The Wounded Healer_ Finding Ultimate Purpose in Your Suffering

The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose in Your Suffering

By Luke Nix

Introduction

The other day, I heard a podcast that I want to highlight for anyone who is a victim of the evil and suffering of life and questions God’s purposes, His love, or even His existence. Whether our experiences are singular traumatic events, day-in and day-out pain, or a combination of the two, suffering often feels completely unbearable. These experiences can be so painful that many people are compelled to honestly question and seek legitimate answers to how an all-loving and all-powerful God could and would permit the suffering that we experience in our lives and see others experience in our world. This is called the logical problem of evil and has been long recognized as having been resolved, even by atheists (click or tap the link to see how).

Some, though, have wondered if that given the amount of evil and suffering, it is likely that an all-powerful and all-loving does not God exist. Simply stated: “There is too much gratuitous suffering in the world for an all-loving and all-powerful God to exist.” While this is a more modest concern that seems reasonable, if it is to be granted, such a denial of God’s existence based upon gratuitous suffering is necessarily reliant upon the idea that God does not have reasons to allow the amount of suffering that He does. Further, that depends upon knowing God’s purposes (or lack thereof) and how those purposes could (not) be accomplished. However, both the purposes of God and the methods of their fulfillment would have to be extremely limited for one to reasonably conclude that the amount of evil and suffering in the world is gratuitous. God’s purposes and methods are not so limited, so evil and suffering cannot be used to reasonably conclude that God does not exist. Yet, even though this answer is reasonable, it does not really answer the question of what the purpose of evil and suffering actually is. That is where I believe that Dr. Emerson Eggerichs picks up from the logical answer to the problem of evil and suffering and makes a deeply personal connection to their purpose.

Evil, Suffering, and the Great Commission

Our experiences of evil and suffering are deeply personal, so it makes sense that their purpose is personal as well. What are the purposes for which we are placed in different situations of suffering? We need to look not much further than Matthew 28:19a- “Go and make disciples of all nations.” Suffering is no respecter of one’s status, deeds, or even worldview, so all people experience it. Suffering reveals weakness; thus it is an experience that forges bonds of trust-trust of one another that is grounded in the knowledge that the other person has an intimate understanding of the anguish of their suffering.

Two Perspectives and the Cross

From the perspective of the moment, suffering is painful; yet from the perspective of eternity, suffering is trivial. The perspective of the moment instills in us a strong desire for relief for not only ourselves but for those who suffer like us. The perspective of eternity instills in us a strong sense of purpose and encouragement to know that the relief we desire for ourselves and others in the moment will be realized.

These two perspectives converged nearly two thousand years ago at the Cross. Jesus saw his suffering the torcher of crucifixion in the light of the rest of eternity for those who would choose to accept Him. He understood that that time of suffering was finite and could not be compared to the infinite time of bliss that it would provide to those He would reconcile to the Father. Three days later, this convergence was verified as Jesus overcame His suffering and conquered death in His Resurrection. It is this historical event that demonstrates the ultimate purpose of our suffering.

Suffering Is Only Gratuitous If We Allow It To Be

While suffering can strengthen the trust of the Christian in Christ, Christians can turn those same experiences into many opportunities to bring unbelievers into a loving, trusting, and healing relationship with Christ and share the relief with us. The Apostle Paul wrote, “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18). It is through our own suffering of tragedies and evil in this world that the Great Commission can be accomplished- that unbelievers, who we love and comfort through our own personal experiences of the same suffering, can live pain-free and for want of nothing for eternity with their Creator, Savior, and Healer.

As the Body of Christ, we are His representatives in the physical world; it is through us that those who suffer can see, hear, and feel the heart of our suffering Savior- the One who lives so that they may live also (John 14:19). Every bit of suffering in our lives can have an ultimate purpose. It is our choice, though, if our suffering will be more than gratuitous and have an ultimate purpose. That purpose is to allow us to come alongside someone else who is also in that suffering and be trusted and permitted to speak the truth, hope, love, and healing of Christ into that life. We are wounded by suffering so that we have the opportunity to heal others wounded by suffering by pointing them to the ultimate Healer who was wounded for us.

Conclusion

Dr. Eggerichs describes in this podcast how he was wounded but uses those wounds to heal others and point them to the ultimate Healer. Please listen to the podcast and be encouraged that the evil and suffering that you experience in your life can be used to guide someone else to an eternity free from those experiences and full of unspeakable joy. Our suffering is only gratuitous if we allow it to be, and why would we want to allow that? Click or tap this link: Love and Respect Podcast: The Wounded Healer, then choose to speak life to the broken hearted.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2MZW3cf

/by
How to Get Men to Church

How to Get Men to Church

By Timothy Fox

There’s a critical gender gap problem in America: Christianity’s gender gap. Men attend church far less than women. Why? There are many reasons, from weak, whiny worship to emotions-based sermons. Church isn’t masculine, so men don’t go.

So what’s the solution? Churches create “manly” ministries and boot camps, involving sports and YELLING and other macho stuff. Now, as great as these can be to help form relationships with other Christian men, many men’s ministries are only indirect bridges to the church. How do we get men fully engaged and active within the body of Christ? I think the answer is apologetics, the rational defense of the Christian worldview. Here are three reasons why:

  1. Men are logical

I’m a pastor’s kid. I grew up in church. I always believed in Christianity, but I also always had a major disconnect. Church was completely feelings-based: sensing God’s presence through emotional worship and charismatic preaching. That wasn’t for me at all. I’m a logic guy. I have a B. S. in Computer Science, worked for many years as a software engineer, and now teach mathematics. Like I said, a logic guy. It wasn’t until I discovered apologetics that Christianity clicked for me. I found my place within the church. I finally belonged.

I’m sure many men have the same problem with church that I did. Fortunately, apologetics can show them the rational side of Christianity. We have a deep intellectual tradition that should not be forgotten. Our worldview is not based solely on blind faith and religious experience. There are good, logical reasons to think that Christianity is true. Of course, the affective side of man is important as well, that worship services can – and should – reach the entire person, both mind, and heart. But there is an imbalance in our churches. Apologetics can help fix that and draw in men.

  1. Men need to do something

Do you know any men who always find something to fix, even if it isn’t broken? They’re constantly tinkering here or making a home improvement there. Some guys just need to do something at all times (which is better than being idle!). They want to feel needed and important, to help solve problems. But men see nothing to do at church. It’s mostly passive.

Apologetics can give men a purpose in their church. Teaching a class or helping the pastor research for a sermon. Being a resource, on-call when needed. Apologetics make men a vital part of a church instead of being a passive attendee.

  1. Men need to protect

I found it interesting how many of my male classmates in Biola’s Christian Apologetics program had either military or martial arts background. These men had an instinctive need to protect their country, community, and family, and now sought to protect their church. And that’s exactly what apologetics is: providing a defense for the Christian faith (1 Peter 3:15).

More and more young people are leaving the church. Statistics show that once your children leave for college, they’re probably going to abandon their faith. Men, what are you going to do about that? Are you going to sit back and watch that happen, or are you going to fight for your children’s faith? Studying apologetics will give you the tools to inoculate your children against the false worldviews and beliefs they will certainly encounter in school and on social media.

Conclusion

My argument isn’t that apologetics needs men, although we can always use more (and women too, of course!). No, my argument is that men need apologetics. It meets specific masculine needs that the church is unfortunately lacking. So if you want to get the man in your life to become passionate about spiritual things, introduce him to apologetics.

 

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

/by
A Parent’s Guide to the 5 Skeptics Who Want to Shame Your Kids for Being Christian

A Parent’s Guide to the 5 Skeptics Who Want to Shame Your Kids for Being Christian

, ,

By Natasha Crain 

Having blogged for over six years now, I’ve received hundreds (and hundreds) of comments and emails from skeptics of Christianity. Once in a while, I receive one from a pleasant non-believer who is truly interested in discussing evidence, asking reasonable questions, and engaging in thoughtful discussion.

But that’s the exception.

Those who contact me typically wield the tool of shaming to make their point—something highly ironic given how much skeptics talk about the importance of evidence.

To be clear, none of the non-believers I personally know would use shaming tactics in person. But when people are behind their screens, it brings down the “barrier” of civility, and faith conversations often look very different. You can see it on social media (even with friends who wouldn’t say such things in person), comments on news articles, blog posts—everywhere.

Kids need to understand these emotion-laden shaming attempts they’ll encounter. Like so much else, this is something parents can and should prepare them for. Here are the five most common skeptics who want to shame your kids for being Christian.

  1. The Science Thumper

Shame Tactic: Making the child believe they don’t have enough scientific expertise to understand that belief in God is unnecessary and silly.

The Science Thumper applies some notion of science to each and every conversation about Christianity, making it the final word on any given topic, and implying that science and Christianity are at irreconcilable odds.

For example, in response to one of my blog posts about the meaning of life in a theistic worldview, a skeptic commented:

You need to study the mechanisms of replication, mutation, natural selection if you want to understand why life exists and is the way it is. If life and existence are too amazing, astounding and astonishing to exist naturally… then how much more complex is god [sic] for having created it? … Did you invent Superman as a panacea answer for everything you don’t understand?

Questions of faith and science are very important, but framing faith and science as a choice—one option for the unsophisticated and one for those in the know—is a cheap and false dichotomy.

Parent Solution: Thoroughly address faith and science topics so kids understand how shallow and unnuanced the Science Thumper’s claims are. See Talking with Your Kids about God for six chapters outlining the conversations parents need to have.

  1. The Indoctrination Informer

Shame Tactic: Informing the child that the ONLY reason they believe in Jesus is that they’ve been “indoctrinated” by their parents.

Indoctrination is a word that both Christians and skeptics use wrong. Skeptics often think a kid has been indoctrinated any time they’ve been taught a given religion is true. Christians often think indoctrination means teaching kids Christian doctrine. These misunderstandings lead to conversations that unfortunately sound like this:

Skeptic to Christian parent: “You’re indoctrinating your kids [by raising them in a Christian home]! Let them think for themselves.”

Christian parent to skeptic: “You’re right! I’m teaching my kids Christian doctrine, and I’m proud of it!”

Both skeptics and Christians need to understand that indoctrination means teaching someone to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs. In other words, indoctrination is a problem with how you teach someone something. It is not inherently related to any particular belief system, though religion is one type of belief system where indoctrination is possible.

Parent Solution: Intentionally introduce your kids to skeptics’ challenges, so they never feel the need to question whether you tried to shelter them from other beliefs. For more on the importance of this, see the post “If Your Kids are Someday Shocked by the Claims of Skeptics, You Didn’t Do Your Job.”

  1. The Miracle Mocker

Shame Tactic: Making the child feel gullible for believing something that doesn’t happen according to natural laws. 

Here’s a recent comment a skeptic left on my blog:

Just because some so-called holy book says something is true doesn’t make it true. Why do you believe outlandish claims about a god [sic] speaking things into existence, or about a man being swallowed by a fish for a few days and surviving, a worldwide flood [and ark] that fit all of the animals in it and eight people, or a story about a virgin getting pregnant? None of that makes sense, you don’t have any proof that it happened, but you still think it’s true. Why do you prefer to believe outlandish claims because they’re religious?

The logic here is what’s “outlandish” (no one believes all miraculous claims simply because they’re religious), but my point is not to critique the details of this particular comment. My point is to show how skeptics present miracles in a way that parades them as “obviously” absurd because (and by definition!), they don’t follow the course of nature.

Parent Solution: Teach kids the basic logic that if God exists, miracles are possible, and if God doesn’t exist, miracles are not possible (for more on this, see chapter 24 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side). This brings the question of miracles back to the underlying question of the evidence for God’s existence, so kids understand that the person claiming miracles are silly is simply presupposing God doesn’t exist.  

  1. The Self-Sufficient Scoffer

Shame Tactic: Boasting that the skeptic doesn’t “need” God—and implying that anyone who does has an inferior need for an emotional crutch to get through life.  

Oftentimes, when ex-Christians recount their deconversion story, they conclude with a glib comment of how they moved on because they no longer “needed” God. The subtly condescending implication, of course, is that those who believe in God do so because they don’t have the emotional resources to make it through life admitting that we live in a universe of pitiless indifference.

This is a strange conclusion that betrays a lack of deeper insight.

If God exists, we need Him. All things were created through and for Him; He is the Source and Sustainer of everything by definition. Therefore, if God exists, it’s not a choice to need Him… it’s simply a fact that we do.

If God doesn’t exist, we don’t need Him. We cannot need Him. We cannot need something that doesn’t exist.

In other words, saying that you don’t need God anymore is a nonsensical conclusion. Of course, you don’t need God if He doesn’t exist. And if He does exist, you can’t choose to not need Him.

What this kind of statement betrays, therefore, is that the skeptic originally believed in God based on felt needs (desires) rather than on the conviction that He truly exists. When they realized they didn’t need to believe in God to satisfy those felt needs, they simply eliminated Him from the picture and met those needs in other ways.

Parent Solution: Be mindful of helping kids build a faith based on the conviction of God’s existence and the truth of Christianity—not on felt needs for things like being happy, being a good person, or finding meaning in life. In other words, if anyone ever asks your child why they’re a Christian, you should want their response to be, “Because Christianity is true!” For more on escaping the felt need pattern, see the post “Do Your Kids Know Why They Need God?”

  1. The Tolerance Enforcer

Shame Tactic: Making the child feel like they are unloving and hateful for taking a biblical stance that doesn’t approve of all choices as morally acceptable.

In a spectacular display of irony, the Tolerance Enforcer shames kids into believing that they must be horrible people for disagreeing with non-believers on the morality of various issues. By labeling kids hateful and unloving rather than thoughtfully discussing the evidence for the truth of the underlying worldviews that produce divergent moral conclusions, they rely on purely emotional attacks. Kids without an intellectual foundation for the Christian worldview are left feeling that they must be wrong about the truth of their faith.

Parent Solution: Help kids understand the irony of a person championing tolerance who won’t tolerate Christian beliefs without labeling disagreement hateful. Then demonstrate how Christians and non-Christians will necessarily disagree on moral issues because we have a different source of authority—the Bible. Here’s an example.

In all of these cases, remember that shame, by definition, is “a painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness or disgrace.” In other words, the root of shame is feeling inadequate.

In order for our kids to feel (more than) adequate when they encounter shaming attempts, they need to have the deep conviction that what they believe is really true. Only then will they be able to fully see these shame tactics for what they are—shallow and baseless emotional attacks—and be able to say confidently with the apostle Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tHfM82

/by
Don’t Be Overcome by Statistics, Overcome Statistics with the Gospel

Don’t Be Overcome by Statistics, Overcome Statistics with the Gospel

,

By Brian Chilton

Let’s be honest. We in the Christian world are inundated with bad news. We are bombarded with news about how the Millennial Generation is far more unbelieving than Generation X. In full disclosure, I was born at the end of what would make me a Gen-Xer. Nevertheless, pastors especially are concerned with lower numbers of people in their pews, statistics that show that giving is much lower than in times past, and denominational numbers that are dismal. I am identified as a Southern Baptist. I have heard reports that the SBC baptismal rates are the lowest they have been for quite some time.

Hearing these numbers cause great concern. As one who loves peace and security, I find myself asking some questions that are noble, like—”Will the next generation know about Christ? Will there be an evangelical presence in a future generation?”, And some questions that are admittedly more selfish, like—“Do I have job security as a pastor? Will I have enough time in ministry to retire? What will I do if I lose my position?”. Be honest. If you are in ministry, you have probably asked similar questions.

However, I have had a statement that the apostle Paul gave the Romans on my mind a lot here lately. Paul wrote, perhaps his magnum opus, to the church in Rome. Roman Christians were facing uncertain days as they were often met with persecution. In AD 49, Emperor Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. The Christian Jews were met with strife over their trust in Christ by fellow Jews. For the Christians left in Rome, they were Gentiles who were bombarded by various other competing worldviews. In the midst of this turmoil, Paul encourages them by saying, “Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good” (Rom. 12:21).[1] How can these words apply to our situation? First, let’s look at the reactions that people often have when met with opposition.

  1. Reactions to Negative Statistics.

            As an observer of people, I have noticed three negative reactions and one positive to the problems facing the church. We’ll call the three negative reactions the denying mule, the withdrawn ostrich, and the whipped pup, while the positive reaction is noted as the conquering lion.

            The Denying Mule. A mule can be a stubborn animal. If it is content to not do something, it is difficult, if not downright impossible, to get the animal to that thing. In like manner, some Christians will hear the negative statistics that are given and will deny that things are as bad as the statistics portray. Why? It is because the person is content to keep things as they are and is unwilling to change ministerial practices regardless of what may come. This is an unhealthy practice.

            The Withdrawn Ostrich. Ostriches are classically portrayed as sticking their heads in the sand when concerned. I have been told that ostriches do not actually do such a thing. However, for our analogy, we will use the famous scene. For some Christians, they are overly concerned with the bleak news, but they are unwilling are perhaps too afraid to meet the challenges that lie ahead. Therefore, instead of facing the challenges, they withdraw themselves to people like themselves and ignore the outside world. Again, this is an unhealthy practice for the evangelical Christian.

            The Whipped Pup. The third practice is that of a whipped pup. This is likened to an unfortunate puppy who has been met with horrid treatment by even worse people. We have taken in pets before that attach themselves to us, because we treat them well, but are afraid of anyone or anything else. Some Christians are like this whipped pup. They feel defeated and think that there is no hope. They feel anxious and concerned, but do not know how to improve the situation at hand. This too is an unhealthy practice.

            The Conquering Lion. The healthy response is likened to a conquering lion. This animal has confidence and faces any circumstance with the attitude and trust that he can make a difference and can see positive things take place. The conquering lion is the attitude the modern Christian needs to have. It may surprise you to know that even the United States has met times where Christianity wasn’t as strong as it was at other times. God would raise up individuals to bring change. Examples include John Wesley, George Whitefield, D. L. Moody, and more recently Billy Graham.

           2.  Ways to Overcome Negative Statistics.

            So, how do we overcome the statistics? Rather than placing an unhealthy focus on the statistics, I suggest that we take four attitudes moving forward.

            Power of Prayer. First, we need to remember that there is great power in prayer. Do you think that the power of prayer has ceased? Has God changed? Remember, God does not change, he is the same God that he has always been (Heb. 13:8; Rom. 11:29; and Num. 23:19). God hears our prayers (1 Jn. 5:14). So, if God has not changed and he still hears our prayers, why are we not praying more, asking that God does something great in our lives and in the church to change the direction that we’re going?

            Gospel Focus. We cannot ignore the statistics. However, I do not think we should make statistics our primary focus. Our primary focus should be on Christ and on fulfilling his Great Commission. We cannot control what other people do. However, we can control where we place our focus. What if every Christian and every church took the gospel seriously and tried to share their faith by both their actions and words? Why we might see another Great Awakening sooner than we thought.

            Divine Trust. Also, we must not be consumed by the negativity all around us. We must trust God in all things and understand that he does have a great plan for us and for all of history. It’s also in Romans that Paul notes that “all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). Trust in God and in his direction.

            Genuine Love. Finally, we must not lose the focus we should all have on love. Do we really love the lost? That is a serious question we must ask ourselves. Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples if you love one another” (Jn. 13:35). Can people see Christ in us by the love we have? If not, we need to first have a revival within ourselves.

 Conclusion

Statistics are important. They serve as a gauge to illustrate the spiritual condition of our time. However, we cannot be consumed by the negative statistics we read and hear. For us to have a revival, no amount of human tactics will do any good. Rather, to have a true revival, God must move. He must move within us as we are the hands and feet of Jesus. So, to borrow Paul’s statement in Romans 12:21: Don’t be overcome by statistics, but overcome statistics with the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Notes 

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He 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); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tirl5l

/by
The Goodness of God

The Goodness of God

By J. Brian Huffling

My last post on God and morality brought up the issue of if and how God is moral. My main point was to reject the notion that God is moral in the sense that humans are moral. But I did mention that God is good, just not morally good. That is, he isn’t good because he lives up to some standard of goodness. I even rejected the notion that he is his own standard since that seems to be indistinguishable from being arbitrary. In thinking about this topic over the years, it seems to me that many Christians believe that God is good because of something he did for them, such as Jesus dying on the cross, healing someone, providing in a time of need, etc. But is this really what makes God good? Would God still be good if he never saved anyone, didn’t heal and didn’t provide? God’s goodness is not grounded in his actions but in his perfect being.

What Does It Mean for God to Be Good?

The classical notion of God’s goodness is that God is good because his being is perfect and lacks nothing. This is seen in the thinking of theologians like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. Aquinas, following the thought of Augustine, thought that ‘being’ is basically synonymous with ‘goodness.’ To be good is to have the fullness of being. It may help to contrast this with evil. The traditional Christian view of evil is that it is a privation of good. In other words, something is evil if it lacks some good or is corrupted in some way. A standard example is an apple that has rotted. The apple itself is good, but the rot is where the apple has been corrupted. That corrupted part of the apple should be good (i.e., not rotten) for it to be what an apple is supposed to be. Thus, the rot of the apple is said to be an evil. It should be fairly obvious that this notion of evil has to do with being or existence and not morality, for apples aren’t moral beings. In short, the apple is good insofar as it has the proper being of an apple and doesn’t lack any good or perfection.

Since God is perfect being as such, he is perfect goodness. He lacks nothing and is not corrupted in any way. He is simply perfect. He is infinite, unlimited being. Thus, he is infinite, unlimited goodness. He doesn’t have good; he is goodness as such. Again, this is not a moral goodness but a metaphysical goodness. (Here is a classic description of God’s perfection, goodness in general, and God’s goodness.)

So What Does This Mean?

God does not have to do anything to be good. He is pure infinite goodness just by existing. If he never did anything for his creatures, even make them, he would be just as good as he was without them. In other words, our existence doesn’t add any good to him. His actions towards us, even his actions that lead to our salvation, do not add any good to him. Since God is (qualitatively not quantitatively) good, nothing can add to it, since one can’t add to an infinite (again, think in terms of quality, not quantity). He is simply pure goodness, and we don’t contribute anything to that.

Our existence is the expression of his goodness, not the cause or contributor of it.

God does not need us in order for him to be good. Further, we should not think of his goodness as being grounded in what he does for us. Of course, he is rich in mercy towards us, he loves us, and he is good to us. I am not denying this. But unlike man, his goodness is not measured by his actions. While man is good metaphysically because he has existence, man is also good (or not) in a moral sense. This latter sense is a fulfillment of good due to whether or not he does good things and measures up to what it means to be a good person.

A Right View of Worship

It is certainly not wrong to worship God or thank him for his blessings. We should. But our view of God’s goodness should not rise and fall with what he does to or for us. As I have said before, Christians tend to make God in the image of man. We often think that if things are going well and God is blessing us, then God is good. If not, he isn’t, or at least something is wrong. This is not a proper view of God or a proper foundation for worship (think of Job). While we should worship and thank God for his blessings, a right view of worship should be centered around the fact that God is infinite, perfect being and goodness. He does not have goodness like us. He is Goodness. He does not merit our worship and adoration. The fact that we are his creation means that he demands our worship and adoration. Let us be ever mindful that God is God. He is not like us. We are the creatures. He is the creator.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2I4APX0

/by
The Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection, Part 10_ Conclusion

The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection, Part 10: Conclusion

,

by Evan Minton 

If you’ve taken the time to read through this entire series, I commend you. The resurrection of Jesus is the most important event in human history. If it occurred, the Christian worldview is true. If it did not occur, then we need to search for worldview truth elsewhere. However, we saw throughout the last 9 blog posts that the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is shockingly strong.

You know, there have been times when I myself gave refuting the resurrection a shot. But I could never think of a naturalistic theory other than ones I refuted in part 7 of this series. And according to Dr. Habermas, scholars are the same way. The fact that non-Christian historians admit the 5 minimal facts, and have basically just given up trying to explain them only bolsters my confidence in the resurrection’s historicity.

A Message To The Non-Christian Reader

If you were a non-Christian who became convinced by these arguments in this series of articles that Jesus has risen, I want you to know that you can’t just stop here. It isn’t enough to acknowledge that Christianity is true, you have to place your trust in Christ for salvation. This is the difference between “Belief That” and “Belief In.” Those aren’t my terms; I got those from Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace. “Belief That” is an acknowledgment that God exists, that God is a Trinity, that Jesus died and rose from the dead, etc. While “Belief That” is certainly a necessary condition for obtaining salvation (see Hebrews 11:6), it is not a sufficient condition. After all, James 2:19 says that even the devil believes that God exists yet Revelation 20:10 says he’s going to Hell! Acknowledging that Christianity is true isn’t enough to get you into Heaven. You need belief that and believe in. What is “e.g. In”? Belief In is when you act on what you know. It’s when you place your trust (the actual definition of faith, by the way) in Christ for your salvation. It’s when you receive Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and devote your life to serving Him.

Lee Strobel explains this in mathematical terms. Believe + Receive = Become. Become what? A child of God (see John 1:12 – “To all who received him, he gave the right to be called children of God.”). “Belief That” is the first part of the equation. “Belief In” is the second part. For years, I had only the first part of the equation until God wore me down and brought me to my knees.

You’re a sinner according to Romans 3:23; “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” The “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23a) because God is holy and just (Psalm 9:7-8, Psalm 9:16, Psalm 10, Psalm 11:16, Psalm 103:6). But God isn’t only just; He is also loving. In fact, 1 John 4:8 says that love is a vital part of who God is.“God is love”. Because God’s very nature is love, He “so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16). God loves “the world.” Are you a part of the world? If you are, then this verse applies to you. God loves you and gave his son Jesus to die on the cross to atone for your sins (cf. 1 Peter 3:18). Jesus was crucified in order to experience the wrath of God. He experienced God’s wrath so that you wouldn’t have to. God’s word promises that if you place your faith in Christ, He will be registered as your substitute. His blood will cover you, and God will look at you as though you had never sinned. He will see you the same way he sees Jesus; as a son who is without sin. This is the gift that God offers you. It’s a free gift. You don’t have to work for it. “The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23b). Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves. It is a gift from God. Not by works lest anyone should boast.” 

Will you receive this gift? Will you receive the free gift of salvation that God offers you? If so, call upon God and ask Him to save you. You don’t need a special “Sinner’s Prayer.” God knows your heart. Just call out to him. “For all who call upon the name of The Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13). Your prayer doesn’t have to be eloquent or scripted. It can be as simple as “God, I now know that this Christianity stuff is true. Now that I’m convinced, I want you to save me. Please give me salvation in Jesus’ name. Amen.”

If you have received Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, I’d love to hear from you. Send me an e-mail at CerebralFaith@Gmail.com to tell me about your decision. I’d love to know that typing all these blog posts made an impact on someone’s eternity. Also, I’d be happy to talk with you about finding a church to attend.

A Message To The Christian Reader

For readers who are already Christians, I hope you study these articles or the e-book adaption soon to come out and master these arguments so that you will “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have.” (1 Peter 3:15) And be able to “demolish arguments and any pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. Taking captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5). One of my goals as an apologist is to equip my fellow believers like you to be able to give people the reasons to believe that Christianity is true. Not every unbeliever will take the time to read an apologetics book or even a single article. Either because they just don’t like to read, or maybe they don’t know that good answers to their questions are available. However, they may be more than happy to engage in a conversation with you about God. You may be the only apologist they ever hear, or you may be the first one they ever hear.

You may be thinking “This is interesting and all, but I’m just not smart enough to be an apologist. Don’t you have to get Ph? Ds and spend years in seminary?” Let me tell you a story: I can still remember my first exposure to Christian Apologetics. I was 18. The year was 2010. I had been wrestling with doubts for months, but I didn’t tell anyone, not because I was ashamed of my doubts, but because I was worried that I would spread them around like the common cold if I expressed them. One night, while I was scrolling my timeline on Facebook, one of my Facebook friends had posted a link to a YouTube video. It was the documentary adaption of Lee Strobel’s “The Case For A Creator.” I was blown away at what I was seeing and hearing; several credentialed scientists were talking about scientific evidence for the existence of a transcendent Creator (from the origin of the universe, the cosmic and local fine-tuning, the information content in DNA, etc.). My faith was restored. I bought Strobel’s books and read them. And although the evidence from science and history were ,”, I wasn’t able to articulate the arguments very well because I had only gotten the gist on my first read. I would try to share my faith with non-believers online, and they would pelter me with questions and objections that I couldn’t answer. When I prayed for their souls, I prayed that God would send someone to them who could walk them through the evidence for His existence and the reliability of The Bible.

One day, after I prayed for these atheists a few times, I prayed once more “Lord, please lead these people to salvation. Lead them to a saving relationship with yourself. If they need reasons to believe, please send someone who can articulate the reasons for them.” And then I felt The Holy Spirit say to me “I want you to give them the reasons.” I was confused. I was terrible at articulating the Cosmological Argument or the case for the resurrection. How could God want me to be the one? The very next day, I was scrolling my Facebook timeline, and I saw a captioned image that said; “God doesn’t call the qualified. He qualifies the called.” That’s when I realized that although I wasn’t currently equipped to deal with the challenges the non-believers I tried to witness to brought my way, I could, through rigorous study and training, become equipped. If God really wanted me to be a Christian Apologist, then he would help me learn the stuff I needed to skillfully contend for the faith (Jude verse 3). I read Lee Strobel’s books cover-to-cover several times, trying to remember what I read. My Mom helped me by getting me several books on Christian Apologetics as presents for my 19th birthday. Those books were “On Guard: Defending Your Faith With Reason and Precision” by William Lane Craig, “Who Is Agent X: Proving Science and Logic Show It’s More Rational To Think God Exists” by Neil Mammen, “The Holman Quicksource Guide To Christian Apologetics” by Doug Powell, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist” by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, “Intelligent Design 101” by multiple authors, “The Apologetics Study Bible”, and “The Case For Faith” by Lee Strobel. I didn’t just read these books; I studied them. I read them cover-to-cover multiple times. My copy of Tureks and Geisler’s book is actually starting to fall apart due to overuse.

I joined a Facebook group called “Christian Apologetics Alliance,” and I would frequently ask questions that had either occurred to me or was posed to me by someone I was dialoguing with on the internet. I downloaded lectures and debates from Apologetics315.com to my MP3 Player and would listen to these lectures over and over while I did housework and yard work. Later in my 19th year, I attended The National Conference On Christian Apologetics so I could learn even more. I bought Hugh Ross’ book “The Creator and The Cosmos” and Josh McDowell’s “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” at that conference. Over the years, I’ve bought many different books by many different authors on theology and apologetics, and I have read many of them multiple times.
In 2012, I decided to start a blog to share what I was learning; Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). Since then, I’ve written nearly 500 posts on a variety of different topics; arguments for God’s existence, the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, the problem of evil, the Arminianism/Calvinism debate, the creation/evolution debate, and others.
As of this writing, I confess that I have never been to seminary (though I hope to be able to attend someday). All of my knowledge comes from the self-taught method, with the mindset that I was going to learn and master apologetics no matter what. I was hell-bent on improving my skills. Through hard work, discipline, and determination, you too can become a skillful defender of the faith. The knowledge isn’t locked away in universities. You can gain it simply by studying the books. However, it won’t be easy, and it won’t come quickly. You will have to be dedicated to learning this material, but it’s worth it. It is so satisfying to be able to go toe to toe with unbelievers.

J. Warner Wallace, in a talk called “Call Of Duty” given at 2017’s National Conference On Christian Apologetics, said; “We don’t need another million dollar apologist. We need a million one dollar apologists.”[1] What is a million dollar apologist? What is a one dollar apologist? My friend Zachary Lawson gave this helpful analogy: A million dollar apologist is like Led Zepplin while a dollar apologist is like your friend who can play the guitar really well. A million dollar apologist is someone who has many letters after his name and probably belongs to a few philosophy clubs, and they are experts in their respective fields; people like Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Alvin Plantinga, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Dr. Craig Blomberg, and Dr. Hugh Ross would fall under this category. One Dollar Apologists would be people like me; who do a lot of reading and then write about what they learned. Or they’d be people who didn’t get a degree in a field relevant to apologetics (like philosophy, physics, ancient near eastern culture) but got a degree in apologetics itself.

I don’t mind being called a “One Dollar Apologist.” I don’t find it demeaning or insulting. I believe we need both the million dollar apologists like Craig and Plantinga, but we also need One Dollar Apologists.

This world is full of people who don’t know Jesus. A lot of them don’t believe simply because they don’t want to. They are in rebellion against their Creator. However, there are those who are earnestly searching for the truth, who are open to following the evidence wherever it leads, and if asked “If you knew Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?” would answer with a resounding “Yes.” We need to be equipped to reach these people. Don’t be like I was. Don’t pray “God, please send someone like Evan Minton who can answer all their objections.” God wants you to be that person. Jesus said, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). We are all called to share our faith, and since in many cases, questions will arise, it logically entails that we are all called to defend our faith as well.

I’ve heard way too many stories of people either going to their pastor, their parents, or their Christian friends with tough questions about and even arguments against Christianity, and honestly wanted to know if they could be successfully answered. These people were either rebuked for questioning The Bible, told “You just need to pray and God will give you more faith”, or were simply told that they didn’t know how to respond. Their doubts grew until they finally ended up leaving Christianity entirely, often once they went to a university. You may at some point have someone like this attend your church. Your pastor may not be equipped to deal with the challenges he brings up. But if you take the time to study this blog series/e-book, and some of the other resources I’ve mentioned (e.g my own blog, and some of the books I’ve mentioned reading in the preceding paragraphs), then you will be equipped to deal with them. You will be the friendly neighborhood apologist, and people will start to take notice and will begin coming to you when they have questions. I have often joked that I’m “The Bible Answer Man” of my family. My friends and family come to me with questions all the time. Questions like “What happens to a person who commits suicide?”, “Can people lose their salvation or not?”, “Why did Jesus say He didn’t know the time of His second coming if He’s God and God is omniscient?” are a few examples.

No, you don’t have to go to seminary to get the skills you need to defend your faith. You don’t need to have an IQ of 130. You just need to study hard, and you should. This world can never have too many apologists. It will be well worth the time and effort you pour into it, I promise you.

C.S Lewis put it well: “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[2]

Let us be salt and light in this skeptical era.

Notes

[1] This talk can be downloaded as an MP3 file at http://www.catapes.com/viewresults.cfm?cid=363

[2] C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2M2gjsv

/by
An Encounter With Jehovah’s Witnesses

An Encounter With Jehovah’s Witnesses

,

By Terrell Clemmons

It was a bright and cold December morning, and I was up to my elbows in bread dough when my doorbell rang. The dog barked at full volume, and my preschool daughter zipped past me as I brushed the flour from my hands and followed her to the door. There waited a tall, professionally dressed, blond young woman, smiling confidently as if she were arriving for a job interview. She offered me some free literature on the Bible and asked if she could read me a Bible verse or two. I put the dog out, forgot about my bread, and said, “Sure!”

I saw from her pamphlet that she was associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses, so I quizzed her a little. “Oh yes, we believe salvation is totally by grace – there is nothing we could ever do to earn it.” She came across as sincere and earnest, used all the right words, and we agreed on most everything we discussed in that short exchange. I found that I liked her. But I knew there were problems with the message she was bringing to my home. “Is it Jehovah’s Witnesses who teach that Jesus is the same person as Michael the archangel?” I asked. I knew one of the aberrant groups taught this, but I wasn’t sure which one.

“Yes!” her face lit up as this connection was made.

When I asked her why Jehovah’s Witnesses teach this, she rattled off some verses without hesitation. I tried to pay attention, but with my dog barking from the garage and my daughter tugging on my arm. I just couldn’t concentrate.

“Hmmm,” I had an idea, “I’d love to discuss this further, but now really isn’t a good time. Could we schedule a time to meet in a few weeks?” My kids would be back in school; the house would be quiet, and most important, I’d have some time to prepare. We swapped phone numbers and email addresses and made an appointment for her to return after Christmas. She gave me two booklets to read in the meantime. “These will explain everything,” she assured me.

As she trekked off to the next house on my street, I got out my Bible and opened one of her booklets. My bread would have to wait a little longer.

Witnesses of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

This was my first encounter with Chelsea, a young Jehovah’s Witness dedicated to preaching the gospel according to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and this dispute over the identity of Jesus Christ became subject matter for our first Bible discussion.

The “Watchtower Society” or “Watchtower,” for short, is the name of the organization to which Jehovah’s Witnesses devote their lives – in fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses would more accurately be called Watchtower Witnesses. It is a rigidly structured organization that demands absolute loyalty from its members. Its website boasts more than seven million ministers in 236 lands distributing some twenty billion pieces of Bible-based literature over the past ten years. On any given day, Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide are studying the same Watchtower-published materials in their meetings – they attend up to five per week – and offering the same magazines and booklets door to door. Witnesses are expected to conform to the organization’s standards with regard to dress, meeting attendance, field service (another term for door to door witnessing), and unquestioning obedience to elders and overseers.

A Strategic Approach

Most Jehovah’s Witnesses are sincere, well-meaning people who believe they are serving their God – they call him Jehovah – and telling you the way to be saved. When one or two arrive on your doorstep, they are well-prepared for common responses, and many conscientious Christians who try to engage them in conversation wind up frustrated over their inability to go beyond pat answers. Most just send them on their way unchallenged.

Yet they need very much to be challenged because many of them have never heard the real truths of the Christian faith. They’ve been sold a counterfeit and need the genuine article. And offering it to them may not be as difficult as you think. There are chinks in the Watchtower armor, and if you’re willing to poke around a little, you can expose one or two, revealing to the Jehovah’s Witnesses the flaws in their own belief system.

In an old Peanuts© comic strip, Linus boasts of his invincibility from inside a U-shaped snow fortress until Lucy comes from behind and pelts him with a snowball through the opening at his back. If you recite the gospel or the Apostles Creed to Jehovah’s Witnesses, or say, “Well, my church says…” it’s like throwing snowballs right at that fortified snow wall. Not only are they thoroughly prepared to defend that line of attack, they’ll likely ignore you until they have an opening to give their rehearsed response. A more strategic tactic is to aim at undermining the Watchtower’s authoritative claims and theology. Require them to defend their teachings using only the Bible and no Watchtower publications, and they’ll suddenly find themselves treading unfamiliar territory. They’ll also find themselves in the position of trying to prove an unprovable case, as I discovered during Chelsea’s and my exchanges about Jesus Christ as Michael.

Attempting to Defend the Indefensible

When Chelsea arrived three weeks later, along with her younger sister, Katherine, I was ready. I had read both her booklets and prepared myself with the help of apologetics resources on Jehovah’s Witnesses. I knew she was prohibited from accepting any literature from me, so I summarized my main points on a sheet of paper. I noted the speculative nature of this Watchtower teaching, listed several Bible passages that contradict it, and asked how the Watchtower maintains it in light of these troublesome passages. I set my paper aside, though, because I wanted to let her talk first.

We settled around my kitchen table, and I started us off. “Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is Michael the archangel?”

Chelsea had brought her Bible and an article from The Watchtower, one of their monthly magazines. She turned to the article.

“I appreciate your bringing that, and I’ll be happy to read it,” I said, “but can we keep our discussion to the Bible without bringing in Watchtower publications?”

She paused. “Oh, okay.”

What happened next was fascinating. Side by side, Chelsea and Katherine scanned the article looking for the Bible references, leafed through their Bible until they located the first one, and each of them read it silently. Chelsea tucked her hair behind her ears as I watched in silence. They did likewise for the second and third references and so on. For a moment it seemed they had forgotten about me as they searched the Scriptures for what may have been the very first time. Finally, Chelsea took a deep breath, paused another moment to gather her thoughts, and looked back up, “Well, the Bible never really comes right out and says it, but if you put several verses together, you can see it.” Katherine’s face was more telling. She couldn’t find it, and she looked stunned and perplexed.

After we reviewed each of those verses that needed to be put together, Chelsea and Katherine had exhausted their resources, and I still didn’t see the connection. “Could not Michael also be an angel under Jesus’ command?” I suggested. Again, Katherine’s reaction was more telling. She nodded her head thoughtfully, but wordlessly. After all, this was another reasonable interpretation of all those verses they were putting together.

Chelsea apologized for not being more prepared and offered to return with a more thorough answer. “If I can’t prove it from the Bible, I don’t know what to believe it,” she affirmed, obviously a little embarrassed, but sure the elusive proof existed somewhere. As they got up to leave, I offered them my written notes and questions. They took them, thanked me, and left.

Two days later, Chelsea returned with Betty, clearly a long time Witness, somewhere around sixty years of age. (Much to my disappointment, I never saw Katherine again.) Though Betty didn’t have any new light to shed on the issue – just the same verses connected like a Bible dot to dot – she exuded confidence. “Why it’s just as plain as the nose on my face!” she nearly shouted when I remained unconvinced. Sadly, I sensed she really meant it, so thoroughly was she immersed in the Watchtower worldview.

At this point, it was clear that no more proof existed in the Bible. Chelsea had brought out a big gun in Betty, but the effect was more like a popgun – a lot of excitement but very little substance. I was pleasantly surprised when she gave me a hearty hug upon leaving. “You are one of the most interesting people I have ever met,” she enthused, but she never returned either.

An Enlightening Dialogue

My next two meetings with Chelsea focused on those troublesome passages and questions I had previously put forward. Handwritten notes on the page told me she’d worked on them, and we enjoyed a vigorous volley of thoughts, ideas, and questions. By this time I was learning to navigate the murky waters of Watchtower theology and beam a little light on them to expose flaws. I felt a little like Toto in Oz pulling the curtain aside to reveal the Wizard as just a lost man behind a curtain.

We ultimately left the Jesus Christ/Michael issue unresolved. Chelsea still maintained they were the same person, but now it was clear she believed it because of the Watchtower, and not the Bible, says it is so. After all our discussions, one thing was clear to me, and I hoped and prayed was dawning on her too: Jehovah’s Witnesses place far more faith in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society than they admit or perhaps even realize.

The remainder of our discussions followed this same pattern. Chelsea would present a Watchtower teaching, and I would respond with written questions and sometimes refutations, prepared with the help of apologetics books and websites Chelsea never knew about. Then we would stay with a disputed doctrine until we agreed to leave the issue unresolved.

What It Takes to Succeed

Our relationship ended abruptly the following May. We’d agreed to study Romans together, and were reading in chapter 1, where Paul makes the case that everyone is guilty before God. “I don’t see any point in discussing this anymore,” Chelsea hastily changed the subject. She mentioned something about “other students” who were progressing and that her time would be better spent with them. Then she packed up her books and left, and I have not seen her since.

Was my time and effort wasted on Chelsea? Possibly, but I don’t think so. What did happen was that Chelsea and some of her fellow Witnesses were offered a more through look into the Word of God that does not return void. Her father, who joined in some of our talks, bought an NIV Study Bible – a far better account of truth than the Watchtower-published New World Translation. And my own conviction and ability to defend the truth underwent a miracle of multiplication.

I knew next to nothing about Jehovah’s Witnesses when I plunged into this relationship, but I learned as we went along. It wasn’t easy, and it did consume many hours of my time. I remember feeling overwhelmed at points, and occasionally I was tempted to give up. But each time I returned to the Scriptures, I found them reliable and sharper than a two-edged sword. He who promised, “Seek and you shall find,” is faithful. It’s not as important to know all the pertinent verses at the outset as it is to know that sound answers for the truth do exist, and sound answers for falsehoods do not.

The essential ingredient for success is not your Bible knowledge, your power of persuasion, or whether you have the gift of evangelism. It’s your willingness to rise to the challenge and be Jesus’ witness to the Watchtower Witnesses. Not all Jehovah’s Witnesses will be as congenial as Chelsea, but the theology they’re avowing will be riddled with the same holes. Regardless of their demeanor, when they come to your door, if you are willing to engage them in dialogue, you too can learn as you go and can respond with a strategy that gently pitches some snowballs of truth right through the Watchtower’s defenses. And it will sharpen your mind and multiply your own faith in the process.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2JAus3e

/by
5 Keys To A Respectful And Persuasive Conversation (1)

5 Keys To A Respectful And Persuasive Conversation

By Michael C. Sherrard

You can have respectful and persuasive conversations about controversial issues like politics, morality, and even religion if you check your P.U.L.S.E. When you feel yourself getting angry and sense the conversation is ready to spiral out of control, ask yourself these five questions:

  1. Am I being too Preachy?
  2. Am I Using good questions?
  3. Am I Listening?
  4. Am I Staying on Topic?
  5. Am I being Encouraging?

Conversations with people that disagree with you do not need to become ugly. There is no reason why discussions on politics, morality, and religion cannot be cordial and beneficial to both parties. Practicing these five conversational strategies will greatly improve your ability to be pleasant, heard, and more persuasive.

This lecture was given to the Georgia Tech FCA on November 7th, 2016.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2l3cubc

/by
Exclusivity Claims Of Major World Religions

Exclusivity Claims Of Major World Religions

, ,

by Rajkumar Richard

You may have encountered and engaged these claims, “Christianity is intolerant!” and “Christianity is exclusive!” The other religions are allegedly tolerant and hence, inclusive. Is it so? No! Every major religion claims exclusivity.

Within the theme of “Religious Diversity,” three relevant theories should be recognized.[1] The “Pluralist theory” believes that one religion is as truthful as another. The “Exclusivist theory” considers only one religion as uniquely valuable – the sole bearer of truth. The “Inclusivist theory” finds merit with both the pluralistic and exclusivistic religions by arguing that while the exclusivistic religion could hold most value, the others still have religious value, for there may be partial truth in the other religions.

A religion proclaims exclusivity if it absolutely contradicts an essential doctrine (Godhead, Sin, Salvation, etc.) of another religion. Since mutually contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense (Law of noncontradiction), the either-or logic (not the both-and) should be applied while determining the truth. When two religions mutually contradict each other, the truth remains with either religion A or religion B (both religion A and religion B cannot be true, in this instance). Therefore, only one religion could be true, but the fact remains that both religions claim exclusivity, for both these religions claim to bear the truth.

Every major religion in the world, either implicitly or explicitly, claims exclusivity. Ravi Zacharias states, “The truth is that every major religion in the world claims exclusivity, and every major religion in the world has a point of exclusion…”[2] Therefore, a preliminary study of the claims of exclusivity of the major world religions is in order.

Exclusivity of Hinduism

Hinduism, one of the world’s oldest religious systems, claims to be inclusive.[3] But it is not so.

Hinduism excludes other religions based on its core doctrines. Consider the doctrine of God in Hinduism. Brahman, the absolute God of Hinduism, is a mysterious being.[4]

Although Brahman is one God, he manifests in innumerable forms, “Hinduism is unique because it is essentially a monotheistic faith which acknowledges polytheism as reflective of the diversity in God’s creation. God is one, but also many. He manifests Himself in innumerable forms and shapes.”[5] But the God of Christianity does not manifest Himself in innumerable forms. Hence, Hinduism should exclude Christianity or Islam on the basis of the Godhead. The same holds true for doctrines such as karma and reincarnation, which absolutely contradict Christianity and other religions.

While Hinduism claims inclusivity, it excludes the exclusivists, “Hinduism does not recognize claims of exclusivity or a clergy. Anyone who claims to by [sic] the exclusive possessor of spiritual truth or the only ‘method’ of reaching God finds no place in Hinduism; a method or a message can only be one among many…Krishna, speaking as God in the Bhagavad-Gita, says, “All paths lead to me,” and also those who worship other gods with devotion worship me….Hinduism does not force itself on others through proselytization…”[6]

Existentially, Hinduism contradicts its own claims for inclusivity. If Hinduism is truly inclusive, it would not proselytize. But Hinduism, in India – the country of its origin, is actively converting people. The recent Ghar Wapsi (Home Coming) program in India is a classic case in point. Ghar Wapsi is, “a series of religious conversion activities, facilitated by Indian Hindu organizations Vishva Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, to facilitate the conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism”[7]

Furthermore, Ravi Zacharias, who was born into a Hindu household, asserts the exclusivity of Hinduism, “Hinduism, for example, is often represented as being the most tolerant and accepting of other faiths. That is just not true. All Hindus believe in two fundamental, uncompromising doctrines—the Law of Karma, and the belief in reincarnation.”[8]

Therefore it is very reasonable to conclude that Hinduism is not an inclusive faith since it claims exclusivity.

Exclusivity of Buddhism

Rejection of Hinduism led to the birth of Buddhism, says Ravi Zacharias, “Buddhism was born out of the rejection of two other very dogmatic claims of Hinduism. Buddha rejected the authority of the vedas and the caste system of Hinduism.”[9]

There are several irreconcilable differences between Buddhism and Historic Christianity. Two such differences are found below:

First, Buddhism rejects the notion of a personal God, which is in stark contrast to Christianity, “There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day.”[10] However, Buddha is worshipped by some Buddhists.

Second, Buddhism excludes other religions that believe in sin, for there is no such thing as sin in Buddhism, “Buddhists do not regard man as sinful by nature of ‘in rebellion against god.’ Every human being is a person of great worth who has within himself a vast store of good as well as evil habits…According to Buddhism, there is no such thing as sin as explained by other religions.”[11]

There are many such points of exclusions in Buddhism. Hence, Buddhism is also an exclusive religion.

Exclusivity of Islam

Islam, being strictly monotheistic, rejects every contradicting worldview (Trinitarian monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.). Moreover, Islam, by virtue of rejecting Christ’s divinity, excludes Christianity.

Islam is also a legalistic system. A Muslim must earn his salvation by holding to the “Articles of Faith” (belief in God, Angels, Scripture, Prophets, and Last Days) and following the “Pillars of Faith” (The Creed, Prayer, Almsgiving, Fasting, and Hajj Pilgrimage). This is in absolute contrast to Christianity, which believes that man is not saved by his good deeds but is saved by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Islam stakes claim to exclusivity by excluding the contradicting religions.

Exclusivity of Judaism

It may be an effortless task to prove Judaism’s claim to exclusivity vis-à-vis other religions that are not named Christianity. Judaism and Christianity have much in common. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, in their work “Handbook of Today’s Religions,” state the fundamental similarity, “It is to historic Judaism, the Judaism of the Old Testament, that Christianity traces its roots. Christianity does not supplant Old Testament Judaism; it is the fruition of Old Testament Judaism. One cannot hold to the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as God’s one divine revelation without also recognizing and honoring the place God has given historic Judaism.”[12]

Given this relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the exclusivity of Judaism would be clearly emphasized if Judaism excludes Christianity. A couple of points of exclusion are highlighted below:

First, Judaism rejects the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, “While Christianity recognizes that the promise of a personal, spiritual savior is the core of biblical revelation, Judaism has long vacillated in the concept of messiahship. That Jesus Christ, the true Messiah predicted in God’s Word, would be rejected by the Jews of the first century shows that even at that time there was a divergence of opinion on the meaning and authority of messianic passages in Scripture. In the course of Jewish history, the meaning of the Messiah had undergone changes. Originally, it was believed that God would send His special messenger, delivering Israel from her oppressors and instituting peace and freedom. However, today any idea of a personal messiah has been all but abandoned by the majority of the Jews. It has been substituted with the hope of a messianic age characterized by truth and justice.”[13]

Second, the salvation of the Jews is predicated on sacrifices, penitence, good deeds and a little of God’s grace, since they reject the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.[14] Salvation in Christianity is absolutely contingent on God’s grace, but not on the performance of good deeds.

Conclusion  

Every major religion of the world remains exclusive, for there are irreconcilable contradictions between these religions. The notion that Historic Christianity is the only religion that claims exclusivity is, therefore, incorrect.

Notes:

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/reli-div/

[2] http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/point-of-exclusion/

[3] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/hinduism-is-more-inclusive-and-not-exclusive-rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat-2947063/

[4] http://www.hinduwebsite.com/brahmanmain.asp

[5] http://www.hinduwebsite.com/onegod.asp

[6] M. G. Chitkara, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: National Upsurge, A.P.H Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 2004, p61.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghar_Wapsi

[8] http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/point-of-exclusion/

[9] Ibid.

[10] http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm

[11] http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/182.htm

[12] Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, “Handbook of Today’s Religions,” Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1983, p364.

[13] Ibid. p372.

[14] Ibid. p373.

 

Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2l7HkPU

/by
The Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection, Part 9_ Probabilities and Plagarism

The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection, Part 9: Probabilities and Plagarism

,

By Evan Minton

This is part 9 in a blog post series on the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. In parts 3, 4, 5, and 6, we’ve seen powerful historical evidence that (1) Jesus died by Roman crucifixion, that (2) His tomb was found empty the following Sunday morning, that (3) the twelve disciples believed they saw Jesus alive after His death, that (4) a church persecutor named Paul converted to Christianity on the basis of what he perceived to be an appearance of the risen Jesus, and (5) a skeptic named James converted to Christianity on the basis of what he perceived to be appearance of the risen Jesus.

In part 7, we looked at various ways that skeptics have tried to account for the minimal facts, and we saw that they all fail. No naturalistic theory can account for all 5 of the minimal facts. The only theory that can account for them is not a naturalistic theory at all, but a supernaturalistic theory: God raised Jesus from the dead. The hypothesis that God The Father miraculous raised Jesus to life explains all of the data perfectly. It explains why Jesus’ tomb was found empty, why His disciples (and Mary Magdalene) believed they saw Him alive after His death. It explains why a hard-headed, hard-hearted terrorist like Saul of Tarsus would become one of the people he sought to destroy virtually overnight, and it would explain why James, despite being skeptical of his brother’s claims, would become such a firm believer that he would be willing to die a martyr’s death. The resurrection explains every piece of data that is in need of explanation, but even the best of the naturalistic theories could explain one of the five facts at most. The majority didn’t even explain that many. The “He Is Risen” hypothesis has exhaustive explanatory scope and power and ergo outshines any other proposed explanation. In part 8 (the previous blog post), we saw that even though some may have some lingering questions about the resurrection (e.g. why didn’t Jesus appear to convince his enemies?), these questions had good answers, but most of them wouldn’t have affected the case for the resurrection even if they went unanswered.

The state of scholarship today regarding the historical Jesus is this; the 5 minimal facts are true, skeptical non-Christian historians can’t come up with a good way to explain them, but they won’t admit a resurrection.

Why is this? It could be (1) they’re on a happiness quest, not a truth quest. They just don’t want it to be true. (2) They have some lingering questions like the ones I addressed in the previous blog post.

I answered some of the more minor lingering questions in the previous blog post, but in this blog post, I’ll address two more. Nine out of ten of the unanswered questions in the previous blog post wouldn’t have affected the case even if left unanswered, but there are a couple of remaining objections that would impact the case if left unrefuted.

Objection 1: The Resurrection Is So Improbable, We Can Never Conclude That It Occurred
Some skeptics will say that we need more evidence for the resurrection than for any other event in history because the probability against a resurrection ever occurring is so extreme. After all, the vast majority of people who have ever lived have remained in their graves. They’ll say “Even though our naturalistic proposals are abysmal failures, they’re still at least more likely than a miraculous resurrection.”  As a result, we can either never have enough evidence to affirm the resurrection, or at the very least we need far more evidence for it than other events. Sometimes skeptics will assert that the experience against miracles (i.e., I’ve never witnessed one, you probably haven’t either) militates against the resurrection hypothesis. The evidence for natural events far outweighs supernatural events by leaps and bounds.

If this objection succeeds, then it would seem that the skeptical scholar’s attitude of “We can’t explain it, but it’s probably not a miraculous resurrection” would be justified. What are we to say to this objection?

1: I’m Not Concerned With Probabilities, But With Explanatory Ability 

I am not arguing here that a miraculous resurrection is the most probable explanation of the data, only that it is the best explanation. The resurrection is the best explanation of the facts no matter what number a person might ascribe to its probability. The resurrection is the best explanation because it explains all of the data, every single fact, while the naturalistic explanations we looked at in part 7 and fail miserably. The resurrection succeeds in explanatory power. Moreover, it also succeeds in explanatory scope. Even the best of the naturalistic explanations explain, at most, one, but most of them don’t even explain that many. Most of them explain 0 of the facts. Every single possible naturalistic theory one could come up with fails, but the resurrection, the supernaturalistic explanation, succeeds. And therefore, we ought to conclude that this hypothesis is the true explanation. Detective Sherlock Holmes would agree with me. Sherlock Holmes once said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” (emphasis mine).[1] The Resurrection is the only explanation that remains, and it’s the only one that adequately accounts for all five facts. Ergo, in Detective Holmes’ reasoning, it must be the truth. If you can think of another explanation, be my guest, but until then, I’m sticking with “He is risen”.

It’s not ad hoc or contrived. It’s plausible in light of the religious-historical context of Jesus’ life and claims (i.e. His claim to be God, see here). It outstrips its rival theories in the aforementioned. It passes all 6 of C.B Mcullah’s tests for a viable historical theory. And therefore, I believe we are epistemologically warranted in affirming that it occurred. It’s the only hypothesis that works! I don’t care about probability. To quote General Han Solo “Don’t tell me the odds,” instead, give me a viable naturalistic theory. If you can’t, and if the best and brightest minds in scholarship haven’t been able to after all this time, then maybe, just maybe, Jesus rose from the dead.

2: If Jesus Did Not Rise From The Dead, Either The Minimal Facts Shouldn’t Exist Or A Naturalistic Theory Should Be Able To Explain Them 

I would argue that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then it’s extremely improbable that the minimal facts should be facts. I would argue that in light of the hypothesis “Jesus did not rise from the dead,” then His tomb should be occupied, His disciples should never have claimed and come to believe that they had seen him, and Paul and James should have remained skeptical the rest of their lives.

Here’s an analogy; let’s say that a woman is brought before a jury on charges of murder. She’s accused of having killed her young son. Now, at the start, you might think that it’s extremely unlikely that she is guilty. After all, the vast majority of mothers who’ve ever lived do not harm their children. They love and care for them. In light of this background information, the claim that she is guilty is enormously improbable, and you’d be justified in thinking that if that background knowledge was all you had to go on. However, investigators found a bloody knife in the back seat of her car next to a mud-covered shovel. In her house, they found a pair of pants that also had been chemically spot cleaned. They also have several eyewitnesses who said that they heard a child screaming just before seeing the defendant carrying a black garbage bag and a shovel out her house in the middle of the night, the same night as the murder. When investigators found the dead child, he was in a black garbage bag. The defendant also had a history of mental illness and domestic violence. In light of these “minimal facts,” the claim “She is not guilty” becomes improbable. The defendant’s attorney throughout every alternative explanation he could think of, but the Jury all saw the various holes in them and rejected them. They knew that the claim “This woman murdered her child” could explain all of the evidence. Even the best of the defense attorney’s explanations could account for one piece of evidence at the crime scene at most, but the majority of his alternative explanations didn’t even go that far. The only explanation that worked is “This woman murdered her child.”

Now, it would be an invalid move on the part of the defense attorney to argue that the majority of mothers care for their children rather than killing them, and he’s never witnessed a woman murder her child, and so the probability against any mother ever killing her child is so great that they should return with a “not guilty” verdict. Sure, the hypothesis “this woman killed her child” is improbable in light of the background information that mothers usually don’t kill their sons and that we’ve personally never witnessed a mother kill her son, but the guilty verdict is still justified.

In fact, the existence of the evidence is improbable if she is not guilty. If she’s not guilty, the detectives should not have found what they found. If she didn’t do it, what are the odds that “the minimal facts” at the trial (the blood-covered knife in the back of the car, the muddy shovel in the trunk, the dead child being found in a black garbage bag, the eyewitness statements of her leaving the house with a black garbage bag and shovel, and the history of mental illness and domestic violence) should all exist? In the same way, the existence of the minimal facts (2) Jesus’ Empty Tomb, (3) Postmortem Appearances To The Disciples, (4) Postmortem Appearance To The Skeptic James, and (5) the postmortem appearance to Paul, should not exist if Jesus did not rise from the dead. It’s enormously improbable that these five facts would be true if Jesus did not rise from the dead.

At the very least, if the woman didn’t kill her child, there should be a viable alternative theory than “she is guilty.” Likewise, there should at least be a viable explanation for the minimal facts than “He is risen.” Alas, there is no other explanation.

3: The Existence Of God Bolsters The Probability Of A Resurrection 

The objection I’m addressing in this subsection would never be made by Muslims or adherents to Judaism. Why? Because they believe miracles can, do, and have occurred. Why? Because they believe that a God powerful enough to perform miracles exist. They would object to the resurrection on theological grounds, but not on the grounds that an event like this is improbable.

If an omnipotent God exists, then the likelihood of this God raising Jesus from the dead increases. Of course, I think the resurrection can be an argument for the existence of God in and of itself,[2] but nevertheless, if God’s existence can be demonstrated, any improbability of a miraculous resurrection shrinks drastically. I have argued in several articles on CerebralFaith.blogspot.com and in my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods that there are several good arguments for the existence of God. And in my book, I argue that only the Christian God matches the attributes that the God that these syllogistic arguments prove exists.

Conclusion
Imagine a scale in your mind’s eye and picture bricks on each side of the scale. On one side of the scale, the bricks are labeled, “The Existence Of God”, “The Five Minimal Facts”, “No Theory Other Than The Resurrection Hypothesis can explain the 5 minimal facts”, “Jesus made claims to divinity prior to being executed”[3], and “Jesus Predicted His Resurrection”[4]. On the other side, there are bricks labeled, “The majority of dead men stay dead,” “I’ve never personally seen a miracle,” “I have a cosmic authority problem.” Okay, I’m joking about that last one.

Which side of the scale is leaning more? The side in favor of Jesus’ miraculous resurrection. In light of the full scope of the evidence, in light of all the scale’s “bricks,” Jesus’ resurrection becomes more probable than not. Now, it’s true that I haven’t demonstrated that all of the aforementioned bricks are there in this series, but they are there, and I talk about one of them in footnote No. 5 and the other in Appendix A (of the e-book adaption of this series). When you take all of the data into consideration, Jesus’ resurrection comes out to be probable.

By the way, William Lane Craig responds to this objection in Part 23 of “The Doctrine Of Christ” section of his Defenders 2 class. But it’s rather technical. I gave a more accessible response, but for those interested in a more technical response, click here. 

Objection 2: Jesus Was Just Plagiarized From Dying And Rising Gods Of Pagan Religions

The irony of this blog post is that I’m addressing two different objections that come from two different groups of people. The first one is made widely by skeptical historians and scholars, but the second one is only reported by lay people, skeptics you encounter in internet chat rooms and on social media. No scholar would ever put forth this objection.

What is the objection? Well, if you surveyed atheist blogs at all, you’ve probably heard that Jesus is just a copy of pagan gods in mythology. Jesus’ story mirrors the story of Horus, Mithras, Krishna, and others. Therefore, Jesus’ resurrection isn’t a historical event, but a plagiarized story. Many skeptics use this argument to go so far as to say Jesus of Nazareth didn’t even exist at all! This argument was popularized by the movie Zeitgeist. There are several problems with this claim.

1: The similarities are so vague, claims of plagiarism are implausible

When you actually compare the gospels’ claims about Jesus with the stories of Horus, Mithras, etc. what you find is that (A) some of these similarities don’t exist at all, and (B) the ones that do are so vague and ambiguous that it’s a stretch to say that the New Testament copied these stories.

Let’s look at just a few examples: One example is that Dionysius is said to have died and risen again like Jesus. But when you examine the stories, you find that Dyonisis wasn’t miraculously raised from the dead by his deity Father, but that his mother pieced him back together. Other stories say that Dionysus was killed by Zeus swallowing his heart and his heart was made into a potion given to Semele. Does this sound like Jesus at all? Dionysis was born on December 25th just like Jesus. This proves plagiarism, right? Well, first of all, it isn’t strange for multiple people to share the same birthday. I share a birthday with actor Zachary Quinto, but that doesn’t mean that if biographies were written about our lives that you could claim one copied the other. Secondly, The Bible never says that Jesus was born on December 25th. That date for Christmas was chosen by The Pope hundreds of years after Jesus was born.[5] Most modern scholars believe Jesus was born in the summer, sometime between June and September. The people behind Zeitgeist were so ignorant of the facts that they didn’t even know The Bible didn’t give us Jesus’ birthday date!

It is said that Mithras was born of a virgin, just like Jesus. Newsflash: Mithras was born out of a rock. Now, I guess technically one could say that since rocks can’t have sex, the rock was a virgin, and therefore you do have a virgin birth. But by that logic, Frosty The Snowman was also born of a virgin since I’m pretty sure that old soot hat of his wasn’t gettin’ any! This is ridiculous. The birth of Mithras was nothing like the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born of a human woman, not a rock.

What about Horus? During his battle with Set, he lost an eye, but he never died. Since he never died, he couldn’t be resurrected. Death is a prerequisite to resurrection.

Osiris was killed by his brother, chopped up into 14 pieces and the pieces were scattered all over Egypt. The goddess Isis retrieved all of these pieces (except for one) and put him back together again. Moreover, Osiris wasn’t resurrected but merely given the status as god of the gloomy underworld.[6] Now, does this sound like Jesus’ death and resurrection? Sure, you have a guy who is killed, and he’s brought back to life in a sense, but Jesus wasn’t chopped up into 14 pieces by one of his brothers and had his body parts scattered all over Israel, He was crucified by the Roman government. Moreover, when Jesus rose from the dead, He had all of his parts (unlike Osiris). The only thing Jesus and Osiris have in common is that they both died and came back to life, but the skeptics aren’t taking the various differences between these two into account.

These are just a few of the not-so-similarities between Jesus and pagan gods.

2: This Logic Would Bring Us To Believe Doctor Who Is Copied From Jesus 

If you want to cherry pick vague similarities to prove plagiarism, then you should believe that the writers of Doctor Who ripped off The New Testament.

Doctor Who — Is 2,000 years old as of season 10 of the modern series. He even said in one episode “I’m old enough to be your messiah!”

Jesus – is 2,000 years old as of the 21st century.

Doctor Who — has an archnemesis called “The Master.”

Jesus — has an archnemesis called “The Devil.”

Doctor Who — Came to Earth from another world (Gallifrey)

Jesus — Came to Earth from another world (Heaven).

Doctor Who — called a Time “Lord.”

Jesus — Called “Lord”

Doctor Who — traveled around with many companions.

Jesus — Traveled around with many companions.

Doctor Who — Regenerates when he is fatally wounded.

Jesus — Rose from the dead.

Doctor Who — Isn’t recognized by people who knew him prior to regenerating (e.g. Brigadier Lethbridge Stewart).

Jesus — wasn’t recognized by the two men on the road to Emaus after rising from the dead.

You can see how ridiculous this line of argumentation is. It’s no wonder why professional historians and scholars of ancient history give this objection no credence. Yes, there are some similarities between The Doctor and Jesus, but they’re vague similarities. The differences between them far outnumber whatever they might have in common. The same goes for the pagan myths and Jesus.

3: This Logic Would Lead Us To Believe The Titanic Sinking Wasn’t A Historical Event

A long time ago, there was an incredible tragedy that occurred. A huge passenger ship, which people said was unsinkable, on a cold night in the North Atlantic about 200 miles off of Newfoundland, struck an iceberg and sank. Many people died because there weren’t enough lifeboats. Now, you believe I’m talking about The Titanic, right? Nope. I’m talking about a ship called Titan, in a novel written in 1898, fourteen years before the wreck of the Titanic, called The Wreck of the Titan written by a person named Morgan Robertson.

Unlike Jesus and the pagan gods, the parallels between the fiction of The Wreck Of The Titan and the historical event of The Titanic actually are striking! However, I don’t know of anyone who would argue that there never really was a ship called The Titanic that sank. Thanks to this silly theory, I now have Celene Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On” playing in my mind now. Thanks, atheists who don’t do their research.

4: Most Of These Stories Come After The Rise Of Christianity 

As if the above 3 points weren’t enough to refute this silly objection, most of the pagan myths post-date Christianity. Therefore, if any plagiarizing were being done, it would be done in the opposite direction![7]

5: Jews were committed to an exclusive faith.

Jews were adamantly committed to their religious beliefs and traditions and refused to blend their religious ideas and traditions with that of others (a view known as syncretism). Mystery religions were inclusive. They would adopt any doctrine or theological concept that they wanted to. They were very loose and didn’t have a measure of orthodoxy, but Judaism and Christianity were exclusive. In general, Jewish people adamantly resisted outside religious ideas, most likely due to the fact that they had, by the time of the first century, learned from The Old Testament that God did not tolerate mingling with other nations.
In Antiquity of the Jews, the Jewish historian Josephus talks about an event in which the Romans try to force something on the Jews and how the Jews responded to it.:

“But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the nighttime; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days, that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them round, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.” (Josephus, Works Of Flavius Josephus, 18:55–59)

It is undeniable that Christianity sprung up out of a thoroughly Jewish culture. The idea that a group of devout Jews would see ideas in other religions and then adopt them into their own religious views is incredibly implausible in light of what we know about ancient Jews.
6:  Even If This Went Unanswered, It Wouldn’t Hurt The Case For The Resurrection 

The 5 minimal facts were true even if the similarities between Jesus and these pagan myths were as strong as the chatroom atheists would have us believe. None of the arguments given in favor of Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his empty tomb, or the apostles claiming and believing to have seen him alive after his death would be affected by this objection even if went unanswered.

As I said in part 8, poorly attested miracles (as the pagan myths certainly are) cannot be used to rule out well-evidenced ones.

Conclusion 

These two last-ditch efforts on the part of skeptics to keep us from being justified in believing in Jesus’ resurrection are failures.

To skeptics: are you convinced yet? If so, what are you going to do about it? Now that you’re convinced, what are you going to do with Jesus? Check out the next and final blog post in this series to know where to go from here.

Notes 

[1] Arthur Conan Doyle, The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890) Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four (Doubleday p. 111)

[2] My argument goes like this

1 – If Jesus rose from the dead, then a miracle has occurred.

2 – If a miracle has occurred, then there exists a miracle working God.

3 – Jesus rose from the dead.

4 – Therefore, a miracle has occurred.

5 – Therefore, God exists

In order for the conclusion to be true, the three premises have to be true. I think everyone would agree with premises 1 and 2. The only debatable one is premise three. Premise three can be arrived at through The Minimal Facts Approach.

[3] See the article “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Divine Self Understanding” if you’re reading this on Cerebral Faith. If you’re reading the e-book adaption of this blog series, see Appendix A. The blog post will be found copy-pasted there, though it will be edited slightly to avoid repetitiousness (e.g I’ll remove the explanation of historical methodology).

[4] Did Jesus Predict His Resurrection? There are at least four reasons for affirming that He did. First of all, Jesus’ predictions concerning his resurrection are usually denied because the resurrection itself is denied as a historical event. If the resurrection is historical, and we’ve seen in parts 2-7 that it most likely is, then this is not a good reason for rejecting the prediction accounts. Secondly, when Jesus predicted his resurrection from the dead, the gospels depict the disciples as being confused, as not knowing what the heck Jesus is talking about (see Mark 8:31–33;9:31–32; 14:27– 31; Luke 24:13–24). On the basis of the principle of embarrassment, we can conclude that these instances are historical. The gospel authors wouldn’t depict the disciples as dim-witted. If Mark really wrote Mark and got his gospel from Peter (as church tradition says), then it would be especially unreasonable to believe Mark 8:31-33, Mark 9:31-32, and Mark 14:27-31 to be made up. Can you imagine Peter telling Mark “Hey, write this down! Even though Jesus explained his death and resurrection to us over and over, we just didn’t get it.” if it weren’t true? However, even if one wants to attribute these to some early church fathers or something, the principle of embarrassment can still be applied, as the early church had a high respect for the disciples. Thirdly, Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man” in reference to his resurrection predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34) weighs in favor of authenticity. As I point out in Appendix A (of the e-book adaption of this blog post series), this saying of Jesus is multiply attested. And moreover, the principle of dissimilarity applies since Jesus was never called “Son Of Man” anywhere else in The New Testament, and the early church fathers never referred to Jesus by this title. If this saying were made up by the early church and retroactively inserted into the mouth of Jesus, we would expect the early church fathers and NT epistles to use this title of Jesus more frequently. Finally, the principle of multiple attestations applies to Jesus predicting that He would get out of his grave (see Matthew 12:38–40; 16:1–4,21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 8:31–32; 9:31; 10:33; Luke 9:22; John 2:18–21. Cf. Mark 14:58; Luke 11:29–30).

[5] https://www.whychristmas.com/customs/25th.shtml

[6] My sources for this information: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=186, and https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-and-pagan-mythology/ , and http://i.stack.imgur.com/29UE7.jpg, and “The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, pages 90-91, Kregle.

[7] I have several sources for this information. (1) – Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” Journal of Religious Studies 25 (1989): 167–77. (2) – Günter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967), 197–201. (3) Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, “The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus,” page 90, Kregle.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2l364c3

/by