The Miracles in Acts, and Their Evidential Value Part 2

,

[Editor’s Note: In part 1 of this series, Jonathan McLatchie introduced the book of Acts for it’s miracle accounts and the evidential value they carry. He argues that at least some of these miracles cannot be rationally dismissed out of hand but rather carry demonstrable evidential value for understanding the events of biblical history. McLatchie began by focusing on the miracles of the Apostle Paul. In Part 2, we pick up with more Pauline miracles.]

Striking Elymas Blind:

Acts 13:4-12 recounts Paul’s and Barnabas’ encounter with a magician by the name of Bar-Jesus, also called Elymas, on the island of Cyprus. Luke indicates that “he was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God,” (v. 7). Elymas, however, “opposed them, seeking to turn to the proconsul away from the faith,” (v. 7). In response,

“[Paul] looked intently at him 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? 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,” (v. 10-11).

So convincing is this miracle that it results in the conversion of the Proconsul, Sergius Paulus (v. 12). If indeed this episode represents the testimony of Paul, it is an episode about which it would have been difficult for Paul to be sincerely mistaken.

One specific detail that Luke gets right is that Cyprus was under the governorship of a Pronconsul. At the time of Paul’s journey (47-48 C.E.), there were about 12-15 senatorial provinces (which were under the governorship of a Proconsul), compared to a larger number of imperial provinces (which were under the governorship of legates, who were directly under the emperor’s control). Senatorial provinces were considered to be more peaceful and civilized, and therefore did not require troops to maintain the peace. Imperial provinces, on the other hand (such as Judea) had a standing military presence. Cyprus became a senatorial province in 22 B.C.E., meaning it was governed by a Proconsul instead of a legate or prefect (Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae 54.4).[1] If Luke was simply making up details with no connection to actual events, it would have been easy for him to mistakenly call the governor a legate or to use some generic title. In fact, the evidence suggests that, by the time of the Flavian dynasty (commencing in 69 C.E. with the emperor Vespasian), Cyprus was transferred back to imperial control and under the authority of legates. If Acts were composed after 70 C.E., as many scholars maintain, it would have been even easier for Luke to err at this point. In an age before the internet and ease of access to information, small points of specialized local knowledge, such as this, evince the credibility of the account in Acts, since it would be significantly easier to get those details wrong than it would be to get them right. Details such as this would not be in the stock of common knowledge across the empire (see my essay here for a discussion of the significance of this type of evidence).

Another remarkable confirmation of the account in Acts is the identification of the Proconsul as Sergius Paulus. A Greek inscription of Soloi, on the northeast coast of Cyprus, is dated “in the Proconsulship of Paulus.” This inscription is shown in the photograph below:

 Though we cannot say for certain, it is quite plausible that this is the same individual spoken of in Acts. Though the precise date of the inscription is uncertain, it likely belongs to the first century C.E. This individual is said to have served as Proconsul during the tenth year of an emperor, though the name is missing from the inscription. Ben Witherington notes, “If the emperor in question was Claudius, the inscription would date to about A.D. 50, but the very date line seems to be a later addition. It thus remains possible that this refers to the same Sergius Paulus as mentioned in Acts, but it is also possible on epigraphical grounds that the inscription comes from as late as the time of Hadrian in the second century.”[2] Nonetheless, regardless of whether this is the same individual or not, the inscription demonstrates a connection of the family to the island of Cyprus, consistent with the account in Acts.

There is another interesting inscription that was identified in Pisidian Antioch, shown below.

This inscription bears the name of “L. Sergius Paullus the younger, son of L.” (note that Paullus is the Latin spelling, whereas Paulus is the Greek spelling). It is probable that “L” stands for Lucius, given the limited number of commonly used first names among Roman men. The inscription reads, “To L(ucius) Sergius Paullus, the younger, son of L(ucius), one of the four commissioners in charge of the Roman streets, tribune of the soldiers of the sixth legion styled Ferrata, quaestor…” It has even been suggested that this could be the son, or another relative, of the Proconsul mentioned in Acts. Given the connection of this individual to Pisidian Antioch, is it a coincidence that Paul and Barnabas travelled to Pisidian Antioch immediately following these events, after Sergius Paulus’ conversion to Christianity? Pisidian Antioch was not the nearest or most obvious stop after Cyprus. It is plausible that Sergius Paulus convinced Paul to travel to Pisidian Antioch with a desire for his relatives there to hear the gospel.

These connections to the archaeological evidence strongly suggest that the account in Acts 13:4-12, in which Paul causes Bar-Jesus (Elymas) to go blind in response to his opposition to the gospel, represents the testimony of Paul himself.

Healing the Cripple at Lystra:

In Acts 14:8-10, we read,

“Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, ‘Stand upright on your feet.’ And he sprang up and began walking.”

In this account, Paul miraculously heals a man in Lystra who had been crippled since birth, a feat which greatly impresses the crowds. Verse 11 indicates that, “when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, ‘The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!’” Luke indicates that this was said in the Lycaonian language. The use of a native language, rather than Greek, was quite uncommon. Colin Hemer notes that “The use of a native language is unusual in the cosmopolitan, Hellenized society in which Paul moved. Lystra, however, as a Roman colony in a less developed part of Anatolia, preserved a language otherwise attested in a gloss in Stephanus of Byzantium.”[3] While Greek was widely spoken in urban centers and among the elite, rural populations (particularly in more isolated areas) retained their native tongue. This is, therefore, a specific (and unusual) local detail about Lycaonia that Luke gets right.

According to verse 12, “Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.” A number of inscriptions have been identified that confirm that Zeus-Hermes was the local cult in Lystra. The first century Roman poet Ovid writes, in his poem Metamorphoses, about Zeus and Hermes visiting a town in Phrygia, disguised as mortals seeking hospitality.[4] Only an elderly couple, Baucis and Philemon, welcome them, and as a reward for their kindness, the gods transform their humble home into a temple and grant them their wish to die together. Phrygia and Lycaonia were both located in central Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and the story of Baucis and Philemon is generally thought to be set close to the border with Lycaonia. This is, therefore, another specific local detail that Acts gets right. The fact that Barnabas is identified as Zeus (the greater of the two gods), whereas Paul is identified as Hermes also reflects the ancient belief that, when two deities visited earth, the lesser god did the speaking.

These specific details relating to Lystra, related accurately by Acts, suggests that the account of the healing of the crippled man reliably represents Paul’s testimony.

Paul’s Prison Break in Philippi:

In Acts 16, Paul and Silas, while in Philippi, cast out a spirit of divination from a slave girl. This leads to them being dragged into the marketplace before the rulers by the slave girl’s owners, and ultimately lands them in prison for causing a disturbance, their feet being fastened in stocks. At midnight, as they are praying and singing in the prison, there is a great earthquake, which shakes the foundations of the prison. The text tells us that “immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s bonds were unfastened,” (v. 26). The jailer is about to take his own life, but Paul cries out, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here,” (v. 28). This ultimately leads to the conversion and baptism of the jailer and his household. In verses 35-40, we read,

“But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police, saying, ‘Let those men go.’ 36 And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, ‘The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace.’ 37 But Paul said to them, ‘They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.’ 38 The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. 39 So they came and apologized to them. And they took them out and asked them to leave the city. 40 So they went out of the prison and visited Lydia. And when they had seen the brothers, they encouraged them and departed.”

Paul briefly alludes to this episode in a letter to the Thessalonians: “But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict,” (1 Thess 2:2, emphasis added). This raises the question as to how the Thessalonians knew about Paul’s shameful treatment in Philippi. Turning to Acts 17:1, we read, immediately following Paul’s experience in Philippi, “when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica.” The route taken by Paul was, in fact, a major Roman highway, the Via Egnatia. Amphipolis and Apollonia were overnight stops along that route. Paul’s route from Philippi to Thessalonica is depicted in the map below.

One can imagine, then, Paul arriving in Thessalonica having just come from Philippi, still full of indignation about the unjust and illegal treatment he had received there, and recounting to the new converts in Thessalonica what had happened. This dovetails with Paul’s allusion in 1 Thessalonians 2:2 to how he had “been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know…”

The evidential force of this coincidence is enhanced by the fact that Acts does not appear to be utilizing 1 Thessalonians as a source — that is to say, these two writings are independent of one another. In support of this, it may be observed that 1 Thessalonians 1:9 emphasizes the conversion of pagans in Thessalonica: “. . . you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God . . . ” The book of Acts, on the other hand, emphasizes the conversion of Jews and god-fearing gentiles (Acts 17:4). These are, of course, not mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, if the author of Acts were using 1 Thessalonians as a source, one would expect him to lay more emphasis on the conversion of pagans.

This undesigned coincidence provides evidence for the contention that the account of Paul’s prison break in Philippi, resulting from the earthquake, in fact represents Paul’s own testimony. The account is also linked to Paul having cast out a spirit of divination from the slave girl, which was the incident that led to his imprisonment along with Silas in Philippi.

The Raising of Eutychus:

Acts 20:7-12 recounts the raising of Eutychus, a young man who fell asleep during Paul’s sermon, and fell to his death from a third-story window. According to verse 9-10, “being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, ‘Do not be alarmed for his life is in him.’” The word νεκρός, used in this text, refers to a literal death rather than merely a lack of consciousness. Though some have disputed that Luke intended to convey that Paul raised Eutychus from the dead, and have asserted instead that Paul simply recognized vital signs in Eutychus, this is not the plainest reading. Ben Witherington observes,

“Though there has been considerable debate, v. 9b does say he was picked up dead; the text does not say it appeared as if he was dead (contrast 14:19). In short, in what follows we have a miracle tale about the raising of the dead, following the usual form of such a tale with the confirmation of the cure and the reaction of the observers at the very end of the narrative.”[5]

Moreover, as a medical physician (Colossians 4:14), Luke would likely have been able to distinguish between someone who was dead and someone who was merely unconscious or in a coma. If Eutychus had been merely injured or in a deep faint, Luke probably would have noted that rather than describing him as “dead.”

Unlike the previously discussed miracles, Luke claims to have been witness to this miracle himself (verse 7). That Luke was indeed Paul’s travelling companion is borne out by numerous lines of evidence, both internal and external, which I will not unpack in detail here. Luke’s demonstrated track-record of historical scrupulousness also indicates that he was in the habit of being truthful. Moreover, Luke, in travelling with Paul amidst the persecutions that Paul experienced — including being present with Paul in Caesarea Maritima, where Paul was imprisoned for two years (Acts 24:27) and then again as Paul set sail for Rome to stand trial before Caesar (Acts 27-28) — put his neck on the line for the gospel. Paul indicates that Luke was present with him during his first imprisonment (Col 4:14; Philem 24) and again during his second imprisonment in Rome (2 Tim 4:11). This, again, evinces Luke’s sincerity.

The Miracles of Peter

Luke indicates that he was present with Paul in Jerusalem when Paul visited the elders of the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:17-18). Luke mentions James, Jesus’s brother, by name, and indicates that “all the elders were present,” (v. 18). According to Galatians 2:9, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem included James, as well as Simon Peter, and John the son of Zebedee. Luke was also present with Paul when Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea Maritima for at least two years (Acts 24:27), in relative geographical proximity to Jerusalem (a two or three day journey on foot). Luke would have presumably had ample access during this time to the apostles. He was, therefore, in a position to know what the apostles were claiming. Luke, moreover, indicates in his address to Theophilus, in the prologue to his gospel, that he was interested in the testimony of “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” The numerous points of specific confirmation of the gospel of Luke also indicate that Luke extracted reliable information from the apostles concerning Jesus’s ministry. Taken together, these considerations support that Luke had access to, and reliably represented, the apostles’ claims.

Peter in particular is reported to have performed various miracles that one could not readily be sincerely mistaken about (see those miracles performed, or experienced, by Peter in the list supplied at the beginning of this article). In addition to healing individuals who were lame (Acts 3:2-10) or paralyzed (Acts 9:33-34), he is alleged to have raised Dorcas from the dead, an incident which became known throughout all Joppa and resulted in many conversions (Acts 9:36-42). Peter also struck Ananias and Saphira dead at a word, as God’s judgment for having lied about the price obtained for their land, an incident that caused great fear to come upon the whole church (Acts 5:1-11). Furthermore, Peter experiences a miraculous prison break, where he is led out of the jail by an angel (Acts 12:6-11). There is also another incident where the apostles as a group are liberated from prison by an angel (Acts 5:18-20). The other apostles are also said to have performed many signs and wonders, healings and exorcisms, though no details are supplied (Acts 5:12-16).

The Miracles of Philip the Deacon

Luke indicates that he lodged at the house of Philip the deacon: “On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him” (Acts 21:8). Thus, Luke was in a position to know what Philip himself claimed concerning his activities and alleged miracles. According to Acts 8:6-8,

“[T]he crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. So there was much joy in that city.”

Moreover, Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian Eunuch, in Acts 8:26-38, though not a miracle per se, is nonetheless an occasion of special providence, since the Ethiopian coincidentally happens to be reading Isaiah 53, a major text in the Hebrew Bible concerning the Messiah, which Philip is consequently able to explain to him (see my detailed essay on Isaiah 53 here). In Acts 8:39-40, we read of another miraculous event following the Ethiopian’s baptism: “And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.” The sudden transportation of Philip to Azotus, about twenty miles north of Gaza, is surely an event about which one could hardly be sincerely mistaken.

The Evidential Value of the Miracles in Acts

I have argued in the foregoing that the accounts in Acts concerning the miracles performed, and experienced, by Paul, Peter and Philip actually represent the testimony of those individuals. Given the nature of those alleged miracles, it is quite implausible that they could be sincerely mistaken. I have argued at length elsewhere that the context of persecution evinces the sincerity of Paul and the other apostles (see my article on this here). The miracles recorded in Acts, therefore, provide further support for the truth of Christianity.

References: 

[1] Strabo, The Geography of Strabo. Literally Translated, with Notes, in Three Volumes., ed. H. C. Hamilton (Medford, MA: George Bell & Sons, 1903), 71–72.

[2] Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 399–400.

[3] . Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 110.

[4] P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses, ed. Arthur Golding (Medford, MA: W. Seres, 1567).

[5] Witherington 1998, Acts 20:9-10.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

 

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/3G2VNtu

/by

The Miracles in Acts, and Their Evidential Value

,

The book of Acts recounts various miracles performed by Paul and the other apostles, as well as the deacons Stephen and Philip. If it can be shown that these miracle reports substantially represent the testimony of these individuals, then this is an important aspect of the testimony that must be accounted for. For reasons I have discussed at length previously, there is strong reason to believe that the apostles sincerely believed what they claimed. As William Paley puts it,

“there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.”[i]

Since these purported miracles are often not of a type about which one can plausibly be sincerely mistaken, a demonstration that these claimed miracles represent the testimony of those who allegedly performed or witnessed them is of significant evidential force in confirming the truth of Christianity.

The Miracles of Acts

What are the miracles of the apostles and deacons that are alleged by the book of Acts? Below is a comprehensive list:

  • The apostles perform “many wonders and signs” at Pentecost (Acts 2:43).
  • Peter heals a man lame from birth (Acts 3:2-10) — the Jewish authorities recognized that “a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16).
  • Peter strikes Ananias and Sapphira dead on command — as God’s judgment for lying about the price obtained for their land (Acts 5:1-11).
  • The apostles perform various healings and exorcisms (Acts 5:12-16).
  • The apostles are broken out of prison by an angel (Acts 5:18-19).
  • Signs and wonders were performed by Stephen, one of the appointed deacons (Acts 6:8).
  • Various signs, healings and exorcisms were performed by Philip, one of the appointed deacons, in Samaria — including healings of the paralyzed or lame (Acts 8:6-7).
  • Philip is snatched by the Holy Spirit from the road to Gaza and placed in Azotus (Acts 8:39).
  • Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus (discussed in detail here), blindness, and healing after three days at the hands of Ananias — after Ananias has received a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias (Acts 9:1-18; 22:6-13; 26:12-18).
  • Peter heals Aeneas, a paralytic for eight years, in Lydda, leading to the conversion of the residents of Lydda and Sharon (Acts 9:33-35).
  • Peter raises Tabitha/Dorcas from the dead, leading to many conversions (Acts 9:36-42).
  • An angel breaks Peter out of prison (Acts 12:6-11).
  • Paul strikes Bar-Jesus/Elymas (a Jewish false prophet who had opposed Paul and Barnabas and sought to turn the Proconsul, Sergius Paulus, away from the faith) blind on command, a feat so convincing that it results in the conversion of the Proconsul (Acts 13:9-12)
  • Paul and Barnabas perform miraculous signs in Phrygian Iconium (Acts 14:3)
  • Paul heals a man who has been lame from birth (Acts 14:8-10)
  • Paul and Barnabas speak at the Jerusalem council, about “what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles,” (Acts 15:12).
  • Paul exorcises a spirit of divination, meaning that a slave girl’s owners were no longer able to use her for fortune telling — leading to the imprisonment of Paul and Silas in Philippi (Acts 16:15-24).
  • Paul and Silas are freed from prison (where their feet had been fastened in stocks) by an earthquake (Acts 16:26).
  • God does “extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them,” (Acts 19:11-12).
  • Paul raises Eutychus from the dead, after he falls from a third-story window (Acts 20:9-10).
  • Paul survives being bitten by a viper (Acts 28:3-6).
  • Paul heals the father of Publius, who “lay sick with fever and dysentery,” as well as others, on the island of Malta (Acts 28:8-9).

These miracle reports are of varying evidential value. For example, no specific details are supplied regarding the miracles of Stephen. Moreover, there are, at least at the present time, no venomous snakes on the island of Malta, and it was a common ancient belief that all snakes were venomous — thus, I do not repose particularly much weight on Paul’s surviving a viper bite on Malta. Moreover, Paul’s healing of the father of Publius on Malta represents another case where one might postulate that those reporting the healing were sincerely mistaken. For example, It is possible that the father of Publius was already on the path to recovery when Paul prayed over him, leading to a mistaken belief that the healing was miraculous. Fever and dysentery can often resolve on their own. Nonetheless, the significant majority of the miracle reports listed above are extremely difficult to be sincerely mistaken about. I shall now turn to the task of arguing that these miracle reports, delivered to us by Acts, in fact represent the testimony of those who are alleged to have performed or witnessed these instances of special divine action.

The Miracles of Paul

Paul indicates in his letters that he performed miracles in attestation of his apostolic claims. For example, he wrote to the church in Corinth, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works,” (2 Cor 12:12). 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 his letter to the Romans:

“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,” (Rom 15:18-19; emphasis added).

Though Paul does not indicate what those signs purportedly involved, we read in Acts about the sort of miracles that Paul performed (see the list given above).

To what extent can we be confident that these miracle reports are representative of Paul’s own claims? Of course, there is the general case for the author of Acts being a travelling companion of Paul and someone who was in the habit of being scrupulous and one who received reliable information from Paul concerning his itinerary and activities (an argument which I and others have laid out extensively elsewhere). Luke appears to have been present with Paul, beginning in Acts 16:10, though the “we” passages trail off when Paul passes through Philippi (the last use of the “we” pronoun, ἡμῖν, being in Acts 16:16) and commence again when Paul passes back through Philippi some seven or eight years later (Acts 20:6), continuing through the remainder of the book. This suggests that the author remained behind at Philippi, and subsequently rejoined Paul later when Paul again passed through Philippi. Thus, we may infer that Luke’s primary source for the events for which he was not himself present was Paul himself. Moreover, I have argued previously, at some length, that there is more direct evidence that the report of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus (given in Acts 9, 22, and 26) represents Paul’s testimony, since various specific aspects of it are independently confirmed by Paul’s letters. This would presumably have included his three-day blindness and subsequent healing at the hands of Ananias, after Ananias and Paul both experienced a vision concerning each other (this event is mentioned in the account in Acts 9, as well as in Acts 22).

But what about other miracles are associated with Paul?

* Stay Tuned for Part 2 of “Miracles in Acts” by Jonathan McLatchie*

References: 

  1. William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
  2. Strabo, The Geography of Strabo. Literally Translated, with Notes, in Three Volumes., ed. H. C. Hamilton (Medford, MA: George Bell & Sons, 1903), 71–72.
  3. Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 399–400.
  4. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 110.
  5. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses, ed. Arthur Golding (Medford, MA: W. Seres, 1567).

[i] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), proposition 1 (preface).

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

 

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/443zf3W

/by

The Nature and Purpose of Miracles

When I was born the doctors said I was blind. In fact, I have a letter from the doctor saying that I was blind and that my grandmother (my grandparents reared me) simply would not accept that. She prayed and had her church pray. She had them anoint me with oil. One day I reached for a toy and my grandmother realized I could see. Today I have bad vision but I can see. Was this a miracle?

What Miracles Are       

Miracles are by definition a supernatural act of God where he intervenes in nature to alter an otherwise natural course of events. By ‘supernatural’ is meant an act that transcends or is not a part of nature. It is other than nature. The only being other than nature is God; hence, miracles are only done by God. While there are paranormal activities described in the Bible, such as demonic activity or magic (Pharaoh’s magicians or the false miracles of the end times for instance), they are not true miracles according to this definition. They would be considered at best paranormal.

Notice too that since miracles are supernatural actions by God then many events that are normally said to be miraculous are actually not. While many say that the event of a newborn is miraculous, it is completely natural. Coming close to hitting a car head-on but barely missing it is also not a miracle. Rare events are not miraculous simply by virtue of being rare. Unexplained events are not miraculous just because they are unexplained. To be able to say an event is a true miracle, there must be a causal connection back to God. The action also has to be a direct intervention in nature. Providence (God sovereignly guiding human affairs/events) is thus also not miraculous. Miracles occur when nature is interrupted in some way.

Characteristics of Miracles       

There are clear characteristics of true miracles. (For this discussion I am largely drawing on Norman Geisler’s “False Miracles,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.)[1]

  1. Miracles are a direct intervention in nature. Rather than simply being a weird or unusual event, a miracle would never occur without God stepping in and making it happen. In other words, nature would never give rise to a miracle since by definition miracles are supernatural.
  2. True miracles are immediate. Whereas natural events take a certain amount of time, miracles happen instantly. Medicine heals over time; miracles happen all at once. (Geisler explains that even when Jesus once healed a blind man in two steps, each step was instantaneous.)
  3. Miracles bring glory to God. They are not done merely for wowing people or being showy. They show the power of God and draw people to him. They are never people-centered. They are done to show God’s power and grace, which in turn brings honor and glory to him.
  4. Miracles don’t fail. They are always successful in what God sets out to accomplish. This does not mean people will not suffer physical ailments or death after experiencing a miracle; but it does mean that as opposed to medicine, miracles are always successful.
  5. Miracles are obviously miracles. Many times today people claim that a healing or event was a miracle. It is sometimes debated, even by people who may have witnessed the event or know about it. There is no debating a clear miracle. While the Pharisees thought Jesus was doing his works from an ungodly source, they recognized he was doing something real. There is no doubting a real miracle. I am not suggesting people will not doubt a miracle if they simply hear about it, but real miracles are obviously not wrought by medicine, nor are they merely unexplained events. They are clearly miraculous.

The Purpose of Miracles in the Bible    

In the Bible miracles authenticate a message/messenger of God. They are not performed in the Bible for entertainment. They are performed to prove something. For example, Peter exclaims, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know . . .” (Acts 2:22). Contrary to popular belief miracles did not happen frequently in biblical times. While the Bible spans about 1500 years from the writings of Moses to the close of the NT, most of the miracles center around Moses/Aaron, Elijah/Elisha, and Jesus/the Apostles. There are huge gaps of time between these people’s lives. (One person who did the math said that if we add all the miracles up and divide by the number of years the Bible spans, it is about one miracle every eight years.) The reason miracles occurred with these groups is because they all had a message for God’s people and to those around them: That Yahweh is the true God and Jesus is identical with him. Other miracles happened outside of these groups, but also for specific reasons, such as the conquest of the land or accomplishing certain goals for God’s people.

It should be clear that based on these characteristics, miracles are special events caused by God that have a specific purpose and are extremely rare. In biblical times they did not happen often. If they did, people would not be amazed at them. Further, if they happened all of the time today, people would not be amazed at them.

The Theistic Context of Miracles          

As Norman Geisler often says, there cannot be acts of God unless there is a God who can act. In order to truly say a miracle happened, we must know that a theistic God exists, that is, a God who is the creator and sustainer of this universe, who transcends it, and is not part of it. In the logical order then, it makes sense to prove that God exists before moving onto miracles. Even if a rare, unexplainable event happens, atheists can logically deny it was a miracle. If God has been demonstrated, however, that option (as C. S. Lewis maintained) is not available. Thus, while miracles may practically show God exists by making people see there is no other option for an event, it is logically better to argue for God’s existence first before moving onto miracles. This is why the 12 step method of Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is so strong. In following the method of classical apologetics, they first prove that God exists before going on to show that miracles happen.

References:

[1] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 471-474.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has 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.

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

/by

Philosophy Disguised as Science

,

One of the basic principles that atheistic scientists live by is that science is based on evidence and religion is based on faith. I scarcely have to provide examples of atheistic scientists telling us that for something to be scientific, it must be evidence-based, and it must rely on the time-honored methods of scientific inquiry. Nor do I need to provide examples of them telling us there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God or miracles, and that all religious doctrine is faith-based. Theism, we are told, is based on faith with no objective or valid (which, of course, means scientific) evidence to support it. Even a cursory reading of the publications of the [relevant] atheists will yield example after example of both of these claims.

 

Science, we are told, has found no evidence for the existence of God. The conclusion atheists have drawn from this is that science has discredited theism. If we theists would think scientifically, we would acquiesce to this line of thinking and abandon our belief in God. That we do not do so supposedly proves we aren’t committed to evidence-based ideology, but that we are instead committed to accepting vacuous assertions on blind faith.

I am, however, constrained to point out the following:

  1. There are numerous claims atheists make that are based on faith and faith alone.
  2. Many of the claims of the atheists are not scientific at all, but are purely philosophical, even though they are presented as profound scientific conclusions.

The Origin of Life

The first example of faith-based claims from the atheists is their belief in spontaneous abiogenesis. The truth is, we have no scientific evidence that spontaneous abiogenesis ever occurred.

Naturalist Karl Popper:

“What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function, unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But . . . the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.”[1]

John Horgan:

“[Stanley] Miller’s results seemed to provide stunning evidence that life could arise out of what the British chemist J.B.S. Haldane had called the ’primordial soup.’ Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded. It hasn’t worked out that way. In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else had envisioned. He recalled one prediction, made shortly after his experiment, that within 25 years scientists would ‘surely’ know how life began. ‘Well, 25 years have come and gone,’ Miller said drily.”[2]

The tragically credulous among us who have become convinced that Stanley Miller solved the puzzle of how life began on this planet do not understand the reality of the situation.

When I studied paleontology at the University of Colorado, my professor stood up in front of the class one morning and declared the following: “We scientists believe in spontaneous abiogenesis by a leap of faith.” It is a working hypothesis atheists must subscribe to, or their entire ideology concerning the origin and evolution of life on this planet comes crashing down. There is an elephant in the room during every debate concerning evolution vs creation and atheism vs theism: without spontaneous abiogenesis, evolution occurring on its own in the natural world is meaningless and not worth talking about. It is the basis on which the subsequent process of gradual evolutionary transmutation through natural selection rests. If spontaneous abiogenesis never occurred, it’s all over for evolution. Yet atheistic evolutionists accept this bedrock proposition by blind faith without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. That means their entire evolutionary framework is built on a bedrock of faith.

Atheists have made numerous attempts to cope with this inescapable reality. They tell us that spontaneous abiogenesis occurred through natural processes guided by natural law. We just don’t know what those natural processes and laws are yet. But someday scientists will discover what they are, because that’s what science does.

It doesn’t take long to realize that this is nothing more than another article of faith being used in a desperate attempt to rescue the first article of faith from public humiliation. The idea that “science” often discovers what we were previously unaware of does not mean it will eventually discover principles that will explain everything we don’t currently know. Further, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that science will someday discover these answers. This is a vast array of faith at work. It is faith in the gaps and nothing more.

Some atheists give us a principle they claim to follow and insists we must follow as well if we are to navigate the waters of reasons to invest in our beliefs about these matters, specifically about miracle claims: absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The idea is that there is supposedly no scientific evidence for the existence of God or miracles, therefore this should count as evidence that they don’t exist. If we accept that principle, the atheists should follow it as well, n’est-ce pas? So let’s apply it to both of the claims we examined above. There is no scientific evidence that spontaneous abiogenesis occurred. I’ve never heard an atheist scientist dispute this. If absence of evidence is evidence of absence, they should reject the entire idea of spontaneous abiogenesis on the grounds that there is no evidence that it ever occurred. But have they rejected it? Absolutely not.

What about the claim that science will eventually discover the natural laws that supposedly caused spontaneous abiogenesis to occur? There is no scientific evidence that science will ever uncover them either. If absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the atheists who believe this should reject it just like they should reject the idea that spontaneous abiogenesis ever occurred. Have they rejected this one? Not on your life. They still believe with steadfast optimism without a scrap of evidence that science will someday come through for them. I remind the reader that the mere fact that scientists have discovered the answers to numerous questions does not mean they will eventually discover all of them.

Beginning of the Universe

When theists broach the topic of the beginning of the universe, we point out with Leibniz that anything that has a beginning must have a cause. The universe has a beginning, and therefore has a cause. Since the universe is made up of space, time, matter, energy, and physical or natural laws, the cause of the beginning of the universe cannot be any of those things, and must therefore be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and beyond the scope of natural law, since none of those things, especially natural law, existed prior to the beginning of the universe. The cause of the beginning of the universe must therefore be supernatural. But atheists tell us there is another possibility: the multiverse. The multiverse (the existence of multiple universes) can allegedly explain the cause of the beginning of our universe, and the multiverse is considered eternal or infinite, with multiple universes all causing the “creation” of more universes in an endless cycle making up a kind of universe factory. (I’ll save the atheists who believe in this idea the embarrassment of asking them what the cause of the multiverse was. It can’t be infinite or eternal for the same reasons our universe can’t.) This is what Lawrence Krauss believes.

When we had a real-time discussion with him during a book club session in mid-2021, he told us our universe had a beginning: “The universe didn’t exist, and then it did exist.” He dismisses any discussion of God by telling us he is not necessary for the explanation of the beginning of “our” universe, since the other universes can fill in that blank without having to resort to supernatural explanations. When we asked him if he had any evidence for the existence of other universes, or that they could be the cause of ours, his answer was “not yet, but I’m working on it.” In other words, he refuses to believe in God based on rational evidence, and rather accepts the existence of the multiverse on the basis of raw faith, and is confident he will find evidence for it sooner or later—again, an unqualified expression of blind faith. I use the word “blind” here because he has no idea whether such evidence will actually materialize. He simply hopes it will . . . by faith.

It appears the principle of “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence” applies only to theism and miracles, and doesn’t apply to the ideology of the atheists who promote it. If it did, they would have to reject their own fundamental assumptions. But if they did that, their whole atheistic evolutionary framework would tank. Yet atheistic scientists continue to blast theists for our alleged faith-based beliefs. Breathtaking.

The irony is that faith plays no role in theistic or Christian epistemology whatsoever. In my debates with atheists, I would never offer any proposition and ask that it be accepted on blind faith with no empirical or analytic evidence to support it. We don’t say, “just have faith, my child,” or “we know God exists and he created the world because the Bible says so.”

Defining Faith

I don’t know how many atheists or even theists realize that there are always two definitions of faith involved in the dialogue. It is typical for this equivocation to undermine the clarity of these discussions, and to render them fruitless. The modern definition of faith is believing in something with no evidence to support it. The biblical definition of faith is altogether different: putting your trust and confidence in something that has proven itself to be trustworthy. We all have faith in airline pilots and mechanics because they have a track record of safety we can all live with. We don’t step on board that plane simply because someone told us to believe we will be safe when we have no reason to trust them. Biblical faith is not even remotely similar to modern faith. Modern faith is a putative basis for knowledge. Biblical faith is the basis for a relationship, not knowledge.

The modern concept of faith is substantially grounded in existentialism. Science and reason led to despair, so if anyone wanted to believe in anything having meaning, they had to make a blind leap of faith into the upper story where love and hope had meaning but were devoid of reason. Francis Schaeffer showed us that Christianity offers a unified field of knowledge that encompasses both the lower story of science and reason, and the upper story of love and hope. It is not necessary to abandon reason, or to abandon hope. Both are upheld in a comprehensive worldview that tells us what we need to know in all areas of knowledge, and forms a solid basis for scientific inquiry as well as philosophy. Schaeffer’s booklet No Final Conflict is quite helpful in understanding that authentic faith and reason are not at odds with each other, but actually reinforce each other in a way that brings a refreshing optimism to intellectual pursuits. Christianity has nothing to fear from science, and vice versa.

Alvin Plantinga further underscores this point:

If my thesis is right, therefore—if there is deep concord between science and Christian or theistic belief, but deep conflict between science and naturalism—then there is a science/religion (or science/quasi-religion) conflict, all right, but it isn’t between science and theistic religion: it’s between science and naturalism. [3]

Even though serious theism and Christian ideology is evidence-based, unfortunately there are still many Christians who exercise blind faith that looks more like existentialism. And there are many atheistic scientists who rely on pure faith for some theories, but routinely rely on evidence for many of their scientific conclusions. So instead of saying science is purely evidence-based and religion is purely faith-based, the point needs to be revised to say the following: scientists embrace ideas that can be both evidence-based and faith-based, and the same can be said of pedestrian theism. Scholarly theism, however, does not rely on blind faith. But atheistic science relies on a foundation of faith, even though much of its study is also evidence-based. Embracing this more realistic assessment of the situation takes the extremism out of it and allows for a more fruitful dialogue.

We also need to recognize that scientists, and those who are atheists in particular, often make observations that are purely philosophical rather than scientific. The fundamental thesis that science is exclusively evidence-based is one of them. That is not a scientific statement, it’s a philosophical statement about science. It’s a second-order proposition rather than a first-order conclusion about their primary subject of study derived from scientific means and methods. There are more examples:

  • Science has disproved God.
  • The idea that the universe can come from and by nothing is a valid scientific idea.
  • If the non-material world existed, there would be scientific evidence for it.
  • Scientists are the new torch-bearers in the pursuit of knowledge.
  • Empirical science is the proper discipline to address questions of God’s existence.

There are numerous others. All of the above propositions are false. That atheistic scientists pretend they are speaking as scientists when they say these things should be strongly discouraged. Either that or they should make it clear to their readers and listeners that what they are saying is philosophical and not scientific. I have no objection to scientists speaking as philosophers. But I do object to doing so without admitting it, and worse, without realizing it.

Improbability: A Theistic Objection

There is a deeper issue here that we must address. The most common objection theists have against the occurrence of the evolutionary process in the absence of intelligence is that it is immensely improbable. This is a strong objection, to be sure. But it’s not the strongest. What do I mean?

If you demonstrate that something is possible, you haven’t demonstrated that it’s actual. But if you demonstrate that something is actual, you have automatically demonstrated that it’s possible. What atheists must show is not that evolution could have occurred. They must show that evolution did occur. Based on this principle, if you can show that evolution is possible, you haven’t provided a scrap of evidence that it happened. That’s a completely different matter. At the end of the day, who cares if evolution is possible? The only thing we should be interested in is whether or not it happened, not whether it could have.

So, there are two categories of evidence evolutionists are interested in: evidence that it might have occurred, and evidence that it did occur. The only evidence that matters is the evidence that it did occur. And the evidence we are given that it did occur is in the form of a series of predictions which evolutionary theory makes. That those predictions occur, however, is not evidence for evolution, unless they are unique to evolution, which they are not. Every prediction coming from evolutionary theory is also consistent with other theoretical models describing the origin of the life forms in question. Predictions that are shared by competing theories are of no value in deciding which theory is sound, and therefore must be discarded. Since these predictions are not evidence for evolution, but are all we are given, the uncomfortable truth is there is no empirical evidence for evolution.

This is why the problem of faith is so central to the discussion. Atheists not only have faith that macroevolution could have occurred, they have an even stronger faith that it actually did. The second case of blind faith is more problematic than the first. We hear from the four horsemen that evolution is a fact, not just a theory. In an article in the prestigious Scientific American, we are told the following: “In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution.”[4]

Richard Dawkins himself has this to say about the matter: “One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun.” [5]

Apparently if a scientist doesn’t think evolution is a proven “fact,” they are not a “real” scientist.

I have a lot more sympathy for someone who believes in a possibility by faith than I do for someone who believes in a concrete actual occurrence by faith. If faith is not a valid basis on which to form a scientific theory, letting it be the basis for a fact is more of a disaster than it being the basis for a mere possibility. [6]

Atheists Are Dependent on Evolution

We also must address the uncomfortable reality that atheists are desperately dependent on evolution and an old universe for their worldview to survive. Without evolution and an old universe, atheism dies a billion deaths. That atheists need evolution and the old universe to be scientific facts does not mean they are false. But we must not forget that they are both based on articles of faith for the atheistic scientist. This means that their need for these theories does in fact play a role in their ideology, whether it’s comfortable to admit that or not. For evolution to occur, there must be enormous periods of time to accommodate it. If that kind of time isn’t available, evolution is rubble. I always urge serious caution when one dogma is absolutely necessary to support another one. If there is no God, evolution is the only option, whether it’s true or not. Therefore, it has to survive all intellectual scrutiny whether there is evidence for it or not, and whether other theories do a better job of accounting for all the data or not. Another way to put this is that atheistic naturalism demands and requires these dual ideas: evolution and the old universe. If either one or both are discredited, the dual ideologies of atheism and naturalism are nonsense.

So, if you adopt the worldview of atheism, you automatically sign up for naturalism, and you have no choice but to sign up for both evolution and an old universe. The reality is, committed atheists would believe in evolution and the old universe whether there was scientific evidence for them or not. Their worldview demands it. Those who are trained in philosophy see this as a gigantic red flag. Suddenly, evidence has actually become superfluous and irrelevant. If an atheist who wants to hang on to his worldview will believe in these things even if there is no apparent evidence for them, he may as well not even concern himself with the evidence at all.

As usual, I am not the only one who has marshaled this observation. In his book Darwin on Trial, Philip Johnson relates a similar point:

“Darwinists who do not simply ignore the problem resort to bad philosophy to evade it. For example, Mark Ridley asserts that ‘All that is needed to prove [macro]evolution is observed microevolution added to the philosophical doctrine of uniformitarianism which (in the form that is needed here) underlies all science.’ But what sort of proof is this? If our philosophy demands that small changes add up to big ones, then the scientific evidence is irrelevant. ”[7]

When Johnson comments on Stephen Jay Gould’s theological musings, he describes the vacuity of such speculations:

“Gould here merely repeats Darwin’s explanation for the existence of natural groups—the theory for which we are seeking confirmation—and gives it a theological twist. A proper Creator should have designed each kind of organism from scratch to achieve maximum efficiency. This speculation is no substitute for scientific evidence establishing the reality of the common ancestors. It also does nothing to confirm the natural process by which the transformation from ancestral to descendent forms supposedly occurred.”[8]

This posture where philosophical commitments eclipse empiricism is as disturbing to the philosopher as it is embarrassing to the atheist, whose ideology is grounded more in the philosophy of evolution than the science of evolution. As uncomfortable as this is, it cannot be ignored by anyone involved. Not only is there no respectable evidence for evolution, the atheist scientist who believes in it would do so mainly on the basis of these philosophical presuppositions. Philosophy is primary; science is secondary, and only serves to induce the illusion of credibility. This is one of the main reasons atheistic evolutionists remain faithful to the Darwinian dogma even when empirical evidence and natural law fail to confirm it. That they are willing to wait indefinitely for new discoveries they hope will finally support what they have until now held by stubborn iron-clad faith tells us all we need to know about the status of evolutionary “science.” The evidence truly is lacking, and the situation has not improved since the time of Darwin. It has only become worse. [9]

Someone in the atheism school might object by saying it was the scientific evidence for evolution—among other things—that inspired him to abandon theism and not the other way around. But that ignores the fact we observed before: there is no scientific evidence that evolution actually occurred; it is an article of faith and not a conclusion derived from scientific evidence. The best that the evidence could ever do is show us that evolution could have occurred. Even that “evidence,” if it exists at all, is flimsy. If the alleged lack of evidence for the existence of God is what turned the former theist over, this is a faith-based maneuver as well: no amount of scientific evidence can show that God does not exist. So, all that the former theist who has abandoned theism for atheism has done is exchange one set of what he thought were faith-based beliefs for another set that actually is. He hasn’t traded in superstition for science. He’s done the opposite.

As for the old universe, it is necessary for atheism. But even though it’s necessary, it’s not sufficient, so it’s not relevant to the issue of abandoning any particular worldview. Theism is comfortable with an old universe or a young one. But a young one is fatal to atheism, which is one of the reasons why it is unthinkable for the atheist. This again renders the evidence superfluous. The real reason the committed atheist believes in an old universe is that he has no choice. If there is apparent evidence for it, it is secondary. If the evidence is valid, this is a matter of mere convenience, but it is not central to the discourse. What counts is the antecedent predisposition against the supernatural, and that’s a matter of philosophy, not science. Yet these philosophical considerations are nevertheless presented as hard science to audiences who are hardly capable of differentiating between the two. The atheists know full well that this works beautifully to their advantage.

Questioning Gould

When he visited Denver in the early 90s, I asked Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould the following question: “How do you respond to the observation that the only evidence for punctuated equilibrium is the lack of evidence for gradualism?” His response was quite revealing: “I would respond by saying that it’s the only alternative. Well, there is another alternative, but that one is unthinkable. Hell, let’s just say there is no other alternative and leave it at that.” The audience erupts with thunderous laughter and enthusiastic applause. They looked at me as though my knuckles were dragging on the floor. But they were missing the elephant in the room: Gould didn’t correct me by saying there is positive evidence for punctuationism. His answer assumed there wasn’t, and that I was correct in pointing that out.

This illustrates what Gould has actually stated in his book Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. Scientists are not completely objective in the sense that their worldview has a significant influence on their theories.

Consider the old universe ideology. That there is an enormous distance between celestial objects means it has to take untold millions of years for light to reach a potential observer far away from the source. This is considered scientific evidence for an old universe. But there are monstrous hidden assumptions beneath the surface here: that light has always traveled with the same velocity we observe today, and that the laws of physics (whether conventional or exotic) apply to the origin of the universe. In other words, there is an implicit adoption of uniformitarianism and naturalism involved. The idea that the origin of the universe could have been supernatural is verboten. That atheistic scientists rely on a naturalistic foundation scarcely needs to be questioned. But the old universe theory loses its footing if naturalism is abandoned. What we must understand here is that the ideology of an old universe is not ultimately grounded in science. Science may be involved, but it usually rests on naturalism, and naturalism is a philosophical disposition, not a scientific one. So, the old universe depends on philosophy at its core and not on science alone. The idea that there is scientific evidence for an old universe assumes the origin of the universe was naturalistic in nature and that naturalistic science has the last word on how it occurred. If naturalism is false, all bets are off. Strictly (and philosophically) speaking, natural law could not have caused the origin of the universe. As I state elsewhere, the origin of natural law cannot be natural law. This means the origin of the universe and natural law itself is by definition supernatural. If this is the case, we cannot necessarily trust our naturalistic assumptions in speculating on the age of the universe. Age is suddenly not even a coherent concept when it comes to measuring the nature and roots of the universe’s existence.

I want to avoid the confusion of thinking I’m talking about apparent age here. Even apparent age relies on some naturalistic assumptions, namely, that the speed of light is not subject to change as a result of the influence of supernatural forces. If naturalism is false, apparent age is extraneous. And the fact that the origin of natural law cannot be natural law proves that naturalism is false. What I am suggesting is not apparent age, but that the very concept of the “age” of the universe using conventional methods of measuring time may in fact be meaningless, especially as you approach the early stages of contingent existence. This does not mean the universe is ageless and had no beginning. But if God exists, and created the universe, we have no way of knowing when the supernatural forces ended and when the natural ones began, which means we may not be able to determine how long ago that beginning occurred. And there are no rules God would be obligated to obey in such a scenario—certainly none that we could invent.

That theism has nothing to fear from the outcome of the evolution debate or the old universe debate leaves the theist free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. It also leaves him free to follow evidence from a variety of intellectual disciplines without being confined to the physical sciences alone. This is made possible by the appropriate rejection of the self-contradictory sophistry of scientism. But the atheist has no such freedom if he is to remain an atheist. He is forced to accept evolution even if it’s false, and to reject some creation model even if it’s true. The same is true of the old universe.

Scientism

Once someone becomes an atheist, the most common sequel as far as I have seen is for him to adopt the ideology of scientism. Suddenly science becomes the only avenue through which to pursue truth. In fact, the adoption of scientism has sometimes even preceded the abandonment of theism and has led to it. It can occur in either order. But regardless, when you abandon theism, you seldom retain any confidence in theology or anything that would tend to support the possibility of miracles. So, the incipient atheist locks himself in a cage of truncated intellectual pursuits that render philosophy, certainly theology, and sometimes even history irrelevant. This dramatically decreases the chances the atheist will be swayed by the powerful philosophical arguments against atheism and thus bring him back from the abyss.

If there was a more serious consideration of the relevant and inescapable philosophical issues involved in this debate, more attention would be paid to the disparity between what we can observe in the present and what we can know of the past. The truth is, what has occurred in the past is more within the purview of history than science. I am not suggesting that science can’t address questions of what has occurred in the past. I’m saying only that theories about the remote past are a different kind of theory than theories about the present or the recent past. The former category has more to do with forensics than with experimentation or direct observation. Once you open the container marked forensics, you have broadened the scope of your investigation to include disciplines that are beyond conventional natural science.[10]

What is it that discourages this broader approach? The answer is simple: scientism. Another way of putting it is scientific arrogance, the kind that says science is the only source of truth, and that scientists are the torch-bearers of human knowledge—to the exclusion of historians, philosophers, and theologians. It used to be that the last two in the list enjoyed the respect of scientists. Historians still do to an extent, but even their discipline has been held in contempt in modern times for failing to be scientific enough.

An Engineering Problem for Atheism

To close, I want to briefly offer some insights on some scientific concepts for your consideration and to further illustrate the weight that philosophical considerations have on this discourse.

I would like to introduce an idea that we could properly call a cybernetic principle. The core ideas in this vein can be partly attributed to Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, author of The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. It goes something like this: the more intelligence and energy an engineer has at his disposal, the less time it will take for him to complete a complex mechanical project. The inverse is obvious: the less intelligence and available energy (or power) the engineer has at his disposal, the longer it will take him to complete a complex mechanical project. So, if the engineer wants to build a teleonomic (e.g. von Neumann) machine, intelligence—i.e., knowledge of the principles of engineering—and a substantial power source will be his best friends.

Now let’s perform a thought experiment. Suppose we reduce the intelligence factor to zero. That would increase the length of time to complete the engineering project to infinity. In other words, it would never be completed. This would also be true if we reduce the available energy or power source to zero as well. The lack of intelligence and/or available rectified energy means that no machinery will be constructed—ever. This is an exact representation of the universe in the absence of a powerful intelligent creator. This means that nothing like the complex machinery we observe in nature such as the DNA molecule will ever emerge. It should be noted that this is exactly where Dawkins and company begin: a universe completely devoid of intelligence. Do the math.

But what if we increase the intelligence and specific available rectified energy to infinity? We would have an unlimited reservoir of intelligence and an unlimited usable power supply. What happens to the time required to complete the teleonomic project now? It reduces to zero. In other words, the idea that a powerful intelligent infinite being can create complex teleonomic forms instantaneously is hardly unscientific nonsense or superstition.

This is a valid scientific principle and it is properly supervised by concepts in the philosophy of science. There is one thing and one thing alone that can render this ideology absurd: naturalism. That’s it, and that’s all. Notice that it is not rendered absurd by science, but by philosophy, and as we have seen, philosophy that is intrinsically faulty and incoherent. I would recommend pointing this out the next time someone tells you that creationism is nothing more than ignorant superstition.

The typical atheist scientists would object to the above by saying we are invoking metaphysics in the explanation of these origins. My reply would be, “you’re catching on.” And the truth is, whether they know it or not, and whether they will admit it or not, so are they.

References: 

[1] Karl Popper, “Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science,” Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, Francisco Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky, eds. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 270.

[2] John Horgan, Stanley Miller and the Quest to Understand Life’s Beginning, Scientific American, July 29, 2012.

[3] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Real Conflict Lies, preface, emphasis in the original.

[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist

[5] Richard Dawkins, The Illusion of Design, Natural History 114 (9), 35–37, emphasis mine.

[6] There are some scientists who reject this distinction between a fact and a theory. They will insist that a theory can be said to be as strong as a fact if there is enough support and consensus in favor of it. This is why we often hear an objection when someone points out that evolution is only a theory, and therefore does not need to be taken as seriously as it would if it was a more substantially grounded and reliable fact, and it therefore should not be the only explanation of origins taught in schools. The debate rages on. However, at the end of the day, we must be certain we recognize that the distinction between fact and theory is a philosophical debate, and not a scientific one. So the attitudes some scientists have concerning this issue are interesting, but they should be encouraged to make it clear that when they comment on this issue, they are speaking as philosophers, and therefore their credentials as scientists do not necessarily carry a great deal of weight on this question.

[7] Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 92, emphasis mine.

[8] Ibid., 94, emphasis mine.

[9] See Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Michael Denton, Evolution: Still A Theory In Crisis (2016), and Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves (2019).

[10] [Editor’s Note: The author seems to be distinguishing experimental science from historical science. This division separates fields like biology, chemistry, and physics, on one hand from all forms of historical study such as archaeology, history [proper], anthropology, and forensics. Both experimental and historical science are conventionally recognized as facets of natural science [i.e., the study of what has/does/will happen in nature, given natural causes]. The experimental sciences, however, involved controlled experimentation, and can involve rigorous methods of testing including repeatability. Historical sciences are inherently limited this way, since no past event can ever be repeated, strictly speaking (January 17, 1919 only happened once in all of human history). In that way, experimental science tends to carry more clout in certain naturalistic and anti-theistic circles. Informally speaking, experimental sciences are sometimes called “science” whereas historical sciences are called “history.” That seems to be how Blair is using the terms here, even if, strictly speaking historical science is still a legitimate field of science.]

Recommended Resources: 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set) 

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

Why Science Needs 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)

 

Phil Bair studied philosophy, technology, earth sciences, and music theory at the University of Iowa, the University of Colorado, the National Institute of Technology, and Simpson College in Indianola Iowa. He has been dedicated to independent study and research for over thirty years in a variety of subject matter pertaining to the Christian world view. He has written several monographs on the relationship between theology and hope, being true to the Word of God, the creation/evolution controversy, and critiques of alternative spiritual doctrine and practices. He has written multiple books (all available on Amazon by searching “Phil Bair”. He has delivered lectures, seminars, and workshops to churches and educational institutions on apologetics, textual criticism, creation science, ethics, critical thinking, the philosophy of science, understanding new age thought, and the defense of Christian theism, as well as current religious, philosophical, cultural, and political trends, with an emphasis on formulating a meaningful and coherent Christian response in those areas. His roles include author, speaker, Bible study leader and video editor. He has served as philosophy consultant and speaker for Rivendell, a cultural apologetics organization founded in Denver, Colorado and headquartered in Santa Barbara, California.

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

/by

33 Defenses for the Resurrection of Jesus: Part 2

[Editor’s Note: In part 1 of this series on the Resurrection, Brian Chilton laws out five lines of evidence for the resurrection in the Acronym: RISEN – Records of Jesus’s resurrection, Irritating details about the resurrection that show its truthfulness, Sightings of the risen Jesus, Early testimony about the risen Jesus, and the Newfound faith of the disciples. He then presents and explains how ancient records and irritating historical details point to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Part 2 of this series, Chilton will explore how early testimony, resurrection sightings, and the newfound faith of key Christians point to that same resurrection event.]   

 

Sightings of the Risen Jesus

The biblical texts reports many witnesses who saw Jesus alive. The resurrection appearances of Jesus were a very public affair. This makes it even more difficult to dismiss.

(15) 500 Eyewitnesses of the Risen Jesus     

In the NT Creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9, 500 people were listed as eyewitnesses who saw the risen Jesus at the same time. Often, women were not included in public lists. If this continued with the early church, then only men were counted in this number. This would mean that possibly over 1,000 people saw the risen Jesus at the same moment in time.

(16) Women at the Tomb      

As previously noted, the female disciples of Jesus were the first to see him alive after he had risen from the dead. They are universally listed as the first eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus in all the Gospel narratives.

(17) Twelve Disciples 

After the betrayal of Judas and his suicide, the church replaced Judas with Matthias. Nonetheless, these disciples are either called the Twelve, or the Eleven in the resurrection reports due to their diminished number (Matt. 28:16; Lk. 24:9, 33). The grouping of the disciples into a singular number was done earlier in church history rather than later. Usages of “the Eleven” or “the Twelve” denote an earlier timeframe.

(18) Sighting Reported by James      

James the brother of Jesus is listed in the report of eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians 15. He was not a believer in Jesus prior to the resurrection. Yet he is later identified as a follower and the first pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

(19) Family of Jesus   

Mary and the family of Jesus are also listed among the list of those who witnessed the risen Jesus. The brothers and sisters of Jesus became believers after the resurrection, indicating that something big happened between the crucifixion and the advent of the church.

(20) Sighting Reported by Paul         

Paul was an enemy of the church and even persecuted early church members. However, Paul became a believer and an early apostle of the church after seeing the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Early Testimony

Skeptics often claim that the resurrection of Jesus was a later invention of the church. However, data strongly suggests that the message of the resurrection was proclaimed early in the life of the church. The report emerged at the creation of the church. The church flowed out from the belief that Jesus had literally risen from the dead.

(21) New Testament Creeds  

NT creeds are early confessions, statements of belief, hymns, and other formulations that flowed out of the early church and were recorded throughout the NT epistles. NT creeds are found in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, Philippians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and various other documents. Some are even found in the Gospels and the book of Revelation. Among these formulations, one of the most important and most agreed-upon creeds is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The 1 Corinthians 15 creed lays out the fundamentals of the resurrection while also speaking of those who had encountered the risen Jesus. The creeds are strewn about the NT and date to no more than 5 years after the resurrection, with the 1 Corinthians 15 creed dating to within months of the resurrection itself.

(22) Oral Traditions of the Gospels  

The early church was founded in what was a largely oral culture. While I do believe that Jewish men had a higher literacy rate than the common Greco-Roman world at that time, the cost to publish materials was quite expensive. Dr. Craig Keener suggests that the publication of the Gospel of Mark or the book of Romans could have equaled around $2,000 to $3,000 in modern currency—twenty denarii in ancient currency. [1] A project like that would require group funding. Nonetheless, most material was passed along orally.

Now before you object, know that it has been shown that cultures can pass along volumes of information from one generation to another without changing any major detail. The Talmud is an example of that process. Even still, oral traditions, like the NT creeds, have certain traits that can be detected. Through my research, I discovered that the Gospel of Matthew contains many of these traits, especially with the teachings of Jesus. While I have not researched the resurrection traditions—but plan to do so—I did find that the statements referencing the resurrection itself found a strong root in early oral traditions. Thus, the statements referencing the resurrection arose prior to the writing of the book. The Matthean Great Commission statement offered by the risen Jesus holds all the traits of an NT creed, thus indicating its early nature.

(23) Sermon Summaries in Acts        

Oral traditions are not only found within the Gospels, they are also found in the sermon summaries of Paul and Peter in the book of Acts. Among these summaries include Paul and Peter’s proclamation that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. The early nature of some of these proclamations places them in the 30s and 40s.

(24) Use of the Title “Lord” with Jesus         

NT scholar Richard Bauckham deduced that the “earliest Christology was the highest Christology.” By that, he meant that the early Christian movement held a high theological view of Jesus, equating him with the Father in some sense. This is evident with the thorough usage of the title “kurios,”—a Greek term meaning “Lord.” Gary Habermas has implied that this is one of the clearest examples that early Christians held Jesus to be in some part divine.

The title “Lord Jesus Christ” is often associated with the resurrection stories, including Thomas’s awe-struck response “My Lord and my God” when seeing the risen Jesus for himself. This title would not have been applied to one who was only crucified, seeing a person hung from a tree was believed to have been accursed. Something to the effect of a resurrection would have been necessary to show the divine nature of Jesus. In other words, a crucified man alone would never be elevated to the status of “Lord.”

(25) The Exclusive Use of “Son of Man” in the Gospels and Its Association with the Resurrection

Jesus almost exclusively uses the title “Son of man” about himself. The title is only used four times outside of the Gospels—once by Stephen the first martyr as he was being killed (Acts 7:56), a quotation of Ezekiel in Hebrews 2:6, and two references in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:13; 14:14), both connecting Jesus to the Son of Man character in Daniel 7:13–14. In the Gospels, however, Jesus uses the title for himself 14 times in Mark, 10 times in Q, 7 times exclusively in Matthew, 7 times exclusively in Luke, and 13 times in John. Altogether, Jesus uses the title 51 times. [2]

Contrary to popular belief, the title does not refer to the humanity of Jesus. Rather, it speaks of a divine being who takes on a humanlike form as he approaches the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13–14. Furthermore, the title is connected to the idea that Jesus would rise from the dead (Lk. 11:30) and ascend to the right hand of his Father (Mk. 14:62). The title is so strongly connected with the teachings of Jesus that NT scholar Joachim Jeremias commented, “…the apocalyptic Son of Man sayings which we have recognized as the earliest stratum must in essentials go back to Jesus himself.”[3]

(26) Early Stratum in the Resurrection Record          

While many aspects of the resurrection report in the four Gospels may seem a bit confusing, a good chronology of events can be placed together. Nonetheless, there is a common stratum within all reports of the resurrection events that glues them together. The similarities between the reports include the puzzling and mysterious nature of the events, the eyes of people are opened to the identity of Jesus, beams of heavenly light sometimes accompany the divine presence, along with the mysterious appearance and disappearance of Jesus at will. Jeremias calls this stratum a chiaroscuro—a contrast between light and dark.[4] Additionally, these reports include Aramaisms, such as Mary Magdalene calling Jesus “rabboni” (Jn. 20:16) and the potential inclusion of Jesus’s historical name (“Jesus of Nazareth”) (Mk. 16:6).

(27) Early Belief that the Tomb was Empty  

In his magnum opus, Gary Habermas notes that around 75% of scholars maintain the historicity of the empty tomb, still clearly accepted by a vast majority of critical scholars. [5] Even still, a good deal of evidence suggests that the church proclaimed an empty tomb very early in its history. The empty tomb appears in three of the four Gospels. [6] Additionally, the acknowledgment of the empty tomb appears in one of the sermon summaries in Acts, which could quite well be an NT creed.

Paul states, “When they had carried out all that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:29–30, CSB). The sermon summaries in Acts are extremely early. Even if the summaries date to the 40s, we have very early testimony of an empty tomb. NT scholar James D.G. Dunn attests, “The story of the empty tomb was probably being told in Jerusalem shortly after the event.” [7]

(28) Church of the Holy Sepulchre    

Speaking of the empty tomb, this brings us to defense #28. Protestants often claim that the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem was the likely place of Jesus’s burial. But this simply cannot be true. The tomb is too old to have belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. Furthermore, it holds no historical grounding, contains no features of a first-century tomb, and was likely created in the 7th century BC. Remember that the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea was newly cut (Lk. 23:53). Though the Garden Tomb does not match, the same cannot be said of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Due to repair work, the stone slab covering the tomb had to be removed temporarily. Underneath, researchers found remnants of an earlier tomb, labeled with a cross amid first-century limestone. The tomb was said to have been discovered by Helena, the mother of Constantine, once Christianity became a legal religion in Rome. Local Christians had been worshiping at the tomb for centuries as they acknowledged that the tomb belonged to Jesus. Earlier Roman authorities placed a statue of Venus to desecrate the site. However, this act did not deter the Christians from their worship activities. Later, the tomb was cut out and a cathedral was built around it. Archaeologist Ted Wright once said that he was 98% certain that the tomb was the authentic burial site of Jesus. [8]

Newfound Faith

The last letter of our acronym denotes the newfound faith of the early believers. Picture yourself as one of the early disciples. You invested yourself fully in the cause of Jesus. Despite your good intentions and wholehearted investment, your beloved leader dies on a Roman cross. Everything you worked for is now lost. Quite honestly, most of the disciples probably thought about going back to their chosen occupation before following Jesus. However, due to the resurrection, they embraced a newfound truth that they had not expected nor anticipated. Jesus defeated death and ushered in a new mode of existence. Light replaced dark, life overcame death, and the goodness of God triumphed over the powers of evil.

(29) The Transformation of Paul      

The transformation of Paul was quite baffling. Paul had been a persecutor of the church. Yet after seeing the risen Jesus, he not only accepted the tenets of Christianity, but he was one of the hardest-working Christian evangelists of all time.

(30) The Transformation of James   

None of the family members of Jesus, outside of Mary the mother of Jesus, believed him to be the Messiah prior to his resurrection (Jn. 7:5). However, oddly, Jesus’s siblings became believers after his resurrection. James became such a strong believer in Jesus that he became the first pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

(31) The Willingness of the Disciples to Die for What They Knew to Be True        

Even though some people will die for something they mistakenly believe to be true, no one will die for something they know to be a lie, especially if that condemnation includes an excruciating death. Yet the disciples of Jesus were willing to die for what they knew to be true. They never wavered, and they never changed their minds. They knew Jesus to be the risen Son of God.

(32) Change of the Day of Worship from Saturday to Sunday        

Perhaps one of the most astounding defenses for the resurrection was the early disciples’ decision to change their day of worship from the Sabbath day (Friday evening—Saturday) to early Sunday morning. They called this day the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10). The change in worship times was done to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. N. T. Wright maintains that 1 Corinthians 16:2 implies that the church began keeping Sunday as the Lord’s Day as early as the mid-50s if not earlier. [9] In the early church, leaders often waited until early Easter Sunday to baptize everyone who had come to faith the previous year. Easter Sunday became one of the most important days of the year for the early Christians because of the resurrection of Jesus.

(33) Jesus’s Fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies     

Last, but certainly not least, the early Christians professed that Jesus had fulfilled numerous messianic prophecies predicted about the Messiah. And they were absolutely on point! Space does not permit us to elucidate every prophecy at this time. But it can be said that Jesus fulfilled so many prophecies about the Messiah through his life, death, and resurrection that it is mathematically impossible to leave to chance. It is assuredly impossible for anyone by mere human means to fulfill the prophecies written about the Messiah, particularly concerning his resurrection.

Admittedly, this article turned out much longer than I anticipated. And in full disclosure, I took a shotgun approach to the defenses for the resurrection as I laid out multiple lines of defense.[10] Some are assuredly stronger than others. Nevertheless, given these 33 data points, a person can build a cumulative case for the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday.

There is much more that could be offered, such as the inability of alternative theories to explain all the details, further studies into oral traditions and their trustworthiness, enemy attestation, the chronology of Easter events, and other factors concerning Jesus’s post-Easter appearances. Suffice it to say, we have every reason to believe that Jesus is the risen Son of God. So, what will you do with the data that has been given? It’s one thing to accept that Jesus arose from the dead, but it is quite another to accept him as the Lord of your life. What will you do with the risen Jesus?

References: 

[1] Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 418.

[2] Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 259–260.

[3] Ibid., 266.

[4] Ibid., 303.

[5] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences, 141.

[6] Ibid., 47.

[7] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

[8] Look for Bellator Christi’s interview with Ted Wright on earlier episodes.

[9] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 297, 579, 594.

[10] [Editor’s note: Originally, this 2 part series was a single blog article at Bellator Christi – https://bellatorchristi.com/2024/03/29/33-defenses-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus/]

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)

 

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/3RFTCOC

/by

33 Defenses for the Resurrection of Jesus

,

I told someone recently that Easter (aka., “Resurrection Sunday”) is my favorite holiday. It holds a greater prominence for the child of God than even Christmas. Up until the commercialization of Christmas, Easter was the central holiday for the Christian. One of my good friends recently stated that her pastor called Easter the “Super Bowl for Christianity,” and for good reason. Easter celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Are there, however, good reasons for believing that Jesus of Nazareth literally arose from the dead on that first Resurrection Sunday? The historicity of the resurrection and the Gospels were a major sticking point for me in my time of doubt. If the resurrection was only wishful thinking, then believers have no genuine hope for their eternity. Yet if the resurrection is true and did occur, then the believer has a hope that nothing else could afford. But do we know that it did happen?

In my book The Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, I used an acronym to lay out the core fundamental evidence for the resurrection. However, my doctoral studies revealed even deeper reasons to accept the resurrection of Christ as a real event of history. Using the acronym RISEN as a launch pad, we will consider 33 defenses for the resurrection of Jesus. For those who are unfamiliar with Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, the RISEN acronym stands for the following:

Records of Jesus’s resurrection,

Irritating details about the resurrection that show its truthfulness,

Sightings of the risen Jesus,

Early testimony about the risen Jesus,

Newfound faith of the disciples.[1]

Records of Jesus’s Crucifixion and Resurrection

Jesus’s resurrection maintains a high level of credibility when considering the early records that speak of this event. For this section, five groups of independent sources will serve as the first five defenses for the resurrection.

(1) Five Independent Testimonies in the Gospels    

Now, you likely read the above statement and asked yourself, “Five independent sources in the Gospels? How can there be five independent sources when there are only four Gospels? Within the four Gospels, scholars recognize five independent sources behind the texts.

  1. Q, the initial for the German word quelle,meaning source, contains the independent sources shared by the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Scholars maintain that Q may be among the earliest source material in the Gospels.[2]
  2. The pre-Markan material makes up the second independent source, and it could very well date to the 30s.
  3. The source material marked “M” represents the material that is exclusive to Matthew’s Gospel.
  4. The “L” material is source material that is only found in the Gospel of Luke.
  5. The independent source material found in John’s Gospel.

The Markan material briefly describes the resurrection of Jesus. Q may not explicitly reference the resurrection, but it does contain material where Jesus alludes to, if not boldly predict his resurrection. Additionally, M, L, and John’s material all speak of the resurrection of Jesus, even noting the risen appearances of Jesus. Altogether, these five sources alone offer a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

(2) Independent Testimonies in the Epistles

Like the Gospels, we must consider the individual epistles as singular documents of history. Paul discusses the resurrection of Jesus thoroughly in 1 Corinthians 15. James the brother of Jesus does not specifically discuss the resurrection. He does, however, call Jesus by the title “Lord,” indicating that he identified him with divinity. Only the resurrection could have convinced James of this association. Peter wrote two epistles. In those documents, he refers to Christ as the cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6) and alludes to the resurrection with his teachings of God raising up those who had suffered. Likewise, John wrote three letters and identified Jesus with the Logos (wisdom) of God—a tremendously high theology that flowed from an understanding of the risen Jesus.

(3) Extra-biblical Christian Testimonies about the Resurrection     

Outside of the biblical texts, numerous Christian authors of the first and second-century, along with subsequent generations mentioned the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus This present exercise will not permit us to list all of them at this time. Some of the more prominent writers include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr.

(4) Extra-biblical Roman Testimonies about the Resurrection        

Early Roman historians make mention of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian’s belief that Jesus had appeared to them alive on the third day after Jesus’s crucifixion. These historians include Tacitus (AD 55–120), Josephus (c. AD 37–97), Suetonius (AD 69–122), Thallus (c. AD 52; who mentioned the darkness that surrounded the region and tried to rationalize it), Pliny the Younger (late first-century through early second-century). Pliny’s letters to both Emperor Trajan and Emperor Hadrian talk about how the Romans were to deal with the Christian movement, especially seeing that they refused to worship the gods of the Roman pantheon.

(5) Extra-biblical Jewish Testimonies about the Resurrection         

Additionally, it may surprise some to find that early Jewish rabbis included comments about Jesus in the Jewish Talmud, although their comments were not that flattering. Many referred to Jesus as a sorcerer (speaking to Jesus’s miracles), a deceiver (speaking of the resurrection), and a bastard (speaking to the Virgin Birth). Certainly, their portrayal of Jesus was not that kind.

Irritating Details

We now move on to the second letter of our RISEN acronym, which is the “I” that indicates irritating details of the resurrection that would be embarrassing for the early Christians to proclaim. For our present venture, these irritating details also speak to details surrounding the resurrection that skeptics may have a difficult time explaining.

(6) The Testimony of Women as the First Eyewitnesses      

Nearly every record of the resurrection begins with the testimony of women. Living in an egalitarian society as we do in the United States, many may look over this truth as inconsequential. However, that is far from the case. The testimony of women did not enjoy the same strength as a man’s in the first-century. Therefore, if a woman testified to seeing something as phenomenal as the resurrection, her report may not be taken seriously. Yet it was the faithful women of Jesus’s troupe that first saw Jesus risen from the dead and encounter the empty tomb. Even the disciples scoffed at this notion at first. The early church would simply not invent this detail if it were not true.

(7) Joseph of Arimathea Offering the Burial for Jesus         

Another embarrassing detail for the church was that they could not offer Jesus a proper burial. In fact, a member of the very Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, named Joseph of Arimathea, offered the family and friends of Jesus his newly cut tomb to inter the body of Jesus. According to the tradition of the day, families would leave a body wrapped in cloth for a year. After a year, the body decayed in the dry, arid climate of Israel. The family then took the cloth and poured the bones into a family burial box called an ossuary. The early church would not have shown and exposed Joseph of Arimathea as the caregiver of Jesus if it were not in fact true.

(8) The Testimony of the Resurrection Beginning in Jerusalem      

Skeptics like to infer that the resurrection is a later invention of the church. Yet another detail that is irritating for the skeptic is that the report of the resurrection flowed out of Jerusalem, Israel in AD 33. If a person did not believe the report of the empty tomb, all one had to do was to travel to the tomb and see for themselves. Jerusalem was ground zero for the resurrection event.

(9) The Fact That No One Expected a Resurrection Before the End of Time           

Another irritating detail for the skeptic is yet another detail that is often overlooked. Many skeptics posit that the early church presented Jesus as the risen Son of God to fulfill some preconceived expectation they had for the Messiah. However, data suggests that the early church would not have done such a thing because they never expected the Messiah to rise from the dead in the first place! The Pharisees’ and Essenes’ understanding of the resurrection was that the dead would rise at the end of time, not three days after the Messiah’s death. The messianic anticipation was that the Messiah would lead a revolt like Judas Maccabeus did to redeem the people from Roman rule and usher in the end of days. That did not happen. Their concept of resurrection did not match the resurrection of Jesus.

(10) The Understanding that a Man Hung on a Tree Was Accursed            .

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 states that anyone who is hung upon a tree is cursed. As such, Jewish believers would have scoffed at the idea that their hero would have been nailed to a tree. Seeing that they did not have an understanding of a resurrection in the here and now, the idea of a crucified Messiah makes no sense unless it was accompanied by a resurrection. Early followers of Jesus would have abandoned him as an accursed man unless they had reasons to believe that he had overcome death itself. The resurrection was the answer.

(11) The Crucifixion Nail       

Archaeologists discovered a portion of a heel bone that dated to a first-century crucified man named Yehohannon. Most interestingly, the heel bone contained a nail that was bent around a piece of olive wood. The nail is one of the first physical examples of the crucifixion. It also shows the brutality of the practice, which highly dismisses any idea that a person could have merely passed out on the cross and reawakened in a normal state after spending three days in a tomb. Additionally, another example of a crucified ankle was found a few years ago in northern Italy.

(12) The Nazareth Decree

Archaeologists also discovered another artifact of great interest to resurrection studies. It is a decree offered by the emperor. Scholars typically agree that it was decreed by Claudius between AD 41–54.[3] The decree states the following:

“It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs—whoever has made them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household members—that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person, I order that a judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under the title of tomb-breaker.”

The decree reveals that the news of Jesus’s resurrection likely reached the ears of the emperor at least by the 40s. The decree was posted in Nazareth, Jesus’s hometown. Coincidence? I think not.

(13) The Ossuary of James    

The thirteenth defense isn’t as strong as others on this list, but it is still worth mentioning. A few years ago, archaeologists discovered an ossuary (i.e., a burial box) that contained the remains of a man named “James son of Joseph brother of Yeshua.” This “James” is identified as the brother of Jesus. The ossuary dates to the first-century, leading many to deduce that the ossuary contained the bones of James the brother of Jesus. While the ossuary of James does not necessarily prove the resurrection, it does show that the burial practices presented in the Gospels match those of the times. If the burial box is legitimate and is connected to the holy family, then it does show that James’s identity was tied to being a brother of Jesus just as James was identified in the biblical narratives.

(14) The Shroud of Turin       

Space will not allow us to give all the reasons to believe that the Shroud of Turin is legitimate. However, we can say that new data more strongly than ever suggests that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. For those who are unaware of the cloth, the Shroud of Turin is a herringbone cloth that contains a faint, hair-length image of a crucified man that matches the same kind of crucifixion that Jesus experienced. Recent data suggests that a similar image can be made if a cloth is exposed to high doses of X-ray radiation. For the image on the cloth to be made, it would require that a high dose of light radiation luminated from the body and that the body dematerialized, leading to the cloth collapsing on itself. These details match what one would expect with a resurrection event.

Stay tuned for part 2 in this series!

References:

[1] Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 96–99.

[2] [Editor’s Note: While much of the scholarship community has moved away from “Q-theory”, it has had a lot of support over the last 150 years, with some supporters still today.]

[3] Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, 176.

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)   

 

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/3RFTCOC

/by

Do the Resurrection Narratives Contradict? A Reply to Dan McClellan

,

Dan McClellan is a Biblical scholar who has taken to creating YouTube content. He has a popular channel, with 127,000 subscribers at the time of this writing. He often produces short videos responding to conservative scholars and apologists. Unfortunately, McClellan often comes across as incredibly condescending towards conservative scholars, with a rhetorical tone that is, in my view, unbecoming of scholarly discourse. I know that other conservative scholars feel the same way. McClellan recently published a 17-minute video responding to a TikTok video by my colleague, Dr. Sean McDowell, on discrepancies in the resurrection narratives. In this article, I will address points raised in this video.

 

McDowell begins by observing, correctly, that “even if there were contradictions in the Bible, this wouldn’t prove that Christianity is false.” I agree with McDowell. I do not believe that the truth of Christianity hangs on inerrancy (see my essay on this subject here) and I am persuaded of the existence of a small number of minor good-faith mistakes in the gospels, none of which substantially undermine their overall trustworthiness.[1] More evidentially significant in undermining the reliability of the sources would be examples of the evangelists making assertions that are contrary to what they knew to be true (I do not believe the evangelists ever intentionally altered the facts).

McClellan responds to McDowell,

“[W]hile I’m sure that is the rhetorical goal of many challenges to the dogma of univocality, that’s certainly not the reason that I am challenging that dogma. But I will point out that, if you imagine that every challenge to the dogma of univocality is an attempt to disprove Christianity and you are an apologist for Christianity, that obviously means you’re going to be beginning from a position of dogma and you’re going to have a much harder time actually thinking critically about the data you’re engaging. And I think your use of the subjunctive mood in ‘if there were actually contradictions in the Bible’ is indicative of that dogmatic stance from which you’re engaging the question.”

McClellan appears to misunderstand the nature of our approach. The high reliability of the gospels and Acts is the conclusion of our argument, not the premise. We do not decide ahead of time that the evangelists did not make things up or intentionally alter the facts. Rather, this is the verdict we have arrived at after careful and extensive study of the data.

McDowell asserts that “If you want to prove Christianity is false, you’ve got to reproduce the body of Jesus.” I would not agree that this is the only way by which Christianity could be “proven false” (which I’m taking to mean “rendered improbable”). Generally, a complex proposition is not “disproven” by a single piece of data, but rather by an accumulation of evidences, each of which cuts against its plausibility. My verdict is that the preponderance of evidence very heavily confirms the truth of Christianity, though I can envision various scenarios where it could have been the other way (and, in fact, there are lines of evidence I could list which would sit on the negative side of the balance). In any case, it would be next to impossible to demonstrate that a body was, in fact, that of Jesus of Nazareth (a point McClellan himself makes), so this would not by any means be the cleanest way to refute Christianity.

Resurrecting Hume

McDowell asserts that “we can show Jesus rose from the grave, even if there were contradictions in the Bible.” I agree. McClellan, however, responds,

“No you can’t. That’s a dogma. That is not something that is supported by any data. That is a claim that directly contravenes everything we’ve ever been able to observe about the nature of life in the Universe. So that’s not saying I begin from the position that it’s impossible. It’s saying I begin from the position that that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and you have absolutely nothing even remotely approximating extraordinary evidence for this event that would overturn everything that we have consistently observe about the nature of life in the Universe.”

This essentially revives David Hume’s objection to justified belief in miracles. Hume argued that one could never be justified in inferring that a miracle had taken place (even if it did) because a miracle is, by its very nature, the least probable explanation (since it contradicts uniform human testimony) — thus, any naturalistic contender (no matter how intrinsically improbable) is going to be more plausible than the hypothesis that the routine course of nature has been interrupted. However, Hume was adequately addressed by his own contemporaries (e.g. William Paley, George Campbell, and John Douglas) as well as by modern philosophers (e.g. John Earman, himself an agnostic). William Paley, for example, noted,

Now the improbability which arises from the want (for this properly is a want, not a contradiction) of experience, is only equal to the probability there is, that, if the thing were true, we should experience things similar to it, or that such things would be generally experienced. Suppose it then to be true that miracles were wrought on the first promulgation of Christianity, when nothing but miracles could decide its authority, is it certain that such miracles would be repeated so often, and in so many places, as to become objects of general experience? Is it a probability approaching to certainty? Is it a probability of any great strength or force? Is it such as no evidence can encounter? And yet this probability is the exact converse, and therefore the exact measure, of the improbability which arises from the want of experience, and which Mr. Hume represents as invincible by human testimony. It is not like alleging a new law of nature, or a new experiment in natural philosophy; because, when these are related, it is expected that, under the same circumstances, the same effect will follow universally; and in proportion as this expectation is justly entertained, the want of a corresponding experience negatives [sic] the history. But to expect concerning a miracle, that it should succeed upon a repetition, is to expect that which would make it cease to be a miracle, which is contrary to its nature as such, and would totally destroy the use and purpose for which it was wrought. [2]

In other words, the purpose for which miracles are wrought (according to both the Old and New Testament) is to vindicate divine messengers. For them to function in this capacity, and grab our attention, they need to recognizably deviate from the way nature normally behaves when left to itself — otherwise, they would be robbed of their evidential value. Therefore, that miracles do, in fact, deviate from the routine course of nature cannot be taken as a serious rejoinder to the hypothesis under review. We need to look to other considerations to get a handle on the prior probability of God performing a miracle in Jesus’ case in particular (i.e., raising him from the dead).

If Jesus really is the Hebrew Messiah, then we would expect the God of Israel to raise him from the dead (cf. Isa 53:10). Jesus also indicated, on multiple occasions, that his Messianic self-claims would be vindicated by his resurrection from the dead. Therefore, arguments that (independently of the resurrection) bear on Jesus’ Messianic identity are relevant to the prior probability of God raising Jesus in particular from the dead — since they suggest that God plausibly has motivation for doing so. It is not my purpose here to provide a detailed elaboration of these independent arguments, but rather to articulate how this case can be developed.

The Case for Harmonization

Before delving into specific instances of discrepancy that McClellan alleges, it is worthwhile to briefly explain why I firmly believe that harmonization represents good historical methodology, quite aside from any concerns about inspiration or inerrancy. Although I am not myself committed to inerrancy as a matter of principle, I am an avid advocate of the practice of harmonization [see endnote 1]. Sources that have been demonstrated to be substantially reliable constitute evidence for their propositional claims. This is true whether dealing with a religiously significant text or otherwise. Therefore, if one identifies an apparent discrepancy between reliable sources (such as the gospels), the rational course of action is to search for a plausible way in which those texts may be harmonized. Though this practice is typically disavowed in Biblical scholarship, I think the scholarly bias against harmonization is quite unreasonable. I view harmonization as good, responsible scholarly practice, whether one is dealing with religiously significant sources or secular ones. Different sources that intersect in their reportage of a particular event should be allowed to illuminate and clarify one another. I also think that sources that have been otherwise demonstrated to be highly reliable should be given the benefit of the doubt when there is an apparent discrepancy. In my view, in such cases, reasonable harmonizations should be sought for as a first port of call and the author being in error should be concluded only if possible harmonizations are implausible. Lydia McGrew puts this point well:

”Harmonization is not an esoteric or religious exercise. Christians studying the Bible should not allow themselves to be bullied by the implication that they are engaging in harmonization only because of their theological commitments and hence are fudging the data for non-scholarly reasons. To the contrary, reliable historical sources can be expected to be harmonizable, and they normally are harmonizable when all the facts are known. Attempting to see how they fit together is an extremely fruitful method to pursue, sometimes even giving rise to connections such as the undesigned coincidences discussed in Hidden in Plain View [a book authored Lydia McGrew]. This is why I pursue ordinary harmonization between historical sources and why I often conclude that a harmonization is correct.”[3]

An important consideration in regards to the assessment of harmonizations, often overlooked, is that the evidential weight of a proposed error or contradiction in Scripture relates not so much to the probability of any one proposed harmonization but rather to the disjunction of the probabilities associated with each individual candidate harmonization. To take a simplistic example, if one has four harmonizations that each have a 10% probability of being correct, then the evidential weight of the problem is significantly less than if you only had one of those, since the disjunction of the relevant probabilities would be 40%. Thus, the text would be only slightly more likely erroneous than not (and inductive arguments for substantial trustworthiness may tip the scales in favor of giving the author the benefit of the doubt). In reality, of course, the math is rather more complicated than this, since one has to consider whether any of the harmonizations are overlapping or would imply one another in such a way that the probabilities cannot be added to each other. Of course, if some of the disjuncts have a very low probability of being correct, then they will not be of much help.

How Many Angels Were at the Tomb?

McDowell notes that there is a difference between a contradiction and a difference — for example, Matthew and Mark both speak of one angel at the tomb on easter morning, whereas Luke and John mention two. McDowell observes that this is not a contradiction since, if there are two, it is also true to say there was one (no text indicates there was only one). I agree with McDowell. Matthew and Mark simply spotlight the angel who spoke and omit mention of the other, who presumably did not speak. Omission is not the same as denial. Moreover, the scene with Mary Magdalene in John 20 is a separate episode, which occurs later, after Peter and John have already inspected the tomb and left. Though Mark and Luke speak of the angels as “a young man” and “two men” respectively, this is not an unusual way to describe angels in Scripture, since angels often appear as humans (cf. Gen 18:1-2; Heb 13:2). Incidentally, Bart Ehrman errs, in his book Jesus, Interrupted, when he remarks that “none of the three accounts states that the women saw ‘two angels.’”[4] [3] Luke 24:23 does, in fact, identify the “two men” as “angels.” McClellan emphasizes that, in Mark, the angel is said to be “sitting” (Mk 16:5), whereas in Luke the two angels are said to be standing (Lk 24:4). But there is nothing implausible about one or both angels changing their position in the course of the events.

McClellan responds,

“The idea that, if there were two there was one argument adequately resolve the ostensible contradiction in the gospels’ accounts of the resurrection, I think, is symptomatic of one of the critical methodological flaws of apologetics because the main rhetorical goal of apologetics is not to convince people who don’t already agree — it’s not to convince me; it’s not to generate an argument that is valid for critical scholars. The main purpose of apologetics is to perform confidence and competence so that the people who already agree can be made to feel validated in that agreement. And because their worldviews and their self-identities are so entangled with the dogmas they want to be convinced are true, the evidentiary bar is lying on the ground and so they do not require remarkably robust or sophisticated or methodologically valid arguments. They just need to be made to feel that the arguments are valid. And because they generally are not incredibly well informed about critical scholarship you just have to simulate a valid argument; you don’t actually have to produce one. So apologetics is primarily aimed at performing an argument that’s good enough to convince non-specialists who really really want to be convinced that the dogma is justified. That’s the main purpose of apologetics.”

McClellan does not really appear to understand what apologetics is. Apologetics, done properly, is what one engages in after the results of a fair and balanced open-ended inquiry are in and the time has come to articulate your conclusions, and the justification of those conclusions, to the scholarly community and wider public. Every academic paper or book is an exercise in apologetics for one conclusion or another. Good apologists set a high bar for what arguments they are going to use because they do not want to mislead or misinform people by appealing to faulty arguments or incorrect information. There are many arguments for Christianity, or for theism more broadly, which I find to be unconvincing and therefore I do not use. Moreover, when I talk to people about the evidences of Christianity (sometimes Christians with doubts; other times former Christians or non-Christian seekers), I am careful to show my primary sources so that people know where my information comes from (I think anyone who has participated in a meeting with me via TalkAboutDoubts will attest to this). So, to paint all apologists with a broad brush as being either incompetent or dishonest, or both, is, in my opinion, quite disingenuous on McClellan’s part. See my essay here on how apologists can (and should) exemplify a “scout mindset” in their scholarship.

Did the Women Observe the Rolling Back of the Stone?

McClellan claims that the resurrection narratives conflict not just on the number of angels at the tomb, but on “most of the narrative details.” For example, in Mark 16:3-4, the stone is said to have already been rolled back by the time the women arrived at the tomb, whereas in Matthew, we read, “Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it,” (Mt 28:1-2). Curiously, McClellan insists on rendering καὶ ἰδοὺ (kai Idou, see Matt 28:2) as “And suddenly.” But this is an interpretive translation, not the literal meaning. The phrase καὶ ἰδοὺ is a very common New Testament expression, and means “And behold.” Contrary to McClellan, It does not necessarily imply that the women witnessed the earthquake or descent of the angel. A better way of conveying the meaning of “and suddenly” would be the phrase καὶ ἐξαίφνης (kai exaifnēs).

Indeed, the entire passage regarding the angel (verses 2-4) is introduced by the particle γάρ (“For…”). Its purpose is to explain the earthquake and state of affairs as found by the women upon their arrival at the tomb. In describing the descent of the angel, Matthew employs an aorist participle (καταβὰς). which can be rendered “…for an angel of the Lord had descended…” There is no reason, then, to infer from Matthew that the women witnessed the descent of the angel.

Multiple Stations of Angels?

According to McClellan, “in order to reconcile Matthew and Mark, we have to imagine that these women are encountering multiple stations of angels who are going to scare them and tell them not to be scared, first on the outside and then on the inside.” McClellan emphasizes that, in Mark, the angel is explicitly said to be sitting inside the tomb — “And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side…” (Mk 16:5). McClellan believes that Matthew indicates that the women encountered the angel on the outside of the tomb, before entering. But the text of Matthew does not say this — it merely indicates that “the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.’” There is no indication of where the angel was when the women encountered him or when this was said.

Preparing the Spices

McClellan observes that, in Luke, we read, “But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they [the women] went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared,” (Lk 24:1). McClellan understands Luke to indicates that these spices were prepared before the Sabbath (Lk 23:56). But according to Mark 16:1, the women bought the spices after the Sabbath had passed. How might these texts be harmonized? Luke does not, in fact, say explicitly that the spices were prepared before the Sabbath. Verse 56a merely indicates that the women purchased spices following Jesus’ burial (without specifying whether this took place before or after the Sabbath). Verse 56b clarifies that the women rested on the Sabbath day, in accordance with Jewish law. Plausibly, Luke does not know exactly when the spices were purchased (whether before or after Sabbath) and leaves it ambiguous.

Even if one takes Luke 23:56 to indicate that the spices were prepared before the Sabbath, the texts do not seem particularly difficult to harmonize. One could envision, for example, that Joanna, being better off than the other women, already had spices at her house, which she had time to prepare at home. Perhaps Joanna and one or more other women spent the Sabbath at Joanna’s house and had time to prepare the spices before the Sabbath began, while the two Marys and Salome had to purchase them after the Sabbath at first dawn. Luke 24:10 lists two Marys, Joanna, and an unspecified number of “other women,” who went to the tomb — so we do not know how many women came to the tomb on easter morning. Joanna may have been a primary source behind Luke’s account of the women at the tomb (Luke is the only evangelist who mentions Joanna at all, including the fact that she was the wife of Chuza in Luke 8:1). If this is the case, it is consistent with the conjecture that she was the one who already had spices at home that she could prepare.

Had the Sun Risen, or Was it Still Dark?

McClellan points out that Mary came to the tomb, according to John 20:1, “while it was still dark,” whereas Luke 24:1 indicates that the sun had risen. The expression used by Luke is ὄρθρου βαθέως (opthrou batheōs), literally meaning “deep dawn.” It refers to the very early hours of the morning. This is rendered “early dawn” by the ESV. It is not at all implausible to think that at early dawn it would still be somewhat dark. This is arguably the weakest of McClellan’s examples.

A Different Sequence of Events in John?

McClellan observes that, in John’s account, Mary Magdalene reports to Peter and John that the tomb is empty and she does not know what has happened to Jesus. Peter and John then come and inspect the tomb but find it empty. They then leave Mary alone and she has an encounter with the risen Jesus (but angels never tell Mary anything). McClellan notes that this is an entirely different sequence of events from the synoptic gospels. The episode with Mary at the tomb in John, however, is clearly an episode distinct from the women’s encounter in the synoptic gospels. There is no contradiction here, since these are two separate and independent events. Moreover, I think plausibly Mary left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the angel and with the risen Jesus. This is even lightly suggested by the words of Mary to Peter and John, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν; ouk oidamen) where they have laid him.” Note the use of the plural verb, οἴδαμεν — the use of the plural verb implies that she is speaking on behalf of other women, even though John spotlights Mary Magdalene in particular. This would explain why she did not know what had happened to Jesus even though, according to the synoptic gospels, the group of women encountered an angel and the risen Jesus at the tomb.

Conclusion

McClellan claims that he has never heard anyone attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts. If this is so, then I would suggest that he needs to read more conservative literature — for example, John Wenham’s book, Easter Enigma, is focused on precisely this subject.[5]I do not believe that any of the harmonizations offered above are unreasonable, or a stretch. Given the very large body of evidence indicating that the authors of the gospels are individuals who are very well informed, close up to the facts, and in the habit of being scrupulous, I believe that we should approach these sources with charity, and allow them to clarify and illuminate one another. This is nothing short of good, responsible, practice when evaluating ancient sources.

References: 

[1] [Editor’s Note: Jonathan McLatchie’s views on inerrancy and “biblical errors” do not necessarily represent the views of Crossexamined.]

[2] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

[3] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 53-54.

[4] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them).(New York: HarperCollins, 2009), p. 8.

[5] John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are The Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Wipf and Stock; Reprint Edition, 2005).

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)

 

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/421kvCL

/by

The Formation of Our Digits Points to a Process with Foresight

Have you ever wondered how our fingers and toes form during embryonic development? Our digits are, in fact, sculpted from a paddle-like structure in the embryo through the process of apoptosis — that is, programmed cell death. During early development, the hands and feet begin as solid, webbed structures. Through carefully controlled apoptosis, the tissue between them is eliminated, facilitating the separation of the digits. As one paper put it, “the role of apoptosis can be compared with the work of a stone sculptor who shapes stone by progressively chipping off small fragments of material from a crude block, eventually creating a form.”[1] Apoptosis, of course, serves other important biological functions as well — such as eliminating old, damaged, or infected cells.

When cells die as a consequence of acute injury, they tend to swell and burst, releasing their contents into the surrounding tissue. This is known as necrosis, and it can result in an inflammatory response that can be damaging to the cells around them. Death by apoptosis, by contrast, is much cleaner. During apoptosis, the cytoskeleton breaks down and the nuclear envelope disassembles, and the genetic material is broken down into smaller fragments. The surface of the cell is modified such that it attracts macrophages that phagocytose (engulf) the cell before its contents can spill out into the environment and cause damage.

The process of apoptosis is tightly regulated by genetic and biochemical signals, ensuring that the correct number of cells die in the right areas. But how could such a developmental process involving programmed cell death evolve in a gradual, incremental fashion without any awareness of where the target is? This presents a significant obstacle to unguided evolutionary mechanisms. Here, I will give a brief overview of how this remarkable process is regulated and controlled.

Initiation of Apoptosis

The zones of undifferentiated cells between what will become the digits are called interdigital mesenchyme. It is here that apoptosis is initiated by signaling molecules. For example, bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are secreted signaling molecules that are critical for inducing apoptosis in the cells of the interdigital spaces.[2] Indeed, knocking out BMP molecules has been shown to result in webbed feet in chickens.[3] BMPs are upregulated in the regions between the forming digits, resulting in cellular death and tissue regression.

These BMPs bind to receptors on the surface of target cells in the developing limb bud.[4] This, in turn, activates intracellular SMAD proteins, which translocate to the nucleus and regulate the expression of pro-apoptotic and anti-apoptotic genes.[5] For instance, pro-apoptotic genes such as Bax and Bak (discussed later) are upregulated. Anti-apoptotic genes, such as Bcl-2, are also downregulated. This facilitates cell death in areas where tissue needs to be removed.

The activity of BMPs is regulated by antagonists, such as Noggin, which binds directly to BMPs, forming a complex that inhibits them from interacting with their receptors. This ensures that apoptosis only occurs in the interdigital spaces, while preserving the cells that will form the digits.[6]

Executioner Caspases

A family of proteases called caspases comprise the molecular machinery responsible for apoptosis.[7]  These proteases are initially produced as inactive precursors known as procaspases. In response to apoptosis-inducing signals, they are activated. Executioner caspases are responsible for dismantling essential cellular proteins — these are themselves cleaved (and thereby activated) by initiator caspases. One executioner caspase targets for destruction the lamin proteins that comprise the nuclear lamina, resulting in its disintegration.[8] This facilitates the entry of the nucleases into the nucleus where they degrade the cell’s DNA. Other targets of executioner caspases include the cytoskeleton and other critical cellular proteins.[9]

Execution of the Death Program: The Intrinsic Pathway

There are two ways in which the cell’s death program can be initiated — the extrinsic and intrinsic pathways. The extrinsic pathway is initiated by external signals through the binding of ligands to death receptors on the cell surface. The intrinsic pathway is triggered by signals from within the cell itself. Since the intrinsic pathway is associated with digit formation, it will be my focus here.

In nucleated animal cells, inactive procaspases roam, waiting for a signal to activate the death program and kill the cell. Unsurprisingly, then, the activity of caspases must be very carefully controlled. This presents another conundrum for their origins — how could they arise without a mechanism in hand for holding them in check until required?

The Bcl2 family of proteins is responsible for regulating caspase activation.[10] Some of these proteins promote activation of caspases and apoptosis, while others negatively regulate these processes. Two essential proteins for promoting cell death are Bax and Bak.[11] These proteins trigger the release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria. Other Bcl2-family proteins sequester apoptosis by inhibiting Bax and Bak from releasing cytochrome c.[12] Critical to a cell’s survival is the balance between the activities of the pro-apoptosis and anti-apoptosis Bcl2-family members.

Image credit: David Goodsell, CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Upon release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria, the cytochrome c molecules bind to Apaf-1 (apoptotic protease activating factor 1).[13] Apaf-1 has a specific region called the WD40 repeat domain that interacts with cytochrome c.[14] This binding induces a conformational change in Apaf-1, which allows it to oligomerize. The Apaf-1 monomers thus assemble into a large heptameric complex called the apoptosome (shown in the figure above). This wheel-like structure serves as a scaffold for further recruitment of procaspase-9 molecules.[15] Within the apoptosome, the proximity of multiple procaspase-9 molecules results in their autocleavage and activation.[16] This induces a caspase cascade (involving the activation of downstream effector caspases, such as caspase-3 and caspase-7), ultimately resulting in programmed cell death.[17]

The Need for Foresight

We began by comparing the role of apoptosis in digit formation to a stone sculptor, chipping off tiny fragments from a block with a view towards ultimately creating a form. Of course, an actual stone sculptor has a vision of the final form — the ability to visualize a distant outcome. Conversely, a feature of natural selection is that it lacks foresight, or any awareness of complex end goals. How can a mindless cause select for a process of carefully regulated programmed cell death during development, without knowledge of the target? It would seem that any process capable of producing this mechanism would have to possess intelligence and foresight — characteristics uniquely associated with a conscious mind.

This article was originally published at Evolution News & Science Today, on September 13 2024.

References: 

[1] Suzanne M, Steller H. Shaping organisms with apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2013 May;20(5):669-75.

[2] Storm EE, Kingsley DM. GDF5 coordinates bone and joint formation during digit development. Dev Biol. 1999 May 1;209(1):11-27.

[3] Zou H, Niswander L. Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosis and scale formation. Science. 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41.

[4] Ovchinnikov DA, Selever J, Wang Y, Chen YT, Mishina Y, Martin JF, Behringer RR. BMP receptor type IA in limb bud mesenchyme regulates distal outgrowth and patterning. Dev Biol. 2006 Jul 1;295(1):103-15.

[5] Gomez-Puerto MC, Iyengar PV, García de Vinuesa A, Ten Dijke P, Sanchez-Duffhues G. Bone morphogenetic protein receptor signal transduction in human disease. J Pathol. 2019 Jan;247(1):9-20.

[6] Guha U, Gomes WA, Kobayashi T, Pestell RG, Kessler JA. In vivo evidence that BMP signaling is necessary for apoptosis in the mouse limb. Dev Biol. 2002 Sep 1;249(1):108-20.

[7] McIlwain DR, Berger T, Mak TW. Caspase functions in cell death and disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013 Apr 1;5(4):a008656. Erratum in: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015 Apr 01;7(4):a026716.; Cohen GM. Caspases: the executioners of apoptosis. Biochem J. 1997 Aug 15;326 ( Pt 1)(Pt 1):1-16.

[8] Gheyas R, Menko AS. The involvement of caspases in the process of nuclear removal during lens fiber cell differentiation. Cell Death Discov. 2023 Oct 21;9(1):386.

[9] Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg H, Norberg E, Perdomo AB, Olsson M, Ciccosanti F, Orrenius S, Fimia GM, Piacentini M, Zhivotovsky B. Caspase-2 promotes cytoskeleton protein degradation during apoptotic cell death. Cell Death Dis. 2013 Dec 5;4(12):e940.

[10] Kale J, Osterlund EJ, Andrews DW. BCL-2 family proteins: changing partners in the dance towards death. Cell Death Differ.2018 Jan;25(1):65-80.

[11] Westphal D, Kluck RM, Dewson G. Building blocks of the apoptotic pore: how Bax and Bak are activated and oligomerize during apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2014 Feb;21(2):196-205.

[12] Dlugosz PJ, Billen LP, Annis MG, Zhu W, Zhang Z, Lin J, Leber B, Andrews DW. Bcl-2 changes conformation to inhibit Bax oligomerization. EMBO J. 2006 Jun 7;25(11):2287-96.

[13] Kim HE, Du F, Fang M, Wang X. Formation of apoptosome is initiated by cytochrome c-induced dATP hydrolysis and subsequent nucleotide exchange on Apaf-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 6;102(49):17545-50.

[14] Hu Y, Ding L, Spencer DM, Núñez G. WD-40 repeat region regulates Apaf-1 self-association and procaspase-9 activation. J Biol Chem. 1998 Dec 11;273(50):33489-94.; Shalaeva DN, Dibrova DV, Galperin MY, Mulkidjanian AY. Modeling of interaction between cytochrome c and the WD domains of Apaf-1: bifurcated salt bridges underlying apoptosome assembly. Biol Direct. 2015 May 27;10:29.

[15] Yuan S, Yu X, Topf M, Ludtke SJ, Wang X, Akey CW. Structure of an apoptosome-procaspase-9 CARD complex. Structure. 2010 May 12;18(5):571-83.

[16] Li Y, Zhou M, Hu Q, Bai XC, Huang W, Scheres SH, Shi Y. Mechanistic insights into caspase-9 activation by the structure of the apoptosome holoenzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Feb 14;114(7):1542-1547.

[17] Li P, Nijhawan D, Budihardjo I, Srinivasula SM, Ahmad M, Alnemri ES, Wang X. Cytochrome c and dATP-dependent formation of Apaf-1/caspase-9 complex initiates an apoptotic protease cascade. Cell. 1997 Nov 14;91(4):479-89.

Recommended Resources:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

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

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

 

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 here:  https://bit.ly/3WmCxME

/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

Did the Idols of the Old Testament Actually Have Power?

,

One of the questions that people ask when they read through the Old Testament is “did those little statues that people worshipped actually have any power behind them?” Many scholars agree that people believed that the idols themselves did not hold power but instead represented the pagan gods. The Old Testament itself has two major views on idolatry, one located in the prophets and another located in Deuteronomy.

Idolatry in the Prophets

The prophets identify idolatry as a major issue within both Israel and Judah during their time and argue that idolatry is worthless.[i] For example, in Isaiah 41, Isaiah 44, and Jeremiah 10, the prophets make it clear that idolatry is useless and meaningless. It holds no power because the idols themselves are created and the gods that they represent were also created by mankind. The gods cannot deliver the nations, cannot create, cannot predict the future, and therefore, should not be worshipped. Thus, if you only had the prophets, one would probably assume that there was no actual spiritual or supernatural power behind the idols or their gods.

Idolatry in Deuteronomy

The Book of Deuteronomy, however, lays out a different argument when it comes to idolatry. Deuteronomy 32:17 states, “They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they did not know, to new gods, new arrivals that your fathers did not fear.” (NKJV) Paul similarly made this argument in 1 Corinthians 10:20 when he wrote, “Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.” (NKJV) From this perspective it seems that the idols and their gods were not simply worthless creations of mankind but were instead powered by demons and Satanic forces.

How Do We Reconcile These Two Views?

The question then becomes “Were the idols and their gods worthless creations of mankind or supernatural beings empowered by Satan and his demonic horde?” The answer seems to lie somewhere in the middle. It is true that the idols, at least to some extent, did have some type of supernatural force behind them. The people of the ancient world called these supernatural powers gods, whereas the Bible calls them instead demons. Indeed, it is unlikely that the ancients would have worshipped idols for generations if there was not some kind of supernatural power behind them, probably coming from the demonic realm to trick people into worshipping these gods as divine. A possible example of this can be seen in the story of the Exodus, when Pharaoh’s magicians can replicate some of the supernatural abilities of Moses and Aaron, at least with the first few plagues, even if their power was limited and they could not duplicate any of the plagues after the plague of frogs.

The prophets, however, were also correct in their arguments that these false gods were not equal to YHWH.[ii] Demons are created beings that are fallen angels. They are not co-equal to YHWH and therefore are inferior to Him. While the prophets may have downplayed the supernatural elements that the idols could have exhibited, they were correct in arguing that these pagan gods were not comparable to YHWH. Michael Heiser said it well when he wrote, “No. These ‘denial statements’ do not deny that other elohim exist. Rather, they deny that any elohim compares to Yahweh.” [iii]

Therefore, the answer to the question did the Old Testament gods have power is yes, they did seem to have some type of supernatural power through the power of Satan and his demons. Nonetheless, this does not mean that they were equal to YHWH and deserved to be worshipped and trusted as true gods. Only YHWH is the one true God, incomparable within creation. Isaiah 44:8 clarifies this well, “Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

References:

[i] [Editor’s Note: He’s referring to the divided Kingdom, when Israel split into two kingdoms – the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom (Israel). versus the 2 Tribes of the Southern Kingdom (Judah). This split began with Solomon’s successor Rehoboam.]

[ii] [Editor’s Note: Yahweh is infinitely superior to the false gods, of course. But, more than that, the idolatrous statues and superstitutious icons of those false religious are also totally impotent. So, as the Prophets say in Isaiah 41, Isaiah 44, and Jeremiah 10, those idols have no power to harm or help people, just like any other lump of wood, stone or metal would be a helpless and harmless inanimate object.]

[iii] Michael S. Heiser, “Does Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Demonstrate an Evolution from Polytheism to Monotheism in Israelite Religion?,” Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1, no. 1 (2012): 8-9.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Daniel Sloan is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. He was mentored by the late Dr. Ed Hindson. After Dr. Hindson’s untimely passing, Dr. Sloan was allowed to teach some of Dr. Hindson’s classes. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sloan serves as an Associate Pastor at Safe Harbor Community Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Daniel graduated with his PhD in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University. His research and expertise is in Old Testament studies. He and his wife, Natalie, live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Along with his extensive knowledge of the Bible, Daniel is an avid sports fan.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Aw0l9a

/by