The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value, Part 1

An argument for Christianity that seldom receives adequate attention is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (also known as Paul) on the road to Damascus. There exist three accounts of Paul’s conversion in the book of Acts — in chapters 9, 22, and 26. The argument from Paul’s conversion has been laid out in most detail by Sir George Lyttelton (1709-1773), in his book Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul. The book is now in the public domain, and a free PDF copy can be obtained at this link. So strong and convincing is the argument from Paul’s conversion that Lyttelton wrote at the beginning of his book, addressing his friend Gilbert West [1],

 

In a late conversation we had together upon the subject of the Christian religion, I told you, that besides all the proofs of it which may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connection it has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence given of his resurrection by all the other Apostles; I thought the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a Divine Revelation.

In this essay, I shall lay out in detail why Paul’s Damascus road conversion constitutes powerful evidence of the truth of Christianity.

When evaluating any set of testimonial claims, there exist three broad explanatory categories that might account for why the claim was made — that is, the claimant(s) was / were either lying, sincerely mistaken, or truthful in their testimony. These options are mutually exhaustive. In order, to evaluate those explanations, however, we must first establish what the original claimant(s) alleged. Thus, the argument of this essay will take the following structure:

  • Proposition 1: The accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony.
  • Proposition 2: Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken.
  • Proposition 3: Paul was not plausibly intentionally deceptive.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the best explanation of the evidence is that Paul did indeed encounter Christ on the Damascus road.

I shall now proceed to lay out the evidence for each of these propositions.

Proposition 1: The Accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony.

For economy of space, the present article will take it for granted that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. I and others have laid out this case in detail elsewhere. For those not familiar with the substantive evidence for this contention, I would suggest the following resources [see endnote 2].[2]

Given that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul — someone who spent a great deal of time with him — he would have been in a strong position to know what Paul’s testimony was. Paul also appears to have repeated his testimony on multiple occasions — it is given three times in the book of Acts, twice being attributed to Paul’s own words — before a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, to whom he spoke from the steps of the barracks (Acts 22), and later to the governor Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26). When we consider the evidence for Luke’s meticulousness as an historian and attention to detail (laid out in the aforementioned resources), together with the fact that he was laying his own neck on the line for the gospel (as evidenced by the fact that he was present with Paul during many of Paul’s own sufferings for the sake of the gospel — including his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years according to Acts 24:27) and later in Rome, as well as Paul’s hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23) and formal trials before governors Felix and Festus in Caesarea. Taken together, this provides a substantial reason to think that Luke very probably provided an accurate representation of Paul’s own testimony.

Paul also implies in his letters that his audiences were familiar with his background and conversion testimony — and, thus, that his testimony was widely known among the churches. Jason Engwer explains the implications of this:

[T]he account [Paul] gave of what he experienced with the risen Christ surely was widely disseminated and often reinforced by the time he died. It would be difficult to get even a large percentage of Christians to accept a change in Paul’s account. It would be even harder to do it with every or almost every Christian. And the larger the change involved, the more difficult it would be to successfully carry out the change.

For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:1, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” These are rhetorical questions. He does not take time to explain the circumstances under which he encountered Jesus — it is taken for granted that the Corinthians know the circumstances of which he writes. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, he writes, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he [Christ] appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” It again seems implicit that his readers know something of the background. He writes to the Philippians, “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless,” (Phil 3:4-6). Again, it seems implicit that Paul’s audience in Philippi were acquainted, at least to some extent, with the background to which he alludes — particularly in his relation to his having been a former persecutor and Pharisee.

The most striking example is in Galatians 1:11-17, in which Paul writes,

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Take note of Paul’s words in verse 13 — “For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.” Paul’s readers had already heard about Paul’s background as a church persecutor and religious Jew. It is thus quite likely that they knew more about Paul’s conversion that transformed him into Christianity’s most ardent advocate. Observe too Paul’s words in verse 17 — “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” Paul does not take the time to explain to his readers why Damascus was the place to which he returned from Arabia. It is taken for granted that they already know the connection to Damascus — this is where he went immediately upon his conversion (Acts 9:8). William Paley remarks [3],

In this quotation from the epistle, I desire it to be remarked how incidentally it appears, that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all: a casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus; “I returned again to Damascus.” Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this is. It also draws the agreement between the two quotations somewhat closer, to observe, that they both state St. Paul to have preached the gospel immediately upon his call: “And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.’ Acts, chap. 9:20. ‘When it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.” Gal. chap. 1:15.

This casual connection between Galatians and Acts is all the more striking when we consider that these two sources appear to be independent of one another — that is, the author of Acts did not use Galatians as a source, nor vice versa. As Paley observes [4],

Beside the difference observable in the terms and general complexion of these two accounts, “the journey into Arabia,” mentioned in the epistle, and omitted in the history, affords full proof that there existed no correspondence between these writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the Epistle, it is impossible that this journey should have been passed over in silence; if the Epistle had been composed out of what the author had read of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it should have been inserted.

Indeed, the omission in Acts concerning the journey into Arabia for three years is quite surprising if the author of Acts was using Paul’s letter as a source. The accounts, though, are not mutually exclusive. The phrase “many days”, used by Luke in Acts 9:23 is most probably an idiomatic expression denoting an indefinite period of time. The equivalent phrase in Hebrew is used in 1 Kings 2:38, but the next verse indicates that those “many days” encompassed a three year period. It is also not particularly implausible that Luke simply was not aware of the journey into Arabia, or for some other reason chose not to write about it. Nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between Acts and Galatians provides internal evidence of independence between the two sources. Paley offers another piece of evidence indicating independence [5]:

The journey to Jerusalem related in the second chapter of the Epistle (“then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem”) supplies another example of the same kind. Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts; or it was some journey of which the history does not take notice. If the first opinion be followed, the discrepancy in the two accounts is so considerable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the same transaction: so that, upon this supposition, there is no place for suspecting that the writers were guided or assisted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerusalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumstantially related in the Epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts; and we are at liberty to repeat the observation, which we before made, that the omission of so material a fact in the history is inexplicable, if the historian had read the Epistle; and that the insertion of it in the Epistle, if the writer derived his information from the history, is not less so.

The internal evidence of independence between Acts and Galatians, together with the convergence of details relating to Paul’s conversion (particularly the reference to returning to Damascus) suggest that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion are in alignment with Paul’s own testimony.

An additional reason for thinking that Acts and Galatians are independent is that Acts 9:27 indicates that, in Jerusalem, “Barnabas took him [Paul] and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.” Compare this to Galatians 1:18-19: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother,” (emphasis added). On the surface, this appears to be a discrepancy. Of course, “the apostles” could be taken to refer to Peter and James (most scholars, including myself, are of the opinion that Galatians 1:19 identifies James the Lord’s brother as an apostle). We could also take it that Paul uses ‘saw’ to mean ‘conversed with’ or ‘met with,’ not that he did not even see any of the other apostles in a meeting, etc. We sometimes use ‘saw’ in this sense ourselves. One could imagine that perhaps Barnabas and Peter decided that they did not want to set Paul down in front of them like a tribunal and question him, so during that time he stayed, let us suppose, in someone’s home, met with James and Peter, and otherwise for those two weeks he was out rabble rousing, as it were, talking and debating with Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28-29), and eventually was rushed away due to a plot to kill him. In any case, the surface tension between these texts adds additional support for the thesis of independence.

It is also of note that, in Galatians 1:18-19, Paul indicates that his visit to Jerusalem was quite brief. One wonders why Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was cut short such that he only remained there fifteen days and reportedly saw none of the other apostles besides Cephas (Simon Peter) and James the Lord’s brother. Acts 9:29 indicates that there was an assassination plot against Paul by the Hellenists such that he needed to leave Jerusalem in haste. This explains the account in Galatians in an undesigned way, such that it serves to corroborate the historicity of both accounts. This further supports that the testimony in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion and the events shortly thereafter reflect Paul’s own testimony. We also read in Acts 22:17 Paul’s statement that “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’” Paley remarks, “Here we have the general terms of one text so explained by a distant text in the same book, as to bring an indeterminate expression into a close conformity with a specification delivered in another book: a species of consistency not, I think, usually found in fabulous relations.” [6]

A further point, relating to our text in Galatians 1:18-19, is that Paul some verses later indicates that “afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,” (Gal 1:21). The account in Acts 9 indicates that, when the brothers learned of the plot against Paul’s life, “they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus,” (v. 30). Paley observes that, “if he took his journey by land, it would carry him through Syria into Cilicia; and he would come, after his visit at Jerusalem, ‘into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,’ in the very order in which he mentions them in the epistle.” Caesarea, of course, was a major port city, and so it is plausible that he made at least part of the journey by sea, before perhaps continuing on land. It is also of note that Paul indicates immediately following this statement in Galatians that “I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, ‘He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy,” (Galatians 1:22-23). Paley  observes, “Upon which passage I observe, first, that what is here said of the churches of Judea, is spoken in connection with his journey into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Secondly, that the passage itself has little significancy, and that the connection is inexplicable, unless St. Paul went through Judea (though probably by a hasty journey) at the time that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Suppose him to have passed by land from Cæsarea to Tarsus, all this, as hath been observed, would be precisely true.” [7]

Finally, it may be noted that Paul’s own account of the plot against his life in Damascus, in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33, dovetails with the account in Acts 9:23-25. Paul writes, “At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.” Compare this with the account in Acts 9:23-25: “When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.” Notice that the account in Acts emphasizes the involvement of the Jews, whereas Paul, in 2 Corinthians, emphasizes the involvement of Aretas IV, the king of the Nabateans (who reigned from 9 B.C. to 40 C.E.). These are not mutually exclusive (presumably, there was a conspiracy involving both parties). Nonetheless, the discrepancy between Acts and 2 Corinthians points to independence, which renders the points of convergence of significant evidential value. Why might Aretas IV be involved in the conspiracy against Paul in Damascus? Aretas IV had significant political influence and authority in the region. Around the time of Paul’s conversion, Aretas IV was ruling Damascus, likely through a governor or ethnarch who was in charge of the Jewish community there. This authority over Damascus was granted to Aretas by the emperor Gaius Caligula. The event in Acts probably occurred around 37 C.E., based on evidence of Nabatean rule in Damascus commencing that year.

There are also additional reasons to believe that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent of one another. For example, Titus is mentioned throughout 2 Corinthians (2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18), but is nowhere mentioned in Acts. Moreover, the list of Paul’s sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 cannot be readily correlated with Acts (though it is by no means mutually exclusive). For example, 2 Corinthians 11:25 indicates that Paul endured three shipwrecks prior to the beginning of Acts 20 (when he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia). Acts does not record any of those shipwrecks, but instead narrates an entirely different one in chapter 27. Furthermore, a major theme in the Corinthian letters, as well as Romans, is the collection being prepared for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. Though Acts agrees with the implied order of travel, there is no explicit mention in Acts of fundraising as a purpose of Paul’s travels (though there is a cryptic allusion to it in Paul’s speech before Felix, in Acts 24:17: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings”). Taken cumulatively, it seems near certain that Luke did not use 2 Corinthians as a source for the composition of Acts. As Paley notes, “Now if we be satisfied in general concerning these two ancient writings, that the one was not known to the writer of the other, or not consulted by him; then the accordances which may be pointed out between them will admit of no solution so probable, as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their common foundation.” [8]

As can be seen from the evidence provided above, several undesigned coincidences relate specifically to the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9. This further supports that the narrative concerning Paul’s Damascus road experience accurately represent Paul’s own testimony. When considered in conjunction with the other lines of evidence already considered (that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul and was thus in a position to know Paul’s testimony; Paul repeated his testimony multiple times and implies in his letters that his testimony was already widely known; Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness as an historian; and the fact that Luke was putting his own neck on the line), the evidence may be considered very convincing indeed.

Proposition 2: Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken.

Having established that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion substantially represent what Paul himself testified to, we are now in a position to evaluate whether the specific set of claims recorded in Acts are the sort about which one might plausibly be sincerely mistaken.

Multisensory Experiences: Paul’s experience is alleged to have been multisensory — involving both a visual and auditory component (Acts 9:3-6, 22:6-10, 26:13-18; 1 Cor 9:1, 15:8). Moreover, it was intersubjective — affecting not only Paul, but also his travelling companions who were purportedly thrown to the ground, having heard the voice though seeing no one (Acts 9:7,  22:9; 26:14). Acts 22:9 indicates that Paul’s travelling companions nonetheless saw the light. Moreover, Paul was blinded by the experience for three days (Acts 9:8-9; 22:11) and later healed by Ananias who received a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias (Acts 9:10-19; 22:12-16).

Miraculous Signs: Furthermore, Paul claims to have performed miracles. In 2 Corinthians 12:12, he writes, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” Note that this appeal is made to an audience who had in their midst individuals who doubted Paul’s apostolic credentials. It was risky to appeal to such miracles if there were no such convincing miracles to speak of that could be brought to the minds of his critics. There is a similar passage, indicating that Paul performed miracles, in Romans 15:18-19: “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ,” (emphasis added). Though Paul does not indicate what those signs purportedly involved, we read in Acts about the sort of miracles that Paul performed. For example, describing a curse that Paul placed on the magician Elymas (who had opposed Paul and Barnabas, seeking to turn the Proconsul away from the faith), Luke writes in Acts 13:9-12,

9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. 12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

Among Paul’s other miraculous signs, he healed a man who had been crippled since birth (Acts 14:8-10), healed many sick (Acts 19:11-12), raised Eutychus from the dead after his fall from the third story of a building (Acts 20:9-12), and healed the father of Publius, who lay sick with fever and dysentery, on Malta (Acts 28:7-9). As I and others have demonstrated at length elsewhere (see the resource list at the beginning of this article), Luke was an incredibly scrupulous historian who had a high regard for historical accuracy. He also valued eyewitness testimony (e.g. Luke 1:2). The most probable source for the alleged miracles in Acts (besides those that he might have witnessed himself) is Paul.

When we consider the content of Paul’s testimony concerning his conversion experience on the Damascus road, together with his purported miracles, it seems to be difficult to account for on the supposition that he was sincerely mistaken — in particular given that he was not already predisposed to expect an appearance from the raised Christ. Paul was a persecutor of the church and a zealous Pharisee. What could have prompted him to so drastically change his mind, and reverse course 180 degrees? Sir George Lyttelton notes that “[Paul’s] mind, far from being disposed to a credulous faith, or a too easy reception of any miracle worked in proof of the Christian religion, appears to have been barred against it by the most obstinate prejudices, as much as any man’s could possibly be; and from hence we may fairly conclude, that nothing less than the irresistible evidence of his own senses, clear from all possibility of doubt, could have overcome his unbelief.” [9]

Though some have attempted to explain Paul’s experience by appeal to temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), such a hypothesis is hardly credible. For one thing, TLE blindness is incredibly short — typically thirty seconds to ten minutes. Paul’s blindness, by contrast, lasted for three days and was healed on command by Ananias. It is also typical to quickly forget what happened during the seizure. Moreover, the fact that Paul’s companions also purportedly heard a voice and perceived a light and were thrown to the ground is surprising on the TLE hypothesis. The fact that something like scales fell from Paul’s eyes (Acts 9:18) also does not comport well with this explanation.

Internal Discrepancies? Before moving on, a word must be said about a couple of alleged discrepancies between the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts. It has been observed that, according to Acts 9:7, “The men who were travelling with him stood speechless, hearing [ἀκούοντες] the voice but seeing no one,” whereas Acts 22:9 indicates that the travelling companions “saw the light but did not hear [οὐκ ἤκουσαν] the voice of the one who was speaking to [Paul].” Though οὐκ ἤκουσαν can be rendered “did not hear,” another legitimate translation is “did not understand” (indeed, it is rendered this way by the ESV, NIV, NASB, and NET, though the KJV translates it “did not hear”). In Luke 6:27-28, Jesus says, “But I say to you who hear [ἀκούουσιν], Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” Clearly, here, the meaning of Ἀλλὰ ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν  is “But I say to you who understand…” Likewise, in Mark 4:33, we read, “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear [ἀκούειν] it.” Clearly, in context, the verb ακουω means to understand. Acts 26:14 indicates that the voice spoke in the Hebrew language. If Paul’s companions were Greek speakers, this could plausibly account for why they were unable to understand the voice.

Another alleged discrepancy is that, according to Acts 9:7, Paul’s companions “stood speechless,” whereas Acts 26:14 indicates that they were thrown to the ground. Most probably the phrase “stood speechless” is simply an idiomatic expression that means they were stopped dead, without insinuating that they were standing up the whole time.

Having established that Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken, only two options remain — either he was intentionally deceptive, or he really did have an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. It is to the hypothesis of deception that I now turn. . .

Stay tuned for Part 2. 

References: 

[1] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 5.

[2] Three of the [following] books listed are in the public domain — namely, those by William Paley, James Smith, and William Ramsay. For those, I have linked to a free PDF copy. The PDF that I have linked to for Paley contains both his A View of the Evidences of Christianity, as well as his Horae Paulinae, or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced. Both are very much worth reading, but the most relevant of those to our discussion here is the latter volume.

[3] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. II [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838]), 382.

[4] Ibid., 380.

[5] Ibid., 380-381.

[6] Ibid., 293.

[7] Ibid., 383.

[8] Ibid., 359.

[9] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 85-86.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3DEJ7rr

/by

Archaeology Contributes to the Witness of the Bible

Can stones give you insights into the past? What do they tell you? When I encountered the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum, I was surprised that a stone could say so much. Archaeological pieces like this provide a witness to a society in time.

The Rosetta Stone contributes to the witness of the Bible. It also allows us to gain insights into how ancient cultures lived and experienced life. Archaeologist Randall Price states, “The Bible cannot be proved or disproved by archaeology. . . however, archaeology can bring historical confirmation to the historical statements in the text of the Scripture.” [i] Although archaeology cannot provide certainty of the Bible, it is a witness to the Bible, it contributes to its reliability, and it is a voice offering evidence to confirm the claims of the Bible.

Figure 1The Rosetta Stone – Source: Hans Hillewaert, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3153928

Archaeology Reveals Mosaic Authorship as Plausible

Many people believed Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) because writing did not go back that far in time. In 1799, however, near Rosetta, Egypt, General Napoleon Bonaparte’s officer discovered the famous Rosetta Stone. After the defeat of Napoleon, it was taken by the British and placed in the British Museum in 1802. It cites the celebration of the first anniversary of Pharoah Ptolemy V in 195 BC. The intriguing factor is that the citation on the stone is written three times in three different languages: Egyptian Hieroglyphics, demotic Egyptian, and Greek capital letters. The Greek text could be read by Greek New Testament scholars, who helped crack the code to hieroglyphs. This revealed the hieroglyphics as more than signs but an actual readable language. The discovery of the bilingual text of the Rosetta Stone provides evidence that readable language existed during the time of Moses. Therefore, Moses could have written the Pentateuch.

Archaeology Reveals Israel as A People

Another discovery that contributes to the witness of the Bible is the Merneptah Steele. It was unearthed in Thebes, Egypt, and could be the earliest reference to the people of Israel outside of the Bible. The black granite was inscribed to honor the various gods and the king’s achievements. “The stela concludes with a short list of cities and people in Canaan also defeated by the king: it includes the phrase ‘Israel is laid waste and his seed is not. Egyptologists agree that of the eight names on the stela, seven refer to a land while the reference to Israel refers to a people group, indicating that at this time Israel was not yet settled in a land it could call its own.” [ii] The Merneptah Stela discloses that by 1209 BC, Israel was described as a people group that fits the period of Judges.

Archaeology is a Contribution to the Reliability of the Bible

Archaeology may not be able to prove the Bible with certainty, but it provides evidence for the reliability of the Bible. The Rosetta Stone and the Merneptah both support the Bible’s reliability. The Rosetta Stone suggests that Moses could write the Pentateuch, while the Merneptah Stele offers support that Israel was an organized nation. [iii] Many other discoveries support the Bible’s reliability, especially after King David’s time, that can be further studied. The Bible has the historical support to assure its reliability.

Understanding the evidence supporting the Bible’s reliability can encourage confidence when reading about God and His witness to the nations. The Bible claims to be the “word of truth” in passages such as “Never take your word of truth from my mouth,” located in Psalm 119:43. Also, in 2 Timothy, which states, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” The Bible was given to people so that we might know God and the way of salvation through Christ. Therefore, archaeology can contribute to the witnessing of the Bible so that people can trust it and know the one true God.

References:

[i] Randall Price, Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 26.

[ii] Clive Anderson and Brian Edwards, Evidence for the Bible (England: Day One Publications, 2014), 32.

[iii] [Editor’s note: According to the Bible, Israel was organized under judges around that time, but not under a king. That monarchic period wouldn’t happen till the time of King Saul and David, around 1000 BC, long after the time of Merneptah in Egypt. Israel was a distinct and organized people, even in the time of the judges, and in that sense were a nation.]

Recommended Resources:

What I Discovered Digging in Jerusalem by Eli Shukron (with Frank Turek) (DVD) (Mp4 Download)

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Debate: Does God Exist? Turek vs. Hitchens (DVD), (mp4 Download) (MP3)

 

Deanna Huff is a wife and mother. She is passionate about teaching others to share and defend their faith, drawing on 25 years of experience in the field. Her publications include contributing chapters to Why Creationism Still Matters and Strong Faith. She currently works at the Museum of the Bible. She has also led many seminars for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Ladies Retreat, and the State Evangelism Conference. In addition, she taught high school students for ten years at Christian Heritage Academy, covering subjects such as Bible, Universal History, Apologetics and Philosophy. Deanna earned a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. She holds a Master of Theology in Apologetics and Worldview from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Master of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Oklahoma. Deanna is an active member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church where she co-hosted a podcast called The Analysis with Pastor Mark DeMoss. She also co-hosted a podcast with her daughter Ellie Huff called but why should i care. She and her husband teach an adult Sunday school class, discipling others in the faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/41Zc4bl

/by

How My Son’s Confession of Faith (Nearly) Broke Twitter

,

For almost a week in late 2020, my 11-year-old son practically went viral on the Internet, and he doesn’t even know it. Let me tell you why. You see, he had walked out onto our back deck and, cool as a cucumber, announced to my husband and me that he had accepted Jesus as his Savior. Needless to say, we were pleasantly caught off guard.

“Oh? When did this happen?” I asked.

“The other night. Yup,” he nodded in a very Young Sheldon-esq way, “I looked at the evidence and Christianity makes the most sense.” Then, away he went to build a new Lego creation.

We had a good chuckle over his matter-of-fact confession. I thought my apologetics friends would, too, so I hopped on Twitter and shared the amusing scene. I didn’t think it would make much of a blip on the social network but mamas. . .  Twitter. Lost. Its. Mind.

In just hours, my tweet had 100,000+ views and a torrent of comments. I thought my phone was busted because it wouldn’t stop dinging. The majority of people interacting were split between being furious that he accepted Christ or denying that this even happened.

Here are a couple of examples:

The tweet was even nominated for a “Didn’t Happen In Real Life” Twitter award which, hilariously, is actually a thing. [i]

For those few days, we waffled between amusement and sadness. People weren’t just skeptical, some were downright vile. When Christ said we will be hated because of our belief, He wasn’t kidding.

Making Sense of the Twitter Minefield

As I sorted through the comments, I noticed that most of the hatred revolved around a few main challenges toward Christian parenting. Each have their own valid concern and, sadly, their own wound. Most parents will be accused of at least one of these, but let me encourage you, each can easily be debunked. Ready?

  1. “Your child isn’t mature enough.”
    The first big reason I saw floating amidst the tweets was the claim that kids can’t make a decision about their faith because their brains haven’t fully matured. Had my son said he was pro-choice, anti-Trump, atheist, or identifed as a different gender, these same critics probably wouldn’t have had a problem. [ii] But believe in Jesus? Not a chance.

Had my son said he was pro-choice, anti-Trump, atheist, or identifed as a different gender, these same critics probably wouldn’t have had a problemClick To Tweet

They’re right that children’s brains aren’t fully developed, but they kinda shoot themselves in the foot, too. The human brain isn’t fully formed until around the age of 25. Yet, it continues to develop and sharpen critical reasoning skills for the duration of a person’s life. [iii] When then, is the cognitive finish line? At the very least, this argument would mean that we couldn’t discuss Christianity ’til our kids are middle aged and starting families of their own. Talk about ridiculous.

Secondly, just because a person has reached the age where their brain is developmentally mature, it doesn’t guarantee they’ll make informed sound decisions. I mean, have you been on a college campus lately?! If we’re going to implement standards on when a person is capable of making important decisions like faith, age won’t always cut it.

With this in mind, I agree with the critics to an extent. I get a bit nervous when some adorable little moppet needs water wings to enter the baptismal. Sure, their confession warms the heart, but sometimes I wonder how much they really understand about walking in the Christian faith. Will they stand firm in their youth like Timothy? Or end up like the adult waiting behind them to be rebaptized because they didn’t know what they were getting into at such a young age? It’s not for me to say. What I can say is that the Holy Spirit can move in the young just as much as the old and in-betweens. A child is more than capable of understanding the basics of theology, logic, apologetics, and worldviews to make their own personal informed decision. Sometimes we don’t give the littlest among us enough credit.

  1. “You’re obviously indoctrinating them.”
    Every time I see someone toss out the word indoctrination, my inner Inigo Montoya thinks, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”And for the most part, Montoya is dead on. Indoctrination means that ideas are taught to be accepted uncritically. You don the robe, drink the Kool-Aid, and don’t you dare ask what’s in it. [iv]

The sad part is that a lot of adults wanting to slam Christians with indoctrination charges are reacting from their own or another’s bad experiences, not because they’ve seen how you run your household. They may have had a parent who would throw a fit if they asked a question. Perhaps a pastor accused them of being sinful for having doubts. Some felt that their family’s love depended on them accepting their parent’s faith. Is it any wonder why they’d be skeptical?

Here’s the thing: just because some kids have been bullied into the faith, doesn’t mean all of them have. If kids are allowed to interact with other worldviews, practice critical thinking, explore challenges to the faith, and decided for themselves if they want to accept Christianity, then they are not being indoctrinated, they’re being educated.

If kids are allowed to interact with other worldviews, practice critical thinking, explore challenges to the faith, and decided for themselves, then they are not being indoctrinated, they’re being educated.Click To Tweet

  1. “Only atheists are critical thinkers.”
    This argument trails closely behind the indoctrination challenge and goes something like this: Only atheists are critical thinkers. Why? Because they’re atheists. Christians couldn’t be critical thinkers because if they were, they would be atheists. If this sounds a bit circular to you, that’s because it is.

A lot of the problem stems from the false belief that to think critically, you have to abide by the rules of naturalism. If any evidence is outside of nature (which is where we get the term supernatural) or if evidence points to God, then it has to be tossed aside because you can’t think critically by using it. [v] Talk about linguistic theft!

Folks, if someone thinks that Christians can’t be critical thinkers simply because they accepted Christianity, then they need to acquaint themselves with the real definition of critical thinking and a few people like Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and George Washington Carver. All were great critical thinkers, scientists, and engineers. And all of them were *spoiler alert* Christians!

  1. “They’re only Christians because you are.”
    Let’s cut to the chase. When someone says that a kid is only a Christian because their parents are, they’re committing what’s called the genetic fallacy. Under the genetic fallacy, a belief can be tossed aside based on where it came from.  Remember when Nathanael in John 1:46 asked if anything good can come from Nazareth? Yeah, his “if it’s from Nazareth it’s bad,” mindset is an example of a genetic fallacy.

Toss in challenge #3, and your kids couldn’t be Christians because of the working of the Holy Spirit, being taught how to evaluate arguments, seeing the philosophical implications of varying worldviews, or evaluating the evidence for and against God. The only reason your kids are Christians is because you are, and that’s bad . . . . bad logic that is.

If kids are only Christians because their parents are, then there wouldn’t be any Christian parents with Muslim kids or atheist parents with Christian kids. Ironically, when the atheist who tweeted this shared that they had Christian parents, they debunked their own argument. [vi] All parents, regardless of their beliefs, shape their child’s worldview. Ultimately, it’s up to the child what they choose to believe.

The Real Issue

For the grand finale, we welcome Captain Obvious to the stage. The biggest reason folks get their boxers in a bunch over a child’s declaration of faith is because *drumroll please* . . . . they picked Christianity. Mamas, this is no mystery. Jesus said that we will be hated because of His name (Matthew 10:22). This includes our children. Sure, the Twitter haters will use the above challenges to dismiss your child’s confession of faith, but deep down, the real issue is that they hate Christianity. Maybe they’ve been hurt in the past, maybe they’ve bought into our culture’s current view that paints Christians as synonymous with Stalin. Regardless of the reason, if your child is a Christian, they will be seen as either a victim or an enemy. Both for which you are to blame.

Like most Twitter trends, the ruckus over my guy’s confession of faith eventually died down. I didn’t engage with the mob much mainly because arguing on Twitter is a lot like getting into a shouting match with your mailbox. Sure, what you’re saying may be true. But to everyone watching, you look like an idiot. When it comes to social media, you gotta know when it’s pointless to cast your pearls. I write this post to encourage you, mamas and papas, out there to carry on your God-commanded duty to be faithful witnesses to your children. The world may hate you for it, but take heart, you were never meant for this world anyway.

I didn’t engage with the mob much mainly because arguing on Twitter is a lot like getting into a shouting match with your mailbox. Sure, what you’re saying may be true. But to everyone watching, you look like an idiot.Click To Tweet

Ps. If you’re interested in what Tweet caused all the fuss, you can find it on my Twitter page, @saltngrace46. It was posted on October 19, 2020.

References:

[i] I didn’t win (I lost to Britney Spears!), which is kind of a bummer because I was looking forward to wearing a dress made from print outs from the comments section. Just kidding. Kinda.

[ii] I mention these examples because they were actually brought up by people in the comments section.

[iii] A few quick links: https://bigthink.com/videos/what-age-is-brain-fully-developed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ_zEaun-as, https://www.businessinsider.com/age-brain-matures-at-everything-2017-11

[iv] Brainwashing kicks things up a notch by throwing some force into the mix. Think The Manchurian Candidate or Peeta from The Hunger Games.

[v] Another big beef the critics had was that my son couldn’t possibly have looked at all the evidence for the faith. They’re right, he didn’t. Neither have I, or you, or them. There’s just too much of it. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t make a rational decision based on what you have.

[vi] There were also some that would proudly claim how their children were fellow atheists while totally missing that they couldn’t stand up to their own charges.

Recommended Resources:

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

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

Amy Davison is a former Air Force veteran turned Mama Bear Apologist. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MA in Christian Apologetics. She and her husband Michael (also former Air Force) have been married for over 17 years and have 4 kids. Amy is the Mama Bear resident expert on sex and sexuality, and she’s especially hoping to have that listed on her Mama Bear business card.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4a5exTV

/by

How to Talk with Kids about Jesus

I used to think I knew how to talk with kids about Jesus to help them establish a lasting faith. It seemed simple enough. Read the Bible. And absolutely, the Bible is where we should begin. Reading the Bible together regularly is the best way to open a dialogue with your kids about Jesus. Everything about Jesus must begin with the Bible because that is how God chose to reveal His truths to us about Himself, the world, and Jesus.

But, that isn’t as simple as it used to be. My parents taught me that the Bible was truth, and that was that, until college, where I first faced atheism as the predominant worldview. (And my faith was shaken – but more on that later). But we didn’t have the internet. I know, I’m ancient.

Kids Today. . .

Today, children are confronted with atheist perspectives at younger and younger ages. In an information age, we must contend for the faith of our children in new ways. Holding fast to the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible isn’t as simple as because I said so anymore. Starting to talk with kids about Jesus has to begin with why we believe the Bible is the word of God. We have to start to talk with kids about Jesus by establishing the Bible as a credible source.

Establishing the Bible as a credible source proves our faith is based on truth. Without that foundation, religion is simply a preference, as of little importance as a favorite flavor of ice cream. By teaching our children the Bible is a reliable historical document inspired by God, we prepare them to live a life built on the solid rock of Christ. And they will be able to answer many common atheist objections for themselves and others.

Quick Responses on the Reliability of the Bible

The Old Testament is reliable because it was copied carefully and contains accurate predictions. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls verifies that the Bible we have today matches the ancient documents from thousands of years ago.

We also know that Jesus believed the Old Testament was reliable. He quoted from it often in His teaching. So, if the New Testament accounts about Jesus are reliable, the OT is as well.

But is the New Testament really reliable?

Yes! And you don’t have to spend years studying apologetics to be able to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testament to your children.

Many Christian scholars have already done the heavy lifting for you! Just a few of the MANY worth following (click names for NT related content) are Gary Habermas, Natasha Crain, J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity, Sean McDowell, Greg Koukl and Stand to Reason, and MamaBear Apologetics.

We have to establish that the New Testament is reliable because it is through the text we come to know the real, historical Jesus.

And that brings us back to the Bible. We have to teach our children sound doctrine and theology. It’s not helpful to ask WWJD (What would Jesus do?) if we don’t know what He would do! As Christians and parents, we have to know what Jesus did and said and how that relates to what we believe.

So, as you read the Bible together, talk to kids about Jesus by using some critical reading skills.

  • What did Jesus do here?
  • Is there any religious or historical context we need to understand for this passage?
  • What did Jesus say?
  • Who was His audience?
  • What did Jesus mean by what he said? How can we know that?
  • What did the disciples think or ask about the situation?
  • Are there other Bible passages that relate to this topic?
  • Does Jesus appear in the Old Testament? If so, where? (Spoiler alert – He totally does!)

What if you don’t feel prepared to talk to kids about Jesus? It’s okay to learn alongside your kids! You don’t have to be an expert to get them thinking. You just have to be one step ahead to help someone follow along. And there are so many great resources available to you!

Books can be great resources to open conversations or to explain complicated concepts.

Any parent can be prepared to answer most of the primary questions about Jesus or the main atheist objections to Jesus with one easy to use resource, Talking with Your Kids about Jesus by Natasha Crain.

I was on the launch team for this book and it is AMAZING! I’ve already seen my daughter’s faith grow through the conversations we’ve had while reading this book.

Talking With Your Kids About Jesus

First, Talking with Your Kids About Jesus is like an apologetics 101. If you’ve never even dipped a toe into the waters of apologetics, this is where to start. While all about Jesus, the way Natasha explains each subject, she addresses many basic defenses for Christianity as a whole as well. It really is a great entry into learning how to defend our faith from the world’s skepticism.

The book is broken into 30 brief chapters. I can easily read one or two sitting in the doctor’s waiting room.

Some of the topics Natasha covers are:

  • Is Jesus real?
  • Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah?
  • Is Jesus God? Did he claim to be?
  • Is Jesus the only way to salvation?
  • Is Hell real?
  • Why did Jesus have to die and what was the purpose of His death?
  • What evidence do we have for the empty tomb and Resurrection?

Each chapter begins with a relatable situation that identifies the main question she will answer. Then she gives a basic survey of the evidence and information we have on that topic. The information is well-organized so it is easy for busy parents to digest. I love how each chapter ends with real examples showing ways to talk with your kids.

Natasha’s writing style is totally relatable as a woman and mom. Her funny and poignant anecdotes make the lessons very accessible.

I only wish I had this book years ago for my own faith! TWYKAJ truly covers almost every objection to Jesus I’ve ever heard and clarifies the primary beliefs of the Christian faith.

I would recommend TWYKAJ for anyone, but the conversations are going to be the most impactful if your children are old enough to understand the concepts, ages 7 and up would be my best estimate. My daughter is 9 and grasps the basics of each chapter. Make sure to tailor your resources to the age of your kiddos.

Your Kids Can Handle More Than You Realize

But don’t underestimate them. They spend all week at school being taught complicated history lessons and challenging math or science concepts, but are coloring pictures in Sunday School, singing songs about the Arky Arky.

Our kids can handle much more than we expect. Plus, there are amazing resources available for any age level.

A couple years ago, I started my daughter’s apologetic’s journey with a set of picture books. They use fictional stories to explain the creation of the universe, objective morality, and the resurrection of Christ.

And she loves the Cold Case Christianity for Kids books. God’s Crime Scene for Kids is all about the creation and fine-tuning of the universe, while Cold Case Christianity for Kids focuses on examining Jesus like a detective.

How important is it to talk with kids about Jesus? Crucial. Remember how I first encountered real atheism in college? I heard objections to Christianity that I’d never heard before. And because I had never heard them, they sounded very damning of Christianity.

When I learned there are more discrepancies between copies of the New Testament than there are words, I didn’t know how to keep believing it was true. So I walked away from living like it was true for most of the next two decades. But God never let me go. He kept coming after me until I turned my heart back to Him.

Thankfully, it was then I found apologetics and discovered answers for all my questions. I learned those text discrepancies can be accounted for through copy errors. We can easily reconstruct the original text from the thousands of copies we have. Not a single error affects any important Christian belief or doctrine. Apologetics totally rebuilt the foundation of my faith.

But, I don’t want my daughter to spend time lost in the wilderness of rebellion like I did. I want her to have the answers to all the questions now. And know that we have answers for almost every question.

She doesn’t need to doubt God’s love or Jesus’s existence like I did. She can know Jesus clearly and deeply from the beginning. She’ll still have to choose to follow Him for herself, but she will have a solid foundation.

If you want your children to have a real faith that will withstand the challenges of life and atheist objections, you need to have these kinds of conversations with your kids about Jesus. And you might be surprised at how much they will inform and bolster your faith as well.

Recommended Resources: 

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/49PVw7w

 

/by

Humbly He Came

There are a lot of things that are true but are hard to believe, but the fact that the Creator of our universe has pooped in a diaper is a big one. I mean, really think about that. And if your first reaction is to think that the opening line of this post sounds crass (which is a natural reaction given Who we are talking about), you are only reinforcing the point I’m about to make:

Our all-powerful almighty God entered into this broken and dangerous world as a helpless baby. The One we worship above all else fed at His mother’s breasts and, yes, even pooped in His diaper. Although the song “Away in a Manger” suggests our Savior didn’t cry, I just don’t buy it. He was fully human. He cried, and His earthly parents most assuredly had sleepless nights just like you and I. The Creator who hung all the stars and planets into the cosmos endured the messy and painful experience of birth and just eight days later, circumcision! Our sovereign God chose to be born to a regular family in the small and insignificant town of Bethlehem. What greater example of humility could we ever even conceive of? Humbly our Lord, Creator of all things, became a man.

What exactly do we mean by “humble”?

Humility is a culturally-approved trait. For the most part, we all agree that to be humble is a good thing, and to be arrogant is a bad thing. Naturally, this provides a fantastic opportunity for the enemy to step in and engage in a little “linguistic Grinching,” (normally known as “linguistic theft” during non-holiday seasons). This is a sneaky little tactic in which a word is covertly stolen to be used with a new meaning to make the new meaning more acceptable. Since humility is a character trait that Christians are to emulate (Colossians 3:12), we mustn’t become deceived into accepting a different meaning. Let’s first seek a biblical definition of “humble” and then we can take a look at how the word has been redefined.

The words “humble” and “humility” are littered all over the pages of Scripture. While the Bible doesn’t give us an explicit dictionary definition, it does give us plenty of context to present what humility looks like. Some examples are:

We should also examine what character traits directly oppose “humility”:

Humbling ourselves involves gaining a more accurate view of ourselves. We must recognize our own sinfulness and submit ourselves to God for purification.Click To Tweet

And we must follow God and learn from Him. We must not be haughty or conceited. We must not be confident in our own righteousness nor try to exalt ourselves above others. This is what it means to be humble according to God’s Word. But I am seeing an unrelenting attempt to redefine the word and much of that attempt seems to be coming from leaders within the Progressive Christian movement.

How the Linguistic Grinch Stole “Humble”

Be on the lookout for using “humility” to replace or imply “uncertainty.” When the word “humble” is misused, those who wish to emulate humility could become misguided. Let’s take a look at three examples of linguistic theft where either the word “humble” has become synonymous with the word “uncertain,” or the word “arrogance” has become synonymous with “certainty.” And as is the Mama Bear way, with each quote we will need to “chew and spit” and discern truth from the lies.

Exhibit #1:

“Pilgrimage is a metaphor for humility. Pilgrimage encourages us to let go of the need to have final certainty on how we understand the Bible and be less prone to put up walls of division because we are more willing to discuss, explore, and change rather than proclaim, conquer, and defend.” ― Peter Enns

The idea here is that the uncertainty of our beliefs allows us the freedom to journey through our faith with an open mind, which in turn promotes unity rather than division. This pits absolute certainty (which is seen as divisive) against uncertainty (which is seen as humble). I have experienced the process of letting go of false beliefs and allowing God to give me a new worldview. And there are those who, in their pride, are too stubborn to thoughtfully consider a challenge to their firmly held beliefs. So, learning and growing are good things that we can affirm! But does that mean that we are to wander aimlessly changing our beliefs in any direction for our entire lives to remain humble? If in our experience certainty increases with learning, does that necessarily mean we are becoming increasingly prideful and arrogant?

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” ― G.K. Chesterton

Exhibit #2:

“If whatever communities we find ourselves in, we refuse the notion of “I’m right and you’re wrong,” and we come with a posture of humility and healing is our end goal, it changes everything.” ― Esther Joy Goetz

Here, we need to look at the difference between the “notion” of being right or wrong with the haughty attitude of someone who wants to be seen as “right” and humiliate those who they deem are “wrong.” How can anyone discuss or debate anything if they rid themselves of the “notion” of being right or wrong? How could truth vs. falsities ever be established? What we can affirm, though, is the rebuke against anyone who approaches others with arrogance. Having a “posture of humility” should be about one’s heart, not about their beliefs.

Exhibit #3:

“But, certainty is not what we should seek as Christians. It is comforting but diametrically opposed to faith. Certainty is merely hubris and arrogance masquerading as discernment.” ― Ashley Darling (Red Letter Christians)

In this quote, I want to focus on the word “arrogance” because it is pitted against certainty. Since arrogance is the opposite of humility, this is another way the enemy tempts us to embrace uncertainty as somehow virtuous. This quote requires some “chewing and spitting” especially when read in the context of the full article. The reason is that there are some good points made within the article, and we Mama Bears need to be careful not to reject the good along with the bad if we are to use proper discernment. That being said, for this post, I want to bring our attention to the blanket statement that Christians are not to seek certainty.

According to Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” If assurance and conviction are words that biblically define “faith,” it seems obvious to me that God’s Word directly opposes the idea that certainty is “diametrically opposed to faith.” I don’t know about you, but I’m going to go with God on this one.

Why the Linguistic Grinch stole “Humble”

It’s one thing to know what tactics the enemy uses against us. It is another to understand why he uses them and why they are so effective. We need to understand what happens when we uncritically accept new definitions of biblical words, whether due to ignorance, pride, or apathy. Here is why I think linguistic theft of the word “humble” is very dangerous:

Suppose you can convince someone that it is arrogant to become too certain about their theology or beliefs and that it is humble and virtuous to remain uncertain. In that case, that person will likely live with a vague and confused sense of who God is and what he commands of us.

Mama bears, we don’t want that for ourselves or our children. We know that God does not want that for us either. He is a good Father, and He wants us to know Him and to live in peace, not confusion.

Our humble Savior’s gift of certainty

As we celebrate the birth of our Savior, we worship the God who entered our world in perfect humility. God did not have to do it this way. If He truly wanted His creation to journey through mystical spiritualism where questions mattered more than answers, then He could have remained in the spirit realm. Instead, what did He do? The Word became flesh, entering into world history, and providing His people the means to verify His claims objectively. Jesus embodies the Word of God, shows us the way, gives us life, and provides us with objective truth. We can be grounded in the certainty of His love because we can be certain of His claims. And as we draw near to Him, His Spirit transforms our hearts to conform us to His humble image. This is a certainty that does not bring pride and division, but peace and unity to those who love Him. Joy to the world, the Lord is come. Let Earth receive her King!

Recommended Resources:

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

 

Alexa Cramer is a Blog and Podcast Contributor and Video Content Creator with MamaBearApologetics.com. She’s also a homeschool mom of two. She became obsessed with apologetics after a season of doubt that nearly stole her faith. Alexa has a background in film and video and will willingly fight anyone who doesn’t agree that DC Talk is the best band that ever graced the earth.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3OOBhxz

/by

Historical Bias, Objectivity, And The Truth Of Christianity

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

In his prologue, Luke says,

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

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

The Most Popular Objection

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

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

A Wrench in the Works

Consider this popular argument against objectivity:

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

 

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

What do you mean “Objective”?

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

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

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

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

“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge [Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 2019] 150).

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

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

The Benefit of Bias

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

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

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

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) 

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

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

/by

Was Jesus Really Born of a Virgin? Does It Matter?

“It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or by Joseph’s seed. What matters is that Jesus came to earth, died, and was resurrected.”

This is more or less what was said in a conversation I had several years ago with a now self-proclaimed progressive Christian. At the time, he was trying to work out his theology. Today, his words ring with expectancy to be answered. Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter in regard to our faith if He was?

Virgin Birth: Negotiable or Not?

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has always been considered a non-negotiable core doctrine of Christianity and is mentioned in the earliest creeds. Among Christians, this doctrine wasn’t broadly questioned until a period of history referred to as “the Enlightenment”. Sometimes called “the Age of Reason,” the Enlightenment was an intellectual movement that took place primarily in the 18th century. It has had an incalculable impact on Western culture, profoundly affecting the way people think about philosophy, politics, religion, and science.

As science was given precedent over religion, one of the trends to emerge during the Enlightenment was skepticism towards anything miraculous or supernatural. In other words, believing in the miracles recorded in the Bible such as the virgin birth is superstitious and unscientific, so they must be mythological. This seems to be a popular view among progressive Christians today.

​Does the Bible teach that Jesus was actually born of a virgin? 

The prediction, 700 hundred years before Christ (Isaiah 7:14):

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The fulfillment (Matthew 1:22-23):

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

Seems pretty simple, right? Isaiah predicted the Virgin Birth and Matthew records that prediction coming true. Not so fast.

A common claim among skeptics is that the word translated “virgin” really just means “young woman” or “maiden,” and there is no reason to assume that Mary was a virgin.

Young Lady, Virgin, or Both?

This reasoning might make sense if we were only reading these Scriptures with a Western, American mindset. With any Scripture, however, we have to look at it through the lens of the culture in which it was written. The Hebrew word in question is almah, which does mean “young woman” or “maiden.” However, in ancient Hebrew culture, all young women of marriageable age were considered to be virgins. Strong’s Online Concordance notes:

There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

There is another Hebrew word that specifically means “virgin” (bethulah), but it’s likely that Isaiah preferred almah because he wanted to communicate that the virgin would also be young. Long before the virgin birth was an established doctrine, 70 Hebrew scholars must have agreed, because when they began translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they translated almah as parthenos, the Greek word for “virgin.” Apparently, they understood exactly what that word meant in context.

Mary herself clearly stated that she was a virgin in Luke 1:34. When the angel told her she would conceive a child, she was perplexed and asked, “But how can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”

Does it matter if Jesus was born of a virgin?

As with most core doctrines, the case for the virgin birth of Jesus doesn’t just come down to one or two Bible verses. Scripture teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully human. He literally has two natures. It was necessary for Him to be born of a woman, to fulfill the promise God made to Eve in Genesis 3:15. If Jesus had not been born of a woman, He would not be fully human, and could not have been the promised Messiah.

As I’ve written previously, Scripture teaches that humans inherited a “sin nature” from Adam, and it would seem that sin nature gets passed down through the line of the father (Rom. 5:12, 17, 19). According to Hebrews 7:26, Jesus did not have a sin nature. Also, it’s important to note that Jeremiah prophesied that there would never be a king of Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah (Jer. 22:28-30). Matthew 1:12-16 tells us that Joseph was in fact, a descendant of Jeconiah.

If Jesus had been conceived by the seed of Joseph instead of by the Holy Spirit, He would have received a sin nature, and would not be fully God. As a descendant of Jeconiah, He would not have had a right to the throne of Israel, and He could not have been the promised Messiah.

Prophesied by Isaiah and fulfilled by Jesus, the virgin birth allowed for Jesus to be both fully God and fully human, unstained by sin, and God Incarnate. The doctrine of the virgin birth matters because it must be true for salvation to even be possible.

Recommended Resources:

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4f3rRZP

/by

Jesus: Santa Claus for Adults?

It’s common for atheists to be a “Grinch” over the Holidays and exclaim that Jesus is just a “Santa Claus for adults!” When I hear that claim, I immediately respond with a question: “What do you mean by that?”

If one means that children often believe in fictional fairy tales and adults believe in fact-based evidence, then I agree – Jesus is for adults (and actually people of all ages)! But I don’t think that’s the intent behind this claim. I believe the intent of the atheist (“Grinch”) is to convey that little kids believe in a fictional Santa Clause and many adults believe in fiction too – Christianity.

How the Grinch Stole Christ out of Christmas

Well, why think a thing like that, Mr. Grinch? Is belief in Jesus — or belief in God — really no different than belief in Santa? To answer this question, we must first ask if we have any good reason to believe in Santa. What good reasons are there that would lead us to logically conclude, “Therefore, Santa exists”?

Now, I’m not emotionally opposed to the existence of Santa Claus, and my life would not really have to change if Santa really exists, so if there were any evidence pointing to a jolly fat man in the North Pole who flies around with Rudolph giving gifts made by the elves, then I would happily follow that evidence wherever it leads. Even if there were logic-based arguments concluding that Santa PROBABLY exists, I would be very open to the existence of Santa. Come to think of it, Santa Claus would save me a ton of money on Christmas presents! Be that as it may, there is no evidence or any logic-based arguments concluding that Santa Claus exists — or even PROBABLY exists. So, although I am willing to be persuaded, there just doesn’t seem to be any evidence or logical reasons to believe in Santa Claus (sorry kids).

Now perhaps, Mr. Grinch, you’re saying to yourself: “That’s right! There’s no evidence for Santa Claus AND there is no evidence of God or Jesus either! That’s why it’s ridiculous to believe in Santa Claus or God!”

A False Equivalence

But is that true? Is the evidence — or lack thereof — for Santa Claus and the evidence for God really the same?

Well, if Santa does exist, we would know what to look for: A big, jolly, white-bearded, fat man in a red suit flying around in a sleigh being pulled by flying reindeer delivering presents to children on Christmas Eve. We would look for his factory full of elves at the North Pole too! So far (as far as I know), this evidence for Santa has never been detected. That in and of itself is not PROOF that Santa does not exist, but once we add to the fact that we have no other positive reasons to believe that Santa exists, then we can safely say that Santa does not exist.

But what about God? If God does exist, what would we expect to find? Do you even know what evidence you should start looking for?

Before stating that there is no evidence for something, Mr. Grinch, make sure you know what kind of evidence there should be if that thing does exist. If the God of the Bible exists, for example, he is not the kind of being you would see flying around in the clouds. He would not be some “sky daddy,” as many internet atheists seem to think. No, if the God of the Bible exists, He would not be some humanoid “Zeus-like being.” God (if He exists) is an immaterial unembodied mind – a “spirit” (John 4:24).

How Christ Saves Christmas, from the Grinch

So, what should we expect to find if Christian theism is true? We would expect to find scientific evidence for the beginning of the space-time universe. We have that! We would expect to find evidence for the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the big bang so that intelligent life – not to mention matter itself – could exist. We have that! We would expect to have historical data showing that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person of history who was executed by the Roman government. We have that!

In fact, we would expect to be able to make a strong case — via the historical method alone – that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Historians have demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus is the inference to the best explanation after examining all of the historical facts!

So, the things we would expect to find if Santa exists, do not exist. However, the things we would expect to find if the God of the Bible exists, those things DO exist!

After taking everything into consideration, although it would be irrational to believe in Santa Claus, one is quite coherent believing in the God Jesus revealed. That is to say, we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

So, the next time Mr. Grinch compares Jesus to Santa Claus, just show him the evidence pointing to the reason for the season.

Have a reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and Merry Christmas,

Dr. Tim Stratton

Recommended Resources: 

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) 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.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/49fAu1O

/by

Do you Dare to Really Know Jesus?

If you would consider to dare to know Jesus, I invite you to give Him some serious thought today.

Whether you’re a Christian or not, you probably claim to know Jesus, at least in broad strokes.

In fact, worldwide, no one person has influenced history more than Jesus. The way we even measure history has been using His birth since A.D. 532. While using “BC” (Before Christ) has become less politically correct, the era still changes approximately at His birth.

But which Jesus do you know?

There is only one historical Jesus in reality. But how He is painted, described, even taught can vary wildly.

And sadly, not every person who describes herself as a Christian even knows the real Jesus.

We live in a culture of busy. We don’t have the time to research everything that comes across our screens, so we take for granted (too often) that we can trust the source has done careful, objective research from objective, intelligent sources.

But it’s hard to be objective about Jesus.

He turns everything upside down and asks you to see things His way. His way is generally not the natural way we want to see things. So, meeting Jesus is something we each need to do personally.

No matter where you are, I would love to invite you to take a few minutes thinking about this Jesus fellow in a new way, as a historical person who really lived, was really crucified.

Maybe you’ve heard that Jesus never really existed. This is called the Jesus Myth. 

But a significant majority of experts in ancient history, both atheists and believers, believe Jesus lived and died. We have quite a bit of scholarly evidence to attest to both.

And his body was never found by some people who really, really wanted Him to be dead and stay dead.

That His disciples (who didn’t know his body was missing) could have managed to get past armed guards and roll the stone away without being killed seems highly unlikely.

And the way their lives radically changed following the Resurrection certainly lends credence to their stories of seeing the risen Jesus.

Jesus claimed to be God.

“I and the Father are one” (John 10:30 ESV).

While some of those claims are subtle, His audience would have understood what he was saying.

”Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58)

Which is a reference to a passage in Exodus.

“God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I am has sent me to you”’” (Exodus 3:14).

Jesus claimed to be the only way to the Father.

”Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’” (John 14:6 ).

A pretty audacious claim. As Josh McDowell challenged, He was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord.

Jay Payleitner in The Jesus Dare asks us to consider He was who he said He is. And let that transform us.

If you’ve never considered Jesus, The Jesus Dare is a great place to start as is the Gospel of John.

John is beautifully written and contains a clear picture of the true nature of Jesus.

If you’re not quite ready to dive into the Bible, The Jesus Dare is a good, quick read that clearly walks through who Jesus is and the core messages He preached. The book is designed to introduce seekers to the real Jesus, step by step with a few apologetics concepts thrown in.

Jay Payleitner writes with a sense of humor and a heart for people. He also manages to condense a lot of spiritual guidance and wisdom in a brief text. In some ways, this makes an excellent Christianity 101 for new believers as well as those who are curious about Christ.[1]

And if you’ve spent too much time listening to what other people say about Him, maybe it’s time to know Jesus for yourself.

I had spent too much time just knowing the Sunday school answers. I even had a decent handle on mainstream theology. But it was no good knowing the book without knowing the author.

It’s no good knowing the book if you don’t know the author when it comes to the Bible and Jesus. Will you dare to have a relationship with Him? Click To Tweet

Knowing Bible stories is not the same thing as surrendering my entire life to God and inviting Him into my life, heart, and mind to change me from the inside out.

When you take the risk of really knowing Jesus, you risk never being the same again.

And following Jesus is like taking the road less traveled, it will make all the difference.

Are you curious?

If you’ve never had a moment that everything went from black and white to color, the scales fell from your eyes, and you could see and know God’s love, you’re missing out on a great adventure.

I no longer struggle to fill the gaping void in my soul. Confident in my identity in Christ, I live the truth of how He has transformed me everyday.

Now, I have purpose and passion for people. Before I came to Christ, I was broken, angry, bitter, unable to love.

I couldn’t give away what I didn’t have. But now I am loved, cherished, forgiven, accepted. And can love others with the love of Christ.

Isn’t that worth daring to know Jesus?

References: 

[1] You can also carry The Jesus Dare to offer to those who would dare to know Jesus! If you already know Jesus, I would recommend this book as one to carry in your purse or pocket to share with seeking people you encounter in daily life. It’s a great place to start for anyone curious about who Jesus is and what Christians believe.

Recommended Resources: 

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)     

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3CEunIu

/by

Biblical Archaeology: Bethsaida, Birthplace of Jesus’ Apostles

The possible birthplace of three of Jesus’s disciples has been discovered. Or, at least, revised. The city is Bethsaida. Besides being another place-name mentioned in the Bible, this town was also the home to three of the apostles, Peter, Andrew and Philip.

“Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida” (John 1:44).

[Editor’s Note: In 2017, archaeologists began revising theories about the location of the ancient fishing village of Bethsaida. The traditional site of Bethsaida known as, El Tell, is about a mile away from the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. But what is a fishing village doing a mile away from the water? Well, it was believed that the water levels in that area were higher 2,000 years ago. But, archaeologist Stephen Notley and others found evidence that the water levels there didn’t really change in that time, effectively ruling out el-Tell. Subsequent digs closer to water, uncovered a more likely candidate for Bethsaida at the el-Araj dig site, just a few yards from the share.] Here is a quick video of the discovery:

Reports by the National Geographic echoed these findings, but in a more tempered tone stating that:

“The “lost home of Jesus’ apostles” has just been found, according to a recent Israeli newspaper report. Yet while the actual discovery is not nearly as sensational as many headlines suggest, the new results are adding very interesting fuel to an ongoing debate about the location of one of the most important cities in the New Testament”.

While this discovery is not yet definitive, it has generated more discussion about the location of the ancient city of Bethsaida. The discovery was found on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilea as pictured below:

Besides being mentioned in the Bible and the hometown of three disciples, Jesus performs two miracles in Bethsaida. 1. Healing the blind man  (Mark 8:22) and 2. Miraculously feeding of the 5,000 multitude with five loaves and two fish  (Luke 9:16). If this discovery pans out, then this is a major breakthrough in biblical archaeology.

For more on this discovery see:

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3V7fyUV

/by