Do Oral Cultures Operate the Same as the Telephone Game?

Secular scholars, especially those who attack the historicity of the New Testament, claim it is difficult to establish historical knowledge that is valid and reliable because of the infallibility of the human memory. People do not recall information accurately, especially if the account is written years after the event. However, historians and archaeologists have been able to make strong cases for their accounts considering several factors, such as the closeness of the written document to the event, multiple attestations to the incident, and so on.

In this article, I will discuss the factor of oral tradition communities, how literate people recorded their history, and whether their methodology is reliable or not. Western and advanced societies might not realize that there is a pattern that oral communities usually follow to preserve their history and pass it on to the next generation. The first-century Middle Eastern people were no exception, and we can today trust their recordings despite the minor variations we have in the written accounts of the New Testament.

The Secular Theory of Oral Tradition

Secular philosopher Paul Ricoeur describes the reference modes of history and fiction as interweaving. He believes that when historians try to make sense of an artifact to understand the historical event, their imagination imposes itself making them come up with their own fiction about history. [i] Schröter explains that “the narration of history represents a fictionalizing of the past, whereas the fictional narrative imitates the historical narrative.”[ii] Therefore, the final product is never accurate. It is a mixture of the history and imagination of the writer.

Bart Ehrman generally agrees with this view accusing the writers of the NT of not being reliable and the Gospel accounts being recorded as people were playing a telephone game. He states,

“Nearly all of these storytellers had no independent knowledge of what really happened [to Jesus]. It takes little imagination to realize what happened to the stories. You are probably familiar with the old birthday party game ‘telephone.’ A group of kids sits in a circle, the first tells a brief story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the next, and to the next, and so on, until it comes back full circle to the one who started it. Invariably, the story has changed so much in the process of retelling that everyone gets a good laugh. Imagine this same activity taking place, not in a solitary living room with ten kids on one afternoon, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across), with thousands of participants.”[iii]

Ehrman’s analogy might seem appealing to some people; however, the question that we should investigate is whether preserving history in an oral culture is like a telephone game, as Ehrman claims.

What Is Oral Culture?

Oral culture is a term that refers to preliterate cultures to characterize the thought and expressions that carry over into manuscript and print culture. People talk to one another about certain events until these events are written. Robert Cochran makes a distinction between oral culture and oral history. He states, “Oral culture is culture based on the spoken rather than the written word; oral history is a record of the past based on spoken accounts.” [iv] In our times, an estimated one billion people do not know how to read or write any language, and so they live in what we call oral culture. [v]

It is important to explain also what oral tradition is not. According to Lynne Kelly, oral tradition is “not teaching how to hunt or how to gather during daily excursions. It is not about stories casually told around the campfire at night – these are more folk tale than myth and are usually for children. Oral tradition is about formal knowledge, about the way oral cultures store, maintain and transmit knowledge which is central to their physical and social worlds.” [vi] In other words, oral cultures are not a bunch of savages uneducated societies. They are people whose lack of written language and advanced education forced them to find alternative ways to remember and record their history accurately and reliably.

How Do Oral Cultures Save Their Knowledge?

Literate cultures record their knowledge on paper, books, or electronically. If they cannot write, then the knowledge must be committed to memory—practiced, repeated, and saved for future use in human memory. According to Kelly, the way formal knowledge is stored in literate culture is similar to oral culture,

We can assume that the individuals within oral cultures have the same range of intellectual potential, physiology and memory ability that has been typical of all humans for at least the last few millennia. We need to look beyond superficial differences and accept our similarities. It is only when the complexity of oral tradition is acknowledged that the control of knowledge can be seen as a tool for power. [vii]

People who lived under oral culture were also human beings with the same abilities to find accurate ways to record and pass on their knowledge.

Different elements were used to save knowledge in oral cultures, such as repetitions, rhythm, poetry, narratives, and stories that were transmitted in social gatherings. De Costa adds that “in oral cultures many constructions are aggregative rather than analytic, that is to say, remembered information is not systematized individually but in groups or series of related groups by means of parallelisms, antitheses, and epithets.” [viii]

So, oral cultures created and used different methods to repeat information and learn it. Basic knowledge is acquired in daily interaction to learn what is appropriate and how someone should act in a certain circumstance, and Specialized knowledge is acquired by participating in ceremonies and discussions with elders. [ix] This is why early Christians formed liturgy and creeds. The whole purpose was to keep repeating the basics of their faith over and over so it is not forgotten.

Is All Oral History Mixed with Myths?

The ancient Near Eastern civilization left one of the oldest writings (cuneiform), which included different information, such as migrations of people, chronology of political states, foreign relations, internal governance, legal institutions, and official acts. [x] Moreover, a variety of inscriptions from different places in the world distinguish between mythical, folklore, historical, political, and religious. Wiessner notes that the Enga of Papua New Guinea distinguishes clearly between myth and historical traditions. [xi] Historical information includes news about “wars, migrations, agriculture, the development of cults and ceremonial exchange networks, leadership, trade, environmental disasters, and fashions in song and dress.” [xii] In other words, because of inscriptions, historians are able to differentiate between myths and other genres, which is a piece of evidence that not all oral tradition is mixed with myths.

Were The Gospels Written According to the Telephone Game?

The majority of first-century Middle Easterners were literate people who lived in oral cultures. The New Testament was written within the first century after the death of Christ. The first written book of the NT was the First Letter to the Corinthians, which Paul wrote AD 53-55. The Gospels were written between AD 70-95, about 40-65 years after the death of Jesus. According to Bart Ehrman, this period of time is enough for people to forget what Jesus had said and done, and consequently, corrupt the Gospels.

The Purpose of the Telephone Game vs. Written Oral History

As per the previous information about oral tradition, it seems that Bart Ehrman has not done a good job investigating the culture of the first-century Middle East; otherwise, he would not have depicted the process of writing the NT books to the telephone game. The purpose of the telephone game is totally different from the purpose of written oral history. The purpose of the telephone game is to have fun, so people purposely disrupt the process of communication to laugh at the end results. Writing the Gospels tradition was precisely the opposite. The men of God wrote purposely to preserve the words and deeds of Jesus from disruption (Luke 1:1-4).

One-Way Chain of Communication

I am not sure if first-century people played the telephone game; however, this game represents a single one-way chain of communication, whereas, oral tradition is like a web or network. It does not pass information from one person to another person, but it passes information from many people to many people. When Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, there were many people alive who witnessed and testified Jesus resurrected and ascended to heaven, and there were multiple opportunities for skeptics to investigate: “Did this really happen?” (1 Cor 15:6).

Liberal scholars who support Ehrman’s theory believe that “oral history reveal that cultures do not tend to remember events over much more than two generations and that memories ‘become increasingly inaccurate until they are so corrupt that they can hardly be distinguished from myth.”[xiii] If a generation lives for 20-30 years, and information is corrupted after the second generation, then it is reasonable to conclude that the NT books are reliable by secular standards because they were written within the first two generations after the death of Jesus.

Conclusion

It is simply impossible for any culture to retain all their knowledge without some formal information system. Therefore, literate cultures came up with ways to retain information, such as repetition in special ceremonies, conversations with elders, and social gatherings to pass on their knowledge. If Western culture found different ways to store information, that does not mean Eastern and Middle Eastern cultures have never done so. Further study of oral culture tradition shows that depicting the process of writing the NT books with telephone games is emphatically wrong.

References:

[i] Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, Trans. K. McLaughlin and D. Pellauer, vol. 3, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984– 1988), 190-192.

[ii] Jens Schröter, From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon, (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013), 34.

[iii] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 72-74.

[iv] Robert Cochran, “Oral History and Oral Culture,” In The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory, ed. Michael Ryan, 2011.

[v] Thomas Farrell, J. “Oral Culture,” in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, ed. Patrick Colm Hogan, (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

[vi] Lynne Kelly, Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies: Orality, Memory and the Transmission of Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 15.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Elena De Costa, “Orality,” in Concise Encyclopedia of Latin American Literature, ei. Verity Smith, ed. Routledge, 2000.

[ix] J. Goody, The Interface Between The Written And The Oral (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1987), 156-7.

[x] J. Puhvel, “epigraphy,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed, July 28, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/epigraphy.

[xi] P. Wiessner, “The vines of complexity: egalitarian structures and the institutionalization of inequality among the Enga,” Current Anthropology, vol. 43, no. 2, (2002): 233–69

[xii] Ibid, 237.

[xiii] Richard Bradley, “The Translations of Time,” in RM, Van Dyke & SE Alcock, eds., Archaeologies of memory, Blackwell, (2003): 221–7.

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)

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

 

Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates.

Sherene was also involved in her local church among the young youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen.

Sherene is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. Additionally, she holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. Currently, Sherene is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and M.A. in Arabic and linguistics from PennWest University.

Original Blog Posting: https://bit.ly/3ZQetUT

 

/by

Were the Gospel Accounts Reliably Recorded?

,

A common challenge to believers is the contention that the gospel accounts we read today are not particularly reliable. Referring to the “telephone game,” the skeptic will claim that since the gospel accounts were penned three to five decades after the life of Christ, the accounts they portray are probably much different than the original accounts, just as the tenth telling of what was said in the “telephone game” is much different than the first. This analogy resonates with many people, who realize how hard it is to memorize in exact order a string of words that are spoken once. By the time the sentence is repeated to that tenth person, it will indeed bear little resemblance to its original form.

But does this analogy aptly describe what occurred with the biblical texts? Are there valid reasons to be concerned that the words of the gospel writers were distorted by retellings and the passage of time?

The first step in assessing this analogy is to consider the unspoken assumptions that are at play. The “telephone game” usually involves a rather meaningless sentence, spoken once, in which word-for-word memorization is the goal. The sentence is not important to the listener and has no particular significance, other than to memorize it word for word. Modern players of this game face a particular challenge – memorization is neither valued nor practiced today. We live in a culture in which electronic information storage systems have virtually eliminated the need to memorize long passages of information.

Another assumption is that having an exact word for word transcript is necessary. Given the existence of technology that can easily make recordings, one may begin to believe that nothing short of this should suffice. Take for instance a criminal trial. As a juror, you may want to view the actual interview in which the killer confessed, because you want to know exactly what he said, and the way he said it. You will insist on viewing the officer’s body worn camera footage before accepting that the events described took place exactly as they were relayed in the testimony. When the non-believer takes this approach to the gospel accounts, he will reject them before he even considers their reliability because they will never meet these assumptions and expectations.

The early Christians lived in a much different world. The writers of the first century did not have electronic means to record statements, nor did their culture put a premium on recording history in the way we do. They did, however, have a rich tradition of passing on stories, of using their minds to memorize long passages, and in some cases even entire books. Accurately passing their traditions, stories and knowledge from generation to generation was often practiced and highly valued. After all, they were not distracted with endless sources of stimulation, as we are today.

When the first followers of Christ began to document Jesus’ message, they were not playing a game in which he quickly said a string of words and asked them to repeat it. He was not providing them with some type of obscure code, which if spoken in just the right order would magically unlock the doors of the kingdom. He did not call a convention at which he spoke on only one occasion to an assembled crowd, with no one taking notes to capture the details of the teaching. No, Jesus traveled from town to town spreading a consistent and repeated message. Much of what he said was shocking to his followers, often contradicting what they were expecting the Messiah to say. His followers no doubt heard him speak on each subject on numerous occasions. They struggled to make sense of his words, and no doubt discussed his sayings among themselves. Jesus’ technique aided the process; he often used parables that were easy to remember and vividly conveyed a point he was trying to make. And when they did not understand the meaning of the parable, he explicitly expanded upon his intended meaning.

Given this context, it is not difficult to understand how those who heard Jesus repeatedly discuss topics they considered critically important to their ultimate salvation would have committed to memory what was said. The important thing for the writer would not be that he got every word in the exact order in which it was said. Indeed, it is likely that Jesus himself varied the words he spoke from speech to speech. The important thing would be that the meaning was accurately captured and passed on.

This process of repeating the revered words of their Lord did not begin out of the blue decades later. No, the process of retelling began immediately after his death. In addition, there were authors such as the apostle Paul who wrote numerous letters that set forth much of what had occurred. Had this process of retelling not been so robust, Christianity would not have grown so rapidly in the succeeding decades. Consider: by AD 64, some thirty years later, Christians had become so large and troublesome a group as to garner the attention of the emperor, who (according to the writer Tacitus) blamed them for the fire which occurred that year in Rome. Consequently, when the gospel writers eventually committed to writing their verbal teachings, they were not attempting to remember the words of a single speech given thirty or forty years earlier, a nearly impossible task. They were instead committing to paper what they had witnessed firsthand and what they had been consistently teaching in the preceding decades.

While the challenge of the “telephone game” has some surface appeal, it is at most a red herring, a distraction which prevents some people from ever giving the historical truth claims of Christianity a fair hearing. The Christian message is far more robust – and meaningful – than a simple children’s game.

And that simple truth is certainly worth remembering.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

The Early Martyrs Were Cross Examined to Death

Skeptics often challenge believers by claiming that the “evidence” for Christianity would never hold up in a courtroom. It’s hearsay, they contend, and since these witnesses can’t be cross-examined, the case would never even see the inside of a courtroom. For many unfamiliar with the legal system, this challenge seems solid. After all, why should we trust our eternity to a message that wouldn’t pass muster in a court dealing with comparatively less important issues?

Christianity On Trial

A bit of reflection shows the problem with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn’t take into consideration that we know many things that could never be “proven” according to the rules of evidence in a courtroom. Just about any historical event that is beyond the lifetime of living persons would suffer from similar problems, as well as problems of authenticating documents and physical evidence relating to the case. Yet, we have little doubt that these events occurred.

More importantly, the legal system provides the right to see and confront one’s accusers, and the related right to cross-examine them about their testimony, for a reason – “confrontation” is a reliable way to test evidence, to ensure that it is credible. But there are other ways to assure oneself that a person’s testimony is credible. In the case of the early martyrs, the way they demonstrated credibility – steadfastness in the face of persecution – is even more reliable.

On the Witness Stand

Consider: if a witness testifies that he saw the defendant point a gun at the victim and fire the fatal shot, the defense will want the right to test the reliability of the testimony. But what will they test? Generally speaking, the prosecution will take one of two possibles tacks. They will either, show that the witness is mistaken the witness is lying. Either way, their testimony isn’t very damaging to the defendant.

In preparing to cross examine, a skilled attorney need more oratory. He also needs to plot out an approach. If he wants to show that the witness isn’t mistaken, he will inquire into the types of things that could cause a mistake: how well does the witness know the defendant? How long did he see him? Were there impediments to clear viewing? How did the stress of the event affect the witness’ ability to perceive the event? Were drugs or alcohol a factor and if so, to what extent did they effect the witness’ ability to observe and record what occurred? Each of these avenues may prove productive in undercutting the conclusion the witness reached.

But if the witness says the defendant is his brother and he saw him a few feet away with nothing blocking his view, then alleging that the witness is “mistaken” will not be very productive. That leaves the other possibility, that the witness is lying. What is the relationship of the witness to the defendant? Does the witness stand to gain financially or otherwise by seeing the defendant convicted? What is the witness’s reputation in the community for honesty and integrity? Perhaps the witness is a “jailhouse snitch” who is trying to get out from another charge by telling the police what they want to hear. Or, by contrast, maybe the witness is the defendant’s brother who just happened to be present when the defendant committed the crime and is unwilling to lie for him.

Could the Martyrs Have been Telling the truth?

So, when skeptic’s refuse to even consider the testimony of the early martyrs, saying it’s hearsay, they are misunderstanding the point of cross-examination. The strength of a person’s testimony can be shown even more reliably by their behavior as it relates to that testimony. To put it bluntly: is he willing to die for it?

The skeptic will immediately object: but many people are willing to die for false beliefs? Yes, that’s true, but that is not the situation when we consider what those first martyrs faced. This group of men and women knew Jesus and witnessed the fact and circumstances of his death. This was their testimony: he died a gruesome death, he was later placed in a sealed and guarded tomb, and after three days he began to interact with them in a resurrected body.

If we had them on the witness stand, which of the challenges would we pursue. Mistake would not take us very far. No attorney with any sense would claim that Jesus survived the crucifixion or that the man the apostles saw after the resurrection was not Jesus. Jesus was well known to these individuals, and they witnessed the “effectiveness” of Rome’s favored way of ensuring a tortured and humiliating death. The tomb was empty and even if an imposter had tried to play Jesus’ role, he would not have been able to fool the apostles. That would be like telling the defendant’s brother that he actually saw someone else commit the murder – not a likely way to persuade anyone.

Perhaps then the apostles were lying. They knew Jesus had died on the cross but they wanted the world to believe that he had escaped death. They knew this was false but persisted anyway. How would a skilled attorney cross examine these witnesses? He would begin with the basics: is there a motive to lie? Do the apostles stand to benefit in some way, either financially, emotionally, or through the acquisition of power? Do the apostles have some animus against the “other side?” Are there prior inconsistent statements or actions that would undercut their present testimony? How committed are they to the position they are taking?

Having cross-examined countless witnesses, I for one would not want to take on these witnesses. Committed? They went to their deaths rather than retract their claim – “okay, you’re right, we just really wished that he was the Messiah, so we fabricated this whole thing.”

Prior inconsistencies? Quite the contrary. The change in their behavior shortly after Jesus’ death – from meek and broken to brave and bold – corroborates their testimony.

Animus against the other side? They preached a message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation. They gave unto Caesar the things of Caesar.

Motive for gain? Hardly. Insisting that Jesus was the Messiah brought them nothing; in many cases it took from them what little they had. They gained no position, nor power, nor wealth, nor anything else of earthly value.

Where does the cross-examiner go? Indeed, nothing they did on a witness stand could possibly add to the force of their “testimony” by remaining faithful . . . unto death.

They Wouldn’t Have Died for Lie

The missionary Jim Elliott once said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” Having witnessed the risen Lord, the early martyrs had a level of confidence in their message that few today can manage. They were neither fools nor liars. Indeed, it is rather the fool who refuses to acknowledge the power of their witness.

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)

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

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Skepticism

,

Some skepticism is warranted. None of us want to live within a paradigm of naivety. No one wants to blindly accept every foolish notion that comes down the pipeline. A quick glance at social media along with the acknowledgment of the tweaks and twists that artificial intelligence can bring to videos and audio files only intensifies our need for discernment.

Even still, as believers, we must differentiate between discernment and all-out skepticism. Discernment evaluates data to see whether the information is valid and trustworthy. In contrast, skepticism doubts or denies claims that seem to be grandiose or beyond the status quo. Even more to the point, skepticism can deny propositional claims. When left unrestrained, skepticism could lead to doubt, which in turn can lead to the denial of propositions (i.e., truth claims). At worst, unrestrained skepticism can lead to cynicism.

The Infiltration of Skepticism in Conservative Apologetics

I have been troubled by the extreme form of skepticism that has entered the apologetic and theological world, especially within what has been considered conservative evangelical Christianity. When I first entered the apologetic world in 2007 and formally in 2012, apologists and conservative theologians alike were fairly settled on certain issues regarding miracles, biblical fidelity, and creationism. The pillars of the apologetic world, however, seem to be crumbling, instead adopting extreme forms of skepticism that deny veritable biblical truth claims.

At the same time, modern Christianity has adopted a celebrity culture. So, these icons of the time often go unquestioned by their fanbase. We would be well advised, however, to remember that truth is truth and error is error regardless of who speaks it. With that in mind, let us consider three avenues where we should be skeptical of modern skepticism.

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Human Skepticism (Miraculous Skepticism) [i]

David Hume was an English skeptic of the 16th century. Hume maintained that miracles could not be proven as historical events. While a full explanation of his view is beyond the scope of this article, Hume defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”[ii] Part of the problem in Hume’s analysis is that a Deity and/or invisible agent may work through the laws of nature to bring about certain ends. Gary Habermas offers a better definition, claiming that miraculous interventions should be understood as “the manifestation or presence of divine actions that temporarily or momentarily overrule or supersede nature’s normally observed, lawful pattern of events, or that appear to do so.”[iii]

Hume’s Circular Reasoning

A bigger problem with Hume’s assessment is that his argument is largely circular. Hume does not believe miracles can be proven because he does not believe miracles occur. And, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you do not believe that miracles occur, then you will deny any claim that purports to be miraculous.

Modern Hume in the Apologetic World?

While nearly all Bible-believing Christians will accept that God does perform miracles, the level of scrutiny that some biblical events have received by Bible-believing scholars is somewhat suspect. With modern scholars, the idea of a talking serpent seems absurd, even though the Bible is riddled with numerous miraculous events. Furthermore, for some, the idea that God could raise numerous saints from the dead around the time of Christ’s crucifixion appears beyond rational belief, all the while the same scholars defend Jesus’s own resurrection and His resurrection of others from the dead. So then, why is it that some stories appear absurd, and others don’t?

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves whether we actually believe that God can do anything within God’s moral limitations. Sure, even the Bible says that God cannot sin because of His moral holiness, and God cannot do something that goes against God’s character (e.g., Titus 1:2). But do we believe that God can part the Red Sea? Do we really believe that God can raise the dead? If so, why do we place limitations on what God can do?

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Bultmannian Skepticism (Biblical Skepticism) [iv]

Rudolf Bultmann was a German theologian of the 19th century who was highly skeptical of the biblical texts. Bultmann promoted the demythologization of the Bible. That is, Bultmann believed that the Bible must be stripped of all its mythological elements to make it more palatable for modern scientific minds. As such, Bultmann held an informal uncontrolled mindset when it came to the oral traditions undergirding the life of Jesus. The informal uncontrolled model means that, according to Bultmann, no one was concerned about preserving accurate information about Jesus, and no one was selected to authenticate the material. Thus, the Gospels tell us next to nothing about the historical Jesus and more about the church’s belief about Jesus. Therefore, no one can know anything about the life of Jesus.

Oral Traditions

In my dissertation work, not only did I discover that Bultmann’s theory on oral traditions was wrong, but the Gospels texts also indicate that something more controlled was at hand when it came to the preservation of Jesus traditions.[v] As such, the data suggests that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. We have good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, as well as other events in Scripture.[vi] If the data suggests that we have reasons for believing in the fidelity of Scripture and the stories it contains, then why do we find it necessary to cast doubt on the authenticity of the traditions of Jesus?

Is Harmonization a Sin?

Why is it such a sin to harmonize the Gospels as Michael Licona suggests if the Gospels indeed contain eyewitness testimonies? It seems to me that attempts to diffuse the mystical and miraculous elements of Scripture are falling back into the unjustified skepticism of Bultmann and his desire to demythologize the pages of the Bible. But the greater question is, what are we left with if we remove the divine power of God from the testimonies of Scripture? We’ll discuss that in the conclusion.

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Darwinian Skepticism (Creationary Skepticism)

Lastly, it seems as if theistic evolution has become the fad of the day. Since William Lane Craig published his book In Quest of the Historical Adam, I have observed many young apologists and would-be scholars falling in line with endorsing theistic evolution, even though evolutionary theory still suffers from the same methodological flaws that it ever has.

What happened to the apologists’s endorsement of the work of Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute? Through the years, Meyer has given ample reason to question Darwinianism. His book Darwin’s Doubt is one such example. Do we now cast aside Darwin’s Doubt just because it is popular to now follow the idea that much of Genesis 1–11 is mythological? Do we now openly reject classic creationist concepts by scientists like Hugh Ross, the staff at Reasons to Believe, and Answers in Genesis just because a well-known philosopher says to do otherwise?

Conclusion

Most assuredly, I am not trying to lambast Craig, Licona, or any of their followers. I have been blessed by many of their works in time’s past and have many friends who follow along with the concepts presented by the two men. And it should be noted that many other scholars could be included in the three aforementioned categories. But I am troubled by the following question: At what point should we become skeptical of our own skepticism?

As I had the pleasure of editing the book Why Creationism Still Matters with my good friends and colleagues Dr. T. J. Gentry and Dr. Michelle Johnson, it struck me how strong the case can be made for creationism. And it further troubled me why others feel the need to reject such a defense when in fact numerous scientists are questioning evolutionary theory as well.[vii]

Additionally, consider that we have spent thousands of years trying to understand what it only took seconds for God to create. God spoke, and the universe came into existence with all its laws, physics, and numerical values. Thus, if God is God, and the Bible is God’s Word, wouldn’t it behoove us to believe what God said?

Final Analysis

As an apologist, I most assuredly believe that the resurrection and events of the Bible stand on their own merit. Thus, I am not a fideist. Have we, however, encountered God and known the power He holds? If so, at what point should we begin asking if our latent skepticism reflects our own doubt more than it does the evidence within the text?

So, to summarize, why should we become skeptical of our skepticism? When our skepticism begins to offer more reasons not to believe in God’s power and His revelation, that’s when our skepticism exposes latent doubt more than our faith. We must then ask ourselves if we really believe in what we are leading others to believe. If we don’t, then why encourage others to believe at all? But if we do believe, then what good is it when we continuously downgrade what God has given us in His Word? And if we do believe, then at some point, we must become skeptical of why we are so skeptical.

Furthermore, we must also question if our skepticism has caused an even greater naivety, wherein we blindly follow whatever our favored philosophers or scholars say without considering the validity of their claims. In a sense, our unrestrained skepticism could lead to greater gullibility. Just some things to consider from a fellow disciple as we journey this life together.

References: 

[i] Humean refers to the teachings of David Hume.

[ii] David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in the Essential Works of David Hume, Ralph Cohen, ed (New York: Bantham, 1965), 1:129n3.

[iii] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences, vol. 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 242.

[iv] Bultmannian refers to the teachings of Rudolph Bultmann.

[v] Brian G. Chilton, “Semitic Residue: Semitic Traits that Indicate Early Source Material Behind the Gospel of Matthew” (2022), Doctoral Dissertations and Projects, 3874, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/3874.

[vi] See my contribution for an extensive defense of the resurrection in the upcoming book Thomas J. Gentry, ed., Strong Faith (West Frankfort, IL: IHP Practica, 2024).

[vii] For example, read “Scientists Dissent from Darwinian Theory,” Discovery.org (Feb. 12, 2019), https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/. Also consider the mathematical problems related to Darwinianism, David Berlinski, Stephen C. Meyer, David H. Gelernter, “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, With David Berlinksi, Stephen C. Meyer, and David Gelernter,” Interview, Hoover Institution, Hoover.org (July 22, 2019), https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david.

Recommended Resources:

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

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

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

 

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4e4KBrE

/by

The Probability of a Past Event is One

In recent posts (here and here), I considered some of the difficulties inherent in defining what constitutes a miracle or recognizing an event as miraculous. The skeptic usually approaches the issue with the set presupposition that miracles, however defined, are not possible. They typically contend that what the believer concludes is a miracle is in fact explainable naturalistically and that the believer has allowed himself to be misled by limited knowledge, ignorance or wishful thinking. The skeptic, placing unquestioned faith in the power of science, confidently asserts that someday we will see that the miracle we assumed occurred was actually no such thing at all.

This is a difficult topic to tackle in the abstract. If a miracle is defined as a departure from the known laws of nature, then it is easy to assert that with enough additional knowledge, we will be able to see that the event in question wasn’t actually a departure after all.

The problem with abstract discussions is that they sometimes cause us to lose focus on the issue at hand. The issue, as it relates to Christianity, is whether a particular miracle occurred. Did Jesus of Nazareth – the historical figure who most scholars acknowledge lived and was crucified some two thousand years ago – emerge from his tomb in a resurrected and incorruptible body? Countless believers have staked their lives, their eternities, on the answer to that question.

The Problem with Probabilities

The skeptic already has his answer: since a dead man always stays dead, it is exceedingly improbable that this account could be true. The “probabilities” favor some naturalistic explanation: he didn’t die but was only seriously injured; the whole account is myth; the accounts are the product of hallucinations, etc. But approaching the issue in this fashion demonstrates an a priori rejection of the evidence that one is supposed to be considering. In other words, when someone is committed to the belief that a miracle is simply not possible, how much weight will they give to someone’s account of a miraculous event?

Careful thinking will show that relying on probabilities in order to determine whether a past event occurred is generally fallacious. A past event either occurred or it didn’t; the probability of a known past event therefore is one. If it didn’t happen, then the probability is zero.

“the probability of a known past event therefore is one.”

Consider: if I play the lottery, my chances of selecting the correct sequence of numbers are exceedingly small, on the order of one in many millions. The probability of my winning is extremely low. If my lottery ticket corresponds to the posted lottery results, then I have beat the odds. The event has now moved from one in the future, for which probability assessment applies, to one in the past, for which assessing whether it occurred based on probability makes no sense. Once I see that the numbers match, the argument “this can’t have happened because million-to-one shots don’t occur” would be inane.

Yet the skeptic does this all the time. Because resurrections are improbable, we must keep looking for more probable solutions, regardless of what the actual evidence tells us. In fact, many don’t consider the evidence at all, having concluded that improbable events cannot occur. To use the lottery analogy, they never bother to look at the lottery results or their tickets because they are sure that they can never win.

Let’s Not Throw the Probable Baby Out with the Bathwater

A probability assessment of a past event does have some value. First, it may tell us whether an intelligent agent was at work in causing the result. If I keep winning the lottery, it may mean that someone is tipping me off about the numbers or altering their selection. If life on earth is statistically a one in a trillion-trillion-trillion event, it may be that an intelligent source created it and that it did not arise by naturalistic means. And if a man who claims to be God doesn’t stay dead, it may mean that he is who he said he is. However “unlikely” it may be, if the evidence is adequate to support that the event occurred, it wouldn’t be rational to dismiss it as impossible.

Second, probability assessments may allow us to draw inferences about the way people acted. How probable is it that 500 people all experienced the same hallucination of the risen Jesus? How probable is it that dozens of people who knew the truth insisted on falsely claiming that they had experienced the risen Jesus so that they too could be put to death? Assessments as to probable behavior allow us to evaluate the legitimacy and likelihood of the claimed behavior. But probabilities can’t tell us whether a past event actually occurred. For that we need to evaluate the actual evidence, fairly and completely.

The case for the Resurrection is compelling. Perhaps it is the product of wishful thinking, but my study of the facts tells me otherwise. Because of what is at stake, each of us needs to consider the case on its merits. Enough has been written about it that this can easily be done. What we shouldn’t do is close our minds to the possibility without ever having considered the evidence.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

How To Help Muslims Think Deeply and Differently About the Deity of Christ

,

I was in a Global Studies conference a few months ago when a retired minister asked me an interesting question. He told me, “I like to take Christian young men to the local mosques so they can learn about Islamic beliefs; however, I’m wondering what would be a good question to ask our Muslim friends in order to get to know them and let them know about Jesus.” I believe this is a very important question I would like to answer here.

Talk about Jesus Christ from A Christian Perspective

One of the sharp differences between Islam and Christianity is the nature of Jesus. Who he is and what he did. Christians can approach their Muslim neighbors and tell them about Jesus in two ways: 1) What do the Gospels say about Jesus? 2) What do the Qur’an and Hadiths say about Jesus? One of the stories that is not mentioned in the Qur’an and Hadiths about Jesus is how he dealt with nature. These stories might resonate well with Muslims and explain Jesus’s authority over nature and creation. The stories of Jesus calming the storm and resurrecting the widow’s son show the uniqueness of Christ and his supremacy over nature.

The texts that can be used for Jesus calming the storm are Matt 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25 (ESV). The text that can be used for Jesus raising a widow’s son from the dead is Luke 7:11-15. After reading the Bible, a Christian can ask, “In your opinion, what is the significance of Jesus calming the storm?” or “What is the significance of Jesus raising the dead? The story of Jesus calming the storm is not mentioned in the Qur’an and asking this question will help Muslims think deeper about Jesus. However, the Qur’an mentions that Jesus raised dead people without mentioning who they are. Christians should emphasize that Jesus did these miracles in public, in front of many witnesses, and it was written down within the same generation of people who saw them. It was not collected hundreds of years later (like in the case of the miracles of Mohammad). These stories are more historically reliable because they are better witnessed, attested to, and written within a short period of time. There is no reason for Christians not to believe it and there are many reasons to think about their significance.

It is a good idea for Christians to read to their Muslim friends from the Bible these stories and not just recite a verse from memory or explain the story using their own words. In this way, Muslims will be able to differentiate between the words of the Bible and the words of the Christians. It also assures the Muslims that these stories are written in the Bible and no one is tricking them by creating imaginative stories about Jesus.

Talk about Jesus Christ from an Islamic Perspective

Christians need to learn what Islamic literature says about Jesus. According to the Qur’an, Jesus has a sinless nature, was of a virgin birth, was a creator, and will return to judge the world. Due to the limited space, I will write about the virgin birth of Jesus and if the reader would like to learn more about the other points, they can read my article “Does Islamic Literature Suggest Jesus is God?” In this paper, I discuss major themes about what Islamic literature says about Jesus and I compare these themes to other prophets to show the superiority of Christ.

Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. The Islamic narrative is mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah says,

“We sent to her Our Ruh [angel Jibril (Gabriel)], and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects … (the angel) said: ‘I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son.’ She said: ‘How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?’ He said: ‘So (it will be), your Lord said: “That is easy for Me (Allah), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allah)”’” (Surah 19:17-20 Al-Hilali and Khan).[i]

These verses record what Allah said and did with Mary. He sent his spirit to Mary, which appeared to her like a man. Islamic scholars added to the Qur’anic text that “Our Spirit” is the angel Gabriel, but the Qur’anic story does not say that the Spirit of God appeared in the resemblance of angel Gabriel.

Jesus’s virgin birth narrative is also mentioned in Surah 3:42-47 with a salient change. Notice verses 42 and 45. They mention a group of angels appearing to Mary to deliver the message to her. “When the angels said: ‘O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you, purified you… When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah…” (Shakir). It is unclear how Islamic scholars conclude that Gabriel is the one who told Mary the good news about Jesus; thus, this could serve as a good question to ask to help Muslims think deeply about the details of the Qur’anic story of Jesus’s birth.

Muslim scholars believe that the virgin birth of Jesus does not point to his deity. Here, Christians can ask the question, “What is the reason or the purpose that made God choose the virgin birth as a method to bring Jesus to earth?” The fact that Jesus came to this earth through a miracle (virgin birth) and left it through another miracle (ascending to God) raises a major question mark about his nature. These two events never happened to any other prophet, not even to Muhammad himself.

Usually, Muslims quote the Qur’an to show their Christian friends that there is nothing special about Jesus coming from a virgin. Mohammad states in Surah 3:59 “Verily, the likeness of ‘Isa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!’—and he was.” So, “God created Adam from dirt, then said to him: be, and there He became, through no mediation of a father or a mother. God created Adam in a more glorious way than He created Jesus from a mother with no mediation of a father.”[ii] Creating Adam from dirt is indeed a very special act that only God can do; however, according to the Qur’an, Jesus did the same miracle when he created a bird from the dirt without the need for a mother and a father of birds (Surah 3: 49). In other words, if this act is extremely unique because it belongs to Allah only, then Jesus did what is extremely unique when he created the bird—how can a mere man do what only God can do?

In fact, according to Islamic logic, creating a person by using a virgin woman, without the need of a father, should be seen as more unique than creating a person from dirt because it has never occurred in human history, and no one else has done it except God himself. Allah solely used the virgin birth, but Allah and Jesus both created a lively being from dirt. Creating through virgin birth points to a greater and higher act of creation because it belongs to God only.

To reply to the idea of the likeness of Jesus and Adam from a Christian perspective, Christians can bring Paul’s argument in Romans 5:18 to the attention of the Muslims. Paul states, “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people” (Rom. 5:18). This is the way that the likeness of Adam and Jesus should be regarded. Jesus should be considered more important than Adam or any other prophet, not only because of his virgin birth but because of the many additional attributes, events, and actions that Adam did not enjoy, have, or do. Their likeness is related to their roles regarding the human condition and salvation. There are, however, many additional aspects that Jesus enjoyed, and Adam did not (such as the virgin birth, performing miracles, and being pure/holy because he wasn’t touched by Satan …etc.). These actions help Christians think that Jesus’s nature is superior to the nature of Adam.

Asking questions helps Muslim brothers and sisters to think deeply about the stories that their Qur’an mentions. Therefore, Christians need to educate themselves on these stories by learning the differences between the Islamic and Christian versions and asking good questions that help others think critically and respectfully.

References:

[i] All the information and names that are between brackets and square brackets are added by Al-Hilali and Khan to help the readers understand the literal meaning of the verse.

[ii] Abdu Al-Rahman Al-Baghdadi, Al-Fariq bain Al-Khaliq wa Al-Makhlouq fi Dahid Aqidet and Tathleeth wa Ithbat Aqidet Al-Tawheed (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiya, 1987), 49.

Recommended Resources:

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sherene was also involved in her local church among the youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen. Sherene is an assistant professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. Sherene holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. She is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and a M.A in Arabic and Linguistics from PennWest University.

Originally published here: https://bit.ly/3yBR1PP

/by

Why the Best Explanation Can Be a Miracle

,

By Al Serrato

We all intuitively seek the best explanation for a set of facts or circumstances. It’s called abductive reasoning. Detectives make use of this method of reasoning when endeavoring to solve a crime; they put the pieces together so that a picture of what occurred emerges in sufficient detail to have confidence that it is true. Parents do it when they notice that a freshly baked pie has a piece missing and little Johnny has crumbs on his fingers and fruit staining his lips. Perfect knowledge is not required to know with sufficient certainty what occurred.

Abductive Reasoning in Christian Apologetics

As it relates to apologetics, abductive reasoning is a formal way of supporting the case for the validity of Christian truth claims. Though there are dozens of pieces of evidence to support the belief that the Resurrection took place, many apologists will make the case using a “minimal facts” approach. These generally undisputed facts include that Jesus lived, that he was put to death on a Roman cross, that his tomb was later found empty, and that his followers experienced encounters with him which were, simply put, life changing. These followers included skeptics who knew him well, such as his brother James; zealots who were persecuting his followers, such as Paul; and numerous men and women who had been following him during his earthly ministry.

A Cumulative Case

What best accounts for these well-established facts? Could it be they were all hallucinating? That makes little sense as we know that hallucinations do not occur in mass settings. Were they simply mistaken about who it was they were seeing? This too lacks explanatory appeal as mistaken identification is not plausible for family members and close friends and certainly not for many such people. Was it simply wishful thinking? While his followers no doubt missed him dearly, it is not reasonable to conclude that they would face death by insisting that he was still alive, when they knew he was not. Nor would wishful thinking explain the change in those who were initially persecuting Jesus’ followers, nor for those who only became followers after his death. Seeing that the cumulative case points to the fact of the Resurrection can be a powerful way to support the faith.

Losing the Case Before the Courtroom

But many remain unconvinced. When I have encountered such people, I have found that by and large they do not employ abductive reasoning as described above. They have not assessed and considered the piles of evidence from history to determine what other reasonable inference would better fit the known facts. Instead, they begin with the presupposition that miracles – which of course include resurrection from the dead – simply cannot occur. Consequently, any explanation of the historical facts and events which posit a miracle are to be rejected out of hand. The case is lost before it is even considered.

In short, many argue that relying on the possibility of a miracle is simply an admission of ignorance. If you cannot first explain how the miracle occurred, they argue, you should not be able to rely on it.

We can know THAT it happened without knowing HOW it happened.

This challenge to provide an explanation for the “best explanation of the facts” – that is, to explain the miracle – is clever but misplaced. There are many circumstances in which we can know something to be true, or to work, without knowing how it is that this is so. Take our ability to reason or our native sense of fair play: I make use of these things even though I have no way of explaining how reason works, or why I should be able to rely on it to reach true conclusions. I cannot explain how I know that “playing fair” is something that should matter to me. Consciousness is another example: in operating rooms around the world, anesthesiologists make use of drugs that can put people “under” and then restore them to consciousness without knowing how it is that this occurs. They understand the effect these drugs have on the cellular level, and they can measure differences in brain wave activity, but understanding how a grouping of brain cells goes from conscious to unconscious and back is still beyond scientific understanding. Though not usually considered as such, consciousness and reason are themselves “miraculous” – no sufficient naturalistic processes can account for them.

So, if the evidence that a man was put to death and then appeared again in a re-animated and enhanced body is sufficiently credible, then the fact that we cannot currently “explain” how it occurred does not prove that it did not occur. Consider for a moment the many medical “miracles” that have occurred. There are countless cases in which a disease process stops, or reverses, for reasons that are unclear, at least at present. As knowledge and technology advance, some of these miracles will be explained through naturalistic mechanisms. But how can the skeptic possibly know that this will always be the case? Would this not require perfect knowledge on his part, in order to know with certainty that departures from the laws of nature can never occur?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to know more, with seeking more knowledge and more information to get the “how” questions answered. There is nothing wrong with trying to rule out all naturalistic explanations before considering the supernatural. And it may be, in the end, that additional knowledge will modify, or perhaps even change, some of our views.

But refusing to go where the evidence leads because of a belief that supernatural events are “impossible” is a reflection of underlying bias, not an expression of enlightened thinking.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

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

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

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

Andy Stanley’s Unbiblical ‘Affirming’ Stance

,

In the following piece, I will discuss the ongoing controversies surrounding Andy Stanley and the recent Unconditional Conference held at North Point Church — outlining clear departures from the scriptural teachings found in the Bible.

I will spotlight three key concerns to illustrate how Andy Stanley promotes an approach and an ideology contradicting New Testament teachings on homosexuality.

Say it Ain’t So!

As followers of Christ, we strive to align our lives with God’s Word, maintaining unwavering faith in times of discord. It is disheartening to see influential Christian figures like Andy Stanley, who command extensive ministry recognition, endorsing views contrary to biblical Christianity.

Even as I profoundly disagree with the path Andy Stanley and his church are taking, I remain hopeful for him to reconsider his wayward stance as a fellow Christian. My intention is not to provoke empty quarrels or breed negativity but to bring clarity and guidance in navigating through these contentious subjects. I endeavor to deal with this sensitive topic with grace and respect, promoting unity among believers (see Romans 12:16-18; 1 Peter 3:8).

The Apostle Paul, however, cautions the body of Christ, that is, the Church, to “avoid those who instigate division and trigger obstacles against the teachings we follow” (Romans 16:17). Thus, we must engage in these tough conversations, pushing ourselves to think critically and delve deeper into scriptural truths about our identity in Christ and what the Bible teaches about sexual sin.

First, An Unbiblical Presumption About LGBTQ+

Taking this warning to heart, let me address my first concern about what Andy Stanley and several of his leaders within North Point espouse. According to Greg and Lynn McDonald — founders of Embracing the Journey, and the couple who put on the Unconditional Conference at North Point — they don’t declare a theological stance on LGBTQ+ matters. That assessment, however, is not entirely accurate. In fact, they hold to a very unbiblical presumption. These proponents (McDonalds, Andy Stanley, Justin Lee, David Gushee) argue that Christians viewing homosexuality as sinful are misinterpreting biblical text, causing profound harm to LGBTQ+ individuals. Behind this presumption is a deviation from Jesus’s clear teachings on human gender (it’s binary) and marriage (it’s a union only between a man and a woman). See Matthew 19:3-6 and Genesis 2:18-25.

Second, Entangling Alliances

The second entanglement is the invitation and alliance afforded by North Point Church to platform activists, such as David Gushee, a progressive Christian who advocates for same-sex “marriage.” In his book, “Changing Our Mind: A Landmark Call for Inclusion of LGBT Christians,” Gushee boldly declares an error of perspective by early Christians on the moral dimension of homosexuality. He alludes that salvation calls on all, regardless of sexual identity or orientation. This perspective also resonates in the narratives of “gay-Christian” men like Justin Lee and Brian Nietzel (both in same-sex “marriages”), who have been frequent guest speakers at North Point.

Third, Andy Stanley’s Own Teaching

Third, it’s troubling to conceive the teachings from Andy Stanley himself. Stanley loves to say he and his church, North Point, are all about the gospel and sharing the love of Jesus with those far from God. But what does the gospel actually mean if homosexuality and transgenderism, and same-sex “marriage” are not considered a sin? If we can hijack what Jesus taught and throw out whatever we disagree with–the end product is a different gospel altogether.

In a way, Andy Stanley is modifying God’s love to embrace all walks of life, no matter the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

In his advocacy for LGBT rights within the church, Andy adopts a practice-oriented perspective. He often shares pastoral anecdotes where he counseled families with sons or daughters who identify as LGBTQ+. As Andy stated in his “I Love My Church” sermon at North Point, “Jesus drew big circles in his ministry.” Suggesting that not loving and affirming LGBTQ+ individuals for who they are is not expressing love in the same capacity that Jesus did.

Compassionate Error Is Still Error

No matter how eloquent or compassionate Andy Stanley tries to make it sound, what God calls sin, is still sin (Romans 1:26-27). We have no right or authority to override the commands of God written down in the Bible. John, the apostle, distinctly writes, “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands” (1 John 5:2).

As the church, sanctified, washed, and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:11), we are not to give ourselves over to sinful desires that defile our bodies and bring enmity between us and God. Instead, we are to offer our bodies as members of righteousness. That, my friends, is true love.

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism 2023 Edition by Dr. Frank Turek Book 

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org. 

 

/by

Recommended Books on Historical Apologetics for The Gospels & Acts

I am often asked which books I recommend for defending the reliability of the Gospels/Acts and Christianity in general, so here is my list. It is not exhaustive, but it will definitely give you a good start.

The categorized as “mandatory” are more basic, while some of those labeled as “recommended” or “supplementary” delve into more profound and scholarly content. Any item marked with a * can be accessed for free online as PDF files. A significant number of these works are downloadable from http://historicalapologetics.org, http://books.google.com, or http://archive.org.

Mandatory Reading:

Author Book Title
Bennett, Edmund * The Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint
Lewis, CS Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism (Essay in Christian Reflections)
McGrew, Lydia Testimonies to the Truth: Why You Can Trust the Gospels
Paley, William * A View of the Evidences for Christianity
Pitre, Brant The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ
Williams, Peter J. Can We Trust the Gospels?

Recommended Reading:

Author Book Title
Bauckham, Richard Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd edition
Blomberg, Craig The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel
Blomberg, Craig The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
Boyd, Greg & Eddy, Paul Rhodes The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition
Hill, Charles E. Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy
Kennedy, Titus Excavating the Evidence for Jesus: The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels
Kruger, Michael J. & Kostenberger, Andreas The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity 
McGrew, Lydia Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels & Acts
McGrew, Lydia The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage
McGrew, Lydia The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices
Paley, William * Horae Paulinae, or the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul
White, Jefferson Evidence and Paul’s Journeys: An Historical Investigation into the Travels of the Apostle Paul

Supplemental Reading:

Author Book Title
Bernier, Jonathan Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition
Ramsay, William * St. Paul the Ancient Traveler and Roman Citizen
Smith, James *The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul

Reference Reading:

Author Book Title
Carson, DA and Moo, Douglas An Introduction to the New Testament 
Hemer, Colin The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
Lardner, Nathaniel * The Credibility of the Gospel History, 17 volumes
Norton, Andrews * Internal Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels
Norton, Andrews * The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

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

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Erik Manning is the creative force behind the YouTube channel Testify, which is an educational channel built to help inspire people’s confidence in the text of the New Testament and the truth of the Christian faith. 

Originally published at: https://bit.ly/4dG4gyQ

 

/by

Evidence for the Book of Esther

,

My family recently took the opportunity to attend a live theater production of The Book of Esther in Branson, Missouri. The Sight and Sound Theater production was riveting, and I was not prepared for how wonderful the set, the performers, and even the livestock (yes, livestock) brought the story of Esther to life.

One of the other reasons I loved the show was that I happened to have recently read a wonderful historical summary of the evidence that exists to give good reasons to believe this is more than a fairy tale. In his book, The Authenticity of the Book of Esther, the late British historian Dr. Bill Cooper brings out the evidence, including extra-Biblical writings, archaeology, and even Nazi executions that bring the story to life in a different but very compelling way.[i]

The Book of Esther

As you may recall, the story is set in Persia and features the exiled Israelites Mordecai and his niece, Esther, as the primary characters. The Persian King Ahasuerus (likely Xerxes I, son of Darius) has his queen killed for disobeying him and seeks a new bride. He eventually finds his new queen in Esther and marries her. Mordecai defeats a plot to murder the king. However, the king’s second in command and villain of the story, Haman, seeks to destroy all the Israelites in the nation. He tricks the king into signing a mass death warrant for the exiled people of God in the land. Through the fasting and prayers of her people, Esther convinces the king not only to hang Hamon on the gallows he created for Mordecai but also to allow the Israelites to defend themselves in what was supposed to be a slaughter. Mordecai was elevated to Hamon’s status, and the Israelites have celebrated the Feast of Purim in remembrance of these events for hundreds of years. But did it happen, or is this historical fiction, as some scholars claim?

Mordecai

One would assume that an individual who attained such a high rank as Mordecai (second in rank to the king, no less) would show up somewhere in archaeology or other ancient writings. As it turns out, the writings of Greek historian Ctasias,[ii] two Persian archival writings, and clay tablets from Babylon all mention an individual whose name is understood to be Mordecai in translation. Ctasias indicated in his writings that he obtained the records that included the transliteration of Mordecai’s name from the royal Persian parchments. The writings Ctasias cited in about 400 B.C. are even cited in the Book of Esther, 10:2 by name in verse where the author indicates that all the exploits of Mordecai were written in the “Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia.”[iii]

 The problem with Ctasias’s writing is that it is fragmented with age and incomplete. The Chronicles themselves have been lost to time altogether. Luckily, Persia also utilized clay tablets to document much of the governmental affairs. In 1933, archaeologists studying the ruined palaces of Kings Darius, Xerxes, and other Persian kings located tens of thousands of clay tablets from the time Esther would have occurred. Most of the tablets remain untranslated, but several mention a Marduku who is listed as a financial administrator of the government. In the Persepolis Treasury Archive, this Marduku is listed 13 times on a variety of financial transactions with his status being of more import in the latter mentions than in the first.

Palace Attendants

In Esther 1:10, seven eunuchs who served the king are mentioned by name. One of those men is Carkas. Carkas’s name also appears in the archives of the Persepolis Treasury Tablets. This would be interesting enough, but also mentioned in the tablets are Mehuman, Bigthan, and Hatach, which are also listed by the author of Esther.

Seven Princes of Persia

Also listed in the treasury tablets that have been translated (so far) are a number of the “wise men who knew the times” listed in Esther 1:13-14. The names of these “seven princes of Persia” located so far on tablets include Carshena, Shethar, Meres, and Memucan. These were four of the seven men who, according to the author of Esther, “saw the king’s face and sat first in the kingdom.”

Haman’s Father and Sons

While Haman’s name has not yet been located in the records translated to date, it is notable that both his father’s name, as well as the names of his two sons are listed. The name provided by the author of Esther in chapter three for Haman’s father is Hammedatha. That name is listed in the tablets as performing royal duties. His sons’ names, Aridatha and Aridai (Esther 9:8-9.9) were also found in the treasury tablets in what is seen as descriptions of serving in an official government role.

The Palace of Susa

The Palace of Susa is the location of the story of Esther. It was destroyed by fire in 435 B.C. Archaeologists, however, have examined the ruins and located an inscription from King Darius (Xerxes’ father) that describes the construction of the palace. The description of materials includes the use of lapis luzi (precious blue stone), turquoise, and carnelian (precious red stone), as well as marble columns. In the King James Version of Esther 1:6, the author describes the palace; “Where were white, green, and blue, hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble.”[iv] While the tablets call the pillars rock, archaeologists studying the palace have identified the pillars as being made of marble.

The specific names of individuals serving the king and the extremely accurate description of the palace are remarkable evidence that the writer described true events. The Palace of Susa was destroyed within a generation of the events that are recorded in Esther. This would reasonably lead one to conclude that the information in Esther was written down very near the events themselves and by someone who truly had intimate knowledge of the palace and officials of the king.

Dr. Cooper’s book goes on to describe in much more detail how the Book of Esther can be trusted as historically accurate. It also summarizes some of the grammatical and numerical mysteries that surround the book and connects it with the Nazi trials at Nuremberg. I encourage you to more deeply explore this amazing story of God’s providence.

References:

[i] William R. Cooper, The Authenticity of the Book of Esther [Kindle ed.] (self-published), 2013.

[ii] Also known as Ctesius, Persicus, or Cnidus

[iii] English Standard Bible (2001), Retrieved from BibleGateway

[iv] King James Bible (1611), retrieved from BibleGateway

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

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

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

Tony Williams is currently serving in his 20th year as a police officer in a city in Southern Illinois. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3vYlMgy

/by