By Ryan Leasure
There’s a common refrain among liberal scholars that says the church suppressed dozens of Gospels. The reason they say? It’s because those books share scandalous information about Jesus that the church wanted to hide. They didn’t want the world to know sketchy details like Jesus tortured other kids as a child or that he had a wife.
Of all these “suppressed” Gospels, far and away the poster child is the Gospel of Thomas. Liberal scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagels faun over this work. The Jesus Seminar even published a book titled The Five Gospels, which includes the canonical four-plus Thomas.
Yet there’s a bit of irony here. If these scholars would treat the canonical Gospels with half the amount of charity they give to Thomas, they’d all be Christians! Instead, they date Thomas very early and the canonical Gospels late. They claim Thomas’ view of Jesus is reliable, while the canonical Gospels contain myths and legends.
By contrast, I’m going to demonstrate, in the remaining pace, that the Gospel of Thomas is unreliable, was never considered as Scripture by the early church, and thus shouldn’t be included in our canon.
The Gospel of Thomas
In 1945, some farmers in Nag Hammadi Egypt were digging and came across an earthenware jar in the ground. The farmers, hoping to find treasure, were deeply disappointed when they found a bunch of texts instead. Little did they know those texts would be more valuable than any treasure they could hope to find.
Among the cache of texts was one that begins, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down,” and ends with “The Gospel According to Thomas.”
Unlike the canonical Gospels, Thomas doesn’t follow a narrative structure. It doesn’t report major parts of Jesus’ life — his birth, death, and resurrection. Instead, Thomas contains 114 esoteric sayings of Jesus, purporting to record the secrets Jesus taught to his disciples.
Canonical Attributes
Before we can answer why Thomas doesn’t belong in the canon, we need to know what the early church looked for in a canonical book. In sum, the church looked for three different attributes — apostolic authority, divine qualities, and corporate reception.1 These three attributes formed a type of canonical grid by which to test a book.
By apostolic authority, the church only received books that could be traced to apostolic eye-witness testimony. This would include books written by both apostles and their close associates. For example, the church obviously received John’s writings because he was one of the apostles. But they also received Mark, based on the fact that he was Peter’s close associate.
By divine qualities, the church looked for books that gave evidence of God’s fingerprints. One such piece of evidence was consistency with other authoritative books. Since Christians believe the Holy Spirit inspired all the biblical texts, they knew none of them would contradict each other.
By corporate reception, the church only received books that the universal church also received as authoritative. In other words, if only one pocket of Christianity affirmed the authority of a book, that book was rejected. The reception had to stretch across all of Christendom.
So does the Gospel of Thomas possess these canonical attributes? Let’s test it by putting it through the canonical grid.
Apostolic Authority?
Did an apostle or close associate write the Gospel of Thomas? In a word, no. In fact, the consensus among scholarship is that the book dates to the middle of the second century — long after the apostles had died out. That is to say, Jesus’ disciple Thomas did not write this book.
A few reasons exist for dating this work late into the second century. First, the text reflects a type of Gnosticism (more on that in a minute) that wasn’t prevalent until the middle second century.2
Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas demonstrates a deep dependance on large parts of the New Testament. It quotes or alludes to all four Gospels, Acts, most of Paul’s letters, and Revelation.3 Only someone who had access to all these works could pen this work, and we know that it took time for these works to circulate the Roman Empire.
Even more, some scholars suggest that Thomas relied heavily on the Diatessaron — a four Gospel harmony produced by Tatian around AD 170.4 If that’s the case, Thomas dates even later.
Even if Thomas is independent of the Diatessaron, it’s mid-second century dating would have ruled it out for canonical consideration. Take the Shepherd of Hermas — a mid-second century work — for example. The early church loved this book. But as the Muratorian Fragment states, the church rejected its canonical authority because it was written “quite recently, in our own times,” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.5
Strike one for Thomas.
Divine Qualities?
What about divine qualities? Does Thomas show God’s fingerprints and align with other authoritative books? Again, the answer is no. Thomas was one of several Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi discovery.
Gnosticism was polytheistic. It taught that the god who created the world was evil, and by extension, his entire creation was evil too. Salvation, then, was the liberation of the soul from the physical realm into a spiritual realm. One can achieve this salvation only through a secret knowledge (gnosis in Greek).
This secret knowledge, according to the Gnostics, comes from Jesus. Of course, Jesus was radically different from the god of the Old Testament. Jesus was a warm and inviting god while the one of the Old Testament was hostile and angry.
Furthermore, since everything physical is evil, Jesus didn’t really have a physical body. He only appeared to have a human body, and thus he didn’t die on the cross — a view known as Docetism.
The Gospel of Thomas makes no qualms about its Gnostic leanings with all its emphasis on learning the secrets of Jesus. The prologue begins, “These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke.” Moreover, the first saying states, “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.” Again, the Gnostic salvation came through obtaining a secret knowledge.
Of course, the early church rejected Gnosticism as heretical. Orthodoxy taught salvation by faith. Thomas taught salvation came through knowledge of secret information.
Thomas also veers away from orthodoxy in how it views women. At the close of the book, Jesus states, “Look, I will guide her (Mary) to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”
This statement clearly contradicts how Jesus views women in the canonical Gospels. Furthermore, it contradicts Genesis 1, which declares that God made both men and women in his image. Thus, women are not inferior, as the Gospel of Thomas suggests.
Strike two for Thomas.
Corporate Reception?
Did the universal church affirm the authority of Thomas? There’s not a shred of evidence to suggest that it did. If you think about it, since Thomas lacks the first two attributes — apostolic authority and divine qualities — the early church had no motivation to think it was Scripture.
Their rejection of this book is evidenced in two ways. First, the early church never includes Thomas in any of its early canonical lists. In all the lists, we have four, and only four, Gospels.
Second, the church specifically rejected Thomas as heretical. Meaning, it didn’t even come close. This rejection is contrasted with other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache, that at least gained a hearing. The church enjoyed these books as they promoted Christian orthodoxy, but as I alluded to earlier, the church didn’t receive them as Scripture because they lacked apostolic authority.
Thomas was so far out in left field that it wasn’t even up for discussion. Eusebius, for example, includes Thomas in the “heretical books” section and suggests that it “ought not to be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”6
Strike three for Thomas.
The Gospel of Thomas Rejected
Despite the best efforts of some, Thomas doesn’t even come close to Scripture. It wasn’t backed by apostolic authority. Its contents contradict the orthodox texts. And the church never even came close to considering it as authoritative.
Unlike the real Thomas, we have good reasons to doubt here.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (DVD)
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source:
Jesus’s Understanding of Human Nature in Luke 17
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Chilton
Some have claimed that Jesus was not a theologian. Granted, he did not sit down and write out a systematic theology book. However, the teachings of Jesus denote a deep theology that resonated with his understanding of God, Jesus’s own identity, God’s judgment, and of God’s salvific plan. In addition, one can see Jesus’s understanding of humanity and its relationship to God.
One such example of the latter is found in the Gospel of Luke 17:1–4. Jesus emphasizes the importance of rebuking those who offend while also maintaining a forgiving spirit when repentance is sought (Luke 17:3). In verse 1, Jesus implicitly reveals his understanding of humanity. He states, “Offenses will certainly come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to stumble” (Luke 17:1–2, CSB). In these statements of Jesus, three theological truths pertaining to the sinfulness of human nature and its effects can be found.
While only a couple of verses and a couple of statements in length, Jesus unveils a deep theology pertaining to the sinful nature of humanity and the certain destruction that comes by one’s rebellion against God. Hope is found. Forgiveness with God and with others is possible. Jesus teaches that a person should be willing to rebuke an offender but be willing to forgive just as God forgives them. As we look at our world with all the shootings, all the killings, and all the hate, we wonder how it is that we can bring peace. The answer is found in God. We will never see complete peace on this earth. Having the peace of God does not even indicate that all conflicts will cease. But it does denote that a person can have the peace and serenity of God in one’s life despite the chaotic circumstances that abound.
Sources
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
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/2kdNdOI
What’s an easy way to do evangelism? With Dr. Rice Broocks
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
About 70% of young people leave the church after they leave home, and only 3% of churches grow through evangelism. Why aren’t we sharing the world’s most important truth? One reason is that we simply don’t know how to share the truth without sounding like a religious nut. It’s awkward in our culture. But there’s an easy way to share Christ.
Dr. Rice Broocks, author of God’s Not Dead (the book that inspired the movie), joins Frank along with Addison Tweedy of ThinkEvangelism.org, to show you the SALT method of sharing the world’s most important truth.
Start a conversation
Ask questions
Listen
Tell the story
It’s time to be salt and light with the SALT method. There’s even an app that will help you do this. Go to the app store and download “The God Test”. You can also invite Rice, Addison, or someone from their team, to your church by going to www.ThinkEvangelism.org.
In the second half of the show, Frank answers a question about how to answer a scientist who won’t trust the Bible because she says that the Bible teaches that the earth is young.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
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
5 Steps Every Christian Should Take When Talking with Skeptics about Miracles
3. Are Miracles Possible?, AtheismBy Jeremy Linn
When talking with skeptics about the resurrection of Jesus, it seems obvious to go straight to the historical evidence for the resurrection. But for many skeptics, there is an intellectual barrier that needs to be broken down before historical evidence can even be considered.
The barrier is: A strong skepticism towards miracles.
I came across this barrier in a discussion I had with a skeptic about Jesus’ resurrection. When the discussion began, I immediately started talking about historical sources that provide the best evidence for the resurrection. The skeptic responded back with a request for empirical evidence in order to show an event like the resurrection – a miracle – could actually happen.
At this point, I knew we would need to talk about miracles before getting any further in our discussion about historical evidence. I requested permission to turn the conversation towards miracles. When the skeptic agreed, I ran through five steps – all of which are important to incorporate conversations with skeptics about the topic of miracles:
1. Define what you’re talking about
Both people involved in a discussion need to agree on the definition of keywords they will use in the discussion before significant progress can be made in the discussion. With the topic of miracles, a keyword that needs to be defined is, of course, “miracle.” The agreed-upon definition of miracle will impact discussion on the possibility of them occurring, evidence needed to verify them, and other topics that could come up in the course of conversation.
In my discussion with a skeptic, I asked immediately for a definition of a miracle, knowing the definition would impact the rest of our discussion. The skeptic did not have a definition for a miracle in mind and asked me to provide my own definition. He agreed to use my understanding of miracles – which involves natural laws as we understand today being altered or broken into by a supernatural force – as a starting point for our discussion.
2. Understand what evidence is required by the skeptic
With the definition of “miracle” set, it’s now time to understand what type and degree of evidence for a miracle the skeptic would require. This step provides an excellent opportunity to listen as you ask a question like, “What evidence would you need in order to be convinced that a miracle occurred?” The key here is to understand and ask clarifying questions if needed, rather than to assess or go on the attack.
In my conversation with a skeptic, it took a while to get to the specifics of what “convincing evidence” for a miracle would look like. For this skeptic, the only acceptable evidence would be repeatable events, tested and verified by a team of scientists multiple times under the same conditions. Now I understood exactly what evidence would be required for the skeptic, and could continue on to the next step.
3. Assess if the required level of evidence is reasonable
This step helps you determine which direction to take at this point in the discussion. If the skeptic’s requirement for evidence exceeds a level that is reasonable or even possible, then the skeptic likely won’t be convinced no matter what evidence is presented. In that case, it may not be worth continuing discussion about evidence for miracles. Instead, the discussion may need to turn to the nature of evidence itself.
In my discussion, I didn’t know exactly how to assess the requirement for a team of scientists to repeatedly test miracle events – it’s a requirement I had never heard before. But upon later reflection, it became clear that the requirement in not reasonable. If a repeatable event was tested and verified by groups of scientists over time, that event would be considered by the skeptic to be a natural event – not a miraculous one. Thus, the potential for miracles is immediately ruled out by the skeptic’s requirement.
4. Provide any case examples that could satisfy the requirement of evidence
If the skeptic does provide a requirement for evidence that appears reasonable, then you can provide some case examples which may satisfy the requirement. There are a few ways to approach this part of the discussion. One way is to bring up a miracle account that is based on eyewitness testimony and ask how the skeptic would explain the details of the account. Many eyewitness accounts are provided in books like Miracles by Craig Keener and The Case for Miracles by Lee Strobel. For another idea, you could point the skeptic to miracle accounts that include medical documentation people can view for themselves, such as the miracle story of Sean George.
In my discussion with a skeptic, I didn’t provide specific miracles examples since I didn’t come prepared with examples. That is one thing I would change in my next discussion about any topic related to miracles – to have specific examples written down or memorized so they can be used when needed.
5. Don’t expect the evidence will immediately convince the skeptic
This “step” may be more of a principle to keep in mind as you enter into a discussion about miracles. Even if a skeptic requests a specific level of evidence, and you provide satisfactory examples, don’t expect the skeptic to suddenly embrace the miraculous. Factors beyond evidence can hold someone back from accepting the reality of miracles – factors like a naturalistic bias, a difficult emotional experience in the past, or a negative perception of the supernatural.
Ultimately, God is the one to change someone’s mind and heart regarding spiritual topics such as miracles. We have a role to play in this process, but our goal is not to convince a skeptic by our own power. Our goal is to listen, to understand, and to be open to God using us in leading a skeptic one step closer to the truth.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural by Lee Strobel Kindle Edition
Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Defending the Faith on Campus Complete Package by Frank Turek DVD
Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.
There Is No Rise Unless He Is Risen
3. Are Miracles Possible?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Alex McElroy
If you are creating a building, the structure is important, but the foundation is most important. If a rock goes through the window, it can be replaced. If there is a leak in the roof, it can be patched. However, if there is a crack in the foundation, the building will be condemned. The foundation is the most vital part of the structure. In the Christian worldview, that foundation is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What happens if that foundation is removed? Would Christianity exist without it? The answer is no. Christianity would not have expanded if the earliest and closest followers of Jesus weren’t certain that He was no longer dead but alive. There is no rise in Christianity if He is not risen.
It often seems like skeptics feel that simply disbelieving in or disagreeing with the resurrection is enough to invalidate it. I was with Vince Vitale, Director of RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries), and heard him say, “Disagreement is ok but disagreement without an alternative is empty.” Because Christianity does exist many have engaged in revisionist history to explain away the obvious reasons, among which are that people who knew Jesus Christ believed that they had encountered a risen Christ days after they saw Him die. The underlying premise being, we know there was no resurrection, so why did these Jewish men make up this claim and start a new religion? The fact is – they wouldn’t. The first-century Jews who became the earliest followers of Christ, later called Christians at Antioch had nothing to gain by ‘inventing’ a religion.
The non-Christian may assume that they wanted a Messiah so badly that they picked this guy, Jesus. However, the Jewish people were good with God. They thought of themselves as God’s chosen nation. Nobody makes up a conspiracy in order to have a worse life full of familial abandonment, torture, financial struggle, and eventual martyrdom.
Therefore, the question isn’t just ‘did Jesus Christ rise from the grave’ but why does Christianity exist at all? The rise of Christianity is foundationally centered on the claim that Jesus is risen. Christians didn’t create an event and then write about it. The event created Christians.
Is He Risen
In The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus, Prof. Gary Habermas writes, “There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus’ resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead. This conclusion has been reached by
data that suggest that (1) the disciples themselves claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and (2) subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples were radically transformed from fearful, cowering individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold proclaimers of the gospel of the risen Lord. They remained steadfast in the face of imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom. It is very clear that they sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead.”
In first Corinthians, a letter that even the harshest critics and the most liberal theologians agree is most assuredly a Pauline epistle, the Apostle Paul writes, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that, He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remains to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that, He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all, He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”
When people lie, they don’t place such an enormous burden of proof on themselves as Paul did. Paul claims that as he is writing, there are close to five hundred people alive and well who can verify or refute his statement. Furthermore, this passage is an early Christian creed who some say can be dated to within 8 months of Jesus’ crucifixion.
The Rise Occurs Because He Is Risen
This brings us to what is probably the most difficult issue for the skeptic to explain away. Why was this belief in Christ being God in the flesh and the savior of the world being preached from Jerusalem to Rome before any New Testament documents existed? In almost all other religions, the text creates the followers. Think of the Book of Mormon, the Quran (although Mohammed did have adherents before his death), or the Sutras and The Tripitaka. The earliest Christians had no text to follow because none had yet been composed. However, Christianity spread far and wide in spite of that.
Furthermore, why were people who knew Jesus in the flesh and would certainly have recognized if someone else was impersonating Him be willing to die for their belief that they had seen, encountered, ate with and learned from a risen Christ? Not just to die, but to die in horrible ways.
Additionally, the geographic distance that separated the earliest and closest followers of Jesus prevented them from knowing if their peers had given up “the lie.” All of them died a martyr’s death in places such as India, Africa, Italy, and other territories, fully convinced that the message they were sharing was true. Under the torture and oppression that each of them experienced, someone would have caved had this actually been a conspiracy.
Jesus’ claim was also easily falsifiable, which means that Christianity could easily have been stamped out at the outset. All the Sanhedrin or Jewish authorities had to do was go to His tomb, get His body, and drag it through the streets. The only logical reason why they didn’t do this is because His body wasn’t there. This has caused some to speculate that the body was stolen or that He wasn’t fully dead and somehow got up at night moved the boulder and walked out of His tomb, a beaten and bloodied mess. And that he did this in front of Roman guards. This seems unlikely at best.
If He Is Risen
I understand that belief in a bodily resurrection can be difficult. However, if we compile the evidence as any good detective would do and that evidence points to the most reasonable explanation being a bodily resurrection (assuming one does not have an unfounded disbelief in the miraculous), it seems logical to accept what the evidence suggests. Here, that is that Jesus of Nazareth walked out of His tomb alive and well.
Some may not like the implications of the fact of the resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the grave, solidifying His claim of being our Savior and God incarnate, then that means He deserves our love, loyalty, and life. Much more evidence could and has been offered through a myriad of historians and theologians, but many still remain unconvinced. At the end of the day, belief in a risen Christ may not be a head issue, but a heart issue.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? By Dr. Gary Habermas (book)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)
Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah. Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.
¿Cómo sabemos que la Biblia no ha sido cambiada? Parte 1: el problema del problema
EspañolPor Carlos E. Rodríguez
¡Dios nos bendiga!
Uno de los temas más mencionados en casi cualquier escenario es el de la Biblia. Se habla sobre su contenido y sobre su composición. Sin importar la temática del espacio, se suele hablar de su relevancia en la actualidad y hasta de su supuesta creación por un grupo elitista para gobernar a las masas pobres e ignorantes, buscando siempre tenerlas bajo control. Para bien o para mal, siempre hay una opinión acerca de este libro, y siempre viene dada por un experto o por quien solo repite lo que oye de otros o ha leído. Dentro de este mismo contexto suele surgir la famosa pregunta: ¿cómo sabemos que la Biblia no ha sido cambiada? ¿Cómo podemos estar seguro que lo que está escrito en ella no fue lo que un grupo planificó decirnos con unos fines específicos? ¿No parece la sospecha obvia, dado el hecho de que la historia nos enseña como algunos han usado su contenido para someter otros?
Es bueno tener dudas, lo malo es aceptar como verdad lo que no lo es. Con relación a si la Biblia ha sido cambiada o no, tenemos muchas creencias que no están basadas en hechos reales o evidencias verídicas. Más bien, muchas preguntas son el fruto de mitos populares que se basan en la ignorancia de muchos factores. Por ejemplo, se supone que el texto debió haber sido cambiado porque muchos años de escribir y transcribir “debe” provocar cambios en el contenido. Este debe es una suposición a priori, nada que ver con alguna evidencia. No es que en el proceso de copiar los manuscritos no se pudieron cometer errores de transcripción, esto es posible y hasta tenemos evidencias de ellos; pero esto es muy diferente a suponer a priori que el contenido del texto bíblico ha sido cambiado. Y es aquí donde comienzan a surgir algunas preguntas con respecto a esta suposición: ¿a qué se refiere el que hace la pregunta con cambios en la Biblia? ¿A cualquier variación o a un cambio a propósito de algo que afectaba la fe de la iglesia de ese momento o la comprometía de alguna forma? Si se refiere a cualquier tipo de variación en el texto esto no es ningún problema, pues estos cambios son de esperar en el simple paso de traducir de un idioma a otro. Aunque es de esperar variaciones por el paso de una lengua a otra, el contenido sigue siendo el mismo, lo que varía es la forma de transmitirlo. Si alguien cree que esto supone un problema me imagino que esa persona tiene una solución para comunicar un texto escrito en 3 idiomas antiguos (hebreo, arameo y griego) en el idioma de cada quien sin hacer una traducción. De lo contrario, ya debe de saber por qué esto no es un inconveniente. Con relación al otro aspecto, esto trae más problemas de los que nos podamos imaginar. Si con cambios hablamos de pasajes o textos completos que afectaban la fe y/o comprometían a la iglesia de alguna forma, entonces lo primero que necesitamos es preguntar: ¿Dónde están esos textos sin cambiar a partir de los cuales se plantea la sospecha de que la biblia ha sido cambiada? ¿Cómo se llaman esos manuscritos? ¿A qué familia pertenecen? No tenemos tales textos, no existen. Aclaro, es normal que surja la duda y se haga la pregunta, el problema es hacer de una sospecha sin fundamento una postura sólida. Sin evidencia textual que sirva como prueba para sostener esta creencia, la misma solo es una suposición sin fundamento real. La misión del creyente consistirá simplemente en mostrar la integridad de los textos más antiguos y compararlos con nuestros textos actuales. De esta simple forma habrá derrumbado esta duda justificada hasta cierto punto. De hecho, es lo que haremos paso a paso en esta serie. Lo que se busca ver en forma general es que:
Viendo todos estos tópicos, más las implicaciones que conllevan cada uno, podremos concluir satisfactoriamente que no existe razón para suponer que el texto ha sido cambiado para ocultarnos algo que podría derrumbar la fe actual que profesamos, en el peor de los casos.
El problema del problema
Aunque nuestro plan es ver todo esto paso a paso, ya de entrada podemos ofrecer un argumento para descartar estos tipos de cambios. Los no creyentes enemigos del cristianismo son los que usualmente plantean esta duda a un nivel de hecho incuestionable. Es normal escuchar afirmaciones como: sabemos que toda la biblia ha sido cambiada a conveniencia de ustedes. Lo curioso de esto es que no se ofrecen evidencias que apoyen este tipo de afirmaciones. De la misma manera, son los mismos no creyentes antagónicos al cristianismo quienes afirman incansablemente: no puedes confiar en la biblia, pues está llena de errores. Luego de, pasan a mencionar algunos de esos errores que prueban que no podemos confiar en el contenido del texto, como: Jesús llamando a la semilla de mostaza la más pequeña de las plantas, cifras dispares, el caso de Josué y el sol que se detiene, cuando es la tierra que gira a su alrededor, etc. Todos estos, y unos cientos más de ejemplos, son las pruebas traídas a la mesa por el no creyente para probar que la biblia no es confiable, pues está llena de errores. Bien, todo bien hasta aquí, no tengo espacio para responder todo esto; pero, son justamente todos estos problemas los que usaré para demostrar que es imposible sostener que la biblia ha sido cambiada a la luz de estos supuestos errores actuales. Quien afirma que la biblia ha sido cambiada, y que esto supone un problema, pero también afirma errores en el texto actual; tiene un problema más grande que el que señala, puesto que si el texto bíblico ha sido cambiado: ¿por qué entonces seguimos encontrando esos errores que el no creyente señala? ¿Por qué no fueron suprimidos por las mismas personas que cambiaron los textos que suponían un problema para la iglesia de la época? La solución a este problema no es decir que no se sabe o que se les pasó, puesto que, si no se les pasó otros, en más de cientos de años; no hay forma que estos pasen desapercibidos. A menos que el no creyente guste en sugerir que la iglesia no leía la biblia y eran otros los que encontraban los problemas en la misma, y en esa medida era que se cambiaban. Esto no solo es imposible de probar, sino que es afirmar algo gratuitamente.
Las 2 acusaciones por parte de los no creyentes nos proveen de un argumento con el cual podemos demostrar, de entrada, que la biblia no ha sido cambiada. Podemos argumentar diciendo que:
Para defender las premisas de este sencillo argumento solo basta repetir las mismas acusaciones de los antagonistas. Ellos dicen que la biblia ha sido cambiada, y para defender la premisa 1 solo tenemos que usar sus propios argumentos. Para defender la premisa 2 solo será suficiente señalar los mismos errores actuales que señalan los no creyentes. De esta manera, tenemos un argumento lógicamente valido con premisas verdaderas que nos lleva a concluir que es imposible que la Biblia haya sido cambiada dado los errores que son señalados. Si por alguna razón el no creyente sugiere que el argumento no es válido por la falsedad de alguna de sus premisas, entonces ya sabe por qué lo que afirma está bastante errado. Este argumento es válido en la misma medida en que el no creyente sostenga cada una de estas premisas.
Conclusión
No podemos afirmar de forma segura que la Biblia ha sido cambiada. A lo sumo, podemos tener alguna sospecha o duda justificada, la cual se puede responder mirando la historia del proceso de producción del texto. Lo que sí no podemos hacer es sostener esta duda como una postura sólida, pues no lo es. Los que creen que sí, también sostienen que el texto está lleno de errores. Bueno, ambas afirmaciones son contrarias, y si son unidas correctamente podemos formar un argumento para descartar de entrada que no hay cambios en el texto, basados en la imposibilidad de que existan errores tomando en cuenta “los cambios sufridos”.
Carlos Enrique Rodríguez Alcántara es de República Dominicana, bloguero, predicador, maestro, conferencista y apologista. Esposo de Carolina. Miembro de la Iglesia Roca de Salvación Central, en donde ha sido director de educación y sub-director de educación del concilio. Tiene un grado asociado en teología de ESFOTEBIC. Certificado en filosofía, filosofía y ciencias (con honores) y pensamiento crítico por la universidad de Edimburgo, además de filosofía, ciencia y religión por la misma universidad.
Why the Gospel of Thomas isn’t in the Bible
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
There’s a common refrain among liberal scholars that says the church suppressed dozens of Gospels. The reason they say? It’s because those books share scandalous information about Jesus that the church wanted to hide. They didn’t want the world to know sketchy details like Jesus tortured other kids as a child or that he had a wife.
Of all these “suppressed” Gospels, far and away the poster child is the Gospel of Thomas. Liberal scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagels faun over this work. The Jesus Seminar even published a book titled The Five Gospels, which includes the canonical four-plus Thomas.
Yet there’s a bit of irony here. If these scholars would treat the canonical Gospels with half the amount of charity they give to Thomas, they’d all be Christians! Instead, they date Thomas very early and the canonical Gospels late. They claim Thomas’ view of Jesus is reliable, while the canonical Gospels contain myths and legends.
By contrast, I’m going to demonstrate, in the remaining pace, that the Gospel of Thomas is unreliable, was never considered as Scripture by the early church, and thus shouldn’t be included in our canon.
The Gospel of Thomas
In 1945, some farmers in Nag Hammadi Egypt were digging and came across an earthenware jar in the ground. The farmers, hoping to find treasure, were deeply disappointed when they found a bunch of texts instead. Little did they know those texts would be more valuable than any treasure they could hope to find.
Among the cache of texts was one that begins, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down,” and ends with “The Gospel According to Thomas.”
Unlike the canonical Gospels, Thomas doesn’t follow a narrative structure. It doesn’t report major parts of Jesus’ life — his birth, death, and resurrection. Instead, Thomas contains 114 esoteric sayings of Jesus, purporting to record the secrets Jesus taught to his disciples.
Canonical Attributes
Before we can answer why Thomas doesn’t belong in the canon, we need to know what the early church looked for in a canonical book. In sum, the church looked for three different attributes — apostolic authority, divine qualities, and corporate reception.1 These three attributes formed a type of canonical grid by which to test a book.
By apostolic authority, the church only received books that could be traced to apostolic eye-witness testimony. This would include books written by both apostles and their close associates. For example, the church obviously received John’s writings because he was one of the apostles. But they also received Mark, based on the fact that he was Peter’s close associate.
By divine qualities, the church looked for books that gave evidence of God’s fingerprints. One such piece of evidence was consistency with other authoritative books. Since Christians believe the Holy Spirit inspired all the biblical texts, they knew none of them would contradict each other.
By corporate reception, the church only received books that the universal church also received as authoritative. In other words, if only one pocket of Christianity affirmed the authority of a book, that book was rejected. The reception had to stretch across all of Christendom.
So does the Gospel of Thomas possess these canonical attributes? Let’s test it by putting it through the canonical grid.
Apostolic Authority?
Did an apostle or close associate write the Gospel of Thomas? In a word, no. In fact, the consensus among scholarship is that the book dates to the middle of the second century — long after the apostles had died out. That is to say, Jesus’ disciple Thomas did not write this book.
A few reasons exist for dating this work late into the second century. First, the text reflects a type of Gnosticism (more on that in a minute) that wasn’t prevalent until the middle second century.2
Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas demonstrates a deep dependance on large parts of the New Testament. It quotes or alludes to all four Gospels, Acts, most of Paul’s letters, and Revelation.3 Only someone who had access to all these works could pen this work, and we know that it took time for these works to circulate the Roman Empire.
Even more, some scholars suggest that Thomas relied heavily on the Diatessaron — a four Gospel harmony produced by Tatian around AD 170.4 If that’s the case, Thomas dates even later.
Even if Thomas is independent of the Diatessaron, it’s mid-second century dating would have ruled it out for canonical consideration. Take the Shepherd of Hermas — a mid-second century work — for example. The early church loved this book. But as the Muratorian Fragment states, the church rejected its canonical authority because it was written “quite recently, in our own times,” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.5
Strike one for Thomas.
Divine Qualities?
What about divine qualities? Does Thomas show God’s fingerprints and align with other authoritative books? Again, the answer is no. Thomas was one of several Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi discovery.
Gnosticism was polytheistic. It taught that the god who created the world was evil, and by extension, his entire creation was evil too. Salvation, then, was the liberation of the soul from the physical realm into a spiritual realm. One can achieve this salvation only through a secret knowledge (gnosis in Greek).
This secret knowledge, according to the Gnostics, comes from Jesus. Of course, Jesus was radically different from the god of the Old Testament. Jesus was a warm and inviting god while the one of the Old Testament was hostile and angry.
Furthermore, since everything physical is evil, Jesus didn’t really have a physical body. He only appeared to have a human body, and thus he didn’t die on the cross — a view known as Docetism.
The Gospel of Thomas makes no qualms about its Gnostic leanings with all its emphasis on learning the secrets of Jesus. The prologue begins, “These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke.” Moreover, the first saying states, “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.” Again, the Gnostic salvation came through obtaining a secret knowledge.
Of course, the early church rejected Gnosticism as heretical. Orthodoxy taught salvation by faith. Thomas taught salvation came through knowledge of secret information.
Thomas also veers away from orthodoxy in how it views women. At the close of the book, Jesus states, “Look, I will guide her (Mary) to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”
This statement clearly contradicts how Jesus views women in the canonical Gospels. Furthermore, it contradicts Genesis 1, which declares that God made both men and women in his image. Thus, women are not inferior, as the Gospel of Thomas suggests.
Strike two for Thomas.
Corporate Reception?
Did the universal church affirm the authority of Thomas? There’s not a shred of evidence to suggest that it did. If you think about it, since Thomas lacks the first two attributes — apostolic authority and divine qualities — the early church had no motivation to think it was Scripture.
Their rejection of this book is evidenced in two ways. First, the early church never includes Thomas in any of its early canonical lists. In all the lists, we have four, and only four, Gospels.
Second, the church specifically rejected Thomas as heretical. Meaning, it didn’t even come close. This rejection is contrasted with other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache, that at least gained a hearing. The church enjoyed these books as they promoted Christian orthodoxy, but as I alluded to earlier, the church didn’t receive them as Scripture because they lacked apostolic authority.
Thomas was so far out in left field that it wasn’t even up for discussion. Eusebius, for example, includes Thomas in the “heretical books” section and suggests that it “ought not to be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”6
Strike three for Thomas.
The Gospel of Thomas Rejected
Despite the best efforts of some, Thomas doesn’t even come close to Scripture. It wasn’t backed by apostolic authority. Its contents contradict the orthodox texts. And the church never even came close to considering it as authoritative.
Unlike the real Thomas, we have good reasons to doubt here.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (DVD)
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source:
What Makes Something Right or Wrong?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Is it just human opinion? Are values just subjective preferences or is there a really objective standard of rightness, goodness, and justice beyond us?
This show delves into questions on morality and others you’ve emailed to Frank such as:
Frank also responds to a couple of amazing letters, one from a divorced woman and another from a pastor. You don’t want to miss this one!
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
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
Transcript
Respectfully Engaging with Hindus
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mikel Del Rosario
Let’s talk about respectfully engaging with Hindus. Why? More than a billion people around the world say they’re Hindus. That’s about 15 percent of the world. So if you haven’t met someone at least interested in some aspect of Hindu culture, you may soon. The more we engage with our neighbors, the more we see that religion is a core part of many people’s lives. I like how Win Corduan once said, “Loving our neighbors means getting to know them. And getting to know them means getting to know their religion.” We need discover what makes their religion attractive to them. Why did they convert? It they were born into it, what keeps them loyal?
At the Hendricks Center, we produced a Table podcast series focused on respectfully engaging with Hindus. I invited William Subash, who pastors Crossroad Church in Bangalore, India and teaches New Testament Studies at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies to help us think through Hinduism and what respectful engagement looks like.
In this post, I’ll the answers to three questions we discussed: What compels Hindus to stay Hindus? What attracts non-Hindus to Hinduism? How can engaging with Hindus happen respectfully?
Respectfully Engaging with Hindus
Before engaging with Hindus, you might ask, “What exactly is Hinduism?” The diversity represented by Hinduism means you’re going to get a range of responses. And they vary widely depending on who you talk to. For example, many Indians see Hinduism as a group of people, rather than a religion. In this context, Hindu practices are linked to cultural and family loyalty. In India, where about 80% of the population is Hindu, you’ll find agnostics, atheists, and polytheists all identifying as Hindus. Subash explains:
Hinduism is a conglomeration of many religions, many world views that often change, adapt, but will never have one claim. Indian Hinduism is different from the Hinduism practiced in Central America or Singapore, for example.
What Keeps Hindus Loyal to Hinduism?
Many Hindus remain because of cultural loyalty. There’s unity amidst diversity, and anyone who leaves loses their spot in the caste system— That’s a huge deterrent. The caste system is something you’re born into, and it dictates who you can marry, who you can work for, and even who you can talk to. There’s discrimination that still goes on today. For example, marriages usually only happen within your caste. And this whole system is supported by Hindu Scriptures: The Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata scripture, which is divided into 18 chapters which talk about various tenets of the caste-based religion. People who violate these rules or leave Hinduism are sometimes even murdered. Keep this in mind when engaging with Hindus, as rejecting deeply held beliefs can be seen as a serious form of defection. Subash says:
Why Do People Convert to Hinduism?
Many non-Hindus like the pluralistic nature of Hinduism. It accommodates the beliefs of animists, polytheists, and others who are sensitive to spiritual realities. But something you might not initially expect to find when engaging with Hindus is that agnostic scientists, atheist philosophers, or naturalists fit in, too. Beyond this, some are also fascinated by the idea of becoming a god or realizing their own divinity. Subash notes:
While many Hindus incorporate Jesus into their worldview, Christianity’s exclusive nature challenges the extent of Hindu inclusivism. Still, many Hindus have responded to the gospel demonstrated through compassionate Christians meeting medical and educational needs, especially for those in the lowest castes. Even the promise of divinity falls short, as Hindu gods also suffer from imperfections. Those who recognize their need for freedom from sin may also discover the biblical concepts of atonement and redemption absent from Hinduism and come to find freedom in Christ.
What Respectfully Engaging with Hindus Looks Like
Humbly ask questions
When it comes to engaging with Hindus, begin by building a relationship, asking questions, and then gently begin to discuss spiritual things. Ask questions that help you understand who the person is and why they do the things they do, and why they believe what they believe. Be very careful not to come off like you think you’re better than your Hindu friend. The only way to break the stereotype of the “proud, know-it-all, triumphalist Christian” when talking to our Hindu neighbors is to consistently demonstrate humility.
Listen to their answers openly and honestly, without rushing into apologetic arguments. As you listen, understand what they mean by any Christian-sounding terms like “God” or “salvation.” For example, some Hindus use the term “born again” in the context of reincarnation. So don’t just think about engaging with Hindus as Hindus. Remember, some are agnostics or atheists. So engage each person as an individual. Get a spiritual GPS on your friend, so you can empathize and really get where they’re coming from.
Humbly talk about Jesus
Since most Hindus love talking about spiritual things, talking about your faith or their spirituality may not be as awkward as you might expect. Many Hindus are actually interested in Jesus’ teachings—especially his teachings about money.
Take it slow. Don’t rush into a gospel presentation or begin by critiquing Hinduism. It can’t look like an “us versus them.” Despite the exclusive nature of Christianity, it is important to note that Jesus is inclusive. Jesus is for everyone, and you don’t need to give up your cultural or ethnic identity to follow him.
As you continue engaging with Hindus, gently tell your story and explain how you came to know Jesus’s love. Unlike a God who is an impersonal force, Jesus forgives everyone who repents. While some schools of Bhakti Hinduism might suggest a loose concept of grace, you can’t get forgiveness for sin in that context. But this shouldn’t be a cause for arrogance. Jesus didn’t claim to be the only way as a pride thing. It’s just that he’s the only one who can step into the human condition and deal with the sin problem we all have. Hindu deities have no righteousness to give us. How can they get rid of anyone’s bad karma?
Engaging with Hindus: Conclusion
Here’s what I want you to take away from this post on engaging with Hindus: While many remain loyal to Hinduism for cultural and social reasons, converts are attracted to its pluralistic, adaptable nature. Hinduism can accommodate a spectrum of views, from atheism to the idea that you can become a God one day. Still, some people recognize their struggle with imperfection and find true atonement or grace absent from Hinduism. Many Hindus have become Christians through real relationships and a personal encounter with Jesus. Engaging with Hindus requires courage and compassion. And it’s best done by following Jesus’ example of not only speaking the truth but loving people well.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message by Ravi Zacharias: https://amzn.to/2MFuBDZ
The Reincarnation Sensation by Norman Geisler: http://bit.ly/2LbaXfW
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek: http://bit.ly/2zm2VLF
World Religions: What Makes Jesus Unique? mp3 by Ron Carlson: http://bit.ly/2zrU76Y
Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2MFAvVt
Is It Biblical to Have an Evidential Faith?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
Is biblical faith blind or reasonable? This is one of the most hotly debated questions between believers and unbelievers. While most who say that faith is blind are unbelievers, I have also heard many Christians claim this as well. The claim is that faith and reason are at odds with one another and that the more evidence or reason that you have to believe something, the less faith that you need.
Is Faith Blind or Evidential?
In his book “Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes The Case For A More Reasonable Evidential Faith,” J. Warner Wallace emphasizes the evidential nature of Jesus’ ministry on earth. Jesus never asked people to believe His claims without a good reason to: the miracles that He performed. He performed miracles to demonstrate that His claims to be God (such as is found in His claim to be able to forgive sins in Matthew 9). Based on His followers’ witnessing His miracles (eyewitness evidence), He asked them to have faith in Him. This was not a request for blind faith, but an evidentially-based faith.
In the book, Wallace not only appeals to the entire ministry of Christ on earth but also to specific passages of Scripture where Jesus explicitly identifies this specific purpose for His miracles and where other New Testament authors also encouraged their readers to test claims:
John 10:25- “‘I did tell you, and you don’t believe,’ Jesus answered them. ‘The works that I do in My Father’s name testify about Me.'”
John 10:37-38- “If I am not doing My Father’s works, don’t believe Me. But if I am doing them and you don’t believe Me, believe the works.”
Acts 1:3- “After He had suffered, He also prested Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”
1 Thessalonians 5:19-21- “Don’t stifle the Spirit. Don’t despise prophecies, but test all things. Hold on to what is good.”
1 John 4:1- “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
These passages do not ask for someone to believe just anything based simply on the word of the person making the claim (“…because I said!”- a blind faith) but based on the actions of the person making the claim. Notice, too, that in the 1 Thessalonians and 1 John passages, the authors are so confident that the claims will pass evidential tests that they openly invite testing! None of these passages ask for blind faith; in fact, they encourage the exact opposite: a faith that is not blind rather a faith that is grounded in evidence and reason.
A Biblical Faith and The Resurrection
Biblical faith, correctly understood from Scripture, is not blind; it is tested and firmly grounded. In fact, today, we can test the central claim of Christianity: that Jesus rose bodily from the dead (1 Corinthians 15). As we investigate the evidence, based on tried and true investigative methods (as outlined in J. Warner Wallace‘s book “Cold-Case Christianity“) and historiographical methods (as outlined in Gary Habermas‘ books “The Historical Jesus” and “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope“), we discover that the only explanation that consistently explains all the evidence is that Jesus rose from the grave, as is claimed in the gospels.
Conclusion
Because this central claim passes the evidential test, faith in Christ is not blind or because “the Bible tells me so;” it is firmly grounded in proven methods used for discovering the truth of claimed events of the past. There simply is no reasonable reason to reject the Resurrection. While we certainly are free to reject the conclusion of the evidence and arguments, we should not fool ourselves into believing that the rejection is anything more than an emotional leap of blind faith despite evidence to the contrary.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Frank Turek: book, MP3 and DVD.
Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith by J. Warner Wallace: https://amzn.to/2U8wxWi
God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case… Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe by J. Warner Wallace: book, MP4 and DVD.
Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/30FWO0D
Un caso contra el teísmo (Parte 1)
EspañolA while ago Jorge Gil received a message on one of his social networks from an atheist, it was a series of objections against theism. Of course, my friend Jorge does not have the time to respond to each of the messages or emails he receives, so he asked me to be the one to respond to the objections; and well, here I am. Since the text sent is extensive, I have decided to address his argument in four parts: three are objections to the general case in favor of theism and one is an atheological argument.
This is the first objection that Randy Riverol Arevalo, from Cuba, presents to us:
Ok. Let’s go step by step:
If by (a) you mean that properties tell us something about the essence of the object being predicated, then I see no problem.
Talking about the nature of properties is one of the broadest topics in metaphysics, so much so that I find your classification insufficient and problematic. [1] For example, what do you mean by empirical properties? You offer no definition, not a single example. If I were to take your classification literally, an empirical property would be one that is subject to sensory experience, but how is this even possible? For example, from the statement Peter is good you seem to mean that since Peter is an object of our senses, so is the property of being good. Is this what you mean by an empirical property? This seems to me to make no sense at all; not even a Platonist would claim that the property of being good is some kind of empirical object.
Since you don’t set out any clear concepts for your classifications of properties, I find it very difficult to understand why an empirical property requires empirical evidence. What kind of empirical evidence do you have to justify Peter’s property of being good? Why believe that the property of being good is empirical in Peter, but metaphysical in, say, the angel Gabriel? It’s like saying that the property of being good has the property of being empirical in a physical object, but has the property of being metaphysical in a metaphysical object. This certainly seems to me to be a rather complicated, if not absurd, ontology of properties. I think it’s a language for talking about properties that no philosopher holds.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that I accept your classification of properties. So, in what sense should I take your statements about properties? It seems to me that conventional language without metaphysical baggage is the best option. Instead of asking: What empirical evidence do you have to justify the empirical property of being good in Peter? I would ask: How do you prove that Peter is good? In response to this question, one could simply tell you to observe Peter’s actions to know that he is good; testimonies from people who know Peter would also help. In this way, I would understand that this methodology cannot be applied in the case of immaterial beings like God because he cannot be observed as in the case of Peter, but it does not follow from that that it is therefore impossible to know the properties of God, the only thing that follows is that at least another type of methodology is required to know the properties of God.
But Randy, why would you require metaphysical evidence to prove naturalism? If the claim of naturalism is that only the natural exists and under your own criteria of justification of properties, doesn’t this imply that you require physical evidence to prove naturalism and metaphysical evidence to prove supernaturalism? Now I don’t understand you.
The problem is that you never bother to define an empirical property. Furthermore, if we apply your criterion of justification that only the metaphysical can prove the metaphysical and only the empirical can prove the empirical, then how do you claim that metaphysical properties, which are non-physical entities, refer to the ontology of reality, which in your worldview is physical? In the end, your own criterion of justification makes your classification of properties impossible.
To summarize, there are two problems with your objection:
Note:
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/#KinPro
Jairo Izquierdo is a member of the Social Media team and an author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He studies philosophy and theology, with his current focus being classical logic, epistemology, Christian doctrines, and philosophy of language. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship director at the Christian Baptist church Cristo es la Respuesta in Puebla, Mexico.