Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

I was raised in a family and a community where religious beliefs were considered personal and virtually never discussed. I attended a Catholic grade school and continued with religion classes through high school. I was a good student and knew what I was supposed to believe – but no matter how hard I tried, I just could not convince myself that any of it was true.

I had a long list of questions but mostly kept those to myself. I was pretty sure that these doubts made me a bad person and I was not eager to advertise this fact. The few times I did seek help left me feeling that there were no answers to my questions. I developed an idea that belief in God was some sort of magical thinking – and while I too desperately wanted this magic, it clearly was not meant for me. Another difficulty I faced was that believers always seemed so sure about their faith. I am not a person who is certain about anything – this too made me think that Christianity – or faith of any kind was not for me.

Moving ahead to my time now in Kearney, Nebraska – I moved here in 2009 and met Tim Stratton a few years later when he was in the early stages of developing his FreeThinking Argument for the existence of God. At this time, there was a fair bit of noise being made in the local newspaper about issues related to evolution and it was attracting attention at work. Because of this I started regularly reading the opinion pieces, as well as associated comments. The name Tim Stratton appeared frequently. To be clear, I did not agree with a single thing he wrote. However, he was unfailingly kind, whereas some people on “my side” were behaving atrociously. This was the first thing I noticed about Tim – and if not for that, I truly might still be an atheist today.

I was able to meet Tim in person at a local public outreach event about evolution. This was a brief meeting – but a short time later he added me as a Facebook friend. This is when the arguing started in earnest (and to be honest has not completely ceased to this day – we just argue about different things now). For a period of about two months, we exchanged messages almost daily that initially were centered on his FreeThinking Argument for the Existence of God. Those discussions could probably best be summarized as exchanges where I would tell him I was not convinced of some specific point (which is my default position) and then Tim would both encourage me and try to convince me. If you know either of us, you already know that these were not short discussions.

About a month into this I was forced to admit — contra many scientifically-minded atheists — that while I was not certain, I did think humans possessed libertarian free will. It is worth noting here that in my discussions with Tim, I had already been relieved of the notion that one needed to be absolutely certain to believe something was true. The natural extension of this was that if I believed I had free will, according to Tim’s argument (which despite my best efforts seemed strong) meant I also believed in God. This realization took my breath away (and the memory of it still does the same) – I know exactly where I was and what I was doing when for the first time in my life I felt like God was talking directly to me.

This was just the beginning though – it took at least 6 months more before I called myself a Christian (Mike Licona’s work on the historical Resurrection eventually sealed the deal). It was an incredibly tumultuous time in my life. I was starting to really believe that Christianity was probably true and while part of me found that exciting, a bigger part was truly terrified at the prospect. Tim helped me at every single step of the way – I have countless stories of doubts and fears that he helped me through with reason and kindness.

During this time, I could not help but compare my conversion story to that of others – and I will admit I found it frustrating. Tim would tell me about other people he had helped and how in a 24-hour period they accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. It was hard for me to understand how this was possible and to be honest, I didn’t think it was fair. Why was it so much work for me? What I came to realize – surely with God’s help – was that my conversion story had to be different because of how I am wired. If God had appeared to me in the flesh, I am certain I would be more convinced of a brain tumor than God’s existence. Reason and argument was the only way it could work for me. I am not proud of that, but it is the truth. I am profoundly grateful that God is able to reach people in a myriad of ways – and specifically that he used Tim and apologetics to reach me.

What Does Thermodynamics Have To Do With The Origin Of The Universe?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Big Bang cosmology isn’t the only scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. There are parallel laws of nature that point us to the same conclusion. We get one of them from the study of thermodynamics. This is not something that is hard to comprehend. You already understand it because you have to charge your cell phone every night.

A battery contains a fixed amount of energy. You can use that energy but you won’t get any more. If you don’t plug it in to recharge it, the battery will eventually go dead. As far as we know, the universe is a “closed system” similar to a giant battery. But it’s not rechargeable.

Barring some outside influence, this kind of process can only go in one direction. We all recognize that this is how energy works. It’s not a mystery. It’s a simple concept that is based on a couple of natural laws:

The Law of Conservation of Energy — energy is neither created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to another.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics — in a closed system, the total entropy of the system will always increase and this process is irreversible.

So, let’s put these together.

Don’t be freaked out by the term, “entropy.” Think of it as “level of chaos.” Just like the battery, there is only a finite amount of energy in a closed system. The amount of energy cannot be increased; it can only be transformed to a higher level of chaos. An example might help.

To Understand The Second Law Of Thermodynamics, Burn A Match

You have a match in your hand. The head of the match is made of combustible material that has the potential to create a flame. The amount of potential energy concentrated in the head of the match and is fixed. It cannot increase. When you strike the match, the potential chemical energy in the head of the match converts to heat energy in a flame. Then, the heat energy from the flame disperses into the room. Our energy system has gone from a concentrated potential energy source to a flame, to a random dispersal of heat into the air. In other words, it has taken a more “chaotic” form. When we say that “entropy has increased,” that is all it means.

Here’s the key — the process will not go in the opposite direction. You won’t see the heat content in a room suddenly coagulate into a single flame, and then reorganize that flame into a concentrated ball of chemical energy in a single location (like the head of a match). The very idea of such a thing is ridiculous.

Thermodynamics tells us that energy only goes in one direction

The Universe – A Giant Battery

The universe works the same way. Like a giant battery, it contains a fixed amount of energy. As time marches on, the energy inside it becomes more and more useless as it disperses. The “chaos” level (entropy) of the entire system is always increasing. At some point, the usefulness of the energy will run out altogether. Scientists call this “heat death.” The universe is headed toward heat death.

This is a law of nature. It is the basis for the operation of everything from the engine that launches a rocket into orbit, to the biological machinery that runs every cell in your body. And what it means is that we know the whole system — the whole universe — must have started this energy transforming process when its “battery” was full.

The universe had to have a beginning. And, for the same reasons mentioned in our discussion of the cosmological argument, something outside the known universe must have flipped the switch to initiate the beginning of the process. Listen to Frank Turek’s short explanation for the Second Law…

https://youtu.be/Q6tv_L0Bn5w

… and how William Lane Craig connects it to a cosmic beginning:

https://youtu.be/atnk5VBVd-g

The Importance of Critical Thinking

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Kathryn, V.

As a Christian apologist, it is easy to take for granted the understanding that when we impart information to others, they clearly comprehend what we are talking about.

Now, that may be the case with well-studied and well-versed individuals who understand critical thinking, however, the average American has not been exposed to critical thinking unless they have attended university. It is an unfortunate fact that the art of critical thinking is not taught in the vast majority of either primary or secondary schools.

Critical thinking is a skill that is a threat to our culture’s view of political correctness because it encourages people to see things from a different perspective that thinks through an idea or thought and compares it with an opposing view.

Anyone who has studied our western culture for any length of time is well aware that our cultural ideologies have had more influence on the church than the church has had on the culture in the last fifty years.

The vast majority of professing Christians in America today cannot explain why they believe what they believe. This has not been ideal for the Church, as studies show that there has been a sharp decline in church attendance over the past thirty years.

The absence of critical thinking is at the center of this apathy toward the importance of validating one’s belief in absolute truth which is at the core of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Much of this lack of fervor for one’s faith is because many are not sure if the Bible is valid for today’s world. It is a fact that less than nine percent of those individuals who profess to be Christian, believe in biblical inerrancy. Why is this? Part of the answer to this question lies in the inability to think critically. To think critically requires that one ask questions, but to ask a question suggests that one may find an answer that goes against the grain and that would cause friction. It is easier to simply go along with what one is told and then formulate one’s own set of beliefs based on what one feels is right.

Human nature is consistent in that our feelings fluctuate with circumstance (John 2:25) and because of this fact it is imperative that we seek the reality that forms the foundation of our beliefs and not base our eternity on emotions and feelings. Without the knowledge of God, people perish (Hos 4:6), but we cannot truly know the Creator unless we seek him in his word.

It goes to follow, that if you do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture then you cannot truly come to know the character and nature of God.

The problem lies in the reality that all are called to know God and to live in obedience to his word and without a basic belief that the Bible is to be trusted, then there will be a disconnect. There are numerous books that spend at least a full chapter to show how scholars critically validate the Bible, and these include helpful tools that are used in this process. What I have discovered in my own interactions with the average believer, however, is that they do not have the confidence to break down the processes that scholars use to validate the Bible. Most of the reason for this lack of confidence stems from an unfamiliarity with the terminology and processes used in historical and literary research.

It is for this reason that I decided to devote an entire book to the process of how scholars use the tools of historical and literary criticism to validate the Bible, as well as other historically-based documents. The goal is to help the reader become intimately familiar with the terms and processes that scholars use to validate the word of God.

Hopefully, my readers will use the Under Investigation workbook as a tool to help them reach others for the kingdom of God by confidently explaining the scrutiny that the Judeo-Christian Bible has gone through and how other holy books have not been able to withstand the same type of analysis and critical investigation.

The Slaughter of the Bethlehem Boys

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Moral atrocities litter the historical landscape. And this ought to make us sad. People do bad things. And they’ve been doing bad things ever since Genesis 3. It doesn’t take long for the fall to rear its ugly head in the Bible for in the very next chapter — Genesis 4 — Cain violently kills his brother. Unfortunately, these kinds of events have been occurring ever since.

One thinks of the Holocaust, the genocides in Rwanda, or the untold millions dead from the Russian Gulag camps. Or if you’re a student of the Bible, you might think of the Bethlehem genocide orchestrated by King Herod the Great.

If you’re unfamiliar with this event, in Matthew 2, the Magi traveled to Jerusalem in search of this newborn king of the Jews. When Herod heard that these wise men were looking for a king other than himself, he became disturbed. Matthew tells us that Herod “was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (Mt 2:2).

Not one to share his throne, Herod eventually orders the execution of all the boys in Bethlehem who were two-years-old or under (Mt 2:16). Everyone would agree that Herod acted egregiously here. No morally sane person could justify Herod’s swift action. But did it actually happen?

No Historical Record of the Genocide

Skeptics are quick to point out that we don’t have any other ancient sources testifying to this awful event. Not even the other Gospels report it! But doesn’t this seem odd? If Herod really did order the execution of all those little boys, why didn’t Philo or Josephus report it? After all, Josephus wrote a great deal about first-century Palestine — more than anyone else. Yet, he is silent on the matter.

Does this give us reason to reject Matthew’s claim? Certainly, if the President of the United States ordered the execution of all the baby boys in Greenville, SC, we would expect at least two different news sources to cover the event. We can certainly sympathize with the skeptic’s concerns, but I still believe we still have good reason to believe that the genocide occurred.

Herod the Great

While Josephus doesn’t report on this specific event, he tells us a great deal about Herod the Great. Herod was born from noble stock, though he wasn’t technically Jewish. He was an Idumean — a descendent of Esau (something that the Jewish people always held against him). After Pompey conquered Judea, Julius Caesar appointed Herod’s father — Antipater II — as procurator of the region in 47 BC.[1] Antipater subsequently appointed Herod as governor of Galilee at the ripe young age of twenty-five. Less than ten years later, Herod was appointed king of Judea by Caesar Augustus after his dad died by poisoning.

After claiming his throne, Herod quickly married Mariamne I to solidify relations with his Jewish counterparts. But he couldn’t shake the suspicion that she sought to bring him down. This constant paranoia led him to order her execution. Mariamne’s death profoundly affected Herod. He became extremely ill. And though he didn’t die, he remained obsessively paranoid for the rest of his life that others were trying to sabotage his reign.[2]

Known for Two Things

King Herod is known for two things. First, he is known for his building projects. Most notably, Herod orchestrated the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. The building itself towered fifteen stories high, and the temple precincts covered the width of thirty-five football fields. Rabbinic tradition stated, “whoever has not beheld Herod’s building has not yet seen anything beautiful in his life.”[3] In addition to the temple, Herod constructed a number of palaces. He also built a number of theaters, arenas, and amphitheaters for the Greek Games. He established an entirely new city which he named Sebaste in honor of Augustus and even fashioned a temple for the sole purpose of emperor worship. Furthermore, he’s credited with creating the port city of Caesarea Maritima — a marvel of the ancient world.[4]

More relevant, though, Herod was known for his paranoia. Not known for chastity, Herod married ten women who gave him a number of sons.[5] As Herod aged, he became increasingly skeptical of his sons’ devotion. He was so utterly convinced that they meant to overthrow him that he executed three of them (Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater III).[6] After a series of executions and imprisonments of his close relatives, Caesar Augustus is reported to have remarked that he would rather be Herod’s pig (hus) than his son (huios).[7] Of course, Herod wasn’t allowed to touch pigs being a Jew. Upon his death bed, Herod ordered the execution of a number of high-ranking officials so that people would mourn at the time of his death rather than rejoice. Thankfully, that order was overturned by his sister after his death. To sum up Herod, Josephus notes, “He was a man who was cruel to all alike and one who easily gave in to anger and was contemptuous of justice.”[8]

Back to Bethlehem

Knowing what we know about Herod, doesn’t his execution order of the young boys in Bethlehem make sense? Knowing how paranoid he was about losing his kingship, it seems almost historically certain that he would have acted this way if he felt his throne was threatened. The Magi were, after all, looking for the one who was “king of the Jews.” If Herod was willing to execute his favorite sons because he thought they were plotting his demise, we can certainly see him ordering the death of his potential replacements.

But why doesn’t Josephus mention this event? I think we have two good explanations. First, Bethlehem was a small town consisting of roughly five hundred people. This means the population of young boys would have been anywhere from 10-20. A sad course of events, yes, but not something that might make it into Josephus’ history books like the execution of the king’s sons.

Second, Josephus’ history books, while extremely helpful for learning about first-century Palestine, are limited in what they report. Case in point, Josephus uses a total of 15,764 words in Antiquities book 18 which covers the span of thirty-two years (AD 6-38). That works out to less than five hundred words per year.[9] By comparison, Matthew uses 18,347 words in his Gospel which only spans three years (about six thousand words per year). This blog post alone is about twelve hundred words. I can’t imagine trying to squeeze the events of this year (especially the kind of year we’ve had) into 500 words. In sum, Josephus had to be selective in what he included in his works.

Conclusion

While we can appreciate the skeptic’s concerns, we don’t need to reject Matthew’s claim that Herod ordered the execution of the Bethlehem boys. Based on what we know of Herod, this execution is consistent with his constant paranoia and subpar character. Additionally, because the execution would have included at most 10-20 boys, Josephus didn’t feel it necessary to include this event in his works since he was limited in space.

Reference

[1] Josephus, Antiquities, 14.8.1-5.

[2] Michael J. Wilkins, “Matthew” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. by Clint E Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 18.

[3] Bava Basra, 4a.

[4] Wilkins, Matthew, 18.

[5] Josephus, Antiquities, 17.1.3.

[6] Josephus, Antiquities, 16.10.5-16.11.8, 17.10.1.

[7] Macrobius, Saturnalia, 2.f.11.

[8] Josephus, Antiquities, 17.8.1.

[9] Peter Williams, Twitter Post March 28, 2019.

Facing an Unknown Future with a Known God

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

This past Sunday, my family and I stopped by a local antique store after church. We were there for no reason but to check out their merchandise to see, as my wife says, “if there was anything that we couldn’t live without.” As we navigated our way through the aisles of the store, a sign appeared before me with a message that I needed to hear. The sign read, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.” I have heard people asking God for a sign. I have asked God for the same. Nevertheless, God gave me a literal sign for the moment.

As a bit of a backdrop, my family and I had just attended the last service where I served as pastor. I am about to embark on a new phase of ministry. As such, our lives are in a state of transition. Change is often difficult for us all. Yet this sign served as a reminder that God is not only over all places, God is over time itself which means that we can trust the knowable God with our unknown future. Here are a few reasons why we can believe the sign’s statement.

God is Transcendent. God’s transcendence indicates that God is not restricted by creation. This is something that truly baffles my mind. As a stargazer, I found myself lying on the ground last night looking up at the stars. I found myself lost in the beauty of the Large Magellanic Cloud band of the Milky Way galaxy. I was in awe of the intensity of the glow of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. And then it hit me. As immense as the universe is with its numerous stars, planets, and galaxies; the universe and all its parts still do not compare to the transcendent majesty of God. God is not restricted by creation, but rather creation is subdued under the transcendent Creator’s authority. With this in mind, believers can face an unknown future with the confidence that God is able to come through for them in ways that no other being has the capacity to do. God’s sphere of transcendence places him on a level that no other being could attain. God is the highest and greatest of all possible beings.

God is Omnipresent. Omnipresence is God’s attribute that describes God’s ability to be in all places at all times. God is not restricted by space. Therefore, God can always transcend locations enabling God to be near to all people. Paul had this idea in mind when he said to the Athenians that God is “not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). God reveals that he fills both heaven and earth through his prophet Jeremiah, saying, “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth” (Jer. 23:24)? While we may not know what tomorrow brings, we can face the future with confidence knowing that God’s presence is always with us.

God is Omnitemporal. God’s omnitemporality indicates that God is the Lord of time. Isaiah writes, “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the whole earth. He never becomes faint or weary; there is no limit to his understanding” (Isa. 40:28). Alan Padgett contends that God is the Lord of time. Time flows from the being of God. Padgett writes,

“To say that God is the Lord of time would include the fact that he is not limited by any amount of time, either in the actions he can perform or the length of his life. While humans can fear the passage of time, because it brings them closer to the end of their life, God is everliving. He cannot die, and has nothing to fear from the future” (Padgett, GEATNOT, 123).

Since God is the everliving and everlasting God, then God’s children have nothing to fear from the unknown future because God is already in the future, as such. Even death cannot intimidate the believer as the everliving God has granted eternal life to those who trust in him.

God is Omnisapient. Finally, God is omnisapient. Omnisapience refers to the all-wise God. Omnisapience (all-wisdom) differs from omniscience (all-knowledge) in the sense that while knowledge understands certain data, wisdom knows how to make the best decisions with the data available. Wisdom references good decision making. God, being the all-wise God, makes the best decisions for our lives even when those decisions do not make sense to us. Since God is the only being who is self-existent, self-sustaining, omnipresent, and transcendent; God then has access to information that none of us could ever possess. God is love (1 John 4:8). As such, God desires the very best for us, especially God’s children. Therefore, people can trust their lives and their future to the all-wise God.

I am certain that I am not the only person who faces uncertainty in life. With society in turmoil and the world facing a pandemic, nearly everyone has been impacted by the tensions of uncertainty. Nevertheless, we do not need to fret if we trust God. Oswald Chambers rightly holds that our fears arise when we place our trust in humanity or in our own abilities. Chambers notes,

“Our Lord trusted no man; yet He was never suspicious, never bitter, never in despair about any man because He put God first in trust; He trusted absolutely in what God’s grace could do for any man. If I put my trust in human beings first, I will end in despairing everyone; I will become bitter, because I have insisted on man being what no man can ever be—absolutely right. Never trust anything but the grace of God in yourself or in anyone else” (Chambers, MUFHH, 152).

Rather than placing your trust in your abilities or the abilities of other people, trust God with your future. While our future may be unknown to us, the future is fully and completely known by the known God.

Sources

Chambers, Oswald. My Utmost for His Highest. The Classic Edition. Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour, 1935.

Padgett, Alan G. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1992.

Baby Elephant In China Cries For 5 Hours After Being Stomped By His Mom

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

From the New York Daily News. (Printable version linked)

Excerpt:

Little Zhuangzhuang, a newborn elephant at a wildlife refuge in China, was inconsolable after his mother rejected him and then tried to stomp him to death.

Tears streamed down his gray trunk for five hours as zookeepers struggled to comfort the baby elephant.

They initially thought it was an accident when the mom stepped on him after giving birth, according to the Central European News agency.

Employees removed him, cleaned him up and treated his injuries, then reunited the baby with his momma.

But she was having none of it, and began stomping him again.

So the game keepers stepped in once more and permanently separated the two.

“We don’t know why the mother turned on her calf but we couldn’t take a chance,” an employee told CEN.

“The calf was very upset and he was crying for five hours before he could be consoled,” he said.

“He couldn’t bear to be parted from his mother and it was his mother who was trying to kill him.”

The petite pachyderm, born in August, is now doing well. The zookeeper who rescued him from his violent mother adopted him and helped him thrive at the Shendiaoshan wild animal reserve in Rong-cheng, China.

I found another photo of the baby elephant here:

A baby elephant’s birthday is supposed to be happy

So, in this post, I wanted to take about the duty that parents have to their children.

I guess a lot of my views on ethics are rooted in the obvious needs that children have. When I look at an unborn baby, I can tell what it needs. So, I am careful not to cause a pregnancy before I can supply its needs. The needs of the little unborn creature are driving these moral boundaries on me. And the same with born children. I oppose gay marriage because when I look at little children, I want them to have a stable environment to grow up in with a mother and father who are biologically related to them (in the best case). I permit lots of arrangements, but I promote one arrangement over the others because that’s what’s best for children. Anyone can look at unborn and born children and see that just like anyone can look at a crying baby elephant and understand – “I have to govern my behavior so that I don’t hurt you”. If that means cutting off the premarital sex and making decisions that are likely to produce a stable marriage, then that’s what we should do.

Children cry too, you know. They cry when we hurt them. They cry when we make bad decisions and when we don’t provide them with what they need. Children need mothers and fathers who care about them. Making a safe environment for a child isn’t an accident. It isn’t random and unpredictable. We have to control our desires before we have children so that we provide children with what they need. It would be nice if men and women were more thoughtful and unselfish about children and marriage before they started in with sex.

The arising of our Universe: Design or Chance?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Julie Hannah

How likely is it that our universe is the result of random physical operations? Scientists point out that shaping the universe into its present form required a very precise balance of many finely-tuned physical constants such as these:

Gravitational attraction—This had to be in perfect balance with the rate of expansion to enable structures to form.
The ratio of gravitational force to electromagnetic force—A slightly different ratio would have created stars that were either white dwarfs or blue giants, neither of which can support complex life.
The electrical charge of electrons—If this were even slightly different, stars would not be able to burn hydrogen and helium, or would not explode to distribute heavy elements.
The strong nuclear force—A slightly weaker force would have prevented the formation of heavy elements, but a slightly stronger force would have converted all hydrogen into other elements, resulting in no water and no fuel for stars to burn.
Formation of carbon—Stars are only able to produce carbon from helium because the carbon nucleus has very specific values of spin and resonance energy.
Initial entropy (disorder)—The entropy of our universe continues to increase, but it is still not at its maximum. Its initial value must therefore have been exceptionally small, with an extremely low probability of 1 out of 10^(10^123 ). This ridiculously large number has more zeros than the total number of protons and neutrons in the entire universe!

For carbon-based life such as ours to be possible, approximately twenty-six such physical properties had to have extremely precise and statistically improbable values. In addition, pairs of matter-antimatter particles annihilate each other, and matter only exists because one extra matter particle somehow came to be formed for every billion pairs. Scientists still do not understand how this imbalance could have arisen.

What about the theory of an infinite number of universes?

To avoid the implication of design, some scientists propose that there is an infinite number of universes with different physical laws. In that case, it is to be expected that ours could arise by chance with the specific properties necessary for human life. But there are problems with this theory.

Paul Davies writes: “It flies in the face of Occam’s razor, by introducing vast (indeed infinite) complexity to explain the regularities of just one universe. I find this ‘blunderbuss’ approach to explain the specialness of our universe scientifically questionable” (Mind of God, 218–19). (According to the principle of Occam’s Razor, the most likely explanation should have the least number of assumptions and conditions.)
The multiverse theory cannot be scientifically proven because it does not provide testable predictions. In the opinion of physicist Peter Woit, the theory, therefore, does not lie within the domain of science: “Maybe we really live in a ‘multiverse’ of different possible universes . . . [But] this way of thinking about physics does not seem to lead to any falsifiable predictions, and so is one that physicists have traditionally considered to be unscientific” (Not Even Wrong, xi).
Cosmologist George Ellis, co-author with Stephen Hawking, is critical of the theory. He argues that universes which actually exist, rather than merely being theoretically possible, would still require specific laws and would probably share a common causal connection. (See “Multiverses and Physical Cosmology.”)
Any inflationary universe must have a beginning in time, which would still need an explanation. (See Borde and Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation,” 1.)
There are serious difficulties with trying to apply the mathematical concept of infinity to a physical situation. As mathematician David Hilbert pointed out, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality” (“On the Infinite,” 151). George Ellis and others argue that an infinite collection of universes is highly problematic and does not solve the problem of origins. He and his co-researchers ask: “Can there really be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that, on the basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is no. The common perception that this is possible arises from not taking seriously enough the difficulties associated with this profoundly difficult concept. . . Many universes in the ensemble may themselves have infinite spatial extent and contain an infinite amount of matter, with the paradoxical conclusions that entails . . . The phrase ‘everything that can exist, exists’ implies such an infinitude, but glosses over all the profound difficulties implied.” As Ellis points out, “Existence of the hypothesized ensemble remains a matter of faith rather than proof. Furthermore, in the end, it simply represents a regress of causation. Ultimate questions remain” (“Multiverses and Physical Cosmology,” 921; 927–28; 935).

In general, there is a problem with the popular belief that infinity renders anything possible. For example, monkeys typing for an infinite length of time are supposed to eventually type out any given text, but if there are 50 keys, the probability of producing just one given five-letter word is

This is a tremendously low probability, and it decreases exponentially when letters are added. A computer program that simulated random typing once produced nineteen consecutive letters and characters that appear in a line of a Shakespearean play, but this result took 42,162,500,000 billion years to achieve! (See Wershler-Henry’s History of Typewriting.) According to scientists Kittel and Kroemer, the probability of randomly typing out Hamlet is, therefore, zero in any operational sense (Thermal Physics, 53).

Against this background, what is the probability that all the universe’s required physical constants arose by chance? The improbability of this fine-tuning has led some scientists to argue that random operations are not sufficient. Below are some examples.

Paul Davies: There is “powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming” (Cosmic Blueprint, 203). “I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident” (Mind of God, 16).

Physicist Frank Wilczek: “It is logically possible that parameters determined uniquely by abstract theoretical principles just happen to exhibit all the apparent fine-tunings required to produce, by a lucky coincidence, a Universe containing complex condensed structures. But that, I think, really strains credulity” (“Absolute Units,” 10–11).

Fred Hoyle, atheist astrophysicist: “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (“The Universe,” 12).

Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist: “The more I examine the Universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming” (Disturbing the Universe, 250).

Stephen Hawking (in his forties): “The initial state of the Universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the Universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us” (Brief History of Time, 133–34).

Allan Sandage, a prominent cosmologist who converted to Christianity: “The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone” (“A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief,” 57).

Even an atheist professor of astronomy, George Greenstein, makes this admission about the fine-tuning of the universe: “The more I read the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance”; “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved.” However, he passionately rejects this implication: “As this conviction grew, something else grew as well . . . It was intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature”; “I will have nothing to do with it. My conviction is that the world obeys laws, the laws of nature and that nothing can ever occur that stands outside those laws” (Symbiotic Universe, 27, 24, 87). Greenstein speaks for many people who are offended by suggestions of any influence beyond blind physical laws, but evidence from cosmology and physics strongly suggests that the existence of our universe cannot be explained as the result of purely random events.

It is therefore not intellectually weak, scientifically ignorant, or logically unsound to consider the possibility of a directing Intelligence at work behind the physical laws of the universe.

References

Borde, Arvind, and Alexander Vilenkin. “Eternal inflation and the initial singularity.” Physics Review Letters 72 (1994) 3305–309. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312022.pdf

Davies, Paul. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.

———. The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning. London: Penguin, 1992.

Dyson, Freeman J. Disturbing the Universe. New York: Harper and Row, 1979.

Ellis, George F. R., U. Kirchner, W. R. Stoeger. “Multiverses and Physical Cosmology.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 347 (2004) 921–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07261.x

Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. New York: William Morrow, 1988.

Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam, 1989.

Hilbert, David. “On the Infinite.” Translated by Ema Putnam, and Gerald J. Massey. 1925. In Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, edited by Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam, 134–51. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science 45 (1981) 8–12.

Sandage, Allan. “A scientist reflects on religious belief.” Truth: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Christian Thought 1 (1985) 56–57. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html

Wilczek, Frank. “On Absolute Units, III: Absolutely Not?” Physics Today 59 (2006) 11. http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Woit, Peter. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law. New York: Basic, 2006.

Do the Genealogies of Jesus Contradict?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ry Leasure

If you’ve read through the gospels, you’ve probably noticed that they share much in common. In some places, the wording is exactly the same. In other places, they’re so different it looks like they might contradict. These similarities and differences are often dubbed the synoptic problem. The word synoptic means “to see together.” The synoptic problem has led scholars to ask, why are there similarities in the gospels? And also, why are there differences?

The prevailing theory amongst scholars is that the similarities in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) can be explained by the authors’ use of the same sources. Most believe Mark wrote his gospel first, and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark to compile their gospels. They’ve reached this conclusion because roughly 90% of Mark is found in Matthew, and about 60% is contained in Luke. Additionally, both Matthew and Luke shared another common source known as a “Q” – taken from the German word Quelle, meaning “source.” This sayings source explains Matthew and Luke’s common material not found in Mark. And then, both Matthew and Luke had their separate individual sources – sometimes referred to as M and L – which explains their own unique material. Luke’s prologue gives us a bit of a sneak peek into this process (Lk. 1:1-4).

In sum, these different sources explain both the similarities as well as the differences. Some, however, have tripped up over the differences. In fact, many go so far as to suggest that the gospels contradict one another. One such example is found in Jesus’ genealogies, to which we now turn our attention.

Jesus’ Genealogies

Only Matthew and Luke contain Jesus’ genealogy. And one side-by-side comparison reveals that the genealogies are radically different. So much so, that skeptics believe they’re irreconcilable. I’ve listed the genealogies from Matthew 1:1-18 and Luke 3:23-38 below for your convenience. Take a quick look at them so you can better understand the skeptic’s complaint:

At first glance, one glaring difference exists – Luke’s genealogy is much longer than Matthew’s. The reason? Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam while Matthew stops at Abraham. In both genealogies, the line from Abraham to David is roughly the same. But once we move past David, the genealogies diverge. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan. Also, notice that Joseph has a different father in each account – Jacob in Matthew, Heli in Luke. How can we reconcile these differences? Lest we be tempted to think this is anything new, the church has dealt with this issue for almost two thousand years. And throughout that time, three different explanations have been given to explain the differences.

Option 1: Joseph vs. Mary’s Genealogy

One of the more popular explanations for the differences is to suggest that Matthew traces Joseph’s genealogy while Luke traces Mary’s. If this is true, the difference in genealogies makes sense. Think about your own genealogy for a moment. If you were to trace your father’s line and your mother’s line, you would get radically different family trees. Your father’s father and your mother’s father have different names. In Jesus’ case, his father’s father is Jacob while his mother’s father is Heli.

The reason some take this approach is because Matthew focuses his attention on Joseph in the birth narratives while Luke focuses more on Mary. In Luke, he describes Gabriel’s conversation with Mary, Mary’s Magnificat, and Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth. Moreover, even though Luke doesn’t mention Mary in the genealogy, he couches Jesus’ sonship to Joseph by saying “as it was supposed” (Lk. 3:23). Each of these clues indicates that Luke didn’t intend to give us Joseph’s ancestry but Mary’s.

Option 2: Royal vs. Biological Genealogy

Another explanation for the differences is that Matthew traces Jesus’ royal line with an emphasis on his Messianic claim to the throne while Luke traces Jesus’ biological line. According to this view, Matthew gives us several clues to suggest that he’s giving us a theological genealogy with an emphasis on King David, not a strict biological line.

For starters, Matthew begins the genealogy by stating, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt. 1:1). It’s well-known that Matthew writes to a primarily Jewish-Christian audience who would have understood the expectation that the Messiah would come through the line of David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer. 23:5-6). Therefore, from the outset, he tips off his readers to where he’s going with this genealogy.

Second, the mention of “Christ” alongside the name of Jesus in verse 1 also indicates Matthew’s intentions. While many may think of “Christ” as Jesus’ last name, it’s actually a title. It’s the Greek title for the Messiah. So, when Matthew prefaces his genealogy by stating that it’s the genealogy of Jesus Christ, he’s giving further evidence to his readers that his intention is to demonstrate that Jesus comes in the kingly line of David.

A third indicator that Matthew isn’t giving us a biological line but a royal one is his breakdown of the genealogy into groups of fourteen. In verse 17 we read, “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.”

A couple of points are worth noting here. Biblical scholars agree that the refrain “father of” or “son of” in genealogies don’t necessarily mean one generation after the next. Often times, genealogies will skip several generations. The language simply means that one is the ancestor of the next person in the line. Another point worth noting is the significance of the number fourteen and the Hebrew concept of Gematria. Gematria was the practice of ascribing a numerical number to a Hebrew letter – the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Aleph) has the numeral value of one and so on. Interestingly, the numerical value of David is fourteen. D(4) V(6) D(4) – 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.

It’s as if Matthew has a giant neon sign flashing “Son of David!” Luke doesn’t use any of these literary devices. He simply records the biological line of Jesus. And while Americans may be unfamiliar with the concept of royal lines, our British friends know that the line doesn’t always pass down neatly from father to son. In fact, the current queen of England inherited the throne from her father who inherited it from his brother. And the next king will probably be the queen’s grandson. All that to say, the royal line often diverges from the biological line.

Option 3: Levirate Marriage

A third explanation for the differences is the use of Levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is detailed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and states that if a married man dies without a male heir, his brother or closest relative must marry and seek to propagate with the widow in order to carry on the name of his deceased brother. This practice explains the Sadducees’ question to Jesus about which man would be a woman’s husband in heaven after going through seven brothers who all died (Mt. 22:24-28).

On this theory, something like the following scenario plays out: Jacob (Joseph’s father in Matthew’s genealogy) died before producing a male heir with his wife. Then, in order to fulfill the Levirate laws, Heli (a close relative of Jacob’s), marries Jacob’s widow and then conceives with his new wife which brings about Joseph. If this type of scenario played out, Joseph would be the legal son of Jacob and the biological son of Heli. Then Matthew traces Jacob’s line backwards to Abraham while Luke traces Heli’s line back to Adam. Scholars have listed several of these scenarios where something like this happened.

What’s the Best Explanation?

As I consider the three options, one of the options seems the least tenable. And that is option 1. While many have employed this option to explain the differences, Luke specifically states Joseph as the next person in Jesus’ genealogy, not Mary. He couches this relationship by stating “as it was supposed” because of his knowledge of the virgin birth. More than that, ancient Jewish genealogies always passed through the male’s line, not the female’s. Luke would have understood Jesus as Joseph’s adopted son.

This leaves options 2 and 3 as viable explanations, and my personal opinion is that a combination of the two best explains the differences in genealogies. Matthew clearly isn’t trying to give us a strict chronology with how he groups the names into lists of fourteen. Moreover, by tracing the line through king Solomon instead of Nathan like Luke, Matthew seeks to emphasize the royal nature of Jesus’ line. The levirate marriages could also help explain why different names exist in the genealogy as well.

In the end, we can’t be entirely certain which option is right. But one thing is for certain: we have viable explanations for why the genealogies are different in Matthew and Luke.

Who Cares About Philosophy?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

What do these questions have in common: Does God exist? Can God change? Does God know our future? How can a good God allow evil? How do humans know? What does it mean to know? What does it mean to be good? Can we objectively interpret the Bible? The answer: all of these questions are inherently philosophical.

With the recent decision by a very prominent evangelical institution to remove their philosophy department, why should anyone at all care about philosophy? Some would argue that Christians shouldn’t care about philosophy because, as Luther so colorfully put it, philosophy “is the devil’s whore.” In other words, man’s (autonomous) reason cannot be trusted. We only need to preach the gospel and not worry about worldly philosophy. Many in our culture argue that philosophy is mere opinion, worthless, impractical, and a waste of time. The study of philosophy is often seen as useless and a waste of a good education that could have otherwise been helpful in finding a good-paying job. Ironically, the reasons given for such positions are necessarily philosophical. Why? Because philosophy is unavoidable.

I personally found this out when I enrolled at Southern Evangelical Seminary in the fall of 2004. I initially enrolled at SES to study apologetics. I had no idea the impact philosophy would have on me. My first three courses were Intro to Apologetics, Old Testament Survey, and Hamartiology, and Soteriology (Sin and Salvation). None of these courses were inherently philosophical, at least so I thought. Dr. Tom Howe taught Old Testament Survey, and Dr. Norman Geisler taught the other two courses. As it turned out, all these courses were loaded with philosophy.

For example, Dr. Howe demonstrated the role philosophical presuppositions play in arguments marshalled against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). Such presuppositions were the product of rationalist thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Hume. Dr. Geisler demonstrated the role philosophy plays in talking about the nature of truth, God’s existence, and miracles. He even showed how our philosophy of man determines our view of the soul and its relationship to the body (which is important for sin and salvation). Later, Dr. Howe demonstrated how integral philosophy is to hermeneutics (interpreting and understanding a text).

I found out that a philosophy course called Metaphysics (the study of being as such) was being offered in January of 2005. I asked Dr. Doug Potter, the SES Registrar if I should take that class. “Yes,” he said, “it’s the foundation of all that we do.” I really didn’t know what that meant, but I took it. As it turns out, from a philosophical standpoint, it really is the foundation for all that we do, whether in biblical studies, language studies, hermeneutics, etc. Philosophy really is unavoidable.

Is Bart Ehrman Right When He Says That Acts Contradicts Paul’s Letters?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says, “the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the life and teachings of Paul.” In his book, Jesus, Interrupted Dr. Ehrman provides five examples of contradictions that exist between Paul’s letters and Acts.

Ehrman writes, “These are just a few of the discrepancies that one can find when one reads Acts horizontally against Paul’s letters. Many more can be discovered. What they show is that Acts cannot be relied upon for completely accurate detail when it describes the mission of the early apostles such as Paul.”

Since these contradictions are the five he handpicked for his book, he must feel like they’re some of the best. If the strongest examples aren’t even really contradictions, then that gives us a good reason to doubt Ehrman, not Luke.

After Paul’s Conversion, Did He Go Directly To Jerusalem To Confer With Those Who Were Apostles Set Before Him?

Leading off, Ehrman quotes Galatians 1:16-20: “I was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)”

Ehrman then writes: “This emphatic statement that Paul is not lying should give us pause. He is completely clear. He did not consult with others after his conversion, did not see any of the apostles for three years, and even then, he did not see any except Cephas (Peter) and Jesus’ brother James. This makes the account found in the book of Acts very interesting indeed. For according to Acts 9, immediately after Paul converted he spent some time in Damascus “with the disciples”, and when he left the city, he headed directly to Jerusalem, where he met with the apostles of Jesus (Acts 9:19-30). On all counts, Acts seems to be at odds with Paul. Did he spend time with other Christians immediately (Acts) or not (Paul)?“

Let’s read Acts 9:23-25 thoughtfully for ourselves before we take a scholar’s word for it.

“When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.“

Just how long of a period is ‘many days’? Looking elsewhere, we read that many days can be as long as 3 years! Take a look at 1 Kings 2:38-39: “And Shimei said to the king, “What you say is good; as my lord the king has said, so will your servant do.” So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. But it happened at the end of three years that two of Shimei’s servants ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath…

So what about the journey to Arabia? Luke doesn’t mention it, but that doesn’t necessarily contradict Paul’s story in Galatians. This trip may have happened within Luke’s ‘many days’ in Acts 9:23, and Luke either didn’t know about it or didn’t mention it.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If Acts was written by someone with no access to the story of Paul’s conversion, why did he place it on the way to Damascus of all places? Damascus doesn’t even feature prominently in the rest of Acts.

But if Luke is using Galatians, he wouldn’t have put Damascus into his story while leaving out Paul’s trip to Arabia or to the passing of three years. Either Luke is carefully devious to include a small detail like Damascus while being a major blunderer at the same time by leaving out the trip to Arabia. Or, this casual correspondence about Damascus shows that Luke knew about Paul apart from his letter to the Galatians.

Did The Churches In Judea Know Paul?

Regarding Galatians 1:21-22, Ehrman writes: “Here again Paul is quite clear. Sometime after he converted, he went around to various churches in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, but he “was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea” (Galatians 1:21-22). This has struck some scholars as odd. According to the book of Acts, when Paul was earlier persecuting the churches in Christ, it was specifically the Christian churches in “Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2). Why is it that Christians in the churches he had formerly persecuted didn’t know what he looked like? Wasn’t he physically present among them as their enemy earlier? According to Acts, yes, according to Paul, no.”

Acts 8:1-3 shows that Paul was persecuting the Jerusalem church, not the whole region of Judea. Acts 8:1 says that the believers in Jerusalem ‘were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.’

They very probably would have told the other Christians they met about Paul’s persecutions. That means the Judean Christians would’ve known Paul by his big, bad reputation but not necessarily by sight. This just isn’t all that hard to think through.

Did Paul Go To Athens Alone?

Here’s Ehrman again: “Luke again appears to have gotten some details wrong. When Paul writes his very first letter to the Thessalonians, he indicates that after he had brought them to faith and started a church among them, he traveled to Athens. But he felt concerned about the fledgling new church and so sent his companion Timothy back to see how the Thessalonians were doing. In other words, Timothy accompanied Paul to Athens and then returned to Thessalonica to help build them up in the faith (1 Thessalonians 3:1–2). The book of Acts, however, is equally clear. There we are told that after Paul established the church in Thessalonica, he and Silas and Timothy founded a church in the city of Boroea; the Christians there then “sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind” (17:14–15). Paul proceeded to send instructions that Silas and Timothy should meet up with him when they could. He traveled to Athens alone and met up with his two companions only after leaving the city for Corinth (17:16–8:5). This is another discrepancy hard to resolve: either Timothy went to Athens with Paul (1 Thessalonians), or not (Acts).”

This so-called contradiction is pretty weak sauce. Let’s read 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 for ourselves: “Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith.”

Paul doesn’t tell us how he arrived in Athens, all these verses say is that Timothy was with him in Athens at some point. It also suggests that Paul was in Athens for some time before he sent Timothy back. That’s why he writes, “when we could bear it no longer.”

Now let’s look at Acts 17:14-15. It reads, “Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.”

The Book of Acts clearly reports that a word was sent back telling Timothy to join Paul as quickly as possible. 1 Thessalonians 3 says Timothy was in Athens shortly afterward. Um, where exactly is the contradiction here?

How Many Trips Did Paul Make To Jerusalem?

Here’s Bart again: “According to Paul’s account, [the Jerusalem council] was only the second time he had been to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18; 2:1). According to Acts, it was his third, prolonged trip there (Acts 9, 11, 15). Once again, it appears that the author of Acts has confused some of Paul’s itinerary – possibly intentionally, for his own purposes.”

Here’s what Paul actually writes in Galatians: “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” And here is Galatians 2:1: “Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.”

There’s debate among Pauline scholars about whether or not what’s described in Galatians 2 is the Jerusalem council that we read about in Acts 15. Bart seems to think this is the only possible interpretation. He could very well be correct that it is. But where exactly does Paul say that this was only his second visit?

Acts 11 says that between Paul’s two journeys, he did go to Jerusalem to bring aid to those harmed by the famine. But why would Paul have mentioned this trip to the Galatians? It had nothing to do with him meeting with the apostles about the Gospel message that he was preaching to the Gentiles.

I’m seeing little reason to think that Bart’s claim that Acts is unreliable is correct. But let’s give him one last shot.

Were The Congregations That Paul Established Made Up Of Both Jews And Gentiles?

Here’s Bart one last time: “According to the book of Acts, the answer is a clear yes. When Paul preaches in Thessalonica, Jews in the synagogue come to faith in Christ, as do non-Jewish Greeks (Acts 17:4). Paul indicates just the opposite. When he writes to this church in Thessalonica, he recalls how he converted them to faith in Christ and speaks of how they “turned to God from idols” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Only pagans worshiped idols.”

Let’s again look at the actual texts in question. Here’s Acts 17:4: “And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.”

And here’s 1 Thessalonians 1:9: “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.”

At first, it seems like Ehrman has a point, but there seems to be a bit over-reading going on here. Paul’s audience would understand that the ‘you’ that turned to God from idols is an exaggerated statement. In an epistle written to a group, Paul is referring to one portion of his audience rather than another. Paul tells the Corinthian church that “you are proud.” But he’s not referring to the entire church at Corinth as if they were all celebrating sin within the congregation! (1 Cor. 5:2)

As NT scholar Craig Keener points out, Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians has allusions to ideas that wouldn’t make sense to Gentiles lacking familiarity with Jewish eschatological thought. (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17) Paul also distinguishes believers from Gentiles, whose ways they shouldn’t copy, as if even the Gentile believers understand they’ve switched to a new lifestyle. (1 Thess 4:4-5) These points imply there where at least some Jewish believers in the church who could explain such elements to others.

Plus, when Acts says that Paul reasoned in the synagogues for three weeks, it doesn’t mean that Paul was only there for three weeks. You’ll see why that’s relevant in a moment. In her book Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew points out that there’s a couple of interesting interlocking details in 1 Thessalonians that relate to these texts. In 1 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul says, “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.”

We read in Acts 16:19-35 that Paul was mistreated in Philippi. He was beaten and put in jail even though Paul was a Roman citizen and wasn’t given a fair trial. Paul even had the officials from the city come and apologize to him and escort him out. According to Acts, where does Paul go next? Thessalonica. So this was all very fresh to Paul when he arrived there, and you can bet the Thessalonians heard all about it.

So while Luke focuses on the Jewish and God-fearing Greek converts, if he was just copying 1 Thessalonians, he would have made it clear that idol-worshipers were included in their number. And he would have made it more clear that Paul was in town long enough for the Thessalonians to know about his hard work ethic. (1 Thessalonians 2:9) It is interesting to note however that Paul reasoned with the Jews on the Sabbath, so he was probably working in the marketplace for the rest of the week, preaching the Gospel to whoever would have listened. (See Acts 17:17, 18:1-4.) I’m sure this would have included some idol worshipers.

Furthermore, Paul uncharacteristically rails against the Jews in his correspondence: “For you, brothers became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thess 2:14-16)

Elsewhere Paul prays fervently for his unbelieving Jewish kinsmen. (Rom 10:1) So what gives here?

The Thessalonians would have known the answer to this, as Acts 17:5-9 describes that the Jews spread a rumor that Paul was preaching against Caesar. They sparked a riot with the help of ‘the rabble’ and ran him out of town. They then followed Paul into Berea and used the same harmful tactics there. But as we’ve seen, the book of Acts is independent of 1 Thessalonians, but these details dovetail nicely with each other. The Thessalonians wouldn’t need an explanation of Paul’s indignation, they had witnessed his trouble up close, and one of their own — Jason — was dragged into it.

This goes against Bart’s earlier complaint that Luke’s account and Paul’s letters don’t mesh well. They seem to go together just fine being while remaining independent of each other. Luke perfectly explains why Paul would have spoken so strongly against the Jews to the Thessalonians, as well as why he spoke of his mistreatment in Phillipi.

Conclusion

With Bart’s top 5 examples of contradictions between Paul’s letters and the book of Acts, we’ve seen that his negative case simply is unsubstantiated and fails to give us a reason to distrust Luke as some sort of unreliable, blundering historian who is unconcerned with accuracy. In fact, historians acknowledge that Luke gets many nitty-gritty historical details right about Paul’s journeys, as I list out here.

There is a good reason a renowned classicist like EM Blaiklock remarked that “for accuracy of detail, and for the evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not a shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record.”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

To Understand The Second Law Of Thermodynamics, Burn A Match

The Universe – A Giant Battery

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

No Historical Record of the Genocide

Herod the Great

Known for Two Things

Back to Bethlehem

Conclusion

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What about the theory of an infinite number of universes?

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus’ Genealogies

Option 1: Joseph vs. Mary’s Genealogy

Option 2: Royal vs. Biological Genealogy

Option 3: Levirate Marriage

What’s the Best Explanation?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

After Paul’s Conversion, Did He Go Directly To Jerusalem To Confer With Those Who Were Apostles Set Before Him?

Did The Churches In Judea Know Paul?

Did Paul Go To Athens Alone?

How Many Trips Did Paul Make To Jerusalem?

Were The Congregations That Paul Established Made Up Of Both Jews And Gentiles?

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic: