. T. Wright argues that the authors “were conscious of a unique vocation to write Jesus-shaped, Spirit-led, church-shaping books, as part of their strange first-generation calling.”5 Since these books were authoritative from the very beginning, the fourth-century councils in no way granted authority to them. Rather, they merely recognized their already existing authority — an authority they had since the first century.

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OW5UAc

/by
Are Nature and Scripture Compatible_

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible?

,

By Luke Nix

The debate about the proper interaction of science and theology is raging as much as it has ever been. Hot tempers fly that result in ice-cold relationships. For as much discussion and debate that takes place, it seems that nothing is being accomplished. For those caught in the middle, questions still remain unanswered:

  • What do we do when science contradicts our theology, or our theology contradicts science?
  • Are they allowed to contradict?
  • If not, which should I choose?
  • Can’t they just agree to disagree?

These are all questions that shaped my spiritual struggle several years ago. I was constantly told that I could not trust science because it contradicted my theology, and at the same time I was told that I could not trust theology because it denied science. I felt like I had a choice: live a double life allowing one source of truth (religion) in one area of reality, but not allowing it relevance in the other areas. Or I could completely deny one of them as a valid source of truth, giving up my theology completely, or giving up science completely.

How could I live what I do not believe, and how could I deny what I know to be true? These further haunting questions demanded answers yet seemed unanswerable. Neither hypocrisy nor denial are very appealing traits. Unfortunately, these are often presented as the only options available in our search for the true worldview. In this post, my goal is to present a compelling alternative that grants that science and theology are valid sources of truth that often overlap in the aspects of reality that they claim to explain. I will also put forth a method for dealing with conflicts in the overlapping areas and explain the liabilities of not dealing with such conflicts.

The Overlap

I believe that science and theology are fully compatible with one another. Both often speak about the same features of reality, but because we are not omniscient, we often find that our science and our theology contradict one another. If we wish for our theology to inform our understandings of creation (scientific models) and behavior towards each other and the rest of creation (ethics- 2 Timothy 3:16), overlap is necessary. Likewise, if we wish for our science to inform our theology (Romans 1:20), overlap is necessary. If we are to believe that overlap is necessary, then contradictions cannot exist between science and theology. This will be the starting point for this alternative view. The next step is to make an important distinction.

Interpretation and Raw Data

The next step to this view is the distinction between raw data and the interpretation of the raw data. When we are attempting to reconcile science and theology, we are attempting to reconcile the raw data that each one interprets. For science that raw data is nature, and for theology that raw data is the scriptures (original language, where possible). Every piece of raw data must be interpreted. By interpretation, I mean that we examine the raw data and explain it in light of the other raw data that we have. It is common, and incorrect, for someone to confuse nature (the raw data) with science (the interpretation) and/or scripture (the raw data) with theology (the interpretation). The raw data is what is necessarily infallible (to use the religious term), while our interpretation (in virtue of our lack of omniscience) is necessarily fallible, but not necessarily false. The processes described below will help our interpretation of nature (science), and our interpretation of scripture (theology) reflect the full, true understanding of each.

Nature and Science

Science is very dependent upon the assumption that the universe is consistent. No two features of reality will contradict one another, and under the same circumstances, observations will be repeatable. If experiments or studies are conducted in the same way, but they yield data that can only be interpreted to conflict with current science (interpretation of other data), the scientists will repeat again to find data that can be interpreted as consistent with current science and look for the unique factor in each instance of the experiment that yielded the data with the conflicting interpretation. All data that is found is interpreted in light of the rest of the data already yielded. If an experiment or observation (after repeated and thoroughly investigated multiple times) still yields data that demands an interpretation contrary to science, a reinterpretation of past data is necessary (a change in the science results). The process repeats for any and all new data that comes. Here is a flowchart to give a visual of this process:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 1

Even though it is common for data to come that is compatible with current science, there is rarely a single interpretation that is compatible. Multiple compatible interpretations leads to the creation of multiple models of a phenomenon. Each one takes interpretations that are still “on the table” (since they have not been eliminated by other data yet), and use possibilities to make predictions about future data. As more data become available, models that predicted conflicting results are adjusted (interpretations are changed) to accommodate the only possible interpretations of the new data (if multiple interpretations exist, this can spawn variations of the model) or are abandoned completely because the conflict cannot be reconciled with the possible interpretations of the other data that are compatible with the model. While models are weeded out as accurately explaining reality, more detailed models are proposed, and the process starts all over again. Put plainly, nature interprets nature to eliminate incorrect scientific view and highlight possibly correct ones.

Scripture and Theology

Dealing with scripture (the Bible) is very similar to the process of dealing with nature described above. Many theologians begin by accepting that scripture is the inerrant word of God, who cannot lie. This means that the same consistency that allows for testing of scientific models exists to test theological views. No two scriptures contradict one another, so no correct interpretations of two scriptures can contradict one another. If it is found that a theological view holds an interpretation of a scripture that contradicts an interpretation of another, the interpretation of one of them (if not both) is incorrect, and reinterpretation is required. In the development of a correct theological interpretation of scripture, this process continues. Here is the flow chart (notice how similar it is to the one above):

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 2

Just like with science, multiple interpretations of scripture do abound, and even after going through this process to make certain that all scripture is taken into consideration and no contradictions exist in the view, several possible interpretations of scripture may still be valid. These are all considered compatible with scripture. Since there are multiple views compatible with the raw data of scripture, many different theological views exist within Christianity. As more archaeological artifacts are recovered and analyzed and more historical and linguistic studies are conducted regarding the original content of scripture, possible interpretations of scriptures can be ruled out or ruled in. This allows for adjustment or abandonment of theological views (if possible interpretations are ruled out), and allows for the recognition of compatibility of other theological views (if possible interpretations are ruled in). As more theological systems are weeded out as accurately reflecting scripture, more detailed interpretations are offered and tested against still more scholarship. Simply put, scripture interprets scripture to eliminate incorrect theological views and highlight possibly correct ones.

Worldviews and Reality

Both systems depend upon ontological consistency (nature does not contradict nature and scripture does not contradict scripture) that demands epistemology consistency (interpretations of nature cannot contradict other interpretations of nature and interpretations of scriptures cannot contradict interpretations of other scriptures). However, neither of these systems are complete.

While science may point to metaphysical reality, it cannot directly observe it. While theology may speak broadly about nature, it lacks much minute details. Both science and theology on their own have many views that are evidentially, equally valid. As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and inspired scripture. I believe that God is not deceptive; thus his works (nature) do not contradict (the ontological foundation for science’s presupposition that nature is consistent) and his words (scripture) do not contradict one another (the ontological foundation for Biblical inerrancy). Here’s the simple flow chart:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 3

Since both nature and scripture come from God, the two of them do not contradict. If we come to an interpretation of nature that contradicts an interpretation of scripture, one of the interpretations (if not both) is incorrect. We must reevaluate our interpretation of both in light of the other raw data to find the proper interpretation of reality. If all the data in science can be interpreted consistently in, say, ten different ways, but seven are incompatible with any compatible interpretation of scripture, the Christian must throw away those seven interpretations of nature. Likewise, if we have eight consistent interpretations of scripture, yet only three of those interpretations are compatible with nature, we must remove the other five (otherwise biblically compatible) interpretations from the table of accurately explaining reality. That would leave us with three possible interpretations of reality between nature and scripture. Now we have four points of interpretive interaction with nature and scripture:

  • Nature interprets nature
  • Scripture interprets scripture
  • Scripture interprets nature
  • Nature interprets scripture

Ultimately, this results in “reality interprets reality” to yield a correct worldview. Here is the completed flowchart that visually details the process:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 4

This is certainly a rigorous and challenging but rewarding process. As scholarship in the sciences and humanities are constantly making new discoveries that provide more insight into the proper interpretation of both nature and scripture, the Christian is provided with more information; some of which fits easily into the Christians interpretations of nature and scripture. However, it is common that data will arise that challenges interpretations of nature and interpretations of scripture. The Christian must not ignore the data by refusing to reinterpret their views of nature or scripture.

The Dangers of Denial

When we hold an interpretation of nature (science) that does not reflect reality, we will be challenged by the raw data of scripture. When we hold an interpretation of scripture (theology) that does not reflect reality, we will be challenged by the raw data of nature. An unwillingness to reinterpret raw data of either nature or scripture, in light of no compatible interpretation from the other betrays our commitment, not to truth, but to tradition. Tradition is based on interpretation, which is necessarily fallible because we are not omniscient. This is dangerous to both evangelism and discipleship.

Dangers to Evangelism

When skeptics see that we hold fast to tradition (even though they may be doing the same thing) between nature and scripture (while we also claim that both come from the same honest God), it is no surprise that they are skeptical of our views. Reality has no contradiction in it, and they know that. If a worldview has even one internal contradiction, it cannot be the correct view of reality.

Those who read this blog often know that I interact with many internal discussions to Christianity because I believe it is important that we are defending a correct worldview, not just generally, but specifically. If people are looking for a reason to reject a general worldview, they will look at the details of certain views within that worldview to find contradictions with reality. When those contradictions are discovered, they become a stumbling block to the skeptic. And the Christian who promotes such contradictions (despite their noble intentions) become a liability to completion of the Great Commission. A willingness to reinterpret raw data of nature and scripture allows skeptics to understand that we are committed to discovering the truth and that if a challenge is valid, it will be addressed in a way that contradiction is removed from our worldview. When contradiction with reality does not exist in our presented worldview, there is no logical reason to deny its truth. Rather the truth must be suppressed.

Dangers to Discipleship

Of course, the dangers do not only end with evangelism. Our own relationship with God is limited when we refuse to acknowledge contradiction in our worldview. I want to be clear: I am NOT saying that a Christian without a perfect worldview cannot know God correctly, we can. However, every detail that we have wrong about God and what He has done places a limit on our ability to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Our willingness to recognize and abandon incorrect views within our worldview will be rewarded with a deeper understanding of more of God’s attributes and His works. This results in a more profound and rewarding worship of our Creator. A worship of our Creator that is based on a false idea of who He is or what He has not done, is not true worship.

These Dangers Plague Us All (Conclusion)

Since no person is omniscient, I am speaking to all of us (including myself). If we refuse to reinterpret when all attempts to find logical consistency fail, our dedication to a false view of reality will limit our effectiveness for the Kingdom and will limit our relationship with our Creator. God has given us multiple sources of revelation (nature and scripture) and has endowed us with minds capable of using logic to bring both revelations together to discover the truth of reality. God is brought glory when we commit to discovering truth — when we refuse to allow dearly held traditions to stand between our knowing who God truly is and our accurate representation of Him to the world.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OAjkS9

/by
Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna_

Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Copied From Krishna?

What would you say if someone told you the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection were copied from earlier pagan stories? Over 100 years ago, a guy named Kersey Graves talked about Jesus and Krishna. He said Jesus wasn’t unique among religious figures. Fans of his work were convinced the Hindu figure Krishna wasn’t just a dying and rising god but a crucified savior, too.

Maybe you haven’t heard this exact challenge about Jesus and Krishna before. But the idea that Jesus’ story was ripped off older pagan myths comes up over and over again in conversations about world religious literature.

I teach a World Religion course at William Jessup University and recently got a chance to collaborate on this topic with my friend Daniel Lee, who is currently studying Christian Apologetics under another friend from my Biola days, Dr. Sean McDowell.

In this post, we’ll show you how comparing the story of Krishna with the biblical accounts of Jesus show that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Hinduism. First, we’ll compare the story of Jesus’ death to the story of Krishna’s death. Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna? Then, we’ll compare the idea of resurrection in each of these stories. Was Krishna really a crucified Savior?

Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna?

Let’s compare Jesus and Krishna. In The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Graves wrote that Krishna was crucified between two thieves (p. 140). But no Hindu text says Krishna was crucified at all! Still, some wonder if there’s a parallel between the way Jesus and Krishna died. They’ve heard that long before Jesus’ death, there was an old Indian myth about the Hindu god Krishna being pierced and resurrected. Really?

It does sound curious when you put it that way. After all, Christians link Isaiah 53:5 to Jesus’ death by crucifixion: “But he was pierced for our transgressions…with his wounds we are healed” (Compare this with 1 Peter 2:24). But here’s the thing: All things can seem similar if you ignore the differences!

Read for yourself what the Indian epic-poem called the Mahabharata (Book 16: Mausala Parva) says about Krishna. He wasn’t crucified. Instead, he got shot in a hunting accident!

“The hunter, mistaking [Krishna]…for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara [the hunter] beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of [Krishna, who] comforted him and then ascended upwards…When he reached Heaven [he] met the deities…”

Yes, Krishna was pierced. But he was pierced by an arrow when he got shot in the foot! Krishna wasn’t crucified. And he certainly wasn’t crucified between two thieves!

So was Jesus’ death by crucifixion copied from Krishna? Nope. Turns out, there’s no crucifixion in the Krishna story at all. We just don’t see a meaningful parallel between Jesus and Krishna in this regard. What about Graves’ idea that Krishna was a resurrected savior?

Was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna?

We could be wrong about this, but it’s not clear that Krishna actually died when Jara shot him in the foot. If he didn’t really die, he couldn’t have been raised from the dead. But let’s give Graves the benefit of the doubt and say Krishna died when he got shot in the foot and somehow came back to life right after getting shot.

There’s still no meaningful parallel with Jesus’ resurrection. According to the earliest Christian sources, Jesus was buried and his tomb was discovered empty by his women followers three days later. Over a period of 40 days, he convinced individuals and groups that God raised him from the dead before ascending to heaven. This is totally different from the Krishna story.

But more importantly, Christians link Jesus’ death and resurrection with the possibility of forgiveness of sin and eternal life. In contrast, no Hindu text links the Krishna scene to the possibility of human beings attaining forgiveness of sins or attaining eternal life. In what sense, then, was Krishna a savior?

So was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna? No. It’s not clear that Krishna was resurrected in the myth and no Hindus link Krishna’s hunting accident with forgiveness of sins or eternal life.

Jesus and Krishna: No Meaningful Parallel

People who want to force a parallel say Jesus and Krishna were both pieced and raised from the dead. But again, almost anything can seem similar if you ignore the differences! The key point of the Gospel story is that God used Jesus’ resurrection to validate his divine claims. Further, the New Testament links Jesus’ death and resurrection to believers receiving forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, the Christian significance of this event has no meaningful parallel with the Hindu story of Krishna. As my friend Daniel concludes:

“These stories and implications are about as similar as an ant and an elephant.”

Interestingly, the earliest critics of Christianity never said Jesus’ story was ripped off from Hinduism. Right from the get-go, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that Gentiles found the idea of a crucified savior tough to accept (1 Corinthians 1:23), not like it was a common theme in pagan mythology. Even in the second century, the Greek Apologist Justin Martyr made a similar observation in Apology I: Skeptics said the idea of a crucified savior was absolutely crazy (13.4)!

Jesus’ Story Wasn’t Copied from Krishna

Bottom line: Was Krishna crucified? Nope. Not in any Hindu story anywhere. Was Krishna resurrected? Maybe. But despite what Graves insists, Krishna was not a pre-Christian example of a crucified savior. There’s no salvation, forgiveness of sins (or escape from karma for that matter) or hope of eternal life linked to it. Just comparing the stories of Jesus and Krishna shows Graves is wrong on this one. You can be confident that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Krishna.

 

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

/by
How Ancient Eyewitness Testimony Became the New Testament Gospel Record

How Ancient Eyewitness Testimony Became the New Testament Gospel Record

, ,

By J. Warner Wallace

I often wonder precisely when the disciples of Jesus realized their important role in Christian History. As these men sat at the feet of Jesus and listened to everything He had to say, did they realize they would someday testify to everything He said and did? Most eyewitnesses I’ve interviewed in my casework had no idea they would later be called into a jury trial to testify about what they heard or observed. As a result, they sometimes regret not paying better attention when they had the opportunity. But the disciples of Jesus had a distinct advantage over modern eyewitnesses in this regard. They were students of Jesus. Unlike spontaneous, unprepared witnesses of a crime, the disciples were desperately attentive to the words and actions of Jesus, and I imagine their attention to detail became even more focused with each miraculous event. For this reason, the authors of the gospels became excellent eyewitnesses and recognized the importance of their testimony very early.

While Jesus walked here on earth, His followers studied and learned from His actions and words. They were often mesmerized, confused and challenged by what they saw and heard. In spite of this, Jesus taught them and occasionally sent them out on their own. They memorized His teaching and relied on his wisdom when they weren’t with Him. We don’t know how much (if anything) these eyewitnesses wrote down during this time. Did the disciples take notes? Did they keep a journal? While Jesus was alive, the disciples likely felt no need to write down his words. The Word was witnessed in these incredible days, as men and women stood in awe of the Master, watching Him perform miracles and listening carefully to what He taught about God and eternal life.

During the first years following Jesus’s ascension, the apostles still may not have written immediately about Jesus. Why not? A careful reading of the Scripture will reveal a common theme: Many of the early authors of the New Testament expected Jesus to return before there would ever be a need for a multi-generational eyewitness record. They worked urgently to tell the world about Jesus, believing He would return to judge the living and the dead within their lifetime. In the days of the Apostles, the Word was heard, as the apostles preached to the world around them. But as the Apostles began to be martyred (and those who remained realized Jesus might not return in their lifetime), the need for a written account became clear. James, the brother of John, was killed in 44AD (Stephen was killed even earlier), and not long afterward, the gospels began to emerge. The eyewitness gospel authors wrote down what they had seen so the world would have a record.

Following the deaths of the apostles, the early believers and leaders received the apostolic eyewitness accounts and regarded them as sacred. They knew the original eyewitnesses had vanished from the scene and they wanted to retain a faithful record of their testimony. From the earliest of times, these Christians coveted the New Testament writings. In the days of the early Church Fathers, the Word was read, as the sacred Gospels and letters were carefully protected. The earliest believers accepted the gospels and letters of the New Testament as eyewitness accounts because the authors of these texts considered their own writing to be authoritative, eyewitness Scripture:

1 Peter 5:1

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…

2 Peter 1:16-17

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

1 John 1:1-3

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life – and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us – what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us…

The apostles understood their experiences as eyewitnesses were unique, and they called for these eyewitness accounts to be read by all believers. Paul recognized both the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings were sacred and God-given. He considered both to be Scripture:

1 Timothy 5:17-18

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’

In this passage, Paul quoted both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 (“The worker deserves his wages”). He referred to both passages as Scripture. It’s clear the New Testament Gospels were already in place at the time of this writing, and it’s also clear that believers were reading these Gospels as Scripture. Peter also attested to Paul’s writings as Scripture when writing his own letters to the early Church:

2 Peter 3:14-16

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

In addition to this, it is clear the New Testament letters were being read and circulated among the churches as authoritative eyewitness Scripture and revelation from God:

Colossians 4:16

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you, in turn, read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27

I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

The eyewitness authors of the New Testament gospels and letters understood the power of their testimony. They witnessed the Word in the days when a written record was unnecessary, spoke the Word when they thought Jesus would return imminently, and wrote the Word when they realized their eyewitness record would become Scripture for those who followed them. That’s how the ancient eyewitness accounts became the New Testament Scripture we cherish today.

 

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

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

/by
Historical Evidence of the Resurrection: A Debate with a Skeptical Friend

Historical Evidence of the Resurrection: A Debate with a Skeptical Friend

,

By Tim Stratton

While attending Biola University, Dr. Clay Jones gave me the assignment to engage in friendly and respectful debate with a skeptical non-believer regarding the historical resurrection of Jesus. A deep-thinking friend of mine (who happened to be an atheist who would debate my views quite often) graciously accepted my invitation to have this conversation. The following is my conversation with Justin.

I am humbled and honored to have a friend like you, Justin! Thank you!

My initial case

Dear Justin,

Thank you for having this conversation with me! Please feel free to take your time when responding. I will try to get back to you within one week after each of your responses. I will be making a case that we have good reason to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. To accomplish this task, I will not begin with the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God; rather, I will begin by treating the 27 books of the New Testament as they were originally written – as individual historical narratives.

All of Christianity hangs on the Resurrection! Even the Apostle Paul realized this and said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain” (1st Corinthians 15:14). That is to say, if the Resurrection did not really happen, then Christians are idiots, and wasting their time on Sunday mornings! They should be out playing golf instead! However, if Jesus really did rise from the dead, then life has way more meaning than a game of golf!

Do Christians have good historical reasons to put our faith in Jesus? Can we really know what happened 2,000 years ago? When it comes to studying ancient history, we need to abide by the “Rules of Historical Research.” As Mike Licona has pointed out, to establish something of the ancient past as historical, we need to have multiple, and converging lines of evidence such as:

  • eyewitness data
  • closeness to the facts
  • criteria

We don’t say, “Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great never existed!” In fact, we not only believe they existed, but we believe we actually know many things about them. When it comes to establishing historical data, it does not matter that something happened 2000 years ago — what matters is this: do we have access to an event that happened 2000 years ago? Licona has taught me that historians don’t just take one person’s word for it. They come to their conclusions through converging lines of evidence, such as:

–  written

–  pictorial

– inferential

– archaeological

– Etc.…

Again, no one doubts Alexander the Great, Caesar, or the history written about them. We have great historical reasons to conclude that we actually have knowledge of these individuals and many things they did. However, the sources confirming the historicity of these men, and their lives, are far inferior than the sources we have for Jesus! We not only have New Testament sources (27 individual historical documents collected into one volume) but even trained atheistic scholars and historians will go to the New Testament and use it for their purposes (I am treating it just as they do — I am not assuming anything special or supernatural about the Bible).

With this in mind, skeptical scholars will never say we cannot use the New Testament as a historical document — because it is a historical document — and it is recognized as such. Obviously, atheistic historians don’t conclude it is the inspired word of God, because, they don’t believe in anything “supernatural.” However, they conclude that the books that have been compiled into the Bible, are historical books written by people who lived a long time ago and who believed in God. These skeptics just arbitrarily choose to ignore the parts that have anything to do with the supernatural only because of their assumptions (blind faith) in naturalism (that nature is all that exists).

Moreover, on top of the many independent reports of the New Testament, we also have over a dozen non-biblical sources of Jesus within 100 years after his life! Every single one of them is NON-CHRISTIAN! Plus, we have archeological sources, and other Christian sources apart from the New Testament. When you compile all of this evidence together, it’s an incredible amount of historical evidence and information about the man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Justin, I know what you are probably thinking right now, “But how can you know anything about an event that happened 2000 years ago?”

When it comes to good history, the crucial time gap is not between the time of the event and today; the crucial time gap is between the time of the event and the evidence for the event! As William Lane Craig has pointed out, if the gap between the event itself and the evidence for the event is short, then it doesn’t matter how long the evidence and the event have receded into the past. Craig says,

“Good evidence does not become bad evidence, just because of the passage of time!”

Therefore, it’s irrelevant how long ago the Resurrection occurred. What’s critical is the GAP between the evidence and the event that the evidence is about! In the case of Jesus, that gap is extremely short.

Many volumes have been written providing evidence pointing to a historical resurrection of Jesus (from Josh McDowell to Lee Strobel, to N.T. Wright), but I want to offer some facts that a couple of my profs at Biola have been using in recent debates with famous skeptics. (I highly recommend the work of Dr. Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig when it comes to the evidence of the resurrection!) In fact, if you want to do your own study, I highly recommend a book by Michael Licona entitled, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”

Let’s examine a little passage of scripture, with HUGE implications! Remember, I am only treating scripture as ancient history, nothing more! Consider this piece of evidence we find in the pre-biblical oral tradition that was handed down to the Apostle Paul, which he then records in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

This creed states, “that Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins, and that He died and was buried, and that He rose from the dead on the third day and that He was seen by eyewitnesses.” It is obvious from the wording used in this creed that it did not originate with Paul, the author of 1st Corinthians. This is even accepted by the vast majority of non-Christian scholars, that Paul must have received this creed by someone else in Jerusalem (probably Peter and James) anywhere from two to eight years after the crucifixion.

Paul says, “I gave you what I was given!”

Since this saying already existed when it was first given to Paul, we can logically infer this creed was established even earlier, and therefore, these beliefs would pre-date the oral tradition itself, which amazingly brings us right back to the historical moment of the crucifixion of Jesus!

We have early documentation that hundreds of people saw the risen Jesus and gave testimony of this within months of his death. This provides warrant to believe that the claims stated in this creed are true. Moreover, we must also consider the illogicality of this creed being invented and accepted in the very town Jesus was reported to have lived in and was executed in, at the very time of His execution, if this Jesus story was just a myth. To understand how unlikely it is that such a thing could happen if Jesus had never actually lived, or the resurrection being a myth, imagine the following scenario provided by Amy Hall:

Suppose you decide you would like to start your own religion (because there’s a lot of money in it), so you invent the story of an amazing man named Hobart. You head off for Los Angeles and start proclaiming that just a couple of years ago, Hobart had, in that very city, done countless miracles and caused such an uproar that, eventually, the city officials got involved and held a public execution (on Venice Beach), but then Hobart—amazing as he was—rose from the dead and made numerous appearances around L.A.

How many followers would you get?  Besides Tom Cruise, you would be lucky if you got one! Let alone thousands who would be willing to die for this story!

Everyone in Los Angeles would remember perfectly well that no such man had existed. You would never gain enough followers to get any sort of movement started. Such a plan is obviously ridiculous and doomed to failure. And yet, to claim that Jesus never existed, and the multiple appearances of the risen Jesus never happened, one would have to assume this very scenario occurred successfully in first century Jerusalem—a city with significantly fewer people than Los Angeles! This is not likely.

We can come to our conclusions through the multiple testimonies of people who were either companions of Jesus themselves and of other people who knew the companions of Jesus! This is fantastic and extremely EARLY evidence! When we look at the past to see what actually occurred, we look for multiple independent sources, eye-witness sources, early sources, embarrassing reports, etc… We have all of this in abundance when it comes to the Resurrection! In fact, as Mike Licona once told me,

“We have as much data that Jesus rose from the dead, if not more than we have of Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC!”

The vast majority of the harshest, skeptical, and atheistic historians admit up to twelve things as historical fact about Jesus. These twelve facts create an overwhelming cumulative case for the Resurrection of Jesus. However, we only need three of the twelve to make a minimal case. For our purposes, I will use five to come to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead:

1- Jesus died by crucifixion.

2- Jesus’ disciples (at least) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to them.

3- The church persecutor and Christian hunter, Saul, was radically transformed into the Jesus preaching Paul.

4- The skeptic James (the brother of Jesus) was suddenly changed into someone who was willing to die for the Gospel.

5- The tomb of Jesus was found empty by his women followers.

These are the accepted facts regarding Jesus. So, as historians, we need to ask what hypothesis best accounts for all of these facts? The Resurrection hypothesis can account for all of them, and no naturalistic hypothesis offered can account for all of these together. I encourage you to come up with one.

To decipher the inference to the best explanation, we use the criteria of the historical method. The hypothesis that best meets all of the criteria is to be preferred and regarded as to what most likely (or probably) occurred. Here are the five points of criteria:

  • Explanatory Scope
  • Explanatory Power
  • Plausibility
  • Less Ad Hoc or Contrived
  • It provides Illumination

With the criteria in mind, Mike Licona said:

“The MAIN objection to the resurrection, is not a lack of historical evidence (we have that); rather, it’s a matter of WORLDVIEW, because the resurrection of Jesus requires a Supernatural Being to exist.

If you consider my essay on the Kalam Cosmological Argument you will notice that we sound philosophical evidence — supported by the scientific data — that a Supernatural “Cause” of the Universe does exist! If we have evidence of a “Supernatural Cause and Creator of the Universe,” the resurrection of Jesus by this Supernatural being would be mere “child’s play!” Therefore, one has no grounds to reject the historical evidence in regards to the resurrection of Jesus.

What do you think, Justin? I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Tim

Justin’s first objection

Hey, Tim. Sorry for the late reply. I haven’t had that much free time as I work anywhere from 60-110 hours a week!

While reading your argument, something popped into mind. We do know about Alexander the Great. But, not as much as we think we know. Just like the possible life/death of Jesus. It’s written in the scripture that he died from the wounds, as a result of the crucifixion.

I ask you this question: Would it be possible that Jesus didn’t really die as a result? 1st century Jerusalem was not very medically advanced. So, it would be possible that the “examiner” would be wrong and placed his body in the tomb. When Jesus awoke, he left the tomb.

It’s not unheard of to hear about people being buried alive, as it happened all the way up to the early 1900’s.

Tim’s response

Those are very good questions, Justin! Is it possible that Jesus did not die as a result of the crucifixion? Is it possible that the Romans thought Jesus was dead when he was just completely “beat up?” Is it then possible that Jesus woke up in the tomb, and walked out?

As I mentioned in my original email, it is accepted as historical fact that Jesus was crucified; however, does this mean we can have certainty about his death? I agree with you, Justin, we have all heard of someone that has been declared dead, and hours later started breathing again. If this still happens today, how can we be sure it didn’t happen 2000 years ago? Let’s label this hypothesis as the “Apparent Death Theory” (ADT), and see how it stands up when compared to historical and medical research.

I think the ADT is highly unlikely, implausible, and NOT the inference to the best explanation for several reasons. First, when considering what we know about Roman scourging and crucifixion, survival seems quite implausible. In the March 21, 1986, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, a study was done on the effects of Roman scourging. I won’t bore you with all the details right now, but if you are interested in seeing what it was like, the movie, “The Passion of the Christ” seems to demonstrate quite accurately what a Roman scourging was like.

Something else to consider is that a scourging was just the warm-up! When it came to nailing a convict on a cross, each wound was intentionally inflicted to cause immense physical agony. The Journal reported that when the convict had his wrists nailed, “the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve. The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms.” This would eventually lead to death by asphyxiation.

On the cross, the convict wanted to take pressure off of his nailed feet. To accomplish this, he had to allow the weight of his body to be applied to his nailed wrists (Imagine doing pull-ups with nailed wrists!!!). Moreover, while in the down position the convict is being suffocated. Pull-ups become your only means of survival! I don’t care how strong a guy is, a person can only do so many pull-ups, let alone, pull-ups with nailed wrists! Thus, the victim would have to push up on his nailed feet in order to exhale. However, this would be extremely painful causing the nail to tear through the flesh on his feet. This would lead to severe muscle cramps and spasms making the act of breathing extremely painful.

Moreover, if Roman executioners desired to speed the process up, it was common for them to break the legs of the victims with clubs. This would stop the victim from exhaling, as they could no longer use their arms or their legs to lift their torso up to breathe out. The Romans had the “art of death” down to a science, and it was easy to know when the convict was dead as he was no longer pushing up for air. The team that published the article in the medical journal concluded the following:

“Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”

What’s more, the Romans had back up measures to ensure the death of the crucified convict. The Roman author Quintilian reports that Roman executioners would thrust spears into the side of crucified victims to ensure the convict that appeared dead really was! This is exactly what is reported to have happened to Jesus in the book of John 19:34-35. It is also written that after Jesus was stabbed with the spear, a combination of blood and water flowed out of his body. Two thousand years ago they may not have known why this occurred, but we do now! When the sac that surrounds the heart (the pericardium) is ruptured, water flows out, and if the right side of the heart is likewise pierced, blood and water would be combined as it was described in the book of John. This would ensure the death of Jesus.

The death of Jesus on the cross is known with a very high degree of historical certainty; however, suppose he did somehow survive the scourging and crucifixion. Would it really be possible for him to push the heavy stone of his tomb away with his pierced hands and feet after being recently scourged and crucified, let alone walk many blocks to find his disciples? The skeptical German scholar D.F. Strauss finally concluded that this would not be plausible.

Even if this bizarre scenario were somehow possible, is it plausible that after this beaten, wounded, and mutilated Jesus limped to the disciple’s residence, that the disciples would conclude that Jesus was the risen Prince of life? They would have concluded that he was barely alive, but hardly risen. It’s been said that if this scenario occurred, when Jesus presented his wounds to the “doubting” Thomas, Jesus would have responded with, “Ouch! That still hurts!”

In conclusion, it does not seem plausible that Jesus would have survived the scourging and crucifixion the Roman executors had down to an “artful” science. Moreover, even if one were to grant the survival of the crucifixion, it seems even more unlikely that Jesus would have not only recovered on the third day, but regained the strength to push the giant rock away from the tomb, and then walk a great distance to find his disciples, and then convince them that he was the risen Son of God. This is not the inference to the best explanation.

Justin, I think your questions are great and the possibilities you offered must be weighed by any historian worth his salt. However, when considering the criterion of plausibility when coming to historical conclusions, I think the ADT hypothesis must be rejected by the same historians.

What do you think?

Justin’s next objection

Tim- I’ve read your rebuttal. You make very convincing arguments and it even convinced me! I haven’t read much about the Romans (I’m currently studying bugs). But, with all of the facts you’ve backed your argument with, you’ll never hear that objection from me again.

Now, I raise another question, what if it wasn’t actually Jesus on the cross? But instead a “fill-in” of sorts. Someone who put themselves in Jesus’ place? Someone who looked almost exactly like [or very similar to] Jesus?

Tim’s next response

That’s a great question, Justin! Could Jesus have had a “doppelgänger,” a twin brother, or just a disciple who really looked like him who was willing to sacrifice himself on the cross in place of Jesus?

First of all, I might surprise you with my answer: YES, it is possible. With that being said, it is not plausible! 100% certainty eludes us in almost all things in life; however, adequate and even reasonable certainty is quite attainable. So, for example, when we say that a certain hypothesis is “true,” we mean that it corresponds with a good degree of accuracy to accepted conditions or past events.

The question is raised: how does one attain such knowledge? More specifically, how does a historian attain “historical knowledge”? Historians come to their conclusions by weighing hypothesis against specific criteria. Dr. Michael Licona explains this and says:

“Merely stating “what-if” possibilities without supporting evidence does not challenge a hypothesis with strong supporting evidence. What-ifs must be supported by evidence and argumentation. We established the following five criteria for the best explanation (listed in descending order of importance):  (1) plausibility, (2-3) explanatory scope, explanatory power, (4) less ad hoc and (5) illumination.”

From this point, Justin, a hypothesis can be awarded the distinction “historical” when it has either (1) met the five criteria better than competing hypothesis and (2) outdistanced competing hypothesis by significant margins. Remember the accepted historical facts regarding the man, Jesus of Nazareth:

1- Jesus died by crucifixion.

2- Jesus’ disciples (at least) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to them.

3- The church persecutor and Christian hunter, Saul, was radically transformed into the Jesus preaching Paul!

4- The skeptic James (the brother of Jesus) was suddenly changed into someone who was willing to die for the Gospel!

5- The tomb of Jesus was found empty by his women followers.

Let’s examine the hypothesis “Jesus had a clone,” using the criteria to infer the best explanation against the accepted facts regarding Jesus. Could this hypothesis possibly explain fact (1)? Yes, because even though Jesus would not have really died by crucifixion, it explains why everyone would have thought that he did. I do not think that this is necessarily plausible; however, it does have explanatory scope and power. With that said, it fails by being “ad-hoc.” One must assume, without any supporting evidence, that Jesus had a follower who was willing to save Jesus by going to the cross for him and just so happened to look exactly like him. That is quite unlikely.

Does the “clone theory” explain fact (2)? As good historians, let’s try to put ourselves in the shoes of the disciples (or at least their sandals)! The disciples were in a position to know if one of the followers of Jesus looked like him, and was willing to sacrifice his life for Jesus as well. Moreover, after three years of spending every single day together, the disciples would surely have been able to distinguish any differences between Jesus and his look-alike. They would have been in a position to know if it was really Jesus who they watched being arrested and crucified.

Furthermore, on the third day when the real Jesus made his appearances to the disciples, they would have immediately come to the conclusion, “Dude… they crucified your look-alike, and not you! They got the wrong guy!”

Moreover, The Clone theory doesn’t explain the existence of the pierced hands, feet, and side which the “doubting” Thomas insisted upon examining.

The question then becomes, “Why would the cowardly disciples be transformed into bold proclaimers of the risen Jesus, even in the face of execution? This would mean that the disciples were willingly committing fraud. However, this goes against the accepted 2nd fact, that the disciples really believed Jesus was raised from the dead.

Fact (2) is held by the vast majority of scholars and historians because the disciple’s lives were radically transformed in the face of imprisonment, sufferings, and martyrdom. People die for lies all the time, but do people die for lies they know are not true? I cannot find any examples of such a thing ever occurring; however, even if one single example could be found, this is not the kind of thing that typically happens. Therefore, the “clone theory” ultimately supposes the disciples were willingly deceptive, and therefore, it is defeated by the martyrdom and sufferings of all of the disciples. This demonstrates that the Clone Theory does not explain fact (2).

Does the clone theory explain fact (3) about Paul’s transformation? At first glance, I think it could because Paul (unlike the disciples) probably was not in a position to know whether or not Jesus had a look-alike clone that was willing to suffer scourging, crucifixion, and death. However, it is unlikely that Paul knew exactly what Jesus looked like anyway since

the FBI’s most wanted posters were not out yet!

With this in mind, a look-alike of Jesus is not even needed. Anyone could claim to be Jesus, but there was something different about this appearance that Paul really believed he had and was willing to sacrifice his status as prominent Pharisee to attest that Jesus was the truth, and ultimately suffer and die for this proclamation. This is a problem for the clone theory.

Does this hypothesis best account for fact (4)? No, because James (the brother of Jesus) would be in a position to know about a supposed “Jesus clone” even more than the disciples. James was a skeptic who was not transformed and converted until after Jesus’ death on the cross. Our conclusions regarding James are arrived at because:

  1. The Gospels report that Jesus’ brothers, including James, were unbelievers during his ministry (Mark 3:21, 32; 6:3-4; John 7:5).
  2. The ancient creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (that I listed in my first email), states: “Then He appeared to James.”
  3. Subsequent to the alleged event of Jesus’ resurrection, James is identified as a leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:12-21; Gal. 1:19).
  4. Not only did James convert to Christianity, his beliefs in Jesus and his resurrection were so strong that he died as a martyr because of them. (This is attested by both Christian sources and non-Christian, extra-Biblical sources).

Therefore, James would not only be in an outstanding position to know whether or not his brother had a clone, who was also the most loyal friend a guy could ever have, but his transformation from a skeptic to a martyr would be highly implausible.

The biggest problem for the ad hoc “Clone Hypothesis” comes when it is weighed against the accepted historical fact (5) of the Empty Tomb. If Jesus really did have a clone that was willing to give his life for the real Jesus, the tomb would not be empty. The tomb would still have the dead look-alike decaying inside. Even if the “real” Jesus was making appearances, the tomb would not be empty.

I must admit, the fact (5) is not accepted by all skeptical scholars or as many who affirm the other four facts; however, it is still accepted by most critical scholars (so I am in good company) when comparing it to the “Hobart Scenario” that I explained in my first email.

I think the “Clone Theory” is one of the best “what-if” natural hypotheses to explain the belief in the risen Jesus. However, it has many problems, it is implausible and extremely ad-hoc. Conversely, the hypothesis, “God raised Jesus from the dead,” explains every one of the five accepted facts. In fact, the only additional belief that one must hold to accept that hypothesis is a belief in God. As you know, I believe there are many good reasons based on philosophy and science (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument) to hold to a belief in theism.

For the theist, there are no additional beliefs that must be held to accept the hypothesis that “God raised Jesus from the dead” as the best explanation of the accepted historical facts.

What do you think, Justin?

Your friend,

Tim

Justin’s final objection

I have no arguments against your first four stated facts. But, when reading fact five; I got to thinking, it is possible for the dead “clone” to have been “thrown-out,” much like week-old bread, so it would have appeared that Jesus has risen from the dead [the tomb would be empty] and the wounds on his hands and feet could be superficial.

Admittedly, it has been a few years since I’ve read the bible. So, it is possible that there is a passage that contradicts my argument, and I don’t remember.

What do you think?

Tim’s final response

Thank you for your reply, Justin! I am so thankful for your participation in this conversation. You have pushed me think and do some additional research which has been extremely beneficial to me! I know that you are extremely busy, and I really appreciate you taking the time to have this dialogue with me.

The hypothesis you are offering is fun to entertain and contemplate. With that being said, I hope you see that since the first four stated facts I offered are best explained by the hypothesis, “God raised Jesus from the dead.” Therefore, even if the new “Clone Theory” you offer passes fact (5) of the empty tomb, the Resurrection hypothesis is still the most likely, and therefore, the best explanation as to what actually happened.

Remember, what I wrote earlier regarding the “Clone Hypothesis.” I said,  that I think the “Clone Theory” is one of the best “what-if” naturalistic hypotheses to explain the belief in the risen Jesus. However, it has many problems; namely, it is implausible and ad-hoc.

I don’t think adding these additional ingredients to the recipe makes this cake more believable. One must assume (without any historical supporting evidence) that Jesus had a doppelgänger. If that’s not enough, one must also assume that his close friends, followers, and family members did not know about this clone. Moreover, if that’s not enough, we must also assume that this clone was willing to die for a lie! People die for lies all the time, but they die for lies they think are true (like the Muslim terrorists on 9-11)! This clone would be sacrificing himself for a lie, which he knew was a lie! I cannot think of anybody in the history of mankind who was willing to do that!

On top of this already amazing scenario, this clone (that no one else was aware of) would also have to sneak in, and then trade places with Jesus, while Jesus skipped town for three days. After this, the perfect clone (which fooled all of Jesus’ friends, followers, and family members) was willingly tortured, scourged, crucified, and executed. AND THEN we must believe that the clone was buried in the tomb, but then, the clone’s body was discarded (which just so happened to work out perfectly for the real Jesus). This allowed Jesus to pierce his own hands, feet, and side (superficially), sneak back into town from hiding, just so he could come back to “punk” his friends, followers, and family!

Jesus also could only appear to his friends, followers, and family, because the authorities would have crucified him AGAIN if they caught him “appearing” to the hundreds of people that Paul reports. Speaking of Paul, he also had to appear to Paul, and take the chance that Paul would not have killed him with his own bare hands! He would have had to exist for the rest of his days in hiding or in disguise — kind of like Leonardo DiCaprio in the movie, “Catch Me If You Can.”

Doing all of this with the knowledge that this hoax would probably change the calendar, let alone the entire world, for at least the next couple thousand years.

I don’t even think the late Johnny Cochrane could sell this story to a jury in Hollywood! The principle of Occam’s razor states that the simplest explanation should always be preferred. The different clone hypotheses offered are not simple at all, in fact, they are extremely improbable, not to mention, ad hoc. As I mentioned before, the hypothesis, “God raised Jesus from the dead,” explains every one of the five accepted facts. In fact, the only additional belief that one must hold (to accept that hypothesis) is a belief in God. There are many good reasons based on philosophy and science to hold to a belief in theism.

So, for the theist, there are no additional beliefs that must be held to accept the hypothesis that “God raised Jesus from the dead” as the inference to the best explanation of the accepted historical facts.

Justin, I hope you see that the reason anyone rejects the resurrection of Jesus is not due to a lack of evidence (we have that), but rather, based on their presuppositions in naturalism (The blind faith that nature is all there is). The arguments I referenced above provide a strong case against naturalism, which effectively demonstrates that there is no problem with following the evidence leading to the resurrection. This evidence supports the proposition, “God raised Jesus from the dead!” Thus, we have good reason to place our faith in Christianity. You see, Christianity is a reasonable faith.

Justin, as far as my assignment goes, you have helped me complete it. I want to let you know that I am more than willing to continue our friendly and respectful conversation if you would like.  I hope this doesn’t offend you, but I am praying that you would come to know the Risen Jesus the way I do!

I am honored to have a true friend like you!

Sincerely,

Tim

Notes

Justin gave me permission to publish our dialogue! More importantly, Justin no longer opposes Christianity! Happy Easter!

 

(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 North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

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

/by
Resurrection Frank

Christianity is True Even If Some of the Bible Isn’t

,

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

Let me explain.

It’s a common belief prevalent among some Christians today that what we know about Christianity depends on an inerrant Bible.  Sure, we know that there are several non-Christian writers from the ancient world that make brief references to the first-century events and the beliefs of the early Christians, corroborating what we read in the New Testament.  We also know that there is an increasing number of archaeological findings that support characters and events in the Christian storyline.

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

Although I think are good reasons to believe in an inerrant Bible, inerrancy is an unnecessarily high standard by which to establish the central event in Christianity—the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (which we celebrate this Sunday).  Christianity hinges on that historical event.  If Christ rose from the dead, then, game over, Christianity is true.  On the other hand, if he didn’t rise from the dead, then, as a first-century eyewitness by the name of Paul admitted, Christianity is false.

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

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

The same is true with the documents comprising the New Testament and the Resurrection.  Even if one were to find an error or disagreement between the multiple accounts of the Resurrection story, the very fact that there are several eyewitness accounts shows that something dramatic actually happened in history—especially since the folks who wrote it down had everything to lose by proclaiming Jesus rose from the dead.

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

Answer:  they wouldn’t. They saw something dramatic that they weren’t expecting.  Then they proclaimed it, altered their lives because of it, and later wrote about it, despite the fact that doing any of that would get them killed.

So Christianity isn’t true just because the Bible says it’s true. Christianity is true because an event occurred.  True, we wouldn’t know much about Christianity if the reports of the Resurrection had never been written, but the Resurrection preceded the reports of it.

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

Contrary to what some skeptics may think, the New Testament writers didn’t create the Resurrection—the Resurrection created the New Testament writers.   In other words, the New Testament documents didn’t give us the Resurrection.  The Resurrection gave us the New Testament documents!  There would be no New Testament unless the Resurrection had occurred.  Observant Jews would never have invented that.

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

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

Likewise, all the writers agree that the Resurrection occurred, but they differ on the minor details (Who got to the tomb first?  Did you see one angel or two? etc.).  And these differences aren’t necessarily contradictions, but the natural result of viewing the same historical event from different vantage points.

The historical documents we’ve collected and put into one binding we call the New Testament are just what the name implies— they are testaments or reports of what honorable people witnessed and had no motive to invent.  In fact, given who they were and how they suffered, they had every motive to say it wasn’t true.  And there are several other excellent reasons that show it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.

So inerrant Bible or not, the Resurrection we celebrate on Sunday actually occurred about 1,985 years ago. That means you can trust that one day you’ll be resurrected like Jesus if you put your trust in him.

 

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

/by
Have We Lost the Message of the New Testament?

Have We Lost the Message of the New Testament?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Lost the Plot?

Have we somehow lost the message of the New Testament through irreparable corruptions of the text? That’s what some people wonder when the conversation turns to the issue of textual variants—differences in the biblical manuscripts we’ve discovered over the years.

Maybe you’ve got a friend or a co-worker who tends to be pretty skeptical of the Bible right from the get-go. For many like them, the issues surrounding the Bible can make it tough to read it for themselves and give it a fair hearing. For example, people who saw Bart Ehrman on the Cobert Report or read his books might come away doubting that the text of the New Testament is still intact after all these years.

Today, I still hear well-meaning believers say we’ve just got to “give people the Bible.” But more and more, I see the need to engage the tough questions about why we should take the Bible seriously. So I wanted to share this video with you. It’s Darrell Bock, Ben Witherington, and Dan Wallace talking about textual variants in the New Testament.

What do Textual Variants Really Mean?

I’m honored to say I studied Greek under Dr. Wallace at Dallas Theological Seminary. At this DTS event, he answers the questions, “Are there really hundreds of thousands of textual differences in our New Testament manuscripts?” and “so what?” In other words, what do all these numbers really mean?

We Haven’t Lost the Message

Check out these four categories of textual variants and see why even 400,000 differences don’t need to shake our faith. The first two categories won’t help anyone come up with a new conspiracy theory about how the church has been secretly changing the Bible over the years. But as Wallace said, it might cure your insomnia.

  1. Most textual variants are just spelling differences

Ever seen the word “color” spelled “colour” in a book? You probably wouldn’t be surprised to see a young kid spell it, “culler,” or something like that. Whether it’s an alternate spelling or an actual spelling error, it’s still pretty obvious what they mean. When it comes to the New Testament, the first and largest category is made up of spelling differences, accounting for over 75% of all textual variants.

  1. Many textual variants are synonyms, word order differences and stuff you can’t translate

The next biggest category is all about synonyms (different words that basically mean the same thing) and stuff like word order (which makes little difference in Greek) or articles with proper nouns. For example, Greek writers could use the definite article before people’s names (like “The Jesus”). In this case, whether or not the word “the” shows up before Jesus’ name makes no difference; you can’t even translate it into English!

  1. Some textual variants would have made a difference if they weren’t so late to the game

The third largest category is made up of variants that would have made a difference in the meaning of the text in our Bibles if they showed up earlier in the manuscript tradition. The thing is, these differences show up hundreds of years after Jesus’ time and so it’s pretty unlikely that they tell us anything about what the original documents really said. Another way to say this is that the more recent differences just tell us about how some copyists ended up changing the text.

  1. A few textual variants actually do make a difference…but none mess with any core doctrines

It’s true. There are real questions about the authenticity of some of the words and sentences in the New Testament. And that’s what the fourth category is about: Variants that actually do make a difference in what the text says and possibly represent the original readings of the text. But here’s the thing: None of them call any core doctrines into question. Not one.

I’ve looked into this for myself so please don’t let anyone tell you this is just the tip of the iceberg. These kinds of things represent less than 1% of all textual variants in the New Testament.

About The One Percent:

New Testament Textual Variants that Matter Most

We need to be honest and admit that, at least where our current scholarship is at, there are some good questions about a few parts of the New Testament. For example, most scholars believe the story about the woman caught in adultery wasn’t in the original text of the gospels. It actually shows up in different places in some manuscripts, including the margins or at the end of a page, almost like scribes who wanted to preserve the story didn’t know where they should be writing it down. But what kind of difference does this make? I like how Darrell Bock answers this question:

“What is impacted is whether or not a particular passage teaches a particular point. But in the big scheme of things, there is no fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that is impacted by this one percent.”

Most people don’t know that even Bart Ehrman himself actually agrees with this in print. He mentions this in the question and answer section of Misquoting Jesus (p.252):

…essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

The Number of Textual Variants is Only One Part of the Story

To me, it seems misleading and unfair to say there are between 300,000 and 400,000 textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts we have today and leave it at that.

We’ve got so many variants because we’ve got so many New Testament manuscripts. If all we had were one codex with all the books of the New Testament in it, we wouldn’t have any variants!

Look, having almost 6,000 manuscripts—and not just one or even a dozen ancient, handwritten documents—is a very good thing because it can help us have more confidence in the readings which best represent the text of the original books of the New Testament. So the number of textual variants is only one part of the story.

Conclusion

The overwhelming majority of these textual variants don’t change the meaning of the text. No core doctrine of the Christian faith is called into question by any textual differences in the New Testament. None.

Instead of making us suspicious that we’ve lost the message, studying the text of the New Testament gives us confidence that the message has been faithfully preserved.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2p82RdB

/by

A Through Guide to the Non-Canonical Gospels

Many years ago, when I first became interested in Christianity, I encountered a book at a local bookstore entitled, The Lost Books of the Bible. As a new investigator of the claims of the New Testament, I was immediately intrigued. “What?” I thought, “There are books about Jesus that were lost?” I couldn’t help but wonder what these books said about Jesus and why they were allegedly “lost” in the first place. I bought the book and began to research the historical texts it described. I was disappointed to discover that the book should have been titled, The Well Known, Late Lies About Jesus That Were Ignored By Christians Who Knew Better. These texts were never part of the New Testament canon. They were written late in history and rejected by everyone who knew the truth about Jesus of Nazareth.

My research into the topic resulted in a number of articles that I’ve reproduced here at ColdCaseChristainity.com. This series of posts will help you understand why such untruths about Jesus were written in the first place, what the documents said about Jesus, and why they were rejected as frauds:

Information About the General Reliability of the Non-Canonical Texts
Before surveying each text, these articles examine why such texts would be written in the first place and whether or not these documents do anything to invalidate what we know about Jesus from the reliable New Testament manuscripts:

What Motivated Early Non-Canonical Writers to Modify the Story of Jesus?
Although these late legends contain many exaggerations and lies, they built their myths and fabrications on the foundation of a true account. As we sift through the legendary claims, we can expose the true foundations upon which they crafted their stories. Once exposed, these foundations can give us even greater confidence the original story of Jesus is early and accurate, even though these late legends are not to be trusted.

Do the Non-Canonical Gospels Challenge the Historicity of the New Testament?
Those who sought to change the story of Jesus in antiquity were driven by a desire to validate their theological presuppositions. We have little reason to accept late re-writes of the life and ministry of Jesus; these non-canonical fictions were rejected by the ancients who recognized their late arrival and understood the self-serving motivations of their proponents.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust What the Non-Canonical Gospels Say About Jesus?
There are dozens of ancient non-canonical legends related to Jesus. That’s shouldn’t surprise us. Given the nature of Jesus and his impact on our world, we should expect to find such a reaction to his life and ministry. In fact, the explosive body of ancient literature related to Jesus is a testimony to both His historicity and Divine nature. Only the Son of God could provoke such a response. It’s our job, however, to eliminate the late stories and isolate the early eyewitness accounts.

Information About the Non-Canonical Texts Attributed to New Testament Witnesses
Many of the non-canonical, fictional accounts of Jesus are attributed (falsely) to real people who knew Jesus personally:

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Peter?
The original manuscript of the Preaching of Peter is now lost to us. We do, however, have a few fragments and evidence from letters written by Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) and Origen (185-254AD) that quote the Preaching of Peter in several places. In addition, Origen wrote early church leaders like Heracleon used the text alongside the canonical Gospels.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospel Attributed to Mark?
The Secret Gospel of Mark is described in a letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD), although this alleged letter has been attacked as a forgery by many scholars. The letter is the only source referencing the gospel; there are no existing manuscripts of The Secret Gospel of Mark. Clement was allegedly writing to another Christian leader named Theodore, advising him about the existence of a more expansive version of the Gospel of Mark containing additional stories and sayings of Jesus. This allegedly extended version of Mark’s Gospel was reportedly known only to Jesus’ innermost circle.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospel Attributed to John?
The Apocryphon of John is a Sethian Gnostic text (Sethians were named for their reverent adoration of the Seth, the son of Adam and Eve, who they described as a divine incarnation and the ancestor of a superior race of humans). Like other Sethian texts, it was first discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi Library collection in Egypt in 1945. The copies date to the 4th century, but scholars place the writing of the text in the 2nd century. The Apocryphon of John describes an appearance of Jesus to the Apostle John (after Jesus’ ascension) in which Jesus provides John with secret knowledge, much like other narratives in the tradition of Gnosticism.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to James?
Like the “First” Apocalypse of James, this Gnostic text was discovered in 1945 as part of the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt. Scholars actually date the “Second” Apocalypse of James earlier that the “First”. While the manuscript discovered at Nag Hammadi dates to the 3rd or 4th century, scholars believe that the original text was written in the middle of the 2nd century. The Second Apocalypse of James was written as a reported dialogue between Jesus and James the Just (Jesus’ brother) and allegedly recorded by a priest named Mareim.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Thomas?
This late non-canonical text was first discovered in 1945 as part of a large collection of papyri excavated near Nag Hammadi in Egypt. It is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, written in the Coptic language, and attributed to a conversation recorded by “Didymos Judas Thomas”.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Philip”?
The Gospel of Philip is yet another Gnostic gospel discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt in 1945. The text was found in the same codex that also contained The Gospel of Thomas, but unlike The Gospel of Thomas, this text is not a collection of “sayings of Jesus” as much as it is a collection of “Gnostic teachings”. The original text was not called The Gospel of Philip; this title has been applied to the text in modern times because Philip is the only disciple of Jesus that is mentioned in the document.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Mary”?
The Gospel of Mary was discovered in 1896 as part of a larger set of papyri. Later discoveries of additional papyri have helped to provide us with a reconstruction of the Gospel, but even with the additional manuscripts, many chapters are still missing. Scholars disagree about the identity of Mary within the text, but most believe that she was intended to represent Mary Magdalene. Scholars have dated the writing of the text to the mid or late 2nd century.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Judas”?
The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic text similar to other texts from the 2nd century and later. Like other Gnostic Gospels, it contains a conversation between Jesus and one of His disciples (in this case Judas) in which Jesus reveals a secret, esoteric knowledge. It also describes the death of Jesus from Judas’ perspective. The text was discovered in the 1970s near Beni Masah in Egypt and was written in the Coptic language, similar to other Gnostic texts. Only one copy has ever been discovered and this copy is in very poor condition, missing large portions of text.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Matthias?
The Traditions of Matthias is described by Clement of Alexandria in a letter (Miscellanies written in 210AD) and many scholars suspect that it is the same text known as the Gospel of Matthias and mentioned by Origen, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Jerome. While the manuscript is lost, there are still three small quotes from Clement’s letter that are available to us. The text may have contained a narrative of Jesus’ life along with teachings, but it is difficult to know from what little we have today.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Bartholomew?
This text has been reconstructed from three Coptic fragments and additional pieces of papyri (the Coptic language was spoken in Egypt until the 7th century). The dating for the book has been very difficult to establish. The British Museum possesses the best manuscript of The Book of the Resurrection of Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle, but this manuscript dates to the 12th century. There are fragments of the text that are much older, but scholars are undecided on the original date of authorship. Some place it as late as the 5th or 6th century given its similarities to other Coptic literature.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Nicodemus” or “The Acts of Pilate”?
The Gospel of Nicodemus is a Medieval Latin text that scholars believe to have been written in the middle of the 4th century, reportedly by a member of the “Order of Nicodemus”. It includes, as part of the text, a section entitled The Acts of Pilate and the two titles (for the combined text) are usually used interchangeably. The first two parts of the text attempt to recall the trial and resurrection of Jesus, while the third section (The Acts of Pilate) describes Jesus’ descent to “Limbo”.

Information About the Lesser Known Non-Canonical Texts
Many of the non-canonical, fictional accounts of Jesus were used by lesser-known, smaller heretical groups:

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Basilides”?
Nothing of this Gospel survives today. What little we do know about Basilides and his followers comes first from the letters of Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Hegemonius (all of whom described Basilides as a heretic). Basilides was an early Gnostic teacher in Alexandria, Egypt between 117-138AD. He taught among the Persians and wrote many commentaries on the orthodox Gospels (assembled as a volume known as Exegetica). The Gospel of Basilides is mentioned by Origen, Jerome, Ambrose, Philip of Side, and Venerable Bede.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Marcion”?
The Gospel of Marcion (also known as The Gospel of the Lord) was used by Marcion, the infamous heretic and one-time Bishop of Sinope between the years of 150-160AD. The text is lost to us, but the Early Church Fathers and apologists (such as Tertullian) criticized The Gospel of Marcion extensively in their own writings; we can now reconstruct much of The Gospel of Marcion from the critical writings of the Church Fathers. Marcion’s Gospel (as acknowledged by the vast majority of historical scholars) appears to be a modification of The Gospel of Luke, altered to support Marcion’s theological ideas. It is typically dated in the mid-2nd century.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of the Egyptians”?
Like other early heretical Gnostic works, The Gospel of the Egyptians (also known as The Greek Gospel of the Egyptians) is presently lost to us. What we do know about the text is what is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius of Salamis. From what little we have, it is impossible to know if the text was a narrative about Jesus or simply a collection of sayings.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Second Treatise of the Great Seth”?
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth was also discovered at the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt in 1945. Its title comes from the final line of the text and it is unknown if there was a First Treatise, as none has ever been discovered. It is yet another example of Sethian Gnosticism; a text used by a group who originally worshipped the biblical Seth as a messianic figure and later treated Jesus as a re-incarnation of Seth. The text is written as though Jesus Himself is the author.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit”?
Two versions of The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit were discovered in 1945 among the papyri of the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt. Based on the Gnostic contents of the text and its position among other documents, scholars place the writing of the book in the 2nd century as yet another Gnostic Sethian document.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “History of Joseph the Carpenter”?
Like The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and The Infancy Gospel of James, The History of Joseph the Carpenter is another example of non-canonical legend that was created in order to answer questions about the life of Jesus. Many details of Jesus’ life prior to the age of twelve were left unaddressed in the canonical Gospels, and several late non-canonical works were created in order to satisfy the growing desire for additional information. This text is written as a message from Jesus on the Mount of Olives in which he talks about the life of His stepfather, Joseph.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of the Savior”?
This Gnostic text was discovered by two American scholars in a Berlin museum. It is only a fragment, and scholars date the fragment to somewhere between the 4th and 7th century, although the date of writing has been attributed to the 2nd century. The manuscript was discovered on “calfskin” and only 15 pages remain from the original document which appears to have been damaged in a fire. It is a “sayings” document, much like The Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus is quoted as the source for a number of statements.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior”?
This Infancy Gospel (like other apocryphal Infancy Gospels) was likely written to satisfy the curiosity of those who wanted more detail related to the childhood of Jesus. It appears to be a compilation written originally in Syriac and then later translated into Arabic, and it clearly draws from (and amplifies) information from prior Infancy Gospels. The document borrows heavily from The Infancy Gospel of James for material related to the Virgin Mary, from The Infancy Gospel of Thomas for material related to the childhood of Jesus, and then provides additional information (from an unknown source) related to the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Truth”?
The Gospel of Truth was discovered alongside other Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt (in 1945). Scholars have dated it to the 2nd century and have connected it with an early Gnostic teacher named Valentinus (who lived from 100-160AD). It is a poetic “homily” rather than a “gospel”, and is now considered one of the most artful Gnostic writings of all time.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Sophia of Jesus Christ”?
The Sophia of Jesus Christ is yet another Gnostic text discovered in the Egyptian Nag Hammadi Library in 1945. The word “Sophia” here is most likely to be understood as “wisdom”, as this text claims to be a conversation between Jesus and his disciples in which Jesus provides them with hidden wisdom, much like other Gnostic examples that value secret, esoteric knowledge as the mechanism through which one can escape the fallen, material body.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Dialogue of the Saviour”?
The Dialogue of the Saviour was discovered, along with other Gnostic texts, in the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt in 1945. The original text was greatly damaged, but it appears to be a dialogue between Jesus and some of His followers or book of sayings bearing some similarity to The Gospel of Thomas. The text seems disjointed at points and jumps from topic to topic without continuity. For this reason, scholars have surmised that the text may have been assembled from a number of separate documents. Scholars date the text to the mid to late 2nd century.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Pistis Sophia”?
This important Gnostic work has been known to scholars for over two hundred years. It was originally purchased by a private citizen from a bookseller in London and then purchased by the British Museum in 1785. It is an expansive document of Upper Egyptian origin that appears to be a collection (at least two scribes seem to be involved) of Gnostic Coptic manuscripts. The exact meaning of “Pistis Sophia” has been argued by scholars but generally means something akin to “Faith Wisdom” or “Wisdom of Faith”. The Pistis Sophia includes passages in which a transfigured Jesus is described as teaching His followers about the mysteries of Heaven and various spiritual matters.

These ancient non-canonical texts are late, heretical documents. Follow the links and investigate each document. When they are examined under the criteria we use to determine eyewitness reliability, they fail the test. The four canonical Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) are still the earliest reliable record of Jesus, written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses who knew Jesus personally.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by

Five Reasons You Can Trust the Story of Christmas Is True (Free Bible Insert)

Detectives create lists. As a cold-case detective, I’m no different. When investigating an event in the distant past (in my case, an unsolved murder), I collect evidence, make lists and do my best to reach the most reasonable inference. When I began to investigate Christianity at the age of thirty-five, I approached the gospels the same way I approached my cold-case files. Lists were an important part of the process. One New Testament claim was particularly interesting to me: the conception and birth of Jesus. When I first read through the gospels, the birth narratives seemed incredible and unreasonable. I’m not the only person to express such a concern. In an article posted in the Herald Scotland, Reverend Andrew Frater called the Nativity story a “fanciful, fairy tale” and called on Christians to “disentangle the truth from the tinsel”. Frater is a minister and a believer, and even he doesn’t believe in the virgin conception of Jesus. As an atheist, I was even more skeptical. I rejected supernatural claims altogether, and the first Biblical claim about Jesus was a supernatural one. But as I collected the evidence and formed my lists, I found there were many good reasons to trust the story of Christmas. I’ve assembled them here with links to longer treatments of each topic:

Reason 1:
The Supernatural Nature of the Virgin Conception Shouldn’t Disqualify It
When I began to investigate the virgin conception, I was actually investigating my own philosophical naturalism. I was, in essence, asking the following questions: “Is the natural world all that exists?” “Is there anything beyond the physical, material world we measure with our five senses?” “Are supernatural events possible or even reasonable?” In asking these questions, I was putting naturalism to the test. It would have been unfair, therefore, to begin by presupposing nothing supernatural could ever exist or occur. If we want to be fair about assessing the virgin conception or any other supernatural aspect of the nativity story, we cannot exclude the very possibility of the supernatural in the first place. Our presupposition against the supernatural would unfairly taint our examination of the claim.

Reason 2:
The Claim of the Virgin Conception Appears Incredibly Early in Christian History
It’s always easier to tell a lie once everyone who was alive to know the difference has already died. But if you’re going to make a claim early in an area where people are still available to debunk your claim, be prepared to have a difficult time getting away with misrepresentations. The virgin conception of Jesus is one of the earliest claims in Christian history. The students of the gospel authors cited the virgin conception as a true claim about Jesus. Ignatius, the student of John (an Apostle who chose not to write about the birth of Jesus in his own gospel), included it in his early writings to local churches. Other Church leaders repeated the claim through the earliest years of the Church, and the doctrine also appears in the most ancient Church creeds. Even early non-canonical documents include the virgin conception of Jesus.

Reason 3:
The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew Are Not Late Additions
Critics, in an effort to argue the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are not reliable, point to stylistic differences and “content shifting” within the gospels. Critics claim that the Greek language used in the birth narrative section of Luke’s gospel is far more Semitic than other sections. But the fact that this section of the gospel is stylistically or linguistically different than other sections does not mean it was a late addition. Luke told us he compiled the information for his gospel from a number of divergent sources (Luke 1:1-4). As a result, we should expect stylistic and linguistic differences within the gospel of Luke. In addition, any claim related to the late addition of the birth narratives defies all the manuscript evidence available to us; there is absolutely no evidence that the gospel of Matthew and Luke ever existed without the birth narratives. All manuscripts, translations, early Church documents and references to the gospels, along with every historic, reliable witness testifies to the fact that the birth narratives are ancient and part of the original record.

Reason 4:
The Virgin Conception Was Not An Invention of Early Christians
Some critics of the virgin conception argue that the earliest Christian authors inserted it in an effort to give Jesus a “heroic” birth consistent with other Old Testament heroes. But, not every Jewish hero from the Old Testament had an unusual birth story. Joshua, King David, and King Solomon are just three of the more obvious examples of powerful Old Testament heroes whose birth stories were less than surprising or unusual. In addition, there is no other character from the Old Testament who was born of a virgin through the miraculous conception of the Holy Spirit. This characteristic of Jesus’ conception is unique to Jesus and follows no pre-existing Old Testament pattern.

Reason 5:
The Virgin Conception Wasn’t Borrowed from Another Source
Skeptics also attempt to discredit the virgin conception of Jesus by claiming it was borrowed from prior pagan mythologies such as those of Mithras or Horus. But any fair examination of pagan mythological birth narratives revels the dramatic differences between the virgin conception of Jesus and stories about the supernatural emergence of mythological gods. While “borrowing” may have occurred between belief systems, the weak resemblances between the Biblical account and pagan mythologies are far more likely the result of the Judeo-Christian influence rather than contamination from a pagan source. It’s irrational to believe the early Jewish readers of the gospels would embrace any part of paganism in the story of Jesus’ conception as continuous with the Jewish narrative from the Old Testament. In addition, early Christian converts were repeatedly called to a new life in Christ, told they were merely travelers passing through this mortal (and pagan) world, called to live a life that was free of worldly influences, and told to reject the foolish philosophies and stories of men. This group, in particular, would be the last to turn to pre-existing pagan stories and superstitions.

If there exists a supernatural Being capable of bringing all space, time and matter into existence from nothing, such a Being could certainly accomplish the virgin conception of Jesus, the Resurrection of Christ, or any of the other “lesser” miracles described on the pages of the New Testament. In addition, there is no historically, textually or philosophically necessary reason to reject the claims of the New Testament authors. If you’re a Christian this Christmas season, celebrate the birth of Jesus with confidence and certainty. The virgin conception is not a fanciful, fairy tale. It is a true story. In fact, there are five good reasons to trust the story of Christmas is factual, reliable and true.

To download a FREE, printable, Bible-sized insert summarizing these five reasons, visit the homepage at www.ColdCaseChristianity.com and click the link in the right column.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by
Josephus Gospels John Baptist

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

,

By Evan Minton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by