Page 123 – CrossExamined

The Most Influential Life in History

Who was the most influential person in history? It was a person who never led an army, never held office, never wrote a book, never traveled more than 200 miles from where he was born. Yet today, he’s the center of humanity. How so? Because Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. If there was no resurrection, how could that life be the history’s most influential life?

Join Frank as he presents evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, and reminds us, with a graphic account of the passion, the kind of suffering Jesus had to endure to buy our freedom.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

April 10, 2020/by Frank Turek

Is the Historical Jesus Fact or Fiction?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

As a pastor who spends a lot of time on the college campus, I hear the following challenges quite often from young skeptics: “There is no good evidence to think that Jesus ever existed,” or “Christianity has pagan roots!” One might put these common challenges as two questions: (1) Did Jesus of Nazareth really exist? (2) Are the gospel records of this man merely fictional mythology?

In this essay, I want to explore several lines of evidence that will show that the answer to the first question is a clear “Yes!” and to the second “No!”

i. Did Jesus of Nazareth really exist?

Though there are many “street atheists,” or “internet infidels” who espouse their unqualified views and who in the process influence many impressionable young minds, it should be pointed out that there are very few (if any) scholars and historians who would argue that Jesus never existed. There is just too much evidence to the contrary.

Space does not permit a thorough list of primary sources for Jesus’ historical existence outside of the New Testament, but the following will demonstrate that Jesus indeed lived. Further, the evidence cited will show that extra-biblical sources do not contradict the historical accounts in the Gospels. Indeed, they complement that history.[1]

The ancient sources[2] will be arranged in two ways: (1) Sources that specifically use the name “Jesus” or “Christ;” and (2) Sources that specifically reference events associated with Jesus.

Sources that specifically use the name “Jesus” or “Christ.”

a) Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion

This letter—written sometime later than A.D. 73—was sent by a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son Serapion to encourage him in the pursuit of wisdom and pointed out that those who persecuted wise men were overtaken by misfortune.

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished…. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.[3]

This ancient document corroborates Jesus’ death, death by the Jews, and that His teaching obviously had continued on (i.e., He had followers who were spreading His teachings).

b) Flavius Josephus

Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote toward the end of the first century AD. There are three valuable references for the historicity of Jesus. One (Antiquities xviii. 5) describes John the Baptist just as the New Testament Gospels do. The second (Antiquities xx. 9) describes the death of James:

(Ananus [Ananias]) convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.

The reference to Jesus being the brother of James fits the New Testament data, but that Jesus is further identified as the Christ is remarkable in light of the following quotation from Josephus.[4]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.” (Antiquities xviii. 33)[5]

The value of these words of Josephus—though some words are controversial—can not be overstated. The Jesus of the New Testament documents is called a wise “man,” did wonderful works, was a great teacher, was the Messiah, was condemned and crucified by Pilate, reportedly arose from dead on the third day (in fulfillment of the Old Testament), and a movement of “Christians” continued at the time of Josephus’ writing.

c) Plinius Secundus, or Pliny the Younger: Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (A.D. 112)

The following is a letter he wrote to the emperor Trajan seeking counsel as to how to treat Christians:

In the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed…. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image… and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged…. They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn[6], and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition…. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. (Epistles X. 96)

The governor identifies Jesus as “Christ” and says his followers consider him “a god.” Their fault in his judgment is their “superstition” (Jesus’ resurrection?).

d) Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120)

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate,[7] procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius; but the pernicious superstition,[8] repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.” (Annals XV. 44)

These are the chief references to Jesus outside of the 27 individual accounts comprised in the New Testament. A number of other sources are cited (here) on the FreeThinking Ministries website.

Sources that specifically reference events associated with Jesus.

a) Thallus, the Samaritan-born historian (A.D. 52)

Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean from the time of the Trojan War to his own time. Though his writings have disappeared, we only know of them from fragments cited by other writers. The citation below is from Julius Africanus, who is alluding to Thallus’ reference to the darkness that covered the earth from noon to 3:00 p.m. during Jesus’ crucifixion:

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably, as it seems to me….[9]

It was “unreasonable,” of course because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.

b) Phlegon of Tralles, Chronicles (2nd century).

Though he is known to have written several works, his history—Chronicles—has disappeared. He, however, is quoted by several ancient writers.

During the time of Tiberius Caesar, an eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth occurred during the full moon.[10]

Phlegon is also noted by Origen:

“But,” continues Celsus… “although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that “there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?”

Answer: “With regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles” (Origen, Against Celsus, 2.33)…. He (Celsus) imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defense, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. (Origen, Against Celsus 2.59)[11]

From these references to Phelgon’s history, we see that the gospel account of the darkness (three hours long), which fell upon the land during Christ’s crucifixion and very possibly the earthquake were well-known. Origen’s account is especially helpful because he is responding to an antagonist who questions the New Testament record.

There are numerous other sources that corroborate events associated with Jesus’ life and death, some of which can be found by clicking here.

No reference in the above citations has been made to the New Testament documents, though we must not dismiss them as merely “religious books.” They are primary documents[12] and should be viewed as reliable history unless they fail to meet the muster of other ancient documents. Further, it is apparent in other places in the New Testament that the history of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, was commonly affirmed. The Apostle Paul in his first letter to the church at Corinth (15:3-5) gives a creed current in his day (prior to his death in AD 64) which states that Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins; that He died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day; and that He was seen by eyewitnesses.

Click here for more information regarding this creed.

ii. Are the gospel records of this man merely fictional mythology?

Though a strong case can be and has been made for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, this has not stopped many young skeptics from espousing popular bumper sticker slogans like “Christianity has pagan roots.” I personally have been challenged with the accusation that the story of Jesus being the Son of God and rising from the dead is plagiarism from Egyptian mythological pagan “gods” such as Adonis, Mithras, Osiris, Attis, and Horus, to name a few.

But careful analysis shows that such charges fail for several reasons. First of all, there are far more differences between Christianity and these mysterious stories of pagan religions than any similarities offered. For instance, it is purported that the pagan god Osiris was a dying and rising god, and that Christianity is a “copy cat” religion based on Osiris’ resurrection from the dead.[13] At first glance this appears to be troublesome, but when examining these stories with more scrutiny, the differences become glaring.

Osiris, so the account states, was murdered by his brother, and then his body was torn into fourteen pieces and scattered all across Egypt. Then his wife, Isis, found thirteen of the fourteen pieces of his body, revived him (quite different than a resurrection), and then went on to make him “god of the underworld.” This is nothing like the historical story that Jesus voluntarily went to the cross, which defeated and destroyed sin so that through His atonement we as humans could be reconciled with the Creator of the universe, and then three days later, Jesus rose from the dead in whole, and in a powerful, glorified body that we as Christians can also look forward to one day. The story the Bible teaches as historical fact seems quite different when compared to these mythical pagan stories.

Sean McDowell in an article entitled “Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?” says that “Parallels prove nothing.” He gives an interesting parallel: a British ocean liner that could carry 3,000 passengers, had a top cruising speed of twenty-four knots, had an inadequate number of lifeboats hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage, tore a hole in the side of the ship, and sank along with the 2,000 passengers on board. What ship was that? Most of us immediately conclude that this must be the account of the Titanic, but we are mistaken. Sean was describing the Titan, a fictional ship described in Morgan Robertson’s book, Wreck of the Titan, a fictional story written fourteen years before the sinking of the Titanic actually occurred. While the resemblance between the two accounts is eye-opening, the fictional “Titan” is irrelevant to the historical evidence that the Titanic was, in fact, a real ocean liner that sank in the Atlantic after colliding with an iceberg.

Similarly, even if pagan myths did exist that were comparable to the Gospel records and before the time of Christ, it would not undermine the historical evidence for Jesus’ miraculous life, death, and resurrection. “Parallels alone are inconclusive.”[14]

Up to this point, I have intentionally avoided using the Gospel records as historical evidence of the historicity of Jesus because many skeptics disregard anything the Bible says just because it’s in the Bible! However, just because the Bible reports something as a historical event, doesn’t mean we should immediately disregard it. In fact, the Bible is filled with outstanding historical documents. The “search for the historic Jesus” has been going on for well over a century. During this search, there has not been any “new evidence” supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God evolved from pagan myths over time. Conversely, modern discoveries have given more reliability to the content of the Gospel accounts in the New Testament. Greg Koukl’s summary states it well:

We know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so that writing came some time before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke’s Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar’s reckoning. This pushes Mark’s Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion. It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul’s interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1). The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors of the events they personally witnessed. There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. And their accounts were written early on while they’re memories were clear and other witnesses could vouch for their accounts. The Gospels are early accounts of Jesus’ life and deeds.[15]

In sum, the contentions that Jesus never existed or that He was a plagiarized version of mythical pagan deities does not pass the muster of historical research, and, therefore, skepticism regarding the reality of the historical person of Jesus is completely unwarranted. Jesus of Nazareth was a real person of history!

Interestingly, Bart Ehrman, one of the harshest and most critical voices regarding Jesus’ resurrection agrees and concludes,

“Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.”[16]

Notes

[1] A fuller list can be found at our website and the folder “Historical References to Christ from Non-biblical Sources.”

[2] Much of this material and bibliography can be found—often with further discussion—in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus; Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict; also the updated (by his son, Sean McDowell) Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. See also Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson; He Walked Among Us. Some dating is based on J. N. D. Anderson Christianity: The Witness of History (pages 13-37, especially).

[3] The manuscript in the British Museum, preserving the text of this letter is quoted from F. F. Bruce in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

[4] Relatively little question is raised about the authenticity of this quotation.

[5] There has been much debate over this quotation, primarily because it is such a strong defense of the New Testament accounts of Jesus. All extant manuscripts of Josephus, however, contain it, which is a strong defense of its authenticity. For all the arguments, see McDowell and Wilson, He Walked among Us, 41-45. Though some have said that this quotation has been “edited” by Christians, the Arabic version still has the explicit reference to the resurrection. The Arabic version: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders” (Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios’ Kitab al-‘Unwan (“Book of the Title,” 10th c.). See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html). See also Habermas’ discussion of this and his reference to the Arabic translation of Josephus’ work.

[6] The time was the early morning on the first day of the week, thus celebrating the resurrection of Jesus. By this time, worship had moved from the Sabbath to Sunday.

[7] This is one of four references to Pilate outside the New Testament.

[8] Anderson: [This reference] “is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.”

[9] Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1.

[10] Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1.

[11] Phlegon is also noted by a six-century writer named Philopon: And about this darkness…Phlegon recalls it in his Olympiads….

[12] Especially F. F. Bruce, Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? In a Biola Christian Apologetics Program audio lecture (Craig Hazen, “Evidence for the Resurrection”), Hazen states “When these gospel accounts are scrutinized under the accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, they are found to be trustworthy historical documents and primary source accounts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of the man Jesus of Nazareth.”

[13] Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 163.

[14] Sean McDowell, “Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?” quoted in The Apologetics Study Bible for Students, 1366.

[15] Greg Koukl, http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6760, accessed February 11, 2017.

[16] Bart Ehrman, “Did Jesus Exist?”, Huffington Post (March 29, 2012); http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html, accessed February 11, 2017.

How Investigating Paul’s Conversion Turned A Skeptic Into A Christian Apologist

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Here’s a very simple proof for Christianity. I’m warning you though, you’re going to be tempted to dismiss it because it’s sneakily uncomplicated. Are you ready for it? OK, here goes:

Premise 1: Paul converted.

Premise 2: Therefore Christianity is true.

OK, I’m kidding. Sort of. But I think that we sometimes fail to appreciate the evidential power of Paul’s conversion. Investigating Paul’s story is what turned a formerly self-proclaimed infidel into a believer and Christian apologist. His name is George Lyttleton.

Who was George Lyttleton?

Born in the small-town of Hagley, England in 1709, George Lyttleton was a prolific poet, Oxford graduate, and statesman who served as a member of Parliament. He had a friend by the name of Gilbert West.

Living in the “Age of Reason” when deism was all the rage, West and Lyttleton were both critical of Christianity. (For those of you who don’t know, deism rejects divine revelation and miracle claims. God created the world but doesn’t intervene.)

Together the two set out to disprove Christianity. They both agreed that the two strongest proofs for the faith were the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the conversion of Paul. So Lyttleton offered to disprove Paul’s conversion, and West set out to discount the resurrection. After doing so, to their own shock, both became Christians.

West said, “As I have investigated the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, I have come to believe that there is something to it, and I am going to write my book from that perspective.” Lyttleton wrote, “The same thing has happened to me. I have come to see that there was something to the conversion of Saint Paul, and I am going to write my book from that perspective.” So they did. Lyttleton’s book was titled The Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of Saint Paul.

Now obviously Lyttleton’s argument was a little more complicated than “Paul, therefore Christianity is true”. He looked at Paul’s life in Acts and his epistles and concluded that there were four possible explanations for his conversion:

Either Paul was “an impostor who said what he knew to be false, with an intent to deceive;” or
He was an enthusiast who imposed on himself by the force of “an overheated imagination;” or
He was “deceived by the fraud of others;” or
What he declared to be the cause of his conversion did all really happen; “and, therefore the Christian religion is a divine revelation.”

Lyttleton’s book is only about 70 or so pages, so it makes for some light reading. Let me give you a brief synopsis of his arguments.

Was Paul a deceiver?

Virtually no critic today thinks that Paul’s faith wasn’t genuine for the reasons Lyttleton lays out in about 40 pages of the book. The evidence for Paul’s sincerity is overwhelming. Lyttleton runs through some possible motives that Paul could have had for deceiving the church and finds them wanting.

Wealth

Paul wasn’t in it for the money. He worked with his own hands making tents in order to finance his missionary journeys. He said that while he had the right to financial support, he opted to forego this privilege so no one could question his motives.

We see plenty of evidence for this in Paul’s letters and in Acts. (Acts 18:3, 20:33-35, 1 Cor 4:11-12, 9:6-14, 2 Cor 11:7, 1 Thess 4:11, 2 Thess 3:8) If Paul was in it for the Benjamins he would’ve found a different line of work within his own tribe. (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist making a lame pun.)

Honor of Men

It’s hard to imagine that Paul was in it for his own personal reputation. Consider why he persecuted the church in the first place. A band of fishermen was saying that the Jewish Messiah was executed on a cross and that this Jesus was the Lord of all. He went from being schooled under Gamaliel and considered a reputable Pharisee to joining a band of illiterate preachers. (Acts 4:13) He said that the preaching of the cross was foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. (1 Cor. 1:23)

He was persecuted in public and treated like a criminal, being repeatedly imprisoned. Paul obviously wasn’t in it for praises of men.

Power

What about power? Was Paul like so many modern-day “apostles”, lording over the churches? Nope. Paul said he wasn’t even worthy to be called an apostle because he persecuted the church. (1 Tim. 1:13-16, 1 Cor. 15:9)

Even when people were proclaiming the gospel from wrong motives where he was imprisoned, he rejoiced. (Phil 1:18) And when the Corinthians were arguing over who their favorite preacher was, he drew attention off himself and put it onto Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13) When the people of Lystra tried to worship him as a god, he quickly put a stop to it. (Acts 14:11-16)

Passion

Paul clearly didn’t convert to serve his own passions. He lived a celibate life. (1 Cor. 7:7, 9:5) He appealed to his own conduct as an example of what a holy life looks like. (2 Cor 7:2, 1 Thess 2:10) Cult leaders like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Mohammed had power and married multiple wives. In comparison, Paul clearly wasn’t in it for sex or otherworldly passions.

Pious Lies

Here Lyttleton appeals to the story of Paul’s conversion found in Acts. While no one else on the Road to Damascus saw Jesus, his traveling companions had some sensory experience of Paul’s encounter. Paul was also blinded and subsequently healed by the prayers of Ananias. (Acts 9:8-19) Before King Agrippa, Paul appealed to public facts that the king would be aware of. (Acts 26:23- 26)

Furthermore, if Paul was a liar then all of his miracles were tricks. Paul wrote of his own miracles to an audience that easily could have called him out. (Rom 15:19, 2 Cor 12:12, 1 Thess 1:5, 1 Cor 2:4-5)

So for these five reasons, Lyttleton concludes that the weight of the evidence is that Paul wasn’t a liar.

Paul Wasn’t an Enthusiast (He wasn’t crazy)

In modern times, this is where most critics land on Paul. He just must’ve had a moment and snapped somehow. But according to Lyttleton, Paul wasn’t ‘cuckoo for cocoa puffs’. Paul, by all accounts, was a pretty cool-tempered guy. Says Lyttleton:

“In indifferent matters be became “all things to all men;” to the Jews, he became a Jew, to them that are without law as without law, to the weak he became weak-all, that he might gain some (1 Cor. 9:19-23). His zeal was eager and warm, but tempered with prudence, and even with the civilities and decorums of life, as appears by his behavior to Agrippa, Festus and Felix; not the blind, inconsiderate, indecent zeal of an enthusiast.”

Paul also doesn’t seem to be depressed. Even when he despaired of life given the nature of his persecutions, he didn’t give up. 2 Cor 1:7-9, Phil 1:21-23. Lyttleton also points out that Paul obviously was a learned man, as we can tell just by reading his letters.

Moreover, Paul certainly wasn’t credulous. As someone who lived in Jerusalem for a time, there’s no way that Paul was a stranger to hearing about the miracles of Jesus. He had the facts of the resurrection and presumably would have heard the arguments against them. He had heard what happened at Pentecost and of all the miracles worked by Peter and the other apostles up until the death of Stephen. Far from being credulous, Paul had closed his mind against every proof and refused to believe. Says Lyttleton: “Nothing less than the irresistible evidence of his own senses, clear from all possibility of doubt, could have overcome his unbelief.”

Finally, Paul doesn’t fit the bill of someone who suffered some sort of guilt-induced conversion disorder. We have some access to the science of psychology that Lyttleton didn’t have.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV, women are 5:1 more likely to experience conversion psychosis. Adolescents, military persons in battle, people of low economic status and those with a low IQ are also more likely prone to experience this phenomenon. Paul just doesn’t fit the bill.

Also, we see no evidence that Paul felt any guilt regarding his actions. He seemed more than content with his lifestyle. (Phil 3:5-6) Paul was a sane and rational person.

Paul Wasn’t Duped

This third possible explanation Lyttelton dismisses in one page. The other apostles or early Christians couldn’t have deceived him. Why?

It was impossible that the disciples of Christ could have thought of such a fraud given Paul’s persecution. They were against liars (note Ananias and Sapphira) and also were terrified of him.
It was physically impossible for them to do it. Could they produce a light brighter than the noonday sun? Could they cause him to hear a voice speaking out of that light? Could they make him blind for three days and then return his sight with a word? These kinds of special effects didn’t exist yet.
No fraud could have produced those subsequent miracles which Paul worked (Acts 14:7-9, 19:11-12, 28:8, 2 Cor 12:12, Rom 15:19).

Paul’s conversion was legit and Christianity is a Divine Revelation

Lyttleton concludes that unless we’re going to set aside the normal rules of evidence by which facts are determined, we should accept the whole story of Paul’s conversion as historically true. Therefore, the Christian faith is proved to be a revelation from God. Note that this argument is not dependent on the Gospels.

With that said, there is the dicey issue of arguing for the historical reliability of Acts. Lyttleton’s arguments assume it. He could be accused of begging the question, but proving Acts wasn’t his goal. One would surmise that his audience could find those arguments elsewhere.

For good modern arguments in favor of the historicity of Acts, I recommend Colin Hemer’s The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Craig Keener’s commentaries on Acts and Lydia McGrew’s Hidden in Plain Sight.

For a good rundown of the arguments for and against Acts – both old and new- here’s an excellent discussion with Dr. Tim McGrew:

Caveats aside, I think Lyttleton’s points are on the money. Paul was either a liar, a lunatic, a dupe or a genuine eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus. The most reasonable option is #4.

YOU CAN READ LYTTLETON’S BOOK IN FULL HERE.

Dr. Dan and Hope

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Frank gets an update on coronavirus from Dr. Daniel Eichenberger, MD. What is he seeing in the hospitals? How are his patients doing? Why are the predictions so wildly different from model to model? (Because there are so many assumptions for which we don’t have good data. This provides another illustration of why science doesn’t say anything, scientists do). In Dr. Dan’s judgment, what’s the best way forward? (For more, and to ask Dr. Dan questions, join Frank and Dr. Dan on Monday, April 6, at 11:30 am ET on the HOPE ONE live stream at CrossExamined.org, our YouTube channel, or FB page).

Frank then further investigates why God allows evil and shows where our true hope comes from. And everyone can have that hope for free!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

April 6, 2020/by Frank Turek

Teólogos y pensadores: 12 citas sobre Jesús

Español

Por The Poached Egg

“Jesús es absolutamente único en la historia. En la enseñanza, en el ejemplo, en el carácter, una excepción, una maravilla, y Él mismo es la evidencia del cristianismo” A.T. Pierson

“Así que yo me quedo con Él, no con el que afirma ser sabio, Confucio; o el que afirmaba ser iluminado, Buda; o el que afirmaba ser un profeta, Mahoma; sino con el que afirmaba ser Dios en carne humana. El que declaró: “Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy” – y lo demostró” Norman Geisler

“En el Antiguo Testamento tenemos a Jesús anunciado. En los Evangelios tenemos a Jesús revelado. En los Hechos tenemos a Jesús predicado. En las epístolas tenemos a Jesús explicado. En el Apocalipsis tenemos a Jesús esperado. En el Apocalipsis, tenemos a Jesús esperando” Desconocido

“Soy historiador, no soy creyente, pero debo confesar como historiador que este pobre predicador de Nazaret es irrevocablemente el centro de la historia. Jesucristo es sencillamente la figura más dominante de toda la historia” H.G. Wells

“A medida que pasan los siglos, se acumulan las pruebas de que, medido por su efecto en la historia, Jesús es la vida más influyente jamás vivida en este planeta” Kenneth Scott Latourette

“Sócrates enseñó durante 40 años, Platón durante 50, Aristóteles durante 40, y Jesús por tan solo 3. Sin embargo, la influencia del ministerio de 3 años de Cristo trasciende infinitamente el impacto dejado por los 130 años combinados de enseñanza de estos hombres que estuvieron entre los más grandes filósofos de toda la antigüedad” Anónimo

“Fue este mismo Jesús, el Cristo, quien, entre muchas otras cosas notables, dijo y repitió algo que, procediendo de cualquier otro individuo, lo habría condenado de inmediato como un fanfarrón ególatra o una persona peligrosamente desequilibrada. Cuando dijo que Él mismo resucitaría de entre los muertos, al tercer día después de ser crucificado, dijo algo que solo un tonto se atrevería a decir, si esperaba una mayor devoción de cualquier discípulo, a menos que estuviera seguro de que iba a resucitar. ¡Ningún fundador de ninguna religión del mundo conocido por los hombres se atrevió a decir algo así!” Wilbur Smith

“Muchos están dispuestos a que Cristo sea algo, pero pocos consentirán que Cristo sea todo” Alexander Moody Stuart

“La vida de Jesús fue una tormenta de controversias. Los apóstoles, como los profetas antes que ellos, difícilmente podían pasar un día sin controversia. Pablo dijo que debatió diariamente en el mercado. Evitar la controversia es evitar a Cristo. Podemos tener paz, pero es una paz servil y carnal donde la verdad es asesinada en las calles” R.C. Sproul

“La evidencia de la vida, muerte y resurrección de nuestro Señor puede ser, y a menudo ha sido, demostrada como satisfactoria; es buena según las reglas comunes para distinguir la evidencia buena de la mala. Miles y decenas de miles de personas la han revisado pieza por pieza con el mismo cuidado con el que cada juez resume un caso importante. Yo mismo lo he hecho muchas veces, no para persuadir a otros sino para satisfacerme a mí mismo. He sido utilizado durante muchos años para estudiar las historias de otros tiempos y para examinar y sopesar la evidencia de aquellos que han escrito sobre ellas, y no conozco ningún hecho en la historia de la humanidad que esté probado por una mejor y más completa evidencia de todo tipo, para el entendimiento de un justo investigador, que la gran señal que Dios nos ha dado de que Cristo murió y resucitó de la muerte” Thomas Arnold

“El mundo moderno detesta la autoridad pero adora la relevancia. Nuestra convicción cristiana es que la Biblia tiene tanto autoridad como relevancia, y que el secreto de ambas es Jesucristo” John Stott

“En una civilización como la nuestra, creo que todos deben aceptar las afirmaciones de Jesucristo sobre Su vida, o ser culpables de ignorar o evadir la realidad” C.S. Lewis

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/33gJMsw

Traducido por Jorge Gil

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

April 6, 2020/by Guest

Infinite Punishment for Finite Crimes?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Trying to explain how a good God created Hell can be a daunting task for the Christian apologist. In my last post, I considered the challenge that God could not be “good” if he created a place of “torture.” I tried to make the case that there is a difference between torture – which implies intentional infliction of punishment for the pleasure of doing so – and torment, which is the necessary byproduct of God’s legitimate act of separating Himself from those who have rejected Him, who died while still in rebellion against Him. A related challenge often encountered when discussing the doctrine of Hell is the seeming unfairness in endless punishment for what appears to be brief – in some cases, extremely brief – temporal actions. This challenge can put the Christian apologist on the defensive, trying to justify what seems on its face to be wildly excessive punishment. As I suggested in my last post, providing an intellectual response to such challenges may have limited effectiveness when dealing with someone who is approaching the issue from an emotional standpoint; logical answers don’t often make someone feel better about what is bothering them. But, in my experience, at any rate, I have found that some people insist that no intellectually satisfying answer is possible to a challenge such as this. So here goes…

The assumption underlying the challenge here is that there should be some correlation between how long the offending act took to commit and the punishment that is attached to it. The first step in responding is to recognize that from even a human, temporal perspective, the amount of time a crime takes to commit bears very little relationship to the length of punishment it merits. After all, a person’s life can be snuffed out in the wink of an eye, an act which, if committed with premeditation and deliberation, rightly merits a sentence of life in prison. If a person, consequently, spends 80 years in prison for a shot that took three seconds beginning to end, the math could appear a bit excessive. But, obviously, there is more at play when we consider this issue a bit more deeply. Focusing on the time the act took does not capture the essence or quality of the act that made it worthy of punishment.

Consider for a moment two men, each firing a single shot at his intended victim. The first uses a high powered handgun; the second, a plastic air pistol. Each involves a similar action – expelling a projectile from a pistol – and each takes no more than a few seconds. But the one-act, in that instant, stops a vibrant, beating heart, while the other only momentarily stings. We punish these acts differently because the harm of murder has nothing to do with the time it took to commit. No, while the trial may focus on proving what the shooter did, the reason we pursue the matter so earnestly is based entirely on the harm that was inflicted. The murder victim remains dead, after all, despite the fact that a moment earlier, he had every right to live until the point of his natural death, which may have been decades away. The sting of the pellet, on the other hand, causes no lasting harm and is soon forgotten. In a very real sense, every day of living, of planning, of enjoying the company of loved ones, that was ripped from the deceased amounts to a re-infliction of the harm. Moreover, the agony that is inflicted upon the victim’s family and friends will also last for decades. Indeed, many survivors of violent crime are never the same again, daily suffering from the mental trauma that takes root in the moments after the crime. From the killer’s perspective, the criminal conduct for which he suffers punishment may seem quite limited; he merely pulled a trigger and never felt the pain, physical or emotional, that ensued. But, the harm is anything but limited when viewed from the perspective of the victim or the victim’s family.

But, the challenger will respond, how does this possibly apply to God, and to the question of eternal punishment? God, of course, cannot be victimized. We cannot really harm Him, and I am not suggesting here that He suffers as a result of our conduct. But this misses the point. Christians believe that God provides a path to salvation. We do not need to suffer eternal torment in Hell. We are not chosen at random for such punishment. The issue of fairness is answered by the understanding that God has the right to separate Himself from people who have rejected Him.

That this punishment is eternal is the result of the fact that God is eternal, and he made us for eternity as well. Though our bodies will die, our souls live on. Let’s consider for a moment what this means: while we may have forgotten many, or even most, of the times that we erred, the times that we hurt others, the times that we did not live up to what was expected; He has not. Each of our sins, each of the times that we chose to act or think in a way we knew violated His perfect will, each of those instances may seem to be the distant past to us, but God is not limited by time. As an eternal being, He perceives every moment of our past as an endless, eternal present. Consequently, each of our offenses against Him, however incapable they are of injuring Him, is nonetheless eternally present to Him. How does He maintain the attribute of perfect justice if he does not attach a consequence to wrongdoing? A human judge would not be fair if she did nothing in response to crime; how does a perfectly just God ignore what we have all done?

These are harsh realities, and intellectual understanding does not make them easier to embrace. That is why Christians for 2000 years have also provided the good news. While we merit the separation that follows a life of rebellion, there is a means for salvation, through the life and death of Jesus, a means by which we can obtain forgiveness for our sins. In short, Hell awaits only those who persist in their rebellion, who “die in their sins.” And what does this phrase mean? Well, at the very least, it means that rather than seek the forgiveness offered by Jesus, we have instead chosen to ask God for a trial as to our lives. We have chosen to stand before God, unapologetic, demanding that He accept us just as we are, proud of our lives and our choices. Judge us and find us worthy, we demand. What choice does this leave to a perfectly just judge?

Seeing the issue from a non-temporal perspective places the issue in a different light: what else is there for beings who were created for eternity but who have rejected God’s offer of salvation? Thank God, then, that the eternal Son stands in the gap for us, with the power and the love and the eternal will to receive the punishment that would otherwise await us.

Can A Person Be A Committed Christian While Ignoring Apologetics?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I would like to describe a situation that arises frequently that concerns me. The situation I describe below brings out a flaw I see in the way that rank-and-file Christians respond to criticisms of Christianity in the public square.

Here is the situation

Eve is busy programming away at her desk, rushing to check in her unit tests so she can spend her lunch hour reading the latest Stephenie Meyer novel, or check on the schedule for her local sports team, “the Vicariouses” (she has tickets for Thursday). Suddenly Eve hears Alice talking to Bob on the other side of her cubicle. She stops typing to listen to the following unencrypted conversation.

Alice: I was watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel last night that said that the universe has always existed, so there is no God!

Bob: I was watching a documentary on PBS last night showing simulations of how the first life started on Earth! God didn’t do it!

Alice: I saw “Inherit the Spin” on the weekend! The only reason people oppose evolution is because of the Bible! Not because of science!

Bob: I’m going to see “The Va Dinci Code” this weekend! It says that the Gospels are unreliable and that Jesus didn’t even die on the cross!

Alice: I just bought the latest Dichard Rawkins book “Christians Should Be Fed to Lions and the Bible Should Be Burned”!

Bob: I will read that as soon as I finish Histopher Chritchens’ book “Why God is the Evilest, Stupidest Person in the World”!

Eve double-majored in business and computer science at the Indian Institute of Technology and has an MBA from the London School of Economics. She has spent a ton of time, effort and money studying very difficult subjects for her job, and she even publishes research papers. She works full-time and runs her own business part-time, and teaches night classes for a well-known university. She earns about 200K per year. She lives in a huge house, drives an expensive car, and goes on vacation abroad to all the best vacation spots.

Eve thinks she is a Christian. She has attended church since childhood, her husband is a church elder and she sings in the church choir. She reads the Bible and prays every night because it helps her to get sleepy before bed. She gives lots of money to the poor. She teaches Sunday school to very small children. She has even read all of the Narnia novels five times! She even has a calendar filled with nature scenes and itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny Bible verses posted on her office wall at work! Judging from all of these facts, you might expect Eve to get in on that conversation with Alice and Bob, and set them straight.

But she won’t. Why not?

Why won’t Eve stand?

I am wondering if anyone can explain to me why it is that most church Christians are not able or not willing to make a public defense when God’s reputation is called into question. It seems to me that there are two bad effects that follow from Eve’s unwillingness to stand up and invite Alice and Bob to lunch so that she can address their questions and concerns.

God’s reputation is being trashed by Alice and Bob on the basis of lies they’ve swallowed from pop culture. These lies about God’s existence and character could be easily corrected with a minimal amount of study, which Eve is capable of – she is a genius and has amazing entrepreneurial skills. If someone said similar lies about her husband or children, she would speak up, but she won’t speak up for God.
Alice and Bob are bound for Hell unless someone cares enough to correct their mistaken beliefs, which, along with their sinfulness, is what is keeping them from a relationship with God that would go on in Heaven. If Eve’s husband or children were mistakenly about to drink poison thinking it was Aspirin, then Eve would speak up. But to save her co-workers from Hell, she won’t speak up.

Eve is capable of studying to defend the faith, because of her great success in other areas where so much time and effort were required to master difficult material. So why has she not applied herself to answering public challenges to her Christian faith from her professors, teachers, actors, the media, politicians, scientists, historians, etc.? She’s heard these questions about God’s existence and character all through high school and into university and then now in her career. Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says to prepare a defense? Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says to acknowledge God before men? Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says that all authentic believers in Jesus will suffer a little for their faith?

It seems to me that if she did spend some time studying, and then made her defense to her co-workers, then two good things would follow:

Eve would be demonstrating her love for God and her friendship with God by protecting his reputation when it is called into question by unbelievers in public settings. That’s what friends do – if Eve wanted to be God’s friend, she would care that no one believed lies about him and told lies about him in public settings.
Eve would be demonstrating her love for her neighbor if she was able to correct some of these false beliefs, such as that the universe is eternal, or that a historical case cannot be made for the resurrection, or that evil is not compatible with theism. It’s important for Alice and Bob to know that Christianity is not stupid.

So why is it that Eve is able to go to church for 20 years, sing in the choir, read the Bible, read the Narnia stories, pray on her knees, and yet still be unwilling to do the best thing for God and the best thing for her neighbor? If a Christian is smart enough to know how to get a degree and how to hold down a job, then that intelligence should also be used to defend God’s reputation when it is called into question. I don’t see how it is possible to claim that you love God, but then not apply your mind to defending him when you apply your mind to other things like education and work.

Are You Good Without God?

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

While I was driving from Sacramento to the Bay Area, I saw a huge billboard that read, “Are you good without God? Millions Are.” I also noticed a theistic tagger added the words, “Also Lost?” at the end of the message. At first, I wondered if the original question could mean something like, “Do you feel comfortable without a belief in God? Millions feel the same way.” Kind of like if you offer someone a drink, and they say, “No, thanks. I’m good.” But I don’t think that’s what the message is all about.

Can’t People be Good Without God?

So, then it got me thinking, “Can’t people be good without God?” I mean, couldn’t an atheist do some really good things without God? I guess if we mean “doing the right thing while not believing in God,” then sure. An atheist could do the right thing. For example, they could honestly report their income to the government, be faithful to their spouse, and so forth. And why not? But maybe the better question is, “Why?” Why even care about being moral?

Why Do the Right Thing?

Think about it like this: If God’s not real, there’s no moral lawgiver and no such things as objective moral commands. If that’s true, then why not say, “I’ll do the right thing when it makes me feel good or gives me an advantage, and I’ll do the wrong thing when it makes me feel good or gives me an advantage.” Or why not say, “I hereby declare from this day forward that it’s always right to steal.”

If there’s no God and no objective moral standard, there’s no moral difference between abusing someone or taking care of them. Basically, good and evil are reduced to preference. All you could say is, “I don’t like terrorism,” or “I’m not into slavery.” “Human trafficking isn’t my thing.” But who can really live like this? Some things are really wrong. For example, we all know by intuition that it’s better to give a little girl a loving hug than to hurt her for no reason.

Right, Wrong, and the Moral Law

Imagine my 6-year-old asked you who wrote this blog post. It’d be dumb to say “No one. And if you think I’m wrong, don’t forget I can read better than you!” The existence of this post implies an author. And it really doesn’t matter if you can read this post better than a kid. Here’s the point: Moral commands imply a moral lawgiver. They are a form of communication from one mind to another. And it doesn’t matter if a certain atheist happens to do more good deeds than a certain Christian or vice versa.

Interested in exploring this idea further? Check out these links:

Maybe people really can’t be good without God, after all. I mean, if there’s no God, there’s no standard of goodness. On top of that, when we compare ourselves to God’s standard, it turns out no one is good—no one’s lived up to the standard. That’s what Jesus said in Mark 10:18. Keep in mind that niceness isn’t goodness. Don’t you think the Neo-Nazi moms bake cookies for their kids or hand out cupcakes at their birthday parties? Sure they do. Jesus also said it’s no big deal if we’re nice to the people we like (Matt. 5:46-47). How do we treat everyone else?

Yes and No

If “Are you good without God?” just means, “Can you do good things without acknowledging God?” Then, sure. You could say, “Yes” to that. But the real answer to the question, “Are you good without God?” is “No. None of us are.” Without God, there is no objective standard of goodness. But we know such a standard exists. Why? Because while you could have good without evil, you can’t have evil without good.

Think about it: You could have a standard of goodness in a world where nothing falls short of that standard. But you can’t have something falling short of a standard of goodness without the standard itself. And when we recognize a standard greater than ourselves–GOd’s own nature–we can see we need forgiveness. We all for short before God. That’s another reason we need him. Millions and millions do.

Cinco Razones para creer que el Molinismo es Verdad (parte I)

Español

Por Evan Minton

Los no Molinistas usualmente acusan a los Molinistas de leer filosofía sobre la Biblia. Ellos dicen que el Molinismo es una teoría filosófica que no se encuentra en las páginas de la Escritura, y esta es una de las razones por las cuales ellos rechazan el Molinismo como una perspectiva teológica viable. Pero creo que hay varias razones buenas para pensar que el Molinismo es verdadero. En este blog, expondré cinco razones por las cuales acepto la teoría de Luis de Molina.

1 Un Dios verdaderamente Omnisciente sabría contrafácticos

¿Es Dios omnisciente? La Biblia dice que lo es. La Biblia dice “Grande es el Señor nuestro, y de mucho poder; y su entendimiento es infinito” (Salmos 145:7), “Sus ojos están sobre los caminos del hombre, y ve todos sus pasos. No hay tinieblas ni sombra de muerte donde se escondan los que hacen maldad. No hay carga, pues él al hombre más de lo justo, para que vaya con Dios a juicio” (Job 34:21-23) y “Los ojos de Jehová están en todo lugar, mirando a los malos y a los buenos”. (Proverbios 15:3).

Después de que Jesús resucitó de los muertos, él cocinó peces para los discípulos. Jesús y Simón Pedro tuvieron la siguiente discusión: “Cuando hubieron comido, Jesús dijo a Simón Pedro, ‘Simón, hijo de Jonás, ¿me amas más que éstos?’ “Sí, Señor”, él dijo, “tú sabes que te amo’. Jesús dijo, ‘Alimenta a mis ovejas’, la tercera vez que él le dijo ‘Simón, hijo de Jonás, ¿me amas? ‘él dijo, ‘Señor, tú lo sabes todo; tú sabes que te amo”. (Juan 21:15-17). Pedro dijo que Jesús sabía “todas las cosas”, y Jesús no intentó corregirlo (lo que implica que él estaba de acuerdo con la declaración de Pedro). La Biblia afirma que Dios conoce todas las cosas.

Sin embargo, si Dios no posee conocimiento de los contrafácticos, entonces ¿cómo es que él es omnisciente? ¡Habría cosas que Dios no sabría! Dios no sabría qué hubiera sucedido si tú te hubieras salido ayer de tu casa un poco antes o un poco después. Dios no sabría cómo resultaría tu vida si hubieras rechazado la propuesta de matrimonio de tu esposo. Dios no sabe si tú te hubieras intoxicado si hubieras decidido comer en cierto restaurante en cierto día. ¿Cómo es que Dios puede ser un Ser Máximamente Grandioso su él es menos que omnisciente?

2 La Biblia Describe que Dios conoce los Contrafácticos.

Aquellos que son detractores del Molinismo usualmente argumentan contra el Molinismo diciendo que los contrafácticos no tienen valor de verdad (es decir, no pueden ser ni verdaderos ni falsos), así que decir que Dios no es omnisciente porque no conoce acerca de los contrafácticos es como decir que él no es omnipotente porque él no puede crear círculos cuadrados o rocas demasiado pesadas que él mismo no puede levantar.

Dios no puede hacer lo lógicamente imposible, pero no diríamos que él no es omnipotente debido a ello. En la misma forma, Dios no puede conocer lo lógicamente imposible, así que ¿por qué decir que él no es omnisciente a causa de ello? Olvidemos que la posibilidad lógica de conocer los contrafácticos parece intuitiva (basamos nuestros juicios diarios todo el tiempo en lo que pensamos que son contrafácticos verdaderos), el problema más grande con estos negadores del conocimiento medio es que la Biblia presenta diversas ocasiones en las cuales Dios afirma el conocimiento de contrafácticos. Una pequeña muestra de versos se provee a continuación:

[Jesús está hablando aquí] ^“¡Ay de ti, Corazín! ¡Ay de ti, Betsaida! Porque si en Tiro y en Sidón se hubieran hecho los milagros que han sido hechos en vosotras, tiempo ha que se hubieran arrepentido en cilicio y en ceniza. Por tanto os digo que en el día del juicio, será más tolerable el castigo para Tiro y para Sidón, que para vosotras. Y tú, Capernaum, que eres levantada hasta el cielo, hasta el Hades serás abatida; porque si en Sodoma se hubieran hecho los milagros que han sido hechos en ti, habría permanecido hasta el día de hoy”.

Mateo 11:21 – 23

^“Más hablamos sabiduría de Dios en misterio, la sabiduría oculta, la cual Dios predestinó antes de los siglos para nuestra gloria,la que ninguno de los príncipes de este siglo conoció; porque si la hubieran conocido, nunca habrían crucificado al Señor de gloria”.

1 Corintios 2:7 – 8

“¿Me entregarán los vecinos de Keila en sus manos? ¿Descenderá Saúl, como ha oído tu siervo? Jehová Dios de Israel, te ruego que lo declares a tu siervo. Y Jehová dijo: Sí, descenderá.

¹²Dijo luego David: ¿Me entregarán los vecinos de Keila a mí y a mis hombres en manos de Saúl? Y Jehová respondió: Os entregarán.

¹³David entonces se levantó con sus hombres, que eran como seiscientos, y salieron de Keila, y anduvieron de un lugar a otro. Y vino a Saúl la nueva de que David se había escapado de Keila, y desistió de salir”.

1 Samuel 23: 11 – 13

Ahora, si piensas que los contrafácticos no tienen valor de verdad, entonces debes de decir que estos pasajes de las Escrituras no son ni verdaderos ni falsos. Pero ello parece absurdo. Si crees que la palabra de Dios es inerrante (así como yo lo creo, y así como implican pasajes como Proverbios 30:5 y 2 Timoteo 3:16), entonces una negación del conocimiento medio parece implicar que la doctrina de la inerrancia bíblica es falsa. Y peor aún, no solo la inerrancia bíblica, sino la inerrancia divina también (dado que fue Jesús quien afirmó el contrafáctico en Mateo 11, y fue Dios respondiendo a David en 1 Samuel 23). Si Dios no posee conocimiento medio, entonces no solo su Palabra no es inerrante, sino ¡él tampoco lo es!

3 Cuando hablamos del Libre Albedrío y la Providencia Divina, el Molinismo es una inferencia a la Mejor Explicación

Cuando hablamos de la providencia divina, yo sólo conozco tres opciones posibles. Dos de ellas son extremos inaceptables. Por una parte, podríamos estar de acuerdo con el Calvinista de que Dios causalmente determina todo lo que ocurre. La manera en la que Dios ordena providencialmente la historia humana es determinando cada pensamiento, palabra o acción de cada ser humano que ha vivido en la Tierra. En esta perspectiva, no hay libre albedrío (excepto, tal vez, una libertad compatibilista, pero no creo que la definición compatibilista del libre albedrío sea “libre” en algún sentido significativo de la palabra). Hay varios problemas con esta perspectiva. Uno de ellos siendo que ésta perspectiva lógicamente implica que Dios es el autor del mal; es decir, Dios es realmente responsable por cada hecho malvado que ha ocurrido en la historia. Si Dios causalmente determinó las acciones de todos, entonces la razón por la cual ellos hacen acciones malvadas es porque Dios esencialmente los hizo hacerlas. Si Dios los hizo hacerlas, entonces Él es finalmente el responsable por el mal de este mundo. Entonces Dios sería el pecador último, Él sería malvado. Dado que sabemos tanto de la teología natural (Argumento Moral y Argumento Ontológico) y de las Escrituras que Dios no es malvado, por lo tanto, el determinismo divino no es verdad. Además, hay una gran cantidad de Escritura que no tiene sentido lógico a menos que se presuponga el libre albedrío cuando se leen pasajes bíblicos. Por ejemplo, todos esos lugares en donde Dios se enoja hacia el pecado y procede a castigar a las personas por el mal que han cometido. Ello no tendría sentido si Dios determinara tus acciones. Si Dios determinara sus acciones, ¿por qué se enojaría con ellos? Si no le agradó lo que esas personas hicieron, ¿por qué no las determinó a hacer cosas que lo harían feliz? Además, ¿acaso no es injusto castigar a personas si tú eres la razón por la que ellos hicieron lo que hicieron?

Por otro lado, tenemos la perspectiva del libre albedrío libertariano y el conocimiento previo simple del Arminianismo. Esta perspectiva enseña que todos los seres humanos tienen libre albedrío libertariano (lo que significa que tenemos la habilidad tanto de escoger como de refrenarnos de escoger entre varias alternativas frente a nosotros, y también de que somos el origen último de nuestras acciones, y no había nada prohibiéndonos de escoger diferente a lo que hemos escogido). Sin embargo, como el Calvinista, el Arminiano afirma que Dios tiene conocimiento previo simple. Es decir, Dios conoce lo que SERÁ en el futuro, lo que todos libremente ESCOGEREMOS, pero él no sabe todos los futuros posible que hubieran sido si hubiéramos tomado decisiones diferentes. Él no conoce los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural. Esto también crea un problema también. Si Dios solo conoce el futuro real, y no cómo el futuro hubiera sido si las cosas fueran un poco diferentes, entonces, ¿cómo podemos explicar la providencia de Dios a través de la historia humana?

Imagina que Dios crea un mundo, y Él solo conoce el futuro real, pero él no conoce los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural. ¿Qué hubiera pasado si Judas, Pilato, o Caifás no hubieran hecho las decisiones requeridas para crucificar a Jesús? ¿Qué hay si Judas libremente escoge no traicionar a Jesús? O ¿qué hay si Pilato no sucumbe a la presión de la multitud para crucificarle? Ciertamente, Dios sería capaz de prever sus decisiones libres, pero Él no sería capaz de hacer algo al respecto sin violentar su libertad. Y en este caso, no habría redención porque Jesús no hubiera sido crucificado. Ahí quedó nuestra redención por nuestros pecados. En el Arminianismo, parece que Dios simplemente es suertudo de que estos eventos tomaron el curso que Él quería que tomaran. En el Arminianismo, Dios simplemente no parece tener el control soberano que la Biblia describe que Él tiene.

Dado que ni el Calvinismo ni el Arminianismo son opciones aceptables (porque implican consecuencias absurdas), la única opción restante es el Molinismo. El Molinismo puede explicar de la mejor manera la providencia meticulosa de Dios sobre la historia humana mientras al mismo tiempo explica el libre albedrío genuino. En el Molinismo, Dios tiene tres momentos lógicos de conocimiento; natural, medio y libre. El conocimiento natural de Dios es su conocimiento de todas las posibilidades y verdades necesarias, todo lo que podría suceder. El conocimiento medio de Dios es el conocimiento de todos los contrafácticos, todo lo que sucedería. El conocimiento libre de Dios es el conocimiento de lo que realmente va a suceder en el futuro, lo que sucederá. El conocimiento natural de Dios es un conocimiento de todos los mundos posibles, su conocimiento medio es un conocimiento de todos los mundos viables, y su conocimiento libre es un conocimiento del mundo real. El conocimiento libre es un resultado del decreto eterno de Dios (es decir, escoger cuál mundo viable actualizar [hacer real]).

Pienso que esta perspectiva explica de la mejor manera la orquestación de Dios de los eventos humanos y también permite afirmar una perspectiva fuerte de la libertad humana. En el Molinismo, Dios conoce cuales personas situar en aquellas posiciones en el primer siglo para hacer que Jesús sea crucificado. Él sabía que si Caifás era el sumo sacerdote en el primer siglo, entonces él libremente condenaría a Jesús en base a blasfemia y lo llevaría a Pilato para la ejecución. Él sabía que si Pilato era prefecto en el primer siglo, entonces él libremente cumpliría las demandas de la multitud. Y Él sabía que si Judas naciese en el tiempo y lugar en el que en realidad nació, entonces él se volvería un discípulo de Jesús por un tiempo y libremente escogería traicionar a Jesús con el Sanedrín. En el Molinismo, Dios providencialmente produjo la crucifixión al actuar respecto a su conocimiento de cómo las personas libremente actuarían si fueran puestas en esas posiciones. Dios las produjo al situarlos en esas circunstancias, y las personas produjeron estos eventos desde su propio libre albedrío porque ellos fueron los que hicieron esos contrafácticos verdaderos de ellos mismos.

Y al contrario de la opinión popular Arminiana, esto no es determinista. Dios no escoge qué contrafacticos son verdaderos. Las Personas deciden qué contrafácticos son verdaderos. Todo lo que Dios hace es actuar en base a su conocimiento de los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural.

Por ejemplo, Dios puede conseguir que Bob escoja la acción A en lugar de la acción B si lo crea en las circunstancias S. Porque Dios sabía que si Bob estuviera en las circunstancias S, él libremente escogería la acción A en lugar de la B”. Dios logra que Bob escoja A al situarlo en esas circunstancias. Pero Bob no debía [necesitaba] escoger A. Bob bien podía haber escogido B en su lugar. Nada determinó o coaccionó a Bob a escoger A y nada le prohibía a Bob escoger B. Bob pudo haber escogido B y haberse refrenado de escoger A. Si lo hubiera hecho, entonces el conocimiento medio de Dios no hubiera contenido la proposición “Si Bob estuviera en S, él escogería A en lugar de B”. No. Dios hubiera sabido “Si Bob estuviera en S, él escogería B en lugar de A”. Dios no decreta cuales contrafácticos de la libertad creatural son verdad, son las criaturas las que lo hacen. Todo lo que Dios hace es escoger cuales son las circunstancias en las que nos encontramos al determinar cuándo y dónde nacemos (como Hechos 17:26 dice).

El Molinismo me parece la mejor explicación. Por cuestiones de espacio no puedo enlistar los pasajes bíblicos mostrando que Dios tiene providencia divina sobre la historia y los pasajes que muestran que los seres humanos tienen libre albedrío libertariano, pero las enseñanzas están ahí, y creo que mi perspectiva es la mejor para reconciliar esos dos conjuntos de verdades bíblicas. Yo si pienso que Proverbios 16:9 enseña simultáneamente el libre albedrío y la providencia divina (o al menos parece que lo hace), lo cito a continuación:

“El corazón del hombre piensa su camino; Mas Jehová endereza sus pasos”.
Proverbios 16:9

Eso parece reflejar la declaración de Randy Everist (del blog “Possible Worlds”) sobre el Molinismo en un comentario de Facebook, la cual es “Nosotros escogemos lo que haríamos, y basado en eso, Dios escoge lo que haremos”.

[En la siguiente parte se publicarán las últimas dos razones y la conclusión por las que Evan Minton considera que el molinismo es verdad]

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

Evan Minton es un apologista cristiano y bloguero en Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.net). Es el autor de “Inference To The One True God” (Inferencia al único Dios verdadero) y “A Hellacious Doctrine” (Doctrina infernal). Ha participado en varios debates que pueden ser visto en la sección “Mis debates” de Cerebral Faith. El Sr. Minton vive en Carolina del Sur, EE. UU.

Traducido por Raúl Jaramillo de Lira

March 30, 2020/by Guest

Why Studying Evolution Will Likely Challenge Your Kids’ Faith

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

I saw the following post in a Christian Facebook group:

My daughter is starting her second semester of college tomorrow. She got ahold of her syllabus and found the following quote from the professor.

“Except to one whose reason is blinded by unquestioning adherence to fundamentalist doctrine of creation, the evidence of the fossil record, with that of anatomy, embryology, biochemistry and genetics, compels a single conclusion: evolution is a fact.”

Any suggestions on how she should approach this?

If this is his daughter’s first time hearing about evolution (or at least secular views of it), it’s going to be a tough semester. Any suggestions on how she should “approach this” are at least a couple of years late.

I hear or see questions like this all the time. Unfortunately, in my experience, many (if not most) Christian parents aren’t tackling the topic of evolution at home. I know some would love to but are overwhelmed by the subject and don’t know where to start. I wrote 8 of 40 chapters in my book on the topics of creation and evolution views to help parents who feel this way (I also posted a giant resource page last week).

However, far more parents are simply disinterested in the topic and, consequently, have a limited understanding of why evolution is such a big deal. They have a general idea that evolution is a challenge to Christian faith, but don’t necessarily know the particulars of why. At one end of the spectrum, there are parents who don’t care to know because they think it’s enough to teach their kids that “evolution is wrong and the Bible is right.” At the other end of the spectrum, there are parents who don’t care to know because they think evolution and Christianity can seamlessly fit together.

Both of these approaches trivialize the impact that studying evolution can have on a child’s faith.

Here’s why.

(Please note: There are many different uses of the term evolution. When I say evolution in this post, I’m talking about modern (“neo-Darwinian”) evolutionary theory in which all life descended from a single primitive species via natural selection acting on random DNA mutations. For more background on basics to understand about evolution, please see my post, 4 Key Points Christian Kids Need to Understand About Evolution.)

The Compelling Evidence for Evolution: Not Simple to Throw Out

When your kids first have the chance to hear the scientific case for evolution, it will likely be very convincing to them. Kids whose parents simply emphasize that evolution is wrong because it’s “not what the Bible says” (without further discussion) may well be left in a faith crisis when they eventually engage with the subject in depth. That’s exactly what happened to me. Here’s an excerpt from my chapter on the evidence for evolution, in which I share my own experience:

I didn’t learn about the evidence for evolution until I was in my 30s. When I did, it rocked my lifelong faith in a matter of hours.

When I was growing up, evolution wasn’t yet a subject taught in most public schools; I never encountered it academically. The only time I heard it mentioned was when my church youth group leader once laughed it off, saying, “Yeah, like we all really came from apes!” I remember thinking that was a pretty far-fetched idea. In college, I studied economics, so I came no closer to evolutionary theory as a young adult. It was very much off my radar until I had kids and decided I should learn about it for their sake.

I started studying evolution by reading an online series of introductory articles published by Biologos.org. After studying just eight lessons one day, I numbly shut down my computer, pulled a blanket over my head, and felt years of faith sheepishly slink into the shadows of my newfound knowledge. The evidence was shockingly vast—far more extensive than I had ever imagined. The details were fascinating and compelling. This wasn’t some half-baked idea about how fossils fit together, as I had previously imagined. This was… completely scientific. As scientific as any other science I had ever studied and assumed to be valid. It was hardly a leap to ask myself, Why shouldn’t I accept this science if I accept all other science I’ve been taught? I felt like I couldn’t breathe for hours as I lay pondering what life would look like without the God I had always believed in.

It’s important to know that this one night when evolution floored me came after I had attended church for 30-plus years, served as a youth group leader, taken numerous Sunday school classes, read the Bible regularly, and engaged in an active prayer life. None of those things prepared me to figure out what I should do with the evidence for evolution. If evolution was true, I had no idea how Christianity could be true at the same time. If evolution was not true, I had no idea how there could be so much evidence for it.

It was devastating.

How much more is learning about the evidence for evolution potentially devastating to young people with a relatively inexperienced faith? How much more will they “have no idea what to do with” compelling information that immediately seems to contradict the Bible? Recall from the introduction that we actually know that answer: At least 60 percent of young adults are turning away from Christianity today, and the evidence for evolution is one of the biggest reasons.

[End excerpt]

If your kids hear all this scientific evidence in school and say, “Meh. Unimpressive…” then their faith may not be challenged. But that’s an unlikely reaction for most. Clearly, kids need to engage with their parents on the complexity of these issues. Trivializing the subject is not the answer.

Five Ways Evolution Can Challenge Christian Faith

At the other end of the spectrum are parents who don’t care what their kids believe about evolution because they assume Christianity and evolution can fit seamlessly together. Indeed, the acceptance of evolution, in and of itself, does not necessitate atheism. God theoretically could have created the universe and planned for life to unfold via an evolutionary process (this idea is called theistic evolution). However, that doesn’t mean Christianity and evolution go together without some significant challenges. There are several big reasons why many people end up rejecting their faith after accepting evolution (again, not a necessary outcome, but a very possible one given these questions):

First, if a deity did create the world via evolution, it raises the question of whether He would still be active in it.

Most theistic evolutionists believe that God acted directly in creating the universe, but in doing so ensured that nature would require no additional guidance from that point on. If God is so “passive” in our natural history, why should we believe he’s so engaged in salvation history as told by the Bible (making covenants with people and nations, performing miracles, entering history as Jesus, and so on)?

Of course, there’s no logical reason God couldn’t act differently in these histories, but the contrast does give many people pause.

Second, if evolution is true, it’s hard to see how humans are different from animals, as the Bible claims.

The Bible is very clear that humans were made in the image of God. Although there is considerable scholarly debate over what precisely that means, at the very least it means humans have the cognitive and moral faculties necessary to have a relationship with God…and that animals don’t. The Bible presents humans as very different creatures who are uniquely accountable to our Creator, with eternal implications. According to modern evolutionary theory, however, humans are just another kind of animal. We all descend from the same species.

Theistic evolutionists usually believe that, at some point in time, God chose certain creatures to receive His image and become fully human (there’s no consensus on when or how that happened). Again, while logically possible, evolution certainly raises significant questions about the supposedly special status of mankind.

Third, if naturalistic (atheistic) evolution is true, it’s easier to account for the problem of suffering in the world.

One of the most difficult theological questions is why there is so much suffering in the world if an all-powerful and all-good God exists. While many Christians have offered answers throughout history, naturalistic evolution (at first) seems to explain suffering more readily than theism. If there’s no God, and the history of life is just a giant snowball of continuous DNA mutations rolling through time, genetic errors leading to suffering and disease are to be expected.

Fourth, if evolution is true, it raises serious questions about the reliability of the Bible.

There are quite a few things Christians disagree on when it comes to interpreting parts of the Bible, often boiling down to the meaning of a few specific verses. But there are more than a few verses that are in question if one believes evolution is true. Most obvious is the creation account in Genesis. If the Bible really is God’s Word, why wouldn’t God have informed the biblical writers that He created life via evolution…or, at the very least, remained silent on the topic and not given them an account that at face value contradicts reality? Those were the immediate questions that came to my own mind when I first learned about the evidence for evolution.

Additionally, many verses reference the creation account throughout the Bible, and, importantly, treat Adam as a historical figure (see, for example, Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13, 14; Jude 1:14). However, evolutionists conclude that we do not descend from an original set of two parents; they believe we descend from a group of at least 10,000. If Adam is not a historical person, it clearly challenges several more verses in the Bible than the creation account itself. (Theistic evolutionists have addressed this challenge and the next in a variety of ways beyond the scope of this post).

Fifth, if evolution is true, it raises serious questions about Christian theology.

There are also a lot of theological implications if there wasn’t a historical Adam or a historical “fall.” In the traditional Christian view, salvation is the result of God working to restore a fallen mankind to a right relationship with Him through Jesus. If there wasn’t a real Adam and there wasn’t a historical fall, it naturally raises the question of why there had to be a savior. Theistic evolutionists have offered answers to this, but there’s no question that it’s far more difficult to reconcile Christian theology without a historical Adam.

As I wrap this up, I want to return to the father’s question at the beginning of this post. When you realize how many scientific and scriptural considerations there are on this topic, you can see how difficult it will be for a young adult to go into a class where naturalistic (atheistic) evolution is taught as fact. Don’t let your child’s eventual college professor have the first (and possibly final) word on what your child believes. Take accountability and engage with your kids long before then.

If you’re not sure how to talk about these issues with your children, please check out my book. I explain young-Earth creationism, old-Earth creationism, naturalistic evolution, and intelligent design for parents with no background in these topics (without advocating any one position).

ii. Are the gospel records of this man merely fictional mythology?

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Who was George Lyttleton?

Was Paul a deceiver?

Wealth

Honor of Men

Power

Passion

Pious Lies

Paul Wasn’t an Enthusiast (He wasn’t crazy)

Paul Wasn’t Duped

Paul’s conversion was legit and Christianity is a Divine Revelation

YOU CAN READ LYTTLETON’S BOOK IN FULL HERE.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Here is the situation

Why won’t Eve stand?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Can’t People be Good Without God?

Why Do the Right Thing?

Right, Wrong, and the Moral Law

Yes and No

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1 Un Dios verdaderamente Omnisciente sabría contrafácticos

2 La Biblia Describe que Dios conoce los Contrafácticos.

3 Cuando hablamos del Libre Albedrío y la Providencia Divina, el Molinismo es una inferencia a la Mejor Explicación

Recursos recomendados en Español:

The Compelling Evidence for Evolution: Not Simple to Throw Out

Five Ways Evolution Can Challenge Christian Faith

Recommended resources related to the topic: