By Brian Chilton

In a Patristic Exegesis class at Liberty University, Dr. Ken Cleaver was discussing the average-sized heights of individuals in first-century Israel. For the most part, the average height of most individuals was around 5’ 2”. It is quite likely that Jesus would have been much shorter than what most Americans would have expected. Even if Jesus were taller among the people of his day, he would have been around 5’ 8” or 5’ 10”. But he wouldn’t have been what most modern people would consider tall.

One of my classmates mentioned that the first painting of Jesus to date was found in a church in Syria. The portrait depicts Jesus healing a paralytic who was brought to him. Jesus is physically portrayed as a beardless, dark-skinned, short-haired man, who is also short in stature. The painting dates to around 235 and is among the earliest paintings of Jesus to date. The Shroud of Turin, if authentic, portrays Jesus as a long-haired, bearded man. Which depiction is accurate? Furthermore, does it really matter?

This exercise hBrianChilton261119as forced me to consider how much we seek to make Jesus into our own image. For a southern, Caucasian, American; one would feel comfortable seeing Jesus as a camouflage wearing, gun-toting, bandana adorning, Patriotic citizen. For a northern, black, American; one would feel comfortable a Jesus who was a civilized, pacifist, progressive defender of human rights. But the question is, do we make Jesus into our image ,or are we willing to be made into the image of Christ? Would we still love Jesus if he holds different perspectives than we do? Would we still love Jesus if he looked very different than us? As people, we like things that are like us.

The very nature of Jesus is far and away different from all of us. Remember, Jesus was perfect. We are not. No matter how he looked physically, he was the incarnate God and we are not. Paul notes that those whom God “foreknew he also predestined to be conformed into the image of his Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Rom. 8:29, CSB). Our goal is to be made into the image of Christ and not to make Christ into our image. No matter whether Jesus was over six feet tall and light-skinned or five feet tall and dark-skinned, he is the Logos incarnate—God who came in flesh. Athanasius of Alexandria (AD 296–373), a man who was named the “black dwarf,” noted that the Logos of God

“accommodated himself to our nature and showed himself empty of all [his divine qualities] in the face of the anxiety of the threatening onslaught of his trials … [Christ] became Man that we might be made God: and He manifested Himself through the body that we might take cognizance of the invisible Father: and He underwent insult at the hands of men that we might inherit immortality” (Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Word of God 54).

Isaiah reminds us that the Messiah did not come with an impressive form. The Messiah did not possess any “majesty that we should look at him, no appearance that we should desire him” (Isa. 53:2, CSB). In other words, Jesus did not come as a fashion model or bodybuilder that you would be impressed with his physical form. What made Jesus special was that he was the incarnate God who came to save us from our plight of sin.

It makes no difference whether Jesus was light-skinned or dark-skinned, tall or short, bearded or beardless, short-haired or long-haired. What matters is that Jesus was thoroughly perfect in his morality, impeccable in his character, and powerful in his theology. He was God who came in flesh. Thus, we should seek to be made into Christ’s image rather than seeking to make Jesus into our own image. No one has a handle on Jesus. No one ever could. As such, Jesus is far more impressive and far more challenging than you ever thought him to be.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

 


Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the soon to be released book The Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. 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 and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for nearly 20 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/37Bnunj

The Christmas season has a way of quickening the senses, doesn’t it? The taste of a kiss under a mistletoe tree, the flavor of nursing steamed Ghirardelli hot chocolate, or the sheer ecstasy of biting into that freshly made batch of flaky peanut brittle. Then there are the smells. Oh, the smells. The smell of Gingerbread houses, hot caramel apple pie, and the dreaded Turkish Delight. We cannot forget the sounds. The sounds of Christmas carolers, holiday bells and our favorite seasonal hymns and not so favorite ones too, like, Last Christmas. It’s also a sight fest. The sight of homes bedecked with multi-colored lights, lawns graced by nativity scenes, and Salvation Army volunteers ringing their bells for coins in the coffer. And of course, we cannot forget the touch of holding that long-awaited for gift as it is first unwrapped. Oh, how I loved unwrapping those Lego sets, or tearing open my new Star Wars action figures. Luke Skywalker. Darth Vader. Stormtroopers. Chewbacca. Yoda. Hans Solo. Keep them coming.

Alright, enough of that. We’re getting a little too sappy here. So, here’s my point. While it’s true that the Christmas season touches the chord of our senses, it’s also true that the heightened sensory extravaganza can numb us to the essential meaning of Christmas, making it even difficult for some to make sense of Christmas with all the added hoopla. As we inch toward this season, let us make sense of the season once again. But before we do, let me set an objection aside. Some might contend that since we don’t know the day on which Jesus was born, then we should avoid a collective celebration of Christmas altogether. While I’d agree, despite some who claim otherwise, I don’t think we can know Jesus’s D.O.B. But that’s to miss the point. We can still reserve a time to celebrate Christ’s incarnation, regardless of a fixed date, we can still revel in his descent to rescue us. Besides, it’s the event, not the date, that counts. It’s the Christ, not the calendar that we worship in remembrance.

Now to the event. The incarnation. The virgin birth. The very infleshing of the Logos. This is an event that’s hard to digest. We’re talking about God becoming flesh. It’s to this event that great sage from many decades ago, Mr. C.S. Lewis himself, referred to as, “The Grand Miracle.” Think about what so grandly entails this pivotal event. Or better yet, try and imagine it for a moment. We’re talking about God in gestation. I know, that’s a lot. On one level you can see the problem. And it’s this. In one sense, we can never make full sense of it. That’s because incarnation thinking boggles the brain. And yet, just the thought of it for the believer should humble our hearts in worship. We’re reflecting on a God who fastened himself in the Person of Christ to human flesh for all time. Knowing that God is Spirit, you’d think after Christ’s death He’d ditch the bodily experience throughout eternity, but no, it was a physical/bodily resurrection. It’s one thing to assume our nature for an earthly sojourn and another thing to assume our nature for an eternal sojourn.

As we seek to make sense of Christmas this year, make sense of this. Christ came to identify with us. To share in our nature. But there’s more. Much more. And yet, space permits me to carry us much farther. So, I’ll close with a few final reflections to feast on for December. First, Christmas is a time to remember that God became man so that man could be one with God. Yes, Christmas reminds us that God is a reconciling God. A rescuing God. A saving God. A relational God. Second, Christmas is a time to remember that God came to earth so that we could go to heaven. This is good news. No, it’s great news. By attaching ourselves to Christ we gain much more than forgiveness of our sins, removal of our guilt and the elimination of our shame. That’s because Jesus came down so we can go up. He came to earth, so we can go to heaven. And finally, Christmas is a gift, and the best gifts are meant to be shared. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. The gift that we will never finish unwrapping. The gift that’s meant to be given away. Christmas is a time for sharing. For sharing the Greatest Story Ever Told. It’s a time to remember that there are miracles and there is The Grand Miracle. That Light came into the world of darkness so that a world of darkness could enter His everlasting light. Selah.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

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

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England), where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books, including The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One Other Questions About God and the Bible, and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense, to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather, and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

Tree decorating. Repetitive Christmas music on the radio. Sleigh bells ringing. Chestnuts burning. (Like, what does this even mean? Do people actually do this?) And the incessant cyber throat-punching over Christians who celebrate Christmas are actually celebrating an evil pagan holiday.

Ah… it’s the most wonderful time of the year.

Christmas is that magical time of the year again, full of bright lights, joyful music, and the warm and fuzzy feelings of family and gift-giving. But every so often, you might hear a claim tossed around that Christmas is rooted in pagan traditions. There are many people, especially online, who take this time of year very personally and feel the need to remind Christians that we are, indeed, participating in a pagan holiday. This can be very confusing for some Christians. They want to make sure they’re doing the right thing in God’s eyes but also don’t want to miss out on a holiday that worships our Lord because some people— passionate as they may seem— might be misled about this topic. If you’re a Christian, you might be left scratching your head, wondering if there’s any truth to these claims. Let’s break it down and look at Christmas from the Christian perspective.

A History Lesson (Don’t Worry, It’s a Short One!) 

The mix-up often comes from the fact that Christmas is celebrated around the same time as the winter solstice and some ancient Roman festivals like Saturnalia. The early Christians didn’t have Jesus’s exact birthdate in their calendars. Deciding to celebrate on December 25th wasn’t about hopping on the pagan bandwagon, though. It was more about carving out a Christian identity that was distinct and separate from these celebrations. So the irony here is they were trying to be distinct from pagan practices, not syncretize with them.

Jesus’s Birthday Bash

From a Christian viewpoint, Christmas is all about celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, and it’s got nothing to do with pagan festivals. This is probably the one that I want to emphasize the most. Think of the entire point of Christmas. It’s not a fake or false worship of Jesus, but the exact opposite. It’s remembering His birth and how God became human. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament give us these deets on Jesus’s birth. It involves heavenly announcements, prophetic fulfillments, and divine revelations – not exactly your typical pagan celebration ingredients.

All About Those Traditions

Across the ages, Christians have crafted and refined a plethora of charming traditions to honor and celebrate the holiday of Christmas. These customs range from the use of Advent calendars to mark the days leading up to the event, to the lighting of candles to signify the arrival of the Christ child. Another beloved activity is the singing of carols, which often feature lyrics that tell the story of the Nativity. Finally, many Christians enjoy creating intricate and beautiful nativity scenes, which depict the manger where Jesus was born surrounded by various characters from the Bible. These beloved traditions are deeply rooted in the Christian faith and are regarded as essential components of the Christmas season, rather than being borrowed from other religious or cultural practices.

The Real Meaning of Christmas

I alluded to this before, but it is worth noting that Christmas holds a significant connection to the Christian faith. The holiday revolves around the doctrine of the incarnation, which is the belief that God took on human form through the birth of Jesus. The idea of the incarnation is deeply rooted in the New Testament and was frequently discussed by the Apostle Paul in his letters. He emphasized the incredible mystery and beauty of this belief, which has been central to the Christian faith for centuries. As a result, various Christian customs have developed over time to celebrate the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ. These customs range from religious services and prayer to gift-giving and festive decorations. Overall, Christmas is a time for Christians to reflect on the significance of the incarnation and to celebrate the joy of Jesus’s birth.

Wrapping It Up (See What I Did There?) 

So, there you have it. This isn’t an exhaustive list, and numerous Christians (and even non-Christians!) have written about this topic, debunking it over and over again. When it comes to Christmas, it’s essential to separate myth from fact. For Christians, Christmas isn’t a refurbished pagan holiday but a heartfelt celebration of the birth of Jesus, with its unique traditions and meanings. Sure, Christmas trees and gift exchanges are all good, but at the core, it’s all about remembering that moment when heaven touched earth. In this context, Christmas will always be a Christian holiday. For that, I’m grateful.

I made a satirical video about this on my YouTube channel. I used my most controversial character, Judy McJudgerson, to make this point. So… even if you don’t agree with me, I hope you get a kick out of the mediocre wig. You can check it out here.

So no. Christmas isn’t pagan. Let’s stop the madness.

Merry Christmas.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

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

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She also has a bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

 

The word “soon” can be quite ambiguous, if not misleading. When asked about homework, a teenager might reply that they expect to finish sometime soon. In my family, that word could equal 30 seconds for one child or 30 minutes for another. But despite these variations, the word “soon” still conjures up an idea of an approaching realization, like a progress bar on your phone that reads 99% complete.

We’ve all seen the signs that read, “Jesus is coming soon.” Taken straight from the Bible, we see no less than three times in one chapter when Jesus mentions “I am coming soon” (Rev 22:6-7, 12, 20). To some readers, this is a source of great hope and encouragement, but to others it is a source of mockery since it’s been nearly 2000 years since His statement was written down. So what gives?

To clarify confusion, we must take a closer look at the translation of the word tachos from Greek to English. Rather than an “almost there” connotation, the meaning behind the word has more to do with the speed or quickness of an event. Most of us have experienced the heart-stopping feeling when a bolt of lightning suddenly strikes nearby. One moment it was one way, and the next moment your hair was looking like Marv on Home Alone 2.

History is not much different. In the famous feast from which the phrase “writing on the wall” was coined, we see how the kingdom of Babylon was suddenly overtaken by the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5). All appeared to be normal and fine and then suddenly BAM! It all changed in an instant.

In light of this, the reader of Revelation can appreciate how God utilizes tachos similarly in His appeal to readiness. Rather than happening “soon” as many texts read, listen to how it sounds: “A revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show His bondservants what must happen suddenly” (Rev 1:1). See the difference?

Doug McIntosh in his preaching commentary on Revelation notes, “Casual believers will miss much of what is revealed here as the truth of this book describes things that must happen suddenly. Suddenly translates a Greek prepositional phrase that often means quickly or in rapid succession. The exact phrase used here also occurs in the Greek Old Testament or Septuagint (abbr. LXX) rendering of Psalms 2:12, which warns, “Seize upon instruction, lest the Lord be angry, and you will perish from the righteous way, when his anger suddenly blazes out.” Clearly Jesus Christ did not see any contradiction between avenging His servants’ mistreatment suddenly and the lapse of a long period: “Shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them suddenly. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:7-8).[1]

The idea seems to be that most of the events that are predicted in Revelation will happen unexpectedly and quickly once they begin.

Consider the pattern in other parts of Scripture.

  • Isaiah 29:5-6 “Suddenly, in an instant, the Lord Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire.”
  • 1 Thess 5:1-4 “Now brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.”
  • Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming suddenly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

McIntosh further amplifies, “The voice of the Lord Jesus interjects a dose of reality: “Behold, I am coming suddenly.” After the conflagrations begin it is too late. When death may ensue at any second it is not the right time to reflect on the gravity and truthfulness of the message. For those who are faithful, the Lord holds forth a lovely promise: “My reward is with Me.” The words echo Isaiah 40:10, where the prophet proclaims, “Behold, the Lord God will come with might, with His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him and His recompense before Him.”[2]

Just as God judges unbelievers on the basis of their works, so He will judge believers at the judgment-seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Cor. 3:10-15). Good intentions and good theology are irrelevant. Only actions count: to give to everyone according to what he has done. Jesus can do this not only because He is the perfect Man but also because He is the “Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 22:13).

The question for us all is not so much, “How soon before He returns?” but rather, “Am I right now ready for Him?”

 

Footnotes:

[1] https://dougmcintosh.org/pdf/CommentaryNT/CommentaryNTRevelation.pdf page 12.

[2] Ibid., page 172.


Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kent Suter was raised in Atlanta, GA and earned his Bachelor’s degrees in Biblical Studies and in Christian Education from Bryan College in Dayton, TN (2002). From there he attained a Master’s degree in Christian Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary (2008) where he served as student assistant to his late mentor and friend, Dr. Norman Geisler. Following his time at SES, he moved back to Atlanta and served as Youth Pastor for middle and high school students for 15 years at Cornerstone Bible Church. Today he and his wife of 20 years, Brook, and their four children reside in Orlando, FL.

 

In his book Rumors of Another World, Philip Yancey shares how Nelson Mandela, after coming into power as president of South Africa, took drastic measures to heal his apartheid-torn nation.

Mandela appointed Archbishop Desmond Tutu to head the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The commission’s hearings were designed to bring together accusers with those who had allegedly committed atrocities in the hopes of an eventual mending of the relationships. Mandela insisted that if a guilty party would face his accuser and admit his wrongdoing, he would be released scot-free. To many, this seemed unjust, even outrageous, but Mandela knew that this was what his nation needed for true reconciliation.

What’s So Amazing About Grace?

In many cases the effects of Mandela’s policy were extraordinary. Yancey writes of one such situation:

“At one hearing, a policeman named van de Broek recounted an incident when he and other officers shot an eighteen-year-old boy and burned the body, turning it on the fire like a piece of barbecue meat in order to destroy the evidence. Eight years later van de Broek returned to the same house and seized the boy’s father. The wife was forced to watch as policemen bound her husband on a woodpile, poured gasoline over his body, and ignited it. The courtroom grew hushed as the elderly woman who had lost first her son and then her husband was given a chance to respond. ‘What do you want from Mr. van de Broek?’ the judge asked. She said she wanted van de Broek to go to the place where they burned her husband’s body and gather up the dust so she could give him a decent burial. His head down, the policeman nodded agreement. Then she added a further request, ‘Mr. van de Broek took all my family away from me, and I still have a lot of love to give. Twice a month, I would like for him to come to the ghetto and spend a day with me so I can be a mother to him. And I would like Mr. van de Broek to know that he is forgiven by God, and that I forgive him too. I would like to embrace him so he can know my forgiveness is real.’ Spontaneously, some in the courtroom began singing ‘Amazing Grace’ as the elderly woman made her way to the witness stand, but van de Broek did not hear the hymn. He had fainted, overwhelmed.” (Yancey 2003, pgs 222-224)

This lady’s forgiveness caused van de Broek to literally fold into a faint as he heard her words of outrageous grace. Similarly, every one of us has sinned greatly against God. Our sins took God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, all the way to the cross, where He was left to die an excruciating death for our sins. Powerfully, Jesus revolted against all adversity, offering Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Though we (like van de Broek) deserve the worst of all punishments, Jesus (like Mandela) says that if we will only admit our guilt and own our sin, we can be forgiven.

Your Invitation Awaits

Check it out, friends. A worldwide invitation of reconciliation and redemption has been offered to people ready to acknowledge Christ Jesus as Lord. If anyone ever asks, is there anything more shocking than the punishment we deserve? Is there anything more shocking than God’s justice being poured out on sinners? Is there anything more shocking than hell itself? Yes. It’s called grace!

 

Other Recommended Resources On This Topic

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)



Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

By Bobby Conway

I’m often surprised to hear some of the beliefs that Christians contend are compatible with Christianity. One such belief is Scientology. As Christians we are expected to remain discerning about the various beliefs that come our way. That’s why it’s worth asking, “Is Scientology compatible with Christianity?” To all those Christians who’d say, “yes”, I’d respectfully disagree, and here’s why.

First, the Auditing Process Contradicts Scripture

Unlike scientologists, Christians don’t believe they existed as immaterial souls before their bodily existence on earth. Auditors hook adherents up to an E-meter, leading them through a process called auditing, which is supposed to connect them to their pre-existent lives by addressing the traumas they accumulated, which are now apparently blocking them from being CLEAR of these traumas called engrams. A Christian can’t go through auditing to come to terms with a life he never had to discover freedom. Scientologists assume the narrative the E-meter confirms through the auditing process reflect the reality of one’s past lives.

Second, Scientologists Require You to Purchase Your Salvation

Why pay potentially tens of thousands of dollars to get CLEAR from an existence you never had when grace awaits you for free at the table of Christianity?

Third, Scientologists Teach Reincarnation

Scientologists deny heaven and hell, rather teaching reincarnation, a concept foreign to the Bible. As Hebrews 9:27-28a says, “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many” (NIV).

Fourth, Scientology Reveres L. Ron Hubbard Over the Biblical Jesus

The Church of Scientology denies the Bible and magnifies its founders works as the be all end all guide to truth. As Christians we can’t put the works of a science-fiction writer on par with Scripture unless we’re willing compromise the truth of God’s Word.

Fifth, Scientology rejects the Trinity and the Biblical Jesus

Scientologists deny the Triune God and reduce Jesus to a good moral teacher. For that reason alone, why would we want to tinker with an auditor on an E-meter to the tune of L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings?

Sixth, Scientologists Misrepresent Our Sin Nature

Scientologists deny human depravity, contending our real issue is we’re not clear of past traumas (engrams). While we may have trauma it’s not trauma collected from some past life. And our ultimate issue is not that we need to be saved from the trauma of a pre-existent life we never had, but from the trauma of sin.

Seventh, Scientologists Deny that Jesus Is the Only Way to Salvation

They reject John. 14:6 where Jesus says he is “the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” For Scientologists, freedom comes through being freed from the cycle of reincarnation. Jesus as the only way can be circumvented the L. Ron Hubbard way, so they think. Therefore, comparing the teachings of Scientology with the Bible, we see that the two have very little, if anything, in common. Scientology is a sure path to lead one away from the Gospel of Christ. Scientology, while sometimes disguising its beliefs in Christian-sounding language, is diametrically opposed to Christianity on every core doctrine. The only thing we need to be CLEAR about is this. Scientology is not Christian.

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).
Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

Many people reject the possibility of an eternal Hell because they feel that “the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.” Some atheists focus on this perceived inequality between the sins we commit here on Earth and the unending punishment we face in the life to come. One skeptic framed the challenge this way:

“God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God’s sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them.” [1]

The challenger contends that a “limited” offense does not warrant unlimited – eternal – punishment. Such punishment, he concludes, would constitute a greater injustice than the “mere mortal lifetime of sin.” For many people, including perhaps a majority of believers, this argument is accepted uncritically. But upon closer examination, it is apparent that the conclusion the challenger draws is based upon a misunderstanding of what “just” punishment entails.

Who is the crime against?

The first step in the analysis must be to consider the nature of the “sovereign” against whom the crime is committed. If I commit a crime in California, state authorities in Colorado could not impose punishment. Their laws have not been broken. To be just, the laws of the sovereign should be made known. Although ignorance of the law is not an excuse, a fair system makes known its laws, so that they can have the intended effect: to shape behavior by encouraging the good and discouraging the bad. State authorities are by nature limited and flawed, and the laws they enact reflect that they cannot, and therefore do not, expect perfection.

But who is the lawmaker that can sentence us to this “eternal” punishment? It is, of course, an eternal being, and more importantly, an eternal being who embodies and comprises perfection. That he would separate himself from a creation in rebellion is hardly unjust. And if separation from God is in fact the “hell” of which we speak – the agony of seeing but not being able to experience the joy of his presence – then those who reject his gift are in store for an eternity of this experience. This is not a sentencing choice that a capricious lawmaker has conjured up, but the necessary consequence of both living eternally and being eternally separated from the source of perfection.

Compounding offenses

When a jurisdiction enacts “three strikes” legislation, the sovereign makes known that there are offenses which carry with them a punishment of life imprisonment – separation for the rest of one’s life from the society that has been victimized by the offender’s behavior. In some such jurisdictions, the third strike might be a relatively minor offense, one that on its own would not merit such a sentence, but coming as it does after a series of more serious violations, it tips the scales in such a way that this conclusion – that permanent separation from society is warranted – becomes just. It is the appropriate response to an offender who has established that he or she refuses to conform to the requirements of the law and has run out of chances.

One sin would have been enough?

Re-examining the challenger’s conclusion in light of these reflections reveals what is at play: the challenger has ignored the fact that a single offense, committed against an eternal and perfect being, is sufficient to justify separation from him. But of course it is worse than that, for we humans in rebellion have racked up sin upon sin, offense upon offense. But, the challenger complains, is there no proportionality between the offense and the type of punishment? Can’t God come up with a lighter punishment?

But why not a lighter punishment?

Again, this misunderstands the nature of the problem. God is not devising ever more wicked ways of inflicting punishment on us, hoping to make hell as torturous a place as possible. The punishment of hell is, simply, the natural consequence – the byproduct – of being separated from God. God does nothing more than that, but unfortunately for us, this is experienced as unending torment.

Finally, God embodies infinite perfection, so rather than sinning against another human being, who himself has flaws and needs forgiveness, these offenses are against a being who is infinitely holy. Considered this way, eternal separation from God starts to make a bit more sense. The good news, of course, is that God is also infinitely merciful. Knowing that we cannot solve this problem on our own, He solved it for us and made that salvation available to everyone. Perfect justice, perfect mercy, perfectly balanced, providing a truly just and elegant solution to our problem.

Did God make people sin?

But what of the challenger’s further indictment of God for creating imperfect human beings and then punishing them for being imperfect? This conclusion also rests on faulty reasoning. God created beings with free will and each of us chooses to use our free will to defy him. As the creator, he has the right to respond to that rebellion, by separating himself from us. Consider how you might react if you built a robot to clean the bathroom and it eventually refused, claiming that it wished to be served rather than to serve. You could easily unplug or disassemble it, because as its creator you would have that prerogative. So too with God.

We get what we deserve – eternal separation from the source of life, goodness and joy – because we continually choose to focus on what we want rather than submit our will to him. Rather than condemning God for this, the smarter move is to thank him for also providing us the solution.

Endnotes

[1] Edwina Monfort, “Is God Perfet and Just” Blogspot, 21 Dec 2011 at: https://edwinamonfort.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-god-perfect-and-just.html


Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

 

It seems that every few years, Christians must deal with a new cultural narrative about who Jesus is and what He came to do. Contextualizing turns into syncretism. Jesus’s name is mixed in with the “gods” of the people. Suddenly we have different versions of Jesus made to fit contemporary expectations, more palatable to the masses. White Jesus. Hippie Jesus. Activist Jesus. And now, refugee Jesus.

Let me be clear: I think people’s intentions can be pure. People are trying to do the right thing bringing Jesus to our level. But making God in our own image or in the image of the culture has long-term ramifications that don’t end well and muddle the identity of Jesus and the Gospel.

Forget that He was a monotheistic Jewish Middle Easterner, following the Law of Moses, who claimed to be God in the flesh and died for the sins of mankind.

Bor-ing. We need a new Jesus. A relevant Jesus. A Jesus that gets us.

How to Contextualize

I have no problem with Christians helping people understand who Jesus is and why He came, especially for those who don’t understand or might have a wall up to His teachings. I’ve seen Christians wisely use the cultural times to their benefit. But this is always done in context with the Bible and who Jesus actually is. Hence, where we get the word “contextualization.” We’re not settling for partial truths and political bias, but seeking the whole truth and correcting bias. Paul was probably the best example of this. He says in 1 Corinthians 9:20-22:

“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” (NIV)

Notice something: Paul met people where they were at without compromising what was true about Jesus. This is brilliant. He sought to understand so he could be understood.

He did not make Jesus a Gentile to win gentiles. He did not make Jesus a sinner to win sinners. He did not make Jesus a politician to win at politics.

Get Out of Your Echo Chamber

There’s a big difference. We need to identify with the culture on some level when it comes to preaching the Gospel. I repeatedly see people refusing to leave their echo chambers to reach the lost. It’s as if they’re set in their ways and are almost cynical to the “youngins” and their weird hair, clothes, and language. We need to seek to understand the culture to reach them. But we don’t do this by deceiving people. Jesus was not an immigrant or a refugee as we’d see it today. As a child, Scripture records Him and His family fleeing from one part of the Roman Empire to another. But He returned home. Refugees find refuge in another country because they don’t or can’t return home. People conflate this story in Jesus’ childhood with our understanding of refugees today. It’s like nobody seeks to understand Jesus’s story. They exaggerate this to make Him culturally relevant today. We make it about us instead of Him.

Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is At Hand

He cared for the poor, helped the hungry, and healed the sick. But that’s not ultimately why He came. He came to save souls and tell people to repent of their sins. Yes, Jesus invited everyone to the table, but the problem is that not everyone wants to sit with Him! John 3 says that people love their darkness. They don’t want to come to light, to Jesus, because their sins would be exposed. This is the heart of humanity. It’s not like Jesus is saying, “come sit at the table and stay who you are because there’s no judgment here!” No. He confronted people like you and me with hard truths. He cared about you changing. He cared more for your heart than just your outward actions. Would we sit at the table with Jesus if we knew He would look deep into our soul and know our darkest sins and He would call us to repent from them? This is a more challenging Jesus for the masses to accept, but this is nothing new.

It seems rather anachronistic to think of Jesus as some sort of social justice warrior. Activism, as we know it today, would make no sense to Jesus back then. So, when we cram Jesus’s 1st-century culture into our 21st-century world, we drastically change His message. He isn’t our political mascot. He’s The Son of God, the Lord of all.

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She also has a bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

 

Language is complex. Language provides the building blocks for communication in society.  What certain words or phrases mean within a given context helps to shape the understanding of the culture at large. Words, and their definitions, are what organize society. Words that define a culture’s foundational institutions most of all. Concise language provides clarity and direction for communities, cultures, and countries.

Language matters. It is important to define what I mean by language here. By language, I simply mean the common words used in a culture and their natural meanings. I am not pitting a *type* of language (English, Spanish, German etc.) against another. It is within these *types* of language that we find the foundational elements of society.

What is a Woman?

It is this fundamental organizing principle of language that is at the heart of the Daily Wire documentary What is a Woman.[1] In it, conservative commentator Matt Walsh seeks to hammer down a definition of the word woman.  In one of the more interesting choices of the documentary he travels to Kenya to meet with a Mosai tribe to seek out their perspective on the topic. In this scene the point of how words are defined is poignantly made. The Mosai do not struggle with what a woman is because they have clearly defined the word within their culture, however, gender theory activists struggled to define the word beyond a mere tautology (a circular definition like: “Apple is defined as an apple”). The ambiguity in our culture concerning the definition of woman is the point and confusion is the natural product. This confusion leads to the dismantling of any cultural implications for the word. In fact, it seems to be erasing the concept entirely. When the definition of a word becomes tautological it is rendered useless. (i.e., if we don’t know what a woman is, then it’s no clearer if we define a woman as “someone who is a woman”).

We must now say “pregnant people”[2] or “birthing person” to not offend those that embrace the new non-definition of woman.  As that definition erodes, the science follows.  Ambiguity leads to confusion, confusion leads to pointlessness, pointlessness leads to identity crisis which ends in nihilism.

Ambiguity leads to confusion, confusion leads to pointlessness, pointlessness leads to identity crisis which ends in nihilism.

This is not a new problem for our progressive society. The redefinition of love[3] into tautology has eroded trust in truth[4], made sexual experience only about consent, and opened the doors for polyamory, bestiality, and even pedophilia. Most recently, our culture has chosen to do the same to the word marriage, and what is worse, many conservatives simply go along with it.

What is a Marriage?

In 2015 the Supreme Court unilaterally decided to change the definition of marriage[5] and recently, Congress followed suit by ratifying the ironically named Respect for Marriage Act[6] in which the legality of gay marriage is codified into federal law. Leaving aside (what should be) the obvious religious liberty complications, the redefinition of marriage, while trivial to some, is a defining moment in the history of this nation.

Marriage is one of those words that has provided the foundation for society for hundreds of years, and not just western society. Much ink has been spilled about what it means for a secular society to redefine marriage.[7] The secular arguments are important because they rest at the heart of society. Marriage, in principle, is the union between two adult human beings, for life, based on the principle of procreation. Alan Keyes, in this debate with Barak Obama in 2004 puts it succinctly:

When the moderator presses the issue with exceptions (elderly couples, infertility, etc.) Keyes does not bat an eye. The idea of procreation being principally possible in marriage is not undermined by outliers and does not open the door for impossibilities. Surrogate procreation, which many homosexual couples have turned to,[8] helps to prove Keyes’ point. The impossibility of natural procreation, in principle, within the confines of homosexual partnership turns procreation into a consumeristic experience rather than a foundational building block for society.

But this redefinition of marriage goes deeper than procreation. It goes straight to the heart of parenthood. Statistics show that children growing up in a two parent (mother and father) household “do better.”[9] The foundational elements of western society are dependent on a majority of children growing up under the direction and nurture of a father and mother. Again, there are outliers within the data, but the principle here stands firm on the scientific evidence. Marriage, as defined throughout history, is foundational for a functioning and moral society.

That is not to say that there is no possibility of same-sex unions providing stable and loving environments where children will thrive and grow into functional members of society, but it is to say that without the foundation of marriage, as historically defined, this possibility becomes far more remote.

Secular History of Marriage?

Those who study history know this full well. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels built a key tenant of their argument on the destruction of the nuclear family.[10] They understood that the keys to overturning the structures of society rested in redefining the foundational institutions of said society: “Theoretically, any sexual relationship between mutually consenting persons would be possible. What would not be possible would be the security of a life-long marriage. This sexual relationship could not be chosen.”[11]

It is for this reason that the Black Lives Matter movement embraced the destruction of the nuclear family, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”[12] There is a deeper and more sinister work at play in dismantling the family system founded by the God.

I say founded by God because it is so, and again, Marx and Engels understood this well. If they could dismantle religion[13]and disrupt the institution of the family the revolution would naturally occur.

Scripture on Marriage

Beyond the secular arguments there stands the argument based on the truths of scripture.  How the church ought to define marriage, fight for marriage, and interact with culture on the topic of marriage is of the utmost import. The Respect for Marriage Act will force churches across the nation to choose a side and prepare for direct confrontation. First amendment protections are not clearly defined (this is a feature of the bill, not a bug) and thus, the tax-exempt status of conservative churches that embrace biblical values will come under scrutiny.

I am not going to argue for the tax-exempt status of the church, but I will argue that the American church will have to choose, possibly for the first time, whether to confront the government head on and deal with the consequences therein or toe the political line. There are, of course, issues that do not call for the church to be confrontational, but the abolition of traditional marriage is not one of them.

The biblical case for marriage is powerful and simple.  Many progressive objectors point to the ubiquitous presence of polygamy within the Bible as a contradiction of the traditional marriage values orthodox Christians espouse. This dishonest trope fails (or refuses) to recognize the difference between prescriptive and descriptive text.

God establishes the marriage covenant at the outset of Creation: “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24). Jesus affirms this definition in Matthew 19:5-6. Paul affirms it as a qualification for eldership in 1 Timothy 3:2, as a picture of Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:21-33 and refers back to in clarifying the relationship of husband and wife in 1 Corinthians 7.

But what About All the Polygamy in the Old Testament?

Good question. Polygamy is handled much like slavery in scripture, it is not endorsed by God, but it is regulated.  The regulation comes with intention of future eradication. Exodus 21:7-11 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17 offer these regulations. However, many Jewish scholars believe Leviticus 18:18 might prohibit it directly.[14]

As David Wilbur says: “…We can understand the Torah’s polygamy legislation as representing not God’s perfect will but his response to the realities of a fallen world. In the beginning, polygamy, like divorce, “was not so.” Marriage in creation was a monogamous union.”[15]

The first case of polygamy in scripture is noted as an aberration in Genesis 4:19. Lamech was the great-great-great grandson of Cain. It took five generations from the Fall for humanity to introduce the concept of polygamy and everywhere that polygamy and sexual deviancy followed so did turmoil. From Abraham and his concubine to Lot and his daughters, to Jacob and his wives, we find that sexual sin is the direct result of rebellion (Romans 1).

Why this foray into polygamy as we seek to defend the definition of traditional marriage?  Simple. As the polygamy of the Old Testament affirms, the dismantling of the institution of marriage carries with it dire consequences. One of the themes of the Old Testament is that of humanity’s rebellion in all of God’s designs. Marriage is no exception.  We find similar issues throughout Israel’s history; the multiple marriages and sexual sins of Israel’s monarchy are directly related to dysfunction in the Royal family and in the nations of Israel and Judah themselves.

This is why Jesus calls the church his Bride. There is a reestablishment of God’s purposes in the language of marriage.  It is one of the only human institutions ordained by God prior to the fall that is carried over into the church age by Jesus Christ himself. The orthodox view of marriage ties us back to the original design of the garden.  The redefinition of marriage in our culture carries with it a similar harbinger of things to come as Lamech’s choice to marry two women in Genesis 4. In Genesis 6 we find the world in wicked disarray. That is not necessarily because of Lamech’s choice to marry two women, but the dismantling of the institution was a symptom of a wider and more insidious problem. The wickedness of the heart.

So it is with our own society. The redefinition of marriage into a mere commitment based on a tautology. Marriage has become a contract concerning two consenting individuals that love each other and want to spend their lives together (so long as it is convenient, annulment of the marriage is simple enough when things get hard). What is love? Well, love is love.  Affection and desire.  Emotive infatuation.  A lifetime commitment based on absurdity, and we wonder why divorce is rampant.

But if love is love and consent is all that matters who is to say that man-beast[16] marriage is immoral? Or man-child marriage? Or polygamy? You might scoff, as many have, and glibly assure me that this slippery slope is only in my mind, but a New York judge recently ruled in favor of polyamory.[17] If a 5-year-old can choose his/her own gender and can consent to treatment what is to keep him/her from consenting to sex with a 30-year-old? Love is love. How can a child be wise enough to understand his own gender transition needs[18] but not wise enough to consent in a romantic relationship?  The rebranding of pedophilia to Minor Attracted Persons (or MAP) indicates the movement is already gaining steam.[19]

As Christians we must allow scripture to define our terms. That includes marriage. As Christopher Watkin and Tim Keller explain:

“…language both expresses and forms a world. To use particular language is to live in a particular world. This is also a reason for Christians, wherever practicable, to use biblical language to describe the world. The Bible’s categories of creation, sin, grace, idolatry, and so on are not neutral and interchangeable with other sets of terms; they are particular figures that belong to and provide the rhythm for the Bible’s account of reality.”[20]

We ought to fight for the civil respect of God honoring definitions.[21] If we want our society to thrive, we ought to implore our civil authorities to abide by God’s definitions.  We cannot do as David French did and acquiesce to the gods of pluralist society.[22]

The defense of marriage is the defense of a god-honoring society. It is not the only thing to defend but it is a foundational thing to defend.  We must stand firm.

Endnotes

[1] https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman; https://freethinkingministries.com/movie-review-what-is-a-woman/

[2] https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/inclusive-gender-neutral-language

[3] https://www.bustle.com/p/8-lgbtq-activists-share-what-love-is-love-means-to-them-in-donald-trumps-america-7278041

[4] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[5] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/

[6] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404

[7] https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/marriage-what-it-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-redefining-it

[8] https://surrogate.com/about-surrogacy/types-of-surrogacy/can-lgbt-couples-pursue-surrogacy/

[9] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/children-do-better-when-raised-in-intact-two-parent-homes/

[10] https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Marx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf

[11] Ibid., pg. 669

[12] https://uca.edu/training/files/2020/09/black-Lives-Matter-Handout.pdf

[13] https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/

[14] https://davidwilber.com/articles/does-the-torah-prohibit-polygamy

[15] https://davidwilber.com/articles/understanding-the-torahs-polygamy-regulations

[16] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1328310

[17] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/10/new-york-judge-rules-favor-polyamorous-relationships/

[18] https://freethinkingministries.com/gender-identity-the-bible-and-the-christian/

[19] https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/allyn-walker-says-attraction-to-children-isnt-immoral/

[20] Christopher Watkin and Timothy Keller, “Humanity,” Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2023), 100–101.

[21] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-right-christian-nationalism/

[22] https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/6377fb0dce44df0038de4c62/respect-for-marriage-same-sex-religious-freedom/


Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3Kuy6K2

 

Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis. The contemporary discussion of the case for the resurrection has largely focused around 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, a text believed by many scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that Paul had received from the Jerusalem apostles and which he passed on to the believers in Corinth.[i]  Paul’s words in verse 11 (“Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed”) also suggest that the message Paul presented to the Corinthians is the same as that proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles. A popular criticism of this line of argument is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both. [ii]Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? If we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone.

It is undeniable that Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact. Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul.

There is an additional reason why Luke’s being a travelling companion of Paul is significant in our investigation of the resurrection, and that is that Luke claims to have been present with Paul during Paul’s visit to the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 when “all the elders [including James] were present” (Acts 21:18). Luke was present with Paul during his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years), during which time he would undoubtedly have had ample access to the many living witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, since Caesarea is only approximately 120 kilometres from Jerusalem (where many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection resided). Luke’s acquaintance with the Jerusalem apostles thus puts him in a position to know what was being proclaimed concerning the nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. Luke’s demonstrated care and meticulousness as an historian also provides some reason (though, as we shall see, not our only reason) to think that Luke is sincerely representing what he believes the apostles experienced.

Was Luke a Travelling Companion of Paul?

There are too many lines of evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul to discuss in any detail in the present paper. However, I will list a few examples. First, there are the famous “we” passages, beginning in Acts 16, which are best understood as indicating the author’s presence in the scenes he narrates. Craig Keener observes that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi.  This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi. [iii]

Second, the reliability of the book of Acts is spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical secular sources, and its author demonstrates a knowledge of the world that is best explained by him being a travelling companion of Paul. Perhaps the most convincing category of this sort of evidence are those cases when the book of Acts is accidentally confirmed – that is, a natural question raised by Acts is illuminated in an incidental way by an extrabiblical secular account. To take one example, consider Acts 23:1-5, when Paul, having been apprehended and brought before the Jewish council, was struck on the mouth at the behest of Ananias the high priest. Paul responds by pointing out the hypocrisy of Ananias. To this, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is somewhat odd: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul did not realize who the high priest was? This Ananias was the son of Nebedinus (Antiquities 20.5.3), who occupied the office of high priest when Quadratus (Felix’s predecessor) was president of Syria. Josephus reports that he was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus in order to give an account of his actions to Claudius Caesar (Antiquities 20.6.2). As a result of the intercession on their behalf by Agrippa, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. However, Ananias was not restored to his former office of high priest. Ananias was succeeded by Jonathan, as is indicated by the fact that Josephus refers to one called Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during the government of Felix, which would imply that Ananias’ high priesthood was interrupted (Antiquities 20.8.5). Jonathan himself was assassinated inside the temple (Antiquities 20.8.5).

Following Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest was not occupied until Ismael, the son of Fabi, was appointed by King Agrippa (Antiquities 20.8.8). The events that are recorded in Acts 23 took place precisely in this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood lay vacant. It seems, then, that Ananias acted, by his own authority, in the assumed capacity of the high priest. This, then, illuminates Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” Luke doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. The sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Another category of evidence, first discovered by William Paley [iv]and more recently developed by Lydia McGrew, [v]is the phenomenon of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the letters of Paul – that is, interlockings between the sources that are best explained by the truth of the narrative in Acts. Consider Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which was written around 52-53 A.D from Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). We know Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus because Paul sends greetings from Aquilla and Priscilla in 1 Corinthians 16:19, whom Paul had met in Corinth (Acts 18:1), and who travelled with Paul as far as Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul also makes an allusion to his intention to “stay in Ephesus until Pentecost” (1 Cor 16:8). Corinth, the capital city of Achaia, on the other hand, was across the Aegean sea from Ephesus. Now, consider the following two texts from 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 4:17 we read: “That is why I sent you Timothy…” And in 1 Corinthians 16:10, we read, “When Timothy comes…” From those two incidental texts, it is evident that Timothy had already been dispatched by the time of Paul’s writing, but nonetheless that Paul expected his letter to arrive before Timothy got to Corinth. Given that Ephesus is directly across the Aegean Sea from Achaia (where Corinth is), presumably Paul would have sent his letter directly by boat from Ephesus to Corinth. We therefore can infer that Timothy must have taken some indirect route to Corinth, through Troas and Macedonia. When we turn over to Acts 19:21-22, which concerns Paul’s stay in Ephesus, we read that Timothy (accompanied by Erastus) did in fact take such an indirect overland route to Corinth from Ephesus. This artless dovetailing is best explained by the historical reliability of Acts on this detail. Even if, as I have suggested above, Luke was not present with Paul at this time, this sort of evidence indicates that Luke had reliable access to information concerning Paul’s travels, which suggests he was personally acquainted with Paul.

Of particular interest for our purposes here, a cluster of confirming evidences bear on Luke’s presence with Paul at the Jerusalem church in Acts 21. [vi] If it can be reliably shown that Luke accompanied Paul on his shipwrecked voyage from Caesarea Maritima to Rome in Acts 27, it follows that Luke was almost certainly present with Paul in Jerusalem (where he was arrested) in Acts 21. The report of that voyage notes that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast and which is strongest at this exact time near Passover. [vii] Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What’s impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a northeaster should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that “In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8).” [viii]

Given Luke’s presence with Paul in Jerusalem in Acts 21 (and thus his demonstrated interaction with the Jerusalem apostles), we can conclude that Luke was in a position to know what was being claimed by the Jerusalem apostles in regard to the nature of the encounters with the risen Jesus. The next question we must address in our investigation is whether Luke faithfully records what those Jerusalem apostles were teaching concerning the resurrection.

Does Luke Accurately Report the Claimed Experiences of the Apostles?

I have previously noted that Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness and care as an historian already provide some reason to think that Luke has given an accurate report of what the Jerusalem apostles claimed concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Are there any other reasons? One relevant evidence here is the fact that Luke, like the other three gospels, reports that women were the chief discoverers of the empty tomb. Given that the testimony of women was not highly esteemed in the patriarchal society that was ancient Palestine, this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that Luke is reporting what he really believed happened than on the falsehood of that hypothesis. Josephus writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex,” (Antiquities 4.8.15). It therefore may be taken as evidence confirmatory of the hypothesis that Luke is telling us what he really believed happened. N.T. Wright concludes, “As historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up.” [ix]

Caution, however, is warranted here, since there is a tendency among apologists to overstate the evidential significance of this fact. One can reasonably posit alternative explanations for why the gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb by women. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that “women were particularly well represented in early Christian communities”, and it is therefore somewhat plausible that they invented the oral traditions involving the discovery of the empty tomb. [x]Furthermore, Ehrman notes, “Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty.” [xi] Furthermore, women could provide legal testimony under Jewish law if no male witnesses were available. In fact, Josephus appeals to women as his only witnesses of what took place inside Masada or at the battle at Gamala (Jewish War 7.389 and 4.81), though that may likewise be taken as an indication of Josephus reporting truthfully. Another important consideration is the fact that we are told of the woman whom Jesus spoke with at the well of Samaria that “Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me all that I ever did,’” (Jn 4:39).

Thus, the fact that the gospels have women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb does not prove the tomb was empty and care should be taken not to overstate the case. Nevertheless, the reports of the women being the chief discoverers of the empty tomb is antecedently more likely on the assumption that what the gospels report is based in historical fact than on the assumption the authors made it up. Thus, while the testimony of the women may not be sufficient to demonstrate the veracity of the empty tomb reports, it does offer evidence to that effect.

An important point here, often overlooked, is that the accounts in the four gospels of the women discovering the empty tomb are in fact independent. Luke 24:10 says, “Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles…” It is often suggested that John 20:1, which reports only Mary Magdalene’s discovery of the empty tomb, conflicts with Luke’s account. However, in John 20:2, we read, “So she [Mary] ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” [emphasis added]. Mary’s word-choice, in particular the use of οὐκ οἴδαμεν (“we do not know”) indicates, quite incidentally, that there were in fact other women, and John’s report of these words reveals that he also is aware of this fact even though it is not mentioned explicitly. Thus, Luke’s and John’s account of the women discovering the empty tomb appear to be independent of each other.

Matthew and Mark also appear to be independent of Luke when it comes to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. [xii] Luke indicates in Luke 8:1-3 that some women followed Jesus from Galilee, including Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager. This detail is confirmed by an undesigned coincidence with Matthew 14:1, since it illuminates how the author of Matthew’s gospel might know what Herod had said to his servants, presumably in the privacy of his palace. The names given in Luke’s list are Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, as well as “many others,” (Lk 8:2-3). Mark, describing the women who were “looking on from a distance” at the crucifixion, lists “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” (Mk 14:40). These names overlap only partially with those given in Luke 8. There is no mention in Mark of Joanna or Susanna, and Luke does not mention Mary the mother of James or Salome. It does not appear that Luke added the passage in chapter 8 in order to “put” the women in place earlier in Jesus’ ministry and thus fit his narrative together with Matthew and Mark concerning the women at the cross, because the names are only partially the same. Luke would have presumably included Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and probably left out Susanna if he had fictionalized the verses in chapter 8 on the basis of Mark’s mention of the women at the cross. Luke himself mentions the women who came from Galilee at the cross and burial (23:49, 55) but doesn’t even name any of them there. Both accounts, therefore, confirm apparently independently that there was a group of women who had begun following Jesus in Galilee and who continued to do so and who helped Jesus in concrete ways (“ministering” or “providing”). In Luke 24:6-10, the angels tell the women at the empty tomb, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee” (v. 6). This makes it clear that these women really were personally with Jesus in Galilee and heard what He said there. When Luke names various women who brought the disciples news of the empty tomb and the message of the angel (24:10), he names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (and says there were other women as well). Once again, he doesn’t seem to be trying to reproduce his own list from chapter 8, for Mary the mother of James was not in that list, and Susanna isn’t mentioned in 24:10. Nor is he reproducing Mark’s list of women at the cross nor Mark’s list of women who came to the tomb (Mk 16:1), since Salome isn’t included in Luke’s list, and Joanna (who is unique to Luke) is not included in Mark’s list. Luke seems to be listing women whom he really knows were present for the events on Easter morning. Evidently, he is not sure about Susanna’s presence or just does not bother to mention her, and he knows that Mary the mother of James was there on Easter morning even though she is not listed in his chapter 8. Thus, this is also an undesigned coincidence internal to Luke, a way in which fairly distant parts of Luke’s own narrative fit together in an apparently casual and non-deliberate way: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and various other women were with Jesus in Galilee and heard there Jesus’ own prediction of his crucifixion and resurrection. They subsequently went with him to Jerusalem and were present at the cross, burial, and empty tomb.

Another category of evidence bearing on the case for the resurrection is the phenomenon of reconcilable variations, so-named by the nineteenth century Anglican scholar Thomas Rawson Birks. [xiii] A reconcilable variation refers to when there exist two accounts of the same event, or at least two accounts that appear to cross over the same territory at some point, and at first blush they seem so divergent that it is almost awkward; but then, on further thought, they turn out to be reconcilable in some natural fashion after all. When two accounts appear at first so divergent that one is not sure they can be reconciled, that is significant evidence for their independence. When they turn out, upon closer inspection or upon learning more information, to be reconcilable without forcing after all, one has almost certainly independent accounts that dovetail. 

Multiple instances of reconcilable variation pertain to the resurrection accounts. For example, it is popularly observed that Luke 24:36-49 reports Jesus as having appeared to “the eleven” who were all present together at the time (see vs. 33). This, so the argument goes, does not allow for Thomas’ absence from the group at the time of the appearance (as in John), nor a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. Furthermore, John tells us that the appearance to the eleven with Thomas present occurred eight days later, whereas Luke seems to indicate that the ascension took place immediately after the appearance to the eleven. Luke 24:50-51 tell us, “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” One possible reply is that “the eleven” is being used as a figure of speech, much as “the twelve” is used in that way by Paul (see 1 Cor 15:5). I do not, however, find this approach to be the most convincing, since it seems to be rather ad hoc, and there is no independent evidence that Luke used the term “the eleven” in this way. It also would not explain the apparent immediacy of Jesus’ ascension following the appearance to the eleven, allowing apparently no time for a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. In response to this objection, it may be pointed out that, at the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. Indeed, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know what that means exactly, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared, however long that took, and they sit down to eat. They recognize him as he breaks bread, and he disappears. They then immediately go back to Jerusalem, a distance of 60 stadia (Lk 24:13), which looks like it was about 10-12 km – that is, about 6 to 7 miles. This walk would take well over an hour, perhaps as long as two hours. They then chat with the disciples for a while and tell their story (vs. 35). Then Jesus appears and shows himself. They give him some food (vs. 42). Only after this does Jesus begin talking to them about the Scriptures, giving them some sort of sermon about how his death was foretold in the Scriptures (vss. 45ff). How long did that take? Jesus then leads them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one tries to put this all on the same evening, it really looks like it would already be dark by that time, making it difficult for them even to witness the ascension into heaven (vs. 51). So even in Luke 24 alone, it does not look like all of this happened in one day. Evidently, Luke is either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1.

It is also popularly alleged that Matthew has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea (not in Galilee). I would argue, however, that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back.

Yet a further line of evidence for Luke’s honest reporting of the apostles’ claims concerning the resurrection comes from the principle of restraint. Not one of the gospels provides any details concerning the appearance of Jesus individually to Peter or to his brother James, despite the fact that Paul mentions both in 1 Corinthians 15:5,7. Luke is certainly aware at least of the appearance individually to Peter because he alludes briefly to it in passing in Luke 24:33-34. Why, then, does he not include an account of this appearance? This can be explained if Peter and James had both made it known that they had had an encounter with the risen Lord following the resurrection, but, for whatever reason, neither had made an account of this private meeting available for publication. Indeed, “if the Gospel writers were trying truthfully to record only what they either knew directly or had reliable sources to tell them about, they would have very little to say about such meetings, exactly as we find. But if they felt free to invent dialogue and scenes in order to fill in where information was otherwise missing, why would they not have done so here? Their restraint points to the conclusion that they are truthful, reliable recorders.” [xiv]

Thus, from the aforementioned lines of evidence, taken cumulatively, we can be confident that not only was Luke in a position to know what was being claimed by the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus, but Luke accurately records what they reported. What, though, best explains the apostles’ claims to have had encounters with the risen Jesus? It is to this question that I now turn.

What Best Explains the Apostles’ Claim?

When evaluating any claim, three broad categories of explanation must be considered. Those are, (1) the claimant is deliberately deceiving; (2) the claimant is sincerely mistaken; and (3) the claimant is accurately reporting what happened. Those broad explanatory categories are mutually exhaustive (though one can envision scenarios where they are applicable in combination). The various lines of evidence adduced in the previous section of this paper may be brought to bear not only in confirming Luke as a faithful reporter of what the apostles claimed concerning the resurrection, but also in eliminating the first of those hypotheses stated above. Additional lines of evidence may, however, be adduced to further strengthen our case against the first hypothesis. It is beyond doubt that the “apostles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.” [xv] The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. Since the apostles’ willingness to suffer persecution and even martyrdom is more probable given the sincerity of their belief than otherwise, this may be taken as evidence disconfirming the first hypothesis, that they were deliberately setting out to deceive.

A further line of evidence against the first hypothesis is no known sect of Judaism was expecting the Messiah to be raised from the dead. [xvi] The Sadducees had no belief in the resurrection of the dead and the Pharisees believed only in a general resurrection at the end of time, but had no concept of one man rising to glory and immortality in the middle of history. There was therefore no obvious apologetic motivation for positing that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The crucifixion of Jesus was seen by many Jews, in light of Deuteronomy 21:23, as indicating Jesus’ failure to be the awaited Messiah, and Jews were hardly given to glorifying failed Messiahs. After the failed rebellion of Simon Bar Kochba against Rome (132-135 A.D.), nobody proclaimed that he had risen from the dead.

Other factors that argue against any hypothesis of conspiracy include the speed at which a conspiracy would have needed to get off the ground, as well as the number and variety of individuals who would have needed, against their own interests, to be involved in such a conspiracy. [xvii] This included the eleven, the apostle Paul, at least five or six women, Cleopas and his companion, James the brother of Jesus, Matthias and Barsabbas called Justus (who are both named in Acts 1:23 as fulfilling the requirements of an apostle, i.e. having been witnesses to the resurrection). Being conservative, therefore, and including only those individuals who are specifically named, there would have needed to be at least 23 individuals involved in the conspiracy. It is extremely improbable that all of those individuals had something to gain by asserting that Jesus had risen from the dead and that none of them would have reneged.

What, then, of the second hypothesis, namely, that the apostles were sincerely mistaken? I have already discussed how the multisensory nature of the claimed resurrection experiences is not something about which one might plausibly be honestly mistaken. There exists yet another line of evidence against that hypothesis. Jesus’ resurrection is said in all of the earliest sources to have taken place on the Sunday morning following His death at Passover. This is indicated in all four gospels as well as Paul, who indicates that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4). The evidence from the early church writings as well as the Roman writer Pliny the Younger (10.96.7), the book of Revelation (1:10), the book of Acts (20:7) and Paul (1 Corinthians 16:2) all indicate that early Christian worship took place not on the Sabbath day but on Sunday instead. This almost certainly reflects the apostolic claim that Jesus rose again on the Sunday. But why does Paul indicate that the Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (this is also indicated in Lk 24:7). The point at which Paul, I would suggest, is driving is that Christ represents the first man to be raised to glory and immortality, similar to the first fruits of the harvest that guarantees that the remainder of the harvest will come (c.f. 1 Corinthians 15:20). Indeed, the feast of first fruits was to be celebrated the day following the first Sabbath following the Passover – that is, the Sunday following Passover (Lev 23:11). Although the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over whether the Sabbath in question was the Day of Passover itself or the Sabbath following the Passover, the Sadducees (who took the latter view) were in charge of the temple in the first century and thus that was the view that prevailed in first century Jewish practice. It is quite the coincidence then that the earliest sources consistently indicate that Jesus rose from the dead on the day of first fruits, given its theological import. This sort of coincidence points to design, and thus away from the hypothesis of the apostles being honestly mistaken.

Conclusion

Having argued strongly against the first two explanatory categories, this leaves as the best explanation of the evidence discussed in this paper the one the angels themselves gave the disciples in Luke 24:5-6: “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.”

Footnotes:

[i] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus – A New Historiographical Approach (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 318-343.

[ii] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.

[iii] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

[iv] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].

[v] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017).

[vi] James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880). See also Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 4 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015), 3555-3660.

[vii] R.W. White. “A Meteorological Appraisal of Acts 27:5-26.” The Expository Times 113, no. 12 (September 2002), 403-407.

[viii] Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 331.

[ix] Tom Wright, “Appendix B”, in Anthony Flew, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (San Francisco: Harper One), 207.

[x]  Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), kindle.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 272-282.

[xiii] Thomas Rawson Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidence of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852). See also Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 316–321.

[xiv] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), chap. 4, Kindle.

[xv] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.

[xvi] Tom Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress, 2003).

[xvii] Lydia McGrew, “Independence, conspiracy, and the resurrection”, Extra Thoughts, August 24th, 2020. http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/independence-conspiracy-and-resurrection.html

Recommended Resources Related to the Topic

The Resurrection of Jesus: The Tomb is Empty, Our Hope Is Not by Gary Habermas and Michael atton (Self-Paced Course)
Examining Historical Evidence for the Resurrection with Mike Licona (Podcast)
Doubting towards Faith by Bobby Conway (Self-Paced Course)

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

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3LXLOpW