Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Is The Doctrine Of The Incarnation Coherent?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

Reasons’ Greetings, everyone! Merry Christmas! I thought now would be a good time to write a blog post on what this holiday is all about: The incarnation of God Almighty. Christmas is the time we celebrate the birth of the God-Man Jesus.

The Bible says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ….The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-3, 14). John’s gospel opens up with The Word (Logos in Greek) existing prior to the origin of the universe, then creating all of matter, energy, space, and time, and he says that The Logos (who he says is God) took on human flesh and lived among the human race. This is the doctrine of the incarnation. But is this doctrine logically coherent? Many non-Christians, especially Muslims, would say no. They would say that a “God Man” is like a square circle or a married bachelor. Muslims will say that Jesus can be God or Jesus can be a human being, but not both.

Why do they say this? Well, there are conflicts between Jesus as God and Jesus as human, at least on a prima facie level. For example, The Bible teaches that God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12, Joshua 1:9), yet Jesus couldn’t be in Jerusalem and Tokyo Japan at the same time. That’s why he traveled around. God is omniscient (see Job 34:21, 1 John 3:20, Proverbs 15:3, Psalm 147:5, Psalm 139:1-4), yet Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature” (Luke 2:52) and did not know the time of His second coming (Mark 13:32). If Jesus is God, aren’t we forced to say that Jesus is both A and non-A? That Jesus is omnipresent and not omnipresent? That Jesus is all knowing yet doesn’t know some things? Contradictions cannot be true. A and Non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

The incarnation is an essential doctrine of Christianity, much like the Trinity and the resurrection. It’s not a debatable issue like the age of the Earth or how many people Jesus died for. If the incarnation falls, Christianity goes with it. How do we answer our Muslim and Atheist friends who say that the doctrine of the incarnation is logically incoherent? Is celebrating Christmas irrational?

I would say no. There is a logically possible way for Jesus to be both God and man. Now, at points, it may seem like I’m speculating (especially with my third point), but this shouldn’t throw you off. What I’m doing is posting a possibility. If the model of the incarnation I’m about to propose is nothing more than simply a logical possibility than it proves that the incarnation is not an inherently incoherent concept. In order for something to be a contradiction, there has to be 0 possible ways for it to be true. There are 0 possible ways for a bachelor to be married. However, even if there’s only 1 way for X to be true, then it shows that X is not logically impossible.

I will be defending a model of the incarnation that Christian Philosopher and Apologist Dr. William Lane Craig proposes in his book Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview and in hisDefenders class. Dr. William Lane Craig presents us with a 3 plank model.

1: We affirm two natures combined in a single individual (i.e Jesus).

2: The Logos was the rational soul of Jesus.

3: The divine aspects of Jesus are subliminal.

Let’s take a look at each of these 3 planks.

Plank 1: We Affirm Two Natures Combined In A Single Individual

By “Nature”, I mean the essence of a thing. A thing has a certain essence to it which makes it what it is. For example, the essence of a house cat is to be a 4 legged mammal of the feline genus and has the potential to be tamed. If it were a bipedal creature belonging to the homo genus and could not be tamed, it would not be a house cat. There are also attributes a house cat can have which aren’t essential to it being a house cat. For example, my cat Jellybean are the colors black and light grey. That is a property that she has. However, this not an essential property that she has. It’s an accidental property. That is to say, she could be white or orange and still be a house cat. Being black and grey is not an essential part to make a house cat a house cat. This is what philosophers distinguish as “Essential Properties” and “Accidental Properties”. The former is a set of properties (A, B, C, D,.) which are required for X to be X. If X does not possess properties those 4 properties than it isn’t an X. It’s something else. The latter is a set of properties that X just happens to possess but could lack and we could still consider it an X. Click here to learn more.

In this discussion, I would say that there are essential properties that make God, God, and essential properties that make a human being a human being. This is what it means to possess the “nature” of something. To possess a “divine nature”, one must be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, moral perfection, etc. To be a human being, one must be a rational, free will, bipedal hominid with a sense of morality. These are non-exhaustive lists of the essential properties of the divine nature and the human nature.

In the incarnation, both sets of essential properties came together in a single individual named Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is one person with two natures.

Now, sometimes when I talk about “Jesus’ human nature” and “Jesus’ divine nature”, I’ll get in trouble with some of my fellow Christians. Why? Well, they think I’m advocating the heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorianism says that there is a human mind and a divine mind in Jesus, that Jesus possessed two minds. Nestorianism says that there are two persons we’re talking about here; a divine person and a human person. But that’s NOT what I’m advocating for at all. Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures. There’s only one mind. There’s only one person. But this one person possesses two natures.

If you don’t like “natures” you can substitute it for the claim “property”. Jesus is one person who possesses the property of divinity and the property of humanity. He is one individual possesses the attribute of divinity and the attribute of humanity.

If you still don’t see the point, think of this analogy: A motorhome or RV is one entity that possesses two natures. It possesses the nature of a house and the nature of a truck. It possesses the nature of a house in that it has a couch inside, a sink, a bathroom, a table at which to eat, and a bed or two. It possesses the nature of a truck in that it has wheels, an engine, a steering wheel, a dashboard, gas and break pedals. This gives you the ability to drive it. But clearly, there aren’t two entities here. There’s only one entity, but this one entity possesses two properties. Two properties came together in one entity.

Plank 2: The Logos Was The Rational Soul Of Jesus

This plank unites the two natures into a single person. This one is the more controversial of the planks. It’s controversial because it brings in Apollonarius’ view that the soul of Jesus was the divine Logos. Apollonarius was condemned by his fellow church fathers because they felt that Apollonarius’ view entailed that Jesus did not have a complete human nature. Jesus had a fully human body, but if the Logos is the mind of Jesus, then He didn’t have a fully human mind. Therefore, what we have on Appolonarius’ view is a sort of truncated view of humanity. Jesus is only 80% human, so to speak. They also thought that he undercut the work of Christ because if Christ did not have a human mind, then the human mind would not be saved – that which is not assumed is not saved. Jesus had to assume a human nature in order to save it.

The church fathers thought Appolonarius’ view dovetailed into what’s known as “Monophysitism”. Monophysitism asserts that Jesus had a mixture of divinity and humanity, but He wasn’t fully one or the other. He was basically a hybrid creature. Part God, Part Man.

The reason that council considered Monothelitism[1] unorthodox is, as Craig says in this article, is that they thought it logically entailed monoPHYSITism. But I agree with Craig that their fears of monothelitism collapsing into monophysitism were unfounded. So long as a person affirms two natures in Christ (a divine nature and a human nature), I wouldn’t consider them a heretic. And I don’t think, as the council that condemned Apollonianarius did, that monothelitism entails that Christ didn’t have a truly human mind and ergo not a fully human nature. You can affirm a single faculty of will and yet still say Jesus had a complete divine nature and a complete human nature.

This is because Jesus’ divine mind already had all of the essential properties needed to make a human mind (rationalty, free will, a knowledge of right and wrong). These are properties humans have and it’s what makes up the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Jesus, actually being God (John 1:1-3), already had these properties as pure deity. These properties simply needed to be added to the rest of the essential properties that make a man, a man in order to make Christ a full human being. The properties of rationality, free will, and a moral compass that The Logos possessed needed to be attached to a bi-pedal hominid body in order for Jesus to have 100% of the attributes that make up the human nature.

Plank 3: The Divine Aspects Of Jesus Are Subliminal

The third plank of Dr. Craig’s incarnational model posits that the divine aspects of Jesus are subliminal. This would explain how Jesus seems to have the human limitations that He does despite being God.

Craig postulates that Jesus’ divine attributes are subliminal. For example, Jesus’ knowledge of everything is confined to His subconscience. This would explain instances like Mark 13:32 where Jesus doesn’t know the time of His second coming, why we don’t have the picture of a baby Jesus speaking full blown Hebrew in the manger scene while being the omniscient God, and it would explain how Jesus “grew in wisdom” (Luke 2:52). His knowledge was limited in His conscious life, but His vast knowledge of everything from auto mechanics to quantum mechanics was tucked away into His subconscious. In this sense, Jesus could both know and not know something at the same time.

Back in 2015, I heard a song that I learned at vacation Bible school when I was 3 years old. I hadn’t thought of that song in over a decade. Yet when it started playing on my television, I immediately recognized it and was able to sing along. I knew the song, and I knew the words, but the knowledge was tucked away in my subconscious and therefore, I didn’t know that I knew the song. I can imagine that much of the human Jesus’ divine knowledge was tucked away in a similar fashion.

On this model, Jesus was less than omniscient in His conscious mind, but He was omniscient in His subconscious mind. Jesus knows all there is to know in (B) His subconscious mind, but not (A) His conscious mind.

Craig explains that “We have a very interesting analogy of how this works from hypnosis. As Charles Harris explains, a person who is under hypnosis can be instructed to be informed of certain facts and then to forget about them when he is awakened from the trance, so that he knows them and yet he doesn’t know them! He says,

‘the knowledge is truly in his mind, and shows itself in unmistakable ways, especially by causing him to perform . . . certain actions, which, but for the possession of this knowledge, he would not have performed.’

So he has the knowledge, but he is not aware of it because he is under hypnosis. He goes on to say,

\What is still more extraordinary, a sensitive hypnotic subject may be made both to see and not to see the same object at the same moment. For example, he may be told not to see a lamp-post, whereupon he becomes (in the ordinary sense) quite unable to see it. Nevertheless, he does see it, because he avoids it and cannot be induced to precipitate himself against it. …. He actually does have a kind of blind sight of it.’

This sort of a model, I think, provides a very satisfying account of Jesus as we see him in the Gospels. In his conscious experience, Jesus grew in wisdom and in knowledge, just as a human child does. … In his conscious experience, Jesus grows and increases in knowledge as he grows older.”[2]

Okay, well, this provides a plausible reconciliation regarding the omniscience of the Logos and the ignorance of Jesus of Nazareth. But what about The Logos’ other divine attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence, eternality, etc. Well, The subconscious is in the realm of the mind so I wouldn’t say that attributes like omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. are located in the back of Jesus’ mind. That said, I do think that some of the essential properties that He possesses in his divine nature, he does not possess in his human nature. For example, in his divine nature, Jesus (the Logos) is omnipresent, but Jesus’ human body is spatially located. That’s how we can talk about Jesus “coming back”. Well, in His divinity, he never left, but the hominid body He animated did. In His divine nature, He will be with us always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20), in his human nature, we don’t have him with us (Matthew 26:11). Regarding omnipotence, I would say that Jesus gave up the use of this attribute in the sense of choosing not to use it. This may explain why Jesus felt true temptation when Satan told him to break his fast by turning stone into bread (Matthew 4). In His divine nature, Jesus is beginningless (John 1:1), in His human nature, Jesus was born (John 1:14).

Conclusion
I think these 3 planks taken together present us with a logically coherent model of the doctrine of the incarnation. Celebrating Christmas is not irrational. When Mary kissed her little baby, she indeed kissed the face of God. Merry Christmas, everyone!

For further reading, check out William Lane Craig’s treatment of this in Defenders 2, The Doctrine Of Christ.

Footnotes
[1] “What is Monotheletism? It is the doctrine that the incarnate Christ has a single faculty of will. By contrast Dyotheletism teaches that the incarnate Christ has two faculties of will, one associated with his human nature (his human will) and one associated with his divine nature (his divine will).” – Bill Craig, from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/monotheletism

[2] William Lane Craig, Defenders 2, The Doctrine Of Christ Part 7, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s6-7

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

December 22, 2017/by Guest

When and What Time Was Jesus Born?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

This past Sunday, I received a wonderful question from a young man in our church. Matthew Cleary was in Sunday school and asked his teacher, who in turn asked me, “What time of night was Jesus born? Was it at midnight?” To be honest, I had never really thought about the question. While it is impossible to provide a detailed time of Christ’s birth with great certainty, certain clues provide us hints at the time and date of Jesus’s birth. The time of Jesus’s birth is intricately tied to the date of his birth. While Scripture does not grant us a large amount of information of the day and time, it does offer a few clues.

Clue 1: Details of Jesus’s Birth Point to an Autumn Birthday

In Luke’s account of Jesus’s birth, the Evangelist notes that when Jesus was born, “shepherds were staying out in the fields and keeping watch at night over their flock” (Lk. 2:8).[1] The sheep that were used for temple sacrifices in Jerusalem were often kept in Bethlehem.[2] December 25th does not mesh with this aspect of the birth story. First, the sheep would have been taken to Jerusalem by December. In addition, December 25th would have been too cold for the shepherds and the sheep to have been staying in the fields at this time. However, the sheep and shepherds would have been in the fields in autumn, especially around the time of the Feast of Trumpets.

Clue 2: Details of the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi’s Appearance

This may disappoint many who read these words, but the Magi (wise men) were not at the stable when Jesus was born. In fact, it is possible that Jesus would have been one or two years old by the time they made it to Bethlehem. Matthew describes the Magi following a star which led them to the Christ child. The star could have been one individual star, or it may have been an astronomical configuration. Nevertheless, the Magi were filled with joy (Mt. 2:10) and entered “the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and falling to their knees, they worshiped him” (Mt. 2:11). The Star of Bethlehem guided the Magi to the Christ child after the child was born. The timing of the star is subsequent to the time of Jesus’s birth. The star could have presented a December visitation of the Magi, but since this was later than the birth of Christ, then the birth would have preceded this event.

Clue 3: Details from the Astrological Data in Revelation 12

Another passage of Scripture is linked with Jesus’s birth, one that may surprise you. Revelation 12:1-5 depicts a vision John received on the Isle of Patmos, which may provide additional clues to the time of Jesus’s birth. The text reads:

“A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in labor and agony as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: There was a great fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven crowns. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in heaven and hurled them to the earth. And the dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth so that when she did give birth it might devour her child. She gave birth to a Son, a male who is going to rule all nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and to his throne” (Rev. 12:1-5).

Joseph Dumond argues that Revelation 12 describes a constellation that took place at a certain time in history. Dumond claims that the constellation Virgo (e.g., “virgin”) appeared for a few hours in Bethlehem near Leo—representing the “lion of Judah”—with the sun clothing the woman, with the 12 visible stars surrounding her head. [3]This arrangement would only be visible from 6:15 pm (sunset) to 7:45 pm (moonset).[4] According to the Stellarium Astronomy software database (available at http://stellarium.org/), this astrological alignment was visible from Bethlehem on the evening of Wednesday, September 11, 3 BC.

Conclusion

The growing body of evidence seems to suggest that Jesus was born sometime between 6:15 pm to 7:45 pm on September 11, 3 BC. While September 11th holds bad memories for individuals in the United States, it would have been a day of celebration in ancient Israel. For it would have been the beginning of the Feast of Trumpets, a feast associated with the Messiah and his return. The Feast of Trumpets called for national repentance and also marked the start of a new agricultural year.[5] The blast from a shofar would announce the beginning of the feast. Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) would follow the Feast of Trumpets. Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the year for the Israelite. It is the day when the high priest enters the holy of holies and offers sacrifices for the nation’s sins. Sukkot is also one of Israel’s primary holidays. It recalls Israel’s wilderness wanderings and God’s saving action that brought them out of bondage and into salvation. Sukkot follows Yom Kippur and celebrates God’s deliverance of his people. Thus, Rosh Hashanah (Trumpets) calls for repentance (which would be the time when Jesus was born if this theory holds); Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) seeks redemption, and Sukkot (Tabernacles) celebrates the fulfillment of God’s redemption. Wouldn’t it be just like God to provide a HUGE sign that he was about to save the world from its sins by having his Son to be born at the beginning of these festivities?

https://i0.wp.com/bellatorchristi.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/

. . . but wait . . . what about December 25th?

If this theory is true in that Jesus was born on September 11th, does December 25th hold any importance? Yes, it does. It is quite possible that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary on December 25th. Thus, the date may serve as the time when Mary was impregnated with Jesus by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit by miraculous means. December 25th may also be the date when the Magi visited the Christ Child after following the star. Astronomical data points to this time which is beyond the scope of this article. So, while Jesus may not have been born on December 25th, the date still holds tremendous value and should ultimately remind us of the greatest gift that God has ever given any of us—that is, his Son Jesus.

Notes

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

[2] CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1605, footnote 2:8.

[3] Joseph Dumond, cited in Joseph Farah, “Was Jesus Born Sept. 11, 3 B.C.?,” WND.com (8/23/2013), retrieved December 19, 2017, http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/was-jesus-born-sept-11-3-b-c/.

[4] Ibid.

[5] John T. Swann, “Feasts and Festivals of Israel,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

About the Author

Brian 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 a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kP9Aq3

December 20, 2017/by Guest

How the Ontological Argument Proves the Existence of God

2. Does God Exist?, CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. But the ranks of non-believers include many scientifically minded and highly intelligent people, not the sort we would normally consider as foolish. So, what makes such a person a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?

Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves, and thereby make fools of ourselves. And other times we are misled. But either way most would agree that someone who holds contradictory views has deceived himself. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet. Or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no ingredients.

But sometimes contradictions aren’t as obvious. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory – at first glance anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.

The first requires consideration of just what the mind does. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes preprogrammed with an “operating system” of sorts. This allows us to acquire language, to reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things, and to make use of imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to “got it” moments when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems intuitively; of course, there is no other way, since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.

One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify it must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ashtray “food”, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists.

So, with this observation in view, consider for a moment not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etc. – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. One of the two has the attribute of necessary existence, while the other may or may not exist. Clearly, the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else simply cannot fit the conception of God.

So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not correspond to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, moreover, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature without the need that the creature itself actually exist because the conceptualization does not require necessary existence.

This concept of “necessary” existence is not easily grasped at first. Many skeptics will contend that “existence” is not an attribute at all. Imaginary things don’t actually exist, they will say, so they consist of nothing. This line of argument can quickly devolve into an argument over definitions, with the skeptic insisting that it is nonsensical to consider a thing which does not exist. This assumption allows them to defeat Anselm’s argument – they write “necessary existence” out of the set of characteristics of God – but a moment’s reflection should reveal that this comes at too high a price. I can conceive in my mind of many past historical figures whose attributes I can describe in detail but who do not presently exist, for they have passed away. More importantly, every scientific discovery or invention must first begin in the mind of a person who sees the attributes of the thing before it actually takes form. The automobile, for instance, did not create itself; it first appeared in the mind of an inventor who could see what it would consist of if it did exist and then set about adding “existence” to its attributes.

Letting our minds approach the concept of what “God” must be, the only way to conceptualize Him, is as a necessarily existent being. If we are not seeing Him that way – if we are insisting that there may be a God, but then again maybe not, then we are not yet thinking about God, but about something else, something less than God.

This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to our very minds.

If Anselm is right, then the fool who denies God is saying something like “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.

The Bible says that God has written his law on our heart. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.

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

December 19, 2017/by Guest

Resolving Christmas Conundrums

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

Christmas is one of my favorite holidays and has been for as long as I’ve walked this Earth. As a kid, it was because I got a boatload of toys on Christmas morning that I got to play with as Mom and Dad prepared Christmas dinner for us and the rest of my family. As someone who is now a born-again Christian, my primary reason has shifted from getting gifts to praising God for taking on human flesh to begin His mission of redeeming fallen humanity. We all know the story: of how Gabriel appeared to Mary, told her she would become miraculously pregnant with Jesus, how Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem where Jesus would then be born, etc. However, those of us who witness to non-believers will encounter some objections about the reliability of the Christmas narrative.

It is the point of this blog post to wrestle with these challenges to the gospels’ reliability.

1: The Census

Luke 2:1-3 says “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.”

The Bible is clear that Jesus was born when Herod The Great was in power and when Quirinius was governor, but (A) Flavius Josephus says Herod died in A.D 4 and (B) secular history attests that Quirinius didn’t become governor until A.D 6? Did The Bible get it wrong?

First of all, I think we should give Luke the benefit of the doubt. In The Book Of Acts In The Setting Of Hellenistic History, the classic scholar Dr. Collin J. Hemer shows that archeology proves that the book of Acts got it right in 84 incidental details. The first chapter of Luke and the first chapter of Acts both give us clues that these books are written by the same author (Luke), such as the fact that they’re both addressed to a man named Theophilus and in Acts, the writer alludes “to my former work” (Acts 1:1). This is one piece of internal evidence that Luke and Acts had the same author. Now, if Acts gets it right in 84 different places, then is it really reasonable to suspect that this same writer would be so sloppy in his previous work? In fact, the famed scholar and archeologist Sir William Ramsay once said: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.”[1] Click here to read about some of the things Luke got right in both of his books.

Secondly, there are proposed solutions which could resolve the issue. One proposed solution has been that there were two different men named Quirinius governing on two different occasions. That possibility isn’t entirely out of the question. After all, we’ve had more than one president whose first name is George. The two-Quirinius explanation would be analogous to George Bush’ presidency in the 90s and George W. Bush’ presidency in the 2000s.

Another proposal is that the Qurinius reigned on two different occasions. As Daryl E Witmer of ChristianAnswers.net explains: “There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated ‘governor’ really just means ‘to be leading’ or ‘in charge of’) over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been ‘military governor.’ “[2]

Either of these proposals would solve the timing of Quirinius’ governorship. Either there were two governors by this name, or, as seems most likely, Quirinius was the governor on two separate occasions. This latter view is the one that archeologist William Ramsay endorsed.[3]

But what about the census itself? Was this really a practice that the Roman government did?

Here’s a quote from an official governmental order dated AD 104. Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]:

“Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.”[4]

As you can see, that practice is confirmed by this document. And another papyrus from AD 48 implies that the entire family was involved in the census. Moreover, there have been scholars who argued that Romans were known to occasionally allow a census to be taken according to local customs in order to avoid ticking off the population.

According to ancient Semitic culture, what this means is that Mary and Joseph would have had to trek to the home of their ancestors.

2: The Christmas Star

In Matthew 2:2, the magi appear before King Herod and ask him where the baby Jesus is. They said“Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” The Magi knew how to get to the town Jesus was born because a huge shining star in the sky acted like a celestial GPS system. This incident of the star that guided the magi has baffled historians and astronomers for years. What kind of event could this be? What astronomical phenomenon could have occurred in the universe to have caused a star to shine noticeably bright for the duration of the magis’ journey?

Some Christians have responded to this challenge by asking why it even has to be a literal star at all? Why can’t it just be a supernatural light caused by God? Or why couldn’t it be supernatural light given off by an angel? The problem is that the text specifically calls it a star, or at least some kind of celestial body in this universe. The Greek Word translated as “star” is aster, and according to Hugh Ross, this Greek word can indicate a number of different astronomical bodies, including a star, planet, comet, asteroid, or meteor. If we’re to read the plain meaning of scripture, we should probably conclude that this is a star, planet, meteor, or some other astronomical body rather than an angel or a miracle light. This would be to stick to the hermeneutical principle that The Bible should be interpreted literally unless good reasons can be given to take a term metaphorically.

The astrophysicist Hugh Ross once argued that the star was a recurring nova. He wrote “The brighter novae are rare enough that they could catch the attention of the Magi (who, it seems, were waiting for a sign), yet also dim enough to escape the notice of other observers. And, unlike supernovae, a few novae actually can erupt several times.”[5]

However, he himself said there was “a snag” in this explanation. He said that all the recurring novae that astronomers had observed had a recurrence rate of 10 years or even a century! Nevertheless, Dr. Ross said that believed it was possible for a nova to recur in less than two years. In 2014, new scientific evidence came to light to vindicate Ross. Ross wrote about these findings, saying “Astronomers observed nova M31N 2008-12a recurring within a period of only one year. Following this discovery, a team of four astronomers demonstrated that a certain kind of white dwarf star could exhibit recurring nova eruptions with a period as short as two months. Such a white dwarf star’s rotation rate would need to be close to zero and its mass would need to be 1.38 times the Sun’s mass. It also would need to be accreting mass from a companion star at a rate of 0.00000036 solar masses per year. The team also showed that a one-year nova eruption period requires a white dwarf with a mass = 1.30 solar masses and an accretion rate = 0.00000015 solar masses per year.”[6]

Dr. Ross says that this is a rare occurrence in the Milky Way Galaxy, but that nevertheless, these kinds of white dwarfs exist in a sufficient enough number to make the account of the star of Bethlehem credible.

3: Herod’s Slaughter Of Innocent Babies

Matthew 2 records that King Herod sought to kill all of the babies in Bethlehem who were 2 years old or younger because he believed the prophecies in The Old Testament about the coming of the Messiah (the giant star talked about in the previous subheader being a sign that he had arrived). Historians and scholars of ancient history have doubted whether this incident ever really occurred. Why? Because the only place it’s recorded is in the gospel of Matthew. Surely a person of such prominence as King Herod committing an act as heinous as murdering all of Bethelem’s infants would have been talked about by more people than Matthew, right?. You would expect Josephus or Tacitus to have at least made a passing reference to this event, right?

What are we to do about this objection? Did King Herod’s genocide not occur? Did Matthew make the whole thing up? Lee Strobel brought this objection up in his interview with Archeologist John McCray in his book The Case For Christ. In that interview, McCray responds with the following:

“‘You have to put yourself back in the first century and keep a few things in mind. First, Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth, so how many babies of that age would there be in a village of five hundred or six hundred people? Not thousands, not hundreds, although certainly a few. ‘Second, Herod the Great was a bloodthirsty king: he killed members of his own family; he executed lots of people who he thought might challenge him. So the fact that he killed some babies in Bethlehem is not going to captivate the attention of people in the Roman world. And third, there was no television, no radio, no newspapers. It would have taken a long time for word of this to get out, especially from such a minor village way in the back hills of nowhere, and historians had much bigger stories to write about.”[7]

So, in other words, Bethelem was extremely tiny so the slaughter wouldn’t have been a major holocaust. Secondly, Herod was known for heinous acts (see the writings of Josephus), and thirdly, it would have taken a long time for this to have circulated. Given the second point, it wouldn’t have probably been of much interest to people outside of Bethelem.

I would add to McRay’s points by pointing out that much of ancient writings have been lost in the sands of time, decayed away. Sometimes portions of these writings survive as citations in other works, such as Thallus’ mention of the darkness at Jesus’ crucifixion quoted in a work by Julius Africanus which was itself quoted by a historian named George Syncellus[8]. Both Thallus’ and Africanus’ works are lost, but both partially survive in Syncellus’ work. That’s one way we know that they didn’t survive; because historians see these authors quoted yet the quoted works are nowhere to be found. So, it may be the case that some other historians did make mention of it, but their works either haven’t been found yet or none of the manuscripts survived to the present day. We just don’t know.

Conclusion

Archeology and astronomy have helped to shed light on these Christmas Conundrums. We have reason to believe that Matthew and Luke accurately recorded the story of Jesus’ birth.

Notes

[1] Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.

[2] Daryl E. Witmer, “When Did The Luke 2 Census Occur?”, https://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/census-luke2.html

[3] John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 155, emphasis added.

[4] William Mitchell Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Forgotten Books, 2012, reprint of 1909 edition), 277.

[5] Hugh Ross, “Astronomy Sheds New Light On The Christmas Star”, December 1, 2014, http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2014/12/01/astronomy-sheds-new-light-on-the-christmas-star

[6] Ibid.

[7] Strobel, Lee; Strobel, Lee. Case for Christ Movie Edition: Solving the Biggest Mystery of All Time (Case for … Series) (Kindle Locations 2256-2263). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

[8] George Syncellus, quoting Julius Africanus, “History Of The World, Book 3”.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2B4LwGg

December 19, 2017/by Guest

If Evolution is True, Atheism is False

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

Atheists often appeal to evolution in an attempt to explain the primate complexity we observe today without a need for an Intelligent Designer — God! Indeed, many say the reason they affirm atheism is because they believe evolution is true. Since their hypothesis does not include God as a designer, atheists feel justified in affirming that God does not exist and that Christianity is false. With that said, however, if evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that God does not exist or do anything to disprove the historical resurrection of Jesus (the two essential ingredients of “mere Christianity”). Moreover, what atheists fail to comprehend is that by appealing to evolution in an attempt to “prove” atheism, they ultimately prove too much!

Evolution simply means change over time. Most evolutionists and young earth creationists will agree that some things do genuinely change over time (even if they disagree on how much some things change over time). What is important to note is that Darwinian evolution requires a genuine change over dynamic time — at least if one is hoping to explain primate complexity. With that in mind, I contend that if evolution is true, then atheism is false!

Consider this: I believe that some things do genuinely evolve and change over time. In fact, we currently exist in a world in which things are constantly changing right in front of our eyes! That is to say, we exist in an evolving state of affairs (change happens)!

The problem, however, is this: it is logically impossible for a changing state of affairs to be extrapolated into past infinity! In “English” that means that if we currently exist in a changing state of affairs and things are really happening one event after another, then it is impossible for things to happen chronologically in this manner without a first change. If we exist — right now — in a changing state of affairs, then it is impossible to go on and on forever in the past. Logically, there must have been a beginning or a first change.

If there never was a first change, then the present moment — “right now” — would not exist. To help illustrate why the concept of past infinity is incoherent, consider two thought experiments.

Infinite Jumpers & Steppers

First, is it possible for someone, say a superhero with infinite jumping powers, to jump out of an infinitely tall bottomless-pit? Of course not. There is no launching pad or foundation from which to jump. When it comes to things changing over time (evolution), if the hole at ground level represents the present moment and the idea of past infinity means there is no foundation to jump from (a first change over time), then the present moment of change could never be reached. The jumper could never get out of the hole because there is no starting point for him to progress upward. Because the present moment does exist and things do change over time (evolution) it logically follows that a foundation exists for the first change to occur leading to the evolution (change over time) we notice today.

Second, suppose a man walks up the steps to your front porch and rings the doorbell. You answer the door and ask if you can help him. He states, “I have just walked an infinite number of steps and finally completed them right here on your front porch.” Of course, you do not believe him, yet he insists that he has accomplished this feat. You ask for proof and he invites you to join him on a journey to retrace his infinite number of steps. He tells you that once the two of you reach this infinite point, you will then follow those same footsteps all the way back to your front door. You adamantly reject his offer because you realize that if you were to retrace an infinite amount of steps you will never get back home! In fact, you will never turn around to begin your journey home!

Consider the steps involved . . . you would take one step, then a second step, then a third step. Eventually, you would take a millionth step, and eventually a billionth step, and then a trillionth step. Whatever step you were currently taking you could always take one more and count it — never reaching actual infinity. Whenever you decide to turn around to come back home you will be on a countable step. So, if you do ever make it back home, your steps would not be infinite.

Just as it would be logically impossible for you to retrace all the steps this pedestrian claims to have made, it is just as impossible for this pedestrian to traverse an actual infinite amount of steps ending on your front porch. A rational person will know that one who makes such a claim is either delusional or deceptive. The “stepper” must have taken a first step.

Change over time (evolution) has the same problem. If a first change occurred, then it logically follows that a first change resulted from an unchanging, eternal, and beginningless state of affairs. Think of this as a frozen/static state where nothing happens and nothing has ever happened logically prior to the first change (I know this is hard to imagine). This might not seem like a “big deal” but the implications are enormous! This is the case because if things are not changing in a frozen/static state, then nothing would ever happen. This is because if things are not evolving, emerging, decaying, growing, or becoming unstable (which are words implying change over time), then these things would never be able to cause the first change. Change over time cannot account for things starting to change over time. That is to say, if nothing is happening, then nothing can describe or account for the first change that resulted from a static, frozen, and unchanging state! UNLESS…

… a volitional agent existed in this static state who had the power to act.

Other than a volitional agent, what else could cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs? At the least, a volitional agent with the power to act could exist in a static state and then cause something to happen. That is to say, if nothing is happening, but a volitional agent with free will exists in this static state, then this volitional agent can freely choose to act and cause the first change. This is what Aristotle meant by the “Unmoved Mover.”

Volitional agents are personal types of “things” or rather, “beings.” If a being is personal in nature, then this being is the kind of “thing” in which you can have a personal relationship — that is, at least if you are a person! Thus, if you are a person, then it is at least possible that you can have a personal relationship with this unmoved mover!

An Argument from Change Over Time

We can summarize this entire argument in a step-by-step syllogism:

1- Things change over time (evolution).

2- A changing state of affairs cannot be past infinite.

3- Therefore, a first change resulted from an unchanging state of affairs.

4- Only a volitional agent can cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs.

5- Volitional agents are personal.

6- Therefore, this personal agent existed in an unchanging state of affairs.

7- Anything existing in an unchanging state of affairs never began to exist and is eternal with no beginning.

8- Therefore, the cause of the first change (and ultimately the change of affairs in which we find ourselves) is a personal agent who is eternal with no beginning and was in a changeless state of affairs logically prior to causing the first change.

This final deductive conclusion should be eye-opening! Why should this get one’s attention? Because this personal agent who caused things to start evolving and changing over time is God! The Bible does not just note the possibility of having a personal relationship with the Unmoved Mover — God — it explains exactly how you and I can know God personally through Jesus Christ!

Bottom line: If you believe that things actually do evolve and change over time, then you should reject atheism!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2j7eSMT

December 17, 2017/by Guest

Is Christianity a Form of Superstition?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Superstition is as old as man. An incomplete picture of why things work the way they do fuels the imagination to conjure up hidden forces at work behind the scenes. Pull back the curtain and perhaps one will find an “all-powerful” being at work pulling the strings. Accessing – and eventually perhaps cajoling or influencing that being – can easily become the basis for a religious belief system.

Does Christianity fall into this same category? Some unbelievers, observing the behavior of professional athletes, might believe that superstition is at play. Praying and acknowledging one’s deity, they assume, is a way of seeking to influence the outcome of the contest. For some, it seems like a cheap – and silly – trick.

But this is not what Christian players are doing when they acknowledge God, nor is it what a mature devotion to Christianity would include.

Some non-believers who consider this behavior will ask themselves a very basic question: will becoming a Christian “improve” my life? Is it a ticket to greater wealth and prosperity, better relationships, a future filled with every type of goodness and blessing? For many, this seems too good to be true, but they pursue it hoping for the best; for others, it appears to be a shell game or cheap con, and they reject it without ever considering what it really entails.

The nutshell answer is: probably yes. In most cases for most people, developing a relationship with God in which you accept His gift and then living a life that reflects His will, as best you can achieve it, will improve your life in some important and significant ways. But having a “better” life is a by-product of belief and not the main point of devoting one’s life to Jesus.

If prosperity or other rewards become the main point, Christianity begins to be marketed as a product, a method of achieving some desirable end. A person identifies a need in his or her life and Christianity fills that need, the way any product might do. But this is not the message of Christianity. The Bible is not a “how to” manual on achieving financial or worldly success. It does not promise riches in the here and now, nor an end to all hardship… nor a victory in every football contest. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the early fathers of the church, and their followers could have attested. (Except of course for the football part.)

In short, Christianity tells the story of man’s broken relationship with his Creator. It claims to speak the truth about the nature of God and of this broken relationship and what is needed to fix it. The Old Testament provides the backdrop as God prepares a people to serve as the vehicle for redemption. Jesus comes – not to make my life profitable or more fulfilling in some modern sense or to help me nail down a spot in the Super Bowl- but to fulfill the ancient prophecies, to give His life as ransom for us, and to thereby restoring our relationship with the Father.

Christianity should be assessed on its merits – are its claims true? – not on what it can achieve for you. The Apostle Paul said as much when he said that we are to be pitied as fools if Christ did not rise from the dead. Everything rests on that truth claim. Once we see that Christ did rise, and we place our trust in Him, He will do a work in us and will eventually welcome us into His Kingdom. But Paul himself remained physically afflicted, and there is no reason to believe that by following Christ, our problems will disappear.

We will, however, look at them differently, and by living Biblical values, we will probably have a better life than we might otherwise have had – and certainly a more fulfilling one.

Original Blog Post: http://bit.ly/2ABUIBT

December 17, 2017/by Guest

Why Do Josephus And The Gospels Contradict Each Other About John The Baptist?

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

By Evan Minton

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was born in A.D 37. In about A.D 90, he wrote his book “Antiquities Of The Jews” in which he writes a history of the Jewish people. In this work, he mentions several individuals who appear in The New Testament such as Jesus, James’, the brother of Jesus, Caiaphas, King Herod the Great, and John The Baptist, among several others. With regards to John The Baptist, Josephus says that King Herod (Antipas) killed him, just as The New Testament does. Josephus writes “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. …. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt — for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise — believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. And so John, out of Herod’s suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.” (Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119)

Josephus said that the reason Herod killed John The Baptist was that Herod feared that John might lead a rebellion against him, and ergo overthrow him. However, this is not what The Bible says. Read Matthew’s account of John’s death in chapter 14. Matthew says that the reason Herod had John killed was that John was speaking out against Herod Antipas’ marriage because it was unlawful under The Old Testament law. Herodias had divorced her husband and married Herod Antipas. Now, this would have been fine if Herod’s brother had died, but since he was still alive, this was considered adultery. Matthew 14 says that it wasn’t Herod’s idea to have John killed, but that he was instead backed into a corner by promising Herodias’ daughter Salome that if she danced for him, he would give her anything she asked for. She danced, and, at the nudging of her mother, asked for John The Baptist’s head delivered on a platter.

So which is it? Who’s right? Is Josephus right or is Matthew right? Well, we might say; “Well, since The Bible is God’s word, it cannot err. So we must conclude that it was Matthew who is right and Josephus who is wrong”. Of course, this answer won’t suffice for the non-believer who doesn’t believe that The Bible is inspired.

Luke 8, I believe, provides us with the answer. Didn’t you ever wonder how would Matthew have gotten this information in the first place? After all, this happened in the privacy of Herod’s home. None of the disciples were there. Jesus wasn’t there. How did Matthew know what was going on behind closed doors? Luke 8:1-3 says “After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (emphasis mine)

Luke tells us that one of Jesus’ followers had a family member who was the manager of Herod’s household. This would provide a plausible explanation for how Matthew could have known what was happening at Herod’s birthday party. Chuza told Joanna about this incident, and then Joanna told Jesus and the disciples. Matthew would then have this information to later record in his gospel.

What we can conclude, then, is that Matthew is right because he had better source information than Josephus! Matthew was actually told by someone who had a family member who worked for Herod Antipas why Herod Antipas had John The Baptist killed. Josephus was only speculating on Herod Antipas’ motive based on what appeared to be the case to him.

Now, one may object “But couldn’t Luke have simply made this Joanna person up simply to give us an explanation for how they knew about Herod’s motives?” My answer: No. It’s unlikely that Luke made up Joanna or lied about her husband working for Herod Antipas simply to answer the question of how they knew Herod Antipas’ motive. For one thing, this small detail isn’t mentioned in the context of Herod Antipas’ party. Herod Antipas’ party isn’t even mentioned in Luke 7, 8, or 9. If Luke provided this small detail simply to solve the problem, why didn’t he do it in the context of the party? Moreover, scholars have made good arguments that Luke’s gospel was written sometime in the 50s’ A.D when all of the eyewitnesses were still around and could have corrected Luke if he were making this up. Though it’s beyond the scope of this blog post to get into dating arguments. Thirdly, this is what New Testament scholars Tim and Lydia McGrew would call “Undesigned Coincidences”. An undesigned coincidence is when one gospel says something that raises a question, but another gospel mentions an incidental little detail that answers it. From what I recall, Luke never talks about Herod Antipas’ banquet. Matthew does, but Luke doesn’t. Matthew raised a question (i.e “how would he have known what went on at Antipas’ place?”) but Luke answered it (i.e “One of Jesus’ followers had a husband who was his household manager”).

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

December 12, 2017/by Guest

Ten Divine Attributes of the Messiah

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Mark Lowry wrote a beautiful song called Mary, Did You Know. The song features questions that Mark would ask Mary if he had the chance. One of the lines inquires, “Mary, did you know . . . that when you kissed your little baby, you’ve kissed the face of God?”. We are in the season of Advent which anticipates the arrival of Christmas. Although the date of Christ’s birth is debated among scholars, Christmas is a time when we celebrate the birth of Christ, no matter the actual date.

Throughout the millennia, Christians have recognized that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. However, may have sought to dispute the claim, holding that Jesus was merely a good man but not God. Groups like Jehovah Witnesses translate their own versions of Scripture, attempting to write off the divine claims made about Christ. Yet, it is impossible not to see the multiple divine attributes of Jesus throughout the pages of Scripture.

A thorough examination of Scripture indicates that Jesus holds multiple divine attributes normally ascribed to God. At least ten Messianic divine attributes are found in Scripture.[1]

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of life (Jn. 1:4; 14:6).

The divine attribute of life describes the ability to provide life, even eternal life. This kind of life can only be given by one who oneself is eternal.

“In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (Jn. 1:4).[2]
“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn. 14:6).

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of self-existence (Jn. 5:26; Heb. 7:16).

This means that Christ was uncreated and exists by himself alone, an attribute that only God could hold.

“For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself” (Jn. 5:26).
“. . . who did not become a priest based on a legal regulation about physical descent but based on the power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16).

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of immutability (Heb. 13:8).

Immutability means that one is unchangeable. While finite beings can and do change, a necessary infinite being does not.

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of truth (Jn. 14:6; Rev. 3:7).

Titus 1:2 notes that God cannot lie. It is not that God chooses not to lie, but rather that he cannot because it goes against his nature. To claim that God is truth means that God’s essence is sheer truth and possesses no falsehood. Scripture notes that Jesus holds this attribute.

“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn. 14:6).
“Write to the angel of the church in Philadelphia: Thus says the Holy One, the true one, the one who has the key of David, who opens and no one will close, and who closes and no one opens” (Rev. 3:7).

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of love (1 Jn. 3:16).

God is understood to be omnibenevolent; that is, all-loving. In God, there is no hate if he can be said to be absolute love. Theologians understand that God’s wrath is rooted in God’s love and his holiness. Scripture notes that Jesus holds the divine attribute of love.

“This is how we have come to know love: He laid down his life for us. We should also lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters” (1 Jn. 3:16). See also John 3:16.

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of holiness (Lk. 1:35; Jn. 6:69; Heb. 7:26).

God is absolutely holy. Absolute holiness is an all-encompassing purity, in which no evil is possessed. In other words, God is the absolute good. Scripture claims that Jesus holds this divine attribute of holiness which is necessary if he is to redeem humanity from their sin.

“The angel replied to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35).
“We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn. 6:69).
“For this is the kind of high priest we need: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26).

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of eternity as seen in this passage and in Jn. 1:1.

God is understood to be eternal. He has no beginning and no end. The Messiah is said to hold the same eternal attribute.

“Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times” (Mic. 5:2).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn. 1:1).

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omnipresence (Mt. 28:20; Eph. 1:23).

Omnipresence is the divine ability of God to be everywhere at all times. While Jesus did become monopresent during his time on earth, he is said to have the divine attribute of omnipresence in his eternal state.

“And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt. 28:20).
“And he subjected everything under his feet and appointed him as head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way” (Eph. 1:22-23).

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omniscience (Mt. 9:4; Jn. 2:24, 25; Acts 1:24; 1 Cor. 4:5; Col. 2:3).

Omniscience is the divine attribute of God to know all things. This is an extremely deep concept as God knows all things that could be by his natural knowledge, all things that will be by his free knowledge, and all things that would be by his middle knowledge. Jesus is omniscient.

“Perceiving their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why are you thinking evil things in your hearts?” (Mt. 9:4-5).
“Jesus, however, would not entrust himself to them, since he knew them all and because he did not need anyone to testify about man; for he himself knew what was in man” (Jn. 2:24-25).
“Then they prayed, “You, Lord, know everyone’s hearts; show which of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry that Judas left to go where he belongs” (Acts 1:24-25).
^“So don’t judge anything prematurely, before the Lord comes, who will both bring to light what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the hearts. And then praise will come to each one from God” (1 Cor. 4:5).
“In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).

The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omnipotence (Mt. 28:18; Rev. 1:8).

Omnipotence is the divine attribute of God that indicates God’s complete power. God has complete authority and ultimate strength. Jesus holds the same attribute.

“All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Mt. 28:18).
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the one who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

As I have learned from several of my professors at Liberty University, biblical theology must shape our systematic theology. From Scripture, one can clearly see that Jesus is God incarnate. It is unquestionable. That is why I hold that one must accept the divine aspect of Jesus to truly be part of the orthodox Christian faith.

Gary Habermas Explains the High Christology of the Early Historical NT Texts

Lee Strobel on Jesus’s Self-Identification with God

Notes

[1] Many of these references were found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 309.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all 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 enrolled 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 a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kMBy9n

December 10, 2017/by Guest

Should Christians Reject the Soul for Biblical Reasons?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jacobus Erasmus

Question

Dear Dr. Erasmus,

Tim Stratton shared your post, Objections to the Existence of the Soul, to the UK Apologetics and Evangelism Facebook group, of which I am a member. In that group, there is a very knowledgeable Christian who does not seem to believe in the existence of a soul yet says he is not a strict materialist or physicalist. I’m sending you a discussion he had with Lenny Esposito in which Lenny posted about atheism’s weakness regarding the lack of a soul and he took exception to it (click here).

So whilst I am a dualist, I do not know how to respond to his assertions. If you have time, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Kind regards,

David

Jacobus’s Response

Thank you for the email, David. When trying to come to a conclusion about the existence of the soul, the Christian must explore the issue from three perspectives, namely, from (1) a theological perspective (what does the Bible say about the soul?), (2) a philosophical perspective (are there good philosophical arguments for/against the soul?), and (3) a scientific perspective (what does science say about the mind?).

Now, your friend seems to address the theological perspective only and does not engage with any philosophical arguments in favour of the soul. He also fails to recognise that most philosophers of mind agree that science (or neuroscience) cannot address the physicalism-dualism debate. Since science studies the physical, it cannot, by its nature, disprove the immaterial. Moreover, both the physicalist and the dualist agree that there is a strong correlation between the mind and the brain. Thus, the fact that Alzheimer’s disease affects the mind in no way supports physicalism; a correlation relationship is not an identity relationship.

It seems, then, that Jocelyn is more concerned about whether Scripture teaches that humans have souls. He thinks that the Bible does not teach or imply that we have souls. How does he arrive at this conclusion? Simply by analysing the various meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words for “soul” and “spirit”. The problem with this approach is that is confuses words with concepts. The same concept may be expressed in various ways with various words. For example, the concept of the Trinity is expressed in the Bible even though the Bible does not use the exact words “the Trinity”. Hence, we are not merely interested in the meaning of the word for “spirit” but we are mainly interested in whether the concept of dualism is explicit or implicit in Scripture.

Now, it seems that the concept that human beings comprise both material and immaterial parts (or are made up of matter/body and spirit/soul) is made clear throughout the Bible:

First, souls do exist because God Himself is a soul or spirit and so too are the angelic beings. Thus, the existence of souls is not impossible according to Scripture.

Second, in 1 Samuel 28, Saul instructs a medium to call the deceased Samuel from Sheol so that Saul could talk to him. Interestingly, the medium does as she is told, and Saul speaks with Samuel’s spirit.

Third, Paul believed that we, as human beings, can exist without our bodies. For example, Paul writes:

“So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8 ESV).

“…as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell” (Philippians 1:20-22 ESV).

“I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.” (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)

Fourth, while on the cross, Jesus said to the thief beside him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus could not have meant that the thief’s body was going to be in paradise, since a grave is no paradise. Rather, Jesus must have meant that the theif’s soul/spirit will experience joy once his body dies.

Fifth, the disciples believed that spirits exist because they thought that Jesus was a spirit when they saw him walking on water (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49).

Sixth, Jesus distinguished between the body and soul and treated them as two different parts of a human: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell”
(Matthew 10:28).

Finally, Jesus’ human body obviously had a soul/spirit, since it was animated with Jesus’ spirit. Consequently, according to Scripture, a human can comprise both matter/body and soul/spirit.

It is very difficult to align the above passages with monism or physicalism. These passages, I believe, clearly imply the concept of dualism.

Kind regards,

Jacobus Erasmus, Ph.D

Postdoctoral researcher

www.JacobusErasmus.com

https://www.facebook.com/DrJacobusErasmus

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nJ1x2z

December 10, 2017/by Guest

Being A Good Apologist Is More Than Knowing The Right Answers

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

1 Peter 3:15 says to “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, yet do so with gentleness and respect” and 2 Corinthians 10:5 says “We demolish argument and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” These two verses are the primary verses that make Christian Apologetics a precedent for the follower of Christ. We are to give the unbelievers reasons to believe Christianity is true and we are to demolish every argument that tries to show it isn’t. However, being a good apologist is more than just knowing the right answers to peoples’ objections and questions, and knowing how to make a case for Christianity. To be a good apologist, you must know more than “If this person says X, then I’ll respond with Y”. Giving a defense to anyone who asks is not like giving the answer to a mathematical equation.

Being a good apologist means being a good communicator, and that involves utilizing certain skills. Not everyone has these skills, but thankfully, if you know what skills you need, you can train yourself in these areas. Now, what are these skills you need?

The Accordion Tactic
You can learn the evidence for The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection, or the evidence behind the premises of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, and you may even be able to do a good talk on this at your church. But can you relay these arguments in 5 minutes or less? In evangelism encounters, sometimes that’s all the time we have to talk with this person. Or even we do have more time to talk to them, not everyone wants to listen to your monologue for 45 minutes. If you want it to be a dialogue, you need to be able to compress your presentation of the arguments for God’s existence and the resurrection to 5 minutes or less. This skill comes in handy not just in one on one evangelism, but even in internet conversations. With some people, if a comment becomes way too lengthy, they’ll lose interest and comment ‘TL;DR” which means “Too long, didn’t read”.

This isn’t easy. I’ve struggled with brevity my entire apologetics career, but this is a practice that I keep practicing and practicing on. I do believe I’m getting better. With regards to my 6 favorite arguments, I can expand them like an accordion to do a 45-minute talk, or I can compress them to explain an argument to a friend in the time it takes to listen to a song. Compare my treatment of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Fine-Tuning Argument, Local Fine-Tuning Argument, etc. in my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods with my treatment of them in part 6 and part 7of my blog series on the problem of evil. The former is when my apologetic accordion is expanded. The latter is when my apologetic accordion is contracted. Learn this skill of playing the apologetic accordion and you’ll be able to defend the faith no matter how much or how little time you’re allotted. Oh, and, having a monkey wearing a fez isn’t required. Don’t worry about that.

Learn To Listen
At the National Conference On Christian Apologetics, Dr. Ray Civero gave a talk called “Turning Skeptics Into Seekers”. In this talk, one of his points is that we need to listen to what the other person is saying, and we need to listen not merely to respond to the argument, but to understand the argument. Listen to understand, don’t listen to respond. If you’re not paying attention to what the non-Christian is saying regarding his objections to Christianity, you will most likely (1) Attack a straw man in your response, (2) give the unbeliever the impression that you don’t care what he has to say, (3) Give the unbeliever that you just like to listen to yourself talk, and (4) turn him off to anything you have to say. (5) You will be like two ships passing in the night. In other words, you’ll be talking past each other.

Be like Ray Civero’s character Ike The Investigator. Ike doesn’t listen to anticipate. Ike listens to understand. Ike doesn’t listen to his opponent’s position trying to find some way to tear it apart. Ike listens to understand where the other person is coming from, to understand what the other person is actually saying.

Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Luke 6:31). I can’t tell you how often I’ve been frustrated with a non-Christian when I’ve explained something over and over, as clearly and concisely as I possibly could, mustering all of my effort to get them to understand what it was that I was actually saying, just to have them attack a straw man for the umpteenth time in their response to me. For example, there have been conversations where I bent over backwards trying to get the non-Christian to realize that The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t question-begging, it doesn’t “cite The Bible to prove The Bible”, but instead treats The New Testament documents like a historian would treat any document claiming to be telling history (e.g A letter written by George Washington, a biography of Abraham Lincoln, Josephus’ writings). Christian and Non-Christian historians alike arrive at the minimal facts by applying the standard historical methodology to the text (e.g the principle of multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment). It isn’t a circular argument.

Yet, no matter how I strain to get the other person to see the point, they still just don’t get it. If he wants to disagree with my arguments, that’s fine. If he wants to say he doesn’t think the resurrection is the best inference to the minimal facts, that’s fine. I don’t loathe debate, I loathe having to repeat myself and draw a hundred maps with the result of the other person still not understanding the argument. Why don’t they understand the argument? I can only guess that they’re simply skimming my comments. They’re too eager to respond to my comment so they don’t stop and actually try to understand what it is that I’m actually saying.

I think we’ve all been guilty of this at least a few times, Christian and non-Christian alike. However, we need to guard against it. James 1:19 says “Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.” If we’re to obey the golden rule and James 1:19, and if we’re to have a fruitful dialogue, then we need to be good listeners.

Have The Patience Of A Saint
There are jobs where having a short fuse is a handicap inherent to the job itself: being a cop, being a lawyer, working in retail, and being a Christian Apologist. Because in all of these, you’re going to come against people who will really try your patience. You need to have a pretty long fuse or else you’ll fail the task you’re trying to do.

If you’re going to be a Christian Apologist, you need to have thick skin, because there will be people who ridicule you, demean you, insult you, and slander you. It can be tempting to respond in kind, but The Bible tells us “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, yet do so with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15, emphasis mine). I know of some apologists (won’t name names) who obey the first half of this verse, but not the second. They give a defense for the hope they have alright, but they make total donkeys out of themselves while doing it. If you don’t give a defense with gentleness and respect, you have failed to fully obey 1 Peter 3:15.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 says “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the devil’s snare, having been taken captive by him to his will.”

Conclusion
These are a few of the most important skills you need to master to be a good Christian Apologist. Simply having the answers is not enough. That would be like saying you can be a police officer if you have a uniform, a badge, and a gun. While those definitely are necessary conditions to being a cop, they are not sufficient conditions. Likewise, being well read in the apologetic literature is a necessary condition to being an apologist, but not a sufficient condition. You need people skills!

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2AsAA82

December 5, 2017/by Guest

Is The Doctrine Of The Incarnation Coherent?

When and What Time Was Jesus Born?

How the Ontological Argument Proves the Existence of God

Resolving Christmas Conundrums

If Evolution is True, Atheism is False

Is Christianity a Form of Superstition?

Why Do Josephus And The Gospels Contradict Each Other About John The Baptist?

Ten Divine Attributes of the Messiah

Should Christians Reject the Soul for Biblical Reasons?

Being A Good Apologist Is More Than Knowing The Right Answers

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED